White tail supplemental season

[Wayner]

Living in Hinton Alberta we have seen our white tail deer population all but disappear. Our Fish & Wildlife Department has, along with a large cougar population basically wiped out our white tail deer population with these ridiculous supplemental seasons in WMU 342 and 344.
It is a real surprise to see a white tail deer in either of these WMU now.
How do we convince Government to stop the killing of white tail does in these two WMU. We need a complete closure of white tail doe hunting here for at least 3 to 5 years in order to build up the population to where it once was.
Is anyone else having the same issues?
Thank you

[Battle Rat]

I've seen the introduction of supplemental doe tags and the issuing of two MD doe tags following brutal winters that severally reduced the population.
F&W are one or two years behind in some decision making at times.

[walking buffalo]

Deer population reductions in this area IS the plan.

[Slicktricker]

I was sent by many ppl a online petition to stop the supplemental season I'm for it

[Ultimate Predator]

Dont fill them unless its youth

[dfrobert]

If the government won't reduce or get rid of the supp tags in zones that the deer numbers are still dismal then the hunters need to wake up and do there part as well. Stop shooting all the does. Go shoot some dogs. Kill a cow elk if you want to fill the freezer.

Lots of guys who are the first to complain about deer numbers are the first to shoot 3 deer a year.

[Slicktricker]

If ppl want a doe I have no issues with it, my issue is the guys driving around shooting a deer finding out it isn't anterless it's got 4" spikes and leaving it, past 4 years I've called in 8-9 found shot and left, that part ****es me off

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by dfrobert

If the government won't reduce or get rid of the supp tags in zones that the deer numbers are still dismal then the hunters need to wake up and do there part as well. Stop shooting all the does. Go shoot some dogs. Kill a cow elk if you want to fill the freezer.

Lots of guys who are the first to complain about deer numbers are the first to shoot 3 deer a year.

Exactly !

[hwy_6363]

I have land and hunt in 348 and this fall definitely saw less deer and moose than years past, and I believe my area in 348 (north part of the zone towards hwy 43) has been declining for the past few years, for what ever reason. Several of my neighbours in the area concur.
I am against the supplemental deer tags for this zone based on what I'm seeing. They are still available but myself and the neighbours have all opted not to purchase supplemental tags or shoot does.
But with that, the tags are available and it's a legal hunt so no one is breaking laws by harvesting on supplemental tags.

[BCSteel]

Originally Posted by Wayner

Living in Hinton Alberta we have seen our white tail deer population all but disappear. Our Fish & Wildlife Department has, along with a large cougar population basically wiped out our white tail deer population with these ridiculous supplemental seasons in WMU 342 and 344.
It is a real surprise to see a white tail deer in either of these WMU now.
How do we convince Government to stop the killing of white tail does in these two WMU. We need a complete closure of white tail doe hunting here for at least 3 to 5 years in order to build up the population to where it once was.
Is anyone else having the same issues?
Thank you

If by "real surprise" you mean seeing 2 to 8 deer per day then yes, I agree. Unless this is one of those threads where you're trying to throw everyone off the trail of good hunting? I can never tell.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

[35 whelen]

Is there a list of biologist somewhere for Alberta thank you

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[CritterCommander]

Originally Posted by 35 whelen

Is there a list of biologist somewhere for Alberta thank you

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

https://www.alberta.ca/albertaFiles/...levelID=118370

[purgatory.sv]

Originally Posted by 35 whelen

Is there a list of biologist somewhere for Alberta thank you

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Contact information.

The first link is from the alberta government,the second is a map.
Click on the second link and it should open a map ,click on the title of the area and it should provide contact information?

http://aep.alberta.ca/about-us/conta...-contacts.aspx

http://aep.alberta.ca/about-us/conta...ap-Mar2015.pdf

[35 whelen]

Thank you

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[Unregistered user]

Any truth to the rumors that insurance companies are behind it to reduce wildlife collision claims?

[338Bluff]

If hunters want to claim they are tools of conservation (as a justification to the non hunting public) then they shouldn't complain when they are used for that end. Whitetail deer management in the foothills was never supposed to be such that you could take a leisurely drive down an oil road and pop a 140 buck. They (whitetails) are a fairly new addition to that landscape and the population spurts following logging activity likely increased the food supply for predators which did pretty well as a result. That then spilled over and effected elk, moose, mule deer and sheep populations. Hunters as a group want things too easy. Getting permission on private land is tough and it sure was nice when you could head out to the green zone and fill the tags with zero work and effort. That is not the biologists problem though.

[openfire]

Originally Posted by 338Bluff

If hunters want to claim they are tools of conservation (as a justification to the non hunting public) then they shouldn't complain when they are used for that end. Whitetail deer management in the foothills was never supposed to be such that you could take a leisurely drive down an oil road and pop a 140 buck. They (whitetails) are a fairly new addition to that landscape and the population spurts following logging activity likely increased the food supply for predators which did pretty well as a result. That then spilled over and effected elk, moose, mule deer and sheep populations. Hunters as a group want things too easy. Getting permission on private land is tough and it sure was nice when you could head out to the green zone and fill the tags with zero work and effort. That is not the biologists problem though.

Well said.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by 338Bluff

If hunters want to claim they are tools of conservation (as a justification to the non hunting public) then they shouldn't complain when they are used for that end.

Whitetail deer management in the foothills was never supposed to be such that you could take a leisurely drive down an oil road and pop a 140 buck. They (whitetails) are a fairly new addition to that landscape and the population spurts following logging activity likely increased the food supply for predators which did pretty well as a result. That then spilled over and effected elk, moose, mule deer and sheep populations. Hunters as a group want things too easy. Getting permission on private land is tough and it sure was nice when you could head out to the green zone and fill the tags with zero work and effort. That is not the biologists problem though.

The complaint for those that know what is going on, is that we don't know what is going on.

Do you think it is right for hunters to be USED by biologists for management purposes while being purposefully misinformed as to the reasoning?

Extrapolate the concept.

Is there ANY place that it is acceptable for the government to USE the citizens to fulfill a hidden agenda?


The problem here isn't whether or not hunters should participate in wildlife management programs, the problem is being used without being informed of the How and Why.

[338Bluff]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

The complaint for those that know what is going on, is that we don't know what is going on.

Do you think it is right for hunters to be USED by biologists for management purposes while being purposefully misinformed as to the reasoning?

Extrapolate the concept.

Is there ANY place that it is acceptable for the government to USE the citizens to fulfill a hidden agenda?


The problem here isn't whether or not hunters should participate in wildlife management programs, the problem is being used without being informed of the How and Why.

How were they misinformed? The information was always there if they cared to look or ask. Wouldn't it be obvious when the ministry just up and adds 2 antlerless tags that population reduction was the goal? Not all management is black and white. Biology is science and it stands to reason that harvest rates are experimented with analyzed and adjusted. Most people are more interested in increased opportunity to harvest (likely with less effort and easier access). That's more to do with politics and less to do with managing game.



Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by 338Bluff

How were they misinformed? The information was always there if they cared to look or ask. Wouldn't it be obvious when the ministry just up and adds 2 antlerless tags that population reduction was the goal? Not all management is black and white. Biology is science and it stands to reason that harvest rates are experimented with analyzed and adjusted. Most people are more interested in increased opportunity to harvest (likely with less effort and easier access). That's more to do with politics and less to do with managing game.



Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

So you agree that it's no issue when hunters are kept in the dark regarding game management plans....


Do you know how the public found out that F&W was using hunters to reduce moose and deer populations to effect a wolf reduction?

[338Bluff]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

So you agree that it's no issue when hunters are kept in the dark regarding game management plans....


Do you know how the public found out that F&W was using hunters to reduce moose and deer populations to effect a wolf reduction?

I don't really subscribe to conspiracy theories. How could anyone not see that tags dramatically increased and not realize that population control was intended?? Who cares why? It's done.

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

[slough shark]

Originally Posted by 338Bluff

If hunters want to claim they are tools of conservation (as a justification to the non hunting public) then they shouldn't complain when they are used for that end. Whitetail deer management in the foothills was never supposed to be such that you could take a leisurely drive down an oil road and pop a 140 buck. They (whitetails) are a fairly new addition to that landscape and the population spurts following logging activity likely increased the food supply for predators which did pretty well as a result. That then spilled over and effected elk, moose, mule deer and sheep populations. Hunters as a group want things too easy. Getting permission on private land is tough and it sure was nice when you could head out to the green zone and fill the tags with zero work and effort. That is not the biologists problem though.

If they were managing game populations by only targeting the whitetail for decrease and allowing elk, moose, mule and sheep populations to increase I don't think people would complain. It's the attempting to depopulate everything out west so that wolves starve to death and caribou hopefully increase that frustrates everyone. Doing this while not doing anything about habitat for caribou, next to nothing to wolves, not managing habitat disruptionsetc... this is what is foolish and it is a waste of resources that were and would continue to flourish.

[slickwilly]

Originally Posted by slough shark

If they were managing game populations by only targeting the whitetail for decrease and allowing elk, moose, mule and sheep populations to increase I don't think people would complain. It's the attempting to depopulate everything out west so that wolves starve to death and caribou hopefully increase that frustrates everyone. Doing this while not doing anything about habitat for caribou, next to nothing to wolves, not managing habitat disruptionsetc... this is what is foolish and it is a waste of resources that were and would continue to flourish.

They are poisoning wolves all through the north, even though everyone hates it. They are shooting wolves from helicopters south of grand cache.

Multiple forestry companies have had large portions of their FMA completely locked up for years now.

They just approved millions in seismic line restoration.

The government is hitting the issue from all sides. Deer reduction is just one of the tools being used.

[slough shark]

Originally Posted by slickwilly

They are poisoning wolves all through the north, even though everyone hates it. They are shooting wolves from helicopters south of grand cache.

Multiple forestry companies have had large portions of their FMA completely locked up for years now.

They just approved millions in seismic line restoration.

The government is hitting the issue from all sides. Deer reduction is just one of the tools being used.

I could be wrong but I was under the impression that most of those efforts are concentrated in the simonette/smokey river up to valley view area. While it is the area that they are trying to focus on helping the caribou herd it's a fairly targeted area. The problem is every year wolves move back into the area. Seismic line restoration is only going to be marginally effective, atv's keep those suckers open

[elk396]

Originally Posted by 338Bluff

If hunters want to claim they are tools of conservation (as a justification to the non hunting public) then they shouldn't complain when they are used for that end. Whitetail deer management in the foothills was never supposed to be such that you could take a leisurely drive down an oil road and pop a 140 buck. They (whitetails) are a fairly new addition to that landscape and the population spurts following logging activity likely increased the food supply for predators which did pretty well as a result. That then spilled over and effected elk, moose, mule deer and sheep populations. Hunters as a group want things too easy. Getting permission on private land is tough and it sure was nice when you could head out to the green zone and fill the tags with zero work and effort. That is not the biologists problem though.

Why is driving out to the forestry and popping a whitetail buck a bad thing? Thats a good thing isn't it? Keeps people from trespassing on private property. Spreads out hunter numbers during the season. Lets everyone have a positive hunting experience, not just landowners. As far as whitetail encroaching on Elk, Moose and Mulie habitat, I don't agree. There aren't many whitetail out in the green zone, nor are there many Elk, Moose or Mule deer. The three species were hunted out, combined with predation. Not because they affected significantly by whitetail encroachment. Whitetail are like coyotes, they are survivors, they will make it where other species need to be helped along, put on draw, etc. It could be exceptional hunting on crown land, it's just being mismanaged, like biologist wanting to target the whitetail species. If you wiped out all the whitetail in the green zone, I bet you anything that the Moose, elk and mules will not flourish or signifcantly change because its not related to the real problem, which is hunting pressure, predators. It seems they treated as a nuisance species which is unfortunate. Very good eating and some can make a fine trophy as well. Would be nice if they were more plentiful on public lands.