Foxer, between access restrictions, very conservative LEH offerings, and a declining number of hunters, conservation in BC seems to be doing generally well. The MOE has no idea whether I cut any or all tags in region 1 or 7 or anywhere else.
Access (especially on the island) and hunters numbers are serious concerns, but not relevant to the subject at hand. Where hunters do hunt (and in the numbers they hunt those areas) conservation is still an issue. And yes, we're doing generally well. Because we don't allow things like thermal optics, hunting from aircraft or using spotters, etc etc etc. There are many things we could do to increase hunter's success rates, but we don't for a good reason.
And perhaps you haven't been filling your surveys out but a lot of hunters do and so they DO have a pretty good idea of hunter's success rates in various areas, and the bag limits take that into account. The rules are deliberately crafted to make sure that no one area is hunted out and to make it hard enough that local animal populations are not stressed or reduced beyond a point needed for conservation. It's important.
ICBC has asked for larger bag limits and longer GOS on southern Van Isle to reduce the number of wildlife collisions and pitlamping Indians don't seem to make a difference.
Good - larger bag limits are nice for local hunters but that doesn't change the situation at all. It just suggests that our current methods are effective. populations will go up and down and they'll adjust limits appropriately. That has nothing to do with making it easier to kill the animals.
And if you don't think that First Nations hunting rules hasn't caused massive problems in many areas you're quite mistaken
I don't have a problem with trail cams, quads, crossbows, or bait plots even though I don't use them myself.
neither do i but none of those things actually make it easier to shoot at the game, It just helps you figure out how the animals have been behaving (and bait plots are severely managed on public land, to the point where they're almost non existent) or to gain access to the area where the animals are. You still have to put the moves on 'em one way or another and get a shot.
I would like to recruit and retain new hunters, and if hunting is more appealing for the tech-type casual crowd, then we'll have better participation in future.
C'mon. Are you suggesting the only way to get 'techies' to hunt is to give them thermal scopes?
i think we both know you're reaching there. Give 'em a gps with googlemaps overlay and a link back to tracking software on the cloud. I'm sure that'll be quite 1337 enough.
Not many outdoorsmen start with a fly rod and recurve bow, but many eventually come to appreciate those methods. If I tag out in opening week and you get to hunt the whole season, what is that to you? I won't look down on anyone's tools or groups at the range; I just hope he has a good time and thinks the same of me.
It's not about how long it takes you. If all I wanted to do is to make you work harder for it' I'd say drop and give me 20 after each shot and we'd be done.
It's about conservation and the whole concept of hunting and how the two work together. Again - hunting is a successful management tool because of the fact that the animal has the edge. I notice you've kind of ignored my point about using aircraft spotters and the like - I take it there's somewhere you'd draw the line as well. You say you wouldn't 'look down' on others methods - so would you support shooting animals from a helicopter?
You need to understand there is a difference between 'moral' hunting issues and factual conservation issues. Whether or not it's ok to shoot a grouse on the ground is a 'moral' issue, some think you should some don't. But it won't affect conservation. Not allowing people to shoot from aircraft because it would be too easy to wipe out a local population is more of a factual conservation issue.
Like i said - predators or vermin where it's necessary to wipe out as many as possible, that'd be one thing. But
not prey animals.
