High elk populations ... what to do?

[BCrams]

GG brought up an interesting point which left me thinking .........
Quote:



Originally Posted by GoatGuy http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?p=374214#post374214)


All those elk that are wandering around not being hunted in the northern half of 7B are going to bit hunters and outfitters in the but in a big way.


This, over the years is partly the fault of guide outfitters / ministry staffers who promoted burns along with transplants etc.

Direct competition with Stone's sheep for niche winter range habitat and a whole other range of factors ....... is for a whole different thread.


Obviously we have high elk populations in the north and also in the East Kootenays.

How do we reduce the population? If we resident hunters as GG mentions, are not getting the job done? 200, 000 resident hunters certainly would be better than the current 80, 000 ...... but there appears to be too much in-fighting and protectionists involved to solve this problem right now ....

What are some solutions to increase harvest to bring the elk numbers down?

Here are some ideas:

liberalize the elk seasons (those who want 6 pt elk will still be able to hunt and pursue 6 pt elk and those who want meat bulls, will have the opportunity to harvest young meat bulls and / or cows)"get off yer high horse and work for em" ...........should be directed right back at those "trophy hunters and advocates of the 6 pt season" rather than directing such comments to people who would rather have opportunities for meat bulls (3 pt etc) and antlerless seasons. For many, it will still be a lot of work just to get an elk regardless!

.....there was a time a world record non-typical bull elk roamed a GOS season area in the Koots...... how come none of the trophy hunters got him??

In case many still havn't clued in........point regulations such as 6 pt elk do not create more or bigger bulls

More ideas:

For certain areas .......hunters wishing to hunt bull elk must harvest an antlerless elk before a bull.
Shoot a cow and get a second free tag for bull or any assortment of ideas can be explored.
(similar to areas in Saskatchewan under the CWD strategy where a hunter must harvest 2 antlerless deer and submit the heads prior to receiving a mule deer buck tag)

Explore ways to involve hunters from other provinces to take in the opportunity to help reduce the elk populations in BC. Antlerless harvest opportunity!

While I personally do not like this idea as a resident hunter ...... it may help in some ways, in particular if we resident hunters cannot get it done...........
something to think about.....such as accepting and supporting regulation changes proposed by ministry staffers which can help increase the hunter base in BC.

[PGK]

My question is. Do you really want to turn the MK into the gang ranch or chetwynd?

No thanks.

[BCrams]

My question is. Do you really want to turn the MK into the gang ranch of the elk world?

No thanks.

I suggest you look into the situation a bit more and then come back.

[SteadyGirl]

I can only speak of the elk in the east koots, having never hunted 7b. In my opinion this area can sustain a short 3pt bull elk season AND a short cow/calf season. Perhaps they could revisit the regulations/elk population situation every couple of years?

BCrams are you talking about the Arrow Lakes Bull??? :-P I went mulie scouting with one of the old fellows who found one of the arrow lake bull sheds this summer. Quite a story : One of them found each shed and the one who found the second shed gave his to the first fellow so he has a matched set. Names escape me at the moment...

Best thread starter I've read in a loooooong time.

[6616]

.....such as accepting and supporting regulation changes proposed by ministry staffers which can help increase the hunter base in BC.

I believe your final point hits the nail directly on the head and is the correct solution for Region 4. Right now we have the most "forward thinking" and "enlightened" group of biologists managing wildlife in the Kootenay's we've ever had. The regional biologist has an extensive research background and is known for inovative ideas that work. They know how to get the job done. All we've got to do as hunters is support them and stop interfering. They are not about to propose something radical or unproven, we should be aware that all proposals they make are well thought out and well researched and developed. We should have more confidence in them and should stop questioning their every move in my opinion, after all they're the RPBios, not us!

[6616]

[quote=SteadyGirl;374471 Perhaps they could revisit the regulations/elk population situation every couple of years? [/quote]

Having just completed an extensive elk survey in February 2008, MOE probably has the most accurate elk population data right now then they've ever had before for the East Kootenay.

Previous detailed surveys indicated populations of about 6000 to 9000 elk wintering in the Trench (an unknown percentage of between 60 and 80 %the total elk population in the East Kootenay). The 2008 Trench winter range survey final count was in excess of 14,000 elk. Carrying capacity and range health may be an issue...! In 2000 the carrying capacity of the Trench winter ranges was very roughly estimated to be about 15,000 elk, since then we've lost about 10,000 Ha to forest ingrowth, about 14,000 Ha to wildlife exclusion fencing, and an unknown amount to urban expansion and other causes.

Note, it often takes two full years to implement a major change in hunting regulations. Regulation changes for the 2009 hunting season have been under discussion and in process since December 2007. There are currently no active proposals for elk hunting regulation changes in process for Region 4. Proposals made last year have all been withdrawn awaiting an up-date (status unknown) to the Kootenay Elk Management Plan.

[KevinB]

Good thread Rams.

I think the first and maybe hardest step, will be to educate hunters that having the highest possible elk/deer/moose etc. population does NOT necessarily equal maximum opportunity or sustainable harvest, for either trophy hunters or meat hunters. I think that's the biggest stumbling block, because on the surface, it seems counter-intuitive.

And also, convincing hunters that the Bio's actually know what they are doing, and know what needs to be done, is really important. How many guys here think they can wire up a house better than a trained and experienced electrician just because they can install a light switch really well? Not pointing fingers at anyone but that's what I see all the time with hunters.

I like your idea of thinking out of the box a bit with tags/seasons, and requiring harvest of antlerless elk before bulls. Another idea; how about one bull (3 point or better, or whatever) in every 2 years or something like that... that keeps those fearful of a "slaughter" :roll: a bit satisfied but still opens up opportunities. Then, at least hunting groups can stick together and plan to actually hunt together. I think, for large animals like elk and moose, that once a traditional group of hunters gets broken up, only the hard-core ones keep going unless they can find another suitable hunting partner. Most are in it as much for the camraderie and shared hunting experience as for the meat. Keeping these groups together in turn keeps these hunters active, and in turn this helps to recruit more new hunters.

[budismyhorse]

Right now we have the most "forward thinking" and "enlightened" group of biologists managing wildlife in the Kootenay's we've ever had. The regional biologist has an extensive research background and is known for inovative ideas that work. They know how to get the job done.

I think this point may be the hardest hurdle to leap.

At this point there has been very little in the way of relaying the current situation to BC hunters, local or not. The MOE is going about it quietly right now and therefore isn't effectively getting their recommendations across. From dialouge with the regional Bios last year: "it is not our mandate to convince hunters...We gather data and make recommendations"

Apparently the approach used last year to make regulation changes did not work.....and therefore, was uneffective in making necessary changes to maintain elk herd health in our area (if this in fact true). If the regional Bios are as passionate about the data and recommendations as you are, then I feel they should be adamantly stating them to BC hunters. No?

obviously we as hunters have the responsibility to get informed and to inform others in order to help our sport, however, I feel that this lack of information/confidence from the MOE is what is missing at this point. Some serious dialouge, the horses mouth kind. MHO of course.

[PGK]

I suggest you look into the situation a bit more and then come back.

I don't really have a clue where you're going with this thread, but that's what went off the top of my mind. Moving a vast amount of hunting pressure from some locations onto another. And I realize the ''problem'' (high elk numbers aren't a prblem in my mind) covers more area than what I said.

My real question is why is there so much emphasis on keeping the herd at max capacity, instead of letting it collapse like it normally would (should?)

You know me. I don't like to follow the trend. I want to ask questions. I want to know why.

[BCrams]

And I realize the ''problem'' (high elk numbers aren't a prblem in my mind)

Why do you see high elk numbers not being a problem?

My real question is why is there so much emphasis on keeping the herd at max capacity, instead of letting it collapse like it normally would (should?)

I'm not the one to ask that question. I believe herds should be kept below max carrying capacity. Do you?

You know me. I don't like to follow the trend. I want to ask questions. I want to know why.

Maybe you should have asked questions first instead of declaring the area will become another gang ranch :confused:



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

[riflebuilder]

By keeping the heards below maximum carring capacity you are able to maximize the harvest of Elk without sever crashes in population numbers in the long run this will give more hunters the opertunity to harvest an Elk. If left alone and not controlled they will exceed the carring capacity and result in severe die-offs requiring years to rebound both for the habitat and the Elk. As we are in a situation of abbondance I believe that we should allow the maximum harvest and get the population under the winter range capacity. Earlier seasons and more liberal point restrictions in the resident non-migratory areas may be a place to start. this way the increased harvest would be directed to where it is needed and the winter range would be less impacted by the number of Elk using it year round. Maybe an any Elk primitave weapons season for the month of august and start rifle 6 point September 1st and 3 point or beter the last 10 days of October. Just my 2 cents.

[Sitkaspruce]

(high elk numbers aren't a prblem in my mind)

Until good old mother Nature arrives and send us another nasty winter, then we have a good old fashion die off. Animal populations need to be kept below CC, so that when we have bad winter, the herd can take it.

My real question is why is there so much emphasis on keeping the herd at max capacity, instead of letting it collapse like it normally would (should?)

Could you imagine the screaming that would be going on here if the pop collapsed. Everything from too many hunter, poor game management, too may wolves (always a good reason) to damn G/O and out of province hunters would all be blamed. No one would ever look at themselves and say, maybe we should have had a 3 pt season and/or a cow/calf season to balance the herd so that the pop dynamics were better prepared for this.

You know me. I don't like to follow the trend. I want to ask questions. I want to know why.

Nothing wrong with asking questions. While training newby Firefighters, I am always amazed by the lack of ??? when teaching them the basics of FF. It is like they all know what to do and have been doing it for a while.

This is a great question and peopel need to think about their answers before putting them on here and have a reason for their beliefs.

Cheers

SS

[300ultra]

just an idea,leh age restriction;Increase number of elk to be drawn in cow calf season ;have a draw for three point to five point bulls ; no six point .Instead of sixty five years of age have it fifty five or somthing , I have never hunted the kooteney area but looking at the regs it seems there is a lot of motor vehicle restrictions . between private land and vehicle restrictions is there still lots of room for hunting elk without the aid of horse or a boat during regular ses ?

[horshur]

just get on with it for christ sake...all this navel gazing is real old.

[Shade Tree]

More than half of 7B is fly-in only and the meat animal season is in Aug. when the meat is most likely to spoil. I would love to bring home a cow in Sept. while sheep hunting. There is virtually no hunting pressure on those hunts and I really don't expect a massacre when it costs about $1000. to fly into those places.

[6616]

I think this point may be the hardest hurdle to leap.

At this point there has been very little in the way of relaying the current situation to BC hunters, local or not. The MOE is going about it quietly right now and therefore isn't effectively getting their recommendations across. From dialouge with the regional Bios last year: "it is not our mandate to convince hunters...We gather data and make recommendations"

Apparently the approach used last year to make regulation changes did not work.....and therefore, was uneffective in making necessary changes to maintain elk herd health in our area (if this in fact true). If the regional Bios are as passionate about the data and recommendations as you are, then I feel they should be adamantly stating them to BC hunters. No?

obviously we as hunters have the responsibility to get informed and to inform others in order to help our sport, however, I feel that this lack of information/confidence from the MOE is what is missing at this point. Some serious dialouge, the horses mouth kind. MHO of course.


I agree Jeff, I commented to Garth last year when the 3 pt elk proposal collapsed that he possibly should have included better explanatiuons and justifications for the proposasl on his web site. He agreed but I still don't see any justification notes for this years proposals.

I'm not quite sure if I agree with his statement that it's not his mandate to convince hunters, just to gather data and make proposals. I believe it should be their responsibility to manage and that might mean either garnering support or simply implementing their proposals without public input like they did in the good old days. Ultimately, the biologists should be making the decisions based on science, not the hunters making the decisions when they rarely even understand the science.

[6616]

Regarding the EK elp poulation ,this is my thoughts ,have a GOS for any bull or cow elk for one year and then see what the numbers are after that fiscal year ends.

They have to have 20 bulls to 100 to continue to have a healthy population to make it work ,thats why I would think that you have to open both sexes at the same time.

They may have to have a 5 week season and cut back on the 6 week season ?????.
If the numbers are over capacity then the elk should be reduced to a a number that is allowable and this is a fast way of doing it.

I do like the idea that BCR said ,first you have to take a cow elk and I would think that it should be on an LEH system ,then a bull for open season the next year with no LEH.
They way the system might work is if you are going to hunt the EK for elk in 2009 you would have to send a email to them saying you will be hunting for elk there ,if you don't send in a request its as simple as that ,you don't get to hunt elk in this region ,then the wildlife branch sends a permit out to a percentage of hunters that will be allowed to shoot only a cow elk ,the others get back a nil deny for cows ,then the ones that did not get picked for cow elk can hunt that region open for GOS for 3 points or better.

The next year the people that got picked for cow elk automatically get a by on having to harvest a cow the next year they can hunt for a bull ,its a hard one ,its very confusing ,why not let the biologist handle this elk population thats what there getting big money for ,it going around like a merry go round.

Would it not be good enough for lay persons like ourselves to be informed that there was a issue that needed resolved, and just allow the bio's to make the decisions regarding seasons dates, antler restrictions, LEH or GOS, male vrs female harvests, etc? That's what they get paid for, what they're trained for, and what they know about..!

As hunters we don't need to figure out the actual strategies or determine the scientific objectives, just to be involved in making the social decisions and objectives. We need to have at least a little confidence that the bio's know what they're doing.

[hunter1947]

Would it not be good enough for lay persons like ourselves to be informed that there was a issue that needed resolved, and just allow the bio's to make the decisions regarding seasons dates, antler restrictions, LEH or GOS, male vrs female harvests, etc? That's what they get paid for, what they're trained for, and what they know about..!

As hunters we don't need to figure out the actual strategies or determine the scientific objectives, just to be involved in making the social decisions and objectives. We need to have at least a little confidence that the bio's know what they're doing.


I couldn't agree with you more Andy ,thats why I just deleted my last post http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif.

I was starting to get some head problem's happening and for what ???.

I would rather be on a merry go round ,LOL.

[bridger]

one of the reasons elk hunting is tough in some regions of 7b is mainly access. the muskw/tuchodi/gatho areas where most of the elk are located is tough to get into. riverboat or a three day horse pack are the main modes of transportation. an increase in bag limit to one bull and one anterless would be a start in the right direction also and increase in the number of days for the 3 pt season would also help.

[eastkoot]

How much elk meat does a person need and when the season is open, you more than likely have a short time to get the meat out before it spoils. By boat or a 3 day pack?? Not a good thing I would think..

[willy442]

If the Bio's were able to implement some of thier recommendations and ignore the hunting and nonhunting population. We would for sure see some drastic improvements in our GOS as well as population numbers, predator control, burns etc. The problem is we can't get rid of the political interference long enough to do any damn good. The other fact is, the majority of the funds brought in from hunting are put into general revenue and very little comes back to help fund anything the Bio is trying to do.:(

[6616]

If the Bio's were able to implement some of thier recommendations and ignore the hunting and nonhunting population. We would for sure see some drastic improvements in our GOS as well as population numbers, predator control, burns etc. The problem is we can't get rid of the political interference long enough to do any damn good. The other fact is, the majority of the funds brought in from hunting are put into general revenue and very little comes back to help fund anything the Bio is trying to do.:(

Sucks doesn't it Bill. Actually I wasn't refering to a political hot-potato like predator control, just a simple thing like increasing the elk harvest to that would prevent die-offs and habitat destruction. You really wouldn't expect any controversy over that would you?

[Gateholio]

Sucks doesn't it Bill. Actually I wasn't refering to a political hot-potato like predator control, just a simple thing like increasing the elk harvest to that would prevent die-offs and habitat destruction. You really wouldn't expect any controversy over that would you?


You would get controversy from hunters that "know better"

:smile:

[budismyhorse]

I agree Jeff, I commented to Garth last year when the 3 pt elk proposal collapsed that he possibly should have included better explanatiuons and justifications for the proposasl on his web site. He agreed but I still don't see any justification notes for this years proposals.

I'm not quite sure if I agree with his statement that it's not his mandate to convince hunters, just to gather data and make proposals. I believe it should be their responsibility to manage and that might mean either garnering support or simply implementing their proposals without public input like they did in the good old days. Ultimately, the biologists should be making the decisions based on science, not the hunters making the decisions when they rarely even understand the science.

I'm with you Andy, I wish they had more teeth in that office. I also should state that it wasn't Dave Dunbar or Garth Mowatt who I was quoting, but an employee.

[mark]

Its easy Rams! Simply walk a D-10 cat into them hard to reach areas, build a nice smooth road, open a 3 point or better season, and post exact directions and GPS co-ords on HBC to where all the elk are. Im sure youll discover that BC has enough hunters to take care of the problem!

[GoatGuy]

My question is. Do you really want to turn the MK into the gang ranch or chetwynd?


Logistically and statistically impossible.

[GoatGuy]

I don't really have a clue where you're going with this thread, but that's what went off the top of my mind. Moving a vast amount of hunting pressure from some locations onto another. And I realize the ''problem'' (high elk numbers aren't a prblem in my mind) covers more area than what I said.

My real question is why is there so much emphasis on keeping the herd at max capacity, instead of letting it collapse like it normally would (should?)

You know me. I don't like to follow the trend. I want to ask questions. I want to know why.

On the hunter side start thinking of it in terms of hunter numbers and huntable area.

Look at the hunter days.

Look at hunter migration based on regulations, density and proximity to pops.

Look at pressure in other areas across the province and other jurisdictions.


Define what you consider pressure.

Add numbers to it all.



Come up with your answer.


If all that fails apply common sense.

[GoatGuy]

I believe it should be their responsibility to manage and that might mean either garnering support or simply implementing their proposals without public input like they did in the good old days. Ultimately, the biologists should be making the decisions based on science, not the hunters making the decisions when they rarely even understand the science.

You're certainly right about managing for critters first ---- dare I say based on science.

I'm somewhat conflicted when it comes to doing whatever they want, but only because of what happened in 7B in the past. Point restrictions and harvest regs (1 in 2, 1 in 3) were setup to bring 'trophy quality' up, which was ultimately unsuccessful, neglected conservation values, encouraged severe die-offs, stockpiling wildlife, introduced buffalo, 23/77 split on sheep, millions of lost hunter days and certainly a couple thousand hunters through the provincial domino effect of fly-by-night regulations.


I suppose it comes back to science, managing for critters and then maximizing hunter opportunity.

I think we need to give managers a target to manage wildlife. Give the guys/gals a goal to manage for and leave it at that. Ie., manage X species @ X% of cc, ensuring male:female of, and then maximizing hunter opportunity.

Either that or a broadstrokes approach to population goals and a couple of options of which all accomplish the goals and people have to choose 1. May help increase buy-in, then again maybe not.

[BCrams]

You're certainly right about managing for critters first ---- dare I say based on science.

I'm somewhat conflicted when it comes to doing whatever they want, but only because of what happened in 7B in the past.

From my understanding, any proposed changes must be approved and signed off in Victoria after a review? If this is the case, the fellows in Victoria are just as much to blame for not looking at the proposed changes and telling Elliot / Ackerman to get back to the drawing board.

I don't think bio's should be able to do "whatever" they want. However, when they have something on the table to get things going (i.e., Garth's elk proposal) they should be able to go right ahead and implement it without getting shut down by a vocal few who don't know what they're doing other than trying to protect their own interests. There's a difference there.

I think we need to give managers a target to manage wildlife. Give the guys/gals a goal to manage for and leave it at that. Ie., manage X species @ X% of cc, ensuring male:female of, and then maximizing hunter opportunity.

Hasn't this already been done? Bio's have been around for a long time.

Either that or a broadstrokes approach to population goals and a couple of options of which all accomplish the goals and people have to choose 1. May help increase buy-in, then again maybe not.

Putting out a plan with Options 1, 2, or 3 etc which will accomplish the same goals and having the clubs / organizations pick the one they support is a good way to go rather than a 1 approach vs 'no to change' ......

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

[6616]

You're certainly right about managing for critters first ---- dare I say based on science.

I'm somewhat conflicted when it comes to doing whatever they want, but only because of what happened in 7B in the past. Point restrictions and harvest regs (1 in 2, 1 in 3) were setup to bring 'trophy quality' up, which was ultimately unsuccessful, neglected conservation values, encouraged severe die-offs, stockpiling wildlife, introduced buffalo, 23/77 split on sheep, millions of lost hunter days and certainly a couple thousand hunters through the provincial domino effect of fly-by-night regulations.


I suppose it comes back to science, managing for critters and then maximizing hunter opportunity.

I think we need to give managers a target to manage wildlife. Give the guys/gals a goal to manage for and leave it at that. Ie., manage X species @ X% of cc, ensuring male:female of, and then maximizing hunter opportunity.

Either that or a broadstrokes approach to population goals and a couple of options of which all accomplish the goals and people have to choose 1. May help increase buy-in, then again maybe not.

"Doing whatever they want" is a pretty broad stroke, I do agree that some checks and balances have to be in place. There is definitly a need for public input into establishing most management objectives, but the strategies to reach those objectives is often best left to professionals.

For example keeping populations within a desired percentage of biological carrying capacity is an obvious and reasonable objective that no one would disagree with.

Monitoring objectives requires both professional and public input.
* Determining what the actual population density is compared to K is a scientific evaluation that requires professional standardized protocols.
* Whether a management program is reaching social objectives requires public involvement.

What hunting seasons, harvest strategies, etc, to use to attain the established objectives once determined, are items that I feel are professional areas of responsibility where public input can be considered but cannot be an overriding component of decision making. I agree, the public could be presented a set of options that would all reach the desired condition and asked to choose their preference.

[wetcoasthunter]

There is definitly a need for public input into establishing most management objectives, but the strategies to reach those objectives is often best left to professionals.

As long as the "public input" doesn't include things like, "I don't want MY hunting area overrun by outsiders", "I don't want my (insert species) to be taken by outsiders", "There will be a SLAUGHTER!!", you know what I mean?

[6616]

As long as the "public input" doesn't include things like, "I don't want MY hunting area overrun by outsiders", "I don't want my (insert species) to be taken by outsiders", "There will be a SLAUGHTER!!", you know what I mean?

Exactly the things we need to avoid. I think in most, if not all cases, remarks like this are ignored anyway, but I agree, objectives need to be vetted by HQ, and must be inclusive of all, and should not vary remarkably from provincial management objectives.

[budismyhorse]

From what opinions I have garnered since we went through the proposal last winter, it seems like hunters in the EK are willing to change opinions (sorry wetcoasthunter, there will always be a few of "those" comments).

In other words, these people need to be convinced, and right now they are not. And the gov't can make recommendations and spend all kinds of funds on research, but if the big rock in the way of change is local hunters, the MOE needs to do a better job of convincing hunters that change IS REQUIRED in order to maintain elk herd health.

Locals feel that right now the Gov't is trying to equate gut piles with opportunity and they hate the notion (like it or not). If that isn't what they are doing, and true science and game management is being presented, they have to tell them exactly that. These are the same fellas who a large number are hard working individuals within local R and G clubs...meaning they want what is best for wildlife populations.

Our local MLA (who is one smart, hard working man) knows darn well that a good way to get a lot of votes in the Elk Valley is by getting the people what they want (He is Liberal, the Elk Valley is highly NDP). If the majority of local hunters DON'T want change...then you can forget about anything happening in Victoria with our MLA backing the locals (in order to impress them and swing their votes)......I don't know for sure, but imagine this dynamic had something to do with the R4 Moose proposal being squashed in Victoria last year.

Ahh politics and game management...a wonderfull combination:roll:......but reality.

[GoatGuy]

From my understanding, any proposed changes must be approved and signed off in Victoria after a review? If this is the case, the fellows in Victoria are just as much to blame for not looking at the proposed changes and telling Elliot / Ackerman to get back to the drawing board.

I don't think bio's should be able to do "whatever" they want. However, when they have something on the table to get things going (i.e., Garth's elk proposal) they should be able to go right ahead and implement it without getting shut down by a vocal few who don't know what they're doing other than trying to protect their own interests. There's a difference there.
............

I wish - there isn't/wasn't anybody in MoE outside of 7B who supported most of that stuff that happened even to this day. I think there was a lot of brainwashing that happened back then - ie., antler restrictions make bigger animals that was pushed. Hunters bought in because they believed that would make bigger deer - also that stockpiling wildlife was a good thing.

The whole thing's a mess but I the long and the short of it is I would hate to see it happen again.



Hasn't this already been done? Bio's have been around for a long time.


Not officially - policy's way too loosey goosey. Guidelines not specific enough and there isn't a 'plan' for the future.

[betteroffishing]

i find it humorous when we { i include myself in this } get to talking about "managing " nature. trust me folks we got our roles reversed somehow and nature will manage us every time. we think we know soooo much when the encyclopedias of unknowns on every issue are far greater than the knowns. idiots fuimbling around in the dark is all we are.

[willy442]

I wish - there isn't/wasn't anybody in MoE outside of 7B who supported most of that stuff that happened even to this day. I think there was a lot of brainwashing that happened back then - ie., antler restrictions make bigger animals that was pushed. Hunters bought in because they believed that would make bigger deer - also that stockpiling wildlife was a good thing.

Goat Guy: Your believes here are so far fetched from what the reality of the situation was, that it is rediculous. In actual fact back when Fred Harper left the North and John Elliott, Brian Webster and Andy Ackerman came into the picture, large numbers of Deer hunters were flocking into the Peace River area every fall, farms and farm land was disrupted, damage to equipment etc. Multiple trucks travelling the roads with deer draped over them in ugly fashion going South. The earlier moose season was much the same and was really the topic of discussion long before the Deer. To the people in the north at that time including the members of the North Peace Rod and gun club, bio's and farmers. This was looked at as an infringement on our land up here by flocks from the South. This created an attitude that hunter restriction was required to protect wildlife. Hence the bases for Mr Elliott implementing the 4 point rule as well as the 1 Mule Deer every 2 years. The Moose restrictions fell right in line in the same manner starting in the Pink Mountain area. The goals were exactly the same as when the department implements LEH in areas. IT'S THERE TO CONTROL PEOPLE. Then managers are much more capable of that, then they are of managing wildlife, especially when the information is poor and mother nature is thrown in.

The whole thing's a mess but I the long and the short of it is I would hate to see it happen again.

You seem to think it was done to appease the Guide Outfitter and trophy hunter. Where is your info coming from? Do you realize that at that time no one guided for Deer out of Fort St John. Johnny Ardill and some of the guides that were along the peace maybe took a couple of clients every once in a while, because someone requested it, but it was not the norm.
I grew up hunting the peace and prior to the big influx of hunters, there were no restrictions placed on the locals by the property owners or farmers, as kids, myself and my 15 uncles hunted with the blessing of the farmers.
How can you even make the statement? "That you don't want it to happen again" when you have no idea what happened. Can you not understand that it is the misbelieves brought forward by the kind of information you post, that screws up the good of those that try and do a decent job including some of the Bio's.



Not officially - policy's way too loosey goosey. Guidelines not specific enough and there isn't a 'plan' for the future.

YES: No plan because of all the studies, numbers, formula's and information, like you cut and paste, has no real sound evidence related to the issue's. Everything is based on incomplete studies and numbers compiled by what may as well be bean counters for all the good they do. The end result every time is more hunter restriction not game enhancement.

You state in an above post that we need more hunters, yet in the same post you say hunters are screwing it all up. Make up your mind instead of talking out of both sides of your mouth.

[GoatGuy]

Goat Guy: Your believes here are so far fetched from what the reality of the situation was, that it is rediculous. In actual fact back when Fred Harper left the North and John Elliott, Brian Webster and Andy Ackerman came into the picture, large numbers of Deer hunters were flocking into the Peace River area every fall, farms and farm land was disrupted, damage to equipment etc. Multiple trucks travelling the roads with deer draped over them in ugly fashion going South. The earlier moose season was much the same and was really the topic of discussion long before the Deer. To the people in the north at that time including the members of the North Peace Rod and gun club, bio's and farmers. This was looked at as an infringement on our land up here by flocks from the South. This created an attitude that hunter restriction was required to protect wildlife. Hence the bases for Mr Elliott implementing the 4 point rule as well as the 1 Mule Deer every 2 years. The Moose restrictions fell right in line in the same manner starting in the Pink Mountain area. The goals were exactly the same as when the department implements LEH in areas. IT'S THERE TO CONTROL PEOPLE. Then managers are much more capable of that, then they are of managing wildlife, especially when the information is poor and mother nature is thrown in.


You seem to think it was done to appease the Guide Outfitter and trophy hunter. Where is your info coming from? Do you realize that at that time no one guided for Deer out of Fort St John. Johnny Ardill and some of the guides that were along the peace maybe took a couple of clients every once in a while, because someone requested it, but it was not the norm.
I grew up hunting the peace and prior to the big influx of hunters, there were no restrictions placed on the locals by the property owners or farmers, as kids, myself and my 15 uncles hunted with the blessing of the farmers.
How can you even make the statement? "That you don't want it to happen again" when you have no idea what happened. Can you not understand that it is the misbelieves brought forward by the kind of information you post, that screws up the good of those that try and do a decent job including some of the Bio's.

YES: No plan because of all the studies, numbers, formula's and information, like you cut and paste, has no real sound evidence related to the issue's. Everything is based on incomplete studies and numbers compiled by what may as well be bean counters for all the good they do. The end result every time is more hunter restriction not game enhancement.

You state in an above post that we need more hunters, yet in the same post you say hunters are screwing it all up. Make up your mind instead of talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I well aware of all the history; of course you're going to justify all of it. The moose in the south was valid and the season worked. Bull:cow ratios came back up. The rest was garbage.


I see, so this is like why LEH was brought in: because residents left messy camps, and destroyed everything, again. Just like sheep!

I see, we're restricting hunting seasons and hunter harvest because people are travelling south with wildlife drapped over their vehicles?

Makes sense to me. :roll: Can't see any other reason why we'd create regulations.


Funny they don't have seasons like that in Alberta. Must have far more ethical hunters.


I think this says it all:

"This was looked at as an infringement on our land up here by flocks from the South. "

Being that you're an exclusionist I can see where you're coming from.

Hope the fenced hunt was good this year.

I think you're showing your true colours.

Your animals, nobody elses.

Can't say I'm surprised


In any case it doesn't matter. We've got a new team in there. Here comes change.

Quite a legacy though.

[willy442]

I well aware of all the history; of course you're going to justify all of it. The moose in the south was valid and the season worked. Bull:cow ratios came back up. The rest was garbage.


I see, so this is like why LEH was brought in: because residents left messy camps, and destroyed everything, again. Just like sheep!

I see, we're restricting hunting seasons and hunter harvest because people are travelling south with wildlife drapped over their vehicles?

Makes sense to me. :roll: Can't see any other reason why we'd create regulations.


Funny they don't have seasons like that in Alberta. Must have far more ethical hunters.


I think this says it all:

"This was looked at as an infringement on our land up here by flocks from the South. "

Being that you're an exclusionist I can see where you're coming from.

Hope the fenced hunt was good this year.

I think you're showing your true colours.

Your animals, nobody elses.

Can't say I'm surprised


In any case it doesn't matter. We've got a new team in there. Here comes change.

Quite a legacy though.

Must be nice to be so Niave you actually belief in endless failures from the past. Grasping at straws now I would say. Remember you have to sell change before it becomes policy. Hope you for once are able to back up your statistic's with better than the 38% accuracy you've been working on.:(

Remember it wasn't the fact the deer were shot, it was the image put forth of the carcasses drapped over the roof or that was the issue. You're just about as good at twisting the words as you are at the math you keep putting out.:roll:

[willy442]

"This was looked at as an infringement on our land up here by flocks from the South. "

I'm not saying this was the right approach, but yes I'm glad the real picture actually crossed your mind, even if it failed to soak in amongst all the rubbish.

And yes for the thousandth time LEH IS TO CONTROL PEOPLE. With people comes mess, problems and all the rest that is wrote about almost daily on this site.

Please show me solid info on the MOE actually managing wildlife before controlling people. You Can't do it, with concrete facts. I can show you tons of instances where people have been managed in hopes of doing some good for wildlife, these cases are every where in the province.

[daycort]

We've got a new team in there. Here comes change

long time coming. hopefully they will be here to work more for the resident. But I think the area ranchers had a lot of influence (sp?) for are 7-20A liberal open seasons(I didn't agree with the deer season but was all for the elk season). I wouldn't protest against a liberal season like that in the Fort Nelson area. Get the numbers down to a more sustainable level.

[Bushman]

Seems that transplanting elk has worked well in other regions, perhaps some of the northern herd could be moved to other areas?
Just a thought.

[f350ps]

I was just reading the Washington State regs and what jumped out at me was the liberal GOS on Elk. Lots of opps for 3 and better and cow, calf. They also have LEH and another draw called the Master Hunter, not sure what that is. Maybe we should look south of the border to see what they're doing, as they've got a hell of alot more hunters than we do in BC and they seem to be able to offer lots of opportunity. Maybe their hunters clean up their campsites better than we do and that's why. K

[GoatGuy]

Must be nice to be so Niave you actually belief in endless failures from the past. Grasping at straws now I would say. Remember you have to sell change before it becomes policy. Hope you for once are able to back up your statistic's with better than the 38% accuracy you've been working on.:(

Remember it wasn't the fact the deer were shot, it was the image put forth of the carcasses drapped over the roof or that was the issue. You're just about as good at twisting the words as you are at the math you keep putting out.:roll:

The image again I see, so lets stop hunting for out of region people so that people don't drive down the highway. That way only people who drive the highway from Watson to Mackenzie will see dead animals in vehicles. This makes sense to me.

Wonder why things weren't shut down in region 3, 4, 5, 8 as there are plenty of folks from regions 1 and 2 driving right through vancouver with whatever critters they've harvested. Must just be that section from Watson to Quesnel that we really need to worry about when it comes to hunters image because there are so many people who live there.

I understand clearly.

[GoatGuy]

"This was looked at as an infringement on our land up here by flocks from the South. "

I'm not saying this was the right approach, but yes I'm glad the real picture actually crossed your mind, even if it failed to soak in amongst all the rubbish.

It wasn't the right approach and it still isn't yet the mentality still continues.

You're an exclusionist - you don't want other people hunting your area, property, crown land for that matter, or your deer. And no that has nothing to do with 'the mess' - it's because you don't want other hunters hunting the same areas as you do, that's it.

I understand all of that - the point has been driven home hundreds of times through your posts and your history.

None of that makes it right. None of that has to do with conservation, sportsmanship, ethics or even sharing the resource.

Why don't you have a pile of 'ethical' hunters hunting your property? Why is it only a handful of people? I'm sure there are thousands of ethical hunters across the province who would respect the land and the animals. Why are they not hunting with you?

It makes me wonder why a person can walk across an imaginary line in Alberta and have a 3pt elk season and an any wt deer season that's 2 1/2 times longer than yours and the managers and hunters are happy.

Are the people in Alberta that much more ethical than the people in BC?

Are we the only jurisdiction that has slob hunters running rampant (all 80,000 of them :eek:)




And yes for the thousandth time LEH IS TO CONTROL PEOPLE. With people comes mess, problems and all the rest that is wrote about almost daily on this site.

Please show me solid info on the MOE actually managing wildlife before controlling people. You Can't do it, with concrete facts. I can show you tons of instances where people have been managed in hopes of doing some good for wildlife, these cases are every where in the province.


LEH is to control people?


Mess? Problems?

Yes, we must have LEH so that people don't leave a messy campsite - - that must be it. What's next? LEH for campers and anglers to control the mess they leave?

"You can only go camping one weekend this year to control garbage in campsites!"

That's only in your mind, nothing more, nothing less.

[GoatGuy]

I was just reading the Washington State regs and what jumped out at me was the liberal GOS on Elk. Lots of opps for 3 and better and cow, calf. They also have LEH and another draw called the Master Hunter, not sure what that is. Maybe we should look south of the border to see what they're doing, as they've got a hell of alot more hunters than we do in BC and they seem to be able to offer lots of opportunity. Maybe their hunters clean up their campsites better than we do and that's why. K

I like the last line, very funny. You've really summed it up well.


With 211,000 licensed hunters in Washington State exactly what are we missing in an area that's 400% bigger and has 38% of the hunters?


You've really hit the nail on the head here.

You're a sharp dude.

[hunter1947]

Leh is in place to help the numbers on any animal species to be protected and not being reduced to a low number.
As for messy campsites or trash in the bush this will be there no matter if there is LEH or there is not.


You are going to find trash in the bush or a campsite what ever the circumstances are.

[willy442]

Leh is in place to help the numbers on any animal species to be protected and not being reduced to a low number.
As for messy campsites or trash in the bush this will be there no matter if there is LEH or there is not.


You are going to find trash in the bush or a campsite what ever the circumstances are.

Don't tell me you've been sucked in by the same propaganda as Goat Guy!

[willy442]

You're an exclusionist - you don't want other people hunting your area, property, crown land for that matter, or your deer. And no that has nothing to do with 'the mess' - it's because you don't want other hunters hunting the same areas as you do, that's it.

You have no idea as to what I want. For your information alot of people hunt behind what you call my fences. In fact pretty much anyone who asks permission. The problem is when people tresspass and drive around through the fields is when I have an issue. It is really no different than when the MOE puts out a decoy. The majority of resident hunters once they see a decent buck will do anything to kill it, including tresspass. I have caught many. The garbage is a totally different issue that just happens to come with some of the pigs. Like I said we see many posts on it in here, not to say anything about the dead and wounde animals left behind every year. So I guess you are right HUNTERS are the problem lets recrute a few more.

I understand all of that - the point has been driven home hundreds of times through your posts and your history.

You are again making assumptions on my history of which you really have no idea!

None of that makes it right. None of that has to do with conservation, sportsmanship, ethics or even sharing the resource.

Sharing the resource has been and will always be an issue with hunters. Each and every one of them happens to have a degree of personal greed. In case you haven't noticed, that to comes to the fore front almost every day on this site.

Why don't you have a pile of 'ethical' hunters hunting your property? Why is it only a handful of people? I'm sure there are thousands of ethical hunters across the province who would respect the land and the animals. Why are they not hunting with you?

More than you think do the key word here is "ethical" thats why you haven't been allowed.

It makes me wonder why a person can walk across an imaginary line in Alberta and have a 3pt elk season and an any wt deer season that's 2 1/2 times longer than yours and the managers and hunters are happy.

I happen to work alot in Alberta and see the commotion over here in hunting season. In fact recently we had to put a patrol out to keep hunters out of a pipe line work site to protect workers. In one case hunters were actually shooting at a sign across a little valley on the road over workers heads. The hunter numbers are very high and most game is pretty scarce.

Are the people in Alberta that much more ethical than the people in BC?

As you can see above they are about the same. You can probably do some bullshit math on the numbers though and come up with some study results. Or better let look it up on the net. Then cut and paste it in here.

Are we the only jurisdiction that has slob hunters running rampant (all 80,000 of them :eek:)









LEH is to control people?


Mess? Problems?

Yes, we must have LEH so that people don't leave a messy campsite - - that must be it. What's next? LEH for campers and anglers to control the mess they leave?

"You can only go camping one weekend this year to control garbage in campsites!"

That's only in your mind, nothing more, nothing less.[/quote]

[willy442]

The image again I see, so lets stop hunting for out of region people so that people don't drive down the highway. That way only people who drive the highway from Watson to Mackenzie will see dead animals in vehicles. This makes sense to me.

Probably wouldn't hurt to clean up hunter image a little bit. Might just do something to help hunter image with some.

Wonder why things weren't shut down in region 3, 4, 5, 8 as there are plenty of folks from regions 1 and 2 driving right through vancouver with whatever critters they've harvested. Must just be that section from Watson to Quesnel that we really need to worry about when it comes to hunters image because there are so many people who live there.

This kind of statement is pretty sad coming from some one who claims to be trying to do something for the sport. Believe what you must and twist around what ever you want. You won't listen to anything but you stats that are only accurate to with in 38 percent anyway until its to late.

I understand clearly.

What do you understand clearly? Every time some one posts a question to you. You avoid it because 1. you have no idea what the answer is. 2. You haven't been able to find a study on it, so have no info to post. We would most likely all be better of if you worried more about flying christmas packages around and getting them delivered on time.

[hunter1947]

You're an exclusionist - you don't want other people hunting your area, property, crown land for that matter, or your deer. And no that has nothing to do with 'the mess' - it's because you don't want other hunters hunting the same areas as you do, that's it.

You have no idea as to what I want. For your information alot of people hunt behind what you call my fences. In fact pretty much anyone who asks permission. The problem is when people tresspass and drive around through the fields is when I have an issue. It is really no different than when the MOE puts out a decoy. The majority of resident hunters once they see a decent buck will do anything to kill it, including tresspass. I have caught many. The garbage is a totally different issue that just happens to come with some of the pigs. Like I said we see many posts on it in here, not to say anything about the dead and wounde animals left behind every year. So I guess you are right HUNTERS are the problem lets recrute a few more.

I understand all of that - the point has been driven home hundreds of times through your posts and your history.

You are again making assumptions on my history of which you really have no idea!

None of that makes it right. None of that has to do with conservation, sportsmanship, ethics or even sharing the resource.

Sharing the resource has been and will always be an issue with hunters. Each and every one of them happens to have a degree of personal greed. In case you haven't noticed, that to comes to the fore front almost every day on this site.

Why don't you have a pile of 'ethical' hunters hunting your property? Why is it only a handful of people? I'm sure there are thousands of ethical hunters across the province who would respect the land and the animals. Why are they not hunting with you?

More than you think do the key word here is "ethical" thats why you haven't been allowed.

It makes me wonder why a person can walk across an imaginary line in Alberta and have a 3pt elk season and an any wt deer season that's 2 1/2 times longer than yours and the managers and hunters are happy.

I happen to work alot in Alberta and see the commotion over here in hunting season. In fact recently we had to put a patrol out to keep hunters out of a pipe line work site to protect workers. In one case hunters were actually shooting at a sign across a little valley on the road over workers heads. The hunter numbers are very high and most game is pretty scarce.

Are the people in Alberta that much more ethical than the people in BC?

As you can see above they are about the same. You can probably do some bullshit math on the numbers though and come up with some study results. Or better let look it up on the net. Then cut and paste it in here.

Are we the only jurisdiction that has slob hunters running rampant (all 80,000 of them :eek:)









LEH is to control people?


Mess? Problems?

Yes, we must have LEH so that people don't leave a messy campsite - - that must be it. What's next? LEH for campers and anglers to control the mess they leave?

"You can only go camping one weekend this year to control garbage in campsites!"

That's only in your mind, nothing more, nothing less.[/quote]

I don't get sucked in by anybody ,I say what I think and my thoughts come from me in the way I see things and no one else :-).

Why do they put a species on LEH Willy442 ????? ,you tell me and others then we will know why ??? http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif .

[GoatGuy]

You have no idea as to what I want. For your information alot of people hunt behind what you call my fences. In fact pretty much anyone who asks permission. The problem is when people tresspass and drive around through the fields is when I have an issue. It is really no different than when the MOE puts out a decoy. The majority of resident hunters once they see a decent buck will do anything to kill it, including tresspass. I have caught many. The garbage is a totally different issue that just happens to come with some of the pigs. Like I said we see many posts on it in here, not to say anything about the dead and wounde animals left behind every year. So I guess you are right HUNTERS are the problem lets recrute a few more.

Anyone who asks permission? Really? That's interesting.

The majority of resident hunters will do anything to kill a decent buck?

Really? How do you measure this? Does that mean that atleast 41,000 hunters are willing to do anything to get a decent buck? How would you know that if you've never left the Peace?

I see, now we have LEH to minimize the dead and wounded animals - that's why we shouldn't have more hunters. The garbage is totally different?

Makes sense to me - I think we should just ban hunting because there's too many people trespassing and forgetting to bury their toilet paper.

I forgot you said resident hunters, never mind the mess of fuel drums/oil/outfitter camps that have gear and garbage scattered all over the north. Must only be resident hunters.

Oh and as for people having carcasses in their vehicles - I now understand. The 1 in 3 rule on Stone's was a good one then. I'm sure every sheep hunter leaves the carcass on the hood of the car for the drive back down south. :confused:


Sharing the resource has been and will always be an issue with hunters. Each and every one of them happens to have a degree of personal greed. In case you haven't noticed, that to comes to the fore front almost every day on this site.

Some more than others I suppose.

One very clear concept that you need to realize is you don't own the deer or the elk or crown land - that belongs to people of the province. You have no greater right than any other person - get over yourself.


More than you think do the key word here is "ethical" thats why you haven't been allowed.

I see, so now I'm an unethical hunter as well - tell me what I can do to change my hunting ethics so that I can come hunt and learn from the master.:smile:


I happen to work alot in Alberta and see the commotion over here in hunting season. In fact recently we had to put a patrol out to keep hunters out of a pipe line work site to protect workers. In one case hunters were actually shooting at a sign across a little valley on the road over workers heads. The hunter numbers are very high and most game is pretty scarce.

Because you work in Alberta a lot you know that hunter numbers are high and game is 'pretty scarce'. Are you serious? Are you out of your mind? Have you looked at the census numbers out there?



As you can see above they are about the same. You can probably do some bullshit math on the numbers though and come up with some study results. Or better let look it up on the net. Then cut and paste it in here.

So now because you had one instance in Alberta you now believe the number of problems are about the same?

That's interesting - what you're saying is that the hunters in BC are more unethical than the ones in Alberta then because we have fewer hunters and far more restrictive seasons than they do in Alberta. Got any numbers for that?

I know the numbers of deer licenses sold in Alberta and the number of people hunting there. I also know what the wildlife populations are like - out there they can actually census their critters. .

I don't lick my finger, stick it out the window and say "wow there's unethical hunters everywhere, too many of them, and very few animals".

[willy442]

Anyone who asks permission? Really? That's interesting.

The majority of resident hunters will do anything to kill a decent buck?

Really? How do you measure this? Does that mean that atleast 41,000 hunters are willing to do anything to get a decent buck? How would you know that if you've never left the Peace?

I see, now we have LEH to minimize the dead and wounded animals - that's why we shouldn't have more hunters. The garbage is totally different?

Makes sense to me - I think we should just ban hunting because there's too many people trespassing and forgetting to bury their toilet paper.

I forgot you said resident hunters, never mind the mess of fuel drums/oil/outfitter camps that have gear and garbage scattered all over the north. Must only be resident hunters.

Oh and as for people having carcasses in their vehicles - I now understand. The 1 in 3 rule on Stone's was a good one then. I'm sure every sheep hunter leaves the carcass on the hood of the car for the drive back down south. :confused:



Some more than others I suppose.

One very clear concept that you need to realize is you don't own the deer or the elk or crown land - that belongs to people of the province. You have no greater right than any other person - get over yourself.



I see, so now I'm an unethical hunter as well - tell me what I can do to change my hunting ethics so that I can come hunt and learn from the master.:smile:



Because you work in Alberta a lot you know that hunter numbers are high and game is 'pretty scarce'. Are you serious? Are you out of your mind? Have you looked at the census numbers out there?



So now because you had one instance in Alberta you now believe the number of problems are about the same?

That's interesting - what you're saying is that the hunters in BC are more unethical than the ones in Alberta then because we have fewer hunters and far more restrictive seasons than they do in Alberta. Got any numbers for that?

I know the numbers of deer licenses sold in Alberta and the number of people hunting there. I also know what the wildlife populations are like - out there they can actually census their critters. .

I don't lick my finger, stick it out the window and say "wow there's unethical hunters everywhere, too many of them, and very few animals".

I wouldn't of had expected anything less in a post from someone with little experience and lots of STATS.
Hm; Bad for hunting you say. Now thats funny coming from you with all your credibility.:smile:

[wetcoasthunter]

I wouldn't of had expected anything less in a post from someone with little experience and lots of STATS.

Did you have a bad experience as a child in math class or something NIMBY442? Cause you REALLY hate when people try and use numbers and stats to back up their statements.

Don't get me wrong, I like your way better, "I've lived here for 1000 years and know everything, so everyone can shut up":roll:, Much more convincing.

Regards,

A hunter from the island that hunts 7B, kiss my a@$

[goatdancer]

willy442

I am a senior. I am an ethical hunter. I have never wounded an animal and not retrieved it. I never leave garbage in the bush. My dead critters are never draped over the hood of my truck when I go home. I don't cut fences, shoot locks, or go roaring out into someone's field without permission. If I went up your way, would you give me permission to hunt on your property? I would really like to get a big muley buck though. Would that change your mind? If you think I fit your criterea of ethical, please PM me with details and I will call you and see if things could be arranged. Thank you.

[goatdancer]

Just another thought. If elk numbers are a real problem, maybe an option would be to ease access restrictions for us 60 and over (the hill) guys. A more liberal season with less antler restrictions and a cow season would also help us geezers. I'm pretty sure that there are enough of us old nuts around to help take care of some of the problem......

[willy442]

willy442

I am a senior. I am an ethical hunter. I have never wounded an animal and not retrieved it. I never leave garbage in the bush. My dead critters are never draped over the hood of my truck when I go home. I don't cut fences, shoot locks, or go roaring out into someone's field without permission. If I went up your way, would you give me permission to hunt on your property? I would really like to get a big muley buck though. Would that change your mind? If you think I fit your criterea of ethical, please PM me with details and I will call you and see if things could be arranged. Thank you.

Goat Dancer; This is not a problem and yes I would be glad to have you.

Please PM me if you are serious. Best time for a big muley is first week of November there. Also lots of Moose and Elk until the end of October. The place is about 8 sections of second growth Alfalfa and hunter heaven as Goat Guy knows.

[willy442]

Just another thought. If elk numbers are a real problem, maybe an option would be to ease access restrictions for us 60 and over (the hill) guys. A more liberal season with less antler restrictions and a cow season would also help us geezers. I'm pretty sure that there are enough of us old nuts around to help take care of some of the problem......

I would be 100% behind a season for seniors and I'll bet a lot of doors would open to accessable farm land for them.

[willy442]

Did you have a bad experience as a child in math class or something NIMBY442? Cause you REALLY hate when people try and use numbers and stats to back up their statements.

Don't get me wrong, I like your way better, "I've lived here for 1000 years and know everything, so everyone can shut up":roll:, Much more convincing.

Regards,

A hunter from the island that hunts 7B, kiss my a@$

Truly the attitude that gets you onto private land in the North. Go get'em.

[ianwuzhere]

from the farmers i know in northern bc the elk populations are down now and they are not having issues with them anymore. In a few select areas there are many elk in 7b but i dont think there is a huge problem..