historic sheep harvest in 7b

[snareman1234]

I enjoyed seeing the data bridger, neat to see, thanks

[Whisky Creek]

Bridger,

No, I'm not in a bad mood, just sick of the greedy mindset (and both sides are a fault at some point) and the fact that some of us continue to lend support to the flawed gov't kill policy (ooops, I mean allocation policy) by way of demanding that we kill every animal allocated or be penalized. Where does wildlife conservation come into that??????

Yes I agree, the gov't flawed in the fundamental designs of a policy that basically forces both sides to kill everything they are allocated or risk losing some of it. Why, then, do we not spend our energy on this issue instead of giving it credibility by turning it into a "guides / residents" fight over how much each gets to kill? And say what you will R, but I have a hard time accepting that you've provided the data for interest sake only and not for a little bit of renewed fear mongering. You are right, I have the option of not reading the posts, but it bothers me that "resident representatives" so often use only certain numbers, incomplete information and at times misinformation to get uninformed people worked up and on the bandwagon. Such a waste of energy and it just aint right.

Bottom line is, who cares how much each side gets (on paper), when nobody is meeting their allocation?????? It really ticks me off when I hear of people claiming to represent "resident hunters" asking / demanding for things like being able to kill two sheep in a year to achieve resident harvest allocation. Or, asking / demanding for an early sheep season to be able to hunt sheep a week or so before the outfitters are allowed to hunt in order to beat them to the rams. Or, asking / demanding for the horn curl restrictions to be dropped in order to be able to take more rams.
This all points to greed and whining and conservation seems to be nowhere in the picture. These resident "representatives" certainly do not represent my interests nor the interests of the sheep.
To your statement that "resident sheep hunters would support resident priority", of course, no argument here. But, I'd take the bet of my saddle horse against yours that if many of these resident sheep hunters had the opportunity to sit in on some of the meetings of committees and stakeholder working groups and hear what comes from the mouths of some of their so called "resident hunter representatives", they would be equally disgusted...

CLINT

[bridger]

you seem to have info I am not privy too. for instance i am not aware of any request from the bcwf to increase the bag limit to two rams per year. where did that come from? secondly the allocated annual allowable harvest is just that. it is the number of rams that moe managers feel can be taken out of the population with no effect on sustainability. Acheiving the annual allowable harvest by either residency group or both will not have an adverse effect on the sheep population. As far as transferring harvest share from one group to another in the event one group does not acheive their harvest is merely a mechanism of fairness to to kill every sheep. you seem to be passionate about this issue which is good. maybe you should take some time and get your facts straight before firing broadsides that are off target.

I also am unaware of any bcwf request to do away with horn curl requirements. where did that come from.

[GoatGuy]

Bridger,

No, I'm not in a bad mood, just sick of the greedy mindset (and both sides are a fault at some point) and the fact that some of us continue to lend support to the flawed gov't kill policy (ooops, I mean allocation policy) by way of demanding that we kill every animal allocated or be penalized. Where does wildlife conservation come into that??????

Yes I agree, the gov't flawed in the fundamental designs of a policy that basically forces both sides to kill everything they are allocated or risk losing some of it. Why, then, do we not spend our energy on this issue instead of giving it credibility by turning it into a "guides / residents" fight over how much each gets to kill? And say what you will R, but I have a hard time accepting that you've provided the data for interest sake only and not for a little bit of renewed fear mongering. You are right, I have the option of not reading the posts, but it bothers me that "resident representatives" so often use only certain numbers, incomplete information and at times misinformation to get uninformed people worked up and on the bandwagon. Such a waste of energy and it just aint right.

Bottom line is, who cares how much each side gets (on paper), when nobody is meeting their allocation?????? It really ticks me off when I hear of people claiming to represent "resident hunters" asking / demanding for things like being able to kill two sheep in a year to achieve resident harvest allocation. Or, asking / demanding for an early sheep season to be able to hunt sheep a week or so before the outfitters are allowed to hunt in order to beat them to the rams. Or, asking / demanding for the horn curl restrictions to be dropped in order to be able to take more rams.
This all points to greed and whining and conservation seems to be nowhere in the picture. These resident "representatives" certainly do not represent my interests nor the interests of the sheep.
To your statement that "resident sheep hunters would support resident priority", of course, no argument here. But, I'd take the bet of my saddle horse against yours that if many of these resident sheep hunters had the opportunity to sit in on some of the meetings of committees and stakeholder working groups and hear what comes from the mouths of some of their so called "resident hunter representatives", they would be equally disgusted...

CLINT

The AAH is how many rams can be harvested. It could be under any number of harvest strategies. The season length, timing, horn curl etc wouldn't matter - the AAH is the sustainable number that falls out of that harvest strategy.

How those rams are harvested is what falls out of the other end. Whether residents get to hunt them or outfitters sell them is the 'argument' side, the harvest side is already calculated.

[mfarrally]

[QUOTE=t.

I also am unaware of any bcwf request to do away with horn curl requirements. where did that come from.[/QUOTE]



Ya i was unaware that some people think that they should be able to shoot two rams a year and also wack a couple dinky little rams.

[BCrams]

[quote=Whisky Creek;844115]

No, I'm not in a bad mood, just sick of the greedy mindset (and both sides are a fault at some point) and the fact that some of us continue to lend support to the flawed gov't kill policy (ooops, I mean allocation policy) by way of demanding that we kill every animal allocated or be penalized. Where does wildlife conservation come into that??????

Its my understanding a policy was agreed upon, in which BCWF on behalf of all residents and GO's agreed to. BCWF and residents gave a little and thought it was all fair......

Sounds good right......oh no

Want to guess who started up backroom deals, who wanted to try and get out of the agreed policy, are appealing quotas into court, pushing for stricter regulations etc. Clint - you get an A+ if you guessed GO's and GOABC.

Residents were blind sided and consequenly had to do something. Something you might want to question

Yes I agree, the gov't flawed in the fundamental designs of a policy that basically forces both sides to kill everything they are allocated or risk losing some of it.

GO's typically fill their quota's (usually without too much difficulty) over resident hunters. GO's don't have the restrictions like residents do. It seems a bit backwards given resident priority should occur don't you?

Why, then, do we not spend our energy on this issue instead of giving it credibility by turning it into a "guides / residents" fight over how much each gets to kill?

GOABC started it. Residents didn't. My understanding is BCWF and residents were happy with the policy ....... what has happened (which has resulted in the guide - resident bickering the last couple years) is the GO's pulled the first punch and a blind sided one at that. IF GOABC were on board from the beginning with the policy.....there probably would be no bickering right now

And say what you will R, but I have a hard time accepting that you've provided the data for interest sake only and not for a little bit of renewed fear mongering.

Information is great and the more information residents have, the better they are informed of whats going on.

You are right, I have the option of not reading the posts, but it bothers me that so called "resident representatives" so often use only certain numbers, incomplete information and at times misinformation to get uninformed people worked up and on the bandwagon. Such a waste of energy and it just aint right.

I don't agree with you. Many posts you don't bother to read are factual. When it comes down to it .... none of this shi$t would be happening if the GOABC would just get on board as agreed.......what bothers me is you're a little one sided and it speaks volumes of who's side you're on.

Sounds like a lot of Bull Shit being fed to you by your GO friends (or you're one already) -- such as taking 2 sheep....come on.

Bottom line is, who cares how much each side gets (on paper), when nobody is meeting their allocation??????

Regarding region 6. It does matter.....even if no one is meeting their "allocation". Harvest for sheep is what? Supposed to be 60/40 for residents? Without GO's even having met their 'allocation' - they're still shooting greater percentage of rams over residents. If an outfitter has 10 ram quota but on average shoots 3-4 rams ... don't you think there's something funny going on? And it isn't that he's being conservative .... thats all he probably knows he can find and shoot!! Hence proposals such as an earlier opening which might allow a resident to harvest one or two of those 4 rams usually available!!! Which could bring the quota share closer to 60/40

So tell me Clint ... there's 4 rams to be taken and you're given the task to divy up the 60/40 resident priority .... How many do the residents get to shoot and how many do the GO's shoot? I don't care if you multiply those numbers but it just illustrates the 60 40 harvest. If the GO has been shooting those 4 ... before a resident has a chance ... what are you going to do to help residents achieve that harvest?

The system how the quotas work for sheep in region 6 is a bit of a joke. Its given outfits more sheep tags than rams even available to shoot! (LEH sheep tags are another).

Or, asking / demanding for an early sheep season to be able to hunt sheep a week or so before the outfitters are allowed to hunt in order to beat them to the rams.

Refer to the above several points and I am sure to be just scratching the surface.

But, I'd take the bet of my saddle horse against yours that if many of these resident sheep hunters had the opportunity to sit in on some of the meetings of committees and stakeholder working groups and hear what comes from the mouths of some of their so called "resident hunter representatives", they would be equally disgusted...

If only you could be a fly on the wall to really know what your GOABC friends are trying to pull over residents outside those meetings as well as within those committee and stakeholder working groups.

Residents have had to come out hard to fight back.

I think the majority of residents would be appalled if they knew a fraction of whats going on.

[Whisky Creek]

Bridger,
Pretty sure that I didn't use the term bcwf in any of my prior posts. You have both made that assumption. They are only one group who claim to speak for all residents hunters. There are others out there with the same claim. Neither of them speak for me and I'm a resident hunter......
How many hunting licenses were sold in 2010 and how many hunters does the bcwf and resident hunters of bc actually represent?
Point being, they don't speak for all resident hunters.
I think you know where the "two rams" idea came from. I was told that you were in that particular meeting, weren't you? I'll leave it at that. Thankfully the idea wasn't entertained and didn't fly far enough up the ladder to become a federation request.
As far as dropping the horn curl restriction, I've heard it requested to moe in a few meetings now, and from people tasked with representing both of the resident hunting groups at those meetings. Again, thankfully the idea hasn't become an official bcwf request to ministry.

BCRAms:
Yep, I do have a number of GO friends, all of them good people and all of them resident hunters as well. Remember, not all GO are members of GOABC either. I don't rely on second hand info when forming my own thoughts and opinions. I involve myself, sit in on the meetings and on committees and try to look at the big picture since I have connection to both sides. And no, I've never guided a day in my life, but spend most of the year as a resident hunter. So please don't tell me I'm "a little one sided and it speaks volumes of who's side you're on"........

CLINT

[BCrams]

Yep, I do have a number of GO friends, all of them good people and all of them resident hunters as well. Remember, not all GO are members of GOABC either. I don't rely on second hand info when forming my own thoughts and opinions. I involve myself, sit in on the meetings and on committees and try to look at the big picture since I have connection to both sides.

You then, should be quite familiar with the policy and "why" it has been such a struggle to see it implemented for 2012 ..... if you're informed as you are .... I am sure it doesn't take much for you to know which side is causing the trouble from the beginning

If you knew those facts, then I doubt your posts would have been as such.

[GoatGuy]

I think you know where the "two rams" idea came from. I was told that you were in that particular meeting, weren't you? I'll leave it at that. Thankfully the idea wasn't entertained and didn't fly far enough up the ladder to become a federation request.
As far as dropping the horn curl restriction, I've heard it requested to moe in a few meetings now, and from people tasked with representing both of the resident hunting groups at those meetings. Again, thankfully the idea hasn't become an official bcwf request to ministry.

CLINT

Let us back up.

I was under the impression your issue was with conservation?

You seem to be getting into the social side of things here.

[Whisky Creek]

Goat Guy:
You got the right impression(s). I am concerned with both. Often the "meat and potatoes" of the two go hand in hand.

BCRams:
Opinions vary of who is at fault, for causing the trouble, and you are entitled to yours. I didn't once say either side was correct in their actions, did I?
Ever dawn on you that maybe both have done and said some dumb things?? I'll hold off on discussing the particulars of what I think are the short comings of the outfitters and their association until I am speaking with them directly.