attention for the hunters in Yukon and the ones that may come one day as hosted hunt

Public Review of Proposed Changes to the Yukon Wildlife Regulations
Posted on: October 28th, 2015

In upholding its responsibility under the Umbrella Final Agreement to make provisions for public involvement in the management of fish and wildlife in the Yukon, the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board is facilitating the public review of proposed Yukon Wildlife Act Regulation Changes. The public review period is between October 28, 2015 and November 27, 2015.

There are 15 proposed wildlife regulation changes that have been put forward for public review, a summary of each proposal can be found here.

To provide feedback online, please see our survey – it will be available until November 27, 2015 at 1pm.

The Board will consider all feedback received, and provide a recommendation to the Minister of Environment regarding each proposed change.

Should you have questions about the proposed regulation changes, or the review period, please contact:

Graham Van Tighem, Executive Director
Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board
867-667-5835
executivedirector@yfwmb.ca


h t t p ://yfwmb.ca/2015/10/pubreview_propregchange/


h t t p ://yfwmb.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ProposedRegChanges_2015.pdf

h t t p s:// w w w .surveymonkey.com/r/YFWMB2015-RegChange :survey

there will be a public meeting on the 17th will be at the Yukon Inn Fireside Room from 6:30 till 10.

be sure to be there to be heard.

http://whitehorsestar.com/News...essure-on-dall-sheep


Off-road vehicles blamed for mounting pressure on Dall sheep

Unless government does something to restrict the use of off-road vehicles,

By Chuck Tobin on November 18, 2015


Unless government does something to restrict the use of off-road vehicles, it’s going to continue struggling with managing mountain sheep populations, it was said at a wildlife meeting Tuesday evening.

It was a packed house that turned out for the annual fall meeting hosted by the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board to discuss proposed changes to hunting and fishing regulations.

Fifteen proposals in all were discussed, but none received more attention than the proposal by Environment Yukon to put five sub-zones west of Whitehorse on a permit hunt for Dall sheep.

Environment Yukon officials were peppered with questions about the need to implement a permit hunt now that a big game outfitter is active again in the area.

Officials were asked to justify their proposal with science, and then they were criticized for not having it.

Many felt it was unacceptable to sacrifice sheep hunting opportunities for local hunters to make room for non-resident big game hunters.

It was suggested the government was trying to sneak in the back door with a veiled attempt to force a sheep quota on the big game outfitter, because in subzones where Yukoners are put on permit hunts, the outfitter must be put on a quota.

Several in the audience of 80-plus said that at the end of the day, it all comes down to access to the backcountry by ATVs and Argos.

There’s no management issue if off-road vehicles are banned for sheep hunting, many said.

Twenty years ago, it was said, it took sheep hunters a couple of days to hike into those remote areas and couple of days to hike out. Today, hunters can be in and out in the same day with their Argos, it was said.

Putting the five sub-zones on permits will only push local hunters into other game management zones that are still open to sheep hunting.

Several suggested just as Environment Yukon wants to tighten down game management zone seven this year, when hunters and their ATVs move to management zone five because they didn’t get a permit for seven, Environment Yukon will be back next year for restrictions in zone five.

And when hunters move on to the next management zone after zone five is put on permits, they’ll take their ATVs to the next open zone, and so on, and so on, and so on, said several in the audience.

What the Yukon needs is a comprehensive sheep management plan for the Yukon, one that looks at all aspects of decision-making, one that anticipates the repercussions of closing subzones and putting them on permits, it was suggested.

The wildlife management board uses public input it receives every fall to help formulate a final recommendation to the Environment minister. The recommendations are usually sent in late December or early January.

This year’s list of 15 proposed changes to hunting and fishing regulations is well above the number of proposals the management board usually handles in a single year.

The five subzones in game management zone seven are part of a big game outfitting concession that was seized from the outfitter by the government in the late 1990s. The area was without an outfitter for 15 years, but remained open for resident hunters.

The government sold the hunting concession after years of struggling with what to do with it and big game outfitting returned to the area in 2013.

While resident hunters have maintained a steady harvest of Dall sheep in the five subzones in question, the harvest has been below four per cent of the adult population, a benchmark Environment Yukon uses to determine sustainable harvest levels. The harvest by local hunters, however, has been increasing and with the addition of the non-resident hunts in the last three years, the year’s total harvest of 34 Dall sheep is likely to exceed the sustainable level, Environment Yukon maintains.

Information provided last night indicated of the 34 sheep taken this year, 22 were by resident hunters and 12 were taken by non-resident clients of the big game outfitter.

Government biologist Rob Florkiewicz explained last night that before the government seized the concession in 1999, resident hunters accounted for about two-thirds of the Dall sheep harvest, and one-third was taken by the outfitting business.

Under the proposal, the government wants to replicate that two-thirds, one-third harvest scenario, he said.

Government biologist Troy Hegel said the government is concerned if the subzones remain open, harvest levels will continue to grow.

“Just to maintain a sustainable harvest, that is the intent of this proposal,” he said.

But many in the audience objected, arguing a permit hunt reduces opportunities for local hunters to put food on the table.

Normally it takes between four and seven years in the lottery system to get a permit, so if a local hunter is 60 now, waiting another seven years for a sheep permit might be unfair, it was said.

The accuracy of the government science was questioned and prodded, and it was even suggested the four-per-cent harvest rule is unsupported, and may have even originated from an obscure Alaskan research paper that’s nearly 100 years old.

A couple of big game outfitters in the room who have concessions in other areas of the Yukon suggested the proposal pitted big game outfitters against Yukon hunters unnecessarily, without a lot of evidence supporting the need for permits.

Outfitter Tim Mervyn insisted outfitters don’t want to fight with resident hunters, and resident hunters don’t want to fight with outfitters.

The proposal is creating conflict and should be withdrawn, and replaced with a more fulsome management approach, he said.

“We do not want to fight,” said David Dixon, another outfitter in the audience. “... Government needs to start managing these areas.

“If it’s access, let’s get together to stop the access,” he said, sparking applause.

If ATV access to sheep country is controlled, there would be no issue, it was said many times.

There would be no need to close the subzones and put them on permit hunts, no need to make the 60-year-old hunter wait another seven years, no need to reduce the opportunity for a hunter to feed the family.

But if access is not controlled, the same discussion today about harvest levels in the five subzones west of Whitehorse will eventually come forward for the entire southern Yukon, it was said.

Whitehorse hunter Peter Harms told the audience that until ATV access to sheep country is addressed, the domino theory will remain in play – shut down this area, and then this area, and then this area....

Philip Merchant, a wildlife technican who spent decades with Environment Yukon, said the harvest level by the new big game outfitter is the same as it was before the concession was seized.

“What has changed is the ability for residents to go deep into these areas, and until that is managed, this issue is going to continue,” he told the audience.



as some said ATV is not really the problem but more that the open back of that zone for GO.

Nice to see bison may be added to hunter host list.

remeber the paradise you described few years where you wife hunted a sheep ... the biologist admitted that since an outfitter was brought back it is no more .... we told you so and didnt take long just two seasons operations ...

LOL...that's not what I read but regardless...nice to see bison possibly on the menu for hunter host!

I'm glad I got to experience the Y.T. long before atvs. Was wide open country so to speak. I can't think of a better way to spoil a hunt than some dodo on an atv blasting thru scaring game.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardAustin:
I'm glad I got to experience the Y.T. long before atvs. Was wide open country so to speak. I can't think of a better way to spoil a hunt than some dodo on an atv blasting thru scaring game.

Glad you enjoyed it.

the article is biaised and the TOYA (trails only in Yukon org) is pushing their own Agenda. didnt hear any comments on outfitters using ATVs and 95% of them are using ATVs, Argos etc ...
on that specific subzones that was without GO for the last 10 years, the biologist finally admitted that the outfitter is the reason they have to reduce the harvest not ATV ...

most of the Yukon is really still wild. when im away an hearing a bushplane that is disturbing the game around what do you think my mind is .... we always disturb some others paradise.

If Yukon Residents are forced to hike then so shall the outfitter. No horses, no motorized vehicles. Fly in only or hike in, for all.
If there are reduced rams of 8 yrs or legal then reduce the # of permits and quota for the outfitter.
Resident hunters receive 60 percent and outfitter 40 percent or 70/30 Resident/ outfitter.
Watson Lake

quote:

Originally posted by Watson Lake:
No horses...Fly in only or hike in, for all.

Do we really believe horse access is even remotely the problem here? Seriously? I would bet Tim Mervyn is the only outfitter using no motorized vehicles (with the exception of snowmachines on his winter Bison hunts out of necessity) and I can't imagine many resident hunters find horses all that practical compared to ATV ownership or even getting a friend to fly them in someplace. Requiring fly-in only, I suspect (and it would have to be everywhere to avoid the domino theory discussed above) would just create a new business opportunity for some and, once the cost is driven down with volume use, maybe even INCREASE access as the price of being flown in now and again drops below the long run cost of ATV ownership...and certainly below the long run cost of owning horses.

As an example of why this might happen, consider that there is a company now in NYC called Gotham Air. They are basically Uber for helicopters. Realizing that the main reason private flight charters are expensive is because of the amount of time the craft spends idle, they realized that increased usage via a specialized app could drop the price of A JFK to Midtown trip to $200 (introductory price of $99!). Not too much more expensive (depending on traffic) than a damned taxi. Similarly, increased bush plane utilization by it being made the only option and you might (at least theoretically) cause the price to fall to a level that hunt area access actually goes up. Point being, be careful what you wish for.

There are actually several outfitters in the Yukon that don't use ATVs. There are a couple that use them extensively though.

i was at the meeting most of the intervenants here were not ...

ATV is not the problem but that area has been for 10 years with no GO and it was a little paradise then a GO came back and problem happened too much hunting pressure from him not the ATV not the local hunters so if our resident biologist is saying non resident hunting pressure is the reason they want to shut it down we can now see that the paradise that was described by our resident outdoor writer didnt last long ... seems we said so also and it didnt take that long ....

Comments were made that 95% of outfitters are using ATVs and that only one outfitter isn't using them. I was just pointing out that wasn't true. You didn't need to be at the meeting to know that! There are still several outfitters offering both horseback and backpack hunts and not using ATVs.

TJ you are the white knight and the good spokersman of the Yukon outffiter association ....

you still do not get it. despite the newspaper article the reason of decline of sheep population with that specific zone is the return of an outfitter not atv used by local residents ... ask the local biologist this is what he said during that meeting and at least two more members of this forum were there if my voice is not counting ....

next year we have territorial election and seem some candidates are already talking about issues between GO and local residents ...

if in Alberta they were doing the same to you im pretty sure you will be vocal but being invited in Yukon doesnt mean everybody as to believe you ...

I was just clearing up some misinformation...I wasn't speaking about any specific GO or area. Nice to see bison on the list!

quote:

Originally posted by sheephunterab:
Nice to see bison on the list!

And speaking of which....what is the estimated population these days? How far has their range extended beyond the original intended area? I assume they are well east of the Klondike Highway by now?

Tendrams,

a good start reading:

http://www.env.gov.yk.ca/hunti...bisonhunt.php#basics

there are roughly 1400 and need to be down to 1000s.

just thinking about an host coming down south and all the gears needed and of course recovering the meat might be an interesting challenge to say the least but why not ....

quote:

Originally posted by medved:
Tendrams,

a good start reading:

http://www.env.gov.yk.ca/hunti...bisonhunt.php#basics

there are roughly 1400 and need to be down to 1000s.

just thinking about an host coming down south and all the gears needed and of course recovering the meat might be an interesting challenge to say the least but why not ....

Phil......... often thought about doing a host hunt up there and offering one here, but with so few available now probably easier to just move to the Yukon.

Yes, it would definitely be advantageous to have friends in the Yukon with snow machines to do the bison hunt. Hope it goes through!

quote:

Originally posted by sheephunterab:
Yes, it would definitely be advantageous to have friends in the Yukon with snow machines to do the bison hunt. Hope it goes through!

Key word..."friends" (plural). While I have done it, it's not exactly a two man job depending how far out into the middle of nowhere the animal is shot.

quote:

Originally posted by tendrams:

quote:

Originally posted by sheephunterab:
Yes, it would definitely be advantageous to have friends in the Yukon with snow machines to do the bison hunt. Hope it goes through!

Key word..."friends" (plural). While I have done it, it's not exactly a two man job depending how far out into the middle of nowhere the animal is shot.

for sure not a two men job ... especially where the bisons are going now.

it is not unusual to see the bison over the dall sheep in the mountain ....

quote:

Originally posted by tendrams:

quote:

Originally posted by sheephunterab:
Yes, it would definitely be advantageous to have friends in the Yukon with snow machines to do the bison hunt. Hope it goes through!

Key word..."friends" (plural). While I have done it, it's not exactly a two man job depending how far out into the middle of nowhere the animal is shot.

Haha...more hands do make light work. I've disassembled a couple of them with just two of us on the scene but not doubt it's a big job.

I respect Alberta's policy in the Wilmore Wilderness Area- foot travel only. Horses and boots, that's the way it should be. I'm good with a step further than that, floatplanes and boats, zero trace transportation only.

We also have lots of ATV areas too. I think there is a balance that can be struck to serve all users. From what I see the Yukon is a bit of a free for all that could likely benefit from some regulation.

quote:

Originally posted by medved:
TJ you are the white knight and the good spokersman of the Yukon outffiter association ....

you still do not get it. despite the newspaper article the reason of decline of sheep population with that specific zone is the return of an outfitter not atv used by local residents ... ask the local biologist this is what he said during that meeting and at least two more members of this forum were there if my voice is not counting ....

next year we have territorial election and seem some candidates are already talking about issues between GO and local residents ...

if in Alberta they were doing the same to you im pretty sure you will be vocal but being invited in Yukon doesnt mean everybody as to believe you ...

So you're saying that for 10 years that area was flourishing with game and now after two years of a GO operating the area is now in jeopardy ?
Is it that the outfitter is out hunting the residents that badly ? If he has quota on his sheep were the residents killing none before and now he's actually taking rams out of the area and it can't support it ?

quote:

Originally posted by HGC Safaris:

quote:

Originally posted by medved:
TJ you are the white knight and the good spokersman of the Yukon outffiter association ....

you still do not get it. despite the newspaper article the reason of decline of sheep population with that specific zone is the return of an outfitter not atv used by local residents ... ask the local biologist this is what he said during that meeting and at least two more members of this forum were there if my voice is not counting ....

next year we have territorial election and seem some candidates are already talking about issues between GO and local residents ...

if in Alberta they were doing the same to you im pretty sure you will be vocal but being invited in Yukon doesnt mean everybody as to believe you ...

So you're saying that for 10 years that area was flourishing with game and now after two years of a GO operating the area is now in jeopardy ?
Is it that the outfitter is out hunting the residents that badly ? If he has quota on his sheep were the residents killing none before and now he's actually taking rams out of the area and it can't support it ?

locals had always hunted that area without hammering baddly the zone. for now there is no quota for none of hunters or outfitter. it added 12-15 sheeps to what the locals were taken each year and it is starting to lower the population very simple ... putting the area on quota for the locals will automatically give to the outfitter 1/3 of this amount.

in any juridiction across N america on sheep hunting first the locals then maybe the outfitters why will it be different here if the sheep population cant handle more pressure than the one that was already there before the last two years ...

also let s put in perspective that the new outfitter was caught getting two sheeps for clients outside the zone and the time it was authorized for him .... hope it is more clear for you.

quote:

Originally posted by medved:

quote:

Originally posted by HGC Safaris:

quote:

Originally posted by medved:
TJ you are the white knight and the good spokersman of the Yukon outffiter association ....

you still do not get it. despite the newspaper article the reason of decline of sheep population with that specific zone is the return of an outfitter not atv used by local residents ... ask the local biologist this is what he said during that meeting and at least two more members of this forum were there if my voice is not counting ....

next year we have territorial election and seem some candidates are already talking about issues between GO and local residents ...

if in Alberta they were doing the same to you im pretty sure you will be vocal but being invited in Yukon doesnt mean everybody as to believe you ...

So you're saying that for 10 years that area was flourishing with game and now after two years of a GO operating the area is now in jeopardy ?
Is it that the outfitter is out hunting the residents that badly ? If he has quota on his sheep were the residents killing none before and now he's actually taking rams out of the area and it can't support it ?

locals had always hunted that area without hammering baddly the zone. for now there is no quota for none of hunters or outfitter. it added 12-15 sheeps to what the locals were taken each year and it is starting to lower the population very simple ... putting the area on quota for the locals will automatically give to the outfitter 1/3 of this amount.

in any juridiction across N america on sheep hunting first the locals then maybe the outfitters why will it be different here if the sheep population cant handle more pressure than the one that was already there before the last two years ...

also let s put in perspective that the new outfitter was caught getting two sheeps for clients outside the zone and the time it was authorized for him .... hope it is more clear for you.

I thought he had a quota on his sheep ?

Wasn't there a GO that operated there before the whole lawsuit thing started ? Was the zone in jeopardy before they shut him down ?

Thanks for the clarification

[/QUOTE]

I thought he had a quota on his sheep ?

Wasn't there a GO that operated there before the whole lawsuit thing started ? Was the zone in jeopardy before they shut him down ?

Thanks for the clarification[/QUOTE]

Only parts of his area on are quota, the remainder is not. There was an outfitter in there previously, about 17 years ago. It's the proximity of this area to Whitehorse and high sheep populations that accounts for the high usage by residents although access into much of the area is pretty well limited to horses as there are few lakes to land a plane on.

quote:

Originally posted by sheephunterab:

I thought he had a quota on his sheep ?

Wasn't there a GO that operated there before the whole lawsuit thing started ? Was the zone in jeopardy before they shut him down ?

Thanks for the clarification[/QUOTE]

Only parts of his area on are quota, the remainder is not. There was an outfitter in there previously, about 17 years ago. It's the proximity of this area to Whitehorse and high sheep populations that accounts for the high usage by residents although access into much of the area is pretty well limited to horses as there are few lakes to land a plane on.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for clearing that up TJ.

yes vicinity of Whitehorse but if residents cant go there is a problem ...

the actual outfitter has two subzones under quota the rest is free for all ... as TJ said the acess is not easy but doable and i do not see atv as the problem ... i do not use them but i do not think the access should be restricted that way or no access at all including horses so only on feet .... not even a floatplane ...

we should bring back the 8 years old and not only full curl as it was discussed during the meeting the three outfitters present were not in favor at all .... do not know why ....???? seems management and money do not belong together or in the same sentence.

on my opinion that outfitter concession should removed on the outfitting business and bring back like it was for the last 15 years .... it worked well and the biologist confessed that the hunting pressure from the outfitter was the reason why they have to reconsider the way we hunt there. not other reason was officially demonstrated and said .... some others for sure want to keep the mountain for a few elite hunters so this is not a one side story even among the locals lol ....

Every jurisdiction in North America that has sheep hunting offers non-resident opportunities. How that opportunity is allocated varies. Here in Alberta it's 20%...in BC it's as high as 40% I understand. Right now it looks as though it's a 2/3 1/3 split in the area in question. I suspect many areas in the Yukon are more heavily weighted to non-residents just because of their more remote nature. I get that residents hated to see an outfitter come back to that area but what's done is done and if the harvest is too high for sheep populations to sustain it will likely have to go to a quota system. This will undoubtedly spread some of the resident pressure to other zones and allow that zone to maintain a healthy population. When you consider that nearly 50% of the sheep harvested by residents in the Yukon come from that one zone, that's pretty significant. Did the bio give any indication what the allowable harvest should be?

quote:

When you consider that nearly 50% of the sheep harvested by residents in the Yukon come from that one zone, that's pretty significant.

Why do you think that is? access? No. of sheep? size?
Cost?

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:

quote:

When you consider that nearly 50% of the sheep harvested by residents in the Yukon come from that one zone, that's pretty significant.

Why do you think that is? access? No. of sheep? size?
Cost?

The proximity to Whitehorse has a lot to do with it plus the area does have a very high population of sheep.....In a recent survey I read, it was over 70% of resident hunters said they hunted sheep for meat not trophy.

quote:

I read, it was over 70% of resident hunters said they hunted sheep for meat not trophy.

All many do you think replied that way because it was the political correct thing to say.

If that is the case there should be no worry about horn size.

I hear that a lot down here also about deer but there is sure a lot of talk about passing good eating smaller bucks.

quote:

All many do you think replied that way because it was the political correct thing to say.

If that is the case there should be no worry about horn size.

I hear that a lot down here also about deer but there is sure a lot of talk about passing good eating smaller bucks.

Likely some for sure but when you can buy a sheep tag over the counter for 10 bucks it does change your perspective a bit plus thinhorns are darned fine eating!

quote:

thinhorns are darned fine eating

I do like sheep.

For residents what are the sex ,size restrictions.

Same as non-residents....full curl or 8 years old. Resident success rate is under 20% if I recall correctly.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:

quote:

When you consider that nearly 50% of the sheep harvested by residents in the Yukon come from that one zone, that's pretty significant.

Why do you think that is? access? No. of sheep? size?
Cost?

there is one thing that a few has said before and you asked the right question: access .... a few outfitters forced the air charters to not fly th locals where they wanted so of course the locals as most live around whitehorse will head the closest they can as they cant fly that much out ....

harvestable Tj: i have to check my notes about what is suitable but you know that the variable is not only hunting and some and that is including the outiftters were not accepting the numbers shown on the counts ...

on another note the survey is suggest to who is answering and what were the questions. there are a few that will say they hunt for trophy as they do not hunt for horns or antlers at least the majority.

to finish on the specific outfitting zone we the locals are not saying it is over and that zone can be reversed to what it was. GVT can every year reevaluate any concession and remove the outfitter the management and some are pushing for it like it or not.

TJ number was the numbers before outfitter back on hunting so number -12.

so the actual numbers should be in total 24.

16 for the locals and 8 for the outfitter.

24 was the mumber taken for the last 10 years on a yearly basis without outfitter around.

Mac will loose 4 sheep on the harvest he had done but now he has a guarantee on his quota ... not bad for a free enterprise lol ....

and in fact locals are loosing 8 sheeps so adding more years before being drawn close from home.

some other outfitters may be impacted if hunters need to go elsewhere ...

quote:

Originally posted by medved:
TJ number was the numbers before outfitter back on hunting so number -12.

so the actual numbers should be in total 24.

16 for the locals and 8 for the outfitter.

24 was the mumber taken for the last 10 years on a yearly basis without outfitter around.

Mac will loose 4 sheep on the harvest he had done but now he has a guarantee on his quota ... not bad for a free enterprise lol ....

and in fact locals are loosing 8 sheeps so adding more years before being drawn close from home.

some other outfitters may be impacted if hunters need to go elsewhere ...

Just because 24 were harvested pre outfitter really means nothing when looking at allowable harvest. Allowable harvest is calculated to ensure the carry over of rams is sufficient. I suspect the outfitter is hunting a number of areas that received little or no pressure before so the allowable harvest may actually be quite a bit higher than 24. Even your own bio didn't say the harvest was too high...he just said it need to be looked at and they are concerned that the harvest may increase. Id be interested to know what the bio thinks is a sustainable harvest number.....

quote:

Originally posted by sheephunterab:

quote:

Originally posted by medved:
TJ number was the numbers before outfitter back on hunting so number -12.

so the actual numbers should be in total 24.

16 for the locals and 8 for the outfitter.

24 was the mumber taken for the last 10 years on a yearly basis without outfitter around.

Mac will loose 4 sheep on the harvest he had done but now he has a guarantee on his quota ... not bad for a free enterprise lol ....

and in fact locals are loosing 8 sheeps so adding more years before being drawn close from home.

some other outfitters may be impacted if hunters need to go elsewhere ...

Just because 24 were harvested pre outfitter really means nothing when looking at allowable harvest. Allowable harvest is calculated to ensure the carry over of rams is sufficient. I suspect the outfitter is hunting a number of areas that received little or no pressure before so the allowable harvest may actually be quite a bit higher than 24. Even your own bio didn't say the harvest was too high...he just said it need to be looked at and they are concerned that the harvest may increase. Id be interested to know what the bio thinks is a sustainable harvest number.....

Did you speak with the bio in charge of sheep for YG or the other bio that is working for YG and now helping the YWMB?

he exactly said that continuing that harvest at that level will put in danger the local sheep population .... when my chairs neighbour asked the reason about why there is a concern the answer from after pushing to get an answer was the return of the outfitter .... not the atvs but seems you are only relying on the paper ....

your signature didnt desserve what you are writing on that subject you re not listenning .... there is that much sheeps around that the outfitter poached two sheeps .... if you are looking for a definition of poaching under Yukon act let me know ....

the sheep population has been impacted since the outfitter is back on the zones i didnt say so nor any attendants that night but the YG biologist if you are not wiling to listen there is nothing i can do like when we told you the paradise you met when you went to film the area for your show.

as i said the outfitters are not that much vocal and you are making more noise than all of them ... hope they will give you some good rewards when you will be back here .... just to make it right i have nothing against outfitter that are locals and supporting the local economy and of course abbiding laws which is not the case of the specific outfitter we are talking about ...

hope soon that the fees for non residents will be comparable to other Canadian juridictions and no more the gift of our nature ....