Reply to APOS sheep statement

[ksteed17]

An Examination of APOS Position Statement on
Proposed Changes to Sheep Harvest Strategies

(The following is a collaborative effort by an informal group of Alberta residents with interests in resident and outfitted sheep hunting is the province. It is hoped that all stakeholders can come to consensus on the proper management of bighorns and allocation of hunting opportunity and not only look at benefits to their individual group. This is a shared resource. There was no intent to single out APOS by responding only to their position paper but as it was recently submitted to AEP, it is only fair to respond to some of the discrepancies and suggestions if for no other reason than to start a dialogue. There is great disappointment that the unity among stakeholders seems to be eroding but hopefully that spirit of collaboration can prevail once again and all stakeholders will work together with the health of Alberta sheep as their primary goal and the needs of their individual members second.)

The Alberta Professional Outfitter’s Society (APOS) is a major stakeholder

(They are not a major stakeholder but just one of several stakeholders. They represent approximately 81 NRA/NR hunters each year and possibly another 40-50 resident hunters annually. This is approximately 5% of sheep hunters. Also, one needs to consider that commercial interests rank 4th behind resident hunters when considering the apportionment of the resource between user groups. AFGA and WSFAB would be the true "major" stakeholders at the table. This is not meant to diminish the importance of APOS as a stakeholder but merely to point out their true representation.)

in the realm of sheep hunting, a species that has been a long-standing staple of the outfitted hunting industry in Alberta. Sheep outfitters annually guide numerous Resident, Non-Resident and Non-Resident Alien sheep hunters. To achieve consistent success, sheep hunting requires specialized equipment and knowledge—this is a major reason for the difference between the commercial harvest rates as opposed to the resident rate of harvest.

(It is undoubtedly one reason but there are several others. Residents spend less time in the field as this is a hobby and not a living. It is also likely but there is only anecdotal evidence to support the supposition that unguided resident hunters also pass up more legal rams. This is somewhat borne out in the fact that on average residents harvest larger rams than NR/NRA hunters although there are other factors that play into that as well. At the end of the day, success rates are irrelevant as many residents hunt just for experience with success being low on their list of reasons for sheep hunting )

In fact, we believe the true resident harvest rate is even lower than recognized, as a large portion

(From a few straw polls done for the 2015 season this number is likely 20-25 rams or about 20%)

of successful residents are guided by outfitters. This data, however, is not being collected. That outfitters are helping to increase the resident success rate in turn helps APOS maintain our 20% allowable Non-Resident/Non-Resident Alien harvest.

(This is false. The allocation to outfitters is based on the allowable harvest number set by government not the number of rams killed by residents. It's interesting that the Government maintains an allowable harvest number of over 200 yet says we are killing too many rams. It's critical that the Government clarify this allowable harvest number so we know how many rams are to be divided between user groups. In the 1993 management plan this was an 80/20 split between residents and outfitters.)

As per the 1993 management plan, we would like a minimum 20% of the bighorn resource allocation moving forward, with no less than 41 trophy rams allocated to the outfitting industry

(20% and 41 rams are not inextricably linked. The 20% is based on allowable harvest in the 1993 Sheep Management Plan. The 41 number was just an example given at that time for the current allowable harvest number. If allowable harvest number is decreased, 20% will represent a smaller number of rams allocated to outfitters. They can't have it both ways. As per agreement they should get 20% of allowable harvest with that number being fluid in response to sheep populations. A five year allocation is reasonable when considering that hunts are booked several years in advance but it should be reviewed every five years and based on updated allowable harvest numbers. Some years they may get more tags and other years less but the number of tags they receive cannot be forever fixed at 41. They could easily rise to 30-40% of allowable harvest. This should encourage outfitters to become more involved in habitat and predation issues because as sheep populations grows, so too will their number of permits)

At one time, the Non-Resident/Non-Resident Alien harvest exceeded the resident harvest; not only have outfitters been reduced to 20% of the allowable harvest, but we also have a shorter season at a less productive time in which to conduct our sheep hunts. In short, outfitter opportunity is highly restricted when compared to that enjoyed by residents

(And at one time there was no draw for residents for any species. At one time WMU410 November bighorn was general for residents. We are dealing with today not what the province looked like 50 years ago)

Obtaining transparent and accurate data continues to be an issue for those trying to sort through the many management options being considered for sheep management. Further, there is significant conflict in how the available data is interpreted by stakeholders, including wildlife managers, with regards to sustainable management options and preferences, appropriate horn-measuring methodologies and sheep population numbers. This could be improved by having an intensive training program that offers information on how to properly age, measure (using the B&C or SCI systems) and count rams. Having reliable data on registered rams that includes horn configuration (tight or open curl) and whether they’re broomed or full-curl would be very valuable as well.

(Agreed)

Aerial population counts are very unreliable due to the time of year they’re conducted and the influence of weather on both sheep behaviour and visibility. Further, it’s difficult to find all the sheep in a given area within the confines of limited flight time. More intensive ground counts need to be conducted to supplement the information gathered through aerial surveys. Local outfitters, as well as other stakeholders, could assist in this effort.

(Citizen science could be critical)

No data has been collected on the impact to sheep populations and hunting related to the reduction of areas formerly available to hunting that are now captured within parks where hunting is prohibited. These encompass vast areas that, in most cases, include very productive bighorn ranges where hunter access has now been eliminated or significantly reduced – i.e. - White Goat Wilderness Area, Siffleur Wilderness Area, Ghost River Wilderness Area , etc. Additionally, there’s been no evaluation of the relationship between these areas, National parks and the open-to-hunting crown land that many, if not most, of our sheep share. We are not aware of any data on specific seasonal herd migration other than on Ram Mountain and Sheep Creek, which don’t reflect the majority of Alberta’s sheep range. There’s also been no analysis conducted as to why some WMUs produce more sheep than others, particularly as it relates to historic harvest rates. We believe these data gaps must be addressed before any long-term management decisions are made.

(More research is undeniably beneficial)

With respect to predation issues, we would like to see additional studies that document sheep mortality by predation. We also support increased predator harvest opportunities and effort throughout our sheep ranges.

(Additional research also needs to be conducted on predation on rams vs ewes. Predation on overall herd may be insignificant but if predators target rams which there is considerable anecdotal evidence to support, predators could be a much more influential factor than many biologists believe. Outfitters could also play a critical role in increasing predator harvest in sheep range.)

There has been a decline in range quality and quantity across much of our best sheep habitat. We do not advocate the increased harvest of ewes as a way to mitigate this. Rather, we support the use of fire, both natural and prescribed, as a means to realize improved sheep range.

(Ewe harvest may be an interim measure but yes habitat needs to be addressed quickly)

We would like a commitment to follow a sheep management plan - the 1993 plan was well-reasoned and detailed but it was not followed, to the detriment of sheep and the sheep hunting fraternity

(We need a new sheep plan that has consensus from all groups)

APOS finds the new draft sheep management plan to be unreasonably vague, with no identified population goals, harvest goals or specific management plans for key sheep ranges in Alberta. We don’t believe that a blanket approach is the answer to sheep management issues, as each herd is facing different influences across its home range and, therefore, requires individually-developed management strategies.

(The new Sheep Management plan needs to be fixed)

Several suggestions for strategies to achieve trophy ram goals are included in the draft plan; following is APOS’ position of support, or not, for each proposed strategy: (These are in point form and are meant to represent a direct quote from the current draft plan)
Longer waiting periods - Support

(For both residents and non-residents? Will this actually impact overall harvest or will it unjustly penalize successful hunters with no impact on proper sheep management? This needs to be examined before any steps are taken to penalize hunters. How many repeat clients do outfitters have?)

Increased license fees – Support

(Undoubtedly this will have little impact on NR/NRA hunters but will it exclude some resident hunters from participating. Alberta is the second most reasonable licence/Government harvest fee in North America for NR/NRA so a licence fee increase is likely warranted for NR/NRA. More research needs to be conducted to see if licence fee increases are warranted for residents)

Limited number of trophy rams in a lifetime – Support

(For both residents and non-residents? Will this actually impact overall harvest or will it unjustly penalize successful hunters with no impact on proper sheep management? This needs to be examined before any steps are taken to penalize hunters. How many repeat clients do outfitters have?)

Restrictions on the number of big game licenses held- Not in Support

(Agree)

Increasing the number of full-curl minimum WMUs – Not in Support

(Not without significantly more data to support it)

Limited Entry Hunting (LEH) – Support, depending upon the details and their effect on outfitted hunting

(This will turn sheep hunting into a once in a lifetime opportunity for residents and it will not significantly reduce the number of hunters in the field if we stick with current harvest. And, when one considers the high number of rams harvested and hunter effort in southern WMUs it will likely increase resident pressure in northern WMUs where outfitting takes place. It will also increase hunter effort, further increasing pressure in zones with outfitters. The other side of the coin is that more residents would hire outfitters as it would be their one opportunity in a lifetime to harvest a sheep. Just to illustrate; of the 200 rams allocated to allowable harvest, residents are allocated 160...based on outfitters getting 40. Say resident success is 7%. So residents would get about 2300 tags; basically where we are at now other than each resident would only get one opportunity every 15-20 years to hunt sheep. We could expect roughly 30,000 applicants for sheep tags based on current interest in sheep draws. If we look at other jurisdictions in North America with draws for sheep, NR/NRA allocation of tags is based on individual WMU and typically 10% . This could result in no NR/NRA tags in some WMUs if we followed the typical North American model. So what have we gained? A resident draw is unacceptable)

LEH full-curl – Not in Support

(Agreed)

Shortened season length – Not in Support

(Agreed, The extended resident season does allow park rams to be hunted that are not present earlier in the season)

Increased waiting periods based on the size of ram taken – Support

(For both residents and non-residents? Will this actually impact overall harvest or will it unjustly penalize successful hunters with no impact on proper sheep management? This needs to be examined before any steps are taken to penalize hunters.)

Split seasons – Support, depending upon the details and their effect on outfitted hunting

(This is one option to reduce hunter pressure but doubtful it will impact harvest. Depends what the goal is)

Royalty fee – Support

(For NR/NRA hunters this is likely a good idea especially if money raised is set aside for dedicated sheep projects. $50,000-$100,000 could easily be raised annually and this contribution to sheep conservation would reflect very favourably on outfitters. This may be something to consider for all species in the province.)

Quota 4/5-curl – Support, depending upon the details and their effect on outfitted hunting

(This may not be a bad idea if it is proven that harvest needs to be reduced from current level but it would require a new allocated harvest number to be established and that would undoubtedly impact outfitter 20% of allocations)

Archery seasons or primitive weapons – Support, depending upon the details and their effect on outfitted hunting

(Requires further research as to benefit to hunters and impact on sheep)

Access restrictions – Support, depending upon the details and their effect on outfitted hunting

(The devil would definitely be in the details here. There is benefit to allowing some OHV access but agree that it can't be excessive. Not all residents have horses)

Although we are not in support of a blanket fix, at this time APOS member outfitters have made it clear that when considering any regulation change, they should be implemented both north and south of the Brazeau River to avoid putting increased pressure on sheep in the north and creating another potential problem.

(Makes sense)

We realize the Management plan is a work in progress and hope area-specific management issues will be addressed in the future for those specific issues. We are opposed to the implementation of any full-curl seasons for Non-Resident/Non-Resident Alien hunters.
Most sheep outfitters are very concerned about the prospect of a full-curl only regulation due to the expected lack of success they’ll experience as a result. One idea we could support is the implementation of a full-curl general license during the resident-only general season, and a resident draw for 4/5-curl rams during the Non-Resident/Non-Resident Alien season.

(The full curl part may address some of the issue of high harvest during first and last weeks if harvest is indeed too high and then go back to general 4/5 for all for remainder of season. The draw part is not acceptable and could lead to many other issues as addressed above where the ramifications of a draw were discussed.)

In other words, the first week and the last two weeks of the resident season would be open for full-curl rams only. The middle weeks of the season would have a resident draw for 4/5-curl rams. All current sheep draws would remain 4/5-curl . This would allow unlimited opportunity for residents seeking full-curl rams, while concurrently allowing for some of the older, broomed rams to be harvested and not die of old age. All Non-Residents/Non-Resident Aliens would be on a 4/5-curl tag. Alternatively, APOS would consider supporting a total 4/5-curl LEH for all residents, or a 4/5-curl LEH in combination with the supported options listed above.

(This is the third time a resident draw has been suggested. Again, a resident draw accomplishes nothing but increases the number of residents that would book outfitted hunts. This can't be on the table)

A major concern is the impact of hunter numbers on the quality of the hunting experience. This year, the proposed sheep regulation changes resulted in a significant increase in resident hunter numbers afield. Many of these residents were serious about hunting sheep and, throughout the Resident and Non-Resident season, put in the extensive required time to find and harvest a ram. The resultant crowding on the mountains reduced the quality of the sheep hunting experience for all hunters, Resident and Non-Resident alike.

(Is this really a major concern or just a concern of a few? If this pressure was caused by uncertainty around regulations it should level out in the future, once the new sheep management plan is adopted. It should also be noted that non-hunter use of backcountry is increasing during hunting season. It's not the 1950s any more.)

Outfitters also have concerns about the increased access in WMUs 420 and 422 due to the impact of ATV clubs, new roads, trail system repairs and bridges in high harvest areas. We also have some concerns about the lack of road-corridor enforcement in sheep areas.

(ATV impact on sheep needs to be a consideration in all WMUs)

Outfitters are willing to adopt changes to ensure that Alberta’s sheep hunting continues to be among the best in the world.

(What are they willing to adopt? This proposal outlines no significant or even minor changes for outfitters)
Sheep outfitters have suggested many alternatives to the full-curl proposal and believe most would contribute to meeting the department’s objectives; we have been, and will continue to be, more than willing to work with wildlife managers and other stakeholders in seeking reasonable and meaningful solutions.

(They have suggested many alternatives for reducing resident hunting opportunity. There is nothing that indicates they are trying to work collaboratively)

APOS outfitters are available to work with wildlife managers in identifying responses to region-specific concerns, and believe that the extensive time they spend in the very heart of Alberta’s sheep ranges can provide added value to management decisions impacting our sheep herds.

(Agreed but there are many resident sheep hunters that could provide valuable insight as well)

Lastly, irrespective of any regulation changes enacted, it’s critical that a 3- or 4-year transition period for outfitters be implemented; sheep hunter’s book outfitted hunts several years in advance, and any changes put into immediate effect could result in significant legal and financial problems for both industry members and the government.

(Agreed)

Chad Lenz and Neil Beeman
Sheep Task Force

Conclusion

We need to know what the allowable harvest of rams is in the province. If we are to offer up any concrete managements options to achieve it we must know the allowable harvest. This has not been updated since 1993. We need an actual number not just a target percentage. This is the most important information required if Government expects any suggestions for hunter management alternatives. We need to know the target as all options will achieve different results.

A better stream of data to stakeholders from Government.

No major changes until stakeholders are satisfied science supports it.

If and it's a big if, resident harvest needs to be reduced, outfitters should not have a say in how that is accomplished. That should be left up to the stakeholders that represent resident hunters to come up with a workable and palatable solution.

Continue the current 80/20 split of allowable harvest between residents and outfitters, but the allowable harvest number needs to be updated every five years, preferably in the middle of the five year outfitter allocation period so outfitters have a minimum of two years notice of allocation number changes. It's critical that the Government keep updating this allowable harvest number if sheep are to be properly managed and each group allocated their appropriate share.

Any reduction to hunter opportunity (increased wait times, specific number of rams, etc) needs to demonstrate a positive impact to overall sheep herd health and not simply be punitive measures because a sheep hunter is successful.

A province-wide resident draw is not an option. There are many other management options available if proper science deems them necessary.

Placing financial hardships on resident hunters need to demonstrate a positive impact to overall sheep herd health and not simply be punitive measures to reduce participation.

Full curl is not supported unless it is proven that other less punitive management options, not including a resident draw, cannot accomplish the desired management goals based on proper science.

The new Sheep Management Plan needs to be revisited and only adopted after all stakeholders are satisfied it meets the management goals.

Hunters cannot be the only means of sheep management in the province. Habitat improvement and more research on the benefits of predator control are required. This needs to be a top priority.

Increased ewe harvest can only be considered an interim management option until habitat issues are addressed.
Clear management goals need to be established and based on universally accepted science.

Incorporate more citizen science into management of bighorns.

Adopt a policy into regulation similar to Alaska where if a hunter wounds a ram the hunt is over other than for that specific sheep. This would apply to NRA/NR and resident hunters.

[JohnB]

I was wondering where this went. I was reading it then went out and then I couldn't find it again.

They must have got some heat from the first letter they put out.

[rcmc]

Thanks for posting.

[ksteed17]

For those who are Facebook savy there's a good discussion going on at the sheep hunting Facebook page.

[Roughneck Country]

Good response

[Double Dropper]

Interesting read, however at the end of the day I could care less if Jimmy Joe from Arkansas ever shoots a Ram in Alberta. It does nothing to benefit the average hunter in Alberta. I do care about quality hunting in Alberta for Albertans.

[drake]

Originally Posted by Double Dropper

Interesting read, however at the end of the day I could care less if Jimmy Joe from Arkansas ever shoots a Ram in Alberta. It does nothing to benefit the average hunter in Alberta. I do care about quality hunting in Alberta for Albertans.

I want outfitting for sheep to continue in Alberta...its part of our history. Many of the trails into sheep country were blazed by outfitters 100 years ago. I would hate to see a traditional industry like outfitting eliminated.

Outfitting is just a small piece of the sheep puzzle.....predators, competition for winter range (feral horses), reduction of range due to forest fire suppression etc

[nube]

Originally Posted by Double Dropper

Interesting read, however at the end of the day I could care less if Jimmy Joe from Arkansas ever shoots a Ram in Alberta. It does nothing to benefit the average hunter in Alberta. I do care about quality hunting in Alberta for Albertans.

Get yourself Educated! If you think non resident hunting does nothing for Alberta you are totally wrong.

I am not a fan of outfitters having more than their fair shair but there are a lot of reasons we need outfitting. The other side of things is I am glad that i can hunt in other countries and States and fair is fair

[huntwat]

Originally Posted by drake

I want outfitting for sheep to continue in Alberta...its part of our history. Many of the trails into sheep country were blazed by outfitters 100 years ago. I would hate to see a traditional industry like outfitting eliminated.

Outfitting is just a small piece of the sheep puzzle.....predators, competition for winter range (feral horses), reduction of range due to forest fire suppression etc

Outfitting does not need to be eliminated . Non-res tags for species that require residents to wait for years néed to be eliminated.

[drake]

Originally Posted by huntwat

Outfitting does not need to be eliminated . Non-res tags for species that require residents to wait for years néed to be eliminated.

i was replying to the fella above me......we are talking about sheep specifically.

[huntwat]

Originally Posted by drake

i was replying to the fella above me......we are talking about sheep specifically.

Yup, meant to quote Nube. effin phones.

[ksteed17]

Originally Posted by drake

I want outfitting for sheep to continue in Alberta...its part of our history. Many of the trails into sheep country were blazed by outfitters 100 years ago. I would hate to see a traditional industry like outfitting eliminated.

Outfitting is just a small piece of the sheep puzzle.....predators, competition for winter range (feral horses), reduction of range due to forest fire suppression etc

Agreed. Outfitting is a part of hunting. I want to hunt other places someday soon and I'll have to hire an outfitter I'm ok with that. What I'm not ok with is AB sheep outfitters saying they have nothing but the best interests of the sheep herd at heart, BUT we don't want to change, we don't want restrictions, we don't want to help, we just want Alberta residents to take on all the responsibility and changes. That I have a problem with. And that needs to be discussed and put to bed.

[Tame Goose]

Originally Posted by nube

Get yourself Educated! If you think non resident hunting does nothing for Alberta you are totally wrong.

I am not a fan of outfitters having more than their fair shair but there are a lot of reasons we need outfitting. The other side of things is I am glad that i can hunt in other countries and States and fair is fair

Education has nothing to do with it. Have you ever heard of economics? Very few can afford your lifestyle.

[rcmc]

Originally Posted by nube

Get yourself Educated! If you think non resident hunting does nothing for Alberta you are totally wrong.

I am not a fan of outfitters having more than their fair shair but there are a lot of reasons we need outfitting. The other side of things is I am glad that i can hunt in other countries and States and fair is fair

You talk about fair there Nube, you think the letter put forward by Apos was fair to Albertans, I thought it was a slap in the face.

[drake]

I don't believe the intent of the letter was "fairness for all". I Reconize it as an obvious attempt to protect their self interest. Anybody can send a similar letter

[bdub]

Ksteed, how many people are signed on to your letter. While I don't agree with it completely it has some good points.

I am sure curious what position the WSF will take now that the APOS letter is out. Kind of puts the WSF in a bit of a spot. So much for the supposed united front. Who da thunk the outfitters would be pushing for resident draw, the sheep outfitters were supposed to be our pals, weren't they? And they do so much for the sheep herd Alberta, and sheep in Alberta, ya right.

[nube]

Originally Posted by ksteed17

Agreed. Outfitting is a part of hunting. I want to hunt other places someday soon and I'll have to hire an outfitter I'm ok with that. What I'm not ok with is AB sheep outfitters saying they have nothing but the best interests of the sheep herd at heart, BUT we don't want to change, we don't want restrictions, we don't want to help, we just want Alberta residents to take on all the responsibility and changes. That I have a problem with. And that needs to be discussed and put to bed.

Don't lump Guides and outfitters all in the same cage please. I am not on the outfitters and guides side at all with that letter that was sent out. Yes I agree with some outfitting of sheep as outfitters do contribute a lot in this province for sheep in all sorts of different ways despite the comments made here by some people. And ya it sucks waiting a long time for a tag in this province BUT IT'S NOT THE OUTFITTTERS THAT CAUSE IT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wait times are due to a pile of different things. I wish some of you all would get that in your heads and I am not talking to anyone specifically. Just been hearing too much crying about it for years.
Cutting back a handfull of tags from outfitters isn't going to take your priority 14 moose tag and magically make it so you can get a tag every 4 years. And if you could the same people would complain about that.

Tama Goose- What can't you afford? I afford what I work for. I workabout 3 or 4 different jobs and make plans in ways I want to spend my money. If you have a dream get off your arse and go follow your dream. It doesn't take much to go go hunt in other countries bud. I know a guy that hunts Africa every few years and doubt he makes $60K a year!!

RCMC ya it was a slap in the face. No doubt about it. There are a few looking out for their best interests. Look at the 2 that wrote the letter. Did you notice that? Do you feel most of the outfitters feel this way as well. I highly doubt it.

[nube]

And the other thing is I will add what the heck are you guys that whine and cry doing about things in our province? Other than complain the sky is falling? How many wolves and coyotes have you killed lately? How many letters have you written?

[ksteed17]

Originally Posted by nube

And the other thing is I will add what the heck are you guys that whine and cry doing about things in our province? Other than complain the sky is falling? How many wolves and coyotes have you killed lately? How many letters have you written?

No wolves but I kill a bunch of coyotes, I write letters I do what I am able. If you don't want all the outfitters grouped together then Those in disagreement better stand up and say something otherwise how do we know.

[Tame Goose]

Originally Posted by nube

And the other thing is I will add what the heck are you guys that whine and cry doing about things in our province? Other than complain the sky is falling? How many wolves and coyotes have you killed lately? How many letters have you written?

You work 4 different jobs! Good for you. It's exactly what I said: not many can afford your lifestyle. I don't need to get off my "arse", I'm doing exactly what I want; and that definitely doesn't involve going to African to hunt.

You ask how many wolves and coyotes you kill? I'm missing your point.

[bdub]

Nube.

We're or at least I am not lumping them all in the same basket. Just talking about the sheep outfitters in this thread.

There is a new government in place, new people, a depressed economy and the outfitters pumping the benefits of the sheep industry and they are the first ones out of the gate. Wonder what they will be looking to get out of the new government, perhaps they will be going after not just resident on draw. Maybe they will be pushing for opening the south to sheep outfitting once they get rid of the resident competition.

[Roughneck Country]

Originally Posted by bdub

Ksteed, how many people are signed on to your letter. While I don't agree with it completely it has some good points.

I am sure curious what position the WSF will take now that the APOS letter is out. Kind of puts the WSF in a bit of a spot. So much for the supposed united front. Who da thunk the outfitters would be pushing for resident draw, the sheep outfitters were supposed to be our pals, weren't they? And they do so much for the sheep herd Alberta, and sheep in Alberta, ya right.

I will PM you in the morning.

[bdub]

Originally Posted by Roughneck Country

I will PM you in the morning.

pm away, i'm up till 9

[rcmc]

Nube, I agree with some of what you say, but this thread about sheep and the Apos letter not about moose wait times or predators.

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by nube

Tame Goose- What can't you afford? I afford what I work for. I workabout 3 or 4 different jobs and make plans in ways I want to spend my money. If you have a dream get off your arse and go follow your dream. It doesn't take much to go go hunt in other countries bud. I know a guy that hunts Africa every few years and doubt he makes $60K a year!!

I knew you were rich nube !!! Must be nice...

[Full Curl]

Why are you guys talking about income here?

It's a bit insulting to read someone suggest to another that they get off their duff and follow their dreams because someone can hunt Africa on 60 K a year.
Maybe the "dream" is to be able to hunt at home?

I know a lot of residents that don't make that amount and it surely isn't from lack of initiative. Not to mention that I know many who don't give a rip about chasing leopards or other species in a foriegn country and have other priorities that lie a lot closer to home.

I sure can't support sheep changes that benefit non-residents and their outfitters at the expense of resident opportunity.

What exactly are these benefits that are mentioned that the outfitters and clients bring to Alberta and "our" sheep? (Someone please anwer!)

I'm not doubting that there may be some but let's hear what they are.

I don't know the answer either but there's some odd things being suggested.

[Roughneck Country]

Originally Posted by Full Curl

Why are you guys talking about income here?

It's a bit insulting to read someone suggest to another that they get off their duff and follow their dreams because someone can hunt Africa on 60 K a year.
Maybe the "dream" is to be able to hunt at home?

I know a lot of residents that don't make that amount and it surely isn't from lack of initiative. Not to mention that I know many who don't give a rip about chasing leopards or other species in a foriegn country and have other priorities that lie a lot closer to home.

I sure can't support sheep changes that benefit non-residents and their outfitters at the expense of resident opportunity.

What exactly are these benefits that are mentioned that the outfitters and clients bring to Alberta and "our" sheep? (Someone please anwer!)

I'm not doubting that there may be some but let's hear what they are.

I don't know the answer either but there's some odd things being suggested.

Outfitter benefits to the province are it employs a bunch of people and supports several small businesses. If a non hunting beauricrat is looking at things they would want it to be heavily hunted by outfitters to bring revenue into the province. The numbers across the Alberta outfitting industry as a whole are pretty big and sheep are big return hunts

[TangoKilo]

Originally Posted by ksteed17

Agreed. Outfitting is a part of hunting. I want to hunt other places someday soon and I'll have to hire an outfitter I'm ok with that. What I'm not ok with is AB sheep outfitters saying they have nothing but the best interests of the sheep herd at heart, BUT we don't want to change, we don't want restrictions, we don't want to help, we just want Alberta residents to take on all the responsibility and changes. That I have a problem with. And that needs to be discussed and put to bed.

Bang on!!

Agree 110%

[Full Curl]

Originally Posted by Roughneck Country

Outfitter benefits to the province are it employs a bunch of people and supports several small businesses. If a non hunting beauricrat is looking at things they would want it to be heavily hunted by outfitters to bring revenue into the province. The numbers across the Alberta outfitting industry as a whole are pretty big and sheep are big return hunts

I understand that it employs people and brings money to our province, but how many, how much and for how long? I am talking strictly about sheep here.

Would you get emloyment for a guide a cook and a wrangler for a month or month and a half out of a year? Many outfits I know are family run so is that still called employing a bunch of people?

What small businesses other than the outfitter are realistically gaining from the non-resident hunter?

Not picking here, just trying to get a better handle on the "benefits".

Thanks

[Roughneck Country]

Originally Posted by Full Curl

I understand that it employs people and brings money to our province, but how many, how much and for how long? I am talking strictly about sheep here.

Would you get emloyment for a guide a cook and a wrangler for a month or month and a half out of a year? Many outfits I know are family run so is that still called employing a bunch of people?

What small businesses other than the outfitter are realistically gaining from the non-resident hunter?

Not picking here, just trying to get a better handle on the "benefits".

Thanks

For sheep specifically I don't know the stats but all of these family run outfits are concidered small business and I would say each one employs 3+ people including the outfitter some of the larger outfits would be much higher. As far as spin offs to local economy do t know the number and then income tax from these guys to the province as well. I would be curious if APOS did an economic analysis on this as well