Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafy
Correct me if I am wrong, realistically the number of participants per week seems to managed at 125. So if the herd is nearing the numbers people are saying, removing even 2000 per year would sustain the current numbers but really do nothing in the reduction of this herd.
So assuming a higher success rate of both on and off this area, there would be near 2500 tags to be issued. If half, 1250 licences were allocated to inside the cofounds of CFB, that's two and a half months of hunting. This would cost more than buying a herd of cattle that size  Where's the golden goose here ?
Now the other half of these tags could not be used outside the confines as the land owners now are upset at the pressure there. Couldn't imagine 1250 licences being issued for this area.
This situation is unfortunately out of control. Millions will be spent on nothing more than allowing opportunity to try and save face with the media, not our group. May sounds harsh, but these funds need to be put to better use IMO. The players in this game should be held accountable for all loss due to their poor management and these golden goose funds allocated to the general good of Alberta's wildlife. |
Actually getting there. Consider if there are 7000 elk (higher end of estimate) and the population is growing at 22% per year (what government has estimated) hunters need to harvest approximately 1540 elk. Now, consider a sex ratio of 50% that means we need to harvest 770 cows per year to keep the population stable. There have already been around 300 cows harvested on the base, they intend on harvesting another 500 and that's in addition to whatever cows are harvested in the seasons surrounding the base. Looking at the numbers, they are on track to get these elk in check over the next couple seasons. Double issue cow tags could really fast track the population reduction. Real question is, how many elk do they intend on leaving on the base over the long term? 1000? 2000?