Changes coming for sheep hunting in 2011?

Stop making so much sense WB.....that's not the way we do things in Alberta. We take away hunter opportunity and punish those that are successful Stop making waves!

Truthfully, I'd be happy if they even "hinted" there was a problem....lol

[SLH]

Originally Posted by 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.

Very well said!!!

There is a perfectly good plan already in place, they just have to use it.

[Skinnydipper]

Originally Posted by 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.

This would be my vote. The only thing it does not address is ram maturity vs. horn development (I.E. mature broomed rams that will never see huntability)

[sheepguide]

Originally Posted by 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.

Hmmm thought I did read it. Maybe you could help me with my lack of reading and understanding.

can you please show or highlight where it states that 7000 sheep were studied! I see where 7000 were harvested since the 1960's.

I see where he states his methods to come to this conclusion was,
going by the results of a 1961 to 1965( of which no rams were registered) survey of 500 sheep hunters. Who know how many were harvested as there were no registering till 1971 I beleive it says.
This was then varified by 600 annual horn segment measurments being taken at taxidermists from north and south of the bow. So what I get from this is that they took 600 measurments but doesnt sound like they were all base measurments(annual segments gives me the idea each ram was measured at each growth ring) so how many actual base measurments and ram were included in the study? Plus he states at taxidermists from north and south. Did he varify that the rams being mounted in the south werent from the north and that ones in the north werent harvested in the south?


Nothing was then studied until after 2000. Which then missed the sheep hunting haydays when most of the rams in Alberta were harvested and most of the sheep you see in the record books were taken. The results of the 60's study were then compared to the study done in 2000-2005. The studies in 2000-2005 were done in 4 zones in the north and 4 in the south.
Which zones? Makes a big difference. Lots of horn variations in the northern zones.
To properly get an average on horn development you need to study all populations. I could do a study in the north and guarentee you I could get a 1" base difference between the two areas

And an average base size doesnt proove what area produces the largest based sheep. 100 rams in one area that measure between 15 1/4 and 15 1/2 will possibly be a higher average than the same number studied in an area that has rams varying from 14 to 16. Sure it will show you what area averages best but maybe that better average area doesnt have the big based sheep the other one does.


As for his comment on ram bases hitting max size by 5 or 6. If you wish to go with that then thats cool but im having a tough time agreeing with it after what ive seen. I dont quite agree that a ram has the same base at 5 or 6 as they will at 10 or 12. And that is why I stick with the fact that the age average of all sheep studied should be known.

Ill throw a kink in you nutritionaly supirior talk of Cadomin sheep. What were all the huge rams that came out of the Ghost, Burnt Timber and many other places eating? There are book rams that reach that at 7 and 8 from all over the province, not lots but they do exist.


In conclusion on the genetics discusion here is my statment.
You keep talking genetics and the rams bases. And that the north is behind. LOL To me a ram that goes 189 with 15 6/8 inch bases has the same quality of genetics as does the one with 16 1/4 with weak second and third circ. measurments and scores the same. But if like some of you southern guys you look at just his bases the 16 1/4 is supirior genetics. Taking that one measurment and saying the genetics are best is a joke. With out knowing all the measurments and ages you know nothing of the rams.
Maybe one area can produce the bigger bases but that is far from saying it has supirior genetics.

Funny thing though is that many of use want to help have healthy populations and would like to see a higher population of huntable sheep. Then there are others that head straight to wanting bigger sheep. I have nothing against trophy managment but there are alot of other struggles to deal with before that should take place.

SG

[ishootbambi]

Originally Posted by sheepguide

In conclusion on the genetics discusion here is my statment.
You keep talking genetics and the rams bases. And that the north is behind. LOL To me a ram that goes 189 with 15 6/8 inch bases has the same quality of genetics as does the one with 16 1/4 with weak second and third circ. measurments and scores the same.

SG

the first part that i didnt highlight basically says that the study means nothing to you......ok, i cant make you believe it if you dont want to. what i did quote shows clearly that you just dont get the whole genetic thing on horns. nature gives em what it gives em and thats that. the bases show it. now carrying that weight outward is a product of age and nutrition. depending who you talk to one more than the other, but to me cadomiin shows that nutrition matters more. that said, the older he gets the bigger he gets and that carries out from the skull. from what i can see (opinion again) nutrition contributes length and age pushes out the mass. from what i can see, age and nutrition trump mass anyway. although genetics what they are i can only dream what life would be like if cadomin were on the edge of waterton rather than jasper........
and ill say this in conclusion.....opinion aside, the facts represent the situation as it is. another fact i sthat a big ram can come from anywhere in alberta.....well except maybe the wilmore.

Originally Posted by sheepguide

Funny thing though is that many of us want to help have healthy populations and would like to see a higher population of huntable sheep. Then there are others that head straight to wanting bigger sheep. I have nothing against trophy managment but there are alot of other struggles to deal with before that should take place.

SG

another thing that harvest records show is that 140-150 rams are taken annually. that has been pretty steady, even though the number of sheep hunters has risen over the years. at least that what was presented back in the 4 sheep threads over the last year. yeah, having more huntable sheep would be great, but with so few mountains in alberta and not all of them sheep habitat, i dont know how to make that happen. i guess changing the habitat could work, but where is the money gonna come from for that? as for wanting more mature rams available, well i can dream. have you seen the B&C trophy watch page lately? the giants being pumped out in montana has me drooling. seeing what they can do there and knowing that the sheep of alberta are genetically superior does make me a little jealous. just a few southern zones managed for trophies and alberta could be much better represented. what matters even more to me than a book sheep at my feet would be the opportunity to go on a sheep hunt and look over numerous mature rams and having an option to pick one i like. the stories of those hunts are what intrigue me the most. right now, a hunt of that quality in alberta is just not a possibility.

[ram crazy]

Originally Posted by 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.

Once Sheep are put on full curl you can't put them back to 4/5, because that will mean a slaughter on Rams once it goes back then your back to square one again!!!!

Some zones just don't have the genetics to have full curls, so what do you do with them areas? I guess those Rams will die of old age and nobody can enjoy a nice Ram mounted on the wall!!!

[walking buffalo]

The number of Trophy Sheep tags sold in 2006-2007 ( 2100 tags) was 35% Less than the number a tags sold in 1984-1985 ( 3200 tags) .

The number of rams taken in '06 was 160, 20% less the 200 taken in '85, .

So what is contributing to the HIGHER success rate for sheep hunters in the new millenium ?



Without a complete accurate survey of sheep populations and mortality rates, decisions regarding managing the age structure of Rams is just a shot in the dark.

[sheepguide]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

The number of Trophy Sheep tags sold in 2006-2007 ( 2100 tags) was 35% Less than the number a tags sold in 1984-1985 ( 3200 tags) .

The number of rams taken in '06 was 160, 20% less the 200 taken in '85, .

So what is contributing to the HIGHER success rate for sheep hunters in the new millenium ?



Without a complete accurate survey of sheep populations and mortality rates, decisions regarding managing the age structure of Rams is just a shot in the dark.

I agree 100% on the need of accurate studies as you stated and stated that earlier that until all aspects affecting sheep and sheep habitat all changes are just a guess.

As for the higher success id say some of that is to do with gear quality and the amount of time people are spending in the mountains. More people are able to afford better gear and such. Many that didnt have horses do now when it used to just be a select number. I think to forums such as this have given guys with no idea how to go about things a lot better oppertunity. Many areas that only had horse hunters now get pressured from backpackers as many more guys are getting into this type of hunting.

And the higher number of rams being taken is one of the big concerns being brought up. They feel that in some areas the number of huntable rams left each year after the season is getting less and less. And not just from hunters. Increasing predator numbers are also contributing to this.
Like most of the other info without true and total numbers its tough to know for sure.

SG

[sheepguide]

Originally Posted by ishootbambi

the first part that i didnt highlight basically says that the study means nothing to you......ok, i cant make you believe it if you dont want to. what i did quote shows clearly that you just dont get the whole genetic thing on horns. nature gives em what it gives em and thats that. the bases show it. now carrying that weight outward is a product of age and nutrition. depending who you talk to one more than the other, but to me cadomiin shows that nutrition matters more. that said, the older he gets the bigger he gets and that carries out from the skull. from what i can see (opinion again) nutrition contributes length and age pushes out the mass. from what i can see, age and nutrition trump mass anyway. although genetics what they are i can only dream what life would be like if cadomin were on the edge of waterton rather than jasper........
and ill say this in conclusion.....opinion aside, the facts represent the situation as it is. another fact i sthat a big ram can come from anywhere in alberta.....well except maybe the wilmore.



another thing that harvest records show is that 140-150 rams are taken annually. that has been pretty steady, even though the number of sheep hunters has risen over the years. at least that what was presented back in the 4 sheep threads over the last year. yeah, having more huntable sheep would be great, but with so few mountains in alberta and not all of them sheep habitat, i dont know how to make that happen. i guess changing the habitat could work, but where is the money gonna come from for that? as for wanting more mature rams available, well i can dream. have you seen the B&C trophy watch page lately? the giants being pumped out in montana has me drooling. seeing what they can do there and knowing that the sheep of alberta are genetically superior does make me a little jealous. just a few southern zones managed for trophies and alberta could be much better represented. what matters even more to me than a book sheep at my feet would be the opportunity to go on a sheep hunt and look over numerous mature rams and having an option to pick one i like. the stories of those hunts are what intrigue me the most. right now, a hunt of that quality in alberta is just not a possibility.

Im gunna leave you with your ideas as you obviously think the way you think and I wont change that just as you wont change the way I think.
But just for your info there are zones in the north that if managed for true potential and that includes predators, fire supression and limiting hunting etc would be producing rams such as Montana is now. You give a place like the Burnt Timber or Ghost the chance and there would be 190-200 rams coming out of there with out an issue, they have produced alot already under open conditions. Them couple WMU's have produced the most big rams out of Alberta and are very small in the way of sheep habitat. Seems to me that is where I would wanna try and manage for Trophy quality. Zones that have done the best under them conditions would thrive under proper control and managment. Look what it used to do without managment. You dont need to change habitat you just need to help it. Burn some country give things a helping hand. Do proper predator control. The habitat has produced the rams before and can again.
You put them couple zones on draw how many tags will you ever get? 1 maybe in a life time. Be the same as every other one. Everyone will put in and then just hunt general elsewhere. The guys that hunted there would then have to hunt some other general zone and that would intern put more pressure on the open zones cause other issues. Like I said if it goes draw it will have to blanket the province to work in my opinion.
And yes the south would have big sheep also but wouldnt out do the rest of the province.

SG

[ram crazy]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

The number of Trophy Sheep tags sold in 2006-2007 ( 2100 tags) was 35% Less than the number a tags sold in 1984-1985 ( 3200 tags) .

The number of rams taken in '06 was 160, 20% less the 200 taken in '85, .

So what is contributing to the HIGHER success rate for sheep hunters in the new millenium ?



Without a complete accurate survey of sheep populations and mortality rates, decisions regarding managing the age structure of Rams is just a shot in the dark.

What were the Sheep population numbers from 1984-85 to 2006-07. You have to know this as well when comparing. What is it about 1.4% difference from then to now, but still pretty inconclusive without Sheep population #'s

[ram crazy]

Originally Posted by sheepguide

Im gunna leave you with your ideas as you obviously think the way you think and I wont change that just as you wont change the way I think.
But just for your info there are zones in the north that if managed for true potential and that includes predators, fire supression and limiting hunting etc would be producing rams such as Montana is now. You give a place like the Burnt Timber or Ghost the chance and there would be 190-200 rams coming out of there with out an issue, they have produced alot already under open conditions. Them couple WMU's have produced the most big rams out of Alberta and are very small in the way of sheep habitat. Seems to me that is where I would wanna try and manage for Trophy quality. Zones that have done the best under them conditions would thrive under proper control and managment. Look what it used to do without managment. You dont need to change habitat you just need to help it. Burn some country give things a helping hand. Do proper predator control. The habitat has produced the rams before and can again.
You put them couple zones on draw how many tags will you ever get? 1 maybe in a life time. Be the same as every other one. Everyone will put in and then just hunt general elsewhere. The guys that hunted there would then have to hunt some other general zone and that would intern put more pressure on the open zones cause other issues. Like I said if it goes draw it will have to blanket the province to work in my opinion.
And yes the south would have big sheep also but wouldnt out do the rest of the province.

SG

And your opinion is the only one that counts right!!!

[sheepguide]

Originally Posted by ram crazy

And your opinion is the only one that counts right!!!

Ya actually it does count... just as much as yours and anyone elses. You dont like it dont read it. I read and take in everyones opinions and that is put into my thoughts and that decides my opinions. If people beleive in their thoughts and ideas it seems to be wrong to voice and argue them. If you dont beleive in something and dont agree do you just cower and not say anything? Well I dont and im just stating why I feel the way I do. I never said once that my ideas and thoughts are the only ones.
And until the changes actually happen and such we will never know what areas are the best now do we.

Oh and the Part about the Ghost and Burnt is fact not opinion!

SG

[ishootbambi]

darcy, you said a while back that you found somewhere that 80% of legal rams are killed each year. actually the number i keep hearing is around 95%. im talking those outside of sanctuaries during the general seasons, and not including those that come out for the rut and or winter. i cant actually find anythng in print as i dont think it ever could be accurately counted, but thats the number im hearing from guys who are way more into sheep than me.

i agree that any zones protected by draw would be producing big mature rams in short order.....except the wilmore.....that place just doesnt seem to have the right stuff. anyway, any zones going to draw would chase hunters to other open zones. i dont see more rams being killed though in those zones. it seems that there are so many guys there already that any rams that are gonna get shot do. more hunters in other zones...yes....more dead sheep....i dont think so. besides.....srd has made it clear that they have never managed ANY species for trophy quality and likely never will. as i said....just a dream.

and WB, the numbers i tossed out are averages from the last 50 years. of course there are anomalies along the way.

[walking buffalo]

Ram Crazy,

I've posted sheep numbers and links to the information source in this thread Twice. There were 12% more sheep in 2008 than in 1989.

I would respond to your other comments, but I don't understand your math.

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



From looking at the limited public data, I get the impression that IF there are fewer Mature rams in the population than 10 and/or 20 years ago, "something" other than licenced hunting is causing this mortality.

Since the overall population is doing well, then this "something" cause of mortality is focusing on Mature rams. It's unlikely a disease issue. Habitat would effect the whole population, so that's not it. This leaves depredation; predators (wolves, cougars, bears), and humans (poachers, sustinence harvest, illegal licenced kills; reported and unreported).

Individual cougars are known to be prey specific specialists. Are they the problem? Wolves and bears, are they the problem relating to a possible focused Ram mortality? IMO, it is likely that wolves and cougars are a increasing source of predation.

In my mind, IF there is an concern with Ram mortality, the greatest source is most likely human related. Legal licenced hunting seems to be in line with the overall population trend. Poachers, sustinence harvest, illegal licenced hunter kills, these are the issues SRD should be dealing with.

Without looking after the root cause of a problem, any other management medicine is a placebo.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by ishootbambi

and WB, the numbers i tossed out are averages from the last 50 years. of course there are anomalies along the way.

What anomolies?

The numbers I posted are from this link previously posted. The graph shows total hunter licences and Ram harvest, both resident and non-res. from 1961- 2007. There has been smooth flow in tags purchased and ram harvest.

As I described previously, there is a noticable self regulating component to resident hunting and harvest of sheep.

http://media.nwsgc.org/proceedings/N...%20alberta.pdf


And for clarification, there is no difference in the horn genetics between sheep in north vs. south Alberta. There is a increased average horn mass and more open curls in the south. This is due to the environment, ie. Chinooks.

[ishootbambi]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Without looking after the root cause of a problem, any other management medicine is a placebo.

it seems that most hunters dont think there even is a problem. most just want to hunt every year for any legal sheep. if thats the case then it would seem change is unneccessary.....except for the draw process as it stands. the way it was originally set up was severely flawed and absolutely needs to be fixed. guys like me seem to be in the minority. i only ask for a little bit of change to satisfy my wishes, but im a democratic kinda guy....if the majority says no effin way then i guess im stuck holding out hope for a tag in montana.

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

And for clarification, there is no difference in the horn genetics between sheep in north vs. south Alberta. There is a increased average horn mass and more open curls in the south. This is due to the environment, ie. Chinooks.

if you really believe that, then explain cadomin. from the evidence, cadomin rams are better off than other northern sheep, but still behind those from the south. truth is, there are no sheep in alberta fed better than those on the mine, but base size still falls short of southern rams.



as for the graph showing hunter numbers and rams taken....yeah thats what i said? there was a spike in the early 80s, but on the overall average it shows what i said....doesnt it?

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by ishootbambi

if you really believe that, then explain cadomin. from the evidence, cadomin rams are better off than other northern sheep, but still behind those from the south. truth is, there are no sheep in alberta fed better than those on the mine, but base size still falls short of southern rams.



as for the graph showing hunter numbers and rams taken....yeah thats what i said? there was a spike in the early 80s, but on the overall average it shows what i said....doesnt it?

There has never been a study regarding "genetics" and horn growth comparing southern and northern Alberta. Maybe you are right.

I stated "environmental" factors, with chinooks as an example. Another environmental factor is population size. There is a concern with Cadomin that while the food is top notch, there may be too many sheep competition for the food, thus potentially limiting horn growth. The third year is critical for rams in terms of horn growth. Those three year old Cadomin rams have a lot of competition.

Regarding the graph, I don't know what you said other than the anomoly statement. Your words may have been lost to me in the book you wrote. lol...

G'Night, time to take the dog out and chase the local rabbits.

[sheepguide]

[QUOTE=ishootbambi;788367]

if you really believe that, then explain cadomin. from the evidence, cadomin rams are better off than other northern sheep, but still behind those from the south. truth is, there are no sheep in alberta fed better than those on the mine, but base size still falls short of southern rams.
QUOTE]

I still dont see where the north is falling short of the south? Book rams are killed every year from the south to the north and have forever. Where is the south doing so much better? I really dont understand that at all. If genetics and feed were so much better then the south would be producing super young super big sheep. It isnt. Unless you have the number of rams being killed, measurements and age averages of all rams being killed in all zones then you are just guessing.
You talk that feed determines length and genetics is bases right. So how do you explain the fact that you can get rams the same age, in the same area and eating the same feed that are 5" or 6" difference in length? And how then would rams in the north ever reach 40" by 7 or 8 years old(and no not in Cadomin) and many 32"-35" and just legal by 5 1/2yrs old?
And yes horn growth does go by feed but genetics is a major role in length also.
Until there is a complete study on bighorn genetics then it will not be known what zones have the best genetics.
SG

[crazyfish]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

From looking at the limited public data, I get the impression that IF there are fewer Mature rams in the population than 10 and/or 20 years ago, "something" other than licenced hunting is causing this mortality.

How many mature rams would fall into this category due to the enegy expended due to the rut and injuries sustained during the rut ? Not sure if i'm wrong, but would assume that like whitetails there is a certain number that would expend too much energy and not be able to survive a long winter. This larger expense of energy would only be by the oler rams that are competing for ewes, which may also make them more vulnerable to the predation after the rut as well due to depleted energy resourses ?

[sheepguide]

Originally Posted by crazyfish

How many mature rams would fall into this category due to the enegy expended due to the rut and injuries sustained during the rut ? Not sure if i'm wrong, but would assume that like whitetails there is a certain number that would expend too much energy and not be able to survive a long winter. This larger expense of energy would only be by the oler rams that are competing for ewes, which may also make them more vulnerable to the predation after the rut as well due to depleted energy resourses ?

Good post! And with the high predator populations we are seeing now it is even harder on them rams after the rut.
My numbers could be a touch off but there was a cat collared a couple years ago that killed something like 3. 5 1/2 year old rams in a couple week period in early winter in the ram river area. Numbers like that really start to affect ram populations. These number need to be added into harvest data in determining what is an acceptable total harvest amount.

And that is why without managing all aspect of sheep, controling hunters may not help anything if done alone.
SG

[Skinnydipper]

I imagine the predator control, especially cats, is going to be a tall order in most sheep zones. Even some of the last cat zones to close with sparse access are tough tasks from what I gather.

Originally Posted by Skinnydipper

I imagine the predator control, especially cats, is going to be a tall order in most sheep zones. Even some of the last cat zones to close with sparse access are tough tasks from what I gather.

Yup, exactly. While predator control is a noble idea, it ain't going to happen....at least not with this government. Without a concerted effort by the government or at the very least cooperation between the government and trappers in the form of bounties, we aren't going to see any real decline in predator numbers in sheep country. Hunters are the easy thing to manage. A sad fact but a fact none-the-less. Now what's the problem again...

[Skinnydipper]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Now what's the problem again...

From the flavour established here it would lean towards the fact that there is too little current evidence/information to support any credible changes....period.

Originally Posted by Skinnydipper

From the flavour established here it would lean towards the fact that there is too little current evidence/information to support any credible changes....period.

Ya, it's kind of funny how this issue really seemed to gain legs of its own and I'm still not sure based on what or how. All of the sudden we had sheep hunters crying that something had to be done (still not sure about what) and for some reason SRD listened (still not sure to what). What I do find disturbing is that there are other hunters advocating and in some instances demading that SRD take hunter opportunity away with the rational the "it couldn't hurt". Let's figure out if there is even a problem first and if there is, let's see if there is a solution other than reducing hunter opportunity. And if it comes down to managing hunters, let's look for a solution that will actually work and have the least impact on hunter opportunity.

The increased wait period for sheep is still one of the most ill-conceived schemes I've ever heard and a classic example of "the sky is falling" paranoia that seems to grip many. No one has any data on how many sheep hunters harvest multiple rams or even if it has any effect on the harvest, yet we had hunters screaming at the top of their lungs to keep these "killers" out of the field longer. It's a sad day when hunters are lobbying to keep other hunters out of the field when there has yet to be a problem identified or if doing so would have any impact on sheep populations. Let's find a problem first and then a workable solution that has the minimum impact on hunter opportunity. K...I feel better now

[crazyfish]

i do believe that the only real problem that has been brought up in my eyes, is that the gouvernment isn't following their own plan for sheep management ! Maybe a few emails or calls to the right people would get them refocused again and headed in the right direction.

Originally Posted by crazyfish

i do believe that the only real problem that has been brought up in my eyes, is that the gouvernment isn't following their own plan for sheep management ! Maybe a few emails or calls to the right people would get them refocused again and headed in the right direction.

Well if you want to get all practical on us...we could do that too...

Yes, you are 100% correct...use the tools already in the tool box.

[Huntnut]

What I don't get is that when this topic came up last year, i sent out emails to the powers to be questioning them on this. I was told that they-(srd) were happy with the number of legal rams in all but a couple of wmu's-(don't remember which ones he said). Now all of a sudden they have to make changes. What gives? Where did the need for the changes suddenly come from when 12 months ago they were happy with the current populations?

[Skinnydipper]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Ya, it's kind of funny how this issue really seemed to gain legs of its own and I'm still not sure based on what or how. All of the sudden we had sheep hunters crying that something had to be done (still not sure about what) and for some reason SRD listened (still not sure to what). What I do find disturbing is that there are other hunters advocating and in some instances demading that SRD take hunter opportunity away with the rational the "it couldn't hurt". Let's figure out if there is even a problem first and if there is, let's see if there is a solution other than reducing hunter opportunity. And if it comes down to managing hunters, let's look for a solution that will actually work and have the least impact on hunter opportunity.

The increased wait period for sheep is still one of the most ill-conceived schemes I've ever heard and a classic example of "the sky is falling" paranoia that seems to grip many. No one has any data on how many sheep hunters harvest multiple rams or even if it has any effect on the harvest, yet we had hunters screaming at the top of their lungs to keep these "killers" out of the field longer. It's a sad day when hunters are lobbying to keep other hunters out of the field when there has yet to be a problem identified or if doing so would have any impact on sheep populations. Let's find a problem first and then a workable solution that has the minimum impact on hunter opportunity. K...I feel better now

Thank heavens I just go to elevation to take pictures of flowers anyway

Originally Posted by Skinnydipper

Thank heavens I just go to elevation to take pictures of flowers anyway

At least you get to bring something home....lol

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by crazyfish

How many mature rams would fall into this category due to the enegy expended due to the rut and injuries sustained during the rut ? Not sure if i'm wrong, but would assume that like whitetails there is a certain number that would expend too much energy and not be able to survive a long winter. This larger expense of energy would only be by the oler rams that are competing for ewes, which may also make them more vulnerable to the predation after the rut as well due to depleted energy resourses ?

Seven mature rams.

Sorry that I can't provide any info. to back that number.



Hopefully the proposed Cougar hunting changes will come into effect this fall. Allowing some cougar hunting during the fall won't increase cougar populations, and it might help take out a few of the specialized sheep killers.


I can back up Huntnut's comment. I spoke with our F&W Head of Big Game, and I was told that there was NO concern with the number of mature rams. I was also told of three other regulation changes that there were under consideration. Two out of three aren't bad.

1) Put all Trophy sheep draws on the same draw code, with a priority cap.

2) to put WMU 438 completely on draw, presumably to open up the mine to hunting and deal with the overpopulation concern.

3) Willmore may also go on to a draw. NOT for conservation reasons.


As I said earlier in this thread, something stinks with our Sheep management.
A personal agenda?