Post by: sako223 on February 19, 2010, 05:31:38 PM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on February 19, 2010, 06:31:07 PM
Post by: huntandjeep on February 19, 2010, 08:20:25 PM
Post by: norsepeak on February 19, 2010, 10:34:39 PM
Post by: gramps on February 22, 2010, 08:20:11 AM
Post by: andrew_12gauge on February 22, 2010, 08:57:58 AM
The game dept. could have handled this whole fiasco a lot better, and WFNAWS should have been proactive in the mgmt. too. They really let us members down on this one. All the money that has been raised and donated thru WFNAWS for the sheep in the canyon is completely waisted...they should have just thrown it in the river, would have done the same good.... >:(
what in your opinion could they have done differently? just wonderin because to me what they are doing seems like the best plan short of wiping out the herd and starting over
Post by: norsepeak on February 22, 2010, 01:07:52 PM
Post by: BC CHASER on February 22, 2010, 03:50:22 PM
I agree with the action of removing the animals...but I think that they should have made the "job" available to the hunters with max sheep points. I know of several guys with max points who would have been more than willing to give up their points and probably pay a lot of money for the chance to harvest their sheep. I know one guy personally who has max points and only needs his bighorn to finish his grandslam. He told me he would give up all his points and pay 10K to finish his slam. This would have done two things: one selling these opportunities would have more than paid for the task of removing these animals...who do you think is paying for them to sit on the highway with spotting scopes and fool around trying to kill the sheep that we have payed thousands of dollars to grow. We are. Second, it could have been a big win from a public relations point of view with hunters if the game dept would have allowed hunters to do the harvest. Instead the game dept. came out in the local new paper saying they didn't think that hunters could handle the "steep terrain" in the canyon.....but a fat, lazy, game dept. employee can? Are you kidding me? Then the game dept said in the paper that they didn't think hunters could shoot well enough to harvest the right animals even with a game dept. spotter standing right next to them. What a joke. It's typical of our game dept.....you hunters pay and pay and pay, and we still won't do the right thing for hunting in this state... :bash:
So if we give everyone with max points the option of shooting one which guys get ewe's and which ones get rams? If some pay for it does that make it fair to everyone else who has max points but cannot afford it? Do you know if they have even harvested rams yet? :dunno: Are you sure it is WDFW guys sitting on the roads looking for the sick ones or could it quite possibly be volunteers from FNAWS or SCI? Is it even the WDFW who is doing this? I think anyone who is not involved should do some investigating on this situation at hand before complaining about it. :twocents:
Post by: jackelope on February 22, 2010, 04:29:41 PM
I'm gonna guess that when the spotters find a sheep that is sick it gets dead right now, ram or ewe doesn't matter. I'm not gonna burn my sheep points to kill a ewe...I don't think any of the guys killing the sheep are holding out for a trophy...just a hunch.
Post by: sako223 on February 22, 2010, 06:17:02 PM
Quote
So if we give everyone with max points the option of shooting one which guys get ewe's and which ones get rams? If some pay for it does that make it fair to everyone else who has max points but cannot afford it? Do you know if they have even harvested rams yet? Dunno Are you sure it is WDFW guys sitting on the roads looking for the sick ones or could it quite possibly be volunteers from FNAWS or SCI? Is it even the WDFW who is doing this? I think anyone who is not involved should do some investigating on this situation at hand before complaining about it.Well if you know what you imply maybe you could enlighten us. It is difficult to get any answers and who knows if the few we get are true. WDFW certainly has the numbers at hand but won't tell. It's our resource but Top Secret.
Yes I believe there are volunteer spotters, yes the USDA is involved with shooting, Yes WDFW is involved and present.
How much do sportsmen/taxpayers have invested in the sheep program? Millions? This has not been managed well. They supposedly had too many sheep previous to the sickness and gave some to a tribe. Those sheep, about 25 I believe were reduced in a matter of days by predators. Two legged and four legged.
Why weren't there more tags offered then, rather than taking them and dumping them off to be wiped out.
Pneumonia in sheep is no surprise, it has happened in this state and surrounding states and Canada many times previously. When this episode started locally the WDFW attributed it to poaching, yet I knew people that had seen sheep laying appearing exhausted. It seems this should have been high on the list to recognize.
WDFW could have had a draw program for outbreaks. The rules could have been in place so you get what you get ram or ewe. Who says you would be required to burn points, the sheep are going to be shot anyway. If most guys came across a set of horns while shed hunting they would like to keep them, same difference. So what if someone complains, lots of people are complaining now and getting nothing but still paying for it, the sheep the program, the management, and the culling.
If we make a mistake while hunting WDFW happily fines us but they get a free pass for just about anything.
Post by: BC CHASER on February 22, 2010, 08:40:09 PM
Post by: andrew_12gauge on February 22, 2010, 09:41:31 PM
How many sheep that are getting killed are even rams and who would want to burn their sheep points to kill a ewe?
I'm gonna guess that when the spotters find a sheep that is sick it gets dead right now, ram or ewe doesn't matter. I'm not gonna burn my sheep points to kill a ewe...I don't think any of the guys killing the sheep are holding out for a trophy...just a hunch.
agree 100% jackelope, not every sheep thats up there is a ram most of the sick sheep are probably ewes, the only thing i could see them doing with hunters is a huntmaster type deal where they call you up when its your turn and you go sit on the side of the road with a wdfw spotter until they find a sick sheep and then you get to kill that one be it a ram or ewe, not much of a hunt if you ask me and not something id like to be involved in especially if it comes down to points(and losing them)
Post by: Dipsnort on February 23, 2010, 09:23:55 AM
I drove thru' the canyon Sat. AM and they were set up toward the south end with a spotting scope along the road and 2 pickups. They were looking west across the river.That's where they were yesterday afternoon as well (right at mile marker 5). They were scoping a herd of about 25 ewes on the hill West of the river.
Post by: norsepeak on February 24, 2010, 12:42:42 PM
Post by: jackelope on February 24, 2010, 12:47:58 PM
Post by: WonkyWapiti on February 24, 2010, 02:45:39 PM
From what I was told by my taxi was that the state wouldn't even negotiate with FNAWS over the issue of having hunters shoot the sheep. I'm not a biologist and I understand the state has limited resources but I do agree with Norsespeak that it would have been nice to have had a special "emergency draw" or raffle to at least throw a bone to the hunters to at least take a few of the animals.
Post by: ramslam on February 27, 2010, 10:00:08 PM
There have been many comments posted about WDFW/WAFNAWS not turning this into a hunting opportunity. WAFNAWS in no way sees this as a “hunting” opportunity. Pasteurella die-offs are devastating, tragic, and gut-wrenching episodes that turn majestic cliff dwelling wild sheep into snot-nosed, hackers that are too weak and sick to climb a hill. In no way would placing the cross-hairs on a bighorn in such physical condition resemble a “hunt”. Since euthanizing diseased animals is not “hunting”, hunting opportunity was not a consideration. There are rare occasions when the removal of animals should be turned over to professionals such as Wildlife Services; this is one of those situations.
WAFNAWS disagrees that if “hunters” were doing the shooting it would be viewed more positively from the public (both hunters and non-hunters). Can it be done? Sure. Should it be done? No! If the well-being and conservation of the population is the ultimate goal, who cares who does the shooting?
WAFNAWS has not “wasted” any money on this project and so far all we were asked to provide is man-power. As stated in our last newsletter, 98.5% of our expenditures goes to on-the-ground projects. We’ll put that efficiency record up against any other non-profit organization! Our dollars hit the ground and are not “wasted” on administrative overhead. WAFNAWS funded $193,202 in cooperative wildlife projects with an additional $33,470 in direct conservation funding in fiscal year 2008. Umtanum will be expensive and we support WDFW spending raffle/auction revenue to fund the project.
You want to get involved? Here’s the list of requests made in our last two newsletters for volunteer help, “website design, securing live/silent auction donations, banquet set up, banquet clean up, working in our booth, sending written comments related to the Payette NF plan, raffle/auction spending, sending comments regarding changes in the raffle/auction program, and lobbying for the Hwy 97A Wildlife Fencing Project.” The fact is 99% of our time is spent in meetings, on the computer, or on the phone. The first members we call to help out on the hands-on projects are those that have been giving their time already on those boring but vitally important jobs listed above.
“It sucks”, “horrible” and “I don’t want to go back” are some of the comments I’ve heard from members who have volunteered thus far on the Umtanum situation. We have nothing to hide and no top secret information to withhold. There is a solemn mood in the canyon that challenges our conservation spirit so forgive the guys if they come across as tight-lipped.
Post by: WonkyWapiti on February 27, 2010, 10:32:00 PM
Post by: lokidog on February 27, 2010, 10:41:13 PM
Post by: Elkstuffer on March 01, 2010, 09:36:35 PM
Post by: boonerboy on March 01, 2010, 09:56:43 PM
Post by: WonkyWapiti on March 05, 2010, 10:04:27 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 05, 2010, 10:50:38 PM
But first let me say, I am sure FNAWS has the best interest of sheep in mind and I am also sure that the WDFW has the best interest of the sheep in mind. I am not disputing this at all.
However, this unfortunate situation could have resulted in a few folks having an opportunity to take a sheep. I read all the excuses everyone has made for opposing any hunting/shooting/culling opportunity (whatever you want to call it) and I do not believe any of them are unmanageable obstacles.
You guys can argue all you want that there's no way this could be worked out, but the rest of us know that circumstances could have been worked out if wanted by those in charge. There are instances throughout history where the norm has been tested and better methods found. But those better methods were only found by testing the norm.
As stated in another thread, if they had offered the opportunity, I would have gladly paid $5000 to take a ram or a few hundred to take a ewe. Other hunters would gladly use their once in a lifetime opportuntiy to shoot one of the sheep.
The problem here is that no one involved wants to try any other option than using government hunters. But don't feel like this is only happening in Washington, Utah just did the same thing with some sick sheep near Flaming Gorge. Just too sad that these unfortunate situations can not provide a once in a lifetime opportunity for hunters. :twocents:
Post by: sako223 on March 06, 2010, 12:13:00 AM
This is a risky pay & pray draw system that we have no say in.
Post by: blacktailer on March 06, 2010, 08:18:02 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 07, 2010, 12:45:32 PM
Post by: WonkyWapiti on March 12, 2010, 11:16:52 PM
Post by: carpsniperg2 on March 13, 2010, 12:17:00 AM
Post by: bearpaw on March 13, 2010, 05:15:45 AM
Post by: wa.hunter on March 28, 2010, 05:54:15 PM
Post by: norsepeak on March 28, 2010, 07:09:56 PM
Post by: Cougeyes on March 29, 2010, 09:18:50 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 29, 2010, 09:30:29 PM
Post by: norsepeak on March 31, 2010, 08:31:06 PM
Post by: wa.hunter on April 02, 2010, 04:53:24 PM
Post by: ramslam on April 02, 2010, 06:24:07 PM
Post by: WonkyWapiti on April 02, 2010, 09:07:13 PM
Post by: boneaddict on April 03, 2010, 07:08:59 AM
Post by: Elkstuffer on April 03, 2010, 08:06:16 AM
Post by: KNOPHISH on April 03, 2010, 09:50:52 PM
Post by: carpsniperg2 on April 03, 2010, 10:01:03 PM
Post by: yelp on April 04, 2010, 09:10:35 PM
Post by: wa.hunter on April 14, 2010, 07:03:31 AM
Post by: jackelope on April 14, 2010, 07:43:02 AM
Post by: WonkyWapiti on April 14, 2010, 11:11:51 PM
Post by: carpsniperg2 on April 14, 2010, 11:20:05 PM
Post by: sheephunter on April 19, 2010, 03:30:55 PM
Hope this approach works out, it is a fun area to view the sheep, both off the river and hiking back in.
Post by: woodywsu on April 23, 2010, 12:34:35 PM
My good friend is one of the APHIS Wildlife Services shooters..I had him give me this pic..I thought it was really cool. He didn't shoot any of these rams but it is a cool pic. He spent the night and he is headed back home. Here is the pic.
I just talked to the guy who did all the shooting from Wildlife Services. He told me they took out 12 rams that were pushing a full curl. One ram had 18.5" bases and was around the 180 mark. He felt that more sheep should be killed out of this population and feels that the problem is not taken care of yet. He thought they removed around 90 sheep. His crew was around 30+ spotters, two guys with him, one measuring wind and the other yardage for his shot.
Post by: BC CHASER on April 23, 2010, 08:01:48 PM
Post by: WABONEHNTR on April 23, 2010, 08:18:47 PM
My good friend is one of the APHIS Wildlife Services shooters..I had him give me this pic..I thought it was really cool. He didn't shoot any of these rams but it is a cool pic. He spent the night and he is headed back home. Here is the pic.
I just talked to the guy who did all the shooting from Wildlife Services. He told me they took out 12 rams that were pushing a full curl. One ram had 18.5" bases and was around the 180 mark. He felt that more sheep should be killed out of this population and feels that the problem is not taken care of yet. He thought they removed around 90 sheep. His crew was around 30+ spotters, two guys with him, one measuring wind and the other yardage for his shot.
Sounds to me like you had better find someone elseto get your info from Woody. I don't think one thing you stated is true.
Post by: woodywsu on April 24, 2010, 12:45:36 PM
Maybe bonehunter would like to clean this all up and fill us all in. I'm sure interested?
Post by: BC CHASER on April 25, 2010, 11:19:00 AM
Post by: WABONEHNTR on April 25, 2010, 03:38:01 PM
Well woody you can believe everything you have been told but it is not true. Maybe you missunderstood what he was telling you? I worked in the canyon a few days and worked with more than one shooter. I dont know exactly how many there were but I would say at least half a dozen. On days I was there we had no more than 4 or 5 spotters not including shooters or a few other USDA and WDFW guys. Sorry to piss in your cheerios but you have this one wrong!
BC is right. I know the guy you have been talking too. I am not going to say anything bad about him. He is a very nice guy and a hell of a shot. My dad was over there nearly eveyday helping. There was always more than one shooter every day. There was no ram with 18" bases killed nor did one score 180". I think a handful of rams were killed, maybe 3-6. Nothing to get worked up over. The best advice I can give on the subject is. If you don't know about the topic, don't type it on the site.
Post by: JBar on April 25, 2010, 04:53:39 PM
Post by: woodywsu on April 27, 2010, 07:08:12 AM
Post by: Elkstuffer on April 27, 2010, 10:58:27 AM
The closest ram to 180 in the area that I've seen was killed in the Tieton unit 3 yrs ago and scored 178.
I was in the canyon several times and watched in one day 4 different guys with rifles. I'd assume they weren't packing them around just for protection. :dunno:
Post by: woodywsu on April 27, 2010, 01:02:51 PM
Post by: yelp on April 27, 2010, 06:19:09 PM
well i heard it from the guy that took the pic that yelp posted. he said he was the only shooter. Are you guys saying I can't believe him? Who were the other shooters? USDA WS have a handful of guys but this guy trains them all. But again I am getting all this info from him and others who work for WS.
Maybe bonehunter would like to clean this all up and fill us all in. I'm sure interested?
Who did you talk to Woody? Send me a PM?
Post by: yelp on April 27, 2010, 06:24:50 PM
If no cameras were allowed, then where did the pic from yelp come from?
I saw over 100 pictures of the entire operation even pics of some of the members on here who volunteered. The pic I posted was the only one given to me by my friend. I thought it was a neat pic. He had to take pics to document the operation for USDA APHIS. There were I believe 4 or 5 APHIS shooters. They took around 60 sheep (I believe close to that) They had to use all copper bullets no lead. They took very few rams. Many of the ewes taken had lambs. This info was given to me first hand.
Post by: yelp on April 27, 2010, 06:36:29 PM