historic sheep harvest in 7b

[stoneguide]

We'd all like to have better numbers, and no one is arguing that point with you anyway,,, only the somewhat ludicrous statement you made that "AAHs should not be based on science".

How is it ludicrous? If things were the way they should be AAH would be based on actual numbers and not science. Just because at this time it isnt fiancialy possible to do proper studies sure doenst mean it isnt the best way. As I said they do what they can with what they have. Is it the best way? Far from it, but at this time it is the only way they can afford.

There will never be a time that a scientific estimation will be better than an actual count. I cant even beleive you think that way. Unreal!

SG

[GoatGuy]

How is it ludicrous? If things were the way they should be AAH would be based on actual numbers and not science. Just because at this time it isnt fiancialy possible to do proper studies sure doenst mean it isnt the best way. As I said they do what they can with what they have. Is it the best way? Far from it, but at this time it is the only way they can afford.

There will never be a time that a scientific estimation will be better than an actual count. I cant even beleive you think that way. Unreal!

SG

The AAH in 7B is based on counts. I think that's what 6616 was trying to say.

[stoneguide]

Gotcha, it certainly could be done better but to be honest you're far better off flying the winter range near areas that get a lot of pressure every couple years than you are flying it all regularly.

Let me put it this way. Real loose analogy. We could inventory a moose population of say 200 moose. It will cost us say ~$10,000 every 3 years and we can harvest say 10-15% of the population. Now, if we want to increase the harvest significantly up to of say 15-20% of the population it will cost us about $30,000 and we have to do it every year. So we could spent $50,000 over the next 15 years and harvest say 300-450 moose or we could spend $450,000 to harvest 450-600 moose. Which one would you pick? For $400,000 we could burn the country side and end up with far more moose than we'll ever realize spending it on inventory.

Ok, if you don't agree with DNA mark-recapture for grizzly bears there is no way in the world you could ever support a hunt or think that they're being inventoried properly unless you had every single bear in the country running around with a GPS collar - cubs included. That would be about the only way to do a better job of knowing how many bears are out there.

And all that economic stuff makes sense, right? But nobody thinks about it. Almost like $40,000 is a cake walk. How many outfitters in BC are really even charging this now? A handful at most. There's a bunch of guys that are at half that with a trophy fee now.

This thread has gone around the world.

At the end of the day the objectives should be:
1) Measure the population and come up with an AAH
The AAH and the estimate is very conservative when we don't have the money to consistently monitor the population and it's increased if we've got wads of cash but never to the point we are experiencing diminished returns
2) Follow the policy, split it up and tell your stakeholders to get on with making more animals.


This allocation crap is new to me, to tell you the truth there's three things I care about are habitat, wildlife and creating more hunters. Can only tell you what I've seen out of all the BS stunts, arguments and appeals that have been pulled over the last 5 years.

Stakeholders have been busy either trying to uphold the policy or sandbag it. It's cost a pile of money, time and hardship. Over the last 5 years we could have spent that time, money and energy increasing habitat and dealing with other issues such as predation and there would be LOTS OF SHEEP. 2012 would not be a big deal.

I know Willy rants about the BCWF and residents this and that but I can tell you and anyone else very honestly that at the time this policy was signed, sealed and delivered everyone was on the same page. Apparently that's significant, I figured that was just the way things work. After Dale Drown left things went to hell in a hand basket overnight and it hasn't improved.

To be very honest it's tough to make more hunters when animals like moose, elk and deer opportunities and allocations are being taken away from residents. Those are the kinds of things that kill resident hunters off, never mind trying to make more hunters. Sheep aren't the most important species in BC for residents, probably near the bottom right around grizzlies and goats but they are reflective of a bigger issue and that's why it's a mountain to die on for residents.

Now we're a year away from 2012 and shit is rolling down the pipe for the outfitters in 6 and 7B in a big way, the appeals have been heard, the backdoor political wrangling hasn't worked, the economic viability paper has achieved much for results and most of the guys with sheep are looking at BIG CUTS. Hopefully there will be some learning to be had.

If we could ever let this policy work and get our collective heads out of our asses we wouldn't be worried about who gets what, just worrying about habitat and wildlife. With 5 years behind us I can guarantee you nobody would be meeting their allocation if we spent that time working for sheep.

I have the same concept and can be read on a pile of threads on AlbertaOutdoorsman. I would loose all right to hunt sheep if thats what is needed to help the population or even take a ram every 10 years if that helps to have a huntable population. It should be but seldom is about the animal and the habitat.


And you keep bringing up the dollar figures. I understand the money end of things. Again only stated that with sheep to come up with the best population numbers scientific estimates arent the best route.
Are other way finacialy fesable? No. Are other ways more accurate? For sure.

And yes its very hard to do an accurate population count on Grizz. Probably the toughest out there. But when you see how the DNA samples were done, how little some of the guys setting the bait sites up knew about bears and where many bait sites(some within minutes of my house) were located its very easy to see how they convieniently come up with low numbers. The Grizz study was dead before it started. To many goups with agendas wanting things to go their way.
But like you said that is all for another thread.

SG

[stoneguide]

The AAH in 7B is based on counts. I think that's what 6616 was trying to say.

Ya he says they were done on random sectional area counts through out the zone. From there scientific analysis and averaging will determin the numbers not a an actual full count.

SG

[GoatGuy]

Ya he says they were done on random sectional area counts through out the zone. From there scientific analysis and averaging will determin the numbers not a an actual full count.

SG

no, and you won't get one anytime soon.

[stoneguide]

[quote=stoneguide;848917]

Who's word should we take then? As it's been stated, the scientific method utilized is the best 'word' possible. It isn't just a guess. With advances and upgrades in GIS technology, Resource Selection Functions, habitat suitability models, mapping and indexes, the science will fine tune over time.

There is error within any statistical analysis, even absolute abundance estimates. The error associated with a 90-95% confidence interval is generally quite low as long as an appropriate sample size is utilized. Sure it's not 100% perfect but statistical analysis never are. Even with all the money and man power in the world, you would never be able to locate all the sheep. Our mountains are too vast, forested and heck..animals move around and hide well.

LOL no matter how much technology you have it will never trump an actual visual count. You can argue all you want. Each zone will have different sq. miles that hold sheep. Each zone will have areas areas of low densities and areas of high. And from year to year these densities can change due to poor forage, predator numbers pushing animals out and number of hunters that accessed it that particular year and many other such variables. So without physicaly counting and documenting your numbers have alot higher percentage chance of being off and somewhat inaccurate.

Again finacialy complete studies and counts arent fesable. But they are more accurate.
SG

[stoneguide]

no, and you won't get one anytime soon.
A full count? I know it wont be happening soon. Never stated it would.

The argument was is an actual count more accurate than taking smaller sectional densities, then "Scientificly" averaging them to come up with an AAH.

Whether its going to happen or is affordable the actual count would be the best way, end of story!

SG

[jml11]

How is it ludicrous? If things were the way they should be AAH would be based on actual numbers and not science. Just because at this time it isnt fiancialy possible to do proper studies sure doenst mean it isnt the best way. As I said they do what they can with what they have. Is it the best way? Far from it, but at this time it is the only way they can afford.

There will never be a time that a scientific estimation will be better than an actual count. I cant even beleive you think that way. Unreal!

SG

No one said a population estimate was more accurate that an absolute count. That's why it's called an estimate. Sure if we could simultaneously fly over every sheep hill in the province and count we may come close to the actual number...but you'll never find all the sheep especially in the fringe areas.

An absolute count of all the stone's sheep in BC is simply impossible so the estimate is based on scientifically proven statistical analysis (using relative counts) which most closely represents the actual number. With conservative confidence, you get a range (+/-) and manage according to that. As I stated before, you could have all the money in the world and you still wouldn't get a 100% accurate count and would probably end up significantly underestimating the actual population size based on the actual sightings alone. Because animals hide in cover and move around, you have to consider a sightability index and are throwing science into the mix anyways. You still have a range based on confidence intervals...but yes it would probably be more accurate base on having a large sample size.

Given that sheep are so prized (therefore more money and effort) and that they do tend to spend a lot of time in the wide open, our population estimates for Stone's sheep are probably one of the most if not the most accurate estimates of all North American big game. You can't accept that? Propose another REALISTIC method that is not an absolute count (totally unrealistic)? They could increase the number of areas they survey which may decrease the standard error a bit (narrow the range to a certain degree) but I doubt it would significantly affect the estimates.

I don't think anyone (outiftters, hunters, wildlife managers, anti's) would deny that an absolute count of the population would be incredible data to have, it's just impossible to ever get.

Hey maybe one day, we will have satellite scanners that can pick out specific animals magnetic fields or dna make up and all we need to do is a sweep over northern BC and voila!! Ok it's obviously too late for me...:roll::???::razz:

[6616]

I agree and was only stating the fact that current population studies arent the most accurate and like I said its the only way at this time to do it with the finacial situation , but there are alot better ways to do things if money and such permited. They do what they can with what they have but there is a ton of room for improovment.
SG

What we're trying to tell you is that absolute studies would really not be that much better, there's not as much room for improvement as you think.

Stratified random block surveys or other scientifically accepted methods would still be the way managers would do population surveys even if they had unlimited funds. Sure there's room for improvement but not a ton of room and still remain fiscally responsible. Absolute surveys would cost millions of dollars and it would be a huge waste of money when random block surveys have a confidence interval of 90% at a fraction of the cost.

You could go out and do an absolute count of sheep right now, and the count would be off by a large margin before spring. You could go out and do another absolute count in the spring right after the lambs are born, and that count would be off by a large margin by next fall. So you see in the end you would spend all that money and you wouldn't really have a whole lot better data. You'd still only have a population estimate (not an absolute number) with a confidence interval and you'd still manage to the conservative side of that confidence interval, just like they do now.

If you think they could go out and fly summer ranges pre-hunting season and count the number of class IV rams, just think of the thousands of square mile of flying that would entail, a sheer impossibility, and even then you'd end up using a sightability factor and end up with an estimate only.

So in the end, even in a perfect world you would do surveys on the winter ranges every second or third year, monitor trends, and set the AAHs to the low end of the confidence interval so you can't overharvest.

[paw325]

He asked how much went directly back - ie government revenue.

The economic benefits are not derived solely off of sheep Willy. WTF is an 'indirectly cost'? Half of those are direct costs.

You only travel to shows for sheep? Moose, goat, bear, caribou hunters just booked themselves I suppose.

He asked government revenue, you're talking about economic benefit. HUGE DIFFERENCE.


So how many outfitters are there in BC or the YK that are running 25 sheep clients through at $40,000 a hunt?

Or are you allocating the entire business across one single species? Forget about moose, elk, caribou, bear, goat?

And the EBIT is only 20% when it comes to sheep? What kind of a measure is this even? Do they operate moose, caribou hunts at a loss just for fun?

This makes absolutely no sense at all.

GG

In order to determine tax revenue for a sheep hunt (or any other stand alone item) you need to determine the companies gross revenue. I put that at $1mm per year, doesn't matter if the GO is generating that income by guiding, washing windows, whatever, the govn't doesn't care. This gross revenue determines a tax bracket which was then used to provide the tax revenue generated by one $40,000 sheep hunt.

20% is a high value in my opinion, but it was mentioned on this thread and i used it. It means that for every 100 jelly beans the GO earns he only keeps 20. The 20 he gets to keep are temporary (ebit) because he will still have interest to calculate and taxes to deduct on his corporate year end.

[Fisher-Dude]

GG

In order to determine tax revenue for a sheep hunt (or any other stand alone item) you need to determine the companies gross revenue. I put that at $1mm per year, doesn't matter if the GO is generating that income by guiding, washing windows, whatever, the govn't doesn't care. This gross revenue determines a tax bracket which was then used to provide the tax revenue generated by one $40,000 sheep hunt.

20% is a high value in my opinion, but it was mentioned on this thread and i used it. It means that for every 100 jelly beans the GO earns he only keeps 20. The 20 he gets to keep are temporary (ebit) because he will still have interest to calculate and taxes to deduct on his corporate year end.

What? Companies are paying tax on their gross revenues and not pre-tax income now? I guess I missed the memo from CRA on that one, and since I'm the taxman for our company, I better make some pretty significant entries to our tax liability accounts. :shock:

You're so wrong, I don't know where to start. :?

BTW, companies don't really deal with "tax brackets" either - that is for personal income tax. Companies basically pay flat tax rates for given types of income.

[stoneguide]

No one said a population estimate was more accurate that an absolute count. That's why it's called an estimate. Sure if we could simultaneously fly over every sheep hill in the province and count we may come close to the actual number...but you'll never find all the sheep especially in the fringe areas.

An absolute count of all the stone's sheep in BC is simply impossible so the estimate is based on scientifically proven statistical analysis (using relative counts) which most closely represents the actual number. With conservative confidence, you get a range (+/-) and manage according to that. As I stated before, you could have all the money in the world and you still wouldn't get a 100% accurate count and would probably end up significantly underestimating the actual population size based on the actual sightings alone. Because animals hide in cover and move around, you have to consider a sightability index and are throwing science into the mix anyways. You still have a range based on confidence intervals...but yes it would probably be more accurate base on having a large sample size.

Given that sheep are so prized (therefore more money and effort) and that they do tend to spend a lot of time in the wide open, our population estimates for Stone's sheep are probably one of the most if not the most accurate estimates of all North American big game. You can't accept that? Propose another REALISTIC method that is not an absolute count (totally unrealistic)? They could increase the number of areas they survey which may decrease the standard error a bit (narrow the range to a certain degree) but I doubt it would significantly affect the estimates.

I don't think anyone (outiftters, hunters, wildlife managers, anti's) would deny that an absolute count of the population would be incredible data to have, it's just impossible to ever get.

Hey maybe one day, we will have satellite scanners that can pick out specific animals magnetic fields or dna make up and all we need to do is a sweep over northern BC and voila!! Ok it's obviously too late for me...:roll::???::razz:

LOL you guys are funny. From the start Ive stated that its not finacially possible to do a complete count. I only stated that it would be the most accurate way and have the least amount of room for error if done correctly. And that to get a true acurate AAH numbers you need to know the exact huntable population of a group of animals. Right now it is done on lower quality counts of sections in an area then averaged. This causes a greater chance of error than the same count done of a whole area.


Again if you cant read the many other posts. They do what they can with what they have.
And for the 10th time, is it possible to do a full area count? Yes. Is it finacially fesable? No. Would it be the better way? Of coarse.
If you wanna continue this argument you best head to a mirror as you may get him to swing in your favor but this has ended for me.

Now back to the thread. And more serious topics.
SG

[GoatGuy]

GG

In order to determine tax revenue for a sheep hunt (or any other stand alone item) you need to determine the companies gross revenue. I put that at $1mm per year, doesn't matter if the GO is generating that income by guiding, washing windows, whatever, the govn't doesn't care. This gross revenue determines a tax bracket which was then used to provide the tax revenue generated by one $40,000 sheep hunt.

20% is a high value in my opinion, but it was mentioned on this thread and i used it. It means that for every 100 jelly beans the GO earns he only keeps 20. The 20 he gets to keep are temporary (ebit) because he will still have interest to calculate and taxes to deduct on his corporate year end.

So that's how an income statement works?

EBIT for an outfit is 20%? Right.

Have no clue even where to start on this crap. Never mind when we get into economics.

[6616]

LOL you guys are funny. From the start Ive stated that its not finacially possible to do a complete count. I only stated that it would be the most accurate way and have the least amount of room for error if done correctly. And that to get a true acurate AAH numbers you need to know the exact huntable population of a group of animals. Right now it is done on lower quality counts of sections in an area then averaged. This causes a greater chance of error than the same count done of a whole area.


Again if you cant read the many other posts. They do what they can with what they have.
And for the 10th time, is it possible to do a full area count? Yes. Is it finacially fesable? No. Would it be the better way? Of coarse.
If you wanna continue this argument you best head to a mirror as you may get him to swing in your favor but this has ended for me.

Now back to the thread. And more serious topics.
SG

StoneGuide, I may be older and have more experience in the wildlife management field than you, but I'm not a RPBio so my opinion probably has no more credibility than yours. However, to learn and better your knowledge base, when a RPBio does come on and tries to answer your questions, it usually pays to listen and take notes instead of arguing with him and calling him funny.

We are all aware you are a very experienced sheep guide who probably knows sheep behaviour, where to find sheep, a person who can look at a mountainside and know where the sheep will likely be if there are any there, etc, but all that does not equate to knowledge of scientific wildlife management.

[paw325]

What? Companies are paying tax on their gross revenues and not pre-tax income now? I guess I missed the memo from CRA on that one, and since I'm the taxman for our company, I better make some pretty significant entries to our tax liability accounts. :shock:

You're so wrong, I don't know where to start. :?

BTW, companies don't really deal with "tax brackets" either - that is for personal income tax. Companies basically pay flat tax rates for given types of income.

Fisher

If I'm wrong, please explain it for us in your terms.

The question was how much money does a $40,000 sheep hunt generate for the government. Please include all sources, tax on revenue, tax on services, fees, lisc, royalties etc.

[stoneguide]

StoneGuide, I may be older and have more experience in the wildlife management field than you, but I'm not a RPBio so my opinion probably has no more credibility than yours. However, to learn and better your knowledge base, when a RPBio does come on and tries to answer your questions, it usually pays to listen and take notes instead of arguing with him and calling him funny.

We are all aware you are a very experienced sheep guide who probably knows sheep behaviour, where to find sheep, a person who can look at a mountainside and know where the sheep will likely be if there are any there, etc, but all that does not equate to knowledge of scientific wildlife management.


What didnt I listen to?

Where did a RPbio state that scientific average calculation based on sectional densities was the most accurate way to come up with a total population? Can you please show me? As that s all im arguing with you guys about.

And ya if a guy comes on here and says that an average count is better than an actual count then yes I will argue. Whether its a bio or whomever.

The only thing stopping counts from being complete is the finacial fesability not that its less accurate than the way it is done now.

SG

[willy442]

He asked how much went directly back - ie government revenue.

The economic benefits are not derived solely off of sheep Willy. WTF is an 'indirectly cost'? Half of those are direct costs.

You only travel to shows for sheep? Moose, goat, bear, caribou hunters just booked themselves I suppose.

He asked government revenue, you're talking about economic benefit. HUGE DIFFERENCE.


So how many outfitters are there in BC or the YK that are running 25 sheep clients through at $40,000 a hunt?

Or are you allocating the entire business across one single species? Forget about moose, elk, caribou, bear, goat?

And the EBIT is only 20% when it comes to sheep? What kind of a measure is this even? Do they operate moose, caribou hunts at a loss just for fun?

This makes absolutely no sense at all.

What now you can't understand numbers? All lease fee's and royalties are paid directly to government. Very simple. The indirect costs are those monies spent on other items that government collects taxes on. IE indirect benefits. Again fairly simple.

To answer your other question. I fail to see where the only animal mentioned was Sheep. Yes for many outfits the moose, caribou and meat hunts don,t generate much of a profit as the costs to service the client are to high compared to what the market will bear. The exception to this is selling to Europeans and that is not an easy task either.

[willy442]

no, and you won't get one anytime soon.

Finally agreeing your basis for starting all your harvest formula's is at best an estimate. Right on only took you three years to get my point.:-D

[willy442]

What we're trying to tell you is that absolute studies would really not be that much better, there's not as much room for improvement as you think.

Stratified random block surveys or other scientifically accepted methods would still be the way managers would do population surveys even if they had unlimited funds. Sure there's room for improvement but not a ton of room and still remain fiscally responsible. Absolute surveys would cost millions of dollars and it would be a huge waste of money when random block surveys have a confidence interval of 90% at a fraction of the cost.

You could go out and do an absolute count of sheep right now, and the count would be off by a large margin before spring. You could go out and do another absolute count in the spring right after the lambs are born, and that count would be off by a large margin by next fall. So you see in the end you would spend all that money and you wouldn't really have a whole lot better data. You'd still only have a population estimate (not an absolute number) with a confidence interval and you'd still manage to the conservative side of that confidence interval, just like they do now.

If you think they could go out and fly summer ranges pre-hunting season and count the number of class IV rams, just think of the thousands of square mile of flying that would entail, a sheer impossibility, and even then you'd end up using a sightability factor and end up with an estimate only.

So in the end, even in a perfect world you would do surveys on the winter ranges every second or third year, monitor trends, and set the AAHs to the low end of the confidence interval so you can't overharvest.

I believe this to be absolute garbage. The fact is we have been over harvesting our sheep in parts region 7 for years now. The best indicator I can think of is the overall reduction in trophy quality on rams taken. We are in fact taking too many rams out of the system in many area's. The proccess of managing over large tracts of habitat results in erronous mangement in small but important pockets of sheep. Until the scientific formula's stop being applied to the region as a whole and based on averaged counts I think we loose a little every year.

[budismyhorse]

Stoneguide,

It is not like counting dogs in a backyard. There are many error factors that have to be considered when completing a count......these factors totally prevent a 100% count from being remotely possible. I won't use scientific words.

Animals evade predators....in this case helicopters. Many animals are not seen from the air and therefore (though they exist) are not being counted, even when the helicopter is right above them, or near them.

The area can't be covered entirely in one shot. That means the helicopter has to land and people have to go home to sleep.....in the mean time, the animals cross over into different areas and screw up your count by the possibility of double counting. Therefore, biologists have to cover a specific area before they quit for the day and then move on.

Then there are a whole pile of other examples that get in the way like snow conditions, ground cover ( trees), current weather (sightabilty).....ect

I can tell you that an actual count of animals as you suggest is physically IMPOSSIBLE.........not feasible in any way.

In fact, it would be extremely dangerous to think you've counted every animal because the natural factors i've listed above totally prevent you from being 100% correct.

Double counting alone could have a negative impact if you go home thinking there are 200 rams on a ridge but over the three days it took you to count it, 50 were double counted. Multiple that by all the ridges you need to count................trouble.

Scientific estimate counts try to work with these error factors and come up with a conservative estimate......with limitations based on confidence intervals that depend on how well the count was completed given the conditions observed during the count.

Its cool to see a guy like yourself thinking about these things and getting involved, but your going to have to take that notion of a finite count and save it for dogs in your backyard ;) With all due respect btw!

cheers

[budismyhorse]

I believe this to be absolute garbage. The fact is we have been over harvesting our sheep in parts region 7 for years now. The best indicator I can think of is the overall reduction in trophy quality on rams taken. We are in fact taking too many rams out of the system in many area's. The proccess of managing over large tracts of habitat results in erronous mangement in small but important pockets of sheep. Until the scientific formula's stop being applied to the region as a whole and based on averaged counts I think we loose a little every year.


Who determines "Quality"? FNAWS members?

So you are willing to throw out the best scientific data (that is used throughout the world) and base your management techniques on word of mouth from your social circle that trophy quality is going down?

[6616]

What didnt I listen to?

Where did a RPbio state that scientific average calculation based on sectional densities was the most accurate way to come up with a total population? Can you please show me? As that s all im arguing with you guys about.

And ya if a guy comes on here and says that an average count is better than an actual count then yes I will argue. Whether its a bio or whomever.

The only thing stopping counts from being complete is the finacial fesability not that its less accurate than the way it is done now.

SG

What he said, in different words, is that the counts the way they're done now are sufficient for game management purposes and establishing AAHs. So why waste money?

The actual fact is that an absolute total count will not be much more accurate than a stratified random block survey with the proper protocols applied, a sightability factor will still have to be incorporated, there are still variables, but the count done your way would cost 10 times more, and only be marginally better.

One count is never good enough, counts have to be done at intervals to monitor trends and ratios, thus you can't spend all your money on the initial count and have none left for follow-up counts.

[6616]

I believe this to be absolute garbage. The fact is we have been over harvesting our sheep in parts region 7 for years now. The best indicator I can think of is the overall reduction in trophy quality on rams taken. We are in fact taking too many rams out of the system in many area's. The proccess of managing over large tracts of habitat results in erronous mangement in small but important pockets of sheep. Until the scientific formula's stop being applied to the region as a whole and based on averaged counts I think we loose a little every year.

The protocols and methologies for stratified random block surveys are not garbage, they're very comprehensive and plenty accurate enough, all big game populations across North America are surveyed using these methods, no one does total counts unless it's a very small population on a limited land base.

However, surveys should be done on a MU by Mu basis, or on a guide territory by guide territory basis, rather than over the entire region as a single unit, I agree with you on that, and that's actually the way it's done in all surveys I've ever been involved with and every survey report I've ever read. Here in Region 4 we have a target harvest or AAH for each and every game management unit for goats, sheep, grizzly bears, and moose.

[stoneguide]

Stoneguide,

It is not like counting dogs in a backyard. There are many error factors that have to be considered when completing a count......these factors totally prevent a 100% count from being remotely possible. I won't use scientific words.

Animals evade predators....in this case helicopters. Many animals are not seen from the air and therefore (though they exist) are not being counted, even when the helicopter is right above them, or near them.

The area can't be covered entirely in one shot. That means the helicopter has to land and people have to go home to sleep.....in the mean time, the animals cross over into different areas and screw up your count by the possibility of double counting. Therefore, biologists have to cover a specific area before they quit for the day and then move on.

Then there are a whole pile of other examples that get in the way like snow conditions, ground cover ( trees), current weather (sightabilty).....ect

I can tell you that an actual count of animals as you suggest is physically IMPOSSIBLE.........not feasible in any way.

In fact, it would be extremely dangerous to think you've counted every animal because the natural factors i've listed above totally prevent you from being 100% correct.

Double counting alone could have a negative impact if you go home thinking there are 200 rams on a ridge but over the three days it took you to count it, 50 were double counted. Multiple that by all the ridges you need to count................trouble.

Scientific estimate counts try to work with these error factors and come up with a conservative estimate......with limitations based on confidence intervals that depend on how well the count was completed given the conditions observed during the count.

Its cool to see a guy like yourself thinking about these things and getting involved, but your going to have to take that notion of a finite count and save it for dogs in your backyard ;) With all due respect btw!

cheers

Thanks for pointing that all out! As you have even put more doubt into the program they have in place now.

As of now they do pockets studies, mostly from the air. They do not cover the whole reigion.
My point is that a complete count of the area is more accurate. Never said you could count every sheep on the hill but you will get alot closer number than what is acheived today.

All the above conditions you have mentioned are there whether its a full count or partial with scientific estimates like is happening now.
And yes cover and such does affect counts. But if you know sheep much you know what the average sheep winter range is like. Making the population studies not that difficult.

You have made no point to proove that if a complete reigion was studied it would be no more accurate than taking a few small portions and then using science to aproximate what the rest of the area holds for sheep. Both studies are conducted exactly the same. Just one covers 100% of the sheep habitat and the other covers way less and hopes the estimate is accurate for the whole reigion.

Do you honestly beleive that a study of say 50% of a region + approximations is as accurate as a study of 100% of the region? Come on!

SG

[stoneguide]

The actual fact is that an absolute total count will not be much more accurate than a stratified random block survey with the proper protocols applied, a sightability factor will still have to be incorporated, there are still variables, but the count done your way would cost 10 times more, and only be marginally better.


And you can proove that a full complete study and count will only be marginaly better? My argument was its better which it has to be.
Until it is done no one can say what the results will be.

Of coarse it will cost way more money! That is why I have stated that finacialy it isnt feesable.

You guys sound like broken records.
Maybe just cut and paste you last 20 posts and then cut and paste my last 20 responses and it will save alot of typing.
SG

[6616]

I believe this to be absolute garbage. The fact is we have been over harvesting our sheep in parts region 7 for years now. The best indicator I can think of is the overall reduction in trophy quality on rams taken. We are in fact taking too many rams out of the system in many area's. The proccess of managing over large tracts of habitat results in erronous mangement in small but important pockets of sheep. Until the scientific formula's stop being applied to the region as a whole and based on averaged counts I think we loose a little every year.

If it's true that you have been overharvesting, which I note many people disagree with, the reason is not because the survey methods are at fault, the reason is because the surveys have never been done at all in 7B, or if they have been done they've been done at ten or fifteen year intervals which isn't good enough.

No matter what species or where, there will always be small pockets that could be over-harvested as well as there's probably small pockets that are never even hunted. One has to be realistic about this...!

[6616]

And you can proove that a full complete study and count will only be marginaly better? My argument was its better which it has to be.
Until it is done no one can say what the results will be.

Of coarse it will cost way more money! That is why I have stated that finacialy it isnt feesable.

You guys sound like broken records.
Maybe just cut and paste you last 20 posts and then cut and paste my last 20 responses and it will save alot of typing.
SG


There's no need to prove basic wildlife management facts that have been know by professional biologists for many years now. At one time managers did attempt to do total counts, they gave it up a long time ago, because they knew there had to be a better and more efficient way.


I see now you're arguing with two professionals (BIMH).

[stoneguide]

Who determines "Quality"? FNAWS members?

So you are willing to throw out the best scientific data (that is used throughout the world) and base your management techniques on word of mouth from your social circle that trophy quality is going down?


Hunters in the field are the best indicator on whether trophy quality is down. All rams are registered and measured. Numbers are there in black and white on how the quality is with sheep in every area.
Scientific data can do nothing to proove this. You must have the actual numbers over the last so many years to show horn size( if trophy quality is a concern) or age( if age structure is a concern).
SG

[stoneguide]

At one time managers did attempt to do total counts, they gave it up a long time ago, because they knew there had to be a better and more efficient way.

Yes im sure at one time they did. How long ago? And they chose a way that with the resourses and financial backing that they have would allow.
There are always better ways to do things. To say that there isnt is absurd. And im not saying that what I suggest is the best either, but I do beleive a complete count of an area is better than a partial.
SG

[budismyhorse]

Stoneguide,

you were using terms like COMPLETE COUNT and ACTUAL COUNT.........my post was just to tell you how impossible that is.

try to rememeber that when you use those terms you are talking about counting every animal.........

Now if you are talking about something like studying each discrete wintering area for each region.......that is a different subject.

If what you are arguing for is a region-wide count, just say that instead of actual count.

[stoneguide]

Stoneguide,

you were using terms like COMPLETE COUNT and ACTUAL COUNT.........my post was just to tell you how impossible that is.

try to rememeber that when you use those terms you are talking about counting every animal.........

Now if you are talking about something like studying each discrete wintering area for each region.......that is a different subject.

If what you are arguing for is a region-wide count, just say that instead of actual count.

Ya I used complete count, and stated a complete count refering to a complete count of an area over a partial count of an area!

Ya I used actual count, as in an actual count over a scientific aproximation!

And yes the only way to get acurate population studies of sheep is on wintering grounds when they are in larger groups and in more generalized areas. And I beleive most studies for other animals are done this way but may be wrong.

SG

[BCrams]

LOL no matter how much technology you have it will never trump an actual visual count. You can argue all you want. Each zone will have different sq. miles that hold sheep. Each zone will have areas areas of low densities and areas of high. And from year to year these densities can change due to poor forage, predator numbers pushing animals out and number of hunters that accessed it that particular year and many other such variables. So without physicaly counting and documenting your numbers have alot higher percentage chance of being off and somewhat inaccurate.

Again finacialy complete studies and counts arent fesable. But they are more accurate.
SG

There are a variety of survey methods and intensities which can be applied to achieve different goals.

Ideally what you and everyone would love but is unrealistic for Stone's sheep is effective only for smaller areas and in fact, has occured recently within the Sulphur 8-Mile study area.

A 95% confidence statistically is quite high and gives a good estimate of a population surveyed. In the fairly recent surveys of the Sulphur 8-Mile, a "survey block" was estimated to have 545 sheep. With a CI of 95%. This puts the population between a minimum of of 475 and a maximum of 645. (for that block - not the entire area)

There are a lot of other scientific variables which come into play when we start talking about the health of the herd. Another example regarding the health of the herd within the same study area - a pregnancy rate of 88% and it is well researched that falling between 75-100% is within the realm of successful population reproductivity and considered normal for thinhorns.

Now to conduct a survey with the intensity as the Sulphur 8-mile over the entire Stone's sheep range is unrealistic and cost prohibitive but it does provide an excellent source (along with other studies and surveys) to correlate over Stone's sheep range. Is it perfect? Maybe / maybe not.

In BC, survey methods are broken down by level of intensity. 1) Presence / not detected 2) Relative Abundance and 3) Absolute Abundance

To start breaking down those 3 even further will probably just add to the confusion if you don't have a strong grasp of the concepts.

[budismyhorse]

Ya I used complete count, and stated a complete count refering to a complete count of an area over a partial count of an area!

Ya I used actual count, as in an actual count over a scientific aproximation!
Exactly my point, it is physically impossible to get an actual count of wildlife populations.........scientific estimation is the only way.......unless we are counting dogs in a backyard.
And yes the only way to get acurate population studies of sheep is on wintering grounds when they are in larger groups and in more generalized areas. And I beleive most studies for other animals are done this way but may be wrong.

SG

full on region-wide scientific estimation would in-fact be more accurate than the current method of sectional areas and extrapolation, BUT, when you use very conservative management policies based on those counts...its tough to argue that isn't the best way to do things from everyones prospective.

So SG, to wrap this up, why don't you line up exactly what you think should happen? Right from evaluation of populations through to management on the ground.

[jml11]

What didnt I listen to?

Where did a RPbio state that scientific average calculation based on sectional densities was the most accurate way to come up with a total population? Can you please show me? As that s all im arguing with you guys about.

And ya if a guy comes on here and says that an average count is better than an actual count then yes I will argue. Whether its a bio or whomever.

The only thing stopping counts from being complete is the finacial fesability not that its less accurate than the way it is done now.

SG

I suppose I will put my hand up as one the RPBio's with a degree in Wildife Management (yes more than one) who have responded to you...but does that make me an expert, no. Stone's sheep management is far from my area of expertise. But I do have a better understanding of how it works.

You are obviously clueless about simple statistical rules and I suggest brushing up before you make even less sense, if that's possible. You've gone on to say absolute counts are the best as they are more accurate, no one has said they wouldn't be, not sure why you havn't figure that out. We are simply saying it is impossible to do and there would still be some degree of 'science' involved. The results would likely only be marginally better for a monstrously higher cost and what would we gain? A couple more sheep tags? Outfitters aren't meeting quota anyways. You are adamant the results would be significantly better based on what? Your expert scientific opinion? You have also admitted we would never know until it was attempted...so really you have no back up for your statements either.

I also notice that you are now saying we just need to sample a larger area, focus on the wintering areas etc...well that still involves the dreaded 'science' term you are so scared of for some reason to come up with a population estimate across the landscape. It's not an actual count.

Is an absolute count the most accurate way to get a population estimate, of course. But is it is the best way, no. The best way is the most feasible and cost effective means of estimating the actual population and the way it is done now does come with a relatively low level of error (as far as wildlife management goes), but I understand you don't get that which is why I suggest brushing up on statistical modeling.

[horshur]

:mrgreen:I find in these threads on the internet it is best to not say to much and usually you know you have said to much about two pages past your last post.

[stoneguide]

full on region-wide scientific estimation would in-fact be more accurate than the current method of sectional areas and extrapolation, BUT, when you use very conservative management policies based on those counts...its tough to argue that isn't the best way to do things from everyones prospective.

So SG, to wrap this up, why don't you line up exactly what you think should happen? Right from evaluation of populations through to management on the ground.

I stated what I think should happen. Complete full reigion population studies and age structuring of rams(which in the field is very tough but possible and has to be more on age groups as in say 5yrs and under and 6 and older, yes it is possible).
From there a more accuarte AAH "should" be acheived.
On a second note if populations are not where they should be the steps should be taken to determine what is causing lower populations(habitat, predators, hunting(wont usually affect total populations unless a ewe season is in effect), disease, and some years weather conditions). Instead of automaticly trying to control hunters.
If the AAH isnt high enough to sustain the hunting being done then both outfitters and residents may need to be regulated more. And a low AAH doesnt neccisarily mean low populations. Doesnt even mean that ram numbers are low. But if the populations are stable but AAH's are low then it shows that rams arent reaching maturity and in most cases is due directly to hunter harvest.
Some of this can be in isolated locations so then it may be neccesary to oben sub zones in order to properly manage the populations or AAH that are being directly effected.
From the new AAH a selected group can from past harvest statistics of both residents and oufitters will derive a set quota for each group. Knowing that even if populations get to the point of LEH and such outfitters will have a percentage of the pie.

Pretty basic and probably missed alot I should have put in but a quick run down and based on a perfect world. I could right a ton more but havent the time. Lots can be changed on the way things are done but with so many intrest groups incuding residents pushing for more many managment issues will probably get worse long before we see an improvment.
My statment is that I would like to see less aproximations taken out of the equation. Sure science need to be used to an extent no matter what but the more acurate the physical evidence the more accurate the final product wil be. Is most of this possible? Sure. Is it the most appropriate way to do things without big expenditures and manpower? NO

Like has been stated we need to do whats best for our sheep populations. And that doesnt always fit into what hunters(resident and non) feel is best and fair and may cut way back on there oppertunities but still needs to be done.
As soon as both resident and outfitters get the notion thats its mine I deserve it then things will move ahead alot smoother.

SG

[6616]

:mrgreen:I find in these threads on the internet it is best to not say to much and usually you know you have said to much about two pages past your last post.


Haha, ain't it the truth, I think I'll take your advice and leave this topic of sheep surveys now, and let the pros (BCR, JM/11, and BIMH) who know the real facts deal with it.

[jml11]

Haha, ain't it the truth, I think I'll take your advice and leave this topic of sheep surveys now, and let the pros (BCR, JM/11, and BIMH) who know the real facts deal with it.

Give yourself more credit, I've always found a lot of value in your posts, you do have a vast knowlege base and I have learned a lot from them.

Probably best for all of us to drop it as it seems impossible to convince the lehman and trowing out more stats jargon will only confuse the matter...We've all said our piece and can only do just that. The reader can take them for what they are worth or ignore them...I really don't care either way personally.

I look forward to reading the next epic sheep thread/d*#K measuring constest. Maybe I will be able to stay out of that one!

[lange1212]

I would like to change this up somewhat.

It is clear that BC Rams, budismyhorse and jml11 are RPbio's or have an educational back ground in wildlife managemnet. Thank you for your input it is very much appreciated.

I'm not going to agrue how sheep should be counted, extrapolated, when how.... Thats best left to the professionals.

The question I have is how do we get the inventory work done? How do we get the money required and the professions in the field? How do we get inventories conducted on a more frequent basis? How do we promote habitat enhancement?...

In the Peace there's much more data and work in regards to wildlife management and studies that has been conducted and available for public view.

However in the Skeena the science, data and inventory work pales in comparison, yet we are the largest Region in the Province. I suspect the primary reason is that money is made available from the oil, gas industry and BC hydro legacy fund in the Peace?

My comments are by no means is a critisism to Skeena wildlife managers. I understand they are limited by many factors and would gladly do more if the had the money, manpower and the political will to back them.

With a number of projects proposed for the Skeena (LNG, Transmission line to the north, Enbridge, mining...) can we "stakeholders" lobby to have these industries operating on crown lands and generating profits from Canadian resourses made to create a legacy fund. A fund with the purpose of improving wildlife habitat, inventories, protecting critical habitat, wildlife studies, inventory work...

I ask the question here because it appears some may have done such work either through Gov't or contract and may be in the know of how and where the money came from. Was any of it outside of gov't sources and if so how did it come about?

[willy442]

Who determines "Quality"? FNAWS members?

So you are willing to throw out the best scientific data (that is used throughout the world) and base your management techniques on word of mouth from your social circle that trophy quality is going down?

Let me correct you the scientific management techniques used in BC are by no means used through out the world. (far from it)
Next is the fact that I'm talking about thin horn sheep in region 7B, nothing to do with your back yard big horns.
Third is over my LONG career of being on the trail of STONE SHEEP I have in fact watched herd numbers and over all trophy quality decline. Agreed the word trophy is ones personnel view. How ever I've never known a person to a little ram if big ones are present. I guess this probably indicates most hunters harvesting sheep would not be against better quality trophies.

[6616]

I can only say Mike, that here in the Kootenay's following the construction of the Columbia River Treaty dams we lobbied hard and long (10 years) to get the BC Hydro F&W Compensation Program established, and without it we'd be in almost as bad a shape as you guys. Granted there's been a certain amount of downloading by MNRO/MOE over the years, but now we have a regional FWCP staff of professional biologists and several extra million dollars to work with every year. Having sat on the EK eco-system restoration steering committee for several years now I can safely say that we've treated at least 10,000 Ha of habitat with FWCP funding. At least half our inventories are paid for by FWCP and sometimes even conducted by FWCP biologists. It's been a godsend and we'd be lost without it. I don't know if any of the Skeena projects are big enough to generate a compensation package, but I'd certainly say it's something worth looking into and going after.

[willy442]

What he said, in different words, is that the counts the way they're done now are sufficient for game management purposes and establishing AAHs. So why waste money?

The actual fact is that an absolute total count will not be much more accurate than a stratified random block survey with the proper protocols applied, a sightability factor will still have to be incorporated, there are still variables, but the count done your way would cost 10 times more, and only be marginally better.

One count is never good enough, counts have to be done at intervals to monitor trends and ratios, thus you can't spend all your money on the initial count and have none left for follow-up counts.

How about the use of information that can be gathered by those who live in the country year around and combine that information with scientific gatherers. There are many ways the scientist could use the information. The hurdle is the resident hunter would again cry bloody blue murder that the guides were being favored or some other issue detrimental to the ability of user groups joining forces.

[BCrams]

However in the Skeena the science, data and inventory work pales in comparison, yet we are the largest Region in the Province. I suspect the primary reason is that money is made available from the oil, gas industry and BC hydro legacy fund in the Peace?

With a number of projects proposed for the Skeena (LNG, Transmission line to the north, Enbridge, mining...) can we "stakeholders" lobby to have these industries operating on crown lands and generating profits from Canadian resourses made to create a legacy fund. A fund with the purpose of improving wildlife habitat, inventories, protecting critical habitat, wildlife studies, inventory work...



Resource sectors are a good target for funding. Mining is a big one in the Skeena and I am sure a compensation package of sorts could come of it. Oil and Gas etc.

I would like to see more money from licence sales etc put back to wildlife instead of to general revenue. HCTF is a small component but much more can be done.

Using the Sulphur 8-Mile Sheep Study - Funding sources included:


BC Integrated Land Management Bureau [$48.6K]
BC Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum
Resources Environmental Policy Program [$100K]
BC Ministry of Environment [$52K]
BC Oil and Gas Commission Science and Community Knowledge (SCEK) Fund [$615.3K]
BP Canada Energy Company [$8K]
Dawson Creek Sportsman's Club [$2.5K]
Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation [$253.7K]
Muskwa-Kechika Trust Fund [$190.5K]
Muskwa-Kechika Voted Funds [$100K]
North Peace Rod and Gun Club [$20K]
Northeast BC Wildlife Fund [$15K]
Northern BC Guides Association [$20K]
TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. [$175K]
Wild Sheep Society of BC [$10K]

[6616]

How about the use of information that can be gathered by those who live in the country year around and combine that information with scientific gatherers. There are many ways the scientist could use the information. The hurdle is the resident hunter would again cry bloody blue murder that the guides were being favored or some other issue detrimental to the ability of user groups joining forces.

That's a valid source of information for sure. In spite of the hassle over allocation, here in the EK we're still often partnering with guide-outfitters on conservation projects, and I'm sure their opinions are considered in management decisions. There are many areas where we make sure to leave the allocation discussion out of it.

[willy442]

If it's true that you have been overharvesting, which I note many people disagree with, the reason is not because the survey methods are at fault, the reason is because the surveys have never been done at all in 7B, or if they have been done they've been done at ten or fifteen year intervals which isn't good enough.

No matter what species or where, there will always be small pockets that could be over-harvested as well as there's probably small pockets that are never even hunted. One has to be realistic about this...!

With this post if I read it correct, you are in fact saying that the information we use to manage our herds in unit 7B and probably in region 6 is most likely very poor or lacks from what real in depth studies done frequently could do.

Yet at the same time you fully support this information. Information that is, the starting point of harvest stratiegies and enhancement of our sheep herds. The same information that Goat Guy swears is the best we can get and is accurate enough to manage by.

You have actually supported my stand that at best we have politically managed wildlife here in BC and the proccess in reality is a joke.

[willy442]

Resource sectors are a good target for funding. Mining is a big one in the Skeena and I am sure a compensation package of sorts could come of it. Oil and Gas etc.

I would like to see more money from licence sales etc put back to wildlife instead of to general revenue. HCTF is a small component but much more can be done.

Using the Sulphur 8-Mile Sheep Study - Funding sources included:


BC Integrated Land Management Bureau [$48.6K]
BC Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum
Resources Environmental Policy Program [$100K]
BC Ministry of Environment [$52K]
BC Oil and Gas Commission Science and Community Knowledge (SCEK) Fund [$615.3K]
BP Canada Energy Company [$8K]
Dawson Creek Sportsman's Club [$2.5K]
Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation [$253.7K]
Muskwa-Kechika Trust Fund [$190.5K]
Muskwa-Kechika Voted Funds [$100K]
North Peace Rod and Gun Club [$20K]
Northeast BC Wildlife Fund [$15K]
Northern BC Guides Association [$20K]
TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. [$175K]
Wild Sheep Society of BC [$10K]


For that much money a half dozen guides could have counted every sheep in the province and come within as good of accuracy rates as you indicated.

[budismyhorse]

For that much money a half dozen guides could have counted every sheep in the province and come within as good of accuracy rates as you indicated.

There is no way on earth you could trust an outfit who's vested interest is financial gain. As many have already stated, the economic viability of GO outfits is suspect at best due to the economic climate and "indirectly costs" associated with the business.......what makes you think they would be completely honest when it comes down to numbers that may impact their financial future.

Not only that, if the MOE, who is responsible for spending what little money they get to manage game, starts paying outfitters (whos job in life is to make it easy for people to kill animals mainly for "trophy quality") to survey our wildlife populations......the ANTI's and tax paying non hunters of the province would be jumping out of buildings to shut things down.

Do you realize what that kind of thing would look like politically? Remember that we do live in a society that has to involve politics at some point.

If you don't believe me, head down to and SCI or FNAWS convention and listen to how the GO's talk about the current state of the industry after a couple of bevvy's. And you would trust those fellas to count sheep for you?

[bighornbob]

The question I have is how do we get the inventory work done? How do we get the money required and the professions in the field? How do we get inventories conducted on a more frequent basis? How do we promote habitat enhancement?...

Come on down to Kamloops on March 18-19 for the Wild Sheep Society's annual banquet and fundraiser. All money raised goes to sheep projects. Hell I will even buy you a drink if you come down:-D

Another way is to buy a few of the Special Sheep LEH's. I believe its something like 75% of of the $15 dollar LEH goes to sheep projects.

BHB

[Walking Buffalo]

LOL........

I see Stoneguide is feeling at home here now. This sheep will never stop butting heads. :wink:

I do give SG credit for truly caring for the well being of mountain sheep populations and the "fair chase" hunt.

I'll have to correct SG again, Southern Alberta DOES have the biggest Rams. :mrgreen:

[boxhitch]

For that much money a half dozen guides could have counted every sheep in the province and come within as good of accuracy rates as you indicated.Considering the expense, I say its not likely that you would get many g/o's to spring for the funds to do a complete and accurate count within their own territory, without expecting something in exchange. G/O's ahve in the past offered up large amounts of in-kind support for a large scale inventory but were turned down because of the strings attached, according to Reg 7 MOE staff.
And if the data was from nothing more than casual observations made by g/o staff it would be called anecdotal at best, and could never be considered complete. Not many outfits see all the hills during any one season.

[boxhitch]

The question I have is how do we get the inventory work done? How do we get the money required and the professions in the field? How do we get inventories conducted on a more frequent basis? How do we promote habitat enhancement?... Easy ........
convince Gov't of the high value of wildlife in BC, get them to direct ALL revenue from hunting and angling and trapping into a specific fund to be spent on wildlife only, and not to staffing costs either.
The States have federal legislation that channel their funds, and state excise taxes on sporting goods to be plowed back into wildlife.
No, I don't know the names of the bills involved but it can be looked up.

Alls it takes is the political will.........

[willy442]

There is no way on earth you could trust an outfit who's vested interest is financial gain. As many have already stated, the economic viability of GO outfits is suspect at best due to the economic climate and "indirectly costs" associated with the business.......what makes you think they would be completely honest when it comes down to numbers that may impact their financial future.


It has pretty much been my experience that a person or group of people laying out hundreds of thousands of dollars for a business venture are usually focused on long term opportunity. Contrary to what you believe, when the long term approach is applied to a hunting consession. It creates a demand for proper utilization of what is within the confines of it's boundary for harvest each and every year. If the operator has no regard for this, it is very quickly realized in the non-resident hunting community. The people spending big bucks, again on sheep. Have countless avenues to be able to do an assessment on an operation prior to booking and bad news travels very fast compared to good. The nature of the business alone dictates that proper game management be paramount in the operation. With this being the life line as you can see by now, I would think information given would be more accurate than you think and used in conjuction with the scientific formulas. May give the bio's a better base starting point to set policies and stratagies from.

Not only that, if the MOE, who is responsible for spending what little money they get to manage game, starts paying outfitters (whos job in life is to make it easy for people to kill animals mainly for "trophy quality") to survey our wildlife populations......the ANTI's and tax paying non hunters of the province would be jumping out of buildings to shut things down

QUOTE] Where did anyone say people would want renumerated for carring a note pad and documenting what they seen everyday. We used to do this constantly in our outfit and if you were an employee that didn't, you weren't around long.

In fact years ago we actually used to donate aircraft time to the ministry and fly them at times to give them the needed air time it takes and they could not aquire financing for. On the same note many thousands of dollars that were raised south of the border through donated auction hunts has been cut off due to the exact imaginary reasons you mention. In short many thousands of dollars that could have been spent over the years in this province, have been cut off by the mistrust cry of the resident. Foundation for North American Wild Sheep Societies slogan is "PUTTING SHEEP ON THE MOUNTAIN" do you think they raise funds and invest them on bad counts from G/O's.

Do you realize what that kind of thing would look like politically? Remember that we do live in a society that has to involve politics at some point.


So we loose our wild life populations to keep a few people happy? If you really look at it. There is roughly 3 million people in the province that have ownership of the wildlife we hunt. Do you think the 35,000 affiliate members of the BCWF are really the voice of what happens. I think not and to the rest not involved they are against hunting or would rather sell off the resource to the biggest buck like forestry, mining and others.

If you don't believe me, head down to and SCI or FNAWS convention and listen to how the GO's talk about the current state of the industry after a couple of bevvy's. And you would trust those fellas to count sheep for you?

[/quote] No need to head there. I've been to more shows than you can probably imagine, through out North America.

In reality it all boils down to one thing. That is being able to see a long term gain out of your operation. They are all business men, indeed some are not packing college degree's and really have no need to. They are for the most part people just like you and I that have a keen interest in hunting. In fact they actually are more dedicated to hunting than most as they have invested thier life in it. They are for the most part residents of this province just like you and I. The present crap that is taking place among user groups from allocation to clubs in fighting is doing nothing to show these people any daylight for thier hard work and life style. Due to this they may leave you with feelings of your above statement. Which is too bad because that kind of stand will accelerate more issues with hunting in this fine province.

[Whisky Creek]

"Not only that, if the MOE, who is responsible for spending what little money they get to manage game, starts paying outfitters (whos job in life is to make it easy for people to kill animals mainly for "trophy quality") to survey our wildlife populations......"

Budismyhorse,

Is that really what you think an outfitter's job is? To make it easy for people to kill animals "mainly for trophy quality"??? And just because they are a guide, that makes them untrustworthy and incapable of providing the truth? Bud, I don't think you have a real good grasp of what an outfitter's job is. A statement like that is silly and unfair. Guide Outfitter's are business people. They are no more or no less crooked than any other business person and shouldn't be painted with a single black brush stroke like that. Using that logic it could then also be said that you couldn't trust a resident hunter to provide his true observations without skewing the data to better his position either?.......

And since this is a sheep thread, do you think that resident sheep hunters don't also target sheep for trophy quality?

CLINT

[budismyhorse]

nice response Willy42.

many points taken.

but I'll leave it to people with more experience with the GOABC to comment on what you are suggesting is possible.

[budismyhorse]

"Not only that, if the MOE, who is responsible for spending what little money they get to manage game, starts paying outfitters (whos job in life is to make it easy for people to kill animals mainly for "trophy quality") to survey our wildlife populations......"

Budismyhorse,

Is that really what you think an outfitter's job is? To make it easy for people to kill animals "mainly for trophy quality"??? And just because they are a guide, that makes them untrustworthy and incapable of providing the truth? What is their job then? Bud, I don't think you have a real good grasp of what an outfitter's job is. A statement like that is silly and unfair. Guide Outfitter's are business people. They are no more or no less crooked than any other business person and shouldn't be painted with a single black brush stroke like that. Using that logic it could then also be said that you couldn't trust a resident hunter to provide his true observations without skewing the data to better his position either?.......

This is what backs up my point..........

Its human nature Clint. Sorry.

And since this is a sheep thread, do you think that resident sheep hunters don't also target sheep for trophy quality?

They do as well, but will take a smaller ram as the benefit of a hard hunt successfully completed........ and so do GO's (apparent from the many "dink" rams they have on their websites).

CLINT

None of that is the point.......my point speaking specifically towards Willy when he stated that fundraised cash that went to extremely beneficial wildlife programs could have gone towards paying the GO's to count every sheep........

so I think you are missing something.........see post #550

[stoneguide]

I'll have to correct SG again, Southern Alberta DOES have the biggest Rams. :mrgreen:

Funny part is that the only guys that think so are very few and them guys have yet to be able to show any documented proof that trophy quality is better.

The best representation for true trophy potential is the Boone and Crocket record book.
Do I need to post documentation on what area have produced the largest rams? Because I could take one small drainage from just south of the Red Deer River(which is way north of the bow and a way smaller area) that has in it self had more B&C rams harvested in it.

Show the proof! LOL The southerners couldnt on AO so im really sure it wont happen here.

Nice try though LOL

SG

[lange1212]

Come on down to Kamloops on March 18-19 for the Wild Sheep Society's annual banquet and fundraiser. All money raised goes to sheep projects. Hell I will even buy you a drink if you come down:-D

Another way is to buy a few of the Special Sheep LEH's. I believe its something like 75% of of the $15 dollar LEH goes to sheep projects.

BHB

Thanks for the invite.

I was thinking on a larger scale being that I'm aware of numerous large scale commercial proposals in the Skeena that all revolve around our natural resources, LNG, Enbridge, mining.... These proponents if their applications are approved will generate millions to billions of dollars in profits. Again off "our" natural resouces.

My thought, create a legacy fund that these big companies most multi national have to pay into annually, intended to benefit British Columbians fish and wildlife values through habitat enhancement, scientific studies, inventory work...

I may be dreaming here and this may not even be possible. If it is how do we initiate?
Just trying to think outside the box.

[KB90]

Come on down to Kamloops on March 18-19 for the Wild Sheep Society's annual banquet and fundraiser. All money raised goes to sheep projects. Hell I will even buy you a drink if you come down:-D

BHB


I'm coming! Wheres my drink?

[6616]

With this post if I read it correct, you are in fact saying that the information we use to manage our herds in unit 7B and probably in region 6 is most likely very poor or lacks from what real in depth studies done frequently could do.

Yet at the same time you fully support this information. Information that is, the starting point of harvest stratiegies and enhancement of our sheep herds. The same information that Goat Guy swears is the best we can get and is accurate enough to manage by.

You have actually supported my stand that at best we have politically managed wildlife here in BC and the proccess in reality is a joke.

The data you guys have for 7B is pretty recent and should be OK, but that data didn't always exist and prior to the recent surveys there was very poor support for the management stratgey just like is still occurring in Region 6.

[stoneguide]

Just a quick question to some expert here.

Who do you think knows more about sheep, sheep issues, age structure, sheep habitat, sheep numbers, the biologist comeing out with the numbers or the guides that are in that area for 60-80+ days a year observing populations every day?

When it all boils down to it the best scenario would be for them to work together as I guarentee if you send a guide up is the air in one aircraft to do a count and a bio in the other the guide will come out with a more accurate number for the area he knows.

Residents, G/O and managment staff all need to work together to come up with the best structure for a managment plan. But each has its own initiative and until they all want what is best for the sheep instead of themselves we are just beating our heads on the wall.

SG

[bighornbob]

I'm coming! Wheres my drink? I would buy you a drink but I am worried you would buy me one later (to get some sheep info:-D) then I would buy you one and so on and so on. The problem there lies in the fact that you will feel fine in the morning and I will have a headache for a week:mrgreen:

BHB

[willy442]

None of that is the point.......my point speaking specifically towards Willy when he stated that fundraised cash that went to extremely beneficial wildlife programs could have gone towards paying the GO's to count every sheep........

so I think you are missing something.........see post #550

At no point did my post suggest paying the G/O for anything. I was indicating unless times have really changed G'O' would give this information not to hunters but to government to assist in programs. In the past though this kind of info has been leaked to some.

[budismyhorse]

Post 550

For that much money a half dozen guides could have counted every sheep in the province and come within as good of accuracy rates as you indicated.

Post 556

At no point did my post suggest paying the G/O for anything. I was indicating unless times have really changed G'O' would give this information not to hunters but to government to assist in programs. In the past though this kind of info has been leaked to some.




Yes you did Willy.............you could give an advil a headache with everything you "meant" to say but didn't.

for what its worth, I apologize, I guess I took you too literally.

[willy442]

Yes you did Willy.............you could give an advil a headache with everything you "meant" to say but didn't.

for what its worth, I apologize, I guess I took you too literally.

I always thought there was a different between guides and outfitters. Guess maybe I'm wrong or need to clear up statements when they are made to those, who will use a different viewpoint to strengthen thier own, when the opportunity arises.

The other point is, I was being cynical when I made that statement as it was alot of money spent for what we've seen so far.

Apology accepted.:)

[GoatGuy]

What now you can't understand numbers? All lease fee's and royalties are paid directly to government. Very simple. The indirect costs are those monies spent on other items that government collects taxes on. IE indirect benefits. Again fairly simple.

To answer your other question. I fail to see where the only animal mentioned was Sheep. Yes for many outfits the moose, caribou and meat hunts don,t generate much of a profit as the costs to service the client are to high compared to what the market will bear. The exception to this is selling to Europeans and that is not an easy task either.

The poster allocated sheep as the primary driver of government revenue as well as economic benefit and somehow figured out that the EBIT for an outfit was 20%? It would take several tin hats and few brain cells to try to make this a rational argument or pass it by someone who has taken grade 9 math.

For the sake of continuity its best if we don't touch economics and 'indirectly costs', there's no point. Nor is talking about 'the costs to service the client are high'. Unless you've got good numbers and you can track unit sales right down to EBITDA or at least the CMs there's absolutely no point in talking. And I can guarantee you never did that as someone who was involved in a business and I can guarantee your dad didn't measure it either.

Lastly, the question was in regards to GOVERNMENT REVENUE from a sheep hunt. Not, how much did an outfitter make, what was depreciation or economic benefit from an outfit operating at rediculous hunt numbers and prices.

In terms of finance and accounting this would be like a person calling a sheep an elephant. Best just sticking to the sheep issue.

[GoatGuy]

Hunters in the field are the best indicator on whether trophy quality is down. All rams are registered and measured. Numbers are there in black and white on how the quality is with sheep in every area.
Scientific data can do nothing to proove this. You must have the actual numbers over the last so many years to show horn size( if trophy quality is a concern) or age( if age structure is a concern).
SG


Let me correct you the scientific management techniques used in BC are by no means used through out the world. (far from it)
Next is the fact that I'm talking about thin horn sheep in region 7B, nothing to do with your back yard big horns.
Third is over my LONG career of being on the trail of STONE SHEEP I have in fact watched herd numbers and over all trophy quality decline. Agreed the word trophy is ones personnel view. How ever I've never known a person to a little ram if big ones are present. I guess this probably indicates most hunters harvesting sheep would not be against better quality trophies.
Actually for sheep we're on the same page as everybody else when it comes to thinhorns and the research from all the way back to Geist's days as well as today's research for the most part supports it. That's why we have a full-curl 8 yr old rule.

Trophy quality is about penis size and it has absolutely no bearing on issues of science and wildlife management. IF we find a relationship between horn length, age, mass, survival rates etc then that is how we manage sheep.

If you guys want science start dealing with it; quit talking about trophy quality. How nice a ram looks on somebody's wall is entirely social.

[GoatGuy]

I believe this to be absolute garbage. The fact is we have been over harvesting our sheep in parts region 7 for years now. The best indicator I can think of is the overall reduction in trophy quality on rams taken. We are in fact taking too many rams out of the system in many area's. The proccess of managing over large tracts of habitat results in erronous mangement in small but important pockets of sheep. Until the scientific formula's stop being applied to the region as a whole and based on averaged counts I think we loose a little every year.

We've been over-harvesting for years in 7b? Exactly how many years and which parts. What is the current AAH is those areas and what should it be?

[willy442]

We've been over-harvesting for years in 7b? Exactly how many years and which parts. What is the current AAH is those areas and what should it be?

Not going to get into playing your games. You've reinforced my statement about over harvest. While at the same time indicating the management plan is to large an area. Thats the only reason you have to ask which part. Now I'll rest my case, sit back and watch your formula's fix it.:(

[GoatGuy]

Not going to get into playing your games. You've reinforced my statement about over harvest. While at the same time indicating the management plan is to large an area. Thats the only reason you have to ask which part. Now I'll rest my case, sit back and watch your formula's fix it.:(

Hey, you're the guy with the issue. Say where and when it started and we'll look at the history.

[Sitkaspruce]

Gotcha, it certainly could be done better but to be honest you're far better off flying the winter range near areas that get a lot of pressure every couple years than you are flying it all regularly.

Let me put it this way. Real loose analogy. We could inventory a moose population of say 200 moose. It will cost us say ~$10,000 every 3 years and we can harvest say 10-15% of the population. Now, if we want to increase the harvest significantly up to of say 15-20% of the population it will cost us about $30,000 and we have to do it every year. So we could spent $50,000 over the next 15 years and harvest say 300-450 moose or we could spend $450,000 to harvest 450-600 moose. Which one would you pick? For $400,000 we could burn the country side and end up with far more moose than we'll ever realize spending it on inventory.

Ok, if you don't agree with DNA mark-recapture for grizzly bears there is no way in the world you could ever support a hunt or think that they're being inventoried properly unless you had every single bear in the country running around with a GPS collar - cubs included. That would be about the only way to do a better job of knowing how many bears are out there.

And all that economic stuff makes sense, right? But nobody thinks about it. Almost like $40,000 is a cake walk. How many outfitters in BC are really even charging this now? A handful at most. There's a bunch of guys that are at half that with a trophy fee now.

This thread has gone around the world.

At the end of the day the objectives should be:
1) Measure the population and come up with an AAH
The AAH and the estimate is very conservative when we don't have the money to consistently monitor the population and it's increased if we've got wads of cash but never to the point we are experiencing diminished returns
2) Follow the policy, split it up and tell your stakeholders to get on with making more animals.


This allocation crap is new to me, to tell you the truth there's three things I care about are habitat, wildlife and creating more hunters. Can only tell you what I've seen out of all the BS stunts, arguments and appeals that have been pulled over the last 5 years.

Stakeholders have been busy either trying to uphold the policy or sandbag it. It's cost a pile of money, time and hardship. Over the last 5 years we could have spent that time, money and energy increasing habitat and dealing with other issues such as predation and there would be LOTS OF SHEEP. 2012 would not be a big deal.

I know Willy rants about the BCWF and residents this and that but I can tell you and anyone else very honestly that at the time this policy was signed, sealed and delivered everyone was on the same page. Apparently that's significant, I figured that was just the way things work. After Dale Drown left things went to hell in a hand basket overnight and it hasn't improved.

To be very honest it's tough to make more hunters when animals like moose, elk and deer opportunities and allocations are being taken away from residents. Those are the kinds of things that kill resident hunters off, never mind trying to make more hunters. Sheep aren't the most important species in BC for residents, probably near the bottom right around grizzlies and goats but they are reflective of a bigger issue and that's why it's a mountain to die on for residents.

Now we're a year away from 2012 and shit is rolling down the pipe for the outfitters in 6 and 7B in a big way, the appeals have been heard, the backdoor political wrangling hasn't worked, the economic viability paper hasn't achieved much for results and most of the guys with sheep are looking at BIG CUTS. Hopefully there will be some learning to be had.

If we could ever let this policy work and get our collective heads out of our asses we wouldn't be worried about who gets what, just worrying about habitat and wildlife. With 5 years behind us I can guarantee you nobody would be meeting their allocation if we spent that time working for sheep.

Nicely said GG



Just a quick question to some expert here.

Who do you think knows more about sheep, sheep issues, age structure, sheep habitat, sheep numbers, the biologist comeing out with the numbers or the guides that are in that area for 60-80+ days a year observing populations every day?

When it all boils down to it the best scenario would be for them to work together as I guarentee if you send a guide up is the air in one aircraft to do a count and a bio in the other the guide will come out with a more accurate number for the area he knows.

because he has lots of experience.........spotting sheep from an airplane:mrgreen:


Residents, G/O and managment staff all need to work together to come up with the best structure for a managment plan. But each has its own initiative and until they all want what is best for the sheep instead of themselves we are just beating our heads on the wall.

I thought that was what the allocation process was set up for; Conservation then split quota........you have to remember SG, that this process has been discussed and rediscussed so many times that it gets confusing.

SG

Sheep Sheriff, SG and WC (this might be a stretch for him), how does one Stone Sheep get to be a $40000 hunt? Is it limited supply and high demand?? Is it because the rich have driven up the price?? Is it organizations like Wild Sheep Society, B&C, Grand Slam Club that make such a big deal out of them.....or what. Not looking for a reason the pick a battle, just wondering why they are so much more than any other animal in BC. And if they were worth only $10000, would this conversation be so heated and passionate???


Sheep Sheriff, when you throw in all the moose, caribou, goat, grizz and blacks, would not the the outfitters $$$ return for a sheep hunt increase?? Would not the actual cost to run an outfit, as you pointed out, be spread out among the many different hunts and summer exersions that most GO's provide? and not just on the $40000 sheep hunt??

Cheers

SS

[willy442]

The poster allocated sheep as the primary driver of government revenue as well as economic benefit and somehow figured out that the EBIT for an outfit was 20%? It would take several tin hats and few brain cells to try to make this a rational argument or pass it by someone who has taken grade 9 math.

For the sake of continuity its best if we don't touch economics and 'indirectly costs', there's no point. Nor is talking about 'the costs to service the client are high'. Unless you've got good numbers and you can track unit sales right down to EBITDA or at least the CMs there's absolutely no point in talking. And I can guarantee you never did that as someone who was involved in a business and I can guarantee your dad didn't measure it either.

Lastly, the question was in regards to GOVERNMENT REVENUE from a sheep hunt. Not, how much did an outfitter make, what was depreciation or economic benefit from an outfit operating at rediculous hunt numbers and prices.

In terms of finance and accounting this would be like a person calling a sheep an elephant. Best just sticking to the sheep issue.

GG: Until you actually have or had a financial intrest in an operation, I would suggest you not try to discredit someone or a family that spent thirty three years in the business. How stupid can you be?
You can also bet your ass that we knew to the penny what it cost us to run hunts for what ever spiecies you care to choose. Had we not our family business would have survived about as long as one of your parcel delivery flights.

It is not hard to get the numbers from government as to the value nonresident hunting has to the province. If this wasn't the case most the things you fight for would be one hell of a lot easier to achieve.

Look at the post by Rams on the eight mile study. About a million 6 raised by mainly those utilizing the resource. The portion itemized as coming from hunters period is just about embarrassing. You think resident hunting generates big bucks, maybe come ask some of the service suppliers here in the North who spends the money. Damn sure isn't those from the south that are trying to hunt as cheap as possible. The longivity of and accounting of the Resident Hunter Fund is another laughable matter and should be an embarassment to the resident. Cheap,Cheap, Cheap!

[willy442]

Hey, you're the guy with the issue. Say where and when it started and we'll look at the history.

No "I WOULD PREFER SOMEONE OTHER THAN YOU REPRESENT MY INTERESTS"

[willy442]

Nicely said GG




Sheep Sheriff, SG and WC (this might be a stretch for him), how does one Stone Sheep get to be a $40000 hunt? Is it limited supply and high demand?? Is it because the rich have driven up the price?? Is it organizations like Wild Sheep Society, B&C, Grand Slam Club that make such a big deal out of them.....or what. Not looking for a reason the pick a battle, just wondering why they are so much more than any other animal in BC. And if they were worth only $10000, would this conversation be so heated and passionate???


Sheep Sheriff, when you throw in all the moose, caribou, goat, grizz and blacks, would not the the outfitters $$$ return for a sheep hunt increase?? Would not the actual cost to run an outfit, as you pointed out, be spread out among the many different hunts and summer exersions that most GO's provide? and not just on the $40000 sheep hunt??

Cheers

SS

Unless you've actually sheep hunted it's hard to get the picture. The price of hunts is directly related to supply and demand like anything else. The competition for sheep hunts is only generated by the few that actually have a quota to harvest in thier areas. Having sheep quota greatly increases the value of an operation as you should be able to see. ie, 30 to 40 thousand dollar hunts.

I believe no matter what the price you would still see the same disagreements as at present most factors are as previously discribed "GREED"

With Moose, Caribou, Elk and Goats being available in many areas through out North America they are not nearly as big a draw as our sheep. There fore much like hunting African game they do not bring the same dollars per animal or tag.

[stoneguide]

Actually for sheep we're on the same page as everybody else when it comes to thinhorns and the research from all the way back to Geist's days as well as today's research for the most part supports it. That's why we have a full-curl 8 yr old rule.

Trophy quality is about penis size and it has absolutely no bearing on issues of science and wildlife management. IF we find a relationship between horn length, age, mass, survival rates etc then that is how we manage sheep.

If you guys want science start dealing with it; quit talking about trophy quality. How nice a ram looks on somebody's wall is entirely social.


thats exactly why I stated Age and Horn size.I only commented on others comments about quality. And what is the best way to determine if quality is up or down.
I am totaly for managing for age structure. To me a 13 or 14yr old ram is a bigger acomplishment than a 40" ram.
A stable population is far better than a small population of large rams.
SG

[bridger]

Wow can hardly wait to get home and post the region 6 stats

[willy442]

Actually for sheep we're on the same page as everybody else when it comes to thinhorns and the research from all the way back to Geist's days as well as today's research for the most part supports it. That's why we have a full-curl 8 yr old rule.

Trophy quality is about penis size and it has absolutely no bearing on issues of science and wildlife management. IF we find a relationship between horn length, age, mass, survival rates etc then that is how we manage sheep.

If you guys want science start dealing with it; quit talking about trophy quality. How nice a ram looks on somebody's wall is entirely social.

Actually you have an eight year old, full curl rule because the G/O's fought tooth and nail for it because without it. They could see the results that would take place through resident hunting. Decimation of accessable ram populations. Also for your information in case you don't realize it the rule is directly related to harvesting mature trophy quality Rams. If not you could start another movement to play hand and hand with allocation and move to an any sheep policy. Wouldn't you love that?

[GoatGuy]

GG: Until you actually have or had a financial intrest in an operation, I would suggest you not try to discredit someone or a family that spent thirty three years in the business. How stupid can you be?
You can also bet your ass that we knew to the penny what it cost us to run hunts for what ever spiecies you care to choose. Had we not our family business would have survived about as long as one of your parcel delivery flights.

It is not hard to get the numbers from government as to the value nonresident hunting has to the province. If this wasn't the case most the things you fight for would be one hell of a lot easier to achieve.

Look at the post by Rams on the eight mile study. About a million 6 raised by mainly those utilizing the resource. The portion itemized as coming from hunters period is just about embarrassing. You think resident hunting generates big bucks, maybe come ask some of the service suppliers here in the North who spends the money. Damn sure isn't those from the south that are trying to hunt as cheap as possible. The longivity of and accounting of the Resident Hunter Fund is another laughable matter and should be an embarassment to the resident. Cheap,Cheap, Cheap!

Guarantee the accountant wrapped things up at the end of the year for you and told you what you made or lost. That's how most outfitters operate and if you could follow a balance sheet or an income statement or had any idea what your cms were on a per unit basis you would have been filling those blanks in long ago.

You don't understand the difference between economic value or benefit or government revenue, so there's really no point in talking about much in terms of dollars unless it's what people are charging.

First year accounting would wrap all these issues up nicely, you don't need a designation.

[Buck]

Wow can hardly wait to get home and post the region 6 stats

LOL trouble maker

[willy442]

Nicely said GG




Sheep Sheriff, SG and WC (this might be a stretch for him), how does one Stone Sheep get to be a $40000 hunt? Is it limited supply and high demand?? Is it because the rich have driven up the price?? Is it organizations like Wild Sheep Society, B&C, Grand Slam Club that make such a big deal out of them.....or what. Not looking for a reason the pick a battle, just wondering why they are so much more than any other animal in BC. And if they were worth only $10000, would this conversation be so heated and passionate???


Sheep Sheriff, when you throw in all the moose, caribou, goat, grizz and blacks, would not the the outfitters $$$ return for a sheep hunt increase?? Would not the actual cost to run an outfit, as you pointed out, be spread out among the many different hunts and summer exersions that most GO's provide? and not just on the $40000 sheep hunt??

Cheers

SS

Another point I sould have made is these operators only have a short period of time to reap an income from thier occupation. The rest of thier time is spent servicing everything and booking hunts for the upcoming year. They do not operate 12 months.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Wow can hardly wait to get home and post the region 6 stats


Before you do that Rich, we better have a time out and raise some more funds for HBC bandwidth :mrgreen:.

SSS

[GoatGuy]

Actually you have an eight year old, full curl rule because the G/O's fought tooth and nail for it because without it. They could see the results that would take place through resident hunting. Decimation of accessable ram populations. Also for your information in case you don't realize it the rule is directly related to harvesting mature trophy quality Rams. If not you could start another movement to play hand and hand with allocation and move to an any sheep policy. Wouldn't you love that?

No, at the time, that research came principally from Geist. It's also being reproduced in Alberta on bighorns where they were hammering the 5/6 yr olds.

It's not about harvesting 'trophy quality rams' it's about compensatory mortality. Keeping the harvest at 8+ best reproduces what nature does. It's fairly involved when you get into the social structure, but needless to say, it works.

That's science.

[GoatGuy]

thats exactly why I stated Age and Horn size.I only commented on others comments about quality. And what is the best way to determine if quality is up or down.
I am totaly for managing for age structure. To me a 13 or 14yr old ram is a bigger acomplishment than a 40" ram.
A stable population is far better than a small population of large rams.
SG

Age and horn length (trophy quality) are not necessarily correlated. Has far more to due with genetics and nutrition.

The target age is 8+. If they're living to 13 they haven't participated in the rut for years and they're basically taking up space.

[GoatGuy]

Wow can hardly wait to get home and post the region 6 stats

You're going to kill the fun.

[willy442]

Guarantee the accountant wrapped things up at the end of the year for you and told you what you made or lost. That's how most outfitters operate and if you could follow a balance sheet or an income statement or had any idea what your cms were on a per unit basis you would have been filling those blanks in long ago.

You don't understand the difference between economic value or benefit or government revenue, so there's really no point in talking about much in terms of dollars unless it's what people are charging.

First year accounting would wrap all these issues up nicely, you don't need a designation.

How about this " I'M NOT WORTHY OF ARGUEING WITH GOAT GUY THE WORLDS BEST SELF APPOINTED EXPERT ON WILDLIFE" and any othjer issue that may arise. Happy now? You should have a new slogan. It could read like this. "SECOND ONLY TO GOOGLE":-D

[budismyhorse]

I always thought there was a different between guides and outfitters. Guess maybe I'm wrong or need to clear up statements when they are made to those, who will use a different viewpoint to strengthen thier own, when the opportunity arises.

The other point is, I was being cynical when I made that statement as it was alot of money spent for what we've seen so far.

Apology accepted.:)

My only error was thinking you were actually providing some kind of solution to your problem........

I should have know better that you were only being a cynic ......leopards can't change their spots.

[stoneguide]

Sitka, To your comment on guides being able to get a more accurate count being because they are used to counting out of a plane.

How many days in the field studying sheep do BC bios that take care of population numbers and AAH's have over a 10 year streatch?
A few days a year tops. Even at 10 days a year only puts them at 100days over them 10years.
Where as many full time guides will exceed that easy in 2 seasons.
Even many resident hunters have way more days logged in there selected areas.

How many of them bio's can tell you where rams are most likely to lay on windy days, sunny days or during periods of bad weather? How many can say what foot a ram most prodominatly will paw snow with( very helpful if counting young of the year)? How many know what routes sheep use to travel through out the area? How many know what year ring on almost all full curl rams line up with the ear?
Do you?
Bio's are a very important part of managment, but so are the experts that have the field experience.

Like I said they all need each others knowledge. By working together things can be accomplished easier with more accuarte results.
SG

[GoatGuy]

Another point I sould have made is these operators only have a short period of time to reap an income from thier occupation. The rest of thier time is spent servicing everything and booking hunts for the upcoming year. They do not operate 12 months.

There are thousands of business that are seasonal even as few as 3-4 months/year and they don't generate a 50% deposit on next year's activities. What this has to do with non-resident demand is beyond me.

[GoatGuy]

No "I WOULD PREFER SOMEONE OTHER THAN YOU REPRESENT MY INTERESTS"

Lets figure out if there's a problem and then solve it. You said there's been an over-harvest for years in parts of 7B. Where are these areas? How many is too many?

Once we go through that, figure out if there's a problem and what it is we can come up with a solution.

[willy442]

No, at the time, that research came principally from Geist. It's also being reproduced in Alberta on bighorns where they were hammering the 5/6 yr olds.

It's not about harvesting 'trophy quality rams' it's about compensatory mortality. Keeping the harvest at 8+ best reproduces what nature does. It's fairly involved when you get into the social structure, but needless to say, it works.

That's science.

Funny: I don't remember you sitting in at any of the meetings on the subject. Guess only because you weren't born yet!

[willy442]

Lets figure out if there's a problem and then solve it. You said there's been an over-harvest for years in parts of 7B. Where are these areas? How many is too many?

Once we go through that, figure out if there's a problem and what it is we can come up with a solution.

My post was wrote in capitals, not to yell at you but for the purpose of you being able to comprehend what you were reading.

[GoatGuy]

Funny: I don't remember you sitting in at any of the meetings on the subject. Guess only because you weren't born yet!

Don't need to, just go through the research, talk to the managers who were around and the researchers who were consulted.

Generally the researchers who are involved are only interested in the wildlife, not who gets to use it, so their view has the smallest potential for bias and the most potential for making a positive impact.

[willy442]

There are thousands of business that are seasonal even as few as 3-4 months/year and they don't generate a 50% deposit on next year's activities. What this has to do with non-resident demand is beyond me.

The fellow that made the post did so without a preconcieved know it all opinion. The answer was directed at his inquirey and has absolutely nothing to do with your interpetation of what was said. The question was asked why sheep hunts cost so much. You probably know more about it than anyone else on the forum so feel free to answer him if you wish.

[willy442]

Don't need to, just go through the research, talk to the managers who were around and the researchers who were consulted.

Generally the researchers who are involved are only interested in the wildlife, not who gets to use it, so their view has the smallest potential for bias and the most potential for making a positive impact.

Good job a monkey can be trained to fly.

[GoatGuy]

My post was wrote in capitals, not to yell at you but for the purpose of you being able to comprehend what you were reading.

So we can dismiss you comments that there is and has been an over-harvest for years in 7B as unfounded. Unsupported by any fact and baseless as there is no evidence, even anecdotal, spatial or temporal.

I see.

[stoneguide]

Age and horn length (trophy quality) are not necessarily correlated. Has far more to due with genetics and nutrition.

The target age is 8+. If they're living to 13 they haven't participated in the rut for years and they're basically taking up space.

Not sure but isnt that what I said?
And them rams taking up space are the ones that should be targeted. And the more young 6 year old full curl rams you let walk the better that age structure will get to be. And in many regards trophy quality(for those concered) will lots of times increase also.
SG

[GoatGuy]

My post was wrote in capitals, not to yell at you but for the purpose of you being able to comprehend what you were reading.

So we can dismiss your comments that "there is and has been an over-harvest for years in 7B" as unfounded. Unsupported by any fact and baseless as there is no evidence, even anecdotal, spatial or temporal.

You say there's a problem but won't tell anyone when, where or how it started, or even how you measure it, never mind looking at some FACT to support. Tough to come up with a solution when you can't establish a problem.

I see.

[willy442]

So we can dismiss you comments that there is and has been an over-harvest for years in 7B as unfounded. Unsupported by any fact and baseless as there is no evidence, even anecdotal, spatial or temporal.

I see.

No I will never with draw what I have seen first hand with my own eyes. Not even for your researchers best scientific accomplishments. Note: I said researchers because everything you post comes from others work.

[GoatGuy]

Not sure but isnt that what I said?
And them rams taking up space are the ones that should be targeted. And the more young 6 year old full curl rams you let walk the better that age structure will get to be. And in many regards trophy quality(for those concered) will lots of times increase also.
SG
You got 'er.

That seems to be what science tells us.

This is about animals first, hunters second.

In this case 'trophy quality' might improve if age is a problem, but if it's not and the habitat is marginal the changes in trophy quality ain't gonna be great. More importantly, who cares.

[GoatGuy]

No I will never with draw what I have seen first hand with my own eyes. Not even for your researchers best scientific accomplishments. Note: I said researchers because everything you post comes from others work.

Great, does nothing for sheep, nothing for hunters, might as well be a figment of your imagination.

"I've got a problem but I can't tell you about it, where it is, when it happened or who did it. All I know is it's a problem."

Sounds like the boy who cried wolf (ptp).

[willy442]

You say there's a problem but won't tell anyone when, where or how it started, or even how you measure it, never mind looking at some FACT to support. Tough to come up with a solution when you can't establish a problem.

Can you understand this. " mismanagement and or erronous management of our game populations" mainly due to incorrect assumptions by managers and some others involved.

How can you argue these points with someone who actually has more years field experience then you have years on the face of this earth. You really are a waste of everyones time up on your pedistal.

[GoatGuy]

You say there's a problem but won't tell anyone when, where or how it started, or even how you measure it, never mind looking at some FACT to support. Tough to come up with a solution when you can't establish a problem.

Can you understand this. " mismanagement and or erronous management of our game populations" mainly due to incorrect assumptions by managers and some others involved.

How can you argue these points with someone who actually has more years field experience then you have years on the face of this earth. You really are a waste of everyones time up on your pedistal.

See above. It isn't a problem if you're the only person in the world who knows about it and you can't tell anyone else anything about it.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory about aliens.

[stoneguide]

In this case 'trophy quality' might improve if age is a problem, but if it's not and the habitat is marginal the changes in trophy quality ain't gonna be great. More importantly, who cares.

Amen! .

[willy442]

Great, does nothing for sheep, nothing for hunters, might as well be a figment of your imagination.

"I've got a problem but I can't tell you about it, where it is, when it happened or who did it. All I know is it's a problem."

Sounds like the boy who cried wolf (ptp).

HA HA aren't you funny. I've spent my time working for sheep. Unlike many in the old boy's club, I'm only concerned about walking away and letting a new generation take over, when I see people consumed and blind by thier own self percieved importance. :-D

[frenchbar]

you guys sound like my kids when i divy up the ice cream for desert lol

[bayou]

you guys sound like my kids when i divy up the ice cream for desert lol
So who gets the most? How do you decide on who gets what percentage, age, gender, height, how they did in school. Do you allocate a certain amount to each for the whole month and they can decide if they want to eat it all at once or just abit each day. Do they ask for the others share if they dont eat it all.

[frenchbar]

So who gets the most? How do you decide on who gets what percentage, age, gender, height, how they did in school. Do you allocate a certain amount to each for the whole month and they can decide if they want to eat it all at once or just abit each day. Do they ask for the others share if they dont eat it all.

i still havent figured that part out yet...i useualy just threaten them with their lifes ..and the bickering stops:wink:

[358mag]

Resource sectors are a good target for funding. Mining is a big one in the Skeena and I am sure a compensation package of sorts could come of it. Oil and Gas etc.

I would like to see more money from licence sales etc put back to wildlife instead of to general revenue. HCTF is a small component but much more can be done.

Using the Sulphur 8-Mile Sheep Study - Funding sources included:


BC Integrated Land Management Bureau [$48.6K]
BC Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum
Resources Environmental Policy Program [$100K]
BC Ministry of Environment [$52K]
BC Oil and Gas Commission Science and Community Knowledge (SCEK) Fund [$615.3K]
BP Canada Energy Company [$8K]
Dawson Creek Sportsman's Club [$2.5K]
Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation [$253.7K]
Muskwa-Kechika Trust Fund [$190.5K]
Muskwa-Kechika Voted Funds [$100K]
North Peace Rod and Gun Club [$20K]
Northeast BC Wildlife Fund [$15K]
Northern BC Guides Association [$20K]
TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. [$175K]
Wild Sheep Society of BC [$10K]

What about the BCWF don't see there name on your list . hope that just a mistake.

[GoatGuy]

What about the BCWF don't see there name on your list . hope that just a mistake.

The clubs are the ones who make these kinds of donations, same as the "northern guides association".

[paw325]

Don't need an accounting designation, which he has, to know that post was a mess. First accounting class in university shows you that.

As offered to Fisher, please inform the forum what money is generated for the governement with one $40,000 sheep hunt.

[Buck]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck
LOL trouble maker
Ha..ha... Finally we've come full circle and back to where we started. "Trouble maker". This is basically what I said to bridger in the first place before this all went viral....

Hang on now i was of course being facetious.I would be just as interested in those numbers and hopefully get some insight into that region.

[Gateholio]

:mrgreen:I find in these threads on the internet it is best to not say to much and usually you know you have said to much about two pages past your last post.

I'll file that in the "No shit, Dick Tracy" file:mrgreen:

Good humor Andy. Well done....:wink:

[Sitkaspruce]

Wow you guys sure no how to fill up some pages. I ask a question, leave for dinner and some stupid chick fick (to appease the wife:mrgreen:) and there is 5-6 pages more of the same stuff........


Unless you've actually sheep hunted it's hard to get the picture. The price of hunts is directly related to supply and demand like anything else. The competition for sheep hunts is only generated by the few that actually have a quota to harvest in thier areas. Having sheep quota greatly increases the value of an operation as you should be able to see. ie, 30 to 40 thousand dollar hunts.

I believe no matter what the price you would still see the same disagreements as at present most factors are as previously discribed "GREED"

With Moose, Caribou, Elk and Goats being available in many areas through out North America they are not nearly as big a draw as our sheep. There fore much like hunting African game they do not bring the same dollars per animal or tag.


Willy, you answered some of my question, but not all of it. I have chased sheep all over BC for a lot of years, back in the eighties and nineties (getting old sucks!!!!:wink:) and do kind of understand the drive behind getting a sheep, but how may sheep hunter actually enjoy the full two weeks and how many fly in, kill their ram and head back down south?? Is it the hunt or the kill that these guys pay the top $$ for???
The second part of my question was not about the competition for the other animals, but it is directed at the the actual cost of an outfit operating. You were saying how much does a sheep hunt generate for the economy, when in fact it is the whole business of outfitting that benefits the economy. One sheep hunter does not put a lot of money back into the economy and the GO does not lose a lot from that hunt as his cost are spread out across all his animals, same as his trips down south and all his upkeep, it is spread across the whole operation, just not sheep hunters.



Another point I sould have made is these operators only have a short period of time to reap an income from thier occupation. The rest of thier time is spent servicing everything and booking hunts for the upcoming year. They do not operate 12 months.

Oh I understand that as I work for a G/O,(second job, kind of a holiday where I get paid...:mrgreen:) and have gone down on a few of the south of the border trips and helped with getting things in order for the season



Sitka, To your comment on guides being able to get a more accurate count being because they are used to counting out of a plane.

How many days in the field studying sheep do BC bios that take care of population numbers and AAH's have over a 10 year streatch?
A few days a year tops. Even at 10 days a year only puts them at 100days over them 10years.
Where as many full time guides will exceed that easy in 2 seasons.
Even many resident hunters have way more days logged in there selected areas.

No argument there (although the field techs are out a lot more, plus the consultants and the minions that work for other dirt ministries), but the guide may only cover a small section of an area, so their info can be biased. I have seen it and there has been more than one heated discussion about extrapolating a guides info from one end of a 1000 square mile area to cover all of the area he worked in plus the G/O area plus the surrounding area....imagination can run wild when guys want to be heard.....


How many of them bio's can tell you where rams are most likely to lay on windy days, sunny days or during periods of bad weather? How many can say what foot a ram most prodominatly will paw snow with( very helpful if counting young of the year)? How many know what routes sheep use to travel through out the area? How many know what year ring on almost all full curl rams line up with the ear?
Do you?
Bio's are a very important part of managment, but so are the experts that have the field experience.

Like I said they all need each others knowledge. By working together things can be accomplished easier with more accuarte results.
SG

SG. tell me where the local Bio or regional Bio does NOT use local field info....I would be curious as to why they would not....and remember, just because you have not been asked does not mean it does not happen...:wink:

Cheers

SS

[Gateholio]

Wow, i can't even keep up, won't try. Hope nobody has been rude to each other.:wink:

[stoneguide]

SG. tell me where the local Bio or regional Bio does NOT use local field info....I would be curious as to why they would not....and remember, just because you have not been asked does not mean it does not happen...:wink:

Cheers

SS

Wouldnt even get involved as ther are guys that know the area ive guided in better than I do and have alot more sheep experienc and by no means ment me. But there are many many guys that have a ton of experience that would be a definate asset. Guys that have been in on 100+ sheep harvests and have hunted the areas for 20-30 years. And in many cases know the area better than the outfitter does.

Never said the odd guides(usually an Outfitter) info hasnt been used. But in every study or count a representative that is an expert on the area should be involved. Not someone that has pondered maps and other info and claim to know the area.

Just was stating that all need to work together and the more experience you can get involved the better.
SG

[willy442]

Wow you guys sure no how to fill up some pages. I ask a question, leave for dinner and some stupid chick fick (to appease the wife:mrgreen:) and there is 5-6 pages more of the same stuff........




Willy, you answered some of my question, but not all of it. I have chased sheep all over BC for a lot of years, back in the eighties and nineties (getting old sucks!!!!:wink:) and do kind of understand the drive behind getting a sheep, but how may sheep hunter actually enjoy the full two weeks and how many fly in, kill their ram and head back down south?? Is it the hunt or the kill that these guys pay the top $$ for???
The second part of my question was not about the competition for the other animals, but it is directed at the the actual cost of an outfit operating. You were saying how much does a sheep hunt generate for the economy, when in fact it is the whole business of outfitting that benefits the economy. One sheep hunter does not put a lot of money back into the economy and the GO does not lose a lot from that hunt as his cost are spread out across all his animals, same as his trips down south and all his upkeep, it is spread across the whole operation, just not sheep hunters.




Oh I understand that as I work for a G/O,(second job, kind of a holiday where I get paid...:mrgreen:) and have gone down on a few of the south of the border trips and helped with getting things in order for the season




SG. tell me where the local Bio or regional Bio does NOT use local field info....I would be curious as to why they would not....and remember, just because you have not been asked does not mean it does not happen...:wink:

Cheers

SS

I'm like you, done climbing mountains. To answer your question I think most are still in it for the trip even with the other demands on thier time. They just have to enjoy it in a more condensed fashion. Most cut thier trips alot shorter than they used to once they have a ram down. With the planes and things now they can get out back in the day they were there for the time booked and had no choice alot of the time.

Yes the costs you speak of are bore through the whole season. My statement on the antlered animal hunts was in some outfits hunting them is more a service. Example in our old area, the best country for Moose and Caribou was over passes and 60 miles away from our base. The costs of flying clients, supplies and meat plus caring for it properly cost damn near everthing you brought in. This scenario is common to the remote guy's. Others it's not a problem as you probably know.

[boxhitch]

Serious ? How the F would anyone know that , without looking at a set of books ? Like any business, no onw on the outside knows the accounting details of someone elses business. Better pick a better carrot if you want to call someone out.
As offered to Fisher, please inform the forum what money is generated for the governement with one $40,000 sheep hunt.

[boxhitch]

Actually you have an eight year old, full curl rule because the G/O's fought tooth and nail for it because without it. They could see the results that would take place through resident hunting. Decimation of accessable ram populations. If this is the case, it is ironic how in recent years the 8 yr rule was wielded as a tool by reg. managers over g/o's, threatening that non-compliance could lead to quota reduction.
Actually a moot point now, as neither side has an unfair advantage...
Can only hope the average ages stay up.

[willy442]

If this is the case, it is ironic how in recent years the 8 yr rule was wielded as a tool by reg. managers over g/o's, threatening that non-compliance could lead to quota reduction.
Actually a moot point now, as neither side has an unfair advantage...
Can only hope the average ages stay up.

You got it right with the word HOPE.

[GoatGuy]

As offered to Fisher, please inform the forum what money is generated for the governement with one $40,000 sheep hunt.

Sure, post the number of hunters, hunts, prices, trophy fees and an accurate break down of variable costs. For the practical application there's probably not much use in getting into things any more than that.

[tangozulu]

Fisher Dude: As the officail voice of the BCWF, you should know enough about our game laws to understand that the use of helicopters is prohibited other than for the purpose of an emergency flight for medical reasons or similar issue.

Now if you are refering to the Lancasters in the NWT that is an entirely different set of laws that I believe are in the process of changing.

The other misleading statement in your post is the fact of increased quota for the G/O's. Please explain when this came into effect here in B.C. or when it will in the future. I would suggest by the G/O harvest already being below thier quota's, they have a very good understanding of what is available out there for mature rams and are probably at best retaliating to the garbage coming out of the federation you have become the voice of.

I know a fellow who has guided to about 25 rams (with a very succesful outfitter) who doesn't know how to find a ram other than the info relayed from a spotter plane..........to him this is the Definition of sheep hunting.
All said though,not sure this is illegal but certainly does not smell right. I can only home the NWT will come to their sences re helicopter hunting. Not enough resi hunters to complain I suppose. Hunting in the NWT is simply becoming a meat market...........totally discusting in MHO

[paw325]

Sure, post the number of hunters, hunts, prices, trophy fees and an accurate break down of variable costs. For the practical application there's probably not much use in getting into things any more than that.

You state publicly that I'm wrong.

But you can't offer a reason why or provide corrections??????

BTW if you are going to take the high road, just quit posting, it lends to your credibility. I will do the same.

[GoatGuy]

You state publicly that I'm wrong.

But you can't offer a reason why or provide corrections??????

BTW if you are going to take the high road, just quit posting, it lends to your credibility. I will do the same.

Know how an income statement works.


Should also include revenue and costs for fishing and Eco-tourism.

[Ferenc]

No economics here.....just a really good read....That Some May Follow....The History of Guide Outfitting in British Columbia...by Leo Rutledge...a must read book....is a part of B.C. HISTORY!!!!

[Gateholio]

Hopefully you guys can stick to the topic of sheep, and not get into personal sniping about who works where, who went to school and who didn't etc etc.

[Whisky Creek]

****************************************** Rediculous...

[tangozulu]

Great thread; problem is the whole deal is bs for the bc resident. Sheep hunting in BC has become big dough and residents just dont come into that equation. I have a hard time with the fact that BC opens it doors on quotas far and above any state or province when it comes to sheep hunting. It is high time that we as residents protect our rights and country for our future generations.
In Alberta a hunter from the states shoots a ram its four years before they can come back. Further to Alberta. Non residents are not allowed to hunt south of the bow river period and that is where the best sheep hunting is in Alberta. Here is BC we residents have to apply for LEH in areas where GOs have quota; what kinda bs is this. If there is a LEH in a area it should be leh for everyone. Non resident and resident alike period. Then if a hunter from abroad wants to hunt the area he has to draw the tag like any of us. This is pretty standard in lots of the states.
The point we are missing is the sheep have to come first. If we manage our herds properly and let the rams mature to their full potential then we will have great sheep hunting for a long time. If we as residents allow non residents to shoot as many sheep as us were dead cause the rams just arent getting a chance to die of old age. The GOs know there turf and they know what animals are living in their areas. Restrict the quotas bring up the quality and the nonresidents will pay whatever it takes. For a guy spending 30k or up another 20 for a really big ram wont stop him from coming. Further too this a guy from abroad who shoots a sheep here should not be allowed back for 5 years. Just cause your rich doesnt give you the right to have more rights then anyone else. We need to start a petition and get it right before the MOE screws it up more.

Perhaps if a non resident came here year after year and shot 4 or 5 rams we would think that is ok. Now I know a gentleman from the US who has hunted with one of our local BC outfitters who has taken 7 (yes 7) grizzly bears. Still think Non Residents should have unlimited access to our game?

[stoneguide]

Perhaps if a non resident came here year after year and shot 4 or 5 rams we would think that is ok. Now I know a gentleman from the US who has hunted with one of our local BC outfitters who has taken 7 (yes 7) grizzly bears. Still think Non Residents should have unlimited access to our game?


So if that particular non resident didnt come up how many bears do you think would have been shot?

More than likely it would be the exact same amount . I dont understand your logic. Outfitters book a certain number of hunts every year. Whether its the same guys booking or not. Whats the difference to you if 7 bears are taken by one guy or by 7 different guys?
SG

[KB90]

Perhaps if a non resident came here year after year and shot 4 or 5 rams we would think that is ok. Now I know a gentleman from the US who has hunted with one of our local BC outfitters who has taken 7 (yes 7) grizzly bears. Still think Non Residents should have unlimited access to our game?

To answer your question,

Yes, GO's are on Quota, the animals would be killed regardless.

If the same guy doesn't book the hunt over and over, someone else would take there spot.

What does it matter who kills the animals?
I congratulate a man who is able to take 7 grizzlies. Grizzly hunting is under utilized in lots of places as it is.

[tangozulu]

So if that particular non resident didnt come up how many bears do you think would have been shot?

More than likely it would be the exact same amount . I dont understand your logic. Outfitters book a certain number of hunts every year. Whether its the same guys booking or not. Whats the difference to you if 7 bears are taken by one guy or by 7 different guys?
SG

Well as someone who grew up in southern Alberta and had to move and to hunt my dream animal, i say yes I do care if 1 guy shot 7 bears. I would have been very happy if 7 different hunters could have filled their dream. Of course if its just about money then it does't matter. Thats why you won't get it.
Pretty strange for someone who will never be able to hunt a bear in your home province.

[stoneguide]

Well as someone who grew up in southern Alberta and had to move and to hunt my dream animal, i say yes I do care if 1 guy shot 7 bears. I would have been very happy if 7 different hunters could have filled their dream. Of course if its just about money then it does't matter. Thats why you won't get it.
Pretty strange for someone who will never be able to hunt a bear in your home province.

Your issue seems to be more with any bears being shot at all.
All non residents have the same oppertunity to book a grizz hunt of their dreams this guy harvesting 7 took nothing away from any other hunter.

Strange because I cant hunt bears in Alberta? What does that have to do with anything? If the area can support the taking of bears and is open to NR then I see no issue if the guy wants 10 bears. He has commited to hunting them over alot of years and alot of money so im thinking he is fullfilling his dreams.
It really has nothing to do with money, 7 tags sold to one guy brings in the same amount as 7 tags sold to 7 guys.

SG

[tangozulu]

You can just buy a grizzly tag and go hunting in Alberta? Sorry off topic

[stoneguide]

You can just buy a grizzly tag and go hunting in Alberta? Sorry off topic

Not sure what your asking here? No you cant as you well know!

And if your saying that because you can in BC! So then you are against any NR taking one.

Maybe explain your statments a little better.
SG

[KB90]

Well as someone who grew up in southern Alberta and had to move and to hunt my dream animal, i say yes I do care if 1 guy shot 7 bears. I would have been very happy if 7 different hunters could have filled their dream. Of course if its just about money then it does't matter. Thats why you won't get it.
Pretty strange for someone who will never be able to hunt a bear in your home province.

So your problem then is how much it costs?

not the fact the a guy can kill 7 bears in 7 years.

[Gateholio]

Well as someone who grew up in southern Alberta and had to move and to hunt my dream animal, i say yes I do care if 1 guy shot 7 bears. I would have been very happy if 7 different hunters could have filled their dream. Of course if its just about money then it does't matter. Thats why you won't get it.
Pretty strange for someone who will never be able to hunt a bear in your home province.

As Goat Guy would say "You are talking about a social issue, not a conservation issue"
:wink:

[tangozulu]

As Goat Guy would say "You are talking about a social issue, not a conservation issue"
:wink:

Perhaps................so there is no thing as too many threatend animals for 1 person as long as they can afford it? say 10? 30? 50? Again off topic sorry off topic though does speak to Resident verses NR access to game.

[Gateholio]

Perhaps................so there is no thing as too many threatend animals for 1 person as long as they can afford it? say 10? 30? 50? Again off topic sorry off topic though does speak to Resident verses NR access to game.

Well since this is a sheep thread, maybe we should ask the same question of sheep. How many is enough for a non resident? (Or resident for that matter?)

Again, this is a social question for sheep or grizzlies. If a resident keeps putting in for low odds grizz hunts and getting tags every year, he can shoot one every year (assuming he finds a legal grizzly) If the non resident can afford it he can keep buying grizzly or sheep hunts and come every year. As long as the quota or AAH is not exceeded, it's not a conservation issue. It may seem greedy to some (and perhaps it is) but it matters not to conservation who kills the animal.

[Tenacious Billy]

Perhaps................so there is no thing as too many threatend animals for 1 person as long as they can afford it? say 10? 30? 50? Again off topic sorry off topic though does speak to Resident verses NR access to game.

Not sure exactly what you're getting at here. You seem to have gone from saying it's not fair for the same non-resident to come year after year and harvest a sheep/grizz simply because he can afford it, to trying to imply that so long as someone has lots of $$ they can continue to harvest animals at their own discretion, regardless of whether an animal is threatened or not..........can you clarify?

[SHAKER]

Not sure exactly what you're getting at here. You seem to have gone from saying it's not fair for the same non-resident to come year after year and harvest a sheep/grizz simply because he can afford it, to trying to imply that so long as someone has lots of $$ they can continue to harvest animals at their own discretion, regardless of whether an animal is threatened or not..........can you clarify?


I'll try...... The sheep in front of my house are on LEH and the GO has X number of tags every year as well. If you spend the $$$$$$$$$$$ you can buy his hunt\tag and go every year while some of us have to sit and watch the fun from the bleachers untill you pull that lucky tag. Or find one of our fine HBC members who pulled a tag and go with them!

[tangozulu]

Not sure exactly what you're getting at here. You seem to have gone from saying it's not fair for the same non-resident to come year after year and harvest a sheep/grizz simply because he can afford it, to trying to imply that so long as someone has lots of $$ they can continue to harvest animals at their own discretion, regardless of whether an animal is threatened or not..........can you clarify?

My point is that Non Residents have more acess to your wildlife than you (residents) do. In that sence money does indeed talk.
The odds on a resident drawing a grizzly tag every year for 7 years has to be pretty low, though I am no statitician. Is there not still a wait time between tags on sheep if a res is succesful?

[Island Redneck]

My point is that Non Residents have more acess to your wildlife than you (residents) do. In that sence money does indeed talk.
The odds on a resident drawing a grizzly tag every year for 7 years has to be pretty low, though I am no statitician. Is there not still a wait time between tags on sheep if a res is succesful?

I believe under the new allocation agreement a Resident hunter can purchase a hunt off of a GO. the same as a Non-Resident and that Resident hunt would be part of the GO.'s allocation. So the Resident hunter has a lot more access to BC. wildlife than the non-Resident. IMO.

[bridger]

does it really matter how many sheep/grizz a hunter harvests either res or non res if the aah is not exceeded? as has been said that is a social issue not a conservation issue. as far as equal access to hunting opportunnities is concerned there are a couple of issues that still need to be looked at. one is on leh/quota hunts the residents have a two week window in a 60 day season to go on their hunt. the go can take his entire quota of the first day of the season i or over the entire season f he chooses to do so. while the res hunter is limited to a specific time slot during the season.

[stoneguide]

My point is that Non Residents have more acess to your wildlife than you (residents) do. In that sence money does indeed talk.
The odds on a resident drawing a grizzly tag every year for 7 years has to be pretty low, though I am no statitician. Is there not still a wait time between tags on sheep if a res is succesful?


Well seems to all boil down to jealousy! You dont seem to care that 7 bears get shot but more so that one guy shot them and you never. Whether one guy or 7 shoot 7 bears/sheep on the quota does nothing to change the resident access to the wild life.

And I dont know about all areas but I do beleve that most Stone sheep areas switched to no wait periods after harvest for residents but I could be wrong.


SG

[tangozulu]

Well seems to all boil down to jealousy! You dont seem to care that 7 bears get shot but more so that one guy shot them and you never. Whether one guy or 7 shoot 7 bears/sheep on the quota does nothing to change the resident access to the wild life.

And I dont know about all areas but I do beleve that most Stone sheep areas switched to no wait periods after harvest for residents but I could be wrong.


SG

Well good thing your the guide and not the cook. Jealousy has nothing to do with it. Seems like hunter opportunity is a big thing when planning sessions deal with resident hunting..................less so with NR.

[stoneguide]

Well good thing your the guide and not the cook. Jealousy has nothing to do with it. Seems like hunter opportunity is a big thing when planning sessions deal with resident hunting..................less so with NR.


LOL See your issue is with the G/O having tags. Why not just grow some balls and come out and say that you are unhappy because N/R are taking away from you as a resident by having tags available to them. Had nothing to do with how many animals one hunter took. You are one of the guys that want every tag for residents. You read just like a childrens book.

[6616]

Not sure exactly what you're getting at here. You seem to have gone from saying it's not fair for the same non-resident to come year after year and harvest a sheep/grizz simply because he can afford it, to trying to imply that so long as someone has lots of $$ they can continue to harvest animals at their own discretion, regardless of whether an animal is threatened or not..........can you clarify?

I don't think we should bring the status (threatened) of grizzly bears into the discussion. The hunt is sustainable, the AAH is scientifically established and as long as it's not exceeded, there should be no worries. The only discussion surrounding status is whether we should be hunting threatened species at all and I don't think we want to go there.

[Tenacious Billy]

I don't think we should bring the status (threatened) of grizzly bears into the discussion. The hunt is sustainable, the AAH is scientifically established and as long as it's not exceeded, there should be no worries. The only discussion surrounding status is whether we should be hunting threatened species at all and I don't think we want to go there.

I totally agree. I was only looking for clarification on what exactly he was trying to say.

[tangozulu]

LOL See your issue is with the G/O having tags. Why not just grow some balls and come out and say that you are unhappy because N/R are taking away from you as a resident by having tags available to them. Had nothing to do with how many animals one hunter took. You are one of the guys that want every tag for residents. You read just like a childrens book.

What the truck are you talking about? My balls are just fine. I took my 25 year old grizzly back in 1984, a couple 300+elk, and have 3 rams over 40 inches without once needing a spotter plane and some bar stool cowboy who calls himself a guide's help. There are plenty of very capable resident hunters in BC, don't kid yourself. Thats why the outfitters want us away.......
I want to make sure my kids have the same opportunities I had. Something the BCGOA is trying very hard to keep from happening.

[6616]

I totally agree. I was only looking for clarification on what exactly he was trying to say.

We should also remember that hunting for grizzly bears in BC only occurs where populations are viable. See map on page 6.

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/management-issues/docs/grizzly_bear_faq.pdf

[Tenacious Billy]

We should also remember that hunting for grizzly bears in BC only occurs where populations are viable. See map on page 6.

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/management-issues/docs/grizzly_bear_faq.pdf

Yes, yes we should.....

[stoneguide]

What the truck are you talking about? My balls are just fine. I took my 25 year old grizzly back in 1984, a couple 300+elk, and have 3 rams over 40 inches without once needing a spotter plane and some bar stool cowboy who calls himself a guide's help. There are plenty of very capable resident hunters in BC, don't kid yourself. Thats why the outfitters want us away.......
I want to make sure my kids have the same opportunities I had. Something the BCGOA is trying very hard to keep from happening.


LOL You really have no clue do you!

And you wanna throw out numbers and wanna get into personal stats to try and make yourself something then here are a few of mine,

I have guided for around 23 rams with both bow and rifle( 16 Stone, 1 Dall, 6 Bighorns) including 6 40"+ Stones, 1 40"+ Bighorn and 3 B/C and 1 P&Y Stones in my carrer so far, and
at least 40 moose ( 5 B/C and 3 P&Y)
15+ elk (5 over 300" and one 365")
10 caribou ( largest being 417" Net mountain caribou)
20-30 deer (both mule and whitetails)
3 grizz
60+ blk bears
10 cougars
10 goats
7 wolves
3 antelope

From over 2 provinces, and one territory, not one had any help from a plane( and you may wanna watch what you acuse people of). And none of which were personel kills or many stats would go up.
And if you think im a bar stool cowboy then beleive what you wish because even off my bar stool I could make you look stupid in your own back yard.


So if you honestly think outfitters are trying to get residents completely out of their areas then you need not say anymore as that speaks volumes on how well you understand the true issues that are being delt with out there. Outfitters will never no matter how hard they try acheive what you sugest. Maybe you should be more into animal managment as that is what will keep hunting out there for future generations. Not whether you get the tags or the NR do.

SG

[tangozulu]

Happy hour over?

[bridger]

LOL You really have no clue do you!

And you wanna throw out numbers and wanna get into personal stats to try and make yourself something then here are a few of mine,

I have guided for around 23 rams with both bow and rifle( 16 Stone, 1 Dall, 6 Bighorns) including 6 40"+ Stones, 1 40"+ Bighorn and 3 B/C and 1 P&Y Stones in my carrer so far, and
at least 40 moose ( 5 B/C and 3 P&Y)
15+ elk (5 over 300" and one 365")
10 caribou ( largest being 417" Net mountain caribou)
20-30 deer (both mule and whitetails)
3 grizz
60+ blk bears
10 cougars
10 goats
7 wolves
3 antelope

From over 2 provinces, and one territory, not one had any help from a plane( and you may wanna watch what you acuse people of). And none of which were personel kills or many stats would go up.
And if you think im a bar stool cowboy then beleive what you wish because even off my bar stool I could make you look stupid in your own back yard.


So if you honestly think outfitters are trying to get residents completely out of their areas then you need not say anymore as that speaks volumes on how well you understand the true issues that are being delt with out there. Outfitters will never no matter how hard they try acheive what you sugest. Maybe you should be more into animal managment as that is what will keep hunting out there for future generations. Not whether you get the tags or the NR do.

SG

just curious do you live in bc?

[stoneguide]

just curious do you live in bc?

Nope. But have hunted it since 1994.

[bridger]

i have lived in it and hunted it since 1966 paid a lot of taxes, employ 60 people know more about the inner workings of the goabc than most people and for some reason think i should have more opportunities to hunt it than some guy from texas. am pretty opinionated on the subject tho.

[stoneguide]

i have lived in it and hunted it since 1966 paid a lot of taxes, employ 60 people know more about the inner workings of the goabc than most people and for some reason think i should have more opportunities to hunt it than some guy from texas. am pretty opinionated on the subject tho.


So in your mind all the outfitting should be gone. No non resident tags. Just everything for residents? Just making sure I understand your stand on things.
SG

[leadpillproductions]

I dont have a prob with the outfitting business like someone else posted they do a lot to fight the anti hunting types. I dont agree with using their planes to find game , and yes they do it if you think they dont open your eyes and see the planes flying around th hunting area's not that many hunter needing flight's.

[stoneguide]

I dont have a prob with the outfitting business like someone else posted they do a lot to fight the anti hunting types. I dont agree with using their planes to find game , and yes they do it if you think they dont open your eyes and see the planes flying around th hunting area's not that many hunter needing flight's.


Your right it does happen the odd time. I honestly can say the few guys ive worked havent but there are some guys that probably do. Just like there are a few residents that do the same.
Be nice if it never happened but pretty hard to police thats for sure. Unless you can somehow get them for harassing wildlife or something its pretty much a no win fight. Only way to stop it is to stop flying, and that would affect residents as much as outfitters.
SG

[bridger]

So in your mind all the outfitting should be gone. No non resident tags. Just everything for residents? Just making sure I understand your stand on things.
SG


not at all i support a viable guiding industry and support non resident hunting and have gone on record many times stating that fact. i just get tired of international and inter provincial hunting companies that in actual fact contribute only a small portion of their gross receipts to bc's economy thinking that they and their non resident hunting clientele should have the same or greater opportunities to hunt than i as a resident do. pretty simple. i think that they should be appreciative of the fact that bc allows them to operate within her borders and quit trying to run the show.

[leadpillproductions]

Ya pretty tough to stop it , really thats the only problem i have . One day i would like to own an outfit that sure would be nice .

[358mag]

i have lived in it and hunted it since 1966 paid a lot of taxes, employ 60 people know more about the inner workings of the goabc than most people and for some reason think i should have more opportunities to hunt it than some guy from texas. am pretty opinionated on the subject tho.
Just curious thats a hell of a nice dall's sheep in your avatar was it shoot in BC ???

[bridger]

Just curious thats a hell of a nice dall's sheep in your avatar was it shoot in BC ???


nope taken with an outfitter in the north west territories. had a great time and have gone on two other guided dall hunts. hope to go again.

[358mag]

nope taken with an outfitter in the north west territories. had a great time and have gone on two other guided dall hunts. hope to go again.
Con grad on your fine Dall's sheep .Sure hope you didnt take away any oppertunties from a resident hunter from the NWT or is that diff if you go out of prov to hunt ???:confused:

[bridger]

Con grad on your fine Dall's sheep .Sure hope you didnt take away any oppertunties from a resident hunter from the NWT or is that diff if you go out of prov to hunt ???:confused:


thanks for the compliment on my dall. i was very fortunate on that hunt not only did i get a nice ram, but had a tremendous individual for a guide and a first rate outfitter. as for taking an opportunity away from a resident of the nwt. don't think I did as the area was really remote and the outfitter told me that there had been no resident sheep hunters in his area for several years. thanks again.

[tangozulu]

Con grad on your fine Dall's sheep .Sure hope you didnt take away any oppertunties from a resident hunter from the NWT or is that diff if you go out of prov to hunt ???:confused:

I think Bridger was pretty clear...he supports a viable guide outfitter industry. Most residents including myself do. What we don't want to have to do is spend all our free time fighting to keep what is ours.

[Gateholio]

Con grad on your fine Dall's sheep .Sure hope you didnt take away any oppertunties from a resident hunter from the NWT or is that diff if you go out of prov to hunt ???:confused:

Actually, it's largely irrelevant.

It's their turf, the residents of that area should manage it as they see fit.

[6616]

What we don't want to have to do is spend all our free time fighting to keep what is ours.

Now that remark certainly hits the mark, in the last two years the BCWF Wildlife Committee has had to react to one attack after another by the GOABC on resident hunting rights and opportuniities and we're sick of it and have much better ways to spend our time and resources.

[6616]

Sure hope you didnt take away any oppertunties from a resident hunter from the NWT

That's kind of a stretch when one considers the entire resident population of the NWT is less than 45,000 people and there are only 1000 (non-aboriginal) resident hunters and the average annual Dall sheep harvest by reisdent hunters is often less than 20 rams.

[willy442]

That's kind of a stretch when one considers the entire resident population of the NWT is less than 45,000 people and there are only 1000 (non-aboriginal) resident hunters and the average annual Dall sheep harvest by reisdent hunters is often less than 20 rams.

I don't understand what the difference is regarding how many hunters or people there is. How does this have anything to do with the the fact of Non Resident hunting. Just like here every resident owns a piece of the pie and should be able to voice his concerns of what happens to a resource he is part owner of. For your information the aboriginal in the NWT want all hunting. Much the same as the BCWF here, so if you want to compare apples to apples. What's the difference. Let me remind you these were also helicopter hunts, something that many real hunters wouldn't even consider.

[willy442]

Now that remark certainly hits the mark, in the last two years the BCWF Wildlife Committee has had to react to one attack after another by the GOABC on resident hunting rights and opportuniities and we're sick of it and have much better ways to spend our time and resources.

Don't worry you're not alone here either. The guides got sick of the reacting to the BCWF also. The difference is thier membership and client base can raise far more financial clout than the BCWF can even dream about. How about a financial report on the condition of the Resident Priorty Fund. Perhaps we could be privelidged enough to see what came in and where it was spent. My understanding was it was supposed to be a stand alone fund seperate from the federations coffers so a report from you or Rich should be easily accomplished.

[Gateholio]

I don't understand what the difference is regarding how many hunters or people there is. How does this have anything to do with the the fact of Non Resident hunting. Just like here every resident owns a piece of the pie and should be able to voice his concerns of what happens to a resource he is part owner of. For your information the aboriginal in the NWT want all hunting. Much the same as the BCWF here, so if you want to compare apples to apples. What's the difference. Let me remind you these were also helicopter hunts, something that many real hunters wouldn't even consider.

And as I said before- Largely irrelevant to this thread. It's up to the NWT to decide how they allocate wildlife to non residents. And if we asked every BC resident how they want the wildlife pie divvied up.....well, I dont' think it would go well for the Outfitters, frankly.:wink:

[Devilbear]

In response to Gate's point and I agree with him, there was a letter published in today's Vancouver Sun from a woman in Surrey, wherein she claims that 80% of British Columbians in some poll she does not indentify are against "trophy hunting"......

I do not know if this is correct, however, I think that a complete public survey of BC's citizens would give results that would be at least 65% opposed to ANY foreign hunting of ANY BC wildlife. This means that the supposed "value" of GOABC activities in support of hunting are far less than some here seem to think they are.

The BCWF may not be as financially strong as the GOABC, however, they have far greater credibility with the public in BC and, in the long term, that is what will count. Money is NOT the only determinant factor in these situations as we saw when the "war in the woods" saved a little BC wilderness from foreign-owned timber companies.

So, we shall see..........

[willy442]

And as I said before- Largely irrelevant to this thread. It's up to the NWT to decide how they allocate wildlife to non residents. And if we asked every BC resident how they want the wildlife pie divvied up.....well, I dont' think it would go well for the Outfitters, frankly.:wink:

I don't agree with you. Everyone on here thinks in that manner. However 35 to 40 thousand people do not begin to represent the people that have a say. Let alone the political pressures that would arise.:wink:

[Gateholio]

I don't agree with you. Everyone on here thinks in that manner. However 35 to 40 thousand people do not begin to represent the people that have a say. Let alone the political pressures that would arise.:wink:

I'm not talking about the BCWF. I'm talking about every resident of BC, who you correctly say "owns" the wildlife.

If we asked every BC resident if they approved of non resident "trophy" hunting for stone sheep (and you have said many times that sheep is a "trophy" hunt) I'd think the majority of them would disapprove.

You say that you want the $30 000- $40 000 that a sheep hunter brings to BC, but most non hunters would find that abhorrent. In their minds it's a "rich Yankee coming to shoot a sheep and cut off it's head to stroke his ego" and they would not approve.

If the BC public ever decided to actually voice their opinion on non resident trophy hunting as a whole (and not just pick on grizzlies here and there) I think the BCWF would be the last of GOABC's worries.

[stoneguide]

I'm not talking about the BCWF. I'm talking about every resident of BC, who you correctly say "owns" the wildlife.

If we asked every BC resident if they approved of non resident "trophy" hunting for stone sheep (and you have said many times that sheep is a "trophy" hunt) I'd think the majority of them would disapprove.

You say that you want the $30 000- $40 000 that a sheep hunter brings to BC, but most non hunters would find that abhorrent. In their minds it's a "rich Yankee coming to shoot a sheep and cut off it's head to stroke his ego" and they would not approve.

If the BC public ever decided to actually voice their opinion on non resident trophy hunting as a whole (and not just pick on grizzlies here and there) I think the BCWF would be the last of GOABC's worries.


I may be wrong but many of the non hunting BC residents that would be GOABC's worry would also be the resident hunters worry. Many of those people that picture non residents stroking there trophies look at all hunters in the same light. Ask that same majority what they think of hunting period and I think both groups would be in trouble. Best scenario is for all hunting groups to work together. There is alot more finances that way, more political pull and alot more voices that are pro hunting.
SG

[Gateholio]

I may be wrong but many of the non hunting BC residents that would be GOABC's worry would also be the resident hunters worry. Many of those people that picture non residents stroking there trophies look at all hunters in the same light. Ask that same majority what they think of hunting period and I think both groups would be in trouble.

Yeah, you are wrong. Most opinion polls (and that anecdotal data that Goat Guy hates but Willy loves):wink: suggests that most of the general public is fine with hunting as long as the hunter plans on eating the meat. And most non resident sheep hunters don't take their meat home.

And yes, I know that the meat doesn't get wasted, and I know that residents are hunting sheep for a "trophy" too, but the general public isn't that smart and is easily influenced. Add that to most Canadians misguided feelings of superiority over Americans and we are back to the evil "rich yankee cutting a head off" and they arent' too concerned about residents that mostly hunt moose.


Best scenario is for all hunting groups to work together.

Absolutely.

[GoatGuy]

Yeah, you are wrong. Most opinion polls (and that anecdotal data that Goat Guy hates but Willy loves):wink: suggests that most of the general public is fine with hunting as long as the hunter plans on eating the meat. And most non resident sheep hunters' take their meat home.

And yes, I know that the meat doesn't get wasted, and I know that residents are hunting sheep for a "trophy" too, but the general public isn't that smart and is easily influenced. Add that to most Canadians misguided feelings of superiority over Americans and we are back to the evil "rich yankee cutting a head off" and they arent' too concerned about residents that mostly hunt moose.



Absolutely.

That's not anecdotal, there's actually quite a bit of research in that regard. Across Canada and the US.

Generally speaking 'society' supports hunting for several different reasons, the most important being sustenance. Trophy hunting is generally at the very bottom in terms of research.

You will also find the attitude that we 'feed ours first' very pervasive (not necessarily in a bad way) in North American culture.

If the question were ever asked the answer is a given.

THE NORTH AMERICAN MODEL OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION: AFFIRMING THE
ROLE, STRENGTH AND RELEVANCE OF HUNTING IN THE 21st CENTURY
Public Opinion on and Attitudes Toward Hunting
Mark Damian Duda, Responsive Management, Harrisonburg, Virginia
Martin Jones, Responsive Management, Harrisonburg, Virginia

http://www.responsivemanagement.com/download/reports/NAMWC_Public_Opinion_Hunting.pdf

Most people probably won't read it so:

Of adults in the US "Percent who strongly or moderately approve of various motivations for hunting.
(Adult Americans nationwide.)

For the meat 85%
To protect humans from harm 85%
For animal population control 83%
For wildlife management 81%
To protect property 71%
For the sport 53%
To supplement income 44%
For the challenge 28%
For a trophy 20%"

You can only guess what the antis say about it.

[willy442]

That's not anecdotal, there's actually quite a bit of research in that regard. Across Canada and the US.

Generally speaking 'society' supports hunting for several different reasons, the most important being sustenance. Trophy hunting is generally at the very bottom in terms of research.

You will also find the attitude that we 'feed ours first' very pervasive (not necessarily in a bad way) in North American culture.

If the question were ever asked the answer is a given.

THE NORTH AMERICAN MODEL OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION: AFFIRMING THE
ROLE, STRENGTH AND RELEVANCE OF HUNTING IN THE 21st CENTURY
Public Opinion on and Attitudes Toward Hunting
Mark Damian Duda, Responsive Management, Harrisonburg, Virginia
Martin Jones, Responsive Management, Harrisonburg, Virginia

http://www.responsivemanagement.com/download/reports/NAMWC_Public_Opinion_Hunting.pdf

Most people probably won't read it so:

Of adults in the US "Percent who strongly or moderately approve of various motivations for hunting.
(Adult Americans nationwide.)

For the meat 85%
To protect humans from harm 85%
For animal population control 83%
For wildlife management 81%
To protect property 71%
For the sport 53%
To supplement income 44%
For the challenge 28%
For a trophy 20%"

You can only guess what the antis say about it.

With the state of California and the eastern seaboard included in your studies and stats you again are not giving an even remotely accurate picture of what would happen in BC even with Hong Couver as a factor. GG: I again suggest you should look beyond the covers of the books and papers you read. Statistics will always be available for anything you want. Does that make your points any more valid than mine? I don't think so.

[GoatGuy]

With the state of California and the eastern seaboard included in your studies and stats you again are not giving an even remotely accurate picture of what would happen in BC even with Hong Couver as a factor. GG: I again suggest you should look beyond the covers of the books and papers you read. Statistics will always be available for anything you want. Does that make your points any more valid than mine? I don't think so.

Same stuff in Washington State has been conducted as well as some stuff in BC. To be honest you will find a pile of hunters, not just non or anti-hunters that do not support trophy hunting. And yes, that is reflective for BC. :mrgreen:

Just don't have that readily available at the moment. As you may have noticed there is a lot of information to keep it all factual and supported. Much more difficult to keep things based in reality than wild generalizations and opinions which can't be supported or validated by anyone or anything.

My points are informed by science and fact, when I have an opinion I state it is 'an opinion', your points and 'fact' are informed by your opinion.

If you think what people in Vancouver think about hunting doesn't have an impact on hunting in BC you are sadly misinformed. The reason most of the anti-hunting decisions are made is political. The reasons those decisions are made is because most of the politicians in the Lower Mainland do not support hunting, particularly things such as grizzly bear hunting.

I also keep my word.:wink:



Ban me for life if you want. I'm calling it quits on here and we'll see how those on here with all the field experience do.

[Gateholio]

Ignore what urban voters think of hunitng at your peril.

Right now there is the "urban hunter" movement which is enjoying quite a bit of acceptance from urbanites. And this movement is far, far from expressing acceptance of non resident trophy hunting. Only thing further is maybe vegetarianism. :wink:

[willy442]

Ignore what urban voters think of hunitng at your peril.

Right now there is the "urban hunter" movement which is enjoying quite a bit of acceptance from urbanites. And this movement is far, far from expressing acceptance of non resident trophy hunting. Only thing further is maybe vegetarianism. :wink:

Not arguing that point at all Gate's. I'm only disagreeing with the crap that continually gets posted from other peoples work by stat's man. These studies are fine to post and refer to; However they are not the gossipal as he and a few others believe. Studies can be done in many ways and each and every way will give a different result. Like I have posted on here, over the years I've watched lots of these so called studies and papers come to being applied and rarely have I seen much in the way of positive results pointing back at them. The management here in region 7 turned more scientific than ever in the late 80's and early 90's. We bought into it whole heartedly and it turned out to be at best a shot in the dark by scientists. Now the stats man and some others blame the biologist of the era for mismanagement. So what's to say we have any better data and systems now. No doubt things have been learned and we might be better off with the information of today. However it is as much my right to be skeptical until shown different as it is his to publish what he reads, on this forum.

On another note in my present trade I work with Engineers everyday of the week. I can tell you it makes a huge difference working with one that has spent a couple years in the field actually watching and seeing what it takes to make things work, out in the real enviroment of forty below zero. Than one that has made it through to the real world acting directly from studies. This last type general comes across as knowing it all. Usually it does'nt take very long after a few sideways projects for this type to pull back and get some real life experience.

[willy442]

I also keep my word.:wink:

As for this post GG. I was finished with this site and would have never posted again; However after countless emails and support by many on here asking me to stay, as my realistic views were something they really enjoyed. That along with statements made in relation to your constantly acting as the voice of everything in regards to hunting in the province. Has given me the confidence that after all not everyone on this forum supports you and your information. Sorry I'll be around awhile or at least until Gatehouse put's me in the penalty box.:)

[lange1212]

Ignore what urban voters think of hunitng at your peril.

Right now there is the "urban hunter" movement which is enjoying quite a bit of acceptance from urbanites. And this movement is far, far from expressing acceptance of non resident trophy hunting. Only thing further is maybe vegetarianism. :wink:

As public gets more and more educted as to where their "grocery store" food, paticularly meat comes from, and how it is cared for has created a public shift to organic food and hunting is a part of that trend.

Just look at the cattle feed lots in the US and the processing facilities. Make's me proud to be a hunter and the quality organic meat fish and wildlife provides my familly.

Many that haven't hunted for years and those that have never hunted are starting to take it up. I believe this is tied to the "urban hunter" movement that Gatehouse speaks of.

To hunt is to eat and be healthy!

[willy442]

As public gets more and more educted as to where their "grocery store" food, paticularly meat comes from, and how it is cared for has created a public shift to organic food and hunting is a part of that trend.

Just look at the cattle feed lots in the US and the processing facilities. Make's me proud to be a hunter and the quality organic meat fish and wildlife provides my familly.

Many that haven't hunted for years and those that have never hunted are starting to take it up. I believe this is tied to the "urban hunter" movement that Gatehouse speaks of.

To hunt is to eat and be healthy!

I totally agree, thats why I say people may get a shock if a real vote had to come on hunting. A real good example is look at the recent rise and demand for Buffalo meat. 3 years ago you could buy a 2 year old for 4 to 5 hundred bucks. Try that now.

[Fisher-Dude]

I have the BC numbers from Tom Ethier:

Public acceptance of:

Trophy hunting 10%
Recreational hunting 25%
Population control hunting 62%
Meat hunting 65%

Overall, 73% agree with legal hunting, 22% don't agree, and 5% don't know.

Trophy hunting is even lower on the list in BC Willy, you should have stuck with the US numbers. Careful what you ask for. :mrgreen:

[willy442]

I have the BC numbers from Tom Ethier:

Public acceptance of:

Trophy hunting 10%
Recreational hunting 25%
Population control hunting 62%
Meat hunting 65%

Overall, 73% agree with legal hunting, 22% don't agree, and 5% don't know.

Trophy hunting is even lower on the list in BC Willy, you should have stuck with the US numbers. Careful what you ask for. :mrgreen:

Not at all concerned FD. When the time comes that we need a vote on it, I'll take my chances. My vote for one would go with the proffessional and skilled over the clown acting of many. :-D

[GoatGuy]

I also keep my word.:wink:

As for this post GG. I was finished with this site and would have never posted again; However after countless emails and support by many on here asking me to stay, as my realistic views were something they really enjoyed. That along with statements made in relation to your constantly acting as the voice of everything in regards to hunting in the province. Has given me the confidence that after all not everyone on this forum supports you and your information. Sorry I'll be around awhile or at least until Gatehouse put's me in the penalty box.:)


Not arguing that point at all Gate's. I'm only disagreeing with the crap that continually gets posted from other peoples work by stat's man. These studies are fine to post and refer to; However they are not the gossipal as he and a few others believe. Studies can be done in many ways and each and every way will give a different result. Like I have posted on here, over the years I've watched lots of these so called studies and papers come to being applied and rarely have I seen much in the way of positive results pointing back at them. The management here in region 7 turned more scientific than ever in the late 80's and early 90's. We bought into it whole heartedly and it turned out to be at best a shot in the dark by scientists. Now the stats man and some others blame the biologist of the era for mismanagement. So what's to say we have any better data and systems now. No doubt things have been learned and we might be better off with the information of today. However it is as much my right to be skeptical until shown different as it is his to publish what he reads, on this forum.

On another note in my present trade I work with Engineers everyday of the week. I can tell you it makes a huge difference working with one that has spent a couple years in the field actually watching and seeing what it takes to make things work, out in the real enviroment of forty below zero. Than one that has made it through to the real world acting directly from studies. This last type general comes across as knowing it all. Usually it does'nt take very long after a few sideways projects for this type to pull back and get some real life experience.

Responsive Management is a firm that deals primarily with hunters and outdoor use. It is run by hunters, for hunters. It would be ignorant if one was to believe there was some sort of anti-hunting bias in any of the work.

If you feel the need to argue or discuss any work I or others have conducted that is your prerogative and it is encouraged. However, "I don't agree with that", or a rhetorical piece about "when I was a guide" doesn't cut the mustard when you cannot back it up with a single ounce of information or support from others who were there never mind science or harvest data. No different than a couple pages ago when you stated sheep were being over-hunted in areas, yet you won't tell anyone where those spots are. How is anyone supposed to have a rational argument with you when you're talking about things that cannot be substantiated in any way shape or form? Might as well be talking about the existence of aliens.

Thank-you for the anecdotal report on engineers and the 'real environment'. It has added significant value to the thread and hunting.

[Devilbear]

The continual and derisive comments about biologists here are rather ironic in view of the fact that one must pass a very rigourous peer review to be registered as a "RPBio" here in BC. This involves considerable field work experience as with the "RPF" registration and is conducted under the mentoring of a senior biologist who has a great deal of field experience, as well as the various post-grad. degrees.

Obviously, the greater field experience one can obtain, the more knowledge one should possess and this is true of most professions and trades, not only biology in all of it's many manifestations. While, I would usually choose to study under an older and more experienced biologist, my "best" professor was only six years older than I am and had his Phd. by age 29. He is Dr. B.E.C. Fraser and needs no introduction to any serious student of bio-science here in BC; he recently retired as "Chair" of the FPBC and was the major force behind the establishment of the "RPBio" programme as well as having been one of the immortal Ian McT.-Cowan's students.

In my more than 50 years of active outdoor life in BC and adjacent jurisdictions, I have known many well-known figures in conservation and in environmental sciences and worked and hunted with quite a number of them. I also spent considerable time in the remote wilderness and one thing I learned long ago is to respect serious bio-scientists and learn from them as I am interested in nature rather than in empty anecdotal rhetoric.

[boxhitch]

I also keep my word.:wink:

As for this post GG. I was finished with this site and would have never posted again; However after countless emails and support by many on here asking me to stay, as my realistic views were something they really enjoyed. That along with statements made in relation to your constantly acting as the voice of everything in regards to hunting in the province. Has given me the confidence that after all not everyone on this forum supports you and your information. Sorry I'll be around awhile or at least until Gatehouse put's me in the penalty box.:)
Just goes to show how easy it is to gather a flock
If I don't believe your claim, How about I pull one of your tactics.............How many supporters ? How many hate letters ? wheres the proof ?

as my realistic views were something they really enjoyed. That one had me chuckling

[willy442]

Responsive Management is a firm that deals primarily with hunters and outdoor use. It is run by hunters, for hunters. It would be ignorant if one was to believe there was some sort of anti-hunting bias in any of the work.


Not argueing about who did the counts. I'm saying the method of counting along with the cross section of people polled is only so accurate. It is by know means set in concrete.

If you feel the need to argue or discuss any work I or others have conducted that is your prerogative and it is encouraged. However, "I don't agree with that", or a rhetorical piece about "when I was a guide" doesn't cut the mustard when you cannot back it up with a single ounce of information or support from others who were there never mind science or harvest data. No different than a couple pages ago when you stated sheep were being over-hunted in areas, yet you won't tell anyone where those spots are. How is anyone supposed to have a rational argument with you when you're talking about things that cannot be substantiated in any way shape or form? Might as well be talking about the existence of aliens.


The last thing I will or ever would post on this forum is the location of the population or groups of sheep that are over harvested as the herd numbers I seen on my last visit to these area's were in fact disgusting. They are better off left alone or as it is now to recouperate.[/QUOTE]

Thank-you for the anecdotal report on engineers and the 'real environment'. It has added significant value to the thread and hunting.[quote]

I would suggest you have more in common with these Engineers then you realize.

[willy442]

Just goes to show how easy it is to gather a flock
If I don't believe your claim, How about I pull one of your tactics.............How many supporters ? How many hate letters ? wheres the proof ?
That one had me chuckling

No I will not release or post emails sent to me in private. However I can tell you I'm not in the least afraid of you or anyone else conducting a survey on this site as to if I should stay or go. Fill your boots or continue chuckling. I really don't care.

[boxhitch]

I hope you stay too
If nothing else, your rhetoric stimulates others to post sensible, defensible , constructive rebutals that are actually worth reading.

[Devilbear]

I think that HBC would be considerably diminished if Willy were to leave or be banned and I hope he stays and continues to speak his mind as he sees fit. I oftimes do not agree and he can seriously piss me off, but, Willy knows a LOT about Stones Sheep and some other aspects of wilderness life and hunting from which I can learn and so can others here.

He is about the second most ornery varmint here, I am first, but, he is several years younger than I and thus has time to become even more crusty and opinionated and, dammit, I kinda enjoy guys like Willy, who have the ballocks to damm well say WTF they really think!

I would pick him as a companion in a 2-3 week remote bush camp for hunting over about anyone here as he knows horses, sheep and might even make good pancakes over an open fire....a major feat, IMO. If, we did not strangle each other in the first couple of days, we would probably have a hell of a trip and see some monster rams and catch a few trout...and learn from each other.

[GoatGuy]

Not argueing about who did the counts. I'm saying the method of counting along with the cross section of people polled is only so accurate. It is by know means set in concrete.


For their work typically a minimum confidence interval of 95% and sampling error of less than 5%. Very little room for error. Also much of their work has been repeated in several states on more than one occasion.

Far better than any inventory or monitoring program for fish or wildlife anywhere in the world.

[358mag]

I think that HBC would be considerably diminished if Willy were to leave or be banned and I hope he stays and continues to speak his mind as he sees fit. I oftimes do not agree and he can seriously piss me off, but, Willy knows a LOT about Stones Sheep and some other aspects of wilderness life and hunting from which I can learn and so can others here.

He is about the second most ornery varmint here, I am first, but, he is several years younger than I and thus has time to become even more crusty and opinionated and, dammit, I kinda enjoy guys like Willy, who have the ballocks to damm well say WTF they really think!

I would pick him as a companion in a 2-3 week remote bush camp for hunting over about anyone here as he knows horses, sheep and might even make good pancakes over an open fire....a major feat, IMO. If, we did not strangle each other in the first couple of days, we would probably have a hell of a trip and see some monster rams and catch a few trout...and learn from each other.
Great comment there DB if some people would pull there head out of there ass long enuff they just might see the light at the end of the tunnel !!!

[GoatGuy]

I think that HBC would be considerably diminished if Willy were to leave or be banned and I hope he stays and continues to speak his mind as he sees fit. I oftimes do not agree and he can seriously piss me off, but, Willy knows a LOT about Stones Sheep and some other aspects of wilderness life and hunting from which I can learn and so can others here.

He is about the second most ornery varmint here, I am first, but, he is several years younger than I and thus has time to become even more crusty and opinionated and, dammit, I kinda enjoy guys like Willy, who have the ballocks to damm well say WTF they really think!

I would pick him as a companion in a 2-3 week remote bush camp for hunting over about anyone here as he knows horses, sheep and might even make good pancakes over an open fire....a major feat, IMO. If, we did not strangle each other in the first couple of days, we would probably have a hell of a trip and see some monster rams and catch a few trout...and learn from each other.

That would be great for a sheep hunting thread where the goal is to help or teach sheep hunters. Unfortunately he has not contributed on those threads and there have been several of them.

[willy442]

I think that HBC would be considerably diminished if Willy were to leave or be banned and I hope he stays and continues to speak his mind as he sees fit. I oftimes do not agree and he can seriously piss me off, but, Willy knows a LOT about Stones Sheep and some other aspects of wilderness life and hunting from which I can learn and so can others here.

He is about the second most ornery varmint here, I am first, but, he is several years younger than I and thus has time to become even more crusty and opinionated and, dammit, I kinda enjoy guys like Willy, who have the ballocks to damm well say WTF they really think!

I would pick him as a companion in a 2-3 week remote bush camp for hunting over about anyone here as he knows horses, sheep and might even make good pancakes over an open fire....a major feat, IMO. If, we did not strangle each other in the first couple of days, we would probably have a hell of a trip and see some monster rams and catch a few trout...and learn from each other.

I'll take that as compliment. From an goat, and you can bet your ass I can flip pancakes and make the best damn Bannock you ever ate.

[Gateholio]

Responsive Management is a firm that deals primarily with hunters and outdoor use. It is run by hunters, for hunters. It would be ignorant if one was to believe there was some sort of anti-hunting bias in any of the work.

If you feel the need to argue or discuss any work I or others have conducted that is your prerogative and it is encouraged. However, "I don't agree with that", or a rhetorical piece about "when I was a guide" doesn't cut the mustard when you cannot back it up with a single ounce of information or support from others who were there never mind science or harvest data. No different than a couple pages ago when you stated sheep were being over-hunted in areas, yet you won't tell anyone where those spots are. How is anyone supposed to have a rational argument with you when you're talking about things that cannot be substantiated in any way shape or form? Might as well be talking about the existence of aliens.[quote]

I would suggest you have more in common with these Engineers then you realize.

I think I just saw intraweb history being made here...Willy has almost figured out how to use the "quote" feature, although he is putting his own comments in the quotes, and still using blue text.

You are coming around, grasshopper. :wink::-D

[Gateholio]

That would be great for a sheep hunting thread where the goal is to help or teach sheep hunters. Unfortunately he has not contributed on those threads and there have been several of them.

Actually, you may have missed it, but he did contribute to one thread on teaching sheep hunters. It was awhile ago, but I do recall that. Gotta give credit where it's due.:wink:



As for banning Willy, I am sure he will find himself away to get put in the penalty box for a day or 2 in the future, but he isn't a candidate for perma-ban.:wink:

[willy442]

That would be great for a sheep hunting thread where the goal is to help or teach sheep hunters. Unfortunately he has not contributed on those threads and there have been several of them.

Pretty much impossible to help someone who knows it all. Then again who would want to?

[bigwhiteys]

I would suggest you have more in common with these Engineers then you realize.[/QUOTE] I think I just saw intraweb history being made here...Willy has almost figured out how to use the "quote" feature, although he is putting his own comments in the quotes, and still using blue text.

You are coming around, grasshopper. :wink::grin:


ROFLMAO.... !!!! hahahahaha... I've spent some long minutes on the phone trying to explain that simple function to Willy... To no avail apparently lol!!!

[GoatGuy]

Actually, you may have missed it, but he did contribute to one thread on teaching sheep hunters. It was awhile ago, but I do recall that. Gotta give credit where it's due.:wink:



As for banning Willy, I am sure he will find himself away to get put in the penalty box for a day or 2 in the future, but he isn't a candidate for perma-ban.:wink:

Must have missed it, apologies to Willy for making a positive contribution. :wink:

[Gateholio]

Not arguing that point at all Gate's. I'm only disagreeing with the crap that continually gets posted from other peoples work by stat's man.

In this case, the stats are the stats and likely not far off. And when you talk about "in the field" I will bring up my "in the field" experience in this matter.

You live in Northern BC, there are plenty that are employed by G/Os or know someone that is or in some way connected. I live in Southern BC and because of my work, I have talked to people from all over the globe, 365 days a year. And I've worked with or know people from all over Canada and the world who now call BC their home, and I have a long connection with the Lower Mainland, too.

Many of my friends and co-workers are not hunters. So I have some insight into the thinking of the non hunting BCer.

From what I have learned is that BC'ers tolerate hunting if people are hunting to get food. And most of them understand about the adventure and that a big deer is more cool than a little deer, so it's a "trophy" but you are still gonna eat that deer so it's okay.

And virtually ALL of them can't stand the idea of "selling trophies" to foreigners. They just HATE the idea.

I can talk to them and say all the regular stuff like "trophy hunters actually kill less, because they are selective" or "They bring money on to our economy" or "the meat still gets eaten" etc etc....But they don't care.

They will say "why not just go on an Eco-Tour and take pictures?" (again,they dont' care that an Eco -tour for Stones sheep is not a zodiac ride up a river on the coast)

I am not supporting their position, since it's based on emotion and ignorance instead of facts, but that is in fact how they view things. So making a statement like "I want most bang for my buck for a sheep" might be a valid point in some circles, you will never get the non hunters to believe that you are correct. They will tell you to keep taking pictures of that sheep for 10 years to get the most bang for your buck, and tell the ego stroking foreigners to stay away from our wildlife.

[Gateholio]

ROFLMAO.... !!!! hahahahaha... I've spent some long minutes on the phone trying to explain that simple function to Willy... To no avail apparently lol!!!

He *is* getting closer....One day, maybe...:mrgreen:

[willy442]

In this case, the stats are the stats and likely not far off. And when you talk about "in the field" I will bring up my "in the field" experience in this matter.

You live in Northern BC, there are plenty that are employed by G/Os or know someone that is or in some way connected. I live in Southern BC and because of my work, I have talked to people from all over the globe, 365 days a year. And I've worked with or know people from all over Canada and the world who now call BC their home, and I have a long connection with the Lower Mainland, too.

Many of my friends and co-workers are not hunters. So I have some insight into the thinking of the non hunting BCer.

From what I have learned is that BC'ers tolerate hunting if people are hunting to get food. And most of them understand about the adventure and that a big deer is more cool than a little deer, so it's a "trophy" but you are still gonna eat that deer so it's okay.

And virtually ALL of them can't stand the idea of "selling trophies" to foreigners. They just HATE the idea.

I can talk to them and say all the regular stuff like "trophy hunters actually kill less, because they are selective" or "They bring money on to our economy" or "the meat still gets eaten" etc etc....But they don't care.

They will say "why not just go on an Eco-Tour and take pictures?" (again,they dont' care that an Eco -tour for Stones sheep is not a zodiac ride up a river on the coast)

I am not supporting their position, since it's based on emotion and ignorance instead of facts, but that is in fact the truth. So making a statement like "I want most bang for my buck for a sheep" might be a valid point in some circles, you will never get the non hunters to believe that you are correct. They will tell you to keep taking pictures of that sheep for 10 years to get the most bang for your buck, and tell the ego stroking foreigners to stay away from our wildlife.

Won't bother telling both you and Carl what you can do with the Quotes.
Part of the guides agenda right when we got out of the business was to go around to various schools and talk about the hunting and conservation of animals. I don't know right now if this was completed but I believe so. The root of changing peoples thinking is in the schools. Look at some of the crusty old characters on here. They had an in with the Big Brothers and Sisters after some of the summer trips taken by many of the outfits.

I have found those who weren't against hunting to be able to understand the reason for harvesting mature animals as long as they were eaten. Really the horns are just the result of killing the animal, so it's all about change, it is coming and we damn well better be prepared for it in force when it comes. It will take all hunters.

[Gateholio]

I have found those who weren't against hunting to be able to understand the reason for harvesting mature animals as long as they were eaten. Really the horns are just the result of killing the animal, so it's all about change, it is coming and we damn well better be prepared for it in force when it comes.

You don't need to convince me....But that is the way most non hunters think.


It will take all hunters.

Yes, and that is why GOABC and BCWF need to hash out a fair an equitable deal and stick to it. Because ultimately it isn't going to be us calling the shots, and if some heads don't get out of asses, they are going to call the shots without regard for us. Look at the grizzly "ideas" on the north coast for example of things to come.

[Gateholio]

Won't bother telling both you and Carl what you can do with the Quotes.


Part of being cool on the intrawebis knowing how to use the quote thingy.

You figured out how to do this :wink::mrgreen: so it shouldn't be too hard...

[kebes]

Yes, and that is why GOABC and BCWF need to hash out a fair an equitable deal and stick to it. Because ultimately it isn't going to be us calling the shots, and if some heads don't get out of asses, they are going to call the shots without regard for us. Look at the grizzly "ideas" on the north coast for example of things to come.

Well said :D

[willy442]

Part of being cool on the intrawebis knowing how to use the quote thingy.

You figured out how to do this :wink::mrgreen: so it shouldn't be too hard...

I've never thought of being cool. Too damn old to be worried about it now.

[358mag]

I've never thought of being cool. Too damn old to be worried about it now.[/quote]
Willy your never to old to learn !!!

[vip_ruger]

Bridger
I think this is great info for the resident hunters that sheep hunt and i am trying to find out where the densest sheep count is for stone sheep in the province.

[Buck]

Bridger
I think this is great info for the resident hunters that sheep hunt and i am trying to find out where the densest sheep count is for stone sheep in the province.

That info was just posted on another sheep thread i don;t remember the title just look for recent sheep threads.

[vip_ruger]

Thank You for the info