Post by: SHANE(WA) on June 12, 2009, 12:43:28 AM
Post by: ramslam on June 12, 2009, 02:57:06 AM
Yes, Cali's are generally smaller in terms of score but there are some beautiful Cali's taken every year in Washington that would out score many of the Rocky's taken in states such as Colorado and Wyoming. I would love to have one on my wall!
Post by: SHANE(WA) on June 12, 2009, 04:23:01 AM
Post by: jager on June 12, 2009, 04:24:14 AM
They do interbreed in areas where the populations overlap which also makes the record keepers hesitant to make such boundries but
I don't think this happens much or at all in WA because the populations are fairly isolated.
Quote
Yes, Cali's are generally smaller in terms of score but there are some beautiful Cali's taken every year in Washington that would out score many of the Rocky's taken in states such as Colorado and Wyoming.
That is very true. They do shoot some dinks....
Last year there were only four ram tags out of almost 6000 applicants, given out for the four units that have the Rocky Mountain bighorns in this state.
Not great odds.
Montana is the place... or BC if you've got $$$$$
Quote
It seems there was a genetic study floating around a few years ago that indicated there wasnt much of a genetic difference but instead the difference was caused by man's management and seperation practices.
I have read about that study and I've also read reports about the California being a subspecies just as the Nelsoni Desert and the Mexicana Desert sheep.
IMHO, I don't see how less than a 100 years of relocating the sheep would create a "different animal"
Regardless..... they are no slouch to hunt and they are gorgeous animal.
How could you not love this face?....... ;)
Post by: SHANE(WA) on June 12, 2009, 04:46:25 AM
Post by: jager on June 12, 2009, 05:37:17 AM
Wasn't fishin' for a compliment.
Those Rocky's are awesome!
Someday........
Post by: starbailey on June 12, 2009, 06:20:53 AM
Bryan
Post by: boneaddict on June 13, 2009, 10:34:57 AM
Post by: Ridgerunner on June 13, 2009, 10:39:12 AM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on June 13, 2009, 10:47:40 AM
Post by: boneaddict on June 13, 2009, 10:54:41 AM
Post by: jager on June 13, 2009, 11:15:42 AM
Ya had ta post that pic. :DOH:
Makes mine look like a baby!
More tickets please.....
Post by: Bigshooter on June 13, 2009, 11:37:30 AM
Post by: Falcon on June 13, 2009, 01:16:02 PM
Jager,
Every time you post a pick of that beast, I just go to my happy place ! :drool:
My goal is to draw that tag, kill a nice bighorn, and put it right next to my dall ram to keep him company. :chuckle:
Post by: Tom Reichner on June 14, 2009, 11:17:18 PM
Yeah, I wouldn't want this crummy little cali bighorn... :chuckle:Shawn, that ram is absolutely insane! I've never seen anything like him in this state. Did you 'shoot' him recently, or many years ago?
Post by: boneaddict on June 14, 2009, 11:46:14 PM
Post by: Tom Reichner on June 15, 2009, 07:57:20 AM
Post by: jackelope on June 15, 2009, 07:59:36 AM
do you not fish for rainbow trout because they are just puny little steelhead?
not interested in coues deer because they are just tiny little whitetails?
Post by: Slider on June 15, 2009, 08:10:07 AM
Post by: hogsniper on June 15, 2009, 08:15:53 AM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on June 15, 2009, 08:43:11 AM
Post by: SHANE(WA) on June 15, 2009, 09:41:18 AM
Post by: Tom Reichner on June 15, 2009, 10:26:43 AM
i don't get this thread at all.
do you not fish for rainbow trout because they are just puny little steelhead?
not interested in coues deer because they are just tiny little whitetails?
why would I want one of these sheep? yeah the experience would be great, being in the environment yep. To me its like hunting a lesser sheep, like something wrong with them.
I understand both sides of this thread. Some of us enjoy hunting for the hunt itself - the challenge and the adventure. Others like hunting because of what they can get out there, bring back home, and hang on the wall. Others hunt for food - their reason for going afield is so that they can get game for food.
I've spent several hundred days afield with a gun, and it never really mattered all that much if I bagged anything or not. I suppose that's why I like going out with the camera just as much. If someone has this mindset it really doesn't matter if they're hunting Calis or regular Bighorns. Heck, many of us would be just as happy hunting ducks or pheasants.
But there are those who hunt for the trophy. For them, the whole point of going afield is to get an animal that is so tremendous compared to the rest of it's kind that they are blown away every time they look at that head on their wall. For these folks, I completely understand why they are not very interested in hunting for California Bighorns. The likelihood of getting an enormous head is very, very small.
Post by: Ray on June 15, 2009, 10:40:59 AM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on June 15, 2009, 10:52:42 AM
They aren't a lesser sheep, they just have smaller horns like a cous whitetail. Many don't like cous deer because they don't look as impressive as a regular whitetail. I think that is where you are coming from. If this species doesn't interest you there is no need for you to hunt them. I'll be glad to have better odds on them. :chuckle:
To put things in perspective, that sheep I posted is like the spider bull 500" elk equivalent. Your jaw didn't drop like it would with a near 500" bull elk but my jaw didn't drop when I saw the spider bull. Elk don't excite me like cali sheep do. To answer the question... To each his own.
Post by: groundhog on June 16, 2009, 05:52:54 PM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on June 16, 2009, 05:59:13 PM
Every time I see that ram I think my heart skips a beat or two! He would be an amazing world class Rocky Mnt Ram let alone a Cali. Shawn I am curious, you must have named him. What are you calling him??
Funny you say that. When we would see him his butt was browner that the rest of the rams. I think it was the bright dirt he would lay in. I named him Brown Butt... :rolleyes: Not exactly a stately name for a magnificent ram.
Post by: huntnphool on June 16, 2009, 06:13:45 PM
Post by: Antlershed on June 16, 2009, 06:47:40 PM
Post by: Timber on June 16, 2009, 08:05:34 PM
Post by: Slider on June 16, 2009, 08:13:05 PM
Post by: huntnphool on June 16, 2009, 08:26:10 PM
Post by: jackelope on June 16, 2009, 08:26:40 PM
Post by: golden bb on June 16, 2009, 08:33:47 PM
Post by: huntnphool on June 16, 2009, 08:37:05 PM
Post by: golden bb on June 16, 2009, 08:44:48 PM
Post by: huntnphool on June 16, 2009, 08:46:21 PM
Post by: golden bb on June 16, 2009, 08:50:52 PM
Post by: huntnphool on June 16, 2009, 08:53:33 PM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on June 16, 2009, 08:54:25 PM
Post by: golden bb on June 16, 2009, 08:59:43 PM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on June 16, 2009, 09:05:26 PM
Post by: golden bb on June 16, 2009, 09:10:31 PM
Post by: furbearer365 on June 16, 2009, 09:37:36 PM
Post by: bobcat on June 16, 2009, 09:37:56 PM
Post by: Ridgerunner on June 16, 2009, 09:44:59 PM
Quote
I want to hunt sheep in this state someday but I really couldn't care less about what the head scores. I would try for a mature animal but only because it would provide more meat than a smaller animal. I'd be doing the hunt for the experience #1, and for the meat #2. I'm not even sure what the heck I'd do with the horns. I know I wouldn't be willing to spend any money to get the head mounted.
I hope you are putting in for the ewe tags then.
Post by: furbearer365 on June 16, 2009, 09:48:04 PM
Post by: bobcat on June 16, 2009, 09:54:26 PM
Furbearer, why would I need to have it mounted? I would be sure to get a good picture and then enlarge it and frame it, and put it on the wall. A sheep head on my wall is just not important to me. I'd rather spend that money on another hunt. Now if I got a bigger mule deer than the one I've got on my wall, I'd have to consider having it mounted. But another problem is, I really don't have much wall space for heads either. So there you have it. I'd have to guess that I'm probably not the only hunter who would not have a bighorn sheep head mounted if I were so lucky to draw a tag.
Post by: huntnphool on June 16, 2009, 09:57:47 PM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on June 16, 2009, 11:41:54 PM
Post by: bobcat on June 17, 2009, 06:01:46 AM
Post by: boneaddict on June 17, 2009, 06:04:08 AM
Post by: bobcat on June 17, 2009, 06:06:40 AM
(I don't eat beef)
Post by: boneaddict on June 17, 2009, 06:08:18 AM
They'd fit right in with all the ones I have bought off of ebay.
Post by: bobcat on June 17, 2009, 06:12:34 AM
Post by: jackelope on June 17, 2009, 06:17:33 AM
Post by: boneaddict on June 17, 2009, 06:23:30 AM
Jack, I think that would be a good excuse to buy or build on the east side, so your sheep can have a place to reside. I won't hold you to a moose mount, but sheep or goat, you just hafve to.
Post by: jackelope on June 17, 2009, 07:29:00 AM
Post by: Slider on June 17, 2009, 08:42:19 AM
Can someone please tell me why in the hell a moose tag is more saute after than a bighorn. To me, a bighorn represents the ultimate in game species and the greatest North American big game animal there is, in the world for that matter. It still blows me away that 12,000 can put in for 26 moose tags and only half of that for sheep. Believe me, as a hunter a moose is right up there towards the top, but there is no way on earth i would put a moose hunt over a bighorn but i guess that is just me. All i need is one tag, so someone stick up for me and tell the WDFW to hand one over or i will hold someone for ransom. :chuckle:
:yeah:
Post by: Slider on June 17, 2009, 08:49:18 AM
Post by: Falcon on June 20, 2009, 08:02:27 PM
Slider,
AWESOME SHOT !
I am in the same camp that prefers the sheep tag over any other species ! I lose sleep thinking of drawing that stinkin tag.
I would have no problem with a Cali tag. The odds for the Rocky are tough, and if I want to draw before I am dead, I guess I will go with the odds. ;)
Post by: bobcat on June 20, 2009, 08:11:14 PM
Can someone please tell me why in the hell a moose tag is more sought after than a bighorn. To me, a bighorn represents the ultimate in game species and the greatest North American big game animal there is, in the world for that matter. It still blows me away that 12,000 can put in for 26 moose tags and only half of that for sheep.
They're bigger. More meat? :dunno: I'd take a moose tag over a sheep tag any day. For this year I see it was 21,000 people applying for the moose, and 14,000 for the sheep. So the sheep tags are still pretty well "sought after." I think one big reason for it too is that many of the people applying for moose are older hunters that maybe don't apply for sheep as they feel it would be too physically challenging. Probably even younger hunters too, who don't want to work that hard, and figure a moose from the road is easy where as sheep may not be.
Post by: huntnphool on June 21, 2009, 10:25:01 PM
Post by: teal101 on June 23, 2009, 09:49:27 AM
Post by: 270Shooter on June 23, 2009, 09:58:41 AM
Post by: Bob33 on June 23, 2009, 09:58:46 AM
As for moose being easier to hunt than sheep, that's probably true...until you get a moose on the ground. "Oh my gosh - I just shot a horse!" :yike:
Post by: furbearer365 on June 24, 2009, 04:20:24 PM
Post by: boneaddict on June 24, 2009, 04:43:54 PM
Post by: golden bb on June 24, 2009, 05:04:11 PM
Post by: Slider on June 24, 2009, 05:35:21 PM
Post by: Pathfinder101 on June 29, 2009, 08:33:15 AM
Phool, why didn't you get up on that ledge and get us some close ups? :dunno:........................... :chuckle:
:yeah: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: huntnphool on June 29, 2009, 09:06:06 AM
Post by: WAcoueshunter on June 30, 2009, 11:33:57 PM
Hopefully the sheep gods see this post. :chuckle:
Post by: Slider on July 01, 2009, 09:56:19 AM
Post by: WAcoueshunter on July 01, 2009, 01:39:25 PM
Yea and a 180 Cali is the same as a 205 Rocky!!! :)
Maybe better. Seems there are a lot more pics of 205 Rockies than 180 Calis!