Correct me if i'm wrong. But I believe the Distress Call article stated that the highest hunter success rate was back in the 1960's (1965?). Before the big 4x4's we have today. I don't believe that hunter success rates are the problem. They have certainly not increased.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
100% agree about your comment regarding calf tags.
Habitat seems to make the most sense to me. With the logging industry nearly non-existent, new cuts don't exist in abundance. Studies have shown that prior to heavy logging, there was a much lower moose population than exists today. Without suitable habitat, no creature can exist in abundance.
Predator populations may also be an issue, however, habitat that is conducive to predators (heavy bush, not clear cuts, or new cuts) may also be driving their populations up, creating greater stress on game animals such as moose. In the area I hunt, 19; the population of rabbits is quite high, telling me that the animals that are usually food for wolves are thriving. Is this due to suitable habitat for that species? It seems correlate well...
I'm not sure we can solely state that predator populations have devastated the moose population, but with an increase in predators it certainly doesn't help.
FishFrenzy
Oh sorry, are we back on track with this thread now? I must have missed the memo. :silly:
Percentage of successful hunters was higher in the 60s, but I bet the number of moose hunters out there is a lot higher now. I would much rather have a shot at a bull every 5 years then have no moose in Ontario. I agree that predators have an impact on calves, but why do we go out and shoot only calves when the rest of the calves that we do not shoot are eaten by wolves and bears. If we had a system where we shot bulls only for a few years the population would rebound, as long as there were still enough bulls to tend the cows. If we drop bull and cow calves within the first year we now only have older cows and bulls to make another baby. Do this for 20 years and you see how bad things can get in a population. Sometimes you need to leave the young ones and take out the old ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by LowbanksArcher
Actually, I believe it wasn't a percentage, it was a total quantity. I shouldn't have used the word success 'rate'. The article showed that over 15,000 moose were taken in one season in the 60's. Whereas today, we're closer to 5000 annually. (this obviously not considering the native's hunting, since those numbers are anybodies guess). I don't recall if calves were included in these numbers. Yes, I find a system that guarantees nearly everyone to be able to kill a calf, ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
I absolutely agree. Why does the OMNR steadfastly refuse to implement the exact same selective harvest system for Moose as we use for Deer? It has sure worked wonders for the Deer herd. Four or five years of that system for Moose would go a long way to fixing the problems. Would anyone care to take a wild guess?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
I suppose they don't have any scientific evidence that the approach will work for moose? Rather than firing from the hip, they're investigating and will adjust the system once they better understand the underlying issues surrounding the population. (wild guess, not fact by any means)Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
It's difficult to fix a problem that we don't have a firm understanding of - the article / this thread brings forward many theories, most of which are valid.
FishFrenzy
I think it is because they would lose moneyQuote:
Originally Posted by FishFrenzy
Great I'm a poacher again this time just reinforced….. Thank's for the label! A poaching I will go !! And I thought I was a hunter for the last couple decades ? How wrong I am?Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfhunter
I think you're twisting it a little. He said poachers will tend to use xbows. Not xbow users are poachers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Exo200