Big sheep changes

[bdub]

Originally Posted by pottymouth

Is that the zone that almost has more car vs sheep collisions and definitely more native harvests, and for sure way more predator kills than it does hunter kills? Success..yes

Ddub..... Have you found those stats I asked for in post #474

You got those stats on 400 sheep collisions, native harvest and predator kills?

You have as much access to info as I have potty.

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by bdub

You got those stats on 400 sheep collisions, native harvest and predator kills?

You have as much access to info as I have potty.

Exactly NONE!

Thank you for proving that you have no knowledge on the what is actually going on!

So how can you defend something, when we haven't been given any access to the info????? Blind faith in Esrd ????

But yet you want to argue with me because I reserve my opinion until I see something tangible!!!

[bdub]

Originally Posted by pottymouth

Exactly NONE!

Thank you for proving that you have no knowledge on the what is actually going on!

So how can you defend something, when we haven't been given any access to the info????? Blind faith in Esrd ????

But yet you want to argue with me because I reserve my opinion until I see something tangible!!!

I am just in agreement with the research (Geists) that points to the benifits of the proposed change and what the trends of the past surveys indicates that is happening with our sheep herds. I guess we will see soon enough.

And please quit YELLING! I'm hard of hearing already. Thanks.

[crazy_davey]

Originally Posted by pottymouth

Exactly NONE!

Thank you for proving that you have no knowledge on the what is actually going on!

So how can you defend something, when we haven't been given any access to the info????? Blind faith in Esrd ????

But yet you want to argue with me because I reserve my opinion until I see something tangible!!!

Instead of bitching and whining on the internet like so many of you are doing, why not do some research on this issue. Call the biologists, ask some questions. Information is there, you might just have to do some leg work. Doing so is far more productive than anything you have given in this thread Potty. You might actually learn a thing or two along the way as well.

Some have actually done these things and actually got some very good information on the subject.

Here is another suggestion, email Reg Prostebby WSFA President, ask him what his opinion is now that they have had another meeting on February 2nd and saw some of the information and discussed some of the issues presented at that meeting. You can view the meeting minutes on WSFA website.

If you care about this subject, do some leg work, ask some questions if you want answers. Because what you are doing here is nothing more than stirring the pot.

[pottymouth]

Thx...but im way ahead of you...and perhaps most. I got everything that has been made available to the public. I've wrote my letters, and even have a meeting set up

The info that i keep talking about, will not be available until August. ... unfortunately i had an opportunity at this info years ago, and it fell through.

Ironically my bitching has only caught your attention now... but theres been numerous of us saying this was in the works years ago.... but you along with others where to blind to see it.

Hey but if you think Davey you've done more for getting all this out publicly. .ill bow out. I will not share any information i get, or discuss these kinds of issues any longer... good luck.

Floors your big shooter. ...

Originally Posted by crazy_davey

Instead of bitching and whining on the internet like so many of you are doing, why not do some research on this issue. Call the biologists, ask some questions. Information is there, you might just have to do some leg work. Doing so is far more productive than anything you have given in this thread Potty. You might actually learn a thing or two along the way as well.

Some have actually done these things and actually got some very good information on the subject.

Here is another suggestion, email Reg Prostebby WSFA President, ask him what his opinion is now that they have had another meeting on February 2nd and saw some of the information and discussed some of the issues presented at that meeting. You can view the meeting minutes on WSFA website.

If you care about this subject, do some leg work, ask some questions if you want answers. Because what you are doing here is nothing more than stirring the pot.

[crazy_davey]

Originally Posted by pottymouth

Thx...but im way ahead of you...and perhaps most. I got everything that has been made available to the public. I've wrote my letters, and even have a meeting set up

The info that i keep talking about, will not be available until August. ... unfortunately i had an opportunity at this info years ago, and it fell through.

Ironically my bitching has only caught your attention now... but theres been numerous of us saying this was in the works years ago.... but you along with others where to blind to see it.

It is obvious you haven't seen the information some have, I can tell from your responses. Maybe after your meeting you might learn a thing or two if it is with the right people.

Sorry potty, I caught on to your bitching and whining years ago, responses to you are a waste of time, that is obvious as well.

I wasn't blind at all, I am in favor of a change, have been for a very long time.

Alberta is the last place in NA that residents can buy an over the counter tag for BH sheep (maybe I'm wrong). If you think we can keep going like this forever you have another thing coming. Data is there to prove that we cant keep going at this rate. Do some research.

I am done.

[crazy_davey]

Originally Posted by pottymouth

Hey but if you think Davey you've done more for getting all this out publicly. .ill bow out. I will not share any information i get, or discuss these kinds of issues any longer... good luck.

Floors your big shooter. ...

I said I was done but you keep editing your post, Schwanky is that you? LOL

I have seen the information I need to by contacting people that have the information. I do not remember getting anything worthy from you or your buddies other than a bunch of bitching and whining about lost hunter opportunity.

I know you think you are an authority on the subject. I can see you are not, so can others. Most sheep hunters in this province think they know more than the biologist's. They want their god given right to get an over the counter tag every year they are eligible. Outfitters aren't in favor of change, geez I wonder why . I know many that think there should be no outfitter allocations in Alberta for sheep period, and they are right.

I am not putting anything out there publicly, I am in favor of a change. I don't always support change, but this one I am all for.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by crazy_davey

Instead of bitching and whining on the internet like so many of you are doing, why not do some research on this issue. Call the biologists, ask some questions. Information is there, you might just have to do some leg work. Doing so is far more productive than anything you have given in this thread Potty. You might actually learn a thing or two along the way as well.

Some have actually done these things and actually got some very good information on the subject.

Here is another suggestion, email Reg Prostebby WSFA President, ask him what his opinion is now that they have had another meeting on February 2nd and saw some of the information and discussed some of the issues presented at that meeting. You can view the meeting minutes on WSFA website.

If you care about this subject, do some leg work, ask some questions if you want answers. Because what you are doing here is nothing more than stirring the pot.

I find your unsubstantiated claim of having information that others don't quite interesting.
Have you seen the ram harvest registration data?


Spoke with Reg a few days ago. The WSF was not provided with the information required to determine if the concern has any validity. Perhaps this information will finally be released at the march meeting. Currently the WSF agrees with Potty and disagrees with you.

Without speaking for Reg, it appears that he and the WSF are still against the proposed changes, at least until the gov can support their claims with facts not summaries.

How open has esrd been with providing information? Well for example, the WSF has been promised copies of a couple of recent research papers. They are still waiting for esrd to provide them. When I heard that the WSF didn't have the info I passed along the papers. There is something very wrong when the gov is so reluctant to provide information. ....

Why is esrd withholding the data if they have a proven concern? It's not like a government to hide data when it has an agenda that doesn't fit the facts....


So Crazy Davey,

Do you agree with the regulation change authors that hunting has caused a genetic selection for smaller, slower growing rams?

[bdub]

WBuff there is more than enough data out there that any self respecting sheep Hunter has to have a concern for our resource and see a need for change. Of course you are already so set in your ways and I am sure you will continue to fight anything that points to change no matter how strong the evidence. I guess as the data becomes available we will see. It's no wonder the government is reluctant to present their data until they have their ducks in a row with the eneducated knee jerk opposition that occurs in this province. Let's hope that the interst of what is best for the sheep herd and the future of resident hunting for sheep not going on draw prevails. You mention something about me and "cherry pie" not long ago. Well i hope you a ready to eat some "crow" here shortly.

[Titanium79]

Originally Posted by bdub

WBuff there is more than enough data out there that any self respecting sheep Hunter has to have a concern for our resource and see a need for change. Of course you are already so set in your ways and I am sure you will continue to fight anything that points to change no matter how strong the evidence. I guess as the data becomes available we will see. It's no wonder the government is reluctant to present their data until they have their ducks in a row with the eneducated knee jerk opposition that occurs in this province. Let's hope that the interst of what is best for the sheep herd and the future of resident hunting for sheep not going on draw prevails. You mention something about me and "cherry pie" not long ago. Well i hope you a ready to eat some "crow" here shortly.

If all thi data exists why is the WSF against this change? Post up all this data to change my mind. I have yet to see any hard factual info stating any change just a bunch of theories. Please dbud post it up to silence the crowd.

[45-70sapper]

I have never hunted sheep but I have started to take an interest in it and plan on doing a hunt this coming fall. Which really means that I have very little knowledge in the subject, other than what I've learned from my research. So while I'm no expert, I was wondering if it is true that the biologist that is spearheading these proposed changes is a member of peta?

[Roughneck Country]

Originally Posted by 45-70sapper

I have never hunted sheep but I have started to take an interest in it and plan on doing a hunt this coming fall. Which really means that I have very little knowledge in the subject, other than what I've learned from my research. So while I'm no expert, I was wondering if it is true that the biologist that is spearheading these proposed changes is a member of peta?

I contacted Anne and asked her flat out if she is or ever has been a member of PETA, she refused to answer. I also asked her if she had involvement in the Sierra Club, Yellowstone to Yukon, Green Peace, or any other anti hunting organization, refused to answer. Her is her contact info

Hubbs, Anne
Senior Wildlife Biologist
Regional Resource Management
Environment and Sustainable Resource Development
Box 1720
2nd fl Provincial Building
4919 - 51 Street

Rocky Mountain House, AB
T4T 1B3

Phone: 403 845-8235
Fax: 403 845-4750
E-mail: anne.hubbs@gov.ab.ca

[fish_e_o]

Originally Posted by Roughneck Country

I contacted Anne and asked her flat out if she is or ever has been a member of PETA, she refused to answer. I also asked her if she had involvement in the Sierra Club, Yellowstone to Yukon, Green Peace, or any other anti hunting organization, refused to answer. Her is her contact info

Hubbs, Anne
Senior Wildlife Biologist
Regional Resource Management
Environment and Sustainable Resource Development
Box 1720
2nd fl Provincial Building
4919 - 51 Street

Rocky Mountain House, AB
T4T 1B3

Phone: 403 845-8235
Fax: 403 845-4750
E-mail: anne.hubbs@gov.ab.ca

that's a huge conflict of interest if she is and i would hope it would be the end of her current position if she is.

[45-70sapper]

Has it ever been stated anywhere that she is or has been a member of pets or any similar group?

If that is true, then I would think that this is an issue that every angler, hunter and outdoorsmen in the country should be against. Regardless of the information that she has, if it is 100% true or tainted by her bias, these proposed changes, and her, should be thrown out. And if someone else who doesn't have this bias comes to the same conclusions that she did, then fine, go from there. It seems like it would be a very slippery slope to allow members of groups like peta to alter and control our hunting.

This is all assuming that she is.

[SLH]

There is a great deal of info available from local sources on why the changes are being put forward. Much of that info makes sense to me and in my opinion will be the best thing for the sheep herd in this province. Those of you that still bicker that there is no reason for these changes either don’t understand the issue or are unwilling to go look at it. In my opinion these proposed changes will help the herd. If they stay as is there will be a continual slow decline in the herd.

I truly believe this idea of genetic harm is getting way more play than is necessary. It was a theory to explain a data set. I think all involved have seen the error in putting this theory forward ignoring all other explanations and have moved on. The unchanging issue is that there is evidence (believed by some, denounced by others) that have some of those charged with managing the herds concerned. It would appear that many on this site believe that those people have a desire to send Jon Jorgensen out with a big retirement gift regardless of the consequences for the sheep hunters of Alberta. What an interesting concept/conspiracy. Could you imagine everyone needed to make this happen. Could you also imagine what Ann Hubbs is going through right now having to field phone calls and emails on what organizations she belongs to, regardless of her standing and professional credentials or some of the other bio’s involved with this change who are life-long hunters. How disrespectiful! I hope you guys don’t push them to say “to hell with it” and just send it straight to a draw. It would serve us right. If you want to criticize this issue that is great I personally believe there is parts of this that could be debated and I’m sure the bios would be more than interested in all view points and points of critisicm, but the reality is that these decisions are being made in an effort to improve the herd, not to feather somebodies legacy.

Each and every person that I have talked with that has actually talked with one of the bio’s has come away with a new appreciation of issues facing the herd and the hunters of this province and that includes Reg. After I saw the posted document that he shared on the website I contacted him to get his opinion. As it was a personal email to me I think I’ll keep it to myself in respect of him, but I will say he has a new appreciation of the issues. To his credit he realizes this is going to be a big deal and there will be many competing interests. I’m also quite hopeful by his comments that he will keep all Alberta hunters interests in mind moving forward as well as the health of the herd. But don’t take my word, contact him yourselves, it even says on the website to send them your messages. Find out what he thinks of it. Also remember he was the one at the meeting.

Thank God there are some reasonable people in some of these positions that are actually able to deal with this with some integrity. These bios and managers are not perfect and they are aware of what’s at stake, but if we can’t act and debate this with some decorum everyone will lose.

[Lr1000]

Originally Posted by SLH

There is a great deal of info available from local sources on why the changes are being put forward. Much of that info makes sense to me and in my opinion will be the best thing for the sheep herd in this province. Those of you that still bicker that there is no reason for these changes either don’t understand the issue or are unwilling to go look at it. In my opinion these proposed changes will help the herd. If they stay as is there will be a continual slow decline in the herd.

I truly believe this idea of genetic harm is getting way more play than is necessary. It was a theory to explain a data set. I think all involved have seen the error in putting this theory forward ignoring all other explanations and have moved on. The unchanging issue is that there is evidence (believed by some, denounced by others) that have some of those charged with managing the herds concerned. It would appear that many on this site believe that those people have a desire to send Jon Jorgensen out with a big retirement gift regardless of the consequences for the sheep hunters of Alberta. What an interesting concept/conspiracy. Could you imagine everyone needed to make this happen. Could you also imagine what Ann Hubbs is going through right now having to field phone calls and emails on what organizations she belongs to, regardless of her standing and professional credentials or some of the other bio’s involved with this change who are life-long hunters. How disrespectiful! I hope you guys don’t push them to say “to hell with it” and just send it straight to a draw. It would serve us right. If you want to criticize this issue that is great I personally believe there is parts of this that could be debated and I’m sure the bios would be more than interested in all view points and points of critisicm, but the reality is that these decisions are being made in an effort to improve the herd, not to feather somebodies legacy.

Each and every person that I have talked with that has actually talked with one of the bio’s has come away with a new appreciation of issues facing the herd and the hunters of this province and that includes Reg. After I saw the posted document that he shared on the website I contacted him to get his opinion. As it was a personal email to me I think I’ll keep it to myself in respect of him, but I will say he has a new appreciation of the issues. To his credit he realizes this is going to be a big deal and there will be many competing interests. I’m also quite hopeful by his comments that he will keep all Alberta hunters interests in mind moving forward as well as the health of the herd. But don’t take my word, contact him yourselves, it even says on the website to send them your messages. Find out what he thinks of it. Also remember he was the one at the meeting.

Thank God there are some reasonable people in some of these positions that are actually able to deal with this with some integrity. These bios and managers are not perfect and they are aware of what’s at stake, but if we can’t act and debate this with some decorum everyone will lose.

I respect your guys opinion on the matter. However me personally would like to see more information then what has been given so far to make a informed desission on the matter. The reason I will stand against this change is because they have only released information that supports the change. I would be happy with just registration data, so you get a good idea of how many Rams are in areas and horn length. I could care less about age because I believe half are aged improper anyhow.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by SLH

There is a great deal of info available from local sources on why the changes are being put forward. Much of that info makes sense to me and in my opinion will be the best thing for the sheep herd in this province. Those of you that still bicker that there is no reason for these changes either don’t understand the issue or are unwilling to go look at it. In my opinion these proposed changes will help the herd. If they stay as is there will be a continual slow decline in the herd.

I truly believe this idea of genetic harm is getting way more play than is necessary. It was a theory to explain a data set. I think all involved have seen the error in putting this theory forward ignoring all other explanations and have moved on. The unchanging issue is that there is evidence (believed by some, denounced by others) that have some of those charged with managing the herds concerned. It would appear that many on this site believe that those people have a desire to send Jon Jorgensen out with a big retirement gift regardless of the consequences for the sheep hunters of Alberta. What an interesting concept/conspiracy. Could you imagine everyone needed to make this happen. Could you also imagine what Ann Hubbs is going through right now having to field phone calls and emails on what organizations she belongs to, regardless of her standing and professional credentials or some of the other bio’s involved with this change who are life-long hunters. How disrespectiful! I hope you guys don’t push them to say “to hell with it” and just send it straight to a draw. It would serve us right. If you want to criticize this issue that is great I personally believe there is parts of this that could be debated and I’m sure the bios would be more than interested in all view points and points of critisicm, but the reality is that these decisions are being made in an effort to improve the herd, not to feather somebodies legacy.

Each and every person that I have talked with that has actually talked with one of the bio’s has come away with a new appreciation of issues facing the herd and the hunters of this province and that includes Reg. After I saw the posted document that he shared on the website I contacted him to get his opinion. As it was a personal email to me I think I’ll keep it to myself in respect of him, but I will say he has a new appreciation of the issues. To his credit he realizes this is going to be a big deal and there will be many competing interests. I’m also quite hopeful by his comments that he will keep all Alberta hunters interests in mind moving forward as well as the health of the herd. But don’t take my word, contact him yourselves, it even says on the website to send them your messages. Find out what he thinks of it. Also remember he was the one at the meeting.

Thank God there are some reasonable people in some of these positions that are actually able to deal with this with some integrity. These bios and managers are not perfect and they are aware of what’s at stake, but if we can’t act and debate this with some decorum everyone will lose.

Horseapples....

Jorgenson and his deciphals Bianchet, Pelletier, Hubbs and Feder have produced several new research papers expounding that "HUNTING HAS CAUSED GENETIC HARM" to bighorn rams. They even claim this genetic harm is reaching into national and provincial park populations.

Sure, these scientists have put out a lot of research on this topic for over a decade, without ever releasing data other than from Ram Mountain. Bianchet started promoting ending all general licence hunting of Mature animals over ten years ago. His long term desire to have all sheep hunting placed on a draw is almost at hand.

If you agree with the researchers proposal that we need a full curl regulation for the good of the species based on the Information provided, you are agreeing that hunters have caused a genetic shift in Alberta rams to a smaller, slower growing phenotype.


Have you read the 2014 papers by the regulation change authors stating that hunting is responsible for shrinking rams? Or the new paper stating that hunters are killing too many park rams and causing a genetic shift in these populations too?

Did you know that the shrinking ram calculations use a factor to compensate for climate variation but not herd density nor habitat quality? El Nino is worth considering as a factor of horn growth but not habitat quality. ....

Why won't the gov release the horn data? What are they afraid of if they are correct?

How can populations and ram ratios be estimated when they have not surveyed the vast majority of the sheep range for 5-10 years?

Why won't the government keep its agreement to complete the resilience study before making any changes?

Why did Jorgenson say so much at the breakfast club? Bragging?

[dshaw]

So why don't they pull teeth and get a accurate age? they do it with cats and it doesn't take long at all. I think that if we can get an accurate age then that would help out with the data problem.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by bdub

WBuff there is more than enough data out there that any self respecting sheep Hunter has to have a concern for our resource and see a need for change. Of course you are already so set in your ways and I am sure you will continue to fight anything that points to change no matter how strong the evidence. I guess as the data becomes available we will see. It's no wonder the government is reluctant to present their data until they have their ducks in a row with the eneducated knee jerk opposition that occurs in this province. Let's hope that the interst of what is best for the sheep herd and the future of resident hunting for sheep not going on draw prevails. You mention something about me and "cherry pie" not long ago. Well i hope you a ready to eat some "crow" here shortly.

Since you are aware of so much information, where is the proof that rams are dying due to stressors from the rut and that reproduction rates have dropped due to to few mature rams?

You know, these problems you claim have been proven to exist....



Do you agree with the regulation change proposal researcher that hunting has caused a genetic selection to smaller, slower growing horns in Bighorn sheep?

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by dshaw

So why don't they pull teeth and get a accurate age? they do it with cats and it doesn't take long at all. I think that if we can get an accurate age then that would help out with the data problem.

Tooth analysis is not a very accurate method for aging sheep. This method is generally only good to ballpark the age within a year or two. Annuli aging when done by competent personnel is considered to be the most accurate method to age sheep.

[RZR]

[QUOTE=crazy_davey;2730345]

I know you think you are an authority on the subject. I can see you are not, so can others. Most sheep hunters in this province think they know more than the biologist's.

Biologists are just theorists.

[Lr1000]

A common sighting on highway 40. There are five 4/5 or better Rams in this photo. They are 1km inside the park. So are they park Rams in the tally or are they included in the 4% carry over of K country Rams? Sheep have no boundaries. Where do the boundries lie in the servay numbers?

[bdub]

Originally Posted by SLH

There is a great deal of info available from local sources on why the changes are being put forward. Much of that info makes sense to me and in my opinion will be the best thing for the sheep herd in this province. Those of you that still bicker that there is no reason for these changes either don’t understand the issue or are unwilling to go look at it. In my opinion these proposed changes will help the herd. If they stay as is there will be a continual slow decline in the herd.

I truly believe this idea of genetic harm is getting way more play than is necessary. It was a theory to explain a data set. I think all involved have seen the error in putting this theory forward ignoring all other explanations and have moved on. The unchanging issue is that there is evidence (believed by some, denounced by others) that have some of those charged with managing the herds concerned. It would appear that many on this site believe that those people have a desire to send Jon Jorgensen out with a big retirement gift regardless of the consequences for the sheep hunters of Alberta. What an interesting concept/conspiracy. Could you imagine everyone needed to make this happen. Could you also imagine what Ann Hubbs is going through right now having to field phone calls and emails on what organizations she belongs to, regardless of her standing and professional credentials or some of the other bio’s involved with this change who are life-long hunters. How disrespectiful! I hope you guys don’t push them to say “to hell with it” and just send it straight to a draw. It would serve us right. If you want to criticize this issue that is great I personally believe there is parts of this that could be debated and I’m sure the bios would be more than interested in all view points and points of critisicm, but the reality is that these decisions are being made in an effort to improve the herd, not to feather somebodies legacy.

Each and every person that I have talked with that has actually talked with one of the bio’s has come away with a new appreciation of issues facing the herd and the hunters of this province and that includes Reg. After I saw the posted document that he shared on the website I contacted him to get his opinion. As it was a personal email to me I think I’ll keep it to myself in respect of him, but I will say he has a new appreciation of the issues. To his credit he realizes this is going to be a big deal and there will be many competing interests. I’m also quite hopeful by his comments that he will keep all Alberta hunters interests in mind moving forward as well as the health of the herd. But don’t take my word, contact him yourselves, it even says on the website to send them your messages. Find out what he thinks of it. Also remember he was the one at the meeting.

Thank God there are some reasonable people in some of these positions that are actually able to deal with this with some integrity. These bios and managers are not perfect and they are aware of what’s at stake, but if we can’t act and debate this with some decorum everyone will lose.

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Since you are aware of so much information, where is the proof that rams are dying due to stressors from the rut and that reproduction rates have dropped due to to few mature rams?

You know, these problems you claim have been proven to exist....



Do you agree with the regulation change proposal researcher that hunting has caused a genetic selection to smaller, slower growing horns in Bighorn sheep?

I completely echo SLH's response.

The problems and proof a right there in front of your nose WB. You just have so much tinfoil covering your head you can't see it. I've read all of the research and seen enough proof to come to my conclusions that harvesting all these young small rams is a bad idea for the sheep herd. You keep coming back to this genetic harm thing. I don't believe it and I've stated as much over and over. Slowing horn growth, high mortality of rams post rut and poorer lamb production all fits in with Geist's research and what the data shows is happening. Let me guess, Walking Buffalo is way smarter than any of those dumb biologists. There is something wrong with the herd and lots of people see it. We need to start working on the solution that keeps hunting as part of an option without going to draw. If you want it to go on draw fine, keep your helmet on. If not, than take off the tinfoil helmet and start using your head and talent to see the real problem and potential solutions we have in front of us.

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by crazy_davey

I said I was done but you keep editing your post, Schwanky is that you? LOL

I have seen the information I need to by contacting people that have the information. I do not remember getting anything worthy from you or your buddies other than a bunch of bitching and whining about lost hunter opportunity.

I know you think you are an authority on the subject. I can see you are not, so can others. Most sheep hunters in this province think they know more than the biologist's. They want their god given right to get an over the counter tag every year they are eligible. Outfitters aren't in favor of change, geez I wonder why . I know many that think there should be no outfitter allocations in Alberta for sheep period, and they are right.

I am not putting anything out there publicly, I am in favor of a change. I don't always support change, but this one I am all for.

Man you have huge comprehension problems......

[crazy_davey]

Originally Posted by pottymouth

Man you have huge comprehension problems......

If you have seen some of the data and spoken with the biologists then you would comprehend that a change needs to be made. It is obvious that you haven't done any of the above.

The only ones who don't comprehend is you and your buddies who swear up and down that this is all about restricting hunter opportunity and nothing to do with our sheep. Your intentions are obvious.

We all know what an expert you are on the subject, but seriously, take off your tinfoil hat for a minute and let your little brain breathe.

[LCCFisherman]

Sheep should be draw only.. and I believe if you put it to vote alberta would speak and you guys who kill sheep every year would be silenced... Draw only.

[RZR]

Originally Posted by LCCFisherman

Sheep should be draw only.. and I believe if you put it to vote alberta would speak and you guys who kill sheep every year would be silenced... Draw only.

It shows you know nothing about sheep hunting. You can't kill a sheep every year, as there is a wait time between kills.

Here is a biologists hypothesis. They use a lot of words like unknown, estimate,observation, variables,and predict.

With my observation of breeding Rams being an estimated age of between 3 and 4 it is my observation that over the next 5 yrs. I'm going to predict that the estimated age will go down to 2 and 3 yr. olds. I may over estimate this number because there are a lot of variables and unknowns, so in my study I'm going to make a suggestion that sheep be move to full curl.

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by crazy_davey

If you have seen some of the data and spoken with the biologists then you would comprehend that a change needs to be made. It is obvious that you haven't done any of the above.

The only ones who don't comprehend is you and your buddies who swear up and down that this is all about restricting hunter opportunity and nothing to do with our sheep. Your intentions are obvious.

We all know what an expert you are on the subject, but seriously, take off your tinfoil hat for a minute and let your little brain breathe.

Again comprehension is the problem. .26 pages of me saying i havent seen the data they are WITH HOLDING lmao ... i highly doubt you have either...

Thank god your not my kid..geez

You keep talking about me being the authority on sheep hunting... But didnt you pop the
eyes out on your last sheep? What are the rules about that? Or wait you didnt comprehend them either...lol .....

[SLH]

Originally Posted by Lr1000

I respect your guys opinion on the matter. However me personally would like to see more information then what has been given so far to make a informed desission on the matter. The reason I will stand against this change is because they have only released information that supports the change. I would be happy with just registration data, so you get a good idea of how many Rams are in areas and horn length. I could care less about age because I believe half are aged improper anyhow.

Fair enough, it is frustrating that we are waiting here for a meeting in Mar. hopefully SRD can make their case and we can move forward with this whatever moving forward means. I suspect the info will still be controversial but at least a point to move on.

Lr how many rams in that pic you posted do you think are class IV?

I'm not sure any of them are.

[SLH]

Originally Posted by RZR

Here is a biologists hypothesis. They use a lot of words like unknown, estimate,observation, variables,and predict.

With my observation of breeding Rams being an estimated age of between 3 and 4 it is my observation that over the next 5 yrs. I'm going to predict that the estimated age will go down to 2 and 3 yr. olds. I may over estimate this number because there are a lot of variables and unknowns, so in my study I'm going to make a suggestion that sheep be move to full curl.

This made me laugh.