Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter
I'm guessing you'd find some resistance from the outfitters. They are already at a considerable disadvantage by sitting out what are quite likely the three best weeks of the season. I doubt that they actually kill many true full-curl sheep. It would likely cut their harvest 50-75% and with residents still killing 4/5 sheep, I can't really see it allowing many sheep to get older. Possibly but I still think that there are a lot of people out there willing to kill the first legal sheep they see and even if someone is required to pass on them, there will be someone in line to kill them. We have a lot of sheep hunters in the hills.
If we really do have a problem, which no one has yet proven, I think the only solution is to limit the number of hunters in the field = draw.
|
First, I agree that we need to see some real data indicating if there is actually a problem. Is there ?
Secondly, no question there will be resistance from the outfitters, but so what. I suspect they are the stakeholders that are pushing for the resolutions to limit resident sheep hunting opportunity in the first place, which is in their interest only. Any outfitter that cannot or will not limit their own harvest in their own area when there is a problem with sheep numbers has absolutely no respect for either the wildlife or people of Alberta.
Thirdly, if resident sheep hunters have the number of available tags reduced through the draw application process, then similar and proportional reductions to outfitters sheep allocations should occur and all non-residents should be subject to the same draw application process for those limited tags. Seeing as how the cost of a non-resident sheep hunt in Alberta has jumped from 20K to 40K in the last decade, a 50% cut to the allocations should not have any real impact on the outfitters bottom line. Non-resident sheep hunting opportunity/allocations need to be upfront and center of any proposed solution to limit the numbers of hunters in the field.