Proposal to Transplant Elk from Region 5

[Jagermeister]

I get copy of this letter from the BCWF just a few minutes ago. Things like this can really piss me off.

http://www.bcwf.net/images/stories/Committee/Wildlife/2012.07.26_Proposal_to_Transplant_Elk.pdf (http://www.bcwf.net/images/stories/Committee/Wildlife/2012.07.26_Proposal_to_Transplant_Elk.pdf)


Given the state of Region 5 moose hunting opportunities, you would think the nimwits in the MOE Wildlife office in Williams Lake would seize on the opportunity to open a season for elk in the Quesnel area. Afterall, government is paying the ranchers in the area for elk generated crop damage. That's our money they are being frivilous with, so why not grant the regional hunters an opportunity to bag an elk or two?
I know some of the ranchers do not want hunters on their private or leased lands, but if they do not want hunters, then they should not be eligibile for crop damage payents.
And I know some of those ranchers think that when there is an elk opening, they will be able to hunt elk on their exclusive reserves with all their buddies.
Did I say this pissed me off?
Crap, I can foresee another Indian demand coming down the pike. (For the time being, do not address this last statement, just focus on getting the opening before any transplants are too occur.)

[TPK]

I was none too happy about this. Here is the letter I sent out.




July 23, 2012
Dear Mr. Mike Ramsay,

You received a letter from the Quesnel Rod and Gun Club indicating their disappointment and concerns over a proposed Elk transplant. I must say I echo their comments and concerns.

Where was the consultation with local clubs and with who were the discussions had with regards to this plan to transplant problem elk?

Certainly the Quesnel Rod and Gun Club have been mislead with regards the possibility of an Elk hunt. They did assist Pat Dielmen for two years trying to survey the numbers in hopes getting the needed 200 count for a hunt to be entertained. Never once was there any mention of transplanting elk.

Now however, the Ministry is pursuing a transplant to reestablish historic Elk herds in our Region instead of a hunt to remove them. Please provide us with the rationale for the change in stated direction. There was no communication or consultation at all with the regional BCWF, resident hunters, or any affected parties that myself as BCWF Regional President is actually aware of.

I personally find it frustrating as the transplant was not mentioned when I recently talked face to face with you about what would need to be done to start managing Elk for harvest in our Region. I mentioned that a harvest has been requested by several clubs and their many members as well as local farmers and cattlemen looking for any relief from the ever growing problems caused by these Elk.

Clearly there is a need to deal with the current Elk population and the BCWF member clubs in our Region will always favour a hunt vs. transplant when dealing with species that are not at risk in our Province (as is the case with elk).

The issue of the benefits of a hunt vs. the cost of a transplant program needs to be recognized here. Where is this money coming from for the program? We have so many other issues right now with funding problems that to take on a whole new initiative just seems wrong. Especially when an elk harvest opportunity could be used in light of declining moose populations.

Moving forward, I am requesting that I be kept informed of the Regional Wildlife staff plan with regards to elk in our Region. I would like to formerly request whatever information regarding the existing Elk population in our area the Ministry has at this time. Surely there must be some numbers gathered if a transplant is being considered. I feel it’s only fair to share this information with the people that for two years provided input into those numbers.

I look forward to talking with you in the future, on this and on other areas of concerns and I hope that in these future dealings the decided upon framework regarding game management in our Province will be followed. This includes consultation, discussion, and the sharing of relevant information with all interested parties.

I am requesting a written response to this letter and the one from the Quesnel Rod and Gun club within 30 days.
Sincerely,

Tony Koett
BCWF Region 5 - President
CC BCWF Region 5 Clubs
CC Tom Ethier, ADM MFLNRO
CC Andrew Wilson, Director Fish, Wildlife and Habitat
CC Rodger Stewart, Director, Resource Management – Cariboo Region
CC Bob Simpson, MLA Cariboo North
CC Donna Barnett, MLA Cariboo South

[TPK]

Here is the letter received by the Quesnel Rod and Gun Club in response to their letter to MIke Ramsay at the MOE in Williams Lake regarding this issue.

File: 78700-20/Eik

July 18,2012



Quesnel Rod and Gun Club
PO Box4504
Quesnel BC V2J 3J4

Dear Michelle Pelletier:

Thank-you for your letter dated June 7, 2012 regarding a potential elk transplant within the Cariboo Region. Elk are native to the Cariboo Region but were extirpated in the late 1800's. They are designated as a species for recovery in the Cariboo. Due to concerns with elk depredation on agricultural land this has become a very contentious issue with the ranching community.

Elk continue to immigrate into the Cariboo Region from the north and are slowly reoccupying their native habitats. Unfortunately they concentrate in certain areas before dispersing south irito unoccupied habitats. As such, certain ranches in the North Cariboo have significant numbers of elk concentrating on their properties. This creates a disparity for those ranches as they are bearing the burden of the elk recovery for the region and it is not fair to these landowners to allow the situation to continue.

There are two management options to disperse elk off ranches. One option is trapping and relocation of elk while the second option is to shoot some elk to encourage dispersal. Trapping and moving elk would serve the purpose of removing elk and placing them in habitats that historically and currently would allow elk populations within the Cariboo Region to grow, and eventually establish a harvestable population for First Nations, resident hunters and guided hunters. Harvesting some of the elk might disperse them a short distance from the conflict properties into adjacent areas. However, dispersal throughout the region would be an unlikely outcome with a highly regulated hunt. There currently are so few elk that if an LEH season was established the authorizations would be very limited. Attempts at several aerial census have failed to detect more than 30-40 elk per survey. The cutTent estimate for the two conflict areas are 30-50 elk in the vicinity of Gravelles Ferry and 40-60 elk NW of Quesnel (confluence of Fraser-Cottonwood River).

The current court established law is that First Nations have first rights to a harvestable surplus of a hunted species after conservation targets are met and before non-First Nations have an opportunity to hunt. This means that an allocation would first need to be determined for First Nations, prior to establishing an elk hunting season for non-First Nations.

Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations

Natural Resource Operations Resource Management Cariboo Region

Mailing Address:
400 - 640 Borland Street
Williams Lake BC V2G 4T1

Telephone' 250-398-4530
Facsllnile 250-398-4214
Web: www:gov.bc.ca/nro




Cariboo First Nations currently support an elk transplant to increase elk populations throughout the Cariboo. The transplants could be an exceptional opportunity for stakeholders to work with First Nations to build better relationships and have First Nations become more involved in wildlife management and species recovery in the Cariboo. The alternative is some harvest · opportunity for First Nations, a minimal LEH opportunity for resident hunters and guides, and a
. protracted elk recovery within the Cariboo Region.

Thank-you for expressing your views on this important wildlife management issue.



file:///C:\Users\Tony\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\c lip_image004.png





-






_gy Regional Manager Resource Management

PD/MR/dm

[Jagermeister]

Now this all goes back to 1981, when Harold Mitchell proposed an elk transplant to the Gaspard Churn Creek area. I suppose that MOE is thinking of dropping off some elk in that area now.
Back in 1981, there were 143 submissions forwarded on the proposal. The proposal was very comprehensive and took into consideration many problems associated with the introduction should it happen. Of the 143 submissions, seven opposed the transplant. Those seven were responses from the ranchers in the area. The MLA, Alex Fraser sided with the ranchers (they probably feted him with a beef BBQ and lots of whiskey) and the transplant was quashed.
Back then, the indians did not exercise their indiscriminate hunting practices as they do today. Bearing this in mind, how then would a herd of transplanted elk into the Alexis Creek/Redstone and surrounding area ever have a chance of surviving the day let alone increase in population? Using MOE money, which probably will originate out of the habitat conservation fund, to transplant elk for the benifit of the indians does not bode well with me. Matter of fact, I downright adamantly oppose using any fund to conduct a transplant. Let the indians pony up from the funds that they already receive.
I wrote many letters in favour on the original proposal. The Quesnel Rod & Gun members were even willing to put in time and labour constructing elk proof panel for haystacks. It was all for naught.
I clench my teeth.

[betteroffishing]

the whole " fn first " legal requirement is the sole reason i will never be in favor of spending any of our tax dollars on costly programs like re-location. we the tax payers and license buyers will fund the policy while the fn's become the sole beneficiaries. nope nope nope

[gcreek]

Isn't it interesting how much bullshit a biologist can write and expect another party to believe. I doubt there are any ranchers who want to see these elk moved to become the habituated problem for someone else that they are now.

Mr. Ramsey even blatently LIES about the numbers involved! Imagine that.

Proof that bios are so open minded their brains fell out.

[bearvalley]

I get copy of this letter from the BCWF just a few minutes ago. Things like this can really piss me off.

http://www.bcwf.net/images/stories/Committee/Wildlife/2012.07.26_Proposal_to_Transplant_Elk.pdf (http://www.bcwf.net/images/stories/Committee/Wildlife/2012.07.26_Proposal_to_Transplant_Elk.pdf)


Given the state of Region 5 moose hunting opportunities, you would think the nimwits in the MOE Wildlife office in Williams Lake would seize on the opportunity to open a season for elk in the Quesnel area. Afterall, government is paying the ranchers in the area for elk generated crop damage. That's our money they are being frivilous with, so why not grant the regional hunters an opportunity to bag an elk or two?
I know some of the ranchers do not want hunters on their private or leased lands, but if they do not want hunters, then they should not be eligibile for crop damage payents.
And I know some of those ranchers think that when there is an elk opening, they will be able to hunt elk on their exclusive reserves with all their buddies.
Did I say this pissed me off?
Crap, I can foresee another Indian demand coming down the pike. (For the time being, do not address this last statement, just focus on getting the opening before any transplants are too occur.)

Jag....You sure are one of the misinformed informed. Do you have a clue how the formula for crop damage compensation works.Now explain how 1 or 2 bull elk killed on an LEH draw is going to reduce crop damage when they are only around for a short time before,during and after the rut while the cows,calves and younger elk pretty much come and go from agricultural land year around. Did you ever stop to think,once a LEH tag is issued the FNs have already been given the green light. Whats your cow moose problem. Cow elk are pretty easy pickings in a hay field. Don,t you think maybe instead of some people always bitching that they want to kill more.....they could put some thought into what works best in the long run. Your also a classic example of why ranchers deny SOME hunters hunting privileges on their property. Did any of the Quesnel Rod and Gun or BCWF members ask any of the ranchers being impacted , what knowledge they might have on elk numbers. They probably would be the most in the know. But then it's probably easier to sit in a coffee shop and gripe about how everyone else is doing it wrong......then go home and write a letter about how " I WANT MORE "

[The Dude]

As an outsider, I'm reading this:
Elk are moving south, and re-populating historic ranges. They get hung up on some ranches, cuz there's food and shelter, and no preds.
Ministry wants to relocate some to start seed herds in good habitat where they aren't now, and get them off the ranches.
Sorry, what's the issue?

[hunter1947]

This is a big circle that keeps going round I won't post up my thoughts because I might get banned ,one thing I know if they want to transplant elk my thoughts are that they the management should transplant the elk into remote areas within this region or other regions not around agriculture land .....

[gcreek]

As an outsider, I'm reading this:
Elk are moving south, and re-populating historic ranges. They get hung up on some ranches, cuz there's food and shelter, and no preds.
Ministry wants to relocate some to start seed herds in good habitat where they aren't now, and get them off the ranches.
Sorry, what's the issue?

Kind of like hauling a dump bear from one town to another. There really aren't any remote areas left in southern BC.

The millions they want to spend on this would be better spent on something like predator reduction. There was a load of elk quietly dropped off near Hanceville back in the 80's, something like 30 of them. According the fellows I know at Anaham, they lasted less than 10 days. Does this sound like a good investment to you?

It costs nothing to open a hunt right where they are, if they want to move south on their own they will.

[The Dude]

First of all, where do you get "Millions" from?
Secondly, the first herd transplanted into Squamish was wiped out by BSPs, the second transplants are doing quite well, due to gated roads (No 'Night Riders'), and a reported agreement with local Indians. No reason it can't work there.
Thirdly, hauling one garbage-addicted bear is worlds away from transplanting a complete herd to good habitat far from Alfalfa fields.
And I agree with you on predator reduction, which normally hapens for free on ranches......by ranchers.
I would prefer to move seed herds into good areas and think long-term over getting the opportunity to whack a few Elk, and 'manage' a basically farmed herd.
And don't ever forget who's gonna get first "Whack' if this happens.
Resident hunters will get sloppy seconds, as usual.

[gcreek]

First of all, where do you get "Millions" from?
Secondly, the first herd transplanted into Squamish was wiped out by BSPs, the second transplants are doing quite well, due to gated roads (No 'Night Riders'), and a reported agreement with local Indians. No reason it can't work there.
Thirdly, hauling one garbage-addicted bear is worlds away from transplanting a complete herd to good habitat far from Alfalfa fields.
And I agree with you on predator reduction, which normally hapens for free on ranches......by ranchers.
I would prefer to move seed herds into good areas and think long-term over getting the opportunity to whack a few Elk, and 'manage' a basically farmed herd.
And don't ever forget who's gonna get first "Whack' if this happens.
Resident hunters will get sloppy seconds, as usual.

Firstly, don't get the idea that I totally disagree with this idea......... as long as the drop off points don't affect other ranches. It is well know that elk are very adept at finding the best habitat for themselves in a given area, unfortunately this is usually a farmed field.

As to the money, it cost $33,000 per head to nueter wolves in the failed Quesnel Lake experiment. How many tax dollars do you think MOE could piss away moving an elk?

The bios are not concerned with providing hunting opportunities as much as they are with creating a computer model that looks good from an office chair. They are concerned with job security and this issue just created the "need" for countless studies and meetings before things start to happen.

How long do you think moving 20 elk into the Chilcotin or upper Horsefly will take before MOE considers there is sufficient increase to support a hunt? 30 years? That is how long it has been since elk were first seen in the Gravelle Ferry area.

There have been 25+ years of studies on wolf predation and nothing conclusive has been admitted yet. If a conclusion is reached it ends jobs.

[gcreek]

As for cost, I neglected to mention the "behind the scene" funds used up before action starts. The 33m was the on the ground cost at Q.L.

[bearvalley]

First of all, where do you get "Millions" from?
Secondly, the first herd transplanted into Squamish was wiped out by BSPs, the second transplants are doing quite well, due to gated roads (No 'Night Riders'), and a reported agreement with local Indians. No reason it can't work there.
Thirdly, hauling one garbage-addicted bear is worlds away from transplanting a complete herd to good habitat far from Alfalfa fields.
And I agree with you on predator reduction, which normally hapens for free on ranches......by ranchers.
I would prefer to move seed herds into good areas and think long-term over getting the opportunity to whack a few Elk, and 'manage' a basically farmed herd.
And don't ever forget who's gonna get first "Whack' if this happens.
Resident hunters will get sloppy seconds, as usual.

Well said Dude

[yukon john]

The obvious solution is to have more wolves :idea: :-P :-P :shock:

[The Dude]

Why would anyone neuter a wolf? Makes you shake your head sometimes, doesn't it?
I also don't know much about the Cariboo Elk, (Sounds like some cool hybrid, doesn't it) but the ones in the Squamish area were re-introduced again about 8(?) years ago, and they're doing well enough that there are some draws there now. And to my knowledge, they're not pissing anyone off. Except me, with no draw.
I'm sure the herds in question, IF the numbers are accurate, could find a home away both from the farms and the 24/7/365 hunting crowd.
I'm ust saying I'd rather see that happen than manage a little herd locally, with the stated intent of 'scaring them off' and 'increasing hunter opportunity'. I can't really see a few tags doing that to any great effect. I like to take the long term approach.
Only my opinion gcreek, and I respect yours.

[gcreek]

Why would anyone neuter a wolf? Makes you shake your head sometimes, doesn't it?
I also don't know much about the Cariboo Elk, (Sounds like some cool hybrid, doesn't it) but the ones in the Squamish area were re-introduced again about 8(?) years ago, and they're doing well enough that there are some draws there now. And to my knowledge, they're not pissing anyone off. Except me, with no draw.
I'm sure the herds in question, IF the numbers are accurate, could find a home away both from the farms and the 24/7/365 hunting crowd.
I'm ust saying I'd rather see that happen than manage a little herd locally, with the stated intent of 'scaring them off' and 'increasing hunter opportunity'. I can't really see a few tags doing that to any great effect. I like to take the long term approach.
Only my opinion gcreek, and I respect yours.


Kind of a catch 22, hey?

I respect your opinion also, it's likely a little less biased than mine too.

[yota]

I could see how this thread could get out of hand. But there seems to be some very good points on here. I myself think they should relocate the elk to somewhere where there not gonna cause farmers such problems and if the herds thrive in the long run then great hopefully i creates a season some day for our future generations . I dont think introducing more preditors "wolves" is ever the answer.

[pg83]

In a perfect world the FN hunters, resident hunters, GO's, and ranchers would all put their personal BS aside for a little bit and actually work together to achieve the goals(individual and common) they all have. Between all of us we would easily have the money and manpower to achieve anything we wanted. If only we could find a way to put our common goals ahead of our personal greed.

[panhead]

I dunno Gcreek ... I transplant myself north every year ... but it is on my own dime. I do remember many moons ago seeing a Lincoln Continental hit a transplanted elk on the highway above Boston bar. The elk suffered a broken back and had to be destoyed. Can still picture the driver of the land yacht physically trying to lift the poor critter to it's feet. The copper that showed up said the elk were crossing the highway twice a day to get a drink of water and they were being slaughtered by autos. Definite safety issue for us 2 legged beasts too. Lot's to consider.

[Moose Guide]

I have guided for moose in reg. 5 since 2005 and last year we saw a 4 point bull elk and elk crap in a few spots we hunt! These elk are moving in from somewhere but I'm not sure where.

[KB90]

The elk on the gilsons farm on Hydraulic have slowly started to spread, I have bumped into them 20+km away from the farm out in the logging, sattelite bulls are found in the community pasture every spring, where they go from there i'm not sure. They have come across the mountain and can now be seen in Kersley.

I was really looking forward to the continued growth and dispersion, to one day have the opportunity to hunt them like we do with the elk behind dunkley.

[gcreek]

Mpotzold, 2 questions......


How many ranching/farming operations are there at Scoop Lake?

Where do you think elk planted at Hungry Valley and the headwaters of Big Creek will end up settling?

FYI, the buffalo at the Gang have been gone for 20 years.

I don't believe many from the LM realize just how much an elk population in an agricultural area can cost. Agreed, there are some compensation programs but even these fall short of the real costs. Don't see many resident hunters willing to pay to hunt on private land even if producers were allowed to charge.

[Jagermeister]

Jag....You sure are one of the misinformed informed. Do you have a clue how the formula for crop damage compensation works.Now explain how 1 or 2 bull elk killed on an LEH draw is going to reduce crop damage when they are only around for a short time before,during and after the rut while the cows,calves and younger elk pretty much come and go from agricultural land year around. Did you ever stop to think,once a LEH tag is issued the FNs have already been given the green light. Whats your cow moose problem. Cow elk are pretty easy pickings in a hay field. Don,t you think maybe instead of some people always bitching that they want to kill more.....they could put some thought into what works best in the long run. Your also a classic example of why ranchers deny SOME hunters hunting privileges on their property. Did any of the Quesnel Rod and Gun or BCWF members ask any of the ranchers being impacted , what knowledge they might have on elk numbers. They probably would be the most in the know. But then it's probably easier to sit in a coffee shop and gripe about how everyone else is doing it wrong......then go home and write a letter about how " I WANT MORE "Well bearvalley, as usual, your post is all innuendo and lacks substance. If you can't post a worthwhile contribution without attacking someone, spare us the time and space of your useless diatribe. And should you reply to this, know that you have earned a spot on my cherished ignore list and I ain't going to see it.:tongue:

[Ourea]

Relocation/transplants/reintoduction have resulted in new huntable populations of big game species in areas that was not afforded prior.
Establishing populations in new areas only helps to perpetuate resident opportunity.
Some of "the" most covetted draws are a result of this process!!!!....yet some challenge it??
There are many HBC members who can boast their best trophy to date is a result of a hunting opportunity that came from relocation .

When I hear people say, " we should kill em rather than move em"..........all due respect but, ... yikes.
Not challenging any one individual on their views, so no knee jerk reactions please.

Relocation and augmentation is "investing" in future hunting opportunities.
The more investments made.....generally the greater the return.
Some investments (transplants) don't work out.......get over it....the overall process does yield dividends.

And Jag, I respect your frustration on your initial post that was spawned from a lack of consultation from the ministry on this issue. We all get that and sorry if my comments are detracting from that.
That being said, I am very much in favor in taking away from an opportunity that really didn't exist (no season) and building inventory elsewhere where we all can benefit from in new hunting opportunities in the future.

[Jagermeister]

When I moved to the Quesnel area in 1972, the only elk were a small remmanent herd in the Skelton Valley area east of McCleese Lake, that according to the biologists.
However, I once saw a picture in a photo album belonging to Andy Haverson, onetime owner of Elysia Resort on Quesnel Lake. I asked Andy about where the picture was taken and he told me that it was a short distance from the lake. That was in the early 80's and according to him, they were not part of a transplant but were resident for some time.
Elk were also present at the base of Milburn mountain west of Bouchie Lake (Quesnel). They were frequent visitors to the Caldwell farm. They too were not transplant but wandered in from somewhere.
Elk were not in existance in the Dunkley area, TFL 5 or the Blackwater (West Road) River area either.
Where then did the elk on the west side of the Fraser River south of Quesnel come from?
The elk herd that frequents Gilsons could be an extension of the Skelton Valley herd. They do cross the Quesnel River in the area around Gravelle Ferry.
The Skelton Valley herd, according to Harold Mitchell, were a stagnant herd. He said that their numbers remained about 15 to 25 animals and there was only one or two bulls. He was of the opinion that there was much in breeding going on and that the herd numbers would only improve if there were new breeding stock introduced.
There may have been some elk dropped off in the vicinity of Hanceville, it was sure not public knowledge if it happened.
http://www.huntingbc.ca/photos/data/500/medium/elkrejectedC.jpg (http://javascript<strong></strong>:;)

As you can see from this image that I cut from the Vancouver Sun eons ago, an explanation to some extent on the proposed transplant back them and the politics that overrode it. H1947 may be a bit dismayed to find that those elk originated in the Kootenays.
I have a faint memory that there were elk already loaded for transport and were to be re-located to the Peace River area. There was also a transplant of elk in the vicinity of Lyton and there was a season on them, but I think that the band took full use of that herd. Some may have made their way northward toward the Gaspard/Churn Creek area.
There are two inherent factors to elk. One, of all the ungulates, they are the easiest to domesicate, hence their fondness for agricultural land, Two, when they don't like their digs, they eagerly move on.
If you want to know more about elk, read Olaus Murie's book, "the Elk of North America". It was his thesis.

[gcreek]

Relocation/transplants/reintoduction have resulted in new huntable populations of big game species in areas that was not afforded prior.
Establishing populations in new areas only helps to perpetuate resident opportunity.
Some of "the" most covetted draws are a result of this process!!!!....yet some challenge it??
There are many HBC members who can boast their best trophy to date is a result of a hunting opportunity that came from relocation .

When I hear people say, " we should kill em rather than move em"..........all due respect but, ... yikes.
Not challenging any one individual on their views, so no knee jerk reactions please.

Relocation and augmentation is "investing" in future hunting opportunities.
The more investments made.....generally the greater the return.
Some investments (transplants) don't work out.......get over it....the overall process does yield dividends.

And Jag, I respect your frustration on your initial post that was spawned from a lack of consultation from the ministry on this issue. We all get that and sorry if my comments are detracting from that.
That being said, I am very much in favor in taking away from an opportunity that really didn't exist (no season) and building inventory elsewhere where we all can benefit from in new hunting opportunities in the future.

This province is broke. There are only so many projects the taxpayer can be burdened with.

Why don't we be satisfied with completing the many projects already approved and waiting for funds before creating another one?

If your sundeck was half built, yard fence falling down, roof leaking, fridge dead, would you go out and start dealing on a new car?


Jager, why don't you answer bearvalley's questions? My hunch is because your knowledge is limited to what agriculture really receives in "handouts" from govt. It isn't much.

[bearvalley]

Well bearvalley, as usual, your post is all innuendo and lacks substance. If you can't post a worthwhile contribution without attacking someone, spare us the time and space of your useless diatribe. And should you reply to this, know that you have earned a spot on my cherished ignore list and I ain't going to see it.:tongue:

Jag...Go ahead and put me on your ignore list , I'll do like wise. But in this case ,seeing as how I happen to own one of the ranches that is being looked at as one of the capture locations, I would go as far as to say any post I might have on this topic has a helluva lot more substance than any of yours. PM me an address and I'll send you a picture if they decide to catch a bunch.

[Ourea]

This province is broke. There are only so many projects the taxpayer can be burdened with.

Why don't we be satisfied with completing the many projects already approved and waiting for funds before creating another one?

If your sundeck was half built, yard fence falling down, roof leaking, fridge dead, would you go out and start dealing on a new car?


Jager, why don't you answer bearvalley's questions? My hunch is because your knowledge is limited to what agriculture really receives in "handouts" from govt. It isn't much.

gcreek, understand your point. Lots of projects on the conveyer belt that we would all like to see completed before watering it down with new opportunities.
It appears this particular issue is close to home for you and ur position is passionate as a result.
All good.
Fire away.

[gcreek]

gcreek, understand your point. Lots of projects on the conveyer belt that we would all like to see completed before watering it down with new opportunities.
It appears this particular issue is close to home for you and ur position is passionate as a result.
All good.
Fire away.

I'm not sure yet whether it will be close to home for me yet or not.

It does frustrate the hell out of me that a bunch of overeducated, unaccountable, impractical, idiots want to play experimental games with OUR money.

When they won't act on the current predator issue, (I know they CAN if so inclined) or manage the current game populations successfully, why should we trust their judgement on moving elk? There are 2 very healthy herds in the areas where they plan to trap them with an increase of 25-35% per year, why not just open a season on them and finish some projects that are waiting for funding.


An example of MOE's ineptitude can be made from when they transplanted cariboo from the Itcha Mtns. to the Rainbows and Charlotte alplands 25ish years back. They killed several heavy pregnant cows chasing them into nets with a helicopter and were surprised that most of the transplants were back in the Itchas less than 2 months later.
It was an experiment that was repeated again the next year before the "experts" were convinced to leave well enough alone.

[Moose Guide]

The elk on the gilsons farm on Hydraulic have slowly started to spread, I have bumped into them 20+km away from the farm out in the logging, sattelite bulls are found in the community pasture every spring, where they go from there i'm not sure. They have come across the mountain and can now be seen in Kersley.

I was really looking forward to the continued growth and dispersion, to one day have the opportunity to hunt them like we do with the elk behind dunkley.

I guide 3 hours west of Williams Lake, now where could those elk come from?

[The Dude]

This province is broke. There are only so many projects the taxpayer can be burdened with.

Why don't we be satisfied with completing the many projects already approved and waiting for funds before creating another one?

If your sundeck was half built, yard fence falling down, roof leaking, fridge dead, would you go out and start dealing on a new car?


Jager, why don't you answer bearvalley's questions? My hunch is because your knowledge is limited to what agriculture really receives in "handouts" from govt. It isn't much.


GCreek, you might wish to look into previous relocation programs, and follow the money, as it were....... you might be pleasantly surprised how much the hunting community contributes in time, expertise and money.
Some of the opinions here are that the taxpayers pick up the whole tab for Elk and sheep reloacations, and that is simply not the case.

PS: I miss Bouchie Lake......a small black leech with a tiny bit of red tinsel gets ya dinner any day :D

[gcreek]

GCreek, you might wish to look into previous relocation programs, and follow the money, as it were....... you might be pleasantly surprised how much the hunting community contributes in time, expertise and money.
Some of the opinions here are that the taxpayers pick up the whole tab for Elk and sheep reloacations, and that is simply not the case.

PS: I miss Bouchie Lake......a small black leech with a tiny bit of red tinsel gets ya dinner any day :D

That is as it should be, with those that want paying the bill. I'll bet my tax money is paying the "experts" wages though.

Do you think hunters paid for the wolf nuetering too?

[BigfishCanada]

Hey if they have any to spare, can you transplant some near my cabins............. :)

[gcreek]

I guess that to someone living most of the year on a city lot that country would seem huge. For myself who has lived in the Chilcotin for 35 years it isn't very big at all when you factor in how far an animal can travel in a day. You can actually ride a saddle horse from the Gang headquarters to Hungry Valley in a good day. As the crow flies it's not much more than 30 miles.
Big Creek headwaters are a little farther but not a great deal from the ranchers hayfields at Big Creek.

If you think elk will stay where MOE drops them then you haven't got much sense about how a critter thinks. The elk in question are already habituated to living in someone's fields. When the first snows hit they will move downhill to the best feed they can find. In this case most likely a nice stackyard full of round bales. When the tame fields green up in spring they will stay for two reasons, feed and protection from predators. I guess you may have forgotten the wolves that are killing the moose will put elk on their menu also. If I'm not mistaken, Hungry Valley is well over 4000 ft elevation and can get a fair amount of snow. The Gang Ranch hayfields on the other hand, are roughly 1300 ft and stay bare most of the year.

BTW, the Scoop Lake area was prepared for elk by GO Frank Cooke years ago. He was allowed to burn the hell out of that country in order to produce feed for wild ungulates. There is a bit of cleared and planted grass/hayfields at the lodge but the elk that they are selling at $10,000 a pop are not a problem to them.

Before you really go to supporting this proposal, think how you would react if Min. of Human Resources proposed to move a family of crackheads next door to you. Maybe you wouldn't care, I do.

FWIW, while Mr. Choate is now retired, the only reason he was supportive of moving elk out there were the dollar signs in his eyes.

[horshur]

landowners should not be expected to subsidize elk herds for hunting by BC residents without some very big conscessions.........

[boxhitch]

This old thread had some good discussion , so maybe a bump instead of a new one is ok.
Looks like the plan is still in the works to create more range maggots , and here is a chance to speak your piece . Public Consultation only works if the public speaks up.


A proposed Elk Management Plan for the Cariboo Region is currently being developed to provide advice on the management of this species in the Cariboo-Chilcotin area.

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/public-consultation/elk/

[GoatGuy]

Long-term plans for Region 5.


1) Sheep

See decline, do nothing, see decline, reduce season, see decline, close season, see more decline, do nothing, see more decline, do nothing, see more decline, do nothing. Stakeholders bug you to do something, do nothing. Now, one burn.


2) Deer

See decline, do count that isn't supported by any kind of science, know nothing about mule deer management, sex ratios or sampling, reduce season. Push for mule deer on LEH.

Hand out buck tag to rancher to sell.


3) Moose

See decline, change from GOS to GOS/LEH, see more decline change to straight LEH, get rid of cow/calf harvest, see more decline, cut tags, see more decline, cut tags more. Contract out inventory work, conduct inventory outside of RISC standards, waste a pile of money because it was too warm to fly for moose, re-hire contractor.

4) Caribou

See decline, do nothing, hand out tags for caribou where caribou don't exist, see decline, collar some wolves, see decline, neuter wolves, see decline, allow logging right beside spring/winter habitat, see decline, reduce hunting.


5) Elk, see above


Wonderful that the region is creating an elk management plan considering it's done such a great job and managing all the other ungulate species in the region.

The long-term plan in Region 5 is to watch wildlife dissapear and reduce hunting opportunity.

That is the plan.

[Timbow]

Gee...thanks GG, that pretty much sums up Region 5. Kind of makes you wonder who's steering the ship. Is this the result of inexperienced management, lack of resources or what?

[leadpillproductions]

If im correct was there not a lot of elk years and years ago suppost to be a plye, out there befor they were all killed off? Out west of Williams lake

[chilcotin hillbilly]

I am all for land owner tags, cows, calves or bulls. they can be sold to any resident hunter or outfitter. This way the rancher can ask for proof of insurance and ID to know exactly who is on his land if there ends up with any damage. The land owner tags could go to compensate crop loss.

[MichelD]

I think Chilco Choate was also advocating a transplant in the Hungry Valley area years and years ago.

He had found remnants of antlers indicating that there had been a historical original population of elk in the area. The transplants of Roosevelt elk along the coast and Vancouver Island have been successful with hunting seasons opened in areas that had lost their herds many years ago and many of the mainland inlets have elk again.

[r106]

Long-term plans for Region 5.


1) Sheep

See decline, do nothing, see decline, reduce season, see decline, close season, see more decline, do nothing, see more decline, do nothing, see more decline, do nothing. Stakeholders bug you to do something, do nothing. Now, one burn.


2) Deer

See decline, do count that isn't supported by any kind of science, know nothing about mule deer management, sex ratios or sampling, reduce season. Push for mule deer on LEH.

Hand out buck tag to rancher to sell.


3) Moose

See decline, change from GOS to GOS/LEH, see more decline change to straight LEH, get rid of cow/calf harvest, see more decline, cut tags, see more decline, cut tags more. Contract out inventory work, conduct inventory outside of RISC standards, waste a pile of money because it was too warm to fly for moose, re-hire contractor.

4) Caribou

See decline, do nothing, hand out tags for caribou where caribou don't exist, see decline, collar some wolves, see decline, neuter wolves, see decline, allow logging right beside spring/winter habitat, see decline, reduce hunting.


5) Elk, see above


Wonderful that the region is creating an elk management plan considering it's done such a great job and managing all the other ungulate species in the region.

The long-term plan in Region 5 is to watch wildlife dissapear and reduce hunting opportunity.

That is the plan.


wow if thats the case thats not good. I haven't been around the hunting scene long enough but is it a lack of funding or just ignorance from the regional management?

Why is it region 1 - 3, 6 and 7b are the MU's that we hear very little problems with? Region 4, 5, 7 and 8 seem to be a gong show in terms of wildlife management

[r106]

I am all for land owner tags, cows, calves or bulls. they can be sold to any resident hunter or outfitter. This way the rancher can ask for proof of insurance and ID to know exactly who is on his land if there ends up with any damage. The land owner tags could go to compensate crop loss.

I don't agree with land owners being able to sell off tags for the reason it would go to one of 3 type of people 1 - the highest bidder 2 - ranchers buddies or 3 - local outfitter. I only agree to a auction based tag if funds go towards something like wildlife habitat fund or something like that

I do agree that land owner should be aloud to have the name and proof of insurance of someone that he is granting permission to and even anyone else thats with that person to help. I know I wouldn't want someone I didn't know on my land so I would expect them to feel the same way.

[MichelD]

"I don't agree with land owners being able to sell off tags for the reason it would go to one of 3 type of people 1 - the highest bidder 2 - ranchers buddies or 3 - local outfitter."

Yup. That would be the start of a slippery slope to privatization of a public resource.


Think of commercial fishing and halibut quotas.

[J_T]

wow if thats the case thats not good. I haven't been around the hunting scene long enough but is it a lack of funding or just ignorance from the regional management?

Why is it region 1 - 3, 6 and 7b are the MU's that we hear very little problems with? Region 4, 5, 7 and 8 seem to be a gong show in terms of wildlife management Interesting perspective. I respect it is your acquired perspective, based on the information you have. I wouldn't say I agree with it, but it is interesting. I won't comment further as it wouldn't be my intention to steer the original topic away from its intent.

[Timbow]

I am all for land owner tags, cows, calves or bulls. they can be sold to any resident hunter or outfitter. This way the rancher can ask for proof of insurance and ID to know exactly who is on his land if there ends up with any damage. The land owner tags could go to compensate crop loss.

If this was to be implemented, wouldn't this be a double dip effect. How could you be compensated for an animal that destroys your crops and you get to sell a tag to the highest bidder....I doubt the tags would cover crop losses.

[one-shot-wonder]

I haven't been around the hunting scene long enough but is it a lack of funding or just ignorance from the regional management?
Some species have been fed a beer salary while some have been on the champagne salary........looks like mismanagement to me.

[aggiehunter]

Ourea...I agree with your sentiment about transplants but the picture I have seen is slightly different...ranchers pulling strings to get something down immediatley is what is unsettling to say the least...we had a moritorium on transplants years ago but some high pressure ranchers managed to have our Cali Sheep sent south of the border...it still helped the "herd" out but I can really recall how left out we all felt not being able to send those sheep somewhere in our own Province..that..by the way needed. This is not the only example of how wildlife is being managed.

[aggiehunter]

A jaded Goatguy???

[boxhitch]

A jaded Goatguy???That implies dull or uninterested . Thats hardly the case with GG .

[boxhitch]

Let hunters take care of the problem elk . Forget the quality b.s. , go for quantity with a liberal 3-pt bull season and cow leh.
Why should a target population number exist if they are only going to be a problem ? Land usage is different now than 100 years ago , so it is impossible to return things to 'the way they were' .

[bearvalley]

Why should a target population number exist if they are only going to be a problem ? Land usage is different now than 100 years ago , so it is impossible to return things to 'the way they were' .

That's the message that has been given to the FLNRO. A this time it appears any transplants of elk in Region 5 are off the table until it has been shown that the population already here can be managed.

[Foxtail]

I know of several big bulls in the area I hunt. One is a massive 7x7. I have been waiting for an opening in 5 for years. It would be very disappointing if the transplanted them.

[GoatGuy]

Gee...thanks GG, that pretty much sums up Region 5. Kind of makes you wonder who's steering the ship. Is this the result of inexperienced management, lack of resources or what?

Agendas...........

[Ambush]

The problem with elk transplants is the subsequent management schemes.

Get some money and volunteers, promise a season when the population is sustainable and then move some elk.

When the numbers are reached to trigger that season, then you make up excuses why it can't happen "yet". Take the "surplus" [which can't be hunted:confused:] from that area and start all over again.

Unfortunately, some wildlife managers look at hunters as weasels in the hen house. :evil:

[GoatGuy]

The problem with elk transplants is the subsequent management schemes.

Get some money and volunteers, promise a season when the population is sustainable and then move some elk.

When the numbers are reached to trigger that season, then you make up excuses why it can't happen "yet". Take the "surplus" [which can't be hunted:confused:] from that area and start all over again.

Unfortunately, some wildlife managers look at hunters as weasels in the hen house. :evil:

Think the promise was there would be a season when there were 200 elk.

That promise is about 5 years old.

Anyways, another day, another dollar in Region 5.

Find it funny that there is so much focus being put on elk when management in that region has failed on every other species of ungulate.

[Jagermeister]

Think the promise was there would be a season when there were 200 elk.

That promise is about 5 years old.

Anyways, another day, another dollar in Region 5.

Find it funny that there is so much focus being put on elk when management in that region has failed on every other species of ungulate.
I don't find it funny at all considering that there is 33 years of mismanagement and it just keeps getting worse.

[one-shot-wonder]

The mismanagement will continue until hunters and their clubs get bent out of shape enough to go talk to their MLA, even if it is Barnett! These are civil servants people...they work for us, therefore if enough people rattle chains things will change and money and time will likely stop being wasted.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

If this was to be implemented, wouldn't this be a double dip effect. How could you be compensated for an animal that destroys your crops and you get to sell a tag to the highest bidder....I doubt the tags would cover crop losses.

I am not sure exactly how compensation for crop loss is done. I believe the majority is done through crop insurance which the rancher has to buy himself. Perhaps gcreek or beavervalley could clarify.
Who cares if the tags go to the highest bidder or the ranchers buddies. His loss if that is the case. There would be plenty of resident hunters lined up to pay for a cow elk, even if was $500/cow it would still be less then taking a trip up north if all you wanted was some great meat.

[bearvalley]

I am not sure exactly how compensation for crop loss is done. I believe the majority is done through crop insurance which the rancher has to buy himself. Perhaps gcreek or beavervalley could clarify.
Who cares if the tags go to the highest bidder or the ranchers buddies. His loss if that is the case. There would be plenty of resident hunters lined up to pay for a cow elk, even if was $500/cow it would still be less then taking a trip up north if all you wanted was some great meat.

Crop insurance is purchased by the rancher. The program is based on average annual production yields, so therefore if wildlife numbers are on the constant increase and forage production decreases there is a point where eventually there is no wildlife compensation. That's been the case in point with Region 5's protected elk as a handfull of ranchers have been stuck with the financial burden of raising them for the province.
Landowner tags/permits are something that might work in such a way as to letting wildlife pay their own way for damage compensation. Whenever that subject is brought up, the same argument comes up as well. "Wildlife can't be PRIVATIZED it belongs to the PUBLIC".
The counter-argument to that is "Outfitters have sold hunts in BC for a lot of years" so in a way wildlife has become private. Maybe it's time BC's Wildlife Act has a few changes made to it. I know that most on here will disagree with that approach but I also realize that no other poster on here has a documented 50K plus annual donation that they are contributing to the Region 5 elk herd expansion.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

thats how i thought it worked. I have a friend who payed $2100.00 for insurance and received $2400.00 in compensation. Where does the general public get away with saying the tax payers are compensating the ranchers already.Its not the way it works as far as I can see.

[GoatGuy]

Crop insurance is purchased by the rancher. The program is based on average annual production yields, so therefore if wildlife numbers are on the constant increase and forage production decreases there is a point where eventually there is no wildlife compensation. That's been the case in point with Region 5's protected elk as a handfull of ranchers have been stuck with the financial burden of raising them for the province.
Landowner tags/permits are something that might work in such a way as to letting wildlife pay their own way for damage compensation. Whenever that subject is brought up, the same argument comes up as well. "Wildlife can't be PRIVATIZED it belongs to the PUBLIC".
The counter-argument to that is "Outfitters have sold hunts in BC for a lot of years" so in a way wildlife has become private. Maybe it's time BC's Wildlife Act has a few changes made to it. I know that most on here will disagree with that approach but I also realize that no other poster on here has a documented 50K plus annual donation that they are contributing to the Region 5 elk herd expansion.

I don't think there's been much resistance to an ag tag, probably will be a pile to a monopolistic approach.

Most jurisdictions that have comp programs also approach the issue in a bilateral fashion. No access, no compensation.

All solutions that could be worked out.

[bearvalley]

I don't think there's been much resistance to an ag tag, probably will be a pile to a monopolistic approach.

Most jurisdictions that have comp programs also approach the issue in a bilateral fashion. No access, no compensation.

All solutions that could be worked out.

No monopolistic approach being applied. One thing asked for was an open season the same as the MU's in Region 7 that border Region 5. I completely agree with you that this issue needs to be dealt with in a bilateral fashion. Access in exchange for compensation is a fair trade but also while we're dividing up the spoils we also need to share the loss. So far a few private individuals wallets are being dipped to fund the "Publics" wildlife. There are solutions.