2015 Bighorn Sheep Management Plan

[albertadave]

Since December of 2014 the proposed changes to the bighorn sheep hunting regulations have been a fairly major topic of conversation on this board, with many so called experts, self proclaimed and otherwise, weighing in heavily. I'm a little surprised that there has been very little discussion about the new 2015 sheep management plan, which has been publically available for nearly a month now. Here's a link to it, if you haven't had a chance to look at it yet. It's a bit of a read, 188 pages worth, but with so many sheep hunters on here proclaiming there passion, I think it's worth the time it takes to read it. And some feedback to the government has never been more important than it is now.

http://www.wsfab.org/pdfs/esrd2.pdf

[Springer]

Thanks Dave for the Info Package link.. I am no expert on Bighorn Sheep , but i sure love the Opportunity to be able to hunt such a magnificent Animal here in Alberta..
Also really looking forward to Hunting them this fall with my son who also has a Draw for 6 point Elk at the same time.
Good Luck to all those Other Sheep hunters as well that will depart for the Mountains this Fall in search of your First or your Next Ram !!

Cheers.

[375HH]

Seems to me they are quick to limit hunting and slow to do anything about habitat even though they admit that high population density limits horn growth. Like most things there is not just one cause and will not be fixed by just limiting hunting although this may have to be part of the solution. I fear they will limit the hunting and not follow through on habitat etc

[Jadham]

Thanks for the link, good reading. I found the section on predation intriguing.

It would be nice if they would increase the NT tags, as it seems we are below the 10% harvest target of NT. I've only drawn the NT tag once so far, and really enjoyed the hunt.

[bdub]

I've been reading over the plan since it came out, been thru it a few times. Couple things stand out. I think the evidence was clearly presented that some sort of change in management is clearly long overdue. It all boils down to what strategys retain maximum Hunter opportunity for RESIDENTS and is in the BEST interest of the sheep herd. LEH benifits outfitters, full curl retains resident opportunity and non-resident opportunity to hunt. All of the other proposals penalize the resident Alberta sheep Hunter unfairly imo. Only one small paragraph stating that is reduction of opportunity on residents equates to the same for outfitters is disturbing. Not much else mentioned of the non res harvest. To me full curl or some form of full curl is the best option.

[Duk Dog]

Lots of reading in the report, but it needs to be done to get an idea of everything this sheep management plan consists of. As we all know game management consists of numerous different things - which they touch on to one degree or another.

Habitat
Climate Change
Population Density
Ewe Harvest
Wild Sheep & Domestic Sheep
Predators
Aerial Surveys
Helicopter Overflights
Yukon Protocol
FN Harvest
Recreational Use
Commercial Use
Managing Non-Hunting Mortality
Hunter Regulation (Resident & NR)

All of the above are game management variables that are part of the puzzle and should be addressed. What I found troubling is that the potential action items they list are different hunter regulation change options. It seems to me that they acknowledge all of the other factors but I don't really see a game plan in place to deal with and address everything else that is part of game management other than hunters.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Duk Dog

Lots of reading in the report, but it needs to be done to get an idea of everything this sheep management plan consists of. As we all know game management consists of numerous different things - which they touch on to one degree or another.

Habitat
Climate Change
Population Density
Ewe Harvest
Wild Sheep & Domestic Sheep
Predators
Aerial Surveys
Helicopter Overflights
Yukon Protocol
FN Harvest
Recreational Use
Commercial Use
Managing Non-Hunting Mortality
Hunter Regulation (Resident & NR)

All of the above are game management variables that are part of the puzzle and should be addressed. What I found troubling is that the potential action items they list are different hunter regulation change options. It seems to me that they acknowledge all of the other factors but I don't really see a game plan in place to deal with and address everything else that is part of game management other than hunters.

There isn't, according to the plan draft. The only plan is to place ridiculous thresholds on populations ratios that ensure harvest will be regulated by licensing through the draw system.


Another one for your list. Endangered genotypes.
There is a directive in the plan to evaluate individual herds to determine if there are insular populations of less that 125 animals. These herds would be considered unhuntable....


F&W already acknowledges that concerns such as habitat evaluations, protection and rehabilitation and even increased surveys simply will not happen under the current budget constraints. Without the required surveys, hunting must be reduced to the most conservative level. The only part of this plan that will be within F&W's power to execute is further restrictions on hunting.

This new Sheep Hunter Management Plan (SHRiMP) is following the Bianchet wildlife management model where ALL hunting will be placed on an extremely conservative draw system. This plan was written with the belief that the full curl regulation would already be in place, with the intent to reduce hunting further by taking the next step, placing these hunts on draw.

This SHRiMP needs to die.

[bdub]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

There isn't, according to the plan draft. The only plan is to place ridiculous thresholds on populations ratios that ensure harvest will be regulated by licensing through the draw system.


Another one for your list. Endangered genotypes.
There is a directive in the plan to evaluate individual herds to determine if there are insular populations of less that 125 animals. These herds would be considered unhuntable....


F&W already acknowledges that concerns such as habitat evaluations, protection and rehabilitation and even increased surveys simply will not happen under the current budget constraints. Without the required surveys, hunting must be reduced to the most conservative level. The only part of this plan that will be within F&W's power to execute is further restrictions on hunting.

This new Sheep Hunter Management Plan (SHRiMP) is following the Bianchet wildlife management model where ALL hunting will be placed on an extremely conservative draw system. This plan was written with the belief that the full curl regulation would already be in place, with the intent to reduce hunting further by taking the next step, placing these hunts on draw.

This SHRiMP needs to die.

What thresholds do you feel are ridiculous exactly. Something is screwed up with the sheep herd and lots of folks, like yourself, just want to stick the old head in the sand and ignore the problem. Is it so difficult to grasp the importance of having a decent number of mature Rams left over to participate in the rut?

As for the insular populations, where exactly in Alberta do you find isolated populations of Bighorns besides Ram Mountain? Pure paranoia/fear mongering.

Full curl will meet and exceed all of the requirements of improving the sheep herd therby keeping us off of draw. Or we can go to draw, outfitters will be laughing even with a slight decrease in allocations, and the residents will take the big hit.

That's my take WB, but you already know that.

[bdub]

Surprised to read the recent article in AO magazine by Marco Blanchet how our current harvest regime is damaging the sheep herd and sheep hunting. Anyone interested in what's going on should do themselves a favour and read it.

Was interesting to see these comments in the AO article by the author in regards to one of the contributors of the AO magazine. Good to see imo.

"Schwanky claims that Val Geist has "spoken out" against this theory. This is an intersecting claim because Dr. Geist has told me the opposite in writing."

Anyway, interested sheep hunters grab a copy and have a look. Good article.

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by bdub

Surprised to read the recent article in AO magazine by Marco Blanchet how our current harvest regime is damaging the sheep herd and sheep hunting. Anyone interested in what's going on should do themselves a favour and read it.

Was interesting to see these comments in the AO article by the author in regards to one of the contributors of the AO magazine. Good to see imo.

"Schwanky claims that Val Geist has "spoken out" against this theory. This is an intersecting claim because Dr. Geist has told me the opposite in writing."

Anyway, interested sheep hunters grab a copy and have a look. Good article.

Bdub, do you mind posting your letter from Geist? It definitely would be an interesting read.

I've also heard that Geist has spoken out as well,but nothing first hand. It's also not in Tj's nature to write something he doesn't have proof of,or first hand account of .

[crazy_davey]

Originally Posted by pottymouth

Bdub, do you mind posting your letter from Geist? It definitely would be an interesting read.

I've also heard that Geist has spoken out as well,but nothing first hand. It's also not in Tj's nature to write something he doesn't have proof of,or first hand account of .

That quote is from the article in AO Potty.

I emailed Geist and posted his response to WSFA that he sent me, after asking his permission of course. Did you not read it?

[crazy_davey]

Originally Posted by pottymouth

Bdub, do you mind posting your letter from Geist? It definitely would be an interesting read.

I found his email on the University of Calgary website. I can pass it on to you and you can ask him his opinion for yourself.

[bdub]

Originally Posted by pottymouth

Bdub, do you mind posting your letter from Geist? It definitely would be an interesting read.

I've also heard that Geist has spoken out as well,but nothing first hand. It's also not in Tj's nature to write something he doesn't have proof of,or first hand account of .

I could post the article (not sure if that is allowed on here), or if you can't find the magazine I can send it to you no problem.

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by crazy_davey

I found his email on the University of Calgary website. I can pass it on to you and you can ask him his opinion for yourself.

That would be great!

Bdub, I'll look around, and find it..thx

[crazy_davey]

Originally Posted by pottymouth

That would be great!

Bdub, I'll look around, and find it..thx

http://evds.ucalgary.ca/evds_info/pr...valerius-geist

Click the link and you will see his email address. I emailed him during a weekday and he emailed me back within a few hours.

[crazy_davey]

Originally Posted by bdub

I could post the article (not sure if that is allowed on here), or if you can't find the magazine I can send it to you no problem.

It is an AO printed article, should be allowed. I say post it so everyone can read it.

[walking buffalo]

Bdub and Crazy Dave


You appear to agree with the contents of the Bianchet article. Yes/no?

If yes, please explain why you have changed your mind.... you both were adamant that the hunting induced genetic harm claim was bogus....


What are your thoughts on the sheep plan draft's new thresholds for harvest and the required implementation of a draw or a complete hunting closure for all wmus that do not meet these very ambitious ideals?

Do you support the new plan? Do you support the proposed thresholds and draw/hunt closure protocols?

Does the fact that the plan's habitat protection/rehabilitation Target has been left as "To Be Determined" give you concern?

[bdub]

Here is the complete article.

[bdub]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Bdub and Crazy Dave


You appear to agree with the contents of the Bianchet article. Yes/no?

If yes, please explain why you have changed your mind.... you both were adamant that the hunting induced genetic harm claim was bogus....


What are your thoughts on the sheep plan draft's new thresholds for harvest and the required implementation of a draw or a complete hunting closure for all wmus that do not meet these very ambitious ideals?

Do you support the new plan? Do you support the proposed thresholds and draw/hunt closure protocols?

Does the fact that the plan's habitat protection/rehabilitation Target has been left as "To Be Determined" give you concern?

I support the scientific management of our sheep herd with the best interest of he sheep herd first and foremost while allowing resident hunters maximum opportunity to hunt second. I am not so arrogant to believe that I can pretend to know what is best for the sheep herd. It is clear to me however that we cannot continue down the current path we are going down.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by bdub

I support the scientific management of our sheep herd with the best interest of he sheep herd first and foremost while allowing resident hunters maximum opportunity to hunt second. I am not so arrogant to believe that I can pretend to know what is best for the sheep herd. It is clear to me however that we cannot continue down the current path we are going down.

lol.... your worse than any politician in not answering the question.

In other words, you refuse to acknowledge your change of opinion, but now promote literature that states hunting is causing genetic selection, and that you have no problem with the new proposed thresholds that will give Alberta the most restrictive sheep hunting regulations of any jurisdictions.

Or do you not understand what the proposed thresholds mean and how they will be implemented?


Do you even realize that what you are now promoting is not a change to a full curl regulation, but a province wide draw system with extremely few licences? Even SMA1 will be under a draw with around 4-5 licences available based on the new thresholds.

Many have been warning that the intention was to go from 4/5 to full curl to a draw, and here we have it within the new sheep plan draft.

[bdub]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

lol.... your worse than any politician in not answering the question.

In other words, you refuse to acknowledge your change of opinion, but now promote literature that states hunting is causing genetic selection, and that you have no problem with the new proposed thresholds that will give Alberta the most restrictive sheep hunting regulations of any jurisdictions.

Or do you not understand what the proposed thresholds mean and how they will be implemented?


Do you even realize that what you are now promoting is not a change to a full curl regulation, but a province wide draw system with extremely few licences? Even SMA1 will be under a draw with around 4-5 licences available based on the new thresholds.

Many have been warning that the intention was to go from 4/5 to full curl to a draw, and here we have it within the new sheep plan draft.

I posted/mentioned the article because it was of interest to sheep hunters. As for the contents? I think that there is definitely some strong evidence for some of his points. He makes a very strong connection between harvesting Rams at 4/5 curl and the damage it does vs harvesting Rams at full curl and the damage it reverses in the sheep herd. I guess I have changed my mind somewhat. Truth is its all connected and related imo.

I would appreciate if you could point me to the place where it says we are going to a province wide draw system 100% guaranteed. You should quit posting your ridiculous BS and stating it as fact. Unless you are privy to something that I am unaware of? Explain to me how these thresholds etc are going to work WB. When is 400 going to draw? Where does it say 5 permits available?

The last sheep management plan had LEH as an option. No surprise it is also in this plan along with several other options including a few new ones.

The Management Plan for Bighorn Sheep in Alberta (1993) lists several options that could be considered to increase the number of rams available. They include the following:

 longer waiting periods for purchasing a trophy sheep licence following successfully harvesting a ram,

 increased licence fees,

 limited entry draw (special licences), or

 a limit on the number of trophy rams per hunter in a lifetime.

All of these options have advantages and disadvantages and will have varying effects on hunting opportunities. We believe it is important to keep recreational hunting opportunities for residents as liberal as possible, but hunting opportunities must be in the framework of maintaining quality hunting and conservation management.


Full curl and LEH have always been on the table. Not just in the recent plan.

"Rams in BC hunted under full curl have not shrunk". Unlike Rams in Alberta hunted under 4/5.

"If one is happy with a 5% success rate, diminishing harvests and shrinking Rams, push for the status quo." And eventually LEH.

If not, than push for full curl.

[SLH]

Originally Posted by pottymouth

I've also heard that Geist has spoken out as well,but nothing first hand. It's also not in Tj's nature to write something he doesn't have proof of,or first hand account of .

Potty I started a thread awhile back stating this very point, which coincided with the email that Geist sent to WSFA. The problem is that the original letter Geist penned in response to the 2003 Coltman paper was completely misinterpreted by many who thought it was a condemnation of the Coltman paper. Go back and read what he wrote so far there are precious few who have comprehended what he wrote, as evidenced again by the comments from Festa-B in the AO article. That’s why Schwanky is been singled out because he got it wrong.

Also I have been trying and trying to get across to people like WB that Genetic Harm and Genetic Selection are two different things. He would love to keep putting words in people’s mouths about changing their minds and flipping but the reality is as Geist has said and Coltman Festa B has restated that you can select in any direction you like and it will have an effect (Marco’s dairy cow example) but it is not a permanent change it can be selected back (i.e. the mule deer we had back in the day of point limits). We have been, since probably the 40’s, selecting for smaller horned sheep so over time we get smaller horned sheep, if we change that selection to full curl the low end of the selection is moved up. Is all the data they presented wrong?

As for his threshold issues and this idea that we will be getting the most restrictive regime in North America, here’s my take. As of now we have the most liberal harvesting regime in NA. WB marched out the Yukon info awhile back and how good they have it, well they are on a full curl harvest regime, they have 22000 sheep and they harvest around 250 rams a year, that’s about 1% of the total. If we take the magic 250 number here in Alberta with 6500 sheep that’s 3.8% we have one of if not the highest harvest rate anywhere. Could this be a problem? So what are they trying to do, it looks like they want to harvest 15-20% of the trophy rams in any zone. If we take the success of WMU 400 there is roughly 300 sheep with now over 10% trophy sheep (that is 4/5 and better) which gives us 30 total. 15-20% of those is 4.5 – 6 sheep. Hmm! If we look over the province 6500 * 10% * 15 to 20% that equals 97.5 – 130 full curl rams. That is still 1.5 to 2% of the herd which is still a higher harvest rate then Yukon. Is it not possible that we are harvesting too many small rams?

Finally this idea of protecting insular populations; are we to ignore this science as well so WB can keep harping on them wanting to close down hunting or are we going to try and understand Berger’s findings and follow through on these problems. The paper cited is scary. If you followed the Appendix 6 information that goes with the protection of herds less than 125 individuals there is only one zone of any concern, SMA 5. Big surprise and we sure don’t need the new plan to close down zones as it is now. As of now there is no other population even close to these levels. I know the detractors are going to say they’ll find new small populations inside existing ones. I’m sceptical of that.

This idea that this is a progressive march to closing down hunting is just stupidity; we have a problem that has been shown over and over with no contradicting info from the detractors that I’ve seen. We have other jurisdictions that have made these exact same changes and it has made for healthier herds and good hunting and we have places like BC that made the change and have not had to go to a draw.

So if the detractors of this change are so sure of themselves they should start getting out facts that contradict what has been put forth as evidence for the changes (and just because you saw some cougar tracks in your back yard is not evidence that predators are killing all our sheep) I’m just a dumb hunter so show me your evidence. So far only the side for full curl seems to have any.

[cottonwood]

Dont post much, more a reader, but surprising and kinda sad how little mileage this sheep thread is getting. Even seemingly very few looks. Should bring back some of the massive list of banned guys that were actually hunters and anglers. Overall probably a great move..

[crazy_davey]

Originally Posted by cottonwood

Dont post much, more a reader, but surprising and kinda sad how little mileage this sheep thread is getting. Even seemingly very few looks. Should bring back some of the massive list of banned guys that were actually hunters and anglers. Overall probably a great move..

Well cottonwood, it is nice to see some hunters are actually thinking. Other than just ranting and raving about genetic harm and reduced hunter opportunity.

What hunters should be thinking about is the sheep first and foremost. That isn't happening. Just a bunch of fools twisting and turning the data and biologist's words to try and maintain status quo. That includes the majority of the WSFA board members(not all).

Read what SLH posted above, then read it again. There is a person who understands what is going on and explains it well.

[cottonwood]

I agree CrazyD. Herd health first with all ungulates, all recreational and consumptive uses are to promote this, and should not come before the resource.

[crazy_davey]

Originally Posted by cottonwood

I agree CrazyD. Herd health first with all ungulates, all recreational and consumptive uses are to promote this, and should not come before the resource.

Not long ago I emailed Dr. Geist about his current opinion on this subject. I had heard rumors of an email sent from him to WSFA but I did not know the content. I was sick of hearing rumors and decided to ask for myself.

I never asked for the content in his email to WSFA, just that I heard there was one sent from him and I asked what his thoughts were today. His first response was to send me his email to WSFA and mentioned they were not happy with his response. I asked for his permission to post it here and he gladly said yes. Anyone who doesn't believe me can ask him personally at the email address I gave above.

His response to my asking if I could post it here:

Dear Mr. ******, By all means do. Sincerely, Val Geist

Here it is:

Dear Mr. ******,

Thank you for your letter. That the WSFA was not overjoyed over my blunt response, I have surmised. I have appended it to the body of this email below your letter. I have also appended my old paper so that you can see for yourself what I wrote some 40 years ago. My former student Dr. Marco Festa Bianchet has an even more powerful essay in the process of publication. Trophy sheep management in Alberta is a fiasco!

Sincerely, Val Geist

To ***** ***********
Dear *****,

Sorry, I am behind on all mail. As to the Alberta problems with bighorns: I am in the not-so-happy position of saying: I TOLD YOU SO!
Managing for ¾ curls is very bad, and it defies science. Yes, you read me right: it's unscientific! It defies what your managing biologists should know about bighorn sheep biology, but obviously do not. Maybe they do not even care. And what I am say in is nothing new. I wrote it down in clinical detail and it was published over 40 years ago, but your mangers do not read, so you and your colleagues will have to do it for them. Forget all the trendy questions that are being raised. The case is of brutal simplicity and hinges on some basic facts about bighorn sheep biology.
Here is a bit of history: over 40 years ago, bighorns contientally were in trouble. The Boone & Crockett Club called a meeting of interested parties in Missoula, and yours truly was given the honor of making a key note address on the management of mountain sheep. I did that in clinical detail, and it was published – but largely in vain because so many biologists simply do not read. I re-read it and I would not change a word! So, my problem is how to get it into your hands. And I suggest you and several of your colleagues read it, and discuss it so that you are prepared. (See pp. 77-97 in James B. Trefethen, Editor, The Wild Sheep in Modern North America. Boone & Crockett Club. V. Geist, On the management of mountain sheep: Theoretical considerations).
The gist of it all is that if you kill off your old rams, and with a ¾ curl rule you kill off ALL the old and the most active breeding rams as well, leaving sub-2/4 curl youngsters. These take over the rut. However, because there are nor older rams to thwart the enhanced activity of the youngsters, they go overboard chasing ewes, fighting and utterly exhausting themselves. LARGE RAMS PREVENT THAT. When the – totally - exhausted youngsters enter the hard winter ahead, they suffer exhaustion- mortality. THEIR MORTALITY GOES UP! You have set in motion a ram-killing machinery, depleting rams. The result is fewer rams, poor body growth and poor horn growth. In short, with a 3.4 curl regulation hunters kill FEWER rams than with a full curl regulation – besides damaging rams. If that is a smart way of managing sheep, you better define the meaning of smart.
And I will make you a bet: your managing biologists do not even know about the above. Try them! The one who does know, who actually studied what the full curl rule did is Wayne Heimer from Alaska. And it works like a charm. You retain reasonably natural populations, and horn size does not decrease. Invite him to speak!
So, in addition to shrinking horn-size due to poorer body growth, you also have the negative selection effect of vigorous rams being quickly eliminated by hunters as soon as they turn legal. Nothing controversial here either – at least not from the perspective of wild sheep biology or science. Nothing new to history either, because the effect of reduced trophy size due to hunter selection was experienced – and remidiated! - in Europe over and over again. You read me right: REMIDIATED. This decade old mismanagement in Alberta can be REVERSED. However, it will take time and there is not guarantee that ignorance will not triumph once again.
When I was active in Alberta my views on management were not heeded, so I have no illusions that they will be in the future, and I predict you will see wasted a lot of time on irrelevant questions. Poor sheep!
What I can do for you is first of all get into your hands – somehow – a copy of that summary paper on sheep management. Read it, please, preferably with several buddies. Secondly, you can always e-mail me or call on the phone. It's difficult for me to get away as somebody needs to look after this place in my absence. Please say a warm hello to my old friend and comrade in arms, Bill Wishart.
Before I sign off, I would like to make yo aware of what science does when applied. Said conference in Missoula tried to answer, in part, why sheep failed to spread to available habitat. The short answer is that young sheep do not explore a place to live as do deer or moose, but rely closely on a tradition of using specific habitat patches as passed on by the the female to her daughter, or full curled rams to younger rams. There is no option but to place sheep yourself on the mountains, which was done, increasing by 2000 the sheep population by nearly 50%. It could have been better had one introduced them smartly, as – independently – Tom Bergerud did with 19 populations of Newfoundland caribou, however, I will not quibble. This policy of course flooded the Boone & Crockett club with record heads, for obvious reasons.
The only other time when your's truly had a say was via a wonderful graduate student I had called Mrs. Beth MacCallum. She is the genius behind creating custom mountain sheep habitat from a strip mine near Hinton. We had a chance to put into practice our knowledge about mountain sheep. The weight of females doubled with in 15 years. It generated the largest bighorn rams in North America seen since the end of the Pleistocene. When you see somebody grinning over a huge Alberta record ram, remember where it came from. Did your Alberta mangers appreciate it? Did they? We created a virile oasis of life there. Are any more mines being rehabilitated in to superior wildlife let alone superior bighorn habitat? And if not, why not?
I mention the above case because if you act on knowledge, real knowledge, the knowledge we justly call science, the knowledge you get from detailed, ongoing field observations, as well as a contrast to history, well you get results. And the ¾ curl rule is based on ignorance!
Sincerely, Val Geist

[katts69]

Wow. Very interesting letter. He held nothing back. I just hope it does some good.
Keep it together, rob

[albertadave]

Originally Posted by crazy_davey

Not long ago I emailed Dr. Geist about his current opinion on this subject. I had heard rumors of an email sent from him to WSFA but I did not know the content. I was sick of hearing rumors and decided to ask for myself.
I never asked for the content in his email to WSFA, just that I heard there was one sent from him and I asked what his thoughts were today. His first response was to send me his email to WSFA and mentioned they were not happy with his response. I asked for his permission to post it here and he gladly said yes. Anyone who doesn't believe me can ask him personally at the email address I gave above.

His response to my asking if I could post it here:



Here it is:

Yah what ever, you already told that fairy tale on here once before. You "heard rumors of an email". What a load of crap. You're fooling no one.

[SLH]

Originally Posted by albertadave

Yah what ever, you already told that fairy tale on here once before. You "heard rumors of an email". What a load of crap. You're fooling no one.

Regardless where the info came from it is true.

What do you think of the management plan, Geist's email and the AO article.

I'm also curious as a member of WSFA what the board thinks. You've heard from a few people on here now regarding your original post I'm curious where you stand.

Thanks

[SLH]

Originally Posted by albertadave

Yah what ever, you already told that fairy tale on here once before. You "heard rumors of an email". What a load of crap. You're fooling no one.

And it was a rumour that was sniffed out and Dave did go direct to Geist to get it from him direct.