Big sheep changes

[bdub]

Originally Posted by pottymouth

I agree with alot of what your saying when it comes to behavior. But i would like to see the paper work on it. Also I'm having a hard time believing that the young rams are doing as much of the breeding they think....for numerous reasons, that i see in their reports...

My big question. ..

Is wmu 400 the best case study they have? Or is wmu 438 ?

For sure 400 is more indicative of much of the provinces sheep habitat and populations, certainly more so than Cadomin which is a huge protected area seeded to pasture basically. Most of the population lives year round on the mine and the zone is bordered on the far side by Jasper park over the entire length of the zone. The only area you could really compare to a Cadomin would be the huge burns that have occurred in N BC where you see similar ungulate reaction to expanding habitat. If only we could reinvigorate much of the provinces sheep habitat by some burns. Then we would see the population reaction to expanding sheep habitat much like occurred in the sheep introductions where they have produce huge rams at relatively young ages or the situation that occurred at Cadomin.

400 is probably one of the easiest places for access in the province, much easier than many other sheep ranges here. If it works in 400 there is a pretty good chance it will work elsewhere. I agree with some other posters that if we do accept the change, or some variation of, we need to push to implement it province wide for obvious reasons.

[SLH]

Originally Posted by pottymouth

My big question. ..

Is wmu 400 the best case study they have? Or is wmu 438 ?

These are both case studies. Both have there successes and both have there limitations.
Full access vs leh, full curl restriction vs sanctuary.

The issues of not shooting every dink ram and access to the best forage possible doesnt seem that difficult and we can do this without a draw.

[dshaw]

Originally Posted by SLH

These are both case studies. Both have there successes and both have there limitations.
Full access vs leh, full curl restriction vs sanctuary.

The issues of not shooting every dink ram and access to the best forage possible doesnt seem that difficult and we can do this without a draw.

My question is how do we achieve that? I realize burns would be needed for the best habitat and forage, thats not hard to do. As for shooting all the dink rams that will be tough to not do if it stays on a general tag. More guys on the mountain will mean more chances that they shoot the first legal ram they see. like myself i would should a legal ram whether its a dink or not. I also have brothers and cousins and a father that would do the same so I see it being hard to not kill all the dink rams with leaving the regs the way they are. I;m not sure what the right answer is.

[albertadave]

Originally Posted by dshaw

My question is how do we achieve that? I realize burns would be needed for the best habitat and forage, thats not hard to do. As for shooting all the dink rams that will be tough to not do if it stays on a general tag. More guys on the mountain will mean more chances that they shoot the first legal ram they see. like myself i would should a legal ram whether its a dink or not. I also have brothers and cousins and a father that would do the same so I see it being hard to not kill all the dink rams with leaving the regs the way they are. I;m not sure what the right answer is.

It's not nearly as easy as you might think. To get a proposed burn from the application stage through to the point of being approved is an extremely long, drawn out process, as most anything involving government bureaucrats often is. And after it's finally approved, it will only be given the green light to be lit under the absolute most perfect, ideal weather conditions (which is extremely rare). Oh, and controlled burns are expensive, and someone has to pay for them. Unfortunately it's not as easy as just tossing a match on a windy day.

[Titanium79]

Originally Posted by albertadave

It's not nearly as easy as you might think. To get a proposed burn from the application stage through to the point of being approved is an extremely long, drawn out process, as most anything involving government bureaucrats often is. And after it's finally approved, it will only be given the green light to be lit under the absolute most perfect, ideal weather conditions (which is extremely rare). Oh, and controlled burns are expensive, and someone has to pay for them. Unfortunately it's not as easy as just tossing a match on a windy day.

It is way easier than that. Quit putting out all natural fires. I think this is the biggest reason for all decline in montain regions. Lack of food. Look at cadomin and this could be all over or mountains. Habitat is key with our sheep herds and all other animals in the mountains.

[walking buffalo]

What study in 400 or 438?

More ghost stories.

Regulation change research has omitted wmu 400 rams (full curl) and any late season draw rams.

The research being used to support the full curl change is stating that reproduction rates are fine. This means that according to the research, Bdub's unsupported theory is wrong.


Bdub, SLH and Crazy Davey, strong supporters of the regulation change, all disagree with the research conclusions used to support the change. Lol...

Remember, this research is only based on analysis of dead rams and a one time four year old aerial survey, admitted to be about 55% accurate.

The government is stating that due to hunting induced genetic selection, there are fewer legal rams because the sheep are taking longer to become legal. The combination of regular non-human induced mortality rates of 13-27% of rams/year and an extra year to become legal (genetic shift) is the reason there are fewer legal rams....

The problem is not that we are shooting too many young rams, but that we are not shooting enough young rams. The average age of rams harvested is getting older, and his has led the researchers to conclude that genetic harm has occured.

The researchers admit they have no information regarding hunters passing on rams. They appear to assume that hunters are not passing up any opportunity to kill a sheep. Thus the reason I posted the poll yesterday. As a sample, the survey shows than most sheep hunters are passing on legal young rams. Because of this trend to pass on young sheep, the researchers are using the kill data showing older rams as proof of genetic harm.

Based on the governments science, as more hunters select for older rams, the data will show a greater problem...

[RZR]

Originally Posted by bdub

[/B]

For sure 400 is more indicative of much of the provinces sheep habitat and populations

400 is probably one of the easiest places for access in the province, much easier than many other sheep ranges here. If it works in 400 there is a pretty good chance it will work elsewhere. I agree with some other posters that if we do accept the change, or some variation of, we need to push to implement it province wide for obvious reasons.

Are you sure it's the right zone, even with all the domestic cattle roaming the zone sharing the same feed and putting pressure on the sheep herds. Would the study show how that effects the sheep.

[albertadave]

Originally Posted by Titanium79

It is way easier than that. Quit putting out all natural fires. I think this is the biggest reason for all decline in montain regions. Lack of food. Look at cadomin and this could be all over or mountains. Habitat is key with our sheep herds and all other animals in the mountains.

You're right. Fire suppression has caused an enormous amount of wintering range to be lost to encroachment. If only it were as simple as just calling up the government and asking them to let a few lightening strikes burn lol. Unfortunately it's not.

[dshaw]

Originally Posted by albertadave

It's not nearly as easy as you might think. To get a proposed burn from the application stage through to the point of being approved is an extremely long, drawn out process, as most anything involving government bureaucrats often is. And after it's finally approved, it will only be given the green light to be lit under the absolute most perfect, ideal weather conditions (which is extremely rare). Oh, and controlled burns are expensive, and someone has to pay for them. Unfortunately it's not as easy as just tossing a match on a windy day.

Although wrong thats what needs to happen. maybe mother nature can help us out in the next few years. but yes I can see how its a long process to get a burn but if science is saying thats the biggest issue (which i believe) then we should put some conservation money toward it and get it done.

[walking buffalo]

The gov has been able to get several burns done adjacent to Kananaskis, in provincial and national parks.

And now the sheep are staying put in the burns, in the parks. Thus fewer rams in k country thus a problem caused by shooting too many rams....

All sheep hunters should take up smoking.....

[bdub]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

What study in 400 or 438?

More ghost stories.

Regulation change research has omitted wmu 400 rams (full curl) and any late season draw rams.

The research being used to support the full curl change is stating that reproduction rates are fine. This means that according to the research, Bdub's unsupported theory is wrong.


Bdub, SLH and Crazy Davey, strong supporters of the regulation change, all disagree with the research conclusions used to support the change. Lol...

Remember, this research is only based on analysis of dead rams and a one time four year old aerial survey, admitted to be about 55% accurate.

The government is stating that due to hunting induced genetic selection, there are fewer legal rams because the sheep are taking longer to become legal. The combination of regular non-human induced mortality rates of 13-27% of rams/year and an extra year to become legal (genetic shift) is the reason there are fewer legal rams....

The problem is not that we are shooting too many young rams, but that we are not shooting enough young rams. The average age of rams harvested is getting older, and his has led the researchers to conclude that genetic harm has occured.

The researchers admit they have no information regarding hunters passing on rams. They appear to assume that hunters are not passing up any opportunity to kill a sheep. Thus the reason I posted the poll yesterday. As a sample, the survey shows than most sheep hunters are passing on legal young rams. Because of this trend to pass on young sheep, the researchers are using the kill data showing older rams as proof of genetic harm.

Based on the governments science, as more hunters select for older rams, the data will show a greater problem...

I can't believe you can possibly think we are not shooting enough small rams? What? That is so far out there I don't even know what to say or how you could possibly think that unless you are supporting meat hunting of bighorn rams. Wow Is about all I can say there. On second thought, now I understand your angle on this issue.

The following is from the recent info presented to WSFA.

Sheep hunters are not selective in the rams they harvest. 50% of all sheep registered come from first-time hunters. Small, squeaker rams are being harvested as the first sheep. Sheep hunters may say they harvest a small legal ram as a first sheep, and then set their goal for a more mature sheep. The reality is that<25% of sheep hunters harvest a second or third ram from the total tags sold.

[mountainascent]

So maybe I'll give you a brief introduction. My name is Dominic and though I am new to this forum, I have lots of friends and family that are on the AO. They keep me up to date on issues and when I heard there was a thread about up coming sheep changes, I figured it was time to lace up the skates.

I am a bricklayer and the other day I was talking to a customer while working. I was describing to him that in masonry when something is out of level or balance, we try to make small adjustments to get us back on course. Sometimes when you try to make a big correction, further down the wall that correction can counter act what you originally tried to fix. I think the same can be said in this situation. If study's and evidence say we need a change in sheep hunting, why not start out with small changes? Ex. Shorten season, longer waits between tags....etc. The problem I have with going full curl, is that if the results don't meet srd's desired goal, what's the next change they will make? Most likely making our tag a draw. And when they steam roll us with this full curl rule, it will be a lot easier for them to turn it into a draw. Doing something a second time is always easier then the first and that's a fact.

I'm not going to quote numbers or refer to past studies but from my own experience in the mountains, I'm not convinced we need such a drastic change. Do I see healthy numbers of sheep (ewes, lambs, and rams)? Yes. Do I see many hunters? Not at all. Do I see a large number of grizzlies and wolves? Absolutely! Could we use some burns to open ranges? Ya, that bush is thick as hell! These are the problems I believe should be addressed.

Thanks

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by mountainascent

So maybe I'll give you a brief introduction. My name is Dominic and though I am new to this forum, I have lots of friends and family that are on the AO. They keep me up to date on issues and when I heard there was a thread about up coming sheep changes, I figured it was time to lace up the skates.

I am a bricklayer and the other day I was talking to a customer while working. I was describing to him that in masonry when something is out of level or balance, we try to make small adjustments to get us back on course. Sometimes when you try to make a big correction, further down the wall that correction can counter act what you originally tried to fix. I think the same can be said in this situation. If study's and evidence say we need a change in sheep hunting, why not start out with small changes? Ex. Shorten season, longer waits between tags....etc. The problem I have with going full curl, is that if the results don't meet srd's desired goal, what's the next change they will make? Most likely making our tag a draw. And when they steam roll us with this full curl rule, it will be a lot easier for them to turn it into a draw. Doing something a second time is always easier then the first and that's a fact.

I'm not going to quote numbers or refer to past studies but from my own experience in the mountains, I'm not convinced we need such a drastic change. Do I see healthy numbers of sheep (ewes, lambs, and rams)? Yes. Do I see many hunters? Not at all. Do I see a large number of grizzlies and wolves? Absolutely! Could we use some burns to open ranges? Ya, that bush is thick as hell! These are the problems I believe should be addressed.

Thanks

Welcome and great post.

A fact to remember, if it does go to full curl, we as hunters do not lose a single hunting opportunity....But we do lose harvest opportunity, and a lot !!!

By accepting other methods of hunter restrictions, it shows we don't understand the issue, and gives Esrd fuel, to make more changes, because we have said it's ok. One of the proposals put forward, by an individual, is to charge money for rams....the younger the more expensive! ...We don't want people with agenda's making proposals like that!

March 2nd we hopefully get more info! Then we hopefully have time to process, question and prove that info! Then, only then can we make the proper educated suggestions to what's needed, IF anything is needed!

I've been hearing this a lot lately....but it works well here with sheep too!!

Measure twice, cut once!!!

[Acesneights]

Mountainascent you nailed it and you along with pottymouth pointed out the biggest thing I have an issue with is that by not fighting tooth and nail over this proposed change we would then give up any argumentive angle in the future. We would basically be saying leave the big decisions to the higher ups because they know what is best!!! Which believe me as shown lately between cadomin and suffield, And that's just a start, they in fact don't know what's best. To sum it up that's what I sent my MLA and the minister

[mountainascent]

I'm sure we will all have plenty to talk about at the WSF banquet if that information comes out March 2nd.

[Acesneights]

Originally Posted by mountainascent

I'm sure we will all have plenty to talk about at the WSF banquet if that information comes out March 2nd.

See you there.

[mountainascent]

Defiantly! I'm looking forward to meeting lots of fellow sheep hunters!

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by mountainascent

So maybe I'll give you a brief introduction. My name is Dominic and though I am new to this forum, I have lots of friends and family that are on the AO. They keep me up to date on issues and when I heard there was a thread about up coming sheep changes, I figured it was time to lace up the skates.

I am a bricklayer and the other day I was talking to a customer while working. I was describing to him that in masonry when something is out of level or balance, we try to make small adjustments to get us back on course. Sometimes when you try to make a big correction, further down the wall that correction can counter act what you originally tried to fix. I think the same can be said in this situation. If study's and evidence say we need a change in sheep hunting, why not start out with small changes? Ex. Shorten season, longer waits between tags....etc. The problem I have with going full curl, is that if the results don't meet srd's desired goal, what's the next change they will make? Most likely making our tag a draw. And when they steam roll us with this full curl rule, it will be a lot easier for them to turn it into a draw. Doing something a second time is always easier then the first and that's a fact.

I'm not going to quote numbers or refer to past studies but from my own experience in the mountains, I'm not convinced we need such a drastic change. Do I see healthy numbers of sheep (ewes, lambs, and rams)? Yes. Do I see many hunters? Not at all. Do I see a large number of grizzlies and wolves? Absolutely! Could we use some burns to open ranges? Ya, that bush is thick as hell! These are the problems I believe should be addressed.

Thanks

Welcome and thanks for the thoughts.

The last time around with these discussions, the gov waffled from a draw to a shortened season. Hunters asked and recieved an agreement to do a resiliency study before any changes were made. Halfway through the study and the gov has now reneged on their agreement...

Funny thing... the head f&w wildlife biologist at the time has stated that if hunters had just accepted the shortened season (first and last week) then they would not be pushing for a full curl regulation.

Consider what this means. We know that most rams shot in the first week would likely still be available and killed regardless if the season opens on the 25th or the 1st ot the 7th... this won't change anything. ...

The change would effect the harvest of park rams as they migrate out at the end of oct. In essence the gov was going to be satisfied if we stopped shooting park rams, resident rams be damned...

This is not about the health of sheep, but an agenda by certain individuals to limit the killing of sheep, especially the beloved and extra special park ram. Then end goal was stated by these people many years ago, they want All sheep hunting to be on a very limited draw. The full curl rule is just a step along their path.


Does no one remember that the souther full curl wmus was promised to be a temporary measure until herd and ram populations recovered from the 80s dieoff? Well, the herd and ram population has recovered.....

[fast_pass88]

Originally Posted by albertadave

Unfortunately it's not as easy as just tossing a match on a windy day.

Yes it is Just as easy as that. Well, maybe give it a little kindling and be sure your up in some good sheep country.

I thought I read somewhere that they won't put out any fires in the willmore. The last time they went in to put out a fire is when they dozed in the path from rock lake, many years ago. but I may be wrong.


Also, what's going on on March 2nd? Is a it a meeting that the public can attend?

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by bdub

I can't believe you can possibly think we are not shooting enough small rams? What? That is so far out there I don't even know what to say or how you could possibly think that unless you are supporting meat hunting of bighorn rams. Wow Is about all I can say there. On second thought, now I understand your angle on this issue.

The following is from the recent info presented to WSFA.

Sheep hunters are not selective in the rams they harvest. 50% of all sheep registered come from first-time hunters. Small, squeaker rams are being harvested as the first sheep. Sheep hunters may say they harvest a small legal ram as a first sheep, and then set their goal for a more mature sheep. The reality is that<25% of sheep hunters harvest a second or third ram from the total tags sold.

If you don't understand why the problem is due to not shooting enough young rams then you do not understand the concern stated by the researchers asking for the full curl regulations.

Yes, this may seem counterintuitive, don't worry, just relax and think...

The stated concern is that hunters are killing fewer young sheep as a percentage of harvest when compared to historical data. In their mind, while admitting that they have no knowledge of whether or not hunters pass up legal sheep, the researchers have concluded the lower percentage of young rams in the harvest is evidence that a genetic selection for smaller, slower growing rams has occurred.

If hunters killed more young rams, their data would show that there is no hunting induced genetic selection, and as such, no problem...

[bdub]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

If you don't understand why the problem is due to not shooting enough young rams then you do not understand the concern stated by the researchers asking for the full curl regulations.

Yes, this may seem counterintuitive, don't worry, just relax and think...

The stated concern is that hunters are killing fewer young sheep as a percentage of harvest when compared to historical data. In their mind, while admitting that they have no knowledge of whether or not hunters pass up legal sheep, the researchers have concluded the lower percentage of young rams in the harvest is evidence that a genetic selection for smaller, slower growing rams has occurred.

If hunters killed more young rams, their data would show that there is no hunting induced genetic selection, and as such, no problem...

The problem is we are affecting the dynamics of the sheep herd by killing virtually every single ram that reaches 4/5 curl in the province each and every year leaving young rams to do much of the breeding and the implications of that.

Whether or not hunters pass up legal sheep or not means pretty much zero. They know that many hunters will not pass off the first legal sheep they have a chance at, especially guys who have never killed a ram before, like yourself. Something your poll also indicates.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by bdub

The problem is we are affecting the dynamics of the sheep herd by killing virtually every single ram that reaches 4/5 curl in the province each and every year leaving young rams to do much of the breeding and the implications of that.

Whether or not hunters pass up legal sheep or not means pretty much zero. They know that many hunters will not pass off the first legal sheep they have a chance at, especially guys who have never killed a ram before, like yourself. Something your poll also indicates.

Your accusations are getting desperate.

For about the fifth time, show us within the regulation change research that the concern is about young rams doing much of the breeding and the associated implications. Show us the research of how this implications are currently affecting Alberta sheep.

Back to reality, a dynamic shift from your make believe problems.
The researchers claim that hunters currently kill 1/2 of all legal rams each year.
Recruitment models show this to be in line with the harvest data and population estimates.

Obviously the sheep poll really bothers you. It is clear that hunters are passing on rams, something the researchers assumed was not happening.


Looking forward to your next unfounded claim.

[pottymouth]

Bdub, the poll actually does have alot of merit..... 12% have NOT passed on a ram.... 33% haven't shot or passed, thus , they haven't had to make that decision yet....

Esrd et al, claim a number that is way higher? Scientificly AO's poll is the most accurate representation they have. If they never conducted anything similar, then using hypothetical numbers doesnt help. But it does show they are willing to use made up numbers for support!!! Now where else are they doing that?

Originally Posted by bdub

The problem is we are affecting the dynamics of the sheep herd by killing virtually every single ram that reaches 4/5 curl in the province each and every year leaving young rams to do much of the breeding and the implications of that.

Whether or not hunters pass up legal sheep or not means pretty much zero. They know that many hunters will not pass off the first legal sheep they have a chance at, especially guys who have never killed a ram before, like yourself. Something your poll also indicates.

[Pudelpointer]

Originally Posted by bdub

The problem is we are affecting the dynamics of the sheep herd by killing virtually every single ram that reaches 4/5 curl in the province each and every year leaving young rams to do much of the breeding and the implications of that.

This is typical AB gov misinformation. We (hunters) do not come anywhere close to doing so. We have a unique situation in much of AB, that is we have a huge ram sanctuary just west of virtually ALL sheep hunting zones! To not include rams within the National Parks and provincial no-hunting parks gives a false impression - that there are no mature rams available to breed. Total BS.

If they truly want to know what is happening with bighorn sheep in this province, they need to be out surveying for rams when they are actually on huntable sheep range.

[bdub]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Your accusations are getting desperate.

For about the fifth time, show us within the regulation change research that the concern is about young rams doing much of the breeding and the associated implications. Show us the research of how this implications are currently affecting Alberta sheep.

Back to reality, a dynamic shift from your make believe problems.
The researchers claim that hunters currently kill 1/2 of all legal rams each year.
Recruitment models show this to be in line with the harvest data and population estimates.

Obviously the sheep poll really bothers you. It is clear that hunters are passing on rams, something the researchers assumed was not happening.


Looking forward to your next unfounded claim.

I don't think you read anything posted or linked anyway. Your poll doesn't bother me. It's kind of meaningless saying hunters pass or don't pass rams up, doesn't change the post season survey data.

As for being desperate lol. I've killed my fair share of rams. If I never kill another sheep I've been more than blessed with the ones I have killed and had the opportunity to help others kill. I'm not desperate WB. I'm just thinking about what's best for the resource and the future of sheep hunting staying off draw. I'm wondering what your angle is on this issue.

Some areas in the Clearwater/Ram are having too high a harvest due to hunting pressure (some areas are as high as 70%, and the target is to harvest 50% of the total legal rams). Overharvest is serious issues that ESRD is looking at – both by residents and non-resident aliens.

[Acesneights]

[QUOTE=bdub;2734915] As for being desperate lol. I've killed my fair share of rams. If I never kill another sheep I've been more than blessed with the ones I have killed and had the opportunity to help others kill. I'm not desperate WB. I'm just thinking about what's best for the resource and the future of sheep hunting staying off draw. I'm wondering what your angle is on this issue. QUOTE]

So my opinion to your comment is that it is extremely bias toward any further comments or opinions of yours. That really you don't have a high interest in new comers or really what happens to sheep as long as there is some still on the mountain. All I care is that the government doesn't railroad this thing into the wall down the road like suffield

[bdub]

[QUOTE=Acesneights;2735090]

Originally Posted by bdub

As for being desperate lol. I've killed my fair share of rams. If I never kill another sheep I've been more than blessed with the ones I have killed and had the opportunity to help others kill. I'm not desperate WB. I'm just thinking about what's best for the resource and the future of sheep hunting staying off draw. I'm wondering what your angle is on this issue. QUOTE]

So my opinion to your comment is that it is extremely bias toward any further comments or opinions of yours. That really you don't have a high interest in new comers or really what happens to sheep as long as there is some still on the mountain. All I care is that the government doesn't railroad this thing into the wall down the road like suffield

I'm confused by what exactly you are getting at?

I've take out first timers every year since I've moved back to Alberta. And yes I do really care that there are sheep on the mountain.

[bdub]

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

This is typical AB gov misinformation. We (hunters) do not come anywhere close to doing so. We have a unique situation in much of AB, that is we have a huge ram sanctuary just west of virtually ALL sheep hunting zones! To not include rams within the National Parks and provincial no-hunting parks gives a false impression - that there are no mature rams available to breed. Total BS.

Ifs they truly want to know what is happening with bighorn sheep in this province, they need to be out surveying for rams when they are actually on huntable sheep range.

Ok when do you think they should be out surveying the sheep population?

The sheep winter trend survey was flown from January 19 – 21, 2009. We observed 1,491 sheep on 14 winter ranges (Figure 5.2.1). Some observations were outside the known winter ranges (n = 8 groups totaling 156 sheep), particularly in WMU 414, 420 and 426, suggesting that winter ranges should be re‐adjusted over time. The population structure identified during the survey on known winter ranges was 732 ewes, 175 lambs, 339 rams, and 245 unclassified sheep. Rams were classified as 107 1⁄4 curl, 131 1⁄2 curl, 41 3⁄4 curl, 15 4/5 curl, 9 full curl, and 36 unclassified males. The herd composition was 23.9 lambs/100 ewes and 46.3 rams/100 ewes, with 1.6% of the total sheep that were classified as 4/5 or full curl. Results from this survey are similar to the results from previous surveys: in 2005 a grand total of 1482 sheep were counted and the composition was 45 rams/100 ewes/32 lambs. In 2007, a grand total of 1072 animals were counted and ratios were 36 rams/100 ewes/30 lambs.

[AlbertaCutthroat]

Was looking for something on google and this old thread came up. How about investing resources to increase opportunity by re-establishing extirpated herds.

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=83445

[albertadave]

Originally Posted by fast_pass88

Yes it is Just as easy as that. Well, maybe give it a little kindling and be sure your up in some good sheep country.

I thought I read somewhere that they won't put out any fires in the willmore. The last time they went in to put out a fire is when they dozed in the path from rock lake, many years ago. but I may be wrong.


Also, what's going on on March 2nd? Is a it a meeting that the public can attend?

Well there you go. Problem solved Are you volunteering to throw the first match?