Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Hunting Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #241  
Old 02-16-2010, 09:11 AM
albertaboy albertaboy is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: ardrossan
Posts: 81
Default

I do not want to get eaten alive but we dont own the sheep. The scrub timber at tree line might be good for a stud 2x4 but most of them i doubt the logging companies would want them. My point was that nature used to help but now I think we (government) puts out most of the fires. I think This is needed to help the sheep range. This idea actually came from an outfitter in willmore. He said the previous guy used to do his own burns and he did say the treeline is getting higher and there are trees where none had been. If this an option how does it get to the right people to help? What else can we do to improve sheep ranges?
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 02-16-2010, 12:30 PM
ishootbambi ishootbambi is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: medicine hat
Posts: 9,037
Default

[QUOTE=209x50;512086](yawn)... you are getting as repetitive as someone I ignore, nothing new to say so you regurgitate.
bambi, a bad idea is better than no idea in your world, huh? What happens when all the good ideas are taken, do you just make up silly sh1T? Oh, yeah I guess you do.

you really just cant admit being wrong huh.
i told you that you agreed about the draw. i found it. and i asked you not to call others or their ideas stupid ot moronic because you dont agree with them. you still think thats ok. if im regurgitating my request to not be an arse to others, well ok...guilty. as for ideas...well, i have proposed a couple, but unsure of exactly what sh1t you think i have made up. perhaps the fact that you have brought not one single idea here. well...so far that is true. the idea you like best seems to be improve habitat and redyce predators. although i agree doing both would be beneficial to all ungulates, i dont really know how to make it happen. again you were asked for an idea, and again you come up with nothing but a rant because i guess you are feeling picked on.
Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old 02-16-2010, 12:38 PM
ishootbambi ishootbambi is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: medicine hat
Posts: 9,037
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 209x50 View Post
(yawn)...
Now this thread is about sheep, it is not here for you or me or anyone else to beat their chest as they claim the credentials that they think makes their idea the best or their voice the one that should be heard above all others.
We win this with all voices speaking as one voice. Grow up enough to quit the dick measuring and contribute something worthwhile if you can.
once again, i clarified my position about my credentials and tried to show you that i have presented an idea or two here. i gues you missed it when i said i think okotokians proposal may in fact be the best one in my opinion. this whole discussion is about bringing everyones ideas together looking for a common solution to satisfy the most hunters. we will never have a unanimous opinion here, thats for sure, but when i first spoke out to you rich, thats exactly what i was trying to say. take everyone's opinion into consideration and dont call someone simple minded, stupid or moronic when you dont agree. as for contributing something worthwhile, well, i have contributed......you have not. whether my suggestions were worthwhile or not is open to debate, but at least i offered some and have not slammed anyone for ideas i disagree with.
the closest i will get to saying anything derogatory about anyone is to say this. sometimes it is better to keep your mouth shut and let people assume you are an idiot, rather than to open your mouth and prove it.
im also going to ask you one last time 209, please stop the name calling when you disagree with someones ideas, especailly when you have no ideas yourself.
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old 02-16-2010, 12:44 PM
209x50's Avatar
209x50 209x50 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,412
Default

[QUOTE=ishootbambi;512360]
Quote:
Originally Posted by 209x50 View Post
(yawn)... you are getting as repetitive as someone I ignore, nothing new to say so you regurgitate.
bambi, a bad idea is better than no idea in your world, huh? What happens when all the good ideas are taken, do you just make up silly sh1T? Oh, yeah I guess you do.

you really just cant admit being wrong huh.
i told you that you agreed about the draw. i found it. and i asked you not to call others or their ideas stupid ot moronic because you dont agree with them. you still think thats ok. if im regurgitating my request to not be an arse to others, well ok...guilty. as for ideas...well, i have proposed a couple, but unsure of exactly what sh1t you think i have made up. perhaps the fact that you have brought not one single idea here. well...so far that is true. the idea you like best seems to be improve habitat and redyce predators. although i agree doing both would be beneficial to all ungulates, i dont really know how to make it happen. again you were asked for an idea, and again you come up with nothing but a rant because i guess you are feeling picked on.
Holy cow this is stupid, and your lack of comprehension is more than a little disturbing. I've tried to explain to you why I don't and won't agree with your plans and you keep going in the same little circle like a hamster in cage. Enough, your posts to me and me trying explain are sidetracking the thread. I'm done with trying to explain to you, you can join your buddy. Adios!
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old 02-16-2010, 02:25 PM
Tonto Tonto is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 281
Default

A problem has been agreed upon... predators and habitat.
Do you have any ideas how to solve these problems, 209?
You did say, once a problem has been identified that you would give us an opinion. Maybe that just means that you agree or disagree that these are the problems. I don't know. I do know one thing. Bambi is correct, you have not stated one thing that adds to the discussion.
I imagine we will get the usual answer.
Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old 02-16-2010, 03:01 PM
209x50's Avatar
209x50 209x50 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonto View Post
A problem has been agreed upon... predators and habitat.
Do you have any ideas how to solve these problems, 209?
You did say, once a problem has been identified that you would give us an opinion. Maybe that just means that you agree or disagree that these are the problems. I don't know. I do know one thing. Bambi is correct, you have not stated one thing that adds to the discussion.
I imagine we will get the usual answer.
Of course tonta, we burn mountains and shoot wolves from helicopters, cougar can be controlled through expanded hunting opportunities.
Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old 02-16-2010, 03:20 PM
Tonto Tonto is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 281
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 209x50 View Post
contribute something worthwhile if you can.

.........
Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old 02-16-2010, 03:20 PM
sheephunter
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Apparently I posted this on the wrong thread...my apologies. What are everyone's thoughts on this sheep related topic?

Vin Said:
Quote:
The determination of a trophy lies with each and every hunter and is not for any one hunter (or group of hunters) to impose on any one else.
I'm not sure all Alberta hunters would agree with you. Here's a little snippet of an e-mail that was passed along to me. It's from one of those that feel they have the right to impose their ideology on "average" Albertans. I'm still washing the puke out of my mouth from reading it.


Quote:
The opportunity for sheep hunters to harvest true trophys is taken away by average Alberta residents harvesting the fast growing imature rams.
Trophy Sheep hunting should not be set up so Albertans can get a participation award by killing sub mature rams.

Unfortunatley the AOF has infuence on ASRD decisions that apease the armchair hunters and not the dyed in wool sheephunter
Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old 02-16-2010, 03:23 PM
sheephunter
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I seem to have posted this on the wrong thread too...my apologies again...

Sheepguide said:

Quote:
You say identify the problem. Large decreases in ungulate populations in most foothill areas!! Increasing predator attacks on livestock. I could care less about you and your data and studies, we as hunter are smart enough to see there is an issue if you cant well that is your problem(stop reading studies and get in the ****ing bush!!!)
Pretty sure we all agree that killing wolves and increasing habitat would make more sheep...I was curious as to the two sides people were on.....or even what side you are on. So far you've supported the five year wait, denounced the five year wait, supported a draw, denounced a draw, supported an age restriction, conceeded that an age restriction wouldn't work. Can you see now why I'm asking wjhat side you are on. If it's killing wolves then I think we are all on the same side....some of us are just looking at the praticality and results.
Reply With Quote
  #250  
Old 02-16-2010, 03:28 PM
sheepguide sheepguide is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Rimbey
Posts: 5,908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 209x50 View Post
Of course tonta, we burn mountains and shoot wolves from helicopters, cougar can be controlled through expanded hunting opportunities.
How do you think we can increase cougar hunting opertunitie in mountain zones 209. You gunna hike in or take horses and lead the dogs into large areas shut down to OHV? Are you gunna stand along park boundries and stop the dogs from chasing a cat in there.
Sure increased quotas are needed but as it is now the last zones that are closed are already the zones with sheep in as guys only head here at a last resort!!
They are to unaccesable when cat hunting conditions exist!!!

Large burns havent seemed to increase populations( Elk, moose, sheep and deer) that thrived in places such as the Dog rib, Yara creek and James river area!!!

Increased habitat hasnt helped at the ranch where they produced cut blocks to hold the elk!

Wolf culls from helicopters is in no way gunna happen in the near future due to the Anti's

So what else you got 209?

Last edited by sheepguide; 02-16-2010 at 03:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #251  
Old 02-16-2010, 03:30 PM
sheephunter
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheepguide View Post

So what else you got 209?
You do realize he can't see your posts...right?
Reply With Quote
  #252  
Old 02-16-2010, 03:34 PM
SLH SLH is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 764
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 209x50 View Post
Of course tonta, we burn mountains and shoot wolves from helicopters, cougar can be controlled through expanded hunting opportunities.
It is a simple world you live in I'm envious

As an added bonus we might actually get a handle on the beetles while we help the sheep. Just don't start the fire at the bottom all the way around the moutain the sheep won't have any where to go but up and that might run out.

For arguement sake (like we need an excuse) if numbers showed high ewe:ram ratios and unbalanced unhealthy ram class distribution would you still argue against longer wait times over a draw?
Reply With Quote
  #253  
Old 02-16-2010, 03:34 PM
sheepguide sheepguide is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Rimbey
Posts: 5,908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter View Post
I seem to have posted this on the wrong thread too...my apologies again...

Sheepguide said:



Pretty sure we all agree that killing wolves and increasing habitat would make more sheep...I was curious as to the two sides people were on.....or even what side you are on. So far you've supported the five year wait, denounced the five year wait, supported a draw, denounced a draw, supported an age restriction, conceeded that an age restriction wouldn't work. Can you see now why I'm asking wjhat side you are on. If it's killing wolves then I think we are all on the same side....some of us are just looking at the praticality and results.
Yes TJ I support a wait, is it the best choice no!
Yes TJ A draw will produce older bigger rams, is it what I want no!
Yes TJ I support an age restriction, have I conceeded that it wont work NO.
Im on the side that promotes enhanced sheep education, populations, age and habitat and if one of them steps is hunter control then so be it. Im here as a sheep enthusiest(?) not a hunter. I care about being out there camping around and seeing these sheep first hunting them second.
SG

Last edited by sheepguide; 02-16-2010 at 03:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #254  
Old 02-16-2010, 03:38 PM
sheepguide sheepguide is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Rimbey
Posts: 5,908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter View Post
You do realize he can't see your posts...right?
I could really care less as he couldnt answer anything anyways! He may be a television hunting figure but it really shows how well qualified you need to actually be to get there.
Reply With Quote
  #255  
Old 02-16-2010, 03:41 PM
sheephunter
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SLH View Post
:For arguement sake (like we need an excuse) if numbers showed high ewe:ram ratios and unbalanced unhealthy ram class distribution would you still argue against longer wait times over a draw?
You are assuming they'd accomplish the same thing...I don't think an extended wait would accomplish anything in regards to increasing ram numbers or age. How could it? Ya, a draw is the short-term answer if that is the problem.
Reply With Quote
  #256  
Old 02-16-2010, 03:44 PM
SLH SLH is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 764
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter View Post
Apparently I posted this on the wrong thread...my apologies. What are everyone's thoughts on this sheep related topic?

Vin Said:


I'm not sure all Alberta hunters would agree with you. Here's a little snippet of an e-mail that was passed along to me. It's from one of those that feel they have the right to impose their ideology on "average" Albertans. I'm still washing the puke out of my mouth from reading it.
Can only imagine where that came from.

Not trying to side with that statement because I suspect it came from a biased mindset but the point is do we want "Trophy" hunting or do we want a ram "harvest".

Is there a "problem" with hunters getting a just legal ram at every oppurtunity and is that "wrong" or should the goal be to have the mountain full of 180+ rams. I've lived my life looking for the 180+ but I'm sure that some aren't. Probaly why that OP picture ****ess me off so much.

Just a what if..

What if we didn't have a size restriction?
Reply With Quote
  #257  
Old 02-16-2010, 03:48 PM
sheephunter
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SLH View Post
Just a what if..

What if we didn't have a size restriction?
We'd have a VERY regulated draw like Montana does and the opportunities to hunt would be limited to once in a lifetime or less. It does make for some huge rams though.

Figure about 10,000 applicants for say 200 tags.
Reply With Quote
  #258  
Old 02-16-2010, 04:04 PM
SLH SLH is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 764
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter View Post
You are assuming they'd accomplish the same thing...I don't think an extended wait would accomplish anything in regards to increasing ram numbers or age. How could it? Ya, a draw is the short-term answer if that is the problem.
The reason the wait would work is if there are hunters taking smaller rams every oppurtunity. Don't know the breakdown as that data isn't available (I suspect it will be at some time). Also if there are x number of hunters and you remove any % of them the harvest numbers will be reduced, don't know by how many but it will happen.

Unfortunatley draw and short term solution don't usually go hand in hand. My suspicion is that there is a problem and a solution will be implemented and we are all going to be ****ed when it happens.

"If" it is decided more big rams need to be on the mountain the first solution should be removal of non resident tags (sorry outfitters). I favor some graduated wait whether it be by age (difficult but I think would be effective if it could work), graduated easy to do but limiting the longer you go, not sure it would really affect anyone on the total number shot in a life time but would limit the every oppurtunity guy (not sure how many of them exist either). The most important decision that should be made however is to make sure that the heirarchy of the Management Plan be enforced limiting non residents.

Don't get me wrong I think there are a lot of things like habitat restoration and possibly predator control (tricky one that has to have a real good plan in place) that have to be used as well but when you look at the % of rams taken out of the herd by hunters we have to assume that we are going to have to be part of a solution as well; the numbers force that to be the case.
Reply With Quote
  #259  
Old 02-16-2010, 04:12 PM
sheephunter
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
The reason the wait would work is if there are hunters taking smaller rams every oppurtunity. Don't know the breakdown as that data isn't available (I suspect it will be at some time). Also if there are x number of hunters and you remove any % of them the harvest numbers will be reduced, don't know by how many but it will happen.
That works if the success rate is high but it's not. There arent a lot of legal sheep out there and there is a line up of hunters to kill them. You take less than 7% of the hunters out of the pool each year and isn't going to change the harvest numbers significantly....it can't. Sure there are guys with multiple rams but unless I'm really out of touch, I can't imagine there are more than a handful of guys that kill a ram every two years. And when did management become about punishing those that work hard and are good at what they do? I would like to think that resident opportunities were equal for all.......regardless of skill level.
Reply With Quote
  #260  
Old 02-16-2010, 04:23 PM
sheepguide sheepguide is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Rimbey
Posts: 5,908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter View Post
That works if the success rate is high but it's not. There arent a lot of legal sheep out there and there is a line up of hunters to kill them. You take less than 7% of the hunters out of the pool each year and isn't going to change the harvest numbers significantly....it can't. Sure there are guys with multiple rams but unless I'm really out of touch, I can't imagine there are more than a handful of guys that kill a ram every two years. And when did management become about punishing those that work hard and are good at what they do? I would like to think that resident opportunities were equal for all.......regardless of skill level.
But how is letting someone shoot a ram before implementing a wait punishing them. It a majestic bighorn sheep!!! Many people never get the oppertunity to hunt one and many guys are against all this because they feel its there right to shoot 4 or 5 or more.
You guys talk like there are an endless number of sheep hunters joining sheep hunting every year.
Well maybe down south where you hunt but most places I go frequently you run into most guys every year around the same time in the same area! Most new guys you bump into say ya we hunted else where last year and thought we would try here this year. You run into very limited number of first time hunters. And if you do chances are they are a younger generation offspring of a sheep hunter. Sure there are a few coming in every year but I beleive from what I have seen that it is a very small percentage of the sheep hunting population.
Reply With Quote
  #261  
Old 02-16-2010, 04:25 PM
209x50's Avatar
209x50 209x50 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SLH View Post
It is a simple world you live in I'm envious

As an added bonus we might actually get a handle on the beetles while we help the sheep. Just don't start the fire at the bottom all the way around the moutain the sheep won't have any where to go but up and that might run out.
Take a look into the national parks and the prescribed burns happening there.

Quote:
For arguement sake (like we need an excuse) if numbers showed high ewe:ram ratios and unbalanced unhealthy ram class distribution would you still argue against longer wait times over a draw?
For arguments sake, for sure I'd selfishly support the wait times, I wouldn't be voting for the best for the herd but I'd still be hunting. With the draws I may only get one more tag in my life.

The elitists who believe the herd needs to be managed so they have more opportunity for a book sheep disgust me. I think we need to manage the herd for all Albertans not a select few. The rumors of more full curl zones are a prime example. When 437 was full curl were there any shot there? How many years was 437 full curl without a ram killed before it went back to 4/5? That would be the story in many WMUs if full curl is brought in.
Reply With Quote
  #262  
Old 02-16-2010, 04:29 PM
sheephunter
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheepguide View Post
But how is letting someone shoot a ram before implementing a wait punishing them. It a majestic bighorn sheep!!! Many people never get the oppertunity to hunt one and many guys are against all this because they feel its there right to shoot 4 or 5 or more.
You guys talk like there are an endless number of sheep hunters joining sheep hunting every year.
Well maybe down south where you hunt but most places I go frequently you run into most guys every year around the same time in the same area! Most new guys you bump into say ya we hunted else where last year and thought we would try here this year. You run into very limited number of first time hunters. And if you do chances are they are a younger generation offspring of a sheep hunter. Sure there are a few coming in every year but I beleive from what I have seen that it is a very small percentage of the sheep hunting population.

So, after five years you have roughly 700 sheep hunters sitting on the side line. You've still got around 1,500 sheep hunters hunting for 140 sheep. That's adding in zero recruitment. I'm sure out of those 1,500 sheep hunters, at least 140 are willing to kill a sheep. Now just for arguement sake, lets say 25% of the rams killed are 8 years or greater. Likely rams that any of the 1,500 will kill if they are looking for a mature ram. So now you only need 105 hunters out of the remaining 1,465 hunters that are willing to kill a sub 8 year old ram. To me the math adds up to the same amount of sheep being killed.
Reply With Quote
  #263  
Old 02-16-2010, 04:34 PM
Walleyes Walleyes is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: N/E Alberta.
Posts: 4,957
Default

Damn,, am I ever glad I'm a moose hunter..
Reply With Quote
  #264  
Old 02-16-2010, 04:36 PM
sheephunter
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walleyes View Post
Damn,, am I ever glad I'm a moose hunter..
They're not doing great either...
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old 02-16-2010, 04:45 PM
Walleyes Walleyes is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: N/E Alberta.
Posts: 4,957
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter View Post
They're not doing great either...
Ah we'll leave that for another day..

I just meant that because of it I don't have to get into this mess.. Go hard boys..
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old 02-16-2010, 04:45 PM
SLH SLH is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 764
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter View Post
That works if the success rate is high but it's not. There arent a lot of legal sheep out there and there is a line up of hunters to kill them. You take less than 7% of the hunters out of the pool each year and isn't going to change the harvest numbers significantly....it can't. Sure there are guys with multiple rams but unless I'm really out of touch, I can't imagine there are more than a handful of guys that kill a ram every two years. And when did management become about punishing those that work hard and are good at what they do? I would like to think that resident opportunities were equal for all.......regardless of skill level.

I guess I disagree with the way you add up the harvest when you limit hunting numbers you might be right but the other way of looking at it is this way and this is what SRD is looking at when they suggest wait times.

7%/year x 5 = 35 %. I know some will take friends some new ones show up whatever, the reality is there are less hunters. If there are 180 rams harvested/ year with 7% less hunters even 2% less harvested means 4 left behind. If you multilpy that by 5 it becomes 20. It doesn't seem like much but if you add these numbers over time it does make a difference. That is just about one extra ram per zone per year.

Now if you extend that to real numbers 35% less hunters to 35% less harvested (I don't even believe these numbers just being thourough) that means 60 extra rams 2 per zone.

Which is right???
Reply With Quote
  #267  
Old 02-16-2010, 04:47 PM
sheepguide sheepguide is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Rimbey
Posts: 5,908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter View Post
So, after five years you have roughly 500 sheep hunters sitting on the side line. You've still got over 1,500 sheep hunters hunting for 140 sheep. That's adding in zero recruitment. I'm sure out of those 1,500 sheep hunters, at least 140 are willing to kill a sheep. Now just for arguement sake, lets say 25% of the rams killed are 8 years or greater. Likely rams that any of the 1,500 will kill if they are looking for a mature ram. So now you only need 105 hunters out of the remaining 1,465 hunters that are willing to kill a sub 8 year old ram. To me the math adds up to the same amount of sheep being killed.
Ok 2000 guys running around out there can only find 140 rams. You honestly think 1500 are gunna find the same amount? There are always gunna be some guys that decide that they dont wanna wait so they are gunna pass on that just legal first ram and hold out to be able to hunt more. Always gunna be lots of guys holding out for that big ram. Alwalys gunna be a few older guys leaving the sport(which will eliminate most of the total hunter increase of new hunters).

We both know that there isnt hundreds of new hunters flooding the mountains every year or we would be over populated in no time. No matter what you preach less hunters in the field can do nothing but decrease hunter harvest.

Your giving way more credit to alot of guys. Not to offend anyone but not everyone that goes sheep hunting is capable of killing a sheep. There are alot of great hunters that can but also alot of guys out there that just arent able to physicaly or mentaly. They try and put in an honest effort but just isnt gunna happen.


Like I said this isnt my first choice but it is better than no action to me!
SG
Reply With Quote
  #268  
Old 02-16-2010, 04:51 PM
ishootbambi ishootbambi is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: medicine hat
Posts: 9,037
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonto View Post
A problem has been agreed upon... predators and habitat.
Do you have any ideas how to solve these problems, 209?
You did say, once a problem has been identified that you would give us an opinion. Maybe that just means that you agree or disagree that these are the problems. I don't know. I do know one thing. Bambi is correct, you have not stated one thing that adds to the discussion.
I imagine we will get the usual answer.
hey tonto...so i guess we are brothers now too?

from sg

I could really care less as he couldnt answer anything anyways! He may be a television hunting figure but it really shows how well qualified you need to actually be to get there.

dont slam all tv hosts. tj has provided a ton of information here and a few ideas to improve things. he has also by my recollection answered every question directed his way, and has not been rude or demeaning to those he disagrees with.

as for 209....he finally answered a question. it shows some hope.
Reply With Quote
  #269  
Old 02-16-2010, 04:52 PM
sheephunter
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SLH View Post
I guess I disagree with the way you add up the harvest when you limit hunting numbers you might be right but the other way of looking at it is this way and this is what SRD is looking at when they suggest wait times.

7%/year x 5 = 35 %. I know some will take friends some new ones show up whatever, the reality is there are less hunters. If there are 180 rams harvested/ year with 7% less hunters even 2% less harvested means 4 left behind. If you multilpy that by 5 it becomes 20. It doesn't seem like much but if you add these numbers over time it does make a difference. That is just about one extra ram per zone per year.

Now if you extend that to real numbers 35% less hunters to 35% less harvested (I don't even believe these numbers just being thourough) that means 60 extra rams 2 per zone.

Which is right???

You are adding in the non-resident numbers...we are talking resident harvest. The 5-year wait would have little impact on non-resident harvest. You are assuming that those successful hunters kill a ram at every opportunity. They don't.
Reply With Quote
  #270  
Old 02-16-2010, 04:58 PM
sheepguide sheepguide is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Rimbey
Posts: 5,908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ishootbambi View Post

dont slam all tv hosts. tj has provided a ton of information here and a few ideas to improve things. he has also by my recollection answered every question directed his way, and has not been rude or demeaning to those he disagrees with.
No your right. That wasnt directed at anyone other than the guy stated. Sorry if I offended any other TV hosts.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.