PDA

View Full Version : The results of my sheep.



mark4
09-25-2008, 08:17 PM
Well guy's I have to clear the air about my ram. The truth is that on the second inspection-which happened today- a couple different wildlife biologists aged the sheep and they found it to be underage. I feel terrible about it, more than ever, because now I know that I did actually shoot an underage ram and that some of you guy's I was arguing with, actually were right. It is embarrassing to have to totally own it at this point. I am losing the ram and getting charged. I have had to learn this lesson the hard way- Don't ever assume that the first prominent ring is the third year ring- on my ram it was the 1.5 year ring that was the first prominent ring. I can't emphasize enough to not shoot based on rings- I know I will never do it again- because this is what happens. I did have hard feelings in the past about getting phoned in- but I was wrong -and the problem did need to get fixed. Other new sheep hunters may have copied my mistake, and the inspector which I talked to tonight realizes now too that he made a mistake as well. It has been more than educating for me and the inspector. I want to apologize for arguing with some of the more experienced sheep hunters. I screwed up bigtime- and I don't want anyone else to do the same stupid thing I did. This has been a real roller coaster for me to say the least- so mad at myself for getting a wildlife offence and shooting an underage ram. All I can say to all bc hunters is double check -even triple check your animal and know all the ins and outs of the animal you are hunting. I thought that I did do that but the truth is that I didn't know enough about aging sheep to make that call. Anyway's this is getting really old and it's time to move on- good luck to all bc hunters this fall.

Tarp Man
09-25-2008, 08:23 PM
This has got to be one of the most stand up things I have seen for a while. It takes a real strength of character to stand up and own this. It would be possible to hide behind the keyboard, but serious WHOA for taking this step.

moosinaround
09-25-2008, 08:25 PM
This has got to be one of the most stand up things I have seen for a while. It takes a real strength of character to stand up and own this. It would be possible to hide behind the keyboard, but serious WHOA for taking this step.
My thoughts too!! Moosin

BCrams
09-25-2008, 08:27 PM
Lesson learned is experience gained.

Now go out there and shoot a great ram!!!

sawmill
09-25-2008, 08:30 PM
You are a MAN.I salute you.

Schmaus
09-25-2008, 08:31 PM
I have a lot of respect for this person :)

bsa30-06
09-25-2008, 08:31 PM
Can't imagine what you must be feeling, or going thru at this point, but i have to say your handling it like a true ethical hunter.In my opinion if there charging you then i think there should also be some reprecussions for the original inspector who aged it first, and ok'ed it.

kennyj
09-25-2008, 09:43 PM
You've done the right thing.Mistakes happen.Time to move on and like BCrams says : get out there and shoot a great one.
kenny

hotload
09-25-2008, 09:50 PM
Inexperience came to play the first time around, and you faced it. Doing what you have just done now, takes balls, big ones! Kudos to you and your hunting ethics. Proud to \be associated with you on a great hunting site.

BearSniper
09-25-2008, 09:57 PM
Wow

That takes courage and guts. You are an honest man.

Whats the fine ?

You can ask for a significant amount of time to pay it off if you choose to do so. That way it'll be easier on the "bank".

Good luck

Caveman
09-25-2008, 09:59 PM
A real stand up thing is happening here. Others could learn a lesson or two here. Good on You!!

Marc
09-25-2008, 10:10 PM
This is what it's all about being an ethical and responsible hunter. Shit happens and as long as you admitted / learned from your mistake and faced the consequences then you've cleared yourself in my books. Nice to see more and more people own up for their mistakes instead of trying to hide or deny it. You're welcome in my hunting camp anytime.

Marc.

lip_ripper00
09-25-2008, 10:27 PM
What can I say? It takes a big man to realise his mistakes. (Good on you). I don't condone the action, but you did the right thing.I am a LML hunter well past my prime and will never see a sheep hunt. I love to read about all the adventures, so suck it up!! and do it right next time. Sad but great story,!!!!!

6616
09-25-2008, 10:46 PM
My thoughts too!! Moosin

.................X3

ARGR
09-25-2008, 10:56 PM
What the hell are they charging you for? Kinda BS if you ask me. Stand up guy goes in to have a sheep RE-INSPECTED after some knothead (who I hope is out of a job!) screwed it up the first time? Eff that noise, you should be getting a warning, I think you learned your lesson.

Good luck hunting this fall man, you're the guy I want to see with a cranker in the back of the truck. Not the yahoos I know are out there creating the REAL problems

sillybear
09-26-2008, 12:10 AM
Well done Mark for doing the right thing. You set a great example for all of us here. As far as you being chareged, I think that is totally chickens$$t. you did the right thing, lost your sheep and should of got a warning. Just my opinion for what its worth.
Sillybear

Mr. Dean
09-26-2008, 12:17 AM
An inspected ram gets seized and the hunter is charged, befuddles me. Surely this clearly shows just how messed up things are (???).

Having animals compulsory inspected is all good for exactly what then? It was my opinion that this was to ensure of legal animals. This fella came in, was deemed to be 'good', and now is a criminal.

It's like being tried for the same crime twice..... I say confiscate the ram (displaying poor examples aren't good examples) but leave the wallet out of it. The ministry HAD there chance and lost.

That would be 'fair' IMO.

Sorry Mark4. It sounds as if you're taking it with a stiff upper lip - Good on ya!

6 K
09-26-2008, 04:12 AM
My thoughts reiterate those who responded before me. How is it possible to be getting charged when you have been declared “LEGAL”? Sounds to me like a good case for a lawyer to pound on. I think confiscation is ample. What benefit is there to whom by charging you? Good on you for seeing this through to the end and posting this at all. A true picture of your character. As Mark said you are welcome in my hunting camp anytime.

Nimrod
09-26-2008, 04:59 AM
I say confiscate the ram (displaying poor examples aren't good examples) but leave the wallet out of it. The ministry HAD there chance and lost.

My thought exactly, if there has to be a record of the occurrence then make it the minimum, maybe a warning with a note of the hunters cooperation.
Mark, hope everything works out with this, big learning curve this sheep aging...very tricky business.
your karma just went up big time, hope you get that cranker this fall.

mcrae
09-26-2008, 05:59 AM
This is what it's all about being an ethical and responsible hunter. Shit happens and as long as you admitted / learned from your mistake and faced the consequences then you've cleared yourself in my books. Nice to see more and more people own up for their mistakes instead of trying to hide or deny it. You're welcome in my hunting camp anytime.

Marc.

x2 from me bud...

budismyhorse
09-26-2008, 06:47 AM
x2 from me bud...


Hey good for you to come back and admit your mistakes. Sleep well knowing that it takes a real man to do that openly and most hunters would hide that away and never tell a soul.

Some day, with more experience chasing rams, you'll realize how important of a standard sheep hunting needs to maintain...the tightrope between hunting rams and shutting things down is very real.....and the person who should do the real appology to sheep hunters is THE INSPECTOR. He is the one who is more of a danger to the future of sheep hunting in our province.

Though if you took that ram to any other inspector....you would have been charged so it is what it is. Hopefully you'll get only a slap on the wrist due to your extremely consistent honesty. They'll appreciate that you never tried to hide a damn thing.

cheers! and good luck hunting sheep in the future.

guest
09-26-2008, 07:08 AM
Mark, you've been up front with this the whole time, realizing your mistake by possibly not being educated on Annuli enough. Tough lesson learned, good on you to have it looked after. I feel for you the way some went off on this site with no class, mistakes happen and you have owned up to it.
As for the First inspector, I think the ministry should re think his employment, is he or she not to be some what of an expert?
My feeling is confiscation, no Fine, 3 year ban for under 8 yr. Ram.
So, again to bad the way this went down, a huge lesson to you and others, many have learned by this.
I take my hat off to you the way you handled it.
C/T

Bighorn hunter
09-26-2008, 07:09 AM
I have total respect for you Mark4 and none for the person who phoned it in. To me it sounds like you would have done the right thing regardles.

BHH

Bighorn hunter
09-26-2008, 07:12 AM
It will be interesting to hear what the fine is. I know a guy who did the same thing a few years ago when the sheep were 1 in 3. He had his ram taken away, and was able to go after sheep the very next year.

BHH

newhunterette
09-26-2008, 07:35 AM
good on you for your honesty, Mark4 - you made a mistake (error in judgment) that just proves to most people how human you really are - I agree with most who have already mentioned that you learned from your error, you asked questions, you had the sheep inspected, you turned it in, you did all the right things to rectify the situation as any ethical hunter should - I think that is enough and you should not be charged for anything

thank you for sharing your ordeal with us, it has been a learning experience for many here, especially those who are new to sheep hunting

tomahawk
09-26-2008, 07:43 AM
Mistakes will happen to everyone at some point in our lives but not all will be as big a man as you! You have my respect.

hillclimber
09-26-2008, 07:45 AM
Wow mark4 takes alot to own up to a mistake and good on ya for getting everything settled. i take my hat off for you

srupp
09-26-2008, 07:56 AM
hmmmm class act Mark...the IDIOT that called in needs a desperate lesson in minding their own #^#&#&& buisness...pathetic individual..

The BIGGEST issue is in how difficult it is to confidently shoot a sheep based on anuli..hell even the "expert " sitting in a well lit office with just the horns on a desk with no pressure and all the time in the world got the SAME RESULT AS MARK...:mad:and also got it wrong...

Marks honesty "should" put it in a totaly different light as far as "punishment " goes and the added bonus of the expert also agreeing on the age..shows there is much more to this aging than first glance...

Well done...Mark your honesty and openess has done a GREAT DEAL to emphasize the pitfalls of aging by anuli for shooting a sheep..

To the %#$&##* dispicable individual..I have a upcoming grizzly hunt perhaps YOU would care to come along and correctly AGE my grizzly???since you are obviously such a know it all...oh by the way they age Grizzlies by the rings ANULI on their TEETH...:shock:

cheers

steven

325
09-26-2008, 08:10 AM
Am I missing something here?? I just looked at the photo of your ram, and it appears that the tip of the horn goes beyond the nose ridgeline...doesn't that in itself make the ram legal?? Someone please expalin, as I'm going sheep hunting next year.

Wildman
09-26-2008, 08:13 AM
It takes a lot of guts to do what you did, I applaud you for it. Good for you. Mistake made, lesson learned. Thank you form sharing. Good luck!

325
09-26-2008, 08:14 AM
Sorry, I was looking at Alpine85s sheep...definately legal

porcupine
09-26-2008, 08:15 AM
Good for you Mark4 for being honest and forthright and helping educate those other hunters who will be going after their first rams. I hope the rest of the season turns out a lot better for you.
________
weed vaporizers (http://weedvaporizers.info/)

Blainer
09-26-2008, 08:18 AM
I must reiterate what the others have stated,very honorable thing you have done and I believe you followed protocal from the start.I have nothing but respect for you,but as others have indicated,none for the guys who threatened and took it upon themselves to become the law.I think they may even be surprised as to public reaction when they read the posts,but then again maybe not as there were always tattle tales since elementary school.
I also agree that charges are not warranted.

behemoth
09-26-2008, 08:41 AM
Sorry to hear about this Mark4, very suprised they are charging you, sounds like you've been a class act all the way.

Mark4 > HBCSaints

BiG Boar
09-26-2008, 08:58 AM
Hey Mark, a lot of us have been following this story very closely. Well I have anyways. This year was my first sheep hunt. It didnt go exactly the way I thought it would. Bottom line is you made a mistake because you read something that you thought was valid and you based your hunt on that false information. You obviously knew it was hard to judge a sheeps age by anuli but you gave it a shot, literally.

What I do congradulate you for is teaching us new hunters a major lesson. Not only that but you took it like a man.

Fact is that the law is a tricky one meant I think for judging old rams that broom off the tips. If they make it so that all rams horns must be over the bridge of the nose then you wont be able to shoot the old broomers. I think what they need to mention in the regs is thier INTENTION. I believe there are 7 year old full curl rams out there. That being said, something that was well short of a full curl and not broomed off should make people think hey this one is probably not legal. I mean are there people out there with 8 year old rams that are not full curl, and not broomed off?

Lots to learn here. I am also glad that these things do have to get inspected. Obviously some of the inspectors have to be educated.

The tatle tale who did call this in should stand up and state thier name. If they want to be known as the hero who did the RIGHT thing then they should stand up and take the praise for it.

What I would like to know in all honesty is, did you take it to the ministry on your own accord to have it reinspected? Or did someone call you in and they made you bring it in to have it reinspected? I dont think its fair for them to take it away, or ask for a reinspection if its already been approved. I mean I think tonnes of hunters on here who would have screamed blue murder if they had not been grandfathered in on thier hunting licences and been made to write a test like the rest of us new hunters, or had to write the PAL test or FAC test after having owned guns for years. The ministry should let you keep it as a lesson to them for hiring such crappy inspectors.

jml11
09-26-2008, 09:07 AM
It's an unfortunate lesson to learn but whats done is done time to move on and look forward to the next sheep hunt. Mark4 I hope you will go chase sheep again.

I think charges will be laid in this case due to the number of people that are aware of this ram. It is true that in most cases when a hunter is cooperative and has made an honest mistake, only a warning is issued. I would not be surprised if several hundred people and maybe thousands of people are aware of this ram. I have personally been asked about this ram from individuals from the province and federal agencies and I don't even know if they use this site. As a result, charges have to be laid, if there aren't I imagine another outcry may occur.

As I posted in another thread, the internet takes away a lot of privacy, suspect photos will makes the rounds quickly and eventually reach the authorities. I don't think it's fair to point fingers at people who may have reported the ram, they were observing, recording, reporting, something the province asks each and every one of us to do. I think it is irrelevant anyways as the photos were posted and the authorities would see them eventually (rumour has it some CO and ministry offices monitor this site).

huntcoop
09-26-2008, 09:09 AM
hmmmm class act Mark...the IDIOT that called in needs a desperate lesson in minding their own #^#&#&& buisness...pathetic individual......

X2...I assume that they are the same people that sent him emails saying that the CO's are coming after him, he's in big trouble, time is running out....or saying in posts "... Now the real question is what is anyone going to do about it...?"

Mind your own f&cking business people...:mad:

Unfortunately the one thing that I have learned from all this BS is be very careful as to the pictures you post on this site cause some HBC saint will be all over you a$$, can you imagine if Mark's pictures also included a couple cans of beer??? :shock:

bigwhiteys
09-26-2008, 09:28 AM
Good on you Corb. You've done a great thing for the Sheep and Sheep hunters of BC. I hope the Wild Sheep Society of BC is the purchaser of your horns/cape so they can be used for further education on the issue.

For those with the tattle tale comments... When an infraction on our wildlife is made, an illegal animal killed, then POSTED on a PUBLIC hunting site you all think it's okay to mind your own business and move along...?

Because that fixes the issue right?

None of you have enough fingers to point at the "individuals" who reported this. Phone the CO's in Fort Nelson, Fort St. John or Dawson Creek and ASK how many calls and messages they received regarding the ram.

Carl

Wild one
09-26-2008, 09:30 AM
Good luck Mark I hope the COs don't give you too many problem I think loosing your sheep should be enough.

2slow
09-26-2008, 09:32 AM
The ones who sent him the private messages are the same cowards that would run in when there is a street fight that they arent involved in and put the boots to the guy on the ground. No class shown at all on their part and they should be ashamed of themselves as I do believe that mark would have done the right thing

budismyhorse
09-26-2008, 09:37 AM
Phone the CO's in Fort Nelson, Fort St. John or Dawson Creek and ASK how many calls and messages they received regarding the ram.

Carl


give us a round estimate Bigwhiteys. I would be interested to hear it, I think we all knew Corb's goose was cooked as soon as the pictures hit the internet.

I don't condone the "threatening" or "childish" PM's to Corb, but I knew right away there would be more to that story when he put the pics up.

My guess would be the CO's phones were ringing off the hook.....you seem to be in the know however.

BiG Boar
09-26-2008, 09:39 AM
Well we will see what happens, i didnt realize so many guys on here were busy phoning you in. Sounds to me like quite a few rats right here posting. WATCH WHAT YOU SAY AND POST PEOPLE! THE RATS ARE WATCHING!

Stone Sheep Steve
09-26-2008, 09:59 AM
As most have said....you handled it very well, Corb!

A stand up guy you are for sure:smile:!!

Personally, I could do without the finger pointing.

Even though CO's don't post on this site, you can bet there are many that lurk in the shadows....guarrenteed. This site is biggest of BC hunters by a loooooong shot. Sure, some others may have phoned in this "situation" but I think the ball was already rolling before much time had passed.

A lot of people(including myself) have learned a lot from this whole thing, including some of the other sheep info threads that have "spurred off" from this story. Not just the rookies either.

So, out of bad comes some good....so put your boots back on and be ready to hit the mtns next year..with your chin held high:smile:.

SSS

srupp
09-26-2008, 10:08 AM
SO let me get this right..Mark shot the ram during a legal season, tagged it appropriatly submitted the correct "parts " for compulsary inspection to a LICENSED and 'qualified " government inspector who aged it at 8 years old drilled it and gave the nessisary paperwork

sports fans!!!!!!!!!! it was DECLARED A LEGAL ANIMAL..doesnt matter what I or anyone THINKS OR SAYS OR????? WHATEVER...

IT doesnt give ANYONE THE RIGHT..NO ONE to phone in or anything IT WAS LEGAL and MARKS call...

whopever called in doesnt matter..was WRONG.....

GOOD man thing mark...shame on the SNITCHES...


STEVEN

bighornbob
09-26-2008, 10:19 AM
Mark

Keep your chin up, you made a mistake and you must move on. I would be glad to to have you has a sheep hunting partner.

SRUPP

When Mark posted his pictures on the Net it gave everyone the right to phone it in if its legal or not. It is up to the CO's to make the call where they go from there.

A honest mistake was made by Mark and by the Inspector but as the old saying goes two wrongs dont make it right or legal.

BHB

budismyhorse
09-26-2008, 10:34 AM
Steven, I think the boys up north had one look at the ram an out of region fella took and went wild. Legal or Not, it was drilled and passed by an inspector that they probably felt was not experienced enough to pass a stone sheep on age, therefore demanded a re-inspection. I don't view that as snitching on Mark4 personally, they are just wound up about the event the government got themselves into when they took away the inspections from CO's and gave it out to contractors.

Don't you remember some of the original comments "where did you get it inspected?"

right there means the person is questioning the "experience" of the out of region inspector.

You watch, there will be changes made because of this situation, don't be surprised if from now on, rams will have to be inspected in the region it was harvested in. My guess anyhow.

I agree with the "snitches", say what you want about that I really don't care. They don't know mark4 from Adam and couldnt' care less, the people who made a stink about it saw something WILDLY INCORRECT and made it right, good on them I say. If there was ever a case for re-inspection, this would be it. There are rules out there for a reason, because something was slipped through by an incompetent inspector doens't make it right. That sheep on someones wall sets a dangerous precedent and we (as sheep hunters) can't afford for that to be out there. What happens if Corb's buddies see it and go up next year and drill more rams like that.....get it inspected by the same guy......what then?

Corb will be better off for it! He'll get out and take a "no-brainer" someday and put all this mess behind him. He hunts hard and often, he'll get it done right one day!

Let me also re-state that the INSPECTOR is the problem here, not snitches or Corb. THE INDIVIDUAL INSPECTOR.

Orangethunder
09-26-2008, 10:55 AM
Way to go to stand up and have it re-inspected.

Unfortunetly it didn't go your way but to have the balls to admit a mistake is admirable.

Kudos to you and best of luck next year!!

Mr. Dean
09-26-2008, 11:34 AM
This hunter has done a wrong.... All agree, even himself.

The MOE had their chance of taking matters further WHEN it was inspected. They didn't. And shouldn't be allowed to came after him 'after the fact'. I can understand a "Hey, we f***ked up and that ram ain't legal. We know have to take it away from you. SORRY and our appologies for having to do this...."

Adding anything more (charges/fines/suspensions) is just plain wrong IMO.... MOE passed it and mark4 was elated beyond all comprehensions AND feeling rightly so. So proud, in fact, that he openly posted what he accomplished because all lights were green from the inspector.

The kicks he has recieved since then, and the deflating of his balloon that came with a hard landing is MORE than enough of a lesson. I'm absolutely SURE if MOE moved in upon it FAILING the 1st inspect, we would all agree that whatever he got, he deserved.

How about reinspecting ALL horn that this fella plugged. I'm sure that everyone in Europe and the US, would be more than happy to send their stuff back for this..... And if they don't, suspend all THEIR hunting privledges over here.

How far would that brick fly????

CT.45
09-26-2008, 11:51 AM
Good on you for being honest and taking the moral high road. Sucks you are in this mess in the first place. Live and learn I guess, but those shit sandwiches are sure hard to swallow.

BiG Boar
09-26-2008, 12:09 PM
To the people who phoned it in (there are a few watching this thread): If you're so tough and believe you did the right thing, stand up and tell us you are the MAN. Gauranteed none of you will have as big a balls as Mark and come forward.

budismyhorse
09-26-2008, 12:26 PM
This hunter has done a wrong.... All agree, even himself.

The MOE had their chance of taking matters further WHEN it was inspected. They didn't. And shouldn't be allowed to came after him 'after the fact'. I can understand a "Hey, we f***ked up and that ram ain't legal. We know have to take it away from you. SORRY and our appologies for having to do this...."

Agreed,

Adding anything more (charges/fines/suspensions) is just plain wrong IMO.... MOE passed it and mark4 was elated beyond all comprehensions AND feeling rightly so. So proud, in fact, that he openly posted what he accomplished because all lights were green from the inspector.

Sticky one, Not MOE but an MOE appointed inspector with ALMOST NO EXPERIENCE WITH SHEEP. So I guess its MOE by default.

The kicks he has recieved since then, and the deflating of his balloon that came with a hard landing is MORE than enough of a lesson. I'm absolutely SURE if MOE moved in upon it FAILING the 1st inspect, we would all agree that whatever he got, he deserved.

How about reinspecting ALL horn that this fella plugged. I'm sure that everyone in Europe and the US, would be more than happy to send their stuff back for this..... And if they don't, suspend all THEIR hunting privledges over here.

How far would that brick fly????

A little dramatic don't you think? I think this example is enough to straighten out the situation, no need to dig up old bones.

srupp
09-26-2008, 12:57 PM
hmmm at the time the spineless snitches phoned it in....it HAD been declared a legal ram..thats fact.

The authorities at that point should have told the namelss spineless cowards...THE ANIMAL HAS BEEN INSPECTED AND DECLARED LEGAL " thank you for your shit disturbing concern..choke choke..

Good point BIGBORE 14...

I also agree the BIGGEST problem is the inspector...

Mark your always welcome in my camp..anytime .... a stand up character...Im not sure I would have taken it back in taken the sheet back and said"some nameless individual phoned and said it wasnt a legal ram here is the compulsory inspection sheet that says it is" GOOD DAY..

To the $&*$$$(S) If they are from here stoopid moves like this will cause ALL hunters to reconsider posting anything when they get PERSONALLY attacked for submitting stories or phoned in to authorities for posting photos...end up causing irrepairable HARM to this site..and individuals coming to the conclusion it just aint worth it...

Post your concern in a non confrontational matter being POLITE and informnitive..perhaps only ONE capable of making sheep anuli concerns on this site.....but going to authorities IF the person(s) were from here..shame..ITS NOT YOUR PLACE...

sorry for the rant....

cheers

Steven

jml11
09-26-2008, 12:58 PM
This hunter has done a wrong.... All agree, even himself.

The MOE had their chance of taking matters further WHEN it was inspected. They didn't. And shouldn't be allowed to came after him 'after the fact'. I can understand a "Hey, we f***ked up and that ram ain't legal. We know have to take it away from you. SORRY and our appologies for having to do this...."

Adding anything more (charges/fines/suspensions) is just plain wrong IMO.... MOE passed it and mark4 was elated beyond all comprehensions AND feeling rightly so. So proud, in fact, that he openly posted what he accomplished because all lights were green from the inspector.

The kicks he has recieved since then, and the deflating of his balloon that came with a hard landing is MORE than enough of a lesson. I'm absolutely SURE if MOE moved in upon it FAILING the 1st inspect, we would all agree that whatever he got, he deserved.

How about reinspecting ALL horn that this fella plugged. I'm sure that everyone in Europe and the US, would be more than happy to send their stuff back for this..... And if they don't, suspend all THEIR hunting privledges over here.

How far would that brick fly????

First of all the MoE didn't pass the ram a contracted out inspector representing the ministry did. The contract holder (the MOE) certainely has every right to over rule the contractor. This is basic contract management. The contractor was non-compliant which forced the contract owner to step in. I have seen this a lot in the real world. The MOE also needed to step in and investigate because who's to say the inspector isn't a buddy or was bribed (I know this wasn't the case here, but I imagine it happens).

Yes, the MoE has made a mistake by allowing a unqualified inspector to age sheep (there are lots out there unfortunatley). Contracted inspectors are not biologists and do not have the appropriate knowledge to be ageing sheep IMO. I think the CIs can continue to inspect sheep however any ram which is not full curl should be refered to a MoE biologist for proper ageing. I think the MoE may have to develop an auditing system to check up on the CIs.

1/2 slam
09-26-2008, 01:02 PM
Frank Gilbert is a friend of mine and a qualified inspector. IF the ram is close or clearly Illegal he is not allowed to inspect it. This one is clearly illegal and should not have been inspected by the contractor. It should have been inspected by Ministry staff.

budismyhorse
09-26-2008, 01:06 PM
First of all the MoE didn't pass the ram a contracted out inspector representing the ministry did. The contract holder (the MOE) certainely has every right to over rule the contractor. This is basic contract management. The contractor was non-compliant which forced the contract owner to step in. I have seen this a lot in the real world. The MOE also needed to step in and investigate because who's to say the inspector isn't a buddy or was bribed (I know this wasn't the case here, but I imagine it happens).

Yes, the MoE has made a mistake by allowing a unqualified inspector to age sheep (there are lots out there unfortunatley). Contracted inspectors are not biologists and do not have the appropriate knowledge to be ageing sheep IMO. I think the CIs can continue to inspect sheep however any ram which is not full curl should be refered to a MoE biologist for proper ageing. I think the MoE may have to develop an auditing system to check up on the CIs.

well stated.

1/2slam, thanks shedding some more light on this subject, clearly the said inspector should have passed this ram on....another problem now resolved as you can bet your bottom dollar this CI will be refusing borderline rams ...and following the rules from now on.

Mr. Dean
09-26-2008, 01:08 PM
A little dramatic don't you think? I think this example is enough to straighten out the situation, no need to dig up old bones.

Correct. MoE is winner by default. It is the Ministry that decides on HOW enforcement is conducted and the requirement's that must be adhered too. CO's do however have authority to use judgement.....


My example is dramatic. But it's also a parallel to mark4's bucket of crap.

If the Ministry deems it proper to wring on him, then IMO they should look at all the possibilities. If this inspector passed his ram, how many other 'bad' ones has he done also?

Calling them all in for reassessment would only be fair.

Mr. Dean
09-26-2008, 01:11 PM
Ministry,,,,,,, representative of ministry..... Semantics.


Q; Who qualified the the rep?
A; Ministry.

Jagermeister
09-26-2008, 01:16 PM
The onus of whether the ram is legal or not lies with the person that pulled the trigger on it, not the person that made the inspection.
The inspector made a marginal call when measuring the animal, chock that up to experience or lack thereof. Had the picture of the ram not appeared on this forum, then everything would have been status quo.
The zeal to score sometimes blinds our judgement. If in the shooters mind the animal is marginal, then it is better to pass the shot and look for one that leaves no doubt.

srupp
09-26-2008, 01:19 PM
just to clear up a minor error.."employers(MOE) is responsible for the actions of their employees..and IF they give authority to a individual its THE SAME as IF THEY THEM SELVES have done it....:roll:

Pretty sad...but BCRAMS has all along warned of the dangers of legality by age in the field hell its almost impossible for 2 week a year hunters AND "qualified " inspectors in the office..

Next year when I get my ram..not sure I want to post anything...

hope in the end they get this inspector straightened out and Mark doesnt get nailed too hard for this fiasco..


steven

budismyhorse
09-26-2008, 01:35 PM
Next year when I get my ram..not sure I want to post anything...

steven


Something tells me that after 16 years of "stoneless" sheep hunting, you'll be throwing up a pic or two! :razz:

Sitkaspruce
09-26-2008, 01:35 PM
Well I am going to pi$$ on someones cornflakes here......but the truth of the matter is that an illegal ram was harvested, that is the bottom line.

Yes the Inspector was wrong and possibly incompetent, but I cannot say that as I was not there, nor do I know him. But the hunter is ultimately resonsible and he was in the wrong as he shot an illegal ram, it was not full curl or over 8yo. He cannot put the responsibility of the mistake on the inspector or MOE, like a quite a few of you are trying to do.

My one question is: Did Corb volunteer to have it re-inspected or did he say nothing and was contacted by the CO's? If he had volunteered for the re-inspection, which I believe he did not (will stand corrected if he did), then things might have been handled a little differently.

I have recieved an email for Corb, appoligizing for his acts on this site. I respect him for that and believe he really thought he shot a legal ram. But it was illegal and it would be setting presidence if he was let go with nothing. He has to be charged, the CO's are playing with fire if they do not. The internet has made this bigger than it really should, so they now have to act. It could be a min fine and no licence lost (which it should be IF he volunteered for a re-inspection) or it might be an Appearance Notice and appear before a judge, who could make an example out of it all, based on all the internet coverage and the # of people who called it in.

And about all the people who called it in.......good on you. And to all the people who are wanting a piece skin off the people who called it in....shame on you. They stood up for what they think is right. I have to ask....are you going to look the other way if you see an illegal act in the bush or someone who is violating the laws??? I bet you probably are and then bitch about not enough CO's. The sheep was illegal and some people thought it wrong for a person to be able to keep it. Some people who really care about our wildlife went a step further and did something about it. And for that I say GOOD ON YOU!!!! I wish I had done it.

I believe that Corb feels bad about what happened, he came forward with his admittance to being in the wrong (which takes a lot of balls), will make it right and hopefully get back on the horse next year and shoot another ram!!!!!

See I told you I would Pi$$ on someones cornflakes.:razz:

Cheers

SS

ARGR
09-26-2008, 01:39 PM
I have two questions.

One: Why the hell are they charging you (in their words)

Two: Who are the 'HBC Saints'
Let's have some names of forum members, so I know who not to trust. It's easy to have a good guy list, let's have the bad guy list.

1/2 slam
09-26-2008, 01:42 PM
Sitka..........Well said.

jml11
09-26-2008, 01:42 PM
CIs aren't employees of the ministry they are subcontractors, I subcontract to several ministries all the time but I am not one of their employees (I certainley don't get a pension plan from them...lol). But yes what a subcontractor does under you, as long as you accept/approve what they have done, their actions are as if you did it yourself.

The ministry did not approve of the inspection and thus took action.

If you "qualify" someone to come into your house and renovate and he does a bad job or does not complete the work as per the contract, do you just say oh well and let it go...I sure hope not. I know I wouldn't.

Mr. Dean
09-26-2008, 01:48 PM
The onus of whether the ram is legal or not lies with the person that pulled the trigger on it, not the person that made the inspection.
The inspector made a marginal call when measuring the animal, chock that up to experience or lack thereof. Had the picture of the ram not appeared on this forum, then everything would have been status quo.
The zeal to score sometimes blinds our judgement. If in the shooters mind the animal is marginal, then it is better to pass the shot and look for one that leaves no doubt.

Agree'd. But IYO, doing anything more than taking it away *now*, will make any better the deterent of this happening again (mark4's case)?

I think not.

The punishment of; it being legal,,,, then not legal, is a masterfully placed kick to the groin. MoE should be ashamed of themselves and tried to have swept this entire mess under a rug somewhere.

IMO this whole thing is a deterrent for encouraging new hunters..... if the Ministry can't find it within them to set standards and principals amoungst themselves and be fair about how things are dealt with, why should a newb even bother trying?

I was once taught at an early age to live with decisions that I have made. Obviously MoE didn't recieve this little tid-bit of GOOD ethics. Or perhaps the did and failed to pass it on to their rep's and employee's.

Taking the sheep is enough. Anything more is just a show of strength. 'They' should be as humble about their goof, as mark4 is of his.

Huey
09-26-2008, 01:49 PM
Thanks Sitka for having more balls than me and stating your opinion... I agree

budismyhorse
09-26-2008, 01:50 PM
I have two questions.

One: Why the hell are they charging you (in their words)

Two: Who are the 'HBC Saints'
Let's have some names of forum members, so I know who not to trust. It's easy to have a good guy list, let's have the bad guy list.


are you seriously saying that people who phone CO's about potentially illegal situations should be put up on a "bad guy list"?

I hope you find no response to that ridiculous idea.

jml11
09-26-2008, 01:53 PM
I have two questions.

One: Why the hell are they charging you (in their words)




An illegal ram was harvested isn't it obvious????




Two: Who are the 'HBC Saints'
Let's have some names of forum members, so I know who not to trust. It's easy to have a good guy list, let's have the bad guy list.


reporting illegal activity makes you a bad guy??? I'm confused, I also thought knowingly hiding illegal activity was crime?

Mr. Dean
09-26-2008, 01:55 PM
If you "qualify" someone to come into your house and renovate and he does a bad job or does not complete the work as per the contract, do you just say oh well and let it go...I sure hope not. I know I wouldn't.

I take it up with the contractor and not any of his customers. Mark4 would be the customer in this scenario

Sitkaspruce
09-26-2008, 02:14 PM
I have two questions.

One: Why the hell are they charging you (in their words)

Two: Who are the 'HBC Saints'
Let's have some names of forum members, so I know who not to trust. It's easy to have a good guy list, let's have the bad guy list.

The answer to question one is pretty obvious, Corb even stated why......

So I guess you are not one of the "saints"......:razz: and you can be on top of the "Good Guy List" too:tongue:.

I have to ask you.....if I report a violation of the wildlife act to the CO's and they act on it....am I now on your "bad guy list"? If so put me at the top, in big bold letters..........please.

and what has the names of the "HBC Saints" have to do with trust???

This has got to be one of the most rediculus statements ever typed on this site....and there has been some pretty good ones!!!! LOL!!!!!

Cheers

SS

budismyhorse
09-26-2008, 02:17 PM
just pray ARGR is alone on this........really really alone.

Tank
09-26-2008, 02:25 PM
Reporting a poacher who is out in the bush intending to do wrong is definitely the right thing to do.

What I have issues with is that this guy has gone in with the best intentions and made an honest mistake, owned up to it...and was then pubicly crucified for it. So I really didn't see the need to go make an official complaint about it...which would only serve to get him charged and fined and make his very unpleasent situation that much worse.

Just my opinion

jml11
09-26-2008, 02:33 PM
I take it up with the contractor and not any of his customers. Mark4 would be the customer in this scenario


I understand what you are saying and do agree, ever since the scenario showed it's ugly face on this site I have been more annoyed with the inspection itself and not so much the fact that MArk4 shot the short ram.

My point was you go after the contractor and his work, in this case the inspected ram was his work, unfortunately Mark4 was the owner of the ram and unfortunatley took the brunt of it. I hope we can all move on from this having learnt something and can focus on the rest of the hunting season. :grin:

budismyhorse
09-26-2008, 02:35 PM
Reporting a poacher who is out in the bush intending to do wrong is definitely the right thing to do.

What I have issues with is that this guy has gone in with the best intentions and made an honest mistake, owned up to it...and was then pubicly crucified for it. So I really didn't see the need to go make an official complaint about it...which would only serve to get him charged and fined and make his very unpleasent situation that much worse.

Just my opinion

Minus the public crucifiction, how is there a difference between reporting a poacher in the bush or an incorrect decision on the part of a CI?

the need to make an official complain about it is so the situation never happens again. Nothing personal towards the hunter.

Rubicon500
09-26-2008, 02:35 PM
This hole incident is the same as someone shooting a 3 point bull moose in immature bull season. Why should he just get a slap on the wrist ? He clearly harvested an illegal animal and declared it was legal to this whole forum. I totally support the individual(s) who called it in, good on them. For the guys that think it was wrong, if you watched someone poach an animal while hunting would you not call it in ? I sure hope you would, that why there is RAP signs up everywhere. Report A Poacher.. may not be pleaseant for mark4 but thats why we learn from our mistakes.

Mr. Dean
09-26-2008, 02:53 PM
This hole incident is the same as someone shooting a 3 point bull moose in immature bull season. Why should he just get a slap on the wrist ? He clearly harvested an illegal animal and declared it was legal to this whole forum. I totally support the individual(s) who called it in, good on them. For the guys that think it was wrong, if you watched someone poach an animal while hunting would you not call it in ? I sure hope you would, that why there is RAP signs up everywhere. Report A Poacher.. may not be pleaseant for mark4 but thats why we learn from our mistakes.

Not the same. This should be crystal clear.
A poacher doesn't turn himself in, holding a set of horns.

Poachers are sneaky and deceitful persons.
mark4 did the responsible thing of seeing an inspector.
Inspector gave him 2 thumbs up.


Mistakes WERE made, by pretty near all involved.
Take the critter.... Enough is enough. Lesson learned.


Coming after him, I do think they should be lookin' at all that's been inspected previously by this person. Why should he be a martyr?

Mr. Dean
09-26-2008, 02:59 PM
I understand what you are saying and do agree, ever since the scenario showed it's ugly face on this site I have been more annoyed with the inspection itself and not so much the fact that MArk4 shot the short ram.

My point was you go after the contractor and his work, in this case the inspected ram was his work, unfortunately Mark4 was the owner of the ram and unfortunatley took the brunt of it. I hope we can all move on from this having learnt something and can focus on the rest of the hunting season. :grin:


Then you go after ALL the work and you take measures insuring that ALL the work is looked at. Thus my earlier post of suspending hunters for life if the didn't comply/send in heads/bone.


That would be the diplomatic/politically correct thing to do.


.

srupp
09-26-2008, 03:01 PM
hmm when this whole issue came up the ram had been declared legal...weather rightly or wrongly..the "MOE/CONTRACTOR had issued the appropriate paperwork stating this ram was LEGAL..

So say it was me..it wasnt but I DARE not use anyone elses name...

"Hi MOE this guy shot a illegal sheep..yes it passed inspection and was issued a permit and compulsory inspection report papers...me??? Im well I think its illegal.."

Why would anyone do this..sorry that was MARKS decision not YOURS...

you ARE DEALING WITH something that is NON OF YOUR BUISNESS....

I think that was Marks call....but in todays world of computers anyone can do whatever they please....

Ultimatly it turned out to be illegal..by a second opinion any more accurate than the first???lol

I my self have learned a poop load from this.....on many different aspects...


as for my sheep..man it better be 6" over the nose and 18 years old...

Just some of the things here seem to be over the top..

some great points also..

Steven

happygilmore
09-26-2008, 03:01 PM
How did they get Mark4's name and number? I would like to think our id's are only as public as we make them on this site and only the mods have that info?

Alot of people called in that a LEGAL ram had been improperly aged durring its CI? What ever helps you sleep at night, I hope you didn't hurt yourselves rushing to the phone... Did I miss it or has a single person owned up to calling in yet? If you did nothing wrong show an ounce of courage mark has and post.

DWH
09-26-2008, 03:01 PM
How about this take on the tattle-tellers...

Mark4 posted his pics in a PUBLIC forum after the ram was declared legal. The tattle-tellers should have made their opinions PUBLIC and PM'd Mark4 to have it re-inspected and given him time to react to the allegations. To go behind his back and PRIVATELY contact CO's regarding the matter is in fact stabbing Mark4 in the back and that is what I see people are having trouble with in regards to the tattle-tellers.

Shitty-deal for most people invovled in this topic. The illegal ram, the first inspector, MoE, the tattle-tellers, the HBC members and of course Mark4. Let's all learn from this and if something like this happens again, maybe we can agree to treat one another as we would like to be treated if we ever got into a situation like this.

Comments?

Tank
09-26-2008, 03:05 PM
Minus the public crucifiction, how is there a difference between reporting a poacher in the bush or an incorrect decision on the part of a CI?

the need to make an official complain about it is so the situation never happens again. Nothing personal towards the hunter.

Making sure the inspector gets his stuff right is important and should be sorted out.

I am making a distinction between a poacher who is INTENDING to do wrong and a guy who has made an HONEST mistake and is now in the middle of a very miserable experience.

Mark4 is clearly the later of the two and the only result of reporting HIM (rather than pushing for better education for inspectors) is that his experience will get alot worse. If that blows your skirt up then fly at it....its your right. But this particular situation leaves a bad taste in mouth.

again, just my opinion

Rubicon500
09-26-2008, 03:14 PM
Not the same. This should be crystal clear.
A poacher doesn't turn himself in, holding a set of horns.
Holding Illegal horns in your hands, makes you the poacher.. Accident, maybe in some peoples minds, But he wasnt confident in aging annulli and took the shot anyways. Theres obviously a reason why the veteran sheep hunters tell people dont rely on counting rings, make sure they bridge the nose. No different than someone with garbage for optics dumping a 3x3 moose, cuz he couldnt make out the extra points. IMO it is the EXACT same, CRYSTAL clear to me


Poachers are sneaky and deceitful persons.
mark4 did the responsible thing of seeing an inspector.
Inspector gave him 2 thumbs up.
Responsible thing would have been not shooting the sheep, go back and read the thread he was quite confident it was a legal 8 year old ram. Had he not posted the pics he would still be holding it in his "hands"


Mistakes WERE made, by pretty near all involved.
Take the critter.... Enough is enough. Lesson learned.
Mistakes are made everyday, but I feel people should be dinged accordingly, he dont deserve to be tarred and featherd, but pay he should. Hopefully that money will go back to the funds and go towards Further educating CI's

Coming after him, I do think they should be lookin' at all that's been inspected previously by this person. Why should he be a martyr?

Well thats my rant for the day

budismyhorse
09-26-2008, 03:15 PM
I have always maintained people treat wildlife infractions much differently than other illegal activities. I would be willing to bet most hunters that call in poachers wouldn't phone the cops when they see a drunk driver on the road.

Mark4 unwittingly stuck his head in a bee's nest with those pictures. It HAD to happen. People, not everyone apparently, get pretty wound up regarding this stuff and rightfully so. Regardless of what Steven says public resources are ....the publics business.

If that was an outfitters hunter from the states with that sheep, people would have been jumping out of their houses to call the CO's about it.

but we've all learned from this and I think the discussion has been frank and honest, very interesting.

Mr. Dean
09-26-2008, 03:16 PM
Making sure the inspector gets his stuff right is important and should be sorted out.

I am making a distinction between a poacher who is INTENDING to do wrong and a guy who has made an HONEST mistake and is now in the middle of a very miserable experience.

Mark4 is clearly the later of the two and the only result of reporting HIM (rather than pushing for better education for inspectors) is that his experience will get alot worse. If that blows your skirt up then fly at it....its your right. But this particular situation leaves a bad taste in mouth.

again, just my opinion

Excellent words.

As for those that did this and those that did that...... That's life. It'll never change. Calling people out will do little and has nothing to do with this IMO. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that CO'S were all over it before the phone started ringing.....

budismyhorse
09-26-2008, 03:18 PM
Making sure the inspector gets his stuff right is important and should be sorted out.

I am making a distinction between a poacher who is INTENDING to do wrong and a guy who has made an HONEST mistake and is now in the middle of a very miserable experience.

Mark4 is clearly the later of the two and the only result of reporting HIM (rather than pushing for better education for inspectors) is that his experience will get alot worse. If that blows your skirt up then fly at it....its your right. But this particular situation leaves a bad taste in mouth.

again, just my opinion

fair enough:cool:, I bet the CI is in pretty hot water over this as well.

Mr. Dean
09-26-2008, 03:29 PM
I get the feeling that many are posting with emotion. Emotion and facts don't mix very well IMO.

Rubicon, poachers DON'T get CI's. They sneak through the bushes and take the darkest routes home.

Please see that this isn't mark4.


You don't believe that the Ministry should suffer ramifications of their mistake in this also?

- Take the sheep
- pass on charges for their goof AND apologize for the ineptness.

Grinding salt in this wound won't accomplish any more 'benefits'

srupp
09-26-2008, 03:35 PM
Mr Dean makes a GOOD case for foreiture of the sheep..and education of the incompetent inspector..and perhaps get Greg to give him a remedial..

I also dont believe that a deep fine or loss of hunting priveleges should occur....

steven

1899
09-26-2008, 03:48 PM
Well, this is an interesting situation. Wildlife Act regulatory offences are strict liability offences. That means the Crown does not need to show mens rea - or the guilty/criminal intent - of the Accused. They just need to show that the offence was committed. At that point the person accused can try to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that due diligence to prevent the occurrence of the offence was taken.

So you can be charged with an offence even if it was an honest mistake. Your only defence would be the defence of reasonable belief in a mistaken set of facts or the defence of reasonable care.

I haven't looked into the punishment, but if you can't make out the defence noted above, there will be a range of some sort, which may include a conditional or absolute discharge. Factors like Mark4's honesty, history or offences or lack thereof and so forth would be considered. Sometimes you can make progress by having a conversation with crown counsel. They are often just normal folks and are not there to hammer someone who made a real and honest mistake.

budismyhorse
09-26-2008, 03:51 PM
I get the feeling that many are posting with emotion. Emotion and facts don't mix very well IMO.

Rubicon, poachers DON'T get CI's. They sneak through the bushes and take the darkest routes home.

Please see that this isn't mark4.


You don't believe that the Ministry should suffer ramifications of their mistake in this also?

- Take the sheep
- pass on charges for their goof AND apologize for the ineptness.

Grinding salt in this wound won't accomplish any more 'benefits'

I think what the MOE is saying is "screw that inspector, WE are looking into it ".

and treated it independent of the original inspection.

obviously you don't agree with the Ministry's decision to do that.

fair enough.

bighornbob
09-26-2008, 04:09 PM
As of this post (3:51 PM) there are 91 registered members and 86 guests. That is about a 50/50 on people that post here and people that probably just lurk. The lurkers could be the ones that phoned it in or the lurkers could be CO's.

For those that have never hunted sheep, sheep hunters are some of the biggest liars:-P and some of the most jealous people out there. I know of one instint that happened to a member here where the CO's called him about an accusation another hunter had made. Even the CO agreed that it was just probably sour grapes by the other party becuase the ram they had been chasing had been killed by someone else.

Another story a guy heading up a trail opening morning to kill a ram he spotted the night before. When all of a sudden he meets another hunter on the trail who asks what he is doing. The guy says he spotted a legal ram the night before and he he going to kill it. The second guy announces that he has been watching the ram 3 days and its his. The first guy says too bad and continues up the trail. The second follows with his gun ready like he is going to shoot over the first guys shoulder. The first guy sees this and decides to back down.

I myself had a sheep confiscated for a few days pending propper measurment. I got my ram back and found out later the guy I talked to on the mountain phoned in and said I shot an illegal ram and shot it from under him as he was glassing it. No one was around when I shot my ram. Found out a year later that the guy the phoned me in had actually shot a ram from under a couple of guys that had told him they were waiting for the ram to stand up. He said he was going farther up the mountain when in fact he snuck through the timber and came up from below and shot the ram the guys had told him about.

The sheep hunting world is small and can be quite scroupulos sometimes. This happens when guys wait a lifetime for a tag or spend years looking for the elusive legal ram.

The guys that phoned in could be a jealous hunter who a similar sheep confiscated and feel why should Mark keep his, or it could be an average joe that saw that it was illegal and used RAPP we dont know who phoned in and it does not matter. What has been done has been done.

BHB

Sitkaspruce
09-26-2008, 04:24 PM
hmm when this whole issue came up the ram had been declared legal...weather rightly or wrongly..the "MOE/CONTRACTOR had issued the appropriate paperwork stating this ram was LEGAL..

So say it was me..it wasnt but I DARE not use anyone elses name...

"Hi MOE this guy shot a illegal sheep..yes it passed inspection and was issued a permit and compulsory inspection report papers...me??? Im well I think its illegal.."

Why would anyone do this..sorry that was MARKS decision not YOURS...

you ARE DEALING WITH something that is NON OF YOUR BUISNESS....

I think that was Marks call....but in todays world of computers anyone can do whatever they please....

Ultimatly it turned out to be illegal..by a second opinion any more accurate than the first???lol

I my self have learned a poop load from this.....on many different aspects...


as for my sheep..man it better be 6" over the nose and 18 years old...

Just some of the things here seem to be over the top..

some great points also..

Steven

Steven I disagree with you on this.

I know of two people who have had their rams re-inspected by CO'd while they were in the Taxidermist shop. One was declared legal by age, but when it was re-inspected it was found to be 7.5 yo, but was .....get this.....5mm over the bridge of the nose, so it was returned. The second was OK, but the CO did have re-inspected because of the age thing. Both CO's are good guys, but thay are finding that the CI contractor are in it mostly for the $$$$$$, and will pass anything close as they do not want to deal with pi$$ed off hunters because of an age or measurment difference.

The CO's or better yet, the judges of BC have the final say. Until then, anybody can question anything that is public information, and by posting the ram, it becomes public info.

The wildlife of BC belong to all BC'ers and if I see someone, whether intentional or by accident, harvest an illegal animal, I feel it is my duty to report them. The CO's can then take that info and investigate or round file it, that is up to them.

And again, I read about the ram and such, but nowhere have I found where Corb did the right thing and actually turned himself in and had the ram re-inspected. I cannot help but wonder that if the "Tattle-Tallers", "bad list guys" and what ever else they are being called had not phoned in, we would not be having this discussion and someone would be in the ownership of an illegal ram.

How would you feel if you walked into a persons house and saw an illegal animal on the wall??? Especially a sheep, which some people whorship more than even beer.

I have nothing against Corb, and good for him for posting his mistake, but he did fight this issue with some very experienced sheep hunters, people who you yourself have relied upon for knowledge and info, people who have discussed the pro's and con's of using age for determining whether to shoot or not and probably the same people who called in their worries and concerns about the ram. Does that change your opinion of them and their knowledge and skill???

If you put something on the internet, expect it to be scrutinized, and with respect to this ram, it was and has been determined to be illegal. Now it is in the hands of the CO's and nothing we can do will change that. We can argue all day about the rights and wrongs of the deal, but in the end it will come down to Corb and the justice system.

Cheers

SS

NaStY
09-26-2008, 04:44 PM
Well i for one am glad this is coming to an end. Sorry Mark (Corb) to hear that it may not work out well for you in the end.

The ram should be taken away and you should be charged for shooting an illegal animal. I don't think you should be nailed to the wall about it though. You were up front from the start and proudly posted what you thought was legal. The inspector also deserves whats coming to him.

1. Learned lesson
2. MOVE ON!!!!!!!!

Mark (Corb), you are also very welcome to my camp any time. I will even buy you a beer. Given enough time, I know you would have done the right thing anyways, based on our communication in pm's from the start.

Good luck to you! I hope you are able to get the chance at another animal and do the right thing from beggining to end ..........

srupp
09-26-2008, 05:33 PM
SITKAS SPRUCE GOOD POINTS..Im here to learn as well

but If I were to go into someones house and he had the sheep inspected and the proper papers I probably wouldnt doubt it..I certainly wouldnt call a CO or MOE...I would probably say to myself""no wonder I dont have a SToner..I cant tell a legal one from a non legal one...:tongue:

I DO NOT know who called in...there ARE some amazing talented and educated individuals with TONS of experience....and LOTS have shared great amounts of info with me...sigh to no avail..:oops:...but it WOULD disapoint me to learn they called in...to prove what ?? let Mark make the decison one way or not.

I do know BCRAMS has from the very start warned against shooting ANY ram based on rings..I have convinced my slf NOT to do that...


ALL in all it has been a painful and educational experience...its OK SITKASPRUCE..I often make mistakes..often its GOOD to disagree with me...lol its just my opinion... I guess a BIG part is how bad I feel for MARK if he hadnt posted and tried to show HIS FRIENDS the ram would still be on his wall .....ILLEGAL yes .....unfortunatly its still ilegal it also shows the flaws in the MOE contractors.....


cheers

Steven

mark4
09-26-2008, 05:39 PM
I want to let everyone know that even though I was really choked at first about getting phoned in- I totally understand why -and I have no animosity towards these people anymore. We really don't need to start a witch hunt about who did it. The fact keeps coming up that they were right- the ram was illegal. It is good that the situation has gone the way it has. A lot of people have learned from my mistake. I honestly think that good is going to come out of all this- even though I lost this ram- I do have every intention on the planet of getting a cranker one day. I will be alright- I'm not out for blood ( anymore ). Thank you guys so much for your understanding in this- you are good people with good hearts. The people that phoned it in actually are really good people too-they have private messaged me about this- and they tried to warn me but I didn't want to listen. I felt the inspector was right and they were wrong -but I was wrong in that decision. This is the sort of problem that does need to be addressed-the future for sheep hunting actually just got brighter- because the hunters are more informed than ever, and probably a lot more cautious about what is legal.The inspection process will get better and more effective, and more sheep will live to maturity as a result. Ofcourse the whole thing was a nightmare- but reading these posts from you guy's made my friggin day- I feel relieved about it. Like I said you guy's are good people- we have the best hunting on the planet- and we do need to protect it.

willy442
09-26-2008, 05:44 PM
hmmm at the time the spineless snitches phoned it in....it HAD been declared a legal ram..thats fact.

The authorities at that point should have told the namelss spineless cowards...THE ANIMAL HAS BEEN INSPECTED AND DECLARED LEGAL " thank you for your shit disturbing concern..choke choke..

Good point BIGBORE 14...

I also agree the BIGGEST problem is the inspector...

Mark your always welcome in my camp..anytime .... a stand up character...Im not sure I would have taken it back in taken the sheet back and said"some nameless individual phoned and said it wasnt a legal ram here is the compulsory inspection sheet that says it is" GOOD DAY..

To the $&*$$$(S) If they are from here stoopid moves like this will cause ALL hunters to reconsider posting anything when they get PERSONALLY attacked for submitting stories or phoned in to authorities for posting photos...end up causing irrepairable HARM to this site..and individuals coming to the conclusion it just aint worth it...

Post your concern in a non confrontational matter being POLITE and informnitive..perhaps only ONE capable of making sheep anuli concerns on this site.....but going to authorities IF the person(s) were from here..shame..ITS NOT YOUR PLACE...

sorry for the rant....

cheers

Steven

Srupp and also MR. Dean;

Let me clear some of this up as I was the one that started the email, declaring Marks Ram illegal. Prior to this happening this Ram was observed on a mountain by a guide and hunter. It was aged and determined illegal by them and left alone. Then along came Mark and harvested the Ram, shots were heard in the vacinity of the Ram and then followed up on. The Ram was turned in before Mark ever came out of the mountains and would have been confinscated locally had he taken it in for compulsory inspection. However he opted to go home first and have it inspected in the kootney's by an inspector that has been known to pass questionable horns in the past. Due to this the CO's never had a name, but were aware of the Ram. By posting on the site all Mark did was make thier life a little easier to track him down. The Ram was going to be checked this winter irregardless, when the CO's had more time to track it. Once it was posted on this site requests were made of Mark to take the Ram back in and he opted not to. Had he taken it in at that time I can assure you charges would have been a minimum. Now the Co's had to go get the Ram and subsiquently have pressed charges that could result in Mark loosing his hunting privileges for up to 5 years. (Nice of you guy's that were coaching him not to turn it in).

Srupp: You could say that I'm the guy that started this. (Spinless Snitch) I don't think so. Concerned fellow BC hunter that has respect for the privilege we have of hunting in this fine province with in the law YES. Illegal wild life is exactly that even if it has been inspected by a contract inspector for the crown. This is not the first, nor will it be the last Ram that is reinspected not only here in BC, but through out North America. To voice the attitude you have towards this speaks alot for your proffessionalisim and ethics when it comes to hunting within our laws.

Just to let you know I would be more than happy to accompany you on your up coming Bear hunt. We could have a close up discussion on ethics toward wildlife, hunting regulations and what the hell, we may as well discuss bad hunting partners while we are at it, I'll bring along a towel to mop up your tears. Then once we have settled those issue's, maybe I can give you some Sheep Hunting lessons and it won't take you 17 more years for a Ram.:biggrin:

Mr Dean; The law is a Stone Sheep must be full curl or 8 years of age. Anything outside of this constitutes illegal wildlife. The inspector is only a contractor for the crown and his decisions are subject to review by the Director as/or if neccassary. Hope this clears it up for you.

Glad to see the majority here respect the fact that we have all (including the CO's) learned from his mistake. Mark can be given credit for being the one that started the ball rolling towards resolving many issue's with compulsory inspection. I also hope the crown is respectfull of his mistake being an honest one. To those that still can't see the value in this and the requirement for the right thing to be done here, you should probably do your part for the true hunters of the province and turn in your guns and licences.

Bill

budismyhorse
09-26-2008, 05:50 PM
thanks for that post Bill, well stated.

and cheers to you Corb for posting as well. When you finally connect legally, make sure you post up the pics!

mark4
09-26-2008, 05:55 PM
I might pass on posting the pics LOL.

EvanG
09-26-2008, 06:23 PM
F**K it post em, no shame you made a mistake , so learn form it and move on, no shame. Atleast you didnt question the legality and leave it on the hill to rot.

wildman 22
09-26-2008, 06:53 PM
I Think 4 Groups Are Affected.mark The Hunter ,the Inspector,the Supposed Snitches,and The Hunters That Think Once An Animal Has Passed Inspection It Is Forever Legal.i Thinkthe 2 Groups That Suffered The Most Are Mark And The Inspector.mark Has Gone From A Total High To A Terrible Low And Then Kicked Afew Times While On The Ground.i Feel That After Passing The Inspection His Sheep Is Legal.it Should Of Been Declared Illegal Then And There.i Personally Think He Should Not Be Fined Or His Ram Taken Away.i Say We All Put Up Some Money(at Least Marks Part) And Send Mark ,the Inspector , A C.o.and A Cameraman And Get A Field Video Of The Trip. Just My Thoughts, But It Could Make A Right Of Alot Of Wrongs Arising From This Particular Thread. Wildman 22

Jagermeister
09-26-2008, 06:55 PM
I’m really surprised at the number of people that are posting that it was improper for others to question and turn in what they deemed to be an illegal harvest. I would question your hunting ethics or lack of. Like Sitka Spruce, you can put me right below him on the “Bad Guy” list as I am one of those guys that you cannot trust to turn a blind eye when it comes to my attention that a question of legality has occurred!

wildman 22
09-26-2008, 06:59 PM
Im Sorry I Did Not Mean A Video Of That Trip, But A New Trip With All The Participants Judging Sheep .

mcrae
09-26-2008, 07:07 PM
I think Sitkaspruce has made some good points so I will go with a "what he said", cause I am lazy and don't want to type it all out again LOL...

willy442
09-26-2008, 07:10 PM
I Think 4 Groups Are Affected.mark The Hunter ,the Inspector,the Supposed Snitches,and The Hunters That Think Once An Animal Has Passed Inspection It Is Forever Legal.i Thinkthe 2 Groups That Suffered The Most Are Mark And The Inspector.mark Has Gone From A Total High To A Terrible Low And Then Kicked Afew Times While On The Ground.i Feel That After Passing The Inspection His Sheep Is Legal.it Should Of Been Declared Illegal Then And There.i Personally Think He Should Not Be Fined Or His Ram Taken Away.i Say We All Put Up Some Money(at Least Marks Part) And Send Mark ,the Inspector , A C.o.and A Cameraman And Get A Field Video Of The Trip. Just My Thoughts, But It Could Make A Right Of Alot Of Wrongs Arising From This Particular Thread. Wildman 22

In order to create good out of a wrong, one should understand where it went wrong. By continuing to blame the inspector you fail to see the picture, I'm not sure sending money would be of any value. The good has been happing since the day Mark posted pic's.:smile:

NaStY
09-26-2008, 07:17 PM
I have learned from the past to not go out too quickly and judge someone.

If someone was poaching, then i would make that call asap.

This animal wasn't poached, but mistakenly shot by an uneducated hunter.

He should have called it in right away, but he didn't. It isn't up to me or you to judge.

The fact is, he is paying for his decision and that's that. He has done the right thing and owning up too that. He didn't have to come public, but chose to some how try and educate the rest of us.

Just remember when you point a finger at someone, there are 3 fingers pointing back at you.

My ethics are right where they are supposed to be. Standing up for those that deserve it, and trying to help stop those that deserve too.

This thread is starting to sound like (beating the dead horse).

Gateholio
09-26-2008, 07:18 PM
HappyGilmore

The mods can see IP addresses, and what area you are posting from, but nothing more. No, I can't see your address, but if a CO asked for an IP, I am sure they have the resources to find accounts via that.

As far as I know, CO's didn't ask HBC to provide any information, although they could have contacted Marc-although he made no mention of it. I do know he is not in the habit of sending out member info to just anyone...... I suspect that it played out something as willy442 mentioned- I presume the CO's simply emailed inspectors with the pictures posted and asked for a name.

bsa30-06
09-26-2008, 07:26 PM
I dont want to look like an idiot here or question anyones ability to age sheep, but it seems to me that the original inspector has made a huge error that has opened up a huge can of worms.Can someone who has the knowledge please explain what is involved in becoming a compulsory inspector , is there an exam you have to pass?Are there any reprecussions pending for this inspector, i believe it was stated in this thread that he has made questionable decisions in the past.....doesnt seem like an individual that should be in this position.Once again not trying to cause problems or stir the pot, i dont hunt sheep and never had an animal that required inspection so i dont know how that works.

NaStY
09-26-2008, 07:31 PM
I dont want to look like an idiot here or question anyones ability to age sheep, but it seems to me that the original inspector has made a huge error that has opened up a huge can of worms.Can someone who has the knowledge please explain what is involved in becoming a compulsory inspector , is there an exam you have to pass?Are there any reprecussions pending for this inspector, i believe it was stated in this thread that he has made questionable decisions in the past.....doesnt seem like an individual that should be in this position.Once again not trying to cause problems or stir the pot, i dont hunt sheep and never had an animal that required inspection so i dont know how that works.



"and yet some have to touch the fire to learn that its hot."

Sorry bsa, just had to point something out i read in your signature. :mrgreen:

bsa30-06
09-26-2008, 07:39 PM
"and yet some have to touch the fire to learn that its hot."

Sorry bsa, just had to point something out i read in your signature. :mrgreen:

So are you going to answer my question?

willy442
09-26-2008, 07:39 PM
I dont want to look like an idiot here or question anyones ability to age sheep, but it seems to me that the original inspector has made a huge error that has opened up a huge can of worms.Can someone who has the knowledge please explain what is involved in becoming a compulsory inspector , is there an exam you have to pass?Are there any reprecussions pending for this inspector, i believe it was stated in this thread that he has made questionable decisions in the past.....doesnt seem like an individual that should be in this position.Once again not trying to cause problems or stir the pot, i dont hunt sheep and never had an animal that required inspection so i dont know how that works.

I'm not sure about now, but in the past it was pretty much, look at a few sets of horns and age them during a short seminar. You could then be a CI for all CI species. Most hunters have more ability than alot of CI's. Thanks to Mark, maybe this will now be corrected.

willy442
09-26-2008, 07:44 PM
HappyGilmore

The mods can see IP addresses, and what area you are posting from, but nothing more. No, I can't see your address, but if a CO asked for an IP, I am sure they have the resources to find accounts via that.

As far as I know, CO's didn't ask HBC to provide any information, although they could have contacted Marc-although he made no mention of it. I do know he is not in the habit of sending out member info to just anyone...... I suspect that it played out something as willy442 mentioned- I presume the CO's simply emailed inspectors with the pictures posted and asked for a name.

I don't think any requests were made of Mark. The request was to post and try and have the individual submit the Ram for reinspection, the CO's did research enough that they had a first name.

bsa30-06
09-26-2008, 07:46 PM
I'm not sure about now, but in the past it was pretty much, look at a few sets of horns and age them during a short seminar. You could then be a CI for all CI species. Most hunters have more ability than alot of CI's. Thanks to Mark, maybe this will now be corrected.

thanks willy442 , this is kind of what i thought but i wasnt sure, so i thought i would ask.Like i said never had an animal that required an inspection, and i dont hunt sheep so i wasnt sure how it worked.Not trying to cause trouble was just looking for an answer.

1899
09-26-2008, 08:11 PM
Now the Co's had to go get the Ram and subsiquently have pressed charges that could result in Mark loosing his hunting privileges for up to 5 years. (Nice of you guy's that were coaching him not to turn it in).

Why exactly should he turn it in for a re-inspection if he had it inspected (I don't buy the contractor argument either, in my view the inspector is an agent) and was told it was legal? He had an honest belief that the ram was legal, he shot it, cancelled his tag, he had it inspected within the required time frame and was told everything is ok.

How should he know that the people telling him it was illegal are better at judging a ram than the MOE's own agent? Quite frankly there is no reason to instantly jump when someone says so on an anonymous internet forum. I believe that once he had it inspected, was told it was legal and took it home, the CO's would need a warrant to inspect it again.

BUT he took it in anyways when asked to by the authorities. The idea that the CO's would be looking for him to have his hunting privileges revoked for 5 years is absurd. If their own agent made a mistake while looking at the horns from 12 inches then it certainly can't be comparable to shooting a 3 point buck in a 4 point only season. All that pressing the issue would do is discourage honest hunters from turning themselves in after making a mistake. Quite frankly I am certain Mark HAS learned his lesson from this mistake.

Conditional discharge - with the conditions being no Wildlife Act offences within the next 2 years would be more than sufficient, imo.

Remmy
09-26-2008, 08:13 PM
I believe that Corb did not intend to do anything illegal! If you all remenber the Ram that was confiscated from a hunter or from the taxidermy after it had passed a Provincial Inspector from region three 3-4 year ago it went to court in Kamloops and yes it was short by a fair margin and miss inspected but the guy got his ram back and was not charged!! I believe that there should not be a penalty for a ram that was inspected and passed. Yes the Ram should confiscated and the hunter not allowed a sheep tag for two years but no fine! If Corb hired a lawyer and used the last case as a president what would happen??

willy442
09-26-2008, 08:36 PM
Why exactly should he turn it in for a re-inspection if he had it inspected (I don't buy the contractor argument either, in my view the inspector is an agent) and was told it was legal? He had an honest belief that the ram was legal, he shot it, cancelled his tag, he had it inspected within the required time frame and was told everything is ok.

How should he know that the people telling him it was illegal are better at judging a ram than the MOE's own agent? Quite frankly there is no reason to instantly jump when someone says so on an anonymous internet forum. I believe that once he had it inspected, was told it was legal and took it home, the CO's would need a warrant to inspect it again.

BUT he took it in anyways when asked to by the authorities. The idea that the CO's would be looking for him to have his hunting privileges revoked for 5 years is absurd. If their own agent made a mistake while looking at the horns from 12 inches then it certainly can't be comparable to shooting a 3 point buck in a 4 point only season. All that pressing the issue would do is discourage honest hunters from turning themselves in after making a mistake. Quite frankly I am certain Mark HAS learned his lesson from this mistake.

Conditional discharge - with the conditions being no Wildlife Act offences within the next 2 years would be more than sufficient, imo.

Do you not understand what the meaning of "IN POSSESSION OF ILLEGAL WILDLIFE IS"? Use this for an example;1. horns from an animal that do not meet the requirements of compulsory Inspection. 2 this can expand to any number of charges depending on the situation. 3 if you had read either Marks or my post, you would see that the CO's went and got the Ram, big difference here!

srupp
09-26-2008, 08:53 PM
hmm willy 442..

first of all the word is "REGARDLESS" there is no such word as IRREGARDLESS" sheesh..:biggrin:

When Mark went home did he not have a compulsorary inspection done ??..yes..and the ram was declared LEGAL..this is also TRUE..

Mark came here and posted photos of his "legal ram " up untill this point it was still legal..as declared by compulsary inspection..

I dont know you Willy but I do know GREG and his outstanding abilities but even when most everyone was questioning the ram and IF it made 8 years ... STILL at this point the ram was LEGAL AS DECLARED by the compulsary inspection sheet correct???It matters NOTHING AT THIS POINT WHAT THE ULTIMATE OUTCOME BECAME..

There was NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT FOR HIM TO GET THE RAM RE CHECKED.... the suggestions were just that "suggestions" from fellow hunters..even IF the ram was "illegal..

He has NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO TAKE THE ANIMAL BACK...no matter if GREG or you or the POPE said it was illegal...(YOURS AND GREGS AND COUNTLESS others were in fact right...)but carry no legal nessessity of compliance

Is it STILL an illegal ram .. NO..it was STILL legal as deemed by the compulsary inspection by a CERTIFIED INSPECTOR..AT THIS TIME..

So eventually for whatever reason or who ever sent the information MR CO comes calling and they RE MEASURE the ram and on this SECOND measuring (by I hope a more competent inspector ) the ram is deemed to be under age... at THAT POINT AND THAT POINT ONLY DOES THE RAM BECOME ILLEGAL.Mark was NEVER under ANY LEGAL OBLIGATION to resubmit the ram because anybody HERE told him to do so... and by NOT doing so he should NOT attract any additional punishment for "trying to hide anything ".....

I APPRECIATE your points..it IS illegal , granted.. however it only "officially " became illegal upon the second measurement..not when anyone here said so...

My point ONLY involves the degree of penalty..he shot a illegal ram he DID not hide the fact when asked to submit the ram for "a second further inspection he in fact did comply...as he DID the first time..my ONLY point is he should be treated as if he turned the ram in for INSPECTION and it was THEN AND THERE DEEMED ILLEGAL..not that he tried to hide anything and hence attract a larger penalty after a second inspection because he didnt listen to a bunch of hunters wanting him to turn it in..

Yes we HAVE TO BE CERTAIN..and I HAVE indeed watched MANY a stone sheep walk away for MANY years because I just couldnt be sure and didnt want to take any chances.. and IF you do take that chance there are PENALTIES for shooting a underage or undersize sheep..

Mark shot an illegal ram..that EVEN FOOLED an inspector CERTIFIED to correctly determain age, size and legality...the penalty should be as if he "only turned it in ONCE" not additional fines or years prohibition bcause he didnt resubmit it again..ther was never a legal compelling reason to do so and as such again should "attract no additional penalty"..
Wrong is wrong..there needs to be some sort of deterrent but ultimatly Mark should not get hammered due to the INCOMPETENCE of a examiner...

I am sorry Willy you feel I am a shit poor sheep hunter..whiner..complainer and NOW a very poor exmple of sportsmanship and setting an example..:roll:..at least Im consistant in disapointing you :biggrin: however I am blessed with way too many Lawyers in my family and extended family and appreciate the nuances of the legal system...

I am STILL under the opinion Mark complied with ALL regulations and requirements when obligated to..and up untill the second measurement had a "legal " ram..ALL the factors need to be taken into consideration this is NOT a simple example of someone breaking the law and then trying to hide anything bcause he didnt listen to soem faceless names on a hunting site..he complied every step of the way and even has ONE inspector on his side....all tehse facts need to be considered and WEIGHED carefully before the penalties are set down...

Luckily this is just the feelings and thoughts of a single hunter STILL without a ram after 17 years...so doesnt mean much but thanks for letting me vent..

Steven

porcupine
09-26-2008, 09:01 PM
Just an aside, how did the ram taste?
________
free magento themes (http://themesfree.org)

1899
09-26-2008, 09:08 PM
Do you not understand what the meaning of "IN POSSESSION OF ILLEGAL WILDLIFE IS"? Use this for an example;1. horns from an animal that do not meet the requirements of compulsory Inspection. 2 this can expand to any number of charges depending on the situation. 3 if you had read either Marks or my post, you would see that the CO's went and got the Ram, big difference here!

Actually I understand the concept very well.

33 (2) A person commits an offence if the person has dead wildlife or a part of any wildlife in his or her possession except as authorized under a licence or permit or as provided by regulation.

Correct me if I am wrong, but he WAS authorized by a permit granted to him after he took the ram in for inspection.

And you know what? I don't need to convince you or anyone on this board, I only need to convince a judge. I've already pm'd Mark a couple of contact numbers. I hope he takes up the offer if the CO's want to be harda**es about the matter. They need to focus on busting the criminals, the ones who don't care about the law. I've read Mark's original thread and I don't believe he falls into that category. I wouldn't have offered him help if I did.

Considering that you are a guide, this comment of yours says quite a lot:

Maybe the department should propose all guided hunting for Stone Sheep with a one in a life time bag limit instead of education.


Sure would help your bottom line, wouldn't it?

Barracuda
09-26-2008, 09:26 PM
hmm willy 442..

first of all the word is "REGARDLESS" there is no such word as IRREGARDLESS" sheesh..:biggrin:



I believe that you might want to revise your statement :tongue:

burger
09-26-2008, 10:25 PM
Considering that you are a guide, this comment of yours says quite a lot:

BYwillys 442 Maybe the department should propose all guided hunting for Stone Sheep with a one in a life time bag limit instead of education


Sure would help your bottom line, wouldn't it?


Are all guides experts at aging???


Srupp your last post is bang on. Yes he harvested an illegal animal but did all the right things and it passed. It was then found/detemined to be illegal. He should only be charged as if he had brought it in the first time. He has no legal requirement to listen to anyone on this site nor to heed any PM from anyone HE WAS IN POSSESION OF A LEGAL RAM AT THAT TIME.By ignoring the uncertified/non agents of the MOE that sent him PM's he should not be additionally charged.

Jagermeister
09-26-2008, 11:23 PM
I've never hunted sheep, had an interest at one time, read lots of books on the subject, then left it at that.
However, I viewed the thread with the pictures and thought that the animal was a tad on the small side from the views presented. Not being the accomplished sheep hunter that some are, I left it at that and moved to other posts.
I know that were I hunting Stones, I would want to be very, very certain that the animal that I harvested would leave no doubt in anyone's mind as to it's legallity.
I said before, the onus is on the hunter to make the correct judgement call. If there is any doubt, then you have to pass, no ifs, and or buts. You try for another day with your macho still intact.
I have another thought on this but because this board is now probably monitored by MOE, what I have to say could taint what's before Mark4 and there has been enough said on this thread to influence it as it is.
Maybe we should just let this thread die without further prejudice.
Good Luck Mark4!

born2hunt
09-26-2008, 11:31 PM
congrats for being a stand up fella i applaud you:)

Gateholio
09-26-2008, 11:37 PM
I believe that you might want to revise your statement :tongue:

The term "Irregardless " is not proper English language, but it has been accepted into slang.

It's somewhat a double negative.

I wouldn't use the term in any serious conversation.

Just trying to help:)

Please carry on....Nobody has broken the rules on this thread. Personally, I am impressed with mark4 being so candid.

Mr. Dean
09-27-2008, 12:40 AM
I think what the MOE is saying is "screw that inspector, WE are looking into it ".

and treated it independent of the original inspection.

obviously you don't agree with the Ministry's decision to do that.

fair enough.

No where did I state that.... I strongly suggest that you review all my post on this AND remove your emotions. They may be getting in the way. :wink:



Actually I understand the concept very well.

33 (2) A person commits an offence if the person has dead wildlife or a part of any wildlife in his or her possession except as authorized under a licence or permit or as provided by regulation.

Correct me if I am wrong, but he WAS authorized by a permit granted to him after he took the ram in for inspection.

And you know what? I don't need to convince you or anyone on this board, I only need to convince a judge. I've already pm'd Mark a couple of contact numbers. I hope he takes up the offer if the CO's want to be harda**es about the matter. They need to focus on busting the criminals, the ones who don't care about the law. I've read Mark's original thread and I don't believe he falls into that category. I wouldn't have offered him help if I did.

Considering that you are a guide, this comment of yours says quite a lot:


Sure would help your bottom line, wouldn't it?


Viola!
This is what I'm talkin' about.... Sound and rational reasoning. :smile:

mark4, I sincerely wish ya the best of luck here. You seem to be one stand-up Dude. One that I'd be proud in knowing. We should make a point in that happening.... Cheers!


To all the die-hard sheeper's;

Keep up the good cause but don't forget that without growth, the cause will be forgotten. This Hunter has demonstrated both grace and elegance in his error. Endorsing that he be pulverised to a pulp (via the system), is excess in this situation. There will be nothing to gain from it.

Remember that he is new and that his initial response to all the "get it reinspected, it's illegal"; is pretty much how anyone in his shoes woulda responded (having paper in hand contradicting those statements). Perfectly natural IMO.

Nighty-night.

willy442
09-27-2008, 01:49 AM
hmm willy 442..

first of all the word is "REGARDLESS" there is no such word as IRREGARDLESS" sheesh..:biggrin:

When Mark went home did he not have a compulsorary inspection done ??..yes..and the ram was declared LEGAL..this is also TRUE..

Mark came here and posted photos of his "legal ram " up untill this point it was still legal..as declared by compulsary inspection..

I dont know you Willy but I do know GREG and his outstanding abilities but even when most everyone was questioning the ram and IF it made 8 years ... STILL at this point the ram was LEGAL AS DECLARED by the compulsary inspection sheet correct???It matters NOTHING AT THIS POINT WHAT THE ULTIMATE OUTCOME BECAME..

There was NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT FOR HIM TO GET THE RAM RE CHECKED.... the suggestions were just that "suggestions" from fellow hunters..even IF the ram was "illegal..

He has NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO TAKE THE ANIMAL BACK...no matter if GREG or you or the POPE said it was illegal...(YOURS AND GREGS AND COUNTLESS others were in fact right...)but carry no legal nessessity of compliance

Is it STILL an illegal ram .. NO..it was STILL legal as deemed by the compulsary inspection by a CERTIFIED INSPECTOR..AT THIS TIME..

So eventually for whatever reason or who ever sent the information MR CO comes calling and they RE MEASURE the ram and on this SECOND measuring (by I hope a more competent inspector ) the ram is deemed to be under age... at THAT POINT AND THAT POINT ONLY DOES THE RAM BECOME ILLEGAL.Mark was NEVER under ANY LEGAL OBLIGATION to resubmit the ram because anybody HERE told him to do so... and by NOT doing so he should NOT attract any additional punishment for "trying to hide anything ".....

I APPRECIATE your points..it IS illegal , granted.. however it only "officially " became illegal upon the second measurement..not when anyone here said so...

My point ONLY involves the degree of penalty..he shot a illegal ram he DID not hide the fact when asked to submit the ram for "a second further inspection he in fact did comply...as he DID the first time..my ONLY point is he should be treated as if he turned the ram in for INSPECTION and it was THEN AND THERE DEEMED ILLEGAL..not that he tried to hide anything and hence attract a larger penalty after a second inspection because he didnt listen to a bunch of hunters wanting him to turn it in..

Yes we HAVE TO BE CERTAIN..and I HAVE indeed watched MANY a stone sheep walk away for MANY years because I just couldnt be sure and didnt want to take any chances.. and IF you do take that chance there are PENALTIES for shooting a underage or undersize sheep..

Mark shot an illegal ram..that EVEN FOOLED an inspector CERTIFIED to correctly determain age, size and legality...the penalty should be as if he "only turned it in ONCE" not additional fines or years prohibition bcause he didnt resubmit it again..ther was never a legal compelling reason to do so and as such again should "attract no additional penalty"..
Wrong is wrong..there needs to be some sort of deterrent but ultimatly Mark should not get hammered due to the INCOMPETENCE of a examiner...

I am sorry Willy you feel I am a shit poor sheep hunter..whiner..complainer and NOW a very poor exmple of sportsmanship and setting an example..:roll:..at least Im consistant in disapointing you :biggrin: however I am blessed with way too many Lawyers in my family and extended family and appreciate the nuances of the legal system...

I am STILL under the opinion Mark complied with ALL regulations and requirements when obligated to..and up untill the second measurement had a "legal " ram..ALL the factors need to be taken into consideration this is NOT a simple example of someone breaking the law and then trying to hide anything bcause he didnt listen to soem faceless names on a hunting site..he complied every step of the way and even has ONE inspector on his side....all tehse facts need to be considered and WEIGHED carefully before the penalties are set down...

Luckily this is just the feelings and thoughts of a single hunter STILL without a ram after 17 years...so doesnt mean much but thanks for letting me vent..

Steven

Srupp; Your senseless babble is almost not worth repling to. Thank Christ Mark is man enough to face up to the fact that he pulled the trigger on an illegal Ram. For some on here it seems very difficult to grasp the idea that Mark was given many opportunities to resubmit the Ram. He did not do this, he instead, listened to some of the unknowing on here and is now in more trouble than he was. From you Srupp I understand the thinking that it was the measurer's fault. Every thing that happens in your life is some one else's fault by your posts. Just remember once the Ram fell over Mark was in possession of illegal wildlife at no time did the Ram become legal, not even after inspection by the crown. Again I praise Mark for being unlike some here and being man enough to face the music and see that his mistake will benefit other sheep hunters. I would and will gladly assist Mark in any way I can on his future Sheep hunts after all this he, unlike some, deserves a good Ram.

Srupp, I still think we should go on a Bear hunt together, lets do the world some good and take along some of those lawyers, you mentioned. If we fail to get a Bear you already have a good case, with your family of lawyers to blame it on my spelling.:smile:

willy442
09-27-2008, 02:03 AM
Why exactly should he turn it in for a re-inspection if he had it inspected (I don't buy the contractor argument either, in my view the inspector is an agent) and was told it was legal? He had an honest belief that the ram was legal, he shot it, cancelled his tag, he had it inspected within the required time frame and was told everything is ok.

How should he know that the people telling him it was illegal are better at judging a ram than the MOE's own agent? Quite frankly there is no reason to instantly jump when someone says so on an anonymous internet forum. I believe that once he had it inspected, was told it was legal and took it home, the CO's would need a warrant to inspect it again.

BUT he took it in anyways when asked to by the authorities. The idea that the CO's would be looking for him to have his hunting privileges revoked for 5 years is absurd. If their own agent made a mistake while looking at the horns from 12 inches then it certainly can't be comparable to shooting a 3 point buck in a 4 point only season. All that pressing the issue would do is discourage honest hunters from turning themselves in after making a mistake. Quite frankly I am certain Mark HAS learned his lesson from this mistake.

Conditional discharge - with the conditions being no Wildlife Act offences within the next 2 years would be more than sufficient, imo.

More often than not the charge of possession of illegal wildlife will pack a loss of hunting privileges for a period of 5 years. Mark may or may not recieve this, had he taken the Ram in on his own, he would of had a better case. He did as he stated shoot an illegal Ram, he is responsible for this. The measurer is an agent for the Crown and as I stated before, his decisions are subject to review at any time by the Director of Fish and Wildlife. The Ministry may see that the CI is disciplined on this inspection but in no way is he responsible for Marks issue's. Mark has stated he understands this. Why is it so hard for you and Srupp?

1899
09-27-2008, 09:13 AM
The Ministry may see that the CI is disciplined on this inspection but in no way is he responsible for Marks issue's. Mark has stated he understands this. Why is it so hard for you and Srupp?

Perhaps I wasn't clear, or maybe I didn't give enough detail, so I'll try again.

1. Mark shot an illegal ram - I don't think anyone disagrees (any more) about this.

2. There is a process for verification, which broke down in that his ram was verified as legal and he was given all the appropriate paperwork.

3. Our laws including the Wildlife Act, the Offence Act, the Charter, principles of Administration law and Criminal law are here to protect all of us.

4. Based on how things happened, I think Mark shouldn't face the harshest consequences - it doesn't matter if he didn't take the ram in for re-inspection because I don't feel he had a legal obligation to do so. If you disagree, then point me to the legislation that proves otherwise.

5. I feel that those who are calling for his head aren't being sincere.

I never said the CI is responsible for Mark shooting the ram. But the Crown can't, in this situation, have it's own agent say "yes this is a legal sheep, here is the paperwork" and then go and hit him with possession contrary to. To me, that is the ONLY issue with respect to the CI.

You can't, in all good conscience, say Mark is comparable to a person who goes out and on purpose kills an illegal sheep, or a legal one out of season, then actively tries to hide it or tries to mislead the authorities with respect to where and when he killed the animal. Why then should he face the same consequences? He won't, but if he does I would gladly step up to the plate to protect him, as would another lawyer I know who is also an avid hunter. Why? Because it is the right and just thing for us to try and help someone in his position.

2slow
09-27-2008, 09:37 AM
I don't have a problem with the people that called him in.
I have a problem with the people that sent him private messages of a threatening nature.
Where I disagree with some of you guys is that he did everything right and proper by getting it inspected and plugged. He was told by an expert that it was legal. At that point the responsibility was taken from him and placed onto the ministry to fix their mistake. It may be that if he took it in to be reinspected that the ministry might go a little lighter on him but that was not his responsibility to do so. That was up to the ministry to rectify their problem. From what I have read the ministry was well on its way to fixing their error BUT now due to the large outcry from this site and other sources they may have no other choice than to try to make mark look bad and them look good.

Mark seems like a stand up guy who made an honest mistake whos life has been made a hell by posting pictures on this public forum.

And mark if your not in a position to pay your fine and its gonna keep you from being able to hunt in the future I would be more than happy to flip you a few bucks to go towards the bail out a brother fund.

Sitkaspruce
09-27-2008, 09:42 AM
One thing you guys are all forgetting is that the CI is a contractor to the crown to gather info on age, measurements, location of harvest (like anybody shows the real spot they shot it:eek::D) and other stuff they need. At no time are they enforcement officers, compliance officers or any extension of the CO service, and they are by no means experts. They represent themselves and MOE for info gathering only. They do not have any powers of seizure or enforcement of the regs, all they can do is ask the CO's to come if they have a questionable animal. It is one of the biggest bondoggles that MOE has made in hiring nobodies to gather very important info on OUR wildlife. (I just heard in Kamloops, that the local MOE office is now doing the CI process.....maybe things are going back to the way they should be?????)

The result is that Corb is getting wrung through the internet washing machine, and people like Willy and SRUPP are throwing crap at each other like 3 yo's, each trying to prove who is right, when in fact nobody really cares:eek:. The CO's, the justice system and Corb are now the ONLY ones who are involved The rest of us can sit here and type away and make a$$ out of ourselves, but in the end it really does not matter who is right and who is wrong, as a CO, a couple of lawyers and a judge will make that decission for us.

So.......lets all get out of the sandbox, put our toys back in the box......and get out and go HUNTING!!!!!!:lol::p:D

Cheers

SS

oscar makonka
09-27-2008, 10:19 AM
This is a very unfortunate situation but it does bring to light the inconsistencys of contract inspectors and the training they receive. I know of two rams that are short and have been inspected by contractors in the last few years and am sure there are many more. The system needs to be changed to a platform where the outcome is black or white not based upon some inspectors opinion. Many of these inspectors will pass a short sheep simply because they don't want to be the bearer of bad news to some hunter who is very proud of what they have or they know the hunter personally and are prone to overlook things so as not to muddy the waters of their friendship. To be an inspector you have to have the ability to rain on someones parade if the critter dosen't make the cut. Friend of mine is an inspector, has measured many heads over the years and generally knows his stuff, he's one of the few, he has rained on a few guys parades and it has cost him friendhips, he also has had to spoil a few new inexperienced hunters days which he hates to do. Most inspectors are just guys who show an interest, happen to live in an area where one is needed and have the time to do this. Many of these inspectors have never hunted sheep, have no more real experience in judging a sheeps horns than many of the folks who shoot short sheep. Only difference is they have taken a short but incomplete orientation course and have gotten a badge for their pyjamas so to speak.

srupp
09-27-2008, 11:00 AM
hmmm regardless of what me or willy or( fill in the blanks..) think..the ram is deemed ( sorry for going legal on ya )ILLEGAL WHEN??
he thought he had a legal ram when he shot it...

the MOE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE has THE AUTHORITY TRO DECLARE IT LEGAL which he did..still legal regardless of what you think willy or.....

when the co's came and had it re-measured at the time the "second authority " aged it at less than 8 years it bcame LEGALLY ILLEGAL..was it underage all the time.... yes....it never ever was 8 years old... granted..

Mark should NOT get the maximum as he did EVERYTHING IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE WILDLIFE ACT...what did he not do??listen to YOU to go back in because you are/??a guide?? know everything there is about sheep ? he had NO obligation to go back in...he had already submitted the ram in question to the proper authorities...completely satidfying the regulations PERIOD.

Because you or some other individual that has no authority to request a second inspection ..sheesh willy what 5,000 inspections a year and what 1 maybe 2 get reinspected it is a very very rare occurence..

and WHEN REQUESTED to do so by those in authority he did so... submit the ram to the authorities,,,, and it was determnaned 2 events occurred..

1) the ram is illegal...
2) the first official erred in his aging..hmmm how is THAT Marks fault..

he will face the music for shooting a underage ram however it is absurbd to suggest he should face any additional punishment for NOT listening to memebers of a hunting forum....sorry and that includes you..

you fel its babbel.. have YOU the authority to demand Mark to turn in the ram???for the second inspection ??no..

I have no argument that the ram was deemed underage and hence illegal on the SECOND inspection..but up untill then he did everything 100 % correctly..and by showing it on here he wasnt trying to hide anything..

My point is that YOU think because You or others suggested he take the ram back for second inspection carries any weight..it doesnt...


so far Mark has complied 100 % with all the legal requirements all along the way... and yes I agree the ram is underage and hence illegal and was from the moment he shot it..however it was a honest mistake and he was NOT trying to hide or disrupt the process of justice..


you have spoken yours and I just disagree not trying to be rude but speaking my opinion/

cheers

Steven

Brambles
09-27-2008, 11:18 AM
hmmm regardless of what me or willy or( fill in the blanks..) think..the ram is deemed ( sorry for going legal on ya )ILLEGAL WHEN??
he thought he had a legal ram when he shot it...

the MOE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE has THE AUTHORITY TRO DECLARE IT LEGAL which he did..still legal regardless of what you think willy or.....

when the co's came and had it re-measured at the time the "second authority " aged it at less than 8 years it bcame LEGALLY ILLEGAL..was it underage all the time.... yes....it never ever was 8 years old... granted..

Mark should NOT get the maximum as he did EVERYTHING IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE WILDLIFE ACT...what did he not do??listen to YOU to go back in because you are/??a guide?? know everything there is about sheep ? he had NO obligation to go back in...he had already submitted the ram in question to the proper authorities...completely satidfying the regulations PERIOD.

Because you or some other individual that has no authority to request a second inspection ..sheesh willy what 5,000 inspections a year and what 1 maybe 2 get reinspected it is a very very rare occurence..

and WHEN REQUESTED to do so by those in authority he did so... submit the ram to the authorities,,,, and it was determnaned 2 events occurred..

1) the ram is illegal...
2) the first official erred in his aging..hmmm how is THAT Marks fault..

he will face the music for shooting a underage ram however it is absurbd to suggest he should face any additional punishment for NOT listening to memebers of a hunting forum....sorry and that includes you..

you fel its babbel.. have YOU the authority to demand Mark to turn in the ram???for the second inspection ??no..

I have no argument that the ram was deemed underage and hence illegal on the SECOND inspection..but up untill then he did everything 100 % correctly..and by showing it on here he wasnt trying to hide anything..

My point is that YOU think because You or others suggested he take the ram back for second inspection carries any weight..it doesnt...


so far Mark has complied 100 % with all the legal requirements all along the way... and yes I agree the ram is underage and hence illegal and was from the moment he shot it..however it was a honest mistake and he was NOT trying to hide or disrupt the process of justice..


you have spoken yours and I just disagree not trying to be rude but speaking my opinion/

cheers

Steven


http://www.animecutie.com/gg_data/images/7/smiley-sign-im-with-stupid-5037.gif (http://www.animecutie.com/image-smiley-sign-im-with-stupid-5037.html)

huntcoop
09-27-2008, 11:32 AM
One thing you guys are all forgetting is that the CI is a contractor to the crown to gather info on age, measurements, location of harvest (like anybody shows the real spot they shot it:eek::D) and other stuff they need. At no time are they enforcement officers, compliance officers or any extension of the CO service, and they are by no means experts. They represent themselves and MOE for info gathering only. They do not have any powers of seizure or enforcement of the regs, all they can do is ask the CO's to come if they have a questionable animal.........

He never even thought that is was questionable ram, he did nothing except plug it and provide legal CI paperwork stating a legal ram.

willy442
09-27-2008, 12:13 PM
hmmm regardless of what me or willy or( fill in the blanks..) think..the ram is deemed ( sorry for going legal on ya )ILLEGAL WHEN??
he thought he had a legal ram when he shot it...

the MOE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE has THE AUTHORITY TRO DECLARE IT LEGAL which he did..still legal regardless of what you think willy or.....

when the co's came and had it re-measured at the time the "second authority " aged it at less than 8 years it bcame LEGALLY ILLEGAL..was it underage all the time.... yes....it never ever was 8 years old... granted..

Mark should NOT get the maximum as he did EVERYTHING IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE WILDLIFE ACT...what did he not do??listen to YOU to go back in because you are/??a guide?? know everything there is about sheep ? he had NO obligation to go back in...he had already submitted the ram in question to the proper authorities...completely satidfying the regulations PERIOD.

Because you or some other individual that has no authority to request a second inspection ..sheesh willy what 5,000 inspections a year and what 1 maybe 2 get reinspected it is a very very rare occurence..

and WHEN REQUESTED to do so by those in authority he did so... submit the ram to the authorities,,,, and it was determnaned 2 events occurred..

1) the ram is illegal...
2) the first official erred in his aging..hmmm how is THAT Marks fault..

he will face the music for shooting a underage ram however it is absurbd to suggest he should face any additional punishment for NOT listening to memebers of a hunting forum....sorry and that includes you..

you fel its babbel.. have YOU the authority to demand Mark to turn in the ram???for the second inspection ??no..

I have no argument that the ram was deemed underage and hence illegal on the SECOND inspection..but up untill then he did everything 100 % correctly..and by showing it on here he wasnt trying to hide anything..

My point is that YOU think because You or others suggested he take the ram back for second inspection carries any weight..it doesnt...


so far Mark has complied 100 % with all the legal requirements all along the way... and yes I agree the ram is underage and hence illegal and was from the moment he shot it..however it was a honest mistake and he was NOT trying to hide or disrupt the process of justice..


you have spoken yours and I just disagree not trying to be rude but speaking my opinion/

cheers

Steven

Srupp if you were to follow the thread and hand all the info, the ministry were the ones that were requesting the Ram be brought back in for reinspection. Some of us were asked to approach Mark through this site to have him do so. He choose not to, thats his choice, the fines he faces are no doubt going to be minimal compared to what they could be, a loss of hunting privileges for five years is a pretty minimal charge compared to what could be for example. The bottom line is he shot an illegal Ram, regaurdless of the inspector, now he has to face up to it as he has himself stated and is willing to do. No one at any point has suggested that Mark did not fill his obligations for CI, nor did anyone ever accuse him of intentionally shooting an illegal Ram. Mistakes are made and how they are handled and dealt with will no doubt carry weight with the Judge. Now, I agree with others, let the legal system take it course and decide the out come.

The good out of all of this is hopefully a proper inspection system by qualified people. I for one would even support a reinspection of all Sheep taken in BC over the last ten years by qualified people. There are many more illegal heads out there, some that have been checked and alot that haven't. The CI numbers on sheep are no where near 5000 since the inception of compulsary inspection let alone per year, for your info. To correct you the CI has no authority, other than to fill out the paper work as required and call the CO if there is an issue. In most cases it's easier to pass a questionable sheep than it is to deal with it. Maybe this will now be corrected.

Sitkaspruce
09-27-2008, 12:29 PM
He never even thought that is was questionable ram, he did nothing except plug it and provide legal CI paperwork stating a legal ram.

Sorry, I was talking about CI's in general. But still, it is not the fault of the CI, incompetant as it was, that Corb is in trouble. It still is and always will be the hunter who squeezes the trigger, who is to blame. We cannot put all our questions of whether it is legal or not on the CI. We better make damn sure that it is before we take it in. Letting the CI make that decission will result in what we are looking at happening.

As for it being legal, it never was, so when it was passed by the CI, it does not make it any more legal. The legal profession will always have the right to re-investigate a case if new info come up. New info came up, so it was investigated and the results are Corb will loose his ram and face possible fines and such. Life sucks, but when you squeeze the trigger, you better be damn sure you are right, cause if you are wrong.......:sad::shock::oops:

Cheers

SS

Cheers

SS

bcfarmer
09-27-2008, 12:43 PM
I was trying to figure a way to add my two cents to all this (like it matters...imho)...but I no longer have to. You hit the nail on the head Mr Dean.!!

Sorry about your experience Mark4..and hope your back on the horse next year.


To those who have a problem with the "snitches"...try and remember the RAPP program.....we can't pick and choose or have it both ways.

bcf



This hunter has done a wrong.... All agree, even himself.

The MOE had their chance of taking matters further WHEN it was inspected. They didn't. And shouldn't be allowed to came after him 'after the fact'. I can understand a "Hey, we f***ked up and that ram ain't legal. We know have to take it away from you. SORRY and our appologies for having to do this...."

Adding anything more (charges/fines/suspensions) is just plain wrong IMO.... MOE passed it and mark4 was elated beyond all comprehensions AND feeling rightly so. So proud, in fact, that he openly posted what he accomplished because all lights were green from the inspector.

The kicks he has recieved since then, and the deflating of his balloon that came with a hard landing is MORE than enough of a lesson. I'm absolutely SURE if MOE moved in upon it FAILING the 1st inspect, we would all agree that whatever he got, he deserved.

How about reinspecting ALL horn that this fella plugged. I'm sure that everyone in Europe and the US, would be more than happy to send their stuff back for this..... And if they don't, suspend all THEIR hunting privledges over here.

How far would that brick fly????

behemoth
09-27-2008, 12:50 PM
Hey Mark4
No matter what the wanna be cops on this site think, you have a really good case considering that the ram was declared legal. Get yourself a good lawyer and don't go this alone, you may be broadsided by all the politics surrounding this case. There are allot of eyes watching. I wouldn't doubt that the righteous on this site are actually pushing for an example to be made out of you.
Best of luck

mark4
09-27-2008, 01:02 PM
WILLY442 = The good out of all of this is hopefully a proper inspection system by qualified people. I for one would even support a reinspection of all Sheep taken in BC over the last ten years by qualified people. There are many more illegal heads out there, some that have been checked and alot that haven't.
__________________
Man I agree with tightening up the inspection process but to re-inspect all heads taken over the last ten years....... It's going to start a friggen war- I wouldn't want anyone to go through what I went through- taking away a sheep head from someone who has had it on their wall for 5 years- just doesn't seem right for some reason- even though I lost mine- I would not want to take anyone elses head away even if it was six months under age or 5mm under full curl. I know not everyone will agree with me but I would know first hand how horrible and crushed they would be to get a knock at the door and have their sheep carted away- the one that they were told was perfectly legal. If the process started now and was strict- I could live with that -but to dig up old bones- it won't look good to all the people who already hate hunting.

Gateholio
09-27-2008, 01:18 PM
I can't see reinspection for the last 10 years happening. Too much cost for too little gain.:o

bayou
09-27-2008, 01:28 PM
Mark 4
I was wondering if you would beable to say what the ram was aged at in the second inspection.
Thanks

srupp
09-27-2008, 01:51 PM
Hmm willy 442

Im sorry I must have missed something and if I did I apologize YOU say the MINISTRY asked Mark to bring the ram back in and he REFUSED..???

So the proper authorities contacted Mark by registered letter REQUIRING the ram back for a second inspection..thats different a legal obligation THEN EXISTS to have the ram returned for a second inspection..


HOWEVER IF they authorities merely suggested "joe hunter " to submit ON THIS WEBSITE or by PM to have Mark return the ram is a load of BULL65%$*$ THATS NOT the way a official request goes forth WITH THE CHANCE OF FINES AND LOSS OF PRIVELEGES..

The more I hear the more incompetence seeps out from this...there are proper ways 6to do things and this STINKS...If there were ANY questions a proper request through a recognized official WOULD HAVE BEEN THE CORRECT way..not suggesting "friends on a website suggest Mark have his ram reinspected....

willy you seem to know A LOT about what went on behind the scenes and leaves us guessing at the details....

If someone on this thred suggested Mark have the ram re inspected means nothing coming from anyone here..IF THE CO'S OR moe WANTED IT DONE THEY SHOULD HAVE PICKED UP A PHONE WITH A COPY IN WRITING andasked after properly identifying themselves...no one here has the authority to supercede the first inspection..and UNTILL the authorities come forward or Mark himself wanted to have a second inspection the rest is HERSAY...unadmissable and conjecture...


I HAVE NO ARGUMENT that the ram is illegal...however the ram head should be confisgated and sent to BC WILD SHEEP SOCIETY TO HELP EDUCATE FUTURE SHEEP HUNTERS...and maybe a ban on SHEEP HUNTING FOR 2 YEARS..nothing more for an honest mistake REPEATED BY THEIR AUTORIZED AGENT...

No argument..that the ram is illegal...any fines attrracted should be paid by the first inspector..as it was his paperwork that delayed the proper decision not MARKS HONESTY.

I always look forward to these discussions as long as they are civil..I appreciate your point of view and go away and try to look at it from your view and the good points you make..and I always appreciate the same courtosy..

intersting, sad and challenging case.... one we can indeed all learn from..I had been listening to those that advocate NOT shooting by aging anuli and perhaps 30 rams in 17 years have indeed walked free...


cheers

Steven

burger
09-27-2008, 03:34 PM
Hmm willy 442

Im sorry I must have missed something and if I did I apologize YOU say the MINISTRY asked Mark to bring the ram back in and he REFUSED..???

So the proper authorities contacted Mark by registered letter REQUIRING the ram back for a second inspection..thats different a legal obligation THEN EXISTS to have the ram returned for a second inspection..


HOWEVER IF they authorities merely suggested "joe hunter " to submit ON THIS WEBSITE or by PM to have Mark return the ram is a load of BULL65%$*$ THATS NOT the way a official request goes forth WITH THE CHANCE OF FINES AND LOSS OF PRIVELEGES..

The more I hear the more incompetence seeps out from this...there are proper ways 6to do things and this STINKS...If there were ANY questions a proper request through a recognized official WOULD HAVE BEEN THE CORRECT way..not suggesting "friends on a website suggest Mark have his ram reinspected....

willy you seem to know A LOT about what went on behind the scenes and leaves us guessing at the details....

If someone on this thred suggested Mark have the ram re inspected means nothing coming from anyone here..IF THE CO'S OR moe WANTED IT DONE THEY SHOULD HAVE PICKED UP A PHONE WITH A COPY IN WRITING andasked after properly identifying themselves...no one here has the authority to supercede the first inspection..and UNTILL the authorities come forward or Mark himself wanted to have a second inspection the rest is HERSAY...unadmissable and conjecture...


I HAVE NO ARGUMENT that the ram is illegal...however the ram head should be confisgated and sent to BC WILD SHEEP SOCIETY TO HELP EDUCATE FUTURE SHEEP HUNTERS...and maybe a ban on SHEEP HUNTING FOR 2 YEARS..nothing more for an honest mistake REPEATED BY THEIR AUTORIZED AGENT...

No argument..that the ram is illegal...any fines attrracted should be paid by the first inspector..as it was his paperwork that delayed the proper decision not MARKS HONESTY.

I always look forward to these discussions as long as they are civil..I appreciate your point of view and go away and try to look at it from your view and the good points you make..and I always appreciate the same courtosy..

intersting, sad and challenging case.... one we can indeed all learn from..I had been listening to those that advocate NOT shooting by aging anuli and perhaps 30 rams in 17 years have indeed walked free...


cheers

Steven

I wondered the same thing. If I had a ram that was inspected and was determined legal and some no name sends me a PM saying the MOE told me to tell you to go get it reinspected I'd tell them to pound sand.

What it seems like here Willy(correct me if I'm wrong) is that you or some one you know were in contact with the MOE wanting this guy busted. Both you and the MOE could not locate corb easily and so you took it upon yourself to try and police/bully him into having it reinspected. You are not the police nor are you an CI or employee of MOE so why would he(corb, mark4)take any merit in what you requested.


Yes it is an illegal ram BUT Mark4 was not performing an illegal act as he is also not a CI nor a MOE employee that does inspections that is why they should base the punishment as if he brought it in the first time and was determined illlegal.

The MOE should have contacted him directly as they did but what happened on this site means squat. None of the parties involved other than mark4 have any legal bearing on the desicion.

willy442
09-27-2008, 04:44 PM
Hmm willy 442

Im sorry I must have missed something and if I did I apologize YOU say the MINISTRY asked Mark to bring the ram back in and he REFUSED..???

So the proper authorities contacted Mark by registered letter REQUIRING the ram back for a second inspection..thats different a legal obligation THEN EXISTS to have the ram returned for a second inspection..


HOWEVER IF they authorities merely suggested "joe hunter " to submit ON THIS WEBSITE or by PM to have Mark return the ram is a load of BULL65%$*$ THATS NOT the way a official request goes forth WITH THE CHANCE OF FINES AND LOSS OF PRIVELEGES..

The more I hear the more incompetence seeps out from this...there are proper ways 6to do things and this STINKS...If there were ANY questions a proper request through a recognized official WOULD HAVE BEEN THE CORRECT way..not suggesting "friends on a website suggest Mark have his ram reinspected....

willy you seem to know A LOT about what went on behind the scenes and leaves us guessing at the details....

If someone on this thred suggested Mark have the ram re inspected means nothing coming from anyone here..IF THE CO'S OR moe WANTED IT DONE THEY SHOULD HAVE PICKED UP A PHONE WITH A COPY IN WRITING andasked after properly identifying themselves...no one here has the authority to supercede the first inspection..and UNTILL the authorities come forward or Mark himself wanted to have a second inspection the rest is HERSAY...unadmissable and conjecture...


I HAVE NO ARGUMENT that the ram is illegal...however the ram head should be confisgated and sent to BC WILD SHEEP SOCIETY TO HELP EDUCATE FUTURE SHEEP HUNTERS...and maybe a ban on SHEEP HUNTING FOR 2 YEARS..nothing more for an honest mistake REPEATED BY THEIR AUTORIZED AGENT...

No argument..that the ram is illegal...any fines attrracted should be paid by the first inspector..as it was his paperwork that delayed the proper decision not MARKS HONESTY.

I always look forward to these discussions as long as they are civil..I appreciate your point of view and go away and try to look at it from your view and the good points you make..and I always appreciate the same courtosy..

intersting, sad and challenging case.... one we can indeed all learn from..I had been listening to those that advocate NOT shooting by aging anuli and perhaps 30 rams in 17 years have indeed walked free...


cheers

Steven

Srupp
Your assumptions are not worth answering. Mark was asked on this site to resubmit, he did not do that. Now his Ram is confiscated and he has been charged, guess some of us new what we talking about. I'm now finished with this post and my efforts will be to continue fighting for accurate inspections and education of Sheep Hunters. I will continue to question any Ram that is not legal on this site or where ever else one may appear. Remember hunting is a privilege and if you break the law you should loose the privilege. To side track the good that is sure to come out of Marks misfortune by trying to question the proccess of information gathering and CO tactics is a waste of every ones time, too bad you fail to be able to understand the facts as they are.

BCRiverBoater
09-27-2008, 04:52 PM
I have learned one thing on this forum. One guy on here thinks he is always right and usually has nothing positive to say. All I can hope for is one day I get old and grumpy and smart as him. Most likely unattainable though. But one can dare to dream.

Does provide hours of entertainment though. But I bet the founders of this site did not think that these forums would turn into b*tch fests and have certain members against each other and talk down and trash each others posts. This site is turning into a typical forum based site. Why should it be any different than any others?

I though a hunting site would be full of grown adults with a mutual respect for one another. Hunters are supposed to be ethical conservationists working toward a common goal. I thought we would all be man or woman enough to treat each other with respect. We are here to help the new outdoors people and get more people outdoors. They way these last 2 sheep threads have gone has done nothing but hurt our efforts and make many look so bad.

I am sorry......it has gone in this direction. Everyone man up and get over it and move on.

srupp
09-27-2008, 04:55 PM
:biggrin::biggrin:hmmm what I do know is that some here are a bit "too deeply involved in this" and for questionable reasons...

And being a guide only answers some of the deep lingering issues..as it matters little..no less than little..nothing what your opinion is..or mine...the justice sitting behind the bench will make decisions based on LAW and evidence and TIME lines..and what is "reasonable " not what some person did with NO AUTHORITY...

BUT WHAT the MOE did, and how and when they are under obligation of law to perform to standards and if they fail that..and they have on several aspects of this FIASCO..then whoever represents Mark will be sure and point that out as mitigating circumstances..

As for the bear hunt hmmm bears have exellent smelling abilities and iM afraid they also would smell something "fishy " about this whole affair....


We will just have to agree to disagree..you are welcome to your opinion..and I am welcome to the correct one...:roll::biggrin: OOPS

CHEERS

Steven

happygilmore
09-27-2008, 05:00 PM
Srupp
Remember hunting is a privilege and if you break the law you should loose the privilege. .

It's my right! if you think for one second it's not they will take your rights away.
Is eating a privilege?
Is Playing baseball?
is owning a gun?
is breathing?

Whats wrong with calling it your right? Privilege makes it sound like your not suposed to have it but you do!
I'm not getting my way either so I'm going to make a dramatic statement like "i'm done with this thread and thats final"

nobody has the balls eh! funny marks accusers aren't half the man he is.

Shooter
09-27-2008, 05:07 PM
Could someone please tell me what the probable punishment would be if on the first inspection a ram was deemed illegal?

Sitkaspruce
09-27-2008, 05:07 PM
Hmm willy 442

Im sorry I must have missed something and if I did I apologize YOU say the MINISTRY asked Mark to bring the ram back in and he REFUSED..???

So the proper authorities contacted Mark by registered letter REQUIRING the ram back for a second inspection..thats different a legal obligation THEN EXISTS to have the ram returned for a second inspection..


HOWEVER IF they authorities merely suggested "joe hunter " to submit ON THIS WEBSITE or by PM to have Mark return the ram is a load of BULL65%$*$ THATS NOT the way a official request goes forth WITH THE CHANCE OF FINES AND LOSS OF PRIVELEGES..

Actually it is a way to do it. We used to phone them up (no email back then:-P) and let them know that we are investigating such and such......it is all documented and becomes part of the investigation. If they did not respond to the verbal request, then most of the time we went and knocked on their door......:o:biggrin:

The more I hear the more incompetence seeps out from this...there are proper ways 6to do things and this STINKS...If there were ANY questions a proper request through a recognized official WOULD HAVE BEEN THE CORRECT way..not suggesting "friends on a website suggest Mark have his ram reinspected....

willy you seem to know A LOT about what went on behind the scenes and leaves us guessing at the details....

If someone on this thred suggested Mark have the ram re inspected means nothing coming from anyone here..IF THE CO'S OR moe WANTED IT DONE THEY SHOULD HAVE PICKED UP A PHONE WITH A COPY IN WRITING andasked after properly identifying themselves...no one here has the authority to supercede the first inspection..and UNTILL the authorities come forward or Mark himself wanted to have a second inspection the rest is HERSAY...unadmissable and conjecture...

Actually their tesimony to the events as seen on the internet can be used in an investigation. The CO's can act on an simple email, especially with a picture, and proceed with an investigation. And apparently, according to Willy, there already was one started when he shot it, so the CO's can follow up on it when they get better info, as they did.

I HAVE NO ARGUMENT that the ram is illegal...however the ram head should be confisgated and sent to BC WILD SHEEP SOCIETY TO HELP EDUCATE FUTURE SHEEP HUNTERS...and maybe a ban on SHEEP HUNTING FOR 2 YEARS..nothing more for an honest mistake REPEATED BY THEIR AUTORIZED AGENT...

I still do not understand why the CI is the main bad guy in all this and should be the one to feel the heat. Corb shot an illegal ram!!!!!!! Whether it passed an inspection or not, he is still the one responsible, HE SQUEEZED THE TRIGGER ON AN ILLEGAL RAM:shock:

No argument..that the ram is illegal...any fines attrracted should be paid by the first inspector..as it was his paperwork that delayed the proper decision not MARKS HONESTY.

How so??????

I always look forward to these discussions as long as they are civil..I appreciate your point of view and go away and try to look at it from your view and the good points you make..and I always appreciate the same courtosy..

Ditto

intersting, sad and challenging case.... one we can indeed all learn from..I had been listening to those that advocate NOT shooting by aging anuli and perhaps 30 rams in 17 years have indeed walked free...


cheers

Steven


I wondered the same thing. If I had a ram that was inspected and was determined legal and some no name sends me a PM saying the MOE told me to tell you to go get it reinspected I'd tell them to pound sand.

Is this what really happened?????

What it seems like here Willy(correct me if I'm wrong) is that you or some one you know were in contact with the MOE wanting this guy busted. Both you and the MOE could not locate corb easily and so you took it upon yourself to try and police/bully him into having it reinspected. You are not the police nor are you an CI or employee of MOE so why would he(corb, mark4)take any merit in what you requested.

How about because he had an illegal ram. It is always better to come forward and admit a mistake then to play dumb and hope it will all go away. Was he actually bullied by persons on here????? Or was he told that he was being reported to the CO's because of a questionable ram???

Yes it is an illegal ram BUT Mark4 was not performing an illegal act as he is also not a CI nor a MOE employee that does inspections that is why they should base the punishment as if he brought it in the first time and was determined illlegal.

He preformed an illegal act when he squeezed the trigger, and he owned up to it after the was confronted by the authorities. Mistakes are made everyday, and sometime you pay for it and sometimes you don't.

The MOE should have contacted him directly as they did but what happened on this site means squat. None of the parties involved other than mark4 have any legal bearing on the desicion.

So I still have this question....Did he go forth and get it re-inspected or did he wait until the CO's contacted him???


SS

burger
09-27-2008, 05:15 PM
Srupp
Your assumptions are not worth answering. Mark was asked on this site to resubmit, he did not do that. Now his Ram is confiscated and he has been charged, guess some of us new what we talking about. I'm now finished with this post and my efforts will be to continue fighting for accurate inspections and education of Sheep Hunters. I will continue to question any Ram that is not legal on this site or where ever else one may appear. Remember hunting is a privilege and if you break the law you should loose the privilege. To side track the good that is sure to come out of Marks misfortune by trying to question the proccess of information gathering and CO tactics is a waste of every ones time, too bad you fail to be able to understand the facts as they are.

This bolded area is laughable and pathetic. Who cares what he was asked on this site. It means nothing that you and the other educated sheep hunters told him to get a reinspection.When the legitamite authorities contacted him he willfully had the animal reinspected. YOU ARE NOT THE LAW!!!!

I would like you to explain the info gathering tactics as they happened for us all to understand. Going through the proper channels to have the animal reinspected would be at the very least the route that I am sure the MOE would have wanted this to unfold. I am assuming by your lack of response to my questions from my previous post that my assumptions are correct. Depressing to some degree. It is that you did a good thing by contacting the MOE with your concerns but that is where it should have ended unless the MOE explicitly asked you to set up a "sting" anything after is vendictive. FISHY FISHY FISHY.

Oh and if we should all do what is asked on this web site then "the man" would like you too... Maybe I shouldn't say we are a public forum and all:icon_frow


Oh and sitka spruce what willy has suggested that happened was the MOE/CO's asked him to contact mark4 and get him to turn themselves in. Why on earth would they do that. The internet is a free world for all to see and they would have gone on here themselves and contacted him themselves. If not then that would be a disgrace to the legal channels of the MOE and would I think hurt their case in the end.

srupp
09-27-2008, 05:57 PM
Hi Sitka spruce..how DO you do that red stuff??? lol saves time typing lol

Are you a CO?? SItkaspruce..???I am NOT guessing..but KNOW that any such"request" for reinspection has to come officially or there is no obligation to comply..and anything that COULD result in fines and forfeiture has to be done " by the numbers" and no where could this be left to anonymous , faceless individuals on a open forum hunting site the Judge would have a field day with this..this DOES NOT COMPLY WITH ANY OFFICIAL NOTIFICATION OR REQUEST FOR A SECONDARY INSPECTION...

There MAY have been an investigation..great...all is well...HOWEVER a HUGE part is NOTIFYING MARK officially...and as I understand it when OFFICIALLY NOTIFIED.. WILLY442 pleasant demeanor does NOT constitute official request....

All that can be said from this site is Mark shot a ram..fact..mark took the ram in for official inspection and it PASSED..fact..
Mark showed us all his ram and "some " thought it looked small and some "individuals" went to the CO'S... and an investigation was apparantly started..big deal...up untill the SECOND INSPECTION all was just an investigation launched by whoever..doesnt matter...

However UNTILL MARK recieved OFFICIAL REQUEST= DEMAND for a second inspection all it entailed was a "investigation" and UNTILL the second inspection was COMPLETED there was and could be no "official illegal act" as up untill then the first compulsary inspection sheet STILL STOOD...

Actually NO their testemony on the internet means NOTHING..as NO official from the MOE actually inspected it OTHER THAN THE FIRST MOE rep..nothing on this site is admissable as no one is a CO OR MOE "acting in a official capacity " willy or whoever suggested it be taken back in for re submission means NOTHING it is hersay..unadmissable ..as he did NOT see the ram..had no official standing to request the ram be reinspected..

And I bet IF and I say IF the MOE somehow asked Willy or anyone to "suggest ' the ram be resubmitted by fellow hunters..they WILL conveniently forget making that request ..WHY because that does not follow any recognized standard for official notification...and certainly begs the question WHEN DID OFFICIAL request occur because asking guys on THIS FORUM does NOT constitute an official request if no officaial request there can be no penalty for NOT resubmitting the ram...

Their was no onus on Mark the onus lies on the "crown" to request a second oppinion..hmm the second oppinion cold have agreed with the first..the timing of the illegal infraction was the shooting of the ram however that was only learned at the second inspection..

yes MARK made a mistake..and he will undoubtably pay for his mistake.. but the big issue here seems to be that Mark didnt listen to "joe shmoe" on some hunting forum and hence he should get nailed with all these extra offfenses and heavy fines and forfeiture because he didnt listn to SQUIDMUNK or his friend.. sheesh the ONLY read ONLY individuals Mark had to comply with ..he did each time.. his ONLY offense was shooting a underage ram.PERIOD.

We have no evidence that Mark recieved an "official request for a second inspection IF he did..and did NOT comply he is in error and that may attract additional consideration from the judge as to penalties..

Mark had what he thought was a final say in the matter when he complied with ALL the regulations and submitted the ram for first inspection..the insepctor deemed the ram to be legal and 8 years..so GOOD ON MARK..he now OWNS the ram legally.. it is a LEGAL RAM..who says so..PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA by one of its duly appointed compulsary inspection officers.... and nobody here absolutley NO--BODY has any higher authority..we can guess, muse, suggest, extrapolate and conject whatever the 'expert told Mark it was legal.

And thats EXACTLY WHAT MARK THOUGHT going on the EXPERTS advice he walked away with a ram with a pin in its horn and the official paperwork...seems pretty straightforward...its ONLY at the second inspection that Mark found out the ram was underage..

All our guessing and carrying on means nothing "official" it had LOTS..hmm EVERYTHING to do with a second inspection being held...


So the question is IF Mark came in and submitted the ram to a competent inspector and the inspector deemed th ram to be say 6 1/2 , the ram would have instantly been siezed and a conservation officer summoned.., Mark continues to so-operate and admits to an "error in judgement" he thought he had a legal 8 year old ram..what PENALTY would he get ???


So with the facts as presented, ignore the FIASCO with the incompetent first inspection and the resulting delay..non was Marks fault..start when MARK FOUND OUT OFFICIALLY the ram was underage and hence illegal...

go with that and ADD that even the first scorer inspector agreed with Mark ...tough call..then hand out a reasonable and appropriate penalty..I do not agree with some here to nail his ass to the wall..there are other agendas here besides "saving the sheep" Lessons have been learned...no one tried to get away with anything AND IF WE THROW THIS GUY TO THE LIONS THE NEXT GUY WILL LEARN WHAT???MAKE A MISTAKE AND COME FORWARD AND YOU WILL BE CRUCIFIED...hence rams will be left in the mountains rather than brought in and be the man...

I know some think nothing of my 'morals" or my ethics...tough for them..without fear or favour..I find Marek has done nothing BUT shoot a illegal..too young ram..he has been honest forthright and upfront..this deserves far different penalties than skulking around hiding his actions or lying....hmmmm

steven

BIGHUNTERFISH
09-27-2008, 06:14 PM
The guy made a mistake,admitted he was at fault and still people find that it is not enough.I wonder how many guide outfitters break the laws everday ,scouting with helicopters ,baiting grizzlies ,shooting a ewe for camp meat etc.Of course when he shot the ram he thought it was legal thats why he glassed it for an hour and posted pictures on the internet.How many guys would have just left the illegal animal up in the mountains to rot,like the five point elk that get killed all season in the kootenays.This man is not a poacher and the guys that pm him and turned him in are cowards.I dont think he deserves any punishment because he has suffered enough,if you cant feel the remorse in his posts the you are not worth responding to .

Dale
09-27-2008, 06:19 PM
for all those who are concerned about this matter, as a suggestion that may alleviate your concerns, go and find the legislation that governs this stuff and read it. Maybe then it will shed some light on who is at fault or whatever the concern has turned into. Just my two cents, don't chew me out because there is no legislation that governs that kind of stuff.

1899
09-27-2008, 06:23 PM
Could someone please tell me what the probable punishment would be if on the first inspection a ram was deemed illegal?

It will depend on many factors. For example the circumstances and conduct of the accused will either mitigate or aggrevate the sentence. There are also considerations given to, and legislation governing, previous convictions.

burger
09-27-2008, 06:41 PM
The guy made a mistake,admitted he was at fault and still people find that it is not enough.I wonder how many guide outfitters break the laws everday ,scouting with helicopters ,baiting grizzlies ,shooting a ewe for camp meat etc.Of course when he shot the ram he thought it was legal thats why he glassed it for an hour and posted pictures on the internet.How many guys would have just left the illegal animal up in the mountains to rot,like the five point elk that get killed all season in the kootenays.This man is not a poacher and the guys that pm him and turned him in are cowards.I dont think he deserves any punishment because he has suffered enough,if you cant feel the remorse in his posts the you are not worth responding to .

I dont feel they are cowards and they did do the right think by reporting but it was everything after the original phone call that I find disgusting. Let the police be police let the MOE be the MOE. Some feel they are the law and take it upon themselves to try and be jduge,jury and ... well you know.

dukester
09-27-2008, 07:47 PM
Shot in the dark BUT.. why not get the ram aged by using a shaved portion of a molar, we used to do this in college, would this not be worth a try??? this way you can say you tried every angle for proper age.

oscar makonka
09-27-2008, 07:50 PM
Mark had what he thought was a final say in the matter when he complied with ALL the regulations and submitted the ram for first inspection..the insepctor deemed the ram to be legal and 8 years..so GOOD ON MARK..he now OWNS the ram legally.. it is a LEGAL RAM..who says so..PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA by one of its duly appointed compulsary inspection officers.... and nobody here absolutley NO--BODY has any higher authority..we can guess, muse, suggest, extrapolate and conject whatever the 'expert told Mark it was legal.



Not.... actually EVERYBODY --HAS THE AUTHORITY and the RIGHT to call to question any inspectors decision.

Any warden, yes, they monitor this site, or any member of the public can call an inspector into question and make a complaint which has to be investigated. Compulsory Inspectors are not the final authority, never have been and never will be. Province of BC has the right and is expected to overide an employee or gov't contractors incorrect submission any time a mistake is brought to their attention..

I mean really, if a gov't contractor built a bridge and some inspector gave it the green light, signed off on it and a day later a member of the public noticed a glaring flaw in its construction that made it unsafe so he reports it to the ministry of hwy's, would you prefer them to leave it unsafe because it was signed off/inspected by someone who dosen't know their job. Everybody makes mistakes and thankfully the gov't has the ability to and is expected to correct bad decisions be it highways, hospitals or hunting or anything else, they rely heavily on the general publics right to point flaws and mistakes out.

dukester
09-27-2008, 07:55 PM
Not.... actually EVERYBODY --HAS THE AUTHORITY and the RIGHT to call to question any inspectors decision.

Any warden, yes, they monitor this site, or any member of the public can call an inspector into question and make a complaint which has to be investigated. Compulsory Inspectors are not the final authority, never have been and never will be. Province of BC has the right and is expected to overide an employee or gov't contractors incorrect submission any time a mistake is brought to their attention..

I mean really, if a gov't contractor built a bridge and some inspector gave it the green light, signed off on it and a day later a member of the public noticed a glaring flaw in its construction that made it unsafe so he reports it to the ministry of hwy's, would you prefer them to leave it unsafe because it was signed off/inspected by someone who dosen't know their job. Everybody makes mistakes and thankfully the gov't has the ability to and is expected to correct bad decisions be it highways, hospitals or hunting or anything else, they rely heavily on the general publics right to point flaws and mistakes out.

So why not plead not guilty till a biologist can properly age the ram by molar aging???.. can this be done???

Stone Sheep Steve
09-27-2008, 08:20 PM
I can't see reinspection for the last 10 years happening. Too much cost for too little gain.:o


Not to mention that sheep horns shrink over time. Rams that were "squeakers" when inspected may have shrunk in the "illegal" relm....not to mention that bridges of the nose are cut off by taxidermists. Rams horns can be mounted at slightly different angles....

If aging is the only issue then I guess sheep don't get any younger(or older) over time.

SSS

srupp
09-27-2008, 08:21 PM
Oscar , yes you are right...I stand corrected....anyone can make a complaint..and usually our system is 'complaint driven" and once a complaint is recieved they are obligated to do a review..it could be a simple call to the original inspector and ask if he stands behind the first inspection #'s or it may involve a re-inspection as done in this case.

I dont fault the re-inspection...and no the first inspector did not pull the trigger...

I just KNOW that for the MOE or conservation officers to get to the bottom of this they also have rules to follow and specific protocalls on how to effect a proper and legal re-inspection so as not to bring "the system into disrepute" and allow the Hunter to have the whole "case " tossed out on improper handling of the case.

There are rules for everything .I believe there SHOULD be penalties for shooting a "illegal ram" period.

However I also feel that IF the c.o's or Province or MOE wanted to go as far as re-inspection they MUST do soin a certain manner following a written set of guidlines...as a 4 decade government worker I know each and every situation has written guidlines that need to be followed.To do so jeapordizes the case before the judge IF it could be shown correct procedures were NOT followed.

Everyone is INNOCENT untill proven guilty, when the request came in for a second inspection the ram and Mark had correctly complied with the original requirments and had passed inspection..and because of this had now CEASED being property of the Province of BC and LEGALLY belonged to MARK. That is legislation. Also when the request came in the onus was on the CROWN ie PROVINCE to establish an offense had occurred..so far no offense had occured BECAUSE the original inspector passed the ram...

My objection is not that somebody called the CO'S or MOE or Province and complained...yes OSCAR everyone has that ability ..its WHO called MARK and requested the second inspection .."joe citizen' from some hunting website suggesting he get it re-evaluated carries NO obligation for Mark to do so.. and the CO'S know it as does MOE and the Province..and when Mark did not re-submit it after an average public memeber suggested he do so this carries no penalty or even the suggestion of one.

It is ONLY after a recognized individual with the authority and mandate to do so makes the request does it carry any potential for penalty for non compliance.

I was hearing lots of " because Mark didnt listen to me or us or to suggestions" he had NO legal obligation to as he had already complied with the requirements in FULL. PERIOD.The suggestions that beacuse he didnt listen to a couple of nameless , faceless public individuals he SHOULD face greater penalties is beyond absurbd..

Mark was wrong period.He must face some sort of a penalty for his underage sheep.But my problem is the suggestion this penalty may be increased or made more severe because FRED or Suzie SUGGESTED HE have the ram re-examined is beyond belief.He may well have decided to..maybe just not IMMEDIATLY like some demanded..but even IF he decided heck I had it inspected once and it passed, we RELY on these EXPERTS and MARK RELIED on the original inspector to have the experience and skills and authority to honestly evaluate the ram.Im sure Mark had no relationship with the inspector..not his cousin or uncle or ???so had no advantage..he had every right to believe the inspectors findings and to believe the inspector over ANY names or nameless faces off this or any other website.

I just hope calmer gentler heads prevail ..

steven

BCBear
09-27-2008, 10:12 PM
Lots of guys here talking like there shyte don't stink. Hope your happy.

Shooter
09-28-2008, 04:53 AM
So if I tell Willy442 I think he needs to get some of his trophy's reinspected does he have to do it?

Gateholio
09-28-2008, 11:14 AM
So if I tell Willy442 I think he needs to get some of his trophy's reinspected does he have to do it?

I realize you are being sarcastic, but that sums up srupp's point...

Until mark4 was officially contacted by the MOE, he wasn't under any obligation to re inspect it, nor should he be further penalized for not taking it for re inspection, simply because HBC Member XXXX told him to.

srupp
09-28-2008, 12:08 PM
GEEZE Gate you can say in a few words what takes me pages..lol:tongue:

oh well Im outta here MOOSE HUNTING for 2 weeks in the AM..

as old Jimmy Durante would say.."Goodnight Mrs MCgillicutty wherever you are"..lol


cya

Steven

BCrams
09-28-2008, 12:14 PM
So if I tell Willy442 I think he needs to get some of his trophy's reinspected does he have to do it?

I did my best to stay out of the thread.

The bottom line:

Once the picture was posted, many people knew right away the ram was not legal (myself included). No matter what the CI said, it is still an illegal ram and the judgement when pulling the trigger rested on Marks shoulders.
Mark did not have to resubmit his ram at all unless requested by the MOE / CO's.
I do know people were in the loop and perhaps were not 'ordering' him to resubmit, but rather trying to 'help' out a fellow hunter that it would be 'wise' to perhaps question the CI's judgement and go forth himself to the MOE / CO's with the ram and say......... "Hey, I think I may have messed up....and the CI really messed it up further calling this a legal ram because there are a bunch of experienced guys saying otherwise......what do you figure?" ........Which would have turned out much better for him vs waiting for them to pursue him.
Then again - he didn't have to and just let it slide and went with the CI's judgement.

burger
09-28-2008, 01:04 PM
I did my best to stay out of the thread.

The bottom line:

Once the picture was posted, many people knew right away the ram was not legal (myself included). No matter what the CI said, it is still an illegal ram and the judgement when pulling the trigger rested on Marks shoulders.Mark did not have to resubmit his ram at all unless requested by the MOE / CO's.

I do know people were in the loop and perhaps were not 'ordering' him to resubmit, but rather trying to 'help' out a fellow hunter that it would be 'wise' to perhaps question the CI's judgement and go forth himself to the MOE / CO's with the ram and say......... "Hey, I think I may have messed up....and the CI really messed it up further calling this a legal ram because there are a bunch of experienced guys saying otherwise......what do you figure?" ........Which would have turned out much better for him vs waiting for them to pursue him.Then again - he didn't have to and just let it slide and went with the CI's judgement.


Why should/could it turn out better for him rather than waiting for the CO's to pursue him. He's being asked/told to resubmit by people that it would seem are knowledgable but on the other hand have no certification whatsoever from the government.

I would like to have read the PM's from people to actually see how the "suggestion" was worded. By the way willy comes off he was not "suggesting" anything but quite the opposite. He tellls us of how he was asked by the authorities to tell him to reinspect the ram. No suggesting there. Post #133

I still find it so hard to believe that the CO's/MOE would have gone through such bad protocal moves to potentially taint a case.


Maybe Mark4 could shed some light on how he was "suggested" to reinspect.

mark
09-28-2008, 01:22 PM
I did my best to stay out of the thread.

The bottom line:
Once the picture was posted, many people knew right away the ram was not legal (myself included). No matter what the CI said, it is still an illegal ram and the judgement when pulling the trigger rested on Marks shoulders.
Mark did not have to resubmit his ram at all unless requested by the MOE / CO's.
I do know people were in the loop and perhaps were not 'ordering' him to resubmit, but rather trying to 'help' out a fellow hunter that it would be 'wise' to perhaps question the CI's judgement and go forth himself to the MOE / CO's with the ram and say......... "Hey, I think I may have messed up....and the CI really messed it up further calling this a legal ram because there are a bunch of experienced guys saying otherwise......what do you figure?" ........Which would have turned out much better for him vs waiting for them to pursue him. Then again - he didn't have to and just let it slide and went with the CI's judgement.

I think your suggestion just pushes ethics one step to far!
If I shot a ram I believed was legal, then the CI guy also claimed it to be legal and plugged it, I certainly wouldnt go out of my way to have it reinspected again just because a bunch of internet guys are screaming illegal from a picture!
Once CI'd and plugged that would be the end of it IMO. I feel his situaton is an unfortunate one and hope his penalty is very light for this mistake!

Kody94
09-28-2008, 01:24 PM
My humble opinions on the situation:

1. The sheep was illegal the instant Mark4's bullet killed it, and never became legal at any point after that.

2. The CI's mistaken assessment of legality in no way mitigates the act of taking an illegal ram, nor does it make the CI culpable of anything but making a rather serious mistake in the completion of his duties.

3. After receiving a positive inspection, Mark4 was under no obligation to take his ram in for a second inspection, despite receiving advise to do so by anonymous individuals from the world-wide-web.

4. The individuals that reported the ram and hunter to the authorities, based on the compelling pictorial evidence provided on this site, had every right to do so. In fact, they should have done it and no-one should hold it against them. For the record, I did not report it, but the fact that I felt I did not have the time or energy to get involved is not something I should be particularly proud of. Wildlife infractions are a big deal and all of us should make it a priority to do our part to deal with them.

5. CO's had more than enough "just cause" to follow up on any complaints arrising from #4 above, simply based on the pictures posted here. In other words, those complaints were obviously not "frivolous".

6. The fact that Mark4 had received a positive inspection the first time, and had no obligation to have it re-inspected is plenty of evidence in my mind to mitigate the fact that he did not "self report" after the fact. The additional evidence provided on this website of his honesty and lack of "criminal intent" should also be very favorable to his case. As a result, I feel that it should be treated as though the ram was identified as illegal on the first inspection. I do not think additional sanctions due to subsequent events would be warranted at all. Forfieture of the trophy and a modest fine is probably enough. In consideration of all the above, and provided that he has no other infractions on his record, I feel that loss of hunting priveleges (rights!) would be excessive in this case.

All of the above assumes that there was no chicanery taking place during the first inspection. I have no reason to believe there was, and in fact, I feel strongly the opposite as I probably know the inspector involved. That being said, one must consider the situation in light of the possibility. What if the inspector had been "nice" to the hunter because they were friends? What if the inspector had accepted a bribe in order to deem the sheep legal? Would those of you who feel that the act of being deemed legal by an inspector made the ram legal, still feel it was a legal ram at that point? The hunters culpability in the act of taking an illegal ram should not be influenced in any way by the result of the inspection. The evidence may mitigate a penalty in some way, but not culpability.

And whole concept of "double jeopardy" on a sheep inspection is rediculous IMHO. The ram is what it is, inspections notwithstanding. There is a natural "statute of limitations" in effect for assessment of full curl (due to shrinkage or removal of the bridge of the nose during taxidermy work etc) of course, but nothing makes an illegal ram legal in my book.

Cheers
4ster

mark
09-28-2008, 01:33 PM
My humble opinions on the situation:


All of the above assumes that there was no chicanery taking place during the first inspection. I have no reason to believe there was, and in fact, I feel strongly the opposite as I probably know the inspector involved. That being said, one must consider the situation in light of the possibility. What if the inspector had been "nice" to the hunter because they were friends? What if the inspector had accepted a bribe in order to deem the sheep legal? Would those of you who feel that the act of being deemed legal by an inspector made the ram legal, still feel it was a legal ram at that point? The whole concept of "double jeopardy" on a sheep inspection is rediculous IMHO. The ram is what it is, inspections notwithstanding.

Cheers
4ster


Dude, I aggree with the other stuff you said, but I think you can rule out this paragraph as if there was ever a doubt in Mark4's mind he wouldnt of put pics on the web now would he!
Had he never heard of HBC he might have a ram at the taxi shop right now! :sad:

Kody94
09-28-2008, 01:38 PM
Dude, I aggree with the other stuff you said, but I think you can rule out this paragraph as if there was ever a doubt in Mark4's mind he wouldnt of put pics on the web now would he!
Had he never heard of HBC he might have a ram at the taxi shop right now! :sad:

Dude, to be very clear, please note my thoughts on this situation which I spelled out in that same paragraph (that I feel strongly that there was NO chicanery involved)!!

IMHO though, you have to assess the situation in light of that possibility, because the rules that will apply are applicable in either case. In otherwords, if the inspector had let Mark4 of the hook because he liked him, that shouldn't make Mark4's act any less illegal. Ergo, the inspection in and of itself does not make the ram legal.

That's the only point I was trying to make in that paragraph. People have to think of that possibility when determining what the rules should be.

BCrams
09-28-2008, 01:49 PM
Dude, I aggree with the other stuff you said, but I think you can rule out this paragraph as if there was ever a doubt in Mark4's mind he wouldnt of put pics on the web now would he!
Had he never heard of HBC he might have a ram at the taxi shop right now! :sad:

An illegal ram at that.

I know right now you'd be pissed if you had that knowledge it was illegal. But maybe you'd be the type to go, "shhhhhhh"

Kody94
09-28-2008, 01:55 PM
And the truth is, I know a few taxidermists that would have refused to take that ram...whether it was plugged or not. They would not have wanted to have their name associated with working on it and not reporting it.

guest
09-28-2008, 02:11 PM
MODERATORS !!
Jump in here and lock this thing off, talk about bla bla bla !!
Enough already, lessons have been learned ...... in many ways.
Shut this thread down, it's taking up space !
C/T

Gateholio
09-28-2008, 02:30 PM
MODERATORS !!
Jump in here and lock this thing off, talk about bla bla bla !!
Enough already, lessons have been learned ...... in many ways.
Shut this thread down, it's taking up space !
C/T

Nobody has really broken any rules, although it is getting a bit repetitive. :)

huntcoop
09-28-2008, 03:54 PM
MODERATORS !!
Jump in here and lock this thing off, talk about bla bla bla !!
Enough already, lessons have been learned ...... in many ways.
Shut this thread down, it's taking up space !
C/T

Read the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

guest
09-28-2008, 08:37 PM
What ever ....
this has been beat to death ....I like many am finally done with it.
C/T

huntcoop
09-28-2008, 09:09 PM
What ever ....
this has been beat to death ....I like many am finally done with it.
C/T

If I was "done with it" I wouldn't keep reading it...:lol:

bonecracker
09-28-2008, 10:39 PM
I am a long time lurker that finally found something that i believe is worth posting on.

Mark4; if you're still reading this post, which i can't believe has gone this far in the time it took for my weekend elk trip, good on you for doing what you did.

In my books you did something right to fix a wrong. You post pics of your animal that you worked hard for, thinking it was legal, and get grief. You post that you did the right thing by having it reinspected and get grief. Makes me glad to be a lurker.

Karma works in funny ways and you're probably owed some by righting a wrong. I hope all works out for you.

hunter1947
10-11-2008, 08:19 AM
Good for you Mark4 for telling the people on this forum about your misshape.

I have always said to myself if I ever shot a illegal bull elk I would call the CO so that elk would not go to waist.

It takes a real man to admit and tell the story in open ,,next time you will find one that will be legal ,good luck with the charges.

steel_ram
10-11-2008, 12:25 PM
Read the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

U'm . . . we're still flying the maple leaf here.

huntcoop
10-11-2008, 12:54 PM
U'm . . . we're still flying the maple leaf here.


Sooo, that means we have no free speech? So typical, some people wouldn't say shoit, even if they had a mouthful of it.

1899
10-11-2008, 01:34 PM
Actually there is a Canadian Bill of Rights and section 1 reads:

1. It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law; (b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law; (c) freedom of religion; (d) freedom of speech; (e) freedom of assembly and of association; and (f) freedom of the press.
The Charter pretty much replaced it in 1982 by the Charter, although the former has not been repealed.

BiG Boar
01-15-2009, 10:20 AM
I am curious to know what happened in the end? Sheep taken? Charged? Jail? What you did to try to make a difference in the community of sheep hunters? Any education seminars or anything? Are you able to go for a cranker this year?

.264 Win Mag
01-16-2009, 11:42 PM
I feel bad for Mark (Corb) on this one. I agree that if willy442 (or anyone else on here) told me to get a head reinspected that was already deemed legal, I to would tell them to pound sand. If the CO wanted him to resubmitt the ram so bad, they are the ones that need to be sure they are doing so 100% legal (via regesterd letters and such). In fact i think that the CO urging willy442 to get Mark to reinspect the ram is a joke. If they wanted it done THEY not tom dick or harry NEED to be the ones to tell him. Mark I would get a laywer and not just take any punishment they dish out to try and make you an example. I think that you made an error but they did as well. Oh and by the way I think the CO urging another member on here to get you to reinspect a ram is pretty underhanded and very disapointing to hear (as quoted from willy442 Some of us were asked to approach Mark through this site to have him do so.) The amount of backlash to the snitches that squeeled on him does not surprise me as I don't know many people that like RATS. I have knowen a few over the years and most where more dispicable than the people they where snitching on.

Deaddog
01-17-2009, 08:52 AM
The WSS (www.wildsheepsociety.org (http://www.wildsheepsociety.org)) is hosting two scoring clinics at the AGM in kamloops this year, for those unsure about aging sheep it may be a good opportunity to enhance your knowledge

eastkoot
01-17-2009, 01:24 PM
I can't help but think of the Ikea add where the woman comes out of the store and begins to walk faster yelling at hubby "start the car, start the car" cause she thinks she's got away with something... Only this time,Willy wanna be checks her receipt in the parking lot cause he thinks he can has nothing better to do in his spare time!!!

mark4
01-17-2009, 05:58 PM
Hello guy's- Well what can I say ?? The whole thing was a friggen nightmare to say the least but In all reality it could have been much worse. I did lose the ram which for me was very disappointing- It was still a trophy in my mind. As it turned out - I did not get charged with any wildlife offences, and I never have been, and I never intend to lol.I could have taken my case to court to fight the seizure of the ram but since the ram IS underage I didn't feel I had a leg to stand on really- plus I don't want to be on any local CO'S hit list lol - I felt the right thing to do was simply own up to what happenned and not waste the courts time and money on me trying to keep an underage ram. The topic is still a sore one for me because I made the mistake- nobody else to blame but myself. I have since studied sheep horns as much as possible- and I hope that other new sheep hunters will have a thorough understanding of all the ins and outs of sheep horns before they pull the trigger. There is a lot more to it than just counting rings, overall mass etc... brooming and length all come into play. Be very careful about it - as even the inspector thought this one was legal - as did I. Hindsight being 20/20 there is no doubt the ram is underage- a crying shame forsure and something I am still upset about. I love sheep hunting and will continue to hunt them as much as I can - even if I don't get one for the next 20 years I will still be out there giving it a go. As some of you already know- there is NOTHING like a good sheep hunt, miles away from civilization, glassing the mountains, taking in the scenery. I have no resentment or bitterness to willy442 or anyone else who noticed that it was underage- the fact is that - it was. I think the big thing- is to recognize an honest mistake from an intentional poaching offence. These particular CO'S did just that. I am not just saying this- I truly feel that the CO'S handled it very proffessionally the entire time, they were very understanding and respectful towards me- They really deserve a pat on the back for the way they dealt with the entire issue. Hopefully what happenned to me can be prevented in the future- Thanks to all who gave me support and understanding- you are the true BC hunters that I love to be associated with.

Will
01-17-2009, 06:05 PM
Hopefully what happenned to me can be prevented in the future- Thanks to all who gave me support and understanding- you are the true BC hunters that I love to be associated with.
100% stand up guy right there ! :smile:

Remmy
01-17-2009, 07:25 PM
I agree, a true sportsman that made a mistake. I think everyone has to look in thier own back yard, we all mke mistakes!!!

.264 Win Mag
01-17-2009, 11:54 PM
If no charges were laid then good on the CO's for being like Mark and doing the right thing themselves!! I feel that they handled the problem very well from there side!! Even though it sounds like this was a horror show to go through from the begining (for both parties) it is nice to see it resolved in a matter that makes both sides look like they took the high moral ground!! Good on the CO's!! and best of luck bagging a big ram in the future mark!! Nice to see a good out come from a terrible situation and hopefully everyone (on both sides) learned something from this situation and measures will be put in place to prevent this from happening again.

BCRiverBoater
01-18-2009, 12:25 AM
Thanks Mark. Hold your head high. Most people would not have done what you did. Your name is clear so go kill a big ram and show it proudly.

PGK
01-18-2009, 12:29 AM
Good to hear they didn't charge you

kyleklassen
01-18-2009, 12:49 AM
didn't a sportsman push a hit fawn too fast on texada and admitted to it and everyone jumped all over him. the only difference i see is that this one was recovered. and good on him for turnin' it in. all novice sheep hunters (me included) can learn from the mistake. i've had a few run in's with b.c.'s finiest my self. c.o's are not always right but sometimes it is cheaper to say they are. instead of going to 100 mile house from the island to fight a b.s. 115$ trespass ticket.i'm not proud of it just stating a fact.

bsa30-06
01-18-2009, 11:10 AM
Sounds like everything worked out the best it could for both sides...Glad there were no charges laid, best of luck on a future sheep hunt.

Mr. Dean
01-18-2009, 11:27 AM
I am REAL glad to hear how this was handled AND the outcome of it all.... I was expecting the worse.

Good luck, Mark4, on your next quest!

Brambles
01-18-2009, 12:26 PM
Glad to hear it all sorted out, good resolve and thanks for updating us. Fantastic lesson learned by many who read this whole ordeal.

budismyhorse
01-18-2009, 01:24 PM
good to hear Corb, thanks for posting up, Classy act. good on ya.

not surprising to hear the local CO's handled it well, they are a good bunch.

good luck next year bud!

dutchie
04-03-2009, 09:59 AM
I know this post was from a while ago and i just read through all the posts from both threads and I have to say that This guy is a stand up man.

I have learned alot from all of your experiances but aside from Marc you are probably one of the most honorable people here on HBC.

I really applode you for being a man and facing the fire and doing the right thing. Hunters like your self are very few and far between and I can only hope that I would be able to step up to the plate and do the same thing you have dome if somthing like this every was to happen to myself. (never planning on it but IF the situation ever does rear it ugly head)

I am also glad to hear that you have all of your hunting privaligies and only had the cape taken away (when much worst was possible and you STILL did the right thing). Goes back to Karma!

I salute you!

dutchie