New MOE sight for your input!!

[Anfoman76]

Hey All, don't know how many people know about this yet http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/ahte/
It's a sight for hunters and fisherman to input their opinions on proposed regulation changes. Let your voice be heard. Hope this is not a double post.

[Darksith]

are the sheep populations in region 3 and 5 really in as much stress as they say they are? 1 survey surely wouldn't be adequate for an official count I would think. Im not a sheep hunter yet, but have always wanted to make the time to go for a hunt in the GOS. Anyone have any knowledge of the sheep populations?

[Gilmore]

Wow, closing GOS in most of 3-32, parts of 3-17 and parts of 5-03 for full curl rams. Lots of interesting stuff on there.

[Livewire322]

what i found interesting was the proposed opening of an LEH for elk in region 2... put a smile on my face if it happened

[scoutlt1]

Wow! Use the connector as a MU boundary??? That makes way too much sense...did they come up with that on their own??

[Anfoman76]

If you register you can let your opion be known, thats what i like

[scoutlt1]

If you register you can let your opion be known, thats what i like

ya sorry for the sarcasm...reflex I guess :P gotta give 'em some credit for asking for input!

[fowl language]

for those of you that are interested in the region 2 new elk hunt ,it,s not as good as you think.the biologist from sechelt has contacted me to get approval from region2 bcwf.i am the chair of the hunting committee and put it to the board for their thoughts. 50% of these leh goes to the native comunity. the thoughts of those that are involved is that the native,s should get 25% as agreed in the sechelt band negotiations back in the late 90,s. it,s great to get new oppurtunities but at what costs? i wonder if 50% will be the new standard if the region 2 board agrees....fowl

[Fisher-Dude]

for those of you that are interested in the region 2 new elk hunt ,it,s not as good as you think.the biologist from sechelt has contacted me to get approval from region2 bcwf.i am the chair of the hunting committee and put it to the board for their thoughts. 50% of these leh goes to the native comunity. the thoughts of those that are involved is that the native,s should get 25% as agreed in the sechelt band negotiations back in the late 90,s. it,s great to get new oppurtunities but at what costs? i wonder if 50% will be the new standard if the region 2 board agrees....fowl

I think they should put in the same draw as we do and take their chances on the lottery. No 50% guarantee. Suckholing is the worst precedent we've ever set, IMO, because they will never be sated.

[The Dude]

Fowl, I agree, we certainly don't wanna set the bar higher on native Allocations. What was their extent of involvement in the re-stockings in the LML? Take the Indian River herd as an example. All aboriginals, including metis (Uh yeahhh) comprise 4.4% lof the population circa 2006. ( http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/cen01/abor/tot_abo.pdf )
Remove the Metis and it's slightly over 3%, a third of THOSE live in Vancouver, off their reserves, for the most part.
Now in many cases, the local band(s) claim ownership over the areas in which the Elk are released, and have agreed not to hunt them to extinction like they did with the first transplanted herd in that valley in the case of the Indian River. How much involvement, other than meetings, did they have in the actual physical work involved, and funding and fundraising, to get those elk in those areas?
So the price is 8 times their population allocation per capita if they agree to play ball?
OK, for now, but let's work on that number, hmmmmm?
And not on the upward side.

[The Dude]

What happened to the 3-32 herds? That's a pretty brutal population crash in such a short period.

From the MOE site.

Rationale:
The Bighorn Sheep populations in MU 503 and a portion of MU3-32 have declined substantially from previous years. A conservation closure is now necessary to remove human caused mortality in order to ensure the long term survival of the migratory sheep that occupy winter and summer ranges in both the Cariboo Region and Kamloops Region. The summer range of the Churn Creek migratory herds occupying a portion of Region 5 is also proposed to be closed. This will be covered by a separate submission for MU 503 (http://the%20bighorn%20sheep%20populations%20in%20mu%2050 3%20and%20a%20portion%20of%20mu3-32%20have%20declined%20substantially%20from%20prev ious%20years.%20a%20conservation%20closure%20is%20 now%20necessary%20to%20remove%20human%20caused%20m ortality%20in%20order%20to%20ensure%20the%20long%2 0term%20survival%20of%20the%20migratory%20sheep%20 that%20occupy%20winter%20and%20summer%20ranges%20i n%20both%20the%20cariboo%20region%20and%20kamloops %20region.%20the%20summer%20range%20of%20the%20chu rn%20creek%20migratory%20herds%20occupying%20a%20p ortion%20of%20the%20camelsfoot%20range%20in%20regi on%203%20is%20also%20proposed%20to%20be%20closed.% 20this%20will%20be%20covered%20by%20a%20separate%2 0submission%20for%20mu%20332.%20in%20addition,%20t he%20non%20migratory%20herds%20in%20mu%20503%20hav e%20also%20declined%20well%20below%20historical%20 levels.%20the%20last%20survey%20of%20both%20migrat ory%20and%20non%20migratory%20sheep%20was%20conduc ted%20in%20march%20of%202010%20in%20which%20only%2 089%20sheep%20were%20counted%20compared%20to%20pop ulation%20high%20of%20658%20in%201995.%20of%20sign ificant%20concern%20are%20the%20two%20migratory%20 herds%20whose%20numbers%20have%20dropped%20to%20le ss%20than%2020%20animals.%20a%20survey%20conducted %20on%20september%208,%202011%20in%20region%203%20 on%20the%20summer%20range%20only%20counted%2014%20 sheep%20%2810%20ewes,%203%20lambs%20and%201%20ram% 29%20on%20yalakom%20mtn.%20and%2012%20sheep%20%288 ewes,%203%20lambs,%201%20ram%29%20on%20red%20mtn.% 20these%20two%20mountains%20historically%20held%20 in%20excess%20of%20200%20-250%20migratory%20sheep./). In addition, the non migratory herds in MU 503 have also declined well below historical levels. The last survey of both migratory and non migratory sheep was conducted in March of 2010 in which only 89 sheep were counted compared to population high of 658 in 1995. Of significant concern are the two migratory herds whose numbers have dropped to less than 20 animals. A survey conducted on September 8, 2011 in Region 3 on the summer range only counted 14 sheep (10 ewes, 3 lambs and 1 ram) on Yalakom Mtn. and 12 Sheep (8ewes, 3 lambs, 1 ram) on Red Mtn. These two mountains historically held in excess of 200 -250 migratory sheep.

[GoatGuy]

What happened to the 3-32 herds? That's a pretty brutal population crash in such a short period.

From the MOE site.

Rationale:
The Bighorn Sheep populations in MU 503 and a portion of MU3-32 have declined substantially from previous years. A conservation closure is now necessary to remove human caused mortality in order to ensure the long term survival of the migratory sheep that occupy winter and summer ranges in both the Cariboo Region and Kamloops Region. The summer range of the Churn Creek migratory herds occupying a portion of Region 5 is also proposed to be closed. This will be covered by a separate submission for MU 503 (http://the%20bighorn%20sheep%20populations%20in%20mu%2050 3%20and%20a%20portion%20of%20mu3-32%20have%20declined%20substantially%20from%20prev ious%20years.%20a%20conservation%20closure%20is%20 now%20necessary%20to%20remove%20human%20caused%20m ortality%20in%20order%20to%20ensure%20the%20long%2 0term%20survival%20of%20the%20migratory%20sheep%20 that%20occupy%20winter%20and%20summer%20ranges%20i n%20both%20the%20cariboo%20region%20and%20kamloops %20region.%20the%20summer%20range%20of%20the%20chu rn%20creek%20migratory%20herds%20occupying%20a%20p ortion%20of%20the%20camelsfoot%20range%20in%20regi on%203%20is%20also%20proposed%20to%20be%20closed.% 20this%20will%20be%20covered%20by%20a%20separate%2 0submission%20for%20mu%20332.%20in%20addition,%20t he%20non%20migratory%20herds%20in%20mu%20503%20hav e%20also%20declined%20well%20below%20historical%20 levels.%20the%20last%20survey%20of%20both%20migrat ory%20and%20non%20migratory%20sheep%20was%20conduc ted%20in%20march%20of%202010%20in%20which%20only%2 089%20sheep%20were%20counted%20compared%20to%20pop ulation%20high%20of%20658%20in%201995.%20of%20sign ificant%20concern%20are%20the%20two%20migratory%20 herds%20whose%20numbers%20have%20dropped%20to%20le ss%20than%2020%20animals.%20a%20survey%20conducted %20on%20september%208,%202011%20in%20region%203%20 on%20the%20summer%20range%20only%20counted%2014%20 sheep%20%2810%20ewes,%203%20lambs%20and%201%20ram% 29%20on%20yalakom%20mtn.%20and%2012%20sheep%20%288 ewes,%203%20lambs,%201%20ram%29%20on%20red%20mtn.% 20these%20two%20mountains%20historically%20held%20 in%20excess%20of%20200%20-250%20migratory%20sheep./). In addition, the non migratory herds in MU 503 have also declined well below historical levels. The last survey of both migratory and non migratory sheep was conducted in March of 2010 in which only 89 sheep were counted compared to population high of 658 in 1995. Of significant concern are the two migratory herds whose numbers have dropped to less than 20 animals. A survey conducted on September 8, 2011 in Region 3 on the summer range only counted 14 sheep (10 ewes, 3 lambs and 1 ram) on Yalakom Mtn. and 12 Sheep (8ewes, 3 lambs, 1 ram) on Red Mtn. These two mountains historically held in excess of 200 -250 migratory sheep.

They're really region 5 sheep. Predation, habitat and nothing. Region 5 story. Apparently there's a push from stakeholders to light a fire under the arse... hopefully it'll drive some change.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

FN's should have no season for any transplanted animal in the province of BC, when will the government give up the a$$ kissing.

[The Dude]

Well they're eating away at what's left of the Churn Ck herd. (Literally)
I heard marmots taste good!

[40incher]

Too bad the AHTE process (some here call it the HATE) is turning out to be such a sham. The Ministry is praticing selective consultation, withholding the most contoversial proposals of course.

One such proposal is the closure of all licensed hunting of moose in the Nisga'a Wildlife Management Area in the Nass River area of Region 6. Because the Indians have been killing cows and calves, with no consideration, for many years, we are going to lose a very consevative LEH bull-only hunt.

The Indians have driven this moose population from 1,700 animals in recent years down to 500 now. Despite this the killing continues, aided by the heavy snow pack this winter. The moose are driven down to the roads which they use to move around on, mostly at night.

The bureaucratic solution to this slaughter!? MFLNRO in their wisdom is taking away a small bull harvest by licensed hunters, despite higher than necessary bull:cow ratios, in the hope that the Indians will care. Good luck!

What is most disturbing about the issue, though, is that MFLNRO is deliberately withholding their proposal from public view!! That speaks volumes for the integrity of the "process".

[lange1212]

I agree with you 40incher if the ATHE process is going to work by providing a window for public to provide input towards regulations, it must be open and transparent as stated by the ministry.

It appears that the ministry only chooses to be open and transparent on proposals that it knows are less contensious or will not create heartache for politicians. On the flip side moves in the shadows of secrecy when there's any hint of a possible uproar such as Nass Moose.

The Nass moose proposal put forth by the ministry only punishes the regulated conservative users not the unregulated abusers.

What I find most astonishing is that in light of the moose decline the ministry has no formal recovery plan to present stakeholders. Seems that the ministry has shifted to people management rather than wildlife management for Nass moose. Allowing social and political agendas to trump science is the root of the problem here, we need to get back to that foundation of science based management and decision making.

The answer in my eyes is simple if herd recovery in the Nass is key. Initiate a burn program to enhance winter habitat, designate portions of those burns as browse areas and plant browse species, establish a predator program as both wolf and bear are at high densities in the Nass, implement FN harvest monitoring program (need to know what's being harvested) and regulations to ensure FN harvest stays withing set targets, implement a system that will prosecute FN who hunt outside the rules. All of which is likely not going to happen, instead regulated hunters are going to lose a revered opportunity while the unregulated hunters continue to hunt moose into oblivion. How is that wildlife management? How does that represent the best interests of public, moose and our environment?

[boxhitch]

How does that represent the best interests of public, moose and our environment?It won't ruffle any head dress feathers, avoid controversy, pass The Province and a latte seevooplay

The true stewards of the land should be practising traditional burns to look after their own future

[Black Lab]

Typical goverment response. Anything to keep the indians quite. I don't know where this will end, but it's not good for any animal. I didn't know there were any elk left in region 2. I heard they shot all of them up the Chilliwack river valley and left them for the coyotes. If you want any good hunting now you have to find somewhere at least a tank of gas away from a reserve. I say, "No special rights for anyone"