Special sheep/ elk permits gone?

[whitetailsheds]

Can anyone confirm/ deny the BCWF's withdrawing of their support of these permits, and thus the MOE indicating they just won't do them any further? I'd like to hear BCWF's stance on this, if this is the case.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

At a time when the MOE's funding is under the gun........not good:-(.

SSS

[boxhitch]

The Special permit sales have been a problem for the BCWF all along. It goes against their charished North American Wildlife Model. which is against the sale of wildlife, for any purpose.
The funds raised went back into enhancement projects, so without the monies the wildlife will suffer.
Its true that Hunters are the true conservationists, but it takes money to balance the put-and-take.

[bridger]

I heard the bcwf withdrew its support for a couple of reasons. Apparently the goabc asked the government to compensate the outfitter that owns the area where the sheep were taken. the way permit works is that the non resident buyer can hire any outfitter in the province to take him on this hunt and they can go into any open area in the province. for example hunter smith can hire outfitter brown to take him into outfitter jones area. if they kill a ram outfitter jones now wants to be compensated for the ram taken out of his guiding area. compensation would either be cash or another sheep on his quota. the bcwf position is that the outfitters do not own the sheep and therefore no compensation. their is also concern that some special interest groups were trying to privatize the process and expand it to other species. the bcwf appreciates the loss of funding but felt in the long run the integrity of both the resource and the resident hunting fraternity would be better served. it is now encumbent on the bcwf the wssof bc and resident hunters to step up to the plate and come up with another apporach.

[hunter1947]

Ya I would like to know about what they say about this as well ,thats if there is any truth in it.

[KevinB]

Thanks Bridger, sounds like there is more going on than what is seen on the surface, as usual.

[whitetailsheds]

In response to Bridger's note: I've always understood wildlife belonged to the crown, NOT the outfitter. Talk about influence, I can understand the BCWF's stance on this one. There should be no compensation whatsoever.
Ultimately, correct me if I'm wrong, would not the money raised from these permits benefit all anyway? Wildlife, habitat, residents, and the outfits?

[Deaddog]

The wss had a seat in the special sheep permit committee, the idea of compensation had not been formally talked about, if it was being talked about we had not heard it yet. The BCWF did not consult anyone else prior to making this decision, yet as Bridger says "it is now encumbent on the bcwf the wssof bc and resident hunters to step up to the plate and come up with another apporach." to bad that we cannot all talk together and come up with stratedgy's that work for all, rather than cutting each others throats. DD

[Brambles]

I hope if they pull the resident draws then they pull the non-resident auction as well. Fair is fair, if we don't have a chance to hunt with special permit then neither should some rich american.

[Flingin' Sticks]

I hope if they pull the resident draws then they pull the non-resident auction as well. Fair is fair, if we don't have a chance to hunt with special permit then neither should some rich american.

Yeah, I know what you mean. Doesn't seem right that our tag goes out the window, while the wildlife, which "Isn't for sale" can be bought by the highest bidder. The only thing to keep in mind is where the auction money goes. Will Taking away another source of potential income from the Sheep Society make things any better?

[Deaddog]

both res and non res opportunity's would be done.

[jml11]

I heard the bcwf withdrew its support for a couple of reasons. Apparently the goabc asked the government to compensate the outfitter that owns the area where the sheep were taken. the way permit works is that the non resident buyer can hire any outfitter in the province to take him on this hunt and they can go into any open area in the province. for example hunter smith can hire outfitter brown to take him into outfitter jones area. if they kill a ram outfitter jones now wants to be compensated for the ram taken out of his guiding area. compensation would either be cash or another sheep on his quota. the bcwf position is that the outfitters do not own the sheep and therefore no compensation. their is also concern that some special interest groups were trying to privatize the process and expand it to other species. the bcwf appreciates the loss of funding but felt in the long run the integrity of both the resource and the resident hunting fraternity would be better served. it is now encumbent on the bcwf the wssof bc and resident hunters to step up to the plate and come up with another apporach.


Aren't the special elk/sheep LEH available for residents only??? Aren't you talking about a different permit here? Are all the special and auction permits being withdrawn?

[boxhitch]

Jeff, the main target of this is the sale of wildlife. The most obvious is the sale to non-residents, but the NAWM does not support the sale or farming of wildlife for any purpose.

[boxhitch]

Aren't the special elk/sheep LEH available for residents only??? Aren't you talking about a different permit here? Are all the special and auction permits being withdrawn?The BCWF has decided to not support these permits sale. The BC Gov't will decide if they continue.

The BCWF speaks for the resident hunters of BC

[BCrams]

Aren't the special elk/sheep LEH available for residents only??? Aren't you talking about a different permit here? Are all the special and auction permits being withdrawn?

The program was initiated with the idea that 1 permit for Roosevelt and 1 permit for sheep would be drawn as a special permit for resident hunters and 1 Roosie and 1 sheep would be donated for auction with all monies going to habitat enhancement.

Donating permits for non-resident auctions were not going to happen without some sort of opportunity for residents.

[6616]

The special Premier's permits have not been drawing the big dollars the last few years at the big US fundraisers like they used to. There value has became questionable. This has resulted in MOE considering some new options, like suggestions to open the permits up in no-hunting areas, adding more permits, or extending the permit season into an all winter hunt lasting until spring, these are ideas which the BCWF does not support.

Also the KIB permit at Kamloops was a pilot project and various ways of selling the permit were supposed to be explored, but MOE and KIB refuse to try new methods and are only interested in what they feel will bring the biggest $ right now, and moreover the promised sheep habitat conservation activities on KIB lands have not been fully met at this time.

Additionally more permits are always being suggested by MOE. BCWF support was dependent on no additional permits. Also the sheep permit has been used too much in some areas. The Elk Valley specifically, and this has created some concerns by Elk Valley members.

Overall, the permit system has taken a turn where revenues are much lower and the administration has taken a turn towards maximum exploitation with low conservation concern. Revenues may no longer justify compromising the NACM. The decision of whether BCWF will continue to support the permits has not actually been made yet as suggested, yes it's being discussed, but the actual decision will not be made until convention next spring at which time the grass roots membership will make the final decision.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Can anyone get a hold of the total funds raised to date since this program's inception back in 2000-2001 ish?

Also, maybe list some of the projects that the program has funded over the years.

Seeing examples of how the project has been successful may help some people see the importance of keeping this program afloat. Putting "more sheep on the mountains" is a benefit to all the sheep and hunters throughout this province.

I'm sure the project lost a little steam when the aution winner from this year decided that he expectations were not going to be met. Personally, I would have done some research if I was going to spend ~6 figures on a hunt:-?.

SSS

[budismyhorse]

flame suit on.
The failure of this program is a classic example of poor management. Typical of human nature to take a resource and squeeze it dry.

And as Andy states, they are looking for options....to continue squeezing. Good for the BCWF for realizing what is going on and back out.

The gov't should have imposed rules that would not allow the same valley (band of sheep) to be hunted multiple years in a row. It is absolutely crazy to think that TWO RAMS of the 190+ class can be taken from the same valley every year, every year every year.

They had the chance to stop it but realized the value of the auction would plummet and therefore just continued to squeeze it out for a few more years. No offence to KK and anyone else who had a hand in doing it, but hunters (being the ultimate convervationists) really sh#t the bed on that one. In 2007, the two rams killed were in the low 180's because that was all that was out there. 2008 the resident didn't see any he wanted so he went and shot the huge Cali ram, the non-res balked on his auction and got a refund because he couldn't find the class of ram he wanted! A refund!!! With a bit more management they could have prevented all this......but they didn't want to stop the dollars up front. So they created a few bucks for a few years, knowingly pounded the ram population into the ground and are just going to walk away. Bitter pill for hunters to swallow.

In the eyes of the locals, this is another classic example of the gov't's money first game second mentality. These are the same folk who the "change the elk regs" camp will be looking to change the opinions of.......good luck.

Right now, they equate more elk hunters with a cash grab on the backs of east kootenay elk, with more emphasis now since the sacrificial EK rams have been bled dry.

Everyone is so quick to bad-mouth the EK locals and club members...but if you lived here you'd see why they are a little skeptical.

[Seeadler]

flame suit on.
The failure of this program is a classic example of poor management. Typical of human nature to take a resource and squeeze it dry.

And as Andy states, they are looking for options....to continue squeezing. Good for the BCWF for realizing what is going on and back out.

The gov't should have imposed rules that would not allow the same valley (band of sheep) to be hunted multiple years in a row. It is absolutely crazy to think that TWO RAMS of the 190+ class can be taken from the same valley every year, every year every year.

They had the chance to stop it but realized the value of the auction would plummet and therefore just continued to squeeze it out for a few more years. No offence to KK and anyone else who had a hand in doing it, but hunters (being the ultimate convervationists) really sh#t the bed on that one. In 2007, the two rams killed were in the low 180's because that was all that was out there. 2008 the resident didn't see any he wanted so he went and shot the huge Cali ram, the non-res balked on his auction and got a refund because he couldn't find the class of ram he wanted! A refund!!! With a bit more management they could have prevented all this......but they didn't want to stop the dollars up front. So they created a few bucks for a few years, knowingly pounded the ram population into the ground and are just going to walk away. Bitter pill for hunters to swallow.

In the eyes of the locals, this is another classic example of the gov't's money first game second mentality. These are the same folk who the "change the elk regs" camp will be looking to change the opinions of.......good luck.

Right now, they equate more elk hunters with a cash grab on the backs of east kootenay elk, with more emphasis now since the sacrificial EK rams have been bled dry.

Everyone is so quick to bad-mouth the EK locals and club members...but if you lived here you'd see why they are a little skeptical.

Allowing 2 rams/year to be taken is pounding the ram population into the ground.....?

[bridger]

did the money go to the sheep society I thought it went to the province and moe decided which projects to fund


Yeah, I know what you mean. Doesn't seem right that our tag goes out the window, while the wildlife, which "Isn't for sale" can be bought by the highest bidder. The only thing to keep in mind is where the auction money goes. Will Taking away another source of potential income from the Sheep Society make things any better?

[willy442]

The wss had a seat in the special sheep permit committee, the idea of compensation had not been formally talked about, if it was being talked about we had not heard it yet. The BCWF did not consult anyone else prior to making this decision, yet as Bridger says "it is now encumbent on the bcwf the wssof bc and resident hunters to step up to the plate and come up with another apporach." to bad that we cannot all talk together and come up with stratedgy's that work for all, rather than cutting each others throats. DD

I do not know of anyone asking for compensation on either special permit. The fact of the matter is when these came about all G/O's were in favor, because of the funds generated. The other special permits that are auctioned for the various States and Alberta do not provide special provisions for the resident hunters. They auction the permit and if you want it pay the price no matter where you are from. B.C. is the only place that a permit is auctioned and the draw is done also for a resident. I believe this is fair and should continue, also the fact of opening the auction tag for a closed area or longer season is a good idea. This permits auction price is set by what caliber of Ram may be harvested. We are talking about 1 animal that is past it's prime and a valuable asset for funding enhancement. I guess each and every one of us should lay personnal greed aside for once and look at what this tag puts back into SHEEP. Then let the hunt continue with constant promotional thinking to increase the auction price.

[budismyhorse]

Seeadler,

yes,

these rams that get the big dollars are few and far between. They don't grow on trees and in a few short years, they are to the point where not enough are around to support the high auction price.....so it has failed. You would have to see the bands to realize it I guess. Sure there are lots of other rams...... but for that type of "product" the gov't was selling, they pounded them into the ground.

I should say I don't have a problem with the program, just the way it was handled was brutal. I agree with Willy "Then let the hunt continue with constant promotional thinking to increase the auction price."

[bridger]

[
haven't confirmed it yet but i think so. hope to have a full explanation later today. will post it if i get it.
quote=jml11;378948]Aren't the special elk/sheep LEH available for residents only??? Aren't you talking about a different permit here? Are all the special and auction permits being withdrawn?[/quote]

[Seeadler]

The other special permits that are auctioned for the various States and Alberta do not provide special provisions for the resident hunters. They auction the permit and if you want it pay the price no matter where you are from. B.C. is the only place that a permit is auctioned and the draw is done also for a resident.

This may currently be true, but wasn't always, I can remember them flogging raffle tickets at the boat and sportsmans show in Edmonton for the resident equivalent of the auction tag.

[willy442]

Seeadler,

yes,

these rams that get the big dollars are few and far between. They don't grow on trees and in a few short years, they are to the point where not enough are around to support the high auction price.....so it has failed. You would have to see the bands to realize it I guess. Sure there are lots of other rams...... but for that type of "product" the gov't was selling, they pounded them into the ground.

You are out to lunch. The nonresident auction tag is for anywhere in the province. Generally the purchaser already knows about a Ram and is willing to pay for the chance to hunt it. I know nothing of any refund and if that did happen you have every right to pissed off. The resident tag is maybe what should be looked at here. I'm not saying stop it, but look at it. It would be a shame to loose chance of auctioning some of these old huge Rams still out there and all the more reason to create new opportunities and increase price.

[bridger]

[well said! another thing to realize is that i am not aware of one outfitter coming forward with an invitation of take a ram out of their own areas. it is always coming out of one or two spots and now those outfitters want to be compensated. go figure


quote=budismyhorse;379010]flame suit on.
The failure of this program is a classic example of poor management. Typical of human nature to take a resource and squeeze it dry.

And as Andy states, they are looking for options....to continue squeezing. Good for the BCWF for realizing what is going on and back out.

The gov't should have imposed rules that would not allow the same valley (band of sheep) to be hunted multiple years in a row. It is absolutely crazy to think that TWO RAMS of the 190+ class can be taken from the same valley every year, every year every year.

They had the chance to stop it but realized the value of the auction would plummet and therefore just continued to squeeze it out for a few more years. No offence to KK and anyone else who had a hand in doing it, but hunters (being the ultimate convervationists) really sh#t the bed on that one. In 2007, the two rams killed were in the low 180's because that was all that was out there. 2008 the resident didn't see any he wanted so he went and shot the huge Cali ram, the non-res balked on his auction and got a refund because he couldn't find the class of ram he wanted! A refund!!! With a bit more management they could have prevented all this......but they didn't want to stop the dollars up front. So they created a few bucks for a few years, knowingly pounded the ram population into the ground and are just going to walk away. Bitter pill for hunters to swallow.

In the eyes of the locals, this is another classic example of the gov't's money first game second mentality. These are the same folk who the "change the elk regs" camp will be looking to change the opinions of.......good luck.

Right now, they equate more elk hunters with a cash grab on the backs of east kootenay elk, with more emphasis now since the sacrificial EK rams have been bled dry.

Everyone is so quick to bad-mouth the EK locals and club members...but if you lived here you'd see why they are a little skeptical.[/quote]

[willy442]

[quote=bridger;379039][well said! another thing to realize is that i am not aware of one outfitter coming forward with an invitation of take a ram out of their own areas. it is always coming out of one or two spots and now those outfitters want to be compensated. go figure

Say's alot for the new breed of outfitter out there if this is in fact the case!

[budismyhorse]

You are out to lunch. The nonresident auction tag is for anywhere in the province. Generally the purchaser already knows about a Ram and is willing to pay for the chance to hunt it. I know nothing of any refund and if that did happen you have every right to pissed off. The resident tag is maybe what should be looked at here. I'm not saying stop it, but look at it. It would be a shame to loose chance of auctioning some of these old huge Rams still out there and all the more reason to create new opportunities and increase price.


So where am I "out to lunch"?? Of course I know its for anywhere in the province....however, nearly every non res auction ram has been shot in the EK.....and the gov't knew this but did nothing to manage it properly.

Are you saying there was no refund given to the fella, or that the auction wasn't given at all this year?

From what I was told, the auction produced a low price, couldn't find a ram he wanted so he was given a refund since part of the deal was that a ram of a specific caliber could be hunted. I could be wrong..

[BCrams]

One way to prevent rams from coming from the same areas such as Elk Valley just outside of the mines is to provide the Special LEH draw and Auction permit on a rotation between different regions and or sub-species.

Example: Special LEH sheep tag

2010 is for Stone Stone's sheep only
2011 is for California Bighorn Sheep only
2012 is for Rocky Mountain Bighorn only

Or some other variation such as limiting harvest to the special sheep tag holders to an x number of animals over a period of x years from x herd/valley or region.

[bighornbob]

So where am I "out to lunch"?? Of course I know its for anywhere in the province....however, nearly every non res auction ram has been shot in the EK.....and the gov't knew this but did nothing to manage it properly.

Are you saying there was no refund given to the fella, or that the auction wasn't given at all this year?

From what I was told, the auction produced a low price, couldn't find a ram he wanted so he was given a refund since part of the deal was that a ram of a specific caliber could be hunted. I could be wrong..

You are out to lunch on a few things.

1) I sat in a room when this permit was up for discussion a number of years ago (I think only 3 rams had been killed by non-residents and none by residents at that point because the residents all hunted the Junction area for cali's). A number of guys from the elk valley stood up and complained then that the sheep were being killed off. Thats one ram a year and they are complaining. When I suggested that the area should be put on LEH if the sheep are in trouble, you should have seen their faces. The bitching and complaining is only by the locals that dont want "their sheep killed". Probably the samer locals that cried this year that all the elk would get killed if they opened up a season on anything but 6 points.

2) The guy that bought the tag this year never hunted or even left the room before he wanted his refund. He bought the tag looking to kill a 190 Stone. When he asked around what outfitters could take him to a 190 stone and found none (surprise surprise) he said he would be happy with a 200 inch Bighorn. Once he found out that would not be possible either (no 200 inch bighorn had been taken with any of the previous tags) thats when he wanted his money back. Obviously this guy had more money then brains if he thought someone could take him out for a 190 Stone.

I disagree with the whole thing about him getting his money back but that is with the Sheep Foundation and how they conduct their auction.

3) How has the government mismanged this hunt. If taking out 2 rams a year is hurting the herd, then shut down the whole valley to sheep hunting. Like Willy said its always and old ram that is killed not a young sheep or a ewe. It sounds to me like your a local that does not want another sheep taken from "your valley"

Rams

The problem with spreading out the tags is you are putting limitations on what supposed to be a special hunt. A good friend of mine who knows most of the guys that buy the permits said if you put those kind of limitations (cant hunt the same area two years in a row etc) that the guys wont buy the tags. Look at the US tags, they are for the entire state, no limitations becuase they want the big money for the tag.

What makes these tags special is you are able to shoot a great ram. Where can you consistantly shoot great rams in BC? There are only a few 1) the mine areas of the Elk Valley 2) Kamloops Lake for Cali's and 3)the KIB area for Cali's. What makes these special areas special is that they are no hunting or limited hunting. The mine sheep of the elk valley usually hang out in a no hunting area till after the season then move to wintering grounds in a opne area. Kamloops lake only has 2 LEH tags when there is probably hundreds of sheep in there. The KIB is a no-hunting area except for one LEH. Thats why these are special areas.

A stone sheep tag would get no money becuase there are no special areas. Every area that has stones has a regular season. And what could a hunter expect on a Stone Sheep special tag, maybe a 160 class stone. Thats not going to get any money at auction.

Even the California bighorn, a lot of the guys dont care for them as they are not recognized by the B&C. Most see them as a poor mans Rocky Mountain bighorn.

Bottom line is if the permit does not happen, its a perfect example of hunters being their own worst enemy. I would be more then willing to give up a sheep if it means 100,000 of money to be used for wildlife projects. For those that dont know when a tag sells, the Sheep Foundation (formally FNAWS) gets 10% for selling the tag (funds their sheep projects. Of the remaining 90%, 75% has to be used for sheep related projects and the other 25% is usued for other wildlife related projects. No money enters general coffers.

BHB

[bridger]

i agree it is also apparent to me that we have very few real guide/outfitters in the province the old time good guys have been repalced in a lot of areas with international hunting companys that own areas in several provinces and states and could care less about anything except their bottom line


[quote=bridger;379039][well said! another thing to realize is that i am not aware of one outfitter coming forward with an invitation of take a ram out of their own areas. it is always coming out of one or two spots and now those outfitters want to be compensated. go figure

Say's alot for the new breed of outfitter out there if this is in fact the case!

[hunter1947]

Very ,Very impressive post BHB I admire you post ,I'm with you 100% on what you have said on this post http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon14.gifhttp://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon14.gifhttp://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif.

[BCrams]

Good post BHB! A few more questions are raised though as a result.

Thus the exposed problem may lay with the vocal minority as demonstrated with the 6 pt seasons for elk. 'Protectionists' so to speak.

[budismyhorse]

You are out to lunch on a few things.

1) I sat in a room when this permit was up for discussion a number of years ago (I think only 3 rams had been killed by non-residents and none by residents at that point because the residents all hunted the Junction area for cali's). A number of guys from the elk valley stood up and complained then that the sheep were being killed off. Thats one ram a year and they are complaining. When I suggested that the area should be put on LEH if the sheep are in trouble, you should have seen their faces. The bitching and complaining is only by the locals that dont want "their sheep killed". Probably the samer locals that cried this year that all the elk would get killed if they opened up a season on anything but 6 points.

2) The guy that bought the tag this year never hunted or even left the room before he wanted his refund. He bought the tag looking to kill a 190 Stone. When he asked around what outfitters could take him to a 190 stone and found none (surprise surprise) he said he would be happy with a 200 inch Bighorn. Once he found out that would not be possible either (no 200 inch bighorn had been taken with any of the previous tags) thats when he wanted his money back. Obviously this guy had more money then brains if he thought someone could take him out for a 190 Stone.
fair enough, I figured second hand info may be incorrect. however, if managed properly, that guy would have a legitimate chance at 195+ if those rams had been given a break since the program started.
I disagree with the whole thing about him getting his money back but that is with the Sheep Foundation and how they conduct their auction.

3) How has the government mismanged this hunt. The mismanagement comes from not rotating the area. Continually taking 2 rams off the same hill has resulted in the current state. Lower and lower auction price and guys getting refunds. If taking out 2 rams a year is hurting the herd, then shut down the whole valley to sheep hunting. It isn't hurting the herd......its scratching out the top rams at once instead of prolonging the hunt through rotation. There is no need to "cry LEH" like that. Like Willy said its always and old ram that is killed not a young sheep or a ewe. It sounds to me like your a local that does not want another sheep taken from "your valley" Thats laughable. I don't care much about having the biggest ram on my wall. I am more into the experience to be honest. I hunt very little in areas that produce those rams.

All I am saying is that the program has been run poorly. If it was a business, and the price of the stock kept getting lower and lower.... someone would be getting fired.



BHB

When bobby first took the 199 and changer off, he said something in the video about lots of money raised for sheep on the back of a ram that didn't have another winter left.. and that was great! but shortly after, when the 180's and lower are the ones being taken.....the program loses the ability to say that about what they are doing.

[budismyhorse]

Good post BHB! A few more questions are raised though as a result.

Thus the exposed problem may lay with the vocal minority as demonstrated with the 6 pt seasons for elk. 'Protectionists' so to speak.


the only thing this situation has exposed is the gov't, while trying to go after funding through the implementation of this program, mis-managed it. It is still viable if ran correctly from here out, but the key is it was mis-managed.

Transfer that same idea to the push for opening up EK elk and you get hunters skeptical of new ideas. You call them protectionists, I call them skeptics.

BHB can say all he wants, but if this program was managed properly and rotated accordingly, there would be MORE LARGE rams in the EK which would maintain the auction price in continuum and more money for sheep long term would be the benefit. Simple no?

[willy442]

You are out to lunch on a few things.

1) I sat in a room when this permit was up for discussion a number of years ago (I think only 3 rams had been killed by non-residents and none by residents at that point because the residents all hunted the Junction area for cali's). A number of guys from the elk valley stood up and complained then that the sheep were being killed off. Thats one ram a year and they are complaining. When I suggested that the area should be put on LEH if the sheep are in trouble, you should have seen their faces. The bitching and complaining is only by the locals that dont want "their sheep killed". Probably the samer locals that cried this year that all the elk would get killed if they opened up a season on anything but 6 points.

2) The guy that bought the tag this year never hunted or even left the room before he wanted his refund. He bought the tag looking to kill a 190 Stone. When he asked around what outfitters could take him to a 190 stone and found none (surprise surprise) he said he would be happy with a 200 inch Bighorn. Once he found out that would not be possible either (no 200 inch bighorn had been taken with any of the previous tags) thats when he wanted his money back. Obviously this guy had more money then brains if he thought someone could take him out for a 190 Stone.

I disagree with the whole thing about him getting his money back but that is with the Sheep Foundation and how they conduct their auction.

3) How has the government mismanged this hunt. If taking out 2 rams a year is hurting the herd, then shut down the whole valley to sheep hunting. Like Willy said its always and old ram that is killed not a young sheep or a ewe. It sounds to me like your a local that does not want another sheep taken from "your valley"

Rams

The problem with spreading out the tags is you are putting limitations on what supposed to be a special hunt. A good friend of mine who knows most of the guys that buy the permits said if you put those kind of limitations (cant hunt the same area two years in a row etc) that the guys wont buy the tags. Look at the US tags, they are for the entire state, no limitations becuase they want the big money for the tag.

What makes these tags special is you are able to shoot a great ram. Where can you consistantly shoot great rams in BC? There are only a few 1) the mine areas of the Elk Valley 2) Kamloops Lake for Cali's and 3)the KIB area for Cali's. What makes these special areas special is that they are no hunting or limited hunting. The mine sheep of the elk valley usually hang out in a no hunting area till after the season then move to wintering grounds in a opne area. Kamloops lake only has 2 LEH tags when there is probably hundreds of sheep in there. The KIB is a no-hunting area except for one LEH. Thats why these are special areas.

A stone sheep tag would get no money becuase there are no special areas. Every area that has stones has a regular season. And what could a hunter expect on a Stone Sheep special tag, maybe a 160 class stone. Thats not going to get any money at auction.

Even the California bighorn, a lot of the guys dont care for them as they are not recognized by the B&C. Most see them as a poor mans Rocky Mountain bighorn.

Bottom line is if the permit does not happen, its a perfect example of hunters being their own worst enemy. I would be more then willing to give up a sheep if it means 100,000 of money to be used for wildlife projects. For those that dont know when a tag sells, the Sheep Foundation (formally FNAWS) gets 10% for selling the tag (funds their sheep projects. Of the remaining 90%, 75% has to be used for sheep related projects and the other 25% is usued for other wildlife related projects. No money enters general coffers.

BHB

You are right on with your post. Just food for thought, if the tag was good from Aug 1st of the year to Jan 1st it would allow for hunting on winter ranges. If this was the case then the buyer could look at Stone Sheep and possibly expand the area of the Big Horn also.

[6616]

The permit revenue goes into a special fund administered by the HCTF but seperate from the regular HCTF fund as it has special requirements for disbursement. Disbusement is administered by a special committee that has BCWF, MOE, FNAWS, and WSSOBC representation. HCTFdoes not directly control the money.

[Sitkaspruce]

Not knowing the situation for Big horns in the EK, but are the mines the ONLY place in the EK, WK and South peace that have 180+ rams??? I actualy thought that there were large rams spread through out the area.

How does Alberta do it with the mine there??? I have not heard much complaining from them over the harvest of a couple of big rams a year, but I also do not follow it much.

BHB comments filled a lot of what was missing in the posts, and I get the feeling that the NIMBY syndrom is starting to come up. Maybe.....:?:

I also think that waiting for a phone call from the G/O that "THE" ram has left the mine and get up here now, is not hunting at all, but that is another story all together. For the money they pay for wildlife conservation, I can live with what they do.:razz:

I also have a somewhat hard time with the BCWF, as they need to convey their decissions to the whole and just not have it heard hearsay on the internet.

Do they outfitters here on the Island or WK have a hard time with someone coming and shooting a B&C elk under the permit??? or this only with EK sheep??

I am looking for more info on this, so I will watch this post and read a little more.

Cheers

SS

[bighornbob]

but if this program was managed properly and rotated accordingly, there would be MORE LARGE rams in the EK which would maintain the auction price in continuum and more money for sheep long term would be the benefit. Simple no?

You are wrong here too because after that first year there would not have been a permit the next year because guys want to hunt the big sheep. They dont want a 170 Cali or a 160 stone plain and simple.

How many big sheep are killed a year by residents that hunt that area??? I assume you are local so you probbaly know the numbers better then me or know guys that know guys that shoot sheep off the mine property line. The year I got my ram in the area there were 4 or 5 other book rams taken that year and I am sure a quick look through the record book will show at least 2 rams a year that are book rams that were killed in the area. So is the government mismangaing this too?? Maybe they should extend the mine property no shooting area another KM or 2 to protect the sheep even more.

My whole point is I would/and every other sheep hunter should gladly give a little if it means 1 or 2 rams die at the hand of a rich hunter or lucky resident if the money raised go back to the sheep. If this means I never have the chance to shoot a 190 class ram but can hunt sheep every year somewhere else in the province I will be the first one to sign up.

BHB

[6616]

One way to prevent rams from coming from the same areas such as Elk Valley just outside of the mines is to provide the Special LEH draw and Auction permit on a rotation between different regions and or sub-species.

Example: Special LEH sheep tag

2010 is for Stone Stone's sheep only
2011 is for California Bighorn Sheep only
2012 is for Rocky Mountain Bighorn only

Or some other variation such as limiting harvest to the special sheep tag holders to an x number of animals over a period of x years from x herd/valley or region.

The East kootenay clubs have been asking for a rotation like this for years now, to no avail i might add.

[budismyhorse]

You are wrong here too because after that first year there would not have been a permit the next year because guys want to hunt the big sheep. They dont want a 170 Cali or a 160 stone plain and simple.
I know that, that is why it hasn't been rotated!!
How many big sheep are killed a year by residents that hunt that area???
Doesn't matter, calm down and re-read what I am saying.

If the program only allowed rams to be taken in the EK every couple years, the big dollar rams would be available every time the permit was put up for auction, therefore more money. Instead, the price continues to be low. look at it like a business.

I am on your side when it comes to the necessity of this permit I might add.
My whole point is I would/and every other sheep hunter should gladly give a little if it means 1 or 2 rams die at the hand of a rich hunter or lucky resident if the money raised go back to the sheep. If this means I never have the chance to shoot a 190 class ram but can hunt sheep every year somewhere else in the province I will be the first one to sign up.
Listen to what you are saying.....it doesn't have to be like that if the program was managed differently.
BHB

Nothing about NIMBY in anything I have said.

[budismyhorse]

The East kootenay clubs have been asking for a rotation like this for years now, to no avail i might add.

thanks Andy, I am thinking that rotating species may not be the answer, If the program got a huge amount of money every three years as opposed to a low price every year and the off year where NOTHING comes in due to refunds.

[budismyhorse]

You are right on with your post. Just food for thought, if the tag was good from Aug 1st of the year to Jan 1st it would allow for hunting on winter ranges. If this was the case then the buyer could look at Stone Sheep and possibly expand the area of the Big Horn also.


the thinhorn date ends Mar 31. for resident special sheep LEH. Don't know about the non-resident auction tag......but I imagine it is the same? http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/hunting/resident/docs/leh_SpecialPermits.pdf

[bayou]

Havent really been following this thread but on a few of the responses I have read I agree if the money is all going back in to helping other sheep it is good also agree that the elk valley area is probably getting over hit.
I dont apply for this tag so was curious can the holder (resident or non-resident) hunt the golden herd for hasnt there been a few good rams taken outa there the last few years.

[bighornbob]

Originally Posted by bighornbob http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?p=379120#post379120)
You are wrong here too because after that first year there would not have been a permit the next year because guys want to hunt the big sheep. They dont want a 170 Cali or a 160 stone plain and simple.
I know that, that is why it hasn't been rotated!!
How many big sheep are killed a year by residents that hunt that area???
Doesn't matter, calm down and re-read what I am saying.

If the program only allowed rams to be taken in the EK every couple years, the big dollar rams would be available every time the permit was put up for auction, therefore more money. Instead, the price continues to be low. look at it like a business.

I am on your side when it comes to the necessity of this permit I might add.
My whole point is I would/and every other sheep hunter should gladly give a little if it means 1 or 2 rams die at the hand of a rich hunter or lucky resident if the money raised go back to the sheep. If this means I never have the chance to shoot a 190 class ram but can hunt sheep every year somewhere else in the province I will be the first one to sign up.
Listen to what you are saying.....it doesn't have to be like that if the program was managed differently.
BHB

Nothing about NIMBY in anything I have said.


What do you mean it does not matter how many residents kill rams in that herd. So you are saying that 5 or 6 book rams can be killed a year by residents and this does not affect the quality of sheep in there?? But the two special tags will affect the herd?? If thats not NIMBY I dont know what is.

You talk about bringing in big money if there was a rotational system. Well we have never really seen the big money here, even the first year the tag was auctioned off. I think the most we ever got for the tag was 150,000. At the same time the Montana tag was selling for over 300,000 and the Alberta tag was selling for 450,000. Why are their tags selling for more then ours. The answer is they have a number of herds that can produce 200 point rams. Look at Alberta, they produced 3 in a row. Not in BC, there has never been a 200 point bighorn taken on the special tag. I dont have a problem with rotaing the areas but to what areas. If we want a 200 point bighorn we have to stop the residents from taking 190 class rams that will get you the big money if a cougar does not eat that sheep first.

So our tag is only worth 100,000 (the average the last many years) shooting 190 class rams. So under your system we would rotate the areas. So lets assume year 1 gets 100,000 for a EK bighorn, year two gets 30,000 for a stone sheep (becuase no outfitter can guarantee a book stone), year 3 gets 60,000 for a Cali (number based on approximate average of what KIB gets for their auctioned tag). So after 3 years we have made 190,000 for sheep conservation.

If we keep the tags open and they sell for say 80,000 a year (well below the average they have sold for) that 240,000 for the same three years. So like you said look at it like running a business which one would you take?

If you want the big money, the residents have to stop killing the 4-5 rams a year which they do so we can get over that 190 class hump and maybe get a 200 incher. With out these 200 inchers, your business model will never work.

BHB

[bighornbob]

Havent really been following this thread but on a few of the responses I have read I agree if the money is all going back in to helping other sheep it is good also agree that the elk valley area is probably getting over hit.
I dont apply for this tag so was curious can the holder (resident or non-resident) hunt the golden herd for hasnt there been a few good rams taken outa there the last few years.

The permit specifies that there has to be a hunt already inplace in the area (LEH or regular season).

As the golden herd is unhunted they would not be able to be taken with the special permit. Just like you could not hunt the huge Cali's in Chasm and Chase.

BHB

[budismyhorse]

What do you mean it does not matter how many residents kill rams in that herd. So you are saying that 5 or 6 book rams can be killed a year by residents and this does not affect the quality of sheep in there?? But the two special tags will affect the herd?? If thats not NIMBY I dont know what is. 5 or 6 booners is rare and you know it. Maybe if a big snow happens you might get that many. Be realistic please. The average may be 2.Let me guess, you got your ram in 2004.

ADDED: For the period of 1976-2006 MU 423 has had an exact average of 8.48 rams killed by residents per year. This includes several significant bands nowhere near the mine sites. So BHB is suggesting 5 or 6 boone and crocket sheep "mine site rams" are being killed every year by residents is a crazy exageration. The average MIGHT be 2 booners per year.

doesn't matter...

My point would be that prior to the program being implemented, there were quite a few of those old monarchs out there. Enough that they could justify the hunt....along side the resident take. Now include the auction and special permit tags and there are less of those large rams. Nothing to do with resident GOS hunting.

You talk about bringing in big money if there was a rotational system. Well we have never really seen the big money here, even the first year the tag was auctioned off. I think the most we ever got for the tag was 150,000. At the same time the Montana tag was selling for over 300,000 and the Alberta tag was selling for 450,000. Why are their tags selling for more then ours. The answer is they have a number of herds that can produce 200 point rams. Look at Alberta, they produced 3 in a row. Not in BC, there has never been a 200 point bighorn taken on the special tag. I dont have a problem with rotaing the areas but to what areas. If we want a 200 point bighorn we have to stop the residents from taking 190 class rams that will get you the big money if a cougar does not eat that sheep first.
I dont know the numbers to be exact about it. I would like to know, it should be public domain.
So our tag is only worth 100,000 I think it is less than that currently(the average the last many years) shooting 190 class rams not so recently. So under your system we would rotate the areas. So lets assume year 1 gets 100,000 for a EK bighorn, year two gets 30,000 for a stone sheep (becuase no outfitter can guarantee a book stone), year 3 gets 60,000 for a Cali (number based on approximate average of what KIB gets for their auctioned tag). So after 3 years we have made 190,000 for sheep conservation.

If we keep the tags open and they sell for say 80,000 a year (well below the average they have sold for) that 240,000 for the same three years.
My point is you won't get 80k anymore....because the 190 rams aren't around like they were before the program started up. The resource is starting to look tapped. "The boys" aren't finding the 190+ rams for the hunters and the hunters know it. Face it, the harvest class is tailing off.

If you want the big money, the residents have to stop killing the 4-5 rams a year which they do so we can get over that 190 class hump and maybe get a 200 incher. With out these 200 inchers, your business model will never work. see above, the impact has been the after season hunting annually, nothing to do with the resident take.

BHB[/quote]

[6616]

I dont apply for this tag so was curious can the holder (resident or non-resident) hunt the golden herd for hasnt there been a few good rams taken outa there the last few years.

At least one that I know, earlier this fall, but these are all poached sheep because the is no sheep season in the Kicking horse Canyon.

[blackbart]

I will be sad to see the conservation dollars lost if this program is cancelled. Some folks are more interested in getting a critter on the wall than they are in the experience. This is fine, especially if their fat wallets can be milked to improve overall sheep habitat in the province.

Personally, I think that not enough attention is being paid to some of the non EK opportunities that would be present for the resident lucky enough to win the tag. Alex seems to discredit the Stone trophy potential, given the GOS over pretty much the entire range. How many previous debates have taken place around the timing of the Stone season end? Do you not think that one would not have a legitimate chance at a very large ram if given the opportunity to hunt the winter/rutting ranges? Access and logistics would be problematic, but would that not add to the overall experience as opposed to hopping out of a pickup immediately adjacent to an active mine?

The Kamloops Lake herd seems to be doing okay for trophy rams yearly as well.

Another viable use of the tag would be to allow for the shooting of a real good 7 year old rockie in a mature zone. That would end some of the age this sheep legality debates.

How about the dalls on their winter range? Be one heck of an adventure getting in there, and I am sure that trophies would be around.

Opinions are like "a certain part of our anatomy", in that everyone has one.

[bayou]

At least one that I know, earlier this fall, but these are all poached sheep because the is no sheep season in the Kicking horse Canyon.

I know the kicking horse is a closed area but wasnt sure about the special tag. Why not push to have it utilized there, for even though its closed dosnt seem to stop those that feel they need them on there wall, also seems a shame to have them end up a possible skid mark on the road.
Curious if you have kept a photo record of all the larger rams and if you have noticed any others beside the last one to go missing in the last few years.

[boxhitch]

Blackbart, I doubt shooting a Ram on the dead of winter on its meager home range would be considered fair chase hunting.

The auction permit is open to any area in the province with a hunting season, and does have extended dates beyond the regular openings. One permit received a special extension through til March, due to the difficulty in finding a suitable trophy.

The Hunter/Purchaser doesn't know where the biggest heads are at, but he gets significant influence from certain people in the hunting industry and promotion is the game. , whether it bolsters a G/O reputation or sells vidoes. The purchaser bids according to what he feels is the best opportunity for the best trophy possible, which may indeed be a Stone's if someone can convince him they know of where one is.

Bighorns are viewed far more intensely than any Thinhorn, so knowledge of trophy class animals is higher and as said, the Rocky outweighs the Cali in Bighorn world.

Also the Gov't chose not to manage this for optimum potential, they wanted to let the market set the value.

But none of this has anything to do with why the BCWF would drop their support. Dollars have nothing to do with that, nor does conservation.

I'm actually surprised at all the support there is here for the sale of our wildlife.

[budismyhorse]

boxhitch,

when you state it like you did, it makes us sound like orges or pimps. The original intent was to get some funding to help sheep ......like bobby fontana stated : off the back of a ram that had only a winter or two left. Now is leaning towards a money grab..............and the paying hunters are no longer taking those types of rams agey old rams. They take Prime rams with many winters left ...at a discounted rate. Now we are pimps slashing prices....

and what is Bighorn Bobs solution that got him all kinds of praise......threaten to put resident sheep GOS onto LEH. Booooooooo

that kind of contempt for BC resident hunting opportunity makes me ill.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

I know the kicking horse is a closed area but wasnt sure about the special tag. Why not push to have it utilized there, for even though its closed dosnt seem to stop those that feel they need them on there wall, also seems a shame to have them end up a possible skid mark on the road.
Curious if you have kept a photo record of all the larger rams and if you have noticed any others beside the last one to go missing in the last few years.

I think it would have to be a primitive weapons hunt. Maybe a rock or some kind of ancient hammer. Not exactly wild sheep.

SSS

[quadrakid]

i don,t claim to have any knowledge of this situation but i do know the anti-hunting crowd loves the tag that gets auctioned off . i,ve seen articles in the vancouver papers about it. they love to show the public how a rich american can pay an obscene amount of money to shoot the biggest most beautiful sheep in the province.it,s very good ammo for the antis. i love money going to conservation but personally don,t like the government putting a price tag on our wildlife. perhaps this has something to do with BCWF decision? just a thought.

[boxhitch]

The original intent was to get some funding to help sheep ......like bobby fontana stated : off the back of a ram that had only a winter or two left.
That line may have made someone feel good, but I doubt age or condition really entered into the picture. The biggest and best sold.
The Gov't was persuaded into agreeing, and the big $$ signs were the impetiss for sure, as they knew the coffers wouldn't cough it up.
A MOE member once stated that if the permit couldn't raise $100,000 it might loose their support too. But seats change as do members and appointees.

But again back to the main issue and the BCWFs members support for the North American Model.

[boxhitch]

Maybe a rock or some kind of ancient hammer. SSSI bet more than one trucker has had to stop and use a tire-thumper to dispatch an injured Sheep.

[bayou]

I bet more than one trucker has had to stop and use a tire-thumper to dispatch an injured Sheep.

Possible correct so quite a waste why not utilize them, some of these people arnt there for the hunt just want that big head on the wall. 100 grand to help sheep is better then being drug under a semi. some of the other hunts arnt that hard either, waiting for a sheep to cross a line to be legal, mind you the weather can be nasty.

[6616]

I think it would have to be a primitive weapons hunt. Maybe a rock or some kind of ancient hammer. Not exactly wild sheep.

SSSI've been involved with the supplimental feeding program in the Kicking Horse since it's inception and I can tell you I could have killed 190+ rams with a carpenters framing hammer. If you don't buy the 190+ look in ny gallery on this site. If you don't know what framing hammer is ask Sawmill from Kimberley, he probably has a dozen or so.

[6616]

Rec'd this today re the special sheep permit:

Andy: In US $
2000 172,000
2001 110,000
2002 100,000
2003 120,000
2004 110,000
2005 150,000
2006 132,000
2007 135,000
2008 105,000 (turned back) no hunt this year.

As far as scores go, the first year was a 200 ram then all 190's rams except the last two or maybe three years where they were in the 180's. The last year was 185 taken ou tof Spence's Bridge.

[budismyhorse]

thanks Andy, so its fair to say that since 2004 or 2003, the guides havent been able to take a 190+ ram for the auction tag holder and the dropping price reflects that.

[6616]

But again back to the main issue and the BCWFs members support for the North American Model.

It's true that in most cases sale of wildlife is not supported by the NACM but the BCWF was willing to make an exception in the case of the special permits due to the immense good that could be done with this cash flow. The NACM really has very little to do with why the BCWF is considering removing it's support, and believe me the decision is not made yet and many members will not agree with it.

To debate why the BCWF supports the NACM is completely ridiculous, we all should support it without question, it's what got us where we are today with a public owned wildlife resource. To even suggest it's not a supprtable entity or to criticize the BCWF support for it is truely inconceivable.

http://www.bcwf.bc.ca/documents/s=256/bcw1145413546908/

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Rec'd this today re the special sheep permit:

Andy: In US $
2000 172,000
2001 110,000
2002 100,000
2003 120,000
2004 110,000
2005 150,000
2006 132,000
2007 135,000
2008 105,000 (turned back) no hunt this year.

As far as scores go, the first year was a 200 ram then all 190's rams except the last two or maybe three years where they were in the 180's. The last year was 185 taken ou tof Spence's Bridge.

So excluding this year...that's over $1 million US dollars. Minus 10% to FNAWS.....that probably close to $1 million Can. Not to mention the lesser earnings from residents. Those funds will be greatly missed.

Are the sheep not there(on the mines) or has the weather played a major role not pushing the sheep around into open areas???

Watching a few of the videos of the Alberta auction hunts showed that the rams were there but did not wander off mine property while the hunter was waiting. "X" must still meet "Y" during "Z" time.

SSS

[6616]

I know the Kicking Horse is a closed area but wasnt sure about the special tag. Why not push to have it utilized there, for even though its closed dosnt seem to stop those that feel they need them on there wall, also seems a shame to have them end up a possible skid mark on the road.
Curious if you have kept a photo record of all the larger rams and if you have noticed any others beside the last one to go missing in the last few years.

Yes I have photos of all the big rams that lived in the Kicking Horse, Bill Pastorek has published several of my pictures in the WSSOBC magazine,,,and yes two others went missing in recent years that could have been poached (besides the one from this fall which incidentally scored 192). Look in my gallery to see the biggest one ever, he disappeared mysteriously. Bobby Fontana and myself discussed this ram extensivelly and Bob figured he would break the 200 mark. There are several rams that could have been poached.

[6616]

So excluding this year...that's over $1 million US dollars. Minus 10% to FNAWS.....that probably close to $1 million Can. Not to mention the lesser earnings from residents. Those funds will be greatly missed.

Are the sheep not there(on the mines) or has the weather played a major role not pushing the sheep around into open areas???

Watching a few of the videos of the Alberta auction hunts showed that the rams were there but did not wander off mine property while the hunter was waiting. "X" must still meet "Y" during "Z" time.

SSS

I believe the mine herd at Cadomin is a much larger herd then the herds at Fording or Line Creek so there is much more potential for numbers of cranker rams to exist. The Cadomin herd is a spin off herd from a very large unhunted National Park population, there are unbelieveable numbers of huge rams in that herd.. Some day you should hike up Wilcox Creek near Saskatchewan Crossing to see a very large herd of rams (30 to 40) that would range in score between 180 and 200 and to get an idea of the potential of the Jasper herd, and thus the Cadomin area. I know it just completely blew mw away when I did that.

The Elk Valley herds are scattered all up and down the Valley on both sides from the headwaters to Elko, most of them far removed from any of the mine sites. They are the healthiest, most vibrant and most viable Bighorn Sheep population in BC but they are a regularily hunted herd much smaller in number then the Jasper park herd.

A resident hunting sheep in, say Quarry Creek for example, is not, ever, ever assuming he's of sound mind, going to turn down a 190 class ram (if there was one) because it might detract from the chance of a big ram being available at the mine propertries for a special permit hunter to shoot at some time in the future. That's just not ever going to happen. There's just no guarantee that particular ram would ever end up on the mine properites anyway.

[budismyhorse]

Are the sheep not there(on the mines) or has the weather played a major role not pushing the sheep around into open areas???

The weather no doubt has something to do with it. However, the resident permit holder in 2005 (Hosker) took a 190+ ram... so they do exist....just not anywhere near the level they used to prior to the inception of this program. For a ram like that to be taken, there has to be more than a few around as there are always a couple that never leave the property or that evade the hunters.





SSS

..............

[budismyhorse]

didn't this all start as a result of government cuttbacks forcing the MOE to try and find new ways to find money for programs? Maybe the gov't should cover the 100k a year and be done with all this. I'm sure they spend more on staff and admin time "managing" the funds.

[Jagermeister]

Please indulge my ignorance and tell me what this stands for "wssof bc ".
As Gilda Radner used to say, "Never mind", I figured it out all by my self of just about.

[BCrams]

Please indulge my ignorance and tell me what this stands for "wssof bc ".

Wild Sheep Society of BC

http://www.wildsheepsociety.org/sheep

[bayou]

Didnt realize the shoeder ram was over 190 but what about the rivers ram it was, believe he also helped on the hoskier ram

[budismyhorse]

hey your right bayou, 189 5/8 after drying and 9yrs old. Reference Wild Sheep Society quarterly.

Hosker and Rivers are well into the 190's though.

[boxhitch]

the BCWF was willing to make an exception in the case of the special permits due to the immense good that could be done with this cash flow. The NACM really has very little to do with why the BCWF is considering removing it's support, and believe me the decision is not made yet and many members will not agree with it.

I guess I jumped soon on that. The NACM has come up at sheep meetings involving the BCWF, and I don't here of any other reason for the withdrawl of support, so I guess I have to wait for the word from the horses mouth.

[bridger]

I have been a member of the bcwf for about 35 years and have always felt the bcwf has put the interest of the resource first and foremost over the years. I personally have supported the special sheep permits from the get go, but I have been concerned for sometime the direction this program was headed. Personally I would like to see the program continue, but it needs to be revamped. Many of the states are having similar problems and are re thinking their programs as well. Hopefully some good can come from discussions on this forum that can be forwarded to bcwf executives. Any positive ideas?

[bridger]

one issue on the subject of special permits that so far has been missed is the question of the provincial governments lack of funding for wildlife projects in general. If victoria placed the same value on wildlife as it does for say agriculture we wouldn't be having these discussions. I don't know for sure but I'd guess that the net economic value of hunting in the east kootneys is greater that the net econmic value of beef production in the east kootney but who has be the biggest voice with politicians. Perhaps we should be chanelling our energies in that direction.

[boxhitch]

is the question of the provincial governments lack of funding for wildlife projects in general.
Often it sounds like the MOE has a hard time getting money committed to a budget for projects, then other time the money just seems to be available. Tough to set up programs I bet.
It makes it more laughable when the various Regional offices have to apply to the HCTF pool to try and get funds. That doesn't seem right.

[boxhitch]

To debate why the BCWF supports the NACM is completely ridiculous,
Never implied. I only brought it up so members here might take interest and look it up.

[GoatGuy]

When you're setting something like this up it's clearly set up with good intentions, but you have to measure the $ that hits the ground.


So, you need to figure out the revenue and take off the opportunity and direct costs for the auction, FNAWS, MoE EEE's, NGO's and figure out your margin.


After that you need to see where, how and when those dollars are going back into habitat. Is all the money going into what it's supposed to be used for and is it going into areas where the return is being maximized?


So what falls to the bottom line?

[6616]

When you're setting something like this up it's clearly set up with good intentions, but you have to measure the $ that hits the ground.


So, you need to figure out the revenue and take off the opportunity and direct costs for the auction, FNAWS, MoE EEE's, NGO's and figure out your margin.


After that you need to see where, how and when those dollars are going back into habitat. Is all the money going into what it's supposed to be used for and is it going into areas where the return is being maximized?


So what falls to the bottom line?

I am personally quite happy with how the money is being spent. The Advisory Committtee is all volunteers so the admin overhead is reasonably low. We've completed several very good projects in the EK with this funding. At least 2 ongoing projects could be threatened by the loss of the program.

[boxhitch]

Thats all sorted out by the committee that handles the special permits.
But what is enough ? Is the sale really that troublesome that it has to reach a value to justify ? When funds are tight, even $40,000 helps the resource.

[6616]

Often it sounds like the MOE has a hard time getting money committed to a budget for projects, then other time the money just seems to be available. Tough to set up programs I bet.
It makes it more laughable when the various Regional offices have to apply to the HCTF pool to try and get funds. That doesn't seem right.

I couldn't agree more, the HCTF was set up for conservation work over and above core MOE activities, but now, due to shrinking budgets, MOE regions are applying for HCTF funding to get work done that they should be budgeted for. Regions are starting to think of the HCTF as their personal slush fund for unbudgeted core management activities. The worst part is HCTF has a hard time refusing these applications because they're critical activities and need done, but wouldn't get done if HCTF refused to fund them. Caught between a rock and a hard place..!

[GoatGuy]

Don't shoot me, I'm only asking questions.
:tongue:

6616,

Do you have any reports on those projects?


Boxhitch,

What is enough is the question.

[budismyhorse]

I couldn't agree more, the HCTF was set up for conservation work over and above core MOE activities, but now, due to shrinking budgets, MOE regions are applying for HCTF funding to get work done that they should be budgeted for. Regions are starting to think of the HCTF as their personal slush fund for unbudgeted core management activities. The worst part is HCTF has a hard time refusing these applications because they're critical activities and need done, but wouldn't get done if HCTF refused to fund them. Caught between a rock and a hard place..!


thanks for the info Andy, this clears up a few things for me. One being how the money is used and admin costs ect. thanks.

[GoatGuy]

Are the sheep not there(on the mines) or has the weather played a major role not pushing the sheep around into open areas???

SSS

There are very few monsters left; when you shoot them that's just the way it goes.

[Deaddog]

If the BCWF wanted the program revamped there are much better ways to enter into those discussions, as recently as october the fed sat with the other reps on the special permit committee and never once asked to enter into formal discussions regarding revamping the process. I believe all agree that things change and we must constantly change to keep current. However to pull support without attempting in a meaningful way to discuss the concerns is irresponsible. I would like to ask where the funding for collars, knapweed projects and domestic/wild sheep conflicts (all projects HTCF dollars have funded in the very recent past in the Kootenays) will now come from.. Has the BCWF proposed any options for this funding shortfall.....???

[budismyhorse]

Andy, is it fair to say that the BCWF supported the take on sheep when it was deemed there was a "surplus" of these rams to draw from......with this now not the case its time to re-vamp the program or pull support completely?

DD, I support the need to communicate during this process completely! However, is it possibly the talks had fallen on deaf ears over the years and this way may force the program to be re-vamped?? just a thought. cheers.

[GoatGuy]

I couldn't agree more, the HCTF was set up for conservation work over and above core MOE activities, but now, due to shrinking budgets, MOE regions are applying for HCTF funding to get work done that they should be budgeted for. Regions are starting to think of the HCTF as their personal slush fund for unbudgeted core management activities. The worst part is HCTF has a hard time refusing these applications because they're critical activities and need done, but wouldn't get done if HCTF refused to fund them. Caught between a rock and a hard place..!

And there are very few applications and some of the applications are just lame.


Get the feeling government's responsibility is being divested.

[6616]

Don't shoot me, I'm only asking questions.
:tongue:

6616,

Do you have any reports on those projects?


Boxhitch,

What is enough is the question.

You're in the crosshairs now....

There were several in the Elk Valley co-funded by the special sheep fund that the EV guys will know more about then I do. I do have a couple of the reports someplace I think. Also I believe the domestic/wild sheep seperation project got some funding from the special sheep fund, but not sure.
I also think some of the work Whitey and Ivar did on the East Columbia had special permit funding. Most of these projects were only co-funded by the sheep fund. I've not seen any reports but I haven't tried or asked for them. Helen sends up-dates out on the Sheep Sepreration Project

[Deaddog]

Special permits such as these take a long time to get going, it is much better to revamp them with them in place, once they are "stopped" it will potentially may take years to get them going again... thus losing hundreds of thousands of dollars for the sheep.

[boxhitch]

budismyhorse, keep in mind that the funds from the Special Sheep permits are handled seperate from the HCTF funds, by a seperate committee. There are parellels.

[boxhitch]

Maybe before we all get off half-cocked, we should clarify what the BCWF stand is on this, if they have recinded support. So far it is hearsay ?

[budismyhorse]

from what I interpret from 6616's comments, it hasn't been anything formal, until I hear it from a BCWF rep, I'll treat it as hearsay.

I think you are right, we should likely stand down until BCWF puts up something formal.

[6616]

If the BCWF wanted the program revamped there are much better ways to enter into those discussions, as recently as october the fed sat with the other reps on the special permit committee and never once asked to enter into formal discussions regarding revamping the process. I believe all agree that things change and we must constantly change to keep current. However to pull support without attempting in a meaningful way to discuss the concerns is irresponsible. I would like to ask where the funding for collars, knapweed projects and domestic/wild sheep conflicts (all projects HTCF dollars have funded in the very recent past in the Kootenays) will now come from.. Has the BCWF proposed any options for this funding shortfall.....???

Just because the HCTF funded a sheep project does not necessarily mean that special permit funding was used, in fact it's really a very small minority of HCTF projects that involve special permit co-funding. These are two completely different entities and funds with completely different advisory committees in place. The HCTF fund has many times more funds (several millions each year) to disburse each year then the special permits fund (about $100,000 per year). In the big picture, even in regards to sheep projects, the special permits fund is not a significant player.

I'm not saying it's expendible or of no value, we need and can use everything we can get.

[6616]

Maybe before we all get off half-cocked, we should clarify what the BCWF stand is on this, if they have recinded support. So far it is hearsay ?


from what I interpret from 6616's comments, it hasn't been anything formal, until I hear it from a BCWF rep, I'll treat it as hearsay. I think you are right, we should likely stand down until BCWF puts up something formal.



Thank you Jeff, Bill: As I pointed out previously this is just an internal discussion point at this time within the BCWF, and any decision on this will be made in April at the Fernie convention by the delegates (not the executive or wildlife committee). Also anyone in the room at that time will be allowed to voice his opinion in hopes of influencing the voting delegates. The BCWF is not even anywhere close to making a decision or issuing a policy statement on this at the current time and will not before convention...period!

It would be a huge and divisive mistake to draw lines of controversy between the BCWF and the WSSOBC over this issue since there is a very significant overlap between BCWF and WSSOBC membership!

Regardless of my involvement with the BCWF, I have been a member of the WSSOBC since it's inception and I served for many years on their BOD, and in fact was on the board when the discussions and initiation of the special sheep permit took place. There are several other (much higher profile then myself) BCWF people who have served on the BODs of both organisations and I'm 100% positive there are many out there who are very loyal to both organisations. We should be trying to avoid internal controversy in hunting community. I'm quite sure that ultimately the goals of both organisations are the same.

[Mooseman]

There is a good thing that is in question for no good reason.

The BCWF representatives told the group already that the BCWF was not going to support the special permits.

[David Heitsman]

There is a good thing that is in question for no good reason.

The BCWF representatives told the group already that the BCWF was not going to support the special permits.


Can you clarify this comment ?

[6616]

The BCWF representatives told the group already that the BCWF was not going to support the special permits.

They may have warned the group that their support was being questioned....I don't know what exactly was said, but what you say is not accurate.

[boxhitch]

BCWF representatives told the group
Was this at a regional meeting ? or the boyz at the bar ?

[budismyhorse]

I've dug into this pretty well and there has been no formal decision made, not really even much of a discussion about it, as far as I can tell.

it sounds to me like people, not the BCWF, are stretching "revamped".... all the way out to non-support.

[Deaddog]

The facts of the matter are that the BCWF had an directors meeting in June, at that time it was decieded that a motion would be made at the agm which would involve NOT supporting the special sheep permit (amongst others), at a meeting this week (tuesday) the Fed rep informed the other members of the committee that the BCWF would not be supporting the special sheep tag (no mention of it going to the convention was made). You are right that not much of a discussion has taken place, hopefully there is time for a conversation to take place...

[Mooseman]

I've dug into this pretty well and ...........



keep digging.......

[6616]

The facts of the matter are that the BCWF had an directors meeting in June, at that time it was decieded that a motion would be made at the agm which would involve NOT supporting the special sheep permit (amongst others), at a meeting this week (tuesday) the Fed rep informed the other members of the committee that the BCWF would not be supporting the special sheep tag (no mention of it going to the convention was made). You are right that not much of a discussion has taken place, hopefully there is time for a conversation to take place...

The motion has been forwarded to the convention for final decison.

[Mooseman]

The motion has been forwarded to the convention for final decison.


What did that motion say ?

[David Heitsman]

The BCWF convention is in Fernie. Can you even get there from anywhere?:wink:

[GoatGuy]

There is a good thing that is in question for no good reason.

The BCWF representatives told the group already that the BCWF was not going to support the special permits.


Is this supposed to make sense?

No comprehende.:?:

[Mooseman]

Is this supposed to make sense?

No comprehende.:?:

Now, now. Play nice GG

[6616]

What did that motion say ?

It will be in the convention resolution book when it comes out.

[GoatGuy]

Now, now. Play nice GG

Can't read what you're read - no understand?

[boxhitch]

There is a good thing that is in question for no good reason.

The BCWF representatives told the group already that the BCWF was not going to support the special permits.
The 'good thing' would be the special permit?
'The special permit is in question, for no good reason' ?? My read

[boxhitch]

Can't read what you're read - no understand?Now that is clear as mud !

[GoatGuy]

Now that is clear as mud !

That was the point.:idea:

[Mooseman]

Sorry, I am not biting tonight. I still have some work that needs to get done. Some other day perhaps..... :cool:

[6616]

Released today from BCWF Board of Directors.

January 28, 2008

Clarification on the BC Wildlife Federation Position on the Premier’s Permits

The BC Wildlife Federation (BCWF) wishes to provide clarification on its current position on the BC Premier’s Permits. Recently there have been a number of proposals presented to the Special Permit’s Committee that the BCWF can not support as they establish precedence in wildlife management and go far beyond the original intent of why the permits were established.

Initially the Federation’s membership endorsed providing support for the Premier’s Permits but it was with great apprehension and reluctance. Our membership was extremely concerned about the direction the Permits might take and lengthy debate ensued before the resolution passed. In passing the resolution our membership gave strict direction to support one Premier’s Sheep Permit and one Premier’s Roosevelt Elk Permit for residents through an LEH draw and an auction permit for each species open to residents and non-residents. The opportunity to hunt for these species would occur only in any area currently open through a General Open Season or a Limited Entry Hunt. These conditions for support were very specific as our membership was extremely reluctant about supporting the sale of wildlife due to the fact it would compromise a very cherished North American Wildlife Management principle.

The BCWF still supports the original conditions and direction of the Premier’s Permits. There have been numerous quality wildlife projects funded through the proceeds collected from the permits through the years that have benefited wildlife in British Columbia. It must be stated that there has been NO mandate from our membership to support modifications or changes to the original criteria and procedures of the Premier’s Permits.

Throughout the original debate by our membership substantial fears were raised that there would be an effort to change the provisions of the Premier’s Permits as the years went by. The permits were set out to be strictly for Thinhorn or Bighorn Sheep and Roosevelt Elk because of their uniqueness to British Columbia and global appeal. It should be remembered that the permits provide an opportunity for harvest and NOT guaranteed success!

It appears the very fears raised in debate by our membership have been now brought to the table. The membership was adamant when the permits were introduced that there would be NO substantive changes to the process, conditions or their original merits or the BCWF would withdraw their support for the permits.

Unfortunately the following proposals for change are being discussed:
·Adding Rocky Mountain Elk to the Premier’s Roosevelt Elk Permit (Even though Roosevelt elk are the rarer of the two species. In addition the opportunity for Roosevelt Elk at present comes from allocated areas.)
·Opening current closed areas that may have exceptional trophy animals strictly for the Premier’s Permits. Most of which are unallocated.
·Providing compensation to the Outfitter for services incurred through guiding in his territory or hunts that extend past two weeks.

If the Premier’s Permits can not sell themselves under the original conditions then is it really worth continuing with them?

PLEASE NOTE: The province had to refund the money paid for the 2008 auction permit as they cannot guarantee that the non –resident hunter would kill a 195 or better Boone & Crockett scored ram.

[whitetailsheds]

Thanks for posting Andy.

[Deaddog]

x2, thanks for posting the release, it clearly helps to define the feds position and the reasons.. DD

[David Heitsman]

Why is it dated January 28, 2008 and they wait till December 08 to let us and the ministry know.

[LOC]

PLEASE NOTE: The province had to refund the money paid for the 2008 auction permit as they cannot guarantee that the non –resident hunter would kill a 195 or better Boone & Crockett scored ram.




Somewhat off-topic, but this line confused me. Was the permit auctioned like it was a guaranteed kill? Why should/would the province return the money?

Heck I have some un-cut tags, maybe I can my money back too...

[bruin]

I was just about to post that LOC. It must have to do with legalities in the wording of tag documents or something. Anyone have any details.

[Skeena Hunter 1]

It is my understanding that the money was refunded long before the hunt was to take place, shortyl after the bidder bought it at FNAWS. It seems after he bought it and talked to a few people, it became clear that the hunt may have been "over" sold. Rather than some bad publicity the province and FNAWS(WSF now) gave the guy his money back. I am not sure if it was the province or FNAWS that talked it up(the hunt) too much. Someone else in the know on here might have a better take on this.

[6616]

Why is it dated January 28, 2008 and they wait till December 08 to let us and the ministry know.

Thanks for pointing that out David. It is miss-dated.
The actual date of issue was Dec 28th/2008.

The BCWF wildlife committee chair wrote this just last weekend in reponse to a request from Bridger for futher clarification on this issue. Bridger informed me he hasn't rec'd it yet since it was sent to his work e-mail address. Since it was sent to the entire wildlife committee and BOD, I took the liberty of posting it myself. Bridger should be given the credit for digging into this and asking for this memo to be issued.

[Gateholio]

[quote=6616;385162]Released today from BCWF Board of Directors.

January 28, 2008

Clarification on the BC Wildlife Federation Position on the Premier’s Permits

The BC Wildlife Federation (BCWF) wishes to provide clarification on its current position on the BC Premier’s Permits. Recently there have been a number of proposals presented to the Special Permit’s Committee that the BCWF can not support as they establish precedence in wildlife management and go far beyond the original intent of why the permits were established.

Initially the Federation’s membership endorsed providing support for the Premier’s Permits but it was with great apprehension and reluctance. Our membership was extremely concerned about the direction the Permits might take and lengthy debate ensued before the resolution passed. In passing the resolution our membership gave strict direction to support one Premier’s Sheep Permit and one Premier’s Roosevelt Elk Permit for residents through an LEH draw and an auction permit for each species open to residents and non-residents. The opportunity to hunt for these species would occur only in any area currently open through a General Open Season or a Limited Entry Hunt. These conditions for support were very specific as our membership was extremely reluctant about supporting the sale of wildlife due to the fact it would compromise a very cherished North American Wildlife Management principle.

The BCWF still supports the original conditions and direction of the Premier’s Permits. There have been numerous quality wildlife projects funded through the proceeds collected from the permits through the years that have benefited wildlife in British Columbia. It must be stated that there has been NO mandate from our membership to support modifications or changes to the original criteria and procedures of the Premier’s Permits.

Throughout the original debate by our membership substantial fears were raised that there would be an effort to change the provisions of the Premier’s Permits as the years went by. The permits were set out to be strictly for Thinhorn or Bighorn Sheep and Roosevelt Elk because of their uniqueness to British Columbia and global appeal. It should be remembered that the permits provide an opportunity for harvest and NOT guaranteed success!

It appears the very fears raised in debate by our membership have been now brought to the table. The membership was adamant when the permits were introduced that there would be NO substantive changes to the process, conditions or their original merits or the BCWF would withdraw their support for the permits.

Unfortunately the following proposals for change are being discussed:
· Adding Rocky Mountain Elk to the Premier’s Roosevelt Elk Permit (Even though Roosevelt elk are the rarer of the two species. In addition the opportunity for Roosevelt Elk at present comes from allocated areas.)
· Opening current closed areas that may have exceptional trophy animals strictly for the Premier’s Permits. Most of which are unallocated.
· Providing compensation to the Outfitter for services incurred through guiding in his territory or hunts that extend past two weeks.

If the Premier’s Permits can not sell themselves under the original conditions then is it really worth continuing with them?

PLEASE NOTE: The province had to refund the money paid for the 2008 auction permit as they cannot guarantee that the non –resident hunter would kill a 195 or better Boone & Crockett scored ram.

[Gateholio]

[QUOTE]Unfortunately the following proposals for change are being discussed:
· Adding Rocky Mountain Elk to the Premier’s Roosevelt Elk Permit (Even though Roosevelt elk are the rarer of the two species. In addition the opportunity for Roosevelt Elk at present comes from allocated areas.)

Not a fan of this....

· Opening current closed areas that may have exceptional trophy animals strictly for the Premier’s Permits. Most of which are unallocated.

Could be fine with this- I'd need more information.

· Providing compensation to the Outfitter for services incurred through guiding in his territory or hunts that extend past two weeks.

I think the compensation to the outfitter should be paid by the hunter who purchases the tag. (In other words, the hunter pays the outfitter for his hunt!)

There shoudl be no other "compensation" The outfitter doesn't own the animals.


PLEASE NOTE: The province had to refund the money paid for the 2008 auction permit as they cannot guarantee that the non –resident hunter would kill a 195 or better Boone & Crockett scored ram.

This is just 100% wrong.

[bighornbob]

It is my understanding that the money was refunded long before the hunt was to take place, shortyl after the bidder bought it at FNAWS. It seems after he bought it and talked to a few people, it became clear that the hunt may have been "over" sold. Rather than some bad publicity the province and FNAWS(WSF now) gave the guy his money back. I am not sure if it was the province or FNAWS that talked it up(the hunt) too much. Someone else in the know on here might have a better take on this.

From what I heard the guy who bought the tag was just out to lunch. He bought the tag wanting to shoot a 190 class Stone Sheep. When he asked around and found out that a 190 Stone is next to impossible he said he would shoot a 195 bighorn. He then found out that he would be hard pressed to find one of them. thats when he asked for his money back.

BHB

[6616]

From what I heard the guy who bought the tag was just out to lunch. He bought the tag wanting to shoot a 190 class Stone Sheep. When he asked around and found out that a 190 Stone is next to impossible he said he would shoot a 195 bighorn. He then found out that he would be hard pressed to find one of them. thats when he asked for his money back.

BHB

I agree Alex, I had the story relayed to me second, hand but from a guy who was there, and I'm not impressed with the purchasers attitude either. One would expect a prospective buyer to do his asking around before he bid on the permit.

[6616]

[quote=Gatehouse;385645]

I think the compensation to the outfitter should be paid by the hunter who purchases the tag. (In other words, the hunter pays the outfitter for his hunt!) There shoudl be no other "compensation" The outfitter doesn't own the animals. This is just 100% wrong.

Compensation for services rendered is always paid for buy the tag holder.

I think the issue is that the purchaser can hire any assistants or spotters he wants and isn't necessarily required to hire the outfitter whose territory he's hunting in, thus the owner of the territory feels ripped off when the huge ram is shot out of his territory and he hasn't even made a thin dime out of it.

It's true as you point out, the territory or outfitter does not have any right of ownership over the animals. You are seeing it correctly in my mind,,,, also you, me, or any resident hunter could just as easily shoot the same ram during the normal open season and the outfitter (rightfully) still wouldn't receive any income from it, he hasn't rendered any service.

Services rendered must be paid for, but I don't agree with having to compensate an outfitter who had no actual part in, or contribution to, the actual on the ground hunting effort.

[Bighorn hunter]

From what I heard the guy who bought the tag was just out to lunch. He bought the tag wanting to shoot a 190 class Stone Sheep. When he asked around and found out that a 190 Stone is next to impossible he said he would shoot a 195 bighorn. He then found out that he would be hard pressed to find one of them. thats when he asked for his money back.

BHB


Why would the province have to pay him back? At auction there are no promises of what calibre of rams are available

[bighornbob]

Why would the province have to pay him back? At auction there are no promises of what calibre of rams are available


I have a feeling it was more to do with the Sheep Foundation then the province. I think they wanted to keep the guy happy. Who knows what kind of money he drops there. It a friendly auction.

I guess thats the chance you take for having your permit auctioned off at the Sheep Foundation Auction, you play by their rules. The province could auction it themselves but the big buyers are always at the Sheep Foundation Dinner and Auction.

This is the first I have heard of money being given back, but I heard of it becuase it was the BC tag. Who knows how much they give back as I am sure we would not hear about a Utah Desert sheep tag if the auction was renegged on. I am sure there as has been more then a few drunk hunters waving at a friend across the hall and then relizing he just bought a hunt for 100,000

BHB

[GoatGuy]

From what I heard the guy who bought the tag was just out to lunch. He bought the tag wanting to shoot a 190 class Stone Sheep. When he asked around and found out that a 190 Stone is next to impossible he said he would shoot a 195 bighorn. He then found out that he would be hard pressed to find one of them. thats when he asked for his money back.

BHB

The guy realized there weren't the critters he thought before purchasing the tag and money was refunded.

Even had wads of cash one would imagine that you'd do some research before dropping $100K.:sad:

There's a solution in the works for that; however, I believe the guy was an outlier.

[boxhitch]

I believe the guy was an outlier.Have to look that one up !

From what I heard the guy who bought the tag was just out to lunch.Maybe a 4 Martini lunch ? Nobody said brains and money go together. I can just picture it.....the guy in a ten gallon hat and a trophy date on the arm, waving a cheque book........

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Sounds like Anna's miffed cause the Lancaster Boyz have been getting the call.:-P


SSS

[BCRiverBoater]

All I can say is the idiot was not a sheep hunter. Any real sheep hunter knows the caliber of rams being shot and where they come from. The 195 bighorns are Alberta tags and when has a 190 stone been shot? Obviously the guy did not deserve to get a ram of that caliber so someone else with some history and respect for the sheep hunt should get this tag. I am so glad the moron did not go and get a world class ram.

Now having said that...there should not be full refund. That means no one got the tag and the province and organizations did not receive the money they deserved and need to run the programs they are trying to run. I would say tough luck. Hunt or resell it for what you can get for it. You paid us and the tag is yours. We are keeping your money but will gladly auction it again and you can keep the money. Thanks and good bye.

[David Heitsman]

From what I'm hearing now many of the Feds concerns are arising from the elk tag not the sheep tag, something many of us (you) hadn't thought about.

The issues are the same as well since the majority of the Roosevelt's come from the same proximity and impact the local herds.