Sheep on a Draw?

[ganderblaster]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

SLH, I pretty much agree with your whole post, with emphasis on this part of it for now.

SRD has stated that "there may be more WMUs going on draw for trophy sheep". They are considering this without showing any evidence of a management concern.

There is no question that a further restriction with more draw only areas will only increase pressure in general areas... and so the path to draw only for all sheep continues!

Go back a few pages in this thread and many people were pushing for predator and habitat management before hunter management. Let's get back to that concept, and tell SRD to get with the program, the Sheep Management Plan.

http://srd.alberta.ca/ManagingProgra...ghornSheep.pdf

WHOA! WHOA! Walking Buffalo! Take it easy on the common sense for pities sake! Most posters have already made up their mind don't confuse us all with the facts!

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Ummm...not true, there are population/management concerns in few identified WMUs. Coincidentally, the very ones they are considering for a draw.

SRD has stated that "there may be more WMUs going on draw for trophy sheep". They are considering this without showing any evidence of a management concern.

SH, Care to provide the evidence? I'm tired of policy makers saying there is a problem, but won't publicly provide proof to substantiate their claim. Ya, but they said so.. Show me the data and I'll pull the cart.

Ishootbambi, good suggestion regarding cougar tags.

Sorry for that Gander, I guess I'll just give up and accept whatever the gov. decides is best, no explanation neccessary.

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

SH, Care to provide the evidence? I'm tired of policy makers saying there is a problem, but won't publicly provide proof to substantiate their claim. Ya, but they said so.. Show me the data and I'll pull the cart.

Have you asked? SRD doesn't just mail out the results of every study and every research project and every proposed rule change to every person in Alberta. Sometime the onus falls upon this interested to ask. I've found them quite forthcoming with information when it was requested in a clear and concise manner.

Seems you finally got your proof on the proposed reg changes by asking.

[Setterman]

Wow, I take a break from the message board to spend time with my newborn baby and I come back and nothing has changed.

I am getting frustrated all over again. If people would just read and follow the sheep managemnet plan many of these issues would be resolved.

With regards to residents vs non-residents my opinion is the same. Residents should not be restricted without the outfitting community being restricted as well. This is just common sense. I am not saying all allocations should be revoked but again the sheep management plan deals with this issue. Just my two cents...... again. SM

Originally Posted by Setterman

Wow, I take a break from the message board to spend time with my newborn baby and I come back and nothing has changed.

I am getting frustrated all over again. If people would just read and follow the sheep managemnet plan many of these issues would be resolved.

With regards to residents vs non-residents my opinion is the same. Residents should not be restricted without the outfitting community being restricted as well. This is just common sense. I am not saying all allocations should be revoked but again the sheep management plan deals with this issue. Just my two cents...... again. SM

Sometimes change is bad...

I agree, the management plan is there for a reason. I've seen a lot of speculation that non-resident tags won't be cut back if resident tags are but has anyone heard that anywhere but the speculation on here? Perhaps it's already part of the plan? I have no idea but it's definitely something that should be asked.

[sheepguide]

Alot of valid points made here but still alot of guys that figure that SRD just out of the blue decides that heck lets put a draw in for no reason. Then the guys say the do it to generate a few bucks.
If it was about money I think they would rather get 2000 guys at $50+ buying tags than even double or triple that putting in for a draw.
They have their concerns on the age structure in certain areas and the amount of pressure on certain areas.
Even though we all would like the perfect senario this is pretty tough to acomplish when your trying both to please hunters and work on game managment.
We all know that predator control is top priority but many say that SRD doesnt do enough about it. Do all you guys wanna go in and deal with what SRD has to with public relations and pressure they receive from all groups concerning predator managment. I sure dont.
The managment of hunters is coming before big changes in predator managment and many of us are just trying to get resonable options that affect hunters the least but yet accomplish sheep managment goals.
SG

[SLH]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Sometimes change is bad...

I agree, the management plan is there for a reason. I've seen a lot of speculation that non-resident tags won't be cut back if resident tags are but has anyone heard that anywhere but the speculation on here? Perhaps it's already part of the plan? I have no idea but it's definitely something that should be asked.

The reason I have concerns about this is that it already hasn't been adopted as stated in the Plan. Granted the mechanism for the altered allocations is not real clear but if the number of harvested rams by residents is 150 then 20% of that is 30 yet the allocations over time haven't changed. Again I'm not sure about the long term allocations but they seem to be set in stone now.

SG I think you have hit on an important aspect of all of this and that is the reluctance of SRD to do the right thing when it is needed because of outside critics. If a predator hunt is what is required then do it. Everyone realizes the outcry that will happen but then that is when you have to have your ducks in a row and your arguement prepared. We manage all wildlife for various outcomes and if hunting is part of that then control of what could destroy the game also has to be on the table. These guys need to grow a set.

Originally Posted by SLH

The reason I have concerns about this is that it already hasn't been adopted as stated in the Plan. Granted the mechanism for the altered allocations is not real clear but if the number of harvested rams by residents is 150 then 20% of that is 30 yet the allocations over time haven't changed. Again I'm not sure about the long term allocations but they seem to be set in stone now.

I think you have good reason for concern. SRD has not been overly quick to reduce allocations for any species when resident opportunities were reduced. WMU410 sheep it a classic example of that.

My comment was only to encourage people to rather than just complain on here, make their thoughts known to SRD, or at least ask the question about allocations. Sometimes SRD surprises me with what they have planned and other times they don't. Are you certain that the 20% of tags allocated to outfitters is measured against resident success. I know with other species it's measured against opportunity.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Have you asked? SRD doesn't just mail out the results of every study and every research project and every proposed rule change to every person in Alberta. Sometime the onus falls upon this interested to ask. I've found them quite forthcoming with information when it was requested in a clear and concise manner.

Seems you finally got your proof on the proposed reg changes by asking.

Yup, a fellow boardmember, sent me a copy of the SRD powerpoint presentation, NOT from SRD, despite my requests, I was told that it didn't exist.

C'mon Sheephunter, as a direct reply to me, your post is well below your usual standards. I've found the vast majority of your posts to be educational or entertaining. This last one doesn't fit into either category.

But you do make a good point, don't be afraid to ask.

And now, back to the important stuff.

[sheepguide]

Originally Posted by SLH

SG I think you have hit on an important aspect of all of this and that is the reluctance of SRD to do the right thing when it is needed because of outside critics. If a predator hunt is what is required then do it. Everyone realizes the outcry that will happen but then that is when you have to have your ducks in a row and your arguement prepared. We manage all wildlife for various outcomes and if hunting is part of that then control of what could destroy the game also has to be on the table. These guys need to grow a set.

I wish it was as simple as growing a set and just doing it but you have to realize that doing the right thing by going on with the predator control could have a more drastic affect on wild life.
Much of the money used in wild life studies and managment is from non hunting organizations and doing wrong in their eyes could shut down many studies and programs that are helping our wildlife and wildlands.
I dont agree that this should be an issue but it is and SRD needs to somehow try and keep all parties involved happy not just hunters.

[SLH]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Are you certain that the 20% of tags allocated to outfitters is measured against resident success. I know with other species it's measured against opportunity.

I would have thought of all people you would have read the plan.

Sorry that was unconstructive to the conversation.

Originally Posted by SLH

I would have thought of all people you would have read the plan.

That's why I asked if you were sure about that.......

Pretty simple question with a simple answer. Definitely no need for the condescending reply. I ask again, are you sure about how the 20% allocation is formulated?

[SLH]

Again that was uncalled for you have a way of stating things that sets me off.

No the allocations are not set by resident hunter success I stated that wrong but the intentions are the same. The allocations are based on what they call "harvestable surplus". This is based on knowing the number of trophy sheep that are out there. Which brings up all the problems with not surveying the winter ranges enough, another problem that leads to all this. Over the past 15 years the number of sheep harvested is going down, which is a direct relation to the number of harvestable sheep that are out there based mostly on the fact that hunter licenses have remained stable over that same period. I'm sure if we went through all the survey results from the past three years we could come up with a recent number but we don't have much in the way of surveys prior to that to look at to compare so harvest numbers have to be used to determine this. Because over the same 15 years the number of license holders has remained quite consistent it follows that you can base the harvestable surplus on the actual number harvested and that number is down. Yet the allocations have remained the same over that period.

At this point I will say read the plan because there is even more detail to it than that, things like “Until such time as supply and demand can be better rationalized, the following interim allocation guidelines will prevail in order of priority: resident recreational use of game will have precedence over non-resident use."

All of this is just to go back to my original position that if the Management Plan is followed we wouldn't be in this predicament. Allocations would go up and down management strategies would be put in place when needed like wait times and things like habitat improvement and predator control would be dealt with as needed. There would not be a resident vs. non-resident debate, yet we wait until we are in a crisis mode to make these decisions that should have been an ongoing event and no one would be surprised of decisions that have to be made because everyone would be aware of what to expect as a result of the numbers being available. Now word is that they are coming up with a new "Plan" yet they never followed the old one.

[SLH]

Originally Posted by sheepguide

I wish it was as simple as growing a set and just doing it but you have to realize that doing the right thing by going on with the predator control could have a more drastic affect on wild life.
Much of the money used in wild life studies and managment is from non hunting organizations and doing wrong in their eyes could shut down many studies and programs that are helping our wildlife and wildlands.
I dont agree that this should be an issue but it is and SRD needs to somehow try and keep all parties involved happy not just hunters.

I'm aware of what you're saying and that is part of the problem. SRD gives money to that group to do the Griz study. Why not leave that to their own department then we could criticise them for doing a poor job but the motives for the results wouldn't be in question. Manage the resource properly if people want in on studies that is fine but SRD should know what is needed on their own not waiting for someone else to tell them and tied to that would be all the political baggage that goes with it.

You do have a point though SRD does have other people to keep happy unfortunately we only have them.

One of the problems I was pointing out SLH is guys like you come on here throwing around incorrect information as if it were fact and then wonder why SRD won't listen to what many people have to say when they repeat it. You did it under your previous username and you are doing it again under this one. Spare yourself the embarassment of denying it...we both know it's fact.

I agree, read the plan but glean the facts from it and share those with your fellow hunters and use those facts to bolster your aguement. Don't throw wild speculation and incorrect information around as fact and wonder why people call you on it. You raise some very valid concerns. Now offer some valid facts to support those concerns. It's the way to get SRD's ear.

[Bighorn sheep guide]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Have you asked? SRD doesn't just mail out the results of every study and every research project and every proposed rule change to every person in Alberta. Sometime the onus falls upon this interested to ask. I've found them quite forthcoming with information when it was requested in a clear and concise manner.

Seems you finally got your proof on the proposed reg changes by asking.

Well I have to say this, I do sit on one of the boards, and we have put alot of money into ariel flights to count sheep. I will say that all counts done have come back with sheep holding there own. Until just lately it has been brought up that if you look at I think there is 3 areas in general that SRD is looking at going to a draw on. Because over the last 20 years 90% of rams have been taken in these areas. Now when we like you say get the results, and they show that the sheep are stable. Why wouldn't we ask were SRD is coming up with these new #'s. Look at the grizzly count,400 bears. Come on. You cann't so call put out barb wire on key trails and tell me that all bears are going to walk thought it.
Same as counting sheep, they do it in the spring if there is enough snow. How can you count all the sheep from a helicopter? I've been in one before doing it with F&W. It isn't easy!

I agree that the science isn't perfect but these aerial counts are all we really have. Well that and anecdotal evidence. I've been on several of the aerial surveys and I don't think they are attempting to count every sheep in the WMU but rather count areas of high density and extrapolate from that the numbers. When you count an area over a long enough period, trends begin to develop giving you are good look at the overall health of the herd. I don't think it's 100% perfect but it is a good tool in managing sheep and from the biologists I've spoken with, there are a couple areas of special concern that they feel would benefit from a reduced hunter harvest.

While it's easy to pick holes in scientific methods, it's much harder to offer a better alternative for these management tools. I know even a lot of the seasoned sheep hunters are expressing concern about the number of mature rams in some WMUs. I'd have a hard time arguing against a draw if the evidence was there to support the need for it.

No doubt there are many more management tools to be employed but in WMUs with immediate needs of more intensive management, draws do seem one solution.

[Bighorn sheep guide]

Here is a question , the new minister is he a hunter? Does anyone know, I've heard both ways. But haven't heard for sure. I know Morton was.

Originally Posted by Bighorn sheep guide

Here is a question , the new minister is he a hunter? Does anyone know, I've heard both ways. But haven't heard for sure. I know Morton was.

From what I heard him say in one speech is that he used to be but isn't anymore.

[Bighorn sheep guide]

Originally Posted by sheepguide

I wish it was as simple as growing a set and just doing it but you have to realize that doing the right thing by going on with the predator control could have a more drastic affect on wild life.
Much of the money used in wild life studies and managment is from non hunting organizations and doing wrong in their eyes could shut down many studies and programs that are helping our wildlife and wildlands.
I dont agree that this should be an issue but it is and SRD needs to somehow try and keep all parties involved happy not just hunters.

I know that there was $230 000 some spent on this wolf study, radio collared and tracked packs in 1 area. 2 years, then they were going to take out the pack and leave the dominate pair fexed. To see if they would still hold there area from other packs. All this money was spent and come time to take the other pack members out ,and it was canned. Nate wrote a big theises on this, saying that soming had to be down as the ungulantes were taking a beating. 4% calf elk by fall.
Same thing was done with the cats, although I believe there is something in the works for this, to hopefully manage this situation

[Bighorn sheep guide]

I know I sound like a broken record, but this is for those that think a draw is better for sheep management. I know that elk when they come out that you apply for your tags and wait to see if you get drawn. You don't have to by the tag right? Well think of draw for sheep, OK. How many non - hunters do you think will also apply for these tags? Just a thought.

[ishootbambi]

Originally Posted by Bighorn sheep guide

I know I sound like a broken record, but this is for those that think a draw is better for sheep management. I know that elk when they come out that you apply for your tags and wait to see if you get drawn. You don't have to by the tag right? Well think of draw for sheep, OK. How many non - hunters do you think will also apply for these tags? Just a thought.

i dont know if they are all non-hunters, but the non-sheep hunters seem to number around 6000 from the info in this thread.

[Gulo gulo]

Originally Posted by SLH

The reason I have concerns about this is that it already hasn't been adopted as stated in the Plan. Granted the mechanism for the altered allocations is not real clear but if the number of harvested rams by residents is 150 then 20% of that is 30 yet the allocations over time haven't changed. Again I'm not sure about the long term allocations but they seem to be set in stone now.

Single Malt is correct. The sheep tags are fixed; they do not get reviewed every 5 years like the other species. That is why they haven’t changed. This is simply because the sheep allocations were put into place before the rest of the species went to the allocation system.

[Bighorn sheep guide]

Originally Posted by ishootbambi

i dont know if they are all non-hunters, but the non-sheep hunters seem to number around 6000 from the info in this thread.

I'm not saying all, but for a few dollars to apply, they can save an animal. In there eye, just something to keep in mind with all this draw stuff going on .

[sheepguide]

Originally Posted by Bighorn sheep guide

I'm not saying all, but for a few dollars to apply, they can save an animal. In there eye, just something to keep in mind with all this draw stuff going on .

And also something that the more it is brought up the more non hunters will see and think about doing it. Best not to advertise anything that can work against us.

[Bighorn sheep guide]

Originally Posted by Gulo gulo

Single Malt is correct. The sheep tags are fixed; they do not get reviewed every 5 years like the other species. That is why they haven’t changed. This is simply because the sheep allocations were put into place before the rest of the species went to the allocation system.

I don't understand why everyone is whining about the amount of sheep the outfitters take, that's there job. When you pay $125 000 for 1 alocation , of course your going to kill sheep that there job. Most of them don't have a 9 to 5 job. If people think outfitters are pushing for this change, think again. When you have $500 000 tied up in 4 tags, would you want to loss them.
Come on APOS and other organizations are trying TO KEEP SHEEP ON THE MOUNTAIN, SRD has to wake up and manage all animals. Even the politically sensitive ones.

[ishootbambi]

Originally Posted by sheepguide

And also something that the more it is brought up the more non hunters will see and think about doing it. Best not to advertise anything that can work against us.

the solution to that is simple. still wont eliminate them, but cut them down a bunch. pay for the hunting license and tag up front. thats done in many jurisducictions already. ive always thought that purchase of a wildlife certificate should be required to apply for draws. that and boost the price of application to a nonrefundable 50 bucks. most anti's are only for their cause in pricipal, unlike most hunters who provide funding and volunteer their time for their cause. if they still want to interfere, at least they are supporting us with their cash.

[sheepguide]

Originally Posted by ishootbambi

the solution to that is simple. still wont eliminate them, but cut them down a bunch. pay for the hunting license and tag up front. thats done in many jurisducictions already. ive always thought that purchase of a wildlife certificate should be required to apply for draws. that and boost the price of application to a nonrefundable 50 bucks. most anti's are only for their cause in pricipal, unlike most hunters who provide funding and volunteer their time for their cause. if they still want to interfere, at least they are supporting us with their cash.

You bet, great idea.

[Gulo gulo]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

When you count an area over a long enough period, trends begin to develop giving you are good look at the overall health of the herd. I don't think it's 100% perfect but it is a good tool in managing sheep and from the biologists I've spoken with, there are a couple areas of special concern that they feel would benefit from a reduced hunter harvest.
I'd have a hard time arguing against a draw if the evidence was there to support the need for it.
No doubt there are many more management tools to be employed but in WMUs with immediate needs of more intensive management, draws do seem one solution.

Sheephunter,

I will be meeting with a few of SRD’s head bio’s next week and I want to make the most of it. I would like to get my facts straight so I can ask some (hopefully) intelligent questions. From the data I have read from the ACA aerial surveys, the numbers for sheep were up or stable in most areas. Which WMUs are in trouble?? What are the proposed changes for 2011, are they in stone??

I am very fearful of draws. I am worried because of the simple fact that the resource is so limited that the non draw areas will receive added pressure, causing them to go on a draw. Then all of us residents lose the opportunity to ‘go’ sheep hunting every year, successful or not. I don’t think any of us want that. I would hate to see sheep hunting go the way the other species already have, where a resident has to wait 10 years to go and the non resident can go every year. Even if you’re a wealthy Albertan you cannot buy a tag from an outfitter as they are designated as “non resident only”.

Gulo, I haven't seen the actual numbers yet and hopefully will soon but I know the areas of concern are the far south and the Clearwater. I'm far from a proponent of draws but if the evidence is there to support their necessity to maintain healthy sheep populations, I wouldn't stand in their way. I guess the important questions are are why and where and are there are other less restrictive alternatives.

It sounds like you are pretty well informed on all this already. I'll be anxious to hear what they have to say. Keep us posted.