Changes coming for sheep hunting in 2011?

[Rocks]

Originally Posted by depopulator

Similar to many (if not all?) US states, putting non-resident sheep tags on draw would be done in conjunction with reducing or eliminating outfitter allocations and therefore, the monopoly that select outfitters currently hold in Alberta. Let the NR draw by unit, and allow them to select an outfitter/guide, whichever is most suited to the NR hunter, not the other way around. This would allow average Joe NR to hunt sheep here, and remove the highest bidder/seller (read:$$) from equation/politics of sheep management in Alberta.

Nice, I like it.

[pika]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

What is there to gain by putting NR on draw. If there are say 50 tags allocated for non residents, who cares who gets them?

Currently over 80 non-resident bighorn sheep licenses are sold, this number will not be reduced to 50 as non-resident sheep allocations are guaranteed. If the sheep tags are not purchased by the ones with the cash as it currently stands my concern is the outfitting industry may suffer less income as the outfitter will not be able to charge as much to guide due to competition from all guides in the province rather than the current monopoly which gaurantees certain outfitters their allocations.

Alberta would probably get some poor sucker who can't afford the 18 thousand for the hunt coming up here to hunt sheep if non-residents were put on draw, who wants that?? Right now there are clients that pay good come up year after year and can pay top dollar and this limits alberta sheep to those who actually have the cash and keeps the ones who can't pay out of the line up. Where's the benefit of allowing some average Joe to hunt sheep in Alberta.

Wouldn't it be more acceptable to put residents on draw (as Ishootbambi and many others are pushing for) and limit residents to 1 to 3 tags per WMU which will allow for better non-resident hunting. Then due to demand for these tags by residents the residents themselves will likely hire a guide to ensure they cash in on there once in a lifetime tag!! Right now the problem with taking a resident out (even though some can afford to pay) is that they learn where to go and they become competition, if on draw this wouldn't happen.

Non-residents only account for 25 to 30 percent of the total trophy sheep harvest what would it hurt to increase this number to say 50 percent, it'll be easier once sheep are on draw for residents so you really have to ask yourself as Sheephunter says "What is there to gain by putting NR on draw".

While I appreciate that some of that was toungue in cheek pika...correct me if I'm wrong, but last year all of the NR sheep tags didn't sell, thus reducing the number of NR hunters. A draw for NR hunters would guarantee all the tags would be used. With that said, I agree 100% with those that said allocations need to be cut if resident opportunity is reduced.

[sheepguide]

As for the OP... the ram mountain area needs to be closed. Its not a huntable population.

As for 326. It doesnt need to be closed. There are few rams taken out of there and few hunters actually "Hunt" it.

As for the changes coming. Ive heard a recent rumor that Sheep changes may have been put off till 2012 but we will see.
Looks like they are more trying to control hunter numbers and focus on the zones with the highest hunter presure. That is the reason that the first zones being brought up are 438,422and 420. There have been numbers flying around for these zones that of the rams that reach legal length that season, up to 80% of them die that year(not solid numbers but numbers that are out there).
By slowing down the hunter numbers they figure sheep will be able to reach a more mature age and in the long run end up with a larger huntable ram population. Guess we will see.
SG

[crazyfish]

By closing areas, or putting them on draws because they are the "busy" areas, this would only serve to push these hunters into other zones ? Correct, ? I don't think that they would only hunt those zones, so they move elsewhere and the cycle continues. Is there a true solution to this problem, and does one exist that needs to be fixed ?
I can see that closing Ram mountain is/ may be required. But looking at some of those numbers and the amount of unclassified animals in a count is a fairly large portion and could definetly swing the percentages of "legal" rams ! Tough sell to residents if we are losing areas,more areas,(parks etc) and the NR allocations aren't ! But that is income money= taxes, so its not in the gov't favor to deminish their income !

Why isn't the srd following the plan that they had laid out, a plan to follow is always better than stumbling around in the dark ???

[sheepguide]

[QUOTE=crazyfish;785082]By closing areas, or putting them on draws because they are the "busy" areas, this would only serve to push these hunters into other zones ? Correct, ? I don't think that they would only hunt those zones, so they move elsewhere and the cycle continues. QUOTE]

I agree 100%. Doesnt make sense to me, just what seems to keep coming to the table. To me if they are going to do something then they need it to blanket the province.
SG

[garand]

Originally Posted by pika

Currently over 80 non-resident bighorn sheep licenses are sold, this number will not be reduced to 50 as non-resident sheep allocations are guaranteed. If the sheep tags are not purchased by the ones with the cash as it currently stands my concern is the outfitting industry may suffer less income as the outfitter will not be able to charge as much to guide due to competition from all guides in the province rather than the current monopoly which gaurantees certain outfitters their allocations.

Alberta would probably get some poor sucker who can't afford the 18 thousand for the hunt coming up here to hunt sheep if non-residents were put on draw, who wants that?? Right now there are clients that pay good come up year after year and can pay top dollar and this limits alberta sheep to those who actually have the cash and keeps the ones who can't pay out of the line up. Where's the benefit of allowing some average Joe to hunt sheep in Alberta.

Wouldn't it be more acceptable to put residents on draw (as Ishootbambi and many others are pushing for) and limit residents to 1 to 3 tags per WMU which will allow for better non-resident hunting. Then due to demand for these tags by residents the residents themselves will likely hire a guide to ensure they cash in on there once in a lifetime tag!! Right now the problem with taking a resident out (even though some can afford to pay) is that they learn where to go and they become competition, if on draw this wouldn't happen.

Non-residents only account for 25 to 30 percent of the total trophy sheep harvest what would it hurt to increase this number to say 50 percent, it'll be easier once sheep are on draw for residents so you really have to ask yourself as Sheephunter says "What is there to gain by putting NR on draw".

I don't think Alberta residents whether they hunt or not should be responsible for an outfitter's bottom line. If you get into a business and market pressure dictates less margin that is business.

I also have to laugh - some folks suggest they don't want to allow 5 year waits, x amount of Rams in a lifetime or draws because they wish to hunt sheep every year. I don't think a once in a lifetime tag would please any of them.

We need to look at places that have reeled in the outfitting concessions. If there is increased competition for the ability to hunt sheep, the focus should remain on the opportunity continuing for residents over any other potential groups. Just my opinion.

[sheepguide]

Originally Posted by garand

I don't think Alberta residents whether they hunt or not should be responsible for an outfitter's bottom line. If you get into a business and market pressure dictates less margin that is business.

I also have to laugh - some folks suggest they don't want to allow 5 year waits, x amount of Rams in a lifetime or draws because they wish to hunt sheep every year. I don't think a once in a lifetime tag would please any of them.

We need to look at places that have reeled in the outfitting concessions. If there is increased competition for the ability to hunt sheep, the focus should remain on the opportunity continuing for residents over any other potential groups. Just my opinion.

Your right many guys will never be happy. They want to hunt sheep every year whether its good for the sheep or not. They are Albertans and they wanna hunt!
They say because they learned the area and are good hunters why should they be punished. Why? Because what the hell good would it do to control the guys not killing anything LOL

NonResident numbers in some areas should be re evaluated for sure. The Non resident tags should go by population numbers. And in some zones they should be lower but in many zones that is only gunna lower the numbers by a few rams(the highest zones only have 8 NR tags with many only having 4). Still have to control the resident too if we are going to improve anything.

And I still love the comments on the south having better genetics LOL those comments show guys true understanding of our bighorns!
SG

[garand]

Originally Posted by sheepguide

Your right many guys will never be happy. They want to hunt sheep every year whether its good for the sheep or not. They are Albertans and they wanna hunt!
They say because they learned the area and are good hunters why should they be punished. Why? Because what the hell good would it do to control the guys not killing anything LOL

NonResident numbers in some areas should be re evaluated for sure. The Non resident tags should go by population numbers. And in some zones they should be lower but in many zones that is only gunna lower the numbers by a few rams(the highest zones only have 8 NR tags with many only having 4). Still have to control the resident too if we are going to improve anything.

And I still love the comments on the south having better genetics LOL those comments show guys true understanding of our bighorns!
SG

8 Rams in a zone is significant. I guess I will have to get harvest stats from a few of those zones and see what the ratio is.

The guides have likely had their eyes on the southern zones for a while due to the parks that border that hold big Rams - and seeing pictures on the net of guys advertising where they kill them.

I personally think longer waits might control some of the skilled hunters that you mention, but I think no changes should be made until we negotiate tags back from outfitters. As I mentioned, I think resident opportunity should still trump NR tags.

[sheepguide]

Originally Posted by garand

8 Rams in a zone is significant. I guess I will have to get harvest stats from a few of those zones and see what the ratio is.

The guides have likely had their eyes on the southern zones for a while due to the parks that border that hold big Rams - and seeing pictures on the net of guys advertising where they kill them.

I personally think longer waits might control some of the skilled hunters that you mention, but I think no changes should be made until we negotiate tags back from outfitters. As I mentioned, I think resident opportunity should still trump NR tags.

For sure residents should trump non. No argument here.

And as for 8 tags in a zone. yes that a significant amount. But in most areas NR success is 50% or less. Look at a zone such as 420. 8 tags split between a couple outfitters. One runs around 75% on his 4 while the others run alot less of them 8 tags maybe 5 or 6 are harvested on a good year.

Like I said NonResident tag numbers need to be reevaluated for sure. But with significantly less than 100 non residents hunting Alberta and over 2200 residents you can see that controling both numbers are needed.

On a larger note, controling both nonresident and resident hunters should first be trumped by predator and enviromental managment which is also effecting sheep numbers and I think on a larger scale than hunters.
You can take all nonresident tags away and cut resident numbers in half and still may not improve things.
You need to control everything that is dictating how our sheep are doing.
But as things are now they seem to think its easier to just control us hunters.
SG

[sheepguide]

And that goes with the OP. I think the biggest concern in 429,328,326 is predators. With the areas these sheep live predators have an easier go of it and with the high numbers of predators in these zones controling hunters wont help squat.
SG

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by sheepguide

And that goes with the OP. I think the biggest concern in 429,328,326 is predators. With the areas these sheep live predators have an easier go of it and with the high numbers of predators in these zones controling hunters wont help squat.
SG

SG, I agree with most of what your saying, but how do you increase predator harvest in the province, without extra funding( which is huge), without increasing limits on species like cougars and without the general public doing there part ( which I know most do try). Most guys won't go out in -30 to sit over bait or look for wolves and such. Unless a wolf crosses a hunters path during the season, people just don't have a reason IMO.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo;772477[B

].......In fact, the most interesting trend that is shown is the correlation between the number of sheep, the number of sheep hunters, and the number of Rams harvested. It looks like Resident sheep hunters regulate themselves naturally with sheep numbers. ( see graph showing # of tags and Rams harvested.[/B]http://media.nwsgc.org/proceedings/N...%20alberta.pdf

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

.......According to ACA, only wmu 445 was surveyed in the winter of 09/10.
Many wmu's have not been surveyed since winter 07/08.
http://www.ab-conservation.com/go/de...veys/overview/

According to the Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Status Report - Alberta, that I linked in my last post, there were 12% more sheep in 2008 than in 1989.

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Did Anne bring up Predator control as a measure to pretect sheep populations? That would be a better place to start than further limiting humans from hunting sheep.

Was Treaty harvest brought up? If these animals do require further protection to maintain mature rams, then the province can invoke measures within the Alberta Treaties to restrict native harvest for conservation measures.

Thought I'd repost links to recent public Alberta sheep reports. If managers are going to adapt regulations due to tends shown on paper, then they must take note that Resident sheep hunting is self regulating.

In 326, rather than closing the season, a logical alternative would be to put it on draw, without a new Draw Code.

Predator control and Habitat enhancement MUST be addressed before managing Resident hunting.

[Pudelpointer]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Predator control and Habitat enhancement MUST be addressed before managing Resident hunting.

As I am sure you and Sheepguide know, Wildlife Management is not really about managing wildlife, it is about managing people. Influencing natural systems is much more difficult and expensive than changing hunter behavior. As we have seen with Grizzlies, and are now facing with sheep, industrial activity (through habitat alteration and increased access) is not likely to be controlled (although it is "human behavior") due to its financial returns. Hunting is a direct influence on populations that brings in minimal returns, or actually costs the government to manage.

Who is going to pay for controlled burns? In this day and age, controlled burns for habitat are very difficult and expensive to undertake. Predator control? Highly controversial, and not very cheap either. How about stopping all O&G exploration and logging in the foothills and mountain areas to protect habitat and minimize access? Hahahahahaa, god that is funny.

We have already discussed (on other threads) issues around gating industrial roads to hunter/public traffic to limit access to the backcountry. Good luck there.

Not saying it is right, just that it is that way.

[sheepguide]

Originally Posted by pottymouth

SG, I agree with most of what your saying, but how do you increase predator harvest in the province, without extra funding( which is huge), without increasing limits on species like cougars and without the general public doing there part ( which I know most do try). Most guys won't go out in -30 to sit over bait or look for wolves and such. Unless a wolf crosses a hunters path during the season, people just don't have a reason IMO.

Deffinatly a tough issue. And honestly I have no idea how to increase it. Trappers say there is no money in it so many lines are next to usless for predator control purposes.
Cougar hunting in the sheep zones is minimal. And even then many quotas are filled from accessed areas that arent the cats that are targeting sheep.
Some areas cougar hunters wont hunt do to snare issues where trappers have snares out.
And like you say very few guys even go out there to hunt wolves. Most will go closer to home and to areas with easier access. So any wolf kills are just chance sightings.
What is the solution? Got me, but without it controling hunters is pretty much a joke.
SG

[sheepguide]

[QUOTE=Pudelpointer;785275]As I am sure you and Sheepguide know, Wildlife Management is not really about managing wildlife, it is about managing people. QUOTE]

Worst thing Pudel is some people(me excluded) actually beleive this!
Managing wildlife must be done through all channels and groups. You must managage people, predators, habitat and all things that in any way affect wildlife to have a valid wildlife managment system.
Only managing one aspect will do very little to affect the big picture.
Till we can get this to happen I dont think anything will move in a posative direction.
SG

[Pudelpointer]

Originally Posted by sheepguide

Worst thing Pudel is some people(me excluded) actually beleive this!
Managing wildlife must be done through all channels and groups. You must managage people, predators, habitat and all things that in any way affect wildlife to have a valid wildlife managment system.
Only managing one aspect will do very little to affect the big picture.
Till we can get this to happen I dont think anything will move in a posative direction.
SG

I agree completely, except for the fact that the practice of Wildlife Management IS about managing people. We can not manage the weather/climate and that is what has the largest effect on wildlife, bar none. Everything else is about people: habitat degradation is related to industry or wildfire control, access is related to industry, seasons limit the time we spend in the field, bag limits set out what we are allowed to kill, the weapons we are allowed to employ determines our success rates and participation. It is ALL about people management.

Where you are bang on is your comment regarding managing only one aspect. We need to look at all factors and make changes across the board if we want things to improve. However, agreeing on what changes are acceptable is where things get difficult. Just look at the opinions on this thread.

[sheepguide]

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

I agree completely, except for the fact that the practice of Wildlife Management IS about managing people. We can not manage the weather/climate and that is what has the largest effect on wildlife, bar none. Everything else is about people: habitat degradation is related to industry or wildfire control, access is related to industry, seasons limit the time we spend in the field, bag limits set out what we are allowed to kill, the weapons we are allowed to employ determines our success rates and participation. It is ALL about people management.

Where you are bang on is your comment regarding managing only one aspect. We need to look at all factors and make changes across the board if we want things to improve. However, agreeing on what changes are acceptable is where things get difficult. Just look at the opinions on this thread.

I think one step that we need to get is hunters realizing that sometimes what is best for a population isnt always going to benifit hunters. But if they work with the other issues that are there it can all become better for hunters.
Right now we have to many groups(hunters, trappers, goverment and some others) that are to concerned about their well being and what is best for them and that is really effecting our wildlife in a very negative way.
SG

Hey Pudel:

Not sure if you read John Waldman's essay, The Natural World Vanishes:
How Species Cease To Matter but this paragraphy from it is pretty insightful:

Every generation takes the natural environment it encounters during childhood as the norm against which it measures environmental decline later in life. With each ensuing generation, environmental degradation generally increases, but each generation takes that degraded condition as the new normal. Scientists call this phenomenon “shifting baselines” or “inter-generational amnesia,” and it is part of a larger and more nebulous reality — the insidious ebbing of the ecological and social relevancy of declining and disappearing species.

[ishootbambi]

Originally Posted by sheepguide

And I still love the comments on the south having better genetics LOL those comments show guys true understanding of our bighorns!
SG

everyone is entitled to thier own opinion.....however, sometimes facts are what they are. http://media.nwsgc.org/proceedings/N...rt%20FINAL.pdf

Originally Posted by pika

Wouldn't it be more acceptable to put residents on draw (as Ishootbambi and many others are pushing for) and limit residents to 1 to 3 tags per WMU which will allow for better non-resident hunting.

if you had gone ahead and read the enitre thing, youd see that my suggestion was to just change a portion of sheep country to a draw. by doing so, a better quality hunt could be had by residents who do draw, while maintaining a wide open free for all to hunt little young rams in the larger part of the province. if you are happy hunting for a just legal...ok....but many are not. and oddly enough, the area i suggested was the south which is genetically better in the first place, has a smaller percentage of the sheep in alberta so less hunters would be affected, and most important to your post......is off limits to anyone but albertans......so what was your point again?

Originally Posted by LongDraw

Could you tell me whet the problem is with the sheep herd south of the Bow to have this whole area on draw???

no problem there that isnt a problem everywhere...too many immature rams killed.

[tackdriver]

The south does have better genetics than the north. The north only has records due to cadomin. As for the north I am talking burnt timber north as they have real tight curls and not the mass they should have considering they get to live what 12 + years. Take a ram out of the south and put it up @ cadomin with those northern ones and you will see the new world record. As for draws I think we should go to draws in some zones. But I think we need to make it for sheep hunters not joe blow hunters wife that has never hunted and he is the real hunter. Look @ cadomin. There are 2000 sheep hunters in the province and what 10000 people apply for there. Makes it hard for a true sheep hunters to ever draw a tag. That is the only down fall of. A draw for sheep. I know of 2 booners that came out of the south this year so I know they are still big ones out in huntable places.

[sheepguide]

Hey Tack you may wanna look at history a little better before making statments you can take Cadomin out of the following numbers and the north still has alot more big rams.

Quoated from a previous thread.
So I knew that my Step Dad had an older B/C book. It is twenty years old (8th edition)so a quite a bit has changed but it will back what I say. Up to 1988(Albertas sheep hunting hay days) there were 113 entries from north of HWY 1 and 62 from south(I googled every creek mountain or area that I didnt know). There are 15 listed as just alberta. And I may have missed one or two but think I counted pretty acurate.
I know these numbers will increase now but I dont beleive the south has out numbered the north by over double in the last 20 years.

In the top 15 in this book there are 10 from alberta and of these 3 are over 16" on the base and 1 is only 16 on one horn.

There are 5 rams in this book from alberta with 17"+ bases. 2 from the north(1-Brazeau and 1- Rocky Mtn House) and 3 from the south( Yarrow creek- 1, Highwood - 1 and Castle river - 1)

Just thought it would shed a little light on what area produces the biggest rams through out history.

So if your rams do carry an average heavier base in the south then they must not hold it or get enough length to finish off.


Pre 1988 best areas for book sheep

Clearwater - 14
Panther - 10
Highwood - 10
Burnttimber - 11
Cadomin - 16 pre late season draws
Castle River - 8
Ghost - 8

Of these only 2 are from the south of the Bow.


And Bambi the study you posted show no ages of rams other than in three small study areas. What were the age statistics of rams measured through out the province? Were they broomed or lamb tipped?
Does using Cadomin, Smokey and Ram Mountain show the genetics of the North? Of these three areas 2 are reclamed mines and one is a small secluded area that is rams transplanted from other areas. How can they be used to show what the North as a whole has for genetics? The areas of the north that produced the most book rams and rams period arent even studied, so the study is not valid in your argument.
All the study shows is larger average base diameters not better trophy genetics. The record books show true trophy genetics and what each area can produce. All areas of Alberta can produce great genetics, North and South. If you spread the above numbers out over the north and south im sure numbers would average pretty even per square mile of sheep zones.
SG

[tackdriver]

Originally Posted by sheepguide

Hey Tack you may wanna look at history a little better before making statments you can take Cadomin out of the following numbers and the north still has alot more big rams.

Quoated from a previous thread.
So I knew that my Step Dad had an older B/C book. It is twenty years old (8th edition)so a quite a bit has changed but it will back what I say. Up to 1988(Albertas sheep hunting hay days) there were 113 entries from north of HWY 1 and 62 from south(I googled every creek mountain or area that I didnt know). There are 15 listed as just alberta. And I may have missed one or two but think I counted pretty acurate.
I know these numbers will increase now but I dont beleive the south has out numbered the north by over double in the last 20 years.

In the top 15 in this book there are 10 from alberta and of these 3 are over 16" on the base and 1 is only 16 on one horn.

There are 5 rams in this book from alberta with 17"+ bases. 2 from the north(1-Brazeau and 1- Rocky Mtn House) and 3 from the south( Yarrow creek- 1, Highwood - 1 and Castle river - 1)

Just thought it would shed a little light on what area produces the biggest rams through out history.

So if your rams do carry an average heavier base in the south then they must not hold it or get enough length to finish off.


Pre 1988 best areas for book sheep

Clearwater - 14
Panther - 10
Highwood - 10
Burnttimber - 11
Cadomin - 16 pre late season draws
Castle River - 8
Ghost - 8

Of these only 2 are from the south of the Bow.


And Bambi the study you posted show no ages of rams other than in three small study areas. What were the age statistics of rams measured through out the province? Were they broomed or lamb tipped?
Does using Cadomin, Smokey and Ram Mountain show the genetics of the North? Of these three areas 2 are reclamed mines and one is a small secluded area that is rams transplanted from other areas. How can they be used to show what the North as a whole has for genetics? The areas of the north that produced the most book rams and rams period arent even studied, so the study is not valid in your argument.
All the study shows is larger average base diameters not better trophy genetics. The record books show true trophy genetics and what each area can produce. All areas of Alberta can produce great genetics, North and South. If you spread the above numbers out over the north and south im sure numbers would average pretty even per square mile of sheep zones.
SG

Sorry sheepguide I ment north of wmu 420. They are tight curl and stuff - know all about your post. I just rambled off the wrong info. To me 420 to 400 is the south.

[sheepguide]

Originally Posted by tackdriver

Sorry sheepguide I ment north of wmu 420. They are tight curl and stuff - know all about your post. I just rambled off the wrong info. To me 420 to 400 is the south.

I see. Most guys hear like to draw the line at the Bow River.

[Wolf Medicine]

LMAO. SO much unhinged less then factual evidence.. I says this place does better, Then that place. You says that the outfitters are the problem. Unless I am completely mistaken.. In most zones the outfitters are backed up at least A week if not two from the residents start date. And there are only A select few zones that are on draw for residents that the outfitters yes still do have tags within. but every other zone is still wide open for the residents. We could all every single one of us go to the Panther, Willmore, Or about 90 some % of the zones in the province, and hunt. Nothing stopping us. Buy A tag and go. Get one of the elite in hunting and you have to wait A year. Getting ****ed because there are A few more residents pushing for the high end. Is fickle. And something to note is that at least APOS fights for everyone's hunting rights. not just the outfitters. Because simple math is that the residents will be the last ones to lose the rights to hunt. So if they fight to maintain non-resident tags. That is one more line that anyone has to cross before they take it away from you. Not saying this as A blanket support outfitters. Just as something to consider before you join the anti's in condemning outfitted hunts. I have worn many hats in this. I love sheep hunting. First big game I ever killed was A Big horn when I was 14 yrs old. Some of the old boys in the areas we hunt still won't forgive me. I have killed two rams and have gone hunting many years since, Won't kill another one unless it is better then the one I have already. But I love the hunt and the time in the hills. And I will take the time in the hills any time. Over and over..

WM.

[sheepguide]

And in the end who really cares where the biggest genetics are. Should we look and say hey the south genetics are better. We better help that population out cause it will produce big rams. People should want whats best for all sheep populations not just what will satisfy their personal goals. We cant just put a couple areas on draw, it will flood the other zones. If it is a draw that they go to it needs to be province wide or it will hurt the zones that are open for a general season.
Guys didnt want to wait longer and have argued tooth and nail so instead of waiting say 5 or 7 years after they killed a ram, now they may have to wait ten just to get a tag if it was to go on a draw. Hmmm sound like good logic to me.
There is also talk of quotas. Ya that will work good! How can that work. All the guys gunna run buy a Sat. phone so the can check daily the quota? The zones will be flooded opening week even worse than they are now as who would wait for later in the season as the quota could be closed.
No one out there knows the answer and I think for now everyone is just grasping at straws and hoping something may keep everyone happy but that aint gunna happen.
Worst thing is all posibilities that have been presented could possible not help a thing. May just leave a few more rams for the over abundance of predators to eat.
SG

[tackdriver]

Originally Posted by sheepguide

I see. Most guys hear like to draw the line at the Bow River.

I know what people on here think. I am also not everybody elso. Lol. I have seen some real loose curl rams that have came up that way. When you talk about tight curls look at a ram out of the Wilmore down to 420.Cadomin rams as well.

[ram crazy]

[QUOTE=sheepguide;785194]For sure residents should trump non. No argument here.

And as for 8 tags in a zone. yes that a significant amount. But in most areas NR success is 50% or less. Look at a zone such as 420. 8 tags split between a couple outfitters. One runs around 75% on his 4 while the others run alot less of them 8 tags maybe 5 or 6 are harvested on a good year.

Those are pretty staggering percentages for NR success considering Res percentages are something like 0.2% for the whole province. I really don't see a problem with Sheep hunting the way it is for Res. other than the fact it maybe the same people that are killing Rams year after year. Maybe we need to get rid of all the outfitter tags and have it just for Residents!!!!

[ishootbambi]

well SG, im guessing you opened the link, saw the words ram mountain and closed it up. if you had read it, youd see that over 7000 sheep since 1960 have shown that southern rams are genetically better. im not talking about big sheep, or book sheep, cuz thats only part of the equation.... and even those sheep are smaller at the base than southern sheep. now you have your heels dug in and arent listening to any of the facts being passed your way and im not sure why. noone is disputing that you have a whole pile of knowledge on sheep in alberta, but if you can do me a favor and just keep an open mind here you may learn something. the study quoted looked at 7000 sheep, and did not take into account the sheep from ram mountain, cadomin, and what they call the smoky river herd which is the grande cache coal mine. it didnt account for them because they have skewed results for a variety of reasons. now you keep saying that a lot of northern sheep make book. well of course they do. the truth is that even the most genetically weak sheep in alberta is still pretty good. it stands to reason that the majority of sheep in alberta live in the north so the most book sheep should come from there, and that is true. i think what you are missing though is that on average, even book sheep from the north are smaller at the bases than southern sheep.....by nearly an inch which is a fair bit. of course you know that mass throughout is what makes a big score though, so bases are only part of the equation. you asked if they had lamb tips or broomed rams on the bases measured. well, read the study and youll see that sheep reach max horn circs at the base at 5 years of age for the south, and 6 years for northern rams. once they reach that age, the bases dont get bigger, but the mass of the base moves down the horn. they get longer, but not thicker, so once they reach 5 or 6.....brooming is irrelevant. younger than that and brooming is nearly nonexistant, so again irreleveant. again, i know you know this, but age is huge in growing big trophy sheep. it doesnt matter if the most genetically gifted ram ever were to come along......if he dies at 5 years old, he wont be huge or anywhere near all he could be. that why a ram from the north can make book at 10 years old, while a genetically better one from the south wont when hes 5. thats what the horn base is all about.....genetics. ill say it again.....big rams exist and have come from the north. take a look at the world record from cadomin. you know as well as anyone he wasnt a world record at 5 years old either. the study also shows that nutrition is a big part of things as well. in fact, the warmer climate of the south not only has a longer growing season which produces better feed, the chinooks of the south make that feed more accessible in winter. many feel that that is also a reason for bigger horn bases in the south. better feed and less stress has been shown to contribute to bigger horns....in particular at the coal mines of the north. even with near enough the easiest life a sheep can have in alberta, and the best food available to wild sheep in alberta, the cadomin herd still is a little behind the sheep of the south. thats genetics. in fact i smirk every time i hear about the great genetics of cadomin being transplanted around alberta. cadomin sheep are not genetically superior....they are nutritionally superior. history has proven that as records were kept back to 1960. when the mines were reclaimed, horn size increased. this is all well documented in the study quoted. please read it for yourself and you will see it. the odd thing about the study...at least to some were that horn size across alberta has increased some since the trophy regulations. many have worried that by targeting the biggest rams that sheep genetically smaller would be the preferred breeders leading to leser trophy quality. that hasnt happened though. they are getting bigger. the curl restrictions (now this is my opinion and not fact) dont target thick heavy rams....they target long ones. again, the south grows them faster. rams are legal at an average age of 5 years in the south, and 6, well nearly 7 years in the north. there are exceptions to this, but thats the average. that seems to be more a product of nutrition though. the separate studies at the coal mines seem to prove that to me at least.

so back to my point. i suggested a few southern zones for a draw and gentetics was only one of them. many of us, SG included, have expressed an interest in more rams living to maturity. a draw is the only way to guarantee that. all the other suggestions wont slow harvest, but rather just spread it around. some think that will put too much pressure on northern zones. well, more hunters may make the journey, but with estimates of 95% of legal rams outside of parks being killed every year already, i dont see the sheep population suffering any. hunters already in those zones may see more traffic, but i dont see any more sheep dying. the harvest has been pretty steady with around a 140 to 150 ram average dating all the way back to 1960 when there were many less hunters than what there is today. another reason for me suggesting more southern zones for the draw is that there are so few sheep there anyway, and so few legal rams anyway, that the least number of hunters would be affected, and the results would be greater and likely more immediate. places like the wilmore where it takes 7 plus years for a ram to become legal would have no real benefit if on draw...at least trophy wise. wilmore rams top out in the high 160s....maybe 170 for a norm, and legal at 7...well they are pretty well mature anyway. not everyone has to agree....its just an opinion. my idea tries to give everyone a little bit of what they want. right now, the trophy hunting crowd has very little to cheer about while the i wanna hunt every damn year crowd is getting everything they want.


as for non resident sheep hunting....well i think scaling back a little would be prudent. they take after all, nearly one in three sheep in this province. i dont wish to see it stopped altogether, but i do think that albertans deserve more. in my mind 10% would seem about right. that would mean around 30 tags at 50% success. stopping it outright would seem pretty wrong to me for the simple reason that many albertans enjoy hunting in other areas. how many in this discussion have stones and dalls at home? how would you feel if bc, the yukon, alaska and the nwt just said sorry, residents only? i dont know about you, but im ok with sharing.

[walking buffalo]

A draw for sheep will not guarantee more mature Rams.

Limiting licenced harvest may be negatively countered by unregulated sustinence hunting, high predator depredation, and degrated sheep habitat.


Predator and habitat managment are specified priorities in the Alberta Sheep Management Plan. The Gov needs to step up to the plate and get back to the basics.


Licenced harvest can be manipulated through techniques other than a draw system. For example, zones can be put on a full curl restriction for a few years to limit harvest without limiting hunter opportunity. This is a simpler regulation route, with a simple path to return to a 4/5ths requirement when the ram age structure allows it.

Of course this should only be implemented after SRD PROVES there are conservation concerns.