Larry Pynn on BC's Moose Problems

[2chodi]

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/moose+ravaged+salvage+logging+beetle+killed+pine+f orests/6972712/story.html

[Davey Crockett]

Lacks any imperial evidence. Playing the blame game will not increase moose populations.

[bearvalley]

Lacks any imperial evidence. Playing the blame game will not increase moose populations.

Do you think ?

[longrifle]

The monster clear cuts that have been 'harvested' in the name of pine beetle salvage these past few years has definitely opened things up, in a huge way...There is no disputing that. From what I have seen alot of the blocks have been in wintering areas as well...Add an over abundance of predators into the equation and it makes for a piss poor situation for the ol' rubber nose. But, its just one of many factors in some areas of the province.


'rifle

[Mulehahn]

Atleast the issue is coming up, but to blame clear cutting as the sole factor is ridiculous. e Pine beetle clear cuts are winding down, either the lumber was harvested or stood to long. It is now dead issue and is safe to attack. If habitat was the only issue then cows, calves and bulls numbers would have fell equally. That was not the case. As for the BCWF responce (I am a member, have been for years, and am not quiting), they are afraid politics and getting dirty. They know what a large cause is but they refuse to say what many are know to be true. Poaching is Poaching, no matter who does it. And yes, allowing wolves to be killed is a start, but unless people actually target them a dent will never be made. With the NDP coming into power next year what do you think the odds are of there being a massive cull? All sides need to work together, resident hunters, G/Os, F/Ns, to make a difference. The biggest difference would be making all play on an equal footing.

[Big Lew]

If you read Larry Pynn's article carefully you'll notice it included and pretty well named all the 'assumed' contributing factors to the dramatic moose population decline without specific scientific data for reinforcement. Just about everyone is in agreement that all parties with invested interest have to collectively address and contribute in order to re-build the population. Personally I agree that the extensive 'beetle kill' salvage logging has played a major part in it by reducing protective and wintering habitat which has given both human and animal predators a much greater advantage. I also agree that until FNs volunteers to restrict and record their harvest in conjunction with all other hunters, removing the wolf harvest restriction and limiting or dis-allowing non-native harvest in itself won't adequately address the situation. There's been reports and accusations of these exposed wintering moose herds being mowed down by poachers and/or FNs. There has to be absolute proof and documentation of just who and what is decimating the population in order to fix the problem. There are several areas in southern BC where LEH and restricted hunting by non-natives was successfully re-building moose populations until the recent massive 'beetle kill' salvaging, which seems to be the 'straw that broke the camel's back.'

[The Dude]

Either through logging of massive fires, all that wood was coming down anyway. It IS a large contributing factor, given exposure and access, and little can be done until the roads are deactivated and the undergrowth grows up again somewhat.
In the meantime it will be harvest liimitations and wolf culls. Those roads need to be completely wiped out in the new beetle kill areas, and that would take care of a lot of 'unregulated hunting', as it is so tactfully worded.

New slogan: Kill a Wolf, Get a Free Bull Moose LEH!

[srupp]

While I read the interesting article and sat and pondered all the valid observations, it occurred to me that yes probability did strongly suggest all the usual suspects all played a part.. except for one troubling fact..

that being the unique fact of the imbalance of the cow -bull ratio..usually it is a profound lack of bull numbers..with harsh winters after prolonged mating seasons..lack of survival due to expending tremendous amounts of energy growing massive headgear...the search by hunters for the biggest bull..etc etc etc..however its the lack of cows..breeding cows that draws away from the usual scenario..and I dont see wolves and bears going strategically after the cows...to throw the balance off, there are no LEH authorizations for cows...and I dont see many folks driving up from Langley to illegally shoot a cow moose..and the large clearcut areas dont target just cows...

So somewhere else there has to be a sperate issue/reason for the large amount of missing cow moose throwing the bull/cow ratio so far off...and with the lack of breeding cows resulting in fewer births possible it seems like a out of control spiraling disaster...

that is the issue......undocumented targetting of the cow moose....hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Someone much smarter than I will figure this out ...eventually ...Im certain???

cheers
Steven

[.270boy]

The Pine Beetle has been a natural cycle since the beginning of Pine Forests. This isn't the first time we've had huge scale pine mortality and in the past it was taken care of naturally by unsupressed fires that would burn all these dead stands. Now we mimic natural disturbance by logging these stands, because wood is worth money and everyone likes living in wood houses and wiping with TP, never mind having jobs and an economy. Moose are in the Interior in the first place due to human disturbance by logging. Moose feed primarily on early seral stage growth typically found in cutblocks. I think if there truly is a decline than wait 5 years and it will probably be on the upswing again. This seems like a natural cycle to me, If you have ever taken any formal education on predator prey dynamics you will learn that as prey decrease (moose) predators will also decrease (wolfs). As these cutblocks produce early seral stage habitat in coming years prey will increase again, along with predators. That is a natural cycle. This article has a lot of "ideas" being spouted from people with no formal education, and a lack of scientific research to back it up... Unless its getting published in a scientific journal I wouldn't look at it to closely as "fact".

[chilcotin hillbilly]

270boy, I think you need to go back to school. natural cycle my a$$!! You are forgetting that people are part of the equation. Access is the biggest contributer to this problem. FN harvest due to to much access and their targeting of cows is a big problem. With moose declining the wolves are targeting cattle more and more which is hitting the ranchers in the pocket book big time. As long as there are other food sources the wolves population will not decrease like you think. The protection of the so called wild horses by the FN's is also a major problem especially south of highway 20 where the horse herds have grown to the thousands. How much habitat is being taken from these farrel horses?

On a side note, Good to see you back on STEVE!!!!!

[The Dude]

Damn good thing that humans don't plant the same kind of trees that pine beetles love in huge tracts of nothingness, take out all biodiversity in the name of profit, practice fire suppression in contrast to the natural cycles, and warm up the planet, or we'd be really screwed.
Thank jesus and all the prophets for that.

[Big Lew]

The Pine Beetle has been a natural cycle since the beginning of Pine Forests. This isn't the first time we've had huge scale pine mortality and in the past it was taken care of naturally by unsupressed fires that would burn all these dead stands. Now we mimic natural disturbance by logging these stands, because wood is worth money and everyone likes living in wood houses and wiping with TP, never mind having jobs and an economy. Moose are in the Interior in the first place due to human disturbance by logging. Moose feed primarily on early seral stage growth typically found in cutblocks. I think if there truly is a decline than wait 5 years and it will probably be on the upswing again. This seems like a natural cycle to me, If you have ever taken any formal education on predator prey dynamics you will learn that as prey decrease (moose) predators will also decrease (wolfs). As these cutblocks produce early seral stage habitat in coming years prey will increase again, along with predators. That is a natural cycle. This article has a lot of "ideas" being spouted from people with no formal education, and a lack of scientific research to back it up... Unless its getting published in a scientific journal I wouldn't look at it to closely as "fact".

I agree that there's always been natural pine mortality cycles, but this one is very different in that we've heavily logged the infected trees this time and in doing so, we have built a huge network of access roads in order to do it. I times past, usually hunters, poachers, and FNs couldn't drive throughout the area, and in doing so, easily transport their kills with a car or truck, day or night. As for the natural 'predator-prey' cycles, the 'beetle kill' salvaging has left huge areas stripped clean rather than the still standing and fallen trees from a fire which afford moose a better chance of escape, giving wolves an advantage.., but as "srupp" remarked ( it seems very unlikely predation is the major reason for the decline
somewhere else there has to be a separate issue/reason for the large amount of missing cow moose throwing the bull/cow ratio so far off...and with the lack of breeding cows resulting in fewer births possible it seems like a out of control spiraling disaster...

that is the issue......undocumented targeting of the cow moose....hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Someone much smarter than I will figure this out ...eventually ...I'm certain???)

[Jagermeister]

I think that the pine beetle devastation is a very minor impact on the moose populations.
Moose tend to thrive in immature forest such as that of Ontario and Quebec. Gives them more browse year round. While it is true that hunters have the advantage in the early part of a clear cut due to unlimited visibility, that diminishes as the forest regenenerates and the bush reaches the height of the moose or greater.
As srupp states, the bull/cow ratio is the detrimental factor. You could lay blame on the wolves as they may target young cow moose as easy targets, but you have to factor in other predators that would target cow moose too and who else would target cow moose? Certainly not the resident hunter unless he is poaching. That only leaves one other "hunter" and their indiscriminate "harvest" at a time of year when moose congregate in "yards" would be a high probability to be the sole cause of the demise or diminishing moose populations.
I remember listening to Dr. Tony Bubenek talking about the life of a cow moose. He stated in the time of her life, from the birth of her first offspring to the last of her prodigy in her lifetime, she would account for no less than 163 offspring. This was not taking into account predation. To get there, you have to look at her life line. If she bred in the 2nd year of her life, she would produce one offspring, same for the 2rd year, in the 4th year she would twin and subsequent years she would twin and maybe have triplets. If her first calves were cows, then they would start breeding in their repective 2nd year and their offspring would be the prodigy of the 1st cow. Get the picture. He said that the ideal breeding conditions would be a ratio of 1 bull to 5 cows. He also stated that the age of the breeding bull would be in the 4 to 9 year range. He also stated that young bulls were not ideal breeding candidates and that is why there is a immature fork-horn season in Region 7 which accepted his model.
Anyhow, to bring the ratio back into line, the indians will have to curtail their harvest of cows. By that time, maybe the land will be back to a state that would be benefical to moose production.
And to bring back the forest, there has to be control burns conducted. To wait for natural progession without fire will take too much time.
And speaking of forests. Consider the evolution of a boreal forest. After a burn, the small plants like fireweed and forbs are the first to appear. Then the deciduous tress like birch and aspen followed by conifers such as lodgepole, balsams, spruce and finally the firs. The evolution to mature forest with the firs as an end result takes approximately 400 years.
At the rate of re-planting as currently conducted by the government, it will take considerably longer.

[srupp]

good read, valid points, well written...sheesh..technical...but accurate..lol

cheers
Steven

[bearvalley]

I think that the pine beetle devastation is a very minor impact on the moose populations.
Moose tend to thrive in immature forest such as that of Ontario and Quebec. Gives them more browse year round. While it is true that hunters have the advantage in the early part of a clear cut due to unlimited visibility, that diminishes as the forest regenenerates and the bush reaches the height of the moose or greater.
As srupp states, the bull/cow ratio is the detrimental factor. You could lay blame on the wolves as they may target young cow moose as easy targets, but you have to factor in other predators that would target cow moose too and who else would target cow moose? Certainly not the resident hunter unless he is poaching. That only leaves one other "hunter" and their indiscriminate "harvest" at a time of year when moose congregate in "yards" would be a high probability to be the sole cause of the demise or diminishing moose populations.
I remember listening to Dr. Tony Bubenek talking about the life of a cow moose. He stated in the time of her life, from the birth of her first offspring to the last of her prodigy in her lifetime, she would account for no less than 163 offspring. This was not taking into account predation. To get there, you have to look at her life line. If she bred in the 2nd year of her life, she would produce one offspring, same for the 2rd year, in the 4th year she would twin and subsequent years she would twin and maybe have triplets. If her first calves were cows, then they would start breeding in their repective 2nd year and their offspring would be the prodigy of the 1st cow. Get the picture. He said that the ideal breeding conditions would be a ratio of 1 bull to 5 cows. He also stated that the age of the breeding bull would be in the 4 to 9 year range. He also stated that young bulls were not ideal breeding candidates and that is why there is a immature fork-horn season in Region 7 which accepted his model.
Anyhow, to bring the ratio back into line, the indians will have to curtail their harvest of cows. By that time, maybe the land will be back to a state that would be benefical to moose production.
And to bring back the forest, there has to be control burns conducted. To wait for natural progession without fire will take too much time.
And speaking of forests. Consider the evolution of a boreal forest. After a burn, the small plants like fireweed and forbs are the first to appear. Then the deciduous tress like birch and aspen followed by conifers such as lodgepole, balsams, spruce and finally the firs. The evolution to mature forest with the firs as an end result takes approximately 400 years.
At the rate of re-planting as currently conducted by the government, it will take considerably longer.

ONE cow moose will turn into 163 moose in a perfect glass house.But if a wolf or bear kills her calf she's still just ONE cow moose. As for the browse in cutblocks.....it is wiped out when the blocks are chemically treated. Whats left is pine, spruce and fir trees. Not really ungulant friendly as browse. This also creates a nice stirile environment for useless weeds to get a foothold. Within appr. 15 years these coniferous forests have closed in. This limits the browse. Studies have been done. As to .270 boys comment on the moose following the logging into the Interior. I DON'T THINK SO. There wasn't to much logging in the 1920s-1930s and for sure no clearcuts.

[trapperRick]

I have read all the posts and there are quite a few good points made but so far what I have figured out is no one knows for sure. There are most likely many reasons that all combine togeather to affect the numbers of moose/deer so until the issue is really looked into, all groups and I mean all groups should be prepared to accept a reduced harvest.

[Gateholio]

ONE cow moose will turn into 163 moose in a perfect glass house.But if a wolf or bear kills her calf she's still just ONE cow moose. As for the browse in cutblocks.....it is wiped out when the blocks are chemically treated. Whats left is pine, spruce and fir trees. Not really ungulant friendly as browse. This also creates a nice stirile environment for useless weeds to get a foothold. Within appr. 15 years these coniferous forests have closed in. This limits the browse. Studies have been done. As to .270 boys comment on the moose following the logging into the Interior. I DON'T THINK SO. There wasn't to much logging in the 1920s-1930s and for sure no clearcuts.


So why did moose move into the Chilcotin about 100 years ago, if it was not for settlers?

[Boner]

In my convoluted train of thought, the things that I can do, as a moose hunter is to:

1. Take up wolf/predator hunting.
2. Complain to forest companies and help convince FN forest shareholders to complain as well, to stop the chemical spraying, specifially the aerial spraying. I agree with bearvalley on what he said. I've seen it numerous times. If you stop and listen in a block that was sprayed in the last year or two, you won't see as many active game trails, if any at all. Even if you listen, it's weird. No birds or anything. No bear scat. Animals avoid these areas.
3. Don't open up grown in roads, and keep jigger trails hidden from access roads.
4. Request that the moose calf hunt in Region 7A be stopped.
5. Maybe most importantly, drive defensively on the highways. I had quite a few close calls, close being that I missed them because i'm watching for them, and expect them to jump out in front of me when I see them on the road right of ways.

[palmer]

The other point I think has a impact on animal numbers is the courts allowing NIGHT HUNTING. I understand that it is legal for certain groups to hunt at night, but this does allow for the taking of even the most nocturnal elements of the herd and also must lead to some wounding and lost game. I feel is it one thing to hunt year round, it is another to hunt both day and night....If the numbers are to come back it will take all groups working together and not each wanting a share of whats NOT left....lets hope something positive come of all this.

[bearvalley]

Paving the way to greener pastures of the Chilcotin! :D


MOOSE
Moose are quite new in the central interior of British Columbia, and very few ... were to be found south of Prince George until after the turn of the century. Early explorers saw few moose during their travels. ...it was not until shortly after 1900 that the great southerly migration began in earnest.
The reason for the southward drive was, put rather simply, the presence of suitable food where such food did not exist before. Activities of early settlers and miners in cutting and burning the dense forests ... changed the face of the land .... Food suitable for moose then appeared and the moose moved in.
Ralph Ritcey, BC Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks

Logging was pretty limited around the time moose moved to the interior. A log got moved as far as you could skid or haul it on a sliegh or wagon behind a team of horses.At that time there were a few stump farms and some bush ranchers. BIG FIRES are what made moose pasture. Big burns that came back to NATURAL REGEN ,including willow brush,poplar,birch and grasses.Things that moose eat.

[bearvalley]

So why did moose move into the Chilcotin about 100 years ago, if it was not for settlers?

Why did the Elk go. Why did the Caribou move closer to a couple of mountain ranges when they were dispersed throughout the Cariboo/Chilcotin plateau .
HABITAT CHANGE. A CHANGED LANDSCAPE DUE TO BIG BURNS THAT GREW BACK TO MOOSE BROWSE.

[bearvalley]

By the way lightning starts fires too,not just man..

[gcreek]

Paving the way to greener pastures of the Chilcotin! :D


MOOSE
Moose are quite new in the central interior of British Columbia, and very few ... were to be found south of Prince George until after the turn of the century. Early explorers saw few moose during their travels. ...it was not until shortly after 1900 that the great southerly migration began in earnest.
The reason for the southward drive was, put rather simply, the presence of suitable food where such food did not exist before. Activities of early settlers and miners in cutting and burning the dense forests ... changed the face of the land .... Food suitable for moose then appeared and the moose moved in.
Ralph Ritcey, BC Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks

That makes perfect sense to the senseless.

What about all the naturally occuring burns that happened it previous centuries? Most likely it was the demise of the elk, cariboo and deer populations caused by the second to last predator explosion in the Chilcotin that left room for another specie to move in.

The experts will go to great lengths to not shoulder any blame when their house of cards folds. Closing roads, less focus on man-made forests and predator control are all things that should have and can still be done.


Hard to collect the eggs when you kill the goose through greed and political sway.

[dana]

I find this thread rather amusing. What do you think happens when you leave the pine alone and avoid logging it? It falls over creating windfall jungles that no large animal wants to live in. Throw a match or have some dry lightning, and you will have fires of epic legends. Essentially, that is exactly what we had 80-100 years ago. Mass fires due to human activity such as railways, clearing land ect. The moose have a nose like a hound and they followed the lush that came afterward. And as far as I can see in many of the heavily logged pine areas in the south, that is exactly what the moose have done again. I've seen logging come to a halt in areas like Blue River due to the effort to save the mountain caribou. Not much for pine in that area, mainly old growth ICH and ESSF. The moose have disappeared since the logging has stopped. But in the areas to the south where the pine beetle harvest has been intense, I've seen moose numbers flourish. Amazing how many moose are up the Jamison right above the Loops. It makes sense. They moved to follow the feed, and they are doing it again. Logging mimics large natural disturbance types like fire. When my wife's grandmother was being raised in Blue River as a child, they pretty much lived on caribou. Never hunted moose as there were none around. They in a few short years their diet changed from caribou to moose. Moose were everywhere. There were no moose in Wells Gray until the great fire of 26. Then in a matter of a couple of decades, there was an estimated 1 moose per acre. It was overrun. By the 50's it was a world class moose hunting destination with liberal seasons that went from Sept to Jan for any moose. They were harvesting over 200 bulls off one small mountain every year. Then the hard winters of the late 60's and early 70's came in and the moose plumated. There are natural cycles that happen and too many people nowadays jump to conclusions without any science to back them. To say logging is killing off the moose is comical.

[bearvalley]

Logging could be a huge asset to wildlife if blocks are allowed to come back to a natural mixed stand. In a lot of the interior this is not happening due to intesive silvaculture practices that are designed to GROW TREES. PINE,SPRUCE and FIR. It is a problem and a bunch of foresters are realizing this. Add in the unlimited road access and its WONDERFUL moose country. On the one moose to the acre in Wells Grey........... pretty big park. Must of looked like a ANT HILL....200 bulls off one small mountain...and we're griping about FNs.

[bearvalley]

That makes perfect sense to the senseless.

What about all the naturally occuring burns that happened it previous centuries? Most likely it was the demise of the elk, cariboo and deer populations caused by the second to last predator explosion in the Chilcotin that left room for another specie to move in.

The experts will go to great lengths to not shoulder any blame when their house of cards folds. Closing roads, less focus on man-made forests and predator control are all things that should have and can still be done.


Hard to collect the eggs when you kill the goose through greed and political sway.

I like that " PERFECT SENSE TO THE SENSELESS " , the way its going we're gonna be a bunch of RABBIT and WOODPECKER hunters...

[dana]

As far as road access, from what I've seen, most roads are being built as tempory in block roads. Post harvest, hard to tell that there was even a road there. Forest Companys don't want high road costs when it comes to logging $hit wood.

[afflicted 1]

after living here in the interior a long time and relying on forestry and the huge blocks we all speak of I will agree the wide open spaces and access we have created havn't helped the moose population. The illegal hunting no doubt has its effect to, but wolves are playing a major part here and that is a fact. wolf sightings are way up, helicopter surveys have proven there are to many in key moose areas that is why the no bag limit is in place. I personally have seen numerous wolves and kills. Last winter we were in an area proven for years to have high mule deer densities and we seen 4 out of 150 -200 also seen 2 wolves and tracks from a pack the night before and 3 kills. I think the wolves have the moose down to a point now that they have moved onto deer in their winter grounds. Yes the wolves will eventually starve themselves off but do we want to see it come to that? Look at the aftermath through out yellowstone and surounding area.

[gcreek]

As far as road access, from what I've seen, most roads are being built as tempory in block roads. Post harvest, hard to tell that there was even a road there. Forest Companys don't want high road costs when it comes to logging $hit wood.

Maybe not in your area dana. A lot of roads that were built in the late 80's are still in good shape and wide open for travel in the west Chilcotin. God help the person that suggests they are closed to hunting! Even with Band support for closure, MOE chooses to cave in the road hunters and leave them open. The dry country around the Gang Ranch, Alexis Creek and Big Creek is easy access for anyone who is determined enough to get around water bars and lock blocks.

Good points in your last post.

[bearvalley]

As far as road access, from what I've seen, most roads are being built as tempory in block roads. Post harvest, hard to tell that there was even a road there. Forest Companys don't want high road costs when it comes to logging $hit wood.

Come on up. I'll take you for a drive thru what used to some of the best moose pasture and winter range in the country. Given , predators are part of the equation... but they have had high and low cycles before... just not as obvious to as many resident hunters as todays high is now. The big change is the accelerated MPB harvet in the last few years.Roads aren't DE-ACTIVATED fast enough and no matter...some one will still figure out how to get a quad down most of them. Maybe we need general area or road closures and quad restricted areas in the mean time , along with compulsary inspection of resident LEH bull moose in addition to an accountable FNs kill. As I said before Guide Outfitters are the only ones turning in Region 5 moose kill #s....... Might be a start...or we can wait 80 to 100 years for the cycle to reverse.

[Davey Crockett]

Come on up. I'll take you for a drive thru what used to some of the best moose pasture and winter range in the country. Given , predators are part of the equation... but they have had high and low cycles before... just not as obvious to as many resident hunters as todays high is now. The big change is the accelerated MPB harvet in the last few years.Roads aren't DE-ACTIVATED fast enough and no matter...some one will still figure out how to get a quad down most of them. Maybe we need general area or road closures and quad restricted areas in the mean time , along with compulsary inspection of resident LEH bull moose in addition to an accountable FNs kill. As I said before Guide Outfitters are the only ones turning in Region 5 moose kill #s....... Might be a start...or we can wait 80 to 100 years for the cycle to reverse.

I don't quite understand your idea that an accelerated harvest and 'intensive' silviculture is lessening moose browse. In terms of moose browse, they have converted once forested (crown closure) to an early serial stage where even with intensive silviculture, you will find more browse than in a standing pine stand.

If the aggressive harvest is to blame, my thought is that it has impacted moose by making predators more efficient and by eliminating winter cover habitat (although logging didn't remove the cover, pine beetle did).

As far as intensive silviculture, my understanding is that the vast majority of beetle harvest has been on on non-replaceable forest licenses. There is absolutely no incentive to the licensee in practicing intensive silviculture, they simply only need to establish a free growing stand.

[bearvalley]

I don't quite understand your idea that an accelerated harvest and 'intensive' silviculture is lessening moose browse. In terms of moose browse, they have converted once forested (crown closure) to an early serial stage where even with intensive silviculture, you will find more browse than in a standing pine stand.

If the aggressive harvest is to blame, my thought is that it has impacted moose by making predators more efficient and by eliminating winter cover habitat (although logging didn't remove the cover, pine beetle did).

As far as intensive silviculture, my understanding is that the vast majority of beetle harvest has been on on non-replaceable forest licenses. There is absolutely no incentive to the licensee in practicing intensive silviculture, they simply only need to establish a free growing stand.

You missed my post on forced free to grow. Log 200-400 trees per hectare...replant 1600...wait a few years and chemically wipe out all competition that is Non-Coniferous thus giving the planted trees the advantage to reach free to grow hieght(appr 2 m ).In the meantime ignore the natural re-gen that leaves blocks with from 5,000 to highs of 15,000 trees per hectare,creating total closure of the forest canopy and NO BROWSE. It has been the practice for years but the volume of area hugely increased after the MPB deal. By the way in some areas a lot of green PINE BEETLE spruce and fir got a truck ride too.

[Jagermeister]

I guess you must have missed this point. "This was not taking into account predation. "
I guess I should have wrote it "This was not taking predation into account." The latter is easier to understand.

And you were wondering what took the elk out? According to Harold Mitchell (deceased), Regional Biologist for the Cariboo that carbon dating on elk horn that was retrieved from the Gaspard/Churn Creek areas indicated that the horn specimens were from the early 1800s. He suggested that the elk were killed off when there was a lack of forage due to two years of no poor growing conditions. This postulation is well documented in historical data and the cause was reported to be a tremendous amount of volcanic ash that accounted for "two years without summer." There was an environmental impact worldwide from this volcanic event.

And for when the moose came to BC? If you look at photos from the BC Archieves that are hunting related, you will not see moose in the photos until sometime in the 1930s. Bears and deer, but no moose.

I think the chemical treatment for "weed" should be curtailed. How can that not have an effect on other aspects of the environment, like water?



ONE cow moose will turn into 163 moose in a perfect glass house.But if a wolf or bear kills her calf she's still just ONE cow moose. As for the browse in cutblocks.....it is wiped out when the blocks are chemically treated. Whats left is pine, spruce and fir trees. Not really ungulant friendly as browse. This also creates a nice stirile environment for useless weeds to get a foothold. Within appr. 15 years these coniferous forests have closed in. This limits the browse. Studies have been done. As to .270 boys comment on the moose following the logging into the Interior. I DON'T THINK SO. There wasn't to much logging in the 1920s-1930s and for sure no clearcuts.
I think that the pine beetle devastation is a very minor impact on the moose populations.
Moose tend to thrive in immature forest such as that of Ontario and Quebec. Gives them more browse year round. While it is true that hunters have the advantage in the early part of a clear cut due to unlimited visibility, that diminishes as the forest regenenerates and the bush reaches the height of the moose or greater.
As srupp states, the bull/cow ratio is the detrimental factor. You could lay blame on the wolves as they may target young cow moose as easy targets, but you have to factor in other predators that would target cow moose too and who else would target cow moose? Certainly not the resident hunter unless he is poaching. That only leaves one other "hunter" and their indiscriminate "harvest" at a time of year when moose congregate in "yards" would be a high probability to be the sole cause of the demise or diminishing moose populations.
I remember listening to Dr. Tony Bubenek talking about the life of a cow moose. He stated in the time of her life, from the birth of her first offspring to the last of her prodigy in her lifetime, she would account for no less than 163 offspring. This was not taking into account predation. To get there, you have to look at her life line. If she bred in the 2nd year of her life, she would produce one offspring, same for the 2rd year, in the 4th year she would twin and subsequent years she would twin and maybe have triplets. If her first calves were cows, then they would start breeding in their repective 2nd year and their offspring would be the prodigy of the 1st cow. Get the picture. He said that the ideal breeding conditions would be a ratio of 1 bull to 5 cows. He also stated that the age of the breeding bull would be in the 4 to 9 year range. He also stated that young bulls were not ideal breeding candidates and that is why there is a immature fork-horn season in Region 7 which accepted his model.
Anyhow, to bring the ratio back into line, the indians will have to curtail their harvest of cows. By that time, maybe the land will be back to a state that would be benefical to moose production.
And to bring back the forest, there has to be control burns conducted. To wait for natural progession without fire will take too much time.
And speaking of forests. Consider the evolution of a boreal forest. After a burn, the small plants like fireweed and forbs are the first to appear. Then the deciduous tress like birch and aspen followed by conifers such as lodgepole, balsams, spruce and finally the firs. The evolution to mature forest with the firs as an end result takes approximately 400 years.
At the rate of re-planting as currently conducted by the government, it will take considerably longer.

[bearvalley]

Jag...I wouldn't be so sure there is no environmental damage when tthe main solution used is 50%+/- GLYSOPHATE ...which has been tested to be supposedly fine...but the other 50%+/- is the surfacant that is made up of a combination of inerts that so far Monsanto will not disclose.Big Business gets the Blind Eye.
As to Harold Mitchell....he suggested, he didn't know.........
On the moose coming to coming to BC in the 1930s....kinda funny a lot of families had figured out they were good table fare a decade or so before that. Maybe they forgot to pose and take a picture with their moose and just ate it instead.
As stated before Jag, the FNs kill is a PROBLEM ....but there are large parts of Region 5 that see's limited native pressure and moose #s are still dropping sharply. Predators have had peaks before as well. We did NOT have the thousand hectare adjoining clearcuts and the KMs of access roads. But .....that can't have anything to do with the problem.
It's gotta be the Indians,the Predators and the Outfitters....just gotta be.

[bearvalley]

And by the way, any study on wildlife numbers that DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT PREDATION might as well be put on the shelf beside the roll of toilet paper...

[Jagermeister]

And by the way, any study on wildlife numbers that DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT PREDATION might as well be put on the shelf beside the roll of toilet paper...I guess we cannot get the bears, cougars and wolves to tell us their harvest numbers. And the Indians will not comply either. That's 4 out of 5 that do not report, so screw it, why should we be told that we will have to curtail our hunting of moose.
And I still stand by the turn of the 19th century as the time period of the introduction of moose (alces alces) into the area of BC west of the Continental Divide. I know that Eric Collier wrote about the time moose showed up in the Meldrum Creek area north-west of Williams Lake. This is chronicled in his book, "Three Against the Wildreness". I think Dr. James Hatter also mentioned their arrival in his thesis, "The Moose of Central British Columbia".

[MattB]

Clearcutting will create a lot of moose habitat with time. I read a first nations Climate change poster in one of the gas stations out west of Williams lake back over winter and on the poster they had "Deer aren't as fat as they used to be" as one of the things they've noticed with climate change. I don't think climate change will affect the amount of fat on a deer but from what I saw while working out there there really isn't a lot of good feed for deer/moose especially under the dense pine stands that remain free from harvest. I think fire suppression on that whole plateau has really affected the ungulates. Some of the recent burns will only help out both species.

[bearvalley]

I guess we cannot get the bears, cougars and wolves to tell us their harvest numbers. And the Indians will not comply either. That's 4 out of 5 that do not report, so screw it, why should we be told that we will have to curtail our hunting of moose.
And I still stand by the turn of the 19th century as the time period of the introduction of moose (alces alces) into the area of BC west of the Continental Divide. I know that Eric Collier wrote about the time moose showed up in the Meldrum Creek area north-west of Williams Lake. This is chronicled in his book, "Three Against the Wildreness". I think Dr. James Hatter also mentioned their arrival in his thesis, "The Moose of Central British Columbia".

Jag.... now that you rolled moose arrival in the interior back about 30 years , whats the arguement ? First one documented shot in the west chilcotin was 1922 , tracks had been seen for a couple of years before that. Nazko residents and others to the north east had already been eating them for a few years.
Jimmy Hatters thesis......another study.
Then a few years later he brought in the open cow moose season in the interior that sent moose numbers for a tumble.
To quote Alfred Bryant ,deceased long time guide,packer and rancher from the Anahim Lake country
" D'ya ever notice how a critter has either died,took off or screwed himself outa house an home before them studies is half finished. How nothin ever holds still long enough to be studied? An' how one study never fails t' hatch a follow-upper? Kinda weird ain't it? "
(Rutledge: That Some May Follow)
So Jag...As you say......SCREW IT, lets all grab from the cookie jar.

[Davey Crockett]

You missed my post on forced free to grow. Log 200-400 trees per hectare...replant 1600...wait a few years and chemically wipe out all competition that is Non-Coniferous thus giving the planted trees the advantage to reach free to grow hieght(appr 2 m ).In the meantime ignore the natural re-gen that leaves blocks with from 5,000 to highs of 15,000 trees per hectare,creating total closure of the forest canopy and NO BROWSE. It has been the practice for years but the volume of area hugely increased after the MPB deal. By the way in some areas a lot of green PINE BEETLE spruce and fir got a truck ride too.

I'm not from the area but I find it hard to believe that there is widespread use of glyphosate in every setting. Where is the incentive? Is it so brushy that this is required to achieve free to grow?

[Squirrelnuts]

I'm not from the area but I find it hard to believe that there is widespread use of glyphosate in every setting.

There isn't.

[bearvalley]

There isn't.

You would have a hard time backing that statement if 10 to 15 years of herbicide treatment maps ( both aerial and ground ) were laid out in front of you.

[dana]

I too find it hard to believe when most licencees don't want to spend much these days on Silviculture. Typically herbacide is a last ditch effort to try to get an area that has seen other treatments fail when it comes to brush control. They are desperately trying to get free-growing and can't because the brush is beating them. That means, the moose have had plenty of feed in those blocks up until that point. And it doesn't take much more than 2 years and the brush is back with a venagance. But the trees have got the sunlight and water they needed and can stay above the brush till they reach the magic number.

[Squirrelnuts]

You would have a hard time backing that statement if 10 to 15 years of herbicide treatment maps ( both aerial and ground ) were laid out in front of you.

First, a reminder of the question I was answering:


"I'm not from the area but I find it hard to believe that there is widespread use of glyphosate in every setting. Where is the incentive? Is it so brushy that this is required to achieve free to grow?"

Well, yes, I could go through the archives and stack a pile of treatment maps in front of me but what would that prove? That 100% of those blocks needed treatment? Kind of a spurious argument when you don't include the blocks that didn't require it. 10-15 years? Is that supposed to impress? Intimidate? I hope not because you're still years behind me...

Your argument seems to be that there is widespread, almost standard-practice use of aerial herbicide in silviculture operations. While I'm not going to bother going through years of documentation I can tell you that for this year we have assessed 41 blocks that add up to just under 2300ha. Of those 41 blocks, 5 have been slated for aerial spray and the gross area of those blocks is about 165ha. (Bear in mind that's GROSS area, not the area that will actually be treated). 23 blocks require small patch basal bark treatment (Triclopyr) and the rest require nothing. This year was no different than most.

Some other things:


As for the browse in cutblocks.....it is wiped out when the blocks are chemically treated. Whats left is pine, spruce and fir trees. Not really ungulant (sic) friendly as browse.

Please explain to me how significant (ie: not aspen) browse gets "wiped out" during basal bark spraying.


I wouldn't be so sure there is no environmental damage when tthe main solution used is 50%+/- GLYSOPHATE ...which has been tested to be supposedly fine...but the other 50%+/- is the surfacant that is made up of a combination of inerts that so far Monsanto will not disclose.Big Business gets the Blind Eye.

The surfactant makes up 15% of the volume (not 50) and the remainder of the solution is water. "The surfactant is a polyethoxylated tallow amine, a type that is also common to cosmetics and household products". (from http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/publications/00015/6-Dost-Glyphosate.pdf).

[bearvalley]

If you got 15% surfactant (polyethoxylated tallow amine) and 85% water, how the hell are you going to kill a tree. Maybe sit down and read the lables on Vision and the rest of the products. You kinda missed the Glysophate and the Triclopyr in the mix as well as the undisclosed inerts. Maybe we would all be better off if you were just dumping out water and cow fat. Last I knew the product tests were done only on Glysophate and Triclopyr ...Not on the suractant that contains the inerts.While your so far ahead ...Sit down and read or maybe think.

[Squirrelnuts]

If you got 15% surfactant (polyethoxylated tallow amine) and 85% water, how the hell are you going to kill a tree. Maybe sit down and read the lables on Vision and the rest of the products.

Way to miss the obvious. I assumed that someone as astute as you (10-15 years of experience!) wouldn't have to be told that the "other" component was glyphosate. I'll know better for next time.


You kinda missed the Glysophate and the Triclopyr in the mix as well as the undisclosed inerts.

Well, you missed the water, a page or two back:


tthe main solution used is 50%+/- GLYSOPHATE ...which has been tested to be supposedly fine...but the other 50%+/- is the surfacant that is made up of a combination of inerts that so far Monsanto will not disclose.Big Business gets the Blind Eye.

The actual percentage of surfactant is around 15%, so your statement is factually wrong anyway.

And what Triclopyr? When did we start discussing that? I know I mentioned it in passing but we don't spray that from helicopters, do we? (And there's no triclopyr in glyphosate but of course you know that. Right?)


Maybe we would all be better off if you were just dumping out water and cow fat. Last I knew the product tests were done only on Glysophate and Triclopyr ...Not on the suractant that contains the inerts.While your so far ahead ...Sit down and read or maybe think.

Honestly- do you think one of the most widely used herbicides in the world hasn't undergone just a wee bit of testing? Oh, right- It's Big Bad Monsanto, isn't it? Of course they get a "free pass" or in your words turned a "blind eye".

Oh, in case anyone cares the surfactant used with triclopyr (seeing as it seems bearvalley wants to lump that in with glyphosate) is usually a petroleum based solvent but can be as benign as canola oil.

[bearvalley]

Squirrelnuts... I think I said 10-15 years of maps , you spun it into 10-15 years of experiance.
You brought Triclopyr into the conversation when you brought up basal bark treatment.
YOUR the expert...... so show me a study done on the SURFACANT.
Testing was done on either GLYSOPHATE or TRYCLOPYR but not the mix.
Polyethoxylated tallow amine was the surfacant you brought up...dont think it's petroleum based.
Maybe you should post a little later in the morning and like I suggested , sit down and read or maybe THINK.

[Boner]

MOOSE

I've seen blocks that have been aerial sprayed with no previous attempt at manual brushing done.

I've lost a lot of brush saw work over the years because of spraying. I haven't brushsawed/spaced any blocks twice, but I have heard that some have had to be done twice before they are free to grow. I've gone through my old pieces, and the moose seem to use the areas as before. I can't say the same for sprayed blocks. At least the ones i've looked at.

[Squirrelnuts]

Squirrelnuts... I think I said 10-15 years of maps , you spun it into 10-15 years of experiance.

That was the effect you were after though, wasn't it? To add some credibility to your opinions? I'm sure most people that read that thought that you were knowledgeable about the subject and that with "10-15 years of maps in front of you" you must be involved in it in some way.


You brought Triclopyr into the conversation when you brought up basal bark treatment.
YOUR the expert...... so show me a study done on the SURFACANT. Testing was done on either GLYSOPHATE or TRYCLOPYR but not the mix.

Reading comprehension not your strong suit, eh? Tryclopyr is mixed with (most often in a forestry environment) a surfactant called Isopar. It's a petroleum distillate. Like I mentioned earlier, it can just as easily be mixed with canola (or soybean, etc) oil. No Monsanto woowoo there.

Studies on Roundup (which includes its surfactant): http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=roundup+toxicity+study&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=G3kUUL7gCdHTqQHj8YHICg&ved=0CGsQgQMwAA

and triclopyr: https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&ei=zngUUIi0M8jbqQGXn4D4Cg&ved=0CGwQvwUoAQ&q=triclopyr+toxicity+study&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f51c8133090d8231&biw=1680&bih=935

If you want to read about the surfactant used with tryclopyr you can figure that out on your own. Google "Isopar" or "canola oil".
Once again, you do realize that Tryclopyr and Vision/Roundup are different chemicals, and used for entirely different processes, don't you?


Polyethoxylated tallow amine was the surfacant you brought up...dont think it's petroleum based.

You're right, it's not. AND IT'S NOT MIXED WITH TRYCLOPYR. It's the surfactant in Roundup for Christ's sake.


Maybe you should post a little later in the morning and like I suggested , sit down and read or maybe THINK.

I posted that before I went to the bush. Is that an issue too? And perhaps you should take your own advice and learn a little bit about a topic before posting your half-assed opinions as facts.

I could go on, but I won't. There's just no point.

[argyle1]

any trapper or logger in area 6 will tell you that the wolf population has risen more than the moose population fell---substantially more--can't speak for area 5, but I suspect the same----

[bearvalley]

That was the effect you were after though, wasn't it? To add some credibility to your opinions? I'm sure most people that read that thought that you were knowledgeable about the subject and that with "10-15 years of maps in front of you" you must be involved in it in some way.



Reading comprehension not your strong suit, eh? Tryclopyr is mixed with (most often in a forestry environment) a surfactant called Isopar. It's a petroleum distillate. Like I mentioned earlier, it can just as easily be mixed with canola (or soybean, etc) oil. No Monsanto woowoo there.

Studies on Roundup (which includes its surfactant): http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=roundup+toxicity+study&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=G3kUUL7gCdHTqQHj8YHICg&ved=0CGsQgQMwAA

and triclopyr: https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&ei=zngUUIi0M8jbqQGXn4D4Cg&ved=0CGwQvwUoAQ&q=triclopyr+toxicity+study&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f51c8133090d8231&biw=1680&bih=935

If you want to read about the surfactant used with tryclopyr you can figure that out on your own. Google "Isopar" or "canola oil".
Once again, you do realize that Tryclopyr and Vision/Roundup are different chemicals, and used for entirely different processes, don't you?



You're right, it's not. AND IT'S NOT MIXED WITH TRYCLOPYR. It's the surfactant in Roundup for Christ's sake.



I posted that before I went to the bush. Is that an issue too? And perhaps you should take your own advice and learn a little bit about a topic before posting your half-assed opinions as facts.

I could go on, but I won't. There's just no point.

Don't you think your kinda loosing it Squirrelnuts. I do realize Vision and Roundup(Glysophate products) differ from Triclopyrs. I'm also proud that you went to the bush . You win SquirrelNUTS. Your my chemically educated HERO. By the way , DID YOU POUR SOME OF YOUR SOLVENT ON A TREE WHILE YOU HAD YOUR WALK IN THE WILDERNESS ?