APOS Recomendations For Changes To Bighorn Sheep Hunting Regulations

[albertadave]

Looks like APOS would like to see some changes made to the sheep hunting regulations. A bit of a read, but worth the time if you are at all concerned about the allocation system, bighorn sheep hunting and hunting in general in the province of Alberta.

APOS Position Statement on Proposed Changes to Sheep Harvest Strategies

The Alberta Professional Outfitter’s Society (APOS) is a major stakeholder in the realm of sheep hunting, a species that has been a long-standing staple of the outfitted hunting industry in Alberta. Sheep outfitters annually guide numerous Resident, Non-Resident and Non-Resident Alien sheep hunters. To achieve consistent success, sheep hunting requires specialized equipment and knowledge—this is a major reason for the difference between the commercial harvest rates as opposed to the resident rate of harvest. In fact, we believe the true resident harvest rate is even lower than recognized, as a large portion of successful residents are guided by outfitters. This data, however, is not being collected. That outfitters are helping to increase the resident success rate in turn helps APOS maintain our 20% allowable Non-Resident/Non-Resident Alien harvest. As per the 1993 management plan, we would like a minimum 20% of the bighorn resource allocation moving forward, with no less than 41 trophy rams allocated to the outfitting industry. At one time, the Non-Resident/Non-Resident Alien harvest exceeded the resident harvest; not only have outfitters been reduced to 20% of the allowable harvest, but we also have a shorter season at a less productive time in which to conduct our sheep hunts. In short, outfitter opportunity is highly restricted when compared to that enjoyed by residents.
Obtaining transparent and accurate data continues to be an issue for those trying to sort through the many management options being considered for sheep management. Further, there is significant conflict in how the available data is interpreted by stakeholders, including wildlife managers, with regards to sustainable management options and preferences, appropriate horn-measuring methodologies and sheep population numbers. This could be improved by having an intensive training program that offers information on how to properly age, measure (using the B&C or SCI systems) and count rams. Having reliable data on registered rams that includes horn configuration (tight or open curl) and whether they’re broomed or full-curl would be very valuable as well.
Aerial population counts are very unreliable due to the time of year they’re conducted and the influence of weather on both sheep behaviour and visibility. Further, it’s difficult to find all the sheep in a given area within the confines of limited flight time. More intensive ground counts need to be conducted to supplement the information gathered through aerial surveys. Local outfitters, as well as other stakeholders, could assist in this effort.
No data has been collected on the impact to sheep populations and hunting related to the reduction of areas formerly available to hunting that are now captured within parks where hunting is prohibited. These encompass vast areas that, in most cases, include very productive bighorn ranges where hunter access has now been eliminated or significantly reduced – i.e. - White Goat Wilderness Area, Siffleur Wilderness Area, Ghost River Wilderness Area , etc. Additionally, there’s been no evaluation of the relationship between these areas, National parks and the open-to-hunting crown land that many, if not most, of our sheep share. We are not aware of any data on specific seasonal herd migration other than on Ram Mountain and Sheep Creek, which don’t reflect the majority of Alberta’s sheep range. There’s also been no analysis conducted as to why some WMUs produce more sheep than others, particularly as it relates to historic harvest rates. We believe these data gaps must be addressed before any long-term management decisions are made.
With respect to predation issues, we would like to see additional studies that document sheep mortality by predation. We also support increased predator harvest opportunities and effort throughout our sheep ranges.
There has been a decline in range quality and quantity across much of our best sheep habitat. We do not advocate the increased harvest of ewes as a way to mitigate this. Rather, we support the use of fire, both natural and prescribed, as a means to realize improved sheep range.
We would like a commitment to follow a sheep management plan - the 1993 plan was well-reasoned and detailed but it was not followed, to the detriment of sheep and the sheep hunting fraternity.
APOS finds the new draft sheep management plan to be unreasonably vague, with no identified population goals, harvest goals or specific management plans for key sheep ranges in Alberta. We don’t believe that a blanket approach is the answer to sheep management issues, as each herd is facing different influences across its home range and, therefore, requires individually-developed management strategies.
Several suggestions for strategies to achieve trophy ram goals are included in the draft plan; following is APOS’ position of support, or not, for each proposed strategy: (These are in point form and are meant to represent a direct quote from the current draft plan)
Longer waiting periods - Support
Increased license fees - Support
Limited number of trophy rams in a lifetime - Support
Restrictions on the number of big game licenses held- Not in Support
Increasing the number of full-curl minimum WMUs – Not in Support
Limited Entry Hunting (LEH) – Support, depending upon the details and their effect on outfitted hunting
LEH full-curl – Not in Support
Shortened season length – Not in Support
Increased waiting periods based on the size of ram taken - Support
Split seasons – Support, depending upon the details and their effect on outfitted hunting
Royalty fee - Support
Quota 4/5-curl – Support, depending upon the details and their effect on outfitted hunting
Archery seasons or primitive weapons – Support, depending upon the details and their effect on outfitted hunting
Access restrictions – Support, depending upon the details and their effect on outfitted hunting

Although we are not in support of a blanket fix, at this time APOS member outfitters have made it clear that when considering any regulation change, they should be implemented both north and south of the Brazeau River to avoid putting increased pressure on sheep in the north and creating another potential problem. We realize the Management plan is a work in progress and hope area-specific management issues will be addressed in the future for those specific issues. We are opposed to the implementation of any full-curl seasons for Non-Resident/Non-Resident Alien hunters.
Most sheep outfitters are very concerned about the prospect of a full-curl only regulation due to the expected lack of success they’ll experience as a result. One idea we could support is the implementation of a full-curl general license during the resident-only general season, and a resident draw for 4/5-curl rams during the Non-Resident/Non-Resident Alien season. In other words, the first week and the last two weeks of the resident season would be open for full-curl rams only. The middle weeks of the season would have a resident draw for 4/5-curl rams. All current sheep draws would remain 4/5-curl . This would allow unlimited opportunity for residents seeking full-curl rams, while concurrently allowing for some of the older, broomed rams to be harvested and not die of old age. All Non-Residents/Non-Resident Aliens would be on a 4/5-curl tag. Alternatively, APOS would consider supporting a total 4/5-curl LEH for all residents, or a 4/5-curl LEH in combination with the supported options listed above.
A major concern is the impact of hunter numbers on the quality of the hunting experience. This year, the proposed sheep regulation changes resulted in a significant increase in resident hunter numbers afield. Many of these residents were serious about hunting sheep and, throughout the Resident and Non-Resident season, put in the extensive required time to find and harvest a ram. The resultant crowding on the mountains reduced the quality of the sheep hunting experience for all hunters, Resident and Non-Resident alike.
Outfitters also have concerns about the increased access in WMUs 420 and 422 due to the impact of ATV clubs, new roads, trail system repairs and bridges in high harvest areas. We also have some concerns about the lack of road-corridor enforcement in sheep areas.
Outfitters are willing to adopt changes to ensure that Alberta’s sheep hunting continues to be among the best in the world. Sheep outfitters have suggested many alternatives to the full-curl proposal and believe most would contribute to meeting the department’s objectives; we have been, and will continue to be, more than willing to work with wildlife managers and other stakeholders in seeking reasonable and meaningful solutions. APOS outfitters are available to work with wildlife managers in identifying responses to region-specific concerns, and believe that the extensive time they spend in the very heart of Alberta’s sheep ranges can provide added value to management decisions impacting our sheep herds.
Lastly, irrespective of any regulation changes enacted, it’s critical that a 3- or 4-year transition period for outfitters be implemented; sheep hunter’s book outfitted hunts several years in advance, and any changes put into immediate effect could result in significant legal and financial problems for both industry members and the government.

Chad Lenz and Neil Beeman
Sheep Task Force

[deerguy]

Wow, they want non residents to have a minimum of 20% harvest. What a joke. Support all sorts of changes unless it effects the outfitters.
Can't blame them tho, @ $42,000 USD for a Bighorn hunt (price out of 2016 BSC catalogue) I'd want to get residents off the mountain too. Some of what they say makes sense, other things make you want to give them a punch in the throat.

[albertadave]

They already have 20% of the harvest. Different from all other species.

[alder]

"We are opposed to the implementation of any full-curl seasons for Non-Resident/Non-Resident Alien hunters"

Shocker. How do these two guys actually think that we would stand by and let this happen? They want SRD to adopt a preferential grading system for non resident hunters to protect the guiding industry while residents are reduced to some partial season draw for 4/5 curl. They must be kidding. The whole point of the proposed changes are due to some pseudo-scientist who published on diminishing ram horn size due to hunting. But Beeman and Lenz don't think that applies to non-resident harvest, I guess! If SRD agrees to this, it throws out the entire premise on which SRD is pushing to make the full curl change in the first place. So the change would unfounded from the get-go. I'd want to take this to the highest court in the country and fight this if it happened.

The change to 4/5 curl applies to everybody...or nobody.

[lead chucker]

Originally Posted by deerguy

Wow, they want non residents to have a minimum of 20% harvest. What a joke. Support all sorts of changes unless it effects the outfitters.
Can't blame them tho, @ $42,000 USD for a Bighorn hunt (price out of 2016 BSC catalogue) I'd want to get residents off the mountain too. Some of what they say makes sense, other things make you want to give them a punch in the throat.

Can't believe I actually agree with deerguy.

[Lr1000]

Just skimmed through it but looks like the outfitters are just looking after themselves here "don't impede on us and change resident season". I've always been pretty impartial to Albert sheep outfitters, however this letter leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

[Sigg]

If that goes through, the number of outfitter vs resident conflicts on the mountain sides will be....interesting to say the least.

[MooseRiverTrapper]

APOS supporting anything that has major effect on residents but nothing on outfitting non res sheep.

[Okotokian]

From an admittedly cursory glance at the post, it appears that APOS supports provisions that will impact the ability of residents of modest means from hunting sheep very often, but will have zero impact on wealthy customers who will likely only sheep hunt here once.

They support longer waiting periods after successful hunts, increased fees, etc. They don't support decreasing tag numbers, stricter full-curl regulation, or basically anything that would make it tougher to actually get your ram once you have an outfitter tag in your pocket.

Pretty predictable.

Personally not a sheep hunter so I have no skin in this game. Just an observation.

[Canukanuk]

Originally Posted by albertadave

They already have 20% of the harvest. Different from all other species.

Is the Sheep Foundation in favor of reducing outfitter permits????

[Roughneck Country]

I have always supported outfitted hunting regardless of species but I can not support this. You can't f@#$ the residents and reward or make it easier on the outfitters.

I have always heard Neil Beeman hates resident hunters so I guess a guy shouldn't be surprised.

If anything outfitters taking non residents should have to hunt full curl only rams during their season and let the rest of us take 4/5ths. This would leave a lot more rams on the mountain every year for resident harvest.

[Roughneck Country]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

From an admittedly cursory glance at the post, it appears that APOS supports provisions that will impact the ability of residents of modest means from hunting sheep very often, but will have zero impact on wealthy customers who will likely only sheep hunt here once.

They support longer waiting periods after successful hunts, increased fees, etc. They don't support decreasing tag numbers, stricter full-curl regulation, or basically anything that would make it tougher to actually get your ram once you have an outfitter tag in your pocket.

Pretty predictable.

Personally not a sheep hunter so I have no skin in this game. Just an observation.

Disagree on part of your first statement, regardless of wealth as a resident your chances of getting a ram go down with first and last season at full curl.

Point 2 maybe outfitters should have wait times between their successful harvests. i.e. if allocation 1 is successful this year they can't book it next year, wait a year out just like a resident has to.

[deerguy]

Originally Posted by Canukanuk

Is the Sheep Foundation in favor of reducing outfitter permits????

Emails have been sent off to both the ABA and AWSF

[Roughneck Country]

I'm curious on AWSF take on this statement as well

[Ranger CS]

Originally Posted by Canukanuk

Is the Sheep Foundation in favor of reducing outfitter permits????

Does the Sheep Foundation even have a formal opinion regarding sheep hunting policy? If they do I would like to see it.

[deerguy]

From the sounds of it the AWSF is not impressed with this letter.

[Frans]

WSFA's official position on the draft sheep management plan can be found on their website: www.wsfab.org.

"WSFA does not support any changes to the sheep regulations at this time until clear and scientific data can be presented and reviewed that would prove the need for changes."

[cowboyhunter]

Originally Posted by Roughneck Country

I have always supported outfitted hunting regardless of species but I can not support this. You can't f@#$ the residents and reward or make it easier on the outfitters.

I have always heard Neil Beeman hates resident hunters so I guess a guy shouldn't be surprised.

If anything outfitters taking non residents should have to hunt full curl only rams during their season and let the rest of us take 4/5ths. This would leave a lot more rams on the mountain every year for resident harvest.

Looking at Beeman's website, maybe he has never seen a full curl !

[Speckle55]

David

[Brock1]

Originally Posted by Frans

WSFA's official position on the draft sheep management plan can be found on their website: www.wsfab.org.

"WSFA does not support any changes to the sheep regulations at this time until clear and scientific data can be presented and reviewed that would prove the need for changes."

this is the same answer most of us would give to the decision on the 500 zones going to draw for archery moose.

great answer..


show me the data, oh wait you have none.... big shocker here

frickin clowns making decisions in wildlife management

[Newellknik]

Do you see any irony in the fact that if you add a solitary keystroke
To the name . The association name becomes even more relevant
To their place in the Hunting Community ....ergo. A-POS

[Canukanuk]

Originally Posted by Frans

WSFA's official position on the draft sheep management plan can be found on their website: www.wsfab.org.

"WSFA does not support any changes to the sheep regulations at this time until clear and scientific data can be presented and reviewed that would prove the need for changes."

So the Sheep Foundation does support non residents getting 20% of the rams. Looks like the tentacles from the US reach a long ways north and explains some of their behavior. Where is the clear scientific data they yap about that justifies their "ungulate enhancement program" for one thing and the justification for giving such a high percentage of rams to non residents when they are so extremely limited in number?

[albertadave]

Originally Posted by Canukanuk

So the Sheep Foundation does support non residents getting 20% of the rams. Looks like the tentacles from the US reach a long ways north and explains some of their behavior. Where is the clear scientific data they yap about that justifies their "ungulate enhancement program" for one thing and the justification for giving such a high percentage of rams to non residents when they are so extremely limited in number?

This thread has absolutely nothing to do with Wild Sheep Foundation Alberta. Please do not derail it. If you have some sort of an issue with WSFA, or any of their policies, start a new thread, or better yet, get a hold of someone from WSFA.

[alder]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...g.644/abstract

This is the publication that is being used to justify SRD's proposal. It is one thing to deconstruct the publication and I think that can be done, but it will be another thing to find publications that dispute the claims in a comparable setting and actually prove the opposite to that which has been put forward in the Jorgenson reference. I'm not sure how that can be shown but we, as stewards of the resource, need to find one PDQ in order to have a fighting chance with SRD I am afraid.

[Canukanuk]

Originally Posted by albertadave

This thread has absolutely nothing to do with Wild Sheep Foundation Alberta. Please do not derail it. If you have some sort of an issue with WSFA, or any of their policies, start a new thread, or better yet, get a hold of someone from WSFA.

Sure as H does! You're supporting greedy old APOS and I don't think people know it.

[elkhunter11]

If APOS is recommending something, then you can be sure that it will be to their benefit, with no consideration as to how it will effect the other user groups.

[buckbrushoutdoors]

Originally Posted by Canukanuk

Sure as H does! You're supporting greedy old APOS and I don't think people know it.

I would suggest re-reading from the top, No one is supporting apos in there statement.

[Cripler]

Not so much of a shocker since lots of these outfitters are American backed with a Canadian silent partner for there front. Just looking out for there own profits. The greedy part of it all is by edging out the resident there success rate and quietly of ram will go up in turn that will bring hire hunt prices.

[3blade]

Originally Posted by Brock1

this is the same answer most of us would give to the decision on the 500 zones going to draw for archery moose.

great answer..


show me the data, oh wait you have none.... big shocker here

frickin clowns making decisions in wildlife management

^this. What a joke, if there was any sense in AGMAG that letter would be filed in the appropriate garbage can, and apos told to stay out of the next 4 meetings.

Strip apos of their delegated authority, along with hunting any draw species. We are getting close to another step towards "the Kings deer" situation.

[Torkdiesel]

First off I don't agree with many of the suggestions APOS has put forward, but you can hardly blame them for aiming high with their initial offer.

I am all for being 100% fair

But I would like to point out that APOS is asking to keep 41 sheep allocations in the province. Residents currently buy close to 2500 licences.

That's only 1.6% of the hunters on the mountain being non-residents. Doesn't seem like they are flooding the mountains so to speak.

I do feel that whatever "changes" are made they should be 100% equal between the two parties.