Bull/cow or calf?

Quote:

---

They actually say in the text what many here want to deny-that killing calves (and)cows brings the population DOWN.
Just read these sentences from the Study(2nd page)-just read them in REVERSE .

---

Well, read it reverse, straight forward or upside down, but what very clearly this article "Alaska vs Scandinavian" tells me is that hunting, road access etc. is not the main reason for low moose numbers here.
They are probably: predation, diseases (known or not), low nutrition environment and may be some unknown.

Quote:

---

Peace.

---

Sure, peace. I have no intention to fight with anybody here. My only intention to bring some common sense as I see it.

In the journal 'Moose Hunting, Forestry and Wolves in Sweden' they describe the history of the moose population as being up and down through the decades. No surprise there.
Further to quote, "In the late 60's the hunting of calves was encouraged. This practice later proved to increase the moose population further, rather than reducing it as the hunt focused on the least productive portion of the population. "
The harvest went from 13000 animals in the late 60's to 4 times that in present day. The paper also cites forestry harvesting practices as the other major input to its success.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alfoldivandor

I understand your argument and totally agree with you .

But when you hunt rabbit do you shoot male or female rabbit ...?

You see it is little bit more complicated ...

---

No offense but you are comparing apples to oranges. The gender is easily identified and moose do not repopulate as easily as rabbits

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tman

No offense but you are comparing apples to oranges. The gender is easily identified and moose do not repopulate as easily as rabbits

---

I think the MNR folk's will disagree with this assertion as they gets scores of Moose killed every year that are misidentified.
They charge folk's for taking the animal, generally issue a out of court fine and PRESTO allow another Moose to be killed on the same license, does not make sense and reduces the herd and other hunters chances of a tag the following year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sawbill

In the journal 'Moose Hunting, Forestry and Wolves in Sweden' they describe the history of the moose population as being up and down through the decades. No surprise there.
Further to quote, "In the late 60's the hunting of calves was encouraged. This practice later proved to increase the moose population further, rather than reducing it as the hunt focused on the least productive portion of the population. "
The harvest went from 13000 animals in the late 60's to 4 times that in present day. The paper also cites forestry harvesting practices as the other major input to its success.

---

I do not challenge the paper and what they say-but would need more understanding how shooting calves helps grow the herd.
Unless totally banning adult moose hunt !

This seems a base of much debate here and elsewhere in hunting community.
At the end:
If one wants to increase the water level in the rain barrel can do it only 2 ways: STOP taking water from the barrel or ADD more to it then taking out.
Commons sense.

So far we are allowed to have our cake and eat it too........

The barrel scenario is good, but I like the beef farmer one better. Imagine being a beef farmer and you have a cow/calf operation. Your business plan is to increase your herd, and sell the crop of calfs every year (aka the annual population increase in your herd). Then along comes a brainless MNR biologist in Policy Division who decides to tinker with your business plan. They send all of your cows, heifers, and calfs to slaughter, then can't understand the fundamental logic behind how their decision has caused you to go bankrupt due to lack of product. The saddest thing is that there's a horny bull left standing in the paddock, with a WTF look on his face.........

Getting back to the original post... any thoughts on application strategies for 1st, 2nd & 3rd choices?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninepointer

Getting back to the original post... any thoughts on application strategies for 1st, 2nd & 3rd choices?

---

I have posted my thoughts. As far as the second and third draw, I can’t see being successful in those draws, unless you are applying in a WMU that has had excess tags. Those draws are supposed to be in place of the excess tag application. I would think that the excess tag numbers will be close to the numbers and WMUs as last year. I don’t foresee any tags going unclaimed in any of the more popular WMUs. It will be interesting!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

I have posted my thoughts. As far as the second and third draw, I can’t see being successful in those draws, unless you are applying in a WMU that has had excess tags. Those draws are supposed to be in place of the excess tag application. I would think that the excess tag numbers will be close to the numbers and WMUs as last year. I don’t foresee any tags going unclaimed in any of the more popular WMUs. It will be interesting!!

---

This is my understanding as well.

Ok, I took some time and did a little research (thanks to Sawbill) and some calculations.
What I found is:
1.
MNR states:
Over the last decade, Ontario’s moose population, while healthy overall:
- has declined in some parts of the north
- has generally fared better in the southern part of the range
https://www.ontario.ca/page/factors-...ival#section-6

2.
https://www.ontario.ca/page/moose-population-management
There are 6 Zones for Moose management in Ontario. To simplify and generalize a bit for our purposes: in two of these Zones (far North and South-East) the objectives are to keep low to moderate moose density in those areas. In four others (generally South of Timmins to Trent-Seveern vertically and province-wide horizontally) the objective is to keep moderate to high density of moose population.
So in those Zones where the objectives are Moderate to High, indeed, the goals are not met. The population is below Moderate level: 59% (Kenora far West); 79% (Thunder Bay to Dryden); 88% North Bay toTimmins; 96% (Middle of Ontario)
As you could see even though the objectives are not met and the populations are below Moderate, still nothing really tragic happened.

3.
For those of you who believe that higher success rate nowadays (compared to the previous time) means killing more moose I have to clearly tell you: you are wrong.
Success rate has nothing to do with the number of moose removed from the population because of dramatic tag reduction. Moose (bulls, cows, calf altogether and everyone separated) are taking far less now than in previous years.
4.
My personal impression from all this reading is that the opinion that the moose population was far better in previous years and crashed in 1980s and declining now might be just erroneous. I might be wrong and willing to accept it if I would see the data showing otherwise, but it's hard for me to believe that at that time (1980s and earlier) there were any appropriate tools and resources to correctly estimate the moose population. All these opinions about “old good days” might be based only on anecdotal evidence.

So once again, for those of you who are very emotional about the moose situation in Ontario, I would suggest to take it easy. Everything is not so bad.
But, sure, everyone of us could make things better. Apply and buy a tag but do not shoot. “Hunting catch and release”. What could be better?
Thank you and good luck everyone!