Sheep Changes Coming

Moon said:
the facts have been completely ignored and a decision was made in advance. And while I recognize that sheep aren't elk, it appears that the players making the calls are pretty much the same.

Best of luck guys!
Click to expand...

Yep - unfortunately Alberta listens to anything that might be considered a "economic driver".

If the outfitters are having trouble with a product perhaps its time to roll up shop and try a different business where they have to pay for and manage their own inventory.
 
norskie said:
Surely you jest Moon - I mean I have just been told of APOS's honorable intentions:bsFlag:

And this situation seems to similar to when the whole Open spaces fiasco started, there were a small group running around spewing the "wait for the facts" "you're chicken little" lines, all the while the decisions were being made and policy was being pushed forward.

I think I'll choose to keep abreast of any developments and use that info to arm guys at the table and make my own pleas to government. Largely becasue I don't trust government, especially when its prone to interest groups and lobbying.
Click to expand...

You may wish to reference the cut and paste from an ABA proposed regulation change above. I can send it to you if you like.

You figure you would have learned the value of facts on the Open Spaces fiasco...it was what eventually killed it.....not the half cocked, tin-foil hat wearing accusations that started the discussion around it. But perhaps you "heard" something different...lol

Countdown to predictable ARHJ dog pile.......................10, 9, 8 ,7..........................
 
sheephunter said:
Not saying you are wrong Moon but Alberta Bowhunters Association presented this to AGMAG.....are you referencing something different?




TITLE OF REG. CHANGE PROPOSAL ----



1. CURRENT STRATEGY

What regulation or system is currently in place?

In zone 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 308, 310 the regulations for antlered elk are 3 point or better.

2. CONCERN

What could be improved with the current regulation or system?

There is a change I would like to see to the regulations in foothills region of Southern Alberta - particularly in the Porcupine Hills area. I hunt elk exclusively with my bow and it has been 15 years since I have seen a mature bull elk in that area. It seems that all the legal bulls are killed during rifle season (anything other than a spiker). The only bulls that are around are the rag horns and they only last till the first rifle season.

3. INFORMATION TO SUPPORT CHANGE

What sort of information (data or otherwise) do you have that provides support to the proposed changed in regulation or system that is currently in place?

If there was census counts of mature bull elk, that data would support my case.

4. RECOMMENDED CHANGE

State what you would like the new regulation or system to be:

The regulations should change to 6 point or better for antlered elk for rifle. That would change the hunting experience in that area in a good way for rifle and archery hunters.
Click to expand...

APOS had a "Proposed Elk Management Strategies" (or something extremely similar) in 2010. I know I had a copy of it and will look for it tomorrow. I am very confident that I represented the contents accurately. If memory serves me correctly, it was in February or March of that year.

I am aware the subject has also been presented at AFGA conferences as well and has been defeated... in the past anyway.
 
Moon said:
APOS had a "Proposed Elk Management Strategies" (or something extremely similar) in 2010. I know I had a copy of it and will look for it tomorrow. I am very confident that I represented the contents accurately. If memory serves me correctly, it was in February or March of that year.

I am aware the subject has also been presented at AFGA conferences as well and has been defeated... in the past anyway.
Click to expand...

What I posted above was directly from what the ABA presented to AGMAG as a proposed regulation change for 2013...I can send it to you if you like. Yes, I was aware it came as a resolution from a southern AFGA club as well. Strange you singled out APOS. Perhaps they did share a similar philosophy but it seems it had support from some resident groups as well.
 
Last edited:
sheephunter said:
What I posted above was directly from what the ABA presented to AGMAG as a proposed regulation change for 2013...I can send it to you if you like.
Click to expand...

Thanks Sheephunter but I don't need it. I'm pretty sure I can find the APOS Strategy and will post here.
 
Is ARHJ those guys that brought forward a majority of the info on paid hunting while others wanted to "give it a chance" or "wait and see"?


Anywho. If that fiasco taught us anything it's that we shouldn't take anyone's word for it without looking into it for yourself. We had a seat at the table and the representative didn't express concern.

Where there's smoke, there's fire.

Anyone smell that?
 
patty59 said:
Is ARHJ those guys that brought forward a majority of the info on paid hunting while others wanted to "give it a chance" or "wait and see"?
Click to expand...

They brought forward a lot of something. In the end when the facts were presented a fairly unified force stopped it. And rightly so. I suspect the same can happen with these sheep changes if warranted once the facts are known.

But absolutely everyone should be ferreting out and sharing factual info......wild speculation serves little purpose but to cloud the issue.
 
sheephunter said:
You may wish to reference the cut and paste from an ABA proposed regulation change above. I can send it to you if you like.

You figure you would have learned the value of facts on the Open Spaces fiasco...it was what eventually killed it.....not the half cocked, tin-foil hat wearing accusations that started the discussion around it. But perhaps you "heard" something different...lol

Countdown to predictable ARHJ dog pile.......................10, 9, 8 ,7..........................
Click to expand...

the facts that hard working folks pried out - all the while the lapdogs shouted "we need the facts". You were of very little help to the resident hunter in that instance. I am sorry if I suspect the same here.

And I don't need to reference your cut and paste - I have spoke to the biologist directly and know that the proposed changes are not from ABA - perhaps you should check our facts
 
sheephunter said:
They brought forward a lot of something. In the end when the facts were presented a fairly unified force stopped it. And rightly so. I suspect the same can happen with these sheep changes if warranted once the facts are known.

But absolutely everyone should be ferreting out and sharing factual info......wild speculation serves little purpose but to cloud the issue.
Click to expand...

The "unified force" was created from the negative optics created by the "facts" coming out. That was pretty hard to do when the working group for the policy all signed non disclosure agreements, all the while knowing what was coming. I am glad for all the work those guys did - jut too bad they are subject to the disrespect of those too willing to jump in and suggest they actually had a hand in it.

Show me somewhere where APOS does not want a draw for Sheep?
 
norskie said:
I have spoke to the biologist directly and know that the proposed changes are not from ABA - perhaps you should check our facts
Click to expand...

LOL...I can send it to you on ABA letterhead if you like. It was part of an informational package sent out to the AGMAG groups. Perhaps the sky isn't blue either....lol

the facts that hard working folks pried out - all the while the lapdogs shouted "we need the facts". You were of very little help to the resident hunter in that instance. I am sorry if I suspect the same here.
Click to expand...

At least once the facts were presented, an intelligent and non negotiable opposition was presented...unlike ARHJ that said (RAMP), “is not completely offensive” and “With a fully public consultative process and a reasonable timeframe for development we can see how a RAMP-like program could work in Alberta.

Sorry but anything associated with RAMP stunk to me.
 
norskie said:
Show me somewhere where APOS does not want a draw for Sheep?
Click to expand...

Pretty hard to prove a negative, especially when I am unaware of them taking any position yet. In the discussion I've had with them and several other AGMAG groups, everyone is waiting for some ESRD facts before taking a position. More correctly, show me where they have.
 
sheephunter said:
LOL...I can send it to you on ABA letterhead if you like. It was part of an informational package sent out to the AGMAG groups. Perhaps the sky isn't blue either....lol



At least once the facts were presented, an intelligent and non negotiable opposition was presented...unlike ARHJ that said (RAMP), “is not completely offensive” and “With a fully public consultative process and a reasonable timeframe for development we can see how a RAMP-like program could work in Alberta.

Sorry but anything associated with RAMP stunk to me.
Click to expand...

People don't forget tj. "Just give it a chance" ring a bell?
 
patty59 said:
People don't forget tj. "Just give it a chance" ring a bell?
Click to expand...

I did hear some people say that for sure. Personally, I wanted some facts and once I got them it was apparent the idea was flawed for a number of reasons but its Achilles heel was funding. It was pretty easy to put in its grave where it belonged at that point.

Getting back to the sheep issue....it seems most agree that change may not be needed but that if ESRD can convince us it does, that change should have the least impact to resident hunters but still accomplish its goal. A few facts and we can go from there....as with RAMP.
 
sheephunter said:
What I posted above was directly from what the ABA presented to AGMAG as a proposed regulation change for 2013...I can send it to you if you like. Yes, I was aware it came as a resolution from a southern AFGA club as well. Strange you singled out APOS. Perhaps they did share a similar philosophy but it seems it had support from some resident groups as well.
Click to expand...

Strange that you singled out the ABA?
 
sheephunter said:
LOL...I can send it to you on ABA letterhead if you like. It was part of an informational package sent out to the AGMAG groups. Perhaps the sky isn't blue either....lol



At least once the facts were presented, an intelligent and non negotiable opposition was presented...unlike ARHJ that said (RAMP), “is not completely offensive” and “With a fully public consultative process and a reasonable timeframe for development we can see how a RAMP-like program could work in Alberta.

Sorry but anything associated with RAMP stunk to me.
Click to expand...

What I am speaking of is a direct discussion with the bio following a presentation to our local fish and game club. This is in regards to changes that are coming, not a proposal. In addition to Moon's info the idea of a "slick" (single horn) spikes being open along with a 6 point draw - as a means to appease resident hunters while driving the desire to produce bigger bulls. Its being sold as a herd structure issue by some - but the commercial side with paid hunting and outfitters eyeing the spoils...

As for RAMP - wasn't that you at the AFGA meeting where there was unanimous refection of the whole proposal "come on, just give it a chance". I sure don't remember you at the mike speaking against it.

oh yeah - you feel strongly both ways...
 
norskie said:
As for RAMP - wasn't that you at the AFGA meeting where there was unanimous refection of the whole proposal "come on, just give it a chance". I sure don't remember you at the mike speaking against it.

..
Click to expand...

Absolutely it wasn't me and as I wasn't a delegate I couldn't speak at the mic but I suspect you knew that.
 
sheephunter said:
I did hear some people say that for sure. Personally, I wanted some facts and once I got them it was apparent the idea was flawed for a number of reasons but its Achilles heel was funding. It was pretty easy to put in its grave where it belonged at that point.

Getting back to the sheep issue....it seems most agree that change may not be needed but that if ESRD can convince us it does, that change should have the least impact to resident hunters but still accomplish its goal. A few facts and we can go from there....as with RAMP.
Click to expand...

f:P:

Well I sure as heck hope there are guys that can negotiate the mine field of horse sheet to find those facts. Cause just as sure as that sheet stinks, its not likely to come from government, particularly if they derive a economic agenda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom