historic sheep harvest in 7b

[bridger]

I have been going through my records the last few days and put some data together showing the harvest stats for stone sheep in 7b for the period of 1993 - 2010 that might be of interest to sheep hunters.

total rams harvested 3850
nonres harvest 1911
resident harvest 1939

res % 51

I have a more detailed spread sheet available and will email it if anyone wants it or if someone can tell me how to post a spread sheet i will put it on the site.

[Everett]

Any chance of the region 6 numbers.

[bridger]

not this extensive but have a few years will look through my files and put them on if i can

[Everett]

Sounds good I woudn't mind seiing your spread sheet as well. I don't think you can post a spread sheet on HBC.

[snareman1234]

Bridger,

How do those numbers compare with our most recent numbers?

[bridger]

Sounds good I woudn't mind seiing your spread sheet as well. I don't think you can post a spread sheet on HBC.


pm me your email address and i will sent it.

[bridger]

Bridger,

How do those numbers compare with our most recent numbers?

2010 resident share was 55% the first 13 years of this data reflect artificial controls on residents several years of one in three and several years with the age restriction. since 2007 resident share is up about 10% with no restrictions.

[snareman1234]

Are we still harvesting as many rams?

[bridger]

the long term average is 215 the 2010 harvest was 203 so we holding steady

[Kirby]

here guys,
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d72/Cr_mclean/Sheepharvest.jpg

[snareman1234]

What is AAH? seems like the resident harvest has been decreasing

[one-shot-wonder]

What is AAH? seems like the resident harvest has been decreasing

Annual Allowable Harvest

[Whisky Creek]

Bridger,

Just wondering about the intent and purpose of this post? You don't seem to offer a point, only data. Obviously you are insinuating something or is it just to stir #$&* because the tiresome "guides vs residents" battle has been too quiet lately? Sorry, but I am so sick of hearing it and it wastes too many people's time and energy that could be better focused elsewhere in wildlife conservation.
A post like this just seems inflammatory. You provide a number like that to those "not in the know" and it seems terrible. A lot of folks don't even know what AAH is, what the allocation policy is and what the quotas are..... Why don't you also provide a bit more info as well so people can make informed decisions and thoughts. Share the resident allocation number??? Why don't you share the outfitter's harvest numbers and how it compares to their allocation. The truth is, in general, everyone is under-utilizing their sheep quotas.

The fact is, any BC resident can go up into 7-36, 42, 43, 50, 51, 52, 54 or 7-57 and shoot a full curl ram if they have the heart, the knees, the skill and the desire. What more do you want? Actually, I guess I already know. Two sheep per season (greedy), earlier seasons than the guides (greedy and very possibly detrimental to the sheep themselves), no curl restrictions..... etc. Did I miss anything?
You know we (residents) don't need to kill everything we are allocated. Sometimes after a hard winter, a few extra sheep would be a handy thing to have around.

Jeez, give it a rest........

Not a personal attack, just sick and tired of listening to the same old broken record....... Plenty of other important issues to work on and deal with.

CLINT

[GoatGuy]

You know we (residents) don't need to kill everything we are allocated. Sometimes after a hard winter, a few extra sheep would be a handy thing to have around.

If you don't harvest your allocation it is transferred to the commercial sector in the following allocation period.

[Jagermeister]

I didn't see any $hit disturbing in Bridger's post, actually, I didn't see any until you posted this.
Rich,

Just wondering about the intent and purpose of this post? You don't seem to offer a point, only data. Obviously you are insinuating something or is it just to stir #$&* because the tiresome "guides vs residents" battle has been too quiet lately? Sorry, but I am so sick of hearing it and it wastes too many people's time and energy that could be better focused elsewhere in wildlife conservation.
A post like this just seems inflammatory. You provide a number like that to those "not in the know" and it seems terrible. A lot of folks don't even know what AAH is, what the allocation policy is and what the quotas are..... Why don't you also provide a bit more info as well so people can make informed decisions and thoughts. Share the resident allocation number??? Why don't you share the outfitter's harvest numbers and how it compares to their allocation. The truth is, in general, everyone is under-utilizing their sheep quotas.

The fact is, any BC resident can go up into 7-36, 42, 43, 50, 51, 52, 54 or 7-57 and shoot a full curl ram if they have the heart, the knees, the skill and the desire. What more do you want? Actually, I guess I already know. Two sheep per season (greedy), earlier seasons than the guides (greedy and very possibly detrimental to the sheep themselves), no curl restrictions..... etc. Did I miss anything?
You know we (residents) don't need to kill everything we are allocated. Sometimes after a hard winter, a few extra sheep would be a handy thing to have around.

Jeez, give it a rest........

Not a personal attack, just sick and tired of listening to the same old broken record....... Plenty of other important issues to work on and deal with.

CLINT

[Whisky Creek]

Goat guy,

If the Outfitters are already at their maximum allocation, the resident harvest can under achieve until the cows come home and they still can't lose our allocation. As stated, both stakeholders are under achieving allocation anyways.

[boxhitch]

W.C. why stir the pot ?
I presume the info was offered for those that know and appreciate it, like any other thread about ballistics or what underwear to wear
Those that don't know and are interested will ask ??'s, like any other topic.
Those who don't care will breeze by.
Kinda sensitive, are you ?

[GoatGuy]

Goat guy,

If the Outfitters are already at their maximum allocation, the resident harvest can under achieve until the cows come home and they still can't lose our allocation. As stated, both stakeholders are under achieving allocation anyways.

That may be true in parts of region 6 but it is not accurate for regions 3,4,5 and 8 when it comes to sheep. As well in region 6 you dont actually have an AAH, more like arbitrarily assigned numbers. Residents don't actually have an AAH in region 6 other than the few which have been assigned in the leh zones and for the most part residents are not at the 'minimum' 60% share yet; typically outfitters are still allocated more than 40% on paper and better than 60%+ on the ground.

In terms of the allocation it's very simple; there are x number of sheep to be harvested. At a high level those sheep and that opportunity can be used by residents or sold by outfitters. As a user the choice and opinion is yours.

[bridger]

Bridger,

Just wondering about the intent and purpose of this post? You don't seem to offer a point, only data. Obviously you are insinuating something or is it just to stir #$&* because the tiresome "guides vs residents" battle has been too quiet lately? Sorry, but I am so sick of hearing it and it wastes too many people's time and energy that could be better focused elsewhere in wildlife conservation.
A post like this just seems inflammatory. You provide a number like that to those "not in the know" and it seems terrible. A lot of folks don't even know what AAH is, what the allocation policy is and what the quotas are..... Why don't you also provide a bit more info as well so people can make informed decisions and thoughts. Share the resident allocation number??? Why don't you share the outfitter's harvest numbers and how it compares to their allocation. The truth is, in general, everyone is under-utilizing their sheep quotas.

The fact is, any BC resident can go up into 7-36, 42, 43, 50, 51, 52, 54 or 7-57 and shoot a full curl ram if they have the heart, the knees, the skill and the desire. What more do you want? Actually, I guess I already know. Two sheep per season (greedy), earlier seasons than the guides (greedy and very possibly detrimental to the sheep themselves), no curl restrictions..... etc. Did I miss anything?
You know we (residents) don't need to kill everything we are allocated. Sometimes after a hard winter, a few extra sheep would be a handy thing to have around.

Jeez, give it a rest........

Not a personal attack, just sick and tired of listening to the same old broken record....... Plenty of other important issues to work on and deal with.

CLINT
Clint
you seem to be in a bad mood. i posted that info as general information only as a lot of sheep hunters want to know what is going on in the sheep hunting world. nothing to do with stirring the pot between res and the goabc. any resident can go into region 7b and go sheep hunting with an over the counter tag as you so succcintly pointed out and i think that is something all resident sheep hunters would like to see continued so i see nothing wrong with information that is public knowledge being given to the resident sheep hunting fraternity to further interest in our sport and passion. If i offended you it was unintentional, but you do have the option of not reading info i post on the site. also do not confuse quota's with allocated share they are not the same.

[bridger]

Goat guy,

If the Outfitters are already at their maximum allocation, the resident harvest can under achieve until the cows come home and they still can't lose our allocation. As stated, both stakeholders are under achieving allocation anyways.

seeing how it was you that opened this topic you should understand that if outfitters are acheiving their maximum quota's as you point out that means that residents are being given their minimum allocated share. the policy is designed to acheive resident priority and that will be acheived when residents are harvesting their maximum allocated harvest and non residents harvest their minimum allocated share. This may or may not sit well with you, but I'd bet my best saddle horse most resident sheep hunters would support resident priority.

[snareman1234]

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

[Whisky Creek]

Bridger,

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

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

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

CLINT

[bridger]

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

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

[GoatGuy]

Bridger,

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

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

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

CLINT

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

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

[mfarrally]

[QUOTE=t.

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



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

[BCrams]

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


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

Sounds good right......oh no

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

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


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

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


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

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



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


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



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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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



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


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

Residents have had to come out hard to fight back.

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

[Whisky Creek]

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

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

CLINT

[BCrams]

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

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

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

[GoatGuy]

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

CLINT

Let us back up.

I was under the impression your issue was with conservation?

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

[Whisky Creek]

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

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

[Whisky Creek]

Mfarally,

To your comment, "Ya i was unaware that some people think that they should be able to shoot two rams a year and also wack a couple dinky little rams.", this is my point indeed. Unless you were sitting in these meetings where these "resident hunter" representatives came up with these ideas / requests / suggestions, it is understandable that you would be unaware of it.

Thankfully, these ideas / requests / suggestions didn't get passed beyond these meetings which is why you weren't made aware of it. What bothers me is that these are from the minds of "resident hunter" reps.......
Representing my interests???? Not too likely.

[BCrams]

Opinions vary of who is at fault, for causing the trouble,

Shows how out of touch you are with the events that unfolded. ;) No opinion needed....just facts.



I'll hold off on discussing the particulars of what I think are the short comings of the outfitters and their association until I am speaking with them directly


I thought you were already in touch with whats been going on? If you're going to start asking questions, I suggest you back the time frame to when everyone was happy and signed the allocation policy and then follow the "events" as they happened after that point. That is my advice to you. I can tell you that it wasn't residents or BCWF feds that went ... "oh hey, we don't like it....." and start the chain of events that have us where we are today ....much of this bs shouldn't even be going on right now ;)

[Buck]

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

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

I see no hidden agenda here and appreciate any info i can get as a resident in keeping me informed regarding any threats or policy changes that may effect the AAH . Any group directly tied to profiting from wildlife must be scrutinized and the numbers available to all user groups.You know the business guy is gonna fudge the numbers to his advantage if he can.The more open and transparent the better.Great info from our BCWF advocates.

[GoatGuy]

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




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

These other issues you are talking about are social, not related to sustainability or conservation.

There are areas where reducing or eliminating the horn curl restriction would not affect conservation values. Typically on an full curl/8 yr rule for thinhorns we can maximize the harvest and minimize risk because it best imitates nature. Reducing the horn curl does reduces the % of the population we can harvest but it does not make it unsustainable. When people talk about other people shooting 'small rams' that may or may not have anything to do with conservation or sustainability; it might have more to do with what people think others should be shooting.

In terms of hunters shooting more than one ram that could also be sustainable. There is under-harvest in 6, parts of 7b and region 4; if a couple of hunters (resident or non-resident) harvested more than one ram in a year out of certain areas it would not make a difference in terms of conservation.

Don't get me wrong on what my 'personal thoughts' could be, but keep in mind that conservation is about harvesting a percent of the population that will not harm game populations. Depending on which part of the population you're harvesting from the number of animals available varies significantly. There are thousands of different ways to do that and if your 'goal' is sustainability than I suggest that's what we deal with.

The social side is only about opinions and I don't think any of us are more adept at telling other people what they 'should be shooting'. The Allocation Policy is what falls out AFTER we deal with conservation; try to keep that in mind.

[6616]

here guys,
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d72/Cr_mclean/Sheepharvest.jpg


It's interesting to note that in 2002 the AAH went down but the non-resident quota went up, in fact for a couple years there the non-resident quota was about 90% of the AAH...wow...!

[Whisky Creek]

Buck,

"You know the business guy is gonna fudge the numbers to his advantage if he can"

Seriously?????? Pretty ignorant statement don't you think?
Do you paint all types of business owners with the same brush, or just outfitters? Gimme a break...
Wow, thanks for making my point about fear mongering.

[Whisky Creek]

BCRams,

Not looking for your advice. Thanks anyways.
You can have your ideas and opinion too. Perceived facts...... or, whatever.

[bridger]

whisky I can honestly tell you I have no recollection of every hearig a bcwf rep (myself included) going to a meeting and seriously suggesting an annual two ram bag limit for residents. over the years there have been lots of different suggestions from both sides, some serious, some just negotionating tactics. Resident priority in hunting opportunities has always been the foundation of the bcwf position; thus the request for an early two week resident only season in region 6. A season such as this would not harm the sheep population but would give resident hunters some equity in region 6 harvest levels.

i can also tell you that the bcwf reps that it has been my pleasure to be around have always negoitated in good faith and stood by their word as has the bcwf executive and board of directors.

[bigwhiteys]

Greed on both sides will destroy our sheep hunting opportunity.


In terms of hunters shooting more than one ram that could also be sustainable. There is under-harvest in 6, parts of 7b and region 4; if a couple of hunters (resident or non-resident) harvested more than one ram in a year out of certain areas it would not make a difference in terms of conservation.

There are areas of under-harvest and there are also areas that have been pounded and over-harvested for years and sheep are barely present anymore in areas where they were once abundant. We are very quick to blame 4 legged predators and other ungulates like Elk/Bison moving in... We've also had a pretty significant hand in it.

Carl

[boxhitch]

Sheep numbers have changed in reg 7, but MoNRO is happy with the numbers as they reflect historic levels.
It seems everyone outside the gov't is afraid the numbers are crashing in some areas
Yet last year saw some of the best hunter success in several years.
Currently the MoNRO has no plans for a follow-up census to the one done two years ago
Even if sheep have changed resident habitat, using that baseline flight path
during follow-up counts, a trend in numbers can be shown.
We should be holding their feet to the fire on having another census within two years IMO

[Deaddog]

for those going to be at the WSS convention, Conrad Thiessen will be presenting, his presentation will include further information regarding the sheep in 7b and allocation issues.. should be interesting. DD

[boxhitch]

Not if you believe in the built-in safety of the full curl rule.
Greed on both sides will destroy our sheep hunting opportunity.......

... We've also had a pretty significant hand in it.

Carl

[Buck]

Seriously?????? Pretty ignorant statement don't you think?
Do you paint all types of business owners with the same brush, or just outfitters? Gimme a break...
Wow, thanks for making my point about fear mongering.
__________________


I'd rather not let the wolves give me a head count on the sheep.

[bigwhiteys]

I'd rather not let the wolves give me a head count on the sheep.


They've only got the most experience and best handle on the entire region. Fly it daily, ride it daily, hours and hours and hours of field time...

But a large conflict of interest at the same time....

I am sure a lowly horse wrangler puts in more field time in a year than most wildlife biologists.

The biologists won't take the G/O's info because they are not schooled biologists... THEN they hand out a bunch of papers wanting G/O's to observe and record FROG populations in 7B! hahahahaha nice....

Carl

[BCrams]

BCRams,

Not looking for your advice. Thanks anyways.
You can have your ideas and opinion too. Perceived facts...... or, whatever.

Just go back and follow the 'events' as they happened since the agreement. I have opinions as does everyone, but I can also differentiate between opinion and facts. :wink:


[quote]Greed on both sides will destroy our sheep hunting opportunity.

Carl, its very unfortunate to see the parties where they're at fighting over the sheep allocations. Truth is, it was agreed upon and none of this BS would be going on if the GO's would hold up their end of the agreement.

Thats like you and I having a boat each. You and I hand shake or even put it on paper that you'll run out and set up crab traps and I'll go pick them up and you and I have an agreed upon 50/50 split. You'd be pretty pissed off if I was taking 65-70% and giving you the rest. Thats whats going on with the sheep. Reality is, its quite easy to change things up and implement changes that allow things to get on track as agreed upon. And again - guess who's putting the walls up!


There are areas of under-harvest and there are also areas that have been pounded and over-harvested for years and sheep are barely present anymore in areas where they were once abundant. We are very quick to blame 4 legged predators and other ungulates like Elk/Bison moving in... We've also had a pretty significant hand in it.


Can you give examples of human caused overharvested areas? Surely they can't be as bad as bighorn areas ;)

Elk / Bison certainly are having a negative impact, there's no doubt about it.

[bigwhiteys]

Thats like you and I having a boat each. You and I hand shake or even put it on paper that you'll run out and set up crab traps and I'll go pick them up and you and I have an agreed upon 50/50 split. You'd be pretty pissed off if I was taking 65-70% and giving you the rest. Thats whats going on with the sheep. Reality is, its quite easy to change things up and implement changes that allow things to get on track as agreed upon. And again - guess who's putting the walls up despite a signed agreement
Commercial stake vs recreational stake... Our government likes to make money. And the signed agreement was policy, not law.

I see GREEDY people on both sides of the fence. Mine Mine Mine.

Carl

[BCrams]

Commercial stake vs recreational stake... Our government likes to make money. And the signed agreement was policy, not law.

I see GREEDY people on both sides of the fence. Mine Mine Mine.

Carl

The crab example is just an analogy between you and I (nothing to do with commercial vs recreational) ...... I would expect you to come to me and go, "Hey rams, I thought we agreed on 50 / 50" Its not law but it goes to show you that there are those who don't hold up their end with a good handshake, or even a policy. Its the same with BCWF feds going to them and saying, "Hey GO's, I thought we agreed on 60:40" ....which by the way is the most generous GO percentage you can get in North America. Wow.

(forget the real fish BS going on you brought up).

Thats unfortunate you see greed Carl. From a personal perspective I see the greed on the GOABC side more than residents and so do a lot of others and with you as an advocate for resident priority and there's no question it should occur for residents on all fronts.

I look at the documents and I see an agreed policy of 60/40.

I look at the harvest records and I see discrepancies.

I go, "Ok, we have until 2012 to bring things in line....."

But oh ... the GOABC are stirring things and putting up blocks to let that happen.

[Weatherby Fan]

I have been going through my records the last few days and put some data together showing the harvest stats for stone sheep in 7b for the period of 1993 - 2010 that might be of interest to sheep hunters.

total rams harvested 3850
nonres harvest 1911
resident harvest 1939

res % 51

I have a more detailed spread sheet available and will email it if anyone wants it or if someone can tell me how to post a spread sheet i will put it on the site.

Hey Bridger,
does MOE have an overall count of stone sheep(estimated) in area 7b
Just curious for my own info ! or do you know where I can obtain that info?
or overall population #s by region ?
Thanks WF

[Whisky Creek]

A couple and their two teenage children shoot a grizzly, two black bears, two caribou, two Stone's sheep, two moose, a whitetail, a goat and one or two mule deer in one year.
They bought the tags, applied for draws where needed, and killed the aforementioned critters and because they are residents of BC, it is their right. (Of note, they also sold the two sheep capes to a taxidermist for a fair chunk of change.) Both of these people have been in positions representing "resident hunters" with one of them holding office at the time. They are always the first to jump up on the soapbox as resident hunting reps and start screaming about resident priority and how it is so terrible that the outfitters are selling our wildlife to non-residents. Yet, they kill this many critters in one year and sell parts of them for financial gain........ How much can one family eat in a year????? What would the wildlife numbers be like if we all did this?
Forgive me for thinking that some of the reps for the resident priority fight are not just a little greedy and perhaps out for their own agenda....... It sure destroys the credibility of those reps genuinely concerned with wildlife conservation in a hurry.

[willy442]

Fella's; I started working with my father in the mountains horse wrangling at the age of 14, the year was 1968. From that time right up until today, I have observed the issue of Stone Sheep. In my younger years this was done through many years of personnel (non scientific) observations of feeding patterns on both summer and winter ranges in addition to countless hours of lying down watching band habits on mountainsides during hunting season. We won't count the hours spent in Super Cubs on game counts and predator control during the winter months as it will just fuel the idea of artifically high animal numbers, like the wolf kill in the 80's. We also won't include hours and hours of meetings I sat through when my father was President of the Northern BC guides, President of GOABC and also sat on the Habitat Conservation Fund Board. He along with Don Peck, Gary Vince, Gary Powell, Bobby Henderson and others worked hard to develope the original allocation policy along with the BCWF. I was a young fella eager to learn and gather information through all these avenues as at the time my future was to remain in the Guiding Industry.

I can tell you that back in the late 60's and early 70's Sheep, Caribou and Goat numbers in region 7 were at minimum double of what todays numbers are. Actually for Caribou, they were probably 3 to 4 times higher. I can remember travelling at times in September and seeing 2 to 4 hundred head of Caribou in a day. Sheep were abundant and the length of time to harvest a MATURE ram for a hunter was usually a couple of days hunting. Goats weren't a big item as they can be hunted through out Western North America and often hunters already had one. Wolves were also abundant even though the Outfitters financed and completed thier own wolf control programs.

These programs benifitted everyone except the Wolves. The guides ran burning programs for horse range and also to assist with ungulate habitat. These burns brought in the Elk during the early years and more recently both White Tail and Mule Deer.

Now years later us oldtimers that endured the hardships of trying to work for the betterment of our wildlife back when most of you weren't even thought of are at fault for bringing in Elk and Bison. Screwing up the Sheep habitat and all other issues that present themselves in the form of restriction on the resident hunter. Not to even mention the fact that we have an allocation discrepancy.

The reality of all this really makes me sick with todays generation and thier ME, ME, Me attitude. This becomes more than prominent, when you see things like the infighting amongst North American hunters. We are facing a time in which people are trying to take our guns away, others are spending thousands of dollars trying to prevent the sport of hunting. Natives are sick and tired of large pacts of hunters over harvesting traditional lands. I can' believe we are more concerned with who gets one more Ram and who isn't abidding by agreements, then we are with the issues that will eventually prevent us all from hunting.

We speak of sustainable harvest and artifically high numbers in the past on our Region 7 sheep herds. Conrad Thiessen claims to be perpetrator of most information and his group of people can't even gather enough funds to propell the limited number of wardens they have down the road. Then just to add insult to injury on our wildlife management, many guides last year were sent very in depth packages from Mr Thiessen asking them to count Frogs in the swamps through out thier areas. Never know maybe they will open a GOS for Frogs in the future. The resident can have 100% of the allocation.

Guy's my point in all this is: If we keep our narrow minded thinking on things like allocation and harvest numbers, like those posted to fuel the fire by Bridger. We will be fighting a losing battle for hunting period. I don't give a shit what numbers or percentages are thrown out there. My concern and one I believe should take precidence is accurate inventories of game and harvest levels to be set from inventories and not kill information. How can you manage by what is dead? Why in the years of 2002 to 2003 did we take a huge cut in allowable harvest? I suggest poor management was discovered in the MOE. Whens the next adjustment coming? How do you manage from harvest numbers and then still allow for the issue's with mother nature like we have in region 7 right now. The heavy snow pack we have today along with the 3 to 4 inch hard crust on it due to abnormally warm weather is going to play hell with all animals in the Peace. Not to count the fact it's now been snowing again for 2 days and we are only in late January.

If things fail to change soon in the way interest groups and back country users negotiate, we will continue to die a slow death as hunters. Ask yourselves the question. Who has more in common then hunters period? Then start protecting our right and pass time jointly with all those concerned not small interest groups like now. Do you think the Muskawa-Kechika protected are would be here today if forces weren't joined by interested groups? I rest my case.

[GoatGuy]

A couple and their two teenage children shoot a grizzly, two black bears, two caribou, two Stone's sheep, two moose, a whitetail, a goat and one or two mule deer in one year.
They bought the tags, applied for draws where needed, and killed the aforementioned critters and because they are residents of BC, it is their right. (Of note, they also sold the two sheep capes to a taxidermist for a fair chunk of change.) Both of these people have been in positions representing "resident hunters" with one of them holding office at the time. They are always the first to jump up on the soapbox as resident hunting reps and start screaming about resident priority and how it is so terrible that the outfitters are selling our wildlife to non-residents. Yet, they kill this many critters in one year and sell parts of them for financial gain........ How much can one family eat in a year????? What would the wildlife numbers be like if we all did this?
Forgive me for thinking that some of the reps for the resident priority fight are not just a little greedy and perhaps out for their own agenda....... It sure destroys the credibility of those reps genuinely concerned with wildlife conservation in a hurry.

I don't know, I thought we were talking about sustainability? Are we back with social issues again?

If every family in the province harvested this much wildlife it wouldn't be sustainable. However, most hunting families in BC will NEVER harvest a grizzly bear, goat, sheep, caribou, black bear. And most families in BC DON'T HUNT, so that wraps things up nicely.

You've got social issues and conservation issues completely confused.

If your concern is with wildlife deal with it, don't worry about how much meat somebody has in their freezer worry about where that meat is coming from and if the harvest from those populations are sustainable.

[6616]

We are facing a time in which people are trying to take our guns away, others are spending thousands of dollars trying to prevent the sport of hunting. Natives are sick and tired of large pacts of hunters over harvesting traditional lands. I can' believe we are more concerned with who gets one more Ram and who isn't abidding by agreements, then we are with the issues that will eventually prevent us all from hunting.

I am reluctant to jump into this discussion that has taken a turn similar to so many before but I can't help myself, dang..!

First off Willie, yours are wise words,,,, but it's not like no one is doing anything about these things you mention. There are huge efforts being exerted by the BCWF and many other groups on the anti-hunting, firearms, and first Nations issues, more than most could even imagine actually. I agree, in the long-term they are much more important than allocation and there's much more effort going into these issues then there is with allocation and harvest shares, but that's not what this particular conversation is about.

Secondly, your wise words should be directed primarily to the GOABC who initiated and continue to perpetuate this entire controversy over allocation, harvest shares, trophy management, etc. When I sat on the BCWF board and Dale was the manager of GOABC we had a very good working relationship with the GOABC. Dale, the GOABC president, and many guide-outfitters attended our conventions and we attended theirs. Dale spoke and made presentations at our conventions and often presented at BCWF board meetings. We jointly accomplished a lot during that era.

Since then, beginning in 2007, we have the GOABC pushing for more LEH for residents, for more trophy management, appealing quotas set by the new allocation procedures, by GOABC issuing papers like their economic viability paper which indiectly only say "non-residents should have more and reisdents should have less", by opposing government strategies like the recruitment/retention strategy, by opposing resident meat hunts like the spike/fork moose hunts, by constantly trying to undermine the allocation policy even thought they agree to it and signed off on it in 2007.

It's disturbing to me st see resident hunters labelled as selfish "we, we, we" people, when the reality is that since the onset of this controversy in 2007, resident hunters and the BCWF have only been resisting and reacting to the continuous and relentless "more, more , more" onslaught of the GOABC.

[GoatGuy]

Fella's; I started working with my father in the mountains horse wrangling at the age of 14, the year was 1968. From that time right up until today, I have observed the issue of Stone Sheep. In my younger years this was done through many years of personnel (non scientific) observations of feeding patterns on both summer and winter ranges in addition to countless hours of lying down watching band habits on mountainsides during hunting season. We won't count the hours spent in Super Cubs on game counts and predator control during the winter months as it will just fuel the idea of artifically high animal numbers, like the wolf kill in the 80's. We also won't include hours and hours of meetings I sat through when my father was President of the Northern BC guides, President of GOABC and also sat on the Habitat Conservation Fund Board. He along with Don Peck, Gary Vince, Gary Powell, Bobby Henderson and others worked hard to develope the original allocation policy along with the BCWF. I was a young fella eager to learn and gather information through all these avenues as at the time my future was to remain in the Guiding Industry.

I can tell you that back in the late 60's and early 70's Sheep, Caribou and Goat numbers in region 7 were at minimum double of what todays numbers are. Actually for Caribou, they were probably 3 to 4 times higher. I can remember travelling at times in September and seeing 2 to 4 hundred head of Caribou in a day. Sheep were abundant and the length of time to harvest a MATURE ram for a hunter was usually a couple of days hunting. Goats weren't a big item as they can be hunted through out Western North America and often hunters already had one. Wolves were also abundant even though the Outfitters financed and completed thier own wolf control programs.

These programs benifitted everyone except the Wolves. The guides ran burning programs for horse range and also to assist with ungulate habitat. These burns brought in the Elk during the early years and more recently both White Tail and Mule Deer.

Now years later us oldtimers that endured the hardships of trying to work for the betterment of our wildlife back when most of you weren't even thought of are at fault for bringing in Elk and Bison. Screwing up the Sheep habitat and all other issues that present themselves in the form of restriction on the resident hunter. Not to even mention the fact that we have an allocation discrepancy.

The reality of all this really makes me sick with todays generation and thier ME, ME, Me attitude. This becomes more than prominent, when you see things like the infighting amongst North American hunters. We are facing a time in which people are trying to take our guns away, others are spending thousands of dollars trying to prevent the sport of hunting. Natives are sick and tired of large pacts of hunters over harvesting traditional lands. I can' believe we are more concerned with who gets one more Ram and who isn't abidding by agreements, then we are with the issues that will eventually prevent us all from hunting.

We speak of sustainable harvest and artifically high numbers in the past on our Region 7 sheep herds. Where does this information come from? Is it some dreamt up thought of GG's, while he is flying around at 27,000 feet reading stats or is it B.C. rams and his Biology degree that even today fails to keep him gainfully employed? Conrad Thiessen claims to be perpetrator of most information and his group of people can't even gather enough funds to propell the limited number of wardens they have down the road. Then just to add insult to injury on our wildlife management, many guides last year were sent very in depth packages from Mr Thiessen asking them to count Frogs in the swamps through out thier areas. Never know maybe they will open a GOS for Frogs in the future. The resident can have 100% of the allocation.

Guy's my point in all this is: If we keep our narrow minded thinking on things like allocation and harvest numbers, like those posted to fuel the fire by Bridger. We will be fighting a losing battle for hunting period. I don't give a shit what numbers or percentages are thrown out there. My concern and one I believe should take precidence is accurate inventories of game and harvest levels to be set from inventories and not kill information. How can you manage by what is dead? Why in the years of 2002 to 2003 did we take a huge cut in allowable harvest? I suggest poor management was discovered in the MOE. Whens the next adjustment coming? How do you manage from harvest numbers and then still allow for the issue's with mother nature like we have in region 7 right now. The heavy snow pack we have today along with the 3 to 4 inch hard crust on it due to abnormally warm weather is going to play hell with all animals in the Peace. Not to count the fact it's now been snowing again for 2 days and we are only in late January.

If things fail to change soon in the way interest groups and back country users negotiate, we will continue to die a slow death as hunters. Ask yourselves the question. Who has more in common then hunters period? Then start protecting our right and pass time jointly with all those concerned not small interest groups like now. Do you think the Muskawa-Kechika protected are would be here today if forces weren't joined by interested groups? I rest my case.

Sheep were inventoried in 7B two years ago iirc, a bunch of money was spent in 6 two years ago as well flying 8 or 9 different populations.

Those are the only two things that I can find in your post that are remotely related to the thread.

[willy442]

I am reluctant to jump into this discussion that has taken a turn similar to so many before but I can't help myself, dang..!

First off Willie, yours are wise words,,,, but it's not like no one is doing anything about these things you mention. There are huge efforts being exerted by the BCWF and many other groups on the anti-hunting, firearms, and first Nations issues, more than most could even imagine actually. I agree, in the long-term they are much more important than allocation and there's much more effort going into these issues then there is with allocation and harvest shares, but that's not what this particular conversation is about.

Secondly, your wise words should be directed primarily to the GOABC who initiated and continue to perpetuate this entire controversy over allocation, harvest shares, trophy management, etc.

When I sat on the BCWF board and Dale was the manager of GOABC we had a very good working relationship with the GOABC. Dale, the GOABC president, and many guide-outfitters attended our conventions and we attended theirs. Dale spoke and made presentations at our conventions and often presented at BCWF board meetings. We jointly accomplished a lot during that era.

Since then, beginning in 2007, we have the GOABC pushing for more LEH for residents, for more trophy management, appealing quotas set by the new allocation procedures, by GOABC issuing papers like their economic viability paper which indiectly only say "non-residents should have more and reisdents should have less", by opposing government strategies like the recruitment/retention strategy, buy constantly trying to undermine the allocation policy even thought they agree to it and signed off on it in 2007.

It's disturbing to me st see resident hunters labelled as "selfish we, we, we people", when the reality is that since the onset of this controversy in 2007, resident hunters and the BCWF have only been resisting the continuous and relentless "more, more , more" onslaught of the GOABC.

I blame everyone for the short comings. As long as you keep pointung fingers, nothing will be solved other than finger pointing. Yes people and groups are working toward solving issues. Too bad they are all trying to solve thier own independant problems instead of looking forward at the big problem and working jointly towards a common goal. I'm sure the GO's have problems with the demands of residents also. Yes the resident is selfish and yes he's not alone. Greed and selfishness are the center of the problem. I'm sure the if the sheep could read they would be really happy with thier future.

[Whisky Creek]

Goat Guy,

Cripes, you really can't see how conservation and social issues are related here? Do you not see how rediculous it is that these people who, by your own statement over-harvest, sit at a table "representing" resident hunters in conservation???? Do you think that they leave their personal opinions agendas and ideas at the door on the way in, and properly represent the resident hunters???

Let me boil it down here a bit in layman's terms.

In some cases we have greedy people voting on policy to govern conservation. On both sides. Who wins???? Not the wildlife for sure.

[willy442]

Sheep were inventoried in 7B two years ago iirc, a bunch of money was spent in 6 two years ago as well flying 8 or 9 different populations.

Those are the only two things that I can find in your post that are remotely related to the thread.

You put all your apples into that count if you want. Any count and result that try's to tell me numbers were artifically high after the wolf kill is crap period. Also what does region 6 have to do with this post. Region 6 should be dealt with as a seperate issue. You like to throw it in because you believe it gives examples and leverage in your favor. Tell me though what has it to do with Sheep management in 7?

[Whisky Creek]

Willy,

Well said in your posts. An example of the bigger picture thinking.

[GoatGuy]

Goat Guy,

Cripes, you really can't see how conservation and social issues are related here? Do you not see how rediculous it is that these people who, by your own statement over-harvest, sit at a table "representing" resident hunters in conservation???? Do you think that they leave their personal opinions agendas and ideas at the door on the way in, and properly represent the resident hunters???

Let me boil it down here a bit in layman's terms.

In some cases we have greedy people voting on policy to govern conservation. On both sides. Who wins???? Not the wildlife for sure.

I didn't say they 'over-harvested', I said if you're dealing with animals, deal with that, if you're dealing with people, deal with that. I said if most families in BC did that there would be an over-harvest. However, most families don't even hunt in BC. Over-harvesting would be taking too many animals out of a population. I highly doubt that the number of animals harvested by that family will have a negative impact on game populations.

The social side, and what you're talking about, is how much meat can a family eat? That has nothing to do with conservation and sustainability. It's entirely 'your opinion' (and maybe others) that that is too much meat for one family. We don't know who that family feeds or what they'll shoot next year. In terms of worrying about wildlife I don't think a few animals is of concern. So, you can be the 'judge' on this social issue.

And no, I entirely disagree with you about people having the ability to leave their personal opinions at the door. There are several people who represent various organizations that have directives that are counter to their personal 'opinions'. Whether they do or not is yours to judge I suppose, but you should know that there are several people who represent directives that don't 'benefit' them as hunters or their hunting style.

[GoatGuy]

You put all your apples into that count if you want. Any count and result that try's to tell me numbers were artifically high after the wolf kill is crap period. Also what does region 6 have to do with this post. Region 6 should be dealt with as a seperate issue. You like to throw it in because you believe it gives examples and leverage in your favor. Tell me though what has it to do with Sheep management in 7?

Region 6 is exactly where Clint is talking about - you were talking about inventory work not being done. Region 7B was done two years ago. Guess that ends that debate.

If numbers weren't increased (artificially high) after the wolf kill, then why kill wolves? If there's no benefit to reducing wolf numbers, why would we do it?

[Gateholio]

A couple and their two teenage children shoot a grizzly, two black bears, two caribou, two Stone's sheep, two moose, a whitetail, a goat and one or two mule deer in one year.


4 people shoot 12 animals in one year. That is 3 pr person. What's the big deal with that? Lots of HBC members hoot 3 animals per year. :confused:

[6616]

I blame everyone for the short comings. As long as you keep pointung fingers, nothing will be solved other than finger pointing. Yes people and groups are working toward solving issues. Too bad they are all trying to solve thier own independant problems instead of looking forward at the big problem and working jointly towards a common goal. I'm sure the GO's have problems with the demands of residents also. Yes the resident is selfish and yes he's not alone. Greed and selfishness are the center of the problem. I'm sure the if the sheep could read they would be really happy with thier future.



I personally think we should scrap the allocation policy entirely. I'd much prefer to see a fixed maximum non-resident harvest percentage written into the Wildlife Act as law like is the case in many other jurisdictions. This might at least end the manuvering, lobbying, and manipulations for bigger shares. Most jurisdictions south of the 60th parallel in North America have fixed non-resident percentages of 10%. I would personally be willing to be more generous with BC outfitters, but even then, I really wouldn't expect even that to stop the GOABC lobbying for more trophy management, more LEH for residents, opposition to recruitment/retention and resident meat hunts like the spike/fork moose hunts. None of these lobby items are beneficial to the vast majority of resident hunters so no one should expect resident hunters to stop opposing and resisting the GOABC lobby for such objectives.

[6616]

4 people shoot 12 animals in one year. That is 3 pr person. What's the big deal with that? Lots of HBC members hoot 3 animals per year. :confused:

And lots of people don't shoot anything at all which makes up for that anyway, and as long as AAHs are not exceeded it's entirely sustainable....! I agree, not a big deal in my mind, some hunters and families are just more committed to the sport than others. Some people are just jealous of other peoples success.

[Buck]

I personally think we should scrap the allocation policy entirely. I'd much prefer to see a fixed maximum non-resident harvest percentage written into the Wildlife Act as law like is the case in many other jurisdictions. This might at least end the manuvering, lobbying, and manipulations for bigger shares. Most jurisdictions south of the 60th parallel in North America have fixed non-resident percentages of 10%. I would personally be willing to be more generous with BC outfitters, but even then, I really wouldn't expect even that to stop the GOABC lobbying for more trophy management, more LEH for residents, opposition to recruitment/retention and resident meat hunts like the spike/fork moose hunts. None of these lobby items are beneficial to the vast majority of resident hunters so no one should expect resident hunters to stop opposing and resisting the GOABC lobby for such objectives.


This would be a better solution.Until then i would like to see no GOABC hunting for species under LEH

[willy442]

I personally think we should scrap the allocation policy entirely. I'd much prefer to see a fixed maximum non-resident harvest percentage written into the Wildlife Act as law like is the case in many other jurisdictions. This might at least end the manuvering, lobbying, and manipulations for bigger shares. Most jurisdictions south of the 60th parallel in North America have fixed non-resident percentages of 10%. I would personally be willing to be more generous with BC outfitters, but even then, I really wouldn't expect even that to stop the GOABC lobbying for more trophy management, more LEH for residents, opposition to recruitment/retention and resident meat hunts like the spike/fork moose hunts. None of these lobby items are beneficial to the vast majority of resident hunters so no one should expect resident hunters to stop opposing and resisting the GOABC lobby for such objectives.

I tend to agree with you. As long as there is a loop hole in the system that allows for arguement we will gain nothing. It like always reverts to greed and dollars. Political wrangling will continue as long as we have the present system.
I'm not concerned with resident hunting or harvest levels. My concern which is something you and most residents fail to see is THE FUTURE. Not what I can hunt this coming August. I find it hard to feel sorry for a resident of a province and country that have the most liberal hunting available world wide right out thier back door.

[willy442]

This would be a better solution.Until then i would like to see no GOABC hunting for species under LEH

The likes of your statement is exactly what keeps all concerned parties away from sitting at the same bargaining table. Your attitude will do what for hunting? Please tell me.

[whitetailsheds]

4 people shoot 12 animals in one year. That is 3 pr person. What's the big deal with that? Lots of HBC members hoot 3 animals per year. :confused:

That's where he lost me......don't understand throwing this into this.....

[willy442]

Region 6 is exactly where Clint is talking about - you were talking about inventory work not being done. Region 7B was done two years ago. Guess that ends that debate.

If numbers weren't increased (artificially high) after the wolf kill, then why kill wolves? If there's no benefit to reducing wolf numbers, why would we do it?

The wolf kill program took place to hang onto what we had at the time. It really wasn't conducted even with sheep in mind. No one, including the Ministry at the time seen any artifical numbers during the years following. The harvest document posted also shows a consistent harvest until 2002-2003 when your buddies in the Ministry realized they didn't know what the hell they were talking about when it came to Sheep management and I haven't seen where they are any better off today.

You are back and forth with all your posts like an agitator in a gas powered washing machine. (even though you are to young to have ever seen one). When you want to talk sustainable harvest, resident opportunity, predator programs and what ever else you have learned in your spare time with your calculator in hand, adjusting formula's to siut your agenda. You might want to ask yourself, what have you really accomplished to insure my grand children will have the freedom to hunt as we do now.

[willy442]

That's where he lost me......don't understand throwing this into this.....

I think Gates is smoken what he's grown.

[Gateholio]

I think Gates is smoken what he's grown.

Do you see anything wrong with a family of 4 killing 12 animals in one year? Not like the animals are unicorns or spotted owls...:wink:

I'm not even sure what his point was in bringing it up...

[Buck]

The likes of your statement is exactly what keeps all concerned parties away from sitting at the same bargaining table. Your attitude will do what for hunting? Please tell me.

The fact is the general public does not approve of what they perceive to be trophy hunting.At the end of the day the GOABC will be the first casualty and will most likely disappear .
Resident hunting will continue as it is easily defendable as a food source and valuable cultural activity.

[willy442]

The fact is the general public does not approve of what they perceive to be trophy hunting.At the end of the day the GOABC will be the first casualty and will most likely disappear .
Resident hunting will continue as it is easily defendable as a food source and valuable cultural activity.

You really have poor information. Hunting as a food source is only relevant to first nations. In case you haven't noticed they are on the war path in some areas and are generally against what the BC resident deems to be thier right in the harvesting of animals.

Trophy hunting here and world wide generates huge dollars both for the right to hunt through the purchase of tags and generous donations to enhancement. The dollar paid for a trophy hunt will never be equalled by any meat hunt for our animals. In the political arena in which we live, do you really think we resident hunters will win with the freedom we have today. I think you should give your head a shake and open your eye's to the real issue's. Money will win.

[willy442]

Do you see anything wrong with a family of 4 killing 12 animals in one year? Not like the animals are unicorns or spotted owls...:wink:

I'm not even sure what his point was in bringing it up...

I'm not either. Just been awhile since I gave you a shot in the ribs.

[GoatGuy]

The wolf kill program took place to hang onto what we had at the time. It really wasn't conducted even with sheep in mind. No one, including the Ministry at the time seen any artifical numbers during the years following. The harvest document posted also shows a consistent harvest until 2002-2003 when your buddies in the Ministry realized they didn't know what the hell they were talking about when it came to Sheep management and I haven't seen where they are any better off today.

You are back and forth with all your posts like an agitator in a gas powered washing machine. (even though you are to young to have ever seen one). When you want to talk sustainable harvest, resident opportunity, predator programs and what ever else you have learned in your spare time with your calculator in hand, adjusting formula's to siut your agenda. You might want to ask yourself, what have you really accomplished to insure my grand children will have the freedom to hunt as we do now.

What you're saying is you did wolf control and it had no effect? That seems rather wasteful considering the negative publicity and cost to administer such a program.

The harvest stats show in decrease in KPU for sheep with all stakeholders a couple years after the wolf control. The harvest stats and inventory data also show wolf control had a positive effect on sheep and other populations.

Protecting the future of hunting isn't up to one person and talking about accomplishments is best left to the on-ups.

[GoatGuy]

You really have poor information. Hunting as a food source is only relevant to first nations. In case you haven't noticed they are on the war path in some areas and are generally against what the BC resident deems to be thier right in the harvesting of animals.

The research shows otherwise, hunting as a food source is extremely relevant socially and politically. Most current FN issues revolve around the commercial aspect of hunting and eco-tourism; if you were up on the consultation and sat in on the meetings with FN you'd know that.


Trophy hunting here and world wide generates huge dollars both for the right to hunt through the purchase of tags and generous donations to enhancement. The dollar paid for a trophy hunt will never be equalled by any meat hunt for our animals. In the political arena in which we live, do you really think we resident hunters will win with the freedom we have today. I think you should give your head a shake and open your eye's to the real issue's. Money will win.

To be very honest, all hunting in BC is a drop in the bucket. That is why things like predator control and grizzly bear hunting are so easy to walk away from politically. The money for enhancement generated by 'trophy hunting' is also a drop in the bucket.

30 years ago things were different but when one eco-tourism lodge generates more money from grizzly bear viewing than the entire grizzly bear hunt a person needs to sit down and have a serious chat with themselves to keep things based in reality.

If you want a heads up or something to stick your head into, start looking at Provincial GDP and the elasticity of commercial and resident hunting in BC.

[boxhitch]

...........As long as there is a loop hole in the system that allows for arguement we will gain nothing. It like always reverts to greed and dollars. Political wrangling will continue as long as we have the present system. .Not sure that there is a loophole or there is an argument
Do you agree that the Allocation Policy has defined splits in harvest for each quota species, set for each residency group?
Do you agree that the AAH is a set figure based on population numbers and the science to determine what is a safe rate of harvest , currently roughly 2 to 3 % for sheep, supported by a full curl regulation ?
Do you agree that each user group has the right to try and achieve what is set out as available to them ?
Three basic points that aren't really arguable.
We can all say what we want about what we feel is the proper population numbers, but the fact is the figures are in place and bring used.

[6616]

My concern which is something you and most residents fail to see is THE FUTURE. Not what I can hunt this coming August.

And right there is where your statement falls short of being based on any real world knowledge of current conservation activities. The only threads you participate in are these threads on allocation and the ones on sheep hunting. I've never seen you post on threads about the conservation activities many of us are involved with, like ecosystem restoration, transplants, or habitat protection and enhancement. You go on about what you, your Dad, and the northen outfitters did 20 years ago as if that means anything at all in the world of 2011..! So how on earth do you assume to know what I or any other residents recognize or what conservation work or activities we are doing or are involved with so that our grandchildren will be able to hunt in the future...? You probably don't know any more about most of us than what you read on HBC yet you are able to jump to the conclusion that we don't recognize the real issues, you must be a wizard with extra sensory perception.....!!

[6616]

I tend to agree with you. As long as there is a loop hole in the system that allows for arguement we will gain nothing. It like always reverts to greed and dollars. Political wrangling will continue as long as we have the present system.
I'm not concerned with resident hunting or harvest levels. My concern which is something you and most residents fail to see is THE FUTURE. Not what I can hunt this coming August. I find it hard to feel sorry for a resident of a province and country that have the most liberal hunting available world wide right out thier back door.

I tend to agree with Boxhitch, I wouldn't really call it a loophole. The main fault with the allocation policy it that it's just policy, if it were law you certainly wouldn't see any of this lobbying and wrangling because it would be pointless.

[SHAKER]

[QUOTE=willy442;844796]You really have poor information. Hunting as a food source is only relevant to first nations.


That in itself is an pretty ignorant comment. Sorry I don't' eat beef and refuse to. My family hunts to feed ourselves first and foremost. Sorry!

I'm pretty wound up reading this thread and am going to leave it alone for tonight...... On the plus side, I've never fleshed a bear out so fast as after reading the start of this during my morning coffee.

[willy442]

What you're saying is you did wolf control and it had no effect? That seems rather wasteful considering the negative publicity and cost to administer such a program.

The harvest stats show in decrease in KPU for sheep with all stakeholders a couple years after the wolf control. The harvest stats and inventory data also show wolf control had a positive effect on sheep and other populations.

Protecting the future of hunting isn't up to one person and talking about accomplishments is best left to the on-ups.

No! What I said was Wolf control was first conducted to regulate the predator population mainly on Moose and Caribou. It was recognized at the time to be of a huge assistance to our sheep herds. That realization came later, it was believed at one time by the Ministry that Eagles were the biggest predator on sheep, again all information before you were around, so have a history lesson.

Let me make this real clear to you and others that support your ways and formula's. Like I've said before this same old shit has been on the shovel countless times and every few years another eager young fellow educated beyond his intellegence comes forward and tries to pass it off as bigger, better information. I've watched these so called counts in the past, even assisted in them and been told my information is bad because I don't have a degree.

We did take constant counts of all game seen every fall in our area for many years. These were often compared to Ministry numbers and we generally found the Bio's telling us there was away more animals than what really existed. For some reason they were best at counting Caribou. Yes there may have been the odd animal counted more than once, but who is better able to see whats there? Do you think it's twelve men on the ground, for 4 to 6 months or you and Bio in an airplane or helicopter for a couple of hours?

The formula's used in these counts are based on very poor estimates at best, they have never changed the way counts are conducted in my life time and doubt they will in yours. Is this the Ministries fault? No I don't think so, I believe if pressure was brought forth to get some of the money generated back into the process Bio's have the ability to do a hell of alot better than what we constantly see. The responsability to make this happen lies with us in the province that have an interest in hunting. Problem is to damn many people are following you around worried about allocation instead of the real issues like I stated earlier.

[willy442]

[HTML]The research shows otherwise, hunting as a food source is extremely relevant socially and politically. Most current FN issues revolve around the commercial aspect of hunting and eco-tourism; if you were up on the consultation and sat in on the meetings with FN you'd know that.



To be very honest, all hunting in BC is a drop in the bucket. That is why things like predator control and grizzly bear hunting are so easy to walk away from politically. The money for enhancement generated by 'trophy hunting' is also a drop in the bucket.

30 years ago things were different but when one eco-tourism lodge generates more money from grizzly bear viewing than the entire grizzly bear hunt a person needs to sit down and have a serious chat with themselves to keep things based in reality.

If you want a heads up or something to stick your head into, start looking at Provincial GDP and the elasticity of commercial and resident hunting in BC.

You refer to Grizzly Bears! I didn't realize they were a meat animal after all meat hunting is another issue and the one I was taking about.

I do agree wildlife viewing is going to become alot bigger player in all this down the road.

[willy442]

Not sure that there is a loophole or there is an argument
Do you agree that the Allocation Policy has defined splits in harvest for each quota species, set for each residency group?
Do you agree that the AAH is a set figure based on population numbers and the science to determine what is a safe rate of harvest , currently roughly 2 to 3 % for sheep, supported by a full curl regulation ?
Do you agree that each user group has the right to try and achieve what is set out as available to them ?
Three basic points that aren't really arguable.
We can all say what we want about what we feel is the proper population numbers, but the fact is the figures are in place and bring used.

I agree with your first three points. Thats not to say there are better ways of accomplishing the splits and still maintaining the number that todays best science allows.

I still question the figures we are basing it all on and I'm not alone in that.

[willy442]

And right there is where your statement falls short of being based on any real world knowledge of current conservation activities. The only threads you participate in are these threads on allocation and the ones on sheep hunting. I've never seen you post on threads about the conservation activities many of us are involved with, like ecosystem restoration, transplants, or habitat protection and enhancement. You go on about what you, your Dad, and the northen outfitters did 20 years ago as if that means anything at all in the world of 2011..! So how on earth do you assume to know what I or any other residents recognize or what conservation work or activities we are doing or are involved with so that our grandchildren will be able to hunt in the future...? You probably don't know any more about most of us than what you read on HBC yet you are able to jump to the conclusion that we don't recognize the real issues, you must be a wizard with extra sensory perception.....!!

If it wasn't for people like my father and the other old pioneers of this north country. Guy's like you would have no way of ever getting half the places you do. Don't forget you wouldn't need to come here and hunt your Elk and Bison either because there wouldn't be any.

It takes all of about 15 minutes of reading posts in variuos subjects on this forum to get a clear picture of many resident hunters. (consumed with personal greed). I'm glad there is a few real concerned sportsmen out there also and they are smart enough to know who they are.

[willy442]

[quote=willy442;844796]You really have poor information. Hunting as a food source is only relevant to first nations.


That in itself is an pretty ignorant comment. Sorry I don't' eat beef and refuse to. My family hunts to feed ourselves first and foremost. Sorry!

I'm pretty wound up reading this thread and am going to leave it alone for tonight...... On the plus side, I've never fleshed a bear out so fast as after reading the start of this during my morning coffee.

Show me somewhere that a non first nations has won the right to hunt for sustenence.

[BromBones]

If it wasn't for people like my father and the other old pioneers of this north country. Guy's like you would have no way of ever getting half the places you do.

I've read some good ones from you Willy, but get over yourself. Red didn't invent float planes, riverboats, horses, hiking boots, and backpacks.:-? We'd still be able to access any part of the north today regardless of what happened 50 years ago.

This pretty much hits the nail on the head -



And right there is where your statement falls short of being based on any real world knowledge of current conservation activities. The only threads you participate in are these threads on allocation and the ones on sheep hunting. I've never seen you post on threads about the conservation activities many of us are involved with, like ecosystem restoration, transplants, or habitat protection and enhancement. You go on about what you, your Dad, and the northen outfitters did 20 years ago as if that means anything at all in the world of 2011..! So how on earth do you assume to know what I or any other residents recognize or what conservation work or activities we are doing or are involved with so that our grandchildren will be able to hunt in the future...? You probably don't know any more about most of us than what you read on HBC yet you are able to jump to the conclusion that we don't recognize the real issues

[SHAKER]

Depends on how you look at it. All resident hunters should consider themselves sustenece hunters. If we're not there to eat them then why we shoot'n em? The term "sport hunting" bothers me but if you read you regs you clearly need to remove all edible portions which pretty much means food to me.

[willy442]

I've read some good ones from you Willy, but get over yourself. Red didn't invent float planes, riverboats, horses, hiking boots, and backpacks.:-? We'd still be able to access any part of the north today regardless of what happened 50 years ago.

This pretty much hits the nail on the head -

Are you telling me you walk to the side of the pack trails we cut back in the day. You would really have hell walking to many spots if it wasn't for those trails cut by the hard work of guides over the years.
Boats and Airplanes have nothing to do with it. Just some advice though if you ever walk one of my trails. Take high rubber boots they cross the creek often.

[willy442]

Depends on how you look at it. All resident hunters should consider themselves sustenece hunters. If we're not there to eat them then why we shoot'n em? The term "sport hunting" bothers me but if you read you regs you clearly need to remove all edible portions which pretty much means food to me.

Try to sell this to those dealing with land claims.

[SHAKER]

Try to sell this to those dealing with land claims.


I've been a used car salesmen for along time but I aint going anywhere near that seriously toxic topic! Thanks for the offer though.

So i'm confused..... wasn't this thread just to inform hunters of what the harvest stats were?

[willy442]

I've been a used car salesmen for along time but I aint going anywhere near that seriously toxic topic! Thanks for the offer though.

So i'm confused..... wasn't this thread just to inform hunters of what the harvest stats were?

Actually this thread was began with an old BCWF member, trying to stir shit by posting just enough information to stir the pot and keep the old res non res issue, alive and well, among people that really don't have all the info and history.

[whitetailsheds]

Actually this thread was began with an old BCWF member, trying to stir shit by posting just enough information to stir the pot and keep the old res non res issue, alive and well, among people that really don't have all the info and history.

Can I assume then "the history" is primarily what has taken over this thread? If it is then, thanks for all the input to all, but I think most would agree that dealing with the "here and now" is best. That's all we have. Rather than getting involved in the back and forth bickering that takes place.
To begin with, posting the stats that were, or "stirring the shit", what other "info" would be appropriately posted Willy? What else should we residents be hearing/ informed of to be more knowledgeable about this?
Keep 'er on track, and let's move forward.....

[Whisky Creek]

No, I think the thread was bridger's attempt to get the troops rallied and renew fear mongering in the "residents vs guides" battle. guess he won.

[SHAKER]

Actually this thread was began with an old BCWF member, trying to stir shit by posting just enough information to stir the pot and keep the old res non res issue, alive and well, among people that really don't have all the info and history.

Do you have some official #'s to counter offer or add? We can argue circles about this stuff forever and probably always will, so if them #'s are wrong then straiten them out.... The spread sheet looks pretty clear to even me!

[bigwhiteys]

I've read some good ones from you Willy, but get over yourself. Red didn't invent float planes, riverboats, horses, hiking boots, and backpacks.:???: We'd still be able to access any part of the north today regardless of what happened 50 years ago.


He certainly didn't!!!! But he DID build several airstrips, make camps and cut several hundred kilometers of trails, as did many of the old-timers.

Without the airstrips and packtrails she'd be rough going in some of that country for sure.

Carl

[Whisky Creek]

Whitetailsheds,

History is important as there is no sense in reinventing the wheel. That is what the gov't does everytime new faces show up in a key position.
If you want the information, go get it yourself, don't take it second hand as that is how some folks are able to forward their agendas. They rely on people being the type to eat up whatever BS they conjure up and then call it the gospel. At best, they are often giving you questionable info and at worst, outright lies. Call the BCWF office directly and speak to the Executive Director or her assistant and ask them what they are doing for you and the wildlife. Oh wait, you can't because they both just quit and walked out in the past couple weeks..... Guess they were tired of the BS as well????

[Whisky Creek]

Shaker,

I haven't checked them but I am assuming that bridger's data numbers are probably correct. What Willy and I am saying is that the likley intent of posting the data (51%) with further explanatory information and background of what it means it for one purpose only. Stirring sh#%!
It leads the uniformed reader to think that the gov't is giving away half of our sheep and limiting us in getting one. The truth is, ANY BC RESIDENT can go and shoot a ram in region 7 if they have the skill and desire.
You want the facts instead of eating up what people feed you?
Go and sit in on meetings where BCWF, MOE and GOABC are all present.
Usually, if all parties aree sitting across the table from each other you are able to decipher the truth from what is being said.

[Whisky Creek]

Sorry, my post above should have read "data (51%) WITHOUT further explanatory information".
Edit isn't working....

[bridger]

No, I think the thread was bridger's attempt to get the troops rallied and renew fear mongering in the "residents vs guides" battle. guess he won.


that is straight bull shit!! if i want to stir the pot between residents and the goabc there are limitless issues that are a hell of a lot more important and more inflammatory than past sheep harvests. in the past there has been a lot or comments on declining sheep populations on this site. the stats that i posted show things haven't changed much in the last 18 years. the fact that non residents have taken a large share of the historic harvest is a fact, but doesn't mean the government is giving away half the sheep. there are a lot of reasons for the non resident harvest share being high which are not political. and i can guarantee you that I have forgotten more about allocation that you and willie have even suspected. if you go back through the post i think you are the one that has been stirring the pot. my post was strictyl informational in intent, if you choose to feel otherwise so be it. I could care lesss.

[GoatGuy]

No! What I said was Wolf control was first conducted to regulate the predator population mainly on Moose and Caribou. It was recognized at the time to be of a huge assistance to our sheep herds. That realization came later, it was believed at one time by the Ministry that Eagles were the biggest predator on sheep, again all information before you were around, so have a history lesson.

Let me make this real clear to you and others that support your ways and formula's. Like I've said before this same old shit has been on the shovel countless times and every few years another eager young fellow educated beyond his intellegence comes forward and tries to pass it off as bigger, better information. I've watched these so called counts in the past, even assisted in them and been told my information is bad because I don't have a degree.

We did take constant counts of all game seen every fall in our area for many years. These were often compared to Ministry numbers and we generally found the Bio's telling us there was away more animals than what really existed. For some reason they were best at counting Caribou. Yes there may have been the odd animal counted more than once, but who is better able to see whats there? Do you think it's twelve men on the ground, for 4 to 6 months or you and Bio in an airplane or helicopter for a couple of hours?

The formula's used in these counts are based on very poor estimates at best, they have never changed the way counts are conducted in my life time and doubt they will in yours. Is this the Ministries fault? No I don't think so, I believe if pressure was brought forth to get some of the money generated back into the process Bio's have the ability to do a hell of alot better than what we constantly see. The responsability to make this happen lies with us in the province that have an interest in hunting. Problem is to damn many people are following you around worried about allocation instead of the real issues like I stated earlier.

The last round of counts were significantly different from when you were around, let me assure you. If you read the report, in the past, the one armed bandit did a very poor job. The reason people probably don't listen to you is not because you don't 'have a degree' it's because you're destructive. You don't try to understand what people are trying to accomplish, or science, you simply say, "you're an idiot and I know best."

One thing that's always bothered me is all the talk that 'there aren't as many animals as they say' business.

Ok, fine, then why take your full allocation? Why shoot every single sheep? Why shoot even one sheep? Why always asking for more quota?

If you don't believe there are as many sheep in your area as the big bad wolf says, why not leave a few extra out there? Or leave your entire quota out there? Or go to the government and say here's the number of rams I think is sustainable out of my area so I want to be cut back? Really make a statement and show that you think there's a problem instead of shooting your full allocation, lining your pockets and complaining about resident harvest. It's odd isn't it, there is always a resident over-harvest, but I have never seen a case where outfitter quota is too high. Actually, let me correct that, there is one outfitter who has said he will not shoot his full quota or book it. Having said that he recently canceled his membership with GOABC.

You do realize that up til 2007 outfitters were allocated 77% of the AAH in 7B, right? Residents were not even a blip on the screen compared to the outfitter quota, but you never heard about quota being too high, did you? You were an outfitter up until the 90s and despite harvesting the MAJORITY of the sheep resident harvest was always the problem.

You're talking about how allocation isn't a 'real issue'. If that's the case then why was your dad in front of the leg complaining about quota? Why have there been over 30 appeals in the last 6 months? Why do outfitters want more quota in 7B if there aren't enough sheep? Why do outfitters want to be removed from quota?

You know allocation is important. It's important for outfitters because that's how they make money and it's important for residents because that is what controls how, when and if they can hunt. It's really that simple and I don't think you'll ever find anyone in their right mind saying otherwise (sorry if you're feeling excluded).

[GoatGuy]

Are you telling me you walk to the side of the pack trails we cut back in the day. You would really have hell walking to many spots if it wasn't for those trails cut by the hard work of guides over the years.
Boats and Airplanes have nothing to do with it. Just some advice though if you ever walk one of my trails. Take high rubber boots they cross the creek often.

You couldn't ride a miniature horse down most of the trails without losing your hat nowadays. Most of those trails haven't been cut out for years, the moose don't even use them.

I've seen better game trails in the rainforest of the west koots.

[Whisky Creek]

Bridger,

Well, holy #$..... Finally some information to go along with the initial post. I don't doubt you've forgotten more about allocation that we know, since most of the BS in it continues to be perpetuated by yourself and your cronies....
Think I'll go dig up some old minutes of meetings to remind me again....
You know it is really too bad that all of the positive effort and work that many of you have done is so easily lost due to the black cloud of allocation that the BCWF seems to be completely stalled on.
Allocation, allocation, allocation...... Me, me, me....
Whatever......
CLINT

[paw325]

Skeeter

Remember, ya can't fix stupid...........

[Fisher-Dude]

Call the BCWF office directly and speak to the Executive Director or her assistant and ask them what they are doing for you and the wildlife. Oh wait, you can't because they both just quit and walked out in the past couple weeks..... Guess they were tired of the BS as well????

That is a complete lie. You're speaking straight out your ass on matters you know nothing about. The reason Patti left the BCWF is not going to be discussed here, but what you have posted is a lie. Period.

[Whisky Creek]

Paw, Yeah, just didn't want to have to say it....

[willy442]

The last round of counts were significantly different from when you were around, let me assure you. If you read the report, in the past, the one armed bandit did a very poor job. The reason people probably don't listen to you is not because you don't 'have a degree' it's because you're destructive. You don't try to understand what people are trying to accomplish, or science, you simply say, "you're an idiot and I know best."

One thing that's always bothered me is all the talk that 'there aren't as many animals as they say' business.

Ok, fine, then why take your full allocation? Why shoot every single sheep? Why shoot even one sheep? Why always asking for more quota?

If you don't believe there are as many sheep in your area as the big bad wolf says, why not leave a few extra out there? Or leave your entire quota out there? Or go to the government and say here's the number of rams I think is sustainable out of my area so I want to be cut back? Really make a statement and show that you think there's a problem instead of shooting your full allocation, lining your pockets and complaining about resident harvest. It's odd isn't it, there is always a resident over-harvest, but I have never seen a case where outfitter quota is too high. Actually, let me correct that, there is one outfitter who has said he will not shoot his full quota or book it. Having said that he recently canceled his membership with GOABC.

You do realize that up til 2007 outfitters were allocated 77% of the AAH in 7B, right? Residents were not even a blip on the screen compared to the outfitter quota, but you never heard about quota being too high, did you? You were an outfitter up until the 90s and despite harvesting the MAJORITY of the sheep resident harvest was always the problem.

You're talking about how allocation isn't a 'real issue'. If that's the case then why was your dad in front of the leg complaining about quota? Why have there been over 30 appeals in the last 6 months? Why do outfitters want more quota in 7B if there aren't enough sheep? Why do outfitters want to be removed from quota?

You know allocation is important. It's important for outfitters because that's how they make money and it's important for residents because that is what controls how, when and if they can hunt. It's really that simple and I don't think you'll ever find anyone in their right mind saying otherwise (sorry if you're feeling excluded).

Like I said "educated beyond your intelligence". You can buy into all the data you want and blame the past on us oldtimers all you want. The fact is really your information is no better than mine. The only explanation you or Bridger can give on the steep decline of allowable harvest in region 7 in 2003 is to blame it on the Bio at the time. Have we all forgot about the BCWF of the day putting forth the same arguements as now. Rich remembers those meetings I'm sure he was involved. Guy's you can say what you want but at some point the personal gain has to be laid aside and the Sheep have to put first. Maybe then the BCWF could even maintain an executive that would be working for us hunters instead of resigning.

[willy442]

That is a complete lie. You're speaking straight out your ass on matters you know nothing about. The reason Patti left the BCWF is not going to be discussed here, but what you have posted is a lie. Period.

Guess you didn't want that little tid bit out in public. Did you? Explain why they left seeing as you're the self proclaimed voice of the BCWF.

[GoatGuy]

Like I said "educated beyond your intelligence". You can buy into all the data you want and blame the past on us oldtimers all you want. The fact is really your information is no better than mine. The only explanation you or Bridger can give on the steep decline of allowable harvest in region 7 in 2003 is to blame it on the Bio at the time. Have we all forgot about the BCWF of the day putting forth the same arguements as now. Rich remembers those meetings I'm sure he was involved. Guy's you can say what you want but at some point the personal gain has to be laid aside and the Sheep have to put first. Maybe then the BCWF could even maintain an executive that would be working for us hunters instead of resigning.

What are you talking about? You said there's not enough sheep, then we cutback in 2003 and now you're saying that's the wrong thing to do? You said sheep had been declining for decades yet you fought for more quota?

What a waste of time.

[bridger]

in your earlier post you have stated a couple of times that a resident can go into 7b and buy an over the counter sheep tag. in 7b you can also use quads with fewer restrictions than any other part of the province. in 7b moose are on open season-- in 7b we have a branch antlered elk season. in general 7b has more open hunting opportunities for residents and non residents than any other place in the province. I don't take credit for that but I can telll you that if it weren't for the efforts of the bcwf and the north peace rod and gun club we would have been on sheep and moose leh and quad restrictions years ago. so again i guess it is a point of view. I don't consider sheep endangered in british columbia, only the bc resident sheep hunter is. so i guess if your point of view differs so be it. get involved. It is easy to sit in the side lines and throw rocks. takes more effort and integrity to get involved. are you up to it? cheers!!

[Whisky Creek]

Fisher-Dude,

Where is the lie? Documents I read, the last one yesterday, tells me they are no longer with BCWF, Colleen's last day on Friday? Why? Tired of the BS????? Note the questions marks on my statement. That means it is a question, not a statement and therefore not intended to be interpreted to be a fact, therein cannot be a lie. So you can take your accusation and place it elsewhere.
So if you know the reason, why don't you inform the followers why their organization seems to be in turmoil with the hired help taking wing? The same organization that is supposed to be representing our interests...

[Gateholio]

No, we don't want to discuss and speculate about employees departure on here. Further posts on it will be deleted. Ignoring this warning will get people infractions.

[Whisky Creek]

Bridger,

You speak like being able to use quads everywhere for hunting is a good thing? Yep, opinions vary alright...
Anyways, like I said, it is too bad that all the positive stuff folks have accomplished, including yourselves, is forgotten and over shadowed with the poisoned allocation BS. How's the air up there on the throne? Just because some of us don't chronically stand on top of a soapbox, pound our fists on the table, beat our chests and proclaim to the world how much we do for wildlife and conservation doesn't mean we are not involved, and succeeding at it. On the contrary actually. I've found that there can be a lot more actually achieved by distancing yourself a bit from BCWF. Many doors to dialogue get closed if they are told it is BCWF knocking. Truth is the bureaucrocy and BS of the BCWF is what drives many people away from involvement with the fed.

[GoatGuy]

Fisher-Dude,

Where is the lie? Documents I read, the last one yesterday, tells me they are no longer with BCWF, Colleen's last day on Friday? Why? Tired of the BS????? Note the questions marks on my statement. That means it is a question, not a statement and therefore not intended to be interpreted to be a fact, therein cannot be a lie. So you can take your accusation and place it elsewhere.
So if you know the reason, why don't you inform the followers why their organization seems to be in turmoil with the hired help taking wing? The same organization that is supposed to be representing our interests...

That's called rhetoric, not a question.

It is an implied assumption.

[6616]

6616,
PS: Why don't you introduce yourself?

Do a little research, it's not that hard...! While you're at it talk to someone on the BCWF Wildlife Committee and get informed on the multitude of issues they're being forced to deal with regarding the GOABC before you debase the BCWF. A lot of good people from both the BCWF and GOABC negotiated for three years to reach an agreement on the allocation policy, and in the end the BCWF and GOABC both agreed with it. Since then the GOABC commenced to do everything they could to undermine it, do you really expect the BCWF to sit by and offer no resistance, I can assure you the BCWF did not initiate and is not perpetuating this controversy on allocation nor do they like it anymore than you do...! If you have a solution to offer why don't you communicate it to their board instead of publically criticizing the BCWF?

[Whisky Creek]

6616,

I just find you to be a little hypocritical. As a member of the allocation committee, on HBC thread 11664, you stated:

"Remember policy is not law, the Wildlife Act and Wildlife Act Regulations are law, but policy is just policy and is always open to discussion or review, so even thought the allocations policy review process is officially over, there's always going to be opportunities to provide input.

Thanks gang."

Did you actually mean that there are only opportunities for bcwf and resident hunters to provide input, discussion and review with regards to the policy if it turns out not to suit us very well???? Meaning nobody else can try to make changes if it turned out the policy is not working well for them, ie goabc? I see the hypocracy more and more these days, which, brings me back to my earlier statement, it all seems like it is based on greed.

[GoatGuy]

Did you actually mean that there are only opportunities for bcwf and resident hunters to provide input, discussion and review with regards to the policy if it turns out not to suit us very well???? Meaning nobody else can try to make changes if it turned out the policy is not working well for them, ie goabc? I see the hypocracy more and more these days, which, brings me back to my earlier statement, it all seems like it is based on greed.

BCWF is not providing input or trying to change the policy, only following it. The GOABC and the BCWF ironed it out for three years, it was signed in 2007. The intent for the policy was to make things set out and clear cut. At the time both groups wanted that, so that we could get on with the business of making more wildlife and taking care of habitat. Once Dale left, GOABC decided it wanted to change the policy.

If you want to 'verify' the other side of the story call Dale.

[bridger]

the sheep harvest in 7b is not much different now that it has been historically that is why i posted the info. we had some bigger harvest levels for a short period after the predator management program in the 80's but then levels returned to where they always had been. as far as allocation goes I think all the bcwf reps are tired of dealing with it. when we re negotiated the allocation policy in 2007 we felt the issue was put to bed, but as has been previously stated the goabc reneged. so i guess my point is that you are criticizing the wrong people.

[Deaddog]

I felt that what Bridger posted was great info.. shows things are stable...the whole "who gets what" deal did not appear to be part of his post..in fact if we (res) are still only shooting 55% of the sheep in 7b there is no one to blame but ourselves, the sheep are there, we can buy tags as we please.....I do not want to see res opportunity lessen, I am only stating that AT THE MOMENT there is nothing stopping residents from attaining there allocation except...numbers of hunters and the willingness to gut it out...If there are negotiations, demands to change the allocation agreement..that is another matter..I am hoping that 2012 will come the gov't will stick to the agreements as set and we can all move on and work towards putting more sheep on the mountains.. PS ..willy..thanks for the outfitters trails.. I use trails in don pecks old area on a regular basis and they are a welcome sight.. DD

[Whisky Creek]

An example of further hypocracy, lack of consistency, lack of conservation and greed in the representation I get from BCWF reps which pertain to my previous posts this thread.

The following is an excerpt from a public report on the BCWF website that I'm sure you are familiar with GoatGuy.


Thinhorn Sheep

Since 2007 the BC Wildlife Federation has requested a Resident Only Sheep Season for
Region 6 Thinhorn Sheep as residents are harvesting less than 40% of the harvest. By the
provisions of the Allocation Policy the minimum harvest for residents is 60%. Under the policy,
regulations are to benefit residents. The BC Wildlife Federation has consistently felt the
population estimates for harvest for Region 6 are not realistic. Residents and Guide Outfitters
have only been able to achieve harvesting less than 50% of the Annual Allowable Harvest. It
remains baffling for the BCWF, that quota is being increased for harvesting 8 year old rams or
older despite the fact quotas are NOT being fully utilized. At the same time Thinhorn Sheep
hunts are at an all time high especially in comparison to other species. Region 7B in contrast
has been harvesting the AAH for Thinhorn sheep.
If the sheep populations are so healthy than why aren't both residency groups achieving their
harvest if there is such an abundance. How can increases be given if quotas are NOT being
achieved over time?
Why is the Ministry afraid to give residents an opportunity without competition when policy
directs it and other jurisdictions' benefit from this regulation?
Yet the Ministry may remove Thinhorn sheep as a Category A species for 2012/2013 removing
outfitter quotas entirely!

So after reading this it appears to me that the BCWF Wildlife Committee Chair feels that sheep populations are lower than gov't estimates in region 6. Have I misinterpreted it? WHY THEN, if this is the official position of the fed and the committee, that the bcwf reps (represented by various clubs, regional reps and with the provincial fed president in attendence) argued and voted for MOE to implement a substantial increase to the sheep LEH in Spatsizi at our latest region 6 SHAC meeting (Skeena hunter advisory committee), further arguing that it wasn't a regulation change so it didn't have to wait for the two year regulation cycle to be implemented. The reps presented that since only 7 (a suspect number, moe didn't have an actually ci number yet) of 11 rams were harvested with 120 authorization, they wanted the leh authorizations to be put up to 173 (number from memory, not minutes). If BCWF feels that the sheep estimates are not accurate and are lower than estimated, why are the "resident hunter" reps pushing for an increase to meet AAH? (BCWF actually has MANY reps at this annual meeting because most of the club reps also hold key positions on various bcwf committees) Especially in a case like this where it is known that most, if not all, of the rams are coming out of one block in the park, when the actual AAH was determined based on the total park population. If next year, the AAH isn't met again by say 30%, would they then request increasing the LEH authorizations to 230 or so???

Two things here that cement my point. Greedy and hypocritical reps on their own personal agenda. I don't call this proper representation of the resident hunter or conservation minded thinking.

My two cents and pet peeve....

[willy442]

What are you talking about? You said there's not enough sheep, then we cutback in 2003 and now you're saying that's the wrong thing to do? You said sheep had been declining for decades yet you fought for more quota?

What a waste of time.

No if you would listen. What I said was prior to 2003 the people that were actually out in the mountains for extended periods of time (4 to 6 ) months a year all expressed concern for the Sheep declining. The BCWF and ministry both argued extensively that we were wrong and continued the allocation arguement. During that time some of the guides were actually supporting an LEH push. It caused alot of in fighting and the issue was scrapped in favor of continuing with quotas and allocation.

Then all of a sudden with harvest levels hanging around the same numbers, the ministry basically admitted they were out to lunch and cut the allowable harvest by 80+ rams. It only took about 8 years for them to get with the program of reducing the allowable harvest. The structure of both the ministry and the BCWF has not changed since that time other than for a few different faces fighting the same old agenda with the old boys club in the background.

You have all the formula`s to figure out the percentages, so tell my what all of a sudden caused the reduction. Then while you`re at it give me your best estimate as to when you and the people you support are going to catch up again.

[Whisky Creek]

Bridger,
I do apologize for bringing up region 6 here, as your thread pertaind to region 7, but I just am trying to provide real examples to support my statements and accusations of greed and poor honest representation....

[GoatGuy]

No if you would listen. What I said was prior to 2003 the people that were actually out in the mountains for extended periods of time (4 to 6 ) months a year all expressed concern for the Sheep declining. The BCWF and ministry both argued extensively that we were wrong and continued the allocation arguement. During that time some of the guides were actually supporting an LEH push. It caused alot of in fighting and the issue was scrapped in favor of continuing with quotas and allocation.

Then all of a sudden with harvest levels hanging around the same numbers, the ministry basically admitted they were out to lunch and cut the allowable harvest by 80+ rams. It only took about 8 years for them to get with the program of reducing the allowable harvest. The structure of both the ministry and the BCWF has not changed since that time other than for a few different faces fighting the same old agenda with the old boys club in the background.

You have all the formula`s to figure out the percentages, so tell my what all of a sudden caused the reduction. Then while you`re at it give me your best estimate as to when you and the people you support are going to catch up again.

The changes in sheep management in 7B have come from a change in people and a few people within the F&W branch stepping up to the plate.

Sustainable harvest and allocation are two totally different issues. You've got them confused as one and the same.

Really have no interest in getting into it any farther.

[GoatGuy]

An example of further hypocracy, lack of consistency, lack of conservation and greed in the representation I get from BCWF reps which pertain to my previous posts this thread.

The following is an excerpt from a public report on the BCWF website that I'm sure you are familiar with GoatGuy.


Thinhorn Sheep

Since 2007 the BC Wildlife Federation has requested a Resident Only Sheep Season for
Region 6 Thinhorn Sheep as residents are harvesting less than 40% of the harvest. By the
provisions of the Allocation Policy the minimum harvest for residents is 60%. Under the policy,
regulations are to benefit residents. The BC Wildlife Federation has consistently felt the
population estimates for harvest for Region 6 are not realistic. Residents and Guide Outfitters
have only been able to achieve harvesting less than 50% of the Annual Allowable Harvest. It
remains baffling for the BCWF, that quota is being increased for harvesting 8 year old rams or
older despite the fact quotas are NOT being fully utilized. At the same time Thinhorn Sheep
hunts are at an all time high especially in comparison to other species. Region 7B in contrast
has been harvesting the AAH for Thinhorn sheep.
If the sheep populations are so healthy than why aren't both residency groups achieving their
harvest if there is such an abundance. How can increases be given if quotas are NOT being
achieved over time?
Why is the Ministry afraid to give residents an opportunity without competition when policy
directs it and other jurisdictions' benefit from this regulation?
Yet the Ministry may remove Thinhorn sheep as a Category A species for 2012/2013 removing
outfitter quotas entirely!

So after reading this it appears to me that the BCWF Wildlife Committee Chair feels that sheep populations are lower than gov't estimates in region 6. Have I misinterpreted it? WHY THEN, if this is the official position of the fed and the committee, that the bcwf reps (represented by various clubs, regional reps and with the provincial fed president in attendence) argued and voted for MOE to implement a substantial increase to the sheep LEH in Spatsizi at our latest region 6 SHAC meeting (Skeena hunter advisory committee), further arguing that it wasn't a regulation change so it didn't have to wait for the two year regulation cycle to be implemented. The reps presented that since only 7 (a suspect number, moe didn't have an actually ci number yet) of 11 rams were harvested with 120 authorization, they wanted the leh authorizations to be put up to 173 (number from memory, not minutes). If BCWF feels that the sheep estimates are not accurate and are lower than estimated, why are the "resident hunter" reps pushing for an increase to meet AAH? (BCWF actually has MANY reps at this annual meeting because most of the club reps also hold key positions on various bcwf committees) Especially in a case like this where it is known that most, if not all, of the rams are coming out of one block in the park, when the actual AAH was determined based on the total park population. If next year, the AAH isn't met again by say 30%, would they then request increasing the LEH authorizations to 230 or so???

Two things here that cement my point. Greedy and hypocritical reps on their own personal agenda. I don't call this proper representation of the resident hunter or conservation minded thinking.

My two cents and pet peeve....



Nobody has debated the estimate in Spatsizi.

It's about the only place that has been consistently inventoried in Region 6, probably because of its profile.

[willy442]

The changes in sheep management in 7B have come from a change in people and a few people within the F&W branch stepping up to the plate.

Sustainable harvest and allocation are two totally different issues. You've got them confused as one and the same.

Really have no interest in getting into it any farther.

No you are wrong. Sustainable harvest and allocation are directly related to the harvest of our Stone Sheep herds.
When are both F&W and BCWF going to step up to the plate again with realistic information.

You did what I expected with your statement that you don`t want to discuss any further. Stumped for information I guess. Maybe you can research on your flight tonight and get back to me.

[willy442]

The changes in sheep management in 7B have come from a change in people and a few people within the F&W branch stepping up to the plate.

Sustainable harvest and allocation are two totally different issues. You've got them confused as one and the same.

Really have no interest in getting into it any farther.

I guess you`re blaming the issue on one biologist. Where sheep numbers declining

[GoatGuy]

No you are wrong. Sustainable harvest and allocation are directly related to the harvest of our Stone Sheep herds.
When are both F&W and BCWF going to step up to the plate again with realistic information.

You did what I expected with your statement that you don`t want to discuss any further. Stumped for information I guess. Maybe you can research on your flight tonight and get back to me.

No they are not. Science is supposed to set how many sheep can be harvested.

Allocation is who gets to harvest them.

You come from a time where a little lean by either party could change quota or hunting seasons, or in the early days implement quota. The new policy is very clear about this stuff. Science dictates the harvestable surplus, policy dictates the split. It's really that simple. You get people that want to dig around, circumvent and have the policy changed and that's where the policy lies. It's very clear.

[Whisky Creek]

GoatGuy,

You either avoided my point or missed it. It's not about debating the estimate in Spatsizi.

[willy442]

No they are not. Science is supposed to set how many sheep can be harvested.

Allocation is who gets to harvest them.

You come from a time where a little lean by either party could change quota or hunting seasons, or in the early days implement quota. The new policy is very clear about this stuff. Science dictates the harvestable surplus, policy dictates the split. It's really that simple. You get people that want to dig around, circumvent and have the policy changed and that's where the policy lies. It's very clear.

Why then are you so concerned about harvesting your allocation if we have a surplus? Is there anyone out there that has been turned down on purchasing a Sheep tag? I would suggest that until the Joe Blow resident can no longer acquire a tag, your time would be better spent on increasing Sheep and as a result increasing hunter opportunity than whinning about special seasons and guide restrictions. Guided Sheep hunts bring huge cash into the province and I for one would like to sell my tiny little bit of ownership to the highest dollar. Guess I support nonresident hunting

[GoatGuy]

GoatGuy,

You either avoided my point or missed it. It's not about debating the estimate in Spatsizi.

Here are your questions:


So after reading this it appears to me that the BCWF Wildlife Committee Chair feels that sheep populations are lower than gov't estimates in region 6.

In most of the GOS areas yes. Oestrichs quota is 22 per year. With minimum shares that means the resident 'allocation' would be 33 rams per year for a 60/40 split.

So the AAH is 55 rams per year out of one outfit in Region 6. I'll remind you the AAH for all of 7B is around 180 rams.

When the numbers trickle out that means there are at least 2000 sheep in that outfit.

My turn: Do you really believe that there are 2000 sheep in Oestrich's area?


WHY THEN, if this is the official position of the fed and the committee, that the bcwf reps (represented by various clubs, regional reps and with the provincial fed president in attendence) argued and voted for MOE to implement a substantial increase to the sheep LEH in Spatsizi at our latest region 6 SHAC meeting ???

Answered this one already.

[bridger]

whisky why do you keep ingnoring the fact that it is the goabc that wants more quota and fewer resident hunting opportunities. the bcwf is not asking to change the agreement. you keep yappin about greedy bcwf reps, but in case you haven't figured it out the bcwf agreed to give non residents higher harvest levels here in bc than in state in the union. try and get a non resident sheep tag in any of the western states and you are drawing for 5% of the total harvest. in bc non residents get a maximum of 40% and a minimum of 20%. we treat them better than they treat themselves. and if your opinion as a resident hunter is that those per centages are too low I suggest you are one of the few that does.

[GoatGuy]

Why then are you so concerned about harvesting your allocation if we have a surplus? Is there anyone out there that has been turned down on purchasing a Sheep tag? I would suggest that until the Joe Blow resident can no longer acquire a tag, your time would be better spent on increasing Sheep and as a result increasing hunter opportunity than whinning about special seasons and guide restrictions. Guided Sheep hunts bring huge cash into the province and I for one would like to sell my tiny little bit of ownership to the highest dollar. Guess I support nonresident hunting

If residents don't harvest the share reverts to outfitters. We've already shown that barriers reduce resident participation and harvest. Analysis also shows that there is competition in 7B which means, more quota results in a decline in success rates, increased kpu, as well as a decrease in resident share which means fewer resident hunters and less resident opportunity.

As a result more sheep does not mean more hunter opportunity but that is not what we're talking about.

Unfortunately, the policy is already established so in theory nobody really cares about your vote.

[willy442]

If residents don't harvest the share reverts to outfitters. We've already shown that barriers reduce resident participation and harvest. Analysis also shows that there is competition in 7B which means, more quota results in a decline in success rates, increased kpu, as well as a decrease in resident share which means fewer resident hunters and less resident opportunity.

As a result more sheep does not mean more hunter opportunity but that is not what we're talking about.

Unfortunately, the policy is already established so in theory nobody really cares about your vote.

God forbid we give the G/O's another permit or two and maybe let a couple of Rams not accessible to residents sell for 40,000.00 dollars. Most the competition is from residents themselves, sees the guides still do ok. That's what fuels your arguement. If policy is already in place, why the arguement. Oh! that's right the guides won't roll over and give you the 2 week early season.

I thought more sheep equals more AAH down the road. Of which the resident would recieve the lions share by my calculations. Oh and by the way I've never been removed from or asked to leave a meeting!:-D Do you know anyone who has?:-D

[Whisky Creek]

Bridger,

I'm worried about wildlife and conservation in BC, not the USA, or anywhere else. I couldn't care less what percentages are in the US. The resource and hunting pressure is not the same either down there either, is it. But because you might be able to introduce that into the argument to gain support, you will won't you?

Another thing, the GOABC isn't the devil you like to pretend. (I actually think that guy lives somewhere much hotter can be spotted by carrying a red pitchfork...) The majority of outfitters are BC residents who have as much right to make a living utilizing a resource as any other resident of BC. You like to forget that as well. Also, there are outfitters not represented by GOABC just as there is the VAST MAJORITY of resident hunters not represented by BCWF. Don't paint em all with the same brush. You sit up on your self-built committee throne and think you represent me and "the resident hunter", when in reality, you represent a fraction of hunters in BC. The quality of representation is open for argument of course. And before you tell me about the 38,000 members, tell me how many are hunters and how many of them are members by default of being a gun or rod and gun club member of a bcwf affiliated club.

[willy442]

What happened to Hunting B.C.'s 2 greatest sheep hunters? They are being very quite on the subject. Sitting back waiting to reap the benefits of others work I'm guessing. What a shame, with such a self proclaimed interest for sheep hunting like they have, I would've thought they would be here.:-D

[GoatGuy]

God forbid we give the G/O's another permit or two and maybe let a couple of Rams not accessible to residents sell for 40,000.00 dollars. Most the competition is from residents themselves, sees the guides still do ok. That's what fuels your arguement. If policy is already in place, why the arguement. Oh! that's right the guides won't roll over and give you the 2 week early season.

I thought more sheep equals more AAH down the road. Of which the resident would recieve the lions share by my calculations. Oh and by the way I've never been removed from or asked to leave a meeting!:-D Do you know anyone who has?:-D
The analysis shows the competition is between residents and non-residents, not between residents. The permit or two is how we got to the new policy. The two week season in a Region 6 issue, not 7b.

More sheep means an increased AAH only if the policy is being followed.

I don't know anyone who has been asked to leave a meeting.

[GoatGuy]

Bridger,

I'm worried about wildlife and conservation in BC, not the USA, or anywhere else. I couldn't care less what percentages are in the US. The resource and hunting pressure is not the same either down there either, is it. But because you might be able to introduce that into the argument to gain support, you will won't you?

The percentages are usually 90/10 or 95/5 or no non-resident hunting across most of Canada as well.

[Whisky Creek]

Well GOAT GUY,

It took a while but finally your true colors came out! You, someone who was a key BCWF rep on the wildlife committee, make this statement to someone.

"Unfortunately, the policy is already established so in theory nobody really cares about your vote."

Thanks for making my point, albeit the roundabout way. That is exactly the mentality and true agenda of many of the key federation reps who continue to poison the reps who have truely, honestly and transparently worked tirelessly for the wildlife.

I've wasted about all the breath and key strokes I'm going to on you, and much more than I should have.....

[willy442]

The analysis shows the competition is between residents and non-residents, not between residents. The permit or two is how we got to the new policy. The two week season in a Region 6 issue, not 7b.

More sheep means an increased AAH only if the policy is being followed.

I don't know anyone who has been asked to leave a meeting.

Don't worry I know how things got kicked into gear on the new POLICY. Some are a little smarter than to invest all thier eggs into one basket, I guess you're figuring that out now. Hard to be ontop the game though when you're always trying to catch up isn't it? Good Luck and Good Bye

[GoatGuy]

Don't worry I know how things got kicked into gear on the new POLICY. Some are a little smarter than to invest all thier eggs into one basket, I guess you're figuring that out now. Hard to be ontop the game though when you're always trying to catch up isn't it? Good Luck

you're correct.

Once you learn there is no integrity you catch on. Generally you take a person at the shake of a hand.

[willy442]

"Unfortunately, the policy is already established so in theory nobody really cares about your vote."

This is integrety. Ha Ha Ha funny little man.:-D

[GoatGuy]

Well GOAT GUY,

It took a while but finally your true colors came out! You, someone who was a key BCWF rep on the wildlife committee, make this statement to someone.

"Unfortunately, the policy is already established so in theory nobody really cares about your vote."

Thanks for making my point, albeit the roundabout way. That is exactly the mentality and true agenda of many of the key federation reps who continue to poison the reps who have truely, honestly and transparently worked tirelessly for the wildlife.

I've wasted about all the breath and key strokes I'm going to on you, and much more than I should have.....

Point is nobody wants to spend another 5 years to iron out another policy out.

If you're going to volunteer 40 hours/week to re-write it again, then please, put up your hand.

[bridger]

Well GOAT GUY,

It took a while but finally your true colors came out! You, someone who was a key BCWF rep on the wildlife committee, make this statement to someone.

"Unfortunately, the policy is already established so in theory nobody really cares about your vote."

Thanks for making my point, albeit the roundabout way. That is exactly the mentality and true agenda of many of the key federation reps who continue to poison the reps who have truely, honestly and transparently worked tirelessly for the wildlife.

I've wasted about all the breath and key strokes I'm going to on you, and much more than I should have.....

FINALLY!!!

[Whisky Creek]

Oh I got a bunch left for you yet bridger.

[Whisky Creek]

Maybe we should go back to your "two sheep" idea now bridger.
Is it on the minutes?

[yama49]

Oh I got a bunch left for you yet bridger.

Maybe you should go to bed..

[6616]

6616,

I just find you to be a little hypocritical. As a member of the allocation committee, on HBC thread 11664, you stated:

"Remember policy is not law, the Wildlife Act and Wildlife Act Regulations are law, but policy is just policy and is always open to discussion or review, so even thought the allocations policy review process is officially over, there's always going to be opportunities to provide input.

Thanks gang."

Did you actually mean that there are only opportunities for bcwf and resident hunters to provide input, discussion and review with regards to the policy if it turns out not to suit us very well???? Meaning nobody else can try to make changes if it turned out the policy is not working well for them, ie goabc? I see the hypocracy more and more these days, which, brings me back to my earlier statement, it all seems like it is based on greed.


No, I probably meant that policy was established, but the procedures and calculation methods were untried and unproven at the time and minor adjustments might be needed to these to ensure the policy was upheld. I would have to read the thread and complete message to really answer, I cannot remember in what context that was written.

PS: And noting the date of that thread the allocation policy was not finalized or signed off yet. The intent was to get a feel for how people who had reviewed the new policy papers felt about it prior to convention.

[Sitkaspruce]

Bridger,

I'm worried about wildlife and conservation in BC, not the USA, or anywhere else. I couldn't care less what percentages are in the US. The resource and hunting pressure is not the same either down there either, is it. But because you might be able to introduce that into the argument to gain support, you will won't you?

Another thing, the GOABC isn't the devil you like to pretend. (I actually think that guy lives somewhere much hotter can be spotted by carrying a red pitchfork...) The majority of outfitters are BC residents who have as much right to make a living utilizing a resource as any other resident of BC. You like to forget that as well. Also, there are outfitters not represented by GOABC just as there is the VAST MAJORITY of resident hunters not represented by BCWF. Don't paint em all with the same brush. You sit up on your self-built committee throne and think you represent me and "the resident hunter", when in reality, you represent a fraction of hunters in BC. The quality of representation is open for argument of course. And before you tell me about the 38,000 members, tell me how many are hunters and how many of them are members by default of being a gun or rod and gun club member of a bcwf affiliated club.

So WC, I have read all the posts on here and I have a question for you.

If the BCWF is doing such a poor job or not representing the hunters of BC with their best foot forward, what do you suggest we, as resident hunters of BC (and I think you are one of them) should do about it??

How should we deal with a request for more LEH by the GO's?
How should we deal with access restrictions in BC??
How should we deal with a decrease in quota when the GO's request it?
How do we deal with the pressure of the GO's when they want to change a season (ie region 5, or change the spike/fork moose in region 8)
How should we deal with ALL that want to shut us down, restrict access or reduce hunter numbers???

(all right a few more questions than one....)

I am not being sarcastic, I am curious as to how you see thing and how we should address things.

As I always tell my kids, if you see a problem, come up with a solution before complaining to me....

Cheers

SS

[bridger]

Maybe we should go back to your "two sheep" idea now bridger.
Is it on the minutes?


I have never supported a two sheep bag limit for residents period so don't waste your time on that one. however as you have opened the subject how about this. guide outfitters lobbied to change their quota's from a one year quota to a five year quota with the proviso that they could take 30% of the five year quota in any given year. their reasoning was that sometimes the weather was bad, hunters cancelled, or they couldn't book hunters that year etc. this means that if an outfitter has an annual quota of say 6 rams his quota over 5 years is 30 rams. so in any given year he could take 10 rams instead of 6 as long as he didn't take more than 30 in five years. The goabc asked for this so it would be easier for them to achieve their allocated harvest share. so if it can apply to non residents why can't it apply to residents. Say a resident has a trip planned and due to unforseen circumstances he can't go or he does go and the weather makes it impossible to hunt etc. why not give residents a five year quota of say 4 rams and allow them to take 50% (two rams) of their five year quota in any given year provided they don't exceed their five year quota. Or say a resident draws an leh sheep tag and can't go that year why not let him go the next year after all he is probably only going to draw that tag once in a lifetime. the overhall harvest is not affected so what's the harm? How do you like that idea? Now before you get all riled up I have not considered this option in a serious vein but it might be food for thought. It might help residents acheive their allocated share simliar to a two week resident only season in region 6. if we extend that harvest strategy to guide outfitters why not to residents as well?

[bridger]

Oh I got a bunch left for you yet bridger.


pick a number and get in line. I am used to guide outfitters, assistant guides, wanna be outfitters, and wingnuts chewing on me, because of my support of resident priority. You are not the first and won't be the last.

[Whisky Creek]

SS,
Many questions which maybe should be in different threads???
I don't have all the answers but I can tell you that alienating ourselves from everyone with many common goals ain't going to accomplish anything. It isn't the BCWF organization that I have lost faith in, it is a number of the current people representing it and the direction they are driving the federation. When you can't work with anyone without it being "a fight", doors start closing in your face and walls start going up in the path of open dialogue. Pretty soon, conspiracy theories and fear mongering is all that is left. There are many productive ways to accomplish things without it ever needing to be a fight. Everyone needs to step back and take a fresh look and quit perpetuating the problem by continuing to point fingers and blame. Maybe the only way for this to happen is a big washing out of the old and an influx of new faces and ideas???? From what I know, the same division has occurred within GOABC over this allocation issue.
So we can decide to fight over it for another decade and drive further wedges between us while the anti-hunting movement sits back and reaps the rewards and gets stronger while we are at each other's throats, or we find a way to get back to working with the other major stakeholder with many of the same common goals, GOABC.
If the policy won't work for them then we better sit down and figure it out, because the problem won't go away by ignoring it and saying, "well it works great for us, so, we win and won't talk about it anymore and won't look at it ever again".
Remember, the GO's didn't cause all the problems we face, even though many would like to think so.

[Whisky Creek]

bridger,

:-D:-D:-D LOL

Well, I've never outfitted, never guided and ain't a wannabe of either so.....
now I'm just trying to figure out if I'm another wingnut or some other type that you just haven't had chew on you before???????:???:

Maybe if you weren't such a radical extremist, more people would want to work with you instead of chew on you..... I'm just sayin.......

[whitetailsheds]

SS,
From what I know, the same division has occurred within GOABC over this allocation issue.


That's interesting. Never heard that one brought up before. All kinds of in-fightin' going on.

[Whisky Creek]

I have never supported a two sheep bag limit for residents period so don't waste your time on that one. however as you have opened the subject how about this. guide outfitters lobbied to change their quota's from a one year quota to a five year quota with the proviso that they could take 30% of the five year quota in any given year. their reasoning was that sometimes the weather was bad, hunters cancelled, or they couldn't book hunters that year etc. this means that if an outfitter has an annual quota of say 6 rams his quota over 5 years is 30 rams. so in any given year he could take 10 rams instead of 6 as long as he didn't take more than 30 in five years. The goabc asked for this so it would be easier for them to achieve their allocated harvest share. so if it can apply to non residents why can't it apply to residents. Say a resident has a trip planned and due to unforseen circumstances he can't go or he does go and the weather makes it impossible to hunt etc. why not give residents a five year quota of say 4 rams and allow them to take 50% (two rams) of their five year quota in any given year provided they don't exceed their five year quota. Or say a resident draws an leh sheep tag and can't go that year why not let him go the next year after all he is probably only going to draw that tag once in a lifetime. the overhall harvest is not affected so what's the harm? How do you like that idea? Now before you get all riled up I have not considered this option in a serious vein but it might be food for thought. It might help residents acheive their allocated share simliar to a two week resident only season in region 6. if we extend that harvest strategy to guide outfitters why not to residents as well?

Bridger,

I would never vote in favour of a two week pre-season in region 6. Stupid idea in my opinion. Never once was the question asked "how will it affect the sheep? What is the potential ecological impact if we are in there in mid July?" The only concern was to get in there and "get the rams before the outfitter does, and that reason was clearly given". Been in on all the meetings where this was presented. You know, I might have consided it if they had come up with an idea whereby the outfitter's season was delayed by a week so that residents could hunt August 1st but non-resident's not until the next week. But as so often, the greed overshadowed the decision making and the wildlife wasn't considered.

Transferable quota for residents. You kinda have a couple seperate proposals mixed together here.

#1- Two sheep in one year: Should never be an option. Greedy.... Nobody needs to kill more than one ram a year. And that's where you lose me......

#2 - Guy gets an LEH sheep draw and then can't go? Then it should be like Bison where he can turn the authorization back in and gives someone else the chance, or prioritize and go on the "once in a lifetime" LEH sheep hunt.

Of all the one's I've heard of recent, the only idea I would have an easier time supporting would be the removal of the full curl restriction in region 6. A resident could go shoot any ram. I doubt that many sheep hunters are looking for immature rams anyways, so its not likely to change harvest numbers drastically, but would move it closer to achieving resident share of AAH. It would also prevent the current scenario of some illegal rams being shot and left on mountains each year. Of course if this were implemented, we would first need some pretty solid inventory numbers at the onset and then close monitoring to ensure it wasn't going to adversely affect the sheep populations in a given area. Yes, I know that the current science says it won't but proof is in the pudding.
Just my two cents. You asked.

[BCrams]

A lot of resident hunters are likely tuning into this. We should back up a bit seeing as Whisky didn't want to educate himself - then many will probably understand why the bickering is happening today. BCWF had no choice but to get drawn in to defend residents. Its no coincidence the Resident Hunter Preservation Fund was created in order to counter the tactics of the GOABC to limit and prohibit resident hunters in BC even more. Greed on residents part? I don't think so and you can also form your own opinion.

The allocation policy itself is very transparent and very clear and it can be viewed at:

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/harvest_alloc/

The below is very important for all species including sheep where the allocation issue is front and center here.

A few key points to follow:

Why was the policy created?

In the past, decisions had been made through long, and sometimes heated, negotiations amongst staff and stakeholders. A new Harvest Allocation Policy and Procedure was needed:

To implement a decision-making process that is more objective, data-based, and amicable; and
To determine allocation outcomes that are more achievable, efficient, and reflective of stakeholders’ interests.Pretty easy to follow so far? I can present this to a whole auditorium and there'll be agreement to the two points above.

Everyone (stakeholders including GOABC) after years of negotiations agreed and signed off all the papers and walked away from the table happy!! Quite simple so far.

In 2004 a task group was formed to hammer out a policy everyone could agree to.....that was March 2007!

They are:

BC Wildlife Federation
Guide Outfitters Association of BC,
BC Trappers Association, and
Ministry of Environment.The policy was created by the above task group and keep in mind, the GOABC provided great input the whole way through as did the other members!!

The policy was created using "Guiding Principles" that all agreed to.

They are: Pay attention to the final group bullets!!

Wildlife Resources


Conservation of wildlife species is the first priority.
Hunting, Guiding and Trapping Opportunities

Hunting, guiding and trapping are traditional, recognized and legitimate uses of the wildlife

resources which balance important social, cultural, and economic benefits for British Columbians.

British Columbia provides a diversity of hunting, guiding and trapping opportunities which must be maintained and managed for future generations.

Maximize hunting, guiding and trapping opportunities.

Realize fair social and economic returns to the Province for the use of the wildlife resources.

Provide quality hunting opportunities for all hunters

Foster a healthy business environment that is supportive of businesses and local economies.

Decisions regarding hunting opportunities will reflect the priority and interests of British Columbia resident hunters.

Wildlife Allocation Policies & Procedures

The policies and procedures will be clearly understood, not ambiguous and be applied consistently in all regions of the province.
The policies and procedures will be practical, deliverable and measurable.
The policies and procedures will be fair to all parties involved – BC hunters, guide outfitters and trappers.
The implementation of the policies and procedures will be an effective and mutually respectful process for all parties that facilitate sound management of hunting and trapping use of BC’s wildlife resources.

And so the POLICY was developed on the above principles after years of discussion!! Everyone was happy and it was signed. BCWF was happy, Trappers Association was happy, GOABC was happy, and so was the MOE. Pretty good so far!! Easy to follow!!



Now .... since the signing off of the Policy things got real interesting ... I am sure you readers can already guess and put together the bits you've heard / read about what the GOABC have done the last couple years .... and a lot of it when the ink was still drying after everyone signed off.

GOABC appealing quota cuts
GOABC's Economic Viability Paper - basically lobby to kill off resident hunter opportunities
GOABC appealing to have sheep quotas removed (i.e., unlimited harvest)
GOABC members appealing sheep quota cuts
GOABC lobbying for LEH sheep hunts
GOABC wanting to bump implementation of Policy another 5 years
GOABC lobbying for more LEH hunts for residents
GOABC lobbying for trophy management which = Point restrictions, LEH

and holy shit does the list go on .........:?

Why the hell they even bothered signing the Policy in good faith after years of negotiations is beyond me. Especially in light of the Guiding Principles.


You, as a resident hunter, have every right to be pissed off with these tactics that are designed to erode your hunting opportunities.


I've always been a supporter of a viable GO opperations in BC but when they start pulling the rug out from residents like that ...........



Its no wonder the BCWF are up in arms having to defend everyone.


GG, Bridger, 6616 and many others have gone out on a limb to present the facts as they are. Now you know more about the policy. Following the above points, you should definatly be going, "Hey what gives?"


With this bickering it seems the GOABC has forgotten the very foundation in which the policy was developed!! Its transparent and easy to follow and if it wasn't for BCWF and the Resident Preservation Fund - our hunting opportunities would be going downhill pretty fast.



So simple - my 5 year old can understand the dynamics of 60:40 using jellybeans as sheep. With 60% for residents and 40% for non-residents.

Her being a resident and myself pretending to be a GO with a higher share of "sheep".


Her solution: "You should give back some sheep so its 60 for me and 40 for you"


"What if I don't want to....."


"Well thats not nice."


She's right fellas. GO's just aren't playing nice.

[Mr. Dean]

It's disturbing to me st see resident hunters labelled as selfish "we, we, we" people, when the reality is that since the onset of this controversy in 2007, resident hunters and the BCWF have only been resisting and reacting to the continuous and relentless "more, more , more" onslaught of the GOABC.

The Truth!
Amen.

[GoatGuy]

Bridger,

I would never vote in favour of a two week pre-season in region 6. Stupid idea in my opinion. Never once was the question asked "how will it affect the sheep? What is the potential ecological impact if we are in there in mid July?" The only concern was to get in there and "get the rams before the outfitter does, and that reason was clearly given". Been in on all the meetings where this was presented. You know, I might have consided it if they had come up with an idea whereby the outfitter's season was delayed by a week so that residents could hunt August 1st but non-resident's not until the next week. But as so often, the greed overshadowed the decision making and the wildlife wasn't considered.

I believe having it start August 1st was also discussed but the discussion at the sheep meeting with GOABC but were told that it would impact outfitters. So, it's more accomodating the commercial sector, but you could certainly push it to August 1st, if you want.

In terms of sheep there are other jurisdictions you could always pick up the phone and ask the folks in one of the neighbouring jurisdictions, or ask the ungulate specialist here in BC.


#1- Two sheep in one year: Should never be an option. Greedy.... Nobody needs to kill more than one ram a year. And that's where you lose me......

If it's sustainable, which it would be across most of BC, it has nothing to do with conservation. We're back to social opinions. I thought you were Mr.Conservation?


#2 - Guy gets an LEH sheep draw and then can't go? Then it should be like Bison where he can turn the authorization back in and gives someone else the chance, or prioritize and go on the "once in a lifetime" LEH sheep hunt.

At the end of the day it makes no difference if you turn it back or simply release enough LEH to start with. There is little to no risk in a full curl LEH authorization. What you're saying is entirely social and costs significantly more to administer. Personally, I'd rather have money spent on inventory than paying somebody to re-issue LEH tags.

The concept is based entirely on fear-mongering, particularly for a full-curl regulation. It is a socially based concept.


Of all the one's I've heard of recent, the only idea I would have an easier time supporting would be the removal of the full curl restriction in region 6. A resident could go shoot any ram. I doubt that many sheep hunters are looking for immature rams anyways, so its not likely to change harvest numbers drastically, but would move it closer to achieving resident share of AAH. It would also prevent the current scenario of some illegal rams being shot and left on mountains each year. Of course if this were implemented, we would first need some pretty solid inventory numbers at the onset and then close monitoring to ensure it wasn't going to adversely affect the sheep populations in a given area. Yes, I know that the current science says it won't but proof is in the pudding.
Just my two cents. You asked.

Hm, interesting of all your 'proposals' this has the most risk, would minimize the potential harvestable surplus, and would cost the most to administer.

Not that it wouldn't be unsustainable in many of the areas but there are some spots in Region 6 that it wouldn't work.

So you're picking the riskiest and most expensive solution. Your conception of wildlife management is based on your personal opinion, not science, or even conservation.

It's always amazing how people show up to a meeting and talk about conservation and sustainability and then pick the riskiest option. In your mind I'm sure you're worried about sheep and that sheep come first and foremost - that is genuine. But when you pick regulations and options you pick them socially and the only person those regulations are good for is you. You need to sit down and have a chat with a biologist.

[SHAKER]

Shaker,

I haven't checked them but I am assuming that bridger's data numbers are probably correct. What Willy and I am saying is that the likley intent of posting the data (51%) with further explanatory information and background of what it means it for one purpose only. Stirring sh#%!
It leads the uniformed reader to think that the gov't is giving away half of our sheep and limiting us in getting one. The truth is, ANY BC RESIDENT can go and shoot a ram in region 7 if they have the skill and desire.
You want the facts instead of eating up what people feed you?
Go and sit in on meetings where BCWF, MOE and GOABC are all present.
Usually, if all parties aree sitting across the table from each other you are able to decipher the truth from what is being said.



LOL......... Yeah been threw a bunch on them meeting, just a complete waste of time for the most part. Graphs and #'s showing everything is just fine! Question any of the info and I find that I get shot down because of "you have lack of knowlege and you really haven't been involved long enough to comment" total copouts IMO. You sit on one side of the fence and I sit on the other, which makes it really hard for us to see eye to eye.

[Whisky Creek]

GoatGuy,

You said, "If it's sustainable, which it would be across most of BC, it has nothing to do with conservation. We're back to social opinions. I thought you were Mr.Conservation?"
Cripes you got a thick skull. I can't count the number of times I've used the word greed in this thread and then you still can't seem to figure out I have troubles with both? Conservation and Social aspects?
You hear what you want and are quite articulate in presenting BS to whoever will listen, I'll give you that. So much so, I long ago quit reading reports and emails that originated with you or had your name attached.
It is almost always a big waste of time. You can't see the big picture if you live in a box and keep it closed to protect your platform at all costs.
Think outside of your little box once in a while.

BCRams,

I do appreciate the amount of time you put into your last post. Lots of informations, albeit, quite eloquent and rhetorical at times.
Our perceptions of history and fact differs in cases. But that is fine.

Seriously though, you don't think you allocation guys are just a little bit radical? Playing 60:40 jellybean allocation games with your 5 yr old child?

I think my point that you guys are also at fault and perpetuate the problem by allowing this issue to overshadow and invade every aspect of your decision making, and life, is quite true. You know what? I take my kids fishing or bird hunting to help them understand the importance and value of our wildlife instead of playing allocation games.... Different strokes for different folks I reckon.....

[Whisky Creek]

LOL......... Yeah been threw a bunch on them meeting, just a complete waste of time for the most part. Graphs and #'s showing everything is just fine! Question any of the info and I find that I get shot down because of "you have lack of knowlege and you really haven't been involved long enough to comment" total copouts IMO. You sit on one side of the fence and I sit on the other, which makes it really hard for us to see eye to eye.

I agree Shaker. You don't have to look any farther than the posts from some of your reps here on this thread for the proof. GoatGuy is especially good at.

[GoatGuy]

GoatGuy,

You said, "If it's sustainable, which it would be across most of BC, it has nothing to do with conservation. We're back to social opinions. I thought you were Mr.Conservation?"
Cripes you got a thick skull. I can't count the number of times I've used the word greed in this thread and then you still can't seem to figure out I have troubles with both? Conservation and Social aspects?
You hear what you want and are quite articulate in presenting BS to whoever will listen, I'll give you that. So much so, I long ago quit reading reports and emails that originated with you or had your name attached.
It is almost always a big waste of time. You can't see the big picture if you live in a box and keep it closed to protect your platform at all costs.
Think outside of your little box once in a while.


If you can't distinguish between social factors and sustainability how are we supposed to have a conversation about managing wildlife and secondly managing hunters?

Your solution is the most expensive and riskiest out of the lot.

How is that putting wildlife first? Without realizing it, you're actually putting hunting first because that's what you base your 'personal opinion' on.

'Personally', I'd rather deal with the sheep first and the hunters second, not the other way around.

[BCrams]

[quote]
I do appreciate the amount of time you put into your last post. Lots of informations, albeit, quite eloquent and rhetorical at times.


Nothing but straight up facts bud :-D

Past infighting / disagreements was the reason the task force was put together in order to develop the Policy based on agreed guiding principles...of which the GOABC was actively involved in developing. Very clear and anyone reading it can agree with it.



Seriously though, you don't think you allocation guys are just a little bit radical? Playing 60:40 jellybean allocation games with your 5 yr old child?


She loves math and she's good at it. Something to do with leftovers after baking a b-day cake. The simplicity of harvest ratio discrepancies between GO's and residents is plain as day .... now remember the agreed Policy ... who's fighting against the implemenation and the success of all the hard work the task force put into? I'm sure even you can wrap your head about the splits!!


I think my point that you guys are also at fault and perpetuate the problem by allowing this issue to overshadow and invade every aspect of your decision making, and life, is quite true.

You think so? Explain this one: It costs the GOABC 25 dollars to file an appeal of quota's. It ends up in court and they show up all lawyered up. Well damn ... do you expect BCWF to sit back and do nothing and let them go roughshod and with disregard to the Policy they agreed on?? And BCWF have to voluntarily go and represent using valuable time and resources. Have you heard of residents filing appeals since the Policy agreement? Didn't think so.


You know what? I take my kids fishing or bird hunting to help them understand the importance and value of our wildlife instead of playing allocation games....

So do I :mrgreen: (just don't tell your kids you're in favour of an any ram season because dude .... thats probably the worst case scenario "conservation wise" .... remember - you want them to understand the importance and value of our wildlife ;) )

[bigwhiteys]

As Deaddog already stated, as a group resident hunters in 7B have no impedements on their ability to hunt sheep. Buy a tag and go. Nobody stopped BCR from harvesting his ram this past summer and look at him whine.

With a GOS we aren't meeting the allocation? I see no reason to support any kind of special concessions for residents such as headstarts or anyram etc... Better education for sheep hunters is where it should start.




So simple - my 5 year old can understand the dynamics of 60:40 using jellybeans as sheep. With 60% for residents and 40% for non-residents.


Her being a resident and myself pretending to be a GO with a higher share of "sheep".
Her solution: "You should give back some sheep so its 60 for me and 40 for you"
"What if I don't want to....."
"Well thats not nice."
She's right fellas. GO's just aren't playing nice.



But what if her tummy was so full, she couldn't EAT those extra Jelly Beans????


Kind of like how as residents, we cannot kill all the sheep we think we are entitled too without special concessions being made for us?


Look at regions where it's a problem. Let's leave 7B alone.


The TWO ram in one year idea is interesting. I wouldn't object to TWO rams per year of different species.


The ability to buy a thinhorn or bighorn tag or both and be able to kill one of each, probably wouldn't have that much of an impact, would increase opportunity and participation and with the success rates being low anyways, might not make that much of a difference? Just a thought.


Carl

[SHAKER]

I agree Shaker. You don't have to look any farther than the posts from some of your reps here on this thread for the proof. GoatGuy is especially good at.


Ummm I don't think thats who I was referring to, maybe I should clairify it's not my reps talk'n me down at the MOE meetings. And it wasn't the MOE staff either... MOE can usually answer the question properly and don't have to try and discredit everthing your trying to say with lame or smart assed retorts. Sorry I'll try and be more blunt next time.

[Whisky Creek]

BigWhiteys:
Yep, for sure, I would have absolutely no problem with two rams in one season IF they were different species.
Excellent jelly bean/full belly analogy! Exactly the point!

BCRams and GoatGuy,
For clarification, I have voted AGAINST all of the sheep "harvest increasing" ideas I have heard from bcwf reps so far. I said the "one" idea I would have an easier time with would be dropping the horn curl restriction. I do not support it.
Sorry if that wasn't clear, but as usual you only hear what you want, twist it around and then try to use it.
On an open forum like this you won't admit it, but internal documents and correspondence sure reveal it.
I've been privy to those in the past and the two faced scheming that is rampant sickens me.
Most folks will never be able to see that though, so say what you will.....

[willy442]

If you can't distinguish between social factors and sustainability how are we supposed to have a conversation about managing wildlife and secondly managing hunters?

Social factors are really where your focus is from my understanding. As it is right now, no one is prevented from buying a tag and hunting sheep. No one in any area is reaching thier allocation. Yet you support more allocation and opportunity for residents( no care or provision for conservation other than your believe the herds can sustain the pressure). If you recieved it who is going to hunt these animals allowing you to reach the allocation you're so hung up on. My suggestion is it will just open another book for you to start crying about needing special seasons to assist the resident. Carrying on the old BCWF shit stirring ways to prevent any real advancement in user groups working together.

Your solution is the most expensive and riskiest out of the lot.

Are you really saying that we must manage our wildlife resources by taking the cheapest route every time and hope the end results work out?

How is that putting wildlife first? Without realizing it, you're actually putting hunting first because that's what you base your 'personal opinion' on.

I have never in all your posts seen anything that actually would enhance wildlife. Yes I've seen lots of crap that you're trying to sell as being the way it really is out there. Again what is the issue until some user group reaches thier allocation. What is wrong with a few extra sheep on the mountains. Or is it just the fact that you haven't been able to find a good one and you require special assisstance to be successful?

'Personally', I'd rather deal with the sheep first and the hunters second, not the other way around.

"PERSONALLY" I'd like to see you and the BCWF do something for sheep first. It would be a ground breaking accomplishment.

[GoatGuy]

BigWhiteys:
Yep, for sure, I would have absolutely no problem with two rams in one season IF they were different species.
Excellent jelly bean/full belly analogy! Exactly the point!

BCRams and GoatGuy,
For clarification, I have voted AGAINST all of the sheep "harvest increasing" ideas I have heard from bcwf reps so far. I said the "one" idea I would have the easiest time with would be dropping the horn curl restriction. I do not support it.
Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Point is why would you have the easiest time supporting the riskiest and most expensive proposal? It really makes no sense.

The reason 'we' apparently don't see eye to eye is because you don't get conservation or sustainability.

You think the way and when we kill sheep will affect the population when it is actually the sex, age and number of sheep killed that will affect the population.

I really don't know how I can help you understand the difference. I think you genuinely care but you are so wrapped up in your own 'opinions' that you don't look at what's sustainable.

[6616]

Any ram is not the way to go and never will be. We had that once in BC, Yukon and Alaska for thinhorns and went to full curl for good reasons and it wasn't to control the harvest levels.

It was well researched and documented in the Heimer, Carey/Dehn, and Hik/Carey papers how the any ram, 1/2 curl, or 3/4 curl regulations resulted in a shortage of mature rams in the populations of heavily hunted bands. And these papers also demonstrated how the shortage of mature rams throws the rut into complete chaos, increases immature ram mortality by huge amounts, and reduces reproduction rates, often throwing the entire population into a decline mode. These studies were what resulted in the NA wide full curl regulations, and it's really interesting to note that in the Yukon after a few years on the full curl reg harvest levels were right back up to where they were before the full curl reg, but without the disasterous effects of the pre-full curl harvest.

There are no any ram hunts in NA that are GOS as far as I know. LEH with a very modest harvest percentage is a must if that approach is adopted. Any other solution that is sustainable would be better than an any ram season. The full curl regulation is almost like a fail-safe scenario and protects against over-harvest irregardless of what harvest strategy is used. Without it we would be subjecting the sheep bands to unnecessary risk.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Whisky Creek

Who did you represent at all these meetings that you sat in on and voted???

SSS

[CanuckShooter]

Any ram is not the way to go and never will be. We had that once in BC, Yukon and Alaska for thinhorns and went to full curl for good reasons and it wasn't to control the harvest levels.

It was well researched and documented in the Heimer, Carey/Dehn, and Hik/Carey papers how the any ram, 1/2 curl, or 3/4 curl regulations resulted in a shortage of mature rams in the populations of heavily hunted bands. And these papers also demonstrated how the shortage of mature rams throws the rut into complete chaos, increases immature ram mortality by huge amounts, and reduces reproduction rates, often throwing the entire population into a decline mode.These studies were what resulted in the NA wide full curl regulations, and it's really interesting to note that in the Yukon after a few years on the full curl reg harvest levels were right back up to where they were before the full curl reg, but without the disasterous effects of the pre-full curl harvest.

There are no any ram hunts in NA that are GOS as far as I know. LEH with a very modest harvest percentage is a must if that approach is adopted. Any other solution that is sustainable would be better than an any ram season. The full curl regulation is almost like a fail-safe scenario and protects against over-harvest irregardless of what harvest strategy is used. Without it we would be subjecting the sheep bands to unnecessary risk.


I find this pretty interesting....anyone have a reasonable idea why this would be so with sheep [killing smaller animals bad for population] and not with moose or other ungulates?? We regulate for open seasons for smaller moose/deer so why do sheep populations show a different effect???

[BCrams]

Look at regions where it's a problem. Let's leave 7B alone.


7B is pretty close to being good. They've made good progress there with a near 50/50. Due in part to GO quota cuts.

I'm referring to Region 6! They've dug their heels in pretty good.

With region 6 - what some folks are realizing is as with the Oestrich example of a 22 sheep quota .... you can't eat what isn't there ;)

And what is there ... they don't want residents to eat!

[Stone Sheep Steve]

I find this pretty interesting....anyone have a reasonable idea why this would be so with sheep [killing smaller animals bad for population] and not with moose or other ungulates?? We regulate for open seasons for smaller moose/deer so why do sheep populations show a different effect???


Here's some reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

[GoatGuy]

"PERSONALLY" I'd like to see you and the BCWF do something for sheep first. It would be a ground breaking accomplishment.

The BCWF does their little bit as do other organizations such as Wild Sheep and guide-outfitters.

Pretty sure the folks at the North Peace Rod and Gun club raise a bunch of money for inventory work and projects. Certainly over a million bucks since Rich got involved.

In Region 4, the folks have participated in all the transplants as well as the ER committee, the sheep committee and they also do or help out on the winter classification counts. Checking ear tags and following collared sheep around blah blah blah. Pretty sure 6616 just about died on the side of a mountain a couple years ago on one of the transplants. :wink:

In region 8, there's a count (supported by F&W) next week that's been going on for 60+ years as well as the feeding program they used to do. Getting burns organized, flights, inventory, out of pocket expenses etc. The Keremeos-Cawston folks do their feeding program every year as well because the winter range is covered in trees. Also transplants, but that's pretty minor as compared to the ongoing annual work that these folks do. Fencing projects as well in Region 8.

I'm sure there's much more in other regions, just don't know about it. Yes, there has been outfitter help, particularly in the Peace on a lot of that stuff. It would be fairly shallow to think a lot of those projects haven't had contributions from both sides although it depends on the area and the outfitter.

Anyways..................:roll:

[CanuckShooter]

Here's some reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory


Thanks for that, but holycow!! I don't think my comprehension is up to garnering too much from that!!!!:mrgreen:

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Thanks for that, but holycow!! I don't think my comprehension is up to garnering too much from that!!!!:mrgreen:

There are certainly better reads on the subject. I just grabbed the quickest info.:wink:

SSS

[Ferenc]

Any Body Know How Many Sheep Were Taken By Bc Residents By Being Guided Through The Bc Guideoutfitters Association

[Fisher-Dude]

The BCWF does their little bit as do other organizations such as Wild Sheep and guide-outfitters.

Pretty sure the folks at the North Peace Rod and Gun club raise a bunch of money for inventory work and projects. Certainly over a million bucks since Rich got involved.

In Region 4, the folks have participated in all the transplants as well as the ER committee, the sheep committee and they also do or help out on the winter classification counts. Checking ear tags and following collared sheep around blah blah blah. Pretty sure 6616 just about died on the side of a mountain a couple years ago on one of the transplants. :wink:

In region 8, there's a count (supported by F&W) next week that's been going on for 60+ years as well as the feeding program they used to do. Getting burns organized, flights, inventory, out of pocket expenses etc. The Keremeos-Cawston folks do their feeding program every year as well because the winter range is covered in trees. Also transplants, but that's pretty minor as compared to the ongoing annual work that these folks do. Fencing projects as well in Region 8.

I'm sure there's much more in other regions, just don't know about it. Yes, there has been outfitter help, particularly in the Peace on a lot of that stuff. It would be fairly shallow to think a lot of those projects haven't had contributions from both sides although it depends on the area and the outfitter.

Anyways..................:roll:

Yes, and the BCWF folk do it for love of the animals and no expectation of financial reward.

However, a certain GO that we know of gets a "bonus" sheep tag in return for helping with some fencing work, as we discussed with MoE representatives just 2 short days ago. I wonder what Sheep Sherriffs think of GOs getting more quota for doing what BCWF people do for free?

[6616]

I find this pretty interesting....anyone have a reasonable idea why this would be so with sheep [killing smaller animals bad for population] and not with moose or other ungulates?? We regulate for open seasons for smaller moose/deer so why do sheep populations show a different effect???

Moose, elk, deer, etc are R-Selected species which are non-density dependent species that reproduce very quickly and under stable conditions reproduce a significant excess of calves, fawns, etc, than are required for recruitment. White-tailed deer for example will reproduce over 200 fawns/100 does annually even though only 20 to 25 fawns/100 does may be needed for recruitment. These species have a very high mortality rate among calves/fawns and yearlings and harvest/mortality is largely compensatory. They are best kept at a low percentage of carrying capacity, 50% to 70% depending on the species.

Sheep, goats, grizzlies, etc and K-Selected (density dependent) species. Their populations are often at 100% of carrying capacity under stable conditions. They reproduce much slower and offspring are not reproduced at such a large excess and are much more valuable to the population well-being. Mortality of young is usually much more additive than it is with R-Selected species. It is thus best to only harvest the oldest critters that have already made their contribution to the population.

Google: [R-selected vrs K-selected], and [compensatory mortality vrs additive mortality] for more info, or PM BCRams who has a degree on this topic.

[CanuckShooter]

Moose, elk, deer, etc are R-Selected species which are non-density dependent species that reproduce very quickly and under stable conditions reproduce a significant excess of calves, fawns, etc, than are required for recruitment. White-tailed deer for example will reproduce over 200 fawns/100 does annually even though only 20 to 25 fawns/100 does may be needed for recruitment. These species have a very high mortality rate among calves/fawns and yearlings and harvest/mortality is largely compensatory. They are best kept at a low percentage of carrying capacity, 50% to 70% depending on the species.

Sheep, goats, grizzlies, etc and K-Selected (density dependent) species. Their populations are often at 100% of carrying capacity under stable conditions. They reproduce much slower and offspring are not reproduced at such a large excess and are much more valuable to the population well-being. Mortality of young is usually much more additive than it is with R-Selected species. It is thus best to only harvest the oldest critters that have already made their contribution to the population.

Google: [R-selected vrs K-selected], and [compensatory mortality vrs additive mortality] for more info, or PM BCRams who has a degree on this topic.


Thanks, that make some sense at least!!! Now that my question has been answered I'll just go back to lurking on this thread!!:mrgreen:

[Whisky Creek]

Whisky Creek

Who did you represent at all these meetings that you sat in on and voted???

SSS

Answered in PM.

[snareman1234]

I find this pretty interesting....anyone have a reasonable idea why this would be so with sheep [killing smaller animals bad for population] and not with moose or other ungulates?? We regulate for open seasons for smaller moose/deer so why do sheep populations show a different effect???


Not sure if it is an r/K species thing, I see where the association comes in,

But I think all these mammals are K-selective.

I would say it is due to abundance of game and increasing opportunity, and substituting natural mortality for harvest.

The harvest of smaller deer and moose increase resident opportunity because some people just want meat, and some of these animals won't make it through the winter anyways. Also, the deer and moose populations are widespread and relatively dense compared to sheep, therefore, the harvest of young, immature animals, which increases total harvest, can be done sustainably.

Where as with sheep, they have imposed a "safeguard" with the full curl restrictions, so that the population does not recieve a harsh blow from the hunting community and possibly compromise the future of the population. By managing a full curl only, the smaller, segmented populations can be assured to always have younger, but mature rams for breeding, and still the odd bruiser that made it through.


This is just a theory, snareman theory...hopefully not to be attacked

[SHAKER]

[QUOTE=GoatGuy;846077] The Keremeos-Cawston folks do their feeding program every year as well because the winter range is covered in trees.


Not feeding........ Nutrition suplementing!:wink:

[GoatGuy]

[quote=GoatGuy;846077]

Not feeding........ Nutrition suplementing!:wink:

rodger.............:mrgreen:

[Whisky Creek]

Do you see how "facts" get distorted, rearranged and represented by some of you guys??? Dropping the "full curl" restriction was an idea that has been presented by bcwf reps multiple times.
Now in the last couple pages, GoatGuy, 6616 and BCRams have come down on me to tell me why this is such a bad idea and not a conservation minded opinion to have. Again, this was not my idea, it was yours (as the bcwf) and I am not in support of it.
BUT, like a pack of junk yard dogs who have been thrown a bone, they are slobbering all over themselves to devour it, and then tell the the guy who threw it to them how bad it tastes after the fact......
"Yeah, we wanted it and we'll take it but we don't like it, but we get to kill more sheep, so we'll take it...... if you give it to us...."

IT WAS PRESENTED AND VOTED FOR BY PEOPLE REPRESENTING THE BCWF AS A PROPOSAL AND REQUEST TO MOE...... IT IS IN THE MINUTES OF MORE THAN ONE MEETING.

Maybe you should go slobber on them about it and get your "official internal position" straightened out. Then direct your reps around the province.

[6616]

, this was not my idea, it was yours (as the bcwf) .

I do not ever recall that being proposed by the BCWF, maybe recognized as an option in discussion, but never officially proposed...!!!!

[6616]

Do you see how "facts" get distorted, rearranged and represented .

Yes,,,, you appear to be pretty good at it...!
That is exactly what you are doing.

[Kirby]

Whisky Creek

Who did you represent at all these meetings that you sat in on and voted???

SSS

X2 curious as to who you were there with/for.

Kirby

[6616]

X2 curious as to who you were there with/for.

Kirby


Let me take a wild guess,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Bulkley Valley Rod and Gun Club (BCWF affiliate)............... ??????

[Whisky Creek]

6616,

No actually I never voted on behalf of them on anything sheep related.
You're pretty good at being a ***** aren't you 6616? First I have to officially warn you about using my company name in posts, now you come up with this huh? Are you now trying to make an individual club look bad?
Focus on the issues, less on making it personal.

[GoatGuy]

Do you see how "facts" get distorted, rearranged and represented by some of you guys??? Dropping the "full curl" restriction was an idea that has been presented by bcwf reps multiple times.
Now in the last couple pages, GoatGuy, 6616 and BCRams have come down on me to tell me why this is such a bad idea and not a conservation minded opinion to have. Again, this was not my idea, it was yours (as the bcwf) and I am not in support of it.
BUT, like a pack of junk yard dogs who have been thrown a bone, they are slobbering all over themselves to devour it, and then tell the the guy who threw it to them how bad it tastes after the fact......
"Yeah, we wanted it and we'll take it but we don't like it, but we get to kill more sheep, so we'll take it...... if you give it to us...."

IT WAS PRESENTED AND VOTED FOR BY PEOPLE REPRESENTING THE BCWF AS A PROPOSAL AND REQUEST TO MOE...... IT IS IN THE MINUTES OF MORE THAN ONE MEETING.

Maybe you should go slobber on them about it and get your "official internal position" straightened out. Then direct your reps around the province.

We're talking about your attitude and inability to distinguish between social factors and conservation.

You picked the riskiest and most expensive option for 'the sheep' and you don't like the other options that you've talked about because of conservation?

It makes no sense. Your thought process isn't rational. Who in there right mind would sniff at the riskiest proposal of the lot and turn their nose up at the others if their first care was for wildlife? You've put your desires at the front of the pack, completely ignoring wildlife management.

If you don't understand how the science works it will be impossible to understand the complexities of the social factors associated with hunting, nevermind trying to separate the two.

Understanding that, it's easy to see why you're so frustrated and why all the responses and jumping around. I 'get it'.

[Whisky Creek]

Let me take a wild guess,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Bulkley Valley Rod and Gun Club (BCWF affiliate)............... ??????

Oh so now the affiliate and regional association bcwf reps don't speak for and represent BCWF???? Yet BCWF sure makes sure they include those club's numbers to strengthen their position, "38,000 members strong".
They also sure call on those "affiliates" when it comes to the AGM, donations and funding....

I guess their bargaining power would not quite be the same if you were present to gov't that you were an association of a few dozen folks in various committees, who by default have 38,000 people using their insurance policy.....

[Kody94]

Oh so now the affiliate and regional association bcwf reps don't speak for and represent BCWF???? Yet BCWF sure makes sure they include those club's numbers to strengthen their position, "38,000 members strong".
They also sure call on those "affiliates" when it comes to the AGM, donations and funding....

I guess their bargaining power would not quite be the same if you were present to gov't that you were an association of a few dozen folks in various committees, who by default have 38,000 people using their insurance policy.....

That's kinda like if you said that you represent the government of BC.

Each club is just one voice that forms the overall direction of the BCWF. They do not represent the BCWF per se, the BCWF represents them.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Something is really starting to smell fishy.

SSS

[Whisky Creek]

Kody,

Oh, I guess it confuses me when at the introduction stage of the meeting the regional bcwf rep introduces themselves as "representing the bcwf"...... Who said the rep was a local club member? I think a better analogy would be that they are kinda like the MLA's representing the BC gov't.

[6616]

6616,

No actually I never voted on behalf of them on anything sheep related.
You're pretty good at being a JackAss aren't you 6616. First I have to officially warn you about using my company name in posts, now you come up with this huh? Are you now trying to make an individual club look bad?
Focus on the issues, less on making it personal.

Nothing wrong with the club or the NWF&W Assn. in my books, both good orgs. I'm thinking neither group would support your current position.

[willy442]

The BCWF does their little bit as do other organizations such as Wild Sheep and guide-outfitters.

Pretty sure the folks at the North Peace Rod and Gun club raise a bunch of money for inventory work and projects. Certainly over a million bucks since Rich got involved.

In Region 4, the folks have participated in all the transplants as well as the ER committee, the sheep committee and they also do or help out on the winter classification counts. Checking ear tags and following collared sheep around blah blah blah. Pretty sure 6616 just about died on the side of a mountain a couple years ago on one of the transplants. :wink:

In region 8, there's a count (supported by F&W) next week that's been going on for 60+ years as well as the feeding program they used to do. Getting burns organized, flights, inventory, out of pocket expenses etc. The Keremeos-Cawston folks do their feeding program every year as well because the winter range is covered in trees. Also transplants, but that's pretty minor as compared to the ongoing annual work that these folks do. Fencing projects as well in Region 8.

I'm sure there's much more in other regions, just don't know about it. Yes, there has been outfitter help, particularly in the Peace on a lot of that stuff. It would be fairly shallow to think a lot of those projects haven't had contributions from both sides although it depends on the area and the outfitter.

Anyways..................:roll:

Yes all that stuff you mentioned is ongoing and it at one time was all done by outfitters. Outfitters even used to donate hunts to finance these projects. That mostly stopped though once the federation screwed up the FNAWS involvement.

The question was more directed to what have you done other than compile others information and twist it to best suit your agenda.

[Whisky Creek]

Nothing wrong with the club or the NWF&W Assn. in my books, both good orgs. I'm thinking neither group would support your current position.

I could care less and have affiliation with neither of them. The two clubs I have membership in have elected to NOT be affiliated with BCWF, a trend I think you will see gain momentum in the future.

[Gateholio]

Like quite a few sheep threads, people on here start name calling.

Please refrain from it, I'll be giving out infractions to those that can't comply. Thanks.

[GoatGuy]

Yes all that stuff you mentioned is ongoing and it at one time was all done by outfitters. Outfitters even used to donate hunts to finance these projects. That mostly stopped though once the federation screwed up the FNAWS involvement.

The question was more directed to what have you done other than compile others information and twist it to best suit your agenda.

I see, so it's residents fault that they are actively involved in these projects? Too funny.

Your post was planned to somehow say that 'outfitters put more into it' blah, blah, blah, and that they should get a bigger share, but that isn't the way it works, sorry. Besides that wildlife stewardship projects are something that should be common between the stakeholders. Why would you want to drive a wedge on this issue?

On the second question, the gloating is best left for the one-ups.:wink:

[Kody94]

Kody,

Oh, I guess it confuses me when at the introduction stage of the meeting the regional bcwf rep introduces themselves as "representing the bcwf"...... Who said the rep was a local club member? I think a better analogy would be that they are kinda like the MLA's representing the BC gov't.

In the case of the Regional Association, your MLA analogy would be more correct (sort of)....but do not forget that the regions don't always agree on policy. Like an MLA may not have the same position on individual issues that the party as a whole has. He would take that issue to caucus, but majority still rules. If that was the case with your Regional Rep, he/she should have been clear on that.

[willy442]

I see, so it's residents fault that they are actively involved in these projects? Too funny.

Your post was planned to somehow say that 'outfitters put more into it' blah, blah, blah, and that they should get a bigger share, but that isn't the way it works, sorry. Besides that wildlife stewardship projects are something that should be common between the stakeholders. Why would you want to drive a wedge on this issue?

On the second question, the gloating is best left for the one-ups.:wink:

Wrong! What I said was: Why all the crap on allocation keeping everyone away from constructive bargaining. When nobody is achieving thier allocations. I see you want your cake and be able to eat it all too! One day soon people will see through your greed and garbage.

[frenchbar]

Shut the whole sheep season down for all for a season ..then do the bargaining...minds will differ a whole lot if that were to happen..the way its going will be a disaster for all partys. jmo.

[GoatGuy]

The current question:


Wrong! What I said was: Why all the crap on allocation keeping everyone away from constructive bargaining.

The question before that:


Yes all that stuff you mentioned is ongoing and it at one time was all done by outfitters. Outfitters even used to donate hunts to finance these projects. That mostly stopped though once the federation screwed up the FNAWS involvement.

The question was more directed to what have you done other than compile others information and twist it to best suit your agenda.

The remark before that:




"PERSONALLY" I'd like to see you and the BCWF do something for sheep first. It would be a ground breaking accomplishment.


I thought those first two questions were about sheep?

Now you think people should be bargaining for allocations again instead of having a policy? And that's what the other posts were about?

Interesting.

[willy442]

The current question:



The question before that:



The remark before that:




I thought those first two questions were about sheep?

Now you think people should be bargaining for allocations again instead of having a policy? And that's what the other posts were about?

Interesting.

Exactly my point, pick the pieces that suit your agenda. You really are a piece of work!

[Whisky Creek]

Rampant in the outfit Willy.... "CFS"

[Whonnock Boy]

This has been an enlightening thread. From my understanding the GOABC is wanting more for their allocation because the Resident harvest rate is not meeting its expectations. Now if the GOABC is given this it would mean more non-resident hunters trying to fill tags. Based on the numbers and success rate that would mean fewer legal rams for the residents to hunt for which would mean a lower success rate for the residents. The resident allocation would then be in decline. As a result would the GOABC be asking for even more tags because the resident harvest allocation is not being met? Looks to me like it would be a slippery slope towards resident sheep hunting extinction. As for the GO that did his good deeds and received another tag for his efforts. 20, 30, 40 g's in his pocket. That is just wrong. Do it for conservation or karma, not so you can get another tag out of the deal.

[Fisher-Dude]

This has been an enlightening thread. From my understanding the GOABC is wanting more for their allocation because the Resident harvest rate is not meeting its expectations. Now if the GOABC is given this it would mean more non-resident hunters trying to fill tags. Based on the numbers and success rate that would mean fewer legal rams for the residents to hunt for which would mean a lower success rate for the residents. The resident allocation would then be in decline. As a result would the GOABC be asking for even more tags because the resident harvest allocation is not being met? Looks to me like it would be a slippery slope towards resident sheep hunting extinction. As for the GO that did his good deeds and received another tag for his efforts. 20, 30, 40 g's in his pocket. That is just wrong. Do it for conservation or karma, not so you can get another tag out of the deal.

You've nailed it.

One would think that as those GO allocations increase, someone who flies choppers and potentially transports materials for GOs stands to make more money too, eh? :wink:

[Buck]

One would think that as those GO allocations increase, someone who flies choppers and potentially transports materials for GOs stands to make more money too, eh?

Somethings rotten in the state of Denmark.

[Sitkaspruce]

Willy442 and WC

I am real curious as to what you would like to see on the sheep mountains of Region 6 and 7??? And

Obviously, from your perspective there is a problem, so to help me (and maybe others) better understand where you are coming from, and I have already asked WC this question before, what are the solutions, so that this and all the other threads before have a resolution. I have not been able to find any solutions to your concerns. (and if I have, tell me the # of the post and I will re-read them)

And please do not tell me the crap about "I cannot come up with one because I will get crucified on here" line of BS, we need to hear your side so that most of us can come up with a judgmental decision....or better yet, start your own thread about your solutions to the sheep allocation and conservation concerns so that this thread can be put back on the proper one.....which I believe was about harvest numbers in Region 7.

I, for one, am serious as to your answer. This banter and verbal judo sh$t gets tiresome and makes me shake my head sometimes.

Cheers

SS

[willy442]

This has been an enlightening thread. From my understanding the GOABC is wanting more for their allocation because the Resident harvest rate is not meeting its expectations. Now if the GOABC is given this it would mean more non-resident hunters trying to fill tags. Based on the numbers and success rate that would mean fewer legal rams for the residents to hunt for which would mean a lower success rate for the residents. The resident allocation would then be in decline. As a result would the GOABC be asking for even more tags because the resident harvest allocation is not being met? Looks to me like it would be a slippery slope towards resident sheep hunting extinction. As for the GO that did his good deeds and received another tag for his efforts. 20, 30, 40 g's in his pocket. That is just wrong. Do it for conservation or karma, not so you can get another tag out of the deal.

The huge point you and others are missing is: The G/O's are not killing thier allocation. Most of them understand that if they do along with the resident harvest there will be no sheep left down the road. The afore mentioned area in region 6 is a prime example, the G/O has 22 permits and never ever attempts to harvest anywhere near that many animals. For an outfit to be able to operate year after year it must try and farm what animals it has within the boundaries of the area they hold a certificate on. In order to do this with any degree of success it is imperative some of the following things take place. (Many believe the G/O just wants to kill everything off. This is rare but there are a few outfits that rape and pilage. I believe they should tarred and feathered, but lets not throw all in one basket.)

Game counts
This includes watching all ages of Sheep, Moose, Caribou and Goat. This coming summers lamb count can tell you alot as to what might be there eight years down the road. In addition to this G/O's, being in the same country year after year allows them to watch these animals grow and the continuation of counting age groups, allows a G/O to make minor corrections in harvestfor hard winters etc. This is the thinking behind thier wanting to be able to harvest thier Quota's with more flexability. In plain terms they still have the same amount of tags but if due to a couple bad winters or resident over harvest, they have the option of reducing thier harvest this year and increase next year in hopes of a better survival rate and more sheep becoming mature. At no time does it increase thier allocation or quota over the five year period. When you really think about it is just proper and responsible game management by those with a vested interest.

Elk and Wolves seem to be able to take care of themselves just fine. However any predator control can greatly assist in an increase of all ungulates. Predator controls are usually done during winter months and those hunts along with hours in the air allow for an excellent opportunity to view especially sheep on the winter ranges. (an excellent time to conduct counts). Bear in mind there are issues that also come along with wolf control, especially thier reproduction rate.

A knowledge of what others are harvesting, including ages in the case of Sheep helps in the manner of allowing the G/O to determine what a realistic harvest should be for the following year and years to come. Remember it takes 8 years to grow a trophy Ram and 5 to 7 for Moose, Caribou and Elk.

The probem we have with the path most want to wander off on now is a poorly constructed plan based on greed and jealousy along with a huge amount of mistrust towards those that actually have, the best localized game counts and information, on a per guide area bases. It is my concern that with the old boy's club in the BCWF and with young up and coming followers like GG that this path will continue to the detriment of all us hunters.

It's long past time that clear thinkers take the helm in the BCWF, give it some credibility and then maybe all the Rod and Gun Clubs in the province would join and present a united front for the resident hunter including myself. However as it is now, it's the same as the last 30 years. One difference is the resident hunter fund, to which I personally donated 1000.00 dollars and have heard nothing much about it since.

Hope this helps clear up some of this thread.

[bigwhiteys]

And please do not tell me the crap about "I cannot come up with one because I will get crucified on here" line of BS, we need to hear your side so that most of us can come up with a judgmental decision....or better yet, start your own thread about your solutions to the sheep allocation and conservation concerns so that this thread can be put back on the proper one.....which I believe was about harvest numbers in Region 7.


The deal about who's killing which sheep needs to be dropped, as neither group at present is meeting their allocation!

A special 2 week season for residents isn't going to make a difference.

Education for resident sheep hunters on where to go would be a good start. I am sure Bridger and BCRams will share all their sheep spots if guys PM them.

If more new sheep hunters knew where to start, more guys might want to start! Even then with the success rates so low, it would take 100 more resident sheep hunters to take 13 more sheep. (based on residents running a 13% success rate - I thought we'd mentioned this before?)

This 2 week special head start BS is BS. The only guys who would be able to take advantage of it are the guys who know where the sheep are. Your average newbie sheep hunter won't have a clue unless they stumble upon a ram.

Carl

[BromBones]

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

[Deaddog]

If more new sheep hunters knew where to start, more guys might want to start! Even then with the success rates so low, it would take 100 more resident sheep hunters to take 13 more sheep. (based on residents running a 13% success rate - I thought we'd mentioned this before?)


Carl[/quote]

Have to agree with Carl on this one, we as residents complain about not being able to meet our allocation allotment, however how many of us actually will help new guys by putting them in good spots??? or better yet taking them with you? I know Carl and a few others have helped new hunters out..however the majority of sheep hunters are closed lipped, I would encourage the new guys to come to the WSS convention, buy beers and sometimes info flows from those with usually little to say:mrgreen:,

[Whisky Creek]

**********

[Stone Sheep Steve]

6616,

No actually I never voted on behalf of them on anything sheep related.
You're pretty good at being a JackAss aren't you 6616. First I have to officially warn you about using my company name in posts, now you come up with this huh? Are you now trying to make an individual club look bad?
Focus on the issues, less on making it personal.


Like quite a few sheep threads, people on here start name calling.

Please refrain from it, I'll be giving out infractions to those that can't comply. Thanks.


BromBones, you are a tool! A real class act.

Well, in one small thread you've managed to call a couple of VERY well respected HBC members names. You're gaining pile of respect on this one, W/C:roll:.

Maybe you could explain to everyone the details of the Skeena System of sheep quotas for the G/O's in Reg 6 and how the quotas got to be the meaningless numbers that they are today(outside of the LEH areas)??

Sorry for the complete hijack.

SSS

[GoatGuy]

The deal about who's killing which sheep needs to be dropped, as neither group at present is meeting their allocation!


In Region 7 both groups are meeting their current allocation.

In Region 6 residents other than the LEH areas and Todagain residents don't actually have an allocation.

[Buck]

BromBones, you are a tool! A real class act.


You're pretty good at being a JackAss aren't you 6616


The two clubs I have membership in have elected to NOT be affiliated with BCWF, a trend I think you will see gain momentum in the future.

With articulate gentlemen like yourself at the Helm of the new order i don't think the BCWF has a worry.Perhaps when you stop ranting you could provide a clear position as Willy did above

[Whisky Creek]

Maybe you could explain to everyone the details of the Skeena System of sheep quotas for the G/O's in Reg 6 and how the quotas got to be the meaningless numbers that they are today(outside of the LEH areas)??


What ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????

I think I stated my specific concerns on pages 13, 16 and 22.

[willy442]

In Region 7 both groups are meeting their current allocation.


How do you figure this if you look at the stats presented in the harvest. In no year since 1993 has the Guides taken even close to thier quota's. In fact in the last year shown 2009 quota's were 102 sheep and they took 88. If the sheep were there it should leave an extra 14 trophy caliber Rams in region 7B for the nonguided.

In Region 6 residents other than the LEH areas and Todagain residents don't actually have an allocation.

I won't get into region six as I don't know all the facts or country there.

[GoatGuy]

I won't get into region six as I don't know all the facts or country there.

In terms of meeting harvest targets, things are currently pretty decent for both sides in 7B.

I use 80% of the AAH as 'pretty decent'. Then it doesn't affect anyone's allocation (so it's being met) and things stay status quo on the calculator side of things.

No big deal, right?

[6616]

I won't get into region six as I don't know all the facts or country there.


The afore mentioned area in region 6 is a prime example, the G/O has 22 permits and never ever attempts to harvest anywhere near that many animals.

Yet you know beyond any shadow of a doubt that this statement you made about a R6 outfitter is true,,, right?

[BCrams]

The deal about who's killing which sheep needs to be dropped, as neither group at present is meeting their allocation!


As I stated before, a near 50/50 split is pretty darned good for 7a ... due in part to moves such as quota cuts to GO's.

Region 6 goes a little deeper when not filling allowable harvest / allocations. The allocations are actually too high. Thats why the example with Oestrich's sheep quota at 22 is too high. He's not filling it because he's conservation minded .... he's not filling it because there just isn't 22 legal rams for him to kill :wink:




Education for resident sheep hunters on where to go would be a good start. I am sure Bridger and BCRams will share all their sheep spots if guys PM them.


I agree with this whole heartedly and I have shared some information with people via PM's - particularly those who have taken time to research specific areas already and and want clarification. From here and with those I have met at the Wild Sheep Banquet.

Folks should also PM Bigwhiteys here. His dad (willy442) was a guide outfitter and probably has the best information among anyone here on where to go within the old area as well as surrounding territories. He has referred folks to areas in the past and continues to help folks if you're willing to do your homework.



Your average newbie sheep hunter won't have a clue unless they stumble upon a ram.


I have a slightly different perspective on this. Yours could be different because you have a map with every location of guided rams and personal rams taken by your grandfather, your dad and family. I can see your position with that in mind. Very advantageous for those who have that kind of information.

What an early start does for a Newbie ... is give him confidence that maybe the next mountain or the next will have rams.

Maybe it will take that newbie 10 days to find rams and have that opportunity. Granted some newbies might get onto sheep first day too.

It was a potential solution which merritted a look at for Region 6. I am sure there's more.

Put the "allowable harvest not being met" aside - its the percentage on paper that is relevant. 60:40 The harvest data has shown to be really out of whack with higher ratio to the GO's and I believe in a set period of time over 400 rams more than residents. (I can give the past harvest ratios). Its not greed or whining ... its simply saying, "hey -lets get this straightened out as everyone agreed to set in the policy"

I would expect an outsider who can look at it subjectively and say, hmm hmm... look at the data and go hmm hmmm .... Ok, we obviously need to get the 60:40 in line.....current ratio's aren't acceptable. Its quite simple establishing that point.

[/quote]



I would encourage the new guys to come to the WSS convention, buy beers and sometimes info flows from those with usually little to say:mrgreen:,

I second what Deaddog says. Great time and I have met many members on here there. New hunters and old hunters. The new hunters buy the drinks of course.:-D


What I think I stated my specific concerns on pages 13, 16 and 22.

WC - let me answer it.....

Keeping it simple:

The Skeena model basically increased the quota of rams for GO's in Region 6 by a set amount everytime their harvest average was 8 years old on rams. Quota's got so inflated beyond what was even available for them to kill.

A problem that should not have occured to begin with.

[bigwhiteys]

What an early start does for a Newbie ... is give him confidence that maybe the next mountain or the next will have rams.


That is comical... Is this back to the outfitters kill all the easy rams first? I think every sheep hunter new/seasoned hopes for a ram over the next ridge.

It puts the wandering newbie out there 2 weeks early and still clueless. That's it...! And I can almost guarantee that the guys taking advantage of it, and succeeding would be experienced hunters who've already got the knowledge of where to go. Not your average newbie who is saying "Holy Crap!!!! 2 weeks headstart?!?!?!! we gotta go! we don't know where but we just gotta go!!!" BS!

It's definitely not needed for Region 7B (which this thread is about).

Guys can already beat the outfitters to the rams on opener as many of their hunters don't arrive until the 30th or 31st of July and there are plenty of resident hunters who put themselves in a position to be "on" rams for opening day, and that puts some of them in the mountains as early as 26th, 27th of July.

Unless the special "head start" brought in a whole bunch of "new blood" sheep hunters I don't think it will make a difference in bringing up the ratio either because as stated above the SAME guys will be killing the sheep, just a few weeks earlier and then your sheep hunting is essentially over before the season even began. So would it really make a difference? I don't really think so.



I would expect an outsider who can look at it subjectively and say, hmm hmm... look at the data and go hmm hmmm .... Ok, we obviously need to get the 60:40 in line.....current ratio's aren't acceptable. Its quite simple establishing that point.


60/40 is not in line because we can't even achieve the 60 and we have no limitations on us other than tough access. It's already an all you can eat buffet on "Jelly Beans" in 7B and the ticket for residents is only about $65.00, but some seem to want a free pass to be at the front of the line...

Carl

[BCrams]

[quote=bigwhiteys;846678]
It puts the wandering newbie out there 2 weeks early and still clueless.


I disagree. Many newbie sheep hunters are not clueless and many who start sheep hunting certainly have a lot of other hunting under their belt and know what they're getting into. Many 'newbies' aren't new to hunting like you imply.

One needs to look at Kennyj's great Dall sheep hunt. First ever I understand.




It's definitely not needed for Region 7B (which this thread is about).


Did you miss the part where I said region 7a is fine and are achieving quotas at nearly 50/50 ... of course nothing else needs to be done for 7a right now!!! Parts of the discussion throughout this thread have flipped between Reg 6 and 7a. You've turned it back into Region 7a after I pointed out Region 6 in the post for both examples.



Guys can already beat the outfitters to the rams on opener as many of their hunters don't arrive until the 30th or 31st of July and there are plenty of resident hunters who put themselves in a position to be "on" rams for opening day, and that puts some of them in the mountains as early as 26th, 27th of July.


Been there, done that. You knew that! Take a few days before opener looking for sheep.


60/40 is not in line because we can't even achieve the 60 and we have no limitations on us other than tough access

So you're saying, acheiving 60:40 is impossible in Region 6 or even 50/50 like it is in 7B ?

You make a very good point regarding tough access as one of the limiting factors.



It's already an all you can eat buffet on "Jelly Beans" in 7B and the ticket for residents is only about $65.00!!


I'm buying you jellybeans ....you love em :mrgreen: You know it was referenced to Region 6 too right :wink: This is a tricky thread, started off with 7b then over to 6 and back n forth.

[willy442]

In terms of meeting harvest targets, things are currently pretty decent for both sides in 7B.

I use 80% of the AAH as 'pretty decent'. Then it doesn't affect anyone's allocation (so it's being met) and things stay status quo on the calculator side of things.

No big deal, right?

No! You are again adjusting numbers for your own agenda. 14 Rams is more than 10% of the guide harvest, a fairly substantial number at 40,000.00 dollars an animal.

[willy442]

Yet you know beyond any shadow of a doubt that this statement you made about a R6 outfitter is true,,, right?

Nope! Working off of what has been posted on here earlier if you look back. Oh, it was posted by those complaining about the system in the region so is at best an approxamation.

[willy442]

Region 6 goes a little deeper when not filling allowable harvest / allocations. The allocations are actually too high. Thats why the example with Oestrich's sheep quota at 22 is too high. He's not filling it because he's conservation minded .... he's not filling it because there just isn't 22 legal rams for him to kill :wink:

Has the G/O killed off all the Rams. I would suggest not. Please tell me what the problem is with an artifically high quota is if the guide is harvesting in a responsable manner.
I would suggest you are again whinning and crying over something that really has nothing to do with your success rate on sheep in the region. From what I understand access is your real issue.

[willy442]

Folks should also PM Bigwhiteys here. His dad (willy442) was a guide outfitter and probably has the best information among anyone here on where to go within the old area as well as surrounding territories. He has referred folks to areas in the past and continues to help folks if you're willing to do your homework.

Shall we discuss who the first person on this forum was to ask for info, once you found out the knowledge was available to those deserving of it. Still upsets you that due to your partners yapping you were turned down does'nt it?

Why is it alright for me to tell you where to sheep hunt? Then on the other hand you and GG tell me, I really have no clue on how to do a count as it's not scientific. See anything wrong with that picture. Pretty sure I know what a sheep looks like and where they live. I also went to school and learned how to count. See now how off base some of your posts are?

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Region 6 goes a little deeper when not filling allowable harvest / allocations. The allocations are actually too high. Thats why the example with Oestrich's sheep quota at 22 is too high. He's not filling it because he's conservation minded .... he's not filling it because there just isn't 22 legal rams for him to kill :wink:

Has the G/O killed off all the Rams. I would suggest not. Please tell me what the problem is with an artifically high quota is if the guide is harvesting in a responsable manner.
I would suggest you are again whinning and crying over something that really has nothing to do with your success rate on sheep in the region. From what I understand access is your real issue.

The problem with highly over inflated quotas is that the GOs are extremely protective of "their" sheep. Essentially, they they can kill every 8 yr old ram in their area and their quotas will keep increasing....or at least they have in the past.
For every resident that tak a ram out of their territory it comes straight of of their pocket. Can you blame them for being over protective??
People think GO's in 7B are protective but it's a whole different level in Reg 6.

I'm not sure who came up with the Skeena Formula or who signed off on it but even Rick Marshall said it was extremely unfair:?.

Aside from the higher profile areas in Reg 6, we might as well take the quotas in Reg 6 and throw them in the garbage:neutral:.

SSS

[Deaddog]

I'm not sure who came up with the Skeena Formula or who signed off on it but even Rick Marshall said it was extremely unfair:?.

Aside from the higher profile areas in Reg 6, we might as well take the quotas in Reg 6 and throw them in the garbage:neutral:.

SSS[/quote]


Rick is retiring in the spring, Bill Jex will be at the WSS presenting on behalf of region six, I believe that would be a great time for those with concerns on region six to ask questions to the individual that will play a large role in the future of sheep in region six..DD

[Stone Sheep Steve]

I'm not sure who came up with the Skeena Formula or who signed off on it but even Rick Marshall said it was extremely unfair:?.

Aside from the higher profile areas in Reg 6, we might as well take the quotas in Reg 6 and throw them in the garbage:neutral:.

SSS


Rick is retiring in the spring, Bill Jex will be at the WSS presenting on behalf of region six, I believe that would be a great time for those with concerns on region six to ask questions to the individual that will play a large role in the future of sheep in region six..DD[/quote]

Goodnews, Jim!
Let's make sure that room is full.

SSS

[GoatGuy]

In terms of meeting harvest targets, things are currently pretty decent for both sides in 7B.

I use 80% of the AAH as 'pretty decent'. Then it doesn't affect anyone's allocation (so it's being met) and things stay status quo on the calculator side of things.

No big deal, right?


No! You are again adjusting numbers for your own agenda. 14 Rams is more than 10% of the guide harvest, a fairly substantial number at 40,000.00 dollars an animal.

80% of the AAH for guides is more than 10% under-harvest, it's actually 20%. I don't know how you can 'adjust numbers' on something like that? :mrgreen:

In 2009, the harvest was 78%, which is rounded up to 80%. So long as you're achieving 80% of your quota there no change in the next allocation period. Many of the g/o are achieving their quotas, the reason that it's at 80% is because a couple aren't coming close, not to mention a lot of them never reduced their prices when the economy hit the gutter.


Then on the other hand you and GG tell me, I really have no clue on how to do a count as it's not scientific. See anything wrong with that picture. Pretty sure I know what a sheep looks like and where they live. I also went to school and learned how to count.

See above.:wink: You aren't helping your case.

[GoatGuy]

Region 6 goes a little deeper when not filling allowable harvest / allocations. The allocations are actually too high. Thats why the example with Oestrich's sheep quota at 22 is too high. He's not filling it because he's conservation minded .... he's not filling it because there just isn't 22 legal rams for him to kill :wink:

Has the G/O killed off all the Rams. I would suggest not. Please tell me what the problem is with an artifically high quota is if the guide is harvesting in a responsable manner.
I would suggest you are again whinning and crying over something that really has nothing to do with your success rate on sheep in the region. From what I understand access is your real issue.

You would understand wrong, the sheep lakes are pretty well known in that outfit.

[GoatGuy]

60/40 is not in line because we can't even achieve the 60 and we have no limitations on us other than tough access. It's already an all you can eat buffet on "Jelly Beans" in 7B and the ticket for residents is only about $65.00, but some seem to want a free pass to be at the front of the line...

Carl

Since 2007 residents are up between 55-58% of the AAH.

The numbers show that competition is an issue in 7B.

My prediction for 2012 is that resident harvest in 7B will go up after quota decreases.

Remember, you heard it here first!

[BCrams]

[quote=willy442;846692]
Shall we discuss who the first person on this forum was to ask for info, once you found out the knowledge was available to those deserving of it. Still upsets you that due to your partners yapping you were turned down does'nt it?


I was indeed one of the ones. Just as any prospective sheep hunter would on this forum would pm people like bigwhiteys or others today looking for information including deaddog, myself and others and I'd say keep pm'ing away to those that want to and you'll never know what you'll get.



I'm not sure who came up with the Skeena Formula or who signed off on it but even Rick Marshall said it was extremely unfair:?.

Rick is retiring in the spring, Bill Jex will be at the WSS presenting on behalf of region six, I believe that would be a great time for those with concerns on region six to ask questions to the individual that will play a large role in the future of sheep in region six..DD

That is great news regarding Bill Jex presenting on behalf of region 6 and it would be good to hear what he has to say. It is pretty obvious the aah / allocations need fixing.

[willy442]

80% of the AAH for guides is more than 10% under-harvest, it's actually 20%. I don't know how you can 'adjust numbers' on something like that? :mrgreen:

In 2009, the harvest was 78%, which is rounded up to 80%. So long as you're achieving 80% of your quota there no change in the next allocation period. Many of the g/o are achieving their quotas, the reason that it's at 80% is because a couple aren't coming close, not to mention a lot of them never reduced their prices when the economy hit the gutter.



See above.:wink: You aren't helping your case.

So! We are back to a social issue again. Has nothing to do with sheep I guess. You're saying we should drop non resident prices to meet full allocation? Unbelieveable!:-D

[willy442]

You would understand wrong, the sheep lakes are pretty well known in that outfit.

When did sheep start swimming around like Beavers. What formula indicated that.

Point blank I do know enough about region 6 to know access is a big issue.

[willy442]

Since 2007 residents are up between 55-58% of the AAH.

The numbers show that competition is an issue in 7B.

My prediction for 2012 is that resident harvest in 7B will go up after quota decreases.

Remember, you heard it here first!

Please tell me now how your latest formula can tell competition is the issue?

If this is a real problem, like I said before create some accessable resident only areas along the hwy. I accomplishes 2 things, by allowing newbies easily accessible hunting and eliminates G/O competition. Fixes all your issues very quickly.

[willy442]

[quote]


I was indeed one of the ones. Just as any prospective sheep hunter would on this forum would pm people like bigwhiteys or others today looking for information including deaddog, myself and others and I'd say keep pm'ing away to those that want to and you'll never know what you'll get.




That is great news regarding Bill Jex presenting on behalf of region 6 and it would be good to hear what he has to say. It is pretty obvious the aah / allocations need fixing.

Sorry I can honestly say out of all the experienced sheep hunters on site, You and your buddy are the only two that have requested x's on a map.

All the info and help I;ve given has been to newbies only.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

[quote=BCrams;846775]

Sorry I can honestly say out of all the experienced sheep hunters on site, You and your buddy are the only two that have requested x's on a map.

All the info and help I;ve given has been to newbies only.

Sorry Willy....I never did that. You'd be the last person on this site that I would ask for anything:neutral:.

SSS

[willy442]

[quote=willy442;846803]

Sorry Willy....I never did that. You'd be the last person on this site that I would ask for anything:neutral:.

SSS

Let me make a correction. You sure would have followed along behind though like a little lamb, had any info been given.

Remember; It's the bogus accusations you were tossing around that created the no info senario for your partner. We know how bad you guy's want info on that area. Keep buying boots and gain the knowledge the way I did. Don't be surprised if, when you get in there though, to find hunters ahead with x's. :-D

[Stone Sheep Steve]

[quote=Stone Sheep Steve;846805]

Let me make a correction. You sure would have followed along behind though like a little lamb, had any info been given.

Remember; It's the bogus accusations you were tossing around that created the no info senario for your partner. We know how bad you guy's want info on that area. Keep buying boots and gain the knowledge the way I did. Don't be surprised if, when you get in there though, to find hunters ahead with x's. :-D


Good for you Willy on helping some newbies. While I don't ever plan on hunting your old territory, I would love to run into some resident hunters with rams on the ground. I'd way rather see that than one of Art's clients holding some horns:wink:.

SSS

[GoatGuy]

When did sheep start swimming around like Beavers. What formula indicated that.

Point blank I do know enough about region 6 to know access is a big issue.

You clearly don't know that area.

There are several areas in Region 6 with relatively easy access by air or by foot.

[GoatGuy]

Please tell me now how your latest formula can tell competition is the issue?

If this is a real problem, like I said before create some accessable resident only areas along the hwy. I accomplishes 2 things, by allowing newbies easily accessible hunting and eliminates G/O competition. Fixes all your issues very quickly.

It's called correlation. There isn't anything new about it.

It isn't a 'real problem' as residents are pretty much at 60% of the AAH in 7B.

In 2012 when the calculator is run the resident share will go up as there will be no more hardship rule and so will resident harvest.

Region 6 is really the area with issues.

[willy442]

It's called correlation. There isn't anything new about it.

It isn't a 'real problem' as residents are pretty much at 60% of the AAH in 7B.

In 2012 when the calculator is run the resident share will go up as there will be no more hardship rule and so will resident harvest.

Region 6 is really the area with issues.

GG: Until a resident sheep hunter walks into a store and is turned down on purchasing a sheep tag. We don't really have a problem. Today, tommorrow and next year, under todays system any resident can go hunt sheep. So where is the problem? You and your cronies keep harping about unfair advantages, unfair allocation, non resident over harvest, lack of access and on and on. The real issue here is help the newbie resident, better educate him and assist him through knowledge to become part of the picture if he so desires. In reality how many hunters and tags are we looking at in this sheep allocation issue. Not Very Damn many in comparison to all the issues and detrimental effects this ongoing crap has caused in both costs and time. In reality like I and others have stated. Time for some new blood in the BCWF it's the only way the last 30 years can be laid to rest and new beginings in management undertaken.

We've had a whole new generation of G/O's take over in the field, time for the same in your neighborhood.

I doubt we will ever see the policy become law, there fore it will never materialize to be anything more then now ( a carrot dangling to fight over)

[GoatGuy]

GG: Until a resident sheep hunter walks into a store and is turned down on purchasing a sheep tag. We don't really have a problem. Today, tommorrow and next year, under todays system any resident can go hunt sheep. So where is the problem? You and your cronies keep harping about unfair advantages, unfair allocation, non resident over harvest, lack of access and on and on. The real issue here is help the newbie resident, better educate him and assist him through knowledge to become part of the picture if he so desires. In reality how many hunters and tags are we looking at in this sheep allocation issue. Not Very Damn many in comparison to all the issues and detrimental effects this ongoing crap has caused in both costs and time. In reality like I and others have stated. Time for some new blood in the BCWF it's the only way the last 30 years can be laid to rest and new beginings in management undertaken.

We've had a whole new generation of G/O's take over in the field, time for the same in your neighborhood.

I doubt we will ever see the policy become law, there fore it will never materialize to be anything more then now ( a carrot dangling to fight over)

Thank-you for your feedback, it is a good distraction.

[BCrams]

[quote=BCrams;846775]

Sorry I can honestly say out of all the experienced sheep hunters on site, You and your buddy are the only two that have requested x's on a map.

All the info and help I;ve given has been to newbies only.

Nothing wrong with inquiring about a certain drainages or mountains because I know an airstrip is there. I did my homework on much of the area prior to even inquiring. I got rebuffed....:-D It happens.


[quote=Stone Sheep Steve;846805]
Keep buying boots and gain the knowledge the way I did. Don't be surprised if, when you get in there though, to find hunters ahead with x's. :-D

Actually don't really care to hunt that area anytime soon! I've already hunted parts of it in the past and Carl knows that based on my familiarity but that was just a product of working up there at the time. Every year when SSS and I are driving up to fly in, the comment always goes to - we should just hunt off the highway ..... but we know its the adventure we seek that comes with flying and marking our own routes.

I think its great that you'll give x's to newbies, I'd rather see resident sheep hunters new and old holding the horns of some great rams!!

I've got way more satisfaction on the last few Stone's sheep hunts doing just what you said ... buying boots, studying maps and going out gaining knowledge and putting the peices of the puzzle together bit by bit. It is far more rewarding and makes one a better and knowledgeable sheep hunter without going to spots with x's all over the map. As you know yourself - marks do not teach one how to hunt sheep.

[kebes]

Until a resident sheep hunter walks into a store and is turned down on purchasing a sheep tag. We don't really have a problem. Today, tommorrow and next year, under todays system any resident can go hunt sheep. So where is the problem?

I've read through this thread with quite a bit of interest. The one thing that seems to stick out to me is this: the resident hunter can buy a tag over the counter and go sheep hunting, that's great. But if one user group decides to aggressively expand their 'territory' then another user groups shrinks. Obviously the point I'm making is that if the G.O's are trying to get more, that means the resident is (if not now, eventually) going to get less, and how long before we can't buy a sheep tag over the counter?

[snareman1234]

No Kebes! You woke the dragon :)

[willy442]

I've read through this thread with quite a bit of interest. The one thing that seems to stick out to me is this: the resident hunter can buy a tag over the counter and go sheep hunting, that's great. But if one user group decides to aggressively expand their 'territory' then another user groups shrinks. Obviously the point I'm making is that if the G.O's are trying to get more, that means the resident is (if not now, eventually) going to get less, and how long before we can't buy a sheep tag over the counter?

Had you read post 207 you really wouldn't need more explaination.

The G/O sells sheep hunts for about 40,000.00 per hunt. The people he sells to are intellegent prominent businesspeople from around the world. These people are not stupid. Over harvest your area and it's known very quickly in this group that you are a poor choice of G/O to hunt with. These people must harvest thier area properly in order to stay in business.

The crap that keeps getting fired out there on this stuff is for the most part garbage and fear mongering by a few people. Most out there don't know any better and gobble up the bullshit.

[bridger]

as usual you have missed the point of allocation. it is about sharing the allowable harvest not killing all the sheep on the mtn so any blathering about overharvest by either group is off the point. the whole point is that like it or not residents come first in this province and the issue now is how does each residenct group harvest its agreed upon share? that is the rub and calling people greedy for wanting to see that happen is off the point. also i agree some outfitters past and present look after their areas, but as everyone knows not all do that is why there are quota's. one thing that be helpful on this issue is for someone to explain how individual outfitters decide how many moose, elk, etc they can safely harvest.

[fowl language]

rich, thx for posting the harvest stats.i found them informative..i would like to apologize for the people who totally misread what you were doing and how far off track this got.it just stats,why read into it....fowl

[bridger]

rich, thx for posting the harvest stats.i found them informative..i would like to apologize for the people who totally misread what you were doing and how far off track this got.it just stats,why read into it....fowl


thanks information i fiind is always helpful and ususally interesting.