Stone Sheep - Region 6 (Skeena)

[40incher]

Just thought I would throw this out there to see if I'm mistaken in my math ... ???

The Region 6 Stone Sheep "quota/allocation" for the guides is 148 rams per year according to the MFLNRO bureaucrats ... they can barely kill half their quota BTW ???

By doing the maxed-out "Thompson" math that would be 40% of the AAH even if we gave them that double-down.

So ... ??? ... I guess that also means that the AAH is 320 rams per year in Skeena, surpassing Region 7B by 70 rams per year, and the resident "allocation" would be 172 rams (at 60%)!!

Perhaps some of the other B.C. resident sheep hunters in-the-know out there can tell us if this is a realistic option ... I personally think not!!

We don't just have a problem with the Liberal politicians methinks ... it goes much deeper than that! Who is Thompson getting his info from?? Can their hired info-traitors be trusted as the "stewards of the resource" ... ??? Just a simple question ...

I think we have a real problem here!!

Let me know if I am wrong-minded here ...

[bridger]

Just thought I would throw this out there to see if I'm mistaken in my math ... ???

The Region 6 Stone Sheep "quota/allocation" for the guides is 148 rams per year according to the MFLNRO bureaucrats ... they can barely kill half their quota BTW ???

By doing the maxed-out "Thompson" math that would be 40% of the AAH even if we gave them that double-down.

So ... ??? ... I guess that also means that the AAH is 320 rams per year in Skeena, surpassing Region 7B by 70 rams per year, and the resident "allocation" would be 172 rams (at 60%)!!

Perhaps some of the other B.C. resident sheep hunters in-the-know out there can tell us if this is a realistic option ... I personally think not!!

We don't just have a problem with the Liberal politicians methinks ... it goes much deeper than that! Who is Thompson getting his info from?? Can their hired info-traitors be trusted as the "stewards of the resource" ... ??? Just a simple question ...

I think we have a real problem here!!

Let me know if I am wrong-minded here ...

Pretty much got it figured seems to me. The region 6 sheep allocation has been a gong show from day one.

[2chodi]

Region 6 was very reluctant to talk about an AAH for Stone's at all until recently, so it's interesting the number is now around 320, which is 70 more than the 250 AAH for 7B. The 250 number is very recent too, up from 228 in 2012 and 2013. I think the population estimates for region 6 and region 7B are are pretty much equal. It's all a bit of a mystery, especially when you add in the fact that the region 7B GOs had close to a 100% success rate on Stone's in 2014.

[bridger]

Region 6 scenario pretty simple in my opinion. Artificial AAH means inflated quotas=higher harvest by guide outfitters impacting resident opportunity. Same tune different dance.

[2chodi]

Region 6 scenario pretty simple in my opinion. Artificial AAH means inflated quotas=higher harvest by guide outfitters impacting resident opportunity. Same tune different dance.

That sure looks like the case in region 7B, but maybe the opposite happened in region 6 as they needed to come up with an AAH. The quota is X so the AAH has to be X/.4 (seems to be some math problems in the original post based on a 60/40 split) Both scenarios are problematic.

[bigdogeh]

seems obvious who Thompson gets his info from... certainly isn't listening to bcwf... but he's sure doing a great job looking after the fox that's "guarding" the henhouse...
stewards of the land... lol. more like stewards of taking a quick non-resident out of country buck at the residents expense.

[guest]

Just goes to show you how Government is screwing over the majority of its resident for a chosen few. People wonder why most guides are also keeping hush hush ...... If you were handed gold bars by government yet told to keep your mouth shut on how you got them, and there will be no legal action taken against you ...... Most would turn a blind eye , take them and say thanks, I'll come back for more later. I M O of coarse

[boxhitch]

The quotas in 6 are a result of a process that was set in motion by Gov't several years ago , that has run its coarse long enough to tip the scales to an extreme level in todays picture. A major adjustment is likely needed to meet any new policy and it may take time given the protection against hardships. It will play out.
or you can keep stressing about it ...........

[2chodi]

The quotas in 6 are a result of a process that was set in motion by Gov't several years ago , that has run its coarse long enough to tip the scales to an extreme level in todays picture. A major adjustment is likely needed to meet any new policy and it may take time given the protection against hardships. It will play out.
or you can keep stressing about it ...........

As of February 6: 6 North - Thin Horn Sheep - 60/40

The quota will be determined by the AAH and "hardship" provisions (not that it would have applied anyways) are out the window.

[boxhitch]

The old policy said quotas couldn't be reduced by more than 20% per year iirc? til they come inline proper.
Without that there will be some serious hits, not so bad for the ones that were not utilizing what they had.

[lange1212]

The scales are so bias and tilted towards Skeena Region Guides its ridiculous. When the total Skeena sheep harvest of residents and non residents combined has never come close to what's allocated to guides in the Skeena alone shouts a problem. In addition the Skeena Region simply does not have near the sheep population as in the Peace, very different winters, habitat, and much of the Skeena is coastal and not suitable for sheep.

The development and implementation for a population based sheep AH has been recommended by the Province, BCWF, and during the development of the Provincial sheep management plan, yet Region refuses to move on it. The only conclusion I can come to as to why Regional FLNRO refuses to implement a population based sheep AH is that the many of the mature rams allocated to guides simply don't exist and their quota has been grossly inflated over time, through the bogus "Skeena Formula".

If a true population based sheep AH was established and implemented I strongly suspect the GO allocation will be substantially cut back. From a Territory resale value perspective I think we can see why GO's would certainly not want to see a science based sheep AH put into place. From a wildlife management perspective territory resale value should have no bearing or influence on game management. Yet it appears to have a great influence over it. In the Skeena its an August race to get to the legal rams first in many areas, after August good luck finding a legal ram in those areas.

Resident have fought to improve their sheep harvest through FLNRO, and have issues with the inequity and hindering barriers placed on residents by GO's. They have repeatedly stated that they do not complete with resident sheep hunters, and target remote areas that few residents go to. This being the case a resident only pre season sheep hunt opportunity was proposed, with Skeena GO's adamantly opposed. One then has to question if GO's don't compete with residents, hunt remote areas inaccessible to residents, and the legal rams truly exist to support existing GO quota, why are they opposed to a resident only pre-season sheep hunt? I think readers can draw their own conclusion here.

A further point that substantiates Skeena GO's hinder resident sheep harvest and are over allocated is the fact the all time resident sheep harvest high in the Skeena was during the economic crisis when GO's simply could not sell and book sheep hunts to historic levels. The years where the non-resident sheep harvest was at a historic low, on the flip side rendered resident sheep harvest in the Skeena being at a historic high. I think everyone can connect the dots.

My perspective and opinion on the Skeena sheep issue.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

As of February 6: 6 North - Thin Horn Sheep - 60/40

The quota will be determined by the AAH and "hardship" provisions (not that it would have applied anyways) are out the window.

Other than the LEH for thinhorns, are they even obligated to manage at a 60/40 since the RM removed them from category A?

[2chodi]

Other than the LEH for thinhorns, are they even obligated to manage at a 60/40 since the RM removed them from category A?

I don't think the regional manager in 7B thinks he is obligated to do anything but what he wants. We asked where the 60/40 came from - he said it's what the allocation calculator came up with. When I asked how the GOs could possibly have achieved near 100% success rates in 2014 I was told that admin guidelines were brought back in 2013 to help the GOs achieve their allocation. The GOs had close to 50% of the harvest in 2014.

[Ambush]

Perhaps we should be having rallies and protests in front of some regional manager's offices.

I find it quite ridiculous when they ask for input from user grous and then, for no scientific reason, completely ignore that input.

I'm convinced the only reason they go through the bother is so they can say "..we consulted with all user groups..." "...and this is the result...".

[Stone Sheep Steve]

I don't think the regional manager in 7B thinks he is obligated to do anything but what he wants. We asked where the 60/40 came from - he said it's what the allocation calculator came up with. When I asked how the GOs could possibly have achieved near 100% success rates in 2014 I was told that admin guidelines were brought back in 2013 to help the GOs achieve their allocation. The GOs had close to 50% of the harvest in 2014.

Everyone knew this was coming from Addison since day one. It was just a matter of when. He's a lying mole.

SSS

[lange1212]

I think RM's on their own removed sheep as a category A species so the mismanagement and allocation of mature sheep to GO's that don't exist would not be exposed.

At least in R7 you now have a population based AH. If I recall correctly after that AH was established GO had their allocation reduced by 20%. They were also to reduce the Skeena GO allocation by 20%, however first increased it for most guides by 20% "Skeena model" then they reduced it after the fact so really no reduction at all. In the Skeena the sheep AH is managed with a cape and magic wand.

[40incher]

The old policy said quotas couldn't be reduced by more than 20% per year iirc? til they come inline proper. Without that there will be some serious hits, not so bad for the ones that were not utilizing what they had.


The fact that many Skeena guides aren't utilizing what they have for quota is because the rams don't exist in real life, only on paper. There is no "old" policy remember ... Thompson threw it out! I have no doubt that the lobbying has already begun to retrieve select parts of the 2007 policy that benefit the guides only.

The GOABC should be embarrassed by their disingenuous behaviour ... good luck with that one!

[Stone Sheep Steve]

The fact that many Skeena guides aren't utilizing what they have for quota is because the rams don't exist in real life, only on paper. There is no "old" policy remember ... Thompson threw it out! I have no doubt that the lobbying has already begun to retrieve select parts of the 2007 policy that benefit the guides only.

The GOABC should be embarrassed by their disingenuous behaviour ... good luck with that one!

Embarassment can only exist to those who have a conscience.

[Fisher-Dude]

Just thought I would throw this out there to see if I'm mistaken in my math ... ???

The Region 6 Stone Sheep "quota/allocation" for the guides is 148 rams per year according to the MFLNRO bureaucrats ... they can barely kill half their quota BTW ???

By doing the maxed-out "Thompson" math that would be 40% of the AAH even if we gave them that double-down.

So ... ??? ... I guess that also means that the AAH is 320 rams per year in Skeena, surpassing Region 7B by 70 rams per year, and the resident "allocation" would be 172 rams (at 60%)!!

Perhaps some of the other B.C. resident sheep hunters in-the-know out there can tell us if this is a realistic option ... I personally think not!!

We don't just have a problem with the Liberal politicians methinks ... it goes much deeper than that! Who is Thompson getting his info from?? Can their hired info-traitors be trusted as the "stewards of the resource" ... ??? Just a simple question ...

I think we have a real problem here!!

Let me know if I am wrong-minded here ...

Wow, crazy numbers!

Historical harvest (1976 to 2012) tells some interesting stories:

Average annual harvest is 107 rams (R + NR).

Most in any one year was 139 in 1993 (R + NR).

Average non-resident kill is 62% of all rams. So much for directives that were supposed to remove barriers to residents' ability to kill a priority share of sheep.

148 quota for foreigners? Where are these sheep supposed to come from?

[bigdogeh]

f'n unbelievable... yep, GOABC... stewards of the land... give me a break.
GOABC and the liberal government. such a perfect fit. foxes guarding the henhouse. sell it all...$$$.

[lange1212]

Wow, crazy numbers!

Historical harvest (1976 to 2012) tells some interesting stories:

Average annual harvest is 107 rams (R + NR).

Most in any one year was 139 in 1993 (R + NR).

Average non-resident kill is 62% of all rams. So much for directives that were supposed to remove barriers to residents' ability to kill a priority share of sheep.

148 quota for foreigners? Where are these sheep supposed to come from?

I answered that with my cape and magic wand response ;-)

[lange1212]

Coming up next, guide outfitter proposes to FLNRO to limit resident sheep hunters to only being permitted to harvest one sheep in a lifetime in the Tat.

No joke, actually has been formally submitted and to be considered. I suspect it will never see the light of day, but then again I thought the Province would also respect, follow, and adhere to the agreed to 2007 allocation policy and look at the direction that has gone.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Coming up next, guide outfitter proposes to FLNRO to limit resident sheep hunters to only being permitted to harvest one sheep in a lifetime in the Tat.

No joke, actually has been formally submitted and to be considered. I suspect it will never see the light of day, but then again I thought the Province would also respect, follow, and adhere to the agreed to 2007 allocation policy and look at the direction that has gone.

Thanks for the info. It's good to know what's on their wish list.

[bridger]

[QUOTE=lange1212;1619100]Coming up next, guide outfitter proposes to FLNRO to limit resident sheep hunters to only being permitted to harvest one sheep in a lifetime in the Tat.

No joke, actually has been formally submitted and to be considered. I suspect it will never see the light of day, but then again I thought the Province would also respect, follow, and adhere to the agreed to 2007 allocation policy and look at the direction that has gone.[/

time me to turn our attention to region 6 stones. Thomson says we are going to revisit 7b this fall. Need to expand that to 6 as well

[40incher]

Embarassment can only exist to those who have a conscience.


Gotta agree with that ... one can only hope the guides with a conscience and foresight start to speak up soon!!


Have some new stuff to post tomorrow that will show how bad it really is with sheep in R6 ...

[40incher]

Just in case there are any resident sheep hunters out there who think LEH is an option ... please read the following:

LEH for Stone Sheep was instituted in Region 6 for the Atlin, Spatsizi and Edziza herds many decades ago. It has been a great "success" ... for the guides that is!!!

Prior to LEH resident hunters used to harvest the majority of the rams taken. Since LEH ... not so much!

In Spatsizi the resident allocation is 11 rams per year, which equates to 55 rams over the past 5 year period (2010-2014). Over that period we took just 37 rams, only achieving the targeted allocation in 2013. Meanwhile, non-residents killed 38 rams, over 50% of the harvest.

In Edziza the resident allocation is 3 rams per year, which equates to 15 rams over the last 5 years. We took 4 rams during that period, while non-residents took 8 rams (over 66% of the kill). Resident hunters have only been allowed to take just under 27% of their 5-year allocation under LEH, compared to 80% for non-residents. Given the provision to overharvest in any given year that kill will likely climb to over 90%.

Despite chronic under-harvest the LEH system will not adapt, and thus ensure a continuation of this gross inequity. If ever allowed to be repeated in the GOS areas of Region 6 and Region 7 the results are predicable.

"Houston ...we have a problem!!!". In spades it seems!

[bridger]

Good info thanks for digging it up. Government needs to be taken to task for this.

[Fisher-Dude]

Once again, we see an example of resident hunters being slapped with barriers to achieving their share of allocation, while the commercial sector harvests their share plus a chunk of ours.

Government has been busy layering regulations and restrictions on residents, while the commercial side gets impunity from OVER harvesting. And to top it all off, we have some uninformed, ignorant hunters calling for more regulations and more restrictions on residents.

We have resident hunters listening to guys like MLA Mike Morris who says that more ATV restrictions should be put on residents, the residents who are already so regulated with short seasons and antler restrictions that they can't shoot their quota. Yeah, cutting out residents' access so that Morris' guide buddies can have areas all to themselves, with all the game that goes with it, is what it's really all about.

Wake up folks. We've been getting the dry broom handle from government, and it's getting worse.

Of course, this is just my opinion. Screen shot it, Scotty.

[boxhitch]

LEH for Stone Sheep was instituted in Region 6 for the Atlin, Spatsizi and Edziza herds many decades ago. Who sets the limits within those BC Parks ? May be different program than here in reg8.

[Brno22F]

Just in case there are any resident sheep hunters out there who think LEH is an option ... please read the following:

LEH for Stone Sheep was instituted in Region 6 for the Atlin, Spatsizi and Edziza herds many decades ago. It has been a great "success" ... for the guides that is!!!

Prior to LEH resident hunters used to harvest the majority of the rams taken. Since LEH ... not so much!

In Spatsizi the resident allocation is 11 rams per year, which equates to 55 rams over the past 5 year period (2010-2014). Over that period we took just 37 rams, only achieving the targeted allocation in 2013. Meanwhile, non-residents killed 38 rams, over 50% of the harvest.

In Edziza the resident allocation is 3 rams per year, which equates to 15 rams over the last 5 years. We took 4 rams during that period, while non-residents took 8 rams (over 66% of the kill). Resident hunters have only been allowed to take just under 27% of their 5-year allocation under LEH, compared to 80% for non-residents. Given the provision to overharvest in any given year that kill will likely climb to over 90%.

Despite chronic under-harvest the LEH system will not adapt, and thus ensure a continuation of this gross inequity. If ever allowed to be repeated in the GOS areas of Region 6 and Region 7 the results are predicable.

"Houston ...we have a problem!!!". In spades it seems!

My mind is getting a bit muddled with all the numbers being presented. Probably because the allocation issue as I have come to understand it, is about the number of authorizations being given to guide outfitters versus resident hunters. When numbers of the actual kill are presented, it is no surprise to me that guides take a greater percentage in Region 6. However, if we look at the number of authorizations in Spatsizi as presented in the 2014/2015 LEH synopsis on page 12, we clearly see that we resident hunters have been provided with 110 authorizations. In Edziza, we resident hunters have been afforded 12 authorizations. I have no idea what the actual number of authorizations available for Guide Outfitters is in either of these 2 areas.
So I ask, "Is the allocation issue about how many sheep are killed proportionately between resident and non resident hunters or is it about hunting opportunity for residents in relation to non residents?"

[Fisher-Dude]

My mind is getting a bit muddled with all the numbers being presented. Probably because the allocation issue as I have come to understand it, is about the number of authorizations being given to guide outfitters versus resident hunters. When numbers of the actual kill are presented, it is no surprise to me that guides take a greater percentage in Region 6. However, if we look at the number of authorizations in Spatsizi as presented in the 2014/2015 LEH synopsis on page 12, we clearly see that we resident hunters have been provided with 110 authorizations. In Edziza, we resident hunters have been afforded 12 authorizations. I have no idea what the actual number of authorizations available for Guide Outfitters is in either of these 2 areas.
So I ask, "Is the allocation issue about how many sheep are killed proportionately between resident and non resident hunters or is it about hunting opportunity for residents in relation to non residents?"

The part you're missing in the relationship comparison of harvest and allocations is that resident hunters have not been afforded enough opportunity to harvest their allocation.

Short seasons, insufficient LEH authorizations, access restrictions, and antler restrictions all play a part. Government was supposed to remove the barriers that residents face (as promised by Minister Barry Penner in 2010, see 3rd paragraph in the attached letter) but that hasn't happened.

Instead, residents have had more restrictions placed on them, not to mention the lie from Penner that the 2007 Allocation Policy would be fully implemented as agreed to by 2012.



http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e70/Fisher-Dude/scan073110-1-1.jpg

[2chodi]

So I ask, "Is the allocation issue about how many sheep are killed proportionately between resident and non resident hunters or is it about hunting opportunity for residents in relation to non residents?"


When splits are quoted as in 60/40, those percentages are kills.

[40incher]

Who sets the limits within those BC Parks ? May be different program than here in reg8.


Wildlife Branch and BC Parks both participate in the Spatsizi and Edziza harvest guidelines, most recently within the Stikine Country process which includes all "protected areas" encompassed by the Cassiar Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP).

Atin is not within this area and no truly comprehensive LRMP has been completed north of the Cassiar zone ... at least as far as I have seen. There is, however, a big push in Atlin by the anti-hunters and MFLNRO to continue severely restricting resident hunting with funds from U.S.-based "trusts". They pick on the guides too, either that or buy them out like they did in the Great Bear anti-hunting area on the coast. The Atlin area is part of the Yellowstone To the Yukon (Y2Y) "protected area" panacea that the antis have been promoting for decades.

The core problem here is bureaucratic dysfunction. It was agreed at the last Stikine Country meeting that LEH authorizations would be adjusted upwards to achieve the targeted kill if needed. Once those promises were made, shortly after the 2007 allocation policy "agreement", they were summarily ignored and abandoned.

LEH has proven to be an over-used, and consistently-abused, restriction on resident hunters.

[Argali]

In Spatsizi the resident allocation is 11 rams per year, which equates to 55 rams over the past 5 year period (2010-2014). Over that period we took just 37 rams, only achieving the targeted allocation in 2013. Meanwhile, non-residents killed 38 rams, over 50% of the harvest.

In Edziza the resident allocation is 3 rams per year, which equates to 15 rams over the last 5 years. We took 4 rams during that period, while non-residents took 8 rams (over 66% of the kill). Resident hunters have only been allowed to take just under 27% of their 5-year allocation under LEH, compared to 80% for non-residents. Given the provision to overharvest in any given year that kill will likely climb to over 90%.


Yes but in Spatsizi, there were 110 LEH tags/year for residents to get their allocation of 11 rams/year. They didn't get it done.

In Edziza, there were 12 LEH tags/year to get an allocation of 3 rams/year. Again, they didn't get it done.

In both cases, residents had the opportunity to not only take their allocation, but greatly exceed it if enough rams were found.

The major problem in reaching the resident allocation is the low success ratio of the LEH resident hunters. In contrast, the guides' success ratio likely exceeded 90%. Would increasing the number of LEH tags increase the number of rams harvested? Perhaps, especially in Edziza. But in Spatsizi, there are already 10 LEH tags per ram. Even if only half of them actually hunt, that is still 5 hunters per ram which is still much higher than what I would want to see if I was one of them.

Why are so few hunters getting rams is Spatsizi? Is it because they just can't find or get to the rams? Or, are there no rams left after the guides take theirs? If there are no rams left after the guides, then the allocations are just too high all around. But if there are plenty of rams left, then the resident LEH holders need to put in more effort if they want to get their ram.

[Caribou_lou]

Yes but in Spatsizi, there were 110 LEH tags/year for residents to get their allocation of 11 rams/year. They didn't get it done.

In Edziza, there were 12 LEH tags/year to get an allocation of 3 rams/year. Again, they didn't get it done.

In both cases, residents had the opportunity to not only take their allocation, but greatly exceed it if enough rams were found.

I'm sure your aware of how many LEH tags residents used to have prior to the increase to 110 in Spats. We reached our AAH in 2013 because of the increase... Success! Why has this not happened in Edziza?

[Caribou_lou]

I've hunted Spatsizi twice since the increase to 110 permits. Both times seeing one other hunter and the guide in the area. Not a whole lotta pressure.

Many wonder why resident success is so low. I always wonder to myself, how many tags are drawn from people trying to save a Sheep or Grizz. How many tags are drawn where they have no intent on leaving their driveway. Does the guide outfitter put in for resident sheep tags. If they draw a tag that's one less hunter they will see on the trail. Because it's all about the " Quality of the Hunt"... Right?

[40incher]

Yes but in Spatsizi, there were 110 LEH tags/year for residents to get their allocation of 11 rams/year. They didn't get it done.

In Edziza, there were 12 LEH tags/year to get an allocation of 3 rams/year. Again, they didn't get it done.

In both cases, residents had the opportunity to not only take their allocation, but greatly exceed it if enough rams were found.

The major problem in reaching the resident allocation is the low success ratio of the LEH resident hunters. In contrast, the guides' success ratio likely exceeded 90%. Would increasing the number of LEH tags increase the number of rams harvested? Perhaps, especially in Edziza. But in Spatsizi, there are already 10 LEH tags per ram. Even if only half of them actually hunt, that is still 5 hunters per ram which is still much higher than what I would want to see if I was one of them.

Why are so few hunters getting rams is Spatsizi? Is it because they just can't find or get to the rams? Or, are there no rams left after the guides take theirs? If there are no rams left after the guides, then the allocations are just too high all around. But if there are plenty of rams left, then the resident LEH holders need to put in more effort if they want to get their ram.

Good try bud ...

Question to you ... guide, assistant guide, married in, just an apologist?? Would be good to know.

LEH is a restriction that the guides and the anti-hunters know way too well!

The tags are not solely getting into the hands of BC resident hunters ... and the guides and the anti's know this. Pay 6 bucks (plus GST) and take a tag away from resident hunters. Please, don't pretend you don't know this for fact?!

This goes back to Bridger's suggestion that the non-residents should have to apply for an LEH before being able to book a guide ... c'mon now!! ... your comments are lame and regurgitated to say the least.

LEH is a severe restriction on resident hunters!! Any guide can book 5, 10, 20 or 100 hunters to kill one animal if he needs ... do you not understand that? I personally think you do bud ... just trying to muddy the water methinks!

Trying to demean resident hunter's skills will only make us stronger ... so we look forward to your next attempt.

[Cordillera]

A couple thoughts about region six sheep. First there are lots of areas with very little resident pressure that hold Rams. I Gave a friend a tip last year and her and her husband got two on opening day. My turn next year! Access is a real issue and does prevent residents from getting to many areas. A handful of lakes get lots of pressure but many other places require horse or other access and that effectively limits residents. There are more sheep to shoot in places like edziza. I've hiked there without a gun and the distances to get a sheep are crazy. Advantage outfitter.

Second is that Skeena Rams killed consistently are older than region 7. As a rule of thumb if the ages of Rams killed are all down to seven years, that would indicate you are harvesting right at max capacity. Lots of Rams are killed in Skeena at age eight, nine and older so the indicator is you are not harvesting at full capacity.

It's also interesting here that some people are suggesting the bureaucrats have pegged the AAH as too high. Usually they are criticized for being too low.

Ps there is a land use plan for Atlin. The BCWF was involved in its development. Fella from Kitimat or Rupert if I remember.

[2chodi]

I know this is a region 6 discussion, but for interest, in 2014 170 out of 198 were >8 in 7B.

[Fisher-Dude]

A couple thoughts about region six sheep. First there are lots of areas with very little resident pressure that hold Rams. I Gave a friend a tip last year and her and her husband got two on opening day. My turn next year! Access is a real issue and does prevent residents from getting to many areas. A handful of lakes get lots of pressure but many other places require horse or other access and that effectively limits residents. There are more sheep to shoot in places like edziza. I've hiked there without a gun and the distances to get a sheep are crazy. Advantage outfitter.

Second is that Skeena Rams killed consistently are older than region 7. As a rule of thumb if the ages of Rams killed are all down to seven years, that would indicate you are harvesting right at max capacity. Lots of Rams are killed in Skeena at age eight, nine and older so the indicator is you are not harvesting at full capacity.

It's also interesting here that some people are suggesting the bureaucrats have pegged the AAH as too high. Usually they are criticized for being too low.

Ps there is a land use plan for Atlin. The BCWF was involved in its development. Fella from Kitimat or Rupert if I remember.

Kevin, as you're an ADM, I'm not surprised that you defend poor decisions of government bureaucrats. You dudes have to stick together, and those of you who rise in the ranks know that the game is to follow the direction from the respective Minister's office whether it makes sense on a science level or not. :-D

The management of fish and wildlife in this province has been done on a purely political basis for eons. That's why we have the issues we do.

When are we going to get back to science-based decision making by qualified professionals instead of political pandering at the expense of our precious resources? And when are we going to get more than lip service to the concept of resident priority?

[bridger]

Kevin, as you're an ADM, I'm not surprised that you defend poor decisions of government bureaucrats. You dudes have to stick together, and those of you who rise in the ranks know that the game is to follow the direction from the respective Minister's office whether it makes sense on a science level or not. :-D

The management of fish and wildlife in this province has been done on a purely political basis for eons. That's why we have the issues we do.

When are we going to get back to science-based decision making by qualified professionals instead of political pandering at the expense of our precious resources? And when are we going to get more than lip service to the concept of resident priority?

Whack right on the nose!

[boxhitch]

Good try bud ...Actually the post by Argali looks like a simple statement of the facts to me. Don't be so sensitive :)
RH allocation isn`t being met , most likely due to the effort or lack of it , like many leh hunts.


n Spatsizi, there were 110 LEH tags/year for residents to get their allocation of 11 rams/year. They didn't get it done
I doubt there was 50 participants

[bridger]

Actually the post by Argali looks like a simple statement of the facts to me. Don't be so sensitive :)
RH allocation isn`t being met , most likely due to the effort or lack of it , like many leh hunts.

I doubt there was 50 participants

The issue is what can be done to facilitate resident hunters to achieve their harvest share and the point of this thread being that government tends to make sure outfitters can acheive theirs and pays lip service to residents.

This is not just limited to region 6 sheep. Leh hunts have historically across the province been poorly managed from th at perspective.. Outfitters under quota restrictions have options available to them to achieve the share of the harvest. Resudent leh hunts don't. This is just one more issue that needs fixing.

[lange1212]

I agree with you Bridger but the issue then becomes to get FLNRO to act and implement the regulatory changes to remove hindering barriers on resident sheep harvest in the Skeena.

Competition by GO's was flagged as a barrier, with them claiming that they target more remote areas that residents don't typically hunt. A few years back a resident only pre-season sheep hunting opportunity was proposed and was adamantly rejected by GO's at the table. The argument was that losing the early part of August would have an impact on their business. This argument had merit so the proposal was changes to implement a resident only season (outside of Parks) for the last week of July. This would then create a resident only pre-sheep season, reflect resident priority, try to address harvest inequity, and would at the same time created an additional business opportunity for GO's as there was no intent to exclude them and could tailor their business to cater to resident hunters that chose to hire their services, ultimately giving them an addition week to the season as well. GO's rejected this as well even though it extended their season if they chose to cater to residents. The question then becomes why, and is my opinion that they know that they've been over allocated sheep in the Skeena and the mature rams outside of Parks in huntable areas don't exist. I do believe that in the Skeena in many areas competition from guides is a barrier as a result, and strongly suspect that if residents had a pre-sheep season you'd see resident hunter harvest improve and possibly non-resident decline. However if the sheep exist and GO's don't compete with residents as they claim, then why does FLNRO not implement a resident only pre-sheep season?

To improve Resident sheep harvest opportunity in Spatsizi they could sustainable go to a GOS full curl like the rest of the Region. The only reason LEH is implemented is because it's a Park. 110 permits has improved harvest but nowhere near to a point where resident are achieving their AH. As this is a Park I see pushing for GOS being a long drawn out contentious battle. That being the case the solution would be to add 5 "any ram" LEH permits see what the interest is via odds, and see if this improves harvest. This would be a great opportunity for resident hunters, is sustainable, controlled by LEH and creates an opportunity for resident hunters that prioritize the hunting experience and meat over that of the trophy.

For Edziza the same applies.

[bearvalley]

As this is a Park I see pushing for GOS being a long drawn out contentious battle. That being the case the solution would be to add 5 "any ram" LEH permits see what the interest is via odds, and see if this improves harvest. This would be a great opportunity for resident hunters, is sustainable, controlled by LEH and creates an opportunity for resident hunters that prioritize the hunting experience and meat over that of the trophy.

For Edziza the same applies.

Great thought lange1212, in one comment from one of the sheep "experts" it comes forth that Region 6 ram populations are over estimated, in the next we need to start killing them as 3 year olds.
I'm in agreement with boxhitch that Argalis statements were pretty much correct. I see he's now banned. Was Argali....Willy 442 under alias? Lol.
There is a problem when 110 annually issued LEH sheep authorizations only produce 7.4 rams on average yearly for the last 5 years.
Something definitely is wrong when in comparison the outfitter in the same area that is limited to a yearly quota of 8 sheep can have an annual harvest rate of 7.6 rams.
To quote an earlier post.....Huston, we do have a problem.
I don't believe shooting the last ram standing is gonna fix it.

[lange1212]

Great thought lange1212, in one comment from one of the sheep "experts" it comes forth that Region 6 ram populations are over estimated, in the next we need to start killing them as 3 year olds.
I'm in agreement with boxhitch that Argalis statements were pretty much correct. I see he's now banned. Was Argali....Willy 442 under alias? Lol.
There is a problem when 110 annually issued LEH sheep authorizations only produce 7.4 rams on average yearly for the last 5 years.
Something definitely is wrong when in comparison the outfitter in the same area that is limited to a yearly quota of 8 sheep can have an annual harvest rate of 7.6 rams.
To quote an earlier post.....Huston, we do have a problem.
I don't believe shooting the last ram standing is gonna fix it.

Wow, you really don't understand how sheep are managed in Parks vs. outside of Parks. They are not one and the same as you seem to think.

1) Skeena Parks have a science (population) based AH established that are provided at a lower % "ultra conservative" because its a Park. So that said the AAH of 19 if not in a Park would be higher and sustainable.

2) Ultimately a full curl ram GOS would be sustainable however because it's a Park LEH and ultra conservative AH applies.

3) The solution I provide (5 any ram LEH permits for Spatsizi exclusively, and consideration for application in Edziza) is an effort to improve resident harvest that is sustainable knowing this is a Park and GOS is likely not going to fly.

4) This opportunity would be controlled by LEH therefore is not a free for all GOS. Not everyone prioritizes curl size when hunting sheep. And yes I understand that the full curl/8 year rule is also about controlling harvest, particularly in GOS areas. I would be particularly interesting in finding out the demand for such and LEH opportunity.


5) If conservation of those mature rams particularly "outside of Parks" where many feel they are are over allocated is a concern to you, that's easy to fix. Over 30% of the sheep harvested in the Skeena are not full curl but are 8 years or older. Remove the 8 year age and harvest solely on full curl will ensure that the mature ram component exists to ensure population health and abundance. according to FLNRO and Guides there's so many mature sheep in the Skeena then harvesting mature full curl rams only and leaving the mature less than full curls should not be an issue. Right?

GO's care so much about conservation they'll just be jumping and supporting removal of the 8 year and promoting full curl harvest only. After all there's so many sheep "outside of Parks" in the Skeena that this won't be an issue for them, and they'll be able to harvest their entire AH at $40,000 a pop. Wait a minute the harvest of resident and non-residents in the Skeena does not equate to what's allocated to GO alone. Some guides can't even harvest 50% of the quota "in GOS areas", many GO's underachieve year after year. Quick math - if a GO does not harvest for example 6 rams of his quota at $40,000 = $240,000 of lost revenue. Wow, all those rams in the Skeena "GOS areas", clearly there's no viability issues as sheep GO's have the luxury of turning there back on revenue generation likely ranging between $240,000 - $400,000.

[GoatGuy]

Should be a resident only season for sheep.

[bridger]

Should be a resident only season for sheep.

Province wide also

[GoatGuy]

Province wide also

Absolutely.

[40incher]

Actually the post by Argali looks like a simple statement of the facts to me. Don't be so sensitive :) RH allocation isn`t being met , most likely due to the effort or lack of it , like many leh hunts.

Sensitive ... interesting choice of terms. I simply call it a "heightened state of awareness", having dealt with certain guides over the many years.

But hey, looks like my senses were right all along. To bad your friend has been banned from the site, according to another one of the buds. If not, perhaps Argali or one of his henchmen can answer my previous question to him? ... are you a guide, assistant guide, married in, apologist ... or perhaps one who holds a "higher" position in the fraternity?? C'mon now boys!!

But, like I said, keep on demeaning resident hunters for a "lack of effort" ... and you will only strengthen our resolve.

[bearvalley]

Should be a resident only season for sheep.

Im not going to agree or disagree. Regardless of how I feel I doubt that the idea will fly with the Region 6 native owned outfits.
I believe there's soon to be another voice involved in making management decisions other than the provincial government of the day catering to the one sided whims of resident/outfitter.
My case in point is what's going on in the Chilcotin at this time.

[GoatGuy]

Im not going to agree or disagree. Regardless of how I feel I doubt that the idea will fly with the Region 6 native owned outfits.
I believe there's soon to be another voice involved in making management decisions other than the provincial government of the day catering to the one sided whims of resident/outfitter.
My case in point is what's going on in the Chilcotin at this time.

Opposition to a resident only season would help feed the idea that the harvestable surplus that gov't claims probably doesn't exist.

So far as the decision goes that's only half of it, if you look further west gov't is busy trading grizzly bear hunting for trees in an area without a landmark decision. It's interesting how people pick parties, they should be picking individuals.

[bearvalley]

Opposition to a resident only season would help feed the idea that the harvestable surplus that gov't claims probably doesn't exist.

So far as the decision goes that's only half of it, if you look further west gov't is busy trading grizzly bear hunting for trees in an area without a landmark decision. It's interesting how people pick parties, they should be picking individuals.

Like I said Jesse, I won't agree or disagree on the merits of a resident only season, the same as I won't rise to lang1212 or 40inchers bait. It seems like opposing thoughts are issued bans....quite liberally when it comes to discussing sheep issues.
I do agree on the merits of picking individuals over parties, whether it be government,lobby groups or self interest organizations. Too many times the emphasis is only on what the individual group wants. Not what is good for all. In this case wildlife.

[lange1212]

Resident only pre-sheep season last week of July a win win!


1) Residents get a pre-season opportunity as a reflection of resident priority and to aid their harvest.


2) Resident typically can only afford one hunt sheep hunt a year due to cost, time and access limitations. Therefore residents utilizing the pre-season hunt will likely not partake in the later season reducing crowding and competition, addressing GO's quality of hunt concerns.


3) A huge plus for GO's as they would be provided an additional business opportunity in the resident only pre-season hunt to cater to residents wanting to use the service of a guide.


4) Huge benefit for packers and GO that provide transportation services to residents.

5) Added economic driver for businesses that cater to hunters in general, food, lodging, fuel....

Having the resident only pre-season sheep hunt last week of July would be a plus for residents, plus for the economy, plus for GO's providing transportation to residents, plus for guides who provide guide services to residents, plus for reducing competition after August 1, plus for aiding GO viability by creating opportunity.


Yeah, 100% in support of a resident only pre-season sheep hunt last week of July in the Skeena and the Peace, a win-win all the way.


Given all these benefits lets hear the GOABC and GO's perspective on this. Are you in support, if not why?

[Walking Buffalo]

Wow, you really don't understand how sheep are managed in Parks vs. outside of Parks. They are not one and the same as you seem to think.

1) Skeena Parks have a science (population) based AH established that are provided at a lower % "ultra conservative" because its a Park. So that said the AAH of 19 if not in a Park would be higher and sustainable.

2) Ultimately a full curl ram GOS would be sustainable however because it's a Park LEH and ultra conservative AH applies.

3) The solution I provide (5 any ram LEH permits for Spatsizi exclusively, and consideration for application in Edziza) is an effort to improve resident harvest that is sustainable knowing this is a Park and GOS is likely not going to fly.

4) This opportunity would be controlled by LEH therefore is not a free for all GOS. Not everyone prioritizes curl size when hunting sheep. And yes I understand that the full curl/8 year rule is also about controlling harvest, particularly in GOS areas. I would be particularly interesting in finding out the demand for such and LEH opportunity.


5) If conservation of those mature rams particularly "outside of Parks" where many feel they are are over allocated is a concern to you, that's easy to fix. Over 30% of the sheep harvested in the Skeena are not full curl but are 8 years or older. Remove the 8 year age and harvest solely on full curl will ensure that the mature ram component exists to ensure population health and abundance. according to FLNRO and Guides there's so many mature sheep in the Skeena then harvesting mature full curl rams only and leaving the mature less than full curls should not be an issue. Right?

GO's care so much about conservation they'll just be jumping and supporting removal of the 8 year and promoting full curl harvest only. After all there's so many sheep "outside of Parks" in the Skeena that this won't be an issue for them, and they'll be able to harvest their entire AH at $40,000 a pop. Wait a minute the harvest of resident and non-residents in the Skeena does not equate to what's allocated to GO alone. Some guides can't even harvest 50% of the quota "in GOS areas", many GO's underachieve year after year. Quick math - if a GO does not harvest for example 6 rams of his quota at $40,000 = $240,000 of lost revenue. Wow, all those rams in the Skeena "GOS areas", clearly there's no viability issues as sheep GO's have the luxury of turning there back on revenue generation likely ranging between $240,000 - $400,000.


Is the rate of 30% of harvested rams being 8 years old and Not full curl greatly different than in other regions?
Has this been a long term trend, or a blip?

Maybe there is something unique going on within this population of sheep in regards to horn growth?
What would eliminating the harvest of these mature sub full curl rams achieve?
Perhaps these are the rams that should be harvested....

I would be careful before promoting this one....

[bridger]

Full curl and age requirements in sheep regulations are politically based not science based. Some bios think we should manage sheep like other species.

[boxhitch]

Would you mind fleshing that idea out a bit ? Using the horn curl reg is the end stop needed for a GOS hunt. How is that political ?

[bearvalley]

Would you mind fleshing that idea out a bit ? Using the horn curl reg is the end stop needed for a GOS hunt. How is that political ?

I would like to know the answer to that as well.
Also, what is the advantage to keeping around over 8 year old "short sheep"?
If by chance they're genetically short it seems like a good way to compound a problem.

[Walking Buffalo]

I would like to know the answer to that as well.
Also, what is the advantage to keeping around over 8 year old "short sheep"?
If by chance they're genetically short it seems like a good way to compound a problem.


Genetically short sheep?
Hunting induced Genetic selection?
Sheep with smaller horns at maturity is a problem?

This is not ground to casually enter if you value hunting....

[bearvalley]

Genetically short sheep?
Hunting induced Genetic selection?
Sheep with smaller horns at maturity is a problem?

This is not ground to casually enter if you value hunting....

Haha, I get what you're saying. Just thought I'd throw it out to the guys that want to make broomed off 11 year olds unhuntable but would rather see a handful of immature rams harvested.

[Cordillera]

Good try bud ...

Question to you ... guide, assistant guide, married in, just an apologist?? Would be good to know.

LEH is a restriction that the guides and the anti-hunters know way too well!

The tags are not solely getting into the hands of BC resident hunters ... and the guides and the anti's know this. Pay 6 bucks (plus GST) and take a tag away from resident hunters. Please, don't pretend you don't know this for fact?!

This goes back to Bridger's suggestion that the non-residents should have to apply for an LEH before being able to book a guide ... c'mon now!! ... your comments are lame and regurgitated to say the least.

LEH is a severe restriction on resident hunters!! Any guide can book 5, 10, 20 or 100 hunters to kill one animal if he needs ... do you not understand that? I personally think you do bud ... just trying to muddy the water methinks!

Trying to demean resident hunter's skills will only make us stronger ... so we look forward to your next attempt.
Funny argali was banned after his comment. He grew up hunting in bc and is now a mining engineer and geologist living overseas. Hardly a guide. He and I got skunked in spatsizi twenty five years ago because we were inexperienced and flailing around the wrong place. He got a nice moose with a bow on the way home so it was a cool trip, but the point is he knows why we didn't get it done. We didnt have the local knowledge and experience. And no forum to ask for advice...

I'm interested to see if I get flamed for this post too....

[Caribou_lou]

It's also interesting here that some people are suggesting the bureaucrats have pegged the AAH as too high. Usually they are criticized for being too low.

You probably won't be flamed for your last comment. Surprised you didn't for this one though.

[bridger]

Would you mind fleshing that idea out a bit ? Using the horn curl reg is the end stop needed for a GOS hunt. How is that political ?

Horn curl and age restrictions were put in as a means of controlling harvest by regional bios back in the 70's when resident hunter numbers began to rise and non resident quotas were first established. When I said political I meant they were used to manage the harvest for older trophy Rams something both residents and outfitters favoured as opposed to science based any ram seasons and the harvest of ewes that some bios wanted to install similar to seasons and strategies for elk, moose, and deer.

[boxhitch]

used to manage the harvest for older trophy Rams IF that was the justification used , funny how 'politics' and 'trophy' are still in play .
The current reasoning behind the reg is far more palatable.

[boxhitch]

Haha, I get what you're saying. Just thought I'd throw it out to the guys that want to make broomed off 11 year olds unhuntable but would rather see a handful of immature rams harvested.One advantage of having only the full curl reg is that it would leave a more diverse mix of older rams in the mix , for sheeps own 'social' benefits if nothing else.
Also dropping the age requirement helps with enforcement issues , narrows down the legality to 'over the nose or not'.

The regions report on thinhorns that I have seen do not have reference to horn curl , just to the age classes as that is what management is based on. Keep the age of kills up , and all is well.

[bearvalley]

One advantage of having only the full curl reg is that it would leave a more diverse mix of older rams in the mix , for sheeps own 'social' benefits if nothing else.
Also dropping the age requirement helps with enforcement issues , narrows down the legality to 'over the nose or not'.

The regions report on thinhorns that I have seen do not have reference to horn curl , just to the age classes as that is what management is based on. Keep the age of kills up , and all is well.

I pretty much agree with you. Shooting 8 year old "short sheep" because they're legal by age is pretty risky. On the other hand the broomed off obvious 10, 11 or 12 year old ram that doesn't quite bridge should be a shooter as well.
The system in place at present works. As you said "keep the age of kills up, and all is well".

[bridger]

I pretty much agree with you. Shooting 8 year old "short sheep" because they're legal by age is pretty risky. On the other hand the broomed off obvious 10, 11 or 12 year old ram that doesn't quite bridge should be a shooter as well.
The system in place at present works. As you said "keep the age of kills up, and all is well".

not disagreeing with the age/curl requirement. I have supported it for years, just pointing out that sheep are managed differently than other species and that they are other points of view that say harvest age is only one indicator of population status.

As for the politics the straight full curl law with no age option is one example of politics influencing management. Court convictions are tough to get based on age. And as you point out full curl regs with no age option on bighorns takes older broomed rams out of the harvest and makes younger lamb tipped rams available.

[Cordillera]

I personally won't be trying to count rings until I have a lot more experience, but it can make sense for some animals.

I think one reason that drives use of a horn/age restriction is that you can easily and cheaply monitor population status and you can be fairly sure you are not having a population effect. Other systems like harvesting across all ages requires frequent population surveys which are really expensive. Some will say there should be more money for inventory anyway, and I would not argue. Just that horn restrictions are defensible from a population management perspective when you don't have budgets for something more elaborate.

[pappy]

I've said it a few years ago and here it is again. IF A SPECIES IS ON LEH FOR RESIDENTS, THEN IT SHOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR OUTFITTERS TO SELL. Last time I said that some of the members on here started defending g/o's. I am glad to see people are starting to realize things need to change now.

[bridger]

I personally won't be trying to count rings until I have a lot more experience, but it can make sense for some animals.

I think one reason that drives use of a horn/age restriction is that you can easily and cheaply monitor population status and you can be fairly sure you are not having a population effect. Other systems like harvesting across all ages requires frequent population surveys which are really expensive. Some will say there should be more money for inventory anyway, and I would not argue. Just that horn restrictions are defensible from a population management perspective when you don't have budgets for something more elaborate.

Good anology.. Bios use age lots. a note of interest though I found puzzling in 2007 when government ditched the allocation policy they also threw out the reg in region 7b that said if you harvested a ram under eight yrs you were were out for the next two years. That reg was put in to reduce the harvest of Rams under 8 yrs and was working well. My view at the time and still is that it was a bone thrown to resident sheep hunters to help calm the waters over delaying the implementation of the new policy. So it appears that age is important sometimes and not others.

[boxhitch]

I think that may have been a result of the harvest review and the removal of hurdles for user groups to achieve quotas. The reg might have impacted repeaters , but iirc it didn't influence success rates.

[lange1212]

A biologist once told me that only 20% of thin horns live past 8 years of age, less than 10% of 6 year olds achieve full curl, about 40-60% of 7 year olds pending on area, feed, nutrients and genetics reach full curl, and 75% - 80% reach full curl at 8years of age. So that said there's not a lot of 9-12 year old rams in the pop.

I was also told that many guides want and push to be on quota as it allows them to secure bank loans whereby being on GOS does not. I'm not a banker don't ask me why. I believe this is one of the reasons for the unrealistic AH of sheep in the Skeena, its not biological because bios feel secure with full curl /8 year restrictions being biologically sustainable under GOS. However am of the opinion the Ministry has applied quota to appease many GO's and is based on no inventory/population based AH number. So in essence and is my opinion Skeena GO's have been provided grossly inflated sheep allocations therefore allowing them improved access to secure loans and as a secondary result artificially inflate territory resale values. There on quota but really it's GOS for Skeena GO's. For those that refute that please explain why the combined sheep harvest of residents and non-residents has never come close to what's allocated to guides alone in the Skeena Region. And explain why the all time record resident sheep harvest in the Skeena was during the economic crisis where GO's could not book clients.


A few years back the Skeena was to come up with a population based sheep AH and was provided $125,000 to do inventory work. The results of that inventory work will not be released and no inventory based sheep AH has ever been determined and applied. Almost sound like the Ministry does not want the data to come out and implement an AH based on it. I wonder why?

[bridger]

I think that may have been a result of the harvest review and the removal of hurdles for user groups to achieve quotas. The reg might have impacted repeaters , but iirc it didn't influence success rates.

That could be but actually the plus 8 plus rule and you could hunt every year reduced resident harvest about 25% and took most of the young Rams out of the resident harvest. The rule reg change applying no penalty for young Rams was put in before any harvest review and was brought forward on the same night fish and wildlife brass branch told us they weren't implementing the policy.

[Halflinger]

60 to residents or to the outfitters ?