Big sheep changes

[huntwat]

Originally Posted by Nordegg2

For all those who don't like the outfitting industry or outfitters, I hope that you never go hunt for any animal anyplace in the world. You also better not hire a boat to take you fishing or a tour guide to show your family around. Just keep your small brains in your small world. For the first time there is unity amongst hunting groups and you want to tear it apart. This unity should be encouraged not brought down to the level that you people live in.

If there is no wait time for residents, then the outfitters should be allowed non- res tags. When there is a wait time for residents, NO tags should be given to non -res. Pretty simple.
I don't mind the outfitting/ guide industry. I do mind how tags are allowed for non-res.

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by Nordegg2

For all those who don't like the outfitting industry or outfitters, I hope that you never go hunt for any animal anyplace in the world. You also better not hire a boat to take you fishing or a tour guide to show your family around. Just keep your small brains in your small world. For the first time there is unity amongst hunting groups and you want to tear it apart. This unity should be encouraged not brought down to the level that you people live in.

I have no problem with the outfitting industry..... I just wish there was an option to do it yourself or get help from an outfitter!

[Roughneck Country]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

And here is where most people are still missing the whole "Young ram" issue.



The few biologists still pushing the genetic harm concept are complaining that we are not killing as many 4,5 year old rams as we did back in the 70s and 80s. This is their "proof" of genetic harm.

The biological concern is not that we are killing too many young rams,
but that we are not killing enough of them....
and at the same time they don't want us to kill the young rams....
and we are not,
so we have a problem....

I see this as a problem as well.

I went 7 years before pulling the trigger, I passed on other young rams that were legal but since I could buy a tag every year I wasn't to concerned with killing a sheep just for the sake of killing one. I would like to believe today there are more guys that are passing on these squeakers in favor of a chance at an older ram.

As for the haters who don't like outfitters, even if there were no outfitters tomorrow resident success wouldn't be much higher if at all, sheep are hard to hunt period. Add in predation and winter kill I doubt residents would see a difference at all.

[Justahunter]

You are on the money there. Lot of guys think the outfitters take from them. Opposite is true. Want to hunt Turkeys, go south,want to hunt Africa ,hire a pro.Want to hunt Dall,hire an outfitter same for Marco Polo etc. In fact the Alberta outfitters that have Moose permits should be able to sell to an Alberta resident. Would add a lot of hunts for hard to draw areas. Believe it or not there is a lot of guys would enjoy an outfitted hunt. I have been on one and found it fantastic.

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by Justahunter

You are on the money there. Lot of guys think the outfitters take from them. Opposite is true. Want to hunt Turkeys, go south,want to hunt Africa ,hire a pro.Want to hunt Dall,hire an outfitter same for Marco Polo etc. In fact the Alberta outfitters that have Moose permits should be able to sell to an Alberta resident. Would add a lot of hunts for hard to draw areas. Believe it or not there is a lot of guys would enjoy an outfitted hunt. I have been on one and found it fantastic.

I believe outfitters are above their sheep allotment, so they are definitely taking opportunity away. Theyre opportunity ratios need some tweeking forsure.

As far as residents hunting buying an outfitter hunt, i dont agree with that either. It puts a price on our wildlife. ... but that point also contradicts your point that outfitters arent stealing opportunity away.

More guys would enjoy the chance to do it themselves, rathar than with guide. Again i have nothing against them, and i do see their value and need.... but if i could, id probably rarely use one, if allowed.

[bdub]

Originally Posted by pottymouth

While bdub's opinion, isn't to the popular among his peers, he has done much to this debate, by bringing another perspective to the table. If we all agreed, this thread, the awareness and even the outrage would have died long ago. I know for a fact, his posts, have spurred may to write letters. Which ultimately is what we want....

And letters is what is making the powers to be, sit up and listen.... And like WB stated, we are close to getting the data! The data that will help us all make an educated decision on our Sheep first, and our hunt.

and hopefully all groups, Esrd, and the stakeholders can combine resources, information and knowledge, and work together for once to make sheep hunting better, increase and grow our sheep, and allow us all to enjoy this hunt for many years to come, without losing any opportunity....

Sheep hunting is about passion, dedication and probably the hardest type of hunting in N.A, we can do! I do agree with bdub in one aspect; sheep hunting shouldn't be easy..........

I have read and re-read this over and over again. I pray that this is what happens. I hope greed or politics doesn't screw us over Potty but I think this is exactly what's going to happen.

[bdub]

Originally Posted by Nordegg2

For all those who don't like the outfitting industry or outfitters, I hope that you never go hunt for any animal anyplace in the world. You also better not hire a boat to take you fishing or a tour guide to show your family around. Just keep your small brains in your small world. For the first time there is unity amongst hunting groups and you want to tear it apart. This unity should be encouraged not brought down to the level that you people live in.

I've got nothing against outfitting within a certain framework. Their point of veiw on this matter is obviously tainted by the financial factor. Not only that, but they exert a large amount of political influence through both APOS and the WSFAB. Who can deny that?

[Justahunter]

Just a bit of info. Drove past Windy Point this weekend. 32 sheep
17 Rams
7 legals (6-7 yrs all lamb tips none broomed)
11 ewes
4 lambs
10 sickle horns up to 4/5
No problem with those numbers
Methinks that is the norm from what I have seen so far this winter. Ram Mountain and Shunda has even higher Ram ratio Too high ,needs some hunting ,like open season on cats
There is our real problem province wide

[BackPackHunter]

Maybe sheep hunters should take the cat problem into there own hands?
SSS

[albertadave]

Originally Posted by bdub

I've got nothing against outfitting within a certain framework. Their point of veiw on this matter is obviously tainted by the financial factor. Not only that, but they exert a large amount of political influence through both APOS and the WSFAB. Who can deny that?

I can deny that. You are wrong. And you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

[mountainascent]

Sorry bdub, but your saying that the wsf is strongly influenced by the outfitters? And the outfitters want sheep on draw? Then why isn't the wsf pushing for draw? If your referring to the few directors that are also outfitters or guides. Remember that it is us, the members, that vote them in. They do not a point themselves. I personally believe it is important to have diverse board (outfitters, new comers, experienced, bios and even guys that are good at politics). As long as they all share one common thing, their love for sheep. That is how we achieve a balanced organization.

[Justahunter]

Originally Posted by pottymouth

I believe outfitters are above their sheep allotment, so they are definitely taking opportunity away. Theyre opportunity ratios need some tweeking forsure.

As far as residents hunting buying an outfitter hunt, i dont agree with that either. It puts a price on our wildlife. ... but that point also contradicts your point that outfitters arent stealing opportunity away.

More guys would enjoy the chance to do it themselves, rathar than with guide. Again i have nothing against them, and i do see their value and need.... but if i could, id probably rarely use one, if allowed.

There is where you need to put a little more thought. The outfitters do not take anything away from the residents. Go buy a string of horses and see when the fun wears off. Hire a guy and let him worry about the 10 months of feed between seasons. Residents right now can buy an over counter sheep tag every year unless they kill ,then one year wait. No place else in the world. Quitcherbelliachin and vocus on the real problem
Loss of habitat
No prescrbed burns happening
Cougars and wolves
no added cougar opportunity where sheep need it most
Biologists with anti hunting agenda that really know how to make magic numbers work
If the biologists would only do what they are actually being paid to do end of problem
Manage the resource rather then the resource user

[bdub]

Originally Posted by Justahunter

There is where you need to put a little more thought. The outfitters do not take anything away from the residents. Go buy a string of horses and see when the fun wears off. Hire a guy and let him worry about the 10 months of feed between seasons. Residents right now can buy an over counter sheep tag every year unless they kill ,then one year wait. No place else in the world. Quitcherbelliachin and vocus on the real problem
Loss of habitat
No prescrbed burns happening
Cougars and wolves
no added cougar opportunity where sheep need it most
Biologists with anti hunting agenda that really know how to make magic numbers work
If the biologists would only do what they are actually being paid to do end of problem
Manage the resource rather then the resource user

So the outfitters don't take any thing away from the residents. How the hell do you figure that when they kill 20 percent of the harvest, about 40 Rams per year. Oh yeah according to RC residents wouldn't have any luck at those Rams any way. Yeah right. Give me a break. Like I said I've got nothing against outfitting in a certain framework but to say they don't take from residents is false. They take 40 Rams a year. 20 percent of the harvest.

[bdub]

Originally Posted by mountainascent

Sorry bdub, but your saying that the wsf is strongly influenced by the outfitters? And the outfitters want sheep on draw? Then why isn't the wsf pushing for draw? If your referring to the few directors that are also outfitters or guides. Remember that it is us, the members, that vote them in. They do not a point themselves. I personally believe it is important to have diverse board (outfitters, new comers, experienced, bios and even guys that are good at politics). As long as they all share one common thing, their love for sheep. That is how we achieve a balanced organization.

Certain outfitters want draw, they all certainly want it to at least retain the status quo irregardless. Certain outfitters think all residents should have to go through an outfitter to hunt sheep period. Certain outfitters are trying to sue the government over this change for why? Trying to sell allocations and it screwed up the deal? I don't know? but there is a lot of bs going on over this proposed change. I guess we will see how things unfold over the next while when the data comes out.

[Roughneck Country]

Originally Posted by bdub

So the outfitters don't take any thing away from the residents. How the hell do you figure that when they kill 20 percent of the harvest, about 40 Rams per year. Oh yeah according to RC residents wouldn't have any luck at those Rams any way. Yeah right. Give me a break. Like I said I've got nothing against outfitting in a certain framework but to say they don't take from residents is false. They take 40 Rams a year. 20 percent of the harvest.

Yep and residents wouldn't get any more sheep if they weren't there either. Sheep hunting is hard. 40 sheep a yr most of which would die of old age winter kill or predation

[Roughneck Country]

Originally Posted by Justahunter

There is where you need to put a little more thought. The outfitters do not take anything away from the residents. Go buy a string of horses and see when the fun wears off. Hire a guy and let him worry about the 10 months of feed between seasons. Residents right now can buy an over counter sheep tag every year unless they kill ,then one year wait. No place else in the world. Quitcherbelliachin and vocus on the real problem
Loss of habitat
No prescrbed burns happening
Cougars and wolves
no added cougar opportunity where sheep need it most
Biologists with anti hunting agenda that really know how to make magic numbers work
If the biologists would only do what they are actually being paid to do end of problem
Manage the resource rather then the resource user

This

[Justahunter]

Originally Posted by bdub

So the outfitters don't take any thing away from the residents. How the hell do you figure that when they kill 20 percent of the harvest, about 40 Rams per year. Oh yeah according to RC residents wouldn't have any luck at those Rams any way. Yeah right. Give me a break. Like I said I've got nothing against outfitting in a certain framework but to say they don't take from residents is false. They take 40 Rams a year. 20 percent of the harvest.

This is just what I mean about you. You are not focusing on what is being said. As Nordegg2 said your mouth is moving but your brain is not nor can it seem to engage
FIX the real problem which is HABITAT and PREDATION
That leaves more sheep for everyone
Quit trying to put this huge wedge between the user groups that gets us noplace that is good. I have never once heard you criticize the establishment
GET IT
Who`s team are you really on here

[walking buffalo]

Are you guys really going to get into it over Bdub's daily gossip?



APOS made their position very clear. They are asking for exactly the same thing as AFGA, WSF, SCI and ABA....

[Acesneights]

The sad thing is I have read several articles in the paper and online that state the biggest problem is genetic harm which I thought was put to bed and states that to many 4-5 year old Rams are being harvested and so this is what public opinion of non hunters will be based on. I don't know past states and some of you stated you know of some 4 year olds that have been harvested but as of last year the only 4 year olds harvested were native and five 5 year olds were harvested. As stated earlier I would love to see a solid picture of a legal four yr old. Not the sketchy one f and w provided ????

[Speckle55]

if you look at the numbers of sheep total over the last 100 years

where is the problem

do some tweaking with habitat

control predators

special interests groups in the hen house

wow enough already

if you get a sheep increase wait time

2 new World Records in last 20 years and more in top 25

David

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Acesneights

The sad thing is I have read several articles in the paper and online that state the biggest problem is genetic harm which I thought was put to bed and states that to many 4-5 year old Rams are being harvested and so this is what public opinion of non hunters will be based on. I don't know past states and some of you stated you know of some 4 year olds that have been harvested but as of last year the only 4 year olds harvested were native and five 5 year olds were harvested. As stated earlier I would love to see a solid picture of a legal four yr old. Not the sketchy one f and w provided ????

It is sad and very concerning that "hunting influenced genetic selection" is still being pushed as the reasoning for these changes.

As I have stated here for over five years now, this is based on a personal agenda from a handful of wildlife researchers including a couple that work for ESRD. The end goal is to severely limit the hunting of ALL animals, to introduce the "Compassionate" Wildlife Management Model. These people will not stop at a full curl regulation, they will accept full curl general hunting for now, and then push for a sheep hunting to be on a draw. They understand getting to the goal-line by taking little steps.

While many ESRD biologists disagree that there is any genetic selection occurring, they have not been willing to speak very loudly in opposition to the claim. While I understand professional courtesy, in particular with colleagues in a government setting, there comes a time when a person needs to put political correctness aside and call Bull Shyt!



Here is a past paper analyzing BC sheep hunting and horn size. Conclusion... Not only should the full curl general season be eliminated, but the number of draw licences should be reduced.
These researchers pushing for an Alberta Full Curl Regulation intend to put ALL sheep hunting on a very limited Draw!



http://marco.recherche.usherbrooke.c...eveldJWM11.pdf

"In bighorn sheep populations management strategies that protect some fast-growing males, or provide harvest refuges to maintain genetic diversity, may reduce negative evolutionary consequences of trophy hunting. The key to sustainable management of bighorn sheep is to ensure that high-quality males have sufficient opportunity to breed before being harvested. Lower evolutionary impacts could be achieved by reducing emphasis on trophy size in favor of hunt quality. Any Male LEH seasons might be an alternative to minimum curl regulations, because they do not force hunters to select high-quality males.

Because success rate is likely high under Any Male regulations and because most hunters will likely continue to harvest the largest male they find, however, permit numbers may have to be much lower than those issued for LEH seasons in British Columbia.

We recommend that future research investigates how hunter success rate varies with changes in harvest regulations and in the number of permits issued.

Further study should also quantify harvest pressure on legal males over time, to identify which horn curl restriction and level of harvest could reduce unwanted selective effects. Evaluating potential selective effects of harvest regulations would require data on the number of males per cohort, the proportion of legal males harvested each year, and the proportion of males that do not meet minimum horn curl criteria at each age.

Periodic har- vest closures in some WMUs or establishment of protected areas in strategic locations relative to the metapopulation could facilitate genetic rescue while serving as an experimental test of harvest-induced selection. If genes for greater horn growth still exist in the population, protection from harvest should counter artificial selection and restore large horn growth over time. "



Gotta love that last line!
This is coming from the fellow helping to write our new Sheep Plan...

This is part of the reasoning why we MUST have the data and Sheep Plan before offing any proposals for changing regulations. Unlike like those people (Bdub) that say they have seen enough to know there is a problem and are willing to go along with the "Genetic Harm Gangs" plan, those that have cared enough to become educated on the matter see plenty to be concerned about and will not blindly walk over the precipice.

[SLH]

Well read the whole thing not just what you want to read and try and comprehend what's being said not what fits your opinion.

Like this line... "Further study should also quantify harvest pressure on legal males over time, to identify which horn curl restriction and level of harvest could reduce unwanted selective effects."

or the rest of the sentence to your red highlight.

Or like the use of the words "might" and "may".

Genetic Harm is not the same thing as harvest induced selection and if you think ignoring the ideas that these guys are putting forward is the way to go then your ability to reason this stuff becomes questionable. Its like a climate denier saying "its snowing outside so climate change is false", its embarrassing to all involved even if you are right.

So why don't you point out what part of this is wrong rather than cherry picking quotes and leaving whole parts of sentences out.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by SLH

Well read the whole thing not just what you want to read and try and comprehend what's being said not what fits your opinion.

Like this line... "Further study should also quantify harvest pressure on legal males over time, to identify which horn curl restriction and level of harvest could reduce unwanted selective effects."

or the rest of the sentence to your red highlight.

Or like the use of the words "might" and "may".

Genetic Harm is not the same thing as harvest induced selection and if you think ignoring the ideas that these guys are putting forward is the way to go then your ability to reason this stuff becomes questionable. Its like a climate denier saying "its snowing outside so climate change is false", its embarrassing to all involved even if you are right.

So why don't you point out what part of this is wrong rather than cherry picking quotes and leaving whole parts of sentences out.

Yes, quite embarrassing....

Did you not notice that the sentences you note were included in the quote I provided?

Did you not read the full paper that I linked? There was no cherry picking, editing or leaving anything our, just proper quotation protocols.




Since you desire to question my post that includes supporting information, how about if you follow your own advice? Please provide the APOS letter that you mentioned earlier. Let's see what you consider "a beauty"....

Originally Posted by SLH

Well thought out valid letter. Gives me some hope for AFGA.

Anyone got the letter from APOS, that's a beauty.

Or were you just trying to stir up things just as Bdub has been doing with his APOS rumour mill?
The scent of desperation is in the air.....

[SLH]

Please, proper quotation protocols, your highlights were designed to show what you wanted to emphasize not what was written by the author. If you have a problem with what was written by the author do it with a sound argument, but by highlighting "If genes for greater horn growth still exist in the population..." without the rest of the sentence highlighted you were intentionally trying to mislead. If what you are saying about the author is true than show it don’t go to the smoke and mirrors.

I have read a lot of stuff from this guy including the linked article and you can agree or disagree with him but do both based on his writings with sound arguments not by cherry picking and out of context highlights. So again go over what you quoted and show me where he is wrong. You’ve read enough of it and are convinced he’s wrong it should be easy to pick it apart.



AFGA letter, to which I stand by my previous comment of holding out hope for them;

AFGA Interim Position:
Promoting the conservation of our natural resources, the non-commercial harvest of fish and game as a legitimate part of an overall wildlife management program; and sound long term management of Alberta’s fish and wildlife in the best interest of all present and future Albertans are among the top objectives of the Alberta Fish and Game Association. Clearly, if we are in fact harvesting an unsustainable number of rams, changes are necessary and doing nothing is not an option.
However, unless there is an immediate conservation concern, the AFGA cannot support the hunter harvest restrictions of full curl and shortened seasons as currently proposed prior to a very clear statement of the issue, the objectives, and the terms used. Meaningful action to enable reduced predation and reversal of habitat loss must also be part of a balanced solution, as hunter harvest is clearly not the only factor in the equation. If hunter harvest must be reduced, all options need to be on the table.

Yup "Well thought out valid letter".

As for the APOS letter ya it’s a beauty (I have a hard copy so no, I’m not typing out all that’s in it), like line one (I paraphrase) “we need to acknowledge the real complex problem”. Yet hunter harvest rates are never mentioned. So am I to believe we as hunters don’t hold any of the responsibility for the condition of the herd?

Then its predators, predators, predators yet the herd size has been constant over time, so am I to believe that predators only kill mature rams?

Then, one of my favorites, to recognize the value of the sheep resource residents should pay more for licenses, but us outfitters we don’t need to pay more because we pay taxes. Or if a resident shoots two rams it should be a five year sit out, yet us outfitters don’t need to give up anything.

The one I liked the best was don’t go to full curl because it only allows fast growing rams to live a little longer. Shows a complete lack of understanding of the issue brought forward (regardless if you believe that issue or not) not unlike the way you can twist this into “we need to kill more young rams”.

So I’ll stand by my pot stirring and suggest that the motivation outfitters have to this issue is a motivation substantially different from what a Joe hunter like myself would have.

As for the rumor mill I guess some outfitters didn't have a meeting with the minister early this year where they were pushing for a draw. If that's what everyone believes, OK!

[bdub]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Are you guys really going to get into it over Bdub's daily gossip?



APOS made their position very clear. They are asking for exactly the same thing as AFGA, WSF, SCI and ABA....

I left the names out to be polite but here is a couple direct quotes from two folks on the APOS side of the fence.

"Unbelievable. I feel the lawyers need to come into the game. Not hired buy only two outfitters but all outfitters and any other of the steak holders and finalize all this non sense."

"It would **** a lot of people off but residents should not be able to kill a ram every two year I can guarantee you there are some hunters that have three or more ram s and some residents have hunted every year and still don't have one it boils down to the ones that are killing the sheep are also hard on them . Kill some cats everyone always blames the wolves easy scape goat I know where the cats have wiped nearly an entire goat herd out and have found numerous dead sheep in same area this quota has to go on them three yrs you will see the difference maybe I don't know much about sheep But I can defiantly see what's wiping them out I believe all bighorn hunts should all go to outfitted hunts there would be a lot less illegal rams killed I quit counting on how many rams I have either seen dead being to short and left or the heads of them being just cut off."

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by SLH

Please, proper quotation protocols, your highlights were designed to show what you wanted to emphasize not what was written by the author. If you have a problem with what was written by the author do it with a sound argument, but by highlighting "If genes for greater horn growth still exist in the population..." without the rest of the sentence highlighted you were intentionally trying to mislead. If what you are saying about the author is true than show it don’t go to the smoke and mirrors.

I have read a lot of stuff from this guy including the linked article and you can agree or disagree with him but do both based on his writings with sound arguments not by cherry picking and out of context highlights. So again go over what you quoted and show me where he is wrong. You’ve read enough of it and are convinced he’s wrong it should be easy to pick it apart.



AFGA letter, to which I stand by my previous comment of holding out hope for them;

AFGA Interim Position:
Promoting the conservation of our natural resources, the non-commercial harvest of fish and game as a legitimate part of an overall wildlife management program; and sound long term management of Alberta’s fish and wildlife in the best interest of all present and future Albertans are among the top objectives of the Alberta Fish and Game Association. Clearly, if we are in fact harvesting an unsustainable number of rams, changes are necessary and doing nothing is not an option.
However, unless there is an immediate conservation concern, the AFGA cannot support the hunter harvest restrictions of full curl and shortened seasons as currently proposed prior to a very clear statement of the issue, the objectives, and the terms used. Meaningful action to enable reduced predation and reversal of habitat loss must also be part of a balanced solution, as hunter harvest is clearly not the only factor in the equation. If hunter harvest must be reduced, all options need to be on the table.

Yup "Well thought out valid letter".

As for the APOS letter ya it’s a beauty (I have a hard copy so no, I’m not typing out all that’s in it), like line one (I paraphrase) “we need to acknowledge the real complex problem”. Yet hunter harvest rates are never mentioned. So am I to believe we as hunters don’t hold any of the responsibility for the condition of the herd?

Then its predators, predators, predators yet the herd size has been constant over time, so am I to believe that predators only kill mature rams?

Then, one of my favorites, to recognize the value of the sheep resource residents should pay more for licenses, but us outfitters we don’t need to pay more because we pay taxes. Or if a resident shoots two rams it should be a five year sit out, yet us outfitters don’t need to give up anything.

The one I liked the best was don’t go to full curl because it only allows fast growing rams to live a little longer. Shows a complete lack of understanding of the issue brought forward (regardless if you believe that issue or not) not unlike the way you can twist this into “we need to kill more young rams”.

So I’ll stand by my pot stirring and suggest that the motivation outfitters have to this issue is a motivation substantially different from what a Joe hunter like myself would have.

As for the rumor mill I guess some outfitters didn't have a meeting with the minister early this year where they were pushing for a draw. If that's what everyone believes, OK!

So are you saying that highlighting is not to be used for emphasis? Lol...
Then what the heck is it for....?

There was no intent to mislead the partial highlighting of a sentence, the intent was to emphasize it for recognition in my reply. Everything that I highlighted were points that I responded to, just like I am doing to your quote.

I feel like I'm explaining this to a ten year old....

You should have comprehended that I did not debate the conclusion offered in the paper, I was showing that the authors were recommending that general season full curl hunting in BC should be put on LEH (Draw), and that current LEH (Draw) seasons should have the number of licences reduced....

The paper is clear evidence that the authors, Hengeveld and Bianchet, desire to see sheep hunting face tighter restrictions than just a full curl regulation, all based on "hunting induced genetic selection" claim. These two, along with Jorgensen and Hubbs, the authors of the Alberta sheep regulation change are pushing the genetic harm claim here too. Only a fool would be so nieve as to not see the connection to the current situation here. These people want to end sheep hunting, first by the full curl rule, next is hunting by draw only, then a reduction in licences until, in my opinion, the hunting of sheep is history. Do you not remember that this started back in 2010 with Jorgenson pushing for all sheep hunting to go on a draw?





As for APOS, I assume you are talking about their Summary of Provincial Sheep Management document. You only have a hard copy, eh? ok...

Sure, there are several items in there that I disagree with too. With respect to their position, they are after all responsible for promoting and protecting outfitters. I suspect we will eventually see other groups offer solutions that likewise offer something for their own good.

But what is important is that ALL stakeholder groups have currently found common ground including a desire to develop a full complement of actions to address issues as they are identified, including habitat and predators and hunters, unlike the current (March 4, 2015) position by a couple of ESRD biologists which only wanted to address hunting.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by bdub

I left the names out to be polite but here is a couple direct quotes from two folks on the APOS side of the fence.

"Unbelievable. I feel the lawyers need to come into the game. Not hired buy only two outfitters but all outfitters and any other of the steak holders and finalize all this non sense."

"It would **** a lot of people off but residents should not be able to kill a ram every two year I can guarantee you there are some hunters that have three or more ram s and some residents have hunted every year and still don't have one it boils down to the ones that are killing the sheep are also hard on them . Kill some cats everyone always blames the wolves easy scape goat I know where the cats have wiped nearly an entire goat herd out and have found numerous dead sheep in same area this quota has to go on them three yrs you will see the difference maybe I don't know much about sheep But I can defiantly see what's wiping them out I believe all bighorn hunts should all go to outfitted hunts there would be a lot less illegal rams killed I quit counting on how many rams I have either seen dead being to short and left or the heads of them being just cut off."

You consider this to be polite? Did these people confide in you with an understanding that you were going to post their words here?
Or are you sharing third/fourth hand information?


Sure, I know that what you are saying is correct. It is also correct that there are people petitioning the government to end all sheep hunting by outfitters, and some calling for the end of sheep hunting by anyone. There are some who want everything to stay as is, and others asking for more information before offering a position on suggesting changes. Hmmm, sounds like consultation....

But again, what is important right now, But what is important is that ALL stakeholder groups, including APOS, have currently found common ground including a desire to develop a full complement of actions to address issues as they are identified, including habitat and predators and hunters, unlike the current (March 4, 2015) position by a couple of ESRD biologists which only wanted to address hunting.

[bdub]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

You consider this to be polite? Did these people confide in you with an understanding that you were going to post their words here?
Or are you sharing third/fourth hand information?


Sure, I know that what you are saying is correct. It is also correct that there are people petitioning the government to end all sheep hunting by outfitters, and some calling for the end of sheep hunting by anyone. There are some who want everything to stay as is, and others asking for more information before offering a position on suggesting changes. Hmmm, sounds like consultation....

But again, what is important right now, But what is important is that ALL stakeholder groups, including APOS, have currently found common ground including a desire to develop a full complement of actions to address issues as they are identified, including habitat and predators and hunters, unlike the current (March 4, 2015) position by a couple of ESRD biologists which only wanted to address hunting.

These words are all over the internet WB on display to the whole world. Just go look. Im sure someone will pm you where and you can see the rest of it.

[Roughneck Country]

Originally Posted by bdub

I left the names out to be polite but here is a couple direct quotes from two folks on the APOS side of the fence.

"Unbelievable. I feel the lawyers need to come into the game. Not hired buy only two outfitters but all outfitters and any other of the steak holders and finalize all this non sense."

"

I know the person who stated this and believe this comment is being presented out of context.

I believe the context it was expressed in was one that instead of a couple of outfitters challenging the gov in court it needs to be a unified effort by everyone who is interested. Sure outfitters may loose their income which some on here would gladly welcome but this really is a universal issue that needs to be addressed by all on a unified front.

[bdub]

Originally Posted by Roughneck Country

Yep and residents wouldn't get any more sheep if they weren't there either. Sheep hunting is hard. 40 sheep a yr most of which would die of old age winter kill or predation

So the Rams the outfitters kill are magically immune to being harvested by residents. Whatever there RC. That doesn't even make sense. Sheep hunting is hard? To hard for residents but the outfitters can get it done on those other 40 Rams. Huh? Plain and simple we are all sharing the resource, outfitters and residents alike. The only difference is outfitters get paid to take non residents hunting.

What I find interesting is that all of the allocations the outfitters have don't get sold every year. Why is that, ram quality? Not a lot of guys want to pay 30k for a squeaker ram? If we had better ram quality all the allocations would be used each year and guys would pay a premium for them. The glory days of outfitting for sheep in Alberta are long over if something doesn't change. It's on the downhill and has been for a long time.

Speckles brought up the point of all the big Rams enteredi fromAlberta in recent times. Where do they come from? Cadomin mostly, BC border crossers, and some out of the parks. Do we have an issue in the other area of the province away from these spots. Yes I think so. Numbers are stable so the population isn't getting decimated by predators like many are trying to say is happening. Where the hell are the good Rams away from those areas then. Oh yeh the cats and dogs only kill off the Rams and leave everything else alone. You guys go on and keep lying to yourself and your buddies. Pull your heads out of your rear ends and wake up or watch the resource continue its down hill slide.