Spike/fork moose seasons for 2010/11 in Regions 3, 4 & 8

[Fisher-Dude]

Proposal is to change from Sep 20 - Oct 31 to Oct 15 - Nov 15, except for 4E which would remain Oct 15 - 31. Some 4W MUs would get a spike/fork season. Region 8 spike/forks would go to compulsory inspection.

[Gunner]

Proposal is to change from Sep 20 - Oct 31 to Oct 15 - Nov 15, except for 4E which would remain Oct 15 - 31. Some 4W MUs would get a spike/fork season. Region 8 spike/forks would go to compulsory inspection.Is it proposed to go Oct.15th to Nov 15th for Region 8?That would leave the bulls alone during the rut,and would decrease the spike/fork harvest significantly I believe.Compulsary inspection is not a big deal,as moose in Region 8 already must be Compulsary Reported,and it still gives us a month of moose hunting.The only downside is the only rut hunting will be LEH or G/O. Gunner

[Riverratz]

I don't hunt those regions, but a casual observation would be that the new season dates effectively remove any hunting during the rut, thereby reducing hunter opportunity of successful harvest.

Is "compulsory inspection" an effort to reduce poaching of questionable immy's?

[Fisher-Dude]

Is it proposed to go Oct.15th to Nov 15th for Region 8?That would leave the bulls alone during the rut,and would decrease the spike/fork harvest significantly I believe.Compulsary inspection is not a big deal,and it still gives us a month of moose hunting.The only downside is the only rut hunting will be LEH or G/O. Gunner

Yep, that's the proposal. Feeds the GO's desire to kick residents out of the bush during the Oct 1 - 14 rut hunt. Time to move the LEH hunts to Oct 15 as well, eh? :wink:

[CanuckShooter]

Yep, that's the proposal. Feeds the GO's desire to kick residents out of the bush during the Oct 1 - 14 rut hunt. Time to move the LEH hunts to Oct 15 as well, eh? :wink:

Time to put the GOs clients on LEH....level the playing field...:mrgreen:

[Fisher-Dude]

Time to put the GOs clients on LEH....level the playing field...:mrgreen:

How about we ensure that resident hunter priority is met before we allow foreigners to shoot our moose? If we're on high-odds LEH, why should a foreigner be shooting any moose?

[Husky7mm]

Agree but who can change this? It is easy to sit on the web and complane.

[Fisher-Dude]

Agree but who can change this? It is easy to sit on the web and complane.

Write to your MLA and tell him how your rights as a resident hunter under the allocation policy aren't being met. Write to the editor of your local paper. Write to Barry Penner. Write to Tom Ethier and Ralph Archibald. Support www.residentpriority.ca (http://www.residentpriority.ca) to fight for your rights as a resident hunter.

[The Hermit]

How about we ensure that resident hunter priority is met before we allow foreigners to shoot our moose? If we're on high-odds LEH, why should a foreigner be shooting any moose?

On this point we are all brothers, brother! And not just for moose!!

[KevinB]

If we're on high-odds LEH, why should a foreigner be shooting any moose?


I would find it pretty hard to disagree with that statement in any way FD. I think most random people off the street would see things that way as well.


here's another way to think of it....

Let's say for argument's sake there aren't enough 2X4's left for BC residents to buy as many as they needed.

Now, let's say the government introduces an LEH system for BC residents for 2X4's, because there weren't enough trees to go around. You know, so that everyone might get a chance at some of the scarce 2X4's.

Every few years (or once in your lifetime if you lived in certain areas) you'd be allowed to go shopping for 2X4's for a short 2-week period.
You'd only be allowed to buy those nice 2X4's at certain stores, none of which happened to anywhere near where you live.
And if the store didn't have any 2X4's in stock during those 2 weeks, you'd have to wait until you got drawn again before you could finally finish your basement. Or simply put a roof over your head.
But that's okay, because we're told there really aren't enough 2X4's and we're all trying to share a scarce resource.

But now let's say that lumber stores found out that they could sell the 2X4's, that are from trees grown in BC and owned by BC citizens, to foreigners for much more $$ than they could sell them to residents.

If you were a foreigner, you could buy some BC 2X4's every year, if you wanted, because you are exempt from the draw system. You'd even have access to the best 2X4's, so that you could pay even more $$ for them and the store could make more profit.
You might even be allowed to drive to the store, when the "lucky" LEH drawn residents had to walk.
And then the stores would start lobbying the government to put other sizes of lumber onto LEH as well, because you, as a non-BC resident, liked it better when the stores were less crowded with pesky locals. You'd pay more to shop in an empty store.




Sounds completely ludicrous doesn't it?

Substitute "2X4" for "moose" and suddenly you have what sounds to me like the state of moose hunting in much of BC right now.

I'd have a better chance of hunting moose in most of southern BC if I moved to the states, made some $$, and spent it on going on a guided BC moose hunt every year in the area of my choice.

[Stillhunting]

Looks like the assault on resident hunter opportunities by the GOs is continuing in full force. I don't think they'll back off until everything is under LEH, even grouse. Really, how many spike-fork bulls are harvested every year? It's ridiculously difficult to find an elusive spike-fork bull during the rut, and be absolutely positive in your ID that you can take a shot, never mind post rut when finding any bull can be extremely tough. I've been fortunate enough to harvest two in the last three years but have seen over 150 moose during those three trips. Both of those moose were taken during the peak of the rut, and I don't think I would even bother buying a tag if I could not hunt them at this time. This proposal has no basis in conservation from what I can see in the 300 days a year I spend in the bush as the moose in region 3 are doing very well. How pathetic are the GOs in this province that they can't have any competition no matter how restricted (spike-fork) during the moose rut? Give me a break. Learn your territory, learn how to call and you'll see more than enough moose, that's your job. The GOs are fortunate enough to be able to make a living off of public land with regulations that already favour them tremendously, and they demand more restrictions on resident hunters. They absolutely disgust me.:evil:

[dana]

Over the last few years, I've seen more Immys after Nov 1st than I can shake a stick at. It is my belief that many of these yearling bulls are scared $hitless during the rut and are very much hiding so they don't get beat up by a bigger bull. IMO I think a regulation change like this will actually result in more spike/forks getting killed.

[limit time]

How about we ensure that resident hunter priority is met before we allow foreigners to shoot our moose? If we're on high-odds LEH, why should a foreigner be shooting any moose?

Good luck on that... the guides have more pull than regular hunters, and the amount of money the non-resident hunters spend is way more than the resident hunters.

Like hell the province and guides are going to loose that money! IMHO, they would rather shut down all hunting to Canadians, and let more non-residents hunt.

[killman]

Agree but who can change this? It is easy to sit on the web and complain.

How about a Hunter road block on the Highway to Whistler.:mrgreen:

[Fisher-Dude]

Good luck on that... the guides have more pull than regular hunters, and the amount of money the non-resident hunters spend is way more than the resident hunters.

Like hell the province and guides are going to loose that money! IMHO, they would rather shut down all hunting to Canadians, and let more non-residents hunt.

Actually, resident hunters and anglers dump half a billion dollars annually into BC's pocket. Non-residents don't come close.

[mcrae]

Over the last few years, I've seen more Immys after Nov 1st than I can shake a stick at. It is my belief that many of these yearling bulls are scared $hitless during the rut and are very much hiding so they don't get beat up by a bigger bull. IMO I think a regulation change like this will actually result in more spike/forks getting killed.

I agree I didn't see a bull until the day after my LEH was done:mrgreen: I then spotted two spikes in November while creeping around for whitetails. I do however not agree with the change it takes away some quality hunting for some. I have some older fellas in the area I live that where absolutely giddy they got to hunt spike bulls locally and early last year... First with the x-bows and then with a rifle a guy would think they had won a lottery listening to them talk about it. IMO thats what its suppose to be about...

[Gunner]

I agree I didn't see a bull until the day after my LEH was done:mrgreen: I then spotted two spikes in November while creeping around for whitetails. I do however not agree with the change it takes away some quality hunting for some. I have some older fellas in the area I live that where absolutely giddy they got to hunt spike bulls locally and early last year... First with the x-bows and then with a rifle a guy would think they had won a lottery listening to them talk about it. IMO thats what its suppose to be about...Yep,that's what it's all about!It's great to see older guys who have hunted all their lives excited about a new opportunity.Meanwhile we have the MOE talking out of both sides of their mouths,increasing opportunity in some ways(Elk GOS,),and taking away in others,as in the immy seasons.One of their problems is plain and simple,a lack of funding to do inventories.I maintain from what I've seen personally that the moose population in Region 8 is still increasing.However there HAVE been numerous poaching incidents this past season or two.I believe that this new regulation is aimed more at ease of enforcement than over any concern about bull numbers.My thoughts are that with increased enforcement(pipedream!),and a Region 8 wolf season,(there are 2 packs working my area,and they concentrate on the moose wintering areas),Region 8 immys could stand more harvest.We'll see. Gunner

[6616]

Harvest data just in on fall 2009 Region 4 moose harvest (bulls only).

57 s/f shot in GOS, of these 2 or 3 harvested by non-residents (unallocated).

163 harvested under resident LEH (80% of allocated harvest)

42 harvested by non-residents under guide quota. (20% of allocated allocated)



Total allocated harvest 205 bulls. Total harvest 262 bulls.

This is out of a regional population estimate of 5800 to 6800 moose with an bull population estimated at 2000 to 2200. Harvest rate = .045 to .038 of total estimated population, or .12 to .13 of estimated bull population.

[Jagermeister]

I would find it pretty hard to disagree with that statement in any way FD. I think most random people off the street would see things that way as well.


here's another way to think of it....

Let's say for argument's sake there aren't enough 2X4's left for BC residents to buy as many as they needed.

Now, let's say the government introduces an LEH system for BC residents for 2X4's, because there weren't enough trees to go around. You know, so that everyone might get a chance at some of the scarce 2X4's.

Every few years (or once in your lifetime if you lived in certain areas) you'd be allowed to go shopping for 2X4's for a short 2-week period.
You'd only be allowed to buy those nice 2X4's at certain stores, none of which happened to anywhere near where you live.
And if the store didn't have any 2X4's in stock during those 2 weeks, you'd have to wait until you got drawn again before you could finally finish your basement. Or simply put a roof over your head.
But that's okay, because we're told there really aren't enough 2X4's and we're all trying to share a scarce resource.

But now let's say that lumber stores found out that they could sell the 2X4's, that are from trees grown in BC and owned by BC citizens, to foreigners for much more $$ than they could sell them to residents.

If you were a foreigner, you could buy some BC 2X4's every year, if you wanted, because you are exempt from the draw system. You'd even have access to the best 2X4's, so that you could pay even more $$ for them and the store could make more profit.
You might even be allowed to drive to the store, when the "lucky" LEH drawn residents had to walk.
And then the stores would start lobbying the government to put other sizes of lumber onto LEH as well, because you, as a non-BC resident, liked it better when the stores were less crowded with pesky locals. You'd pay more to shop in an empty store.




Sounds completely ludicrous doesn't it?

Substitute "2X4" for "moose" and suddenly you have what sounds to me like the state of moose hunting in much of BC right now.

I'd have a better chance of hunting moose in most of southern BC if I moved to the states, made some $$, and spent it on going on a guided BC moose hunt every year in the area of my choice.
I really like your analogy, now everyone should be able to grasp the situation at hand.

[Fisher-Dude]

Harvest data just in on fall 2009 Region 4 moose harvest (bulls only).

57 s/f shot in GOS, of these 2 or 3 harvested by non-residents (unallocated).

163 harvested under resident LEH (80% of allocated harvest)

42 harvested by non-residents under guide quota. (20% of allocated allocated)



Total allocated harvest 205 bulls. Total harvest 262 bulls.

This is out of a regional population estimate of 5800 to 6800 moose with an bull population estimated at 2000 to 2200. Harvest rate = .045 to .038 of total estimated population, or .12 to .13 of estimated bull population.

57 immies in all of region 4? That's it? Those "vulnerable" Shiras moose with "such a high proportion of spike/forks that they will get wiped out"?

Gee, so much for GOABC's predicted moose slaughter. :roll:

[MattB]

Over the last few years, I've seen more Immys after Nov 1st than I can shake a stick at. It is my belief that many of these yearling bulls are scared $hitless during the rut and are very much hiding so they don't get beat up by a bigger bull. IMO I think a regulation change like this will actually result in more spike/forks getting killed.
Gotta agree with this. In the Yukon i didnt see any small bulls during the rut. They were all 50-70" bulls. In BC i see immature bulls all the time in November. Part of this could be that the rut is over. But i believe the biggest part is the temperatures are cooler and moose are much more active!

[bayou]

57 immies in all of region 4? That's it? Those "vulnerable" Shiras moose with "such a high proportion of spike/forks that they will get wiped out"?

Gee, so much for GOABC's predicted moose slaughter. :roll:

Actual does seem like a pretty high number since only 163 were taken under the regular resident LEH, it will be interesting to see if the spike fork season harvest has an effect on future resident LEH harvests.

[Fisher-Dude]

Actual does seem like a pretty high number since only 163 were taken under the regular resident LEH, it will be interesting to see if the spike fork season harvest has an effect on future resident LEH harvests.

Ha! Figures our GOABC lacky would chime in. Harvest used to be 500 - 600 bulls per year by residents in region 4, which was sustainable for decades. LEH has been 284 - 387 bulls the past few years, so the combined LEH and immy kill is below that, and everyone can hunt. Sorry Bayou, you get a FAIL again.

[bayou]

Ha! Figures our GOABC lacky would chime in. Harvest used to be 500 - 600 bulls per year by residents in region 4, which was sustainable for decades. LEH has been 284 - 387 bulls the past few years, so the combined LEH and immy kill is below that, and everyone can hunt. Sorry Bayou, you get a FAIL again.

Were do you see the fail, it shows moose harvest #s are down so maybe theres not enough out there to have these extended or extra seasons at all.

[Fisher-Dude]

Were do you see the fail, it shows moose harvest #s are down so maybe theres not enough out there to have these extended or extra seasons at all.

Moose numbers are at a ridiculous high. Some bull:cow ratios are as high as 84:100, when the provincial management targets 30:100. The reason that harvest is down is because LEH is restricted year after year due to pressure from GOABC.

[6616]

Actual does seem like a pretty high number since only 163 were taken under the regular resident LEH, it will be interesting to see if the spike fork season harvest has an effect on future resident LEH harvests.

57 immys is actually fewer then was expected. In Region 8 they have been killing nearly twice that many for many years now and they have only about half the moose population as Region 4. It's obviously reflective of the much shorter season in Region 4, but F&W is worried the harvest in Region 8 has been too high.

The allocated moose AAH for Region 4 is 301 based on 15% of the estimated bull population, and 70 bulls are allocated to non-residents, 231 allocated to residents. The immy harvest is not part of the allocated hunt since it's GOS/no quota hunt. Guides-outfitters can shoot as many as they want, last fall they actually took a few immys.

The actual harvest numbers for the allocated LEH/Quota hunt vary quite a bit from year to year for some reason, 160 in 2005, 169 in 2006, 201 in 2007, 254 in 2008, and 163 in 2009. Non-residents are pretty much always between 40 and 60 bulls harvested.

Region 4 has some of the most up to date moose inventory data in the province, but only in the Elk, Bull, Flathead, and also the Columbia Valley MUs where Columbia Basin F&W Compensation do surveys every couple of years. They also do some post hunt surveys in the south end of Region 4 to evaluate the bull/cow ratios after hunting season. There doesn't appear to be any conservation concerns. The current harvest level appears to be fairly conservative given the total population.

[Fisher-Dude]

The immy harvest is not part of the allocated hunt since it's GOS/no quota hunt. Guides-outfitters can shoot as many as they want, last fall they actually took a few immys.


And yet the GOABC has such an intensive media and political lobby decrying the immy season as a horrible thing. Funny how when someone gives them a few bucks, they run out and shoot some immies.

If this doesn't tell the world what the GOABC are REALLY all about, what will?

[bayou]

57 immys is actually fewer then was expected. In Region 8 they have been killing nearly twice that many for many years now and they have only about half the moose population as Region 4. It's obviously reflective of the much shorter season in Region 4, but F&W is worried the harvest in Region 8 has been too high.

The allocated moose AAH for Region 4 is 301 based on 15% of the estimated bull population, and 70 bulls are allocated to non-residents, 231 allocated to residents. The immy harvest is not part of the allocated hunt since it's GOS/no quota hunt. Guides-outfitters can shoot as many as they want, last fall they actually took a few immys.

The actual harvest numbers for the allocated LEH/Quota hunt vary quite a bit from year to year for some reason, 160 in 2005, 169 in 2006, 201 in 2007, 254 in 2008, and 163 in 2009. Non-residents are pretty much always between 40 and 60 bulls harvested.

Region 4 has some of the most up to date moose inventory data in the province, but only in the Elk, Bull, Flathead, and also the Columbia Valley MUs where Columbia Basin F&W Compensation do surveys every couple of years. They also do some post hunt surveys in the south end of Region 4 to evaluate the bull/cow ratios after hunting season. There doesn't appear to be any conservation concerns. The current harvest level appears to be fairly conservative given the total population.
Well looks like someones numbers are wrong yours are different then what FD posted above infact his are above what you say the resident AAH is, and like I said it will beinteresting to see if it has any effect on future seasons.

[6616]

Well looks like someones numbers are wrong yours are different then what FD posted above infact his are above what you say the resident AAH is, and like I said it will beinteresting to see if it has any effect on future seasons.

My numbers are right off Tara's spreadsheets. The actual AAH was 251 from 2003 to 2006, in 2007 it was increased to 301 when survey numbers resulted in establishing new population estimates.

The varying harvest of the LEH hunt is easier to understand if one looks at the number of permits.
2005 - 160 elk killed, 339 permits, success rate 47%
2006 - 169 ---------432----------------------39%
2007 - 201----------526----------------------38%
2008 - 254----------516----------------------49%
2009 - 163----------570----------------------29% (plus 57 immys)
2010 --------------- 552 tentative.

As stated above moose surveys conducted in 2006, 07, and 08 have resulted in significant revisions to the population estimates per MU. West Kootenay MUs were generally decreased and East Kootenay estimates generally increased. These changes are not necessarily indicative of increasing or declining populations, but are only reflective of better population data now than we had in the past. Kootenay Region moose population status is stated as stable to increasing.

R4 Bull Moose Population Estimates: (Note this is bulls only, overall population estimate is between 5800 and 6800 moose)
2003 - 851 East, 810 West = 1661 bulls
2004 - 851 -----855 ----- = 1706
2005 - 845 -----990 ----- = 1835
2006 - 1275 ----806 ----- = 2081
2007 - 1462 ----693 ----- = 2155
2008 - 1445 ----770 ----- = 2215
2009 - 1494 ----702 ----- = 2196

[6616]

My numbers are right off Tara's spreadsheets. The actual AAH was 251 from 2003 to 2006, in 2007 it was increased to 301 when survey numbers resulted in establishing new population estimates.

The varying harvest of the LEH hunt is easier to understand if one looks at the number of permits.
2005 - 160 elk killed, 339 permits, success rate 47%
2006 - 169 ---------432----------------------39%
2007 - 201----------526----------------------38%
2008 - 254----------516----------------------49%
2009 - 163----------570----------------------29% (plus 57 immys)
2010 --------------- 552 tentative.

As stated above moose surveys conducted in 2006, 07, and 08 have resulted in significant revisions to the population estimates per MU. West Kootenay MUs were generally decreased and East Kootenay estimates generally increased. These changes are not necessarily indicative of increasing or declining populations, but are only reflective of better population data now than we had in the past. Kootenay Region moose population status is stated as stable to increasing.

R4 Bull Moose Population Estimates: (Note this is bulls only, overall population estimate is between 5800 and 6800 moose)
2003 - 851 East, 810 West = 1661 bulls
2004 - 851 -----855 ----- = 1706
2005 - 845 -----990 ----- = 1835
2006 - 1275 ----806 ----- = 2081
2007 - 1462 ----693 ----- = 2155
2008 - 1445 ----770 ----- = 2215
2009 - 1494 ----702 ----- = 2196

PS: FDs statement re bull/cow ratios is correct, 4-23 and 4-01 are upwards of 80/100 bulls, the average across the region is about 38 bulls per 100 cows, probably the best in the province.

[Fisher-Dude]

PS: FDs statement re bull/cow ratios is correct, 4-23 and 4-01 are upwards of 80/100 bulls, the average across the region is about 38 bulls per 100 cows, probably the best in the province.

I don't think "best" is the right word - how about "highest" - surplus animals should be in people's freezers when the demand for moose is so high among resident hunters in BC.

[GoatGuy]

Were do you see the fail, it shows moose harvest #s are down so maybe theres not enough out there to have these extended or extra seasons at all.
What do you think the harvest should be?

[6616]

I don't think "best" is the right word - how about "highest" - surplus animals should be in people's freezers when the demand for moose is so high among resident hunters in BC.

Can't disagree with that....!!!!

[bayou]

My numbers are right off Tara's spreadsheets. The actual AAH was 251 from 2003 to 2006, in 2007 it was increased to 301 when survey numbers resulted in establishing new population estimates.

The varying harvest of the LEH hunt is easier to understand if one looks at the number of permits.
2005 - 160 elk killed, 339 permits, success rate 47%
2006 - 169 ---------432----------------------39%
2007 - 201----------526----------------------38%
2008 - 254----------516----------------------49%
2009 - 163----------570----------------------29% (plus 57 immys)
2010 --------------- 552 tentative.

As stated above moose surveys conducted in 2006, 07, and 08 have resulted in significant revisions to the population estimates per MU. West Kootenay MUs were generally decreased and East Kootenay estimates generally increased. These changes are not necessarily indicative of increasing or declining populations, but are only reflective of better population data now than we had in the past. Kootenay Region moose population status is stated as stable to increasing.

R4 Bull Moose Population Estimates: (Note this is bulls only, overall population estimate is between 5800 and 6800 moose)
2003 - 851 East, 810 West = 1661 bulls
2004 - 851 -----855 ----- = 1706
2005 - 845 -----990 ----- = 1835
2006 - 1275 ----806 ----- = 2081
2007 - 1462 ----693 ----- = 2155
2008 - 1445 ----770 ----- = 2215
2009 - 1494 ----702 ----- = 2196
Not to sure what Taras spread sheet is about but it says number of elk killed I thought this was a thread on moose.

[bayou]

Moose numbers are at a ridiculous high. Some bull:cow ratios are as high as 84:100, when the provincial management targets 30:100. The reason that harvest is down is because LEH is restricted year after year due to pressure from GOABC.
Were do you see restriction on LEH according to 6616s numbers and if he is talking moose not elk the number of LEHs went up from 08 to 09 yet the harvest dropped dramatically maybe when you guys are doing your moose count your including ones from non-huntable areas like you do with your sheep counts.

[6616]

Not to sure what Taras spread sheet is about but it says number of elk killed I thought this was a thread on moose.

That's my own typo, sorry, definitely meant moose not elk.

I don't think anyone knows yet why the 2009 LEH harvest was down. Might have been weather, might have had something to do with more hunters hunting immys, might have something to do with wolves, might have something to do with elk management considering all the new antlerless elk hunting opportunities, who knows, it doesn't appear to have effected the outfitters harvest and these kind of variations happen all the time and are nothing to get alarmed about unless they are repeated and a new trend is apparent. One cannot predict a trend one one seasons harvest. It's not because there were fewer permits and I'm sure Tara will be keeping a close eye on it to see if any trends are developing.

The survey methology has nothing to do with it either, there are moose in every MU in both the EK and WK unlike sheep which only exist in a few MUs. Also the moose in the parks pretty much stay there unlike the sheep who move in and out seasonaly, so the park moose are not counted in these surveys.

[6616]

Were do you see restriction on LEH according to 6616s numbers and if he is talking moose not elk the number of LEHs went up from 08 to 09 yet the harvest dropped dramatically maybe when you guys are doing your moose count your including ones from non-huntable areas like you do with your sheep counts.

By the way Bayou, where do you get the "you guys" and the "your sheep counts", I'm sure you're well aware that none of us are the ones actually doing the surveys.

[Fisher-Dude]

Were do you see restriction on LEH according to 6616s numbers and if he is talking moose not elk the number of LEHs went up from 08 to 09 yet the harvest dropped dramatically maybe when you guys are doing your moose count your including ones from non-huntable areas like you do with your sheep counts.

I guess you can't comprehend the difference between "restriction" and "reduction". I didn't say the number of permits was reduced. I said they have been restricted, by being shifted to areas of lower access. Another fail for you.

One look at the large number they have let out in areas with mountain caribou to reduce prey for wolves and it's obvious that a shift of permits to areas with little access has happened. Very few moose hunters in this province are interested in packing a bull 15 km back to camp. Of course, the way moose quota is allocated in the Kootenays, the good ol' boys of the GOABC get allocation based on the whole region rather than their territories, and they can hunt them right in their cushy little cutblocks.

[bayou]

By the way Bayou, where do you get the "you guys" and the "your sheep counts", I'm sure you're well aware that none of us are the ones actually doing the surveys.
Pretty sure someone said lots of the counts are done by volunteers dont no if you help out or not.

[bayou]

I guess you can't comprehend the difference between "restriction" and "reduction". I didn't say the number of permits was reduced. I said they have been restricted, by being shifted to areas of lower access. Another fail for you.

One look at the large number they have let out in areas with mountain caribou to reduce prey for wolves and it's obvious that a shift of permits to areas with little access has happened. Very few moose hunters in this province are interested in packing a bull 15 km back to camp. Of course, the way moose quota is allocated in the Kootenays, the good ol' boys of the GOABC get allocation based on the whole region rather than their territories, and they can hunt them right in their cushy little cutblocks.
Again dont see no fail but keep trying.
To bad for those that dont want to pack out a moose but I guess if we go by what you say about moose hunters and these areas have little access a GOS would be senseless as well.

[Fisher-Dude]

Again dont see no fail but keep trying.
To bad for those that dont want to pack out a moose but I guess if we go by what you say about moose hunters and these areas have little access a GOS would be senseless as well.

No access - then there's no conservation concern for GOS, right? So, no need for you to oppose it then. Fail #3 for you Bayou - wanna keeep going?

[6616]

Pretty sure someone said lots of the counts are done by volunteers dont no if you help out or not.

Spring carryover counts are done in your area and the Elk Valley by Rod and Gun Club guys but these are not population census surveys. The aerial counts that are used for population estimates are all done by Ministry personnel, FWCP personnel, or contractors, no volunteers.

[6616]

I guess you can't comprehend the difference between "restriction" and "reduction". I didn't say the number of permits was reduced. I said they have been restricted, by being shifted to areas of lower access. Another fail for you.

One look at the large number they have let out in areas with mountain caribou to reduce prey for wolves and it's obvious that a shift of permits to areas with little access has happened. Very few moose hunters in this province are interested in packing a bull 15 km back to camp. Of course, the way moose quota is allocated in the Kootenays, the good ol' boys of the GOABC get allocation based on the whole region rather than their territories, and they can hunt them right in their cushy little cutblocks.

This is true, the permits doubled over the last couple of years from about 60 to about 120 in the Revelstoke caribou recovery areas.

[bayou]

Spring carryover counts are done in your area and the Elk Valley by Rod and Gun Club guys but these are not population census surveys. The aerial counts that are used for population estimates are all done by Ministry personnel, FWCP personnel, or contractors, no volunteers.
Huh Ive been asked to go on a few flights but Im none of those mentioned.

[6616]

Huh Ive been asked to go on a few flights but Im none of those mentioned.

As a spotter or a recorder?

[bayou]

No access - then there's no conservation concern for GOS, right? So, no need for you to oppose it then. Fail #3 for you Bayou - wanna keeep going?
No that is not right, I no lots of people that will walk or work for a moose.
Keep trying.

[bayou]

As a spotter or a recorder?
Dont no declined the ride/offers, have done some walk in areas for other reasons kinda like to keep my feet on the ground now days.

[Fisher-Dude]

Yep, hoards of hunters are going to walk in 15 km and shoot every immy moose in the whole of region 4, killing off the population forever. Yes Bayou, you're right, that's exactly what is going to happen. :roll:

[ElkMasterC]

Hi, just dropped in to have a peek, and I'm far too lazy to read the whole thread.
Can someone sum it up for me in 100 words or less?
Ta ever so much,
EMC

[SHAKER]

Sure.......FD should post the last MOE paper thrown to us... sum it up ... bull\cow ratio good........ fair # of Immy bulls getting shot meaning annual allowable harvest higher then then MOE likes so must mean a declining moose population and need to restrict resident hunter. Has nothing to do with that lots of immys gotshot so moose population must be good?:evil: correct me if I'm wrong on this.

[peashooter]

Started as a heads up on the change in regs then turned into a GO bash. What a shocker. Not that it doesn't need to be addresed but does every other thread have to turn onto this.

[358mag]

is it all about killing or about conservation ???? well maybe after 20 years of putting in for a LEH moose drawn in region 8 maybe its my turn
let me reload my popcorn machine a get a cold beer .

[bayou]

Yep, hoards of hunters are going to walk in 15 km and shoot every immy moose in the whole of region 4, killing off the population forever. Yes Bayou, you're right, that's exactly what is going to happen. :roll:
So now your back to immy moose when the 15km walk was about access and raised LEH and it sounds like you were talking about the revelstoke areas but keep changing things around to suit your agenda kinda like you do with your numbers.
Keep trying

[ratherbefishin]

What I would like to know is -are the moose populations so endangered they have to implement restrictions like this?-it seems to me,the reason for the immature and calf hunt in the first place was to harvest some of the non breeding population while still allowing hunters to get out in the field and take home some meat.If hunter numbers were doubling, not declining, as they have been -I would understand the need for these restrictions, but I have heard no evidence the moose population was in trouble-in fact the opposete seems to be the case.And with LEH odds of actually getting a bull draw about once in five years,as is my experiance,I really am having dificulty understanding the need to reduce the chances of harvesting an immature[which I have never even seen] under a GOS.Has anyone seen a study of moose populations based on a fly over head count in winter which would justify such a move-or was this just a theory dreamed up by people who never set foot in the field?

[6616]

What I would like to know is -are the moose populations so endangered they have to implement restrictions like this?-it seems to me,the reason for the immature and calf hunt in the first place was to harvest some of the non breeding population while still allowing hunters to get out in the field and take home some meat.If hunter numbers were doubling, not declining, as they have been -I would understand the need for these restrictions, but I have heard no evidence the moose population was in trouble-in fact the opposete seems to be the case.And with LEH odds of actually getting a bull draw about once in five years,as is my experiance,I really am having dificulty understanding the need to reduce the chances of harvesting an immature[which I have never even seen] under a GOS.Has anyone seen a study of moose populations based on a fly over head count in winter which would justify such a move-or was this just a theory dreamed up by people who never set foot in the field?

Not sure what region you're talking about, but the moose in Region 4 are doing very well and have been steadily increasing in number since 1990. There is no reason at all why Region 4 cannot sustain a spike/fork season, especially with the modest harvest we had in 2009. Can't/won't comment on the Region 8 situation.

[cariboobill]

I am concerned with region 3 closures as it is my other area I hunt regularly. I see no reason to move the opening date for Spike fork or reduce the GOS duration. Makes October an enjoyable month to hunt when you can shoot either a deer or Spike/Fork Moose. I have seen a lot of moose in region 3 and I have never shot an immature Bull in this region, although I have seen some shot.

CB

[horshur]

are we getting this proposal because of the super region move by goverment that has been rumoured????

[Jelvis]

Yah oh fisher is it because of that super region thingy happening or no?
jel ( we need your thoughts ) the super region move? Is it or not thanks in advance
Lance

[tuner]

Actually, resident hunters and anglers dump half a billion dollars annually into BC's pocket. Non-residents don't come close.
l'm inclined to think fisher-dude is right.i don't now the numbers,but it would seem that the shear number of resident hunters and anglers would directly and indirectly spend considerably more than foreign hunters and anglers.they may be paying exorberant rates for guided hunts,but that is going into the pockets of the GO's.the license fees and trophy fees are relatively small compared to the cost of the actual hunt.GO's pay corporate income tax of 13.5% on their earnings.have to think we must be pouring in alot more than the guiding industry(no matter what they might have you belive) after all, let's be honest hunting is not a cheap sport.most people on this site probably spend thousands of dollars every year hunting and fishing.

[troutseeker]

Humm, I've been snowed out of some parts of region 3 before in November. I guess they are also counting of limited access due to snow?

[GoatGuy]

Humm, I've been snowed out of some parts of region 3 before in November. I guess they are also counting of limited access due to snow?

Not necessarily because of snow but because the rut is over. The last 10 or so days in September and first 10 in October is when most of the harvest occurs. Outside of that harvest drops right off.

You'll also notice you're only catching 15 days of the mule deer any buck, instead of all of it, which is when most of the hunters head out and harvest.

In terms of harvest thanksgiving long weekend is probably the most significant in Regions 3 and 8 and the season doesn't open until after that.

So, it's a solution to a couple of problem MUs which have had chronically low bull:cow ratios. The point is to reduce the harvest and it will work. It will also reduce participation.

[300H&H]

The change "will not affect me" !

There is still no chance of me seeing a spike/fork :cry:.

[j270wsm]

My numbers are right off Tara's spreadsheets. The actual AAH was 251 from 2003 to 2006, in 2007 it was increased to 301 when survey numbers resulted in establishing new population estimates.

The varying harvest of the LEH hunt is easier to understand if one looks at the number of permits.
2005 - 160 elk killed, 339 permits, success rate 47%
2006 - 169 ---------432----------------------39%
2007 - 201----------526----------------------38%
2008 - 254----------516----------------------49%
2009 - 163----------570----------------------29% (plus 57 immys)
2010 --------------- 552 tentative.



I was wondering if the 57 immys included the immiture bulls that were shot illegally. In region 4-23A there was 2 or 3 that were shot with rifle during the Bow season.

[6616]

I was wondering if the 57 immys included the immiture bulls that were shot illegally. In region 4-23A there was 2 or 3 that were shot with rifle during the Bow season.

These numbers were compiled from CI data, so probably not.