The Calf moose discussion

Read so much about how 40 percent or so calves don't make it to year one so shooting them doesn't effect the population,
But how many of these 40 percent die well before the season from wolfs, bears and road kills. My guess is the majority that are going to die from nature do in the first couple months so the ones they are being harvested are the strong calves from the jean pool that have more of a fighting chance.
Anyone have any proof behind my thoughts.
No saying I'm right or wrong just curious,
I personally don't see the need to shoot calves or cows with calves,
Should be like spring bears illegal to shoot a sow with cubs or a cub with a sow.

Interesting hypothesis, and I too can't accept the sense (if any) behind the calf harvest. Let natures chips fall where they may but don't compound it is my opinion. However, those who's hackles get raised at any hint of restricting harvests will not agree.

I was lucky enough to witness a cow moose pregnant, then missing the following week, then re-apreading with her calf the following week while turkey hunting this year.

that changed my mind about calf hunting.

But my understanding is that its the harsh winter that kills alot of calves. too short to get over snow, or reach food higher up, as a result they get weaker, and fall pray to predators is that I was told.

calf hunting is just around, to give us a chance to hunt, there is not good reason other than not taking as much cows I believe.
at the end, natural selection applies though. if a calf is gonna present itself to a hunter, then it probably would do same to bears or wolves .... lol

IMHO, it’s better on the moose population to take calves, and leave breeding adults for recruitment. Our group has hunted in the NW for about 40 years. I think we have taken maybe 4 calves in all that time. I’ve always heard the presumption that a high percentage of calves don’t make it through the first winter. We do tend to see lots of yearling moose that have survived.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

IMHO, it’s better on the moose population to take calves, and leave breeding adults for recruitment. Our group has hunted in the NW for about 40 years. I think we have taken maybe 4 calves in all that time. I’ve always heard the presumption that a high percentage of calves don’t make it through the first winter. We do tend to see lots of yearling moose that have survived.

---

Personally,I won't shoot a calf and most of our crew are OK with it. There's a couple of guys that will take one and we're OK with that,too. We're big believers in the "different strokes for different folks" concept as long as it's legal. I could never wrap my head around the "40% won't survive,anyway" concept. If that's accurate,what sense does it make to add hunter harvest to further exacerbate the issue?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

IMHO, it’s better on the moose population to take calves, and leave breeding adults for recruitment. Our group has hunted in the NW for about 40 years. I think we have taken maybe 4 calves in all that time. I’ve always heard the presumption that a high percentage of calves don’t make it through the first winter. We do tend to see lots of yearling moose that have survived.

---

So you are for an open hunt for calves as we used to have?

How do you replenish the adults then when they die of old age?

in my opinion all game that isnt at least a yearling shouldnt be harvested. (deer, moose bear)

if the young ones are to die it should be by a predator or by natures course. again just my opinion though.

We drew 2 calf tags for the moose hunt this year. I've already told the group to do what you want, I'll be staying home until when and if I draw an adult tag. Doesn't bother me if they want to hunt calves. Personal choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Personally,I won't shoot a calf and most of our crew are OK with it. There's a couple of guys that will take one and we're OK with that,too. We're big believers in the "different strokes for different folks" concept as long as it's legal. I could never wrap my head around the "40% won't survive,anyway" concept. If that's accurate,what sense does it make to add hunter harvest to further exacerbate the issue?

---

Hunters were never believed to add much to the overall impact. The idea was that if you shot a calf there was a reasonably good chance that you took one that wouldn't survive anyway. Pretty bad luck if hunters somehow shot all the calves that were likely to make it through the winter. The other part of it (as seen in the thread here) was that groups of hunters were unlikely to plan a moose hunt with only a calf tag. Most calf tags went unfilled. That being said, we usually averaged shooting a calf every other year or so.

Personally I think it's one of those practices that might have made sense when it was put in place but it no longer works.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GW11

Hunters were never believed to add much to the overall impact. The idea was that if you shot a calf there was a reasonably good chance that you took one that wouldn't survive anyway. Pretty bad luck if hunters somehow shot all the calves that were likely to make it through the winter. The other part of it (as seen in the thread here) was that groups of hunters were unlikely to plan a moose hunt with only a calf tag. Most calf tags went unfilled. That being said, we usually averaged shooting a calf every other year or so.

Personally I think it's one of those practices that might have made sense when it was put in place but it no longer works.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

---

Those are my thoughts,too. At the outset,it seemed workable and logical,but,as time went on,adult tags were continually being cut back forcing hunters to become very adept at searching out and taking calves. That's where I fault the government. As soon as that became evident,OMNR should have moved quickly to curb it by stopping automatic calf tag sales and including them in the allocation process or removing calf tags completely. Instead,it became a cash grab adding to the problem. When we add everything together,climate change,Black Bear,Wolf and Coyote predation,the perfect storm was created. Now,we may need to reap what we've sown and it ain't gonna be pretty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

So you are for an open hunt for calves as we used to have?

How do you replenish the adults then when they die of old age?

---

I can only relate my considerable experience, after over 40 years of moose hunting. We have hunted in 15A, 12B, 12A, 9A, 8, and 3, over those 40 plus years. We have always held adult tags, sometimes multiple tags. I can not remember leaving a tag not filled. In all those years, I think we shot maybe 4 calves. Contrary to what some believe, calves are not easily come by. Those, with the exception of one, we’re with a cow. We were not about to leave a calf for the wolves. In those WMUs we hunted, we always saw lots of cow/calf sign, so they were around. We also saw, and have shot many yearling bulls, as they are pretty easy to call at times. We also saw many, what we believed were yearling cows, but were let pass due to the difficulty in distinguishing one from a calf. I’ve seen many camps and know if lots of groups that haven’t seen a calf to take. IMHO, calves are still there in good numbers. As I said before, cows, especially older cows, are very good at keeping themselves and their calves well hidden. I have always thought that if you had a cow tag, you should be able to take a calf, if one was present. Orphaned calves don’t stand much of a chance at survival.
At least now with the cow/calf tags, hunters can opt to take the calf and leave the cow. It also reduces the chances of shooting a cow, thinking it was a calf. Those filling calf only tags still have to be very careful to properly identify an animal as a calf, or a yearling cow….

What I don't get is a group of 15 guys with only calf tags....

So they shoot 2 calves that week, Maybe 100lbs of meat total.

Take your 6lb of meat share and call it a success?

Or do you hope for a adult tag every 5 years or so?

I have personally shot a few calves and watching the cow trying to nudge the dead calf up really put me off. I'd do it again if I could shoot the cow too, But really don't see the point in it..

Sent from my SM-G781W using Tapatalk

When adult tags dried up years ago in our area, that pretty much ended it for our gang.
Follow the hunting laws and hunt as you may, to each their own. One thing for certain, every calf shot has 0% chance of becoming future herd. Not my cup of tea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canadaman30

When adult tags dried up years ago in our area, that pretty much ended it for our gang.
Follow the hunting laws and hunt as you may, to each their own. One thing for certain, every calf shot has 0% chance of becoming future herd. Not my cup of tea.

---

Same can be said about an adult moose, except the adult has a much better chance of increasing the herd.
I will say that anymore, it’s not about the harvest. It’s about spending time with family and friends out in the bush. Always lots of birds to hunt…and walleye to catch !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

Same can be said about an adult moose, except the adult has a much better chance of increasing the herd.
I will say that anymore, it’s not about the harvest. It’s about spending time with family and friends out in the bush. Always lots of birds to hunt…and walleye to catch !

---

Sure it can be looked at many ways.
I'm 100% with SongDog on this, my experiences have been identical. Not my cup of tea

Quote:

---

[COLOR=#000000]So you are for an open hunt for calves as we used to have?

---

Quote:

---

How do you replenish the adults then when they die of old age?

---

That's been happening for as long as humans have been around! I think there is something else at play here

I always thought that 40% mortality thing was Hunt camp BS. Guys just made that up to feel better about shooting calves. I’ve never seen any scientific study that supports this.

I too have a hard time believing that shooting calves because whatever percentage doesnt survive the first year doesnt harm the overall population. I believe it adds pressure to the herd. If targeting calves doesnt harm the overall population why do we now have tags for calves?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dilly

I always thought that 40% mortality thing was Hunt camp BS. Guys just made that up to feel better about shooting calves. I’ve never seen any scientific study that supports this.

---

When the MNR came out with the selective harvest system back in the 1980’s, they threw out a figure for calf mortality that justified the calf hunt. I don’t remember the percentage that they used but it could have been as high as 40%. Also at that time, they produced an illustration that showed herd growth based on different hunting scenarios e.g. if you shot a cow or if you shot a calf. IIRC, their projections were based on cows having twins at age 4.
Attachment 42053
If we were talking about whitetail deer, we would have more answers as deer have been extensively studied in the USA. Unfortunately moose aren’t studied to the extent that deer are. (part of it is due to their size, population, and the environment where they live). Consequently, the MNR has to rely on studies from other countries (Europe) - where data might not be entirely applicable.

Since 1983, the MNR has learned a few things about moose such as: they are not as productive as once believed, hunter- caused mortality rates shouldn’t exceed 20% if your trying to grow more moose, calf hunting needs to be better managed, bulls aren’t adult-film stars and don’t breed many cows, and aerial surveys aren’t perfect.

EDIT: I found an Ontario study online about calf mortality is central Ontario. The study was carried out by Trent University. Here’s the abstract:
”[COLOR=#333333]Although some populations remain stable, moose (Alces alces) density and distribution have been declining in many areas along the southern edge of their North American distribution. During 2006—2009, we deployed 99 vaginal implant transmitters (VITs) in 86 adult female moose in central Ontario, Canada to assist in locating and radiocollaring neonatal moose calves. We monitored radiocollared calves to estimate calf survival and assess the relative importance of specific causes of death. Calves in the western portion of our study area (WMU49) were exposed to a 6-day general hunting season, whereas calves in the eastern portion of our study area (Algonquin Provincial Park [APP]) were not exposed to hunting. Annual survival for 87 collared calves was greater in the protected area than the harvested area (72.4 ± 6.8% and 55.8 ± 8.3%, respectively) and averaged 63.7 ± 7.1% overall. Predation by wolves (Canis sp.) and American black bears (Ursus americanus) was the dominant cause of death but occurred predominately in APP, whereas other natural mortality agents were 4× more common in WMU49. Only 16% of the collared calves in WMU49 were harvested each year despite a high proportion (approx. 50%) of accessible, public land. Most natural mortality occurred prior to the autumn hunting season such that reductions in natural mortality had little potential to compensate for calf harvest. Overall, calf survival in our study area was moderate to high and our findings suggest predator control or further restrictions of calf hunting in this area is not justified.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redd foxx

That's been happening for as long as humans have been around! I think there is something else at play here

---

What is at play is opened up logging roads, ATVs, access to all the property that was not accessible before for the moose to get away from the hunting pressure.

If you go to a cattle operation and tell the farmer they have to take out only the calves and continue their herd they will look at you like you have 2 heads. It is not that calves were shot it is that calves have been open season for so long. It should be managed like every where else, bulls only with a minimum size/age of the rack and cows/calves with a special tag when the population needs adjustment. Pay $15 to get into the draw like you do for an elk and then you can get that bull.

What they have done with these changes is long overdue, hopefully our moose population will come back. Oh, and don't say that you see lots at your hunt camp so the numbers must be fine, the moose population is in real trouble province wide, there are pockets that is it ok but it is hurting overall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redd foxx

That's been happening for as long as humans have been around! I think there is something else at play here

---

What is at play is opened up logging roads, ATVs, access to all the property that was not accessible before for the moose to get away from the hunting pressure.

If you go to a cattle operation and tell the farmer they have to take out only the calves and continue their herd they will look at you like you have 2 heads. It is not that calves were shot it is that calves have been open season for so long. It should be managed like every where else, bulls only with a minimum size/age of the rack and cows/calves with a special tag when the population needs adjustment. Pay $15 to get into the draw like you do for an elk and then you can get that bull.

What they have done with these changes is long overdue, hopefully our moose population will come back. Oh, and don't say that you see lots at your hunt camp so the numbers must be fine, the moose population is in real trouble province wide, there are pockets that is it ok but it is hurting overall.

I found another Moose study online titled “ Assessment of the status and viability of a population of moose (Alces alces) at its southern range limit in Ontario”. Both studies can be downloaded at researchgate.net.

There can be all the university studies we want,some have a natural bias for any number of reasons,but,at what point do we stop paying attention to "results" and start using some common sense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam Menard

When the MNR came out with the selective harvest system back in the 1980’s, they threw out a figure for calf mortality that justified the calf hunt. I don’t remember the percentage that they used but it could have been as high as 40%. Also at that time, they produced an illustration that showed herd growth based on different hunting scenarios e.g. if you shot a cow or if you shot a calf. IIRC, their projections were based on cows having twins at age 4.
Attachment 42053
If we were talking about whitetail deer, we would have more answers as deer have been extensively studied in the USA. Unfortunately moose aren’t studied to the extent that deer are. (part of it is due to their size, population, and the environment where they live). Consequently, the MNR has to rely on studies from other countries (Europe) - where data might not be entirely applicable.

Since 1983, the MNR has learned a few things about moose such as: they are not as productive as once believed, hunter- caused mortality rates shouldn’t exceed 20% if your trying to grow more moose, calf hunting needs to be better managed, bulls aren’t adult-film stars and don’t breed many cows, and aerial surveys aren’t perfect.

EDIT: I found an Ontario study online about calf mortality is central Ontario. The study was carried out by Trent University. Here’s the abstract:
”[COLOR=#333333]Although some populations remain stable, moose (Alces alces) density and distribution have been declining in many areas along the southern edge of their North American distribution. During 2006—2009, we deployed 99 vaginal implant transmitters (VITs) in 86 adult female moose in central Ontario, Canada to assist in locating and radiocollaring neonatal moose calves. We monitored radiocollared calves to estimate calf survival and assess the relative importance of specific causes of death. Calves in the western portion of our study area (WMU49) were exposed to a 6-day general hunting season, whereas calves in the eastern portion of our study area (Algonquin Provincial Park [APP]) were not exposed to hunting. Annual survival for 87 collared calves was greater in the protected area than the harvested area (72.4 ± 6.8% and 55.8 ± 8.3%, respectively) and averaged 63.7 ± 7.1% overall. Predation by wolves (Canis sp.) and American black bears (Ursus americanus) was the dominant cause of death but occurred predominately in APP, whereas other natural mortality agents were 4× more common in WMU49. Only 16% of the collared calves in WMU49 were harvested each year despite a high proportion (approx. 50%) of accessible, public land. Most natural mortality occurred prior to the autumn hunting season such that reductions in natural mortality had little potential to compensate for calf harvest. Overall, calf survival in our study area was moderate to high and our findings suggest predator control or further restrictions of calf hunting in this area is not justified.”

---

Thanks for the info Sam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

There can be all the university studies we want,some have a natural bias for any number of reasons,but,at what point do we stop paying attention to "results" and start using some common sense?

---

Many folks reject or ignore research or results for varying reasons such as they don’t understand the information or they believe that the study was too artificial to be be valid or the results are biased to support the researchers (or sponsors) true agenda. I get it.

I tend to be a sponge and look for information from a variety of different sources then try to validate that new knowledge in real world situations. There’s some stuff that you can’t learn on your own, or you can but it takes a very long time. To each his own.

What do we lose by abandoning the calf hunt? Not much. But by continuing it we continue to slow the population growth. It’s a no brainer. Would it hurt anyone to shut it down for 3-5 years as a test?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Birdbuff

W. Would it hurt anyone to shut it down for 3-5 years as a test?

---

The BEST notion for a longest time.
Alas,that would mean that FN could not hunt either ,which means this will never happen, which means ...slowly but surely moose hunt in Ontario will only be for the really rich (fly in to some VERY remote area)......and for the rest of ALL of us, it will be a memory of those good old days.
Shooting calves-no,but othervise my gut tells me one thing-anyone who can go moose hunting,go and hunt,because this all will end rather soon.

i think the idea behind having a calf hunt is that the calves have the least chance to make it to adult hood because of predators, winters, etc. adults have already made it to that point. Hunting (as long as it is controlled) will not eliminate ALL the calves just as it won't eliminate all the adults. An adult cow that is left after a calf is shot may have 1 or 2 more calves. A cow shot will not provide any further calves into the population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Birdbuff

What do we lose by abandoning the calf hunt? Not much. But by continuing it we continue to slow the population growth. It’s a no brainer. Would it hurt anyone to shut it down for 3-5 years as a test?

---

Your point is incomplete. If you really want to grow the herd, shut the entire hunt down. The adult animals are the ones that are making babies today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam Menard

Your point is incomplete. If you really want to grow the herd, shut the entire hunt down. The adult animals are the ones that are making babies today.

---

My point was based on the other comments that many calves won’t over winter the first year due to predation. If this is the case, then why pressure the system more with the ultimate predator (hunters).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gbk

The BEST notion for a longest time.
Alas,that would mean that FN could not hunt either ,which means this will never happen, which means ...slowly but surely moose hunt in Ontario will only be for the really rich (fly in to some VERY remote area)......and for the rest of ALL of us, it will be a memory of those good old days.
Shooting calves-no,but othervise my gut tells me one thing-anyone who can go moose hunting,go and hunt,because this all will end rather soon.

---

So your thought is that the FN hunters would go out and kill all of the moose that they do now as well as all the moose that the non-FN hunters kill?

The reason the moose hunt is going to end is because there will no longer be moose to hunt, and it is not the FN hunters fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Birdbuff

What do we lose by abandoning the calf hunt? Not much. But by continuing it we continue to slow the population growth. It’s a no brainer. Would it hurt anyone to shut it down for 3-5 years as a test?

---

89,000 people applied to hunt moose. We are trying to maintain a system where 89,000 hunters get to hunt every fall.

of 60 North American jurisdictions (12 provinces/territory + 48 states) who else still runs a lottery big game hunt in an all inclusive manner? Our group system is outdated.

Kill the calf tag, issue the tags, and let a tag holder hunt with one other person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

So your thought is that the FN hunters would go out and kill all of the moose that they do now as well as all the moose that the non-FN hunters kill?

The reason the moose hunt is going to end is because there will no longer be moose to hunt, and it is not the FN hunters fault.

---

Generally have no intention to reply to certain posts.....lets do exception : Read the post once more ,twice more,-then try to understand what was stated -then repost again.

ps- nowhere i said what You read into my post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

So your thought is that the FN hunters would go out and kill all of the moose that they do now as well as all the moose that the non-FN hunters kill?

The reason the moose hunt is going to end is because there will no longer be moose to hunt, and it is not the FN hunters fault.

---

If this is how FN treat moose in this province, they are far from conservationists of the land. Sickening
https://www.baytoday.ca/local-news/m...-today-2120969

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canadaman30

If this is how FN treat moose in this province, they are far from conservationists of the land. Sickening
https://www.baytoday.ca/local-news/m...-today-2120969

---

Why are they wasting money in court with this, unfortunately it is likely going to get thrown out anyway. Wasn't there an incident a few years back where a hunter in a treestand was shot and killed by another FN hunter. He even confessed and it was still thrown out due to lack of evidence. But maybe it's harsher penalties because it involves wildlife.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canadaman30

If this is how FN treat moose in this province, they are far from conservationists of the land. Sickening
https://www.baytoday.ca/local-news/m...-today-2120969

---

The wording of your post suggests that dragging a life moose down the highway (amongst other offences) is a normal indigenous practice. Insinuations such as this are offensive and divisive. When I was a Conservation Officer, I investigated 2 cases of snaring deer and moose as well a cruelty case ( moose shot at night and left alive for 3 hours while culprit looked around for a indigenous person to claim it). My partners charged another guy for deliberately running a moose down with a pickup truck. In each situation the violators were Caucasian! Crime, no matter how appalling, is not confined to any specific race.

Managing the FN moose harvest is actually quite simple. They can only harvest moose at a level not in line with management goals in areas with road access/atv access. Reduce road access = reduce FN harvest to levels in line with management goals.

Access is the only barrier that can be applied equally to all user groups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by outdoorlife

Managing the FN moose harvest is actually quite simple. They can only harvest moose at a level not in line with management goals in areas with road access/atv access. Reduce road access = reduce FN harvest to levels in line with management goals.

Access is the only barrier that can be applied equally to all user groups.

---

There’s a common belief that indigenous hunting rights are responsible for the decline of fish and wildlife and that by making us all equal will somehow fix everything. Despite the fact that indigenous people have certain rights which allow them to hunt/fish without seasons or limits, more fish and game are taken by Licenced hunters and anglers. Since non-indigenous people make up the bulk of the population, we have the largest footprint and have the largest impact on most anything.

As far as restricting access goes, it wouldn’t fly as it would be viewed as a constraint on their rights. It would be akin to saying to you “yes you have the right to vote, but you just can’t use a road to get to the polling station”.

I struggled with understanding the differences between our cultures and that there are different rules for different people. Eventually, I was able to make peace with it all. Last fall I was able to shoot a deer and a moose and I caught a limit of nice walleye last week. I can’t ask for more than that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gbk

The BEST notion for a longest time.
... my gut tells me one thing-anyone who can go moose hunting,go and hunt,because this all will end rather soon.

---

Wise words spoken. If you are lucky enough to get a tag, take advantage of and go, as for one reason or another, moose hunting is definitely in decline in Ontario. Sorry to say but I believe the best of moose hunting in Ontario is behind us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam Menard

There’s a common belief that indigenous hunting rights are responsible for the decline of fish and wildlife and that by making us all equal will somehow fix everything. Despite the fact that indigenous people have certain rights which allow them to hunt/fish without seasons or limits, more fish and game are taken by Licenced hunters and anglers. Since non-indigenous people make up the bulk of the population, we have the largest footprint and have the largest impact on most anything.

As far as restricting access goes, it wouldn’t fly as it would be viewed as a constraint on their rights. It would be akin to saying to you “yes you have the right to vote, but you just can’t use a road to get to the polling station”.

I struggled with understanding the differences between our cultures and that there are different rules for different people. Eventually, I was able to make peace with it all. Last fall I was able to shoot a deer and a moose and I caught a limit of nice walleye last week. I can’t ask for more than that!

---

I agree somewhat to what your saying. But its easier to manage a population of moose figuring the % of successful licensed hunters. How do you manage a number when you don't know how many FN are hunting them and how many are they harvesting? The last time we hunted Geraldton area(15 years ago) the 8 of us went home without a moose but the 16yr old FN kid that pumped gas for us managed to shoot 6 of them up to that point of the season so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cantgetright

I agree somewhat to what your saying. But its easier to manage a population of moose figuring the % of successful licensed hunters. How do you manage a number when you don't know how many FN are hunting them and how many are they harvesting? The last time we hunted Geraldton area(15 years ago) the 8 of us went home without a moose but the 16yr old FN kid that pumped gas for us managed to shoot 6 of them up to that point of the season so far.

---

It makes sense that you can make more informed decisions with better and accurate data i.e. harvest data. Not only do we not know what the total human-harvested totals are , the MNR doesn’t track road kills anymore nor do they know how many moose are killed by 4-legged predators. Wildlife management is far from being a precise science but rather it’s about “projections”, “confidence levels”, “ranges”, and statistics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canadaman30

If this is how FN treat moose in this province, they are far from conservationists of the land. Sickening
https://www.baytoday.ca/local-news/m...-today-2120969

---

You can hardly draw any conclusions, based on the actions of one or two nitwits, regardless of race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam Menard

It makes sense that you can make more informed decisions with better and accurate data i.e. harvest data. Not only do we not know what the total human-harvested totals are , the MNR doesn’t track road kills anymore nor do they know how many moose are killed by 4-legged predators. Wildlife management is far from being a precise science but rather it’s about “projections”, “confidence levels”, “ranges”, and statistics.

---

Exactly…. moose numbers are being impacted by a host of issues, from the changes in logging practices, forest fire suppression, ticks, parasites, climate changes, predation, moose killed by trains, etc. etc….. I would hazard a guess
that hunting pressure has only a small impact on numbers…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam Menard

It makes sense that you can make more informed decisions with better and accurate data i.e. harvest data. Not only do we not know what the total human-harvested totals are , the MNR doesn’t track road kills anymore nor do they know how many moose are killed by 4-legged predators. Wildlife management is far from being a precise science but rather it’s about “projections”, “confidence levels”, “ranges”, and statistics.

---

One more reason for the authorities to collect data-and work with facts.
It can be done to a whole lot higher degree then just shrug it off-life is life.

Roadkills, train collisions, regulated and non regulated harvest,heck,even skulls found in forest by happenstance could be reported for a nominal fee(to account for a degree of natural losses).
In the inhabited and frequented areas of Ontario they could get a whole lot more detailed picture.

Then,learn from other ones,who do this job with a greater success(Quebec is not that far)

If there is a will,there is a way.
It seems though- moose decline is being let go,for whatever reason.

Not challenging You Sam, but this great Province with all the resources ,can do only this much ? for the most iconic animal of our own!

Not to link in politics,but once i wandered WHY we can not be more successful with the Emerald Ash Borer?The most agressive approach was(what i know about)-do not transfer firewood!
We know what is happening to the once migthy Ash by now.

Then COVID happened.And the whole mess with it.With projections,statistics and modeling.

I think i understand by now-we are drived by inertia, and the fear of Politicians.
Commons sense is dead.Gut to deal with issues does not exist anymore.

Based on the above two examples,there is no doubt in my mind, so will our moose herd cease to exist, very soon.

At the end -no one will be even able to say to next generations to come-we did everything we could, to save the moose!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam Menard

There’s a common belief that indigenous hunting rights are responsible for the decline of fish and wildlife and that by making us all equal will somehow fix everything. Despite the fact that indigenous people have certain rights which allow them to hunt/fish without seasons or limits, more fish and game are taken by Licenced hunters and anglers. Since non-indigenous people make up the bulk of the population, we have the largest footprint and have the largest impact on most anything.
.

---

Depends where you live to see the impacts. Natives drive through my brothers area selling fresh salmon during the seasons. Pickup truck box filled with fish once a week for the in-towners. Cash only.
It used to be a sight to see yearly FN's spearing the walleye in a once full river, until the fishery was wiped out.
Until they hunt for only their own home consumption their impact would take many Caucasians to equal.

Not gunna lie, I use to have a buddy who use to hunt with natives with his uncle. Told me some crazy stories of what they do and how much game they take.

On the other side of things I've heard of guys who do some really really sketchy stuff as well while hunting. Whether it be snareing deer. Or hunting them out if season. Poaching etc. It's not just 1 group of people you can pinpoint.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bowjob

It's not just 1 group of people you can pinpoint.

---

Any hunt camp going back a few decades has hidden secrets and stories only told to those trusted. It's part of the camps history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canadaman30

Depends where you live to see the impacts. Natives drive through my brothers area selling fresh salmon during the seasons. Pickup truck box filled with fish once a week for the in-towners. Cash only.
It used to be a sight to see yearly FN's spearing the walleye in a once full river, until the fishery was wiped out.
Until they hunt for only their own home consumption their impact would take many Caucasians to equal.

---

What bothers me is who is buying the fish and game. If the non-indigenous weren’t buying it, then there wouldn’t be a market for it. I once confronted a guy from Thunder Bay who complained about indigenous hunting practices and linking it to a reduction of moose tags. Later in the conversation he admitted to having purchased fresh walleye from an indigenous fellow. His response was “Well, I love walleye, and the price was too good to pass up!” Hipocrite!

I scratch my head at the US war on drugs. Why spend billions of dollars fighting drug lords in Latin America and only a fraction to deal with the epidemic at home? If you eliminate the demand, then the suppliers will go out of business. Basic economics!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam Menard

What bothers me is who is buying the fish and game. If the non-indigenous weren’t buying it, then there wouldn’t be a market for it. I once confronted a guy from Thunder Bay who complained about indigenous hunting practices and linking it to a reduction of moose tags. Later in the conversation he admitted to having purchased fresh walleye from an indigenous fellow. His response was “Well, I love walleye, and the price was too good to pass up!” Hipocrite!

I scratch my head at the US war on drugs. Why spend billions of dollars fighting drug lords in Latin America and only a fraction to deal with the epidemic at home? If you eliminate the demand, then the suppliers will go out of business. Basic economics!

---

It's no different than our country's so called gun issues. The criminals getting caught are not being punished which does nothing to stop demand.
When sections of society are not punished for certain illegal acts, sadly demand will continue to rise with population

Every fisherman understands that the harder you work to get into a spot, the better the fishing will be. Any water without road access will be better.

Moose hunting threads are full of hunters complaining that drive up hunting isn’t working for them. Tag issues, reduced moose population, long drives, competition with FN.

Seriously, who’s looking at getting off the beaten path? Accessing an area by boat, canoe, train, plane etc? Seems as complaining goes up, effort goes down…or visa versa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alfoldivandor

In slow down society would be time for each other with less would be more peaceful and happier ...

---

Sounds like a quote from the Great Reset plan: "You'll have nothing and be Happy"

...don't drink the Kool-aid and think that is a good thing for society..it isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canadaman30

It's no different than our country's so called gun issues. The criminals getting caught are not being punished which does nothing to stop demand.
When sections of society are not punished for certain illegal acts, sadly demand will continue to rise with population

---

Not really the criminals are very good at shooting each other and that controls their population. Don't believe me watch the daily news any channel.

Population of Moose in my zone very healthy and will be for many more years to come as more land is closed of to hunters.