East Kootenay elk numbers for H47

[Fisher-Dude]

...have you got any idea on how many head of elk are in the EK year end of 2008 ???? :?.
Then compare it to the numbers they had back in the EK when they had 3 point or better in the last year before only a 6 point year.

FD you can start a new thread on this if you want ,I just want to copare the numbers now compared back when they first opend up the EK for only 6 point season.

Elk herd estimated in entire East Kootenays, early 1990s was 35,000.
3 point season had been in effect for decades, orders came from Victoria to reduce the herd to 14,500, per Ray Demarchi @ 2009 BCWF convention

Elk herd estimated in EK in 2008, 6 point season has been in effect as an "interim measure" :roll: since 1998, per Garth Mowat @ 2009 BCWF convention:
Trench only: 19,000
South Trench only: 14,500
Does not include: Flathead, South Country, or Elk Valley herds.
Conclusion by Garth Mowat: elk population is the highest ever in the East Kootenays right now (over 35,000).

[rocksteady]

Conclusion by Garth Mowat: elk population is the highest ever in the East Kootenays right now (over 35,000).


SAAAAAAAAAAWEEET!!!!!!

[BCrams]

Elk herd estimated in EK in 2008, 6 point season has been in effect as an "interim measure" :roll: since 1998, per Garth Mowat @ 2009 BCWF convention:
Trench only: 19,000
South Trench only: 14,500
Does not include: Flathead, South Country, or Elk Valley herds.
Conclusion by Garth Mowat: elk population is the highest ever in the East Kootenays right now (over 35,000).

Perfect recipe for a massive herd die-off.



SAAAAAAAAAAWEEET!!!!!!


Is it? Can the land base down there support 35,000 + elk without detrimental impacts to range land or competition with other species on the winter range (i.e., sheep, mule deer?)

[kootenayelkslayer]

Perfect recipe for a massive herd die-off.

Yup, time for an open season on cows and spike bulls :razz:

[BCrams]

Yup, time for an open season on cows and spike bulls :razz:

Actually, 3-point would be better instead of spikes. Agree with you on the cows.

[Fisher-Dude]

Perfect recipe for a massive herd die-off.



Is it? Can the land base down there support 35,000 + elk without detrimental impacts to range land or competition with other species on the winter range (i.e., sheep, mule deer?)

Carrying capacity has been estimated at 28,000 - 30,000.

[BCrams]

Carrying capacity has been estimated at 28,000 - 30,000.

Overall herd health would be better if the population was lower. Or so I've heard.

For example: around 20,000 to 25, 000 or so would be much better than right at carrying capacity.

[Fisher-Dude]

Yup, time for an open season on cows and spike bulls :razz:

Spikes haven't been on GOS since the late 1950s - early 1960s. Lessons learned about a hunter's preference to dump the bull with the group of cows outside the rut, and likely it's a spike - then, antlerless harvest targets aren't achieved.

[kootenayelkslayer]

Actually, 3-point would be better instead of spikes. Agree with you on the cows.

A 3-point or better season and a cow season??

[BCrams]

A 3-point or better season and a cow season??

I'm guessing you havn't had a chat with your smart bio down there yet what he thinks should be done :smile:

[kootenayelkslayer]

I'm guessing you havn't had a chat with your smart bio down there yet what he thinks should be done :smile:

No I certainly haven't. I don't get to spend much time down here anymore.
So is a 3pt or better + cow season what the smart bio would suggest??

[Jelvis]

SAW SAWeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeT

[Fisher-Dude]

Overall herd health would be better if the population was lower. Or so I've heard.

For example: around 20,000 to 25, 000 or so would be much better than right at carrying capacity.

Let's assume the post-hunt population is at 38,000 (it could be over 45,000 right now with calving). In a harsher winter, every elk will have on average 27% to 36% less food than it requires to properly survive the winter. That's what causes the big die-offs (more than 27 - 36% of the population will die because they are all mal-nourished) in harsher winters.

The effects of the die-off linger because many pregnant cows that do make it through will abort their calves. It's a bad situation all around. I guess we're doomed to repeat history though with the current seasons, as we'll go through another 1997 massacre and have to start all over again. We'd rather feed ravens and coyotes than ourselves.

[BCrams]

No I certainly haven't. I don't get to spend much time down here anymore.
So is a 3pt or better + cow season what the smart bio would suggest??

Dig around. He already proposed a short 3 pt season and it was shot down by the local game clubs.

Like FD says, attitudes need to change or history will repeat itself.

[The Hermit]

Dig around. He already proposed a short 3 pt season and it was shot down by the local game clubs.

Like FD says, attitudes need to change or history will repeat itself.

What the the GOA have to say about a 3 point open season??

[Fisher-Dude]

What the the GOA have to say about a 3 point open season??

If it puts more resident hunters in the bush, they are opposed to it. Hell, they are even opposed to the spike/fork moose season in the EK because they think it will put more resident hunters in the bush.

[BCrams]

If it puts more resident hunters in the bush, they are opposed to it. Hell, they are even opposed to the spike/fork moose season in the EK because they think it will put more resident hunters in the bush.




What the the GOA have to say about a 3 point open season??


It interferes with their agenda for "quality" hunting. They even want 'resident' hunters to sign up to support the "quality" hunts with the GOA.

The problem is, residents may get excited and sign up thinking more and bigger elk, bigger bucks etc ......... when in actuality, it involves more resrictions and more LEH in order to reduce the number of 'residents' in the bush.

You watch. If Region 5 regulation changes go ahead this fall as they plan, there is no 'rut' hunt. But as soon as they deem appropriate, they will try and bring the season back ..... but you know what...... it likely will be LEH. All of a sudden you've paved the way for American style near impossible draw hunt. Now thats why guys like Heitsman likes it because he can afford to hire a guide during such a season while us average joes are restricted.

Its a real mess.

[J_T]

Elk herd estimated in entire East Kootenays, early 1990s was 35,000.
3 point season had been in effect for decades, orders came from Victoria to reduce the herd to 14,500, per Ray Demarchi @ 2009 BCWF convention

Elk herd estimated in EK in 2008, 6 point season has been in effect as an "interim measure" :roll: since 1998, per Garth Mowat @ 2009 BCWF convention:
Trench only: 19,000
South Trench only: 14,500
Does not include: Flathead, South Country, or Elk Valley herds.
Conclusion by Garth Mowat: elk population is the highest ever in the East Kootenays right now (over 35,000).

I have a lot of respect for Garth. FD, not challenging you here.... is the (over 35,000) an assumption based on the statement "highest ever".? We know there is a gap in the estimating of that population and I would be cautious about equating "a number of elk" in the 90's to "a number of elk" today. Yes, there are a lot of elk. Let's go forward.

A concern I have, is that the ranching community is pushing so hard for herd reductions that we have doubled the LEH's for this year. I maintain that we can NOT use LEH as the solution because it undermines many potential hunting opportunities. IE, if this year with twice as many cow/calf LEH's out, and we have twice as many harvests, where is the incentive to increase hunter opportunity? (3pt season) LEH generates revenue and manages the problem. The guides are happy, because resident hunter numbers are contained/controlled. And generally contained to the front country.

As I said, I have a lot of respect for Garth. But let's get that frickin Elk Management Plan in place so we can act on it and create a diversity of opportunity to manage our elk populations. For two years, all we've heard is that there needs to be an elk management plan before we can discuss elk seasons. Enough excuses.

I'm not personally a fan of a 3pt or better season, but I am a proponent for 3 pt or less.

[Fisher-Dude]

From the GOABC's "Economic Viability Report" prepared by GOABC president Scott Ellis:

Page 9: Recommendations: Quality Big Game Species: The management of big game must be conducted in a manner that grows trophy-class animals and restricts provisions such as "spike-fork" seasons for immature moose.

Page 5: The GOABC does not support the liberalization of hunting regulations in an attempt to recruit hunters at the expense of wildlife and a quality hunting experience.

[BCrams]

From the GOABC's "Economic Viability Report" prepared by GOABC president Scott Ellis:

Page 9: Recommendations: Quality Big Game Species: The management of big game must be conducted in a manner that grows trophy-class animals and restricts provisions such as "spike-fork" seasons for immature moose.

Page 5: The GOABC does not support the liberalization of hunting regulations in an attempt to recruit hunters at the expense of wildlife and a quality hunting experience.


Jeezus ........ that report needs to be disected .......

Page 5 says it all ........ GO's don't support the hunter recruitment and allocation policy.

[Kody94]

From the GOABC's "Economic Viability Report" prepared by GOABC president Scott Ellis:

Page 9: Recommendations: Quality Big Game Species: The management of big game must be conducted in a manner that grows trophy-class animals and restricts provisions such as "spike-fork" seasons for immature moose.

Page 5: The GOABC does not support the liberalization of hunting regulations in an attempt to recruit hunters at the expense of wildlife and a quality hunting experience.

F-D, is that report available on-line?

Cheers
4Ster

[Kody94]

I have a lot of respect for Garth. FD, not challenging you here.... is the (over 35,000) an assumption based on the statement "highest ever".? We know there is a gap in the estimating of that population and I would be cautious about equating "a number of elk" in the 90's to "a number of elk" today. Yes, there are a lot of elk. Let's go forward.

A concern I have, is that the ranching community is pushing so hard for herd reductions that we have doubled the LEH's for this year. I maintain that we can NOT use LEH as the solution because it undermines many potential hunting opportunities. IE, if this year with twice as many cow/calf LEH's out, and we have twice as many harvests, where is the incentive to increase hunter opportunity? (3pt season) LEH generates revenue and manages the problem. The guides are happy, because resident hunter numbers are contained/controlled. And generally contained to the front country.

As I said, I have a lot of respect for Garth. But let's get that frickin Elk Management Plan in place so we can act on it and create a diversity of opportunity to manage our elk populations. For two years, all we've heard is that there needs to be an elk management plan before we can discuss elk seasons. Enough excuses.

I'm not personally a fan of a 3pt or better season, but I am a proponent for 3 pt or less.

I can't figure out why it takes so long to get a plan written.

There should be a plan for every big-game species, updated every 5 years or so. How hard is that?

I was shocked when our bio did not even know if there was a bighorn sheep plan.

No disrespect to our bio, but what is it exactly that we are paying these guys for if not to come up with a plan and implement it?

[6616]

Lets straighten out a few things. The elk population was not 35,000 in the early '90s. The peak population was in 1984 and 1985. In 1985, 86, and '87, 10,000 antlerless LEH tags were issued each of those three years, nearly 12,000 cow and calf elk were harvested, and the population had declined significantly by the early '90s and LEH were actually being reduced.

The highest ever estimation was in the early to mid 80's (see above) and that estimation was 28,000 althought it was also considered a conservative estimation at that time, problem is there is no inventory data to support this estimation, only interpolations from spot checks. Biologists today place a lot of suspicion on those early 80s estimates.

The current population estimate of 30,000+ that was stated at convention applies to the entire Kootenays and includes 5000 elk in the West Kootenays.

Carrying capacity was last estimated in 1999 and was about 25,000/26,000 at that time. Range conditions have deteriorated since then and there's a lot more white tailed deer today then there was in 1999 which should be considered. Maximum harvest levels and the healthiest populations of elk are when the population densty is maintained at about 70 to 75% of carrying capacity and at about 60% for white tailed deer. These densities are also when the highest potential for trophy deer and elk exist in a GOS season.

The number of antlerless tags has just been inceased for this fall and there will likely be very limited increases from now on. The antlerless harvest is now thought to have stabilized the population growth.

The elk population today is concentrated on a smaller habitat base then we had in the mid 80's due to range deterioration, forest ingrowth, and different migration patterns. A significant percentage of the elk are not migrating at all and many of the Trench tributaries that were being logged heavily in the mid 80s and were prime summer habitat at that time, are not being used by elk for summer range much anymore.

There is no conservation concern for a ten day or two week 3pt bull elk GOS season, but there are social issues as many people do not support this. It's purely a social decision and arguing the science of it is pointless. Huge wintrer die-offs due to overpopulation cannot be prevented by bull harvests alone, population reductions can only be accomplished by antlerless harvests.

Due to current predator population densities elk and deer populations cannot be reduced quickly without the risk of creating a predator pit situation unless the unlikely scenario of predator management is coincidental. In other words the situation may have escalated to the point where a significant winter die-off is unavoidable if we have a severe winter within the next 5 years or so and the situation is as much due to white tailed deer as it is to elk.

[hunter1947]

Thanks FD for the feed back on what was back then and now ,very interesting http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif.

I hope that when the elk management looks at this thread they realize that there should be a short opening for 3 point bull elk or better as for the same for cow elk for 2009 ,2010 :roll:.

[bowhunterbruce]

i personally think thier should be 3 point or better and any cow all season long with a bow:wink:
grt job on the number fd

[ratherbefishin]

if they have an ''immature'' open season on moose-why wouldn't they have an immature'' open season on elk and leave the 5 and 6 point bulls to breed?

[Fisher-Dude]

if they have an ''immature'' open season on moose-why wouldn't they have an immature'' open season on elk and leave the 5 and 6 point bulls to breed?

Only about 40% of 1st year moose bulls will meet the "spike-fork" requirements, so there is a high escapement possibility in providing this type of season. However, elk have a much higher chance of being a spike in year 1, so escapement is much less likely, and that could harm bull recruitment. Spike-fork moose are solitary, whereas spike elk are gregarious, and usually found with cow-calf groups outside the rut, making them much easier to find.

Also, there's a misconception (pun intended) about the mature bulls being the best breeding stock. All that's needed is a sperm supply. What we know about genetics now is that a young bull's genetics are as good as a mature bull's, so robust calves can be sired by any age class. Younger bulls have similar conception rates to older bulls. The bigger bulls that do much of the breeding do so because they are able to chase off smaller bulls - it's not a "genetic" thing.

[ratherbefishin]

but if the object was herd reduction without impeding breeding capabilities,wouldn't it make sense to take cows and immature bulls?If there was a concern over too many animals being taken-an LEH should address that issue.I probably wouldn't bother going elk hunting for a 6point bull as I understand they are only about 5% of the herd ,but would if the odds were a bit better,such as taking a cow or spike bull

[Fisher-Dude]

but if the object was herd reduction without impeding breeding capabilities,wouldn't it make sense to take cows and immature bulls?If there was a concern over too many animals being taken-an LEH should address that issue.I probably wouldn't bother going elk hunting for a 6point bull as I understand they are only about 5% of the herd ,but would if the odds were a bit better,such as taking a cow or spike bull

It depends if herd reduction is indeed the objective. It was in the late 80s - early 90s, so thousands of cow-calf permits were issued. Bull harvest is not a good herd reduction technique - antlerless harvest gets the job done and maintains or strengthens bull:cow ratios.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

if they have an ''immature'' open season on moose-why wouldn't they have an immature'' open season on elk and leave the 5 and 6 point bulls to breed?


I just heard from a Reg 4 CO that they will be getting an immie moose season this year:).

Moose and elk are two different species with different biology. Cow moose tend to prefer to breed with older bulls while cow elk are known to be not as fussy about who sires their offspring.

SSS

[hunter1947]

if they have an ''immature'' open season on moose-why wouldn't they have an immature'' open season on elk and leave the 5 and 6 point bulls to breed?


The elk management did have a 10 day open season from the 10 Sept to the 20 of Sept for only 6 point bulls.

Then from the 20 of Sept till the 20 Oct for 3 point bulls or better back 10 years ago ,the opening for 3 or better was for many years..

The way I see it is that elk management don't want to put all the hunting presser on spikes to four points thats why they split up the point restrictions for the bull harvest in the past.

[6616]

An any elk season for bowhunters for the entire length of elk season, plus a 10 day 3 pt GOS season, plus the antlerless LEH numbers adjusted annually to ensure herd population density objectives are reached is the way to go in my opinion.

Bowhunters are not going to kill a ton of elk no matter what and a ten day 3pt bull season is sustainable. Trophy potential will increase as numbers fall below carrying capacity and maximum sustainable harvest and the highest quality herd will result at a density of about 70% of carrying capacity.

I believe a 3pt and bigger season will be more effective and better for the herd demographics then a 3pt and under season because it will allow harvest from a wider range of age classes instead of isolating the harvest to older and younger age classes.

In conjunction with elk management measures we also need an any deer white tail season or at the very least a dramatic increase in antlerless LEH to ensure ag-land depredation and Crown range depletion are lessened. In a place like the East kootenay where so many species overlap habitats single species management does not always result in the desired outcome. A multi-species program for overlap species is required to protect habitat and sensitive eco-systems even though forage preferences vary.

[J_T]

Lets straighten out a few things. The elk population was not 35,000 in the early '90s. The peak population was in 1984 and 1985. In 1985, 86, and '87, 10,000 antlerless LEH tags were issued each of those three years, nearly 12,000 cow and calf elk were harvested, and the population had declined significantly by the early '90s and LEH were actually being reduced.

The highest ever estimation was in the early to mid 80's (see above) and that estimation was 28,000 althought it was also considered a conservative estimation at that time, problem is there is no inventory data to support this estimation, only interpolations from spot checks. Biologists today place a lot of suspicion on those early 80s estimates.

The current population estimate of 30,000+ that was stated at convention applies to the entire Kootenays and includes 5000 elk in the West Kootenays.
Thanks Andy, I was hoping you'd come on and provide further confirmation to this.

[6616]

Thanks Andy, I was hoping you'd come on and provide further confirmation to this.

Even though Garth did state at the convention that the elk population was higher right now then it's ever been before, he did not specify an actual firm number because they are not confident in the accuracy of those early 80's population estimates and are thus reluctant to use them as comparisons to estimate region wide elk populations. If there was data to support those estimates it appears to have been lost. The reality is it doesn't matter if the elk population is 10,000 or 50,000. What we do know is that it's probably too high considering the sudden and dramatic increase of white tailed deer and the current state of range conditions.

It's also interesting to note that Garths current data applies only to Trench elk populations, and not to elk populations north of Radium, in the upper Kootenay Valley, the Elk River or Flathead or Lodgepole Valleys, and in most of those locations with the exception of the Elk River, elk populations have not expanded to the same degree as they have in the Trench.

As I stated earlier many of the upper Trench tributaries are not being used for summer range as much by elk as they used to be when logging activity in those tributaries was at a much higher level. This means the current elk population is using a smaller land base and densities are much higher then we've seen before in the areas they are using. This is resulting in much higher ag-land depredation then previously existed. Some of this is about to change, the Cross River for example has a significant amount of beetle infected pine and logging activities are about to increase dramatically in that area.

Someone is going to jump in here sooner or later and mention domestic cattle grazing and there's no doubt this has a dramatic impact but tenured grazing AUMs for domestic cattle have been decreased dramatically over the last few years. The fact is that 50% of the useable forage is allocated to cattle and without cattle we could have twice as many elk and deer,,,, but that's a social and political decision, not a technical elk management decision, and we might as well resign ourselves to the probability that this is a decision that's not likely to ever be reversed.

[Buckman]

I wouldn't mind a 3 point or better season for a couple of years or increase the cow-calf tags for a couple of years.

[brotherjack]

I wouldn't mind a 3 point or better season for a couple of years or increase the cow-calf tags for a couple of years.

Preach it, brother.

[The Hermit]

Good thread guys, thanks for the info.

[hunter1947]

An any elk season for bowhunters for the entire length of elk season, plus a 10 day 3 pt GOS season, plus the antlerless LEH numbers adjusted annually to ensure herd population density objectives are reached is the way to go in my opinion.

Bowhunters are not going to kill a ton of elk no matter what and a ten day 3pt bull season is sustainable. Trophy potential will increase as numbers fall below carrying capacity and maximum sustainable harvest and the highest quality herd will result at a density of about 70% of carrying capacity.

I believe a 3pt and bigger season will be more effective and better for the herd demographics then a 3pt and under season because it will allow harvest from a wider range of age classes instead of isolating the harvest to older and younger age classes.

In conjunction with elk management measures we also need an any deer white tail season or at the very least a dramatic increase in antlerless LEH to ensure ag-land depredation and Crown range depletion are lessened. In a place like the East kootenay where so many species overlap habitats single species management does not always result in the desired outcome. A multi-species program for overlap species is required to protect habitat and sensitive eco-systems even though forage preferences vary.

That a boy Andy ,now if you can only convince the elk management of what you just said http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif.

[Manglinmike]

My hat is off to you fella's that keep your ears to the ground and allways dig up the info,if it wasn't for this site I wouldn't have a flippin clue what was going on with the bio's and the gos's.Keep up the good work and thanks for your endless effort.

[Downwind]

My hat is off to you fella's that keep your ears to the ground and allways dig up the info,if it wasn't for this site I wouldn't have a flippin clue what was going on with the bio's and the gos's.Keep up the good work and thanks for your endless effort.

I have to completely agree! Information is power and you guys help bring a little of the power to our great community. I appreciate it.

[huntingfamily]

[quote=6616;473418]An any elk season for bowhunters for the entire length of elk season, plus a 10 day 3 pt GOS season, plus the antlerless LEH numbers adjusted annually to ensure herd population density objectives are reached is the way to go in my opinion.

So unless you're a bowhunter, or you get lucky on an LEH draw, you and everybody else has 10 days to get a bull?
Personally I think that would be way too busy in the hills and the end result is that you are going to lose hunter numbers, rather than increase them.
It would help if the 10 day 3 pt GOS season was during the rut and the leh was outside of it, but it still sounds like too short of a bull season to me.

hf

[Fisher-Dude]

Even though Garth did state at the convention that the elk population was higher right now then it's ever been before, he did not specify an actual firm number because they are not confident in the accuracy of those early 80's population estimates and are thus reluctant to use them as comparisons to estimate region wide elk populations. If there was data to support those estimates it appears to have been lost. The reality is it doesn't matter if the elk population is 10,000 or 50,000. What we do know is that it's probably too high considering the sudden and dramatic increase of white tailed deer and the current state of range conditions.


Ray mentioned the 35,000 figure in his presentation, and later discussed it in person with me. He really thinks we need to harvest more game, NOW, right across the province. And "more" means "wayyyyyyy more" than we are shooting right now.

He is also confident that the 7A moose management model (52% of the province's moose harvest comes from 7A - it's working!) should be implemented province-wide. I asked him if the province is ready for it, and he said "no", then asked if the moose are ready, and he said "yes". Too many politics putting the kybwash on smart game management decisions!



Someone is going to jump in here sooner or later and mention domestic cattle grazing and there's no doubt this has a dramatic impact but tenured grazing AUMs for domestic cattle have been decreased dramatically over the last few years. The fact is that 50% of the useable forage is allocated to cattle and without cattle we could have twice as many elk and deer,,,, but that's a social and political decision, not a technical elk management decision, and we might as well resign ourselves to the probability that this is a decision that's not likely to ever be reversed.

Do we really need to limit cattle beyond that 50%? I'm no fan of cow shit or cows, but we have game animals at historic high populations, and aren't allowed to hunt them! Why are we trying to stockpile game above what the land base will hold? It's been proven in many jurisdictions (and in BC) that stockpiling isn't possible (winter always collapses the herd at carrying capacity), yet we have restrictions on everything and shorter seasons than we've ever had, along with unnecessary LEH. The 70% that Andy mentioned above is where we should be - more animals to harvest, longer seasons, less restrictions, healthier game, bigger animals, better calving, less depredation of crops and winter range. But no, we want a flood of animals to feed coyotes, wolves, and ravens.

The problem isn't so much the cattle as it is the assinine seasons we are suffering with on our big game species. We've got way more animals than the hunters of this province could ever put a dent in, yet we don't have seasons that are conducive to harvest. Our seasons cater to rich foreign hunters and NIMBY, vocal residents, NOT to the average Joe who wants some elk/moose/deer meat on his table.

It's time for a revolution in game management - if we wait for evolution in Victoria, we're doomed to start back at zero every 5 or 10 years with a bad winter and massive die-off. Stupid is the only word that fits here!

[GoatGuy]

5 pages - I say deal with conservation and skip the rest of the BS. Give a couple of options that will ensure maximum utilization and let the hunters pick.

[6616]

[quote=6616;473418]An any elk season for bowhunters for the entire length of elk season, plus a 10 day 3 pt GOS season, plus the antlerless LEH numbers adjusted annually to ensure herd population density objectives are reached is the way to go in my opinion.

So unless you're a bowhunter, or you get lucky on an LEH draw, you and everybody else has 10 days to get a bull?
Personally I think that would be way too busy in the hills and the end result is that you are going to lose hunter numbers, rather than increase them.
It would help if the 10 day 3 pt GOS season was during the rut and the leh was outside of it, but it still sounds like too short of a bull season to me.

hf

I don't think it really matters a lot when the 3pt bull GOS takes place, but the antlerless LEH has to be before mid-October to target the non-migratory elk component of the population.

[6616]

Ray mentioned the 35,000 figure in his presentation, and later discussed it in person with me. He really thinks we need to harvest more game, NOW, right across the province. And "more" means "wayyyyyyy more" than we are shooting right now.

He is also confident that the 7A moose management model (52% of the province's moose harvest comes from 7A - it's working!) should be implemented province-wide. I asked him if the province is ready for it, and he said "no", then asked if the moose are ready, and he said "yes". Too many politics putting the kybwash on smart game management decisions!

Do we really need to limit cattle beyond that 50%? I'm no fan of cow shit or cows, but we have game animals at historic high populations, and aren't allowed to hunt them!


Is it any wonder cattle ranchers are pissed off...???

I agree with Ray on both counts.

[6616]

That a boy Andy ,now if you can only convince the elk management of what you just said http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif.

The ten day 3pt elk season that was proposed in 2007 was submitted by "elk management", they didn't need convinced at that time, they wanted to go ahead with it..! That proposal was killed by hunters during the public consultation phase. Hunters may be the ones that need convincing and I think I may be seeing that happening right now! FD is 100% correct,,, we're quite possibly heading for a significant winter kill event and population recoveries after that event will be extremely difficult due to the depleted range conditions that will be left behind.

The time to act is now (or last year), get the deer and elk populations down to 70% and 60% of carrying capacities respectivelly, and perpetuate the good hunting we have now. The alternative is another long slow recovery period like we endured following the winter kill of 96/97 with really crappy hunting for too many years.

[6616]

[quote=6616;473418]An any elk season for bowhunters for the entire length of elk season, plus a 10 day 3 pt GOS season, plus the antlerless LEH numbers adjusted annually to ensure herd population density objectives are reached is the way to go in my opinion.

So unless you're a bowhunter, or you get lucky on an LEH draw, you and everybody else has 10 days to get a bull?
Personally I think that would be way too busy in the hills and the end result is that you are going to lose hunter numbers, rather than increase them.
It would help if the 10 day 3 pt GOS season was during the rut and the leh was outside of it, but it still sounds like too short of a bull season to me.

hf

The bull season would be the same as it is now, except 10 days of it would be 3pt or better, and the rest 6pt as usual.

[silvertipp]

what about opening up some of these no motorized vehicle rds as well

[kootenayelkslayer]

what about opening up some of these no motorized vehicle rds as well

I'm all for road closures. We have to keep some trophy elk safe in the Kootenays.

[hunter1947]

There used to be a 4 week season for 3 point bull elk or better ,this season did work for many years till the bad winter of 1996 ,97 ,why not have it the way it was back then for a couple years and see what happens ????.

Management could split the point restrictions up and have a split season and this is the way it would be..

(1) have only 6 points for the first 10 days Sept 10-19.
(2) Have 6 points the last 7 days of the season Oct 14-20.
(3) Have 3 or better from Sept 20 till Oct 13.

[Fisher-Dude]

what about opening up some of these no motorized vehicle rds as well

Good idea. Most of the closures are under review right now. 6616 can tell you more about which ones, I'm sure. ;)

Most of the road closures were put in place years ago to address specific conservation concerns - 20 years later, things change, and it's unlikely those same concerns exist today. The GOs love them because they help keep us pesky residents away from "ruining" their wealthy foreign hunters' "quality experiences". :mad: Of course, the GOs get to abuse the conditions of the road closures to run their businesses, while the rest of us get held to a different standard.

Anyone who supports these useless closures that no longer address conservation concerns is misguided in their belief that the closures are there to help the animals. Many of these closures are there to aid the GOs keep you out of land you should be hunting. The aging demographic of our hunters in BC (average age has gone from about 25 - 40 to 40 - 55) just means less people are able to access Crown lands, giving the GOs free reign over our resources.

Also, road closures do NOT grow "trophy elk". Genetics, summer nutrition and ample winter forage grow trophy elk, while stockpiling game on depleted range stunts potential. Ultimately, lower harvest due to road closures leads to herds exceeding carrying capacity, and the resultant smaller bulls as competition for forage limits their growth. As has been mentioned above, maintaining a herd at about 60% - 70% of carrying capacity produces the best chance of trophy-sized animals.

[6616]

There used to be a 4 week season for 3 point bull elk or better ,this season did work for many years till the bad winter of 1996 ,97 ,why not have it the way it was back then for a couple years and see what happens ????.

Management could split the point restrictions up and have a split season and this is the way it would be..

(1) have only 6 points for the first 10 days Sept 10-19.
(2) Have 6 points the last 7 days of the season Oct 14-20.
(3) Have 3 or better from Sept 20 till Oct 13.

I would support a season like this. If the harvest objectives were not correct the length of the three point segement could always be adjusted until the correct balance is reached.

[6616]

Good idea. Most of the closures are under review right now. 6616 can tell you more about which ones, I'm sure. ;)

Most of the road closures were put in place years ago to address specific conservation concerns - 20 years later, things change, and it's unlikely those same concerns exist today. The GOs love them because they help keep us pesky residents away from "ruining" their wealthy foreign hunters' "quality experiences". :mad: Of course, the GOs get to abuse the conditions of the road closures to run their businesses, while the rest of us get held to a different standard.

Anyone who supports these useless closures that no longer address conservation concerns is misguided in their belief that the closures are there to help the animals. Many of these closures are there to aid the GOs keep you out of land you should be hunting. The aging demographic of our hunters in BC (average age has gone from about 25 - 40 to 40 - 55) just means less people are able to access Crown lands, giving the GOs free reign over our resources.

Also, road closures do NOT grow "trophy elk". Genetics, summer nutrition and ample winter forage grow trophy elk, while stockpiling game on depleted range stunts potential. Ultimately, lower harvest due to road closures leads to herds exceeding carrying capacity, and the resultant smaller bulls as competition for forage limits their growth. As has been mentioned above, maintaining a herd at about 60% - 70% of carrying capacity produces the best chance of trophy-sized animals.

There is a whole list of AMAs and VHACs that MOE has under review in the Kootenay's however it's proving more difficult then anticipated to make changes. Some of these closures have been in place for decades and many resident hunters and guides rely them on as their honey holes and a significant amount of opposition surfaces when removing them is discussed. Also Ministry policy is to provide a variety of opportunities, so maintaining some back packing and horse hunting areas is one of their objectives.

Keep in mind, the MOE review only applies to MOE access measures and not to MOFR closures under F&RP Act and the Forest Practices Code and there's many more of these then there are MOE closures.

The end result is that the MOE review is not likely going to make a huge difference.

Regarding trophy elk, these closures do somewhat reduce the harvest in these drainages, so like antler restrictions they do provide a little higher number of bulls to live to older ages. There may be a few more mature bulls as a result, but not necessarily trophies. It depends on ones definition of a trophy, it helps those who deem a 300 or 310 bull as a trophy, but does not mean there will be more Boone and Crockett bulls. Production of true trophy bulls depends on the factors FD pointed out. Even in the West Kootenay where the harvest is very restricted by LEH and bulls up to the 350 class are frequently harvested, there are not a lot of Boone and Crockett bulls shot. The genetics just don't exist in the Kootenay's to produce a Spider Bull like they do in Utah.

Moreover, the bulls that summer in the valleys with access closures come out into the main Trench to winter in most cases, and the hunting season is still open when the migration starts so they do become vulnerable dureing the last week of the season. It's a small handful of big elk herds, and managing an area for trophies requires a much larger management area then closing a single tributary drainage could ever provide.

If you took an area like the Elk Valley where most of the elk winter right in there and never come out into the Trench, and put it on LEH for bull elk and allow only a handful of authorizations (West Kootenay style) per year you could maximize the trophy potential up to whatever the forage quality and genetics could provide. To keep the population from expanding a significant number of cows would have to be harvested and half the genetics required to produce a trophy bull comes from his mother and you cannot selectively "save" the good genetics in a cow harvest like you can in a bull harvest.

At any rate, I highly doubt if this strategy would be socially acceptable.

[Kody94]

There is a whole list of AMAs and VHACs that MOE has under review in the Kootenay's however it's proving more difficult then anticipated to make changes. Some of these closures have been in place for decades and many resident hunters and guides rely them on as their honey holes and a significant amount of opposition surfaces when removing them is discussed. Also Ministry policy is to provide a variety of opportunities, so maintaining some back packing and horse hunting areas is one of their objectives.

Keep in mind, the MOE review only applies to MOE access measures and not to MOFR closures under F&RP Act and the Forest Practices Code and there's many more of these then there are MOE closures.

The end result is that the MOE review is not likely going to make a huge difference.


There are lots of complicating factors unfortunately. For one, hunter's always think that closures are all about hunting and that isn't always the case. A number of closures are related to safety, conflicts with other stakeholders, or the recreational experience of other public users.

A big one though, is management of wildlife not related to hunting. Mt Caribou is an example, but the biggest one around Cranbrook is the "threatened" Yahk-Cabinet grizzly poplulation. Government wants to restrict the road density in the area, as per a number of studies in other areas where access density was shown to be a huge factor in population viability. The area is currently WAY over the threshold density for g-bears so to reduce it significantly they have a few options they can use in combination....rip up a whole bunch of existing roads ($$$), keep industry from building new roads (costs jobs and $$$), and/or restrict access to existing roads.

Many of the closures being reviewed fall in that area. Opening them up would mean a bunch of other roads will have to get ripped up, etc....

Access management is not as easy as folks would like to believe.

[steepNdeep]

Anyone who supports these useless closures that no longer address conservation concerns is misguided in their belief that the closures are there to help the animals.

I like some of the closures! Keeps those slob ATV'ers out! :biggrin: ;)

[kootenayelkslayer]

Anyone who supports these useless closures that no longer address conservation concerns is misguided in their belief that the closures are there to help the animals.

Well I'm not surprised that FD is against road closures, he doesn't like the idea of not being able to hunt from his truck. But for other hunters out there who like to be able to get away from the road traffic, what's the harm in a few road closures? I like the feeling of knowing that you're going to have to work hard to get back into an area with very little hunting pressure and that maybe it will pay off by taking a mature animal that has been able to grow old and wise.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Well I'm not surprised that FD is against road closures, he doesn't like the idea of not being able to hunt from his truck. But for other hunters out there who like to be able to get away from the road traffic, what's the harm in a few road closures? I like the feeling of knowing that you're going to have to work hard to get back into an area with very little hunting pressure and that maybe it will pay off by taking a mature animal that has been able to grow old and wise.

I'm okay with a "few" but only in areas where there's no G/O:).
We could certainly remove most of the closures.

SSS

[Fisher-Dude]

Well I'm not surprised that FD is against road closures, he doesn't like the idea of not being able to hunt from his truck. But for other hunters out there who like to be able to get away from the road traffic, what's the harm in a few road closures? I like the feeling of knowing that you're going to have to work hard to get back into an area with very little hunting pressure and that maybe it will pay off by taking a mature animal that has been able to grow old and wise.

You've got over 12% of the province in parks with little to no motorized access right now. Isn't that enough for the few of you who want to hoof it? And, it is a "few" because of the current demographics in the hunting community.

Where do you think those elk in motorized closures go for 6 months of the year when there's 10 feet of snow on the ground? They are standing on the side of the highway with the rest of them.

To think that elk in a closure are somehow bigger or wiser than any other elk is laughable and indicates a lack of knowledge about the habits and biology of migratory animals. The East Kootenays is far too developed in the winter range for all the elk not to interact with humans while on winter range. Moreover, there's just not enough hunters in the bush to decrease "shooter" animals to any extent in any area. Also, elk in the rut will travel huge distances in and out of closure areas, in search of cows. Any untended cows where a herd bull has been harvested will be found by other roaming bulls from all areas, closed or not. I've spent nearly every fall since 1977 elk hunting in the EK and watching their habits.

BTW Sonny, I'd have to strap your sorry ass to my packboard to get you back to the truck if you happened to come for a walk with me in Elk Country. :wink: I'm against unnecessary (ie no conservation concern) road closures because they limit opportunity for the majority of BC's elk hunters and cater to foreigners who are ferried in by GOs.

[kootenayelkslayer]

FD, are you arguing that areas with less hunting pressure don't have the potential to produce more mature animals when compared with areas of high hunting pressure??



BTW Sonny, I'd have to strap your sorry ass to my packboard to get you back to the truck if you happened to come for a walk with me in Elk Country. :wink:
Hahaha that's funny. Keep dreamin' old man. You're welcome to join me for a hike in elk or sheep country anytime, and we'll see who'd be packing out who.

[Fisher-Dude]

FD, are you arguing that areas with less hunting pressure don't have the potential to produce more mature animals when compared with areas of high hunting pressure??


What I'm telling you is that elk are highly migratory due to weather, predators and the rut, and closures in this drainage or that drainage mean nothing when the elk are on the move. I've hunted the hell out of a drainage for 10 days straight without seeing or hearing a single elk, then suddenly they start showing up everywhere. I've also had the opposite happen when the wolves show up one night and the valley empties out of elk within a day or two.

They cover miles fast and often move to other drainages to elude non-human predators. I've seen bulls coming down the rocks from above the goats as they go from one valley to the next. Access closures mean nothing to the animals as to where they will spend their time. They don't sit in a closure and "grow big".

One day, you'll have a bit more experience with their habits, and may come to realize this for yourself. In the meantime, you can continue to support closures that benefit the GOs and their foreign clients instead of your fellow resident hunters.

[steepNdeep]

To think that elk in a closure are somehow bigger or wiser than any other elk is laughable and indicates a lack of knowledge about the habits and biology of migratory animals.

It's not the quality and quantity of the elk in the road closures that is better, it's the quantity and quality of the hunters that you meet in there... :wink:

[Fisher-Dude]

It's not the quality and quantity of the elk in the road closures that is better, it's the quantity and quality of the hunters that you meet in there... :wink:

That's debatable.

http://www.bilbrey.net/images/patrioticboone.JPG

[goatdancer]

The road closures in the EKs only help those who have horses or are young enough to be able to pack an elk out for a long distance. Those of us who are past 60 have no hope in hell of packing out an elk sized critter for 5 or more km. What has changed over the years to turn hunting into a 'young man's' activity? As we get older, the back starts to go. So does that mean we are no longer welcome to continue in our hunting efforts? Also the 'trophy' element of elk hunting is for those who want to 'go for the big ones'. I, and many others, hunt for meat primarily. The 'awesome rack' is a bonus. It's time to get back to actual science for game management, not artificial hokus-pokus.

[goatdancer]

It's not the quality and quantity of the elk in the road closures that is better, it's the quantity and quality of the hunters that you meet in there... :wink:

The quantity will be less and the quality will be subject to your own personal tastes. I have met many a 'low-life quad rider' in my hunting travels that I have found to be very honest, straight forward, and helpful. Just because they haven't humped it for 10 km doesn't mean that they are not 'worthy' of being called a hunter.

[blackbart]

Why not open up a winter LEH just like the peace? BJ may actually get to shoot an elk that way and in doing so make the rest of us happy.

[steepNdeep]

I have met many a 'low-life quad rider' in my hunting travels that I have found to be very honest, straight forward, and helpful.

I'm just hasslin' FD. I'm sure that he probably humped it back in the day... I think it's great to see physically or chronologically challenged guys out on their quads. :wink: Actually, whatever it takes - the more the merrier (it means less guys on the ridge tops) :D

[ElkMasterC]

There's Elk in the Koots?
Wow, who knew?
They're few and far between though...best go to NZ for Red Stag.
Next thing you'll be tellin' me there's Turkeys there too.

[silvertipp]

Icant see opening up a little more territory will ever hurt the qaulity of trophy bulls it only gets us a little closer to those high mountain elk & maybe well recover all the meat instead of just a few prime cuts anyone hikeing in past 5 k & saying thay have harvested all there meet is full of it.a big rack is a bonus but were trying to reduce the size of a herd wich in the end will affect all of us ,hickers,packers guides & road hunters
ive packed in lots of country & passed on nice trophys just because you cant morely retreive them

[hunter1947]

I know all about road closures in the EK ,last year I packed out my bull in a road closure ,when all said and done the total distance was 18k :rolleyes:.

Yes road closers do have more elk in there ,if a person has the legs to go back and hunt them ,they up there odds big time.

[hunter1947]

What I'm telling you is that elk are highly migratory due to weather, predators and the rut, and closures in this drainage or that drainage mean nothing when the elk are on the move. I've hunted the hell out of a drainage for 10 days straight without seeing or hearing a single elk, then suddenly they start showing up everywhere. I've also had the opposite happen when the wolves show up one night and the valley empties out of elk within a day or two.

They cover miles fast and often move to other drainages to elude non-human predators. I've seen bulls coming down the rocks from above the goats as they go from one valley to the next. Access closures mean nothing to the animals as to where they will spend their time. They don't sit in a closure and "grow big".

One day, you'll have a bit more experience with their habits, and may come to realize this for yourself. In the meantime, you can continue to support closures that benefit the GOs and their foreign clients instead of your fellow resident hunters.


FD you are right elk can move to different areas on any given day or month :wink:.

I used to hunt for moose off the Alaska highway at mile 178 for moose once in a while and never saw an elk in them part of the woods ,they all were further north of 178.

I was told you have to be around the 285 mile mark and north of that to find elk.

that was 40 years ago now there are elk everywhere in that area of 7-42.

Yes elk will move ,it might be because of habitat ,predators ,weather ,hunting pressher etc.

[bridger]

Unfortunately I have never had the opportuntity to hunt the kootenays and wonder why the roads were closed in the first place and who or what the closures benefit most. also do outfitters have keys for the gates as they do in the peace?

[hunter1947]

Unfortunately I have never had the opportuntity to hunt the kootenays and wonder why the roads were closed in the first place and who or what the closures benefit most. also do outfitters have keys for the gates as they do in the peace?

The road closures say it is to protect wildlife and habitat.

[Everett]

Bridger a large portion of the closures were put in to protect moose when they still were on GOS since they are now on LEH these closures are just protecting the GO's.
There is some that protect sheep and goat populations but since goats are on LEH those closures are BS as well.
Anyone who wants to hunt away from people does not need a road closure you walk a km off any road and you will never see another hunter.
Open them all up spread the hunters around unless they are for real conservation concerns which is basicly sheep as they are the only animal that is GOS that is anyway threatened in the EK.
As for the ELK this spring while bear hunting I have well over 2000 ELK so don't anybody try an tell me we need any point restrictions on ELk.
A 10 day any elk season in the valley bottoms should knock the population back to where it is sustainable.
Open up the whitetail at the same time and do the mule deer a favour. This year the MOE is giving out more WT doe tags than there will be people putting in so why is it on LEH?
I will answer my own question money they like the extra cash we spend on those damn cards.

[elkdom]

The road closures say it is to protect wildlife and habitat.

the SAD TRUTH in BC is that MANY roads closed to recreational users ie;(hunters,campers,atv buffs),

those same roads and so called "PROTECTED AREAS":roll:, are OPEN to use , for logging , mining , oil and gas development, and GO's,

so it actually works like this,,,

MONEY TALKS and residents walks :???:

[ratherbefishin]

Giving out more White tail doe tags,so why is it on LEH?-they might say so they can manage the harvest-but the more cynical among us[me included]might say its because there is more money in LEH than having an open season....

[Everett]

Giving out more White tail doe tags,so why is it on LEH?-they might say so they can manage the harvest-but the more cynical among us[me included]might say its because there is more money in LEH than having an open season....

Good to see I am not the only one who thinks this way.

[elkdom]

Good to see I am not the only one who thinks this way.

for several years I also have thought the same, I have watched some outrageous postings for LTD entry hunts, with unexplainable numbers and authorizations, and the only explainable reason is simply the MONEY from selling the DRAW cards !

[GoatGuy]

Well I'm not surprised that FD is against road closures, he doesn't like the idea of not being able to hunt from his truck. But for other hunters out there who like to be able to get away from the road traffic, what's the harm in a few road closures? I like the feeling of knowing that you're going to have to work hard to get back into an area with very little hunting pressure and that maybe it will pay off by taking a mature animal that has been able to grow old and wise.

It's been my experience that most of the guys up those road closures are road hunters on horses or on foot. Even if most of those roads were open there'd still be nobody getting off of them. Seems a lot of the guys wanting road closures are glorified road hunters.

Most of those road closures were set up for conservation. With today's regulations there's no need because everything's either on LEH or on a fail-safe horn/antler restriction.

In the koots we seen a couple of residents last year, first time in the last 5 - 90% of the time the only people you run into are guides and clients and with the 'kootenay model' for sheep you run into a lot of guides and clients.

And yes Bridger gos often get keys to the gate, not necessarily to hunt but to stock up camp - they're 'commercial operators' after all.

[steepNdeep]

In the koots we seen a couple of residents last year, first time in the last 5 - 90% of the time the only people you run into are guides and clients and with the 'kootenay model' for sheep you run into a lot of guides and clients.


Wow, Mr. 4,000+ posts actually gets off his keyboard & hunts?.. how do the square eyes fit in your bino's??? :biggrin:

[GoatGuy]

Wow, Mr. 4,000+ posts actually gets off his keyboard & hunts?.. how do the square eyes fit in your bino's??? :biggrin:

square binos, of course.................

[338 whisper]

back to elk season in the mid 80s and early 90s when ther ewas a 3 point saeason then a 6 piont at the begining then a 6 point at the end there way less road to travel on. now with logging there is a road in every drainage and most mountains have acess to them or up on them right back in to the high country. now with atvs you can go almost anywere. even rosds that were all grow in so to go back to 3 point season would destroy the bull herd Becaouse last year i could have shot about 35 bulls that were to small after i already had my 6 point the same with my dad.I peronally like the 6 point season because it keeps the people that road hunt at home. I remeber in the early 90 when it was a good season just to see bull never mind here one bugle. and that after all the leh for cows and calfs were open till dec. my thought is just keep it the same. Since they opened leh up for cows i noticed way less whitetail small bucks. and less big bucks this last year or two.just my two cents.:roll:

[ferndogger]

I have a sweet spot that I see huge bulls nearly everyday, same location without doubt. Cant wait till September 1 bow season.

[Fisher-Dude]

back to elk season in the mid 80s and early 90s when ther ewas a 3 point saeason then a 6 piont at the begining then a 6 point at the end there way less road to travel on. now with logging there is a road in every drainage and most mountains have acess to them or up on them right back in to the high country. now with atvs you can go almost anywere. even rosds that were all grow in so to go back to 3 point season would destroy the bull herd Becaouse last year i could have shot about 35 bulls that were to small after i already had my 6 point the same with my dad.I peronally like the 6 point season because it keeps the people that road hunt at home. I remeber in the early 90 when it was a good season just to see bull never mind here one bugle. and that after all the leh for cows and calfs were open till dec. my thought is just keep it the same. Since they opened leh up for cows i noticed way less whitetail small bucks. and less big bucks this last year or two.just my two cents.:roll:

Classic! :lol::lol::lol:

[BCrams]

.I peronally like the 6 point season because it keeps the people that road hunt at home.

Your true colours are revealed.

[jchunter]

Isn't there enough roads out there for you people to drive if your too lazy to get out of your truck and walk. There are thousands of roads that you can drive and very few that you can't. If you want to hunt up a road closer, do what I do and lace up you hiking boots and walk. And for the 3 point elk season I don't see any advatage to that, there are more 6 point elk being killed right now then there was 3 point or better back in the day. Look at the butcher shops during hunting season and see all the whole elk being brought in whole. (so dont tell me that you need more roads open to kill an elk of the road). Open up the cows that will knock your numbers down.

[Everett]

Ok for you folks that keep talking about the past give your head a shake its 2009 not 1984 or 1995. The Elk herd is over its carrying capacity so either hunters shoot alot more Elk or they starve in the first bad winter that happens along. As for there being more access now to the back country your full of shit half the roads that go in now are dug up withen a year. Take a look at some old maps our god forbid get out and walk around on the old roads that are grown over and no longer accesible to vehicles. Add in all the road closures there is a reason everyone is bumping into each other. Open everything up spread the hunters around and even the road hunters will be happy.

[silvertipp]

we,re talking about reduceing a elk herd it doesnt realy matter what you do with the bull season it wont affect the heard unless you kill them all so shoot the cows. opening up the roads to hunt higher country is only going to help by spreading the hunt over more land rather than targeting them in one general area,id like to know how many people are interested in hikeing a long ways just to shoot a cow elk,not many im sure
just beacuase your hikeing up these rds to hunt your still road hunting in a sence try getting off the nice easy man made rd & get right into the bush than see how far your willing to carry that elk

[kootenayelkslayer]

back to elk season in the mid 80s and early 90s when ther ewas a 3 point saeason then a 6 piont at the begining then a 6 point at the end there way less road to travel on. now with logging there is a road in every drainage and most mountains have acess to them or up on them right back in to the high country. now with atvs you can go almost anywere. even rosds that were all grow in so to go back to 3 point season would destroy the bull herd Becaouse last year i could have shot about 35 bulls that were to small after i already had my 6 point the same with my dad.I peronally like the 6 point season because it keeps the people that road hunt at home. I remeber in the early 90 when it was a good season just to see bull never mind here one bugle. and that after all the leh for cows and calfs were open till dec. my thought is just keep it the same. Since they opened leh up for cows i noticed way less whitetail small bucks. and less big bucks this last year or two.just my two cents.:roll:

Well that post oughta keep Fisher-Dude off my back for a lil while.:razz:

[jchunter]

Ok for you folks that keep talking about the past give your head a shake its 2009 not 1984 or 1995. The Elk herd is over its carrying capacity so either hunters shoot alot more Elk or they starve in the first bad winter that happens along. As for there being more access now to the back country your full of shit half the roads that go in now are dug up withen a year. Take a look at some old maps our god forbid get out and walk around on the old roads that are grown over and no longer accesible to vehicles. Add in all the road closures there is a reason everyone is bumping into each other. Open everything up spread the hunters around and even the road hunters will be happy.

Mabey thats the problem nobody wants to get out and walk around a little bit they want to sit in there new truck, drinking a coffee, listening to the radio and shoot an elk or what ever. I don't have a problem with people doing this but dont complain that there isn't enough places to go drive around or cry that you didn't kill your elk, because thats BS. If you want to knock the elk numbers down kill the cows in the trench thats whats hurting us not the high country elk.

[6616]

there are more 6 point elk being killed right now then there was 3 point or better back in the day

Sorry pard, review the harvest reports,,,,,,your statement is simply not true. We were harvesting 1400 to 1600 bulls back in the day (early and mid '80s) and we're harvesting 700 to 900 bulls today.

And even if we were, what would be wrong with harvesting more elk today then back in the day, after all Garth did say there's more elk today then ever before...?

If it's sustainable and the population can provide the harvest, why not use it, what are we saving them for, to feed and expand the wolf population so they will eat our sheep and mule deer?

[6616]

Since they opened leh up for cows i noticed way less whitetail small bucks. and less big bucks this last year or two.just my two cents.:roll:

Huh????? White tailed deer are declining in the East Kootenay...??? Wow...!

[jchunter]

Sorry pard, review the harvest reports,,,,,,your statement is simply not true. We were harvesting 1400 to 1600 bulls back in the day (early and mid '80s) and we're harvesting 700 to 900 bulls today.

And even if we were, what would be wrong with harvesting more elk today then back in the day, after all Garth did say there's more elk today then ever before...?

If it's sustainable and the population can provide the harvest, why not use it, what are we saving them for, to feed and expand the wolf population so they will eat our sheep and mule deer?

Sorry I if I was mistaken on the number of bulls harvested. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be killing elk but what elk we should be killing. The resident elk that are in the fields and all around the low lands are the ones that we should be targeting. Do you think that by opening up 3 point and better we will reduce the numbers that much? I believe not. I think that we should harvest more cows to do that. Also are we not killing better bulls now? I remember when someone killed a 300 bull it was big news, now its a fairly common thing. I know that not all people care about big racks but some of us do. Can't we keep our quality up while reducing numbers?

[6616]

Sorry I if I was mistaken on the number of bulls harvested. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be killing elk but what elk we should be killing. The resident elk that are in the fields and all around the low lands are the ones that we should be targeting. Do you think that by opening up 3 point and better we will reduce the numbers that much? I believe not. I think that we should harvest more cows to do that. Also are we not killing better bulls now? I remember when someone killed a 300 bull it was big news, now its a fairly common thing. I know that not all people care about big racks but some of us do. Can't we keep our quality up while reducing numbers?

You're absolutelly right about the low elevation resident elk in the fields. We should be killing them and reducing the resident (non-migratory) population. You're also correct in saying that you must have cow harvests to control populations, bull harvests will not accomplish that.

However, we have more bulls then ever so why not shoot some more of them as long as it's sustainable.

We can reduce the herds and "improve" our bull quality if we do it right. Research has shown that antler point restrictions actually causes antler size to decrease over time. It's best to harvest from a broad range of age classes if you want big bulls. Yes, there are more 300 bulls shot today because back in the day when we shot 1500 bulls per year many of them were only 3, 4, and 5 pointers, but there are probably fewer 350 bulls shot today then back in the day.

What the six point antler restriction does is weed out the best genetics over time thus reducing overall average bull quality and decreasing average antler size. The best genetic bulls at 3 years of age are stupid rag horn 6 pointers and they're getting shot. The poorer genetics 3 and 4 year olds are all 5 pointers and are allowed to live another year or two, breed, and pass on their inferior genetics.

The 4 point mule deer regulation is probably doing the same thing to buck quality but may be unavoidable to some extent to avoid an overharvest. Yes, there's probably more 150 and 160 mulie bucks around but probably fewer 170 and 180 bucks after a couple decades of that regulation. This effect has been well researched and documented in several locations.

[jchunter]

Originally Posted by 6616 http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?p=474383#post474383)
Sorry pard, review the harvest reports,,,,,,your statement is simply not true. We were harvesting 1400 to 1600 bulls back in the day (early and mid '80s) and we're harvesting 700 to 900 bulls today.

What were the hunter numbers in early and mid 80's? I'm just curious because with all the talk now of hunter numbers decreasing at a steady rate would that also not change the harvest sucess. If there were a ton more hunters back then would you not kill more elk, even if you had more elk now and fewer hunters. I dont know all the numbers and studies like you but I do know that alot of times just because that numbers are on paper doesn't make it right or acurate. I'm not calling you a lier or saying that your incorrect in your statements but some times I have a hard time believing alot of what the experts call "fact". However I'm nobody so its just my two cents.

[hunter1947]

back to elk season in the mid 80s and early 90s when ther ewas a 3 point saeason then a 6 piont at the begining then a 6 point at the end there way less road to travel on. now with logging there is a road in every drainage and most mountains have acess to them or up on them right back in to the high country. now with atvs you can go almost anywere. even rosds that were all grow in so to go back to 3 point season would destroy the bull herd Becaouse last year i could have shot about 35 bulls that were to small after i already had my 6 point the same with my dad.I peronally like the 6 point season because it keeps the people that road hunt at home. I remeber in the early 90 when it was a good season just to see bull never mind here one bugle. and that after all the leh for cows and calfs were open till dec. my thought is just keep it the same. Since they opened leh up for cows i noticed way less whitetail small bucks. and less big bucks this last year or two.just my two cents.:roll:


Yes you are correct in a way :smile: ..

Lets look at it this way on what numbers have been put forwatd to us from FD ,yes there are as many number of elk in the EK now or more then there was back in the late 80ties early 90ties has been put forward as of now.

Opening up a 3 week 3 or better season will help hunter numbers increase as for putting elk meat on the table that fall.

Having a 3 point season for 3 weeks will also help the elk numbers so there is enough habitat for whitetail deer and elk.

No I'm darn sure that a 3 week season for bull elk will not hurt the elk numbers for 3 weeks or even 2 weeks season.
Elk management can try this for 2 years and say it is not working then they can change the table back to what it is now or something differenthttp://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif.

[hunter1947]

Want you all to know that this area I am talking about is an area I have hunted for 43 years ,the number of elk I have seen in the last 4 years in where I hunt is unbelievable ,I'm :eek:.

I am one of them hunters that say to one of my hunting partners ,drop me off and I will see you back at camp tonight ,I could be 25k from our camp when I start my hunt that morning and believe you me you sure do see numbers of elk when you get off the beaten path into the bush.

75% of my hunts are off the gravel road and back into the mountains where there are no roads.

Two years ago most members remember that I hunting in my hunting area in the EK for the whole elk season ,that being 6 weeks.

I came home with the big skunk and believe me it stunk all the way home http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif.

It was not because I did not see elk ,man I counted over 300 cow calf elk I saw and around 50 bull elk.

I came close a number of times on pulling the trigger on a few bulls but was not sure they where a 6 so I let them walk.

I saw around 20 bulls that where 5x5 and a few of them where around a 300 class bull.

I myself would rather see elk meat on a hunters plate this fall then to see them starve and the meat go to the ravens ,yots etc.

Opening up a short season for 3 or better is the way to go as for even more LEH applications for cow elk to help reduce the carrying capacity.

[jchunter]

Want you all to know that this area I am talking about is an area I have hunted for 43 years ,the number of elk I have seen in the last 4 years in where I hunt is unbelievable ,I'm :eek:.

I am one of them hunters that say to one of my hunting partners ,drop me off and I will see you back at camp tonight ,I could be 25k from our camp when I start my hunt that morning and believe you me you sure do see numbers of elk when you get off the beaten path into the bush.

75% of my hunts are off the gravel road and back into the mountains where there are no roads.

Two years ago most members remember that I hunting in my hunting area in the EK for the whole elk season ,that being 6 weeks.

I came home with the big skunk and believe me it stunk all the way home http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif.

It was not because I did not see elk ,man I counted over 300 cow calf elk I saw and around 50 bull elk.

I came close a number of times on pulling the trigger on a few bulls but was not sure they where a 6 so I let them walk.

I saw around 20 bulls that where 5x5 and a few of them where around a 300 class bull.

I myself would rather see elk meat on a hunters plate this fall then to see them starve and the meat go to the ravens ,yots etc.

Opening up a short season for 3 or better is the way to go as for even more LEH applications for cow elk to help reduce the carrying capacity.

Sound like you had a good season. Is killing an elk all that matters? you got into bulls, seen elk couldn't make the call on some that sounds like hunting to me. I know it can get frustrating when you don't kill but if meat is all your after then why not just by beef? it would be cheaper then all the gas and gear. believe me because my wife showed me a spread sheet that she did on it when I told her I hunted so much to give her food http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif. I agree with you that cow elk should be opened up way more then they are, that way if meat is all your after then you could shoot one of them to fill up your frezer. I would rather have a season like you talked about then one where I pound the bush for a season not seeing much and end up killing one of the few bulls that I did see.

[hunter1947]

Sorry pard, review the harvest reports,,,,,,your statement is simply not true. We were harvesting 1400 to 1600 bulls back in the day (early and mid '80s) and we're harvesting 700 to 900 bulls today.

And even if we were, what would be wrong with harvesting more elk today then back in the day, after all Garth did say there's more elk today then ever before...?

If it's sustainable and the population can provide the harvest, why not use it, what are we saving them for, to feed and expand the wolf population so they will eat our sheep and mule deer?


You are correct 6616 about the wolf population ,it has got out of hand in the area I hunt ,I saw wolves the last two years as for 4 different packs in areas that where howling on my morning and evening hunts ,wolf scats everywhere in the bush.

Up to about 6 years ago I had never heard or seen wolf in my hunting area.

Last year I saw a reduction on WT deer from the previous year and thats because the wolf numbers are having an effect on the WT deer population.

The wolfs will take elk down as well ,why the wolf population has increased over the last 5 years is because of the increasing WT and elk population over the last 5 years :wink:.

[hunter1947]

Sound like you had a good season. Is killing an elk all that matters? you got into bulls, seen elk couldn't make the call on some that sounds like hunting to me. I know it can get frustrating when you don't kill but if meat is all your after then why not just by beef? it would be cheaper then all the gas and gear. believe me because my wife showed me a spread sheet that she did on it when I told her I hunted so much to give her food http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif. I agree with you that cow elk should be opened up way more then they are, that way if meat is all your after then you could shoot one of them to fill up your frezer. I would rather have a season like you talked about then one where I pound the bush for a season not seeing much and end up killing one of the few bulls that I did see.

Not so killing an elk is a bonus to me being out there hunting elk is what counts to me.

As for going to the store and getting is garbbage meat ,you don't know what your getting ,at least when I get an elk or deer etc I know what I am getting.
Its ok for you to talk about elk when you live in there back yard ,as for me I have to drive 1000 k in order to hunt them.

If you read my avatar it says ,I love to hunt RMT elk.

The elk are at big numbers now why not have a better chance to put some elk meat on the table ????? ,you tell me why not ???? http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif.

[GoatGuy]

Also are we not killing better bulls now? I remember when someone killed a 300 bull it was big news, now its a fairly common thing. I know that not all people care about big racks but some of us do. Can't we keep our quality up while reducing numbers?

This is something I've never quite understood. Do you believe there's 'quality' in a 300" bull? I don't get too excited about elk hunting but if I was looking to shoot a 'quality' bull I suppose I'd be looking to shoot something that at least came close to making book.

I've always been of the opinion that if I want to impose a regulation or a standard on myself and that means I have to walk farther and longer than everybody else that's my prerogative. However, it isn't a restriction I should be placing on every other hunter in the Province.

What do you do with a set of 300" antlers? I suppose a 300" bull would take up a bit more space in the flower garden than a 5 pt or a 3 pt but not much more. Personally, I'd just as soon shoot a 3 pt as a 300" bull.

I think if they open up some roads and go to 3 pt that'll mean more space in the backcountry for the guys who are willing to lay down some boot leather and head in where there are no roads.

If you want 'quality' and you want to shoot big bulls go where the big bulls are - it sure ain't in the EK, never has been.

[Fisher-Dude]

Sometimes I wonder what a person's motivation is for wanting to keep fellow hunters out of the bush. Then I do a 10 second investigation and get my answer:
The email address for jchunter is jesseekguide@hotmail.com

What outfit do you guide for Jesse? Do they have a website that I can check out? Do they sell hunts to wealthy foreigners that advertise a "quality experience" and "trophy elk"?

[GoatGuy]

Sometimes I wonder what a person's motivation is for wanting to keep fellow hunters out of the bush. Then I do a 10 second investigation and get my answer:
The email address for jchunter is jesseekguide@hotmail.com

What outfit do you guide for Jesse? Do they have a website that I can check out? Do they sell hunts to wealthy foreigners that advertise a "quality experience" and "trophy elk"?

Why am I not surprised?

[jchunter]

Sometimes I wonder what a person's motivation is for wanting to keep fellow hunters out of the bush. Then I do a 10 second investigation and get my answer:
The email address for jchunter is jesseekguide@hotmail.com

What outfit do you guide for Jesse? Do they have a website that I can check out? Do they sell hunts to wealthy foreigners that advertise a "quality experience" and "trophy elk"?

Fact of the matter is I used to guide ie the email address but haven't for over 4 years now and have no plan on doing it agian. I don't realy see what that matters anyways I'm a local hunter telling what I think and what I would like to see. Not for US hunters but for me. I don't see me saying that I want people out of the bush, when did I ever say that? If you have a problem with me used to being a guide I realy dont give a shit. What are you one of those people that get mad everytime that they hear about outfitters. I'm not here to defend or bash outfitters I'm on here telling what I think about ME and MY hunting opinions and your doing the same.

[BCrams]

I know that not all people care about big racks but some of us do. Can't we keep our quality up while reducing numbers?

Ahhh 'quality' ..... the GOA's new mantra.

What guide outfit do you run??

jchunter -

This is probably hard to grasp ..... but reducing the elk population to below carry capacity will be better for overall herd demographics. Harvesting cows and yes, having a 3 pt bull season as well will give hunters like yourself better opportunities for larger bulls. 6 pt seasons over time will do nothing but degrade the quality of 6 pt elk.

[silvertipp]

jc whats the problem of opening up some more rds youll still have the same chances for a good bull by hikeing in a little further with a better chance of recovering all your meat i love to hike in i dont mind the work but alot off times you pack your animal out only to hit a rd why not use it
or are you afraid of a little compatition & by the way jc i have passed on animals when to far in

[goatdancer]

Mabey thats the problem nobody wants to get out and walk around a little bit they want to sit in there new truck, drinking a coffee, listening to the radio and shoot an elk or what ever. I don't have a problem with people doing this but dont complain that there isn't enough places to go drive around or cry that you didn't kill your elk, because thats BS. If you want to knock the elk numbers down kill the cows in the trench thats whats hurting us not the high country elk.


The problem is in having to pack a large animal out for 5+ km. Many of us older guys don't have the back for that kind of an endeavour. If it was a case of just getting the meat to a road, that would be a different story. Why should we have to try pack a critter along a perfectly good road or trail? This appears to be an elitist attitude - look at me, big strong man, pack whole elk or moose for 15 km, ugh ugh ugh. Just because my back isn't 25 years old doesn't mean I should have to quit hunting.

[Downwind]

I think the main issue that some people are failing to see here is that if these animals aren't harvested through hunting then they are going to die anyways. It's kind of like a game of musical chairs. Everyone is safe at the beginning but as more chairs get taken away then some has to fall. The only difference here is we are talking about the starvation of the animals. Is it really that hard a concept to understand that if there is only enough resources to support a certain number of animals and you exceed that then the numbers will drop (either through starvation or disease). If disease sets in then huge numbers, including the trophy animals that some only seem to be concerned with, will die off as well.
The big issue I see here isn't opening up more roads but dropping the point restriction. And yes point restrictions decrease the number of trophy animals. The number of points on antlers is just like eye colour in humans, its genetic. The MOE realized this in the Peace region with moose when they changed the requirement from 10pts AND 3pt on the brow palm to EITHER 10pts or 3pts on the brow palm. You can breed traits out of animals just like you can breed them into them. Just like dogs, horses and cattle.

[PGK]

All this is smoke in the wind because by year's end, regions three, four and five are all going to be managed as one region, by one person. Don't believe me? Wait and see. You got your wish FD, you voted in Gordo. Now watch your province's game management crumble.

[Everett]

The problem is in having to pack a large animal out for 5+ km. Many of us older guys don't have the back for that kind of an endeavour. If it was a case of just getting the meat to a road, that would be a different story. Why should we have to try pack a critter along a perfectly good road or trail? This appears to be an elitist attitude - look at me, big strong man, pack whole elk or moose for 15 km, ugh ugh ugh. Just because my back isn't 25 years old doesn't mean I should have to quit hunting.

Very well said and its just not a few roads its hundreds of kilometers of roads in the EK. It basicly keeps your normal BC hunter who can't afford a set of horses out of there own land. It also protects the guide outfitters who from there own actions have made them selves the enemies of resident meat hunters.

[338 whisper]

6616 four yearws ago we would pass up 15 to 20 spike bucks looking for a muture buck but with the increase in hunter to the area for cows they also do not want to go home empty handed so all those smal bucks get smoked in the first 10 days of the season and when this happens it takes two to three years to show in the number of mature bucks in the heards this is what i have noticed in my area maybe golden is diffenent and i here this more and more often from people in the area that i hunt. I also noticed that down south by kookanoosa you could see 150 to 200 does in a day last year we saw "0" in two trips not that i hunt does but were there are does there will be bucks.

[6616]

6616 four yearws ago we would pass up 15 to 20 spike bucks looking for a muture buck but with the increase in hunter to the area for cows they also do not want to go home empty handed so all those smal bucks get smoked in the first 10 days of the season and when this happens it takes two to three years to show in the number of mature bucks in the heards this is what i have noticed in my area maybe golden is diffenent and i here this more and more often from people in the area that i hunt. I also noticed that down south by kookanoosa you could see 150 to 200 does in a day last year we saw "0" in two trips not that i hunt does but were there are does there will be bucks.

So what are you saying,, that WTD are in trouble...???
I drive between Golden and Cranbrook frequently and during April and early May it was a nightmare with the numbers of elk and deer on the highway, more WTD then mulies.

[hunter1947]

So what are you saying,, that WTD are in trouble...???
I drive between Golden and Cranbrook frequently and during April and early May it was a nightmare with the numbers of elk and deer on the highway, more WTD then mulies.

I have traveled to the bloom creek area many of times and yes you are right the sightings for WT deer are few from a few years ago.

One of the reasons why I think the decline in this area is because of road hunting as for predator problems and habitat etc.

As for the hunting for does I have not hunted for them in this area ,maybe there are to many LEH applications given out in that area for does ?????.

When you get away from that one area you do see more WT deer in other areas on the side of the roads.

[hunter1947]

Very well said and its just not a few roads its hundreds of kilometers of roads in the EK. It basicly keeps your normal BC hunter who can't afford a set of horses out of there own land. It also protects the guide outfitters who from there own actions have made them selves the enemies of resident meat hunters.


My lower back is in very bad shape ,it is hard for me to put my socks on some mornings when I first get up.

The elk I got last year was in a road closure and like I said it was a 4 trips to get it out a total of 18k trip when all said and done ,guids do use these road clousures with there hourses but I don't let it bother me ,I use my legs or my 18 speed bike to get back in there.

I am in favor of the road closures ,it keeps out the hunters that don't want to work for there meat .

I adjust to what I have to as my age creeps up on me ..

I have found some young strong men in the last few years that become my hunting partners ,that will help me do the job of getting our meat out of the bush and into the truck.

I take less in my back pack and they take more in order to get the job done ,this means you Blacktailstalker ,LOL http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif.

[ELKOHOLICBC]

Very well put Wayne. I'm in favour of road closurers also. It does keep your average hunters out and IE road hunters. Thier not to just to protect guiding areas. Elk hunting isn't a walk in the park and it seems like there are alot of guys on this site that want the easy 6pt thats standing in a clear cut, whats wrong with a 8km bike ride and a 6km up hill hike to get your elk. You don't need horses to hunt road closurers just a little determination. My wife hunts these areas with me and never complains how far it is, whats wrong with putting in a little effort for your animal. Just remember nobody is making you hunt these areas thats your choice, there are many areas in B.C. to hunt elk.

[sawmill]

No offence guys but it burns my ass a little that guys who live hundreds of miles away from where I live and hunt are in favour of closing the roads I use to get my winter meat,and firewood.Feel free to close the roads in your area though,cause that`s none of my buisness.

[bearass]

Hello everyone , at the beginning of this thred you guys were talking about elk numbers from now compared to the 90,s. What is the max numbers of elk that the trench can hold ? What were the numbers back in the 60,s and 70,?

I think that who ever is manageing the elk is doing a great job.6 point or better has created awsome elk hunting opertunities and experiences for everyone. Also for young hunters that are trying to get into hunting. With all the tags that are given out in the low lands, not to mention just going out and seeing and hearing bulls makes the hunt fun.If you want to shoot a three point bull go buy a bow.You don,t have to kill an elk to have a good time.

As for the elk dieing off from over population and dieses,There are plenty of wolf,s to manage that proplem in the kootenays.

When was the last 380-400 class bull taken over in the east kootneys. If you are looking for this class of bull in the trench I think you are wasteing your time.

[Everett]

Well Wayne by the sounds of were you are hunting we mayby hunting the same road closure. Have to keep my eye open for an old guy on an old bike:razz:. I'm the guy with two blue heeler pack dogs.
What is wrong with wanting to shoot an Elk by the road never personaly had that kind of luck with Elk but woudn't turn one down next to the road.
Sawmill also has a another good point alot of the local hunters in the EK cruise the roads while doing other things ie. collecting firewood, going fishing and going to work for a few examples hunting is not a sport to them it is a way of getting cheep organic meat.
Alot of you are looking down your nose at road hunters, they have the same rights as you do to collect meat. To be honest I have more respect for a road hunter who shoots the first legal animal he spots than the typical trophy hunter going on about a quality hunt.
If you want to hike for your bull, buck or ram you don't need a road closure. Restricting hunting areas to a select few is an elitist attitude.
There is not one road closure south of Cranbrook that is justifiable for conservation reasons. That a direct quote from a CO

[sawmill]

Thank you Everett.I`m feeding 7 people here,every little bit helps.

[Everett]

Hello everyone , at the beginning of this thred you guys were talking about elk numbers from now compared to the 90,s. What is the max numbers of elk that the trench can hold ? What were the numbers back in the 60,s and 70,?

I think that who ever is manageing the elk is doing a great job.6 point or better has created awsome elk hunting opertunities and experiences for everyone. Also for young hunters that are trying to get into hunting. With all the tags that are given out in the low lands, not to mention just going out and seeing and hearing bulls makes the hunt fun.If you want to shoot a three point bull go buy a bow.You don,t have to kill an elk to have a good time.

As for the elk dieing off from over population and dieses,There are plenty of wolf,s to manage that proplem in the kootenays.

When was the last 380-400 class bull taken over in the east kootneys. If you are looking for this class of bull in the trench I think you are wasteing
your time.

The 6 point season has not created the abundance of Elk mild winters and not shooting cows has created the abundance of Elk.
The abundace of wolves is part of the potential problem you get a hard winter with the Elk over carrying capacity with the wolf numbers so high and you have the potential for a serios population crash. Than we are right back in the late 90's were we actualy need point restrictions. All you 6 point guys will just love that I bet.
Oh for the people claiming there isn't enough whitetails you need to get out to the bush more often.

[Everett]

Thank you Everett.I`m feeding 7 people here,every little bit helps.

My point exactly I bought two steaks at the butcher last week for my wife and I and it was $21.50. Who the hell can afford to feed meat to there family 6 days a week without hunting.

[f350ps]

No offence guys but it burns my ass a little that guys who live hundreds of miles away from where I live and hunt are in favour of closing the roads I use to get my winter meat,and firewood.Feel free to close the roads in your area though,cause that`s none of my buisness.
Interesting response Sawmill, so unless I live in the Koots I can't give my opinion ? I pay my taxes in B.C. and pay the same amount for my hunting license as you do. K

[6616]

Regarding white tail deer, I think hunters in general like hunting mule deer more then white tailed deer. We need to remember that there's only so much deer habitat in the EK and there's an overall carrying capacity cap on how many total deer we can have. They can be mule deer or they can be white tailed deer or a balance of both, but too many of either might compromise the population of the other. I worry that the sudden population explosion of white tailed deer is going to have negative impacts on our mulie populations. I believe we should just open WTD hunting up to any deer like Saskatchewan and Alberta does, there probably aren't enough people hunting the East Kootenay to over-harvest the WTD population considering their high reproduction rate.

[Fisher-Dude]

No offence guys but it burns my ass a little that guys who live hundreds of miles away from where I live and hunt are in favour of closing the roads I use to get my winter meat,and firewood.Feel free to close the roads in your area though,cause that`s none of my buisness.

I'm in favour of opening up those roads where sawmill is so that he can get his firewood and his meat. I don't hunt the roads he does, but if there is no conservation concern, it should be open, end of story.

Those who are yapping in favour of closures should take a little history lesson about why the closures were put in place in the first place - it was NOT to provide a spot where people have to "work" for their elk (I've had so friggin' much elk and moose meat on my back that I'm surprised I can still stand upright). The closures were put in to protect certain struggling populations when we had twice the number of hunters as we have now. Now we have half the hunters and no struggling populations. Time to open it up, because under the ministry's ToR for closures, they should be open. Politics should NOT trump game management policy.

As for "road hunting elk" - I've hunted elk since 1977, and of all the elk my brother, dad, my dad's hunting partner, and I killed, we shot one in a cutblock that we spotted while driving along in the truck. If I wanted road closures lifted so that I could drive around in my truck and shoot an elk in a cutblock based on those probablilities of harvest, I would go hungry to shit.

[bayou]

[quote=Everett;474689]Well Wayne by the sounds of were you are hunting we mayby hunting the same road closure. Have to keep my eye open for an old guy on an old bike:razz:. I'm the guy with two blue heeler pack dogs.
What is wrong with wanting to shoot an Elk by the road never personaly had that kind of luck with Elk but woudn't turn one down next to the road.Nothing wrong with shooting an elk by the road if its done legally.
Sawmill also has a another good point alot of the local hunters in the EK cruise the roads while doing other things ie. collecting firewood, going fishing and going to work for a few examples hunting is not a sport to them it is a way of getting cheep organic meat. Many of the road closures are for the purpose of hunting you can still go get your firewood and fish etc
Alot of you are looking down your nose at road hunters, they have the same rights as you do to collect meat.Goes both ways alot of you meat hunters are looking done at how others wish to hunt. To be honest I have more respect for a road hunter who shoots the first legal animal he spots than the typical trophy hunter going on about a quality hunt.
If you want to hike for your bull, buck or ram you don't need a road closure. Restricting hunting areas to a select few is an elitist attitude.There are thousands of miles of open roads available for hunters to use,so why cant others have a few closed for there style of hunting, having it only one way seems kinda selfish.
There is not one road closure south of Cranbrook that is justifiable for conservation reasons. That a direct quote from a CO
One thing I find kinda strange when people start talking about meat hunters and they make up the majority etc, when you take a look at the last couple years of LEH books for whitetail does in the EK it seems they are not even all being utilizied, you would think meat hunters would be all over that to get some good easy meat.

[bearass]

The 6 point season has not created the abundance of Elk mild winters and not shooting cows has created the abundance of Elk.
The abundace of wolves is part of the potential problem you get a hard winter with the Elk over carrying capacity with the wolf numbers so high and you have the potential for a serios population crash. Than we are right back in the late 90's were we actualy need point restrictions. All you 6 point guys will just love that I bet.
Oh for the people claiming there isn't enough whitetails you need to get out to the bush more often.


Are we not shooting cows, last time I went hunting below 1100 meters cow elk were getting shot all over the place. I didn,t say 6 point or better created an abundance of elk .I think it creates better bull hunting opertunity.
If we get a bad winter we get a bad winter, plain and simple. In the bad winter of 96,97 in my whitetail hunting spot all the deer were killed by hunters because of the early snow pushed them into there wintering ground.over 70 percent of the bucks were killed by hunters. not wolfs or cyotes.it took ten years to get back to normal.Last winter was the closest I have seen for bad winters in this area since 96 97. There was alot of winter kill but maybe a little more than normal. But all the snow came in after the season closed

[Fisher-Dude]

Regarding white tail deer, I think hunters in general like hunting mule deer more then white tailed deer. We need to remember that there's only so much deer habitat in the EK and there's an overall carrying capacity cap on how many total deer we can have. They can be mule deer or they can be white tailed deer or a balance of both, but too many of either might compromise the population of the other. I worry that the sudden population explosion of white tailed deer is going to have negative impacts on our mulie populations. I believe we should just open WTD hunting up to any deer like Saskatchewan and Alberta does, there probably aren't enough people hunting the East Kootenay to over-harvest the WTD population considering their high reproduction rate.

Agreed on the any deer - WT are so prolific that we can't harvest them fast enough to control the population. Suggestions are being made that we have a cull to help control them - do any of the NIMBY hunters on this forum want to see a government cull of deer instead of opening up seasons further?

A few things from this year's BCWF convention - firstly, WT have more than doubled since the 1997 die off by most estimates in the MoE (I'd say they've tripled if they asked me). Secondly, according to Dr Ian Hatter, the most productive WT management strategy is to shoot 50% bucks and 25% does annually!

%Male.......%Female....Buck/doe.....Fawn/doe....Stable Herd.....Sustained
harvest.......harvest.......ratio.............rati o.............size............harvest



0%...........0%...........50/100...........24/100.............10,000.............0
25%..........0%..........19/100...........24/100.............10,000..........333
50%..........0%...........9/100............24/100.............10,000..........322
25%.........13%.........43/100............56/100..............8,160........1,242
50%.........25%.........32/100............97/100..............5,875........1,674

[Everett]

Well Bayou there is 1612 WT doe tags availble in region 4 with about 4000 people putting in for them so I think meat hunters are on that train. The problem is you don't get alot of meat off a WT doe. Wife shot one last year 30lb of meat.
As for meat hunters looking down at trophy hunters I don`t think so most meat hunters would like to be trophy hunters if they had the time and money. But the point is meat hunters aren`t out trying to restrict trophy hunters access to the land or restricting there ability to shoot an animal.
As for thousands of miles of roads take a look at the synopsis for the EK as a whole and there is thousands of miles of road closed to hunting. Any decent hunter should not need road closures to protect there little honey holes. Most of these closures are now only to protect GO`s
As for a hard winter mayby in the west but not in the east snow levels were well below average this year I should know I am a ski bum. Very little winter kill this year as a result.

[Fisher-Dude]

One thing I find kinda strange when people start talking about meat hunters and they make up the majority etc, when you take a look at the last couple years of LEH books for whitetail does in the EK it seems they are not even all being utilizied, you would think meat hunters would be all over that to get some good easy meat.

Ask yourself who sees the economy in driving from downtown Vancouver over to Cranbrook to shoot a WT doe that you get 45 lbs of meat from (on a good one!)? Local Kootenay boys know they can shoot a WT buck on just about any day of the week, so for the most part, they don't bother with does.

Undersubscribed LEH is a clear indicator that it should be on GOS.

We all seem to have been brought up to "shoot the buck and leave the doe alone" philosophies. That upbringing has proven to be the wrong approach to good game management.

Lots of the stuff we were brought up to believe from our hunting mentors about game management has proven to be wrong as science proves it differently, yet those of us who have spent the time to educate ourselves on the science get attacked by those of you who think your "opinion" on how game should be managed is the right way to go.

That's why it's so damned hard to get regulations changed for BETTER hunting and MORE opportunity and BETTER animals for everyone, because we who have the facts on management get shouted down by those who have "opinions" on management. The biologists agree with us, and are very frustrated when they see herd health compromised and opportunity for hunters scuttled by those of you who are long on opinion and short on facts.

[bayou]

[quote=Everett;474714]Well Bayou there is 1612 WT doe tags availble in region 4 with about 4000 people putting in for them so I think meat hunters are on that train.I will admit Im not a numbers guy but just did a quick count under region 4 antleress/spike and come up with around 3100 tags. The problem is you don't get alot of meat off a WT doe. Wife shot one last year 30lb of meat.
As for meat hunters looking down at trophy hunters I don`t think so most meat hunters would like to be trophy hunters if they had the time and money. But the point is meat hunters aren`t out trying to restrict trophy hunters access to the land or restricting there ability to shoot an animal.
As for thousands of miles of roads take a look at the synopsis for the EK as a whole and there is thousands of miles of road closed to hunting. Any decent hunter should not need road closures to protect there little honey holes. Most of these closures are now only to protect GO`s
As for a hard winter mayby in the west but not in the east snow levels were well below average this year I should know I am a ski bum. Very little winter kill this year as a result

[Everett]

Oops was using an 08/09 synopsis so they have handed out an extra 1400 tags this year. Should be an open season but this way the goverment gets an extra $25,000 in LEH cards.

[bayou]

[quote=Fisher-Dude;474715]Ask yourself who sees the economy in driving from downtown Vancouver over to Cranbrook to shoot a WT doe that you get 45 lbs of meat from (on a good one!)? Local Kootenay boys know they can shoot a WT buck on just about any day of the week, so for the most part, they don't bother with does.
So now your saying it depends on what the coastys want I thought when you put out numbers saying the majority of hunters did it for meat that it may have included the EK. I would have thought if they were driving all the way from the coast to hunt other animals they would want to take some good eating meat home no matter how much. You know make it sound like meat hunters are selective in what they shoot almost trophy hunting.
Undersubscribed LEH is a clear indicator that it should be on GOS.
We all seem to have been brought up to "shoot the buck and leave the doe alone" philosophies. That upbringing has proven to be the wrong approach to good game management.
I have felt for years that more whitetail does should be harvested, not what Im in to but dont have a problem with those that do.
Lots of the stuff we were brought up to believe from our hunting mentors about game management has proven to be wrong as science proves it differently, yet those of us who have spent the time to educate ourselves on the science get attacked by those of you who think your "opinion" on how game should be managed is the right way to go.

That's why it's so damned hard to get regulations changed for BETTER hunting and MORE opportunity and BETTER animals for everyone, because we who have the facts on management get shouted down by those who have "opinions" on management. The biologists agree with us, and are very frustrated when they see herd health compromised and opportunity for hunters scuttled by those of you who are long on opinion and short on facts.
Every one is allowed there opinion but from what I see your group is to closed minded to see that, the only way is your way or nothing and if they dont agree you insult them.
For me I have already said I will hunt which ever way you make me have to even though you are wrecking what I enjoy about the sport, but I realize its not all about me to bad you cant.
Do I want guys like you, GG, or 6616 representing my hunting rights , that would be a NO but I will say there is some bios and other outdoors people out there that I respect and trust when they speak.

[6616]

Agreed on the any deer - WT are so prolific that we can't harvest them fast enough to control the population. Suggestions are being made that we have a cull to help control them - do any of the NIMBY hunters on this forum want to see a government cull of deer instead of opening up seasons further?

A few things from this year's BCWF convention - firstly, WT have more than doubled since the 1997 die off by most estimates in the MoE (I'd say they've tripled if they asked me). Secondly, according to Dr Ian Hatter, the most productive WT management strategy is to shoot 50% bucks and 25% does annually!

%Male.......%Female....Buck/doe.....Fawn/doe....Stable Herd.....Sustained
harvest.......harvest.......ratio.............rati o.............size............harvest



0%...........0%...........50/100...........24/100.............10,000.............0
25%..........0%..........19/100...........24/100.............10,000..........333
50%..........0%...........9/100............24/100.............10,000..........322
25%.........13%.........43/100............56/100..............8,160........1,242
50%.........25%.........32/100............97/100..............5,875........1,674

Here is a link to the Hatter presentation from convention 09 that Pat is referring to:
http://bcwf.bc.ca/committees/wildlife/articles/2009-04-whitetail-deer-hatter.pdf

Considering the predator situation in the EK and the mortality losses due to predation we'd probably have to harvest about 25% of the bucks and 12 to 13% of the does through hunting to create a stable population of WTD.

Considering we shoot 5000 to 6000 bucks annually we may already be shooting 25% of the bucks annually, but we're far short of shooting 12 to 13% of the does and thus the population will continue to expand, likely at a cost to mule deer populations. Even with a GOS on does we'd likely have a hard time harvesting 12% of the total doe population considering the overall East Kootenay WTD population is estimated at more then 70,000 and most of them are does. If half of them are does we should thus be shooting 3500 to 4000 does annually to maintain a stable population, and this already considers losses to predators, without predator losses hunting harvests could probably be doubled.

Current harvest levels are about 5000 to 6000 bucks and 1000 to 1500 does.

Keep in mind that this excess of does is helping to maintain a high predator population. Killing a more appropriate number of does would probably reduce the predator populations making more elk, mule deer and sheep available for harvest as well. There is a cost to not harvesting excess animals (both elk and WTD) when one looks at the prey/predator relationship. Prey species that are at moderate populations like mule deer and sheep pay the ultimate price.

Alberta has managed their WTD herd with a 25% buck harvest and a 12% doe harvest for decades and it's worked. They adjust the kill by varying season lengths. The might just have the biggest bucks in Canada as a result because they maintain the population at about 50 to 60 % of carrying capacity. This has proved to be a sustainable harvest strategy in the Alberta Rocky Mountain blocks in spite of the fact that they have worse winter weather conditions and much higher winter deer losses then BC does.

[6616]

[quote=Fisher-Dude;474715]
Every one is allowed there opinion but from what I see your group is to closed minded to see that, the only way is your way or nothing and if they dont agree you insult them.

The difference is that what FD is saying is not necessarily just his opinion, it's mostly based on scientific research and proven good management practices by very knowledgeable people (Ian Hatter). In the end science based decisions have to be upheld regardless of opinions or else we're going to get in a lot of trouble with opinion based game management. I believe FD is leaving opinion out of the equation and stating the scientific facts as he sees them.

[sawmill]

Interesting response Sawmill, so unless I live in the Koots I can't give my opinion ? I pay my taxes in B.C. and pay the same amount for my hunting license as you do. K
,And you live in Tswassen and can afford to come here to hunt,which is awesome for you.Lots of us can`t afford to come to your town to fish and set crab traps,all I`m saying is there is a shitload of country here you can bushwhack into and hunt.I don`t see the need to close off old roads that a lot of us that live here use regularly.I am a tax payer too.I honestly have no issues with the RV villages that appear every fall up the St,Marys or Perry Creek,I do object to being told that I can`t hunt and fish and get wood in the places I have for 15 years because people who don`t live here got all my access cut off to enrich their 2 week vacation.

[BCrams]

If you want to hike for your bull, buck or ram you don't need a road closure. Restricting hunting areas to a select few is an elitist attitude.


Exactly!!

You can open up the road closure areas and those boys on here who are proponents of road closures can still escape the crowds by getting off the road for a quality hunt.

[Devilbear]

I favour opening EVERY road, except where there is a GENUINE conservation concern and the Marsden Face-Baldface Cr.-Grohman Cr. road system near Nelson, is a case in point.

The Marsden road to the Baldface/Grohman junction at the new bridge should be opened for vehicular traffic during hunting seasons and NO ATV use allowed past that point. This would enable older hunters, I just turned 63, to have access to the hunting there and still be able to backpack their meat out.

We used to hunt up there 40+ years ago and the hunting was tough but rewarding in all ways. It could/should still be and there is NO realistic reason to keep this road closed...oh, yeah, some foreigners who like to ski up there don't "like" we lowlife hunters being seen by their coolazz yuppie-puke "clients"...tough shit, I WAS BORN THERE and in a family that was among the first pioneers, MY rights damm well trump any bloody foreign skinut and so do those of ANY other BCer, "coasty" or whomever!!!

I fought long and hard for wilderness preservation and am still involved, BUT, the roaded areas MUST be available to ALL BC hunters, berry-pickers and wood gatherers, this is OUR land!!!!!

LEH is a social "cancer", moneygrab and is a total disgrace, about what I expect from politicians!

[eastkoot]

Another option...For those like myself who because of health cannot pack for miles anymore but still enjoy walking undisturbed...How about not allowing traffic on the roads until certain hours of the day so I and the closure advocates can go in early and hunt undisturbed by ATV's and the like. I love to walk in but it is no longer an option to pack out an animal.. So, allow access during the afternoon hours so if something is shot miles from the truck, I have the comfort of knowing I can retrieve it in the afternoon..I recall doing the same in the Ft. Nelson area a few years back.. The access was limited to the PM only so we could retrieved the elk.

[elkdom]

Another option...For those like myself who because of health cannot pack for miles anymore but still enjoy walking undisturbed...How about not allowing traffic on the roads until certain hours of the day so I and the closure advocates can go in early and hunt undisturbed by ATV's and the like. I love to walk in but it is no longer an option to pack out an animal.. So, allow access during the afternoon hours so if something is shot miles from the truck, I have the comfort of knowing I can retrieve it in the afternoon..I recall doing the same in the Ft. Nelson area a few years back.. The access was limited to the PM only so we could retrieved the elk.

in theory it sounds like a sensible idea, portions of the day for motorized use,

but the MOE tried that up here in Region 7B, and it was a complete FARCE!,

as many "goom-bahs" :-x ignored the time closures and openings and it was

only frustrating to say the least,,, for those of us that chose to play by the rules!

[mcrae]

I favour opening EVERY road, except where there is a GENUINE conservation concern and the Marsden Face-Baldface Cr.-Grohman Cr. road system near Nelson, is a case in point.

The Marsden road to the Baldface/Grohman junction at the new bridge should be opened for vehicular traffic during hunting seasons and NO ATV use allowed past that point. This would enable older hunters, I just turned 63, to have access to the hunting there and still be able to backpack their meat out.

We used to hunt up there 40+ years ago and the hunting was tough but rewarding in all ways. It could/should still be and there is NO realistic reason to keep this road closed...oh, yeah, some foreigners who like to ski up there don't "like" we lowlife hunters being seen by their coolazz yuppie-puke "clients"...tough shit, I WAS BORN THERE and in a family that was among the first pioneers, MY rights damm well trump any bloody foreign skinut and so do those of ANY other BCer, "coasty" or whomever!!!

I fought long and hard for wilderness preservation and am still involved, BUT, the roaded areas MUST be available to ALL BC hunters, berry-pickers and wood gatherers, this is OUR land!!!!!

LEH is a social "cancer", moneygrab and is a total disgrace, about what I expect from politicians!


Here is the real kick in the nuts in regards to that closure. Couple years ago I hiked in during the later Dec whitetail archery hunt. I was near the 10km mark when three trucks passed me. This road is suppose to be closed to ALL traffic at this time of year not just hunters...

Ya right. Took plate numbers and called them in to RAPP line. Turns out Baldface lodge had special "permission" to use the road after the closure so they had access via the gate. What a crock of crap....

My view is unless there is a genuine conservation concern all roads should be open. If a guy wants to drive around in his truck all the power to him just means I will have the ridge to myself:lol:...

As for elk numbers I believe they are doing fine everywhere right now. Here in the W.Koots I have seen allot of elk so far this spring in my normal haunts. Got to watch a group of cows with calves that must have been hours old...

[Devilbear]

At least one of the "owners" of that operation WAS a foreigner, a Yankee, who got killed in an avalanche on Durrand Glacier near "River City" a while back. Yup, THESE azzholes get what THEY want, but, we cannot gain access to our own lands.....something IS going to change!

[GoatGuy]

There are thousands of miles of open roads available for hunters to use,so why cant others have a few closed for there style of hunting, having it only one way seems kinda selfish.


There's a pile of bush and horse trails that have no roads anywhere near them that aren't being used.

Whether you're walking or driving down the road you're still road hunting.

What difference does it make if the next guy is in a truck or on a mountain bike?

Get off the road.

[6616]

Another option...For those like myself who because of health cannot pack for miles anymore but still enjoy walking undisturbed...How about not allowing traffic on the roads until certain hours of the day so I and the closure advocates can go in early and hunt undisturbed by ATV's and the like. I love to walk in but it is no longer an option to pack out an animal.. So, allow access during the afternoon hours so if something is shot miles from the truck, I have the comfort of knowing I can retrieve it in the afternoon..I recall doing the same in the Ft. Nelson area a few years back.. The access was limited to the PM only so we could retrieved the elk.

I would favor something like that as well. It just didn't seem to work up north, too hard to enforce I'd guess.

Didn't they discuss something similar in the Cranbrook West RMS, a non-motorized area except for retreival purposes. Something like that might be enforceable, if you don't have a dead animal you're charged. I think something like that might work for us older guys.

[Everett]

I would favor something like that as well. It just didn't seem to work up north, too hard to enforce I'd guess.

Didn't they discuss something similar in the Cranbrook West RMS, a non-motorized area except for retreival purposes. Something like that might be enforceable, if you don't have a dead animal you're charged. I think something like that might work for us older guys.


All you would be doing is creating another stupid regulation and we have enough of those I can just see some guy driving around with a dead deer that he puts in his freezer every night.
Lets do this simple if there is no conservation concerns roads are open period if there is conservation concerns dig up the road up and foot traffic only no horses no bikes and no foreign hunters.
Old hunters and road hunters will have a thousand extra miles of road to hunt. To be honest guys like me who are fit will not be affected as we shoudn't be hunting roads anyway well unless its raining hard:smile:

[Devilbear]

Works for me, with the exception of I have no problem with HUMAN-powered bikes and game carts.

[6616]

All you would be doing is creating another stupid regulation and we have enough of those I can just see some guy driving around with a dead deer that he puts in his freezer every night.
Lets do this simple if there is no conservation concerns roads are open period if there is conservation concerns dig up the road up and foot traffic only no horses no bikes and no foreign hunters.
Old hunters and road hunters will have a thousand extra miles of road to hunt. To be honest guys like me who are fit will not be affected as we shoudn't be hunting roads anyway well unless its raining hard:smile:

The way I look at it is road hunting from a truck is less fun and less productive then road hunting on foot, and would surely be an exercise in futility if the road was open.
The thing about regulations is, none of them are foolproof. No matter what regulation one comes up with, there's always a few guys who will go out of their way to find a way to circumvent it. Maybe we just have to live with the fact that there might always be a certain level of non-compliance no matter what the regulation is.
Maybe it is a stupid idea, hard to say, but I'd sure like to give it a try though just to see how it works.

[eastkoot]

FYI, they have now hired a back country enforcement officer in the EK to enforce road closures and the use of such roads. How do I know, I applied.. Anyway, there is a back country enforcement officer with the CO branch currently stationed in Fernie on a 2 year, 6 month per year assignment..Someone to watch what we do on road closures.. A good thing..

[Devilbear]

This is only a good thing IF ALL users are restricted and it is NOT if certain users can get in and we resident hunters cannot. As posted, near Nelson, a ski lodge owned by a Yankee was allowed to drive at least three trucks up a closed road, but, we whose ancestors founded BC CANNOT drive there due to closure.

I understand that the GOs CAN drive up such roads, but, again WE cannot and this REALLY pizzes me off. Have you any reliable, recent info. on this?

[budismyhorse]

WOW, I just knew reading the title to this thread it wasn't going to be about elk for long........

I won't argue the legitimacy of all the closures out there, but there are quite a few that do in fact provide refuge for game. That and offer a different hunting option for people. Sure there are lots of unroaded areas, but who has time to cut trails (and its technically illegal)? Also, why should those hunters have to put in more effort than guys and gals that hunt by motorized? There should be options for all hunters.

Believe me, I use horses, quads, feet and trucks to hunt throughout the year, so I sit on the side of the fence that is for diversity out there in the bush. There is a lot of me me me in these 15 pages so far. I enjoy the fact that I have all kinds of different options out there for me to take advantage of.

For the record, there are quite a few closures out there that could be changed IMHO....if the recent access poll that went out last fall is any indication, the wildlife branch is working on them, and the ones I saw them highlight make sense.

We are pretty lucky in this province and everyone needs to have the option to hunt the way they like within a reasonable distance from where they live. That means you should have areas you can drive all over if you want, but that also means that you should have the option to hunt in an area that motorized vehicles can't travel, regardless of what your opinion of the "other" method is. The benefits to each method are many and very legitimate and should be respected by hunters when talking about access management for all of BC.

Spending time online literally bashing the side of the fence you don't sit on isn't going to help anyone.

[Fisher-Dude]

WOW, I just knew reading the title to this thread it wasn't going to be about elk for long........

I won't argue the legitimacy of all the closures out there, but there are quite a few that do in fact provide refuge for game. That and offer a different hunting option for people. Sure there are lots of unroaded areas, but who has time to cut trails (and its technically illegal)? Also, why should those hunters have to put in more effort than guys and gals that hunt by motorized? There should be options for all hunters.

Believe me, I use horses, quads, feet and trucks to hunt throughout the year, so I sit on the side of the fence that is for diversity out there in the bush. There is a lot of me me me in these 15 pages so far. I enjoy the fact that I have all kinds of different options out there for me to take advantage of.

For the record, there are quite a few closures out there that could be changed IMHO....if the recent access poll that went out last fall is any indication, the wildlife branch is working on them, and the ones I saw them highlight make sense.

We are pretty lucky in this province and everyone needs to have the option to hunt the way they like within a reasonable distance from where they live. That means you should have areas you can drive all over if you want, but that also means that you should have the option to hunt in an area that motorized vehicles can't travel, regardless of what your opinion of the "other" method is. The benefits to each method are many and very legitimate and should be respected by hunters when talking about access management for all of BC.

Spending time online literally bashing the side of the fence you don't sit on isn't going to help anyone.

The guides in your area have hundreds of miles of trails for your shitter. Feel free to use them - LOTS! :wink:

[budismyhorse]

Oh pat,

Have you seen Tembecs management plan??? you shouldn't be complaining. You'll be able to drive all over hells half acre....and none of it will be closed...just like Lowe Creek.

I drive around the odd time as well Pat, and I'm not championing for my own interests, more for maintaining a diversity of opportunities for all hunters, not just myself. I'm looking out for other hunters, sort of like your position in this....except I get off my ass from time to time ;)

PS. WHere are you guys getting your stats??? Hundreds of miles? Thousands of miles?? Jeeeez. I don't think the strictly motorized crew should be pushing stats, because they are NOT in your favour.

[Fisher-Dude]

Oh pat,

Have you seen Tembecs management plan??? you shouldn't be complaining. You'll be able to drive all over hells half acre....and none of it will be closed...just like Lowe Creek.

I drive around the odd time as well Pat, and I'm not championing for my own interests, more for maintaining a diversity of opportunities for all hunters, not just myself. I'm looking out for other hunters, sort of like your position in this....except I get off my ass from time to time ;)

Hehe, Jeff, you know where I hunt. There's nothin' for roads. If I didn't hoof 'er all the time, I wouldn't have much for elk racks out in the shed, would I? ;-)

While we're on the subject of trails, isn't it interesting that guides can cut trails anywhere to haul their fat-assed wealthy foreigners around, but resident hunters are forbidden by law to cut a trail for their horses?

[budismyhorse]

lots of options up there, both sides of the fence. I take advantage of both. If you ever need the shitters, give me a ring.

[Fisher-Dude]

Another option...For those like myself who because of health cannot pack for miles anymore but still enjoy walking undisturbed...How about not allowing traffic on the roads until certain hours of the day so I and the closure advocates can go in early and hunt undisturbed by ATV's and the like. I love to walk in but it is no longer an option to pack out an animal.. So, allow access during the afternoon hours so if something is shot miles from the truck, I have the comfort of knowing I can retrieve it in the afternoon..I recall doing the same in the Ft. Nelson area a few years back.. The access was limited to the PM only so we could retrieved the elk.

When you and I were up north in '97, that rule seemed to be working fairly well and people were complying. When V-boy and I were up there in 2001, there were locals riding around at all hours, completely ignoring the closure and not giving a shit that they were breaking the law either. Not sure why the change in attitude, or if we just experienced different people in that area in 2001.

[Fisher-Dude]

lots of options up there, both sides of the fence. I take advantage of both. If you ever need the shitters, give me a ring.

Thanks, you can pack my immy out this fall. ;-)

[budismyhorse]

Oh yeah! forgot about that. Should be fun. The last three bulls we took during LEH up there were 1's or 2's. They exist.

[Ambush]

When V-boy and I were up there in 2001, there were locals riding around at all hours, completely ignoring the closure and not giving a shit that they were breaking the law either.

Did they get charged when you reported them? Were they riding some kinda "special" local quad that is easily identified as such?

Just spoofin ya Fist-Yer-Tube, 'cause you've asked me the same questions.:lol:

[Fisher-Dude]

Did they get charged when you reported them? Were they riding some kinda "special" local quad that is easily identified as such?

Just spoofin ya Fist-Yer-Tube, 'cause you've asked me the same questions.:lol:

Crabsinyerbush, we told the CO, as we helped him chop the antlers off a two-brow moose one of them shot and left. :-( He just shook his head.

[Ambush]

Crabsinyerbush, we told the CO, as we helped him chop the antlers off a two-brow moose one of them shot and left. :-( He just shook his head.

Yep. Everybody grows some local idjits :frown:. I think you have a moral obligation to burn their camps to the ground and piss in their quad's fuel tank.
Now excuse me, I have to go find find my Goldbond.

[Devilbear]

[quote=Ambush;474940 I think you have a moral obligation to burn their camps to the ground and piss in their quad's fuel tank.[/quote]

NOW, we are getting to it, THIS is a great idea!!!!

But, why stop there, lets burn 'em at the stake, too!!!!!

[Ambush]

But, why stop there, lets burn 'em at the stake, too!!!!!

I dunno about that Devilbear. The smell of a burning shithead may ruin the hunting for miles around.

[SteadyGirl]

I wonder what would happen if the regs were changed so that odd years its a five point or better season and six point or better on even years??

[hunter1947]

Compare the few road closures in the EK compared to the roads that there are no road closures ,its a pin in the hey stack.

The reason I like the few road closures that are in place is that I don't have some idiot come racing in on there quad or other in a cut block that you spent an hour getting into range with your bow in order to get a shot at this bull.
Then in comes this quad or truck ,the hunt is over http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon9.gif.
I have had a few of my hunt fall apart because of this happening even in road closures http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon8.gif.
You don't have this happen very much when you get back into these closures but it can happen http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif.

[hunter1947]

No offence guys but it burns my ass a little that guys who live hundreds of miles away from where I live and hunt are in favour of closing the roads I use to get my winter meat,and firewood.Feel free to close the roads in your area though,cause that`s none of my buisness.


Joe there are more road closures here on Vancouver Island then any where else in BC ,but that does not stop me from hunting them http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif.

[hunter1947]

Well Wayne by the sounds of were you are hunting we mayby hunting the same road closure. Have to keep my eye open for an old guy on an old bike:razz:. I'm the guy with two blue heeler pack dogs.
What is wrong with wanting to shoot an Elk by the road never personaly had that kind of luck with Elk but woudn't turn one down next to the road.
Sawmill also has a another good point alot of the local hunters in the EK cruise the roads while doing other things ie. collecting firewood, going fishing and going to work for a few examples hunting is not a sport to them it is a way of getting cheep organic meat.
Alot of you are looking down your nose at road hunters, they have the same rights as you do to collect meat. To be honest I have more respect for a road hunter who shoots the first legal animal he spots than the typical trophy hunter going on about a quality hunt.
If you want to hike for your bull, buck or ram you don't need a road closure. Restricting hunting areas to a select few is an elitist attitude.
There is not one road closure south of Cranbrook that is justifiable for conservation reasons. That a direct quote from a CO

I think I am the one that dropped that bull a few years ago in the same cut block you where in ,this person was not a happy hunter ,he did have two dogs that where blue heelers in the back of there truck ???..

And yes you are right Everett you don't need road clousers in order to get off the beaten path ,like I said in the past many of my elk have come fron miles back in where there are no roads.

[hunter1947]

The 6 point season has not created the abundance of Elk mild winters and not shooting cows has created the abundance of Elk.
The abundace of wolves is part of the potential problem you get a hard winter with the Elk over carrying capacity with the wolf numbers so high and you have the potential for a serios population crash. Than we are right back in the late 90's were we actualy need point restrictions. All you 6 point guys will just love that I bet.
Oh for the people claiming there isn't enough whitetails you need to get out to the bush more often.

The wolf poulation is getting to be big numbers in 4-4 right now ,my tapping friend nailed 7 of them this winter on his trap line.

[hunter1947]

My point exactly I bought two steaks at the butcher last week for my wife and I and it was $21.50. Who the hell can afford to feed meat to there family 6 days a week without hunting.

Not trying to be a smart ass Everett ,but can you tell me how much gas it coast to go out for one days hunt ???.

[hunter1947]

Regarding white tail deer, I think hunters in general like hunting mule deer more then white tailed deer. We need to remember that there's only so much deer habitat in the EK and there's an overall carrying capacity cap on how many total deer we can have. They can be mule deer or they can be white tailed deer or a balance of both, but too many of either might compromise the population of the other. I worry that the sudden population explosion of white tailed deer is going to have negative impacts on our mulie populations. I believe we should just open WTD hunting up to any deer like Saskatchewan and Alberta does, there probably aren't enough people hunting the East Kootenay to over-harvest the WTD population considering their high reproduction rate.

Andy its like many areas you have a big number of WT deer one year and the next there are few there ,like I said there are many reasons for this decline in WTD.

(1) Over hunting GOS as for LEH draws.
(2) Predator problems.
(3) Area Habitat. http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif.

[hunter1947]

Are we not shooting cows, last time I went hunting below 1100 meters cow elk were getting shot all over the place. I didn,t say 6 point or better created an abundance of elk .I think it creates better bull hunting opertunity.
If we get a bad winter we get a bad winter, plain and simple. In the bad winter of 96,97 in my whitetail hunting spot all the deer were killed by hunters because of the early snow pushed them into there wintering ground.over 70 percent of the bucks were killed by hunters. not wolfs or cyotes.it took ten years to get back to normal.Last winter was the closest I have seen for bad winters in this area since 96 97. There was alot of winter kill but maybe a little more than normal. But all the snow came in after the season closed

I would like to see a week of open season on a cow elk in the areas that are overpopulated with cow elk ,have it open for hunters that are 65 years and older.

[hunter1947]

[quote=Fisher-Dude;474715]Ask yourself who sees the economy in driving from downtown Vancouver over to Cranbrook to shoot a WT doe that you get 45 lbs of meat from (on a good one!)? Local Kootenay boys know they can shoot a WT buck on just about any day of the week, so for the most part, they don't bother with does.
So now your saying it depends on what the coastys want I thought when you put out numbers saying the majority of hunters did it for meat that it may have included the EK. I would have thought if they were driving all the way from the coast to hunt other animals they would want to take some good eating meat home no matter how much. You know make it sound like meat hunters are selective in what they shoot almost trophy hunting.
Undersubscribed LEH is a clear indicator that it should be on GOS.
We all seem to have been brought up to "shoot the buck and leave the doe alone" philosophies. That upbringing has proven to be the wrong approach to good game management.
I have felt for years that more whitetail does should be harvested, not what Im in to but dont have a problem with those that do.
Lots of the stuff we were brought up to believe from our hunting mentors about game management has proven to be wrong as science proves it differently, yet those of us who have spent the time to educate ourselves on the science get attacked by those of you who think your "opinion" on how game should be managed is the right way to go.

That's why it's so damned hard to get regulations changed for BETTER hunting and MORE opportunity and BETTER animals for everyone, because we who have the facts on management get shouted down by those who have "opinions" on management. The biologists agree with us, and are very frustrated when they see herd health compromised and opportunity for hunters scuttled by those of you who are long on opinion and short on facts.
Every one is allowed there opinion but from what I see your group is to closed minded to see that, the only way is your way or nothing and if they dont agree you insult them.
For me I have already said I will hunt which ever way you make me have to even though you are wrecking what I enjoy about the sport, but I realize its not all about me to bad you cant.
Do I want guys like you, GG, or 6616 representing my hunting rights , that would be a NO but I will say there is some bios and other outdoors people out there that I respect and trust when they speak.

I don't really like to shoot WT does but in order to keep the ratio at a good number then I will shoot a doe.

This year for LEH I did put in for spike or doe in 4-4 ,4-03 and I will take a big dry doe.

[Everett]

Wasn't me my dogs refuse to ride in the back of the truck (spoiled rotten)that and I never get bothered by other people getting an animal usualy pretty happy for them.
It costs me about $4.00 bucks in fuel to go hunting on a normal day I mosltly hunt near home, if the wife and I go south of Cranbrook for the day its closer to $40. If I go Caribou or moose hunting its $500 or more.
Talked to a buddy in Vancouver about the cost of meat last year he figured out he was spending over $4000 dollars a year at the butcher. Compare that to some local Kootenay guy who does most of his hunting five minutes from town. My wife and I have taken 5 deer out of the St.Mary's valley in the last 4 years all withen 15min of home.

[Everett]

Joe there are more road closures here on Vancouver Island then any where else in BC ,but that does not stop me from hunting them http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif.

The road closures on Vancouver Island are almost all on private land were the closures in the Kootenays are on Crown land big difference.

[Devilbear]

Another crucial aspect of this is that the terrain, vegetation and climate in the Kootenays makes it nearly impossible to gain access to the game in hunting season without road access. Try hunting Elk around Kootenay Lake, for example and do so by ONLY trekking through non-roaded parts of each watershed and THEN tell me about getting off the roads........

I have done many solo backpack trips in much to the most rugged and un-touched wilderness in the Kootenays, such as trekking across the Valhallas for a week at a time......NOBODY is going to backpack an Elk or Moose out of that country without having most of the meat taken by a Grizzly or losing it to rot in the warm early season.

So, while I do almost entirely backpack hunting, have never even sat upon a trike or quad and probably never will, I still am in favour of opening ALL roads to hunters, except where a REAL conservation issue exists.

I like the idea of restricting quads to only recovery and not allowing access to game with them; this is due to several recent incidents in the Kootenays which I have witnessed...a couple of halfwits damm near creamed me last year when I was driving down a bush road near Nelson and these guys looked quite a bit older than I am.....you would think that people of that age would know better than driving quads like maniacs on roads where some active hauling and lots of hunters are present.............

[Slee]

I like the idea of restricting quads to only recovery and not allowing access to game with them.......

I agree, not because I dont own a quad but because of the destruction I see in the bush from quaders driving all over the place. It seems that people think they have free range to drive where ever they want just because there on a quad. Keep it to the main roads and get off your ass and walk in. Have some respect for the land that we all enjoy!

[hunter1947]

The road closures on Vancouver Island are almost all on private land were the closures in the Kootenays are on Crown land big difference.


Everett ether way It still keeps the hunters out if they don't want to use there legs to get back off the beaten path http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif.

[hunter1947]

Wasn't me my dogs refuse to ride in the back of the truck (spoiled rotten)that and I never get bothered by other people getting an animal usualy pretty happy for them.
It costs me about $4.00 bucks in fuel to go hunting on a normal day I mosltly hunt near home, if the wife and I go south of Cranbrook for the day its closer to $40. If I go Caribou or moose hunting its $500 or more.
Talked to a buddy in Vancouver about the cost of meat last year he figured out he was spending over $4000 dollars a year at the butcher. Compare that to some local Kootenay guy who does most of his hunting five minutes from town. My wife and I have taken 5 deer out of the St.Mary's valley in the last 4 years all withen 15min of home.


Meat is a bonus to me ,its nice to come home with meat but then its not a priority to me http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif.

A hunt is like fishing in a way ,if I compared one pound of fish to what I have invested in my fishing boat ,fishing gear ,electronics ,etc.the one pound of fish would be worth over $100.00 a pound ,same goes for hunting http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif.

I love to get out into the wilderness that what I love doing and as long as I can still do this I will ,meats just a bonus to me.

[BlacktailStalker]

You nailed it Wayne.

[6616]

Another crucial aspect of this is that the terrain, vegetation and climate in the Kootenays makes it nearly impossible to gain access to the game in hunting season without road access. Try hunting Elk around Kootenay Lake, for example and do so by ONLY trekking through non-roaded parts of each watershed and THEN tell me about getting off the roads........
..

I agree, shooting or getting close to anything is pretty tough in terrain where the Devil's club is higher then your head, the understory is so thick you can't see 10 feet, there are no openings in the forest, and the ground is on a 45 degree tilt. Cut blocks are the only reasonable place to hunt in these areas. Not quite this nasty in the EK thankfully.

[brotherjack]

Meat is a bonus to me ,its nice to come home with meat but then its not a priority to me http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif.


That's great for you, but for most of us, the meat in the freezer is far and away the priority. Don't get me wrong, I love hunting, but what I love most about it is being able to economically put meat in my freezer the old fashioned way; right down to the last piece of meat I cut and wrapped myself. Hunting is fun; but if hunting was all hunting and no meat in the freezer; I'd quit tomorrow.

[spock]

If it were up to me I'd change the way antlerless elk is handled in the EK. It seems to me that the premise behind the youth senior GOS is that only people with a family tradition of hunting are going to get into it. Me, my brother and the guy I normally hunt with did not have a family tradition of big game hunting as do some of the other people I know that hunt. I shot my first deer when I was 27. I think that the fairest way to run it would be to have a special LEH draw for new hunters much like they have for WT doe in the okanagan, make enough tags available that it's almost a gimme to get the draw provided you completed your core in the previous 12 months. This would alleviate some of the abuse that goes on when dad brings his 12 year old with his junior licence to get the elk and dad shoots it. You could do something similar with the senior thing as well. That would make more opportunities for people who are new to hunting to get an easier class of animal than a six point elk whether they are 10, 30, 50 or 65.

[6616]

If it were up to me I'd change the way antlerless elk is handled in the EK. It seems to me that the premise behind the youth senior GOS is that only people with a family tradition of hunting are going to get into it. Me, my brother and the guy I normally hunt with did not have a family tradition of big game hunting as do some of the other people I know that hunt. I shot my first deer when I was 27. I think that the fairest way to run it would be to have a special LEH draw for new hunters much like they have for WT doe in the okanagan, make enough tags available that it's almost a gimme to get the draw provided you completed your core in the previous 12 months. This would alleviate some of the abuse that goes on when dad brings his 12 year old with his junior licence to get the elk and dad shoots it. You could do something similar with the senior thing as well. That would make more opportunities for people who are new to hunting to get an easier class of animal than a six point elk whether they are 10, 30, 50 or 65.

Why not just leave the youth/senior season as is and just reduce the normal antlerless LEH numbers enough to accommodate adding the "new hunter" antlerless LEH (or maybe even antlerless GOS) to the mix. There are many ways to promote recruitment and retention, the youth/senior GOS is one of them, and your's is another very good idea.

[Everett]

Meat is a bonus to me ,its nice to come home with meat but then its not a priority to me http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif.

A hunt is like fishing in a way ,if I compared one pound of fish to what I have invested in my fishing boat ,fishing gear ,electronics ,etc.the one pound of fish would be worth over $100.00 a pound ,same goes for hunting http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif.

I love to get out into the wilderness that what I love doing and as long as I can still do this I will ,meats just a bonus to me.

To me hunting is the meat first the sport second. Once the freezer is %80 full I can hunt for fun. Though in the last couple years my wife and I have been taking hunting vacations where we combine hunting with our vacation. This is closer to sport for me but even than the meat is the most important thing. My hunting partners are even more hardcore when it comes to the meat side it is the only reason they hunt. If you just like hunting mainly for the sport take up predator hunting or mayby hiking.
As for the senior/junior elk season dosn't do a lot for me and my freezer as my hunting partners and I have no kids of the right age or any old folks to take hunting might have to sign out an old guy from the nursing home if times get tough.:biggrin:

[huntingfamily]

I wonder what would happen if the regs were changed so that odd years its a five point or better season and six point or better on even years??

Something like that doesn't sound too bad to me. Some kind of a 5-point bull season anyways. Success rates for elk in the EK would definitely increase. Perhaps then we could weed out more of the 3 & 4 year old 5-points with poorer genetics, as 6616 stated below.


What the six point antler restriction does is weed out the best genetics over time thus reducing overall average bull quality and decreasing average antler size. The best genetic bulls at 3 years of age are stupid rag horn 6 pointers and they're getting shot. The poorer genetics 3 and 4 year olds are all 5 pointers and are allowed to live another year or two, breed, and pass on their inferior genetics.

hf

[BCrams]

Something like that doesn't sound too bad to me. Some kind of a 5-point bull season anyways. Success rates for elk in the EK would definitely increase. Perhaps then we could weed out more of the 3 & 4 year old 5-points with poorer genetics, as 6616 stated below.



hf

Probably better to have a 3 pts instead of the 5 pt. It will promote better herd demographics when harvesting a wider range of age classes.

[6616]

Something like that doesn't sound too bad to me. Some kind of a 5-point bull season anyways. Success rates for elk in the EK would definitely increase. Perhaps then we could weed out more of the 3 & 4 year old 5-points with poorer genetics, as 6616 stated below.
hf

I agree with BCRams, a 5pt season will still make very young rag horn 5 pt bulls vulnerable which are still possibly the animals with the better genetics. If it were possible to just select the older 5pt bulls it would be fine but I'm pretty sure that a lot of younger animals would be harvested.

A 3pt season opens it up to all age classes over and above yearlings minimizing the impact to any one single age class and it could also reduce the harvest of mature bulls, thus it might just possibly be a better trophy management stategy then the 6pt regulation. We know that works to the advantage of trophy production for WTD in Saskatchewan and Alberta, I know, I know, elk are a different critter, but who knows...???

[Fisher-Dude]

The 3 point season is the correct management strategy for bulls. At the BCWF convention, Ray Demarchi spoke about the fact that a six point season is NOT sustainable over the longer term, and about its detriment to the herd. He also said that we cannot manage the herd with bull harvest alone.

We had 3 point seasons for 40+ years with twice the number of hunters, and never had a problem with sustainability. In fact, the herd continued to grow to the point where they had agriculture conflicts the same as we are having now. Why? Because, as stated above, the herd cannot be managed on bull harvest alone.

From our own experience, my group took several 300+ class bulls in the 70s and 80s in 3 point seasons, but just one since the 6 point seasons started. Not scientific of course, but I consider it an indicator of herd health under the two management options. It stands to reason as 6616 stated above that harvesting only 6 point bulls will result in fewer 300+ bulls in the genetic pool, as many of those bulls who are blessed with 6 points early in life are harvested or chased to interrupt their breeding cycle.

[Brambles]

kill em all

[BCrams]

I agree with BCRams, a 5pt season will still make very young rag horn 5 pt bulls vulnerable which are still possibly the animals with the better genetics. If it were possible to just select the older 5pt bulls it would be fine but I'm pretty sure that a lot of younger animals would be harvested.

A 3pt season opens it up to all age classes over and above yearlings minimizing the impact to any one single age class and it could also reduce the harvest of mature bulls, thus it might just possibly be a better trophy management stategy then the 6pt regulation. We know that works to the advantage of trophy production for WTD in Saskatchewan and Alberta, I know, I know, elk are a different critter, but who knows...???

Exactly. It appears to be a pretty hard concept for hunters / trophy hunters and GO's to accept ..... but its true.

You will have more and better bulls in the long term and everyone is happy.

[hunter1947]

Exactly. It appears to be a pretty hard concept for hunters / trophy hunters and GO's to accept ..... but its true.

You will have more and better bulls in the long term and everyone is happy.


A big time game biologist that was in Cranbrook 10 years ago was paid big money in order to help out on how to increase elk poulations ,he said that point restrictions don't work.

He said that implementing time intervals on GOS is the proper way.

[BCrams]

A big time game biologist that was in Cranbrook 10 years ago was paid big money in order to help out on how to increase elk poulations ,he said that point restrictions don't work.

He said that implementing time intervals on GOS is the proper way.

H47 -

- you do not want to increase the Kootenay elk population

- 6 pt restrictions don't work -- old news to me

- 3 pt restrictions with cow / calf harvests do work

- I have been a proponent of GOS on elk (i.e., a 10-12 day 3 pt season encompassing 2 full weekends) from day 1

[Devilbear]

kill em all

"let god sort 'em out"


jk., of course!

[6616]

A big time game biologist that was in Cranbrook 10 years ago was paid big money in order to help out on how to increase elk poulations ,he said that point restrictions don't work.

He said that implementing time intervals on GOS is the proper way.

This is true, his name is Dr Ken Raedeke, he's a very well know and highly regarded consultant and associate professor at the University of Washington.
http://www.raedeke.com/Ken.htm

In the end he recommended the 6pt season (even though he didn't like it much as Wayne said) as part of the recovery stratgey that began in 1998 following delivery of his report. He really had little choice but to go with the 6pt restriction as socially East Kootenay hunters wanted a rut hunt and no LEH on bull elk. Intensive public consultation was conducted into the social aspects of elk hunting at the same time, this was done by Doug Janz and Nancy Bircher of MOE. This did not happen without considerable controversy, the lingering effects of which are still felt and still debated by elk hunters in the EK to this day.

It must be remembered that the key component of the recovery strategy was not the 6pt restriction, but to terminate all antlerless harvests. The 6pt restriction was in reality a way to avoid LEH on bull elk and to maintain the rut hunt.

It took less then 10 years to double the population. His strategy was aided considerably by a bunch of consecutive mild and low snow pack winters and the initiation of the Forest District eco-system restoration program.

[GoatGuy]

This is true, his name is Dr Ken Raedeke, he's a very well know and highly regarded consultant and associate professor at the University of Washington.
http://www.raedeke.com/Ken.htm

In the end he recommended the 6pt season (even though he didn't like it much as Wayne said) as part of the recovery stratgey that began in 1998 following delivery of his report. He really had little choice but to go with the 6pt restriction as socially East Kootenay hunters wanted a rut hunt and no LEH on bull elk. Intensive public consultation was conducted into the social aspects of elk hunting at the same time, this was done by Doug Janz and Nancy Bircher of MOE. This did not happen without considerable controversy, the lingering effects of which are still felt and still debated by elk hunters in the EK to this day.

It must be remembered that the key component of the recovery strategy was not the 6pt restriction, but to terminate all antlerless harvests. The 6pt restriction was in reality a way to avoid LEH on bull elk and to maintain the rut hunt.

It took less then 10 years to double the population. His strategy was aided considerably by a bunch of consecutive mild and low snow pack winters and the initiation of the Forest District eco-system restoration program.

And it was supposed to be reviewed after 5 years if I recall correctly.

[6616]

And it was supposed to be reviewed after 5 years if I recall correctly.

The result of the Raedeke report and the Janz/Bircher public consultations was the creation of the 2000 to 2004 Elk Management Plan for the East Kootenay sub-region. This plan was written by Bob Forbes, Nancy Bircher, Doug Janz, and Ian Hatter and was basically a recovery strategy based on Dr Raedeke's and the Janz/Bircher recommendations.

This original plan was reviewed five years later and the 2005 to 2009 Elk Management Plan was born and developed under contract by Dr. Stephan Wilson and Rick Morley.

Now in 2009 work has began on the 2010 to 2015 Elk Management Plan which will encompass all of Region 4 instead of just the East Kootenay. To this date some draft objectives have been prepared for comment and it appears MOE will be doing this plan "in house" in Cranbrook.

[Fisher-Dude]

The result of the Raedeke report and the Janz/Bircher public consultations was the creation of the 2000 to 2004 Elk Management Plan for the East Kootenay sub-region. This plan was written by Bob Forbes, Nancy Bircher, Doug Janz, and Ian Hatter and was basically a recovery strategy based on Dr Raedeke's and the Janz/Bircher recommendations.

This original plan was reviewed five years later and the 2005 to 2009 Elk Management Plan was born and developed under contract by Dr. Stephan Wilson and Rick Morley.

Now in 2009 work has began on the 2010 to 2015 Elk Management Plan which will encompass all of Region 4 instead of just the East Kootenay. To this date some draft objectives have been prepared for comment and it appears MOE will be doing this plan "in house" in Cranbrook.

Another 6 years. Good grief.

http://shotfromthehip.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/300px-classic_time_bomb.jpg

[6616]

Another 6 years. Good grief.

http://shotfromthehip.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/300px-classic_time_bomb.jpg

I hope the alarm is not set for 8:00 o'clock because it might be 2015 before they get this version wrote considering todays budgets and staffing levels. Why don't they just contract it out to the BCWF...they'd do it for free.....????

[GoatGuy]

This original plan was reviewed five years later and the 2005 to 2009 Elk Management Plan was born and developed under contract by Dr. Stephan Wilson and Rick Morley.


Was the report called stockpiling wildlife 101?

haha

No need to say any more. Thank god there are some people involved now that will hopefully deal with wildlife management.

[hunter1947]

Head numbers for EK elk tell all ,why the hell do they have to go on and on for many more years to come ,make changes now so all will benefit from the changes meaning elk and hunters http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon9.gif.

[budismyhorse]

this isn't a surprise, is it? All the contacts I have at MOE cranbrook told me last year nothing would change until the management plan is out for the 2010 season......it was talked about during last years threads.

If the Bios are saying our pops require a mixed sex harvest and a short 3pt season...I'm sure it'll be in the management plan. The previous management plan was set up properly (look at the rising elk harvest each year), and at least I have faith that the next one will be as well.

If it takes awhile, its because they need to have their ducks all lined up in order for the plan to be scientifically defensible....because while y'all are going to cheer when the report comes out, there will be lots of others that will be P-O'd (which is always expected). They need to be prepared and justified. Pretty standard pace in Biology unfortunately.

I'm sure that in 2010, it will be "gut piles around every corner" ;)

[GoatGuy]

this isn't a surprise, is it? All the contacts I have at MOE cranbrook told me last year nothing would change until the management plan is out for the 2010 season......it was talked about during last years threads.

If the Bios are saying our pops require a mixed sex harvest and a short 3pt season...I'm sure it'll be in the management plan. The previous management plan was set up properly (look at the rising elk harvest each year), and at least I have faith that the next one will be as well.

If it takes awhile, its because they need to have their ducks all lined up in order for the plan to be scientifically defensible....because while y'all are going to cheer when the report comes out, there will be lots of others that will be P-O'd (which is always expected). They need to be prepared and justified. Pretty standard pace in Biology unfortunately.

I'm sure that in 2010, it will be "gut piles around every corner" ;)

It's a good thing guys like 6616 fought to keep it on GOS for the 6 pt season. If that wouldn't have happened elk hunting would have been on LEH across the EK and still would be and it'd never go back.

The management plan is to put the soother back in the public's mouth. The biologists are getting tired of going to hunters and telling them what's sustainable only to have hunters tell them they don't want sustainable harvest, they want to stockpile. That's why you get no change until the plan is finished. It's a pen and paper exercise - when you already have the data and the background it's a big waste of money IMHO.

The same people who are complaining right now will be complaining after the plan in the EK and WK are done. It'll cost a couple hundred thousand just to have the same people complaining and trying to find 'problems' with the plans. They'll shift the stance a bit and keep fighting - none of it will have to do with conservation.

[6616]

It's a good thing guys like 6616 fought to keep it on GOS for the 6 pt season. If that wouldn't have happened elk hunting would have been on LEH across the EK and still would be and it'd never go back.

The management plan is to put the soother back in the public's mouth. The biologists are getting tired of going to hunters and telling them what's sustainable only to have hunters tell them they don't want sustainable harvest, they want to stockpile. That's why you get no change until the plan is finished. It's a pen and paper exercise - when you already have the data and the background it's a big waste of money IMHO.

The same people who are complaining right now will be complaining after the plan in the EK and WK are done. It'll cost a couple hundred thousand just to have the same people complaining and trying to find 'problems' with the plans. They'll shift the stance a bit and keep fighting - none of it will have to do with conservation.

The credit mentioned above goes to a good many people, it was a joint effort.

Based on the fact that MOE has stated the new EMP will not discuss eco-system restoration, noxious weeds, access management, or predator management, it looks like the new elk management plan might be a much simpler document then the previous plans and might not cost near as much money or take near as long to develop. It will basically be a harvest stratgey and will consider social and conservation based harvest objectives.

It is unfortunate that elk management decisions are on hold while we continue to stockpile elk, build up wolf populations, and hope a bad winter doesn't materialize while we wait for a new harvest strategy to be developed. There are some decisions pending the new plan that should have been made a couple years ago.

There is another factor that has yet to be figured into this whole elk management issue as well, and that's the Provincial Agriculture/Wildlife Zone Program. I expect when this comes on line it will result in further changes to elk management in the low level agriculture areas of the Kootenay's.

[Kody94]

It is unfortunate that elk management decisions are on hold while we continue to stockpile elk, build up wolf populations, and hope a bad winter doesn't materialize while we wait for a new harvest strategy to be developed. There are some decisions pending the new plan that should have been made a couple years ago.


Rant on...

First: If there is a conservation concern, they should have just done it. Full stop. Accept that there will be a few pissed of folks, and move on. Fact is, 10 days of 3pt or better wouldn't hurt anyone. They don't seem to need the permission of resident hunters to make changes in other areas...Reg 5 Mule Deer as a case in point.

Second: Why the heck does it take so friggen long to get a plan in place? I am extremely disappointed in our public service. My whole career has been in natural resource planning...there is no excuse for things to take as long as they do in government. If it was managed like private industry, they'd have a plan for every species and it would be updated every single year.

Rant off.

[J_T]

Just to reiterate, what I believe is a very real risk. As we continue to plan so that we can plan, and consult so we can document change to the plan, we use LEH as the short term solution. Thus killing future opportunities.

By the time we have a plan in place MOE will state that there is little requirement for change to the status quo. It seems LEH managed the resource populations. And we will start the circle again.

But wait, hunter numbers continue to dwindle. hhhmmm I wonder what we could do to support recruitment or retention? Let's put a plan together.....

[Kody94]

Just to reiterate, what I believe is a very real risk. As we continue to plan so that we can plan, and consult so we can document change to the plan, we use LEH as the short term solution. Thus killing future opportunities.

By the time we have a plan in place MOE will state that there is little requirement for change to the status quo. It seems LEH managed the resource populations. And we will start the circle again.

But wait, hunter numbers continue to dwindle. hhhmmm I wonder what we could do to support recruitment or retention? Let's put a plan together.....

Agreed. Someone needs to make the MOE (and every other Ministry) action-oriented.

Write a plan, consult on the plan, finalize the plan and act on the plan. Its not rocket science.

The plan shouldn't have to be more than:

Species in question
Brief background of management to-date
Current status of species
Management objective for species
Strategy(ies) to achieve objective
Brief summary of consultation/comments received on Draft Plan (so folks know they were heard)
Term of plan

It shouldn't take more than a couple weeks to write, a few meetings and 60 days to recieve comments, and a month max to finalize.

Its not a concencus based process for cripes sake...it shouldn't have to take forever.

[6616]

And while all this is going on, we wait for a plan, and no elk regulations are supposed to change until the plan is in place, and MOE is supposed to be recruiting and retaining hunters,,,, a proposal surfaces in KWHAC to return to a cumulative bag limit of "one" for moose and elk,,,,,,,WTF is going on here,,,,,,,,,when moose are doing just fine, some areas have bull ratios as high as 50 to 70 bulls per 100 cows, and elk are over-populated...????...It's a just a flat out crazy world out there.......is this system failing us, or what....?

[GoatGuy]

And while all this is going on, we wait for a plan, and no elk regulations are supposed to change until the plan is in place, and MOE is supposed to be recruiting and retaining hunters,,,, a proposal surfaces in KWHAC to return to a cumulative bag limit of "one" for moose and elk,,,,,,,WTF is going on here,,,,,,,,,when moose are doing just fine, some areas have bull ratios as high as 50 to 70 bulls per 100 cows, and elk are over-populated...????...It's a just a flat out crazy world out there.......is this system failing us, or what....?

I'm sure we all know where garbage like that comes from - just send it back to the dump.

[GoatGuy]

The reason why it takes so long is because everybody wants their 0.02 in it at the beginning, middle, ending, 2nd ending, 1 draft, 2nd draft, 3rd draft, 4th draft, 5th draft, 6th draft - I'm sure you get the point.

By the time things hit the press they're usually watered down so much that you end up with virtually no change and anything 'new' went with the dirty underwear off to the cleaners.

Don't even bother mentioning conservation because it isn't a word that's used nowadays.

'Stakeholder input' is what we'll use instead; how the hell you define it is beyond me, but I can tell you what the value is....................................

[GoatGuy]

,when moose are doing just fine, some areas have bull ratios as high as 50 to 70 bulls per 100 cows, and elk are over-populated...????

Better question is who was managing before? Kim's report predicted the bull:cow ratios were high even before the inventory work.

Somebody was stockpiling before: wonder who it was?

[Kody94]

The reason why it takes so long is because everybody wants their 0.02 in it at the beginning, middle, ending, 2nd ending, 1 draft, 2nd draft, 3rd draft, 4th draft, 5th draft, 6th draft - I'm sure you get the point.


Yep...that's exactly what I am complaining about.

What I am suggesting is that they cut the fricken red tape, realize people will be pissed off no matter what they do and make a decision once in while.

You have to have "stakeholder input"...its the people's resource afterall. But that doesn't mean it has to go on forever or that everyone has to be happy in the end.

You also have to have plan. Managing by the seat-of-one's-pants with a public resource is completely irresponsible. It is also the best way to avoid any accountability, which is why its so popular. :)

Make a simple plan, let people provide their opinions then make a decision and act on it. That's all I am suggesting.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

We need biologists that can make a decision with only the facts and trends. Not with our input. That's just fine and dandy but don't forget what has happenned in the past with "certain" biologists who were "loyal" to "certain" groups.

It's hard to put faith into something that has let you down in the past.

We need good bios and we need to replace the ones who aren't........but the questions remains.... which are which??:-?

SSS

[GoatGuy]

Yep...that's exactly what I am complaining about.

What I am suggesting is that they cut the fricken red tape, realize people will be pissed off no matter what they do and make a decision once in while.

You have to have "stakeholder input"...its the people's resource afterall. But that doesn't mean it has to go on forever or that everyone has to be happy in the end.

You also have to have plan. Managing by the seat-of-one's-pants with a public resource is completely irresponsible. It is also the best way to avoid any accountability, which is why its so popular. :)

Make a simple plan, let people provide their opinions then make a decision and act on it. That's all I am suggesting.

Stakeholder input means stakeholders write the report and depending on who's name is on the report the stakeholder input is weighted.

Sure would warm my heart if conservation was discussed at some point.

[Kody94]

We need biologists that can make a decision with only the facts and trends. Not with our input.

Its a public resource that should be managed the way the public wants it managed. Government acts on our behalf. So that means they have to listen to everyone. What the public wants is definitely not the same as what individuals or companies want. Someone has to make a judgement on that.


Stakeholder input means stakeholders write the report and depending on who's name is on the report the stakeholder input is weighted.

Sure would warm my heart if conservation was discussed at some point.

I think conservation is generally assumed to be a given. I am sure if they did a poll, public opinion would favor conservation being priority #1.

The problem is, conservation can be achieved by a million different strategies and/or tactics. So everyone picks the one they like best and champions it.

Government has to decide for us, based on our objectives and priorities, the way that they will achieve them.

This "paralysis by analysis" and "paralysis by consultation" has to end.

[hunter1947]

I say fire them all :mrgreen:.

[budismyhorse]

I have the same frustration as everyone else here, but imagine what they are thinking back in the MOE......the last crew that acted on what they figured the public wanted/required was Demarchi era and look at the thanks they got.....

They want to make decisions, but need to have the ducks lined up.....and enough of the blame spread around if things go for a sh#t, they can point at someone else. Nature of today's beast.

but I agree, it shouldn' take so dang long.....however, I don't envy their position or career choice.

and btw, I thank those responsible for keeping elk hunting GOS in the kootenays on a regular basis. Andy was key and there are others as well that I slap on the back when I get the chance.

Funny story, but the same guys tried the it with Bull Moose during the year the MOE was set to "watch" the moose harvest. They begged and pleaded for locals to NOT shoot a bull during that fatefull year ....low and behold, no one listened, they took lots of bull moose and the gov't switched to LEH......but Andy can correct that if it isn't entirely correct, it has been awhile.

[GoatGuy]

I think conservation is generally assumed to be a given. I am sure if they did a poll, public opinion would favor conservation being priority #1.

The problem is, conservation can be achieved by a million different strategies and/or tactics. So everyone picks the one they like best and champions it.

Government has to decide for us, based on our objectives and priorities, the way that they will achieve them.

This "paralysis by analysis" and "paralysis by consultation" has to end.

Conservation's never a given, believe me.

You are right about getting on with things.

I do have hope for this management plan - got some real biologists there who understand wildlife management. Sure helps a pile.

[GoatGuy]

I have the same frustration as everyone else here, but imagine what they are thinking back in the MOE......the last crew that acted on what they figured the public wanted/required was Demarchi era and look at the thanks they got.....

They want to make decisions, but need to have the ducks lined up.....and enough of the blame spread around if things go for a sh#t, they can point at someone else. Nature of today's beast.

but I agree, it shouldn' take so dang long.....however, I don't envy their position or career choice.

and btw, I thank those responsible for keeping elk hunting GOS in the kootenays on a regular basis. Andy was key and there are others as well that I slap on the back when I get the chance.

Funny story, but the same guys tried the it with Bull Moose during the year the MOE was set to "watch" the moose harvest. They begged and pleaded for locals to NOT shoot a bull during that fatefull year ....low and behold, no one listened, they took lots of bull moose and the gov't switched to LEH......but Andy can correct that if it isn't entirely correct, it has been awhile.

Ray was told to cut the elk herd in half or his ass was on the line - didn't have anything to do with listening to stakeholders, that was a MAL issue.


In the end I think this one will be OK but I'm sure there's sure going to be a pile of whining and sniveling when all is said and done.

[Kody94]

I have the same frustration as everyone else here, but imagine what they are thinking back in the MOE......the last crew that acted on what they figured the public wanted/required was Demarchi era and look at the thanks they got.....

They want to make decisions, but need to have the ducks lined up.....and enough of the blame spread around if things go for a sh#t, they can point at someone else. Nature of today's beast.

but I agree, it shouldn' take so dang long.....however, I don't envy their position or career choice.

They have to realize that there will ALWAYS be folks that are pissed off. Its the way it is.

No different than any government....if you are fiscally responsible folks will bitch and complain that you don't spend enough on social services. If you provide all the social services, everyone, including the folks that wanted them will complain that you taxed them too much.

Results always speak loudest. I think the quiet majority would respect an MOE that said: we talked to everyone and this is what we heard...based on that we have created an objective to provide a population of X size with the following priorities for use. To accomplish that, these are the regulations for this year....etc etc.

In this case, as long as they don't drive the elk population into the tank again, and they increase hunter participation (and therefor recruitment/retention) at the same time...most folks will get past any initial anger at change.

Maybe I'm too much of an optimist that way, but I have to think that most people respect action and results.

I don't feel too sorry for the bureaucrats involved...they knew what they were signing up for. ;) And if things don't work out and their worst performance issue was taking action, I'm sure they'd find work in the private sector. :D

[Kody94]

Conservation's never a given, believe me.


I am sure that's largely related to the fact that one man's conservation is not necessarilly another's. :)

The other big issue that is a real pet peeve for me with government is the lack of public education regarding the key issues they faced, and the lack of rationale for the decisions they make. They are notoriously poor communicators.

[Everett]

After watching wildlife management the last five years and five years in the late 90's in region 4 and doing some digging on the history of the same topic. I have come to the conclusion that either the bios's in region four are:
1. On the take from the GOABC
2. Plain stupid
3. Just good old fashion lazy

I have made my own mind as to which one I choose.

[bayou]

And while all this is going on, we wait for a plan, and no elk regulations are supposed to change until the plan is in place, and MOE is supposed to be recruiting and retaining hunters,,,, a proposal surfaces in KWHAC to return to a cumulative bag limit of "one" for moose and elk,,,,,,,WTF is going on here,,,,,,,,,when moose are doing just fine, some areas have bull ratios as high as 50 to 70 bulls per 100 cows, and elk are over-populated...????...It's a just a flat out crazy world out there.......is this system failing us, or what....?
Not sure if your talking all of B.C. or region 4 here but for me I always liked that rule I dont think one guy needs both spread it around abit let othershave oppurtunity. Same with leh tags if a guy draws one shouldnt be allowed to hunt bulls to many guys put in for them and doe tags as a back up and end up not using them.

[bayou]

Ray was told to cut the elk herd in half or his ass was on the line - didn't have anything to do with listening to stakeholders, that was a MAL issue.


In the end I think this one will be OK but I'm sure there's sure going to be a pile of whining and sniveling when all is said and done.
Just like now.

[Everett]

Not sure if your talking all of B.C. or region 4 here but for me I always liked that rule I dont think one guy needs both spread it around abit let othershave oppurtunity. Same with leh tags if a guy draws one shouldnt be allowed to hunt bulls to many guys put in for them and doe tags as a back up and end up not using them.

Two years ago I shot a Moose and an Elk and two Deer plus my wife shot two Deer it equaled one years meat after my hunting partner took his half of the moose and I helped out a couple freinds who werfe down on there luck. Alot of the time as a hunter you are splitting your kill with your hunting partners. I could have been worse I might have been with a buddy when the Elk went down. So I am against that proposed rule also if you have three or four boys they will eat an Elk and a moose no problem. Also there is no shortage of Elk or Moose in BC.

[J_T]

Yep...that's exactly what I am complaining about.

What I am suggesting is that they cut the fricken red tape, realize people will be pissed off no matter what they do and make a decision once in while.

You have to have "stakeholder input"...its the people's resource afterall. But that doesn't mean it has to go on forever or that everyone has to be happy in the end.

You also have to have plan. Managing by the seat-of-one's-pants with a public resource is completely irresponsible. It is also the best way to avoid any accountability, which is why its so popular. :)

Make a simple plan, let people provide their opinions then make a decision and act on it. That's all I am suggesting. I think part of the length of the process is attributed to the fact that as resource users, we've been saying for a long time, that we support a science based management approach. When Gov really took a look at previous management processes and data, there were inconsistencies in the age of the compilation or in the method/quality of compilation. (Science is always evovling) They needed to get a better representation of the data to make decisions today.

I think we are at the forefront of science based decision making. Consultation with stakeholders will be a courtesy and checkpoint for the decision. Not a basis for decision.

I'm always optimistic.

[J_T]

And while all this is going on, we wait for a plan, and no elk regulations are supposed to change until the plan is in place, and MOE is supposed to be recruiting and retaining hunters,,,, a proposal surfaces in KWHAC to return to a cumulative bag limit of "one" for moose and elk,,,,,,,WTF is going on here,,,,,,,,,when moose are doing just fine, some areas have bull ratios as high as 50 to 70 bulls per 100 cows, and elk are over-populated...????...It's a just a flat out crazy world out there.......is this system failing us, or what....? I wondered if that was just fishing when it came up? We should have beat that up much more than we did when it surfaced. I think we can put it to rest eventually. There really is no basis for it. It's to avoid the selfish harvest of a few?

[GoatGuy]

Not sure if your talking all of B.C. or region 4 here but for me I always liked that rule I dont think one guy needs both spread it around abit let othershave oppurtunity. Same with leh tags if a guy draws one shouldnt be allowed to hunt bulls to many guys put in for them and doe tags as a back up and end up not using them.


I know I'm beating my head against the wall but one last time: LEH draws are about dead animals, not about how many people don't use them. That's all factored in.

[GoatGuy]

I think part of the length of the process is attributed to the fact that as resource users, we've been saying for a long time, that we support a science based management approach. When Gov really took a look at previous management processes and data, there were inconsistencies in the age of the compilation or in the method/quality of compilation. (Science is always evovling) They needed to get a better representation of the data to make decisions today.

I think we are at the forefront of science based decision making. Consultation with stakeholders will be a courtesy and checkpoint for the decision. Not a basis for decision.

I'm always optimistic.

Some of the best ones I've seen is this: "we want science". Then when we don't like what we get, eventhough it's supported by science, we say no.

Always funny.

[6616]

I wondered if that was just fishing when it came up? We should have beat that up much more than we did when it surfaced. I think we can put it to rest eventually. There really is no basis for it. It's to avoid the selfish harvest of a few?

I'm sure it was as you say, just fishing, but why would it even come up...I don't even see the need to even feel it out considering the current status of elk and moose...! It's the "perception" of greed, but tell that to a guy with 4 teenagers to feed, I don't see the need to restrict ourselves with restrictive regulations that are not required. We are already over-burdened with overly restrictive regulations, antler point restrictions, LEH, etc. That it even made the agenda indicates to me that the regional advisory system may be flawed.

Because we had that regulation once in the Kootenay's when there really was a conservation concern, Kootenay hunters are somewhat used to the concept, but if that regulation was suggested elsewhere in BC when there's no conservation concern, you can bet you'd have to stand back and watch as the $h_t hit the fan.

[bayou]

I know I'm beating my head against the wall but one last time: LEH draws are about dead animals, not about how many people don't use them. That's all factored in.
Explain further so are you saying leh is good for they can better control the amounts of animals they want harvested out of an area for in there allocation numbers they are allowing for those that will not be using there tags or tags unfilled. Where as in a GOS they have no control on the amount harvested.

[GoatGuy]

Explain further so are you saying leh is good for they can better control the amounts of animals they want harvested out of an area for in there allocation numbers they are allowing for those that will not be using there tags or tags unfilled. Where as in a GOS they have no control on the amount harvested.

No, I'm not saying LEH is good.

I'm saying that this: "Same with leh tags if a guy draws one shouldnt be allowed to hunt bulls to many guys put in for them and doe tags as a back up and end up not using them" is taken care of. If somebody doesn't 'fill' a tag it really isn't a big deal - it's all accounted for (or should be). They don't release 100 doe tags to harvest 100 does...........................

GOS they do have control over the harvest - that's why there are season dates, sex, antler/horn and access restrictions.

[bayou]

[quote=GoatGuy;476509]No, I'm not saying LEH is good.

I'm saying that this: "Same with leh tags if a guy draws one shouldnt be allowed to hunt bulls to many guys put in for them and doe tags as a back up and end up not using them" is taken care of. If somebody doesn't 'fill' a tag it really isn't a big deal - it's all accounted for (or should be). They don't release 100 doe tags to harvest 100 does...........................
True so what is the formula or percent they use, when they put out 100 tags what percent do they expect killed
what percent allowed for applied for but not used
what percent allowed for wounded animals
etc
GOS they do have control over the harvest - that's why there are season dates, sex, antler/horn and access restrictions.
Leh has all the above restrictions as well, but in GOS there is no control on how many people are hunting at one time or how many animals are shot.

[GoatGuy]

[quote=GoatGuy;476509]No, I'm not saying LEH is good.

I'm saying that this: "Same with leh tags if a guy draws one shouldnt be allowed to hunt bulls to many guys put in for them and doe tags as a back up and end up not using them" is taken care of. If somebody doesn't 'fill' a tag it really isn't a big deal - it's all accounted for (or should be). They don't release 100 doe tags to harvest 100 does...........................
True so what is the formula or percent they use, when they put out 100 tags what percent do they expect killed
what percent allowed for applied for but not used
what percent allowed for wounded animals
etc
GOS they do have control over the harvest - that's why there are season dates, sex, antler/horn and access restrictions.
Leh has all the above restrictions as well, but in GOS there is no control on how many people are hunting at one time or how many animals are shot.

All of this varies depending on the species and hunt right down to the sub-unit. There are several factors which affect this.

The predictability between a GOS and LEH is often more consistent in a GOS. The same things that give you control under LEH give you control under GOS only without the draw part. It actually makes things more unpredictable for some species.

When you're quoting you can simply cut and paste the beggining tag and ending tag of a quote so you don't have to type in red or blue. Ie cut this part out. I've added * in so you can see what it would look like.

[*quote=GoatGuy;476509*] insert quoted material [*/quote*]

[6616]

True so what is the formula or percent they use, when they put out 100 tags what percent do they expect killed
what percent allowed for applied for but not used
what percent allowed for wounded animals
etc



The basic procedure goes like this:

Use a hypothetical MU with a population estimate 0f 100 animals.

Step 1 is to establish AAH. There are harvest percentages or guidelines in the Provincial Wildlife Harvest Strategy for each species. 15 to 20% for moose, 3.5 to 4.5 % for goats, for example.
Say we're talking moose in our hypothetical example and the harvest rate they decide to use is 15% of the bull population. If the populaltion estimate for bulls is 100 in our example MU, 15% of 100 = 15 which is the AAH.

Step 2 is to establish the alloction. Lets say in this case the allocation percentages established in Victoria are 75/25. These percentagers are multiplied by the AAH to get the allocation for residents and non-residents. .75 x 15 = 11.25 resident allocation. This would be rounded to 11 and thus the non-resident allocation is 4 and quota would be issued to allow the guide to harvest 4 moose.

Step 3 is to establish the average success rate over the last three years. This would be done using CI data or questionaire data if there is no CI in that area for moose. The success rates used are the actual numbers of moose harvested divided by the total number of authorizations issued. By using total number of authorizations unused authorizations are thus accounted for in the calculation.

Step 4 is to calculate the number of LEH authorizations. This is done by dividing the resident allocation or target harvest (11) by the success rate. In other words if the success rate is 50% the resident allocation of 11 would result in 22 authorizations being issued. If the success rate was 25% because a lot of authorizations went unused the calculated number of authorizations would thus be 11/.25 = 44.

This is the basic procedure that is supposed to be used after 2012 when the new allocation policy is fully implemented. Until that time there are some variations allowed, such as averaging the allocation split over the entire region instead of by each Mu individually. It has not been the practice of MOE to deduct for wounding but this is being considered. This procedure is used for all LEH species except grizzly bear where a different procedure is used that calculates total allowable harvest over an entire allocation period (5 years) instead of annually.

[boxhitch]

Step 3 is to establish the average success rate over the last three years. This would be done using CI data or questionaire data if there is no CI in that area for moose. The success rates used are the actual numbers of moose harvested divided by the total number of authorizations issued. By using total number of authorizations unused authorizations are thus accounted for in the calculation.

.I think this is where the system falls down. IF success rates were based on good stats and good science that would be a good thing. It sounds like some rates are 'creative'.



It has not been the practice of MOE to deduct for wounding but this is being considered.
I would hate to see that listed specifically. Probably insignificant, compared to vehicle mortalities, or winterkill.

[6616]

I think this is where the system falls down. IF success rates were based on good stats and good science that would be a good thing. It sounds like some rates are 'creative'.

I would hate to see that listed specifically. Probably insignificant, compared to vehicle mortalities, or winterkill.

Harvest data from questionaires is not real firm, I believe MOE estimates it's about 80% correct. More over it's often late and not available yet when regions are preparing next years LEH so they end up with only two years of data. Data from CI is firm data with a very high accuracy rate and is developed at the regional level so it's always available in time. Luckily most LEH hunts also have CI.

The real problem with success rates and LEH calculations comes in with hunts that have a very low success rate. Some regions use minimum success rates they develop regionally instead of the provincially accepted minimum of 5%. For example one region in BC used 20% as a minimum success rate for their sheep LEHs and 10% for their goat hunts, when the actual success rates are much lower. This does not allow enough LEH authorizations to be issued to reach the desired target. A minimum of 20% success allows a maximum of five authorizations per target kill and this is never enough with hunts like Phillips Creek sheep or Mount Assiniboine sheep to allow residents to actually acheive their allocated harvest.

I agree Bill, regarding the mortaility and wounding factors. These losses are already built into the harvest rates established by the Provincial Wildlife Harvest Strategy and deducting for it again when calculating AAH is akin to deducting it twice.

[bayou]

The basic procedure goes like this:

Use a hypothetical MU with a population estimate 0f 100 animals.

Step 1 is to establish AAH. There are harvest percentages or guidelines in the Provincial Wildlife Harvest Strategy for each species. 15 to 20% for moose, 3.5 to 4.5 % for goats, for example.
Say we're talking moose in our hypothetical example and the harvest rate they decide to use is 15% of the bull population. If the populaltion estimate for bulls is 100 in our example MU, 15% of 100 = 15 which is the AAH.

Step 2 is to establish the alloction. Lets say in this case the allocation percentages established in Victoria are 75/25. These percentagers are multiplied by the AAH to get the allocation for residents and non-residents. .75 x 15 = 11.25 resident allocation. This would be rounded to 11 and thus the non-resident allocation is 4 and quota would be issued to allow the guide to harvest 4 moose.

Step 3 is to establish the average success rate over the last three years. This would be done using CI data or questionaire data if there is no CI in that area for moose. The success rates used are the actual numbers of moose harvested divided by the total number of authorizations issued. By using total number of authorizations unused authorizations are thus accounted for in the calculation.

Step 4 is to calculate the number of LEH authorizations. This is done by dividing the resident allocation or target harvest (11) by the success rate. In other words if the success rate is 50% the resident allocation of 11 would result in 22 authorizations being issued. If the success rate was 25% because a lot of authorizations went unused the calculated number of authorizations would thus be 11/.25 = 44.

This is the basic procedure that is supposed to be used after 2012 when the new allocation policy is fully implemented. Until that time there are some variations allowed, such as averaging the allocation split over the entire region instead of by each Mu individually. It has not been the practice of MOE to deduct for wounding but this is being considered. This procedure is used for all LEH species except grizzly bear where a different procedure is used that calculates total allowable harvest over an entire allocation period (5 years) instead of annually.
Thanks for trying to explain this, tell me if im understanding #4 right.
The number of authorizations is decided on from success rate from previous 3 years so if poor success rate authorizations go up, but what is done to figure out why a poor success rate, there could be many reasons why there is a poor success rate so uping the authorizations may not be a good thing.

[6616]

Thanks for trying to explain this, tell me if im understanding #4 right.
The number of authorizations is decided on from success rate from previous 3 years so if poor success rate authorizations go up, but what is done to figure out why a poor success rate, there could be many reasons why there is a poor success rate so uping the authorizations may not be a good thing.

That's true, also if the low success rates are not being caused by insufficient authorizations, increasing them is not going to result in a greater harvest either. In many cases low success rates may be due to restrictive regulations like access management. It also could be just from low population numbers, but if that's the case, it should be accounted for in Step 1 where AAH is calculated. It's obvious that for this system to work, decent popluation estimates are required since the whole system starts out based on population estimates and they must be accurate.

According to the new allocation policy, there is supposed to be reviews of regulations where allocations are consistently not being met. This theorietically could result in regulation changes that assist in acheiving allocations without increasing authorizations if it is determined that restrictive regulations are the cause of low success rates.

Since implementation of the new allocation policy commenced in 2007 and will be completed in 2012, none of these reviews have been done yet. I expect MOE won't want to begin them until 2012 however there is lots of data that indicates resident allocations have not been acheived in some of these hunts for many years. The BCWF would like these reviews to begin right now in these cases. Otherwise it could simply result in transfer of allocation to non-residents in 2012 based on low resident utilization.

In cases where success rates are low because of inaccessibility due to natural barriers or remoteness, season lengths could be adjusted, timing of seasons could be changed, or possibly like has been suggested in Region 6 for Stone Sheep, a portion of the season could be for residents only. In some of these cases where resident hunters simply refuse to go to an area and utilize the available opportunities, it's possible that nothing can be done!

[6616]

Thanks for trying to explain this, tell me if im understanding #4 right.
The number of authorizations is decided on from success rate from previous 3 years so if poor success rate authorizations go up, but what is done to figure out why a poor success rate, there could be many reasons why there is a poor success rate so uping the authorizations may not be a good thing.


It also should be noted that the procedures stated above are the way things are "supposed" to work. Everything is based on having good data and reliable population estimates to calculate a sustainable AAH. Things don't always work out the way they're supposed to! It follows that if there are errors in step one these errors are going to be carried forward and will effect the results of calculations in subsequent steps.

For example, I suspect that there are cases where managers do not have a high enough confidence level in their population estimates, but are reluctant to lower the population estimate and AAH due to the impact this would have on non-resident quotas. I also suspect that in some of these cases they attempt to build in some security protection from overharvest by manipulating the number of LEH authorizations or by creating restrictive regulations that will curtail resident harvest. I know this is sticking my neck out and is a controversial statement, but I believe this is the reason why minimum success rates are sometimes used by regions that are much higher then the provincial standard of 5%, and could also be the reason for some of the access management measures that are in place throughout the province....

[bayou]

[quote=6616;477825]It also should be noted that the procedures stated above are the way things are "supposed" to work. Everything is based on having good data and reliable population estimates to calculate a sustainable AAH. Things don't always work out the way they're supposed to! It follows that if there are errors in step one these errors are going to be carried forward and will effect the results of calculations in subsequent steps.
I agree and would say reliable would be the key word here.
For example, I suspect that there are cases where managers do not have a high enough confidence level in their population estimates, but are reluctant to lower the population estimate and AAH due to the impact this would have on non-resident quotas. I also suspect that in some of these cases they attempt to build in some security protection from overharvest by manipulating the number of LEH authorizations or by creating restrictive regulations that will curtail resident harvest. I know this is sticking my neck out and is a controversial statement, but I believe this is the reason why minimum success rates are sometimes used by regions that are much higher then the provincial standard of 5%, and could also be the reason for some of the access management measures that are in place throughout the province....
I have seen and think there is fudging in the numbers by all user groups to help in there own agendas, cover there a--, keep there job going, etc

[GoatGuy]

Wounding rates are used by some regions for some species.

[cloverphil]

are they just running everywhere there now? I'm going for one this season, any ideas on where to find them? any vague directions would be helpfull, thanks

[hunter1947]

are they just running everywhere there now? I'm going for one this season, any ideas on where to find them? any vague directions would be helpfull, thanks

Get anywhere back into the hills from the Yahk on up past cranbrook the Flathead and you will find elk ,get a back roads map of that area and pick a gravel road that heads back into the hills and start looking you will find elk http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif

Back in behind Canal flats ,white swan lake are good areas to look as well ,the one FSR heads all the way back into the boarder of Alberta ,but be careful when getting back in that way there are road closer's in this area.

[GoatGuy]

are they just running everywhere there now? I'm going for one this season, any ideas on where to find them? any vague directions would be helpfull, thanks

Nobody ever seems to go but the Findlay is one of my top choices for newbies. Lots of elk and you don't need to know all the trails. Just take the mountain bike and head up there.