2012 wild sheep banquet!!!!

[sheepguide]

Thought this was a neat bit of info from the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council,

"Percent of Ram 8+ Years Old at Harvest
The percent of rams that were 8 years old or older at harvest ranged from 30-73%, with a mean of 51%. The lowest percentages were in Wyoming (28%) and Alberta (41%) and highest in New Mexico (78%) and Texas (64%). It was noted that California bighorn rams (race not state) rarely live to be 8 years old and therefore this may not have been the appropriate cut-off age to delineate ‘mature’ rams for that race of bighorn".

SG

[Pottymouth]

Without the year by year data, there's no way any clear conclusion can be made. hopefully SRD stays true to their word and gives us that data ! Averages are not enough to go by!

There also has to be some sort of % error, with the measuring and aging! Anyone who has harvested a sheep can attest to the fact , that even F&W officers don't always agree with themselves, the hunter and club measurers.

We need toknow if their airial surveys are done every year? at the sametime? And what area's are they actually surveying when they do go out? are they whole zones or " traditional " wintering ranges?

[sheepguide]

Very true Potty. I just emailed Jim Allen on a couple of the topics you brought up so if I get a response I'll be sure to forward it.

[walking buffalo]

SG,

 The summary provided by F&W has never shown the 2011 Legal Ram percentages by SMA. This is part of the data Jim promised to forward.

 I have some of the 2011 survey data, and it contradicts the claim that ram %'s are below the 5% mark in several SMAs. From the data I have (incomplete), only SMA 4b, 4c, and 5 show a lower than desired legal ram population.

Regarding the horn size issue, the devil is in the details. F&W's generic desription of increasing/stable/ or decreasing does not give any relevant information. For example, if the data shows that horn size in a SMA has decreased by 1%, with a 1% margin of error, it will still be summarized as a decrease. Are we really debating a genetic concern over a 1% issue?  Again, F&W must provide the data so that this can be discussed intelligently. Hopefully Jim follows through with his promise to release the data requested.

[sheepguide]

Well if you have the numbers to show population to show an above 5% legal ram population feel free to show it as the info I've been told stated they believe something else . Two years of studies that have been explained at the Sheep seminars have indicated that numbers are below the number they wish and I beleive that is 5%. That is based on each years counts not on a 30yr average. So by what your saying is you have prooof that what they are saying is false. Im sure all the people would love to see what you have even if incomplete.

And tell me this Buff how many rams counted in the winter are never in hunt able areas in hunting season. You are a smart man and claim to know sheep and sheep habitat so you know that many mature rams( in many areas could bump huntable population in a single SMA  20 to 30 legal rams easily), young rams and alot of ewes along all the parks winter in the open season areas. These sheep start moving near the end of October. Thus they are being included in counts no matter if they say they don't count park sheep as most of these sheep are back on summer ranges in the parks prior to fall . And if you want to play the numbers game this could drop the actual number of hunt able sheep that are in many zones. So you have been beating the drum of their numbers maybe showing a higher percentage of the population but intern could also show if a count could be done mid summer that the numbers are way high due to winter migrations. So really no matter what is said there is an agument against either side of the equation.

So personally instead of waiting for the stars to align and all numbers and peoples ideas to match I'll go for a full curl or longer wait instead of sitting around for numbers to agree with what many many dedicated hunters are seeing get worse each season in many Zones. Because if a person isnt carfule on the arguing and BS calling towards there numbers we will end up seeing a full province wide draw being implemented. Cause I guarantee changes are coming its just how much are they going to affect us getting in the field. They are convinced on the problem so we should be able to give a little to show we as hunters are willing to work with them. Then get on all your fellow hunters and trappers to get on the predator problem and see what we can do as its a long fight before anything else will be done in those regaurds.

[sheepguide]

Oh and you bring up the SMA 4b and 4c. I suggest in some of your digging you see what sheep managment zones are producing the highest percentages of rams each year. Even just these two WMU's being low can have a pretty big influence on overall harvests. The last time I heard 420, 422 are two of the highest ram harvest zones in Alberta (and along with 438 hold the highest hunter activity in the province and that is why they were originaly the 3 of concern and wouldnt doubt if additional full curl zones are implemented will be the ones chosen). Add in the remaining zones in these SMA and the overal harvest numbers are getting up there in the total sheep harvest for the province. A decrease here is more dramatic than the same decrease in many other managment units. You cant compare each zone equally as they are not all the same size or have anywhere near the same types of pressure. Look at the total population numbers 4B and 4C have a combined total of 1540 sheep where SMA 1,2,3 and 4A combined only have 1833 sheep. So if 4b is down 2% huntable rams its going to be a bigger deal than if SMA 2 is.


The biggest screw up could possibly be that they wont do the changes province wide. Put bigger restrictions or any such changes on these zones with large hunting pressure and many many guys will just move the area they hunt to take in more lenient restrictions. That could down the road really affect hunting in the zones that remain the same. Im sure you all will love an even bigger influx of sheep hunters heading into K-Country!

[MAV]

Without putting words in anyone's mouth I would suggest that we are all in the same camp when it comes to adressing the issues facing the sheep herd. The difference here is that up til just a short time ago the push coming from SRD was to place draw restrictions on a good numbers of zones to correct a problem that was been suggested was caused by hunters messing with the genetics of the herd. Over many debates (not by hunters check out the Goat and sheep Council Proceedings around '04) but rather by managers, the split was that Genetic selection by hunters was the problem, or poor overall management through predation, winter range degradation ect. ect. where the problem. After Bill Wishart retired the new heads changed the regime to limit the number of hunters, whereas Wishart choose managing herd size to match carring capacity. His course showed success and if the Cadomin herd does start to decline here in the next couple years his way will be proven to be even more in line with what is actually happening on the ground. Unfortunately the move that was being taken would have limited all of us as a draw was the answer they were looking for, an answer that may have had more to do with limiting the number of hunters than it did with improving the herd. If that is the case the numbers have to be revealed to the public without that there would always be suspicion, who knows maybe they are right but the debate has to happen especially considering what sheep hunters will be giving up.

I think the debate and the questions that have been asked by many have opened up the eyes of more of the managers in SRD to the real issues and not just the agendas.

SG I'm with you I think the province as a whole has been let down by not putting the whole province on full curl. This was the strategy proven to work and yield the easiest hunter management and producing the healthiest herd (Geist, Stelfox, Heimer). Again without putting words in anyones mouth I would suggest that we are all in agreement that a full curl will make the most of the herd, and in fact might open up even more hunting oppurtunities by way of managing the herd to fit the carring capacity which would mean increases in non trophy harvests (a tangent probably best left for another day).

At any rate I suspect that changes are coming hopefully they balance the changes needed for the herd to match the needs of the hunting community and I think a full curl requirement will meet those needs.n(Along with habitat improvements, predator control and limiting winter range competition).

[walking buffalo]

SG,

 Regarding Ram %s. Review the PP carefully. SMA summaries show that sma 1 is at 10% legal rams (4/5 curl), sma 2 is historically surveyed as low, many of these rams winter in BC, outside of the survey area. Sma 3 is at 6%. Sma 4a was surveyed in 2011 to be at 5.4% legal rams.  sma 4b is at 6.1%. sma 4c was not given a recent number. sma 5 is also a traditionally poor ram% survey. sma 6 Cadomin. sma 7 & 8 are at 4.7 and 4.9, these areas are managed under a desired 4% ram % in the Alberta Bighorn Sheep Management Plan.

These numbers show the irrelevance of the Legal Ram average (71-2011) graph.

To have a productive dialogue, F&W must release the survey and horn data. I don't know a single hunter that is not willing to work with F&W, but this very difficult to do when F&W will not show their cards. This is not a game, hunters should not be played.


MAV,

 Coltman, Bianchet, Hogg, Jorgenson, et al, have never proven a genetic shift within the Ram mountain herd, let alone a genetic shift caused by selective hunting (curl restrictions). There has never been any evidence to show any genetic disruption to huntable herds that are connected to park herds. Within these unfounded claims lays the agenda.

 These same researchers have published a position statement that they want ALL big game to be on a draw, with very limited hunting of mature animals. This is the agenda. Jorgenson does not have the support of most F&W bios in the claim genetics is being harmed by hunting. I suspect that there are many within F&W that desire the horn size issue to fade away.

--------------

There is no crisis in our sheep herds. Hunting of rams based on a 4/5 curl restriction does NOT reduce herd reproductivity. To sound an alarm for urgent action or face the wrath of decreased sheep populations is folly, and counterproductive.


I have not made any other stance other than that F&W must publically provide the data on OUR Bighorn sheep. Then we can get down to the business of managing the health of our sheep. 

[nube]

Can we have the best of both world?  Maybe a draw for 4/5 curl and general for full curl?  That way everyone gets to hunt sheep and size will increase.

[Pottymouth]

I agree with you WB!

Too sit here and contemplate solutions, or attempting to fix a problem that has yet to have proven it's merit, is playing into their hands! The hidden agenda that some of these bios have is unknown!

Without having the data we need, making these rash decisions and comforming to their views doesn't help hunting in Alberta or the sheep!

There are bios on both sides of the fence, and we need to see the data first to determine who is right.

Only the data ,will prove if we need to put up a fight against or for, either way, as a untied community for the better of the sheep is what we all want. We just have to be Leary of hidden agendas.

[MAV]

MAV,

 Coltman, Bianchet, Hogg, Jorgenson, et al, have never proven a genetic shift within the Ram mountain herd, let alone a genetic shift caused by selective hunting (curl restrictions). There has never been any evidence to show any genetic disruption to huntable herds that are connected to park herds. Within these unfounded claims lays the agenda.

 These same researchers have published a position statement that they want ALL big game to be on a draw, with very limited hunting of mature animals. This is the agenda. Jorgenson does not have the support of most F&W bios in the claim genetics is being harmed by hunting. I suspect that there are many within F&W that desire the horn size issue to fade away.

--------------

There is no crisis in our sheep herds. Hunting of rams based on a 4/5 curl restriction does NOT reduce herd reproductivity. To sound an alarm for urgent action or face the wrath of decreased sheep populations is folly, and counterproductive.


I have not made any other stance other than that F&W must publically provide the data on OUR Bighorn sheep. Then we can get down to the business of managing the health of our sheep.
[/quote]

Point taken, its just that easy for my own opinions to cloud this issue and you are probably right this opinion has as much validity here as does putting the province on a draw based on no real data. Als I should have known better about the genetic shift issues, which should bring me back to the original point which is to get the correct up to date info. Without it we don't know "if" there is a problem and we certainly don't know what to do about it.

[sheepguide]

SG,

 Regarding Ram %s. Review the PP carefully. SMA summaries show that sma 1 is at 10% legal rams (4/5 curl), sma 2 is historically surveyed as low, many of these rams winter in BC, outside of the survey area. Sma 3 is at 6%. Sma 4a was surveyed in 2011 to be at 5.4% legal rams.  sma 4b is at 6.1%. sma 4c was not given a recent number. sma 5 is also a traditionally poor ram% survey. sma 6 Cadomin. sma 7 & 8 are at 4.7 and 4.9, these areas are managed under a desired 4% ram % in the Alberta Bighorn Sheep Management Plan.

These numbers show the irrelevance of the Legal Ram average (71-2011) graph.

 

The power point you forwarded  has the average percentage of rams at or over 4/5curl at the following,

Westcastle/Yarrow - 2.8% average with an increase to 10% after fullcurl. (10% does not indicate % of huntable population just 4/5+)

Livingstone - 1.4% average increasing slightly over last decade.

Kananaskis - 4.1%average peaked in 1995 at 9.8% and is now 6%.

Bow Valley/ Ghost - 3.8% average  peaked in the late 80s

Clearwater/Ram - 6.1% average peaked in the late 80s but average % since 2000 is 3.4%

Nordegg/Chungo - 3.9% average peaked in the late 80s

Ram Mountain/Shunda - 2.3% average but traditionaly poor

Cadomin - 13% average due to mine

Wilmore - 4.7% average stable at goal

Torrens - 4.9% small sample population so its variable



Just remember the numbers you are trying to quote take in the peak years in the 80's( they were also killing 60 - 100 more rams a year threw this time)and if just averaged over the last 20yrs or so like they have for the Clearwater/Ram gives you alot more accurate look as its average has dropped 50% since 2000. Even including the peak years a few zones fall short so take them peak year out of the average would im sure lower in a few more areas.

Saying that one zone in the south is at 10% makes things look all peachy but in reality what is the huntable population that is over full curl in that area because it isnt 10% that is the rams over 4/5 not full curl? Proof that full curl allows more 4/5curl rams to survive in a population and that it could possibly be hunters causing any declines( if there are any) in just legal 4/5 rams. As if it was enviromental changes or predators it should remain constant not be increasing with hunters being the only controled actions. Hunters have been controlled to harvest only longer horned rams and it has increased the percentage of the population reaching that 4/5 age structure.

And just like SMA 2 having a low average and you say that sheep winter in BC here, well many of the SMA's of Alberta have an influx from the parks so like you tried to represent SMA 2 there as why numbers could be low these other areas could be getting alot higher counts for just the opposite reasons. Huntable populations cannot be counted until only the resident sheep herds are on the late summer areas. Winter counts can miss or include many sheep that migrate from range to range at this time of the year. A mid to late summer count is the only true way to tell what your actuall huntable population is.

My observations on the numbers I have seen so if you have more detailed % numbers Buff id love to see them but from the ones I have seen there is issues in a few zones and im personal glad there is some changes coming in a couple areas. Ive personaly seen the declines in a few areas and would hate to just wait for more conclusive numbers we could agree on.

SG

[walking buffalo]

See Sheep, the summary is a collage of numbers compiled to make a picture, not a true data-set that can be disussed logically before drinking a keg.

The numbers I quoted are 2011 survey numbers, except for 4b. You can see the survey results for the north at the ACA website, and I have the survey for Kananaskis/Bow Ghost. The combined survey for sma 3 and 4a counted a legal ram population of 5.4%.

The sheep plan suggest 5% legal rams (based on 4/5 curl) in the post-hunting season survey. This ram % is for breeding purposes, NOT for hunting, your comment about Huntable rams is not relevant to the issue of age composition in the Ram population for breeding purposes.  It does not matter to the breeding herd's composition if the survey includes park rams.

SMA 1 surveyed 10% 4/5 curl rams in 2011. The number of full curl rams is not relevant to breeding purposes. The 5% number is Not about Huntable populations.

Are you suggesting that if other areas are brought under full curl regulations that they also be subjected to a desired 5% Full curl requirment?



I have said all along that from the incomplete data that I have been able to aquire, there may be a legal ram % concern in sma 4b and 4c. If this proves to be true, and F&W has the data, but hasn't shared it yet, then lets deal with the situation there.

To suggest a provincewide hunting regulation change for sheep due to a localized issue makes as much sense as changing hunting seasons province wide if there is a concern for Mule deer bucks in a few wmus.

[sheepguide]

The biggest thing your missing Buff is that the few zones that are of concern hold a very high percentage of hunters. I'd be willing to bet it would be close to 40 - 50% of all the sheep hunter man days in the field in Alberta. I realize and have said its limited zones that need attention but they are also by far the largest with only limiting these areas you will have a large influx of guys out of these controled zones especially over the first 5 years. That influx of sheep hunters to them other smaller  zones could really affect them areas. With out a province wide change you boys in K-country and Willmore could see a big change and dent in hunting there!

Oh and you have yet to post all these numbers you have. Not everyone has the time to scour the Internet for info so to get everyone on the same page as you please post up the numbers and sources. It could help people all get on the same page!

SG

[sheepguide]

Funny how you say its all about breeding population of rams. I have yet to hear that term once at any of the meetings concerning changes.
The second  part is they seem pretty concerned that its taking rams in some areas a year or 2 longer to reach the 4/5min. To me if its a breeding ram situation that would be a bonus!!!! More years to reach that level equals older breeding herd!
SG

[sheepguide]

The numbers I quoted are 2011 survey numbers, except for 4b. You can see the survey results for the north at the ACA website, and I have the survey for Kananaskis/Bow Ghost. The combined survey for sma 3 and 4a counted a legal ram population of 5.4%.

The northern survey numbers I find on ACA dont narrow results down to how many 4/5 rams per zone or SMA since there are 2 SMA in the count. They have a total number for the total survey area but since Cadomin and all the mines have a very high ram base and  is in the numbers that number will be significantly less if the mines in the zones are taken from the equations!

SMA 1 surveyed 10% 4/5 curl rams in 2011. The number of full curl rams is not relevant to breeding purposes. The 5% number is Not about Huntable populations.

The 5% does affect huntable populations as that is the number determining huntable populations. Doesnt determin breeding populations it determins if there are a justafiable number of sheep to hold a hunt. They have never said a number of breeding rams they need to sustain the herd just the number of rams they need to sustain hunters and still have rams left. So yes 5% is about huntable populations!!!!

To suggest a provincewide hunting regulation change for sheep due to a localized issue makes as much sense as changing hunting seasons province wide if there is a concern for Mule deer bucks in a few wmus.

Size of hunting area makes a big difference between mule deer and sheep. If alberta was all general mule deer and you restrict close to 50% of the area hunted but leave the rest open you will have a huge hunter volume increase in the open areas and alot higher pressure on the available animals. Now put this same scenario on sheep and it has an even larger affect. So yes to avoid hurting other smaller areas regulation changes do need to be implemented province wide but many guys are blinded by there not wanting there area changed.