Author Topic: Changes to Sheep Hunting (Read 10631 times)

340 · « **on:** November 21, 2012, 07:42:16 AM »

Sound like they are going to shorten the season by 10 days for both residents and non-residents. Rumor has it that the season will end around October 20 now. Also making the wait periods longer. Next step is going to full curl.

sheepguide · « **Reply #1 on:** November 21, 2012, 08:33:57 AM »

Here is the respons I got a few weeks ago,

Darcy
as an update on regulations we are taking an adaptive management approach, we are proposing to shorten the season by 10 days with it ending about October 20th and we will monitor that for a few years to see if we can meet our management goals for surviving legal rams. We think this may be effective to achieving those goals and will have the least impact on hunting opportunity. We will monitor this for a few years and if it does not appear to be working then we will propose more full curl area.

Jim Allen
Head, Game and Priority Species
Wildlife Management Branch
9920 108 Street
Edmonton. T5K 2M4
Tel 780-427-4194,
Fax 780-422-9557
Cell 780-233-6963
James.Allen@gov.ab.ca

340 · « **Reply #2 on:** November 21, 2012, 12:52:22 PM »

Apparently they are also thinking about possibly changing the rule on your second ram, so your second ram would have to be full curl.

Not a terrible idea to be honest.

The shortened season will have a big effect on numbers killed IMO. I would have to imagine that APOS would be opposed to this.

MAV · « **Reply #3 on:** November 21, 2012, 04:11:37 PM »

I got the same reply from Jim late last week.

It is interesting that these changes are still being proposed yet there is still no information or data available to back up the notion that there is a defineable issue. Jim says they will monitor the progress of these changes yet there still hasn't been any background data given out.

Without having the background information it really is difficult to support any changes. SRD or whatever they are called these days, needs to give up the data they have that they are basing these changes on, otherwise we are basically allowing whatever interest that is driving these changes to supersede good science and the interests of hunters.

I've seen a response from Pat Long on this topic as well and it mirrors these concerns. If anyone is in contact with him I'm sure he would pass it along.

It would be interesting to see what AFGA has to say about all of this considering they are also at the table of AGMAG. I think they should have had plenty of time to come up with a position on this issue.

ovis40 · « **Reply #4 on:** November 24, 2012, 08:31:43 PM »

Quote from: 340 on November 21, 2012, 12:52:22 PM

Apparently they are also thinking about possibly changing the rule on your second ram, so your second ram would have to be full curl.

Not a terrible idea to be honest.

No, it is a terrible idea! There are areas where 8+ year old rams will never be full curl. My first and only ram so far is full curl so what will my reward be? Will they let me go and shoot a 5 year old ram that is boarder line legal? Ha...wouldn't happen because I don't believe in shooting dink rams. But if I saw a ram that was old and broomed and/or broken off legal....ya that might be my second ram!
SRD can't manage a sack of hammer handles let alone OUR wildlife!!

GUNBUILDER · « **Reply #5 on:** November 27, 2012, 10:02:12 PM »

in a way im glad this is all they are going to do.it could have been alot worse.unfortunately by shortening the season you can expect alot more footrace sheephunting as the areas will become more crowded with a shortened season.its a lose lose situation.until srd is ready to tackle the real problems like the predator situation and encrouchment of wintering areas the situation will worsen over time

Pottymouth · « **Reply #6 on:** November 27, 2012, 11:24:57 PM »

I heard you get a once in a lifetime 4/5th ram, and the rest have to be full curl. The shortening of the season is gonna save alot of rams, especially the ones near roads!

I hope that someone like the ABA get on there horse if this proposal is for real, and they push to have the last 10 days in Oct, turn into an archery season! They would be dumb not to try.....

340 · « **Reply #7 on:** November 28, 2012, 09:04:02 AM »

I don't Justin, where there's smoke there's fire and this bad boy is smoking like crazy. A lot of people have gotten the same info that I have posted here in direct emails from people that are involved in the decision making.

There is changes coming, warranted or not. It's good to stay informed.

I hope you will share your info when you receive it.

sheepguide · « **Reply #8 on:** November 28, 2012, 10:13:24 AM »

Well state your source Justin!! Jim Allen is very involved in this and I'm sure would have a bit of an idea. If you have documents post them up don't just discredit!

Guido · « **Reply #9 on:** November 28, 2012, 10:25:52 AM »

Yup, put your info on here. Gives people time to think about it if it turns out true. There was a certain person that held back much info during the open spaces B.S. Not a good idea.

walking buffalo · « **Reply #10 on:** November 28, 2012, 11:47:26 AM »

AF&W is quite adamant that restrictive changes to sheep hunting must be established immediately as part of their "adaptive management approach" to increase the post hunting season ram population.

The WSF, SCI NAb and APOS are against any changes at this time due a belief that AF&W has NOT shown that there is a problem at present. What is the position of the ABA, AFGA?

After speaking with Jim Allen at lenght a couple of weeks ago, I am still left with some great concerns regarding the "what and why" of these changes.

Unfortunately, Jim is away until next month, so further communication before the next AGMAG meeting is not likely to happen.

I feel that hunters would be taking the bait by dicussing the merits of proposed changes. The discussion should remain at the level of requesting AF&W to reveal the data proving that there is a problem.

Did AF&W perform a complete Aerial survey of Bighorn sheep in 2012?
What are the results of these surveys?

Spefically where is there a concern with low Legal ram populaitons?

What is the desired Legal ram population for each SMA?

Has a comparison between Hunter harvested Rams vs. Aerial survey results been compiled for each SMA?
What are the results of this comparison?

Wouldn't it be interesting to learn that Ram harvest rates show more rams are being killed than the surveys say are there?

sheepguide · « **Reply #11 on:** November 28, 2012, 01:53:36 PM »

And really Justin if some one shows there is an issue it's shot down anyways for being done wrong. Sure your CO buddy said that but I can point you in the direction of a couple of CO's that say ther is an issue as well as some park wardens that say in a few places the big numbers of rams are just not there. Thats just personal opinions. Really means shit as moat COs have no clue what is going in province wide and very few have an actual grasp on population numbers. It all comes down to the fact that no matter what is done some people just won't be happy. There are zones that have issues. It's fact!! To just control a few sheep zones will only hurt the rest. So push for nothing to be done where you hunt and when them problem zones are restricted and we all flock to the other areas you best not be the first guy crying because there are so many guys out there.
And if your buddy has such influential standing he should be willing to listen to the public on there ideas. Jim Allen has been bringing this to public speaking and such and is very mich involved in the decision making! At least he is man enough to speak with the public on it! I don't have much faith in a source that need to hide and not say anything!! Change is coming whether the wannabe sheep gurus like Walking Buff think there's an issue. There are obviously enough that think it's an issue that it's gunna change.

340 · « **Reply #12 on:** November 28, 2012, 02:23:36 PM »

A draw would be devastating to our hunting opportunities. Shaving off the last 10 days of the season will take opportunity as well, but not as bad as the draw. Like Darcy said, change is coming, whether we feel it warranted or not, something is going to happen. I'm not saying that hunters should just bend over and take whatever, but it's a good idea to get out in front of this and be heard.

340 · « **Reply #13 on:** November 28, 2012, 03:06:01 PM »

Quote from: JustinC on November 28, 2012, 03:01:22 PM

Shortening it by ten days is a joke. I want to see all outfitter tags gone before any thing changes for residents. There is plenty of data stating NR kill alot.

I would too, but I think we both know that's just not realistic.

GUNBUILDER · « **Reply #14 on:** November 28, 2012, 05:13:48 PM »

the local fish cops are saying the same thing as you are darcy.i do believe it is a done deal.

GUNBUILDER · « **Reply #15 on:** November 28, 2012, 10:02:39 PM »

the stakeholders?can vote all they want.it will be taken under advisement and then they will shorten the season afterwards.unfortunately wild sheep,fish and game,etc. can only give proposals to upper management.ultimately the upper management and biologists have the final say.dont think for one second that the co,s dont have a ton of stroke with upper management with these kinds of decisions.

MAV · « **Reply #16 on:** November 28, 2012, 10:25:29 PM »

Well the internal politics aside, the whole issue at this point is where is the data. If as they say there is a problem then it should be an easy sell by releasing the numbers. But it seems that there is a fair bit of self interest involved when you consider that jorgensen, hubbs and coltman seem to be the only voices being listened to.

Without the data we!re not even sure what if anything the problem might be. It has been well over a year since people have been asking for the data and it still isn't available if these changes are so important they have to be based on something so what is it?

At this point jim is supposedly bringing this to the next agmag meeting in early december. The members are at this time going to voice there concerns and try to convince him to reconsider. I suggest that you voice your concerns as well and don't just make suggestions for changes but demand the information and data they've used to come to their conclusions. Without that info we are not making good decisions based on knowledge.

GUNBUILDER · « **Reply #17 on:** November 28, 2012, 10:32:28 PM »

justin i understand your feelings on the matter,believe me when i say we are on the same page with alot of this.unfortunately change is in the wind and if history repeats itself the deal is already done.

Lurch · « **Reply #18 on:** November 29, 2012, 10:01:47 AM »

Walking Buffalo and Mav have highlighted the real concern here folks. Don't get into subjective discussions when you speak with Jim Allen or your MLA. Concentrate on these points:

WHERE IS THE DATA THAT SUGGESTS THERE IS AN ISSUE?
HAS THIS DATA BEEN SCRUTINIZED AND IS IT RELIABLE?
WHAT DOES THE DATA TELL YOU?

This whole deal stinks to me.

walking buffalo · « **Reply #19 on:** December 01, 2012, 11:22:12 AM »

The latest of many varying hunting regulation change proposals has been released. See the attached pdf.

[attachment deleted 180 days old]

Author Topic: Changes to Sheep Hunting (Read 10631 times)

340

340

Pottymouth

340

Guido

340

340