Re: BC Provincial Court Judgment on Crawford Stones ram
Originally Posted by bigredchev
Talk about dragging a guy through the mud.
The province has much bigger fish and game issues than this to be squandering resources.
Wolves, illegal hunting at night, land issues, poachers of the real kind....
He could of just paid the fine for the under age sheep ( by regulation) and been done with it.
He is fighting it so it is not the province dragging him through the mud, they probable wanted to spend there time and resources else where as well.
Re: BC Provincial Court Judgment on Crawford Stones ram
Originally Posted by backcountry99
Anybody who believes that ram cams from there is a fool! Nobody is dumb enough to advertise that
So are you saying the hunter gave false information on his report.
Under age ram (according to regs) didnt bring out jaw/teeth and false information (if what your suggesting is true)
makes things not look so good.
Re: BC Provincial Court Judgment on Crawford Stones ram
Originally Posted by LBM
So are you saying the hunter gave false information on his report.
Under age ram (according to regs) didnt bring out jaw/teeth and false information (if what your suggesting is true)
makes things not look so good.
im saying hunters are secretive by nature and nobody would publish were they killed a ram in a public document like that unless there was evidence of were he killed him. Really doesn’t matter but all the comments on were to go next year make me laugh.
Re: BC Provincial Court Judgment on Crawford Stones ram
Mr. Jex looked at the horn increment length for the Crawford ram and other rams from the same MU 7 – 42. This was a CI dataset from 1975 – 2017 and involved in total 1,848 rams. Subsets were also compared involving rams taken from 7 – 42 harvested between 2007 – 2017 (368 rams) and rams identified as having either 7 or 9 annuli at the time of harvest (18 rams). These rams were noted by Mr. Jex as being included as part of the specific potential cohort of rams to which the Crawford ram belonged.
several graphs in Exhibit 8. The first graph was “Mean and Specific Inter-Annuli Horn Growth (i.e., proportional symmetry) Aligned by Age, Using CI Horn Data” The disputed measurements were removed, namely 0 - 1 years (lambs) and 1 – 2 years (yearlings). There was tight alignment revealed between the CI datasets and the Crawford ram CI data.
These results, if accepted, support Mr. Jex’s conclusions as reflecting the likely age of the Crawford ram as 7 at its death. In the Crown submission, the assertion that the Crawford ram was 9 years is said to be virtually impossible, the assertion that it was 8 years of age is improbable while the 7 year assessment meets entirely with expectations for a ram that age.
Then the judge made his decision based on the evidence, fuddled by the fact the hunter didn't bring out a tooth 'to help prove his innocence'
Re: BC Provincial Court Judgment on Crawford Stones ram
Originally Posted by LBM
He could of just paid the fine for the under age sheep ( by regulation) and been done with it.
He is fighting it so it is not the province dragging him through the mud, they probable wanted to spend there time and resources else where as well.
No, thats not really the case here
Upon examination, the Crawford ram was determined by the compulsory inspector not to have attained the age of 8 years. This remains the position of the Crown. As a consequence, the ram has not been returned to Mr. Crawford and this action was commenced. No prosecution was taken under the Act or Regulations. [11]
This application was commenced and the applicant seeks an order pursuant to s. 97.6(4)(a) of the Act that the Crawford ram be returned to him.
Re: BC Provincial Court Judgment on Crawford Stones ram
Originally Posted by Ron.C
Wow. Now I know why I dont sheep hunt.
One question on the findings, there was a failure to submit an incisor tooth. Would this have definatively confirmed the Rams age?
No. Tooth cementum aging is less accurate than counting annuli.
Originally Posted by LBM
So are you saying the hunter gave false information on his report.
Under age ram (according to regs) didnt bring out jaw/teeth and false information (if what your suggesting is true)
makes things not look so good.
So what you are saying,
Is that you always assume the worst of hunters.
Re: BC Provincial Court Judgment on Crawford Stones ram
It's an unfortunate event. The guy who shot the ram certainly shouldn't be looked at as a poacher. That's phuking stupid. We all agree there should be laws but don't realize the precarious nature of abiding by them or enforcing them. This is just an unfortunate event.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Re: BC Provincial Court Judgment on Crawford Stones ram
I have a Stone Ram in the man cave almost identical to this Ram in question. His right side Full curl past the nose. His left broomed heavy and well short. Compulsory inspection at 8.5 years. This Ram too i believe to be 8.5......but that said I too passed on many many Rams because of only counting 7. I wanted an obviously Legal Stone. The Anuli close to the skull can be very tough to see up close. Never mind out at distances 100 yards and more.
Tough call for the young hunter.......I think I would trust Giests opinion over many a many inspectors unfortunately. IMO the COs opinion shouldnt even come into play here. Hes not a biologist. Its not his specialty.
Many inspectors would say yes thats a 8.5 yr old Ram. Some not. Unfortunately.