Author Topic: Changes to Sheep Hunting (Read 10629 times)

Lurch · « **Reply #80 on:** March 01, 2013, 12:36:25 PM »

Quote from: MAV on March 01, 2013, 12:28:06 PM

One final thing.

If SRD was on the right path, it should have been defendable with the proper information. So far that has not happened.

You bet - sound data tells it's own story and drives policy.

This Province likes to have policy drive data.....

deerman · « **Reply #81 on:** March 01, 2013, 12:49:44 PM »

Come on duffy, that draft paper is all part and parcel of the problem here. Instead of putting time and energy into that draft managment paper they should have been putting time and energy into getting the data put together and out to the public.

Isn't reviewing the data from 35 years of registering and measuring bighorn rams "getting together data"?

I can see hunters not wanting to loose any hunting opportunities. But when they have that agenda why not say so? It seems to me that instead many drag out all sorts of arguments to rationalize their position.

"Hey where is the proof?" Why hasn't there been public consultation!" "What about the outfitters?"

MAV · « **Reply #82 on:** March 01, 2013, 01:08:31 PM »

Do you have this data? Do you know how it was compiled? Do you know why the data published by Wishart on the same topic which had a different conclusion is being ignored?

I'm not hiding behind my agenda, I do have an agenda, like I say read everything I post on this subject with the understanding that I have a bias. But if they want to play the game of hiding the numbers then I'm sticking to my bias.

Compile and report the data. Simple.

OL_JR · « **Reply #83 on:** March 01, 2013, 05:38:45 PM »

Not going to pretend that I know anywhere near as much as sheep as some guys on here but imho it's a good thing that nothing is changing yet. I've bought into the theory that habitat needs to be looked at first and improved (i.e.prescribed burns). There is to much old growth encroaching on winter habitat at least in the couple places I've hunted and I'm sure there is more.

alkali · « **Reply #84 on:** March 01, 2013, 10:31:09 PM »

Quote from: MAV on March 01, 2013, 12:26:40 PM

Don't confuse me with the guy with the answers I'm as biased as anyone on this issue so consider that when reading anything I post here:

Come on duffy, that draft paper is all part and parcel of the problem here. Instead of putting time and energy into that draft managment paper they should have been putting time and energy into getting the data put together and out to the public.

Hell you were at conference weren't you, word is this exact topic was brought directly to Jim Allen and when asked who these stakeholders are that requested these changes he couldn't name them even when asked was it APOS? No. Was it ABA? No. Was it AFGA? No. Was it WSF? No. So who was it that initiated this.

My sense is that they finally hit the wall, the critiscim was just to much and they have nothing to back up there claims. I truly hope they take a step back organize there effort into getting the info they need to make some decisions and move forward. We all have to be a little thankful for this delay but in the end we are still no closer to fiding out the truth of what is happening with the herd.

I sympathize a lot with SG because he has seen a decline in the number of sheep in his back yard, but to suggest that the problem is because of genetic harm and trophy hunting is ridiculous. To me this one line of reasoning smacks so much of an agenda driven effort by some, makes me want to fight this tooth and nail. Yet we are no closer to understanding why in a couple SMA's we are seeing declining numbers.

The original Sheep Management Plan has the history of sheep hunting and the numbers and quality of the harvest over the years. After the late 40's when hunting was wide open and every ram on the mountain was targeted and after the die offs, there were management changes that among other things went to 4/5 curls and other season reductions ect. The population was around 1500. Genetic harm at its finest. What happened? Numbers increased, trophy quality increased and some of the biggest rams ever harvested where from the period after the darkest days. There was no genetic harm, otherwise were did these book ram genetics find there way back into the smallest recorded herd in Alberta. We are no were near this, in fact we may very well be bumping up against some carrying capacity issues with things like winter range encroachment and predator interactions.

SRD needs to get there bios doing one thing right now, compile your winter surveys and without bias release the numbers. They need to come up with the proper means to compare sheep from 40-50 years ago to todays, they need to make sure when they are measuring sheep that the guys doing it are all doing it the same way, they need to come up with parameters that are valid not some focused points designed to come up with the answers they want. Then we can move forward. After talking with someone I respect very much inside SRD I think that oppurtunity exists and those efforts are being looked at. Hopefully his views will be moved up onto equal footing with the focused view of genetic harm and the elimination of trophy hunting.

Now that is good solid reasoning! You sound well educated in the process.

sheepguide · « **Reply #85 on:** March 02, 2013, 08:08:13 AM »

I agree 100% that the data and research needs to be improved and documented better but this same rhetorical answer hs been going on for the last 10 years! Everytime any mention of change is brought forth people want to wait for better more conclusive data. How frigging long we going to wait?? It documented that rams are taking a year to two years longer to reach the same curl lengths now! As well some areas the numbers of rams at that mature 4/5 curl has decreased. So let's wait another 10 years for more data and more documentation so that hunters aren't being restricted. This province is a joke when it comes to our bighorn hunting.

It is also true that habitat and predators should be tops on the list to help our sheep populations but our regulation also need to be adjusted. Predators is a list cause because it's so political and burns are done every year but still doesn't hit all the spots needed.

Everyone likes to say prove there is a problem with the populations!! There is no problem with populations as a whole. Except for a couple zones populations are stable. Hence why there isn't big pushes to relocate sheep in Alberta. The issue is the percentage of legal rams available each fall has dropped and is the main concern. And no one will beleive the counts done and no matter how, when or who does them if they affect sportsmen negatively they will not be accepted!! As well a big topic is the rams taking longer to reach that length now. Well 30 years of measuring and aging rams I'm sure they have a pretty good trend going!! And probably enough to make a judgment I'd say!

Biggest problem with our bighorns is that Alberta hunters do not look at them as the special low population species that they are. Albertians just think that they are out the we are entitled to hunt them all we want!!! Just like everything take until it's not there to take anymore!! It's a joke!

Lurch · « **Reply #86 on:** March 02, 2013, 09:40:09 AM »

Quote from: sheepguide on March 02, 2013, 08:08:13 AM

I agree 100% that the data and research needs to be improved and documented better but this same rhetorical answer hs been going on for the last 10 years! Everytime any mention of change is brought forth people want to wait for better more conclusive data. How frigging long we going to wait?? It documented that rams are taking a year to two years longer to reach the same curl lengths now! As well some areas the numbers of rams at that mature 4/5 curl has decreased. So let's wait another 10 years for more data and more documentation so that hunters aren't being restricted. This province is a joke when it comes to our bighorn hunting.

It is also true that habitat and predators should be tops on the list to help our sheep populations but our regulation also need to be adjusted. Predators is a list cause because it's so political and burns are done every year but still doesn't hit all the spots needed.

Everyone likes to say prove there is a problem with the populations!! There is no problem with populations as a whole. Except for a couple zones populations are stable. Hence why there isn't big pushes to relocate sheep in Alberta. The issue is the percentage of legal rams available each fall has dropped and is the main concern. And no one will beleive the counts done and no matter how, when or who does them if they affect sportsmen negatively they will not be accepted!! As well a big topic is the rams taking longer to reach that length now. Well 30 years of measuring and aging rams I'm sure they have a pretty good trend going!! And probably enough to make a judgment I'd say!

Biggest problem with our bighorns is that Alberta hunters do not look at them as the special low population species that they are. Albertians just think that they are out the we are entitled to hunt them all we want!!! Just like everything take until it's not there to take anymore!! It's a joke!

We all know you are passionate about sheep and sheep hunting - I respect that.

I also realize you have spent a day or two on the mountain.

I actually don't think we differ a lot on most thoughts relating to sheep and the overall concern for their well being as a species.

You mentioned that the "rhetorical question" of data and research needing to be improved has been going on for 10 years. I would then ask, "what has been done to address the concerns and challenges we have had regarding the data?"

10 years is a long time. And we have some areas that have brand new regulations in place - huge opportunity to learn from them as well. As a matter of fact - I know data exists on some of these areas. Where is the data? Why are they not releasing it?

I can't help but see correlations to the Grizzly Bear - same dire consequence need for regulation - and a real sell job to us based on a crappy data set that was entirely limited in scope. What is happening now? Everyone got interested in the process, new data collection methods (repeated and replicated across the Province). Now what I hear are grumblings that there are far more bears (in certain zones) than the old method that we based a complete season shutdown (in our 8th year now) on told us. My guess is we really should have pushed harder for more quantifiable data then.

The same thing could happen to sheep - especially as it is a low population species, and the vanity that drives everyone's thought they should be able to kill a 190 Ram.

At the end of the day - if we keep on this a bit, hopefully it drives the research we need to address both our concerns.

sheepguide · « **Reply #87 on:** March 02, 2013, 10:12:16 AM »

Biggest difference between the grizz and sheep is the public out cry. Sure studies weren't very accurate back when the grizz season was closed but I also watched the fiasco a couple years ago when they were recounting via bait stations in west central Alberta and I guarantee the study was as flawed as ever but it's all we have for now. The grizz numbers have been increasing in the press and documentation but I honestly feel that has a lot more to do and influence with the problems that have arisen then actual count numbers!

Like you say 10yrs(maybe more) is a long time, but with no concrete data that everyone agrees on what do we do wait another 10yrs until better, more upto date data comes out and shows an even greater problem because no one wanted change or to miss a day in the firld resulting in once in a lifetime tag if your lucky or do we try a few small scale restrictions now? I'd gladly try the shorter season for a year or two. See what it does. Try a few of the worse zones on full curl. See how it goes. A lot better than waiting for a potential bigger problem because no one agrees!

Lurch · « **Reply #88 on:** March 02, 2013, 11:04:12 AM »

Quote from: sheepguide on March 02, 2013, 10:12:16 AM

Biggest difference between the grizz and sheep is the public out cry. Sure studies weren't been accurate back when the grizz season was closed but I also watched the fiasco a couple years ago when they were recounting via bait stations in west central Alberta and I guarantee the study was as flawed as ever but it's all we have for now. The grizz numbers have been increasing in the press and documentation but I honestly feel that has a lot more to do and influence with the problems that have arisen then actual count numbers!

Like you say 10yrs(maybe more) is a long time, but with no concrete data that everyone agrees on what do we do wait another 10yrs until better, more upto date data comes out and shows an even greater problem because no one wanted change or to miss a day in the firld resulting in once in a lifetime tag if your lucky or do we try a few small scale restrictions now? I'd gladly try the shorter season for a year or two. See what it does. Try a few of the worse zones on full curl. See how it goes. A lot better than waiting for a potential bigger problem because no one agrees!

Apex species are subject to political pressure for sure - but remember our Provincial animal is the Bighorn...

And I problems (bear/human) are increasing - but the data collection capacity is improving. They are using trail cams, dna markers and have a far greater number of bears collared. Our understanding is increasing.

And don't get me wrong - if someone came to the table and laid down very well reasoned (open and transparent data sets that were hard to refute) I would be the first to lobby for restrictions to Bighorn hunting and changes to legislation.

I agree with your suggestion of putting a few zones on full curl right now. I think in some of the areas in your back yard would be good candidates. That is my opinion though - and we know how much that is worth.

Down south here we are seeing the results of what full curl restrictions can do. Perhaps that would be a great premise for a research study right there Darcy - pick a couple zones and give it a whirl.

I think what we really need to start doing is putting pressure on SRD to develop robust management plans. And in those we need a component that has well thought out data collection coupled with 5, 10, 20 and 50 year plans. In addition to that - the regional differences need to be studied so we can learn from them. I also think we need to be asking questions as to who looks after each portion of this work - SRD? What is the ACA's role? Other interest groups?. If we really wasn't to drive what is best for the resource, we can accomplish more if we work together here.

I think if nothing else - SRD is learning the hard way that they need their ducks in a row when they try to move changes forward. I think in the end that helps us all out.

sheepguide · « **Reply #89 on:** March 02, 2013, 11:36:49 AM »

I really hope they can come up with some great data but I'm sure thats all a long ways down the road. And with so much pressure for them to do nothing from sportsmen that I'm afraid we have far from seen the worse!! But the masses have spoken and they say they just wanna hunt. So that us what they are going to get! I just hope it isn't the staw that broke the camels back.

And yes it's the provincial animal that people treat as just another deer in the bush!! Pretty disheartening from my eyes!!!

Lurch · « **Reply #90 on:** March 02, 2013, 12:01:28 PM »

Quote from: sheepguide on March 02, 2013, 11:36:49 AM

I really hope they can come up with some great data but I'm sure thats all a long ways down the road. And with so much pressure for them to do nothing from sportsmen that I'm afraid we have far from seen the worse!! But the masses have spoken and they say they just wanna hunt. So that us what they are going to get! I just hope it isn't the staw that broke the camels back.

And yes it's the provincial animal that people treat as just another deer in the bush!! Pretty disheartening from my eyes!!!

Maybe not as long as you think Darcy.

Data exists now that we didn't have 10 years ago - we just haven't be able to see it (and some of it in a new full curl zone). As MAV says - get the data compiled and let us all see it.

And I don't see the "backlash" as you call it relating to sheep hunters who just want to hunt. The majority of the guys that I know that hunt sheep just want what is best for the resource, but they want to be shown that their individual sacrifice is justified, and that they are treated the same as any other consumptive user of the resource.

I am sure going to keep stressing the importance of developing solid and evolving research on Bighorns. And I am pretty optimistic for the future.

sheepguide · « **Reply #91 on:** March 02, 2013, 12:55:57 PM »

I hope you are right bud. If things are heading somewhere positive then great. But in my heart I think waiting for data and before change is the wrong path. Sure a lot is just my opinion but the last presentation I was at my personal thoughts and experiences were backed by what they feel are wrong in a few zones. But we will see I guess how things go.

sheepguide · « **Reply #92 on:** March 02, 2013, 07:38:16 PM »

You do realize Montana has the biggest sheep now due to very limited tags and hunting opertunaty right?? Not because they are Cadomin rams. Cadomin has good rams but are far from the best genetics. All of Alberta would produce world class rams such as Montana with the same regulations as Montana!!! Look at what the Burnt Timber used to produce! Or the Clearwater! On general tags each year book rams were taken regularly and lots of years a 190"+ ram. Now if one or two book rams cones out of between hwy 11 and hwy 1 its a good year. It was one if not the best areas in the world for a big bighorn. And now it may produce 1 or 2 just legal rams a year.

As for the Indians the zones with the biggest issues actually have minimal if any native harvest.

As for moving east it's a possibility but also a risk moving bighorns farther into ranch and farmlands. So as great as it sounds look at some of the big die offs in the states from this same thing. We have a lot of sheep area in the mountains and like has been shown overall populations aren't the issue and increasing the population could possibly over graze their already small feeding areas.

MAV · « **Reply #93 on:** March 04, 2013, 08:20:24 PM »

SG you've made some great points and your post will allow me to address why I've been against what SRD has been trying to do with sheep management in the past few years.

I've always said I'll be your biggest supporter on change if it can be shown why a particular change is needed. So what did we get. We got the data presented in that power point presentation that I'm sure you refer to farther down in the thread. I've gone through that power point and to me there is at best misrepresentation and at worst lieing about what's going on.

Page 34 of that presentation shows a graph of mature rams by SMA that survive after hunting season. The sheep management plan states 5% is the goal. In that graph all but 2 or 3 SMA's are below the 5% level and the ones that are above the level have notes suggesting that in recent years these numbers have been dropping. No other notes for any of the other zones. Sounds scary doesn't it. Well what they fail to tell you on that graph is that those numbers are based on a 40 year average. In those years virtually every southern zone went through at least one die off. SMA 1 had years with 0 retention of mature rams. Sounds horrible. We need to do somethng about this. But the reality of what's happening on the ground is something different. This year the flights over 400 showed levels well above the 5% level. Well above.

You also where shown the 35 year horn size averages. Smaller rams are being harvested, takes longer for them to reach mature size. Well I'll concede these numbers for now, although I'll reserve my judgement on there validity, but what was proposed as the cause is genetic harm. Hunters were the cause. Yet the same area where this genetic harm stuff came from, Ram Mt., is the same place where it was shown how managing a herd at just below optimum carring capacity would produce the healthiest most robust, largest sheep. Now that isn't how they manage that herd and the herd now is in decline in all aspects. Yet this is being ignored.

Finally the people that were put in charge of coming up with these drafts and power points and suggestions of harm are all the same people that have stated that they want to see an end to trophy hunting. At least they backed away from this for now and only want to put the province on draw.

In my opinion right now we have an oppurtunity to get this right. Flights have been completed across this province this year. Plans are in place to get accurate horn measuring for harvested rams on a consistant basis across the province. A process of measuring horns a lot like they have in the Yukon is being proposed by some in SRD. Hopefully, some thoughtful minds step back get there heads wrapped around the issue and do this right. Hopefully they keep their biases out of the data and their conclusions, they look at the options available to them and they make sound management proposals based on the raw data. There are many options available other than going to a draw, yet that is always SRD's fall back position. Gate closures, road closures, full curl limits, prescribed burns (of which there have been very few), increased wait times, shorter seasons. Nothing should be off the table once we have unbiased data.

Finally I think you've nailed it when you say we don't appreciate these animals. We have to quit with the "Any legal sheep is a good sheep" mentality.

MAV · « **Reply #94 on:** March 04, 2013, 08:26:48 PM »

One more point I'd like to make is that, with this delay by SRD we can't just think we've won. As has being pointed out there are things that need to be addressed and regardless we have something incredibly rare in this world that we need to protect.

The same groups that did so much to help put the brakes on this issue are going to need to keep hearing from concerned people on the directions we will need to go once we have a better handle on this. Is the answer full curl accross the province do we need to manage the herds on limited access and gate closures, do we just run with what we have; do we have the stones to do what is needed and appropriate for the herd. The hard part is just starting with regards to this issue.

sheepguide · « **Reply #95 on:** March 04, 2013, 09:30:39 PM »

For sure Mav a lot is vague on their numbers, for the most part but they should have solid info on age data for rams. They should have proof on how age change has increased or decreased for lamb tipped rams harvested! What is the reason I agree is very unconclusive! As for count numbers of 4/5 curl rams that survive hunting season? Well that numbers is drastically flawed in many zones bordering parks and sanctuaries! These zones are counted in the winter when many sheep from the parks and sanctuaries. A lot of ram migrate to the province for the winter so this can throw numbers way up.

As for the ram mountain stuff well I won't get into that as its a sore spot of mine. Isolated herd. No migration of other genetics from other areas. Larger predator harvest due to isolation(large cougar harvest), native harvest hit herd hard on hwy 11 after Cadomin transplant. Large public access via atv but next to no hunting pressure. Not my idea of great test subjects but that's an in educated persons opinion!

Author Topic: Changes to Sheep Hunting (Read 10629 times)

Lurch

Re: Changes to Sheep Hunting

deerman

Re: Changes to Sheep Hunting

MAV

Re: Changes to Sheep Hunting

OL_JR

Re: Changes to Sheep Hunting

alkali

Re: Changes to Sheep Hunting

sheepguide

Re: Changes to Sheep Hunting

Lurch

Re: Changes to Sheep Hunting

sheepguide

Re: Changes to Sheep Hunting

Lurch

Re: Changes to Sheep Hunting

sheepguide

Re: Changes to Sheep Hunting

Lurch

Re: Changes to Sheep Hunting

sheepguide

Re: Changes to Sheep Hunting

sheepguide

Re: Changes to Sheep Hunting

MAV

Re: Changes to Sheep Hunting

MAV

Re: Changes to Sheep Hunting

sheepguide

Re: Changes to Sheep Hunting