White tail supplemental season

[Chip]

My son and I spent 5 days of solid hunting in a 348 area that usually has a very good Whitetail population. We saw a total of 6 deer all week. We were concentrating on a small area, but it is the same area we have hunted for the last 10 years. Local farmers reported the same fewer sightings.

I keep hearing about a large cougar population in the area? Surely, this cannot be the reason. We do a ton of walking in large bush areas surrounding agriculture and grazing land, and I have not seen a cougar or a kill site in 20 years. I'm sure they are there, as are wolfs, but to pin it on predators? Can't be?

I agree that supplemental tags should go away (at least for a while) as we have observed a noticeable decline. However, this year was next level.

Combined with some harsh winters, are talking perfect storm scenario here?

[st99]

Originally Posted by Chip

I agree that supplemental tags should go away (at least for a while) as we have observed a noticeable decline. However, this year was next level.

Combined with some harsh winters, are talking perfect storm scenario here?

This should apply for every wmu's that are 90% crown land or more. I understand the idea of keeping low deer numbers on farmland because of damage to crop and higher road density (car accident), but the bush should be dealt differently.

[crownb]

[QUOTE=matt1984;3682966]

Originally Posted by crownb

The last time I put faith into the biologists in my area was when they put out the aerial survey. It was done in early January. I can't remember the numbers but the number of bulls to cows was really off. The survey showed nearly no bulls. This is the information they use to base our special license tags. Now I am not a biologist but I think I can tell you that the majority if not all the bull would have dropped their antlers by then. QUOTE]



From my observations the elk aren't dropping their antlers until April here.

Sorry I forgot to specify moose. We have seen bulls with one horn late in November. One time we cut a fresh bull track on the last day nov. 30, I pursued the track and all I found was a extremely fresh shed from a 40 inch bull.

[ghostguy6]

How about next season they make the supplemental's only good for the CWD zones? This way they could allow the populations to be decimated there and then relocate some healthy immunized (assuming there is an immunization) deer back into these zone? This could slow or possibly eliminate the spread of CWD?

[Donkey Oatey]

Originally Posted by ghostguy6

How about next season they make the supplemental's only good for the CWD zones? This way they could allow the populations to be decimated there and then relocate some healthy immunized (assuming there is an immunization) deer back into these zone? This could slow or possibly eliminate the spread of CWD?

There is no such thing as an "immunization" for CWD. There is no live test, there is no cure.

The only way CWD goes away is if it kills all the deer and the ones that live have a natural "immunity". I use quotations because CWD isn't like a virus or a bacteria, but rather a protein that is not alive so it can't be "killed".

The management of whitetail deer in those zones with supplemental tags are not for future hunting opportunities for hunters, rather to decimate the WT population for various reasons.

I agree with WB that it is sickening that F&W are using hunters like this without being transparent.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by crownb

Sorry I forgot to specify moose. We have seen bulls with one horn late in November. One time we cut a fresh bull track on the last day nov. 30, I pursued the track and all I found was a extremely fresh shed from a 40 inch bull.

The presence of Antlers are NOT required to identify the sex of a moose during an aerial survey.

[shedcrazy]

The last time I put faith into the biologists in my area was when they put out the aerial survey. It was done in early January. I can't remember the numbers but the number of bulls to cows was really off. The survey showed nearly no bulls. This is the information they use to base our special license tags. Now I am not a biologist but I think I can tell you that the majority if not all the bull would have dropped their antlers by then.

Thankfully you aren't a biologist as you seem to lack some basic moose anatomy knowledge. All antlerless moose during an aerial survey are ID by using the vulva patch "i.e. snatch patch". The white patch under the tail is easy to identify from the air or ground.

Don't worry I haven't lost all faith in hunters knowing their wildlife ID

S

[husky7mm]

Hmm, I guess its more palatable for the public if wolves die from malnutrition, conflict and interal strife than to just be shoot, I doubt they know whats going on..... if they did they would want wolf feeding programs or maybe adopt them and take them to a good home. Sigh

I cant understand for the life of me why the public puts the value on predators above ungulates. There is a food value, traditional, ceremonial and heritage value for with ungulates. Wolves are a conflict to this, we are competing with them. What do wolves do to coyotes when they are competing for the same food source? They kill them, its natural.

[hal53]

Originally Posted by shedcrazy

Thankfully you aren't a biologist as you seem to lack some basic moose anatomy knowledge. All antlerless moose during an aerial survey are ID by using the vulva patch "i.e. snatch patch". The white patch under the tail is easy to identify from the air or ground.

Don't worry I haven't lost all faith in hunters knowing their wildlife ID

S

[crownb]

Originally Posted by shedcrazy

Thankfully you aren't a biologist as you seem to lack some basic moose anatomy knowledge. All antlerless moose during an aerial survey are ID by using the vulva patch "i.e. snatch patch". The white patch under the tail is easy to identify from the air or ground.

Don't worry I haven't lost all faith in hunters knowing their wildlife ID

S

Thanks for that information. Good to know, I will try not to shoot loads of cows anymore. Lol

[Wayner]

To BCSteel I'm talking about not seeing any to possibly 1 or 2 deer on a full day of travelling. It's really bad and getting worse if that's possible.

[DuckBrat]

Not to be argumentative but I have seen numerous whitetails of either sex and multiple age classes in many of the WMU's (200's-300's) that were listed above.

[slickwilly]

Deer numbers in these foothills and northern WMUs are way up over historical numbers due to habitat changes. All those seismic lines and pipelines have created a massive expansion of deer and moose up into areas that wouldn't be their normal habitat. Studies I've read say wolf numbers are 50-100% up over their historical norms because of this.

[Bush Critter]

Yeah the two tag supplemental white tail licence could be used more affectively in areas where mule deer populations are on the decline. Maybe that’s what the biologists are trying to do in these areas...?

[Positrac]

Originally Posted by crownb

The last time I put faith into the biologists in my area was when they put out the aerial survey. It was done in early January. I can't remember the numbers but the number of bulls to cows was really off. The survey showed nearly no bulls. This is the information they use to base our special license tags. Now I am not a biologist but I think I can tell you that the majority if not all the bull would have dropped their antlers by then.

I’m no expert by any means but I’d be surprised if any had dropped their antlers by then. Late March through April would be my observation.


Edit: Saw you specified Moose in the next post. Sorry

[elk396]

Originally Posted by openfire

This is my problem with the anti hunters, they think public opinion should dictate policy instead of science.
if your not an expert on what the carrying capacity is, then I say let the biologists do their job.

Biologists? Are you kidding me? Take a look at how well the Suffield elk herd or should I say ‘cull’ worked out. What a mess! It’s the hunters in the field that know what really needs to happen. The supplemental deer tags are ‘ridiculous ‘

[Donkey Oatey]

Originally Posted by elk396

Biologists? Are you kidding me? Take a look at how well the Suffield elk herd or should I say ‘cull’ worked out. What a mess! It’s the hunters in the field that know what really needs to happen. The supplemental deer tags are ‘ridiculous ‘

Ah yes another arm chair bio. How quaint. Suffield seems to be working just the way the hunt was supposed to, herd reduction. Oh by the way that is the point of supplemental tags.

Hunters haven't the first clue as to what needs to happen in the field beyond their preferred game. In this case it's whitetail deer.

[elk396]

Originally Posted by Donkey Oatey

Ah yes another arm chair bio. How quaint. Suffield seems to be working just the way the hunt was supposed to, herd reduction. Oh by the way that is the point of supplemental tags.

Hunters haven't the first clue as to what needs to happen in the field beyond their preferred game. In this case it's whitetail deer.

Oh boy, speak for yourself. The Suffield elk hunt was never intended to end up the way it is now, I spoke to that 'biologist' many times about the need to get doing something with that herd, he was clueless to say the least. OMG there's elk everywhere! What do we do!!! Cull!Cull! Cull!. Good work! Who seen that coming? Everybody but the biologists. Why would you want to eliminate whitetail deer in some remote forested WMU? Why? They aren't getting hit on the roads in remote areas, don't get it. I know many guys who work in these remote areas and they literally aren't seeing a deer. Why would any biologist say that's our target? And you can say it's predation and winter kill that is the cause, I understand they are part of the equation, but mainly the reason is truckloads of does being killed year after year. Just forces more hunters into private land and then there's access issues, hunter/land owner conflicts, etc... I can see thinning deer out in high traffic areas. Alberta is famous for poor game management anyway, the whitetail is just one example. It's common knowledge even when you speak to hunters from other provinces and Americans. They need to go back to one deer tag per hunter period. Scrap the supplemental. The reduction was accomplished years ago, time to remove the program.

[Donkey Oatey]

Originally Posted by elk396

Oh boy, speak for yourself. The Suffield elk hunt was never intended to end up the way it is now, I spoke to that 'biologist' many times about the need to get doing something with that herd, he was clueless to say the least. OMG there's elk everywhere! What do we do!!! Cull!Cull! Cull!. Good work! Who seen that coming? Everybody but the biologists. Why would you want to eliminate whitetail deer in some remote forested WMU? Why? They aren't getting hit on the roads in remote areas, don't get it. I know many guys who work in these remote areas and they literally aren't seeing a deer. Why would any biologist say that's our target? And you can say it's predation and winter kill that is the cause, I understand they are part of the equation, but mainly the reason is truckloads of does being killed year after year. Just forces more hunters into private land and then there's access issues, hunter/land owner conflicts, etc... I can see thinning deer out in high traffic areas. Alberta is famous for poor game management anyway, the whitetail is just one example. It's common knowledge even when you speak to hunters from other provinces and Americans. They need to go back to one deer tag per hunter period. Scrap the supplemental. The reduction was accomplished years ago, time to remove the program.

Wow, just wow.

Call the conductor we have a derailment here.

First off the elk at Suffield were never supposed to get as out of hand as they did. Had to cull hard and in cooperation with the base and military. Numbers are dropping. Not sure what mess you are talking about but I assure you it's less of a mess than if the military were the ones doing the cull. Time to move on.

Second, not sure you realize but the areas where the supplemental are valid are not traditional range of the whitetail. Pushed the mule deer out. As WB posted earlier, what does pizz me off is using hunters without being transparent with the reasons. Ie deer reduction to starveout wolves.

[st99]

Originally Posted by Donkey Oatey

Second, not sure you realize but the areas where the supplemental are valid are not traditional range of the whitetail.

"Traditional range" can have different meanings. If you go far enough in time, every species living today in Alberta are not in their "traditional range". Should we wipe them all out?

The world is always changing and evolving, some animals adapt and thrive, others disappears. A big difference here, is that whitetail moved in on their own, that's natural. Natural migration makes them belong to their new habitat, this is how every species alive today came to where they are now.

As for wildlife management, we have to focus on what we have, not what we had. Woolly mammoth are long gone, but whitetails are here, right now.

[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

[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.

[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 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.