Wild Sheep Foundation??

[Guff]

Hi everyone,

Have a question, what is your opinion of the Wild Sheep Foundation? I live in Kentucky and have an almost 0% percent chance of ever hunting sheep in my life, but I love sheep. I think they are such amazing creatures.

Is it a good organization to become a member of in your opinion? I don't care to give money if it's going to a good organization so thought I would see what you all thought.

 

[wytx]

I think they are a good organization but you may find your money would go to more on the ground projects through a state organization like say Wyoming Wild Sheep Foundation or Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society.

 

[akhunter87]

I give money to them but it's more of a what kind of organization do you want to donate to for me bc I will get killed on taxes at the end of the year if I don't at least make some donations. My personal opinion is they aren't perfect but I don't think that there exists a perfect organization out there and they do some good things. Some would like to see organizations in general get more involved politically but that isn't at the top of my personal list.

So this reply may not be all that helpful to you other than to say that your financial situation and your values should dictate what you want to donate to.

 

[Liv2HntBigBullz]

Life member here. Think they do a nice job directing their funding but do your own research.

Would like some better info on m. Ovi as I think it has become the easy devil to target. There are some other things contributing in my opinion and I'd like to validate the "bang for the buck" impact all the money to movi research is providing. Think right now all sheep orgs are heavily focused here and I'd hate to see wasteful spending, if such a thing were happening.

That said I felt like they are a solid organization and the positives far outweighed any negative and the success of putting and keeping sheep on the mountain speaks for itself.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

 

[wyosteve]

I agree with the general comments. Life member here as well and member for over 30 years. Early on they were kind of trying to find their way imo. More of a good ole boys club. Now they seem to have matured and have focus and direction and a professional sense about them. Most of their funds go to research, releases, etc. as opposed to land purchases. Primarily because most of the land sheep live on is already public owned and the sheep don't migrate significant distances like elk or mule deer.

 

[Nick Muche]

The WSF and many of the regional chapters, except one, are doing fantastic things and they have my full support.

 

[TXCO]

Im a life member and proud supporter of WSF. I think they're one of the best for getting dollars where they need to go. The amount of guides and outfitters who work them also proves this.

While their names are similar WSF is separate and different than Grand Slam Ovis which is no where near as good of an organization. They trademarked many common terms like Grand Slam and Super Slam and then sued any organization or person who used them even if its was prior to trademark (like Chuck Adams). They have burned many bridges in the hunting community.

 

[Blockcaver]

Life member of both the WSF and Wild Sheep Society of BC....both excellent conservation organizations if you like sheep. And was a member of the Rocky Mt Bighorn Society for many years when living in CO. Our BC chapter does a lot of excellent work for the good our sheep, (Stones, Dalls, Bighorns and California Bighorns) mule deer, caribou...especially given the membership base.

 

[Jacques Etcheverry]

Nope nothing positive to say. I keep thinking it would be nice to have a couple members out helping set wolf gear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bowhuntercam]

Proud member of Wild Sheep, as well as a couple affiliate chapters. Also, an embarrassed member of a couple useless affiliate chapters.

 

[Jonesry09]

Just joined.

Hoping to not be in the <1 club too long!!

 

[jedi]

life member as well. i think every chapter has its own oddities. id just research what youre interested in financially backing and go for it.

 

[AlaskaMark]

Former member. WSF does some great work, but they have never supported limiting nonresident sheep hunters in Alaska and have no issues with nonres sheep hunters taking 60-80% of our rams in some areas and 45% statewide. More areas will go to draw only for everyone because national and AK chapter are not going to support proposals to limit nonres sheep hunters in areas where we all know the sheep are in trouble.

Just one man's opinion.

 

[Cactus kid]

Former member. WSF does some great work, but they have never supported limiting nonresident sheep hunters in Alaska and have no issues with nonres sheep hunters taking 60-80% of our rams in some areas and 45% statewide. More areas will go to draw only for everyone because national and AK chapter are not going to support proposals to limit nonres sheep hunters in areas where we all know the sheep are in trouble.

Just one man's opinion.

If you happen subscribe to the North American Model of Conservation then those rams are not "your rams" but are owned by the public, both residents and non resident hunters. In addition, the much higher nonresident tag and licenses provide a significant portion of the funding for Alaska Game and Fish.

One could argue that non-resident pressure is limited by the amount of outfitters who can provide hunts. Residents also have better draw odds at the draw units than non residents.

But I'm a biased non-resident hunter. Just my opinion. Im sure if I was a resident my opinion might be different.

 

[Jacques Etcheverry]

If you happen subscribe to the North American Model of Conservation then those rams are not "your rams" but are owned by the public, both residents and non resident hunters. In addition, the much higher nonresident tag and licenses provide a significant portion of the funding for Alaska Game and Fish.

One could argue that non-resident pressure is limited by the amount of outfitters who can provide hunts. Residents also have better draw odds at the draw units than non residents.

But I'm a biased non-resident hunter. Just my opinion. Im sure if I was a resident my opinion might be different.

Come stay a few winters, I’d love to have a non-resident help with predator management.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AlaskaMark]

If you happen subscribe to the North American Model of Conservation then those rams are not "your rams" but are owned by the public, both residents and non resident hunters. In addition, the much higher nonresident tag and licenses provide a significant portion of the funding for Alaska Game and Fish.

One could argue that non-resident pressure is limited by the amount of outfitters who can provide hunts. Residents also have better draw odds at the draw units than non residents.

But I'm a biased non-resident hunter. Just my opinion. Im sure if I was a resident my opinion might be different.

Respectfully, you have it wrong; Alaska (and other states as well) holds its wildlife as a public trust for its residents. It's in our state constitution. The North American Model has nothing to say about nonresidents owning the wildlife of states they don't reside in.

As for the guide outfitters, there are no limits to guides on state lands in Alaska, and many areas are open to all, no draw permit required. With the "must-be-guided" law for nonresidents for sheep, you can imagine how that works out. That is the problem. All nonres sheep hunting in Alaska needs to go to draw only. WSF strongly opposes that, even in areas where sheep numbers have dramatically declined and nonres guided sheep hunters make up majority of the hunters.

 

[Cactus kid]

That is not my understanding of who owns the wildlife in the United States. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (fws.gov)

“In the Unites States, wildlife is considered a public resource, independent of the land or water where wildlife may live. Government at various levels have a role in managing that resource on behalf of all citizens and to ensure the long-term sustainability of wildlife populations.”

I take that to mean they are owned the the public of the United States and managed at the state level.

Residents do get preferential treatment in most states that have a stellar wildlife supply. (Ironically not in my homestate of Texas)

Alaska residents have it pretty nice. I understand why they want more of the pie for themselves. I think resident hunters everywhere need a voice.

Having spoken with many reputable outfitters there seems to be a huge vested interest in the overall health of the resources. I know sheep have been hit hard the past few years because of weather- and I know of a few outfitters that are cutting back their sheep hunts just to help the heard.

Its way too much for a little discussion on a forum. We all want the same thing: more sheep on the mountain and opportunities to chase them!

 

[MattB]

Good organization.

WRT AK, it is the state’s purview on how to allocate opportunity on a R/NR basis. WSF should be expending it’s efforts to increase sheep numbers, not pushing for policy at the state level on who gets to hunt them. IMO the WSF criticism is misguided.

 

[mtnbiker208]

I have been a member off and on for a couple of decades. they are basially a decent group. the grand slam club\ovis; they are not a good group.

 

[Trial153]

Been a member for awhile, I need to up grade to a life time membership shortly. I am also a lifetime member of northeast chapter.
For the most part I think the WSF does a good job . Do I agree with all the organizations positions, no. Same can be said about all the other orgs I belong to . I think the good outweighs the bad and because of that I lend my support when I can