West Kootenay LEH Bull Elk - Poll

[hunter1947]

6616t he number of elk harvested in 2007 were problely 2300 ,I made a boo boo ,but the population is around 23,000 elk ,sorry. 2300 and 23,000 if you don't concentrate on the numbers you can get mixed up because they both start with 23.

[6616]

6616 No that is not the harvest number ,if it was there would be no elk left in a year or two.

Just looked up elk harvest data for Region 4 for 2006. It was 1653 elk killed total, 1148 of which were bulls. I had this file on my pc, it's far too big to attach and I don't know if it's on the net.

[6616]

6616t he number of elk harvested in 2007 were proubley 2300 ,I made a boo boo ,but the population is around 23,000 elk ,sorry.

That sounds correct for 2007 harvest considering the new youth/senior seasons, up a fair bit from 2006.

[Fisher-Dude]

It is hard to leave the cow/calf issue out of the equation, as it occurred and had a significant impact...Thats like saying,"in your next post keep the bad winter of 96 out of it"....Both were factors and both could happen again.....Don't deny it...

We may not have 1000's of LEH going out right now, but we do have a Sr./Jr. season followed by 2 LEH draws...All for the same herds....

So basically you refuse to address the FACT that 3 decades of sustainable 3 point bull elk season did NOT affect the herd in any detrimental way. You CANNOT support your argument to keep elk on 6 point BULLS only without bringing the cow/calf harvest from the 1000's of LEHs in the early 90s. There aren't 1000's of cow/calf LEHs now.

Again I ask, address the FACT that there were 3 decades of sustainable 3 point bull elk seasons with many more hunters than we have now. There were also BAD winters in those 3 decades and the herds did just fine.

[hunter1947]

I will tell all that I am in favour of a fair season for all. I would like to see a minor change done for elk in the Ek elk season ,# one being a 5 or better season for 2 weeks ,then after that year evaluate the situation and then go from that. This should have a big impact on hunters success.

[muzzy]

Okay, for gawd sakes, would you people read this:

THE 3 POINT SEASON DID NOT CAUSE THE DECLINE IN THE ELK NUMBERS IN THE LATE 90s. THE ISSUANCE OF THOUSANDS OF COW/CALF LEH PERMITS AND A DIFFICULT WINTER DID. THAT IS FACT. THAT IS IRREFUTABLE. PLEASE BASE YOUR ARGUMENT BEARING THIS IN MIND. IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE REPEATED OVER AND OVER.

GET IT? GOT IT? GOOD.
__________________
Got it, get it, not good. One bad winter with the GOS you and the people you're following and we'll be right back at it .. Get it Got it Good..!!!

[Fisher-Dude]

Why did willy442 create a new user ID? :confused::confused::confused:

:wink:

[muzzy]

irrefutable

One entry found.

irrefutable
Main Entry: ir·re·fut·able http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?irrefu02.wav=irrefutable')) http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?irrefu01.wav=irrefutable')) Pronunciation: \ˌir-i-ˈfyü-tə-bəl; i-ˈre-fyə-tə-, ˌi(r)-\ Function: adjective Etymology: Late Latin irrefutabilis, from Latin in- + refutare to refute Date: 1607 : impossible to refute : incontrovertible (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incontrovertible) <irrefutable proof>
— ir·re·fut·abil·i·ty http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?irrefu03.wav=irrefutability')) \ˌir-i-ˌfyü-tə-ˈbi-lə-tē; i-ˌre-fyə-tə-, ˌi(r)-\ noun
— ir·re·fut·ably http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?irrefu04.wav=irrefutably')) \ˌir-i-ˈfyü-tə-blē; i-ˈre-fyə-tə-, ˌi(r)-\ adverb

[Fisher-Dude]

I'm glad we know that irrefutable means "impossible to refute". Maybe we should define "refute" too.

On an unrelated topic,I wonder if the snow is melting up where willy442 lives? :lol::lol::lol:

[hunter1947]

Okay, for gawd sakes, would you people read this:

THE 3 POINT SEASON DID NOT CAUSE THE DECLINE IN THE ELK NUMBERS IN THE LATE 90s. THE ISSUANCE OF THOUSANDS OF COW/CALF LEH PERMITS AND A DIFFICULT WINTER DID. THAT IS FACT. THAT IS IRREFUTABLE. PLEASE BASE YOUR ARGUMENT BEARING THIS IN MIND. IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE REPEATED OVER AND OVER.

GET IT? GOT IT? GOOD.
__________________
Got it, get it, not good. One bad winter with the GOS you and the people you're following and we'll be right back at it .. Get it Got it Good..!!!
I agree with this statement about the LEH and the bad winter having a big impact on the elk in 96 ,but I also have to say that the open season for 3 points over the years had something to do with it as well . The survey I posted earlier showed 3800 elk taken in 84 thats way befor the time of the 96 bad winter. Tell me this why did the numbers drop to a low from 84 to 95???. That was 11 years that the elk head droped to a low of around 7,500. In 84 to 95 there were no bad winters ,thats 11 years of declination. Then the numbers climbed back up on the scale from 99 to 2006. I would say the incline on the elk population was to do with the six point season in place as for no bad winters and number of hunters down and they still have an open LEh season for cow and calves in different parts of the EK.

[Fisher-Dude]

I agree with this statement about the LEH and the bad winter having a big impact on the elk in 96 ,but I also have to say that the open season for 3 points over the years had something to do with it as well . The survey I posted earlier showed 3800 elk taken in 84 thats way befor the time of the 96 bad winter. Tell me this why did the numbers drop to a low from 84 to 95???. That was 11 years that the elk head droped to a low of around 7,500. In 84 to 95 there were no bad winters ,thats 11 years of declination. Then the numbers climbed back up on the scale from 99 to 2006. I would say the incline on the elk population was to do with the six point season in place as for no bad winters and number of hunters down and they still have an open LEh season for cow and calves in different parts of the EK.

7500? Never heard that figure used from a population survey before. Lowest I've ever seen published was 16,000 in '98/99.

Do you have the snowfall and weather statistics from 84 to 95 to back up your claim of "no bad winters" during that period, and the thaw/melt figures from the spring period of those respective years that show that the elk were easily able to get through minimal fluffy snow all year to find graze? Or is that just from "memory"? :wink:

[muzzy]

Snow fall was 56 cm and the net melt was at a rate of 4cm per degree of plus celcius ( you could have checked this on your own). This is all available from Kristi Clarkes weather network and should not be dissallowed in this discussion.. For your info, mild and quite nice , some cold nights when the elk had to cuddle but for the most part, they didn't turn gay and 6 points were abundant..

[6616]

I agree with this statement about the LEH and the bad winter having a big impact on the elk in 96 ,but I also have to say that the open season for 3 points over the years had something to do with it as well . The survey I posted earlier showed 3800 elk taken in 84 thats way befor the time of the 96 bad winter. Tell me this why did the numbers drop to a low from 84 to 95???. That was 11 years that the elk head droped to a low of around 7,500. In 84 to 95 there were no bad winters ,thats 11 years of declination. Then the numbers climbed back up on the scale from 99 to 2006. I would say the incline on the elk population was to do with the six point season in place as for no bad winters and number of hunters down and they still have an open LEh season for cow and calves in different parts of the EK.

Peak population occurred in 1984 and throughout the summer of 1985. Populations estimate was 28,000 to 32,000 with some admission by MOE that there could be as many as 35,000.

During the falls of '85, 86, anf 87, 10,000 to 11,000 antlerless elk tags were issued each year. During those three years we killed nearly 9,000 antlerless elk. Antlerless tags were reduced each year beteen 1988 and 1992 but the population continued to decline even after the planned population reduction period. Theory is that the population was reduced too fast unbalancing prey/predator relationships and a predator trap situation developed which continued to drive down the population.

Modest recovery began in the early '90's, a census done in 1992 indicated about 20,000 elk, but it was slow and insignificant prior to the fall of 1996. Heavy impacts by predators was still very apparent. Antlerless tags were still being issued but in much smaller numbers.

Then the killer winter of 96/97 hit and populations following that winter were estimated at 15,000 to 18,000 but no extensive survey work was done, just spot checks.

The decline was entirely due to antlerless harvest and the winter kill of 96/97, aided considerably by predators during the period between 1988 and 1998. I don't believe for a minute that the 3 pt season was the cause of the decline, and I don't fully credit the 6pt season that started in 1998 as being the sole cause of the recovery either.

These numbers and dates are approximate as they're from memory.

[hunter1947]

7500? Never heard that figure used from a population survey before. Lowest I've ever seen published was 16,000 in '98/99.

Do you have the snowfall and weather statistics from 84 to 95 to back up your claim of "no bad winters" during that period, and the thaw/melt figures from the spring period of those respective years that show that the elk were easily able to get through minimal fluffy snow all year to find graze? Or is that just from "memory"? :wink: FD No I don't have a log file from 84 to 99 weather statistics ,but I Have it in my log files because I log down my days hunted in there and what time I canceled my tags etc. I also to the years end mark down the statistics what the weather was like from the previous year ,bad fair or good ,I started hunting the EK in 1970. I even keep a file on any truck problem's I had.http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif

[hunter1947]

Peak population occurred in 1984 and throughout the summer of 1985. Populations estimate was 28,000 to 32,000 with some admission by MOE that there could be as many as 35,000.

During the falls of '85, 86, anf 87, 10,000 to 11,000 antlerless elk tags were issued each year. During those three years we killed nearly 9,000 antlerless elk. Antlerless tags were reduced each year beteen 1988 and 1992 but the population continued to decline even after the planned population reduction period. Theory is that the population was reduced too fast unbalancing prey/predator relationships and a predator trap situation developed which continued to drive down the population.

Modest recovery began in the early '90's, a census done in 1992 indicated about 20,000 elk, but it was slow and insignificant prior to the fall of 1996. Heavy impacts by predators was still very apparent. Antlerless tags were still being issued but in much smaller numbers.

Then the killer winter of 96/97 hit and populations following that winter were estimated at 15,000 to 18,000 but no extensive survey work was done, just spot checks.

The decline was entirely due to antlerless harvest and the winter kill of 96/97, aided considerably by predators during the period between 1988 and 1998. I don't believe for a minute that the 3 pt season was the cause of the decline, and I don't fully credit the 6pt season that started in 1998 as being the sole cause of the recovery either.

These numbers and dates are approximate as they're from memory. Andy I do believe that the 6 points season did have a impact on the elk recovery in the last 10 years. Before that any hunter could shot a 3 ,4 ,5 ,6 ,that would mean less elk out there ,not as many elk to develop into a 6 or better and reach the adult age. I know this because after hunting them every year for 39 years in the last 8 years I have only taken 1 6x6 and my hunting habits have not changed ,same area same places covering the same amount of ground every day ,that showes you that there are 7 more bulls out there that I could have had if the 3 point season or better was open at the time I was there hunting them. Yes I used to get a bull every year and my partners used to get one every other year on an average. If you total 10 years up with an average of 4 elk being shot from our party every year you have 40 elk dead. In the last 10 years our party has only got around 6 bull elk. Now if the elk management opens up a 5 week season on 3 points you will have a big reduction of elk population in the EK ,just give it a few years with this kind of pressure and you will see. If they have a bad winter in the EK this will lower the numbers as well with an open 3 point season to boot. Don't get me wrong Andy I would love to fill my freezer with elk meat. I know that the head of elk are back up in numbers ,but lets not jump back into the fire. Lets slowly open up a few things at a time ,like having a 2 week season for 5 or better ,then evaluate the season at years end. Then continue on from there. If after a few years the elk are still up in numbers then we can look at a 3 point season for a short time 3 weeks say. Last year I saw about 10 5x5 that I couldn't shoot. I don't think that there would be a problem with a hunting group getting there elk if a 5 or better season was introduced. Hear on Vancouver island there is only a LEH draw for elk. I know if they opened it up for a short season it would devastate the elk herd hear. There are about 7000 elk in population hear.... If they do open up a full 6 weeks on 3 point in the EK it would have the same impact ,thats my opinion and I'm not changing my mind ,PS at least they have very little LEH for cow and caves in the EK ,that helps big time as well. Hunter 47.http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif.

[hunter1947]

I found the scale I lost yesterday regarding the number of elk shot from 78 to 05. Hears is what you do to view this. Go to google's then type in ,elk harvest years in the east kootenays ,then scroll down and open up the link that says letter template for new graphic header ,then 1 to 69 pages will open ,then go to page 5 and it will show the scale of calves ,cows and bulls shot in them years.. That was the scale that I was going buy yesterday I was not wrong with my figures..http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif.

[Spitzer]

I was under the impression this topic was about West Kootenay LEH removal? :!::!::!::!:

[hunter1947]

I was under the impression this topic was about West Kootenay LEH removal? :!::!::!::!:

Its is with a few other thing thrown in to boot.

[Vader]

Should have been closed a long time ago as it is way off topic. A new one should have been started ...something like Management with/without LEH in the Kootenays..
Lot of varying opinions out there... some based on scientific data and some on personal experience and I mean a lot of personal experience, and even some political motivations, (Demarche). I have learned that the numbers can be manipulated to suit whatever cause you are trying to support. I do know that the numbers from the 80's as far as cow/calf elk seasons and draws were way outta whack and resulted in a huge kill off of animals. Kill one cow and you might as well have killed a thousand, as was done. Why did they have a huge kill off? Because somebody had the wrong numbers resulting from surveys and counts that were improperly conducted. It was necessary to cut back on those draws to grow herds.
Next we killed copious amounts of bulls. No cows to hunt.. Bull to cow ratios dropped to dangerous levels and although I did not see one actually do this, I am pretty sure the breeding bulls screwed themselves to death. They were pretty gaunt at the end of the rut and I doubt many had the strength to winter properly.
Then we switched to killing only the six point bulls which were predominantly the breeders of the cows. This allowed inferior bulls to breed which resulted in poor genetics being passed on. Evident by smaller bodies and I find it is increasingly more difficult to see a 325 class six point bull nowadays.. at least in the East Kootenays. The genes are still there but will take a very long time to recover to the point of a truly dominant bull breeding. I have seen a few 325 class five point bulls.. probably more of them than I have seen six point bulls.
IMHO it would be a serious mistake to offer a GOS in the West K. Not that the area couldn't support a GOS if properly initiated. Increase the pressure to educate them and give them half a chance. They are pretty easy to suck in around the West.. kinda like the East used to be.. and hopefully will be again.

[6616]

Andy I do believe that the 6 points season did have a impact on the elk recovery in the last 10 years. Before that any hunter could shot a 3 ,4 ,5 ,6 ,that would mean less elk out there ,not as many elk to develop into a 6 or better and reach the adult age. I know this because after hunting them every year for 39 years in the last 8 years I have only taken 1 6x6 and my hunting habits have not changed ,same area same places covering the same amount of ground every day ,that showes you that there are 7 more bulls out there that I could have had if the 3 point season or better was open at the time I was there hunting them. Yes I used to get a bull every year and my partners used to get one every other year on an average. If you total 10 years up with an average of 4 elk being shot from our party every year you have 40 elk dead. In the last 10 years our party has only got around 6 bull elk. Now if the elk management opens up a 5 week season on 3 points you will have a big reduction of elk population in the EK ,just give it a few years with this kind of pressure and you will see. If they have a bad winter in the EK this will lower the numbers as well with an open 3 point season to boot. Don't get me wrong Andy I would love to fill my freezer with elk meat. I know that the head of elk are back up in numbers ,but lets not jump back into the fire. Lets slowly open up a few things at a time ,like having a 2 week season for 5 or better ,then evaluate the season at years end. Then continue on from there. If after a few years the elk are still up in numbers then we can look at a 3 point season for a short time 3 weeks say. Last year I saw about 10 5x5 that I couldn't shoot. I don't think that there would be a problem with a hunting group getting there elk if a 5 or better season was introduced. Hear on Vancouver island there is only a LEH draw for elk. I know if they opened it up for a short season it would devastate the elk herd hear. There are about 7000 elk in population hear.... If they do open up a full 6 weeks on 3 point in the EK it would have the same impact ,thats my opinion and I'm not changing my mind ,PS at least they have very little LEH for cow and caves in the EK ,that helps big time as well. Hunter 47.http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif.

I agree with you Wayne. The 6pt season was part of the recovery strategy and played a part, but the recovery was not due to that alone. Other very important factors were the complete elimination of all antlerless tags, several mild winters in a row, the stabilization of the prey/predator relationship. I think most biologists would agree that population manipulation of ungulates through hunting cannot be accomplished by contolling male harvest only. Bulls represent less than 20% of the population. The conception rate of cows was monitored by MOE (remember the guys of trying to remove a cow elk uterus) and never dropped below 80% which is normal so low bull/cow ratios even during the lowest population cycles was not a huge factor effecting recruitment.

Also, I have never supported complete removal of the 6pt season across the board. That may well be sustainable, I don't really know, I think FD and GG's arguement is valid, but I also believe in going slow and easy. I supported the original proposal for a 10 day 3pt season and also the move to GOS in the West Koot.

Current populations probably will require a reduction, which may well be already underway considering the cow harvest in 2007.

[Seeadler]

Current populations probably will require a reduction, which may well be already underway considering the cow harvest in 2007.


Based on my counts while out doing stuff. I think the EK elk population is higher than 1 year ago. Of course it is completely unscientific and only based on me counting the elk that I see in the same area.

[kenkell1]

I have to laugh at Fisher Dude and his non scientific ways of rambling about the 1000's of LEH tags handed out etc etc etc and that 30 years of 3 pnt season didn't harm the herds.
Well....starting 30 years ago there was NO such thing as hunting with Quads the same goes for 20 years ago and right up to 15 years ago.
There was far less logging roads available then as well. We used elk whistles not diaphrams or tubes to call with and that was far less technology then we use now to call in those elusive bulls. We never had hoochie mamas to cow call with either.
Basically Fisher Dude...what I am trying to say is....You are seriously comparing apples to oranges and your skewed and bullying ways of trying to make people think the way you want them to aren't working at all.
I have heard that the elk are over carrying compacity...and yet there are NO stats to prove that theory and I don't think the elk are close to carrying capacity in the WK or EK....although it is really nice to see the last 3 years that there are alot more nice 5 and 6 pnt bulls out there that I have personally seen.
I would agree with a 2 week 5 pnt season if it was to happen.....and then once the stats are done after that season we can determine if it was a good idea or not.
We all know there will be NO 3 pnt season for 2008 and there was a justifiable reason for that determination and something we all need to accept.
I am a firm believer that yes there will be a 3 point season in the future but I do not think it would a great idea until it is confirmed that that the elk are over carrying capacity...or close to it.

Anyway that my 2 cents and no offense Fisher Dude but you need to get some solid facts before spouting off like that.

[hunter1947]

I have to laugh at Fisher Dude and his non scientific ways of rambling about the 1000's of LEH tags handed out etc etc etc and that 30 years of 3 pnt season didn't harm the herds.
Well....starting 30 years ago there was NO such thing as hunting with Quads the same goes for 20 years ago and right up to 15 years ago.
There was far less logging roads available then as well. We used elk whistles not diaphrams or tubes to call with and that was far less technology then we use now to call in those elusive bulls. We never had hoochie mamas to cow call with either.
Basically Fisher Dude...what I am trying to say is....You are seriously comparing apples to oranges and your skewed and bullying ways of trying to make people think the way you want them to aren't working at all.
I have heard that the elk are over carrying compacity...and yet there are NO stats to prove that theory and I don't think the elk are close to carrying capacity in the WK or EK....although it is really nice to see the last 3 years that there are alot more nice 5 and 6 pnt bulls out there that I have personally seen.
I would agree with a 2 week 5 pnt season if it was to happen.....and then once the stats are done after that season we can determine if it was a good idea or not.
We all know there will be NO 3 pnt season for 2008 and there was a justifiable reason for that determination and something we all need to accept.
I am a firm believer that yes there will be a 3 point season in the future but I do not think it would a great idea until it is confirmed that that the elk are over carrying capacity...or close to it.

Anyway that my 2 cents and no offense Fisher Dude but you need to get some solid facts before spouting off like that. Kenkell1 ,thanks ,I needed that http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif. I seam to be getting hammered from all sides on what I believe in your right on what you have said. http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif.

[kenkell1]

Well I believe everyones opinion is valuable but I will never believe in bullying anyone into anything they want or believe in.
I have seen name calling and fictiscous facts thrown around here on this poll and none of that does any good at all.
We are all in this together and if we would learn to work together instead of against each other we could have one hell of a sounding effect on our thoughts and concerns for BC wildlife.

[GoatGuy]

I have heard that the elk are over carrying compacity...and yet there are NO stats to prove that theory and I don't think the elk are close to carrying capacity in the WK or EK


You won't get anything out of the WK for obvious reasons.

But you will for the EK


wait for it..........................:biggrin:

[kenkell1]

And this poll and debate is for West Kootenay LEH Bull Elk .....
So Ek stats aren't really valuable to this thread.

[kutenay]

Whoa, there, hoss, I think that your comments are far MORE ...bullying...than anything I have seen FS say here. I do not mean to instigate a "flame war" here, but, the way you framed your remarks seems to me to be rather, pot, kettle, black.

Now, to the point of the West Kootenays,Elk and the question of seasons, you seem to have VERY strong opinions on this issue, so, may I politely ask WHAT your qualifications and level of WK experience are?

I find FD to be consistently one of the more credible, courteous and generally conservation oriented guys on HBC; I often visit the site just to read him, 6616 and GoatGuy, whether I always completely agree with their points or not.

It is VERY difficult to accurately determine the real numbers of ELK in the WK, many residents KNOW where they are, but, keep this quiet and quite a number, especially "old timers", do not trust the MOE, BCFS, BCHydro or any government agency....and with damm good reason. SO, it seems to me that the only "data" that we CAN base seasons and allocations on, is anecdotal to some extent, thus, I see value in FD's posts.

[dana]

Kut,
I guess you missed on the other thread (the one that was actually about East Koot Elk) where FD told me that I was quote 'F**CKING the Hunting for my kids'. He never was man enough to say sorry to me and my family either. Showed me what he really is made of. I got numerous PMs from guys happy that I was sticking up to the 'Bully'. One made me laugh my ass off as it had a pic of the bully from 'A Christmas Story'.

[rocksteady]

I agree with you Wayne. The 6pt season was part of the recovery strategy and played a part, but the recovery was not due to that alone. Other very important factors were the complete elimination of all antlerless tags, several mild winters in a row, the stabilization of the prey/predator relationship. I think most biologists would agree that population manipulation of ungulates through hunting cannot be accomplished by contolling male harvest only. Bulls represent less than 20% of the population. The conception rate of cows was monitored by MOE (remember the guys of trying to remove a cow elk uterus) and never dropped below 80% which is normal so low bull/cow ratios even during the lowest population cycles was not a huge factor effecting recruitment.

Also, I have never supported complete removal of the 6pt season across the board. That may well be sustainable, I don't really know, I think FD and GG's arguement is valid, but I also believe in going slow and easy. I supported the original proposal for a 10 day 3pt season and also the move to GOS in the West Koot.

Current populations probably will require a reduction, which may well be already underway considering the cow harvest in 2007.


Excellent post 6616 and you did not need to bedazzle us with stats and graphs with pie charts etc, etc....

[rocksteady]

I have to laugh at Fisher Dude and his non scientific ways of rambling about the 1000's of LEH tags handed out etc etc etc and that 30 years of 3 pnt season didn't harm the herds.
Well....starting 30 years ago there was NO such thing as hunting with Quads the same goes for 20 years ago and right up to 15 years ago.
There was far less logging roads available then as well. We used elk whistles not diaphrams or tubes to call with and that was far less technology then we use now to call in those elusive bulls. We never had hoochie mamas to cow call with either.
Basically Fisher Dude...what I am trying to say is....You are seriously comparing apples to oranges and your skewed and bullying ways of trying to make people think the way you want them to aren't working at all.
I have heard that the elk are over carrying compacity...and yet there are NO stats to prove that theory and I don't think the elk are close to carrying capacity in the WK or EK....although it is really nice to see the last 3 years that there are alot more nice 5 and 6 pnt bulls out there that I have personally seen.
I would agree with a 2 week 5 pnt season if it was to happen.....and then once the stats are done after that season we can determine if it was a good idea or not.
We all know there will be NO 3 pnt season for 2008 and there was a justifiable reason for that determination and something we all need to accept.
I am a firm believer that yes there will be a 3 point season in the future but I do not think it would a great idea until it is confirmed that that the elk are over carrying capacity...or close to it.

Anyway that my 2 cents and no offense Fisher Dude but you need to get some solid facts before spouting off like that.

Agree with you on all points raised...and also in your support of Wayne...

[hunter1947]

During this elk debate ,I am proud of myself , I held my cool and just laughed when things got to me ,I'm proud of myself and I proud of this forum I would never call bad names to anyone on HBC. I thank all the people that posted there thoughts about this elk debate. I learnt a lot as well about different peoples opinion ,thats what makes this site a rocket ship ,I want to thank Marc and all the mods that keep this site up and running and in place. THANKS http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif.

[dana]

The way I read it the 3 Stooges are Rams, FD and GG. ;)

[Vader]

The Three Stooges:

Kenkel
Rocksteady
Hunter47

You guys definatly need to stick together. Glad you can laugh things off !!! :mrgreen:

Who appointed you head of the slander brigade?

These guys are entitled to their opinion..... you dont like what they say then don't read it.... Just move on the the next thread.. Just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean they are bad people.....they just have a different opinion... you know ...freedom of speech and all that...

[BCrams]

Who appointed you head of the slander brigade?

These guys are entitled to their opinion..... you dont like what they say then don't read it.... Just move on the the next thread.. Just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean they are bad people.....they just have a different opinion... you know ...freedom of speech and all that...

I have always stated persons are entitled to their opinions!! I don't dispute it.

But you fail to see the comic behind it. Things have been getting pretty darn funny with their opinions lately. Hence the 3 stooges :)

[Vader]

I don't find any remarks made in jest or meant as an insult acceptable.. especially given the flavour of this particular thread.. It has been awfull close if not actually insulting to some members who have taken the time to post their opinions here.
As hunters one and all.. why can we not accept the fact that there are others with varying observations and opinions out there that may not agree with what, as indivduals, we are commenting on?
This thread needs a time out...

[BCrams]

I don't find any remarks made in jest or meant as an insult acceptable.. especially given the flavour of this particular thread.. It has been awfull close if not actually insulting to some members who have taken the time to post their opinions here.
As hunters one and all.. why can we not accept the fact that there are others with varying observations and opinions out there that may not agree with what, as indivduals, we are commenting on?
This thread needs a time out...

I disagree the thread needs a time out!

Seeing you're from the Kootenays yourself, I can understand it must be frustrating. There are definatly others with varying opinions as well and there is nothing wrong with that.

However, when the facts are layed down on here (several times over now), some certain individuals still refuse to accept it and post numbers that are not true. It is fine for them to refuse to accept it, but at the same time, they shouldn't push their own agenda to say so otherwise 'hoping to sway the audience' so to speak. That is when others will rise up and ensure the correct data is presented.

It is one thing to post opinions stating, "this is what I have experienced or seen" and a whole another thing to state that along with 'numbers which are false' such as 47 has done.

[Vader]

The topic has gone round and round.. one trying to prove the other wrong.. To what end do you wish to beat the horse that refuses to run with the herd?
There is much to be said for personal experience.. I was weened on the figures from the 70's, (falsified poop surveys), and 80's, (blatant over estimation) that led to the overharvest of the 80's that led to the present day dilema. Do older hunters suspect the data.. you bet..do they trust what they see and not what they have heard or someone has presented in yet another scientific save the Elk survey because it contradicts what they see.. you bet.. If their facts are different from what the MOE or the MOF or any other Government division publishes... I really dont care... Just because someone published it as an official report, doesn't neccessarily make it right, (as has been proven in the past),..nor does it make it wrong, (until the data proves itself and that will only happen when and if it fails).. As managers of the wildlife in BC are they getting it right?.. Lets hope so because in the end it is us hunters that will pay.
Would I like to kill a 380 or a 400 class bull in my lifetime... you bet.. but I am not about to jeopardize that dream by endorsing a GOS in the West without some real hard looking at managing what we have to protect the greater good of the herds here.... have we learned nothing from the East K management scheme? If so then a GOS is not the way to go at this time.. Increase the draws... short special weapons seasons, put pressure on the relatively untouched herds to move them into the hills.. educate them to avoid man.. If that is successful then move to a GOS or a modified form yet to be determined. It may be that populations here and hunters in general may be better served by an allotment system that differs from LEH and more follows Alberta's rotating system.
I did some calculations for MU's 8-9-15-16 bull only draws and the 2006 draws first choice results shows roughly a total of 2587 hunters that have an interest in decending on those 4 zones alone. Looks like trouble for the elk to me if that many actually showed up for a GOS.
Between my son and I there is 41 years of unsuccessfully applying for LEH in the west... I should be one of the ones that are screaming for a GOS.. but I'm not.. I'm thinking resource first ...myself second..

[hunter1947]

The topic has gone round and round.. one trying to prove the other wrong.. To what end do you wish to beat the horse that refuses to run with the herd?
There is much to be said for personal experience.. I was weened on the figures from the 70's, (falsified poop surveys), and 80's, (blatant over estimation) that led to the overharvest of the 80's that led to the present day dilema. Do older hunters suspect the data.. you bet..do they trust what they see and not what they have heard or someone has presented in yet another scientific save the Elk survey because it contradicts what they see.. you bet.. If their facts are different from what the MOE or the MOF or any other Government division publishes... I really dont care... Just because someone published it as an official report, doesn't neccessarily make it right, (as has been proven in the past),..nor does it make it wrong, (until the data proves itself and that will only happen when and if it fails).. As managers of the wildlife in BC are they getting it right?.. Lets hope so because in the end it is us hunters that will pay.
Would I like to kill a 380 or a 400 class bull in my lifetime... you bet.. but I am not about to jeopardize that dream by endorsing a GOS in the West without some real hard looking at managing what we have to protect the greater good of the herds here.... have we learned nothing from the East K management scheme? If so then a GOS is not the way to go at this time.. Increase the draws... short special weapons seasons, put pressure on the relatively untouched herds to move them into the hills.. educate them to avoid man.. If that is successful then move to a GOS or a modified form yet to be determined. It may be that populations here and hunters in general may be better served by an allotment system that differs from LEH and more follows Alberta's rotating system.
I did some calculations for MU's 8-9-15-16 bull only draws and the 2006 draws first choice results shows roughly a total of 2587 hunters that have an interest in decending on those 4 zones alone. Looks like trouble for the elk to me if that many actually showed up for a GOS.
Between my son and I there is 41 years of unsuccessfully applying for LEH in the west... I should be one of the ones that are screaming for a GOS.. but I'm not.. I'm thinking resource first ...myself second.. Very well said statement Vader....Its ok to think about ourselves ,we as hunters also have to think about the right thing to do for the game animals as well ,we as humans have to make the right calls in managing our animals because we are the superior ones that make the rules and they the animals must be there for our next generation..

[hunter1947]

I disagree the thread needs a time out!

Seeing you're from the Kootenays yourself, I can understand it must be frustrating. There are definatly others with varying opinions as well and there is nothing wrong with that.

However, when the facts are layed down on here (several times over now), some certain individuals still refuse to accept it and post numbers that are not true. It is fine for them to refuse to accept it, but at the same time, they shouldn't push their own agenda to say so otherwise 'hoping to sway the audience' so to speak. That is when others will rise up and ensure the correct data is presented.

It is one thing to post opinions stating, "this is what I have experienced or seen" and a whole another thing to state that along with 'numbers which are false' such as 47 has done.
BCR ,you say my numbers are wrong that they are false what I have posted ,look at my last posting on the link I put up ,thats from elk management and if you are saying I am wrong then you have to call the elk management wrong because thats were I got the link ,right from them.

[hunter1947]

I have always stated persons are entitled to their opinions!! I don't dispute it.

But you fail to see the comic behind it. Things have been getting pretty darn funny with their opinions lately. Hence the 3 stooges :)
BCR at least I don't call people with cartoon names ,thats getting childish ,lets just drop it the name calling etc and get on to the right subject ,ELK ,this thread is starting to sounds like a bunch of grade one students calling one and the others names etc. This is a respectable forum and I am starting to feel ashamed on this thread as a member.http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif.

[hunter1947]

7500? Never heard that figure used from a population survey before. Lowest I've ever seen published was 16,000 in '98/99.

Do you have the snowfall and weather statistics from 84 to 95 to back up your claim of "no bad winters" during that period, and the thaw/melt figures from the spring period of those respective years that show that the elk were easily able to get through minimal fluffy snow all year to find graze? Or is that just from "memory"? :wink:
I'm sorry FD ,I got mixed up with the population numbers for elk in in one of my posts for the year of 97 ,you are right it was 16,500 head of elk at the year end in 97 in the EK ,I apologize http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon11.gif. I was wrong on posting them figures ,every one once and awhile a person sometime gets thing mixed up ,I guess I'm just being human :roll:. But then again I am confused ??? ,I just looked up on another page on elk management that said that there were just under 8000 on the scale of elk in total numbers in the EK and trench in 1997 so it showes my numbers were correct in my last statement ,what goes hear ,am I not seeing something .

[hunter1947]

No census in 2006 - so no info. Not sure where you're getting all your info but it's different from the info I have.

Flights have just been conducted. Good guess puts it between 25,000 and 30,000. We'll have to wait for the report to find out.

EK does not have carrying capacity for 40,000 elk. Last time a habitat model was done I think it was anywhere from 23,000-25,000 and that didn't include all the exclusionary fencing that was setup in the last couple years. So real numbers puts that lower.

Not to mention the fact the population should be lower than carrying capacity.

Hunter47 I think you should read on the EK Elk Management Plan. I'm sure you'll find it if you google it.
GG ,I got a total population figure in the EK in the early 80ties ,there was a count of around 30,000 elk at that time ,I myself think that the EK could carry close to 40,000 elk ,but then thats my opinion :smile:.

[kutenay]

The point here, IMHO, is that everyone speaks from their own personal bias re: "trophy hunting" and experience/interest level. So, some may favour a short GOS in the WK and others may not, I happen to.

To imply that those who DO favour this are somehow not "concerned" with wildlife conservation and/or are simply being selfish is not acceptable to me, just as name-calling is not. NOBODY on this forum can say with absolute certainty that there are X OR Y numbers of Elk in the WK OR the EK and, the comments about actual carrying capacity are only guesses, as well.

I believe that, given the difficult hunting conditions that are the "norm" in the WK, that a 2-3 week GOS for 3 pt. and larger bulls WOULD be a sound management practice and enable more B.C. resident hunters to have a chance at one of these Elk. To that end, I would eliminate LEH for Cow/Calf and then monitor the situation VERY closely to determine how to proceed in future. I also believe that ALL non-res. hunting in the Kootenays MUST be ended, that is "accompanied" non-res. and guided foreigners as well; we need these animals for ourselves.

I also prefer to refrain from all derogatory inter-personal comments and to simply treat each other with respect as we residents NEED to deal with these issues or the government WILL sell us out to commercial interests. A forum like this can be a HUGE factor in building consensus among us, if we are wise enough to use it well.

So, let's all just pick on Gatehouse as he is a big boy and can handle it....plus, I mean, a pink tutu................................ :)

[rocksteady]

The topic has gone round and round.. one trying to prove the other wrong.. To what end do you wish to beat the horse that refuses to run with the herd?
There is much to be said for personal experience.. I was weened on the figures from the 70's, (falsified poop surveys), and 80's, (blatant over estimation) that led to the overharvest of the 80's that led to the present day dilema. Do older hunters suspect the data.. you bet..do they trust what they see and not what they have heard or someone has presented in yet another scientific save the Elk survey because it contradicts what they see.. you bet.. If their facts are different from what the MOE or the MOF or any other Government division publishes... I really dont care... Just because someone published it as an official report, doesn't neccessarily make it right, (as has been proven in the past),..nor does it make it wrong, (until the data proves itself and that will only happen when and if it fails).. As managers of the wildlife in BC are they getting it right?.. Lets hope so because in the end it is us hunters that will pay.
Would I like to kill a 380 or a 400 class bull in my lifetime... you bet.. but I am not about to jeopardize that dream by endorsing a GOS in the West without some real hard looking at managing what we have to protect the greater good of the herds here.... have we learned nothing from the East K management scheme? If so then a GOS is not the way to go at this time.. Increase the draws... short special weapons seasons, put pressure on the relatively untouched herds to move them into the hills.. educate them to avoid man.. If that is successful then move to a GOS or a modified form yet to be determined. It may be that populations here and hunters in general may be better served by an allotment system that differs from LEH and more follows Alberta's rotating system.
I did some calculations for MU's 8-9-15-16 bull only draws and the 2006 draws first choice results shows roughly a total of 2587 hunters that have an interest in decending on those 4 zones alone. Looks like trouble for the elk to me if that many actually showed up for a GOS.
Between my son and I there is 41 years of unsuccessfully applying for LEH in the west... I should be one of the ones that are screaming for a GOS.. but I'm not.. I'm thinking resource first ...myself second..



HEY VADER, with opinions like that you are welcome into the 3 stooges camp anytime....Myslef, Kenkell and 47 are more than willing to share a cup of mud and talk elk...Hey,now that we have 4 I guess we can be the Marx Brothers...:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

[rocksteady]

I was in no way ridiculing you...I agreed totally with your post and was supporting you...Sorry for the confusion...

[Vader]

Kinda got carried away there for a sec...:smile:
PM for ya on this one

[rocksteady]

Originally Posted by BCrams http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?p=259954#post259954)
The Three Stooges:

Kenkel
Rocksteady
Hunter47

You guys definatly need to stick together. Glad you can laugh things off !!! :mrgreen:


Honestly I take no insult from this particular post as I am proud to be in the company of the 2 others......As far as the 3 stooges, very successful classic group that enjoyed helping others laff at each other and themselves....

I don't take offense cause I consider the source...If it was someone I respected, maybe I would feel hurt....

[6616]

I have to laugh at Fisher Dude and his non scientific ways of rambling about the 1000's of LEH tags handed out etc etc etc and that 30 years of 3 pnt season didn't harm the herds.
Well....starting 30 years ago there was NO such thing as hunting with Quads the same goes for 20 years ago and right up to 15 years ago.
There was far less logging roads available then as well. We used elk whistles not diaphrams or tubes to call with and that was far less technology then we use now to call in those elusive bulls. We never had hoochie mamas to cow call with either.
Basically Fisher Dude...what I am trying to say is....You are seriously comparing apples to oranges and your skewed and bullying ways of trying to make people think the way you want them to aren't working at all.
I have heard that the elk are over carrying compacity...and yet there are NO stats to prove that theory and I don't think the elk are close to carrying capacity in the WK or EK....although it is really nice to see the last 3 years that there are alot more nice 5 and 6 pnt bulls out there that I have personally seen.
I would agree with a 2 week 5 pnt season if it was to happen.....and then once the stats are done after that season we can determine if it was a good idea or not.
We all know there will be NO 3 pnt season for 2008 and there was a justifiable reason for that determination and something we all need to accept.
I am a firm believer that yes there will be a 3 point season in the future but I do not think it would a great idea until it is confirmed that that the elk are over carrying capacity...or close to it.

Anyway that my 2 cents and no offense Fisher Dude but you need to get some solid facts before spouting off like that.

Guys, it doesn't appear to me that BCRs, GGs and FDs statements are any less scientific than the ones you guys (three stooges) are making. Upon what data do you base your statement above that elk are not over carrying capacity Kenkell?

I was the one who originally suggested that they may be over carrying capacity right now and that statement was based on the preliminary numbers from the survey recently completed and the carrying capacity estimates in the 2000 to 2004 elk management plan, see pages 10 and 11. http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/kor/emp/emp_2000.pdf

For comparison, the 1992 survey indicated 9000 elk wintering in the Trench and an overall population estimate of 20,000. The recent survey shows somewhere between 12,000 and 15,000 wintering in the Trench. What does that tell us about overall population numbers?

[hunter1947]

Guys, it doesn't appear to me that BCRs, GGs and FDs statements are any less scientific than the ones you guys (three stooges) are making. Upon what data do you base your statement above that elk are not over carrying capacity Kenkell?

I was the one who originally suggested that they may be over carrying capacity right now and that statement was based on the preliminary numbers from the survey recently completed and the carrying capacity estimates in the 2000 to 2004 elk management plan, see pages 10 and 11. http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/kor/emp/emp_2000.pdf

For comparison, the 1992 survey indicated 9000 elk wintering in the Trench and an overall population estimate of 20,000. The recent survey shows somewhere between 12,000 and 15,000 wintering in the Trench. What does that tell us about overall population numbers? Andy there were 30,000 elk strong in the early 80ties in the EK and the trench thats one number I found in my research to back my theory. Up to 2006 they the elk management quoted that there were 23,000 head ,thats 7,000 less head then back in the early 80ies ,so the land did handled 30,000 elk then ,so I would say that 30,000 elk would be caring capacity. Andy the EK trench never did have a population of over 30,000 elk ,so how would the elk management or other know if the land would not handle more the 30,000 elk... Quot numbers for management never had numbers over 30,000 to see IF. http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif ,Wayne

[GoatGuy]

GG ,I got a total population figure in the EK in the early 80ties ,there was a count of around 30,000 elk at that time ,I myself think that the EK could carry close to 40,000 elk ,but then thats my opinion :smile:.

That last model showed 40,000 with access to all private property - 23,000 without if I recall correctly - I think that's 5 or 6 years ago?? Heading out there every year I'm sure you've noticed all the exclusion fencing and habitat that's grown in - that's only in the past couple of years not to mention what the EK looked like in the early 80s. Winter range has been marginalized, destroyed or fenced to keep elk out.

The diagrams I have show major forest growth ingrowth. To a degree you're also going to have to consider noxious weed.

That doesn't include habitat fragmentation and development.


Carrying capacity is based on habitat models.

Much more to consider and multiple issues that will negatively impact carrying capacity annually and exponentially since the 80s.

If only everything remained static.

[6616]

Andy there were 30,000 elk strong in the early 80ties in the EK and the trench thats one number I found in my research to back my theory. Up to 2006 they the elk management quoted that there were 23,000 head ,thats 7,000 less head then back in the early 80ies ,so the land did handled 30,000 elk then ,so I would say that 30,000 elk would be caring capacity. Andy the EK trench never did have a population of over 30,000 elk ,so how would the elk management or other know if the land would not handle more the 30,000 elk... Quot numbers for management never had numbers over 30,000 to see IF. http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif ,Wayne


Did you read the carrying capacity stuff in the old EMP that I sent the link for? Those estimates were made on 1998 and 1999 data and carrying capacity was over 40,000 if all land was considered. Factoring out private land put the carrying capacity number at 24,400. I'm pretty sure as GG says in his post that carrying capacity has not increased since then and he has identified the reasons in that post so I won't reiterate.

Official population estimates between 1980 and 1984 were 28,000 to 32,000 with WLB people easily admitting there were really more, perhaps as many as 35,000. I'm sure the carrying capacity was much greater then, than it was by 1999 when the 00 to 04 EMP was written, but it's anybodies guess if populations were under, over, or at capacity in the early eighties. There was little data then to base anything on and the population estimates were also very crude and commonly accepted as under-estimating the real population. Based on the private land depredation that was occurring I'd venture a guess that they might have been over carrying capacity, but we'll really never know for sure. I'm very sure of one thing, we had more winter range habitat in the mid-eighties then we had by 1999, and I'm again pretty sure we had more in 1999 than we have today. Again GG has already identified the reason for this.

Since 1992 in the EK there have been two distinct and differing population estimate numbers, Trench, and overall. Trench populations have typically been about 40% of the overall EK populatiuons.

Comprehesive populations surveys were taken in 1992, 1997 and again just completed in 2008. Population estimates between 1997 and 2008 were really only an educated guess and varied widely depending who you spoke to. There were many spot surveys taken but no serious attempt to estimate populations was made, only to determins population trends, bull/cow and calf/cow ratios, etc.

In 1992 there were 9000 elk wintering in the Trench and 20,000 to 25,000 overall.
In 1997 there were 7500 Trench elk and 16,500 overall.

These are not my numbers or my guess, these are numbers taken directly from the survey reports and rouinded to the nearest 500. I'm not saying these numbers are 100% accurate, there's always a plus/minus certainty range, but I'm certainly not going to say they're wrong either, they're the best numbers we've got to go on and certainly are more reliable than anecdotal opinions from hunters.

Preliminary Trench estimates for 2008 indicate somewhere between 12,000 and 15,000 Trench elk, that's a lot and makes one wonder what the overall population might be. Man alive, if they're not over carrying capacity, at least in some areas of the sub-region, I'll promise to drive all the way across the Province to Black Creek and help you with your concrete pour, everything just simply points that way..!

The reason why there are seperate Trench estimates is because the agriculture land and the ag/wildlife conflict are centered in the Trench so that component of the population is socially and politically important to many people.

Trench populations include: The low elevation areas of MUs 4-02, 4-03, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, a small part of 4-24, parts of 4-25 and 4-26. The elk that winter in the Upper Kootenay in 4-25 for example are not included.

Non-Trench populations include: The tributaries of the above plus part of 4-04, all of 4-05, 4-23, most of 4-24, and all of 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, and 4-40. The reason the Columbia Valley north of Radium is included even though it actually is in the Trench is because agriculture concerns are not a huge factor up there.

Of course these are wintering populations and not related at all to summer or fall populations as all surveys are taken in February on winter ranges. As you can see not all of the elk actually winter in the Trench as is often commonly assumed.

[hunter1947]

Did you read the carrying capacity stuff in the old EMP that I sent the link for? Those estimates were made on 1998 and 1999 data and carrying capacity was over 40,000 if all land was considered. Factoring out private land put the carrying capacity number at 24,400. I'm pretty sure as GG says in his post that carrying capacity has not increased since then and he has identified the reasons in that post so I won't reiterate.

Official population estimates between 1980 and 1984 were 28,000 to 32,000 with WLB people easily admitting there were really more, perhaps as many as 35,000. I'm sure the carrying capacity was much greater then, than it was by 1999 when the 00 to 04 EMP was written, but it's anybodies guess if populations were under, over, or at capacity in the early eighties. There was little data then to base anything on and the population estimates were also very crude and commonly accepted as under-estimating the real population. Based on the private land depredation that was occurring I'd venture a guess that they might have been over carrying capacity, but we'll really never know for sure. I'm very sure of one thing, we had more winter range habitat in the mid-eighties then we had by 1999, and I'm again pretty sure we had more in 1999 than we have today. Again GG has already identified the reason for this.

Since 1992 in the EK there have been two distinct and differing population estimate numbers, Trench, and overall. Trench populations have typically been about 40% of the overall EK populatiuons.

Comprehesive populations surveys were taken in 1992, 1997 and again just completed in 2008. Population estimates between 1997 and 2008 were really only an educated guess and varied widely depending who you spoke to. There were many spot surveys taken but no serious attempt to estimate populations was made, only to determins population trends, bull/cow and calf/cow ratios, etc.

In 1992 there were 9000 elk wintering in the Trench and 20,000 to 25,000 overall.
In 1997 there were 7500 Trench elk and 16,500 overall.

These are not my numbers or my guess, these are numbers taken directly from the survey reports and rouinded to the nearest 500. I'm not saying these numbers are 100% accurate, there's always a plus/minus certainty range, but I'm certainly not going to say they're wrong either, they're the best numbers we've got to go on and certainly are more reliable than anecdotal opinions from hunters.

Preliminary Trench estimates for 2008 indicate somewhere between 12,000 and 15,000 Trench elk, that's a lot and makes one wonder what the overall population might be. Man alive, if they're not over carrying capacity, at least in some areas of the sub-region, I'll promise to drive all the way across the Province to Black Creek and help you with your concrete pour, everything just simply points that way..!

The reason why there are seperate Trench estimates is because the agriculture land and the ag/wildlife conflict are centered in the Trench so that component of the population is socially and politically important to many people.

Trench populations include: The low elevation areas of MUs 4-02, 4-03, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, a small part of 4-24, parts of 4-25 and 4-26. The elk that winter in the Upper Kootenay in 4-25 for example are not included.

Non-Trench populations include: The tributaries of the above plus part of 4-04, all of 4-05, 4-23, most of 4-24, and all of 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, and 4-40. The reason the Columbia Valley north of Radium is included even though it actually is in the Trench is because agriculture concerns are not a huge factor up there.

Of course these are wintering populations and not related at all to summer or fall populations as all surveys are taken in February on winter ranges. As you can see not all of the elk actually winter in the Trench as is often commonly assumed.
Well I will tell you that the elk are not over carrying capacity Andy ,so it looks like you loose and you will have to come to my place and help me with my poor ,LOL:lol:. Andy I am not disputing the point that there are good numbers of elk out there in the trench and the EK sub regions ,figures to this date proubly do show 30,000 elk in all for the trench and sub regions. All I am saying is not to go full out with a 3 point season ,as I said in my earlier post ,lets go one step at a time. I said this befor and I will say it again I would like to see a 5 point season for 2 or 3 weeks taking one step forwards to make it easier to bag a bull elk for all ,then analyze the season at the beginning of 2009 and see if the population is still stable ,then if so then think about opening a 3 point season for 2009 for a short time 2 or 3 week season ,then into the beginning of 2010 then elk management can analyze the population and see if all is http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon6.gif. Then go from there. PS ,thanks for your big long line of emf 6616 http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif. PS I am waiting for your arrival for my pour andy ,LOL :lol:.

[GoatGuy]

All I am saying is not to go full out with a 3 point season ,as I said in my earlier post ,lets go one step at a time. I said this befor and I will say it again I would like to see a 5 point season for 2 or 3 weeks taking one step forwards to make it easier to bag a bull elk for all ,then analyze the season at the beginning of 2009 and see if the population is still stable ,then if so then think about opening a 3 point season for 2009 for a short time 2 or 3 week season ,then into the beginning of 2010 then elk management can analyze the population and see if all is http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon6.gif.

Tough thing is if we don't get our ducks in a row now, it'll probably be too late by 2010 - habitat will be in bad shape and with a half decent winter we're back to square one.

With this kind of stuff we need to be ahead of the curve.

One of the tough decisions wildlife managers always face.

[6616]

Well I will tell you that the elk are not over carrying capacity Andy ,so it looks like you loose and you will have to come to my place and help me with my poor ,LOL:lol:. Andy I am not disputing the point that there are good numbers of elk out there in the trench and the EK sub regions ,figures to this date proubly do show 30,000 elk in all for the trench and sub regions. All I am saying is not to go full out with a 3 point season ,as I said in my earlier post ,lets go one step at a time. I said this befor and I will say it again I would like to see a 5 point season for 2 or 3 weeks taking one step forwards to make it easier to bag a bull elk for all ,then analyze the season at the beginning of 2009 and see if the population is still stable ,then if so then think about opening a 3 point season for 2009 for a short time 2 or 3 week season ,then into the beginning of 2010 then elk management can analyze the population and see if all is http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon6.gif. Then go from there. PS ,thanks for your big long line of emf 6616 http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif. PS I am waiting for your arrival for my pour andy ,LOL :lol:.

I have always agreed with starting slow and all my posts were in support of the 10 dy 3pt proposal that got turned down. There will be no change for 2008, it's too late for that, the earliest anything can happen now is 2009.

I live three tanks of gas and a ferry ride away from you, so you'll have to show me some data to support your theory before "we" pour concrete. If I lived on the Island I'd come just for the fun of it!

[hunter1947]

I have always agreed with starting slow and all my posts were in support of the 10 dy 3pt proposal that got turned down. There will be no change for 2008, it's too late for that, the earliest anything can happen now is 2009.

I live three tanks of gas and a ferry ride away from you, so you'll have to show me some data to support your theory before "we" pour concrete. If I lived on the Island I'd come just for the fun of it!
Andy if there are not going to be a change in the elk season this year ,I would have to say that there will be a lot more out there in 2009 ,if so then I would also support a short 3 point season in 2009 for 2 or 3 weekshttp://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif.

[6616]

Tough thing is if we don't get our ducks in a row now, it'll probably be too late by 2010 - habitat will be in bad shape and with a half decent winter we're back to square one.

With this kind of stuff we need to be ahead of the curve.

One of the tough decisions wildlife managers always face.

Elk winter range habitat in the EK that overlaps cattle grazing tenures is already in tough shape and don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming it all on elk, but the real issue is not whether cows or elk are doing the damage, the real issue will be that those ranges can take up to 20 years to recover from heavy over-grazing. So if we let conditions get much worse, we'll be looking at an elk population objective that none of us will like very much, and we'll be stuck with it for a long, long time. Cattlemen will go out of business and rural subdivisions and tourist honky-tonk zones will replace the ranches.

[hunter1947]

Elk winter range habitat in the EK that overlaps cattle grazing tenures is already in tough shape and don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming it all on elk, but the real issue is not whether cows or elk are doing the damage, the real issue will be that those ranges can take up to 20 years to recover from heavy over-grazing. So if we let conditions get much worse, we'll be looking at an elk population objective that none of us will like very much, and we'll be stuck with it for a long, long time. Cattlemen will go out of business and rural subdivisions and tourist honky-tonk zones will replace the ranches. So in other words do we take out the pray in order to benefit the farmers ,it don't make sense to me ??? :roll:.

[GoatGuy]

Cattlemen will go out of business and rural subdivisions and tourist honky-tonk zones will replace the ranches.

Perfect!

It'll look like southern Ontario in no time - just a big pile of smog, lights and dump bears.

[6616]

So in other words do we take out the pray in order to benefit the farmers ,it don't make sense to me ??? :roll:.

No but we have to keep both cattle and elk within habitat limits.

[kenkell1]

Guys, it doesn't appear to me that BCRs, GGs and FDs statements are any less scientific than the ones you guys (three stooges) are making. Upon what data do you base your statement above that elk are not over carrying capacity Kenkell?

I was the one who originally suggested that they may be over carrying capacity right now and that statement was based on the preliminary numbers from the survey recently completed and the carrying capacity estimates in the 2000 to 2004 elk management plan, see pages 10 and 11. http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/kor/emp/emp_2000.pdf

For comparison, the 1992 survey indicated 9000 elk wintering in the Trench and an overall population estimate of 20,000. The recent survey shows somewhere between 12,000 and 15,000 wintering in the Trench. What does that tell us about overall population numbers?
I don't base my thoughts on any factual numbers because there is none. I base my view on what I have seen over the past 30 years of hunting elk in the EK and WK.
I am not and never will be a trophy hunter because I don't believe in that and I also never apply for LEH because thats another thing I have problems with.....I am not shooting a cow and certainly would never shoot a calf.
With that said.....IF the numbers show that the elk are over carry capacity then hell yes I am all for a 3 pnt season for 2 or 3 weeks as long as it is closely monitored after the hunt to see what the numbers show.

As for being called one of the 3 stooges because of my personal view on the subject Thanks to whoever said it....your true colors have once again proved you know jack crap about conservation and most likely have never even hunted in the West Kootenays!

Anyway this will most likely be last post on this subject because I have better things to do then be ridiculed by someone that is more into trash talking than an open forum that is respectful.

[J_T]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 6616 http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?p=260606#post260606)
Cattlemen will go out of business and rural subdivisions and tourist honky-tonk zones will replace the ranches.

Perfect!

It'll look like southern Ontario in no time - just a big pile of smog, lights and dump bears.
There are many instances where there is no question, this is already ocurring. Even the hard core ranchers are starting to realize there is more money in subdividing and development.

And with that change, people who have lived in major centres move to the country and bring a strong sense of boundary, (my fence, don't you dare cross it) with them. Very different than the more casual approach seen by people who grow up here and sharing the land.

Wayne, your frequently refer to a wide open 3 pt season in your discussion. I don't think at any point, anyone on here has suggested that might be a proposal for discussion. Andy has said a number of times, what was put on the table and turned down was a cautious (my word) 10 day 3 pt season. And not necessarily throughout the entire subregion.

[hunter1947]

There are many instances where there is no question, this is already ocurring. Even the hard core ranchers are starting to realize there is more money in subdividing and development.

And with that change, people who have lived in major centres move to the country and bring a strong sense of boundary, (my fence, don't you dare cross it) with them. Very different than the more casual approach seen by people who grow up here and sharing the land.

Wayne, your frequently refer to a wide open 3 pt season in your discussion. I don't think at any point, anyone on here has suggested that might be a proposal for discussion. Andy has said a number of times, what was put on the table and turned down was a cautious (my word) 10 day 3 pt season. And not necessarily throughout the entire subregion. I did not refer to a wide open 3 point season for the entire year. I said to look at the numbers in 2009 and see what they are then if there were more numbers then in 2008 then they the elk management should open up a 2 or 3 week season.

[hunter1947]

Andy were is a link to show the population for elk in the EK from 1999 to 2008 ???

[BCrams]

....your true colors have once again proved you know jack crap about conservation and most likely have never even hunted in the West Kootenays!


I know a little more than you think.

I have indeed hunted / lived / worked in the West Kootenays for a while. I know enough to know removing the LEH for bull elk, will not have an overly detrimental impact on the elk. The area the vast majority of the elk are in is simply too rugged (steep, thick etc) for the majority of hunters to bother.

[6616]

Andy were is a link to show the population for elk in the EK from 1999 to 2008 ???

There are none that I know of, only stratified random surveys were done during those years and only on the Trench winter ranges, popluation estimates were loosely based on models. The last comprehensive survey was done in 1997. I have it in pdf format, if you want a copy I could e-mail it. I believe the comprehensive survey was only done in the Trench and the Elk Valley and the overall was estimated from stratified data.

See the opening paragraphs in the old elk management plan that I sent a link for. WLB Cranbrook's best guess was about 25,000 to 27,000 in 2006, I believe they quoted something like 18,000 to 20,000 in 1999 by I'm not sure, none of these were published as there was no real survey data to support them.

[hunter1947]

Its all speculations on our part ,we can continue to insult one or the other. But at the end it all boils down to the wild life elk management that will have the last say on what will be open for the years to come ,we can only give them our opinion and tell others on this thread what we think..http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif.

[BCrams]

Its all speculations on our part ,we can continue to insult one or the other. But at the end it all boils down to the wild life elk management that will have the last say on what will be open for the years to come ,we can only give them our opinion and tell others on this thread what we think..http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif.

So the bottom line:

Do you support the opening of a 3 pt season in the EK (i.e., 10 days) if the population assessment this year shows to be high and we need to do something?

[kenkell1]

Yep remove LEH and open 5pnt or bigger.
Those that aren't willing to walk more than 50 feet from their vehicle while hunting don't deserve to hunt.
Hike into those nice open spots even though some of the climb is steep thick and rugged and the elk will come to those that actually hunt.

[BCrams]

Yep remove LEH and open 5pnt or bigger.
Those that aren't willing to walk more than 50 feet from their vehicle while hunting don't deserve to hunt.
Hike into those nice open spots even though some of the climb is steep thick and rugged and the elk will come to those that actually hunt.

I think many of us (myself included) would be happy to see the removal of the WK LEH elk draw and having a 6 pt implemented at first. If its feasible to manage a 5 pt, why not!

Then implementing a short 3 pt season in the EK while the rest remains at 6 pt.

[kutenay]

JT makes a very valid point here and I have seen large-scale "back to the land" developments outside of Nelson on habitat that used to support Elk, WtTail and Mulies. The "progressive" NDP types LOVE this kind of thing, "Falls Creek Estates" is a case in point.

IF and I stress IF, we want to protect hunting, we MUST do everything we can to prevent alienation of habitat and, like it or not, that means further restrictions on building second homes, etc., in areas crucial to wildife. The contemporary "greenies" will foam at the mouth over this as they LOVE to live in "cool" little suburbs just outside of the towns where their office jobs are located.

I wouldn't say that ANY BC resident does not deserve to hunt, some people CANNOT hike due to medical reasons, however, Elk in the WK are and always will be VERY tough to find and hunt and habitat protection is the key to maintaining those we have there now.

Ironically, some of the HUGEST bulls I have seen shot there were by "road warriors", one lovely 6x6 in 2005 was not far from me after a brutal backpack as I returned to the truck, when "BOOM" this guy whacked him......luck of the draw and I congratulated him as I was happy to see an ordinary working guy with minimal gear and time get such a fine bull....NO, I have not ever shot one this nice, but, THIS year, ahhh........

[kenkell1]

BCrams

That I'll agree on. If it turns out to be a mistake then it will be a lesson learned and we can all hope that if it was a mistake that it doesn't turn drastic.

[6616]

BCrams

That I'll agree on. If it turns out to be a mistake then it will be a lesson learned and we can all hope that if it was a mistake that it doesn't turn drastic.

What do you guys think of making all elk harvest, especially cows, compulsory reporting so managers have a hard number of elk killed each year. That way rapid adjustments to seasons are feasible to prevent a disaster.

Also, if the recruitment/retention strategy works, who would agree with the possibility of shortening the season to make up for lowering point restrictions and accomodating more hunter? In other words are we willing to pay that price to increase the numbers of hunters?

[hunter1947]

What do you guys think of making all elk harvest, especially cows, compulsory reporting so managers have a hard number of elk killed each year. That way rapid adjustments to seasons are feasible to prevent a disaster.

Also, if the recruitment/retention strategy works, who would agree with the possibility of shortening the season to make up for lowering point restrictions and accomodating more hunter? In other words are we willing to pay that price to increase the numbers of hunters?
I brought this issue up in my earlier posts Andy ,i think it would be a good idea .... That way the elk management know exactly how many elk were harvested at the year end. But will they have the staff and revenue to do this ???

[rocksteady]

That way the elk management know exactly how many elk were harvested at the year end. But will they have the staff and revenue to do this ???

Could be something as easy as an online reporting issue on the net..

Dump in your hunter number, date of kill, tick a box as to which sex, which MU and nearest lanmark....An email address, and boom you have a confirmation note thanking you for your participation.....


Should not cost a lot of revenue to do it.....only 1 computer geek to design it an dkeep it running, and allow access for bios/co's to view only so they can keep an eye on the numbers..

[hunter1947]

Could be something as easy as an online reporting issue on the net..

Dump in your hunter number, date of kill, tick a box as to which sex, which MU and nearest lanmark....An email address, and boom you have a confirmation note thanking you for your participation.....


Should not cost a lot of revenue to do it.....only 1 computer geek to design it an dkeep it running, and allow access for bios/co's to view only so they can keep an eye on the numbers.. Will everyone that gets an elk do this Mike ??? You have to have everyone do this in order to make it work and I'm sure that lots won't.....

[rocksteady]

Will everyone that gets an elk do this Mike ??? You have to have everyone do this in order to make it work and I'm sure that lots won't.....

I t should not be that onerous, as long as they keep it simple....Maybe it could issue a confirmation number too, so that the co's/butchers/hunter knows that it was CR'd....I think most people would do it, as long as they knew why they had to....

[hunter1947]

All you can do is try it right ,its just like you getting your 6 point every year ,try try ,right and see what the results are.

[6616]

Could be as simple as a hot line phone in system, all it would cost is a phone line and an answering machine.

[hunter1947]

Could be as simple as a hot line phone in system, all it would cost is a phone line and an answering machine. Well Andy I appoint you to call the management or send an email to them about that idea.:lol:.

[GoatGuy]

Could be as simple as a hot line phone in system, all it would cost is a phone line and an answering machine.

You answering the phone and paying the $$ for the 800 number? :lol:

[Vader]

I know a little more than you think.

I have indeed hunted / lived / worked in the West Kootenays for a while. I know enough to know removing the LEH for bull elk, will not have an overly detrimental impact on the elk. The area the vast majority of the elk are in is simply too rugged (steep, thick etc) for the majority of hunters to bother.

I would have to disagree with you there.. as I posted before the elk in the West K are totally more responsive to the calls here and the stats for hunters waiting or at least trying to get a draw here are not sunday hunters with a casual interest. Nor are they mostly locals. Talk to the tag holders.. Most are from outside. For the past 20+ years the draws have had very high applications for the amount of tags.. In 2006 about 2587 people tried to get draws In the West K.. This number does not include the ones that were successful in the draw for that year.. Most of those applying are grouped with the others applying but I bet you could easily add another 25% to that list to show how many would actually show up. That is't hunting pressure?

[BCrams]

I would have to disagree with you there.. as I posted before the elk in the West K are totally more responsive to the calls here and the stats for hunters waiting or at least trying to get a draw here are not sunday hunters with a casual interest. Nor are they mostly locals. Talk to the tag holders.. Most are from outside. For the past 20+ years the draws have had very high applications for the amount of tags.. In 2006 about 2587 people tried to get draws In the West K.. This number does not include the ones that were successful in the draw for that year.. Most of those applying are grouped with the others applying but I bet you could easily add another 25% to that list to show how many would actually show up. That is't hunting pressure?


The elk will smarten up pretty quick! I have seen evidence of that here in 7a after they opened up the season after haveing no elk season.

The elk hunting the first couple years was phenomenal during the GOS 6 pt season with many elk being harvested. Those same elk have now been educated and they are very tough to hunt. It certainly did not ruin the hunting season one bit. 350 plus bulls are continually being harvest every fall.....and I cannot say the same about the WK area as I have seen some pretty darn small elk shot the last few years on the draw.

The same will occur to the W. Koot hunt. All those hunters can still flock to the region but by and large, most of those elk are pretty safe and will learn pretty quick considering the habitat they're living in......that is unless you're hunting them by the farms outside Castlegar. :smile:

The area, by nature of the tough terrain and habitat and because the elk will learn, you can bet the WK will continue to produce trophy bull elk year after year on a GOS 6 pt season.

[6616]

You answering the phone and paying the $$ for the 800 number? :lol:

Well if it costs more than a nickel or a dime the MOE will surely have to apply for a HCTF grant...!!!

[rocksteady]

What the hell is going on here?????

Has the fight and discussion from everyone finally drained out????

Are we actaully coming close to a point where we are starting to think harmoniously????

We have different ideas about reporting elk kills, so that we can monitor the harvest effectively..

We have one or 2 consensus on region 7a......

Only 30+ pages and we are all starting to get along....:eek::eek:

[GoatGuy]

Well if it costs more than a nickel or a dime the MOE will surely have to apply for a HCTF grant...!!!

You were reading my mind.

[Vader]

It is indeed a difficult area to hunt.. and you best be related to one of the farmers you mention otherwise you won't get access. Even though they complain to high heaven about the Elk in the garden.
The point is, I would hate to see the area high graded unneccessarily.. There is a way to approach the GOS, which I agree that the herds here can support, but that approach should be gradual 2-3 years.. see what the effects are.. Wouldn't it be worth it if there was an actual model to follow for future reference rather than a wholesale GOS and then say whoops. If an area needs to recover this would be a perfect testing area for that.. We would be missing out on an opportunity to observe impacts on changes to regulations and pressure..

[BCrams]

It is indeed a difficult are to hunt.. and you best be related to one of the farmers you mention otherwise you won't get access. Even though they complain to high heaven about the Elk in the garden.
The point is, I would hate to see the area high graded unneccessarily.. There is a way to approach the GOS, which I agree that the herds here can support, but that approach should be gradual 2-3 years.. see what the effects are.. Wouldn't it be worth it if there was an actual model to follow for future reference rather than a wholesale GOS and then say whoops. If an area needs to recover this would be a perfect testing area for that.. We would be missing out on an opportunity to observe impacts on changes to regulations and pressure..

You can follow 7a, an elk season which never existed before, went right into a 6 point - Sept 1-9th bow season, Sept 10 - Oct 9th rifle season.

Big critters are still dropping every year and the elk are continually spreading!

[GoatGuy]

Big critters are still dropping every year and the elk are continually spreading!

Like rats.

[tufferthandug]

Big critters are still dropping every year and the elk are continually spreading!

Spreading at such a rate that a thread about a "Region 5" 6 point Bull Elk season shall be started.

[Vader]

different habitat.. different feed..

[BCrams]

different habitat.. different feed..

and???? elk are elk !

We don't have any road closures, the entire region is riddled with roads and cutblocks. Even if deactivated, you can ride a quad on them and nearly every patch of bush is accessible. One would think the elk would be shot off.

Whereas the WKoots are much more inaccessible with road closures, thick thick bush, steep ground etc. I am sure the elk will be much better off.

[Vader]

It took 30 years to get these elk to where they are now... they have not exploded to get the numbers that there are now.. Even with a modest LEH system growth has been slow.. You kick hell out of them and they will take a long time to recover. This country is hard on elk. You are right steep and thick... but even elk don't "thrive" on this terrain. They are in pockets where they do the best on ground that will support them.. hunters have access to those pockets.. Yes they will be driven back.. but no they won't flourish there. They would be there now if it was prime habitat.

[hunter1947]

The elk will smarten up pretty quick! I have seen evidence of that here in 7a after they opened up the season after haveing no elk season.

The elk hunting the first couple years was phenomenal during the GOS 6 pt season with many elk being harvested. Those same elk have now been educated and they are very tough to hunt. It certainly did not ruin the hunting season one bit. 350 plus bulls are continually being harvest every fall.....and I cannot say the same about the WK area as I have seen some pretty darn small elk shot the last few years on the draw.

The same will occur to the W. Koot hunt. All those hunters can still flock to the region but by and large, most of those elk are pretty safe and will learn pretty quick considering the habitat they're living in......that is unless you're hunting them by the farms outside Castlegar. :smile:

The area, by nature of the tough terrain and habitat and because the elk will learn, you can bet the WK will continue to produce trophy bull elk year after year on a GOS 6 pt season. I have heard that there are some impressive head gear for elk that come out of the WK ,check the BC record book and see.

[GrizGuy92]

Why don't I see the option that says, "open for youth and senior only"??

GG

[hunter1947]

What the hell is going on here?????

Has the fight and discussion from everyone finally drained out????

Are we actaully coming close to a point where we are starting to think harmoniously????

We have different ideas about reporting elk kills, so that we can monitor the harvest effectively..

We have one or 2 consensus on region 7a......

Only 30+ pages and we are all starting to get along....:eek::eek: I always did get along with everyone ,http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif.

[Vader]

I have heard that there are some impressive head gear for elk that come out of the WK ,check the BC record book and see.

Which is precisely why there will be a major interest in this area by hunters if were to go GOS. There are a lot of Trophy hunters waiting to get access.. you can tell this by the amount that apply for the LEH's. Those by enlarge are not meat hunters.. Access may be difficult and restricted by road closures.. Ever hear of horses.. not that every one owns one.. Initially they wouldn't need these but there are plenty of hunters that do own them..
The hunters I hang with find no problem to hoof it 12-15k and they would probably run most of it if you told them there was a 400 bull waiting.

[kutenay]

Many of the biggest WK bulls ARE close to roads in the early part of the season; you just have to know WHERE and they CAN be hunted without horses. I do not really like horses for WK hunting, they take too much time and effort to look after and much of the best Elk country is not really horse country, anyway.

If, you want to hunt the WK successfully, what you REALLY need is good backpacking gear, conditioning and a LOT of local knowledge. I would say that the largest bulls there are equal to or better than anywhere in B.C. and I have seen several that I would kill for, especially one my younger brother shot 20 years ago.

Like most mountain hunting, it is tough and the game is thin on the ground, but, the biggies ARE there and that's what makes it exciting.

[muzzy]

I've been there and if you want to kill a big bull, ask the locals where the elk are that are eating their corn crops. You don't have to be a tough guy, backpacker or horse man.. All you need is permission to hunt someones back field/yard in Crestova.. You can also sit in Castlebush and spot them by Verigans tomb.. It's too easy and that worries me if their is a GOS.. Even for a few years and they get wise..Go into Goose Ck. with your quad and bugle, you'll get an answer and it will more than likely be a 300+ bull.. Deer Park, drive up the road and see 300+ bulls.. It's an LEH "DREAM HUNT" there should be some of this left in B.C.

[kenkell1]

What do you guys think of making all elk harvest, especially cows, compulsory reporting so managers have a hard number of elk killed each year. That way rapid adjustments to seasons are feasible to prevent a disaster.

Also, if the recruitment/retention strategy works, who would agree with the possibility of shortening the season to make up for lowering point restrictions and accomodating more hunter? In other words are we willing to pay that price to increase the numbers of hunters?
I would be in favour of compulsory reporting of Elk...and thats a great idea.
As for hunter recruitment...I am not interested in that at all. I believe if you are going to be a hunter it is bred into you and you will hunt one day.

[kutenay]

I am absolutely in favour of reporting ALL game shot and of very harsh penalties for ANY violations of wildlife laws, this includes serious gaol time.

I would consider a shortened season, BUT, what is really crucial is HABITAT and we need to protect winter and calving grounds from development. I would like to see a MAJOR effort by government to acquire ANY and ALL former ranching, farming and recreational properties to return these to Crown Land for wildife habitat first and some careful forest harvesting as well.

Foreign-owned properties should simply be expropriated as I am sick and tired of rich foreigners keeping MY BC land locked up and inaccessible to guys like me. If, they don't like it, tough tiddy.

[GoatGuy]

I've been there and if you want to kill a big bull, ask the locals where the elk are that are eating their corn crops. You don't have to be a tough guy, backpacker or horse man.. All you need is permission to hunt someones back field/yard in Crestova.. You can also sit in Castlebush and spot them by Verigans tomb.. It's too easy and that worries me if their is a GOS.. Even for a few years and they get wise..Go into Goose Ck. with your quad and bugle, you'll get an answer and it will more than likely be a 300+ bull.. Deer Park, drive up the road and see 300+ bulls.. It's an LEH "DREAM HUNT" there should be some of this left in B.C.

shooting 300" bulls off of fence posts - definitely my dream hunt!

[GoatGuy]

As for hunter recruitment...I am not interested in that at all. I believe if you are going to be a hunter it is bred into you and you will hunt one day.

This is what has us scraping the bottom of the barrel with a MoE that gets little to no funding.

You need hunters to get money to get inventory work done - it doesn't work any other way.


I really can't believe this coming from a hunter.

[Flinch]

As for hunter recruitment...I am not interested in that at all. I believe if you are going to be a hunter it is bred into you and you will hunt one day


Come on give your head a shake! If the desire to hunt was genetic as suggested, the number of hunters would remain steady. Factors like exposure, opportunity and social acceptance are what matters, but we have explained that so many times I can't believe that someone would be so short sighted and selfish as to make the above comment. The above quote might as well read "I don't care about the future of hunting, I am only interested in ME, right NOW":(

[GrizGuy92]

So how bout them youth hunts ;)

[kenkell1]

Ok ...listen up before you all blow a freakin gasket.
What I meant was posting adds all over Canada and saying HEY Come to BC and hunt is not what I want!!!!
Hell yes I believe in taking people out and exposing them to hunting here. I do it every single year and got several loving to hunt that way...especially for Elk....and they where young and old.
Youth hunts are a real good thing and I am all for that.
I should have explained myself better.
I was raised around hunters and therefore it was bred into me to want to hunt and I believe that BUT if I was raised in some big city I would probably not have had that chance.

[Flinch]

Thanks for clearing that up kenkell. I, and others, are pretty passionate about getting new people involved because we are losing our political voice rather rapidly as hunter numbers decline and that will be bad for all of us. We will feel some short term pain for the long term gain, but I think we all need to be willing to share that. That is the whole intent of this thread....I think. Increasing opportunity to increase hunter interest and numbers comes in this case by relaxing antler restrictions or LEH restrictions. Just my opinion.8-)

[kutenay]

Well said, bud, I think that we all feel much the same on this issue.

[muzzy]

If you could do the same, you'd be there.. Sheep, elk makes no difference, that's what most people want.. And it wasn't from a fence post if you ask any of your stooges they would do the same...I wouldn't but 90% of the folks on here would. Look at me I got the LEH and it's huge.!!!!. Picture attatched. One of your buddies was with me to get the "fence post" animal so don't judge everyone the same!!!

[porkypine]

Do you think that these polls are realy going to influence anyone. The real push behind how a lot of the decisions are made are through the Guides who run their Hunting camps in these areas. You dont't think that they would want an open season which would most definetly affect the hunting of there customers. I'm personally for the LEH, I 've also taken a Bull in the WK. But instead of making the season for so called Trophy Bulls why not have the season for smaller bulls and leave the top Breeders with the herds. Possibly cull out 3 points or possibly 5 points. This way sustaining a good gene poole for the future. Something to think about. By the way if you think that the odds are high in the WK you should look at the Island odds.

[J_T]

Do you think that these polls are realy going to influence anyone.
Nope. This is a chat site. A place to express passion, and not get a date.

[StoneChaser]

You can follow 7a, an elk season which never existed before, went right into a 6 point - Sept 1-9th bow season, Sept 10 - Oct 9th rifle season.

Big critters are still dropping every year and the elk are continually spreading!

Don't kid yourself...the elk got hit hard the first few years, and there are MUCH fewer bulls returning to the wintering grounds...MUCH fewer!

Harvest numbers are WAY down and I suspect more bulls were killed than educated

There are still bulls out there, and while they've dispersed from the original "nucleus", I'm not convinced that we took the right approach with the GOS and the pounding we gave those bulls.

LEH may have been a better option....

[todbartell]

hindsight is 20/20

[BCrams]

Don't kid yourself...the elk got the $hit shot out of them the first few years, and there are MUCH fewer bulls returning to the wintering grounds...MUCH fewer!

Harvest numbers are WAY down and I suspect more bulls were killed than educated

There are still bulls out there, and while they've dispersed from the original "nucleus", I'm not convinced that we took the right approach with the GOS and the pounding we gave those bulls.

LEH may have been a better option....

No kidding!!!!!!! The only one area that really took that pounding was the ________ with over 30 bulls shot the first year. (you know where I am talking about). That comprised roughly ~40 percent of the entire 7a regional harvest all within a few miles of road and a couple square miles either side.

It may be the case in your backyard and up river as far as fewer bulls returning to the winter range, however elk are showing up in other suitable winter range habitat where they previously were not occupying....dispersing so to speak as you mentioned. One area the elk turned up these last 2 years have been a surprise with over 150 elk in one area that may have previously been where they should be as you mention.

There is excellent habitat pretty much everywhere for elk and no hard and fast ''winter range'' and they don't need to return to the same area like sheep or mountain goats typically do.

Harvest levels are indeed down and to be expected and will level out. The entire bull elk component of a population is not made up of just 6 pt bulls and not all of them were shot. There would be no season to begin with if there was no 'recruitment' from the younger age class component of a population.

I disagree with the LEH approach because your example really only reflects that one small area and not from an entire regional perspective.

From what I have seen and talked to other hunters, those elk as you know are cagey. By the very nature of existing in pockets with gabs in between, these elk are extremely call shy and they're more liable to slip away without any noise.

Outside the area where you, myself and many others have taken our bulls, the elk hunting is fantastic and if anything I saw last fall was an indicator after the hunting season was over when scouting, this year is going to be a good year.

Like elk are so good adapting to new areas and moving around, us hunters need to do the same to be successful.

[hunter1947]

I myself would think that if someone wants to get into hunting ,Its not the LEH draws in different areas of BC that stop the new recruitment from getting into the sport. Lets face it there are so many open seasons a new or old hunter can hunt hear in BC ,without having to worry about getting a draw for LEH. I see that it is the parents now that don't see hunting like the parents befor them did. I know that when a younger person gets into his early 20ties that he can go out and try the sport on his own ,but buy then he or she has already been set in there ways on what they have been brought up to think and do from the parents.http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif.

[6616]

I myself would think that if someone wants to get into hunting ,Its not the LEH draws in different areas of BC that stop the new recruitment from getting into the sport. Lets face it there are so many open seasons a new or old hunter can hunt hear in BC ,without having to worry about getting a draw for LEH. I see that it is the parents now that don't see hunting like the parents befor them did. I know that when a younger person gets into his early 20ties that he can go out and try the sport on his own ,but buy then he or she has already been set in there ways on what they have been brought up to think from there parents.http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif.


I agree Wayne, lack of parental support and lack of mentoring is a huge factor effecting recruitment. There are also other factors, population demographics for one, the population is more unrbanized then ever before, kids live in cities where they are not readily exposed to the hunting culture and where it's more expensive to hunt because they live long distances from the better hunting areas. Theres no doubt that Federal firearms legislation is another important factor. There is no one specific cause, it's a combination of several.

What about retention? We do have some recruitment, but many of these drop out of hunting at relatively young ages. The highest age group for drop-outs is between 30 and 45 years od age. Probably some of the reasons above also apply to them, but there are other reasons that apply specifically to this group. The have more family and work committments, their kids are in hockey and skiing and they have morgage payments, they're just too busy and cash strapped for hunting. Gas prices are too high. LEH and restrictive regulations probably plays a more significant role for these people, after they hunt for ten years with limited success they just get discouraged and quit because their success rate is so low.

The issue of recruitment and retention is a multi-facted problem with a wide range of causes. Some we can't do much about, like firearm laws for example, or where people have to locate in order to have jobs. We probably can't change the lack of parental support for young prospective hunters. But there are causes that we can impact and correct. Mentoring is is one of these. Overly restrictive and overly conservative game management is another. These are the areas where we should concentrate our efforts.

It's just like fishing. Take a kid fishing and if he/she can catch a fish every 1/2 hour they'll never want to put the rod down. Let him cast all day long and catch nothing, and he'll soon be off doing somethinmg else that's more exiting and interesting because fishing was boring to him. Young hunters need to be able to enjoy a reasonable level of success to keep their interest levels up.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

It's just like fishing. Take a kid fishing and if he/she can catch a fish every 1/2 hour they'll never want to put the rod down. Let him cast all day long and catch nothing, and he'll soon be off doing somethinmg else that's more exiting and interesting because fishing was boring to him. Young hunters need to be able to find a reasonable level of success to keep their interest levels up.

Great analogy 6616!


As stated we have to work at all aspects of hunter recruitment that we can actually have some control over.

SSS

[6616]

Great analogy 6616!


As stated we have to work at all aspects of hunter recruitment that we can actually have some control over.

SSS

Thanks Brent, by the way...names Andy.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Thanks Brent, by the way...names Andy.

Andy......got it.

But who's this "Brent" guy?:|.........................:wink:

SSS

[hunter1947]

Andy......got it.

But who's this "Brent" guy?:|.........................:wink:

SSS
Your the Brent guy by the way I see it ,LOL.

[rocksteady]

It's just like fishing. Take a kid fishing and if he/she can catch a fish every 1/2 hour they'll never want to put the rod down. Let him cast all day long and catch nothing, and he'll soon be off doing somethinmg else that's more exiting and interesting because fishing was boring to him. .


Very true, thats why I am not on any Fishing Forums....Plus you can't shoot fish (at least not in most places)...:lol:

[6616]

Very true, thats why I am not on any Fishing Forums....Plus you can't shoot fish (at least not in most places)...:lol:

I'm not much of a fisherman either. When the kids were little they loved it and we went fishing nearly every weekend, but now left to my own devices, I rarely go fishing.

[bighornbob]

Great analogy 6616!

As stated we have to work at all aspects of hunter recruitment that we can actually have some control over.

SSS


Your right if a kid catches fish, he's hooked. What happens if the kid catches a duck while out fishing:biggrin:, will he be hooked on fishing or will he want to be a duck hunter????

BHB

[BCrams]

Thanks Brent, by the way...names Andy.

His name is Steve.

[Kody94]

<edit: my cut/paste lost its format....will try another way below.>

Some interesting provincial stats on resident elk hunters, I thought I'd share with the group. BELOW

Am still thinking about this, whenever time permits.

I am on the same page as most here that feel we need to open opportunity up somewhat, particularly given our current elk population and issues in the EK/WK and Peace with non-migratory elk, etc. But, to satisfy the nigling inconsistences in our knowlege of past harvest pressure/success rates, etc, I still want to know more before I am really comfortable with any of the options being presented (although, to be clear, I am pretty comfortable with a short'ish 3pt season in the Trench, provided its done early'ish).

One of the recurring statements that makes my "spidey senses" tingle a little is the whole concept of having twice as many hunters in the past, who were harvesting sustainably with a 3-point season.

I would like to get more info on this, mainly to satisfy my curiosity and maybe extinguish some of those nigling fears/concerns.

A graph showing hunter numbers, kills and estimated population, with some notes below describing the regulations in place by date would sure be nice to see.

As you can see below, while there may have been twice as many hunting licences issued in the past, there weren't twice as many elk hunters in the province in the 70's, or '80s...there were less in the '70s than there are now. I know that there are other factors to consider prior to extrapolating those numbers to the present and basing decision on that, but it is one of the little details that increases my uncertainty.

Does anyone here have access to the information I refer to above (particularly the regional breakdowns and hunting seasons - including cow leh #s )??

Apologies if I am re-hashing ground you have covered....haven't been able to keep up to speed on the "elk threads" lately.

[Kody94]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v230/Staggerino/untitled.jpg

[6616]

1353

Don't know if this will work?

Click on graphs for larger view.

[GoatGuy]

<edit: my cut/paste lost its format....will try another way below.>

Some interesting provincial stats on resident elk hunters, I thought I'd share with the group. BELOW

Am still thinking about this, whenever time permits.

I am on the same page as most here that feel we need to open opportunity up somewhat, particularly given our current elk population and issues in the EK/WK and Peace with non-migratory elk, etc. But, to satisfy the nigling inconsistences in our knowlege of past harvest pressure/success rates, etc, I still want to know more before I am really comfortable with any of the options being presented (although, to be clear, I am pretty comfortable with a short'ish 3pt season in the Trench, provided its done early'ish).

One of the recurring statements that makes my "spidey senses" tingle a little is the whole concept of having twice as many hunters in the past, who were harvesting sustainably with a 3-point season.

I would like to get more info on this, mainly to satisfy my curiosity and maybe extinguish some of those nigling fears/concerns.

A graph showing hunter numbers, kills and estimated population, with some notes below describing the regulations in place by date would sure be nice to see.

As you can see below, while there may have been twice as many hunting licences issued in the past, there weren't twice as many elk hunters in the province in the 70's, or '80s...there were less in the '70s than there are now. I know that there are other factors to consider prior to extrapolating those numbers to the present and basing decision on that, but it is one of the little details that increases my uncertainty.

Does anyone here have access to the information I refer to above (particularly the regional breakdowns and hunting seasons - including cow leh #s )??

Apologies if I am re-hashing ground you have covered....haven't been able to keep up to speed on the "elk threads" lately.

Will bring Sat.

[Kody94]

Thanks GG. Looking forward to it.

I actually tried PM'ing this to you directly, but your PM box was full this morning.

Cheers,
4ster

[Fisher-Dude]

I've been there and if you want to kill a big bull, ask the locals where the elk are that are eating their corn crops. You don't have to be a tough guy, backpacker or horse man.. All you need is permission to hunt someones back field/yard in Crestova.. You can also sit in Castlebush and spot them by Verigans tomb.. It's too easy and that worries me if their is a GOS.. Even for a few years and they get wise..Go into Goose Ck. with your quad and bugle, you'll get an answer and it will more than likely be a 300+ bull.. Deer Park, drive up the road and see 300+ bulls.. It's an LEH "DREAM HUNT" there should be some of this left in B.C.

And then you woke up.

[muzzy]

Woke up with a 385 bull and a freezer with 600 lbs of prime elk meat.. !!!!!!!!!!

[hunter1947]

Woke up with a 385 bull and a freezer with 600 lbs of prime elk meat.. !!!!!!!!!!
Only in your dreams :roll:.

[cassiarkid]

Last year I was lucky enough to get drawn after 10 years of putting my name in to 4-16B. Weather was the pitts, too hot, but after only 2 days on Sentinel Mtn I was lucky enough to shoot a nice 6x8 bull, meat was supprisingly good too! Probably could have done better if I had more time and wanted to get divorced, but I was happy with the outcome.
Cheers

[bearass]

We need to adopt an leh system like alberta as long as you keep putting in for the same region you will get better odds every year untill you get that tag.

I live in 416b I think the bulls would get destroyed here for the first couple years. the bulls are very stupid. On many occasions my rooster has called them in to the back yard. Very very stupid but they would probly smartin up after a few years. my only concern is that there is not to many places to hunt them given the fact that 90 percent of them live on private land. Crown land hunting spots would be over run with people.

[Fisher-Dude]

We need to adopt an leh system like alberta as long as you keep putting in for the same region you will get better odds every year untill you get that tag.

I live in 416b I think the bulls would get destroyed here for the first couple years. the bulls are very stupid. On many occasions my rooster has called them in to the back yard. Very very stupid but they would probly smartin up after a few years. my only concern is that there is not to many places to hunt them given the fact that 90 percent of them live on private land. Crown land hunting spots would be over run with people.

With the prioroty system in Alberta, you'll get drawn for a WK elk when you are 150 years old. The odds are way too high to make use of the priority system. It's been shown on here many times, even by the guy who runs BC's LEH draw!

Stupid elk? Give us a break. We may be dumb but we ain't stupid - neither are the elk.

[smoothbor]

I was lucky enough to draw a 416 bull draw this year after only 3 years of applying, I took an excellent trophy bull, it is my opinon that my hunt was an easy hunt do to the lack of pressure due to the leh system, i seen plenty of good 6 pt bulls in 4 days and lots of smaller and a few bigger, opening this up for a GOS would be an absolute slaughter, these elk have very little pressure and are not as cagey as the ek bulls, anyone who lives here or heard of the areas would have an easy hunt to get a bull, access is good and logging has made it easier hunting, good elk can be killed here just by road hunting at the right time of year and anyone who can bugle and cow call will get their elk, so this is why i voted no, sure in a few years elk would be educated to whats happening but i think the damage would already have been done

[6616]

I was lucky enough to draw a 416 bull draw this year after only 3 years of applying, I took an excellent trophy bull, it is my opinon that my hunt was an easy hunt do to the lack of pressure due to the leh system, i seen plenty of good 6 pt bulls in 4 days and lots of smaller and a few bigger, opening this up for a GOS would be an absolute slaughter, these elk have very little pressure and are not as cagey as the ek bulls, anyone who lives here or heard of the areas would have an easy hunt to get a bull, access is good and logging has made it easier hunting, good elk can be killed here just by road hunting at the right time of year and anyone who can bugle and cow call will get their elk, so this is why i voted no, sure in a few years elk would be educated to whats happening but i think the damage would already have been done

I'm curious, are you basing this opinion of your 4 days of hunting, or are you a local with intimate knowledge of the elk herds in the WK?

[hunter1947]

What might work is if they open up for more LEH permits ,sat they give out 800 then make it 24 hundread LEH permits ??? ,this way they know what is being taken and if all LEH permits are filled in that year the numbers of elk can be controlled ,just my thoughts :roll:.

[rocksteady]

What might work is if they open up for more LEH permits ,sat they give out 800 then make it 24 hundread LEH permits ??? ,this way they know what is being taken and if all LEH permits are filled in that year the numbers of elk can be controlled ,just my thoughts :roll:.

I agree Wayne, at least the MOE could project the "worst case scenario" rather than going GOS....Try more LEH for a couple years and analyze the impact, adjust from there...

There has been huge debates on here regarding antler restrictions and opening things up....The way I look at it, is IF the habitat is at "carrying capacity" harvest a full cross section of the herd (bulls/cows/calves) rather than just targeting the bulls....This should work both in the East and West Koots.....I know a lot of people are not in favour of LEh, but a larger allocation of tags, at lower odds could create a re-interest from elk hunters who have hung up the pipes because a) they could not find a 6 point bull (EK) b) They could not draw an LEH..

[Fisher-Dude]

I agree Wayne, at least the MOE could project the "worst case scenario" rather than going GOS....Try more LEH for a couple years and analyze the impact, adjust from there...

There has been huge debates on here regarding antler restrictions and opening things up....The way I look at it, is IF the habitat is at "carrying capacity" harvest a full cross section of the herd (bulls/cows/calves) rather than just targeting the bulls....This should work both in the East and West Koots.....I know a lot of people are not in favour of LEh, but a larger allocation of tags, at lower odds could create a re-interest from elk hunters who have hung up the pipes because a) they could not find a 6 point bull (EK) b) They could not draw an LEH..

Sure, under H47's example, those 100:1 draws would go to 35:1, and everyone would dance in the streets - NOT. A 3% chance of being drawn instead of a 1% chance will not bring any elk hunters out of retirement. If I told you there's a 97% chance that you can't go hunting next year, how enthused would you be about it?

There's no conservation concern. It should be on GOS.

[rocksteady]

To ensure the safety of the herd and its health, LEH would prevent overharvest..Lets try it for a few years and see what happens....

If the persons applying at 100:1 odds are not happy with a 35:1, maybe they should travel/hunt a different area, such as one that has a GOS, rather than applying for high odd areas..

Baby steps is all I ask...

[Fisher-Dude]

Baby steps is all I ask...

Baby steps - that's what you want in the EK too. You're fiddling while Rome burns. It takes 2 or 3 years to get a baby step implemented, which if you were involved in FHAC or PRRHAC you'd know. Many years will go by before real change can be effected, change that should be happening now (actually, should have ALREADY happened). The population is at or over carrying capacity, and every year we dilly-dally around with baby steps, we risk losing 60 - 70% of the animals to a severe winter die off.

Keeping other hunters out, risking 60 - 70% of the animals to a winter kill, while you have a Meal Ticket, is borderline criminal, IMO! :-| You also know that the EK season changes are being proposed in concert with the WK season changes (they are inter-dependent), so your motivation is quite clear.

[rocksteady]

Keeping other hunters out, risking 60 - 70% of the animals to a winter kill, while you have a Meal Ticket, is borderline criminal, IMO! :-|

Who said anything about keeping other hunters out????

They are allowed to come over and hunt 6 points or apply for LEH....or take advantage of the bow season or the Jr./Sr. season....

[hunter1947]

To ensure the safety of the herd and its health, LEH would prevent overharvest..Lets try it for a few years and see what happens....

If the persons applying at 100:1 odds are not happy with a 35:1, maybe they should travel/hunt a different area, such as one that has a GOS, rather than applying for high odd areas..

Baby steps is all I ask...
Regarding WK ,Wise words said RS ,for sure ,ease into it ,not jump into the fire all at once http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif.

[rocksteady]

Since Texas Holdem is so big nowadays....

Lets up the ante, bump the bet...but lets not go all in til we see more cards.....

The reason I want to see small adjustments to the regs is I want to still have elk around for generations to come, to enjoy hunting/harvesting them as much as I do....

We (the elk hunters o the Ek - both locals and non-locals) went through some tough times in the 90's due to mismanagement and we should be looking at those as lessons learned....Not just saying that can never happen again....

[BCrams]

The reason I want to see small adjustments to the regs is I want to still have elk around for generations to come, to enjoy hunting/harvesting them as much as I do....

I don't think you need to worry about that one!! The elk population in British Columbia has only increased and is still on the increase and spreading into new areas every year.

We need to change the restrictions/regulations and start opening things up more.

Not just saying that can never happen again....

The way things are going......it will happen again. Only this time, it won't be the regional bio's to blame :)

Example:

The purpose of the 6 pt regulation was to be in place 'only' until the recovery of the herds have succeeded.

the herds have recovered..........I believe it is written in the plans for the 6 pt regulation to be removed ...... Tell me why the 6 pt season is still in effect? Why hasn't the current bio in Nelson been able to implement what is necessary for the management of elk? He knows what needs to be done!


In response to a great analogy written on here ....... 'we need to start drinking out of that cup before its too late'




...........

[hunter1947]

Regarding WK GOS as for LEH ,why can't we except to have a higher percentage of LEH permits given out in the WK ????

Why do we have to jump in with both barrels loaded and ready to shoot any bull elk that moves ???.

If I was making the regs up for elk in the WK it would be a short GOS for elk two weeks as for more LEH permits.
After the short two week season ended have the WK open for the LEH hunt with better odd percentage's ,have the LEH opening season starting after Oct 10 ,this way the bulls have perty well preginated the cows and passed there gean pool on if they get shot.

I would make it mandatory that all elk taken in the WK to report the kill within 14 days ,this way we have a handle on it.
This way we can monitor the population and see if it is stable after 2 years.

[BCrams]

Regarding WK GOS ,why can't we except to have a higher percentage of LEH permits given out in the WK ????

When there is no conservation concern for elk......why is there a LEH hunt to begin with??

Why do we have to jump in with both barrels loaded and ready to shoot any bull elk that moves ???

Who says that will happen? Have you seen the WK? How difficult the terrain is? Garth can remove the LEH hunt and replace it with a 6 pt season (as a cautionary measure first -- as there won't be any over harvest .... as proven by the Region 8 GOS vs LEH harvest success and the 6 pt EK season which is now has a population which is too high)

If I was making the regs up for elk in the WK it would be a short GOS for elk two weeks as for more LEH.

I disagree.

As a hunter - that is what 'you' would like...... but an experienced bio (such as the current one in Nelson) should be allowed to do his job and put in place what will work.

I would make it mandatory that all elk taken in the WK to report the kill within 14 days ,this way we have a handle on it.
This way we can monitor the population and see if it is stable after 2 years.

No dispute there. Region 7a had compulsory inspection for elk when they opened it up to a GOS 6 pt season. The elk herds are doing great and are expanding ..... they have removed compulsory inspection of elk for the first time this year in 7a. There was never any season, or LEH hunting. They just opened it right up. Giant bulls are still being shot every year.



..............

[6616]

Regarding WK GOS as for LEH ,why can't we except to have a higher percentage of LEH permits given out in the WK ????

Why do we have to jump in with both barrels loaded and ready to shoot any bull elk that moves ???.

If I was making the regs up for elk in the WK it would be a short GOS for elk two weeks as for more LEH permits.
After the short two week season ended have the WK open for the LEH hunt with better odd percentage's ,have the LEH opening season starting after Oct 10 ,this way the bulls have perty well preginated the cows and passed there gean pool on if they get shot.

I would make it mandatory that all elk taken in the WK to report the kill within 14 days ,this way we have a handle on it.
This way we can monitor the population and see if it is stable after 2 years.

What you're suggesting was actually exactly what was proposed by MOE last year when it was shot down in flames. There never was any intent of going to a full length GOS season, it was discussed on here, but never even considered by MOE. Their suggestion was for a ten day or one week 6pt restricted GOS in the WK and for a ten day or one week GOS on three pts in the EK. Only baby steps were ever proposed.

The concern about a potential winter die-off is very real when elk and deer are at or near carrying capacity. Moreover, the winter ranges are taking a pretty good beating right now and if they're overgrazed for too long it could take decades for them to recover. The danger right now, especially in the EK where there's lots of cattle grazing is that if there is a die-off, recovery will take 20 years (not ten years like last time) because of range health.

Science has shown over and over again that the optimum population density for deer and elk is somewhere around 60 to 70 % of carrying capacity. At that density reproduction is greatest, average animal and antler size is greatest, and a higher sustainable hunter harvest can be realized as compared to a herd at max carrying capacity. Alberta, Saskatchewan, and a whole slew of US states keep their white tail densities at 50 to 55% of carrying capacity and it is also those same jurisdictions that have the best deer hunting, both on quanitiy and quality.

What the heck am I writing this for, it's all been said over and over again on this thread already.

[hunter1947]

..............

BCR I do have to agree with you on a GOS for 6 or better ,this would work good and then go from there.
Have the opening day and the closing day the same as the EK GOS http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif.
The LEH then could be dumped.

What I would disagree on would be a GOS for 3 or better for the entire GOS.

Look at the EK they implemented a 6 or better GOS over 10 years ago and now look at where the population is to this day http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif.

[6616]

BCR I do have to agree with you on a GOS for 6 or better ,this would work good and then go from there.
Have the opening day and the closing day the same as the EK GOS http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif.
The LEH then could be dumped.

What I would disagree on would be a GOS for 3 or better for the entire GOS.

Look at the EK they implemented a 6 or better GOS over 10 years ago and now look at where the population is to this day http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif.

Interestingly even though the 6pt regulation was a component of the recovery strategy, the truth is that the 6pt rule alone was not the reason for the recovery (and this has also been pointed out before on this thread). The recovery occurred primarily because they stopped issuing antlerless permits. The same goes for population control at the current time. You simply cannot impact population densities by harvesting male animals alone. Male harvet levels are only a single component of any harvest stratgey. As BCRams said, harvesting a cross section of the population from all age and sex classes is an important step.

By the way Wayne, I agree with FisherDude on the WK LEH when it comes to recruitment/retention. Increasing LEH odds from 100 to 35 to one is not going to cause any dramatic increase in participation. LEH should be a last resort. Shorter seasons, season timing, antler restrictions, and many other tools should be fully exploited before resorting to LEH. It's been shown in several cases where LEH has simply killed off hunter interest. LEH is only one tool in the toolbox, but it's been overused since it's fail safe and doesn't require a whole load of data. It's become a crutch F&W has become reliant on due to poor budgets and manpower situations which limit surveys and data acquisition.

[BCrams]

BCR I do have to agree with you on a GOS for 6 or better ,this would work good and then go from there.
Have the opening day and the closing day the same as the EK GOS http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif.
The LEH then could be dumped.

What I would disagree on would be a GOS for 3 or better for the entire GOS.

This was never proposed. A short 1 week to 14 day season is all that should be in place first as far as 3 pt seasons go.

Look at the EK they implemented a 6 or better GOS over 10 years ago and now look at where the population is to this day http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif.

6616 beat me to it ..... it wasn't because of the 6 pt season.

6 pt seasons also do not create more elk or bigger bulls



I think many hunters (including advocates of the 6 pt regulation) will be surprised that by opening things up and reducing the EK elk population from where it is right now and harvesting a cross section of animals......the trophy potential /opportunity for those who wish to hunt big bulls will increase.

[KevinB]

What the heck am I writing this for, it's all been said over and over again on this thread already.


It doesn't hurt to have it all spelled out again, repetition is a great tool! :razz:

[hunter1947]

Interestingly even though the 6pt regulation was a component of the recovery strategy, the truth is that the 6pt rule alone was not the reason for the recovery (and this has also been pointed out before on this thread). The recovery occurred primarily because they stopped issuing antlerless permits. The same goes for population control at the current time. You simply cannot impact population densities by harvesting male animals alone. Male harvet levels are only a single component of any harvest stratgey. As BCRams said, harvesting a cross section of the population from all age and sex classes is an important step.

By the way Wayne, I agree with FisherDude on the WK LEH when it comes to recruitment/retention. Increasing LEH odds from 100 to 35 to one is not going to cause any dramatic increase in participation. LEH should be a last resort. Shorter seasons, season timing, antler restrictions, and many other tools should be fully exploited before resorting to LEH. It's been shown in several cases where LEH has simply killed off hunter interest. LEH is only one tool in the toolbox, but it's been overused since it's fail safe and doesn't require a whole load of data. It's become a crutch F&W has become reliant on due to poor budgets and manpower situations which limit surveys and data acquisition.

Well Andy if they do dump the LEH in the WK how are they going to know how many bulls come out of this region in a calender year ???.

The only way I see it is to have it mandatory to report your harvest.

[6616]

Well Andy if they do dump the LEH in the WK how are they going to know how many bulls come out of this region in a calender year ???.

The only way I see it is to have it mandatory to report your harvest.

I agree 100% with compulsory reporting. Hard and firm data that cannot be disputed.

[BCrams]

Well Andy if they do dump the LEH in the WK how are they going to know how many bulls come out of this region in a calender year ???.

The only way I see it is to have it mandatory to report your harvest.

Region 7a had mandatory reporting when they opened up the elk season here to monitor the harvest. The elk population is doing very well and consequently, the compulsory inspection was removed this year.

The same would apply for the WK.