I’ve seen this ram. It’s unreasonable to say it isn’t legal. Poor kid is all I can say. Hopefully it doesn’t turn him off hunting.
Then the judge made his decision based on the evidence, fuddled by the fact the hunter didn't bring out a tooth 'to help prove his innocence'Mr. Jex looked at the horn increment length for the Crawford ram and other rams from the same MU 7 – 42. This was a CI dataset from 1975 – 2017 and involved in total 1,848 rams. Subsets were also compared involving rams taken from 7 – 42 harvested between 2007 – 2017 (368 rams) and rams identified as having either 7 or 9 annuli at the time of harvest (18 rams). These rams were noted by Mr. Jex as being included as part of the specific potential cohort of rams to which the Crawford ram belonged.
several graphs in Exhibit 8. The first graph was “Mean and Specific Inter-Annuli Horn Growth (i.e., proportional symmetry) Aligned by Age, Using CI Horn Data” The disputed measurements were removed, namely 0 - 1 years (lambs) and 1 – 2 years (yearlings). There was tight alignment revealed between the CI datasets and the Crawford ram CI data.
These results, if accepted, support Mr. Jex’s conclusions as reflecting the likely age of the Crawford ram as 7 at its death. In the Crown submission, the assertion that the Crawford ram was 9 years is said to be virtually impossible, the assertion that it was 8 years of age is improbable while the 7 year assessment meets entirely with expectations for a ram that age.
Last edited by boxhitch; 05-17-2019 at 07:59 AM.
Never say whoa in the middle of a mud hole
No, thats not really the case here
Upon examination, the Crawford ram was determined by the compulsory inspector not to have attained the age of 8 years. This remains the position of the Crown. As a consequence, the ram has not been returned to Mr. Crawford and this action was commenced. No prosecution was taken under the Act or Regulations. [11]
This application was commenced and the applicant seeks an order pursuant to s. 97.6(4)(a) of the Act that the Crawford ram be returned to him.
Never say whoa in the middle of a mud hole
It's an unfortunate event. The guy who shot the ram certainly shouldn't be looked at as a poacher. That's phuking stupid. We all agree there should be laws but don't realize the precarious nature of abiding by them or enforcing them. This is just an unfortunate event.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Collectivism is Slavery
Support a Woman's right to arm herself.
Jan 13th
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj9Pm8-tFuU
I have a Stone Ram in the man cave almost identical to this Ram in question. His right side Full curl past the nose. His left broomed heavy and well short. Compulsory inspection at 8.5 years. This Ram too i believe to be 8.5......but that said I too passed on many many Rams because of only counting 7. I wanted an obviously Legal Stone. The Anuli close to the skull can be very tough to see up close. Never mind out at distances 100 yards and more.
Tough call for the young hunter.......I think I would trust Giests opinion over many a many inspectors unfortunately. IMO the COs opinion shouldnt even come into play here. Hes not a biologist. Its not his specialty.
Many inspectors would say yes thats a 8.5 yr old Ram. Some not. Unfortunately.