New sheep Jig

[Dylan hunter]

So I’ve been talking with a few guys and reading a few stories.

I’ve heard this new jig system is good and bad depending where a guy goes... so far I’ve heard that the Edmonton location officers and biologists have been pretty harsh on measurements as they are using the eye socket (the bone edge) to measure off of.
Which if that’s the case it’s needs to be stated in the regs...
Regs are stated saying they measure anterior of the eye which is the furthest part of the eye ball.

I 100% won’t be shooting a squeaker ram because of this new system.

Which locations have you guys had good service and good officers for measuring Rams.

Also has anyone witnessed them measuring are they seriously using the eye socket bone edge or at the using eye ball as stated in the regs.
Thanks

[HuntingAlberta]

when they showed the jig at the WSFA banquet last year, nobody had a clue. The definition of legal changed based on if you talked to F&W, the government guys, the biologists or the hunters.

The jig is a joke. It can be manipulated by user.

Word on the street is that they are not prosecuting anyone with a short ram because the definition of legal, and what the jig measures are two seperate things. It's actually shocking that they are getting away with using it still.

They did confirm that if in doubt, you could use the old square method to prove legality.

[bonedogg]

here is mine from 2019. Cochrane is where i took mine and they used the anterior ptn of the eyeball, not the edge of the Orbital bone as mentioned previously.

[Dylan hunter]

Originally Posted by bonedogg

here is mine from 2019. Cochrane is where i took mine and they used the anterior ptn of the eyeball, not the edge of the Orbital bone as mentioned previously.

That’s a dandy ram! Definitely no questions asked there!

[wildwoods]

I had no issues in Edmonton. My buddy had his measured in Edmonton as well to the eye socket (which is absolutely frustrating). His was legal but I think the wording needs to be clarified, especially to the people doing the measuring.

[Dylan hunter]

Originally Posted by wildwoods

I had no issues in Edmonton. My buddy had his measured in Edmonton as well to the eye socket (which is absolutely frustrating). His was legal but I think the wording needs to be clarified, especially to the people doing the measuring.

Very frustrating, if they are trying to detour people away from shooting squeakers then they should just manage the whole province and put every wmu in a draw priority in my opinion.

[Manning74]

Alberta big horns dont need to be put on draw. Only ones that want to see a draw are the outfitters.

[MooseRiverTrapper]

How come these fish cops can’t read what’s in the regs? If they are measuring to the eye socket why do they still have their jobs?

[Manning74]

We registered 2 rams at the Edson office, they would not let us in to witness the rams in the jig. We did ask if they were using the socket or the eye and both the C.O and the bio confirmed the eye.

[Head Lice]

Wondering if a steeply graduated scale has/could be used. The shooter could keep the slightly undersized ram but would pay a hefty additional fee . . . the smaller the ram the larger the additional fee.
Have found two shot rams over the years in BC. Such a waste.

Just an idea . . .

[dave99]

My 2019 ram didn’t fit in the jig. The Hinton officer allowed me to see the whole process, and he ended up using the old square method. I had a good conversation with him and he seemed very competent.

[dave99]

^^

To further clarify, the officer measured from the most anterior part of the GLOBE of the eye (the globe is defined as “ The globe of the eye, or bulbus oculi, is the eyeball apart from[ambiguous] its appendages.[1]” according to Wiki).

The definition of eye has been subject to much misinterpretation by different officers and hunters, in my experience. If an officer’s interpretation of eye is to mean the INNER CANTHUS (defined by Wiki as “the inner corner of the eye where the upper and lower eyelids meet”), then many would-be squeakers are in for a world of hurt.

I have witnessed little consistency in officer training with respect to this. At the end of the day, it is clear that the intent of the jig is to remove some of the grey area, so to speak. Does it accomplish that? I don’t know.

[alpineguy]

How are they measuring full curl rams from 400?

[wildwoods]

Originally Posted by Head Lice

Wondering if a steeply graduated scale has/could be used. The shooter could keep the slightly undersized ram but would pay a hefty additional fee . . . the smaller the ram the larger the additional fee.
Have found two shot rams over the years in BC. Such a waste.

Just an idea . . .

All you would accomplish is affluent people shooting dinkers. I appreciate the idea but judging a ram on the hoof takes practise but is not that difficult.

[KyleSS]

Originally Posted by alpineguy

How are they measuring full curl rams from 400?

At the last WSFA banquet, Matt Besko stated that for full curl rams, they are using the bottom of the eye socket since the rams need to be caped out to go in the jig. Since the ram is caped out, there is no nostril as stated in the regulations.

It was also stated at that meeting that if officers lay charges against a short ram, it would almost be impossible for them to get convicted as how you field judge a ram as per the regulations is different than how they determine the legality of it in the office since they require it to be caped out.

The first year the jig was used, I heard of several rams being confiscated but no charges being laid. This is because if the charges were laid, the hunter could plead not guilty.

This way, the only route for the individuals to get the rams back would be a lawsuit. That is exactly what one individual did.

I heard (posted somewhere on this forum I believe) that because of his legal proceedings, 7 rams got returned.

[philintheblank]

I know a few letters got sent to Jason Nixon and resulted in happy endings for a few hunters that got mixed up in this fiasco.

[b_doornenbal]

A few of the sheep that were shot were short no matter what method you used and they still got them back either by writing letters or ending up in court..... no matter what method they used short is short and the trigger should probably never have been pulled.

In one case the guys went back up 3 different times to look at the same ram, why because he might have grown overnight??? They ended up pulling the trigger on the third day and guess what .... it was short !!! After a long drawn out process they have it back in their possession but when you look at it on the wall it’s clearly not legal.


..... I can’t say I would be proud to put a short sheep up on my wall but each to there own.

No matter what method is being used to measure sheep people will always push the limits or try and grow them. If it was only based on age not curl we would be discussing the same type of issues. There is a reason that most outfitters in B.C. target 10 + years and legal by curl. This means the ram is legal both ways and their hunter who spent 50 k USD won’t have any issues.

Hopefully we have sheep to hunt for a long time.

[bdub]

So now we give licence for anyone to just go out and harvest any ram thats “close” to legal. Then what. Where does that lead us? Closer to draw?

The jig and definition of the point of measurement of the eye looks pretty foolproof to anyone with a reasonable amount of bloody common sense. A really close call should go to the hunter but anything else then the hunter should suck it up and take their medicine. Dealing with it by giving everyone a free pass is a dangerous step backwards.

[trapperdodge]

Head Lice:

A fine based on the trophy value of the animal? That will create all kinds of problems

[reddeerhunter]

Red Deer. Super easy peasy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk