Why 6 point bull elk ?

[Slime green cat]

I have always wondered why They let us shoot the nice big mature 6 point bulls ? and leave the young dumb ones to breed ? They kind of do the same thing with the 4 point deer season, except for the short any buck season .
Then with moose, its the opposite (in most regions) they will let us shoot the young spike forks, and leave the big bulls .
There most be a reason for this ? anyone care to explain ?
I would think if a bull is smart enough and strong enough to avoid predators, vehicles and hunters and survive through several winters and reach maturity ... that he is the one I want to breed and keep the population strong . Why not kill off the young stupid ones ? better eating too !

I was talking with an older fellow in Cranbrook that hunted back in the day, but hasn't for years .. He said back in the day, you would see heards in the thousands .... and now just a few groups of elk here and there .. His theory was that all the big bulls are being killed off and that's why the populations are down ?
Now, having said that, I realize there is stilll lots of elk in the east Kootenays ... but wouldn't it still be better all around if we let the big bulls live to breed ?

Please enlighten a newbie :mrgreen:

[Steeleco]

Same question as been asked not just a few time on here. Used to think the same thing when I fished lots. How many 80+ lb springs do you hear about these days, when they used to be quite abundant. Lots of theory's both for and against the point rule for deer moose and elk. It does appear the system we have now isn't working?

[adamgarbett]

i often wonder the same. it would also help to avoid alot of oopse shots on trigger happy/eager hunters with 5 pt elk and 3 pt mulies that looked legal from accross the cut block aswell????? just a thought.

[MB_Boy]

I think it's because elk hunters are too dumb to figure out any other number than counting points to match the 6 empty bottles in the box at their feet? :mrgreen: :wink::tongue:

[Foxton Gundogs]

Same question as been asked not just a few time on here. Used to think the same thing when I fished lots. How many 80+ lb springs do you hear about these days, when they used to be quite abundant. Lots of theory's both for and against the point rule for deer moose and elk. It does appear the system we have now isn't working?

When I was packing back in the day, I took a Govt Biologist out (privately) and in "campfire conversation" he stated that on a number of occasions he had made recomendations that in order to preserve prime breeding stock(we were talking moose but should apply here as well) that there be a 5 yr. rotation where in for 4 yrs inmature bulls were hunted exclusively as was the presant regs. and on the 5th year ONLY trophy bulls would be hunted. He reasoned that with that rotation it would constantly be replacing the old past prime bulls with the young ones that would have a chance to reach breeding maturity. This is a simplification of what he said but makes his point. He lso stated that it SEEMED his recomendations were stonewalled every time for reasons unknown to him.

[bc-shedder]

you guys in my opinion its quite simple think about it, a young bull or deer will still breed a cow or doe makes no difference to the cow or doe. If you kill all the 1-5 point bulls or 1-3 point bucks whats going to grow into that 6 point or 4 point younger game is always dumber they havent been around long enough so of course they will get picked off fast then there is nothing to become mature game thats my opinon.

[budismyhorse]

Do a search of older elk threads.......this has been beaten to death.

As well, the MOE website has reports and mangement plans for you to read as well.

And take that comment the old guy told you with a huge grain of salt. He's exaggerating both how many were back then and how few are out there now.

[yota]

I thiink the system makes sence. if you shoot all the younger bulls and just left mature 6pts (elk) then you the population of elk would drop alot faster, But if you open the season to shoot only 6pts then it gives the younger bulls a chance to grow and learn from the older elk to beome bigger and stronger. Also if theres more younger ones then down the road you should have more trophy elk any ways. to sum it up.

Shoot young bulls= less trophy animals down the road
Shoot mature elk = bigger population and stronger heards.

[325]

It's simple. Setting harvest criteria that are somewhat difficult to meet (6 point elk, 4 point mule deer, full curl sheep, etc), ensures that only a small percentage of a given population are harvested any given season. These criteria will only impact the over-all genetic pool if hunting pressure is very high, and a large percentage of age class are harvested. This kind of selective pressure probably isn't very relevent in many areas of BC with limited access.

Personally, I like the 6 point criteria for elk (in the Kootenay anyway).

[Banjo]

So how do we justify the reverse with spike forks moose?

[325]

So how do we justify the reverse with spike forks moose?

Same logic. Spike/fork moose are rare, much rarer than spike deer or elk, and represent a small percentage of total bull moose. In fact most bulls never pass through a spike/fork stage in their antler growth. Offering a spike/fork season presents hunting opportunity with no risk of damaging the bull moose population.

[elkdom]

those most against a 6 point Bull Elk harvest are those, that cannot find one,,,,,,,,,,,,:cry:

to put fears of the extinction of 6 point bull Elk to rest, do some serious scouting after elk season is over and cold weather sets in, there are large numbers of 6 point or better Bull Elk survive the 6 point bull hunting season every year, in every MU,,,

that is why they survive, they are often hard to find! lol :lol:

[RayHill]

So how do we justify the reverse with spike forks moose?

Spike fork moose are rare, makes them harder to find and less of a number of animals killed.

[Banjo]

Same logic. Spike/fork moose are rare, much rarer than spike deer or elk, and represent a small percentage of total bull moose. In fact most bulls never pass through a spike/fork stage in their antler growth. Offering a spike/fork season presents hunting opportunity with no risk of damaging the bull moose population.

I guess they're called unicorns for a reason.

[6616]

325 is right as I see it, the antler restriction merely makes a smaller portion of the bull population vulnerable to harvest thus it's a method to control/restrict the overall harvest level and avoid the potential for LEH on bulls.

Yearlings (spike/fork moose) of any species are abundant (in excess of recruitment requirements) and have a high natural mortality rate and the harvest is largely compensatory, or in other words come spring recruitment time there wil be the same number of yearlings recruited whether a few are shot or not. Large numbers of them are going to die over winter anyway, shooting a few in the fall reduces the mortality of the survivors. That's why we have a spike elk season in the EK from Sept 10th to the 19th instead of a 3pt or 5pt bull season, a large portion of the yearlings are expendable just like spike/fork moose.

Similarily, we could possibly avoid LEH for mature bull moose as well if we went for a 10pt or tri-palm season like they have in Region 7.

[6616]

Same logic. Spike/fork moose are rare, much rarer than spike deer or elk, and represent a small percentage of total bull moose. In fact most bulls never pass through a spike/fork stage in their antler growth. Offering a spike/fork season presents hunting opportunity with no risk of damaging the bull moose population.

According to surveys Cranbrook F&W have done less than 50% of yearling moose are vulnerable during the spike/fork season, the rest have antlers larger than 2 pts and are not available for harvest. Like 325 says a spike/fork season is fail safe, it's impossible to shoot too many yearlings with a spike/fork regulation. The proof is in the moose harvest data from Region 4. There are 6000 plus moose in the region, of that 2100 plus are males (not counting calves), and the annual harvest of spike/forks has been around 50 per year, a pretty insignificant number eh..??

[6616]

I was talking with an older fellow in Cranbrook that hunted back in the day, but hasn't for years .. He said back in the day, you would see heards in the thousands .... and now just a few groups of elk here and there .. His theory was that all the big bulls are being killed off and that's why the populations are down ?
Now, having said that, I realize there is stilll lots of elk in the east Kootenays ... but wouldn't it still be better all around if we let the big bulls live to breed ?

I think that old guy is BSing a little. I've been hunting elk in the EK for 50 years and I've never, ever, ever saw elk herds anywhere in the EK numbering in the thousands. "Just a few elk groups here and there",,,,, well, the F&W Branch has been surveying elk since the seventies in the EK and the density has never been higher. Don't take that to mean there are more elk than ever before (there could be) but there's a lot less habitat today than there was even 20 years ago so the elk density on the remaining habitat is higher than ever before.

[Looking_4_Jerky]

I think part of the problem is that due to limited resources, wildlife managers have no choice but to try to use "broad brush" strategies to manage game throughout a large and diverse geographical region, when in fact, different strategies (mature animal harvest, immature animal harvest, limited entry harvests) all have their place and are appropriate in different circumstances. The political push behind regulation harmonization and lobbying from interest groups (guides, meat hunters, trophy hunters) only exacerbates the situation. There are totally separate areas within regions that would benefit by an immature elk harvest while other areas within reasonable proximity respond well to a mature animal harvest. There may be areas where the young animal recruitment into the breeding population would ideally be left high, but a cull of more mature animals would be supportable. In such an area, it might be appropriate to allow a season allowing harvest of 5 point or greater. The problem is, the assessment and identification of such areas, as well as the establishment of new seasons, takes resources which are invariably scarce. Further, regulations become cumbersome and confusing. Lastly, game populations and sex ratios within such areas are not static, so the investment in enumeration and corresponding seasons would require periodic and ongoing assessment and realigning.

I was talking with one of the Provincial biologists yesterday about how the late 4 point mulie season is not, in his opinion, serving a particular area well. But, he has no real avenue of tweaking the regs for this area (it's quite broad) to better suit it. They try to keep it general, and when an area's population of mature mulie bucks gets so thin that they become difficult to harvest, hunter pressure will drop off and hopefully a corresponding resurgence in mature mulie numbers will follow. One can appreciate that this cause and effect type management is a slow method of exercising any control on game numbers, and does not factor in considerations like the area's forest regeneration, winter die-offs, peaks in predator cycles, etc, that would throw wrinkles in an area's tendancy to rebound.

[russm86]

325 and Rayhill are bang on. It's all to give us the opportunity to have some kind of GOS for different animals all the while making sure we aren't over harvesting any species and are rather maintaining a healthy population. Not all parts of the government are completely stupid. A large majority of the conservation of fish and wildlife in BC is looked after by groups of actual scientists, not just politicians. I think they are doing overall a fairly good job. I think too if you can find the animal counts and harvest records, you would find that populations and harvest numbers are both increasing in a lot of areas. I don't think it's all as cut and dry as many think there are a million variables, almost all out our control.

[6616]

I think part of the problem is that due to limited resources, wildlife managers have no choice but to try to use "broad brush" strategies to manage game throughout a large and diverse geographical region, when in fact, different strategies (mature animal harvest, immature animal harvest, limited entry harvests) all have their place and are appropriate in different circumstances. The political push behind regulation harmonization and lobbying from interest groups (guides, meat hunters, trophy hunters) only exacerbates the situation. There are totally separate areas within regions that would benefit by an immature elk harvest while other areas within reasonable proximity respond well to a mature animal harvest. There may be areas where the young animal recruitment into the breeding population would ideally be left high, but a cull of more mature animals would be supportable. In such an area, it might be appropriate to allow a season allowing harvest of 5 point or greater. The problem is, the assessment and identification of such areas, as well as the establishment of new seasons, takes resources which are invariably scarce. Further, regulations become cumbersome and confusing. Lastly, game populations and sex ratios within such areas are not static, so the investment in enumeration and corresponding seasons would require periodic and ongoing assessment and realigning.

I was talking with one of the Provincial biologists yesterday about how the late 4 point mulie season is not, in his opinion, serving a particular area well. But, he has no real avenue of tweaking the regs for this area (it's quite broad) to better suit it. They try to keep it general, and when an area's population of mature mulie bucks gets so thin that they become difficult to harvest, hunter pressure will drop off and hopefully a corresponding resurgence in mature mulie numbers will follow. One can appreciate that this cause and effect type management is a slow method of exercising any control on game numbers, and does not factor in considerations like the area's forest regeneration, winter die-offs, peaks in predator cycles, etc, that would throw wrinkles in an area's tendancy to rebound.

I think you have identified a couple of the more serious chronic problems with F&W management in BC today. As much as I do agree with regulation harmonization and simplification where possible, overarching inter-regional management plans like the Southern Interior Mule Deer Management Plan does restrict micro-management of smaller areas to the detriment of hunting opportunities and sometimes conservation. Also in most cases the Branch simply doesn't have the funding necessary to do the detailed level of population surveys and assessments required to have sufficient population data to enable them to micro-manage smaller areas.

The F&W Branch also has a very inefficient processes that wastes a lot of resources and manpower in facilitating regulation changes. After have sat on the EK Regional Advisory Committee for several years I am astounded by how slow and cumbersome the process to change regulations has become. Once a regulation proposal is initiated and discussed at the regional level, it has to pass through the regional public advisory process, then a huge amount of red tape is involved to write and prepare it to be sent to Victoria for approval. Then it's often sent back for revision which starts the process all over again. Finally it has to pass through the provincial public advisory process. Even before the two year regulation cycle a proposal that was initiated in the winter was likely not at the approval stage by the time the hunting synopsis printing deadline arrived so it was a two year process to make a regulation change in many cases. They have a much too complicated and cumbersome process to function on the shoestring budget they currently have in F&W and regional biologists are forced to spend much to much of their time dealing with the red tape involved with writing and preparing proposals for regulation changes. Seems to me they're getting farther away from the basics of wildlife management and miring themselves in mountains of red tape instead.

[Mack45]

That is easy we do not need all the breeding stock hunting 2 point and less thins this down and are way better eating. It is to keep the cow bull ratio in alliance .

[Stevem63]

I tend to think the spike/fork season is more of way of increasing the number of moose tags sold. Because the number of legal animals are low, most hunters will not make moose a prime reason to hunt. But many will buy that "just in case" tag. The season means that more hunters have an opportunity to shoot a moose so more tags sold. With a minimal impact on the population.

[emerson]

I tend to think the spike/fork season is more of way of increasing the number of moose tags sold. Because the number of legal animals are low, most hunters will not make moose a prime reason to hunt. But many will buy that "just in case" tag. The season means that more hunters have an opportunity to shoot a moose so more tags sold. With a minimal impact on the population.
Yep, I've had the opportunity to shoot 2 cow elk, 1 2 point bull, 2 cow moose, 1 larger bull moose (more than 2 point), and a muley doe in the last few days, but nothing is legal. After a while it seems like I should sleep late, get cable, and buy some beef.

[J_T]

I think you have identified a couple of the more serious chronic problems with F&W management in BC today. As much as I do agree with regulation harmonization and simplification where possible, overarching inter-regional management plans like the Southern Interior Mule Deer Management Plan does restrict micro-management of smaller areas to the detriment of hunting opportunities and sometimes conservation. Also in most cases the Branch simply doesn't have the funding necessary to do the detailed level of population surveys and assessments required to have sufficient population data to enable them to micro-manage smaller areas.

The F&W Branch also has a very inefficient processes that wastes a lot of resources and manpower in facilitating regulation changes. After have sat on the EK Regional Advisory Committee for several years I am astounded by how slow and cumbersome the process to change regulations has become. Once a regulation proposal is initiated and discussed at the regional level, it has to pass through the regional public advisory process, then a huge amount of red tape is involved to write and prepare it to be sent to Victoria for approval. Then it's often sent back for revision which starts the process all over again. Finally it has to pass through the provincial public advisory process. Even before the two year regulation cycle a proposal that was initiated in the winter was likely not at the approval stage by the time the hunting synopsis printing deadline arrived so it was a two year process to make a regulation change in many cases. They have a much too complicated and cumbersome process to function on the shoestring budget they currently have in F&W and regional biologists are forced to spend much to much of their time dealing with the red tape involved with writing and preparing proposals for regulation changes. Seems to me they're getting farther away from the basics of wildlife management and miring themselves in mountains of red tape instead. hmmm, my observations as well. I would add to the management of wildlife regulation, any policy changes. We've been working to develop alternative weapons 'concepts' for 15 years and more recently to move a policy on the use of a bow forward and these things lack a champion and consequently sit completely idle for extended periods of time.

[aggiehunter]

6616...where did all the habitat go? It's not the LML or the Cokanoggin!

[J_T]

6616...where did all the habitat go? It's not the LML or the Cokanoggin! High fences and forest ingrowth as well as land development.

[finngun]

make it simple....new regs--[theory] shoot any bull-- or shoot cows....and calf... easy figure it out,is there too many cows or bulls..? balance it out.....a Govt Biologist knows how many bulls needed and how many cows.? and vice verca .....same thing for deer too.. too simple? oh yes..somebody needs work....

[islandboy]

Right answer! :???: It is a delaying tactic as i have to put down my rifle to count past 5. :(


I think it's because elk hunters are too dumb to figure out any other number than counting points to match the 6 empty bottles in the box at their feet? :mrgreen: :wink::tongue:

[6616]

High fences and forest ingrowth as well as land development.

Yup, we're losing an estimated 3000 Ha per year of open grassland and open forest habitat (elk winter range) to forest ingrowth and encroachment, plus 12,000 Ha of private land now behind exclusion fencing. As well there's not near as much logging in the tributaries as there was back in the 70's and 80's and these old cutblocks which were once good summer, spring, and fall habitat are all new growing forest now. The logging is now happening close to the main trench instead of the upper tributaries and this discourages long distance migrations so the winter and transitional ranges are now being hammered by elk on a year around basis leaving less for winter forage.

Here's what we're attempting to do about it: http://www.trench-er.com/

[The Silent Stalker]

I was lead to believe that spike fork or immature bull Moose are not breeding stock, and the females will not mate with em. Not sure if it's true, or if it applies to Elk.

[6616]

I was lead to believe that spike fork or immature bull Moose are not breeding stock, and the females will not mate with em. Not sure if it's true, or if it applies to Elk.

I believe it's not so much that they can't breed, but more so that they're not allowed to by older bulls when bull/cow ratios are adequate. I think it's possible that they could if there was a real shortage of mature bulls. There would have to be less than 5 bulls per hundred cows for elk and probably something in the area of 10 bulls/100 cows for moose before inferior or immatures were able to successfully participate in the rut and that's not likely to ever occur under current management strategies, so in other words in my opinion you are correct, they're not considered breeding stock. However, that's not the reason a certain percentage of male yearlings are considered expendable. The real reason is that only a small number of them are required to survive to recruitment age to meet herd recruitment requirements, large numbers of them are going to perish naturally regardless of whether we shoot them or not and it's therefore sustainable to harvest some of these.

[J_T]

I was lead to believe that spike fork or immature bull Moose are not breeding stock, and the females will not mate with em. Not sure if it's true, or if it applies to Elk. 6616 has it right. Hunting our young males has the least impact on the population. Which is why we have a spike elk season in some areas now. Increased opportunity with minimal impact on the population. (I wonder if we should be considering that with our criminal justice system? Culling of some of the young males...)