2011 stone sheep harvest region 7b

[bridger]

Thought the sheep hunters on the site would be interested in seeing the harvest stats for stones in region 7b for 2011.

1) Total harvest-------228 rams
2) Resident share -----130 rams 57% of total harvest
3) Non Resident share -- 98 rams 43% of total harvest
4) Harvest per cent age of rams 8+ years 80%

Cheers Bridger

[bigwhiteys]

At least residents killed more than non-resi's right? Saying 80% of the sheep harvested were over 8 is politician style reporting... If you said 45 underage rams were killed it doesn't sound so cool, depressing actually.

Carl

[bridger]

At least residents killed more than non-resi's right? Saying 80% of the sheep harvested were over 8 is politician style reporting... If you said 45 underage rams were killed it doesn't sound so cool, depressing actually.

Carl


let's not get into a pissing contest again ok. i posted this for general info only. professional biologists use a bench mark of 65% for old rams in the harvest, so when i use the figure of 80% I am merely pointing out that as far as the professional mangers are concerned the age structure in the harvest is excellent. if you want to argue that argue with them not me!!

[bigwhiteys]

let's not get into a pissing contest again ok. i posted this for general info only.


Just posted another angle to your facts, that's all...

Carl

[BiG Boar]

Is 7b the main area Rams come out of?

What would the other numbers be for other regions.

How much did this change compared to years previous.

What do these numbers signify?

[Alpineguy]

Thanks for posting that Bridger. That is good info to know.

[bigwhiteys]

How many of the 45 underage rams harvested were confiscated as illegal sheep?

What is the percentage breakdown of the resi/non-resi over 8 and under 8? You included in prior years, but not this time.


How much did this change compared to years previous.

2010:

Residents - 111 rams, 27 under 8yrs of age and 84 over 8 years of age
Non-Residents - 92 rams -8 rams under 8 yrs and 84 rams over 8 yrs

TOTAL HARVEST 203 rams, 35 under 8+ years of age.

We took 25 more rams in 2011. 40% of which were underage.

The real question, and the real issue affecting Stone's Sheep management in BC has not even been addressed on here yet, and these facts came out several months ago. Surprised Rich hasn't posted about that.

Carl

[325]

If a ram is only seven years old, but meets the full-curl requiremt it is legal, so as long as the managers 65% criteria is met, why get upset about it???!? Please educate me.

[325]

The real question, and the real issue affecting Stone's Sheep management in BC has not even been addressed on here yet, and these facts came out several months ago. Surprised Rich hasn't posted about that.

Carl[/QUOTE]

You mean wolves and elk foraging on sheep winter range??

[snareman1234]

The real question, and the real issue affecting Stone's Sheep management in BC has not even been addressed on here yet, and these facts came out several months ago. Surprised Rich hasn't posted about that.

Carl

Be interested to read what you are referring to

[bigwhiteys]

You mean wolves and elk foraging on sheep winter range??
Nope... That's certainly an issue... but not what I am referring too.

[bigwhiteys]

If a ram is only seven years old, but meets the full-curl requiremt it is legal,
Where did Rich state all the underage rams were 7 years old and full curl? I missed that one.

[GoatGuy]

The real question, and the real issue affecting Stone's Sheep management in BC has not even been addressed on here yet, and these facts came out several months ago. Surprised Rich hasn't posted about that.

Carl

Feel free, it's all yours.

[325]

Nope... That's certainly an issue... but not what I am referring too.

Why is it a secret?

[kootenayelkslayer]

The real question, and the real issue affecting Stone's Sheep management in BC has not even been addressed on here yet, and these facts came out several months ago.

Carl

Go on, I'm listening...:D

[bigwhiteys]

Feel free, it's all yours.

haha.... I am not opening that can yet, but would be interested in Rich's interpretation.

[325]

Where did Rich state all the underage rams were 7 years old and full curl? I missed that one.

There are no numbers in the OP to give any indication of whether any of the 20% of rams less than 8 year old were illegal. Without those numbers we can only speculate.

[Confused]

Thought the sheep hunters on the site would be interested in seeing the harvest stats for stones in region 7b for 2011.

1) Total harvest-------228 rams
2) Resident share -----130 rams 57% of total harvest
3) Non Resident share -- 98 rams 43% of total harvest
4) Harvest per cent age of rams 8+ years 80%

Cheers Bridger

I thought the AAH was 190, or somethingm like that. Everyone is okay with the 228??

[snareman1234]

I thought the AAH was 190, or somethingm like that. Everyone is okay with the 228??

Anybody know the actual #?

[whitetailsheds]

Thanks for posting this Rich...try as I might, I could not find these stats. I'd be interested in seeing the harvest stats for 6-29 last year.
Any possiblility of providing a link to these stats? Thanks.

[The Dude]

What's an "under age" sheep?
Legal is 8+ years or over the bridge on at least one side. What's under age?

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Last yr seemed to be a good yr overall for rams with some dandies being taken. Was probably a good crop of lambs about 8 or 9 yrs ago.

Some yrs are leaner ....some are better.

SSS

[Fisher-Dude]

What's an "under age" sheep?
Legal is 8+ years or over the bridge on at least one side. What's under age?


It's a term used by the guide outfitters in their attempts to curtail resident hunting of thinhorn sheep by inferring that rams under 8 years of age are somehow "bad" and that resident hunters are "bad" if they shoot a legal sheep under 8. It's purely fictitious, as any sheep over full curl is 100% legal and meets management criteria, regardless of age.

[houndogger]

It's a term used by the guide outfitters in their attempts to curtail resident hunting of thinhorn sheep by inferring that rams under 8 years of age are somehow "bad" and that resident hunters are "bad" if they shoot a legal sheep under 8. It's purely fictitious, as any sheep over full curl is 100% legal and meets management criteria, regardless of age.
So how many of the 45 didn't break the nose?

[snareman1234]

It's a term used by the guide outfitters in their attempts to curtail resident hunting of thinhorn sheep by inferring that rams under 8 years of age are somehow "bad" and that resident hunters are "bad" if they shoot a legal sheep under 8. It's purely fictitious, as any sheep over full curl is 100% legal and meets management criteria, regardless of age.

I guess the argument stems from the fact that a ram under 8yo (deemed "underage") has potentially superior horn growth genetics and he may have been eliminated out of the gene pool before it reproduces and spreads it's genes, or has time to reproduce enough?

Not sure whether there are any stats about which age of rams have the most reproductive success on average

[325]

I guess the argument stems from the fact that a ram under 8yo (deemed "underage") has potentially superior horn growth genetics and he may have been eliminated out of the gene pool before it reproduces and spreads it's genes, or has time to reproduce enough?

Not sure whether there are any stats about which age of rams have the most reproductive success on average

That's may be the argument, but it's nonsense. In order to have a significant impact on genetic flow, the vast majority of legal rams would have to be killed each year, PLUS, those killed would have to have be sought for a specific phenotype, not just legality. I'm sure the majority of legal rams less than eight years of age simply have a tight curl - just another variant of sheep morphology.

[Dirty]

Would the issue BW is implying regard the problem of underaged rams being CI'd as legal?

I would like to know how many under the nose and underaged rams were falsely identified as legal rams.

This goes for outfitter and resident harvested rams.

I have heard rumors of a new system being implemented for compulsory inspection consistency. Anybody in the know want to add to this?

In my opinion, and a scientific based one, if the same results are obtained by more than one person then it would lead to higher confidence in the obtained results. It is my understanding that one person is signing off the CI. It would make sense to have a better system in place for management and record keeping purposes.

[kootenayelkslayer]

Not sure whether there are any stats about which age of rams have the most reproductive success on average

There's been several studies done on bighorns (by Geist, Festa-Bianchet etc.) that show pretty high reproductive success by younger rams. Try a quick search on Google Scholar!

[bigwhiteys]

It's a term used by the guide outfitters in their attempts to curtail resident hunting of thinhorn sheep by inferring that rams under 8 years of age are somehow "bad" and that resident hunters are "bad" if they shoot a legal sheep under 8. It's purely fictitious, as any sheep over full curl is 100% legal and meets management criteria, regardless of age.


Actually an underage ram would be one that is not 8 years of age... Not a term used soley by GO's but also your wildlife managers, biologists and the game regulations. The science behind age of harvest and it's impact on individual bands of rams is not fictitious. Shooting a 7 year old, full curl out of a band is probably not the end of the world.... Shooting 5,6, and 7 year olds in an increasing # year after year is not a trend that's good for sheep. Especially if the harvest is occuring in a localized area.


Carl

[bigwhiteys]

There's been several studies done on bighorns (by Geist, Festa-Bianchet etc.) that show pretty high reproductive success by younger rams. Try a quick search on Google Scholar!

Thinhorns as well... 5,6,7 and 8 are usually the stronger breeders... Some of the largest/oldest rams in a band might not even partake in the rut.

Carl

[325]

There's been several studies done on bighorns (by Geist, Festa-Bianchet etc.) that show pretty high reproductive success by younger rams. Try a quick search on Google Scholar!

I've read that Dall rams start to have significant reproductive success by age 5. I'd imagine Stone's to be similar.

[GoatGuy]

thanks for posting Rich, will be good to ask the region 7b bio this upcoming weekend at the WSS convention some of the tough questions, particularly around the AAH..

218 if you're taking guesses for beer.

[The Dude]

Yeahhhhh....Dirty's back! God damn lurker pussy!
I just figured out why sheep hunters argue the hardest.
It's cuz they hunt the hardest.

[bigwhiteys]

218 if you're taking guesses for beer.


That's only if it increases... But I'd say DD owes you beer.

[GoatGuy]

That's only if it increases... But I'd say DD owes you beer.

Guaranteed it will increase, that's something I'll bet on for sure.

[TSS]

These harvest results as posted are at best a real poor present day indicator in our sheep management programs. How can you manage anything off of whats been killed, especially an animal that is as hard to be successful on as the Stone Ram, by novice hunters. In addition to this is the fact we do not have relyable recent data on most of the sheep habitat. The resident verses nonresident harvest numbers are only indicators of who is taking what. The information being withheld by Bridger is the age and size of the underage sheep and who harvested what. I have heard (cannot prove at present) that last years illegal (confinscated) sheep count was around 20 resident rams. That would mean they were both under age and full curl.

It seems by the earlier posts that Big Whiteys is insinuating that Bridger and Goat Guy are with holding information from the resident hunters in regards to sheep. I believe this information probably has to do with the outcome of the Trumpy report and the ministry on Sheep being withdrawn from the allocation process and thier status as Class A animals. A move that could expidite the change to LEH.

[GoatGuy]

These harvest results as posted are at best a real poor present day indicator in our sheep management programs. How can you manage anything off of whats been killed, especially an animal that is as hard to be successful on as the Stone Ram, by novice hunters. In addition to this is the fact we do not have relyable recent data on most of the sheep habitat. The resident verses nonresident harvest numbers are only indicators of who is taking what. The information being withheld by Bridger is the age and size of the underage sheep and who harvested what. I have heard (cannot prove at present) that last years illegal (confinscated) sheep count was around 20 resident rams. That would mean they were both under age and full curl.

It seems by the earlier posts that Big Whiteys is insinuating that Bridger and Goat Guy are with holding information from the resident hunters in regards to sheep. I believe this information probably has to do with the outcome of the Trumpy report and the ministry on Sheep being withdrawn from the allocation process and thier status as Class A animals. A move that could expidite the change to LEH.

Willy, I haven't seen the data yet. Certainly don't support removing sheep from category A and I'm sure you don't either, although there's probably some sort of ignorant application of twisted logic between here and there.


Having said that, weren't you one of the folks who has guided both under-aged and illegal rams during your time? Selective memory? The sheep sheriff - hahaha.


Finally, I thought you quit here 4 times, and lastly that you were banned?


See you in a year, under another alias, with another ego-driven post.

Until then, keep up the good work, like all the years before.

[40incher]

Well, it's not hard to tell who the apologists are for the guide-outfitters/spindoctors.

Thanks to the G.O.'s and the Ministry bureaucrats Stone Sheep are no longer a Category A species and are no longer under quota for said G.O.'s, and now they are pushing for northern moose. Destroy all the parts of the Allocation Policy that do not favour the guides. I say let's go back to the old policy where the guides can go to 0% instead of the inflated 30% and 40%. It's all or nothing boys.

The selfishness of the Sheep Guides has already split up the GOABC. They won't be happy until BC resident hunters, who have leagl priority and out vote them thousands to one, are pushed on to LEH. I, for one, will make sure that never happens as we run up to the provicial election. The politicians can only be bought to a point by $$$$. The guides don't vote anyone in to power. Why do you need to be so selfish?

Thanks to Bridger for posting the stats and for fighting the good fight all these years. As for the self-serving sheep guides/apologists it's time to realize you are fooling no one but yourselves.

[boxhitch]

haha.... I am not opening that can yet, but would be interested in Rich's interpretation.But you did, by even inferring there was something. Spill your beans

[TSS]

Willy, I haven't seen the data yet. Certainly don't support removing sheep from category A and I'm sure you don't either, although there's probably some sort of ignorant application of twisted logic between here and there.


Having said that, weren't you one of the folks who has guided both under-aged and illegal rams during your time? Selective memory? The sheep sheriff - hahaha.


Finally, I thought you quit here 4 times, and lastly that you were banned?


See you in a year, under another alias, with another ego-driven post.

Until then, keep up the good work, like all the years before.

How typical; Resort to name calling and mud slinging rather than come clean. The data refered to came from the Ministry Dec-14-11. Do you claim as a BCWF leader you have knowledge?

[boxhitch]

My basic view
Using dead side data as an indicator of trends on harvest can work, if the starting numbers are correct and safe.
AAH is a conservative percentage of the adult male component according to available population figures
Average age indicates what part of that adult component is being taken, and if the % meets the safe guidelines, the trend is good, showing there is a healthy portion available to kill.
But if the average age starts trending down, nearer the breaking point, there should be concern and I trust there will be adjustments made,
IF and WHEN that trend develops.

Numbers of short or underage or young by anyone, is just fuel to fire a fight that should be just left to die.
til then, lets hunt.

[budismyhorse]

Well, it's not hard to tell who the apologists are for the guide-outfitters/spindoctors.

Thanks to the G.O.'s and the Ministry bureaucrats Stone Sheep are no longer a Category A species and are no longer under quota for said G.O.'s, and now they are pushing for northern moose. Destroy all the parts of the Allocation Policy that do not favour the guides. I say let's go back to the old policy where the guides can go to 0% instead of the inflated 30% and 40%. It's all or nothing boys.

The selfishness of the Sheep Guides has already split up the GOABC. They won't be happy until BC resident hunters, who have leagl priority and out vote them thousands to one, are pushed on to LEH. I, for one, will make sure that never happens as we run up to the provicial election. The politicians can only be bought to a point by $$$$. The guides don't vote anyone in to power. Why do you need to be so selfish?

Thanks to Bridger for posting the stats and for fighting the good fight all these years. As for the self-serving sheep guides/apologists it's time to realize you are fooling no one but yourselves.

If this is true......then good luck to all.

Residents aren't the only ones who get itchy fingers......with no quota whats stopping GO's from taking more clients, killing more rams in their area and as a result start scraping the barrel? If what 40incher is posting is true......it isn't good for anyone except the GO bottom lines. If it somehow benifits the sheep, please enlighten us.

[boxhitch]

These harvest results as posted are at best a real poor present day indicator in our sheep management programs. How can you manage anything off of whats been killed, especially an animal that is as hard to be successful on as the Stone Ram, by novice hunters. In addition to this is the fact we do not have relyable recent data on most of the sheep habitat. The resident verses nonresident harvest numbers are only indicators of who is taking what. The information being withheld by Bridger is the age and size of the underage sheep and who harvested what. I have heard (cannot prove at present) that last years illegal (confinscated) sheep count was around 20 resident rams. That would mean they were both under age and full curl..Hunter success, or lack of , isn't a factor in good management IMO
The only reason to bring up the illegal harvest is to note it is not calculated into the success or kill numbers toward the AAH, for either side. Must be surplus.

[boxhitch]

If it somehow benifits the sheep, please enlighten us.Purely political, nothing to do with sheep
And it may stem from a misinterpretation of definition only...sheesh

[TSS]

If this is true......then good luck to all.

Residents aren't the only ones who get itchy fingers......with no quota whats stopping GO's from taking more clients, killing more rams in their area and as a result start scraping the barrel? If what 40incher is posting is true......it isn't good for anyone except the GO bottom lines. If it somehow benifits the sheep, please enlighten us.

Relax; Sheep are still on quota. They are just not tied to the allocation policy in the same light. They can now be managed seperately and adjusted yearly. This came from the realization that in fact some area's are in trouble from hunter/predator pressure and may need managed outside of the policy. I think it's a win for everyone soley for the reason somebody is finally thinking about the sheep.

[Dirty]

Relax; Sheep are still on quota. They are just not tied to the allocation policy in the same light. They can now be managed seperately and adjusted yearly. This came from the realization that in fact some area's are in trouble from hunter/predator pressure and may need managed outside of the policy. I think it's a win for everyone soley for the reason somebody is finally thinking about the sheep.

Do any of you guys have figures about how many of the sheep were harvested as a result of GPS coordinates to trail heads being given away to strangers met on the Internet?

[Gateholio]

Oh boy, another sheep thread. :)

[325]

If there is a conservation concern with sheep, GOs hunts should be placed under moratorium BEFORE impacts to resident opportunity are made.

[6616]

Well, it's not hard to tell who the apologists are for the guide-outfitters/spindoctors.

Thanks to the G.O.'s and the Ministry bureaucrats Stone Sheep are no longer a Category A species and are no longer under quota for said G.O.'s, and now they are pushing for northern moose. Destroy all the parts of the Allocation Policy that do not favour the guides. I say let's go back to the old policy where the guides can go to 0% instead of the inflated 30% and 40%. It's all or nothing boys.

The selfishness of the Sheep Guides has already split up the GOABC. They won't be happy until BC resident hunters, who have leagl priority and out vote them thousands to one, are pushed on to LEH. I, for one, will make sure that never happens as we run up to the provicial election. The politicians can only be bought to a point by $$$$. The guides don't vote anyone in to power. Why do you need to be so selfish?

Thanks to Bridger for posting the stats and for fighting the good fight all these years. As for the self-serving sheep guides/apologists it's time to realize you are fooling no one but yourselves.




If this is true......then good luck to all.

Residents aren't the only ones who get itchy fingers......with no quota whats stopping GO's from taking more clients, killing more rams in their area and as a result start scraping the barrel? If what 40incher is posting is true......it isn't good for anyone except the GO bottom lines. If it somehow benifits the sheep, please enlighten us.


Actually the intention of Region 6 and 7B is to retain quota but that quota is so inflated that it means nothing and offers no restriction what so ever to the non-resident harvest.

Even though the official definition of Catagory A species says nothing about whether a species is on LEH or GOS the decision makers in 6 and 7B used the rationale that residents are on GOS (and not LEH) as a justification for removing sheep from Catagory A. The decision maker in 7B even went so far as to state that part of his reasoning was because non-resident harvest generates more revenue per animal killed than resident harvest does. What does resident priority mean to him? The only reason this was done is because under the allocation policy non-resident sheep allocation cannot exceed 40% of the harvest and they couldn't pull this off within compliance to the allocation policy and keep their outfitters happy (which appears keeping outfitters happy is pretty much the only concern of Fish and Wildlife in some regions right now). So they just arbitrarily decided without consultation that the allocation policy no longer applies to Stone's Sheep. Pretty outrageous in my opinion. How long before this spreads to other regions that have sheep GOS? Should we stand for this, or should we raise a big ruckus?

Additionally, even though the Ministry clearly stated in their decision on the Trumpy report that they would not use success factors to calculate quota, two regions (7B and 4) have done this for 2012 resulting in grossly inflated quotas, quotas that will mean the outfitters will have 70 to 80% of the sheep AAH under quota.

Policy appears to no longer mean anything at all, regional decision makers just do whatever the f__ they want regardless of policy. The allocation policy as negotiated in 2007 was fine, but it's total trash now considering all the revisions that have been made. The old allocation policy wouldn't work anymore either Mike, nor will any policy as long as the regions disregard policy completelly.

I suspect it might be time for resident hunters to no longer support F&W policy and to simply campaign for fixed and legislated non-resident limits in the Wildlife Act. Most North American jurisdictions have legislated caps of 10% of the total harvest for non-residents. A couple of the more generous ones go up to 20% for some species and one jurisdiction goes as high as 30% for bighorn sheep. Of course these are all lower than what BC allocates to non-residents for sheep,,,, so much for any commitment to resident priority by the F&W Branch.

Official definition of Catagory A Species from Harvest Allocation Policy:
"Category A Species' - means a big game species, population, or class for which guided hunters harvest is limited by quota in any portion of a region.

[GoatGuy]

Relax; Sheep are still on quota. They are just not tied to the allocation policy in the same light. They can now be managed seperately and adjusted yearly. This came from the realization that in fact some area's are in trouble from hunter/predator pressure and may need managed outside of the policy. I think it's a win for everyone soley for the reason somebody is finally thinking about the sheep.

The plan is for no quotas on sheep in Region 6 at all.

In 7B branch staff in region came to the realization that some outfitters would be impacted significantly. It's not for sheep, the decision is for outfitters - government has been very clear about that.

[bigwhiteys]

Pretty outrageous in my opinion. How long before this spreads to other regions that have sheep GOS? Should we stand for this, or should we raise a big ruckus?
Yes, and our local resident sheep hunting allocation warriors said nothing.... This happened months ago... We are now several months behind... But hey! we do know the harvest stats.

Carl

[bridger]

Would the issue BW is implying regard the problem of underaged rams being CI'd as legal?

I would like to know how many under the nose and underaged rams were falsely identified as legal rams.

This goes for outfitter and resident harvested rams.

I have heard rumors of a new system being implemented for compulsory inspection consistency. Anybody in the know want to add to this?

In my opinion, and a scientific based one, if the same results are obtained by more than one person then it would lead to higher confidence in the obtained results. It is my understanding that one person is signing off the CI. It would make sense to have a better system in place for management and record keeping purposes.

for sure we need a better system of compulsory inspection for sheep. the real issue is with compulsory inspection is not the curl length as inspectors have a jig to determine if the horn breaks the tip of the nose, but determining the age on rams that don't break the nose. aging is not an exact science and mistakes will be made occasionally passing an illegal ram as legs, and a legal ram as illegal. having said that in all the years i have been involved is has not occurred on enough occasions to present a serious issue in harvest stats.

[GoatGuy]

If this is true......then good luck to all.

Residents aren't the only ones who get itchy fingers......with no quota whats stopping GO's from taking more clients, killing more rams in their area and as a result start scraping the barrel? If what 40incher is posting is true......it isn't good for anyone except the GO bottom lines. If it somehow benifits the sheep, please enlighten us.

The long and short is there are some people who will take a big cut in quota based on sheep in their area, and others who would get an increase.

Apparently that isn't palatable, so the easiest thing to do is remove sheep from the allocation policy to keep it status quo.

Same old, same old.

[Confused]

[QUOTE=GoatGuy;1110902]The plan is for no quotas on sheep in Region 6 at all.

That is not true, where did you get that? Would like to know.

[325]

What can someone like me, who would like to ensure resident priority with all species, do to help advocate for resident hunters? I am already a BCWF member, and a member of my local Rod and Gun club. I have nothing against GOs, but they sure seem to have something against the resident hunters of this province ( I know, I know, it's business).

[6616]

Relax; Sheep are still on quota. They are just not tied to the allocation policy in the same light. They can now be managed seperately and adjusted yearly. This came from the realization that in fact some area's are in trouble from hunter/predator pressure and may need managed outside of the policy. I think it's a win for everyone soley for the reason somebody is finally thinking about the sheep.

What complete and total crock of BS Willy. The allocation policy does not, nor did it ever, dictate how sheep are managed, only what the resident/non-resident split is.
Some one finally thinking about sheep, more likely some one disregarding resident priority and thinking about keeping outfitters happy.

[Confused]

Oh boy, another sheep thread. :)

No, it is a sheep and allocation thread.........double the pleasure!

[TSS]

Perhaps now that we have GG, 6616 and Bridger, three of our resident sheep guru's coming forth with knowledge on an issue that took place in December. This is an issue they have choosen to withhold from the genral hunting population and membership of the BCWF for a full three months now. Members they claim to represent by being the only voice for the resident hunter. Perhaps one or all of them will tell us why we've had this rammed down our throats without knowledge being released. The good old BCWF fighting from away behind once again.

[houndogger]

Perhaps now that we have GG, 6616 and Bridger, three of our resident sheep guru's coming forth with knowledge on an issue that took place in December. This is an issue they have choosen to withhold from the genral hunting population and membership of the BCWF for a full three months now. Members they claim to represent by being the only voice for the resident hunter. Perhaps one or all of them will tell us why we've had this rammed down our throats without knowledge being released. The good old BCWF fighting from away behind once again.

That is the big problem with the BCWF a big pile of secrets....seems the residents just took a hugh back step now.

[6616]

What can someone like me, who would like to ensure resident priority with all species, do to help advocate for resident hunters? I am already a BCWF member, and a member of my local Rod and Gun club. I have nothing against GOs, but they sure seem to have something against the resident hunters of this province ( I know, I know, it's business).

Don't blame the guide-outfitters, they're just doing what any businessman would do. If Fish & Wildlife is prone to giving them anything they ask for anytime they ask why not keep on asking! Blame F&W for a complete lack of commitment to resident hunters and resident priority.

What to do, this is not a wildlife management issue, it's a social and political issue and a lot can be accomplished if resident hunters visit or write their MLAs and indicate how unhappy they are with these events.

[kootenayelkslayer]

Perhaps now that we have GG, 6616 and Bridger, three of our resident sheep guru's coming forth with knowledge on an issue that took place in December. This is an issue they have choosen to withhold from the genral hunting population and membership of the BCWF for a full three months now. Members they claim to represent by being the only voice for the resident hunter. Perhaps one or all of them will tell us why we've had this rammed down our throats without knowledge being released. The good old BCWF fighting from away behind once again.

When you say it like that...yes, it would be nice to know what this 'secret' finding in December was.

[6616]

That is the big problem with the BCWF a big pile of secrets....seems the residents just took a hugh back step now.

This was not a secret and the BCWF didn't just hear about it yesterday. This information was passed on to all regional reps on the wildlife committee as soon as it became known with requests for clubs, regions, and members to bring it to the attention of their MLAs. I'm sure in most cases it was passed it on to the club presidents. Trouble is people just tend to ignore things until the s__t hits the fan and then they let on it's the first they heard of it.

[bridger]

here we go again. i posted the harvest stats just as a matter of interest for sheep hunters. should have known that the sheep guides on here would make as issue out of it as they always do. so for you sheep guides on the site please explain truthfully (now there is an oxymoron) why the goabc is pushing to get sheep off quota or failing that to have quotas so inflated they are meaningless. sure as hell can't be because they love sheep more than money. money is the only concern for sheep outfitters; always has been always will be. the only time they talk conservation is when they want resident opportunities reduced! the bcwf executive is working on this issue directly with government and there has been no intention of keeping secrets. as to how many underage rams were seized this year i have no idea and neither does anyone who says "i heard" if the goabc would respect sheep first we wouldn't be having this diatribe. As far as hunting opportunities are concerned I resident priority in all species and make no apologies for it. Always have always will!!

[fireguy]

This was not a secret and the BCWF didn't just hear about it yesterday. This information was passed on to all regional reps on the wildlife committee as soon as it became known with requests for clubs, regions, and members to bring it to the attention of their MLAs. I'm sure in most cases it was passed it on to the club presidents. Trouble is people just tend to ignore things until the s__t hits the fan and then they let on it's the first they heard of it.

I will second you on this and the BCWF has not sat on it's hands with reguards to this issue

[boxhitch]

That is the big problem with the BCWF a big pile of secrets....Take that up with the executive of the member club you belong to.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Funny things can happen when you have a regional manager who used to work for the GOABC.
I was under the impression that this fire was put out? Has this flame re-kindled in a different location??

Who can we write letters to regarding Mr Addison's job?

SSS

[Fisher-Dude]

Funny things can happen when you have a regional manager who used to work for the GOABC.
I was under the impression that this fire was put out? Has this flame re-kindled in a different location??

Who can we write letters to regarding Mr Addison's job?

SSS


Deputy Minister's Office

DOUG KONKIN
Deputy Minister and CEO
Telephone: 250 387-1526
Fax: 250 356-2150

doug.konkin@gov.bc.ca

Minister's Office

HONOURABLE STEVE THOMSON
PO BOX 9049 STN PROV GOVT
VICTORIA BC V8W 9E2
Telephone: 250 387-6240
Fax: 250 387-1040

steve.thomson@gov.bc.ca

[2chodi]

I thought the AAH was 190, or somethingm like that. Everyone is okay with the 228??

The AAH from 2007-2011 was in the mid 180's (185, 186, 187 ish), which was pretty close to what the harvest was in some of those years. In a conference call that I had with Chris Addison in mid December, he indicated that the AAH may be increased due to the results of some recent work Conrad Thiessen has done. Addison said the number might be around 215, but that was not firm. I have recently asked for, but have not heard, what the proposed AHH for 2012-2016 will be.

[houndogger]

just because items are not posted on an internet site for all to discuss does not mean that people have not been working hard on this issue...the bottom line is this....the current gov't has made a conscious decision to side with goabc on sheep as they see them as the revenue source... this gov't is barely willing to listen never mind discuss items of real conservation with residents...sorry to say but as long as our current regime remains , wildlife will suffer...members of all wildlife/conservation groups are working hard on a myriad of issues , and for the most part financing gov't work...I am afraid the worst is yet to come...DD

You mean LEH???

[fireguy]

just because items are not posted on an internet site for all to discuss does not mean that people have not been working hard on this issue...the bottom line is this....the current gov't has made a conscious decision to side with goabc on sheep as they see them as the revenue source... this gov't is barely willing to listen never mind discuss items of real conservation with residents...sorry to say but as long as our current regime remains , wildlife will suffer...members of all wildlife/conservation groups are working hard on a myriad of issues , and for the most part financing gov't work...I am afraid the worst is yet to come...DD

The decision maker for the gov't in 7b used to work for the guide outfitters as their biologist, hmm wonder why the quota is off....

[snareman1234]

Who is the decision maker?

[one-shot-wonder]

Why does Addison still have a job???????????

BC Gov letters coming your way!

[GoatGuy]

Just to be clear, the entire issue is political. Don't bother beating up on government employees. Get ahold of your MLA, the Minister and the Premier.

[one-shot-wonder]

This was not a secret and the BCWF didn't just hear about it yesterday. This information was passed on to all regional reps on the wildlife committee as soon as it became known with requests for clubs, regions, and members to bring it to the attention of their MLAs. I'm sure in most cases it was passed it on to the club presidents. Trouble is people just tend to ignore things until the s__t hits the fan and then they let on it's the first they heard of it.

Definately could have done a better job of informing members.....timing can be everything sometimes.

[one-shot-wonder]

Just to be clear, the entire issue is political. Don't bother beating up on government employees. Get ahold of your MLA, the Minister and the Premier.

You can bet CC will be hearing this loud and clear, not only is she running the Liberal party into the ditch, herself and her appointees have destroyed the credability of F &W branch.

By the way I am a member of the liberal party.......

[snareman1234]

A sheep thread's been idle for an hour, everyone must be having dinner :)

[one-shot-wonder]

I was hoping letter writing was the reason.............F**K is anybody else pissed about this S**T that only seems to be getting worse?

[snareman1234]

Pisses me off, feel like the gov't has sold out once again, at the cost of BC's wildlife... Wish I knew about this before.

[Rob]

Sure wish it was easier to understand all this, even if I shoot a legal Ram it may have been too young. (I am new but trying to learn).

[one-shot-wonder]

Rob,
Educating fellow hunters is a big part of the equation. I encourage you to read as much as possible on these types of threads, talk to your local gun club about these issues, then read some more...... books and articles ( search on here for recommended sheep books). Lastly, nothing like field experience, plan a hunt and give 'er, its the best way to learn!

Educating the hunting public is half the battle, I believe once BC hunters understand the undermining that has occured over the years, the complacency among most of us will begin to end.

[Mr. Dean]

I'm not a Sheeper but I know when 'good', no longer isn't - This BS isn't. :mad:


TSS --------->The Sheep Sherrif. :lol:
Welcome, Willers.

Hope your stay is a short one. :wink:

[kootenayelkslayer]

Sure wish it was easier to understand all this, even if I shoot a legal Ram it may have been too young. (I am new but trying to learn).

Don't let all the political BS discourage you. We need all the sheep hunters we can get. A legal ram is a legal ram, until the regulations say otherwise. A legal Stone's ram is a great accomplishment regardless, and harvesting a mature one just makes it that much better.

[358mag]

Pisses me off, feel like the gov't has sold out once again, at the cost of BC's wildlife... Wish I knew about this before.
Just wait till the NDP get into power ... There will be a lot of people saying the same thing " Wish I knew about this before"..... I voted for them

[yama49]

I agree educating people on stone sheep, aging sheep, concerns with sheep, would benfit all of us.. But it seems, when it comes to sheep nobody wants to help, to selfish i guess.... Im going to my first wss, to learn more about sheep...

[bridger]

Pisses me off, feel like the gov't has sold out once again, at the cost of BC's wildlife... Wish I knew about this before.

Agreed but a lot of this issue has just surfaced recently about three weeks ago the regional manager in 7b chris Addison told fed reps that when the government could get $250,000 for one sheep nonresident dollars were going to drive sheep management in the northeast. He also said that he would not bring a $5,000,000 industry to its knee's to cater to five or six hundred resident hunters and that we better get used to it. The question really is if the allocation policy gives the goabc a maximum harvest share ranging from 40 per cent to 20 per cent and that is not enough where does it end? Make no mistake this is strictly a political decision by a regional manager to which government is turning a blind eye. It seems it is time to kick over the tables and shoot out the lights.

[brno375]

After a 9 month hiatus, nothing has changed.

[one-shot-wonder]

Ask the n n n n n n nimrod who pays his salary...........

[Confused]

After a 9 month hiatus, nothing has changed.

Amazing how that is, isn't it.

[sako_300]

I've come to the conclusion that the BCWF president needs to evaluate his communication and transparency policy... as a member for a respectable amount of time and avid sheep hunter this is completely unacceptable. If not for HBC I would have no idea any of this is going on.

My letter to a local MLA, gov't official, etc. is going to be deposited in the round filing cabinet adjacent his/her desk. This is an issue that needs to be resolved at a senior political level and I fully expect the organization(s) that represent the resident hunters to be lobbying/leveraging on our behalf.

Is this an agenda item for the WSS convention this weekend?

[boxhitch]

The regional Bios are slated to speak, they each have a slot on the program
Is it to be on the AGM agenda ? To what end ?
The conservation question in all this is whether the higher AAH is sustainable or to cause population issues. Any scientists have a magic ball ?
Deregulating sheep will also tend to devalue and trivialize their existence, changing that perception will only darken the future.

[bigwhiteys]

The conservation question in all this is whether the higher AAH is sustainable or to cause population issues. Any scientists have a magic ball ?

By MOE's own admission they don't have defensible population densities and their info is badly out of date. The door for GO's to fund their own independant pop. studies (by biologists) is open and I don't doubt they'll do some if it hasn't already happened. They have $$$$$$ and aircraft at their disposal and winter is the time to do it. We (BCWF or RHPF?) spent $17,000 on some ranting newspaper ads... lol, wonder what their return on that was? Do they even know?

Now there is a serious issue come forth with regards to a fairly significant management change that happened several months ago, and it's essentially kept quite from everyone, the people they are now asking for support...lol.... I am a BCWF member and never got any info about this? Instead we get the harvest stats on HBC that show residents as the victors... lol...

Regardless of how many BCWF members there are this website (HBC) is probably the best communication tool we've got in getting the word out and motivating resident hunters to act, bar none. The local hunting traffic this site receives in one week is probably more than the BCWF gets in two years, and almost every single one of us has multiple hunting friends (who don't come here) that we can talk to and spread the word.

These changes certainly aren't something I am cheering on... It paves the way for change, that's for sure.

Carl

[GoatGuy]

By MOE's own admission they don't have defensible population densities and their info is badly out of date. The door for GO's to fund their own independant pop. studies (by biologists) is open and I don't doubt they'll do some if it hasn't already happened. They have $$$$$$ and aircraft at their disposal and winter is the time to do it. We (BCWF or RHPF?) spent $17,000 on some ranting newspaper ads... lol, wonder what their return on that was? Do they even know?

Now there is a serious issue come forth with regards to a fairly significant management change that happened several months ago, and it's essentially kept quite from everyone, the people they are now asking for support...lol.... I am a BCWF member and never got any info about this? Instead we get the harvest stats on HBC that show residents as the victors... lol...

Regardless of how many BCWF members there are this website (HBC) is probably the best communication tool we've got in getting the word out and motivating resident hunters to act, bar none. The local hunting traffic this site receives in one week is probably more than the BCWF gets in two years, and almost every single one of us has multiple hunting friends (who don't come here) that we can talk to and spread the word.

These changes certainly aren't something I am cheering on... It paves the way for change, that's for sure.

Carl

Carl, you and Willy knew about this before anyone other than GOABC members.

If you were so concerned why not fill every else in as to what's going on instead of keeping it to yourself. If the concern was sheep first, you and willy for that matter, would have put it on here ages ago when you found out, which was a month before any resident representatives had the chance to have a conversation with biologists and there still hasn't been any data shared. The numbers posted were received last week and they have nothing to do with 2012-16 or the allocation policy moving forward!

Quit the bashing - if you want to help, please feel free, if not, quit bagging on everybody else who does the work. You're filling into your father's shoes very well - point fingers at everyone else, tell them they're doing a poor job and do nothing! Probably makes you feel good, but does no good for wildlife or those of us volunteer our time and donate our hard earned pay cheques.

With friends like this, we don't need enemies.

[bigwhiteys]

If you were so concerned why not fill every else in as to what's going on instead of keeping it to yourself.

I don't proclaim myself to be any form of resident hunting advocate. The rest of your post is just personal BS and not worth responding too. Add something constructive to the thread and shut up about my family.

Carl

[GoatGuy]

I don't proclaim myself to be any form of resident hunting advocate. The rest of your post is just personal BS and not worth responding too. Add something constructive to the thread and shut up about my family.

Carl

Who said you had to be? (although you've done a nice do of inferring 'we' and bagging on resident reps)

You can be an advocate for sheep. Hopefully you've figured out that removing sheep from Cat A isn't in the best interests of the species. There is certainly a non-partisan approach to all of this, and I don't see either you or Willy pursuing what's in the best interests of sheep. Course if history is an indicator, the expectation would be to point out what everyone else is doing wrong, followed by nothingness. History has proven that correct.

Both of you knew before anyone else, you have the inside scoop and neglected to pass anything along or do anything. Willy thinks it will help push sheep on to LEH and you want to bag on volunteers - GREAT JOB!!!!!!!!!!!! That is constructive. While most people would consider sheep ending up on LEH a management failure, Willy's cheering and wants management to fail to such a point that the harvest regime has to change due to conservation related concerns. WOW! That's looking out for sheep.

I guess it doesn't matter. Either way we come back to square one, bag on the people who volunteer, and then do nothing. If there was ever a time I thought you and Willy would go berzerk and do something proactive and productive, it would be now, but no, still nothing other than baggin on everyone else.

"Judge not a man by his words, but by his actions," seems very appropriate. I've seen this rerun a thousand times on here, time to change the channel.

Like I said, wildlife has no need for enemies with friends like that.

[TSS]

Carl, you and Willy knew about this before anyone other than GOABC members.

If you were so concerned why not fill every else in as to what's going on instead of keeping it to yourself. If the concern was sheep first, you and willy for that matter, would have put it on here ages ago when you found out, which was a month before any resident representatives had the chance to have a conversation with biologists and there still hasn't been any data shared. The numbers posted were received last week and they have nothing to do with 2012-16 or the allocation policy moving forward!

Quit the bashing - if you want to help, please feel free, if not, quit bagging on everybody else who does the work. You're filling into your father's shoes very well - point fingers at everyone else, tell them they're doing a poor job and do nothing! Probably makes you feel good, but does no good for wildlife or those of us volunteer our time and donate our hard earned pay cheques.

With friends like this, we don't need enemies.

Yes GG, I knew of this December 15th one day after it happened. No I did not post it as I'm not a resident representative like yourself nor was there any reason to blow the whistle at that time. I do recall back in January a PM sent to Carl by you inquiring about what we thought of sheep being pulled out of the allocation process. I assume that is when you and the federation recieved the news and should have posted it out to the membership and all hunters. You know as well as anyone that a short paragraph on here would cause the biggest uprising amongst resident hunters. Yet you kept silent along with all the others that are telling us they represent the resident.

You can claim what you want against me not blowing the whistle. It is not a new thing that I do not support your views on sheep nor thier management. I have been an advocate for years, of some system to disperse the resident hunter and if LEH is what is going to accomplish that then so be it. Thats what I will support like it or not.

Last but not least though I do thank the BCWF for supplying cheap quad insurance to many of my friends and family. They have done a much better job of keeping Quads on the back roads than game in our hills. Hope you, FD, and Mr Dean all have a nice day. I'm going to sit back now, enjoy the day and watch the wreck.

[6616]

This will be discussed at length at the WSS convention, however unfortunately we will all be "beating up" on the regional bio's who really have no control over what is being done, this is the ELECTED officials of the current government F******g both resident hunters/conservationists as well as wildlife for monetary gain (as they see it), there is a ton more going on from the hijacking of wildlife funding via HCTF funding to the "overseeing" of wildlife management in region six by first nations...we are in for a tough ride...I have always voted "right wing" but the arrogance of this current regime is intolerable and is doing potentially irreversible damage to our wildlife...time for them to move on.. DD

Deaddog, I have to agree beating up on regional bios is not the answer, this is not their fault. They do not make policy or final decisions, but I also have to say the regional decision makers in the Branch do have to bear a lot of the responsibility for this allocation mess, not just the politicians. Addison made his decision re 7b sheep on his own, Minister Thompson was not happy with him and it nearly cost Chris big. I do agree the way to solve this issue is through political action so that some accountability is created within the Branch to make regional decision makers more accountable for their actions. How can they realistically expect to get away with completelly ignoring policy? There's no use in discussing this with buearocrats anymore, it's time to go political. I know it goes against the grain since our main value is science based management, but wildlife management is now political instead of science based so we have to be more active politically as well. Won't minister Thompson be at the AGM as well Jim, perhaps he is the one that should be asked the hard questions?

[Call of the Wild]

You can claim what you want against me not blowing the whistle. It is not a new thing that I do not support your views on sheep nor thier management. I have been an advocate for years, of some system to disperse the resident hunter and if LEH is what is going to accomplish that then so be it. Thats what I will support like it or not.

Last but not least though I do thank the BCWF for supplying cheap quad insurance to many of my friends and family. They have done a much better job of keeping Quads on the back roads than game in our hills. Hope you, FD, and Mr Dean all have a nice day. I'm going to sit back now, enjoy the day and watch the wreck.


I understand that’s what you’ve been preaching for years implementing LEH on stone sheep for resident, saying that’s what is needed for conservation. But for someone who talks loud about proper management for sheep FIRST, I’d like to know why it seems you’re taking pleasure at the current new situation/change of management stated on this post? Seriously taking GO out of quota for stone sheep is the best thing to do for these animals that you cherish so much?

This is not a personal attack, I’m just questioning your statement since to me you seem to contradict yourself.

[6616]

I understand that’s what you’ve been preaching for years implementing LEH on stone sheep for resident, saying that’s what is needed for conservation. But for someone who talks loud about proper management for sheep FIRST, I’d like to know why it seems you’re taking pleasure at the current new situation/change of management stated on this post? Seriously taking GO out of quota for stone sheep is the best thing to do for these animals that you cherish so much?

This is not a personal attack, I’m just questioning your statement since to me you seem to contradict yourself.

One thing is for sure, taking away allocation splits for sheep is going to result in the non-resident harvest increasing and probably surpassing resident harvest in many areas within a few years. The conservation call to put residents on LEH will sound a little silly then...!

[bigwhiteys]

"Judge not a man by his words, but by his actions," seems very appropriate. I've seen this rerun a thousand times on here, time to change the channel.


LOL... Yeah.. Right and you've been a ranting star in every one of the reruns, I wonder how everyone judges that...? My family has put more time and money into sheep and sheep hunting then you will in 3 lifetimes... It's insulting to see you spew otherwise. I continue to donate my services to the WSSOBC for auction, I am a member of the BCWF, Willy even donated $1000 into your little newspaper ad fund. What else do you want us to do? I am already doing more than many, so telling me (we) do nothing is a farce. I have a family and a business to run, I can't invest the same level of my time that you do, but don't tell me I do nothing.

[ryanb]

When it has become an obvious political issue, bcwf needs to realize that they're not going to get anywhere with negotiations anymore. They need to do a better job communicating to and thus mobilizing its membership politically.

[budismyhorse]

Carl.......it isn't about the money at this point. Its about time spent at the table and in meetings. You and your dad have some pretty serious opinions and everyone just wonders if you are actually using the options within the BCWF membership to put forward those opinions.

Are you getting invovled with your executive? Are you sitting in meetings with the GOABC or the F/W branch and trying to talk sense?

The fact is the Fed knew about this potential for a long time but its my understanding nothing was set in stone. In the back, many people have been trying to fight this through negotiation with the Branch. You talk about insulting........your blasting away saying the Fed has just sat on their hands.

I suspect you have that opinion because you are not invovled in any way with your executive/club presidents. If you are invovled and your Club has in fact been sitting on their hands......that is a regional problem and not indicative of the entire Fed.

[TSS]

I understand that’s what you’ve been preaching for years implementing LEH on stone sheep for resident, saying that’s what is needed for conservation. But for someone who talks loud about proper management for sheep FIRST, I’d like to know why it seems you’re taking pleasure at the current new situation/change of management stated on this post? Seriously taking GO out of quota for stone sheep is the best thing to do for these animals that you cherish so much?


This is not a personal attack, I’m just questioning your statement since to me you seem to contradict yourself.

I do not support the issue of taking todays outfitters off of anything. I support LEH and even no nonresident hunting in the highly accessible places along roads and water ways. Let the G/O hunt but force him back where he is fully equiped to go. Places the resident can't easily reach, leave the highway to them (the resident). I'm totally against the over hunting of any area like along the highway at present. I know this is a matter of opinion, but was born and raised there. I know first hand what used to be in these locations. I also know what was in the back country and most info I see dictates it hasn't changed much.

[325]

I do not support the issue of taking todays outfitters off of anything. I support LEH and even no nonresident hunting in the highly accessible places along roads and water ways. Let the G/O hunt but force him back where he is fully equiped to go. Places the resident can't easily reach, leave the highway to them (the resident). I'm totally against the over hunting of any area like along the highway at present. I know this is a matter of opinion, but was born and raised there. I know first hand what used to be in these locations. I also know what was in the back country and most info I see dictates it hasn't changed much.

Harvest numbers were quite high for 2011, and I assume most residents accessed their hunting areas off of the highway. If resident pressure in these areas has reduced populations to a level of concern, then shouldn't harvest rates reflect that?

[TSS]

Harvest numbers were quite high for 2011, and I assume most residents accessed their hunting areas off of the highway. If resident pressure in these areas has reduced populations to a level of concern, then shouldn't harvest rates reflect that?

My guess is they do, if you consider the amount of young or underage rams shot. Most of them would have come from these types of area's, indicating to me that the old Rams have all been taken and now we are killing the younger breeding rams.

[The Dude]

Admittedly I'm in over my head here, as you guys have a checkered past, and I'm a relative newcomer to this, I must humbly admit. :D

OK, simple question to Willy442 and Carl:
What do you think the split should be between Residents and GO's, and/or do you think the Residents should be strictly on LEH for Stones?
Also, do you think the Bio's should have the final say on AAH, or it should come about as a result of aggressive lobbying?
I'm not trying to stir the pot, I just wanna know where we all stand. United or divided?

[bigwhiteys]

What do you think the split should be between Residents and GO's, and/or do you think the Residents should be strictly on LEH for Stones?


I don't see a problem with where it's at now? I do think there are a few very localized areas that would benefit from a liberal LEH and NO guide presence.


Also, do you think the Bio's should have the final say on AAH, or it should come about as a result of aggressive lobbying?


Bios with the $$$ and backing to conduct the studies that will produce solid data they can defend.



I'm not trying to stir the pot, I just wanna know where we all stand. United or divided?


I am definitely not pro GO.... But sit on the fence with many resident views towards sheep hunting. Does that help you?

[TSS]

Admittedly I'm in over my head here, as you guys have a checkered past, and I'm a relative newcomer to this, I must humbly admit. :D

OK, simple question to Willy442 and Carl:
What do you think the split should be between Residents and GO's, and/or do you think the Residents should be strictly on LEH for Stones?
Also, do you think the Bio's should have the final say on AAH, or it should come about as a result of aggressive lobbying?
I'm not trying to stir the pot, I just wanna know where we all stand. United or divided?

The split is fine where it is for now. Regulation and or policy should maintain the flexability to adjust the overall harvest as required for the best practices of game management as dictated by the Biologists and regional managers. Not through political pressures of either user group. There is no room for politics in game management period.

To answer your question on LEH. No: I do not believe the resident should be on LEH over all Stone Sheep habitat. There are many areas that see very few resident hunters. These areas should left as open areas. The other more accessible place like along the Alaska Hwy and some of the water ways up there in my opinion see away to many hunters. They should go LEH and like I said even as far as no nonresident hunting in there boundaries. I've seen posts on here refering to some of these spots as being gong shows and endless camps, foot races to sheep etc. None of the things that point to a quality hunt or enjoyable experience in the quest of a ram. The reduction of hunter pressure in these areas would accomplish lots and could bring these areas back to plentiful herds and trophy rams instead of coffee table decorations and a few pounds of sheep meat.

[325]

My guess is they do, if you consider the amount of young or underage rams shot. Most of them would have come from these types of area's, indicating to me that the old Rams have all been taken and now we are killing the younger breeding rams.

Is this truly a conservation concern? If a Stones ram can start actively breeding at 5 years old, then there should still be many rams capable of inseminating ewes, thus ensuring that there will be a new crop of sheep.

If the concern is not absolute sheep numbers, but a population age structure with lots of old rams, I'm sure the argument could be made that high pressure areas lower the average age of rams, and thus trophy "quality". BUT, considering that only rams that are 8 years old or full curl are legal to harvest, the argument could also be made that rams are generally already within the older age classes before, on average, they are legal for harvest, and are certianly of a trophy class, for all but the B&C chasers.

[325]

The split is fine where it is for now. Regulation and or policy should maintain the flexability to adjust the overall harvest as required for the best practices of game management as dictated by the Biologists and regional managers. Not through political pressures of either user group. There is no room for politics in game management period.

To answer your question on LEH. No: I do not believe the resident should be on LEH over all Stone Sheep habitat. There are many areas that see very few resident hunters. These areas should left as open areas. The other more accessible place like along the Alaska Hwy and some of the water ways up there in my opinion see away to many hunters. They should go LEH and like I said even as far as no nonresident hunting in there boundaries. I've seen posts on here refering to some of these spots as being gong shows and endless camps, foot races to sheep etc. None of the things that point to a quality hunt or enjoyable experience in the quest of a ram. The reduction of hunter pressure in these areas would accomplish lots and could bring these areas back to plentiful herds and trophy rams instead of coffee table decorations and a few pounds of sheep meat.

How does hunting a small subset of population significantly reduce overall population size?? IMO bringing back "plentifull herds" has far more to do with predator and range managment, no?

[TSS]

Is this truly a conservation concern? If a Stones ram can start actively breeding at 5 years old, then there should still be many rams capable of inseminating ewes, thus ensuring that there will be a new crop of sheep.

If the concern is not absolute sheep numbers, but a population age structure with lots of old rams, I'm sure the argument could be made that high pressure areas lower the average age of rams, and thus trophy "quality". BUT, considering that only rams that are 8 years old or full curl are legal to harvest, the argument could also be made that rams are generally already within the older age classes before, on average, they are legal for harvest, and are certianly of a trophy class, for all but the B&C chasers.

I'm not about to get into that. Go back and look at information in the first post this thread. The poster is claiming a victory that the resident harvest is now higher than the nonresident by numbers that have never been attained before. He also states that the under age harvest increased if you work through numbers as Carl has stated. It could be said that the increase in rams was made up of all under age rams. You could say we are in direct competion for sheep and management takes a back seat by claiming such a victory. Is this really the way we want to deal with sheep hunting and management or do we want to improve what we have? Is my question to you?

[sako_300]

To answer your question on LEH. No: I do not believe the resident should be on LEH over all Stone Sheep habitat. There are many areas that see very few resident hunters. These areas should left as open areas. The other more accessible place like along the Alaska Hwy and some of the water ways up there in my opinion see away to many hunters. They should go LEH and like I said even as far as no nonresident hunting in there boundaries. I've seen posts on here refering to some of these spots as being gong shows and endless camps, foot races to sheep etc. None of the things that point to a quality hunt or enjoyable experience in the quest of a ram. The reduction of hunter pressure in these areas would accomplish lots and could bring these areas back to plentiful herds and trophy rams instead of coffee table decorations and a few pounds of sheep meat.

OK, devils advocate time... so let's say MoE places some zones on LEH and others remain open. If I'm a sheep hunter I'm doing everything I can to get into those "open" zones. This equals increased pressure = fail.

[325]

I'm not about to get into that. Go back and look at information in the first post this thread. The poster is claiming a victory that the resident harvest is now higher than the nonresident by numbers that have never been attained before. He also states that the under age harvest increased if you work through numbers as Carl has stated. It could be said that the increase in rams was made up of all under age rams. You could say we are in direct competion for sheep and management takes a back seat by claiming such a victory. Is this really the way we want to deal with sheep hunting and management or do we want to improve what we have? Is my question to you?

Managment of any game species should be directed by science. The OP does contain harvest data, but that's a bubble of information that cannot by itself direct managment changes.

If there is a constant level of hunting pressure from residents year to year (i.e, total # of hours hunting sheep/year/all sheep hunters) and the harvest increases, then the scientific extrapolation is that legal ram #s were high that year, which is a success, not a failure.

Maybe there were more sheep hunters aflield last year, and that resulted in higher harvest #'s?? I don't know, that info wasn't presented.

IMHO, sheep should be managed with a balance of conservation and resident hunter opportunity. Non-resident opportunities should only be offered after the resident demand is satisfied.

[TSS]

Managment of any game species should be directed by science. The OP does contain harvest data, but that's a bubble of information that cannot by itself direct managment changes.

If there is a constant level of hunting pressure from residents year to year (i.e, total # of hours hunting sheep/year/all sheep hunters) and the harvest increases, then the scientific extrapolation is that legal ram #s were high that year, which is a success, not a failure.

Maybe there were more sheep hunters aflield last year, and that resulted in higher harvest #'s?? I don't know, that info wasn't presented.

IMHO, sheep should be managed with a balance of conservation and resident hunter opportunity. Non-resident opportunities should only be offered after the resident demand is satisfied.

Wrong; Sheep should only be managed for the betterment of the animal period. If enough animals are out there then yes, resident and non resident hunting shoyulkd be looked at with the resident having a larger portion of the tags. At no time should game be managed for resident hunter opportunity, which leads full circle back to the political arena.

[TSS]

OK, devils advocate time... so let's say MoE places some zones on LEH and others remain open. If I'm a sheep hunter I'm doing everything I can to get into those "open" zones. This equals increased pressure = fail.

You are directing dedicated experienced sheep hunters with the equipment to get into the deepest depths of sheep country to do so. Those that draw are hunting the LEH areas. Every one still has the opportunity to hunt sheep and the sheep have a chance to improve if done right.
You and others can say or think what you want but as I've said many times the Ministry is away better at managing people than animals. It also costs away less to deal with the people, so be prepared it is coming.

[sako_300]

You are directing dedicated experienced sheep hunters with the equipment to get into the deepest depths of sheep country to do so. Those that draw are hunting the LEH areas. Every one still has the opportunity to hunt sheep and the sheep have a chance to improve if done right.
You and others can say or think what you want but as I've said many times the Ministry is away better at managing people than animals. It also costs away less to deal with the people, so be prepared it is coming.

And how do you regulate the G/O's under this scenario? oh wait, they won't have any restrictions on where they can hunt... sounds perfect.

[325]

Wrong; Sheep should only be managed for the betterment of the animal period. If enough animals are out there then yes, resident and non resident hunting shoyulkd be looked at with the resident having a larger portion of the tags. At no time should game be managed for resident hunter opportunity, which leads full circle back to the political arena.

Actually, you're wrong. Game animals across North America are managed for hunting opportunity and the conservation of the species. To say that sheep should be managed for the betterment of the animal period, would indicate that any sort of sport hunting should be eliminated, or if hunting were to occur, it would focus on even distribution throughout age and sex classes, as they do in Europe.

I am not an expert on sheep managment, but I was formerly a wildlife biologist and have enough knowledge and experience to see flaws within a system.

Also, could you please elaborate on the term "betterment" as it applies to Stone sheep???

[TSS]

Actually, you're wrong. Game animals across North America are managed for hunting opportunity and the conservation of the species. To say that sheep should be managed for the betterment of the animal period, would indicate that any sort of sport hunting should be eliminated, or if hunting were to occur, it would focus on even distribution throughout age and sex classes, as they do in Europe.

I am not an expert on sheep managment, but I was formerly a wildlife biologist and have enough knowledge and experience to see flaws within a system.

Also, could you please elaborate on the term "betterment" as it applies to Stone sheep???

Don't confuse what I said. Manage sheep first and hunt the surplus is what I was implying. As a bio it should be easy for you to understand how small area's can very quickly be decimated, which is also something I'm against. Hence go LEH or some form of restriction (for the betterment of the sheep). As a bio I'm sure you support some better counts and information then we have now.

[325]

Don't confuse what I said. Manage sheep first and hunt the surplus is what I was implying. As a bio it should be easy for you to understand how small area's can very quickly be decimated, which is also something I'm against. Hence go LEH or some form of restriction (for the betterment of the sheep). As a bio I'm sure you support some better counts and information then we have now.

I agree that more information is required to make informed managment decisions, but alas, $$ is always the limiting factor. I do agree that over-hunting in a small area can have an adverse effect on an population, but with harvest criteria that already limit the animal eligible to be harvested to a small subset of the general population, I think adjectives like "decimate" don't and cannot apply, although hunter success and satisfaction will be reduced in areas under that kind of pressure.

My own sheep hunting experiences are quite limited, but I would say that for every legal ram I've seen, I've probably seen 30-50 sub-legal rams, so even if I was 100% effective the population could not be decimated, epecially considering that at least half of the population are female.

[6616]

I don't see a problem with where it's at now? I do think there are a few very localized areas that would benefit from a liberal LEH and NO guide presence.

Bios with the $$$ and backing to conduct the studies that will produce solid data they can defend.

I am definitely not pro GO.... But sit on the fence with many resident views towards sheep hunting. Does that help you?

The 2011 harvest split (57/43) still represents a higher share of the harvest for non-residents than the non-resident cap of 40% stated in the policy. Region 6 is even worse where non-residents often harvest 75% of the total harvest. Yes, I'm sure the outfitters would like to see the current splits maintained rather than be subject to the 60/40 minimum/maximum split the policy calls for if it was implemented for Stone's Sheep. Why do you think the outfitters campaigned for the allocation policy to be removed for sheep? It's not about quota as that's inflated to a point where it is no limitation at all, it's simply because the outfitters are not satisfied with 40% of the harvest. They've always had more, sometimes significantly more, and they want to keep it that way....! Saying the splits are OK where they're at now is a pretty bold pro-outfitter statement. But of course you sit on the fence and you're not pro-GO.....?????

[TSS]

I agree that more information is required to make informed managment decisions, but alas, $$ is always the limiting factor. I do agree that over-hunting in a small area can have an adverse effect on an population, but with harvest criteria that already limit the animal eligible to be harvested to a small subset of the general population, I think adjectives like "decimate" don't and cannot apply, although hunter success and satisfaction will be reduced in areas under that kind of pressure.

My own sheep hunting experiences are quite limited, but I would say that for every legal ram I've seen, I've probably seen 30-50 sub-legal rams, so even if I was 100% effective the population could not be decimated, epecially considering that at least half of the population are female.

For the most part I agree with you. Where we differ is with the decimation of some small areas. As you know sheep especially Rams live in small groups, in some valley's, mountains and pockets throughout thier habitat. I personnaly know of a couple of areas that used to hold bands of rams that are no longer due to pressure from whatever reason. Could be hunters, predators , development or a combination of them all. Point being we might not decimate the sheep to the point of extinction, but everyone of these little pockets of sheep that disappear may be gone forever.

[bigwhiteys]

Saying the splits are OK where they're at now is a pretty bold pro-outfitter statement. But of course you sit on the fence and you're not pro-GO.....?????


I'll clarify my statement for you. Right now, my hunting is not affected. My plans for 2012 have not changed, likely not for 2013 and probably not 2014. It's still GOS, so I am fine with that right now. My kids sheep hunting opportunity might already have the writting on the wall. As residents in 7B we are harvesting more, that's a good thing, I thought? If residents had harvested 137 rams and non residents 91? Then we'd be all happy and smiles? Over this 3%? Because sheep hunting isn't an absolute guarantee of success will the numbers ever be perfect?

[325]

For the most part I agree with you. Where we differ is with the decimation of some small areas. As you know sheep especially Rams live in small groups, in some valley's, mountains and pockets throughout thier habitat. I personnaly know of a couple of areas that used to hold bands of rams that are no longer due to pressure from whatever reason. Could be hunters, predators , development or a combination of them all. Point being we might not decimate the sheep to the point of extinction, but everyone of these little pockets of sheep that disappear may be gone forever.

Severe hunting pressure, where it exists, can push animals out of otherwise suitable habitat. Perhaps there are areas where this has occured with Stone's sheep. I know where I use to guide there was a small group of mountains that use to be utilized by ewes and lambs, but for whatever reason, a decade before my time, they disappeared and the range was completely devoid of sheep. What factors lead to such abandonment of habitat are often purely speculative, and may be impossible to determine.

[325]

I'll clarify my statement for you. Right now, my hunting is not affected. My plans for 2012 have not changed, likely not for 2013 and probably not 2014. It's still GOS, so I am fine with that right now. My kids sheep hunting opportunity might already have the writting on the wall. As residents in 7B we are harvesting more, that's a good thing, I thought? If residents had harvested 137 rams and non residents 91? Then we'd be all happy and smiles? Over this 3%? Because sheep hunting isn't an absolute guarantee of success will the numbers ever be perfect?

My concern over sheep hunting is for my kids. I already have my ram, but I strongly desire for them to have the same opportunities as I have had. We need a combination of sound conservation, including predator and elk managment, as well as a continues political will to place the priorites of residents over non-residents...none of the above are a given.

[one-shot-wonder]

Additionally, even though the Ministry clearly stated in their decision on the Trumpy report that they would not use success factors to calculate quota, two regions (7B and 4) have done this for 2012 resulting in grossly inflated quotas, quotas that will mean the outfitters will have 70 to 80% of the sheep AAH under quota.

Policy appears to no longer mean anything at all, regional decision makers just do whatever the f__ they want regardless of policy. The allocation policy as negotiated in 2007 was fine, but it's total trash now considering all the revisions that have been made. The old allocation policy wouldn't work anymore either Mike, nor will any policy as long as the regions disregard policy completelly.

I suspect it might be time for resident hunters to no longer support F&W policy and to simply campaign for fixed and legislated non-resident limits in the Wildlife Act. Most North American jurisdictions have legislated caps of 10% of the total harvest for non-residents. A couple of the more generous ones go up to 20% for some species and one jurisdiction goes as high as 30% for bighorn sheep. Of course these are all lower than what BC allocates to non-residents for sheep,,,, so much for any commitment to resident priority by the F&W Branch.

Official definition of Catagory A Species from Harvest Allocation Policy:
"Category A Species' - means a big game species, population, or class for which guided hunters harvest is limited by quota in any portion of a region.

Absolutely.....Time for legislation to be set!

[TSS]

Minister thomson has chosen not to attend the WSSBC convention.. in fact he has stopped answering any emails or correspondence....good work minister!! John Cummins will be speaking at the convention instead...perhaps the liberals should pay attention and begin to work WITH people who would like to support them but keep getting kicked to the curb...In addition perhaps Mr.Addison should pay attention as only two months ago when his fort st John office RAN OUT of money for a inventory flight for sheep in 7-42.. who did he come to , certainly not NON RESIDENTS , but the WSSBC for the 10 grand, which we found, five from us and WE contacted goabc who kicked in the other five... perhaps Addison should start phoning non residents himself for ALL funding..not to say that non residents don't help, however it is an insult to every hunter who buys a license to have him spew this crap....If the gov't had any guts he would be gone.. DD

By your own admission in this post, you state that the WSSOBC donated 5000.00 and the Nonresident factor or GOABC also donated 5000.00. I would say in light of allocation shares, the nonresident is paying more than his share. In reality thats the way it should be (the commercial user footing the larger portion) but rather than complain. I would rather welcome the fact that jointly we are getting a study done and possibly could result in better management and hunting for all.

I would also suggest that the WSSBC and BCWF come forth on this issue of sheep in a timely fashion to thier members and the hunting population. You could have probably gained some sort of credibility with the Ministry and had Mr Thomson thier. How can anyone blame the man for not appearring. I can just imagine some of the radical emails that have crossed his desk on the matter.

[GoatGuy]

LOL... Yeah.. Right and you've been a ranting star in every one of the reruns, I wonder how everyone judges that...? My family has put more time and money into sheep and sheep hunting then you will in 3 lifetimes... It's insulting to see you spew otherwise. I continue to donate my services to the WSSOBC for auction, I am a member of the BCWF, Willy even donated $1000 into your little newspaper ad fund. What else do you want us to do? I am already doing more than many, so telling me (we) do nothing is a farce. I have a family and a business to run, I can't invest the same level of my time that you do, but don't tell me I do nothing.

Pulling your finger out of your but, pick up a pen and start writting some letters to politicians. Quit spending all of your time bagging on everyone else who is actually spend their time and energy on this.

I really don't care what side of the fence you're on in terms of allocations, you have to know that taking sheep of category A is a bad thing for sheep.

Politicians need to know that.

[Confused]

Minister thomson has chosen not to attend the WSSBC convention.. in fact he has stopped answering any emails or correspondence....good work minister!! John Cummins will be speaking at the convention instead...perhaps the liberals should pay attention and begin to work WITH people who would like to support them but keep getting kicked to the curb...In addition perhaps Mr.Addison should pay attention as only two months ago when his fort st John office RAN OUT of money for a inventory flight for sheep in 7-42.. who did he come to , certainly not NON RESIDENTS , but the WSSBC for the 10 grand, which we found, five from us and WE contacted goabc who kicked in the other five... perhaps Addison should start phoning non residents himself for ALL funding..not to say that non residents don't help, however it is an insult to every hunter who buys a license to have him spew this crap....If the gov't had any guts he would be gone.. DD

I understand your frustration, but I would hope that the WSSBC convention doesn't turn into a political arena. Nor do I hope that the government staff that shows up is pelted with rotten tomatoes. The thing about that org is that it has pretty much stayed above the fray of the political shitstorms. I am afraid if the organization goes in that direction, it will implode.
Bringing John cummings to spew his rhetoric is not good in my view, the Minister should be there. The WSSBC should try and stay completely neutral politically or it could pay a heavy price, both with its membership and the politicians, and I say this with the understanding that people from all political stripes will be there.

Just my 2 cents

[MadCat]

What I would realy like to know is why didn't the BCWF get the info out about this when they first heard about it? How are we supposed to write letters to the politicians about this when we don't even know about it? This is a huge deal and for it not to be brought out by the BCWF unitll two months after the fact is a bunch of BS. I would think that something like this you would get out on as many channels as you could, internet, email or by word of mouth, but no it took a post about harvest numbers to bring it up. something seems realy F*&^ed up right now!!

[ryanb]

No doubt. GOABC's motives are clear as day, and who can blame them. They run a business, and that's the magic word with the current government. BCWF's actions on the other hand really leave me scratching my head. At least it's out there now and those with the will to try and make a difference can do so.

[MadCat]

No doubt. GOABC's motives are clear as day, and who can blame them. They run a business, and that's the magic word with the current government. BCWF's actions on the other hand really leave me scratching my head. At least it's out there now and those with the will to try and make a difference can do so.

Yah but would be a little easier to try and fight if it wasn't already implemented, my heads bald from scratching it trying to figure out what took so long for it to come out.

[fireguy]

Yah but would be a little easier to try and fight if it wasn't already implemented, my heads bald from scratching it trying to figure out what took so long for it to come out.

Ask your regional allocations representative to keep you updated, each club should have the info about who your representative is and how to be in touch with them. This issue has not been ignored by the BCWF, I'm sure that this will be talked about at the BCWF convention.

[MtnBoy]

This is HUGE...why didn't any of us hear of this?? Lets say an outfitter had a quota of 13 rams last year....As of right now, that outfitter or any other can book 30 sheep hunters a season in 7b?...I think the areas accessible by the residents are going to get pounded!! I am really scratching my head on this. This will directly negatively affect the residents BIGTIME!

[snareman1234]

This is HUGE...why didn't any of us hear of this?? Lets say an outfitter had a quota of 13 rams last year....As of right now, that outfitter or any other can book 30 sheep hunters a season in 7b?...I think the areas accessible by the residents are going to get pounded!! I am really scratching my head on this. This will directly negatively affect the residents BIGTIME!

And the sheep.....

[The Dude]

Sorry to be so obtuse guys, I just can't get this.
SO: The AAH will STILL be determined by the Bios. Right? A given max numebr of say, Stones taken from this area.
The GO's will not have a cap on their tags they can sell?
Give a figure of say 218 for AAH. No-one's gonna dictate that GO's get 90 of these and residents the rest?
So if the GO in one tenure sells 30 hunts where they used to sell 13, and all the others do that, who knows when and where to stop the hunt when the AAH has been reached?
Or do we let things run amok for a few years and then say "Whoooaaa....WTF happened here?"
Even the pro-GOABC guys must see that many so-called "underage" rams will be taken. What's that do to the gene pool over the long term in relatively small herds?

[325]

This all stinks...

[sako_300]

I was going to hold off shooting a stone this year unless it's a cranker. Maybe I'll go and take down one of the many 8.5 (now 9.5) year olds I saw last year. What a friggin joke this is. Why don't we just hand the keys of the province to the USA and Europeans and have then run our sheep management program - practically what is happening.

Do you think the G/O's realize the basics of economics? supply and demand. You're going to see a curve shift and the prices reduced; therefore, the G/O's are going to be forced to sell more tags to supplement the deficit naturally created.

I'm done with this BS.

[bigwhiteys]

You guys are making assumptions that aren't true... They are still going to be bound by quota that will be set by the regional manager. They CANNOT book 30 hunters and go shoot 30 stones in one year, but you can bet they'll be funding studies to get some concrete population data to present to our government, that seems to have none. If they can convince the regional manager their specific area could support more tags then they *might* get some. That's my understanding anyways...

Willy has warned people on here about these issues for the last 4 or 5 years in several different threads and told people changes to Stone's Sheep like this would be rammed down your throat... He called it... Nobody likes it (including myself) but he did tell us.

[Whonnock Boy]

Willy has warned people on here about these issues for the last 4 or 5 years in several different threads and told people changes to Stone's Sheep like this would be rammed down your throat... He called it... Nobody likes it (including myself) but he did tell us.

In this particular case, is it acceptable to shoot the messenger? :wink:

[The Dude]

I ain't assuming shit. I'm asking.
Any huntable population should have allocations that favour the people that pay for the studies, the ones that pay taxes, do habitat enhancement, get up at 5 AM to go do counts on sheep numbers, etc.
Anything less than 80-20 seems like a complete butt-reaming, IMHO.
This is the first I have heard of this as well. GOABC is doing what they want because BCWF dropped the ball.
You guys dropped the ball on this one. Admit it.
And don't say "It's because hunters aren't involved!" Look at any sheep count thread or sheep transplant or elk transplant thread.
We wanna help, we just don't know what to do, cuz there's no damn leaders with balls.

[bigwhiteys]

In this particular case, is it acceptable to shoot the messenger? :wink:
Do whatever you want... :) My letters are already sent, I'm trying to do what I can, contrary to what GoatGuy wants to infer.

http://www.bcwf.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=95&Itemid=379 <--- BCWF "News Release" page. This issue is still not on there.

[snareman1234]

BCWF dropped the ball.
You guys dropped the ball on this one. Admit it.
And don't say "It's because hunters aren't involved!" Look at any sheep count thread or sheep transplant or elk transplant thread.
We wanna help, we just don't know what to do, cuz there's no damn leaders with balls.

It's one thing to be out on the front line, and an entirely different one sitting at home and keeping score.

[The Dude]

It's one thing to be out on the front line, and an entirely different one sitting at home and keeping score.

My point, that you obviously missed, is that there are soldiers in the trenches. They just don't know where to fight. Nice pointless post though. Keep it up. It's entirely in keeping with all sheep threads.

[bigwhiteys]

I ain't assuming shit. I'm asking.

Sorry, wasn't meaning to be rude :)


Any huntable population should have allocations that favour the people that pay for the studies, the ones that pay taxes, do habitat enhancement, get up at 5 AM to go do counts on sheep numbers, etc.


With these changes, the door is open for GOABC to fund their own studies, to then submit to Gov. It's my understanding MOE had around $200k for inventory studies this year, for all species? A tiny portion of which was allocated to Stone's Sheep in one MU. They simply don't have the data.... What conclusion do you think the GO's paid bios will come too? lol...

[onpoint]

So for those of you who are in the trenches AND for those back behind the lines with BCWF and advocate groups what should the new and/or aspiring resident sheep hunter do here? The guys on the front lines obviously live in areas where they can be in the trenches so to speak, but what about those of us that don't live in areas where we can volunteer time and energy into counts, projects, etc? We obviously can join the WSSOBC and donate and write letters but let's be honest, how much does a letter actually accomplish? For those of us who live in the southern, more populated parts of the province can/should we be forming chapters or more important LOBBYING groups to push this topic? I'll bet the GOABC have a lobbying arm. United we stand, divided we fall rings very true here. So if we can't get out for counts or other northern based projects what in the EXPERIENCED guys opinions are our best options for getting involved. And I mean ACTION-based ideas here.

And yes, I am a complete newbie to the sheep threads here so I know I've missed a ton of back-story here (and it sounds like a long one) so if someone wants to PM me the details please do. But even though I am a newbie I still feel strongly about this issue and wild sheep conservation and resident/GO opportunity "balancing" as well. As a business owner I get it on the GO side but NO ONE wins if we don't find an appropriate balance between the needs and wants of the two groups. I know the guys I hunt with feel strongly about these sorts of issues and if we knew WHAT we could do we would in any way possible

[one-shot-wonder]

With these changes, the door is open for GOABC to fund their own studies, to then submit to Gov. It's my understanding MOE had around $200k for inventory studies this year, for all species? A tiny portion of which was allocated to Stone's Sheep in one MU. They simply don't have the data.... What conclusion do you think the GO's paid bios will come too? lol...

I thought that MoE ahd 1,600,000 for inventory.......maybe 200K was specifically for Stone sheep?

[Fisher-Dude]

With these changes, the door is open for GOABC to fund their own studies, to then submit to Gov. It's my understanding MOE had around $200k for inventory studies this year, for all species? A tiny portion of which was allocated to Stone's Sheep in one MU. They simply don't have the data.... What conclusion do you think the GO's paid bios will come too? lol...


Try 8 times that amount. And that doesn't include what was syphoned from HCTF.

[Fisher-Dude]

So for those of you who are in the trenches AND for those back behind the lines with BCWF and advocate groups what should the new and/or aspiring resident sheep hunter do here?


Get involved with your local BCWF club, stay apprised of the issues, volunteer to help out, and you can make a difference.

[one-shot-wonder]

what should the new and/or aspiring resident sheep hunter do here? The guys on the front lines obviously live in areas where they can be in the trenches so to speak, but what about those of us that don't live in areas where we can volunteer time and energy into counts, projects, etc? We obviously can join the WSSOBC and donate and write letters but let's be honest, how much does a letter actually accomplish? For those of us who live in the southern, more populated parts of the province can/should we be forming chapters or more important LOBBYING groups to push this topic? I'll bet the GOABC have a lobbying arm. United we stand, divided we fall rings very true here. So if we can't get out for counts or other northern based projects what in the EXPERIENCED guys opinions are our best options for getting involved. And I mean ACTION-based ideas here.

Glad to hear you are looking to get involved, we need more people like you......

This is totally political so the grass roots level on the ground need for projects is the case right now.

Firstly, you live in the lower mainland this is an opportunity to let our MLA know about the garbage that is taking place in region 6 & 7B. Perhaps they aren't aware....or dont care, you can take time to let them know that as a voting constituant you aren't going to allow this to continue and you have had enough of what has taken place.

Secondly, another avenue to take is get involved with a local club they need people like you that are willing and able to stand up and get involved.

You can also lend a hand by delivering these extremely important messages to other resident hunters that are complacent or have there head in the sand.

You might think as only one RH you can't do much but united we can get momentum moving things in a better direction!

[bigwhiteys]

Try 8 times that amount. And that doesn't include what was syphoned from HCTF.


I stand corrected then.


Get involved with your local BCWF club, stay apprised of the issues, volunteer to help out, and you can make a difference.

Not everyone can involve themselves to the level that some of you choose to.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Of all those people bitching about the BCWF not doing enough, how many of those complainers attend their clubs' monthly meetings(where I first learned of this) as well as regional meetings??

SSS

[one-shot-wonder]

Not everyone can involve themselves to the level that some of you choose to.

It's called showing up.....represent, be counted, that is the first step.
Who's to say that every member can't contribute in one way or another....

Also don't forget a vote is a vote

[budismyhorse]

Not everyone can involve themselves to the level that some of you choose to.

Exactly Carl.........so if this is the case why on earth would you fire off at the mouth against THOSE THAT CHOOSE TO VOLUNTEER??

The fact is the BOD and all the VOLUNTEERS with BCWF did what the could while you blogged about gear and bear hunting.

In the end they still got buggered. In this case the Farmer strapped on the velcro gloves and took the sheep hunters of BC behind the barn........

[bigwhiteys]

Exactly Carl.........so if this is the case why on earth would you fire off at the mouth against THOSE THAT CHOOSE TO VOLUNTEER??

The fact is the BOD and all the VOLUNTEERS with BCWF did what the could while you blogged about gear and bear hunting.

So are you saying the BCWF as a whole is not open to any critism from it's membership? Thankfully, my personal website is my own and I can blog about whatever I choose too, it's not a conservation organization with a membership I am accountable too.

[40incher]

There are some things missing from this whole discussion that need to illuminated.

We hade a perfectly functional Allocation Policy (AP) for decades, the biggest problem was that the bureaucrats (in their little kingdoms) refused to fully implement it in favour of resident hunters. Under this policy the guides had no minimum allocation percentages, they could go to 0% on any species, including sheep. Also, under this policy, BC residents had clear and well-documented "priority".

So what happened? Well, some of the guides (with territories that held high-end species like sheep, roosevelt elk, shiras moose, etc ....) decided to push for reopening the AP to better their position because they were afraid of the potential of the existing AP if it was "ever" fully implemented. These guides convinced the necessary bureaucrats, who were eager for more power and control, to wipe out the old AP and invent a new one. Our very trusting resident representatives, despite warnings from some, decided to jump on board. I doubt if they would do so today, given what is transpiring.

So after three years or so of absolute acriminonial backstabbing, facilitated and promoted by the bureaucrats, the now-warring factions signed off on the new "improved" AP. Shortly after this event, which entrenched minimum %'s for all the guides that they had never had before, it became obvious to us poor residents that the new AP was not going to be fully implemented (just like the previous one).

When the guides figured out that there were aspects of the new AP that might negatively affect them they set out to convince the politicians to lean on the bureaucrats to kill it. In reality it didn't take much leaning, given how dysfunctional the system is. Removing sheep as a Category A species in effect removes it from the jurisdiction of the new AP. It also opens the door for any sheep guide's present allocation to be appealed to the Environmental Appeal Board (EAB), based on the fact that the guides maximum cap of 40% does not apply any longer as that was part of the new AP.

So where are we now as BC residents? Screwed would by the polite answer.

We gave up on a policy that was drafted by clear-thinking people, who had the absolute priority of BC residents first and foremost. We ended up with an incomplete pie-in-the-sky policy that looked good on paper but one that would never be fully implemented. Some guides got their guaranteed minimums on sheep and other high-end species, while some of the smaller family-operated businesses got the proverbial shaft. This action has led many guides to end any association with "their" representatives.

The process of developing a new AP to "allow for certainty" and then removing the single-most controversial species from the mix is not only absurd, it is criminal. It should be addressed as such.

As for the sheep guides, one should also keep in mind that while your maximum (40%) is now off the table and you think you can gain by appealing through the EAB, keep in mind your minimum (20% I believe) is aslo off the table! :) Good luck on that.

Bottom line is that we have a corrupt system, and it is only going to get worse for BC residents unfortunately.

If you care about your future opportunities you can do something. Write your local MLA (c.c.'d to the Minister and possibly your local newspaper) and inform them that you do not support what has transpired. Tell them that if things don't change quickly you have a good memory, one that will extend to the provincial election next spring.

If we are going to suffer on with the new AP then sheep must be Category A. As well, no other species should be taken out of Category A without we BC resident hunters agreeing to it.

At this point, addressing the bureaucrats is a futile exercise. They should just fade away with their heads hung low.

[ryanb]

All the BCWF apologists are missing the point. Get the word out! Can't fight a problem if people don't know it's a problem.

[budismyhorse]

ryanb.........the word was out to those who are involved.

[budismyhorse]

So are you saying the BCWF as a whole is not open to any critism from it's membership? Thankfully, my personal website is my own and I can blog about whatever I choose too, it's not a conservation organization with a membership I am accountable too.

Its pretty smug of you to sit in the weeds and then flame away no matter what you say now.

sit in the weeds all you want but STFU when things don't go as you had hoped.

by all means say what you want, but its a two way street.

I would have expected more tact coming from you is all..........TSS.......well, pretty standard there.

[GoatGuy]

Its pretty smug of you to sit in the weeds and then flame away no matter what you say now.

sit in the weeds all you want but STFU when things don't go as you had hoped.

by all means say what you want, but its a two way street.

Hard as it is, best to ignore Bud. The more they're engaged the more they complain about everyone else - Willy's on his 3rd or 4th name change here now and he keeps on coming back despite being banned.

BW's only doing what he's been taught. Willy has a history of barking at the wagon, destroying relationships, pointing the finger and can't show a result with 30+ years involved.

With friends like that, we don't need enemies.

[GoatGuy]

All the BCWF apologists are missing the point. Get the word out! Can't fight a problem if people don't know it's a problem.

There's a process that always goes on behind the scenes - hundreds of things that have gone on that would shock you. Sometimes dropping a bomb is the best approach, sometimes it isn't - if the time comes I'm sure this laundry will end up getting aired.

[GoatGuy]

There are some things missing from this whole discussion that need to illuminated.

We hade a perfectly functional Allocation Policy (AP) for decades, the biggest problem was that the bureaucrats (in their little kingdoms) refused to fully implement it in favour of resident hunters. Under this policy the guides had no minimum allocation percentages, they could go to 0% on any species, including sheep. Also, under this policy, BC residents had clear and well-documented "priority".

So what happened? Well, some of the guides (with territories that held high-end species like sheep, roosevelt elk, shiras moose, etc ....) decided to push for reopening the AP to better their position because they were afraid of the potential of the existing AP if it was "ever" fully implemented. These guides convinced the necessary bureaucrats, who were eager for more power and control, to wipe out the old AP and invent a new one. Our very trusting resident representatives, despite warnings from some, decided to jump on board. I doubt if they would do so today, given what is transpiring.

So after three years or so of absolute acriminonial backstabbing, facilitated and promoted by the bureaucrats, the now-warring factions signed off on the new "improved" AP. Shortly after this event, which entrenched minimum %'s for all the guides that they had never had before, it became obvious to us poor residents that the new AP was not going to be fully implemented (just like the previous one).

When the guides figured out that there were aspects of the new AP that might negatively affect them they set out to convince the politicians to lean on the bureaucrats to kill it. In reality it didn't take much leaning, given how dysfunctional the system is. Removing sheep as a Category A species in effect removes it from the jurisdiction of the new AP. It also opens the door for any sheep guide's present allocation to be appealed to the Environmental Appeal Board (EAB), based on the fact that the guides maximum cap of 40% does not apply any longer as that was part of the new AP.

So where are we now as BC residents? Screwed would by the polite answer.

We gave up on a policy that was drafted by clear-thinking people, who had the absolute priority of BC residents first and foremost. We ended up with an incomplete pie-in-the-sky policy that looked good on paper but one that would never be fully implemented. Some guides got their guaranteed minimums on sheep and other high-end species, while some of the smaller family-operated businesses got the proverbial shaft. This action has led many guides to end any association with "their" representatives.

The process of developing a new AP to "allow for certainty" and then removing the single-most controversial species from the mix is not only absurd, it is criminal. It should be addressed as such.

As for the sheep guides, one should also keep in mind that while your maximum (40%) is now off the table and you think you can gain by appealing through the EAB, keep in mind your minimum (20% I believe) is aslo off the table! :) Good luck on that.

Bottom line is that we have a corrupt system, and it is only going to get worse for BC residents unfortunately.

If you care about your future opportunities you can do something. Write your local MLA (c.c.'d to the Minister and possibly your local newspaper) and inform them that you do not support what has transpired. Tell them that if things don't change quickly you have a good memory, one that will extend to the provincial election next spring.

If we are going to suffer on with the new AP then sheep must be Category A. As well, no other species should be taken out of Category A without we BC resident hunters agreeing to it.

At this point, addressing the bureaucrats is a futile exercise. They should just fade away with their heads hung low.

The majority of this is good advice.

[Fosey]

Alot of good points, all I know is the BCWF allocation committee worked there asses off but the resident hunters are the ones that make a difference. The only thing that Politicians understand is votes and it is up to us to visit our MLA's and make a difference.

[bigwhiteys]

Round and Round we go....

[325]

Emailed letter to the Ministers office cc'd to my MLA DONE!

[snareman1234]

Emailed letter to the Ministers office cc'd to my MLA DONE!

I did the same this afternoon, but to the my MLA, cc'd to minister....same deal lol

[goatdancer]

Sorry, wasn't meaning to be rude :)



With these changes, the door is open for GOABC to fund their own studies, to then submit to Gov. It's my understanding MOE had around $200k for inventory studies this year, for all species? A tiny portion of which was allocated to Stone's Sheep in one MU. They simply don't have the data.... What conclusion do you think the GO's paid bios will come too? lol...

Why should the bios come to anything but a factual conclusion? Are they being paid to do an inventory study or just make up a bunch of numbers to suit the GO's agenda? If it's the former, then we will have accurate numbers to work with. If it's the latter, then they and their employers are just a bunch of liars that should lose all credibility and the GO's should have major cutbacks to their quotas.

[kootenayelkslayer]

Why should the bios come to anything but a factual conclusion? Are they being paid to do an inventory study or just make up a bunch of numbers to suit the GO's agenda? If it's the former, then we will have accurate numbers to work with. If it's the latter, then they and their employers are just a bunch of liars that should lose all credibility and the GO's should have major cutbacks to their quotas.

You would hope that they would have the professionalism to not give in to pressure from the GO's funding the surveys...if they did, I think the term 'biostitutes' would be appropriate.

[BChunter]

I've flown and boated into region 7, 8 times. One of two of my rams is a full curl above the bridge is only 6.5 yrs old. One is in my pic and 10.5 yrs old, 38 inches.
The expence and effort to get in and mountain hunt is well worth your time. I have personally been on 5 Ram harvests. They are great to pack, eat and admire. We always see lots of sheep, goats, moose and bear. The regions Stones live in, is very inaccessable. My hat goes off to those that go to the work to harvest any legal thinhorn Ram. I know a long retired sheep hunter. He told me after 25 years between the 60's and 80's he never shot a 40 incher and passed up many that were great rams. His advise today, shoot the first legal ram! Frank Cook (Scoop Lake)claimed he once harvested over 50 Rams a year easily. They are still there and doing well! I have walked some of the same peaks and the game is all over! Two years ago we passed up a 60+ bull moose in the sub alpine willows so we wouldn't disturb sheep or goats. An hour earlier, we watched a grizzly. The next day we passed up two big billies and settled for two legal rams. No bullshit! Another tid bit, once we walked up on 5 rams and they left the area they were feeding in. Two days later they were in the same spot and the area gets fair pressure from a local outfitter. Remember, non-residents pay dearly for Stone rams. I wish them all success and their guides good eye sight! The above-the-bridge and 8 year+ spec is effective in my opinion.

[bridger]

There are some things missing from this whole discussion that need to illuminated.

We hade a perfectly functional Allocation Policy (AP) for decades, the biggest problem was that the bureaucrats (in their little kingdoms) refused to fully implement it in favour of resident hunters. Under this policy the guides had no minimum allocation percentages, they could go to 0% on any species, including sheep. Also, under this policy, BC residents had clear and well-documented "priority".

So what happened? Well, some of the guides (with territories that held high-end species like sheep, roosevelt elk, shiras moose, etc ....) decided to push for reopening the AP to better their position because they were afraid of the potential of the existing AP if it was "ever" fully implemented. These guides convinced the necessary bureaucrats, who were eager for more power and control, to wipe out the old AP and invent a new one. Our very trusting resident representatives, despite warnings from some, decided to jump on board. I doubt if they would do so today, given what is transpiring.

So after three years or so of absolute acriminonial backstabbing, facilitated and promoted by the bureaucrats, the now-warring factions signed off on the new "improved" AP. Shortly after this event, which entrenched minimum %'s for all the guides that they had never had before, it became obvious to us poor residents that the new AP was not going to be fully implemented (just like the previous one).

When the guides figured out that there were aspects of the new AP that might negatively affect them they set out to convince the politicians to lean on the bureaucrats to kill it. In reality it didn't take much leaning, given how dysfunctional the system is. Removing sheep as a Category A species in effect removes it from the jurisdiction of the new AP. It also opens the door for any sheep guide's present allocation to be appealed to the Environmental Appeal Board (EAB), based on the fact that the guides maximum cap of 40% does not apply any longer as that was part of the new AP.

So where are we now as BC residents? Screwed would by the polite answer.

We gave up on a policy that was drafted by clear-thinking people, who had the absolute priority of BC residents first and foremost. We ended up with an incomplete pie-in-the-sky policy that looked good on paper but one that would never be fully implemented. Some guides got their guaranteed minimums on sheep and other high-end species, while some of the smaller family-operated businesses got the proverbial shaft. This action has led many guides to end any association with "their" representatives.

The process of developing a new AP to "allow for certainty" and then removing the single-most controversial species from the mix is not only absurd, it is criminal. It should be addressed as such.

As for the sheep guides, one should also keep in mind that while your maximum (40%) is now off the table and you think you can gain by appealing through the EAB, keep in mind your minimum (20% I believe) is aslo off the table! :) Good luck on that.

Bottom line is that we have a corrupt system, and it is only going to get worse for BC residents unfortunately.

If you care about your future opportunities you can do something. Write your local MLA (c.c.'d to the Minister and possibly your local newspaper) and inform them that you do not support what has transpired. Tell them that if things don't change quickly you have a good memory, one that will extend to the provincial election next spring.

If we are going to suffer on with the new AP then sheep must be Category A. As well, no other species should be taken out of Category A without we BC resident hunters agreeing to it.

At this point, addressing the bureaucrats is a futile exercise. They should just fade away with their heads hung low.

I agree that the performance of ministry staff has been less than sterling when dealing with allocation issues overbthe years, but your comments comparing the old policy with the new one are off the mark. The new one gained significant advantages for resident priority on several fronts in particular when it came to non resident minimum shares of the various species. Why else would the general membership of the goabc pull out of the policy and why would we now have a new organization representing those guide outfitters? In case you are not aware there has been a split in the goabc and some of the outfitters have formed a new organization THE UNITED SPORTSMANSHIP ASSOCIATION. This was spawned due to the perceived losses under the new allocation policy.

[bigwhiteys]

In case you are not aware there has been a split in the goabc and some of the outfitters have formed a new organization THE UNITED SPORTSMANSHIP ASSOCIATION. This was spawned due to the perceived losses under the new allocation policy.

-RELEASE-

On February 29, 2012 the United Sportsmen’s Association (USA) executive and founding members met with the governing Liberal party caucus to discuss the following concerns in British Columbia:

• The implementation of the new Harvest Allocation policies and procedures which will have a serious negative impact on the guide outfitting industry in British Columbia.
• The Future of the Commercial Wildlife Industry – including issues such as government bonding, taxation and industry operational challenges.
• Resident and Non Resident Hunting Opportunities in BC.
• Increasing road, trail and ATV access being pushed into BC backcountry and the related impacts of access, on fish and wildlife populations.

After a private meeting with the Liberal caucus, our members were also able to meet with the Honorable Steve Thomson, Minister of Forests Lands and Natural Resource Operations, for a brief private meeting.
The USA members presented to the Liberal caucus and the Minister that the USA is “united” as it works to represent the interests of various concerned stakeholders in British Columbia and, the USA feels that a stronger focus on wildlife management is needed within the Province.

The main focus of this set of meetings was in regard to the current Guide Outfitting industry’s crisis with the BC Governments Harvest Allocation policies. The USA stressed to government that if wildlife management issues are properly addressed and wildlife populations are thriving, the needs of many different and diverse stakeholders would be addressed and both government and stakeholders would see positive outcomes.

We wish to thank Donna Barnett, MLA, John Rustad, MLA and the rest of the BC Liberal caucus and Minister Thomson for the warm reception we received, and the positive dialogue that ensued. We appreciate your genuine concern for the outfitting community within the Province of British Columbia and members of the USA.

[Whonnock Boy]

Good God! Where's Devil Bear when you need him? I can hear him now cursing out these 'foreigners'.

[40incher]

I agree that the performance of ministry staff has been less than sterling when dealing with allocation issues over the years, but your comments comparing the old policy with the new one are off the mark. The new one gained significant advantages for resident priority on several fronts in particular when it came to non resident minimum shares of the various species. Why else would the general membership of the goabc pull out of the policy and why would we now have a new organization representing those guide outfitters? In case you are not aware there has been a split in the goabc and some of the outfitters have formed a new organization THE UNITED SPORTSMANSHIP ASSOCIATION. This was spawned due to the perceived losses under the new allocation policy.


While I have much respect for those who came before me, I must clarify one or two points.

I am not sure that we as resident hunters need to worry about the minimum shares for the guides (non-residents by and large). Under the old policy they were guaranteed nothing (that would be 0.00 %) for sheep or any other species. Where the guides gained a huge advantage was when they (the guide reps.) traded off the "mom and pop operations" for the benefit of those elite oufitters who seek to exclude BC resident hunters (like the sheep guides) who got minimums that went up to 20% on sheep from 0.00%. But that is all by the wayside now, since sheep are not part of the allocation policy. The elite guides think they have circumvented the new policy by getting sheep delisted as a "Category A" species. Now we here that northern moose (the upper portions of Region 6 and 7B moose) are going to be delisted as well.

Now that the policy is being only selectively/partially implemented by MFLNRO we should be realizing that we are most heavily impacting the guide/outfitters who are really our allies in the long run. This is no fault of the participants representing us, but mostly those that represent what is left of the GOABC (and not likely the majority of what is left of their original membership).

Let's stand up for what we have left as the majority of the real "hunters" in BC. We may not tend to be vocal, but we can be heard if we try!! Send your MLA a very clear note, and send it to your local paper.

[6616]

While I have much respect for those who came before me, I must clarify one or two points.

I am not sure that we as resident hunters need to worry about the minimum shares for the guides (non-residents by and large). Under the old policy they were guaranteed nothing (that would be 0.00 %) for sheep or any other species. Where the guides gained a huge advantage was when they (the guide reps.) traded off the "mom and pop operations" for the benefit of those elite oufitters who seek to exclude BC resident hunters (like the sheep guides) who got minimums that went up to 20% on sheep from 0.00%. But that is all by the wayside now, since sheep are not part of the allocation policy. The elite guides think they have circumvented the new policy by getting sheep delisted as a "Category A" species. Now we here that northern moose (the upper portions of Region 6 and 7B moose) are going to be delisted as well.

Now that the policy is being only selectively/partially implemented by MFLNRO we should be realizing that we are most heavily impacting the guide/outfitters who are really our allies in the long run. This is no fault of the participants representing us, but mostly those that represent what is left of the GOABC (and not likely the majority of what is left of their original membership).

Let's stand up for what we have left as the majority of the real "hunters" in BC. We may not tend to be vocal, but we can be heard if we try!! Send your MLA a very clear note, and send it to your local paper.

Mike I actually think he meant "maximum" shares for non-residents rather than "minimum" shares, at least that would make more sense. The real reason for taking Stone's Sheep off allocation appears to be because the outfitters want more than the maximum of 40% stated in the AP, since the tradtional non-resident harvest in Region 6 and also in 7b until just very recently has been well over 40%. I agree that there's no more future in negotiating this with Bureaucrats, it's time to go after it politically and we need everyone to step up to the plate.

[bridger]

While it appeared that the old policy had no bottom line for non residents effectively it was 30 per cent. More importantly it set no maximum level and for several years the sheep quota in 7b was 67 per cent of the overall aah. Capping the Maximum at 40 per cent and lowering the minimum to 20 per cent was a significant gain for resident priority.

[kebes]

It would appear that Steve Thomson is retired....if you're sending emails :)

[one-shot-wonder]

Try this one: FLNR.Minister@gov.bc.ca
I know his MLA email works fine: steve.thomson.mla@leg.bc.ca

[kebes]

That one works. Thanks!

[The Dude]

Good God! Where's Devil Bear when you need him? I can hear him now cursing out these 'foreigners'.

Do NOT summon the Balrog! :D

[The Dude]

Does anyone have a link to the Classes of game animals in BC? I'm searching, but having little success. I can find Furbearers Classes, 1, 2, 3 etc, but not big game, A, B. C

Also, to those in the know, can you please educate us Great Unwashed about the facts? Some of it has been spread over many pages of this and other sheep threads.
So: We DO want Sheep, ALL Sheep, to stay as Class A Animals?
We DO want the agreed upon Allocation Policy to be enforced? Or is it too late?
We DO want 80% of the tags, or 60% is OK?
We DO want Addisson to eat dirt, or we don't?

Gotta write some letters here, and getting a lot of conflicting info.
Im the Bossss....need the Infooooooo......

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v57/Tagger411/charger_misc/dr_evil.jpg

[yukon john]

Im not sorry I missed the first 18 pages of this, interesting to note though that the thread is against foreign hunters and yet the guy who started the thread has killed a pile of sheep in BC and he is an american himself???

[6616]

Im not sorry I missed the first 18 pages of this, interesting to note though that the thread is against foreign hunters and yet the guy who started the thread has killed a pile of sheep in BC and he is an american himself???

Well maybe you should go back and read those 18 pages before you jump to conclusions....!

The thread is about allocation and how the Ministry decimated and refuses to follow their own policies and these accusations are fact, not fiction. How do you construe resident hunters standing up for their own rights as being anti foreign hunters? Don't you think 40% of the harvest for non-residents is enough, or do you think it should be higher just because the outfitters want it higher?

I really don't give a hoot if the OP is originally American, European, or is from Timbucktoo, he probably has done more for sheep and sheep hunters in Region 7 than anyone else alive..!

[2chodi]

Category A species as defined in the allocation policy (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/harvest_alloc/docs/HarvestAllocationProcedure.pdf).

“category A species” – means a big game species, population, or class for which guided hunters’ harvest is limited by quota in any portion of a region.

When they refer to class, I think they mean things like antlered vs antlerless, rams vs ewes, etc.

[goatdancer]

The OP may have been an American but he has been a Canadian for quite a long time, seeing as he's been hunting Stone's for over 40 years without a guide. Besides, I'll take his word over some others any day of the week.

[6616]

Category A species as defined in the allocation policy:

“category A species” – means a big game species, population, or class for which guided hunters’ harvest is limited by quota in any portion of a region.


Correct, but isn't it strange that they will issue quota for sheep in 7B and still maintain they are no longer a Catagory A species....? What a contradiction...!

But on the other hand if they choose to ignore policy, why not definitions too......! I'd say we've come to the point where there's nothing in those allocation papers that a regional decision maker can't arbitrarily ignore if he so chooses.

They might as well just be up-front about it and say they decided not to apply the allocation policy to Stone's Sheep so that outfitters could harvest over the minimum of 40%, or maybe just say the minumums for outfitters in the AP no longer apply, or possibly that they have arbitrarily decided that non-residents and guide outfitters now have priority over resident hunters.

There are days when I wish Devilbear was the Premier of BC.

[bridger]

my best guess is that resident priority is off the table and quota's in some areas will be fifty percent of the aah in both regions 6&7. Getting sheep off Category A and inflating quota's has been the game plan since the goabc pulled out of the policy. I doubt they will be taken off quota for the simple reason qutoa's are used to set the value of the g/o's area's when they go to sell. A sheep tag add's $150,000 to $200,00 to the value. It is in their best interest to stay on quota.

[TSS]

I guess just like timber companies. Those that have the vested interest and bring new money into the economy win. What I see in this is the fact they now recongnize Stone Sheep as an independant and valuable renewable resource. One that if managed properly regenerates itself much faster than any other. With that being the view proper counts and studies should be in a better position to aquire funding from both the commercial and government coffers. This can work and everyone should be able to hunt, providing people take a position of working together to make it work. If not the same old battle will continue with the same people and the only things hurt will be the sheep and the resident hunter. The guide will still have a quota and no matter what it is supply and demand insures there will always be someone willing to pay the price he needs to operate.

[325]

I guess just like timber companies. Those that have the vested interest and bring new money into the economy win. What I see in this is the fact they now recongnize Stone Sheep as an independant and valuable renewable resource. One that if managed properly regenerates itself much faster than any other. With that being the view proper counts and studies should be in a better position to aquire funding from both the commercial and government coffers. This can work and everyone should be able to hunt, providing people take a position of working together to make it work. If not the same old battle will continue with the same people and the only things hurt will be the sheep and the resident hunter. The guide will still have a quota and no matter what it is supply and demand insures there will always be someone willing to pay the price he needs to operate.

The difference between the forest industry and the GO industry is that for decades, thousands of individuals were employed by the forest industry, and in fact, the coastal soft wood industry was the economic workhorse of the BC economy...of course that is no longer the case.

The GO industry employs relatively few people (most seasonal), and politically, will be up against a large electorate mass (hunters and their voting spouses/family probably number a few hundred thousand BC residents), IF the resident hunters of the province can mobilize effectively to lobby government.

Similar to forestry, however, is that many GO businesses are owned by foreigners.

[bridger]

If we subscribe to that point of view it then follows that Bc taxpayers should be getting a substainally better return on the resource, which will require changes in which the way province manages the non resident hunting opportunities.

[40incher]

It seems the Wildlife Branch/MFLNRO bureaucrats are in revolt of late. What we have seen over the past few years is a constant attack on resident hunters and anglers in favour of commercial exploitation of our resource.

The Branch has devolved in to a group that thinks they are no longer answerable to BC residents, or even to some of the smaller guide operations that share the opinion that we as residents have priority in allocation and harvest. The bureaucrats seem to have forgotten they are still, in fact, public servants who work for us long-suffering taxpayers.

Compounding the issue is the fact that our present provincial government is basically in survival mode and cares little about how the bureaucrats are behaving. They defend every move, no matter how indefensible (like the Category A issue) and it appears this is going to get worse before it gets better. We need our elected government to fully understand the disconnect they have created between them and the voters who value hunting as an important part of their lifestyle. Putting constant pressure on our elected government from now until the election in the spring of 2013 is our only hope at this point. Tens of thousands, more likely hundreds of thousands, of BC voters have a strong connection to hunting and angling but we are being ignored. The guide lobby does not factor in the coming vote.

The sheep guides are getting their way because they have put a lot of effort towards selectively pushing the financial argument with our government, hence the ridiculous public comments being made by Regional Managers of the MFLNRO. Their contributions to politicians during the last year's leadership race to replace Campbell are a matter of record. This will continue of course.

As the election gets closer perhaps our government will begin to realize what they have done, and perhaps they will reign in our out-of-control public servants. Pressure from resident hunters, reminding them constantly that we are many, is what it will take.

[TSS]

If we subscribe to that point of view it then follows that Bc taxpayers should be getting a substainally better return on the resource, which will require changes in which the way province manages the non resident hunting opportunities.

With 12 to 15 hundred sheep hunters in a Province of lets say 3.5 million. I'd say if you fight from a stand point of having more rights than anybody else. You're in a losing position. Do the math 40,000.00 US for a ram or pocket change from some lower main lander. Not hard to tell where most the people I know would vote and some of them are resident hunters, mind you they are people that enjoy hunting around the world. Good Luck Rich you've kept the the wrong fire burning for way too long.

[goatdancer]

With 12 to 15 hundred sheep hunters in a Province of lets say 3.5 million. I'd say if you fight from a stand point of having more rights than anybody else. You're in a losing position. Do the math 40,000.00 US for a ram or pocket change from some lower main lander. Not hard to tell where most the people I know would vote and some of them are resident hunters, mind you they are people that enjoy hunting around the world. Good Luck Rich you've kept the the wrong fire burning for way too long.

40k US may be what the guides charge but it sure as hell is not what the government gets so how would that influence how a person votes? Could be that most people you know are associated with the GOs.

[The Dude]

With 12 to 15 hundred sheep hunters in a Province of lets say 3.5 million. I'd say if you fight from a stand point of having more rights than anybody else. You're in a losing position. Do the math 40,000.00 US for a ram or pocket change from some lower main lander. Not hard to tell where most the people I know would vote and some of them are resident hunters, mind you they are people that enjoy hunting around the world. Good Luck Rich you've kept the the wrong fire burning for way too long.

Ah, so we should just let Stones Sheep go then. Same for Dalls, I mean, how many people really hunt them? Right? Of course you're right.
How many Grizz hunters are there? A minority you say? Better let that one go too.
How many folks have taken a Boo? Not that many. Strike that.
What's next Willy? Elk? Deer?
Guns?

[TSS]

Ah, so we should just let Stones Sheep go then. Same for Dalls, I mean, how many people really hunt them? Right? Of course you're right.
How many Grizz hunters are there? A minority you say? Better let that one go too.
How many folks have taken a Boo? Not that many. Strike that.
What's next Willy? Elk? Deer?
Guns?

Hey I'm not siding with the G/O's or the resident. The point I'm trying to make is the guides are organized. Why? Because they have a large investment in the continuation of sheep hunting here in BC. The average BC resident gets out once every few years after a ram and expects other hunters, government and guides to take care of thier hunting privileges. So if the resident won't step up to the party and organize something better than the nearly usless BCWF. The guides will continue to win.

[The Dude]

That's better. There is a lot of Win in that post, Willy.

[sako_300]

The average BC resident gets out once every few years after a ram and expects other hunters, government and guides to take care of thier hunting privileges.

Be careful here... this isn't a privilege, its a right as a resident of BC. If you are considering the former than no wonder we have our lines crossed. Maintaining this opportunity for BC residents should be first and foremost. If the population falls below the "threshold" level for both parties (G/O and residents) to continue a sustainable harvest I know who the first one off the table should be. Obviously it will not work like that given the gov'ts appetite for perceived development and capital injection into the province.

I'm still struggling as to how this ties in with CC's grandiose jobs plan - G/O's don't do much on this front.

[luckynuts]

Im not sorry I missed the first 18 pages of this, interesting to note though that the thread is against foreign hunters and yet the guy who started the thread has killed a pile of sheep in BC and he is an american himself???

Really? Shite like this is why I take long sabbaticals. Rich has done a lot for resident hunting and has contributed a ton to our local gun club and its programs. I guess i shouldnt hunt sheep either cause im Canadian, Norwegian, Swedish and American. Sorry for the side track maybe we all should stick to the program and eventually this may be resolved:-|

W.

[The Dude]

Hunting is a privilege for the simple reason that our Gov't can take it away or manipulate our "rights" at any time.
It's a privilege because we have let it become a privilege.
Man, that's a weird lookin word. Privilege.

[sako_300]

it's a privilege to have "relations" with my wife... it's a right to go and kill (harvest for those sensitive types) animals in the province of BC in which I reside...

[The Dude]

it's a privilege to have "relations" with my wife... it's a right to go and kill (harvest for those sensitive types) animals in the province of BC in which I reside...

It was a privilege for me as well. BTW, nice windows. Double pane?

[Confused]

it's a privilege to have "relations" with my wife... it's a right to go and kill (harvest for those sensitive types) animals in the province of BC in which I reside...

No its not, please point to the part in the constitution where it says that. Unless of course, you are first nations, and even then you are bound by conservation measures.

[boxhitch]

my best guess is that resident priority is off the table and quota's in some areas will be fifty percent of the aah in both regions 6&7. Getting sheep off Category A and inflating quota's has been the game plan since the goabc pulled out of the policy. I doubt they will be taken off quota for the simple reason qutoa's are used to set the value of the g/o's area's when they go to sell. A sheep tag add's $150,000 to $200,00 to the value. It is in their best interest to stay on quota.Chris Addison was in attendance at the presentations during WSSoBC convention. When the reg 7 reps were asked what split they would be using for the AAH, the comment was they are managing for a 60 / 40 split.
Someone off-mike asked if that was 60 for residents but that went unanswered.

[Confused]

Chris Addison was in attendance at the presentations during WSSoBC convention. When the reg 7 reps were asked what split they would be using for the AAH, the comment was they are managing for a 60 / 40 split.
Someone off-mike asked if that was 60 for residents but that went unanswered.

Are they harvesting more than their 40% share? I know they harvested more than 40% of the kill, but what is the share in dead animals. Very important distinction. And one that just may very well put this thread to bed.

[snareman1234]

I met with chris Addison, the split is 60/40.. sixty for residents, quota's are still in place for outfitters. DD

Is this for 6 and 7b?

Is there any long term assurance of this?

[bridger]

I met with chris Addison, the split is 60/40.. sixty for residents, quota's are still in place for outfitters. DD

a 60/40 split is the maximum under the policy. as resident harvest increased in the coming years the split would have gone to 70/30 then to a bottom line of 80/20. that is what resident sheep hunters are now being asked to give up..

[boxhitch]

that is what resident sheep hunters are now being asked to give up.another typo ?

[Walking Buffalo]

I guess just like timber companies. Those that have the vested interest and bring new money into the economy win. What I see in this is the fact they now recongnize Stone Sheep as an independant and valuable renewable resource. One that if managed properly regenerates itself much faster than any other. With that being the view proper counts and studies should be in a better position to aquire funding from both the commercial and government coffers. This can work and everyone should be able to hunt, providing people take a position of working together to make it work. If not the same old battle will continue with the same people and the only things hurt will be the sheep and the resident hunter. The guide will still have a quota and no matter what it is supply and demand insures there will always be someone willing to pay the price he needs to operate.


I'm glad you clarified this quote, but I feel it was for the wrong reasons. This needs to be recognized. What you are alluding to is that Wildlife management be based on financial value. This is a very dangerous concept, and one that all hunters must stay from, at all costs.


You used a tree analogy, take it the next logical step. Just as Virgin forests are replanted, under licence and usually with consideration for right to future harvest, Wild sheep harvest when modelled in the same legislative pricipal is replaced by sheep "farms". We would be one step closer to privatizing wildlife.

The core principal of North American Wildlife Conservation Model, the very reason why NA did not follow the Eupopean model of the King's deer, is that wildlife must be maintained in the public realm. No one "owns" the wildlife, the government manages wildlife in trust for the citizens.


Be it outfitter or resident, the argument of Financial value is a leader to privatization of wildlife resources. It won't matter who "Wins" a greater share, based on a financial value, as the founding principals of our wildlife management system will be broken.

The government must be reminded of it's commitment to the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, and base management decisions on the inherant value of the species, not a dollar value. In the end, as long as we follow this procedure, the species will be looked after first, and hunting opportunity will remain as a public right.

[Gateholio]

Great post WB!!!

[KodiakHntr]

it's a privilege to have "relations" with my wife... it's a right to go and kill (harvest for those sensitive types) animals in the province of BC in which I reside...


It was a privilege for me as well. BTW, nice windows. Double pane?

Damn....And here I thought I was the only one.....















Who noticed that sako_300 was wrong there.

[Confused]

a 60/40 split is the maximum under the policy. as resident harvest increased in the coming years the split would have gone to 70/30 then to a bottom line of 80/20. that is what resident sheep hunters are now being asked to give up..

This would never have happened anyway under the current, or just past, allocation calculator. I can PM you the details if you wish, don't want to muddy the waters of this thread. What you are alluding to would never have happened even if the allocation policy was followed to the letter.

[sako_300]

Who noticed that sako_300 was wrong there.

Please edumicate I....

[srupp]

hmmm DAMN trying to follow this IMPORTANT thread AND file my icome tax is getting confusing...

Great posts from all concerned...I thought we had a well informed club represented through BCWF however these posts are the first I heard of proposed changes etc.. THANK you to all involved..(getting out to the WSSBC convention would have helped keep me informed)

Jim- willy- Carl- Jim et all... as usual it is the few that take the time and effort on bealf of the most.... it is appreciated..

thanks

Steven

[KodiakHntr]

this isn't a privilege, its a right as a resident of BC.


Please edumicate I....

Hunting in BC isn't a "right", it's a priveledge. It can be taken away at any point and time by the gov't with the only reason given as "because I said so". "Rights" are protected by legislation and extremely difficult to change.

[GoatGuy]

This would never have happened anyway under the current, or just past, allocation calculator. I can PM you the details if you wish, don't want to muddy the waters of this thread. What you are alluding to would never have happened even if the allocation policy was followed to the letter.

If the policy was followed the calcuations for relative importance would have been:
Residents 5
Outfitters 10

Utilization:
Residents 10
Outfitters 10

Final allocation: Residents 65%/Outfitters 35%

Don't have too much interest in the remainder of the thread, but after a heaping pile of garbage and misinformation, a bit of information never hurt anyone.

Certainly curious how you have an indepth knowledge, especially with the handle!:mrgreen:

[Confused]

If the policy was followed the calcuations for relative importance would have been:
Residents 5
Outfitters 10

Utilization:
Residents 10
Outfitters 10

Final allocation: Residents 65%/Outfitters 35%

Don't have too much interest in the remainder of the thread, but after a heaping pile of garbage and misinformation, a bit of information never hurt anyone.

Certainly curious how you have an indepth knowledge, especially with the handle!:mrgreen:

Those #s are correct, but Bridger alluded to the possibility of the outfitters going to 20%, never would happen with the metric being used for resident relative importance, chances are slim residents would get past a 5. utilization will be 10, now 4s, for the foreseable future for both groups. Definitely no big changes anymore due to the governments new 10% "rule", it would take decades for the percentages to change to any great degree. All I was getting at was that was the notion that oufitters were going to go down continually until they got to 20% was/is a pipe dream under the allocation policy in its current or past form, so what is being "given up", other than that 5 %, 40% to 35%.
Hope i am making some sense here, don't really want to get into the details too much on this thread, or any other for that matter. Just Bridger made a statement that really was off base, although I understand his frustration.

And for the record...I am confused!

[GoatGuy]

Those #s are correct, but Bridger alluded to the possibility of the outfitters going to 20%, never would happen with the metric being used for resident relative importance, chances are slim residents would get past a 5. utilization will be 10, now 4s, for the foreseable future for both groups. Definitely no big changes anymore due to the governments new 10% "rule", it would take decades for the percentages to change to any great degree. All I was getting at was that was the notion that oufitters were going to go down continually until they got to 20% was/is a pipe dream under the allocation policy in its current or past form, so what is being "given up", other than that 5 %, 40% to 35%.
Hope i am making some sense here, don't really want to get into the details too much on this thread, or any other for that matter. Just Bridger made a statement that really was off base, although I understand his frustration.

And for the record...I am confused!

Hahaha, there are about two handfuls of people in the province who understand how the calculator works and probably about 6 who don't work for government.

Doesn't leave a lot of people.