White-tailed Deer: Proposal For A Provincially Coordinated Hunting Regulation

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Found this on the Hunting News section of the regs. Didn't see a prevoius thread on it:confused:

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/managment-issues/index.html#wtdprov

White-tailed Deer: Proposal For A Provincially Coordinated Hunting Regulation


The Fish and Wildlife Branch is seeking stakeholder input on a proposal for a provincially coordinated white-tailed deer regulation framework starting in 2010. This regulatory framework, which is still in the proposal stage, has been developed to address some key drivers or "tests" for regulatory change including: (1) hunting regulation simplification; (2) harmonization of hunting regulations within and between regions; (3) increased hunting opportunity and (4) program delivery within existing resources. The draft proposal below has been developed through discussions with regional wildlife staff. We wish to initiate consultation at both the provincial and regional level on this proposed regulatory framework in order to determine the level of stakeholder support.


PROPOSED PROVINCIAL WHITE-TAILED DEER HUNTING REGULATION FRAMEWORK

GOS any buck youth and archery: Sep 1 to 9
GOS any buck: Sep 10 to Nov 30
GOS youth either-sex: Oct 10 - Oct 31 (within contiguous white-tailed deer range)
GOS antlerless: Nov 1 - 30 (within contiguous white-tailed deer range)
GOS archery either-sex (optional): Dec 1 to 20.
GOS any buck (optional): Dec 1 to 10.GOS refers to General Open Season



Contiguous white-tailed deer range refers to those areas within the province where white-tailed deer commonly occur. It excludes those areas where white-tailed deer are rarely or only occasional seen. For these reasons, the proposed regulations would not include antlerless rifle seasons in Region 5 (Cariboo) or 6 (Skeena), as well as portions of Region 7A (Omineca) and 7B (Peace).


The link below provides the background and rationale for the proposal. The white-tailed deer distribution map is also included in the link.


White-tailed Deer Regulation Proposal (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/docs/white-taileddeermanagmentbc.pdf) [PDF 1.97MB]


Please submit any comments you may have about the White-tailed Deer Regulation Proposal in the comment field below. Comments are appreciated and will be reviewed, but individuals will not be contacted for responses.
There is a section for input.


SSS

[jml11]

Nice find! Our area is essentially already online with that proposal but it will be nice to see the rest come on board as well. It will be interesting to see what those in the peace have to say about GOS whiteys from Sept through to Nov! Would Mulies have to follow suit? At least, to open up in sept and oct?

[Everett]

The part I did not like which is buried in one line is the provincial WT 2 deer bag limit one antlered one antlerless. Which meens you will only be able to shoot one buck in the whole province.

[PGK]

Nice find! Our area is essentially already online with that proposal but it will be nice to see the rest come on board as well. It will be interesting to see what those in the peace have to say about GOS whiteys from Sept through to Nov! Would Mulies have to follow suit? At least, to open up in sept and oct?

Sure would enjoy a 30 day GOS on flattops! Instead of this 10 day thing we have now. Not complaining about what we have, but it sure makes for a stressing 10 days when I want to put bratwurst in the freezer and I've got exams on four of the 10 days!

[GoatGuy]

Nice find! Our area is essentially already online with that proposal but it will be nice to see the rest come on board as well. It will be interesting to see what those in the peace have to say about GOS whiteys from Sept through to Nov! Would Mulies have to follow suit? At least, to open up in sept and oct?

My guess is Peace will go Nov for wt, 4 pt wt season goes the way of the dodo. Ag areas won't allow long GOS for mule deer - too vulnerable.

[ARC]

The part I did not like which is buried in one line is the provincial WT 2 deer bag limit one antlered one antlerless. Which meens you will only be able to shoot one buck in the whole province.

I agree, I wouldn't support the proposal for just this reason.

[GoatGuy]

The part I did not like which is buried in one line is the provincial WT 2 deer bag limit one antlered one antlerless. Which meens you will only be able to shoot one buck in the whole province.

My guess is 2 wt, one buck, one doe and one mule deer is what the Ministry will propose.

[GoatGuy]

I agree, I wouldn't support the proposal for just this reason.

Doesn't bother me, but what is the difference between shooting 2 wt buck and 1 wt buck, 1 doe?

[PGK]

The emphasis should be on killing more WT does, not more bucks. They're one hell of an invasive-type species, and if we don't get on the ball controlling their populations, we're going to be hurting, and we will see a decline of other ungulate species...namely MD

[GoatGuy]

The emphasis should be on killing more WT does, not more bucks. They're one hell of an invasive-type species, and if we don't get on the ball controlling their populations, we're going to be hurting, and we will see a decline of other ungulate species...namely MD

You may see some localized declines, but you won't control wtd with those kinds of bag limits. Not enough hunters.

[ARC]

Doesn't bother me, but what is the difference between shooting 2 wt buck and 1 wt buck, 1 doe?

Every year I make 2 November trips for whitetails, one in the EK and one in the Peace. I look forward to both of these trips all year long. Along with hunting, they are often the only time I get to see my friends living in these areas. If one year I took a wt buck in the EK, I would not make a trip all the way to FSJ for a doe....they just dont get my heart rate going like bucks do. Perhaps I would take one close to Kamloops, but I wouldn't drive 12 hours for one.

I have no problem opening up wt does for long GOS across the province, I just wouldn't want the current opportunties to harvest 2 bucks reduced.

[GoatGuy]

Every year I make 2 November trips for whitetails, one in the EK and one in the Peace. I look forward to both of these trips all year long. Along with hunting, they are often the only time I get to see my friends living in these areas. If one year I took a wt buck in the EK, I would not make a trip all the way to FSJ for a doe....they just dont get my heart rate going like bucks do. Perhaps I would take one close to Kamloops, but I wouldn't drive 12 hours for one.

I have no problem opening up wt does for long GOS across the province, I just wouldn't want the current opportunties to harvest 2 bucks reduced.

Makes sense to me.

[wetcoasthunter]

You may see some localized declines, but you won't control wtd with those kinds of bag limits. Not enough hunters.


Agreed,

look at how many are taken in the states. I know its not exactly "apples to apples" but man they shoot ALOT of WTs down there and the pop. stays VERY strong.

[brotherjack]

I have no problem opening up wt does for long GOS across the province, I just wouldn't want the current opportunties to harvest 2 bucks reduced.

This sounds like a common theme -- how about everyone get off their duffs and write in and make their voices heard? This isn't written in stone, I don't think, and I'm sure "they" would love to get the feedback so they can do something that gets the least amount of complaining possible. :)

[J_T]

Doesn't bother me, but what is the difference between shooting 2 wt buck and 1 wt buck, 1 doe?I'm not saying I'm against this proposal so please don't jump on me. Information for what it's worth.
- Currently a bowhunter in Reg 4 can take two whitetail does. The proposal will change that.
- In Region 8 there is an either sex bow season from Nov 25 to Dec 10 (this proposal will impact that)
- Bowhunters typically aren't worried about bone on the top of the head. Everything is a trophy.
- There are many (not just bowhunters) who remain concerned about the conservation side of this.
- An open season for does, through November does have an impact on a bowhunter's late season opportunity.
- A GOS in December, where perhaps there isn't one now but where there is a bow only season, does impact that late season bow opportunity.

[6616]

This sounds like a common theme -- how about everyone get off their duffs and write in and make their voices heard? This isn't written in stone, I don't think, and I'm sure "they" would love to get the feedback so they can do something that gets the least amount of complaining possible. :)

This post is correct. Don't oppose the proposal based on the suggested bag limits, write in and state your case, suggest an alternative.

The provincial bag limit could simply be 2 WTD or maybe even 3 eventually, whether they're does or bucks could be in regional bag limits since there are some conservation differences (althought minor) between southern regions. Most regions will try to maintain a buck ratio of 20 bucks per 100 does and if a lot of hunters shoot 2 bucks that objective could be difficult to obtain. Also the goal of stabilizing the population growth can only be attained by shooting does.

PGK is also right, we could use a 3 or 4 doe bag limit in some places, but since it's a GOS proposal doe harvest will likely increase so let's give it a try, see what happens, and modify it to meet requirements in a couple years when we see what the results will be and we don't have to guess anymore.

When I first moved to Region 4 in the early 60's there were far more MD then WTD and look at it today, same happened in the Okanagan, same is going to happen in region 3 and 5 next, and then 7A and the Peace if we don't try to limit WTD expansion a little. The only tool we've got is killing does.

Extra-ordinarily high WTD populations are going to compete with other species for forage and space and will additionally sustain extra high predator populations which will then also impact other species.

[jml11]

Sure would enjoy a 30 day GOS on flattops! Instead of this 10 day thing we have now. Not complaining about what we have, but it sure makes for a stressing 10 days when I want to put bratwurst in the freezer and I've got exams on four of the 10 days!

Maybe you should finally graduate then!! :wink:

Skipped a few study sessions in lieu of hunting in my Uni days...

[Everett]

I don't have a problem with killing WT does I just like to hook up with friends in other regions to hunt. In a normal year I don't hunt WT at home in region 4 till the end of the season but I do hunt them in region 8 and sometimes region 3 and possibly 7b next year, earlier in the season. This year I have hunted region 4,6,7b and 8.

[GoatGuy]

I'm not saying I'm against this proposal so please don't jump on me. Information for what it's worth.
- Currently a bowhunter in Reg 4 can take two whitetail does. The proposal will change that.
- In Region 8 there is an either sex bow season from Nov 25 to Dec 10 (this proposal will impact that)
- Bowhunters typically aren't worried about bone on the top of the head. Everything is a trophy.
- There are many (not just bowhunters) who remain concerned about the conservation side of this.
- An open season for does, through November does have an impact on a bowhunter's late season opportunity.
- A GOS in December, where perhaps there isn't one now but where there is a bow only season, does impact that late season bow opportunity.

JT, this all sounds good to me.

Things originally looked at the either sex GOS during October, not November. I think the diversion is due to mule deer protection (any buck season). Not sure how valid that is. In November you end up with high densities of deer on winter range and you'll end up with high densities of hunters in a couple areas as opposed to spread out as you would have in October. Some to think about.

The conservation side is a big issue and I agree there will probably be some localized declines. In some areas that will be a good thing in others some hunters probably won't be happy as they're used to seeing 40+ or more deer/day (or in a morning in some spots). The flip side is a more productive and healthier deer population and most importantly healthy habitat. One thing's for sure you won't see wt deer disappear.

I think the 'option' of GOS in December allows areas like 4-38,4-39 where the goal is to reduce populations and currently in Region 3 to keep their seasons. I don't believe it will impact current bow only opportunity.

[Fisher-Dude]

The proposal is good, except for a possible spill over to affect mule deer bag limits. The proposed provincial bag limit of one mule deer is complete horseshit IMO. Mule deer do NOT have a conservation concern, so reducing the potential provincial bag limit from 3 to 1 is utter stupidity. Dispersed mule deer harvest between regions by hunters is perfectly sustainable - it has been for 50+ years with way more hunters. If we're concerned about WT encroaching on MD, then kill more WT. Maybe make WT doe harvest a "bonus" to the provincial deer limit (ie the 4th deer).

[mark]

The proposal is good, except for a possible spill over to affect mule deer bag limits. The proposed provincial bag limit of one mule deer is complete horseshit IMO. Mule deer do NOT have a conservation concern, so reducing the potential provincial bag limit from 3 to 1 is utter stupidity. Dispersed mule deer harvest between regions by hunters is perfectly sustainable - it has been for 50+ years with way more hunters. If we're concerned about WT encroaching on MD, then kill more WT. Maybe make WT doe harvest a "bonus" to the provincial deer limit (ie the 4th deer).

Agreed, why mess with the currant bag limits???
If they want to cull whiteys, just let us kill more of them! :twisted:

[BCBear]

The concern that Parelaphostrongylus (Brainworm) kills muledeer among other species and gravitates towards whiteys as their natural hosts without any visible symptoms is a valid reason to be cautious about their numbers, but I agree, up the bag limits on them and don't mess with the Muledeer aggregate numbers as they currently are.

[dana]

They need to expand this to Region 3 and 5. Those rats are aggressive as hell and I'm seeing them in areas they have never been before. If we let them do their thing, we can kiss mule deer goodbye. Do we want Region 3 and Region 5 to be the next Region 4 in 20 years. Lets nip this thing in the bud now. If there is a season in a unit, then we should adopt antlerless seasons. Why protect them. They are a weed. It would be like saying, "we'll kill the knapweed only in areas that it was in orginally, but we'll ignore it in the areas it never used to exist."

[bridger]

the proposed changes to the whitetail season would have a serious effect on the wt population in the peace. first we don't have the numbers that other parts of the province do, secondly their habitat is essentially farm fields that make them really vunerable to over harvest as the majority of deer are harvested by road hunting in 7b. the other thing many guys are not aware of is because of the economics of farming a lot of farm land is not being seeded up here and therefore we are losing habitat. Seems like a strange way to lose habitat, but it is a major factor. In addition it looks like we are heading into another tough winter, hopefully it won't be as devasting as 06/07.. we could support the november season goatguy mentioned.

[GoatGuy]

They need to expand this to Region 3 and 5. Those rats are aggressive as hell and I'm seeing them in areas they have never been before. If we let them do their thing, we can kiss mule deer goodbye. Do we want Region 3 and Region 5 to be the next Region 4 in 20 years. Lets nip this thing in the bud now. If there is a season in a unit, then we should adopt antlerless seasons. Why protect them. They are a weed. It would be like saying, "we'll kill the knapweed only in areas that it was in orginally, but we'll ignore it in the areas it never used to exist."

Region 3 is on board.:wink:

Region 5 is, well, you know.

[J_T]

the proposed changes to the whitetail season would have a serious effect on the wt population in the peace. first we don't have the numbers that other parts of the province do, secondly their habitat is essentially farm fields that make them really vunerable to over harvest as the majority of deer are harvested by road hunting in 7b. the other thing many guys are not aware of is because of the economics of farming a lot of farm land is not being seeded up here and therefore we are losing habitat. Seems like a strange way to lose habitat, but it is a major factor. In addition it looks like we are heading into another tough winter, hopefully it won't be as devasting as 06/07.. we could support the november season goatguy mentioned.
Generally Region 4 is no different. The prime habitat is the ag zone. A lot of that agricultural zone is high fenced. Once the Whitetails get inside those high farmers fences they don't leave. Only the small predators get inside. As GOS provide doe opportunity, the farmers will risk having more deer inside the private and most often inaccessible land of those high fences.
Currently there are high numbers of hunters that enjoy the late season bowhunt in both region 4 and 8. When bowhunters hunt the late season because the animals are condensed, bowhunters find themselves condensed. With a bow, this is not an issue. I suspect that a doe season that occurs before the animals really congregate on winter range would provide for a better hunting experience for rifle hunting.

[Fisher-Dude]

the proposed changes to the whitetail season would have a serious effect on the wt population in the peace. first we don't have the numbers that other parts of the province do, secondly their habitat is essentially farm fields that make them really vunerable to over harvest as the majority of deer are harvested by road hunting in 7b. the other thing many guys are not aware of is because of the economics of farming a lot of farm land is not being seeded up here and therefore we are losing habitat. Seems like a strange way to lose habitat, but it is a major factor. In addition it looks like we are heading into another tough winter, hopefully it won't be as devasting as 06/07.. we could support the november season goatguy mentioned.

I don't think you will find a problem Rich. With this antlerless season running concurrently in most of the province, and open for a whole month, we won't see the concentration of hunters that we currently get when a short opportunity in a small area is opened. How many out-of-region guys will drive 14 hours to FSJ to shoot a WT doe? If locals can pop a "bonus deer", I think some might, but I don't expect a big harvest. Also, your locals in 7B seem to like their big bucks, so how many are inclined to shoot a little flat top?

[curt]

rifle season overlapping any archery season is not reasonable

[spock]

I am dead set against a blanket 30 day GOS for does across the southern half of the province, the reason being this. B.C. unlike praire provinces and many us states has the human and also hunter population concentrated in specific areas like the lower mainland, okanagan and vancouver island. While I doubt a 30 day GOS in novemvber would have much of an effect in the East Kootenays as the odds for antlerless LEH arent that high a lot of units are at less than 2:1, it may provide a little more opportunity for locals. I think it would however be absolutely devastating for region 8. Why would a lower mainland or okanagan guy drive the extra four or five hours to the East Kootenays to shoot a doe when he can go to the okanagan. This is where I think LEH is a legitimate tool, to spread out hunting pressure. In some units in region 8 the odds of being drawn for a doe tag are about 8:1, translante that to hunter intent you now have 8 times the pressure on your does in the area closest to your major human population centres. I think the reason it may work in more remote few people are going to drive 10 hours one way to have a crack at a WT doe. If the WT population in more accessible close to urban center areas like region 8 needs to be managed more aggressively then it should be done by increasing the LEH authorizations.

[PGK]

Maybe you should finally graduate then!! :wink:

Skipped a few study sessions in lieu of hunting in my Uni days...

Two. Long. Weeks.

[boxhitch]

In some units in region 8 the odds of being drawn for a doe tag are about 8:1, translante that to hunter intent you now have 8 times the pressure on your does in the area closest to your major human population centres. That would fit nicely with the management intent of keeping the herds in check that cause the problems in the valley bottom. And the same offering would go to all regions, spreading the effort.

[GoatGuy]

I am dead set against a blanket 30 day GOS for does across the southern half of the province, the reason being this. B.C. unlike praire provinces and many us states has the human and also hunter population concentrated in specific areas like the lower mainland, okanagan and vancouver island. While I doubt a 30 day GOS in novemvber would have much of an effect in the East Kootenays as the odds for antlerless LEH arent that high a lot of units are at less than 2:1, it may provide a little more opportunity for locals. I think it would however be absolutely devastating for region 8. Why would a lower mainland or okanagan guy drive the extra four or five hours to the East Kootenays to shoot a doe when he can go to the okanagan. This is where I think LEH is a legitimate tool, to spread out hunting pressure. In some units in region 8 the odds of being drawn for a doe tag are about 8:1, translante that to hunter intent you now have 8 times the pressure on your does in the area closest to your major human population centres. I think the reason it may work in more remote few people are going to drive 10 hours one way to have a crack at a WT doe. If the WT population in more accessible close to urban center areas like region 8 needs to be managed more aggressively then it should be done by increasing the LEH authorizations.

You're assuming the number of LEH authorizations currently released in Regions 4 and 8 actually have something to do with managing wildlife and aren't just a meaningless token handouts derived from the previous years buck harvest.

Tsk, tsk.

[PGK]

8:1 LEH with 5 authorizations does not translate into 40 dead deer in 8-x whatever unit when LEH is removed. It translates into 40 hunters from all over the province who are going to kill the whitey doe they want closer to home because the seasons are more liberalized. Removing LEH for whitey does will not create mass slaughter. It will create a lot of shooting opportunity and a little more breathing room on the landscape.

[spock]

LEH is used to spread out pressure. An antlerless season in the peace may be sustainable because the logistics of getting there for the bulk of hunters in B.C. is a limiting factor as to how many will participate in such a season. The Okanagan on the other hand is much easier to get to for most and many more hunters would participate, the pressure would not be evenly spread out resulting in some areas having sustainable antlerless seasons and other having population declines. Other juristictions particularly the praires are mainly private land resulting in a further spreading out of pressure. If you looked at some of the information posted on the minsitry of enviornment website you might notice that of the neighboring juristictions, washington which is probably the most similar to us in terms of lobsided human population distribution, topography etc. does not have a GOS antlerless season. You might also notice that the harvest of whitetails in region 8 has dropped since 2005. In the preamble to regulation change proposal there was reference to working within our current resources, I think that this is probably code for we have had our budget slashed and we can no longer do proper science based wildlife management on a region by region basis therefore we are just going to make very generalized blanket regulations.

[boxhitch]

we can no longer do proper science based wildlife management on a region by region basis therefore we are just going to make very generalized blanket regulations.correct if assuming it was ever science based.
Harmonized approach willl be a good thing for many reasons.

[GoatGuy]

LEH is used to spread out pressure. An antlerless season in the peace may be sustainable because the logistics of getting there for the bulk of hunters in B.C. is a limiting factor as to how many will participate in such a season. The Okanagan on the other hand is much easier to get to for most and many more hunters would participate, the pressure would not be evenly spread out resulting in some areas having sustainable antlerless seasons and other having population declines. Other juristictions particularly the praires are mainly private land resulting in a further spreading out of pressure. If you looked at some of the information posted on the minsitry of enviornment website you might notice that of the neighboring juristictions, washington which is probably the most similar to us in terms of lobsided human population distribution, topography etc. does not have a GOS antlerless season. You might also notice that the harvest of whitetails in region 8 has dropped since 2005. In the preamble to regulation change proposal there was reference to working within our current resources, I think that this is probably code for we have had our budget slashed and we can no longer do proper science based wildlife management on a region by region basis therefore we are just going to make very generalized blanket regulations.

You should also be aware Washington State is 1/4 the size of BC, has millions more people, far less habitat, 211,000 hunters and 1 or 2 week GOS for wt bucks, not 2-1/2 to 3 months. You should also be aware that it has plenty of private land, which defeats your first argument in relation to spreading things out in Alberta.

You are correct there will be some localized declines. Having said that wt's won't disappear and hunters will likely 'move on'. It will also result in healthier habitat something we're sorely lacking on a couple of our major winter ranges that have been beat to death because of stockpiling.

You've pointed out a 1 year decline in the total harvest, not the buck harvest. Hunter effort and days/kill are more valid methods of measuring. The buck harvest in 2006 was still on par with the 10 year average and pretty close to the 15 year average which includes a 2 buck bag limit and an extra day added on to the season and better habitat. There are hundreds of different things that can effect harvest in 1 year. If you're picking up on a trend then you might have something. Overall things are trending upwards.

[mgnm300]

i would be all for the generalization of the gos of whiteys. i personally don't hunt for deer during rifle season. i wait for the bow season and as mentioned before about this proposal that it might affect the bow season. i don't think it would since we would get a longer season which wouldn't hurt my feelings. but that being said , if you think the whitey pop would be affected in anyway, i doubt it since very few hunters would even consider a doe since majority of them are more concerned about bone wether it's a spikey or 4 point. being i only bowhunt even i will persue the bone until the last day when i'll cave and shoot a flattop if i can't get a buck.

[spock]

I hunted in Alberta for several years with my brother most of the easily accesible areas which is where we hunted had a much shorter rifle season for bucks than what is being proposed here. 1-30th of November 1 buck bag limit and two does no hunting on sundays. While I can see the appeal of regulation simplification. I don't think the southern half of b.c. can be managed effectively under a blanket regulation, how would you adjust for a severe winter in one area while another area came out of relatively untouched. The carrying capacity of winter range also has a lot to do with how heavily it has been grazed by cattle, I didn't see anything in the proposal to address that issue. If regulation simplification is a goal then why are we having proposing 2seperate GOS for youth. I would think that a one month GOS for does would be plenty of opportunity for everybody. I think my counter proposal for what it is worth would be to leave the buck season as it is now and vary the doe GOS not that it is my favored option according to the limiting factor of how far it is from heavily populated areas. For example a 10 day Doe GOS in region 8 and maybe a 20 day GOS in 4 and 7b. Try this for two years and assess what it did to hunter distribution and local populations. To answer those who challenged my using LEH odds as a way of guaging hunter intent I would say this. While it may not be that in an area with say a 8:1 odds and 100 antlerless authorizations available that the doe harvest is going to increase by eight times, it is going to increase substantially, the notion of regulating hunting pressure in a given area by letting the game populations get decimated to the point that hunters move on seems a little bit primitive, with that kind of mindset you get things like the collapse of the cod fishery on the east coast.

[PGK]

If we ran out of whitetails, I wouldn't cry.

[bridger]

I don't think you will find a problem Rich. With this antlerless season running concurrently in most of the province, and open for a whole month, we won't see the concentration of hunters that we currently get when a short opportunity in a small area is opened. How many out-of-region guys will drive 14 hours to FSJ to shoot a WT doe? If locals can pop a "bonus deer", I think some might, but I don't expect a big harvest. Also, your locals in 7B seem to like their big bucks, so how many are inclined to shoot a little flat top?


good point but don't forget a lot of guys travel to the peace early to hnt moose and elk so the incidental harvest may have to be considered as well. dana has a point about whitetails crowding mulies out. appears to be happening here to a degree.

[Sunny]

song good to me LOL

[GoatGuy]

I hunted in Alberta for several years with my brother most of the easily accesible areas which is where we hunted had a much shorter rifle season for bucks than what is being proposed here. 1-30th of November 1 buck bag limit and two does no hunting on sundays. While I can see the appeal of regulation simplification. I don't think the southern half of b.c. can be managed effectively under a blanket regulation, how would you adjust for a severe winter in one area while another area came out of relatively untouched. The carrying capacity of winter range also has a lot to do with how heavily it has been grazed by cattle, I didn't see anything in the proposal to address that issue. If regulation simplification is a goal then why are we having proposing 2seperate GOS for youth. I would think that a one month GOS for does would be plenty of opportunity for everybody. I think my counter proposal for what it is worth would be to leave the buck season as it is now and vary the doe GOS not that it is my favored option according to the limiting factor of how far it is from heavily populated areas. For example a 10 day Doe GOS in region 8 and maybe a 20 day GOS in 4 and 7b. Try this for two years and assess what it did to hunter distribution and local populations. To answer those who challenged my using LEH odds as a way of guaging hunter intent I would say this. While it may not be that in an area with say a 8:1 odds and 100 antlerless authorizations available that the doe harvest is going to increase by eight times, it is going to increase substantially, the notion of regulating hunting pressure in a given area by letting the game populations get decimated to the point that hunters move on seems a little bit primitive, with that kind of mindset you get things like the collapse of the cod fishery on the east coast.

You're only dealing with the human side. If you want to give your argument a balanced approach you need to consider where white-tailed deer live. Great to say you want different seasons due to distance from hunters but what if the majority of wt live near the majority of hunters?

WT won't get 'decimated', bit over-dramatic. WT are not like cod or any other kind of animal for that matter. The cod fishery is an entirely different issue. WT deer have been studied to death and unless you're hunting them 24/7 you won't have a 'collapse' or 'decimate' the population. They're trying to knock them back across the eastern US and they can't do it. Landowner tag every 24 hours in open habitat and they aren't making a dent. It's even harder to do it in brushy habitat.

Most ranches aren't using their AUMs and given the choice cattle are principally 'grazers', white-tailed deer in that don't live on ag, particularly on winter range are principally 'browers'. The differences are very subtle.:wink:

[Nooker77]

I'm not saying I'm against this proposal so please don't jump on me. Information for what it's worth.
- Currently a bowhunter in Reg 4 can take two whitetail does. The proposal will change that.
- In Region 8 there is an either sex bow season from Nov 25 to Dec 10 (this proposal will impact that)
- Bowhunters typically aren't worried about bone on the top of the head. Everything is a trophy.
- There are many (not just bowhunters) who remain concerned about the conservation side of this.
- An open season for does, through November does have an impact on a bowhunter's late season opportunity.
- A GOS in December, where perhaps there isn't one now but where there is a bow only season, does impact that late season bow opportunity.
Wells I spend 75% of my time with the bow I dont like the changes forcing the bow season back in Dec...I have a hard enough time in Reg 8 Hunting in deep/crunchy snow with my stick and string! By dec 10th its almost impossible to get anywhere other than friendly farmers fields! Too friggin cold spending all day in my stand! Dont want to lose the 2 buck limit either...i always try and fill a reg4 WT tag when I'm on the annual elk hunt in EK's!! Nice to bring home some meat!! Maybe MORE LEH doe draws would help...I agree we need to get on the Buck to doe ratio but a GOS late in the year after the rut...how many Big buck genes end in the belly of a dead doe??? Just something else to think about!!:)

[Nooker77]

[quote=curt;556674]rifle season overlapping any archery season is not reasonable[/quot AGREED 100% Gets my blood boiling everytime I have to discuss this! I just want my 10 to 16 days not having to worry about the lead flying at my decoy!! LMAO Trust me It has happened in Bow only season! :evil:

[Fisher-Dude]

rifle season overlapping any archery season is not reasonable

Good point. Make it GOS rifle and forget about the bow season, so that we attract enough hunters to help in the management of the species. Careful what you wish for. :wink:

Limiting seasons to bow only does not give enough harvest in a case where we are looking to knock the population explosion back a notch or two. Region 4 has so many WTs they can't even count the damned things. The province's population of WT has more than doubled in the past 10 years. That can't be healthy for the WTs or other competing species.

[J_T]

Good point. Make it GOS rifle and forget about the bow season, so that we attract enough hunters to help in the management of the species. Careful what you wish for. :wink:

Limiting seasons to bow only does not give enough harvest in a case where we are looking to knock the population explosion back a notch or two. Region 4 has so many WTs they can't even count the damned things. The province's population of WT has more than doubled in the past 10 years. That can't be healthy for the WTs or other competing species. Perhaps the bow and bow "only" season isn't about population management. Perhaps its about quality hunting? It still needs to be respected as there are many who live for that late season bow hunt. Your comment to "forget about bow season" is divisive.
Regardless of what some say, I'm sure there are equally as many that won't agree with your statement Reg 4 has so many WT they can't count them. Have you asked the WKO what they think? Or Creston R&G? 2 clubs founded in Region 4.

Let's be real here, WT hunting is a tradition in and of itself. While some of you call them pests and rats, I think they are the best tasting and the toughest hunt. How badly do you/we want to reduce the population? Perhaps the WT that are being counted are the easy ones inside the high fences?
FD, if you really want this thing to go forward, upgrade your conversation skills Dude. Confrontational statements are only going spin this good discussion into a negative atmosphere.

[Fisher-Dude]

Perhaps the bow and bow "only" season isn't about population management. Perhaps its about quality hunting? It still needs to be respected as there are many who live for that late season bow hunt. Your comment to "forget about bow season" is divisive.
Regardless of what some say, I'm sure there are equally as many that won't agree with your statement Reg 4 has so many WT they can't count them. Have you asked the WKO what they think? Or Creston R&G? 2 clubs founded in Region 4.

Let's be real here, WT hunting is a tradition in and of itself. While some of you call them pests and rats, I think they are the best tasting and the toughest hunt. How badly do you/we want to reduce the population? Perhaps the WT that are being counted are the easy ones inside the high fences?
FD, if you really want this thing to go forward, upgrade your conversation skills Dude. Confrontational statements are only going spin this good discussion into a negative atmosphere.

Tell your own bow buddy to whom I was replying to change HIS confrontational attitude looking for an elitist, "quality hunt" season. Sounds like a frikken outfitter with statements like that.

If you had bothered to show up at the Fernie convention you would have learned a thing or two about WT management from the people who have studied them for many years. The maximum harvest and healthiest herd is available from a heavy harvest across age/sex classes - not something that can be accomplished with restrictive bow seasons and not something that can be accomplished by blocking other hunters with "quality hunt", limited participation seasons. We're already doing that, and it ain't workin'.

[J_T]

Tell your own bow buddy to whom I was replying to change HIS confrontational attitude looking for an elitist, "quality hunt" season. Sounds like a frikken outfitter with statements like that.

If you had bothered to show up at the Fernie convention you would have learned a thing or two about WT management from the people who have studied them for many years. The maximum harvest and healthiest herd is available from a heavy harvest across age/sex classes - not something that can be accomplished with restrictive bow seasons and not something that can be accomplished by blocking other hunters with "quality hunt", limited participation seasons. We're already doing that, and it ain't workin'. Hey, you guys are the ones who always say this isn't about "me". This isn't about one person, so enough with the slander. I'd like this thread to continue on in the positive structure it was. Why are you wanting to personalize it? I didn't say I was opposed to this. I've read the material and I've hunted whitetails longer than I've hunted anything else. I completely agree with harvesting across the age and sex class of a species. Finding the balance is the key.

If we see a threat to MD populations in the central interior and we want to prevent the spread of WT there then I'm all for aggressive action. WT in the EK are a lifeblood / tradition hunt. Didn't you just post a wonderful article on traditional territory?

What I'm asking you to do, is respect other hunters methods of hunting. Not everyone wants to whack a doe while riding on their quad. Seriously, if we have a GOS doe hunt, how much effort is going to be required? At least bowhunting can make it challenging. But I respect it might not meet harvest requirements for species management. Please respect bowhunting and those that do. It is a quality hunt. If you can't find that respect, then you're positional style will only have you facing confrontation. I'm not sure that's the best method to have your agenda here move forward. Peace.

[Fisher-Dude]

JT, I'll look to create opportunity for all hunters. What they choose to hunt with is up to them. If some people want to shoot a doe with their rifle and load it on the quad, give 'er. If some think that's too easy and want to chase does with stick and string, give 'er. I'm not going to tell the guy with the gun to stay home and watch Oprah, however, because we only catered to a select few with a bow only season.

If you want to hunt with a bow, you have over 3 months to do so, go for it. If in that time you can't get within 30 yards of a WT with the deer densities we have in R4E these days, then I can't help you. I won't be telling people to stay home because you're worried they will shoot your deer with a gun.

[BCrams]

Its about time this came out!

For the most part, this is a great proposal and an integral step to simplify and align seasons between different regions. The success of this will hopefully pave the way for other species.

[6616]

I don't think the antlerless kill is going to be as high as people think, sling a few rounds in their direction and those flat tops are going to smarten up pretty darn quick. The first year of the antlerless elk x-zone hunts the success rate was 50% or better, now it's down to 30%.

[coach]

Interesting discussion..:-D

[bigben]

I don't think you will find a problem Rich. With this antlerless season running concurrently in most of the province, and open for a whole month, we won't see the concentration of hunters that we currently get when a short opportunity in a small area is opened. How many out-of-region guys will drive 14 hours to FSJ to shoot a WT doe? If locals can pop a "bonus deer", I think some might, but I don't expect a big harvest. Also, your locals in 7B seem to like their big bucks, so how many are inclined to shoot a little flat top?You will be surprise how many will travel 12 hours to shoot a doe

[winbuckhunter]

change the regional limit for whitetails in region 8 from 2 to 1. it will save many deer from slaughter. most people just want a deer for the freezer so they arnt holding out for that trophy buck. so they go out in september and kill a small buck, then again when antlerless opens.. its a shame to see only a few deer where we used to see many. it still gives the meat hunter an easy harvest. but makes it so that if you want to harvest a doe, you cant harvest a buck! i think the same problem happens in other regions with the bag limit for whitetails set at 2.

best way to "control" population, while still managing the sex being taken. the sex of harvested whitetails has taken a drastic turn and for too many does are being taken IMO

[russm86]

This looks great for us in Region 3, and one thing that wasn't clear to me, maybe I missed it, was the bag limits does this now separate WT and Mulies from just one bag limit? If so that would be awesome, I have always hated how they have 2 completely different species lumped under 1 bag limit.

[hunter fisher]

i still worry about a GOS for doe. they are considering closing cow calf season for moose in an attempt to recover numbers, so why let more people shoot wt does?

[Sitkaspruce]

The emphasis should be on killing more WT does, not more bucks. They're one hell of an invasive-type species, and if we don't get on the ball controlling their populations, we're going to be hurting, and we will see a decline of other ungulate species...namely MD

Wow, from PGK, the guy who argued with everyone and believes in hybids......he actually had a forward thinking thought.....

Cheers

SS

[Sitkaspruce]

i still worry about a GOS for doe. they are considering closing cow calf season for moose in an attempt to recover numbers, so why let more people shoot wt does?

Cause there is a ton of them and they need to be shot, we cannot put all our pressure on the bucks while the does skip through life.

We need to balance the numbers and shoot does. Comparing them to moose is way off base.

And how did we dig up this old thread???????? Good one Coach!!!

Cheers

SS

[coach]

And how did we dig up this old thread???????? Good one Coach!!!

Cheers
SS

ha ha! I thought it was worth looking back at. Funny thing is - some people don't realize it's a historical piece now.. :-D

[aggiehunter]

overlapping rifle seasons over BOS (bowonly seasons)....only in BC you say!

[J_T]

And how did we dig up this old thread???????? Good one Coach!!!

Cheers

SS Yeah, when I saw this one come up I thought what a $hit disturber Coach.

[aggiehunter]

Hey isnt' it past your bedtime in Bogota....even I bit on this one...still so refreshing to see some people still beleive the first and probably last deer on the planet will be those evil rat tailed Whities that we love hey! I do concur with some crash's in certain areas and luckily we haven't had a bad winter like other Provinces..yet. Hell even the CO's and one of the main dudes at the top saw a certain lack of Wt's in their favourite spot last season.

[coach]

Yeah, when I saw this one come up I thought what a $hit disturber Coach.

Come on JT, it I was a shit disturber I'd be taking shots about the need to stop bow hunting during rifle seasons.. :-D

[J_T]

Come on JT, it I was a shit disturber I'd be taking shots about the need to stop bow hunting during rifle seasons.. :-D haha, yeah I know. I got your profile figured out. You'd be welcome in camp.... I'm anti 'emoticons' so sometimes I'm sure you guys don't know if I'm jesting or not.

[J_T]

Hey isnt' it past your bedtime in Bogota....even I bit on this one...still so refreshing to see some people still beleive the first and probably last deer on the planet will be those evil rat tailed Whities that we love hey! I do concur with some crash's in certain areas and luckily we haven't had a bad winter like other Provinces..yet. Hell even the CO's and one of the main dudes at the top saw a certain lack of Wt's in their favourite spot last season. Wayyy past. They are very long days (work days) here. Somewhere between 16 and 19 hours. How did this happen?

[Moose Guide]

I used to shoot 2 whitetails a year, both of them bucks. Now I only shoot 1 whitetail a year, they should have left the 2 buck option in this area in my opinion.

[Fisher-Dude]

I used to shoot 2 whitetails a year, both of them bucks. Now I only shoot 1 whitetail a year, they should have left the 2 buck option in this area in my opinion.

Did shooting 2 WT bucks per year:

A.) make for a healthier WT herd?
B.) help mule deer numbers?
C.) grow larger deer (ie bigger WT bucks)?
D.) manage WT numbers to the carrying capacity of the habitat?

[aggiehunter]

FisherDude...you seem to like to speak about catering to a few elitists bowhunters when you have absolutely no clue about how many of "US" are lurking out there...do you! Nor does the government for that matter. You are right about it being hard to count WT's in the EK with the populations being drastically reduced.

[Moose Guide]

Did shooting 2 WT bucks per year:

A.) make for a healthier WT herd?
B.) help mule deer numbers?
C.) grow larger deer (ie bigger WT bucks)?
D.) manage WT numbers to the carrying capacity of the habitat?

Our herd was very healthy, lots of bucks and does, we had a 2 buck season for over 30 years and the herd seemed very healthy.
Our whitetails hear are seldom seen up in mulie country, we have not had very much for mulies since about 93.
Haven't noticed a change in size of deer around here, as long as I can remember there has been one or two 140-150 class buck taken every year or two.
Our WT have never been near the carrying capacity of the land and seem to be declining right now.
I would have liked for the limit to be 2 WT and let the hunter decide on bucks or does, as it is I will just hunt harder for a small mulie early in the season.

[J_T]

Our herd was very healthy, lots of bucks and does, we had a 2 buck season for over 30 years and the herd seemed very healthy.
Our whitetails hear are seldom seen up in mulie country, we have not had very much for mulies since about 93.
Haven't noticed a change in size of deer around here, as long as I can remember there has been one or two 140-150 class buck taken every year or two.
Our WT have never been near the carrying capacity of the land and seem to be declining right now.
I would have liked for the limit to be 2 WT and let the hunter decide on bucks or does, as it is I will just hunt harder for a small mulie early in the season. Good answer. You do know that responding to FD is a lot like playing with a bungee cord. Pull him tight enough and he'll snap and you never know where he's going to lash out and poke you. I prefer he stick to the economy and politics. Stuff I agree with him on. His idea of hunting opportunity and wildlife management is more than warped. It's a one sided holier than thou attitude, supported by a bullying mentality. That just makes you laugh. Can't take him serious.

[Husky7mm]

Did shooting 2 WT bucks per year:

A.) make for a healthier WT herd?
B.) help mule deer numbers?
C.) grow larger deer (ie bigger WT bucks)?
D.) manage WT numbers to the carrying capacity of the habitat?

E.) maintain whitetail population cause you didn't shoot a doe or two?

Note the posters location, are or were they ever over run with whitetail deer?

[Gateholio]

For areas with whitetail, there should be a minimum of 3 month GOS that you can tag at least 2 WT of either sex.

[358mag]

For areas with whitetail, there should be a minimum of 3 month GOS that you can tag at least 2 WT of either sex.

??????????? what areas ..... please show us were there is a high count of whitetails to allow that type of harvest .
Thanks

[Wild one]

For areas with whitetail, there should be a minimum of 3 month GOS that you can tag at least 2 WT of either sex.

If it was 1 buck and 1 doe and I would agree but not in all MU's

[OutWest]

For areas with whitetail, there should be a minimum of 3 month GOS that you can tag at least 2 WT of either sex.

X2, would love to see this in Region 8. I'm sure whitetail would still be under-utilized but there would certainly be guys who take advantage of it.

[Fisher-Dude]

Some people think good hunting is seeing 45 scrawny little WT does in a day while they look for bucks.

Those seem to be the same people who cry about the decline of mule deer but won't manage WT populations to help mule deer - better to restrict hunting and watch MD populations keep falling, apparently.

ALL deer management science says that WT should be managed with harvest across all age classes and both sexes, and that a higher WT population causes heavy, disproportionate predation on mule deer.

If you want to see 45 scrawny WT does and no bucks and no mule deer, then close the WT doe season. However, I don't think that's what most hunters want.

[OutWest]

??????????? what areas ..... please show us were there is a high count of whitetails to allow that type of harvest .
Thanks

Your backyard :)

[358mag]

Your backyard :)
Nope in my back yard just have mulies ......

[Moose Guide]

Some people think good hunting is seeing 45 scrawny little WT does in a day while they look for bucks.

Those seem to be the same people who cry about the decline of mule deer but won't manage WT populations to help mule deer - better to restrict hunting and watch MD populations keep falling, apparently.

ALL deer management science says that WT should be managed with harvest across all age classes and both sexes, and that a higher WT population causes heavy, disproportionate predation on mule deer.

If you want to see 45 scrawny WT does and no bucks and no mule deer, then close the WT doe season. However, I don't think that's what most hunters want.

Our whitetail population is far lower now than in the late 80's, we also had a good population of mulies back then, in fact I was able to take a wt and mulie buck in the same day 2 years in a row(1st year 151 mulie, 120 wt, 2nd year 140 mulie 120 wt). I have only ever taken 2 wt. with less than 4 points, If I was to shoot any buck I could fill my tags in the first week of the season every year! Like I said, we have had a healthy population here for years, only recently has it gone into decline, any guesses why? The hunting was harder here this year, and I suspect that next year will be worse, 7 or 8 does were taken within about 600 yds. of my house, all out of one little herd. I haven't seen a deer there since and I drive past it twice a day. One travelling hunter asked if he could shoot a doe off the neighbours lawn, he was very po'd when my wife said there was no way to make a legal shot there.
I doubt you have ever heard me complain about a lack of mulies, I like to hunt them but prefer whitetails!

[hunter1993ap]

I don't see why there needs to be a three month season on does. if you have the slightest clue of what your doing you would be fine with a 3 day season to tag out. :twisted::twisted: and that's being generous. I'm happy with the whitetail season the way it is....

[OutWest]

I don't see why there needs to be a three month season on does. if you have the slightest clue of what your doing you would be fine with a 3 day season to tag out. :twisted::twisted: and that's being generous. I'm happy with the whitetail season the way it is....

Where's the argument against a whitetail doe season? There's no conservation concern, how is "having the slightest clue what you're doing" have anything to do with conservation?

[Fred1]

Holy crap! Archive thread... Good topic though! Open up the WT does season!! Make it longer and let us pop 3 or 4. Parts of Region 8 is lousy with them! I know first hand of a ranch where over 100 (104 I think) were shot in the fall of 2012. I was there late in the doe season and still saw 32 different WT that day - same field... The does there are dropping 3 and yes even 4 fawns! The CO didn't believe it either... The fields are mowed down to the point where the grass is only 3 inches tall - usually there is a foot or more with cattle on it. The Okanagan (Vernon, Lavington, Lumby Cherryville) has a WT problem. Region 4,5 and 7 will have it too if it goes unchecked. The WT are aggressive, great at adaptation and prolific breeders. As mentioned, just look how many millions are harvested in the US in a year - geez some states are killing over 500k in a season and they are still there. These large deer populations help sustain larger predator populations. Dare I say it, the wolf being the number one predator. Lots of food = more predators. Yes we are seeing a growth in the wolf population - maybe there is a link? Unfortunately wolves don't discriminate - wolf take all... In the case of our growing WT numbers we need to intervene if we want to maintain a decent mule deer population and I believe indirectly help stabilize our moose populations. So if you feel it helps take a wolf or two. If you want to eat, take a couple WT. Harvesting does is the way to do it. Lets hope we are given the opportunity to take a couple more for a few years. I would.

[J_T]

Predation and habitat are the primary reasons for populations swings. Hunters tend to just contribute, but they can be that factor that tips things over the edge. Good thing WT's rebound quickly due to their rabbit like birthing numbers. For those who suggest a 3 bag WT limit in region 4, your talking nonsense. Over the past few years, we have seen what a doe GOS contributes. There might be pockets in R4 that can support increased hunting, but for the most part, the "go to" areas have had a significant population reduction. There is more feed than there are deer. So if WT population reduction was the objective, it was met. I'd like to see more deer. The land can handle it.

[Husky7mm]

Predation and habitat are the primary reasons for populations swings. Hunters tend to just contribute, but they can be that factor that tips things over the edge. Good thing WT's rebound quickly due to their rabbit like birthing numbers. For those who suggest a 3 bag WT limit in region 4, your talking nonsense. Over the past few years, we have seen what a doe GOS contributes. There might be pockets in R4 that can support increased hunting, but for the most part, the "go to" areas have had a significant population reduction. There is more feed than there are deer. So if WT population reduction was the objective, it was met. I'd like to see more deer. The land can handle it.
Amen to that!

[Wild one]

Some people think good hunting is seeing 45 scrawny little WT does in a day while they look for bucks.

Those seem to be the same people who cry about the decline of mule deer but won't manage WT populations to help mule deer - better to restrict hunting and watch MD populations keep falling, apparently.

ALL deer management science says that WT should be managed with harvest across all age classes and both sexes, and that a higher WT population causes heavy, disproportionate predation on mule deer.

If you want to see 45 scrawny WT does and no bucks and no mule deer, then close the WT doe season. However, I don't think that's what most hunters want.


Not against a properly managed either sex WT season but I don't buy the whole end to mule deer theory. Lots of areas in BC and outside of BC hold healthy populations of both species. Truth of the matter is that both species have habitat they thrive in over the other. Yes, they have over lapping habitat but there is definite areas that are better suited for each species.

A change in the dominate species in some areas I could see but it is not an end all to mule deer populations. There is a lot more effecting mule deer numbers than WT populations.

Some are blaming wolf population increase on WT numbers. With the decrease in other species it would be a safe guess there is not a big increase in prey items for wolves. The scrawny WT as you put it is not exactly the best prey item for wolves. Wolves would be burning more calories for a smaller prey item. This issue is more likely do to the past winter conditions being in favour to the wolf and the changes to the habitat by humans.

Over the past 20 years yes I have seen WT in new areas but have also see a decrease in WT numbers in other areas.

WT are naturally expending their range in BC but so have moose, elk, and mule deer. Game populations and species have no doubt changed over the years.

What makes mule deer more valuable that the WT?

Hunters should be happy to have a species that is native to BC that can handle added pressure. Kind of stupid to miss manage this resource especially when BC has already done that with other species

I think a change in how mule deer are managed might be a better idea. BC is not the same as it was years ago so you can't expect to get the same results with old management practices

[aggiehunter]

Fred, so 100 or so got shot and then you only see 30 or so...theres your answer...and on private land where most of the population is that's even scarier. You simply cannot compare the states with our deer herd or management objective..it just can't work.

[GoatGuy]

An older one that's making its rounds again:

Effects of White-tailed Deer Expansion and Cougar
Hunting on Cougar, Deer and Human Interactions
Robert B. Wielgus
Washington State University, Department of Natural Resource Sciences,
Large Carnivore Conservation Laboratory
Pullman, Washington
Hugh S. Robinson
Washington State University, Department of Natural Resource Sciences,
Large Carnivore Conservation Laboratory
Pullman, Washington
Hilary S. Cooley
Washington State University, Department of Natural Resource Sciences,
Large Carnivore Conservation Laboratory,
Pullman, Washington

Introduction

Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) are declining in many western states
and provinces, and the reasons are presently unclear. Within Washington, mule
deer have declined, but white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) have
increased. For example, white-tailed deer were historically rare in Washington, but
now comprise 73 percent of deer in the Selkirk Mountains, 82 percent of deer in
Kettle Falls, 56 percent of deer in Republic and, as yet, 0 percent in our Cle Elum
study areas. Cougar (Puma concolor) populations appear to have increased in
Washington. Confirmed cougar complaints have increased from about 250 per
year in 1995 to about 400 per year in 2005. Might these problems (white-tailed
deer increase, mule-deer decrease, and increases in cougars and cougar
complaints) be related?

To answer this question, we studied cougar, deer and human interactions
in four Washington study areas (Selkirk Mountains, Kettle Falls, Republic, Cle
Elum) from 1997 to 2007.

Effects of White-tailed Deer Expansion on Cougar Predation of Mule Deer
Selkirk Mountains

We captured and radio-monitored both white-tailed deer and mule deer
in the Selkirk Mountains of British Columbia, Idaho and Washington from 1997
to 2000. We estimated deer survival, fecundity and population growth for both
species using Leslie matrix models. We also estimated population growth by
comparing annual aerial surveys. Our results indicated that cougars were
responsible for the majority of deer deaths. Cougar predation rates were 17
percent on mule deer and 9 percent on white-tailed deer. As a result of this
disparate predation, white-tailed deer were increasing at 2 percent per year, but
mule deer were decreasing at 12 percent per year. Predation rates were directly
density dependent (predation increased as deer density increased) for whitetailed
deer but inversely density dependent (predation increased as deer density
decreased) for mule deer. These results suggested that mule deer were declining
because of apparent competition (Robinson et al. 2002), whereby increasing
alternate primary prey (white-tailed deer) resulted in increased predators,
increased predation and population decline for sympatric secondary prey (mule
deer).

Kettle Falls and Republic

We tested the apparent competition hypothesis in two, new, independent
study areas (Kettle Falls and Republic) by capturing and radio-monitoring
cougars from 2002 to 2004. We determined white-tailed deer and mule deer prey
availability by year-round ground counts and annual winter-aerial surveys. We
determined prey selection by cougars by comparing deer use (kills) versus
availability. Our results indicated that white-tailed deer were much more
abundant than mule deer in both study areas; in Kettle Falls, white-tailed deer
equaled 82 percent of deer, and, in Republic, white-tailed deer equaled 56 percent
of deer. White-tailed deer comprised the primary prey (60 percent of kills) and
mule deer the secondary prey (40 percent of kills) in both areas. However,
cougars selected for mule deer (observed kills exceeded expected kills based on
availability) in both study areas; selection ratios were 1.61 in Kettle Falls and 1.36
in Republic. Cougar selection for mule deer (of disproportionate predation) only
occurred during the summer season when white-tailed deer moved into higherelevation, mule-deer ranges (Cooley et al. 2007). These results again suggested the presence of apparent competition in three of three separate study areas
(Selkirk Mountains, Kettle Falls, Republic). Expansion by white-tailed deer into
traditional mule-deer ranges appeared to result in increased numbers of cougars,
increased cougar predation on mule deer and subsequent population declines for
mule deer.

Effects of Cougar Hunting on Cougar-Human and Cougar-Mule Deer Conflicts

Selkirk Mountains

The increased numbers of white-tailed deer and cougars also resulted in
increased cougar-human conflicts in the Selkirk Mountains. We tested for the
effects of increased hunting of cougars to reduce such conflicts from 1998 to
2003. We captured and radio-monitored 52 cougars during this 5-year period.
During that time complaints increased dramatically, suggesting that cougar
numbers were increasing as well. We estimated cougar maternity rate (kittens
per adult female per year), sex (male, female) and age-specific survival rates, and
we entered those vital rates into a dual-sex Leslie matrix model to estimate cougar
population growth. Annual survival rates of cougars were extremely low—only
33 percent for adult males and 77 percent for adult females. Contrary to popular
belief, the cougar population was not increasing but was declining at about 15 to
20 percent per year. Trends of cougar density corroborated our Leslie matrix
results, showing a cougar population decline of about 13 percent per year. There
were very, very few adult males left in the population with virtually no males older
than 4 years. Harvest statistics also corroborated our results with a peak in cougar
harvest during 1998, followed by a steep decline. Increased cougar complaints
did not correspond with increased cougar numbers but did appear to correspond
with a decrease in the age of cougars in this heavily hunted population (Lambert
et al. 2006). Our results suggested that heavy hunting resulted in a decrease in
the age of resident cougars and could have resulted in increased cougar-human
conflicts because subadults are believed to be the age class responsible for most
such conflicts.

[GoatGuy]

Did heavy hunting result in decreased predation on mule deer? Yes!

Cougar-predation rates on mule deer in the Selkirk Mountains declined dramatically following the cougar population decline. However, predation onwhite-tailed deer declined as well, resulting in a white-tailed deer population increase of more than 30 percent per year (Wielgus, unpublished data 2007). It appears that very heavy hunting of cougars will result in decreased predation on mule deer, but it also results in dramatically increased white-tailed deer population growth and subsequent expansion into traditional mule-deer ranges. The expected long-term implications of a 30-percent increase per year in white-tailed deer numbers is troubling for mule deer due to resource competition, disease and,
perhaps, genetic introgression. You can’t win for losing!

Kettle Falls

Were our results in the Selkirk Mountains a fluke? A one-off? A bad analysis? How could increased cougar hunting with a younger age structure
possibly result in increased human-cougar conflicts? Was our reduction in age hypothesis a plausible answer? We tested for effects of heavy hunting in a separate study area in Kettle Falls by radio-monitoring 34 cougars from 2002 to 2006. That area also saw an increase in cougar complaints attributed to increased numbers of cougars. We estimated cougar population growth by estimating the vital rates (fecundity, age and sex-specific survival) and by entering them into a dual-sex Leslie matrix. We also compared the Leslie matrix stable-age distribution (estimated from the vital rates) to the observed standing age distribution to test for deviations in age class. For example, were there more
subadult males than expected?

Similar to the Selkirk Mountains, our Leslie matrix results indicated a population decline of about 10 percent per year, contrary to the increased number of cougar complaints. The female component of the population was declining; however, the standing-age distribution and observed growth rates showed a male population increase of about 10 percent per year. Overall (both sexes) the population was stable, but the numbers and proportions of young males were increasing. We estimated a cougar immigration rate (observed growth rate minus expected growth rate) of about 15 percent per year. Heavy hunting did not reduce the overall numbers of cougars but simply shifted the sex and age structure to
younger immigrant males (Robinson et al. 2007). Now we were two for two (Selkirk Mountains and Kettle Falls); heavy hunting appeared to coincide with increased, not decreased, cougar-human conflicts, perhaps, because of increased numbers or proportions of subadult immigrant males. What happens inan area without white-tailed-deer expansion and very little cougar hunting (e.g., where prey densities are lower and lack of hunting or killing resident cougars discourages immigration)?

Cle Elum

The Cle Elum study area has not yet been exploited by white-tailed deer.Cougar complaints are few and far between, and cougar hunting is very low compared to our other study areas. We captured and radio-monitored over 33 cougars from 2002 to 2006. Similar to Selkirk Mountains, Kettle Falls and Republic, we estimated fecundity and sex and age-specific survival and entered these vital rates into a dual sex Leslie matrix to estimate expected population growth. We also estimated the standing age distribution and observed growth rate
by documenting sex, age and number of cougars in the study area. Our preliminary data indicate that survival rates were much higher than in the Selkirk Mountains and Kettle Falls. The survival and fecundity growth rate appears to be about 10 percent per year and the observed growth rate to be about 0 percent per year (stable). Emigration rate is estimated at about 10 percent per year. Both the stable and standing age distributions show a much older population than in the Selkirk Mountains and Kettle Falls (Wielgus et al., unpublished data 2007). There
were no problems here with declining mule deer or with increasing cougar complaints.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that increased numbers of white-tailed deer resultsin an increased number of cougars. The increased number of cougars results in increased cougar predation on mule deer and possibly increased cougar complaints. The increased cougar complaints result in increased cougar hunting. Increased cougar hunting results in increased subadult male immigrants. Increased immigrants results in increased cougar complaints. Repeat. . .until such time as the female component of the cougar population collapses and cougars are functionally extirpated. At that time, the white-tailed deer population really explodes. Mule deer are then susceptible to further decline due to resource
competition or genetic introgression. We recommend experimental reductions of invading white-tailed deer to
forestall such a scenario.

Reference List
Cooley, H. S., Robinson, H. S., Wielgus, R. B., and Lambert, C. S. 2008. Cougar
prey selection in a white-tailed deer and mule deer community. Journal
of Wildlife Management. 72(1):99–106.
Lambert, C. M. S., R. B. Wielgus, H. S. Robinson, D. D. Katnik, H. S.
Cruickshank, R. Clarke, and J. Almack. 2006. Cougar population
dynamics and viability in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Wildlife
Management. 70(1):246–54.
Robinson, H. S., R. B. Wielgus, H. S. Cooley, and S. W. Cooley. In press.
Implications of sink populations in large carnivore management: cougar
demography and immigration in a hunted population. Ecological
Applications.
Robinson, H. S., R. B. Wielgus, and J. C. Gwilliam. 2002. Cougar predation and
population growth of sympatric mule deer and white-tailed deer.
Canadian Journal of Zoology. 80:556–68.

[HarryToolips]

Holy crap! Archive thread... Good topic though! Open up the WT does season!! Make it longer and let us pop 3 or 4. Parts of Region 8 is lousy with them! I know first hand of a ranch where over 100 (104 I think) were shot in the fall of 2012. I was there late in the doe season and still saw 32 different WT that day - same field... The does there are dropping 3 and yes even 4 fawns! The CO didn't believe it either... The fields are mowed down to the point where the grass is only 3 inches tall - usually there is a foot or more with cattle on it. The Okanagan (Vernon, Lavington, Lumby Cherryville) has a WT problem. Region 4,5 and 7 will have it too if it goes unchecked. The WT are aggressive, great at adaptation and prolific breeders. As mentioned, just look how many millions are harvested in the US in a year - geez some states are killing over 500k in a season and they are still there. These large deer populations help sustain larger predator populations. Dare I say it, the wolf being the number one predator. Lots of food = more predators. Yes we are seeing a growth in the wolf population - maybe there is a link? Unfortunately wolves don't discriminate - wolf take all... In the case of our growing WT numbers we need to intervene if we want to maintain a decent mule deer population and I believe indirectly help stabilize our moose populations. So if you feel it helps take a wolf or two. If you want to eat, take a couple WT. Harvesting does is the way to do it. Lets hope we are given the opportunity to take a couple more for a few years. I would.
Sure in agricultural areas where you mentioned you will still see lots, so maybe open it a bit more in those areas, but from my observations as well as many I know, the current season in the rest of region 8 and areas in region 4 is doing it's job.. in areas once loaded with WT I see nowhere near the same amount nowadays...

[Fisher-Dude]

I think a change in how mule deer are managed might be a better idea. BC is not the same as it was years ago so you can't expect to get the same results with old management practices


The change in how we manage mule deer is that we now have a WT doe season. Read what GG posted, all of it, it's very important to understand the dynamics here.

[Wild one]

The change in how we manage mule deer is that we now have a WT doe season. Read what GG posted, all of it, it's very important to understand the dynamics here.

I can see how an increase in cougar population do to a higher wt population does not help mule deer. I would ? how much of effect on long term results a liberal wt season alone will benefit improve mule deer populations. Considering mule deer are on a decline in areas with low to no wt population as well.

More to mule deer issues than just wt population in my opinion.

Like I said I have no issue with a well managed either sex wt season in MU's with high wt numbers. Across every part of BC no

[300H&H]

It seems like a good start but perhaps a teg that you can take a buck AND a doe would be nice.

[Onesock]

Damn whitetails are feeding on mule deer. Thats it. Whitetail with fangs.

[Wild one]

Damn whitetails are feeding on mule deer. Thats it. Whitetail with fangs.

Maybe the whitetails are breeding with the wolves :twisted:

Any wt/wolf hybrids spotted yet?

[Fred1]

Fred, so 100 or so got shot and then you only see 30 or so...theres your answer...and on private land where most of the population is that's even scarier. You simply cannot compare the states with our deer herd or management objective..it just can't work.

The count last fall on the afternoon of Sept 22 was 86 whitetail on the same field where officially 100 or so were killed the year before. The field across the river was in the same ball park... And as for seeing "only" 30 in one afternoon as scary? What? Are you implying there are no deer left in the all the other fields in the same valley? Do whitetails only travel in herds numbering in the 100's? Do they only live in fields on private land? I wonder where they are when they are not in the fields? Everyone sees 30 deer in an afternoon don't they? And ya they prolly do all jump out in the open all at once... Have you spent any time out there? Have you bothered looking? Have you talked with the ranchers and farmers who own the fields? That's what I thought... someone again making another feeling based judgment without being there, doin any type of research or knowin chit... Go find YOUR answer... Go have a look this summer- Cherryville, pick a field. Go at dusk and stay about 1.5 hrs after dark - take a light...

All Im saying is they are a species which breeds quickly and apparently has a pretty decent survival rate. And parts of region 8 can easily sustain 3-4 kills per hunter, per year for at least a couple of years. And you know what, the guys growin the hay might even let you on the land....

[Fred1]

Sure in agricultural areas where you mentioned you will still see lots, so maybe open it a bit more in those areas, but from my observations as well as many I know, the current season in the rest of region 8 and areas in region 4 is doing it's job.. in areas once loaded with WT I see nowhere near the same amount nowadays...

Im out in region 8 every day working, all over the north Okanagan... the number of whitetail we are seeing are vastly out numbering the mule deer. Agreed many of them are on agricultural land but many are not. Hardly ever see mulies on the fields where the whitetail are. The number of whitetails I/we have observed in the bush is higher than the number of mulies. - its just an observation... Maybe I will start taking notes as to where, what species and how many.

[Gateholio]

Whitetails need to be hunted hard to keep both their population and the predator population in check. If hunters don't harvest them , the predators will, so predator numbers increase and impact mule deer... And probably moose and elk, too.

[Fred1]

Whitetails need to be hunted hard to keep both their population and the predator population in check. If hunters don't harvest them , the predators will, so predator numbers increase and impact mule deer... And probably moose and elk, too.
Agreed! !

[Muliechaser]

The count last fall on the afternoon of Sept 22 was 86 whitetail on the same field where officially 100 or so were killed the year before. The field across the river was in the same ball park... And as for seeing "only" 30 in one afternoon as scary? What? Are you implying there are no deer left in the all the other fields in the same valley? Do whitetails only travel in herds numbering in the 100's? Do they only live in fields on private land? I wonder where they are when they are not in the fields? Everyone sees 30 deer in an afternoon don't they? And ya they prolly do all jump out in the open all at once... Have you spent any time out there? Have you bothered looking? Have you talked with the ranchers and farmers who own the fields? That's what I thought... someone again making another feeling based judgment without being there, doin any type of research or knowin chit... Go find YOUR answer... Go have a look this summer- Cherryville, pick a field. Go at dusk and stay about 1.5 hrs after dark - take a light...

All Im saying is they are a species which breeds quickly and apparently has a pretty decent survival rate. And parts of region 8 can easily sustain 3-4 kills per hunter, per year for at least a couple of years. And you know what, the guys growin the hay might even let you on the land....


Yes tons of whiteys. For an example a agriculture i onow u cannot hunt always has smaller numers on it in the start of tge year . 3 times as many in tge late summer fall. Same cycle every year .. we have a huge wt populatiom in most parts of 8 . Anyody who says other wiseu needs to step it up or somthing. They need to e cut dowm a it plaim and simple. They sure are fun tho

Mc

[Fisher-Dude]

Reports from around Region 8 are that hunters are seeing fewer WTs but have noticed an uptick in the MD population since the WT doe season was implemented.

Science at work, it's an amazing thing when we do something to benefit MD and actually start to see more MD.

[Wild one]

So under the same principle what should be done when mule deer expand their range into black tail population?

Mule deer crossing into black tail populations has a greater impact as the mule deer breed out the pure black tail population. There are parts of BC were this has and is happening.

So should liberal either sex seasons for mule deer be put in place under this scenario as well?

[Fred1]

So under the same principle what should be done when mule deer expand their range into black tail population?

Mule deer crossing into black tail populations has a greater impact as the mule deer breed out the pure black tail population. There are parts of BC were this has and is happening.

So should liberal either sex seasons for mule deer be put in place under this scenario as well?

Possibly. But I don't see MD reproduction and survival rates high like WT. I guess it all comes down to what we want to have/see on the land base.

[Gateholio]

So under the same principle what should be done when mule deer expand their range into black tail population?

Mule deer crossing into black tail populations has a greater impact as the mule deer breed out the pure black tail population. There are parts of BC were this has and is happening.

So should liberal either sex seasons for mule deer be put in place under this scenario as well?

Is there an actual, identified and legitimate problem with blacktail populations dropping due to an increase of mule deer?

[Wild one]

Possibly. But I don't see MD reproduction and survival rates high like WT. I guess it all comes down to what we want to have/see on the land base.

I have personally seen 1 area turn from pure blacktail to all hybrid mule/black tail over a 20 year period. They are changing more towards mule deer traits then black tail as years continue. When these species start crossing pure black tail disappear over time.

That is my biggest issue with those who want WT exterminated. The truth of it is we are only trying to promote a species because it is what is being favoured by a portion of hunters. I don't doubt WT effect mule deer populations but in this case it does not wipe them right out like the example I have given.

If you start looking at game species in general have expanded into areas beyond their home range BC in a lot of areas. Most of the time it is praised as a good thing but they all have an impact on another species just some less than others.

I completely support hunter added opportunity on any species that is thriving but in some parts of BC the WT regs are going beyond what is suitable for the population.

[Wild one]

Is there an actual, identified and legitimate problem with blacktail populations dropping due to an increase of mule deer?


I would say yes were the ranges that mule deer and blacktails meet. It is a lot less noticeable and a slow process but there are areas that the deer are defiantly showing more and more mule deer traits. Because they are the same tag and their close appearance many won't even take note of it.

This is common when 2 species that cross breed meet You are going to slowly loose the purity on 1 species or both

[aggiehunter]

Wildone...could you tell us what species is "pure"?

[aggiehunter]

Fred, you said there were over 100 killed and then you only saw 30...we have witnessed the same thing in the EK...a reduction of probably 60% of the Wt herd....private land...not so bad..is that where you want to see deer..fill yer'boots. I don't spend anytime in the bush and only get my facts from HBC...therefore..it is true!

[Wild one]

Wildone...could you tell us what species is "pure"?

Probably all species are muddied up some where in the past.

With the scenario I mentioned with black tail and mule deer I would say the mule deer traits become more dominate in more areas. Also areas where I did not see mule deer or crosses in the past they are showing up now.

My point was really we pick and choose what species we want to favour and it is not just wt having an effect on mule deer. Animals naturally expand their home range when conditions are in there favour.

[Gamebuster]

Probably all species are muddied up some where in the past.

With the scenario I mentioned with black tail and mule deer I would say the mule deer traits become more dominate in more areas. Also areas where I did not see mule deer or crosses in the past they are showing up now.

My point was really we pick and choose what species we want to favour and it is not just wt having an effect on mule deer. Animals naturally expand their home range when conditions are in there favour.

Where is this area you speak of?

[Fisher-Dude]

I completely support hunter added opportunity on any species that is thriving but in some parts of BC the WT regs are going beyond what is suitable for the population.


You're right. Areas where only bucks are open are not suitable for the population. They are detrimental to both WT and MD.

I don't think anyone wants WT exterminated. I think everyone wants WT managed scientifically, and that means harvest across all age classes and both sexes.

[Wild one]

Where is this area you speak of?

Spend enough time in the eastern and north eastern areas of the black tails range in BC and you will slowly see it. It is very slow not like how wt have expanded their range. In all honesty I could see a huntble population of wt showing up in region 2 before mule deer ever bred out black tails.

The difference is you don't end up with a mix of 2 species in the same area but slowly end up with all hybrids

[GoatGuy]

Some more information:

Cougar predation and population growth of

sympatric mule deer and white-tailed deer

Hugh S. Robinson, Robert B. Wielgus, and John C. Gwilliam



http://nrs.cahnrs.wsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/deer.pdf

If anyone wants help understanding the statistics or interpreting feel free.

[GoatGuy]

Another relevant paper:

Habitat Selection by Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) in southeastern British Columbia.



http://www.sgrc.selkirk.ca/bioatlas/pdf/Habitat_Selection_by_Mule_Deer_in_Southeastern_Bri tish_Columbia.pdf

[Fred1]

aggiehunter - all im saying is the WT population in that area is enormous and most likely can sustain a 3-4 deer harvest per person for at least a couple seasons. Im not an MOE biologist (I could prolly get one out there though - pretty sure he has a tag too) but I am sure it wouldn't wipe them out. Its just an observation and an opinion. It may be a good idea to knock it back some. (let me make this clear, the killing of the 100 or so was done by hunters invited onto the land, hunting and punching tags over the season and was not just some weekend slaughter) On this same field the previous August before the killing we were moving some cattle and Im sure we only saw maybe a dozen in the whole day. So by your implication you are assuming by shooting 100 deer over most of the season and then only seeing a meager 30 in one afternoon the population must have been decimated? This doesn't appear to be the case. According to the fella that owns the field, from what he saw that following December he's not sure the 100 killed even dented the population. From what I saw last year it looks like he may have been right. - again just and observation/opinion. Sooooo in reality we will just have to leave the decisions to the all knowing in Victoria and stick with the regs as they are posted. That's fine. My guess is farmers/ranchers in the area may have resort to protecting themselves from "aggressive man attacking deer" which could indirectly help reduce the competition for grazing...

We are a very reactive society, mostly because we are afraid to make a mistake. Because if we make a proactive decision and are wrong all kinds of people get their hackles up and break out the pitch forks and nooses. Fine CYA makes sense. We better get the "science" on it first to confirm we actually do have a problem. $$$ So next fall my guess is farmer Bob will invite as many hunters he can onto his field and kindly ask you to fill your tags...

[aggiehunter]

I trust some "fellas" and then some I don't...a few rancher in the EK are disgusted at the GOS wt hunt...so as an armchair bio I must digress....

[GoatGuy]

Little bit more on BC WT:

http://www.sgrc.selkirk.ca/bioatlas/pdf/Movements_Survival_and_Mortality.pdf

MOVEMENTS, SURVIVAL, AND MORTALITY OF WHITE-TAILED DEER IN THE PEND D’OREILLE RIVER VALLEY

Abstract



Report Abstract






White-tailed deer overabundance is becoming a major issue for wildlife managers across North America. In British Columbia, it has been recently suggested that abundant whitetailed deer may contribute to increasing populations of generalist predators that in turn may negatively impact secondary or alternate prey populations. We examined 14 years of white-tailed deer telemetry data collected by the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program. The purpose of this study was to establish mortality, population and migrational trends of deer using the Pend d'Oreille River winter range in southcentral British Columbia. From 1988 to 2001 we radiocollared 63 white-tailed deer and documented 40 mortalities. Over the course of the study, the mean annual survival rate was 0.7680. The main cause of known mortality was cougar predation (0.069), followed by vehicle accidents (0.046), hunting (0.028), poaching (0.023) and natural causes (0.023). Cougar predation and natural mortality appear to be density dependent (increasing with increased population) while hunting, poaching, and vehicle accidents appear to be inversely density dependent (increasing as the population decreases). Seasonal mortality rates were essentially equal although slightly higher during winter. By our model, the population reached a high in 1992, declined until 1995, and rebounded from 1996 to 2001. The white-tailed deer that winter in the Pend d'Oreille valley migrate 360º to summer ranges. All but one collared deer was migrational. North-northeast, and east-northeast directions were preferred, while south-southeast and west-northwest were avoided. As a result, habitat enhancement targeted at other ungulate species may also benefit this migratory whitetail population. Our data suggests that doe harvest may be an effective tool in helping to reduce white-tailed deer densities. Limiting whitetail populations through increased doe harvest may be the best management strategy left to managers, and should be investigated through modeling or empirical study.

[GoatGuy]

I trust some "fellas" and then some I don't...a few rancher in the EK are disgusted at the GOS wt hunt...so as an armchair bio I must digress....

Shouldn't come as a surprise that like-minded people share like-minded opinions.

Biased sample = biased result.

Maybe there is a need for increased monitoring of populations so that the start and end is science?

[Wild one]

Since the biggest issue seems to be an increase in cougars do the WT population is there going to be an effort to increase cougar harvest as well?

[GoatGuy]

Since the biggest issue seems to be an increase in cougars do the WT population is there going to be an effort to increase cougar harvest as well?

Should read those papers to see what happens when the cougar harvest is increased.

[Wild one]

Should read those papers to see what happens when the cougar harvest is increased.

Basically it is a temporary solution as long as there is a high prey source the WT.

But if you are lowering the number of wt as a prey source without lowering cougar numbers as well you would think you would see an increase in mule deer predation. Cougars still need to feed and mule deer would also be a top of the list prey species.

So if the goal is to lower cougar predation to help increase mule deer populations would it not make sense to increase cougar harvest along with WT harvest.

[Fisher-Dude]

Concentrate on the deer and the cougar pops work themselves out. As GG says, read the papers and see what happens when cougar pops are lowered. It's doubtful BC has enough cougar hunters that are willing to shoot a cat even if we did want to lower their pops through hunting.

[Wild one]

Concentrate on the deer and the cougar pops work themselves out. As GG says, read the papers and see what happens when cougar pops are lowered. It's doubtful BC has enough cougar hunters that are willing to shoot a cat even if we did want to lower their pops through hunting.

If you succeed in increasing mule deer numbers the cougars still have one of their main prey species.

This is like the theory lower moose numbers should lower wolf populations and that does not seem to be working out here in BC.

This is my problem when you want to focus on lowering it at that by limiting prey only.

It can be seen by the regs it will be attempted either way and I will leave it at that

[Onesock]

BC moose population is down, mule deer numbers are low, seems that elk numbers aren't what they used to be, caribou are almost extinct. Now a bunch of wizards on here want to exterminate the whitetail? One species that is flourishing and the brains on HBC want a whitetail cull????????????????????

[coach]

BC moose population is down, mule deer numbers are low, seems that elk numbers aren't what they used to be, caribou are almost extinct. Now a bunch of wizards on here want to exterminate the whitetail? One species that is flourishing and the brains on HBC want a whitetail cull????????????????????

You do realize this thread started in 2009? :-D On top of that, who said anything about a whitetail cull?

[Onesock]

I know the thread is ancient. Maybe whitetail should be put on LEH so we have some critters to hunt in the future! Not open a GOS for 3 months a year with a limit of 3 whitetails per license as some are suggesting.

[GoatGuy]

Basically it is a temporary solution as long as there is a high prey source the WT.

But if you are lowering the number of wt as a prey source without lowering cougar numbers as well you would think you would see an increase in mule deer predation. Cougars still need to feed and mule deer would also be a top of the list prey species.

So if the goal is to lower cougar predation to help increase mule deer populations would it not make sense to increase cougar harvest along with WT harvest.

Can't disagree with that. Have to of course be cognizant of the social ramifications.

[Gateholio]

I know the thread is ancient. Maybe whitetail should be put on LEH so we have some critters to hunt in the future! Not open a GOS for 3 months a year with a limit of 3 whitetails per license as some are suggesting.

Putting WT on LEH would really knock the WT population down.

[Wild one]

Can't disagree with that. Have to of course be cognizant of the social ramifications.

My biggest issue on lowering prey species numbers to lower predator numbers is what % of the overall prey population do you need to loose to achieve this.

I am still waiting to see wolf numbers drop do to lack of prey and prey numbers have been dropping. I have a feeling numbers are going to get a lot lower before wolf numbers drop from lack of prey.

No offence to you GG but this is why I have a hard time supporting these kind of theories


We are more likely to screw up a solid WT population and see little results in mule deer increase in my opinion.

[Fisher-Dude]

I know the thread is ancient. Maybe whitetail should be put on LEH so we have some critters to hunt in the future! Not open a GOS for 3 months a year with a limit of 3 whitetails per license as some are suggesting.

Why not close down the late bow only season? What sport is there hunting yarded-up, exhausted, post-rut whitetails in snow up to their bellies?

[Wild one]

Why not close down the late bow only season? What sport is there hunting yarded-up, exhausted, post-rut whitetails in snow up to their bellies?

How about remove mule deer doe draw instead might help your increase the mule deer population

But yes lets remove archery seasons they have a such huge impact on harvest numbers those evil bowhunters are horrible

[358mag]

Why not close down the late bow only season? What sport is there hunting yarded-up, exhausted, post-rut whitetails in snow up to their bellies?

Kind of like late season Mule deer bucks ...........:wink::wink:

[GoatGuy]

Wildone, most of the answers are in the literature.

Certainly agree that prey reduction should go hand in hand with predator reduction. What the literatture seems to show is you need to shoot a pile of cougars, not just a few. IIRC they've harvested about 400 cats in R4 in the past 4 years, there's really nothing left for age and they still aren't seeing the MD population bounce - that's likely due to infilling and a functional response in productivity (cat with 4 kittens in crazybrook last week). So, yes, you can try it and it might help, but any 'let up' will result in a dramatic response due to unmanaged WT. We also have to be cognizant we've now added wolves to the mix and that will probably hold things down as well.

FYI, there hasn't been a mule deer antlerless LEH in R4 since 1997 IIRC. One would expect even populations of slow growing populations such as sheep to have recovered by then, never mind productive species such as mule deer. Furthermore, the LEH in R8 is so small it would go unnoticed whether it was cancelled or not..................... yet the populations have declined in many areas. Kind of a pointless remark (maybe we should get rid of the doe LEH), but I get the sense that was the point. Don't have a lot of interest in the rhetoric.

[GoatGuy]

Aggiehunter, which MU do you hunt in Region 4? What has the WT population trend been for the last 20 years?

[aggiehunter]

I like to keep my mu to myself...wt pops were doing great...but since the GOS...not so much....and we hunt localized wintering deer...what you see is what you get..hey it's not just me that's noticing either.

[J_T]

Aggiehunter, which MU do you hunt in Region 4? What has the WT population trend been for the last 20 years? Just to add to your response to Wild One, we are also seeing evidence that blacks and Grizzlies are not going to sleep according to biological planning. They seem to be up and feeding off the late season WT's, well in to December. Something I've tried to get R4 Management back in to is "carry over counts". These were not random citings but each year, very specific transects where followed, stop locations clearly identified and used with every session. It seemed every R&G club was doing them. Then they stopped. We did them for years in the 80's and 90's. For an old timer, it's hard to change habits. We still go out and do our own carry over counts. Just like we did in the past. We are clearly seeing less WT. So I would hope Cat hunters are seeing less cats, if your theories hold up. I agree that the additive harvest by wolves is not just a minor addition to the predation factor.

[GoatGuy]

I like to keep my mu to myself...wt pops were doing great...but since the GOS...not so much....and we hunt localized wintering deer...what you see is what you get..hey it's not just me that's noticing either.

Hahaha, you probably realize the irony of making claims about an issue, and failing to provide anything other than repeating anecdotal evidence from like-minded individuals. Would be interesting to apply a bit of game theory - the outcome(s) aren't good either way.

[Fred1]

Good think tank goin on here!

[GoatGuy]

Just to add to your response to Wild One, we are also seeing evidence that blacks and Grizzlies are not going to sleep according to biological planning. They seem to be up and feeding off the late season WT's, well in to December. Something I've tried to get R4 Management back in to is "carry over counts". These were not random citings but each year, very specific transects where followed, stop locations clearly identified and used with every session. It seemed every R&G club was doing them. Then they stopped. We did them for years in the 80's and 90's. For an old timer, it's hard to change habits. We still go out and do our own carry over counts. Just like we did in the past. We are clearly seeing less WT. So I would hope Cat hunters are seeing less cats, if your theories hold up. I agree that the additive harvest by wolves is not just a minor addition to the predation factor.

Boars are up and down every month, always have been. Collar data going back to the 80s shows this. If there's meat around there will be bears.

There's a pile of litterature on wt inventory which I can send your way if you're interested. Recruitment could be used for population trajectory, but overall population probably wouldn't work. The best monitoring for population trends would probably be to collar some females and send teeth in from females shot to get an idea of changes in age.

It isn't as much that they are seeing way less cats, it's that age is in the toilet and females are responding accordingly. Looks like you have to push them right to the edge (or over it) if you want to see a functional response in MD. Not sure we want to go there due to social ramifications, but that is up to hunters to push that button recognizing the sh*t could hit the fan.

Wolves are a big addition particularly for species living in 'marginal habitat'. Moose across much of the south country, mule deer and elk will take a beating in places where fire has been surpressed and I think in the long run places like the WK will revert back to goat/bear/caribou and the odd moose/deer country if wolves aren't managed. Most of what little winter range they had there was submerged under water decades ago after wolves had been extirpated and the branch was shooting and poisoning bears, cougars, basically all predators - I think they're hooped in the long-run unless there are huge changes to predator management and ecosystem restoration.

With great habitat you can have lots of predators and prey, with marginal habitat you can't have both.

[Wild one]

Wildone, most of the answers are in the literature.

Certainly agree that prey reduction should go hand in hand with predator reduction. What the literatture seems to show is you need to shoot a pile of cougars, not just a few. IIRC they've harvested about 400 cats in R4 in the past 4 years, there's really nothing left for age and they still aren't seeing the MD population bounce - that's likely due to infilling and a functional response in productivity (cat with 4 kittens in crazybrook last week). So, yes, you can try it and it might help, but any 'let up' will result in a dramatic response due to unmanaged WT. We also have to be cognizant we've now added wolves to the mix and that will probably hold things down as well.

FYI, there hasn't been a mule deer antlerless LEH in R4 since 1997 IIRC. One would expect even populations of slow growing populations such as sheep to have recovered by then, never mind productive species such as mule deer. Furthermore, the LEH in R8 is so small it would go unnoticed whether it was cancelled or not..................... yet the populations have declined in many areas. Kind of a pointless remark (maybe we should get rid of the doe LEH), but I get the sense that was the point. Don't have a lot of interest in the rhetoric.


You left a lot to read and no I did not go through it all nor do I believe just targeting cougars will change the issue. I do believe if a program removing prey species to lower a predator population is used it is stupid not to increase harvest on the predator as well. Not a fan of this style of program but at least targeting both predator and prey would be more effective and less collateral damage.

I also have a hard time believing WT are the main cause of the drop in mule deer populations. There is a lot of areas in BC with little to no WT population and mule deer are still on the decline. There is more to it in my opinion and sacrificing one game species in hopes to improve another is not worth the risk in my opinion.

I have my reasons I don't follow everything that is written in a study. Since BC is move towards increasing WT harvest more and more I guess the end results will be seen in time. I hope that I am wrong

The LEH doe comment was more of a dig towards FD anti bow hunting comment not a real suggestion.

[coach]

With great habitat you can have lots of predators and prey, with marginal habitat you can't have both.

I tell competitive golfers that I teach to "control what you CAN control". This would be a good place to start..:-D

[GoatGuy]

You left a lot to read and no I did not go through it all nor do I believe just targeting cougars will change the issue. I do believe if a program removing prey species to lower a predator population is used it is stupid not to increase harvest on the predator as well. Not a fan of this style of program but at least targeting both predator and prey would be more effective and less collateral damage.

I also have a hard time believing WT are the main cause of the drop in mule deer populations. There is a lot of areas in BC with little to no WT population and mule deer are still on the decline. There is more to it in my opinion and sacrificing one game species in hopes to improve another is not worth the risk in my opinion.

I have my reasons I don't follow everything that is written in a study. Since BC is move towards increasing WT harvest more and more I guess the end results will be seen in time. I hope that I am wrong

The LEH doe comment was more of a dig towards FD anti bow hunting comment not a real suggestion.

The trick is to do the reading and then make an informed decision. You should at least be able to understand what is going on then make up your mind.

I believe there is far more risk in "not knowing" and making a decision than knowing as much as you can and making a decision.

In this case the fundamental problem is more meat on the landscape means more predators - this is intuitive. Some prey species are more susceptible to predation than others, which means you run the risk of severely reducing or eliminating those species in favour of another. Then the question becomes: what do you want to manage for?

[aggiehunter]

Goatguy...I find no irony in the truth. Just because I don't want to tell the world what MU I bowhunt in does not mean we have not seen a drastic reduction in the herd...really...I shit you not!

[Wild one]

In this case the fundamental problem is more meat on the landscape means more predators - this is intuitive. Some prey species are more susceptible to predation than others, which means you run the risk of severely reducing or eliminating those species in favour of another. Then the question becomes: what do you want to manage for?

This I understand it is more so I don't hold one deer species higher than the other and that is more likely why I don't agree with what many push for.

Understand increasing WT harvest do to the increase in numbers but I believe the level of increase a little excessive for some areas. Personally would rather have a mule deer become a more restrictive hunt if need.

In my mind if you need to nock down WT to bring up mule deer populations it is going to be an on going YOYO effect over the years. The fact that the WT has show it can explode in population and expand its range I think we can agree it is far more adaptable than the mule deer. So if the WT is truly the issue given the chance it will expand population and range again and it will start all over again. Would rather see one strong and one weak population than 2 weak populations

Personally I would be fine with one species with a far stronger population that can handle hunting pressure and the other become a limited harvest population. If you look at other areas out side of BC a lot of times this is what happens in areas that hold both mule deer and WT. Mule deer just seem like a more delicate species overall and I believe this is an issue we can't change and the main problem.

I personally don't believe mule deer will rebound to past levels they are too easily effected by unfavourable conditions. You would need to make some huge changes to habitat to achieve this for starters. I personally believe there will continue to be ongoing problems with mule deer populations and always will be. BC has changed in many ways over the years both habitat wise and the range of species.

I would say it is more of a different out look on what is going on not that I don't understand

[GoatGuy]

Goatguy...I find no irony in the truth. Just because I don't want to tell the world what MU I bowhunt in does not mean we have not seen a drastic reduction in the herd...really...I shit you not!

Hahaha, secret spots in an MU in the EK....... for WTs.......... during bow season............ where the population is down 60%....

Good one! :mrgreen:

[Fisher-Dude]

Personally would rather have a mule deer become a more restrictive hunt if need.



Even though that will not increase the MD population whatsoever?

[GoatGuy]

This I understand it is more so I don't hold one deer species higher than the other and that is more likely why I don't agree with what many push for.

Understand increasing WT harvest do to the increase in numbers but I believe the level of increase a little excessive for some areas. Personally would rather have a mule deer become a more restrictive hunt if need.

There is little to no antlerless mule deer hunting. Hunting is not having an impact on mule deer populations - at all.

There is no way to make it more restrictive.



In my mind if you need to nock down WT to bring up mule deer populations it is going to be an on going YOYO effect over the years. The fact that the WT has show it can explode in population and expand its range I think we can agree it is far more adaptable than the mule deer. So if the WT is truly the issue given the chance it will expand population and range again and it will start all over again. Would rather see one strong and one weak population than 2 weak populations

Is that the same way we should manage wolves and cougars then? Just stop hunting them because their population will just bounce up and down and wts expand?


Personally I would be fine with one species with a far stronger population that can handle hunting pressure and the other become a limited harvest population. If you look at other areas out side of BC a lot of times this is what happens in areas that hold both mule deer and WT. Mule deer just seem like a more delicate species overall and I believe this is an issue we can't change and the main problem.

The problem is people have created the habitat that favours WT deer. If you look at areas outside of BC with mule deer they ALL HAVE ANTLERLESS WT GOS!!!!!!!!!! And their WT antlerless seasons are far more liberal than the ones in BC.

Please don't try to revert to the argument that BC is 'different' now that you've stated "if you look at other areas out side of BC...."


I personally don't believe mule deer will rebound to past levels they are too easily effected by unfavourable conditions. You would need to make some huge changes to habitat to achieve this for starters. I personally believe there will continue to be ongoing problems with mule deer populations and always will be. BC has changed in many ways over the years both habitat wise and the range of species.

Yes, so I'm getting the impression you're saying write mule deer off and let white-tails take-off. You need to recognize that by doing that you will sacrifice not only mule deer, but moose, sheep, caribou and will probably have an indirect impact on goat populations due to predator loading and brain worm.

If you are willing to sacrifice biodiversity and other NATIVE game species then that is your choice. I would hazard a guess that the hunting public and the public does not and will not support you on that.


I would say it is more of a different out look on what is going on not that I don't understand

You haven't read any of the research.

How can you say you understand if you have no idea what gps collars on white-tailed deer, mule deer and cougars tells us???

[Fisher-Dude]

Goatguy...I find no irony in the truth. Just because I don't want to tell the world what MU I bowhunt in does not mean we have not seen a drastic reduction in the herd...really...I shit you not!

Sorry Ern, that must have been your doe that I shot last year in 4-22. I'll leave one for you next year.

[BCrams]

Understand increasing WT harvest do to the increase in numbers but I believe the level of increase a little excessive for some areas. Personally would rather have a mule deer become a more restrictive hunt if need.

What did you have in mind for a more restrictive hunt?


Would rather see one strong and one weak population than 2 weak populations

What would your choice be? A strong white-tailed deer and weak mule deer or strong mule deer and weak white-tailed deer population?

[Wild one]

There is little to no antlerless mule deer hunting. Hunting is not having an impact on mule deer populations - at all.

There is no way to make it more restrictive.




Is that the same way we should manage wolves and cougars then? Just stop hunting them because their population will just bounce up and down and wts expand?



The problem is people have created the habitat that favours WT deer. If you look at areas outside of BC with mule deer they ALL HAVE ANTLERLESS WT GOS!!!!!!!!!! And their WT antlerless seasons are far more liberal than the ones in BC.

Please don't try to revert to the argument that BC is 'different' now that you've stated "if you look at other areas out side of BC...."



Yes, so I'm getting the impression you're saying write mule deer off and let white-tails take-off. You need to recognize that by doing that you will sacrifice not only mule deer, but moose, sheep, caribou and will probably have an indirect impact on goat populations due to predator loading and brain worm.

If you are willing to sacrifice biodiversity and other NATIVE game species then that is your choice. I would hazard a guess that the hunting public and the public does not and will not support you on that.



You haven't read any of the research.

How can you say you understand if you have no idea what gps collars on white-tailed deer, mule deer and cougars tells us???


Gone through all your links and also other studies to reach my complete conclusion. I actually had the gist of it from the start but I did not do the best at explaining my self. It is not that I did not read any of what you posted at the start just not all.

First I said I have no problem with either sex WT season when the populations can handle it. Yes, there are many MU's in BC that can but either sex WT seasons have been put into some MU's where WT are not in high numbers. WT no doubt reproduce at a higher rate and are less susceptible to poor winters and predation then mule deer. They also adapt well to habitat that is less suitable for mule deer. For this reason yes with a good WT population added opportunity should be given.

The problem I have with the theory of dropping WT numbers to limit mule deer predation from cougars in hopes to increase mule deer populations. Mule deer are listed in every study as the preferred prey of cougars in and out side of BC. Predation from cougars is also high in high mule deer populations with no WT present. If the goal is achieved in increasing mule deer populations you are actually promoting the cougars preferred prey source. In the long run this again is putting too much meat on the table along with the increase of the preferred prey species. In the end you will achieve a high cougar population once again. This really only ends up as a change in the balance of deer species at best and very likely an overall lower deer population. We also have elk which are also a high on the list prey for cougars.

Like you said and I agree cougar populations are do to the amount of prey available. I truly believe it will be hard to decrease cougar number without decreasing overall prey numbers which would include mule deer. Increasing mule deer numbers is also increasing the cougars preferred prey item. Increasing there preferred prey item also stands the risk of increasing their population higher than it is now.

This is the problem I truly have with the theory that was reached by this study as I see it at best creating a yo-yo effect over the years not promoting stable game numbers.

Personally I see the overall issue more of a habitat issue then predator problem. We have created habitat that helps WT flourish but we have decreased suitable mule deer habitat over the years. Improving habitat will increase suitable areas to promote mule deer population same as the cougar improved feed will increase population. This is also what has helped the WT flourish we created good habitat. The old saying if you build it they will come.

Working on habitat to increase carrying capacity on the land makes more sense and in my opinion is time and money better spent then trying to control a predator by targeting a portion of its prey species.

Yes, I would like to see some adjustment to BC's overall mule deer hunting and that is change the bag limit to 1 mule deer BC wide unless you pull a doe draw than it increases to 2. Also I would say some areas of BC the doe draw should be reduced in numbers or cancelled this is not for all MU's some I would say the doe harvest is fine. This may not be popular but it would decrease mule deer harvest and encourage hunters to actually target WT to reach there BC deer bag limit.

I do believe if we are not going to put in an effort to improve habitat yes you might as well right of the opportunities we have to hunt mule deer in BC. In the end I can see it going to LEH only mule deer like it has in many areas out side of BC. The habitat is what will dictate the species we have more than anything.


The problem with any game management theory it is exactly that a theory and the only way you can see if it will get the results intended is to run it for a long period of time before you see long term results of it. I personally see flaws in the theory and doubt it will end with the best results. I could very well be wrong but I see loose ends.

[Fisher-Dude]

Yes, I would like to see some adjustment to BC's overall mule deer hunting and that is change the bag limit to 1 mule deer BC wide unless you pull a doe draw than it increases to 2.


Yet that won't add any mule deer to the population. Why not go hunting and still have the same number of mule deer?

[aggiehunter]

Pat, I only shoot bucks.....

[Fisher-Dude]

Pat, I only shoot bucks.....

So you don't believe we should manage wt deer scientifically, you just want to show off antlers to your friends? And you're using a crossbow too I heard. Small world around these parts. :D

[aggiehunter]

sorry I'm old skool...sure...science based management based on each MU...not Vietnam style carpet bombing...and yes it's a small keyboard 'cause I just told Gatehouse I killed two whites with the xbow just to see what it was like....I was even wearing a Santa hat on one of the kills..off the ground...but alas as I said to him the pull of the recurve is too strong for me to ignore.

[Wild one]

Yet that won't add any mule deer to the population. Why not go hunting and still have the same number of mule deer?

Not saying it would make a big difference in mule deer populations but it will not hurt them either read the whole post. You could probably get away with a straight any buck all season and ditch the 4pt rule. There is a secondary reason to what I suggested. It is more of a hunter management tactic. More to it than just shoot less mule deer

Right now a lot of hunters would rather fall back on hunting mule deer to reach their bag limit than learning how to hunt WT. Because for many years mule deer were the strongly dominate species in BC the deer hunting tactics most hunters use are based on mule deer hunting. These tactics are not as effective with WT and there are a fair number of BC hunter that get frustrated by WT because of this and learn towards targeting mule deer. Given the push more BC hunters will learn to adjust there tactics if mule deer is not a fall back option. In the end you will increase pressure on the WT which is a more resilient species and decrease pressure on mule deer.

There is a reason in most areas out side of BC the tactics for hunting WT are different than what is commonly used here

WT will become harder to hunt as pressure is increased they adjust to it better than mule deer. With the new season put in place already in high some pressure areas WT are not the easy road hunt kill a doe like they were on draw. There is still a good population in these areas they just became more skittish.

Or you could just keep shooting mule deer and you will still get an expansion in the WT range and still face the same issues

Like I also posed you want results play with the habitat more and worry about the deer less. Don't start working on habitat mule deer hunting will change in BC regardless. Because the WT is more adaptable to poor mule deer habitat they will fill the void other wise.

[Fisher-Dude]

We've managed hunters more and more intensely for 40 years and have less and less mule deer. I don't think that's the path we want to continue on.

Saying that "It wouldn't hurt" to restrict hunting more is like putting a bandaid on your forehead while having a heart attack - it can't hurt, right?

[Fisher-Dude]

I've posted this before. Study by well-known BC biologist Ian Hatter on whitetail management options.


%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


Note the far healthier fawn to doe and buck to doe ratios under the harvest models with does being hunted. Also note the sustainable harvest levels under each scenario.

Do we want the opportunity to harvest 1500 deer a year or take just 300 and have poor fawn and buck to doe ratios? Pretty simple answer.

[dana]

I find it interesting that people are bantering over an old thread that is a done deal. The doe season is a reality people!!!! The whitetail aren't on the way to extinction because of it. I saw far more whitetails this past season than any other season in the past. My family, friends and I all have been doing our part to try to stop the invasion but it seems they breed like rabbits and the next year there are even more. I am looking forward to this upcoming season changes for Region 3 where we will be allowed 2 whitetail does or 2 bucks or 1 buck and 1 doe. Hopefully, more hunters come to the realization that these things are pretty dang easy to hunt, they are not super deer by any means, so that more end up in people's freezers. You can hunt them just the same way as muleys. I don't change tactics. I have hunted them my whole life the same way. Learned it from my ol' man. You don't need to sit in a blind or in a treestand freezing your ass off. You can road hunt them, still hunt them, spot and stalk them, what ever you choose. Lets get more people on board with harvesting a nice tastey whitetail.

[Wild one]

I stated my opinion and like has been said the changes in WT management have started regardless.

Dana wait till those WT become under pressure in your area they will change. The tactics do become less effective when WT are pressured.

[dana]

I hunted the Christian Valley in the 80's. I think I can say Those whiteys felt pressure. Never in recent memory have I ever seen that many hunters in one valley. Hundreds upon hundreds of hunters. Every camp had at least 2 whiteys hanging. I think the most on our game pole was 7 from 8 guys hunting. Still hunted and road hunted. Was pretty easy to fill a tag in a weekend hunt. With hunter numbers way lower now than back then, I think whitetails don't even know what pressure is these days. Heck, seems there has been a generation of hunters that forgot they even existed.

[aggiehunter]

it was a slaughter on mature bucks when they extended the season to Nov.25th...settled down after that of course...haven't gone back there for the bow season in almost 10 years...just too busy for a narrow valley.

[dana]

So you hunted it for almost 20 years before you decided it was too busy? If I recall that change happened in about 85. I'm sure that 10 years ago was not near as busy as 30 years ago. As for mature bucks, wonder how it was a so-called slaughter if these deer as super smart and ellusive if they are heavy pressured?

[aggiehunter]

Dana, don't confuse me with math..I hunted lots of places but as a young guy the Christian and the Granby were the go to places for whities..that extra two weeks in 85 created a great deal of pressure. You did not have to be Bill Jurdan to hunt them..the tracks all went down the narrow valleys when snow hit and we saw some big ones off the road...rarely as now did you see tracks in the late season going back up the valley...I'm talking into Dec. Slaughter might be extreme terminology but there was an huge harvest in the years following the extension of the GOS. It's really what your into as far as pressure goes but there was a bit of "stand jumping" going on so I went elsewhere.

[dana]

yup, lots of big boys were killed back in those days. I think in the generation since, hunters have forgot how to hunt them and have took on a belief that they are some mythical beast that is hard to hunt. It probably was the Bill Jordons of the world that created that belief in order to sell their latest and greatest product to fool this mythical creature. Fact is, they are the most hunted and most killed big game species in North America. really, if the bubas of the hunting tv world can kill them with such ease, why can't BC hunters??? I do believe that big mature whitetails are indeed smart. No different from a big mature muley or blacktail. They get big with age and the way to grow old in a predator infested world is to be smart. But, we ain't talking trophy whitetails. We are talking just plain run of the mill whiteys that are great eats. They are not a difficult critter to harvest.

[GoatGuy]

White-tailed deer hunters 8-14 1987-2012


1027


1019


1670


1716


1909


2322


3058


2605


2755


2093


2105


2259


2070


1982


1891


1996


1630


1213


1617


1750


1604


1388


1480


1896


1573


1955

[GoatGuy]

Resident buck harvest 8-14. Sorry for the way it's layed out - software issues with the website.



278


422


558


661


693


869


632


864


776


523


426


569


445


383


491


457


526


352


554


469


345


301


469


338


383


517

[aggiehunter]

Goatguy, more polls?

[hunter1993ap]

hey goat guy, where do you get the numbers? I have hunted for ten years now and have only filled out surveys in the last couple of years. just wondering if they survey a percentage of tags sold and multiply by the remainder? I'm just sceptical of accurate numbers because I have only received surveys in the last few years.

[GoatGuy]

hey goat guy, where do you get the numbers? I have hunted for ten years now and have only filled out surveys in the last couple of years. just wondering if they survey a percentage of tags sold and multiply by the remainder? I'm just sceptical of accurate numbers because I have only received surveys in the last few years.
Yes, it is a sample- not everyone receives a survey. It's reasonable to expect some hunters won't get a survey for a number of years and others to get one every year.

[GoatGuy]

Goatguy, more polls?
Yes statistics - the exact same stuff used to calculate insurance rates.

[Wild one]

yup, lots of big boys were killed back in those days. I think in the generation since, hunters have forgot how to hunt them and have took on a belief that they are some mythical beast that is hard to hunt. It probably was the Bill Jordons of the world that created that belief in order to sell their latest and greatest product to fool this mythical creature. Fact is, they are the most hunted and most killed big game species in North America. really, if the bubas of the hunting tv world can kill them with such ease, why can't BC hunters??? I do believe that big mature whitetails are indeed smart. No different from a big mature muley or blacktail. They get big with age and the way to grow old in a predator infested world is to be smart. But, we ain't talking trophy whitetails. We are talking just plain run of the mill whiteys that are great eats. They are not a difficult critter to harvest.


There will always be a potion young dumb deer yes. It is not that I am saying WT are a super smart deer but instead there habits are different. Because they are a lot more prone to hang up in the real thick bush is why different tactics work better. It is tougher to still hunt a deer when you can't see them till they are within 5 yards. In my opinion they are more prone to becoming nocturnal than mule deer and because of this you are less likely to catch them in the open in legal light. They also prefer different terrain Flat or rolling hills with thick bush it is harder to get off a shot or see the deer for starters in this terrain and WT thrive under these conditions. Mule deer are more prone to stick to the open country or steeper country where they are easier to see and get a shot. Yes both species cross over or in habit both styles of terrain but they do have a preference

There is also a trait that is different between mule deer and WT that causes mule deer to stick around longer for a shot. When faced with a predator a WT is more hard wired to sprit and cover ground. Mule deer are actually more likely to attempt to stand their ground and fight back or use the terrain to put a barrier between them and the predator. Yes, both will make a run for it but a mule deer is more likely to stop and look back. Because of how a mule deer deals with a threat they leave them selves more venerable to hunting and predation.

Also mule deer are more likely to make larger migrations over the seasons than a WT. A larger portion of mule deer make these migrations than wt as well. As a mule deer hunter Dana you can agree if you are in the right spot at the right time you will come across a large number of mule deer increasing your odds of success.

You mention big bucks of both species get smart I completely agree but this is do to pressure and nothing to do with them being a buck. I have hunted outside of BC where there has been wt doe seasons for a long time. Do to hunting pressure older does become just as skittish as the bucks do. This is the change that most BC hunters will see is both sexes of WT will change from pressure not just bucks.

Yes, some will always get lucky road hunting and good still hunters under the right conditions can still take WT. The reason I say these tactics will be less effective has nothing to do with WT being smart but more to do with there preferred habitat and habits. The habitual nature, habits, and habitat of choice is what makes different tactics more effective for WT not intelligence.

You may have no problem with taking WT with your methods of choice but from what I have seen many other don't. I have watch many hunters over hunting trips in region 8 get frustrated not being able to take a WT and switch to mule deer and be successful. I would say many also look for WT in the wrong terrain in these areas for starter as they are used to hunting mule deer and expect the WT to be in the same terrain. Again leading to them taking a mule deer not a WT. You mention how hunters don't hunt like the old timers and I agree road hunting is the most common hunting method out there these days

Trust me I do not put WT up their like the Americans do but I understand how the 2 species act different and how different tactics increase your odds. Those bubas shoot WT because that is what they learned to hunt and hunt them with tactics geared for WT.

[GoatGuy]

Wild one, that is pretty good info. Best thing is to hunt wts, not hunt wts like you would hunt mule deer.

The majority of hunters in R8 drive right past the best wt spots on their way to beaverdell, the christian valley and the granby. Per the usual we harvested all our wts within 50 yards this year in the 'thick stuff' and within 30 min of town. Think the combined effort out of one blind was about 4 hours for 3 bucks. Couple of first wts for people and new hunters as well.

All the buddies in R4 harvested wts in bow and rifle season - same thing, no problem. All a person has to do is to use their predator avoidance strategies against them.

[Wild one]

Wild one, that is pretty good info. Best thing is to hunt wts, not hunt wts like you would hunt mule deer.

The majority of hunters in R8 drive right past the best wt spots on their way to beaverdell, the christian valley and the granby. Per the usual we harvested all our wts within 50 yards this year in the 'thick stuff' and within 30 min of town. Think the combined effort out of one blind was about 4 hours for 3 bucks. Couple of first wts for people and new hunters as well.

All the buddies in R4 harvested wts in bow and rifle season - same thing, no problem. All a person has to do is to use their predator avoidance strategies against them.


Been telling other hunter for a long time deer are not just deer each species acts different

I totally agree most hunters drive right past good wt spots. I have a few spots I can see the road from my stand and watch hunters drive by all day. The funny part is watching WT hunker down in the bush on the opposite side of the road and wait for the trucks to pass before they cross. I have watch mule deer do it as well but if you are not in an elevated spot you will never see them.

I find a lot of hunters look at it as an ego thing when it comes to how they hunt but really you just need to match the right style to the right species. If guys want to admit it or not there really is no best way but more of matching style to the conditions you are hunting

[GoatGuy]

Been telling other hunter for a long time deer are not just deer each species acts different

I totally agree most hunters drive right past good wt spots. I have a few spots I can see the road from my stand and watch hunters drive by all day. The funny part is watching WT hunker down in the bush on the opposite side of the road and wait for the trucks to pass before they cross. I have watch mule deer do it as well but if you are not in an elevated spot you will never see them.

I find a lot of hunters look at it as an ego thing when it comes to how they hunt but really you just need to match the right style to the right species. If guys want to admit it or not there really is no best way but more of matching style to the conditions you are hunting

Yes, after the circular discussion, usually just put it bluntly: Do you want to shoot one or not?

[Islandeer]

Our family group shoot 4 to 6 whities each season, and we are from the Island. We hunt fir ridges,thick stuff, really similar to the conditions we hunt in on Vancouver Island. They are fun to hunt and the big ones,like the one in my avatar really blow your mind!!!!

By the way, that buck was shot in 1990,in Region 4 100 yds off the Linkletter rd!!!

[Wild one]

Yes, after the circular discussion, usually just put it bluntly: Do you want to shoot one or not?


Been hunting them for 22 years and no plans to change that. I just respect them the same as any other species in BC and just want to see them managed for healthy populations is all. Completely understand their resilience to harvest and adaptability. I completely support increased harvest opportunities in the large populations.

My issue in this whole thread is the blanket style regs being applied to this species in a lot of BC. That and the shoot a wt save a mule deer theories which really do little to address the real issues.

Nothing was geared against you in this thread GG and understand a study was done. I have a different view on the whole issue from hunting out side of BC where there is stronger wt populations along with a strong mule deer population. And it was very plain to see habitat was what really dictated the balance in the populations of these species. Yes, they had either sex WT harvest in the areas of large WT population along with extra tags in areas of really high population but also limited harvest in the lower WT populations. The areas that held high mule deer populations is actually were limited wt harvest was in place. This is because the WT did not thrive the same in this habitat.

What I see is the increase in BC's WT range and numbers as something BC does not have the experience to really know what is the best way to deal with it. Because of this it will take time before a conclusion will truly be made on the right or wrong way to deal with this species. It may look like a bigger issue because do to the lack of the wt presents mule deer filled the void in the less suitable habitat. In my opinion this will become a thing of the past because it is a natural thing for the species that is better suited for the habitat to become dominate. As long as we have WT in BC this is something that will slowly happen because we really have little control over it. It maybe possible to slow the process at best.

One of the reasons I look at holes in any study and management plan is because many times a theory is made before analysing the big picture and data can be flawed. I have also found BC is really bad for not collecting info from out side of the province and cross referencing the findings. Or only picking bits and pieces from studies from other areas. I know this because I actually found these kind of issues with a study and a project I helped supply info for and if these issues were not caught important info would have been missed or results would be poor. The sad part was the info was easily available to solve one issue and the others were stupid things that were over looked. That sad part is there was studies done before on this species and conclusions were made with flawed data because there was major issues no one noticed.

Luckily the bio I helped has common sense and was willing to listen. Unfortunately many will not listen to someone without a degree. Even the educated make mistakes but I find them less will to except the possibility of being wrong.


You come across as someone with knowledge that I don't doubt. We just have different views on things is all and yes I am someone who ? everything and like to get info from what I experience first hand and studies. I like to gather my info on any animal by researching there habits and needs more than anything. I also look at what can be controlled and what cannot.

I have reasons for my views and doubts. Unfortunately I see in this case most will not ? things and choose to follow.

My views are not going to change but like has been said this plan for WT management is in place if I agree or not. Only time will truly tell on what the end results will be

It is not that I do not respect for you or where you are coming from on this GG. I just look at what is happening differently.

Personally I hate text because 2 people can easily misunderstand each other. If I thought you were a waste of time I would never type this much because I am slow at it and it involves too much time

Really I am just a hunter who hopes to see the best results for what BC can provide but also see that we do not have as much control over the species as many think we do especially do to the changes humans do to the overall habitat

[Fisher-Dude]

Dana, don't confuse me with math..I hunted lots of places but as a young guy the Christian and the Granby were the go to places for whities..that extra two weeks in 85 created a great deal of pressure. You did not have to be Bill Jurdan to hunt them..the tracks all went down the narrow valleys when snow hit and we saw some big ones off the road...rarely as now did you see tracks in the late season going back up the valley...I'm talking into Dec. Slaughter might be extreme terminology but there was an huge harvest in the years following the extension of the GOS. It's really what your into as far as pressure goes but there was a bit of "stand jumping" going on so I went elsewhere.


5 year average buck harvest 8-14 1987 - 1991 = 502

5 year average buck harvest 8-14 2002 - 2006 = 478


Statistically, the same number of bucks are shot today as were shot in the late 1980s. What sudden buck "slaughter" in the late 1980s are you talking about?

[BCrams]

The areas that held high mule deer populations is actually were limited wt harvest was in place. This is because the WT did not thrive the same in this habitat.



For the sake of digging into background info and research to educate myself - can you elaborate where this is? Province, state..... curious to see the why behind decisions.

[aggiehunter]

Please...Please....no more bogus studies from a randomly mailed out card sent to "some"...please. And the survey says....

[Stone Sheep Steve]

http://www.askingsmarterquestions.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Ostrich-man-head-in-sand.gif

[aggiehunter]

Goatguy...there are actually hard stats for calculating premiums...they don't mail out occasional cards to people that have house fires or heart attacks. How about...mandatory reporting...damn that won't work with FN' harvest will it..too bad. They love the Christian/Ashnola Valley in August.

[GoatGuy]

Please...Please....no more bogus studies from a randomly mailed out card sent to "some"...please. And the survey says....

Bogus? Based on what? Explain why it doesn't work.

Or, alternatively, let's bring this in to something you should understand: How are insurance premiums and policies calculated? How do insurance companies sample policy holders?

You could use one example if you like. Maybe something like crop insurance.

[hunter1993ap]

Goatguy...there are actually hard stats for calculating premiums...they don't mail out occasional cards to people that have house fires or heart attacks. How about...mandatory reporting...damn that won't work with FN' harvest will it..too bad. They love the Christian/Ashnola Valley in August.

ya it doesn't matter how many surveys are sent out to average hunters, because they have such a small number in the overall harvest. fn, preds, and highways are the main killers. i bet it would be shocking to see the numbers FN's take out a year.

[Wild one]

For the sake of digging into background info and research to educate myself - can you elaborate where this is? Province, state..... curious to see the why behind decisions.

Check out Alberta's WT regs and you will see big fluctuations. They fluctuation is do to the population of WT in these areas. Be sure to read about supplemental WT doe tags. Most of the areas with a more restrictive season the mule deer out number WT because of habitat is not as suitable for WT.

From someone who has hunted WT in both BC and Alberta 2 MU's that are similar for WT numbers Alberta's 414 and BC's 814. Both these areas hold mule deer and WT.

Before it is said yes a lot of Alberta is LEH mule deer but the way Alberta bio's manage mule deer they would put a lot of BC's mule deer on LEH as well. It is not that they lack mule deer numbers in a lot of Alberta.

I will stand by that it is habitat that effects the numbers of these species in an area more than anything. Go into the areas in BC that hold good numbers of both and you will see they have there preferred habitat. It is no different in Alberta as well.

The big difference is WT have just really started to expand their range in BC. With the lack of WT in many areas of BC the mule deer just filled in that void in the past. Unless you remove the WT out right they will expand into the habitat that is better suited to there needs then they are for the mule deer. I would say odds are BC won't stop this from happening but could only slow it at best. I know most won't want to hear or believe that.

[dana]

Wild one,
I can honestly say I hunt whitetail exactly the same way I hunt muleys and I have had what would be considered tremendous success given the fact I live in an area where most hunters have barely seen a legal buck during hunting season let alone killed one. I learned to hunt whitetails growing up in the Okanagan as a kid where we were pretty much in the Christian Valley every chance we could get. My dad was a whitetail nut and hunted them there the same way as I hunt them here, by still hunting timber. I learned early in my life that still hunting works great for both mule deer and whitetails. I have also seen a lot of sucess road hunting for whitetails in Region 3, Region 7 and Region 8. They are not difficult to hunt. My son was easily killing them at a early age. Yes, they are a different critter than mule deer but you can have tremendous success hunting them with the exact same strategies. I can remember my dad spot and stalk hunting them in the 80s and have seen that same technique used last year on an absolute cranker. Nothing has changed with the deer, they haven't got sneakier since the 80s. Yes, sitting in blinds and treestands, baiting and rattling ect all work for killing them. But this is not a neccessity. You don't have to have trail cams and bait sites and tons of time to sit freezing your ass off to kill one of these critters. Not many hunted them with thise methods in the old days. Why do we believe we must do that these days? Only because the Whitetail gurus selling Shit to the masses have told us this is the only way to do it. Not true!

[Fisher-Dude]

Yes statistics - the exact same stuff used to calculate insurance rates.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF7OnW4XDck

[hunter1993ap]

Wild one,
I can honestly say I hunt whitetail exactly the same way I hunt muleys and I have had what would be considered tremendous success given the fact I live in an area where most hunters have barely seen a legal buck during hunting season let alone killed one. I learned to hunt whitetails growing up in the Okanagan as a kid where we were pretty much in the Christian Valley every chance we could get. My dad was a whitetail nut and hunted them there the same way as I hunt them here, by still hunting timber. I learned early in my life that still hunting works great for both mule deer and whitetails. I have also seen a lot of sucess road hunting for whitetails in Region 3, Region 7 and Region 8. They are not difficult to hunt. My son was easily killing them at a early age. Yes, they are a different critter than mule deer but you can have tremendous success hunting them with the exact same strategies. I can remember my dad spot and stalk hunting them in the 80s and have seen that same technique used last year on an absolute cranker. Nothing has changed with the deer, they haven't got sneakier since the 80s. Yes, sitting in blinds and treestands, baiting and rattling ect all work for killing them. But this is not a neccessity. You don't have to have trail cams and bait sites and tons of time to sit freezing your ass off to kill one of these critters. Not many hunted them with thise methods in the old days. Why do we believe we must do that these days? Only because the Whitetail gurus selling Shit to the masses have told us this is the only way to do it. Not true!

i do agree with your point, but killing a big whitetail still hunting the timber is quite challenging. I also believe the experience you have will give you an advantage over 95% or more of the hunters out there. killing mature whitetail is a hard task in thick nasty country, especially a big mature whitetail. I have spent a bit of time chasing whitetails and they are hard compared to mulies, at least still hunting them. anyone can sit in a blind, and if you sit long enough you will kill a good one. killing a little dink is a whole different story.

[Wild one]

Wild one,
I can honestly say I hunt whitetail exactly the same way I hunt muleys and I have had what would be considered tremendous success given the fact I live in an area where most hunters have barely seen a legal buck during hunting season let alone killed one. I learned to hunt whitetails growing up in the Okanagan as a kid where we were pretty much in the Christian Valley every chance we could get. My dad was a whitetail nut and hunted them there the same way as I hunt them here, by still hunting timber. I learned early in my life that still hunting works great for both mule deer and whitetails. I have also seen a lot of sucess road hunting for whitetails in Region 3, Region 7 and Region 8. They are not difficult to hunt. My son was easily killing them at a early age. Yes, they are a different critter than mule deer but you can have tremendous success hunting them with the exact same strategies. I can remember my dad spot and stalk hunting them in the 80s and have seen that same technique used last year on an absolute cranker. Nothing has changed with the deer, they haven't got sneakier since the 80s. Yes, sitting in blinds and treestands, baiting and rattling ect all work for killing them. But this is not a neccessity. You don't have to have trail cams and bait sites and tons of time to sit freezing your ass off to kill one of these critters. Not many hunted them with thise methods in the old days. Why do we believe we must do that these days? Only because the Whitetail gurus selling Shit to the masses have told us this is the only way to do it. Not true!


Hunted successfully in the Christian Valley still hunting as well and know in the right terrain it works. Shot my very first deer there as a kid 22 years ago and know how the WT acted at that time. I never sat for WT till about 10 years ago. After hunting WT with multiple methods I seen the advantages in the different methods. I am not saying you can't get the job done with still hunting I still do it at times. I don't go out and buy all the fancy gear need I have 2 cheap tree stands and I will hide in natural blinds. This is nothing about needing all the fancy gear TV tells you.

The WT in 812-814 are starting to change there habits in the last few years. Still spots you can still hunt them and areas they cross the road at times. In the busier well known areas they are changing there habits. If you know the right areas yes you can find dumb WT's.

WT I have come across in region 3,6, and 7 I would say are on the stunned side and are not really under pressure at this time.

Dana you know just as well as I do still hunting is a skill that most hunters lack in these days. I am not saying a good still hunter cannot get the job done but he will be limited to the terrain that is suited to it.

I am not saying you can't get the job done but for the hell of it go down to 814 during the oct doe season. To give you an idea you don't see many WT on the farms anymore. They are definitely acting different from when I first hunted the area.

When I am talking about how WT change under pressure I am not talking just in BC.

Really how tough or how easy either of us believe they are to hunt it is fact they are more resilient to harvest do to reproduction and habits. I am also going by the number of hunter I watch get frustrated by the WT and go shoot a mule deer. You grew up hunting them as a kid Dana which makes a difference. I would say most who go give WT a shot the first time don't even know where to look. You would not believe how many guys I have come across in 814 who have a hard enough seeing WT even after multiple days.

Regardless this is really not that important just 2 different opinions

[dana]

You and I are actually saying very similiar things. I believe there is a generation gap with the whitetail hunters in this province. Muley numbers were high in much of the province in the 2000s and muleys were fairly easy to come by. Whitetails were for some reason forgotten by many. Now muley numbers seem to be a little lower and some hunters are having a hard time harvesting them. IMO the ease of the good times created hunters with very few skills that the previous generation had, such as still hunting heavy timber. When I said I hunt my whitetails like I hunt my muleys, I should actually said I hunt my muleys like I hunt whitetails because that is what I grew up hunting and just learned that those strategies work well for muleys as well. Most of my muleys have been killed under 40 yards while still hunting thick timber. Pretty much the same place you expect to find whitetails. If today's hunter would learn the old ways of still hunting and spot and stalk combination, a method I call sneak and peek, then maybe they would see more success for hunting both species.

[dana]

hunter1993,
When it comes to big mature critters of any species, it is a challenge. You are hunting a critter that has faced predation 24/7 365 for 5, 6, 7, 8 or more years. You are hunting them on their home turf. That puts all the advantage in their court. I don't care if it is a big bull elk, mature ram or a mature whitetail, muley or blacktail buck. They are old for a reason, they are smart.

[Wild one]

You and I are actually saying very similiar things. I believe there is a generation gap with the whitetail hunters in this province. Muley numbers were high in much of the province in the 2000s and muleys were fairly easy to come by. Whitetails were for some reason forgotten by many. Now muley numbers seem to be a little lower and some hunters are having a hard time harvesting them. IMO the ease of the good times created hunters with very few skills that the previous generation had, such as still hunting heavy timber. When I said I hunt my whitetails like I hunt my muleys, I should actually said I hunt my muleys like I hunt whitetails because that is what I grew up hunting and just learned that those strategies work well for muleys as well. Most of my muleys have been killed under 40 yards while still hunting thick timber. Pretty much the same place you expect to find whitetails. If today's hunter would learn the old ways of still hunting and spot and stalk combination, a method I call sneak and peek, then maybe they would see more success for hunting both species.


Maybe it would be better to say a treestand or blind gives you the advantage to hunt them in thick crap with very few openings and noisy crap on the ground. It is easier to sit still and make no noise then it is to move through the bush. It can give you an advantage of being able to hunt areas that are less suited for still hunting. Because WT can be predictable on there routine you can focus on a small pocket and be successful. It really just gives you an advantage of being able to hunt terrain many would just drive past, can eliminate a lot of movement and noise that could spook deer.

Really if you can pick a good spot, sit still, and have the ability to wait them out it is an easier method to learn and be successful.

That being said I can honestly say my fav way to hunt WT if I can find the right terrain is still hunting with a doe bleat during the rut. If conditions are right it is just as deadly if not more than sitting.

The biggest thing I think the 2 of us can agree on most hunters in BC would rather focus on mule deer then take the time to figure out WT.

[dana]

Easier is a relative term. For me, sitting still freezing my ass off and seeing the same small little view for hours on end is far from easy. I am too ADHD to sit any longer than 30 mins. I would also say that selecting the right stand location requires gobs of homework. I admire guys like Cody Robbins who has countless stand locations and who documents the effort of scouting, bait placement, trail cam placement etc etc. It may appear easy, but far from it. It is a lot of work. I know these strategies work. There were some great threads this fall documenting those strategies in an effort to educate hunters to what they have right in their backyards. I applaud those guys for showing that side of whitetail hunting. I'm just taking it another direction to show hunters there are many ways to skin a cat. Still Hunting whitetails is indeed a trilling way to hunt. The thought process that it is too hard is only a defeatist attitude that makes hunters give up before they even start. My perspective is to show hunters that if I can do it, anyone can. Just get out there and try. The hardest part is just winning the head game. I Can versus I Can't.

[GoatGuy]

Check out Alberta's WT regs and you will see big fluctuations. They fluctuation is do to the population of WT in these areas. Be sure to read about supplemental WT doe tags. Most of the areas with a more restrictive season the mule deer out number WT because of habitat is not as suitable for WT.

From someone who has hunted WT in both BC and Alberta 2 MU's that are similar for WT numbers Alberta's 414 and BC's 814. Both these areas hold mule deer and WT.

Before it is said yes a lot of Alberta is LEH mule deer but the way Alberta bio's manage mule deer they would put a lot of BC's mule deer on LEH as well. It is not that they lack mule deer numbers in a lot of Alberta.

I will stand by that it is habitat that effects the numbers of these species in an area more than anything. Go into the areas in BC that hold good numbers of both and you will see they have there preferred habitat. It is no different in Alberta as well.

The big difference is WT have just really started to expand their range in BC. With the lack of WT in many areas of BC the mule deer just filled in that void in the past. Unless you remove the WT out right they will expand into the habitat that is better suited to there needs then they are for the mule deer. I would say odds are BC won't stop this from happening but could only slow it at best. I know most won't want to hear or believe that.
Couple of gaps and some more reading to do if we're going to compare management from other jurisdictions.

The reason they went to mule deer LEH in AB was because there was nothing other than yearlings after hunting season when it was GOS. Yes, have discussed with the folks involved at the time.

You should probably also check Val Geist's work on mule deer - comes from AB.

Also, how they manage mule deer and white-tailed deer in Washington State, Saskatchewan, Montana, Idaho, and Colorado. Lastly, ask Manitoba about mule deer management.

Mule deer did not 'fill the void' in the past it was the only species of deer. The reason we have white-tails is due principally to anthropogenic change - people. You should also check into the evolution of deer species. Geist wrote a book on it and there are numerous articles on evolution and ecology. It isn't a simple as comparing two MUs in jurisdictions (which don't have similar habitat) or two jurisdictions approach to management for that matter. Lastly, it should also be recognized that just like BC, Alberta suffers from political and social pressures when it comes to wildlife management and that is reflected in the hunting regulations.

[GoatGuy]

Goatguy...there are actually hard stats for calculating premiums...they don't mail out occasional cards to people that have house fires or heart attacks. How about...mandatory reporting...damn that won't work with FN' harvest will it..too bad. They love the Christian/Ashnola Valley in August.

Hahaha, rates are all based on probability. If providers didn't know the probability of an event they wouldn't be in business (there would be no 'market') - simply can't operate with that much unknown risk.

Bundling is based on market research which involves sampling. That's how they know what to provide to the customer. The packages insurance companies sell to people are based on both probability and sampling.

So, explain how sampling works versus mandatory reporting, particularly for deer. Show how much better the data would be if we had mandatory reporting versus the current system. Lastly, estimate the differences in cost between the current hunter harvest survey and mandatory reporting through the same medium.

That will move us closer to an informed decision.

[Wild one]

Easier is a relative term. For me, sitting still freezing my ass off and seeing the same small little view for hours on end is far from easy. I am too ADHD to sit any longer than 30 mins. I would also say that selecting the right stand location requires gobs of homework. I admire guys like Cody Robbins who has countless stand locations and who documents the effort of scouting, bait placement, trail cam placement etc etc. It may appear easy, but far from it. It is a lot of work. I know these strategies work. There were some great threads this fall documenting those strategies in an effort to educate hunters to what they have right in their backyards. I applaud those guys for showing that side of whitetail hunting. I'm just taking it another direction to show hunters there are many ways to skin a cat. Still Hunting whitetails is indeed a trilling way to hunt. The thought process that it is too hard is only a defeatist attitude that makes hunters give up before they even start. My perspective is to show hunters that if I can do it, anyone can. Just get out there and try. The hardest part is just winning the head game. I Can versus I Can't.

Can't argue it can be tough to sit this was the toughest part for me and sometimes I judge my sanity doing it. I found learning to pick locations to sit was a short learning curve for me personally but I have always analysed how animals move. Even when I relied on stillhunting my approach was to cut them off in there travels. Maybe my mentality on how I hunt in general made it seem easy to adjust.

I would say the major scouting is needed more so to target big bucks or focus on 1 buck in general. Understanding how WT choose their path and basic sign is all I find needed just to hunt WT in general without trophy in mind. Habitat they prefer is one of the biggest ones I find many pass by the best locations. I can't even count how many hunters I have come across looking for WT in mule deer terrain were there is little to no WT for miles.

The big difference is really one is all a mental game well the other is a combo of physical ability and mental. Still hunting limits you to the terrain suited to it and sitting opens up the ability to hunt a larger variety of terrain. It is also easier to make a mistake and spook a deer still hunting. But if you pick the wrong spot you sit and see nothing.

For a guy who can't handle sitting still for a good amount of time yes he is better off improving his skills as a still hunter

In the end it is less about the method you choose to hunt them but more the lack of hunters willing to adjust to hunting WT rather then giving up and sticking to the mule deer they know. The hunters I find with the easiest time adjusting to WT is BT hunters since they are more familiar with thick stuff than a lot of mule deer hunters.

I would say WT do not get the respect in a lot of BC's hunting community as well and is another reason many will not put in a true effort to target them. The rat deer they are made out as by many don't help and some believe there is no trophy WT in BC. Just need to look at some of the WT's that have been post on this forum and it shows there is quality WT in BC.

Really hunting methods are of little issue in the end

I have been way too bored and wasted too much time in this thread. I past my insight on what I see with the management of WT in BC and even some of what is see hunting them.

Some will agree some will not really it is just an opinion in the end

I say hunt WT for the opportunity to hunt them and no other reason.

[J_T]

Hahaha, rates are all based on probability. If providers didn't know the probability of an event they wouldn't be in business (there would be no 'market') - simply can't operate with that much unknown risk.

Bundling is based on market research which involves sampling. That's how they know what to provide to the customer. The packages insurance companies sell to people are based on both probability and sampling.

So, explain how sampling works versus mandatory reporting, particularly for deer. Show how much better the data would be if we had mandatory reporting versus the current system. Lastly, estimate the differences in cost between the current hunter harvest survey and mandatory reporting through the same medium.

That will move us closer to an informed decision.Not disagreeing with anyone here. Just providing a perspective. Harvest models are based on probability of success. Without factoring/knowing what weapon people use, adds error to the % probability for success. Not only is that common sense, its simple. Also as it has already been mentioned, the highest probability we have for prey species is the predator populations. the more predators there are, the more likely Fawns 1 through 5 will be winter feed.

You made a comment to Wild One up above about Alberta shifting because there was 'nothing other than yearlings'. I feel, based on my own observations, I saw more young deer the past couple of years. Yes, I saw more bucks as many predicted, however, they were young and the does were young, and smaller (lighter body weight when hanging).

The difference in cost between current harvest survey capture methods and mandatory, is likely net neutral. If the mandatory (assuming all are phone in), they are data entered directly by staff. (ridiculous) And a paper survey must be data entered by someone (unless its done online by more people). The issue with harvest surveys is in the database we put the data into. Current databases don't provide the ability to analyze data efficiently. I've been on this before and I still can't believe a Government as progressive as BC's is so antiquated when it comes to data capture for wildlife management. Particularly when we want to manage with science/statistics. Let's factor in the probability for road kill, rail kill, urban kill......

[Wild one]

Couple of gaps and some more reading to do if we're going to compare management from other jurisdictions.

The reason they went to mule deer LEH in AB was because there was nothing other than yearlings after hunting season when it was GOS. Yes, have discussed with the folks involved at the time.

You should probably also check Val Geist's work on mule deer - comes from AB.

Also, how they manage mule deer and white-tailed deer in Washington State, Saskatchewan, Montana, Idaho, and Colorado. Lastly, ask Manitoba about mule deer management.

Mule deer did not 'fill the void' in the past it was the only species of deer. The reason we have white-tails is due principally to anthropogenic change - people. You should also check into the evolution of deer species. Geist wrote a book on it and there are numerous articles on evolution and ecology. It isn't a simple as comparing two MUs in jurisdictions (which don't have similar habitat) or two jurisdictions approach to management for that matter. Lastly, it should also be recognized that just like BC, Alberta suffers from political and social pressures when it comes to wildlife management and that is reflected in the hunting regulations.

Biggest one I can completely agree with is hunting regs are more political then most realize.

Yes, in a lot of areas of Alberta the open terrain made them way too susceptible to harvest in open season. There are a lot of areas that the political issue comes in as well. Mule deer in Alberta is majority political and the prairie mule deer are at a higher risk to over harvest.

When comparing MU's I actually should have gone with 412 the unit just south for terrain wise. I did not because it was not comparable with WT numbers. It is an area with higher mule deer numbers and less WT but the terrain is a lot closer. A good portion actually has hills just like Ingram in 814. Hard to get an exact match comparing MU's anywhere. I have physically been to these locations so it is easier to look at similarities beyond elevation and sat photos.

Never hurts to look into it more I can agree

I should explain where I said mule deer filling the void a little better. Yes, without WT present mule deer in habit these areas. When you have both species in the same area the WT moves into that terrain more so. BC is no longer a province with only small WT pockets. BC is no longer the same when it comes to WT distribution. So maybe I should say when WT expend their range they fill the void of the low land thick bush mule deer.

Like I said we have different views on what should be done and just like when you dig into different studies you will find different views

This really is we will have to agree to disagree and see how things play out over time

I will look most likely do some more reading but it is going to be very unlikely I change my views

[GoatGuy]

Harvest is based on the hunter sample. KPUE is a relatively simple metric and provides good trend information for high demand species (deer, moose, elk). I don't see this as being a big issue.

The reference to yearlings was related to mule deer LEH in AB. Post season there was nothing left in AB other than yearling bucks when they had a GOS. On the wt front, wouldn't be surprised if the age of antlerless wt has shifted downward in some areas (would be surprised by the male component however).

The way to capture mandatory reporting efficiently is electronically. Phone surveys are heavy on the labour side because every hunter seems to want to give the person on the other end of the line an earful, call backs, non-response rates, and timing issues. The increased sampling required would drive costs through the roof and you have no incentives or deterrents for completion without being able to track licenses 'to the minute' electronically. Long story short mandatory reporting right now would chew up all of our funding (including inventory) and then some. Same reason why we don't go out and try to count every moose or every elk - the juice simply isn't worth the squeeze.

Last point agree, but not surprised. The LEH 'machine' was outdated in the 70s, that was close to 40 years ago - we're still using it.

No money for management - that is the single biggest issue we're dealing with.

[dana]

Here is an example of Still Hunting success in the Christian Valley in the early 90's. 3 of the hunters were new young hunters without much experience and yet they saw Still Hunting success.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/BCBOY/Hunting%20Pics/img016a.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/BCBOY/media/Hunting%20Pics/img016a.jpg.html)

Another example of Still Hunting success in the Christian Valley in the 80's. This is one of my dad's whitetails. He was trophy hunting at the time too.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/BCBOY/Hunting%20Pics/DadsWhitey.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/BCBOY/media/Hunting%20Pics/DadsWhitey.jpg.html)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/BCBOY/Hunting%20Pics/DadsWhitey2.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/BCBOY/media/Hunting%20Pics/DadsWhitey2.jpg.html)

One of my brother's Still Hunting success' from the Christian Valley in the 80's. He was just a young hunter at the time. Even in those days we were backpacking our deer out. Was the only way to get away from the crowds.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/BCBOY/Hunting%20Pics/img027a.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/BCBOY/media/Hunting%20Pics/img027a.jpg.html)

[dana]

One of my Region 3 whitetails that I killed while Still Hunting some incredibly thick, cottonwood jungle, river bottom country.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/BCBOY/Hunting%20Pics/04Whitey2.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/BCBOY/media/Hunting%20Pics/04Whitey2.jpg.html)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/BCBOY/Hunting%20Pics/IMG_1242.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/BCBOY/media/Hunting%20Pics/IMG_1242.jpg.html)

And from the other end of the spectrum, here is one my son killed just below treeline. Not your classic whitetail country that you read about in the magazines.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/BCBOY/P9090064.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/BCBOY/media/P9090064.jpg.html)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/BCBOY/P9090071.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/BCBOY/media/P9090071.jpg.html)

[dana]

Here's a monster Region 3 road hunting prize. Killed on the way to work one day with my boss. From the time we stopped till the time we were going again was about 5 minutes. :)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/BCBOY/PB230048.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/BCBOY/media/PB230048.jpg.html)

[aggiehunter]

Goatguy, Well the answer to your question is pretty obvious..if 1/2 of the harvest questionaires are chucked so is your probability of quality harvest data...Insurance companies calculations on probabilities are usually based on occurances...

[aggiehunter]

Dana, I thought you were saying whitetails were fairly easy...I see backpacks and canoes....nice buck your Dad shot...what a great mentor.

[dana]

You'll see backpacks and canoes in my muley pics as well. ;) I believe in hunting smarter not harder. Breaking a critter down and carrying it on your back is fast and easy versus the old gut and drag method.

[hunter1993ap]

You'll see backpacks and canoes in my muley pics as well. ;) I believe in hunting smarter not harder. Breaking a critter down and carrying it on your back is fast and easy versus the old gut and drag method.

so why am I always beat after I pack a muley out of the bush!!:wink:

[dana]

Ever try to drag a muley through blowdown with gravity pulling you the wrong direction??? I'll take a backpack over dragging any day!!!! Even if a critter is in a cutblock with the truck a couple hundred metres away, I still would prefer to throw it on my back. Dragging Sucks!!!!

[GoatGuy]

Goatguy, Well the answer to your question is pretty obvious..if 1/2 of the harvest questionaires are chucked so is your probability of quality harvest data...Insurance companies calculations on probabilities are usually based on occurances...

You're making assumptions and coming to conclusions about something you don't understand. That is really the crux of the problem.

[dana]

One of the best examples of Stats in our common lives happens during an election. How do they make the call on who won only an hour and a half after the polls close?? They certainly haven't counted every single ballot that fast have they? And yet they can declare the winner relatively fast. All a matter of stats. Are they wrong by not counting every vote before they declare the winner? Not normally.

[hunter1993ap]

Ever try to drag a muley through blowdown with gravity pulling you the wrong direction??? I'll take a backpack over dragging any day!!!! Even if a critter is in a cutblock with the truck a couple hundred metres away, I still would prefer to throw it on my back. Dragging Sucks!!!!

I see where your coming from,, comparing dragging vs packing. but neither is easy, especially if you have some distance to cover. pack for me as well. I know guys who have drug critters out of 3-4 km of blowdown. I cant even fathom the agony they went through!!

[dana]

That is hunting. The hard work starts after you pull the pin. I've seen guys fight for hours upon hours to get a quad to their moose that was only 500 yards from their truck. Meanwhile I've solo packed out moose that were a greater distance from the truck in a couple of hours. That is what I mean by hunt smarter, not harder. :) Just because a backpack and your legs are being used doesn't make it harder.

[358mag]

so why am I always beat after I pack a muley out of the bush!!:wink:

Because your dad loads your pack heavier than his .......:-D

[dana]

Hahaha. Kids do in fact make great pack mules. ;)

[hunter1993ap]

I do it by choice hahaha!!! I try to make it as easy as I can for my dad!

[aggiehunter]

I can't remember who said it and her name escapes me but I have never been the president of the UBBC. Let's get back to the message here..we all love whitetail deer!

[aggiehunter]

Goatguy..I would sincerely appreciate you helping me to understand...I just thought it would be cool to find out how many specific hunter Q. cards were sent out vs the replies...that's all....

[HarryToolips]

Goatguy..I would sincerely appreciate you helping me to understand...I just thought it would be cool to find out how many specific hunter Q. cards were sent out vs the replies...that's all....
I fill mine out every year, and I'm sure the rest of us on this site since we all give a crap do as well.. the best thing we can do is harp on the fellow hunters that we know who don't take the time to fill em out, we gotta tell em they should be..the more data the ministry has, the better in the long run for all us hunters...

[aggiehunter]

HT...absolutely right..

[GoatGuy]

Goatguy..I would sincerely appreciate you helping me to understand...I just thought it would be cool to find out how many specific hunter Q. cards were sent out vs the replies...that's all....

The first question is: How many responses do you need?

The second question is: How do you get there?

[aggiehunter]

..my curiosity lies in knowing how many are sent out and how many get returned...that's all...this thread should go back on the rail...

[Wild one]

I have 1 issue with BC's harvest surveys

Almost every survey I have received is for wolf and game birds very rare I get a survey for a big game species I have hunted under general tag. I have 3 hunters in my house and we have all been experiencing the same thing. I know others who will no longer fill out the survey cards because it never has the species they have hunted. Filled out a lot of surveys that will be of little help when it comes to harvest numbers. I think outside of LEH hunts I have only filled in info on black bear and I can only think of 1 time having deer on my survey.

Understand how estimated numbers are reached but if there is a large number of hunters receiving surveys that are not collecting data from what they actually hunt you are missing out on a lot of data.

[Fisher-Dude]

Val Geist: "BC has one of the best systems of tracking harvest data in North America."

That's more than good enough for me.

Whiney brats that don't fill out data cards because "They aren't for the species I like hunting" I have no time for. Suck it up and do your part for game management, Princess.

[Wild one]

Val Geist: "BC has one of the best systems of tracking harvest data in North America."

That's more than good enough for me.

Whiney brats that don't fill out data cards because "They aren't for the species I like hunting" I have no time for. Suck it up and do your part for game management, Princess.


Filled out many cards that consisted of species I did not hunt.

Kind of a waste of paper and time though

BC's system is really nothing special so I don't see what there really is to be happy about. We are not the only place that uses mandatory reporting on some species and random data collecting with hunter surveys.

But FD I would not expect any different from you as you spend most of your time blinded by the thinking BC is great and needs no improvement.

Simple thing I was told when it comes to business you will never improve if you spend all your time thinking you are the greatest. Don't matter if you think it is good if it can be improved

But you seem like the guy who is happy with mediocre

[GoatGuy]

We'll go through the posts/arguments backwards.


..my curiosity lies in knowing how many are sent out and how many get returned...that's all...this thread should go back on the rail...

was preceded by this

Goatguy..I would sincerely appreciate you helping me to understand...I just thought it would be cool to find out how many specific hunter Q. cards were sent out vs the replies...that's all....
and this

Please...Please....no more bogus studies from a randomly mailed out card sent to "some"...please. And the survey says....

That is called curiosity? Can only imagine what the definitions of obtuse and ignorant are.

FYI the response rate is 60-70%. To put it in context, that is much higher than most of the reviews I've seen in terms of mail-out samples for both the medical and dental professions (procedures, satisfaction etc) - if you're worried about the response rate from hunters I hope you don't ever go to a doctor.

Either way the important part is the type/quality and number of responses when dealing with statistics. You would know that if you were interested in learning or understanding.

Guess I should have recognized the objective of your posts wasn't to understand statistics, sampling or the quality of harvest stats, it was simply to detract from the thread without rational or than self-rationalizing - seems to be quite a few of those lately. Will try to engage people who want to understand, or improve the resource in the future.

[GoatGuy]

Filled out many cards that consisted of species I did not hunt.

Kind of a waste of paper and time though

BC's system is really nothing special so I don't see what there really is to be happy about. We are not the only place that uses mandatory reporting on some species and random data collecting with hunter surveys.

But FD I would not expect any different from you as you spend most of your time blinded by the thinking BC is great and needs no improvement.

Simple thing I was told when it comes to business you will never improve if you spend all your time thinking you are the greatest. Don't matter if you think it is good if it can be improved

But you seem like the guy who is happy with mediocre

It seems there are a number of people who are interested in this.

What I would suggest, to prove or disprove your case, is to conduct a comparative cost-benefit analysis.

So show the difference in the quality of data between both the current method and mandatory reporting through the mail-out survey. Secondly, estimate the difference in costs. If you like you could add another dimension include transitioning to electronic reporting for the mandatory reporting. Third, identify where this funding will come from and compare to current management needs such as inventory.

Show us the numbers and then folks can make a decision.

Please, no talky, just show how it would be better and how much it would cost with numbers.

[Wild one]

It seems there are a number of people who are interested in this.

What I would suggest, to prove or disprove your case, is to conduct a comparative cost-benefit analysis.

So show the difference in the quality of data between both the current method and mandatory reporting through the mail-out survey. Secondly, estimate the difference in costs. If you like you could add another dimension include transitioning to electronic reporting for the mandatory reporting. Third, identify where this funding will come from and compare to current management needs such as inventory.

Show us the numbers and then folks can make a decision.

Please, no talky, just show how it would be better and how much it would cost with numbers.


No problem with the use of surveys and in my opinion mandatory reporting is in place for the species it should be already.

My only issue is a lot of the surveys I have received and others have are for species that are not the most common targets. Simply put mailed out surveys should at least have a portion of the most commonly hunted game species in BC that do not demand mandatory reporting if you are successful. It would be safe to say moose, elk, WT, and mule deer are the 4 most commonly hunted so why not have at least 1 or more of these species on every mailed out survey.

No exaggeration it is rare for the 3 hunters in my house to see any of those 4 species on a survey card and I know other hunters getting the same thing. Now this may just be our luck but I wonder how many others are getting survey cards that are not for the common 4 species. I have filled out more surveys about birds and wolf than anything.

This is really is a small change that could increase the sample size of data with little to no change in cost or change to how things are done. This should be a fairly realistic change.

Any reason this would not be reasonable?

[GoatGuy]

No problem with the use of surveys and in my opinion mandatory reporting is in place for the species it should be already.

My only issue is a lot of the surveys I have received and others have are for species that are not the most common targets. Simply put mailed out surveys should at least have a portion of the most commonly hunted game species in BC that do not demand mandatory reporting if you are successful. It would be safe to say moose, elk, WT, and mule deer are the 4 most commonly hunted so why not have at least 1 or more of these species on every mailed out survey.

No exaggeration it is rare for the 3 hunters in my house to see any of those 4 species on a survey card and I know other hunters getting the same thing. Now this may just be our luck but I wonder how many others are getting survey cards that are not for the common 4 species. I have filled out more surveys about birds and wolf than anything.

This is really is a small change that could increase the sample size of data with little to no change in cost or change to how things are done. This should be a fairly realistic change.

Any reason this would not be reasonable?

Yes, because it's simple random sampling.

Criteria: each member is chosen by chance, each one equally likely to be chosen, every sample of a given size has the same chance of selection.

If you pick and chose who gets one and who doesn't you will bias the data.

[Wild one]

Yes, because it's simple random sampling.

Criteria: each member is chosen by chance, each one equally likely to be chosen, every sample of a given size has the same chance of selection.

If you pick and chose who gets one and who doesn't you will bias the data.

Understand it is random and pass of what we receive as luck of the draw. Just it is years of this luck.

What I am saying it would be easy to increase the sample size of the species that are most commonly hunted and intern be able to get a more accurate count. With these species being the main target of hunters that are not mandatory harvest this is where hunters are more likely to have an impact on the population.

Moose, elk, and deer are also where the population issues are most common for species not on mandatory report.

This is not about creating bias data but instead collecting a large sample size from the survey for these species giving the ability to have a more accurate count.

An increase in sample size does not hurt an estimate as long as you know you increased the sample size.

[Onesock]

If we all put our confidence in surveys we would have a NDP government in BC right now!

[Wild one]

If we all put our confidence in surveys we would have a NDP government in BC right now!

True estimates from surveys in the end only give you an educated guess

[J_T]

It seems there are a number of people who are interested in this.

What I would suggest, to prove or disprove your case, is to conduct a comparative cost-benefit analysis.

So show the difference in the quality of data between both the current method and mandatory reporting through the mail-out survey. Secondly, estimate the difference in costs. If you like you could add another dimension include transitioning to electronic reporting for the mandatory reporting. Third, identify where this funding will come from and compare to current management needs such as inventory.

Show us the numbers and then folks can make a decision.

Please, no talky, just show how it would be better and how much it would cost with numbers.

I didn't think that wildlife was managed on a cost-benefit basis. It seems the passion hunters and conservationists have for "their" wildlife would suggest they are 'priceless'.

Paper surveys require data entry of Gov staff personnel. Fact: When staff enter data there is a higher degree of error versus when clients enter and submit their own information. In other paper based systems we have determined that data entry time/cost accounts for approximately 75% of staff allocation. Shifting to a 'client-centric' model reduces operational overhead. In addition this shift reflects a more 'dynamic' collection of information due the simple fact, when a hunter submits information it is immediately in the database and available for analysis.

Speaking of databases. The current system of managing information is antiquated, out of date and costs more than Government would like to support. In fact, they are running out of qualified IT support staff to manage a system of that era. Shifting to newer technology will provide for leveraging existing corporate services. Will provide for integration to other provincial data sets and the result of which may be both visual and data analysis. Shifting to a more responsive/current database will provide for more and varied queries of the data. A new system will provide for mandatory reporting, online, with less overhead for Government, more flexibility in analyzing the data and the ability to generate visual reports as well as attribute reports. Want to extend it to online licencing and LEH? Easily done. Cost efficient and LEH's could be issued in a matter of days after closing.

Where does the money come from? A business case that says, it's time. Reduced operational costs (data entry): Reduction of existing antiquated high cost servers, reduction of high cost support. Realization that data entry errors will be reduced. Increased data management, data analysis opportunities. A performanced-based GIS supported system that readily and more accurately supports the business of science based wildlife management.

A more robust database provides a higher number of model analysis. Add online licencing, LEH submissions and cost recovery on the system is exponentially better than what we currently are spending.

[Fisher-Dude]

Fact: When staff enter data there is a higher degree of error versus when clients enter and submit their own information.

Really? I hadn't heard that before. Source?

[J_T]

Really? I hadn't heard that before. Source? Really not interested in putting effort into your trivial demands. Doesn't mean I don't have information to support the statement. For the most part, if your intelligent, it is simply common sense. Think about it. I'm really not worried about your opinion on the qualifications of my statements. Accept them as true, or don't.

[GoatGuy]

True estimates from surveys in the end only give you an educated guess


If we all put our confidence in surveys we would have a NDP government in BC right now!

A few things should strike both of you when comparing predictive or ex ante results versus ex post. If it doesn't, and it appears that way, you simply do not understand how any of this works.


Understand it is random and pass of what we receive as luck of the draw. Just it is years of this luck.

What I am saying it would be easy to increase the sample size of the species that are most commonly hunted and intern be able to get a more accurate count. With these species being the main target of hunters that are not mandatory harvest this is where hunters are more likely to have an impact on the population.

Moose, elk, and deer are also where the population issues are most common for species not on mandatory report.

This is not about creating bias data but instead collecting a large sample size from the survey for these species giving the ability to have a more accurate count.

An increase in sample size does not hurt an estimate as long as you know you increased the sample size.

Have to recognize the quality of the data and diminishing returns of effort versus quality. Secondly, in the context of wildlife management, what are you trying to measure?

If you're worried about hunters having an impact on the population with antler restricted and LEH male only harvest we have a problem that isn't related to data collection or sampling. This is a lack of understanding the fundamentals of wildlife management.

[GoatGuy]

JT,

The fundamental question was about changing to mandatory reporting from the current sample. Your post doesn't tackle that issue (you hijacker :-D).

Yes moving to e licensing is a good thing, but that isn't what we're talking about. Aggiehunter and Wildone have expressed an interest in moving from sampling to mandatory reporting. To substantiate that a cost-benefit is the best approach particularly given budgetary limitations and opportunity costs. They have claimed moving to mandatory reporting will have positive net benefits so - let's see the proof or even a shred of evidence instead of verbal diarrhea. If you want to conduct it please go ahead, show us the numbers and we can get on with life instead of having to listen to a bunch of nebulous comments and banter that isn't informed with any data, fact or reason.

We conduct cost-benefit analysis all the time. That is the way the world turns.

If wildlife was priceless people would be willing to forgo everything else in their life - they aren't.

[Wild one]

A few things should strike both of you when comparing predictive or ex ante results versus ex post. If it doesn't, and it appears that way, you simply do not understand how any of this works.



Have to recognize the quality of the data and diminishing returns of effort versus quality. Secondly, in the context of wildlife management, what are you trying to measure?

If you're worried about hunters having an impact on the population with antler restricted and LEH male only harvest we have a problem that isn't related to data collection or sampling. This is a lack of understanding the fundamentals of wildlife management.


Yes, survey data is going to be a lot closer than poll results but you cannot argue the results are not exact numbers intern they are an estimate(guess). Depending on the sample size of data vs the number hunters it can very on accuracy. Smaller sample size gives you lower know factual data then a larger sample size. It is hard to argue this fact.

Yes, I have reasonable understanding on how survey numbers can be used to achieve estimates on harvest numbers of a species in an MU and BC wide. It is really no more than a math problems. You receive sample harvest info from a % of BC hunter which includes days involved hunting said species, successful or not, if even targeted the species, and mu's hunted.

The basics of it is taking the numbers you receive and coming up with overall averages and applying them to number of BC hunters that season.

The one that is honestly blurred is deciding how many hunters targeted said species in an MU. This is assuming that you are not receiving data for anyone hunting that species in an MU. I am assuming in this case you would be using data received showing number of hunters from neighbouring MU's coming up with the average and applying that number to the neighbouring MU lacking data.

Really don't feel like typing anymore on how survey data is used but yes I could add more^^


Never good to assume people do not understand something just because they view things differently.



As for no point in worrying about a species do to how seasons are well if that is the case why bother with a survey if the harvest numbers are irrelevant?

Only reason than would be if you a receiving very low success rates it maybe an indicator to observe that population


The really ? I have is what is wrong with having a larger sample size of data when in the end only it only increases known numbers in calculation process.

[Wild one]

By the way GG I did find where Alberta is also attempting to lower WT numbers in hopes to limit mule deer predation.

I actually know 1 of the areas very well and it has a very high WT population(higher than anything I have seen in BC by far) and mule deer are in very low numbers and are only in small pockets. This area is typical low land thick bush country. There is no place in BC that is close to the same in overall deer numbers that I have experienced.

I still have not found anything proving this theory as a long term effective solution or anything showing it having great results

It is still not being applied the same in Alberta as it is here and not a blanket management plan

[GoatGuy]

We do not pull estimates from neighbouring MUs.

The response rate is calculated with gives us a range. No response occurs in areas with little to no use, so it really isn't that important and if we were concerned (as we sometimes do with cougar harvest and sightings) we simply pick up the phone.

I can tell you don't know how sampling works but the way you write. You would know the implications of diminishing returns and would understand why we use sampling instead of mandatory reporting through a mail-out survey if you had a fundamental grasp on statistics and sampling.

Because there's little to no female harvest in BC all survey data gives us nowadays is trend information on populations. The way things are setup over-harvest of males which results in a population decline is extremely unlikely.

To bring things to light I can put this into hunter sampling seeing as we have a lot of people whining and complaining and as always showing no numbers to substantiate their claims. Make this very basic. We'll ignore stratification and the species we'll just sample the hunter population for something, say their sex.

Let's say each survey costs us $10 including data entry (that is cheap)
We will keep the methodology simple realizing there will be some error and bias introduced

If we want to sample 100,000 hunters we need 383 to ensure a confidence interval of 95% and error of 5%. Given our current response rate (which is often around 50%) that would mean about 766 surveys.

So to sample that would require about $7,660

Now, to bring this up to a confidence interval of 99% and an allowable error of 1% we would require 14,267 responses. We would also expect the response rate to go down, but for now we will keep this steady.

So the new cost is $285,340 - and we have grossly under-estimated this as the relationship between responses and surveys sent is not constant. There would likely be second and third mailings required.

Now if we wanted mandatory reporting meaning all 100,000 to report that would never happen. Having said that, Dillman's method which is the most commonly accepted method amongst academics and researchers tells us we could get a response rate of 80%. Dillman's method requires five mailings IIRC. I would imagine your survey cost will probably quadruple due to the number of mailings and survey effort so $40 per response. Even then following dillman's methodology might not work as no one tries to sample at that level.

Now, if we can theoretically get an 80% response rate, which is 80,000 hunters at $40 per response that adds up to $3.2 Million which is more than we seem to have for inventory every year. This would give us a confidence interval of 99% and error of about 0.2%.

There are several details omitted in this just to make it easy and several errors and traps that a researcher would want to deal with ahead of time. This however, gives you a decent idea of exactly what this all means.

If you want to spend all of the money the branch has and go to the bank for a loan for hunter survey to increase the confidence interval by 4% and the error by 4.8% I suppose that is your prerogative. Personally things like inventory and habitat enhancement seem like more important priorities.

[Wild one]

Not once did I encourage mandatory reporting

Was only saying I had an understanding of how numbers were reached with the survey. Not game numbers or anything else

You did clear up regarding lack of survey info on an MU

Now what you have shown me is the data from hunter surveys is a waste of everyone's time and money because it is really being looked at as no use to management

[GoatGuy]

Not once did I encourage mandatory reporting

Was only saying I had an understanding of how numbers were reached with the survey. Not game numbers or anything else

You did clear up regarding lack of survey info on an MU

Now what you have shown me is the data from hunter surveys is a waste of everyone's time and money because it is really being looked at as no use to management
Because of the way we now manage the high demand species (elk, deer, moose) on what are principally fail-safe seasons (6 pts elk, 4 pt mule deer, LEH moose) it gives us population trend data (the important part), but the reality of it is we aren't likely to impact the population or make drastic changes to the regulations even if we have a stochastic event. With so much landscape level change (increased road density and salvage logging) combined with quads and long range shooters it tends to distort things. It gets complicated in areas of high unregulated harvest and that is a positive externality of the survey. I'm sure someone will bring it up - white-tailed deer will do what they do regardless of the regulations.


Even for things like the calf GOS in 7a the harvest rate was so low, with a 50% decline in the population hunting still isn't likely to eliminate or drastically delay recovery despite what some hunters think. If we were utilizing and harvesting populations (females) at a high rate then there would be much more value.

For things like goats/grizzlies and to a lesser extent sheep (because we can manage through age) the harvest stats are more important. A heavily utilized goat population that has a huge die-off could spell long-term disaster if it goes unnoticed.

At this point a better measure might be to monitor what hunters see.

[Confused]

If licensing goes online, and reporting is mandatory. Wouldn't it just be simpler just to say you must report or you get do not get your license, and have that reporting done online, prior to the hunter getting the next years license. Can't see the cost being what you have indicated as there would be no "mailings", or labour cost, other than initial setup. Would it get to 100% accuracy....no, because some people are not completely honest, but it would be very close with minimal extra cost.They do this in other jurisdictions, but I am sure you already know this.

[GoatGuy]

Yes, with online licensing there are a ton of things we can do.

[Fisher-Dude]

Really not interested in putting effort into your trivial demands. Doesn't mean I don't have information to support the statement. For the most part, if your intelligent, it is simply common sense. Think about it. I'm really not worried about your opinion on the qualifications of my statements. Accept them as true, or don't.

Didn't think it was anything more than your opinion versus what you stated as fact.

I could search studies for eons and not find one that says professional data entry personnel are less accurate than old, computer illiterate hunters trying to punch in their own harvest data.

Judging by the inability of some people to differentiate between your and you're on here, I'm more likely to bias toward the professionals when it comes to computer usage.

Thanks.

[aggiehunter]

Goatguy..I never mentioned obtuse or ignorant..isnt' obtuse an angle..regardless you may look those up at your own leisure. I would suggest the the only way to get "good" stats would be to make it mandatory to report your kills...OMG...I can hear it...the sky is falling....

[aggiehunter]

FisherDude...lets not talk about government staff doing stats when a cheque for .01cent was just sent out by the feds to a deceased soldiers family...please!

[horshur]

I thought about this it only makes sense that you are compounding the possibility of error by having two people handling the info..it probably is not twice as likely but it certainly is more likely....you cannot argue with that and being a professional does not fix false data that the old hunters submit whether by card or computer anyway......

[Fisher-Dude]

FisherDude...lets not talk about government staff doing stats when a cheque for .01cent was just sent out by the feds to a deceased soldiers family...please!

The federal government has what, exactly, to do with provincial wildlife harvest stats?

[boxhitch]

Good info here on how the questionnaire works or doesn't work

I thought the only info gleaned was how many days most hunters hunted to either kill or go meatless. Figured it was skewed when I put in 30 days of hunting with a BBear tag in my pocket and not kill one . Could have had a dozen or so but they don't ask that. Appears I am a poor hunter.

[Onesock]

The stats are almost as skewed as the people defending them!!!!

[Gamebuster]

Why skewed? Lots of selective hunters out there....your harvest relative to your effort would just be part of the random sample and represents the variation that exists out there in harvests relative to effort...still very much meaningful I would think

get the impression there are many people out there that have little understanding of what it means to take a random sampling approach....yet feel they are qualified to comment on the current system.

going to full mandatory reporting makes little sense for all species...it would be expensive (which is partly why one would sample) and there would be no way of measuring error as the sampling approach is gone..how would they know how many didn't report? At least with sampling they would have estimates of error and precision

My vote is to spend their money where it is needed most...counts and big burns

[Onesock]

Counts and burns get my vote also. But doing a survey because it is cheap? Cheap goin in cheap comin out. If you want good results you have to pay for it.

[J_T]

JT,

The fundamental question was about changing to mandatory reporting from the current sample. Your post doesn't tackle that issue (you hijacker :-D).

Yes moving to e licensing is a good thing, but that isn't what we're talking about. Aggiehunter and Wildone have expressed an interest in moving from sampling to mandatory reporting. To substantiate that a cost-benefit is the best approach particularly given budgetary limitations and opportunity costs. They have claimed moving to mandatory reporting will have positive net benefits so - let's see the proof or even a shred of evidence instead of verbal diarrhea. If you want to conduct it please go ahead, show us the numbers and we can get on with life instead of having to listen to a bunch of nebulous comments and banter that isn't informed with any data, fact or reason.

We conduct cost-benefit analysis all the time. That is the way the world turns.

If wildlife was priceless people would be willing to forgo everything else in their life - they aren't.
I didn't think I was hijacking. I did feel I was presenting the cost benefit analysis. I guess in my limited time, I didn't do a very good job of that.

Anytime FD starts to go off on discussions like this, I tend to lose interest. A good discussion, if we can keep out the pettiness and divisiveness which is a part of his profile. On this site, is it really important if I use "your" or the more correct "you're"? There are so many literary experts on here I should have known I'd take a ruler across the knuckles.


What I was attempting to portray; if we shift our data collection approach we can expect two things will occur. When we shift to a “client-centric” model of data submission and entry, we increase accuracy and we reduce Government operational overhead for allocation of data entry resources.


The essence of a cost benefit analysis.


To qualify my ‘testimony’ for the benefit of FD, I have been involved in the data migration and implementation of 15 major projects over the last 7 years alone. Shifting from paper-based systems to online client-centric systems. Seven jurisdictions in Canada, as well as Greenland, Peru, Colombia and Palestine. The total revenue from these systems is responsible for the largest economic revenue stream in every government we operate within. Business areas of data analysis are, Mining, Aggregate, Land Title, Petroleum, Water, Oil and Gas and Consultation. Specific areas of analysis are, Client, rights acquisition, contract management, auditing, control and historical information.


To dispute his statement; “I'm more likely to bias toward the professionals when it comes to computer usage”. Our findings would suggest this is completely false and likely based in conjecture and assumption. Simply, there is no question, it is the Government staff users that create the errors. For the following reasons. When new data entry personnel start work, they often don’t understand the fields to use in data entry. The data entry systems have no validation rules. They have to employ human (their own) discretion at times when evaluating paper information. Sometimes the data submitted on paper, does not fit into a table/field in an online data entry application and they slot it anywhere they can find to put it without generating an error.


The biggest reason data entry errors are reduced when shifting to a client-centric model is that clients are invested in ‘their’ business. Gov staff take breaks, vacation, don’t care, get tired and make mistakes. Government typically don’t have Quality Assurance checks built in to data entry systems.


In one small jurisdiction, we analyzed 44,000 objects and found high error ratios. In another jurisdiction we analyzed 5 terra bytes of data and found gross errors through-out. The biggest area for error is in client profiles. Staff would use, “Fisher Dude, F. Dude, Dude F, Dude Fisher” as defining a client. Thus creating multiple clients when one in fact will do. In old databases they often only use one field/table to define a client, newer systems will utilize separate fields for defining a client profile. When you or I input our own name into a system, we generally do it the same way every time (integrity and confidence). Client, data reconciliation takes months to sort out for transition and migration. We find high levels of duplication and redundancy errors due to Gov staff data entry.


In another jurisdiction we are working in right now we find 50% of the data is unusable (does not have a unique key) (has no child/parent relationship) without additional data migration management work at source. This all comes as a result of Government staff doing data entry work. In most jurisdictions we develop a data management and data transition strategy. We prefer to clean data at source, however there are often times we can carry out some data cleaning during migration. We typically find that up to 5 “Data Lifts” are required prior to acceptance as clean data. We employ analysis and quality control at every data lift.


So, whether we are sampling data, or it’s mandatory, our findings have been accurate in every business area, in every jurisdiction, we must suspect large error ratios in Government entered data.


When we finish data analysis work, and shift to a client-centric model, and build ‘pre-validation’ rules into the application the error rate drops to virtually zero.


When we shift to a client-centric model in most jurisdictions we realize an operational savings of approximately just under $1 million annually.


More accurate data, at less cost. Whether it’s mandatory, voluntary or sample data, at least what we use, has better integrity when users/clients enter their own data.


Slightly off topic however just to close off my discussion here, there is potential to add tremendous value through online licencing, more accurate profile management, GIS-location based information, linked to the user’s profile (IE Client A lives in the LML, however the tags cut are normally in Reg 6) and post hunt/harvest data collection all in a much more robust and flexible database. Shift away from the current licencing and tag system in an online performance-based robust GIS supported database.