Changes to Sheep Hunting Regulations

[bdub]

I just recieved a letter/e:mail from Frank Oberle today. Anybody else get it? It says that the analysis of information gathered over the last 35 years from sheep registration and harvest data wiil be posted shortly on the SRD website. No changes for this season.

[V_1]

ALBERTA
SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
Office ofthe Minister
AR29331
February 2, 2012

Dear Mr. :
Thank you for your email of January 19, 2011 regarding trophy sheep hunting. I am
pleased to provide the following information.
Sustainable Resource Development staff recently initiated a discussion with key
stakeholders through the Alberta Game Management Advisory Group (AGMAG) on
issues regarding trophy sheep management. The Management Plan for Bighorn Sheep in
Alberta was issued in 1993 and is being reviewed to determine if any updates are needed,
including changes to regulations. This discussion is at the preliminary stage. No
decisions have been made on any new management approach to date and no major
changes are expected for this year's hunting season.
As part of this process, the department's Wildlife Management Branch has completed an
analysis of the registration data of harvested trophy rams over the last 35 years and sheep
population surveys. This analysis was also undertaken in response to concerns expressed
by some resident hunters about the quality and quantity of trophy bighorn sheep available
in some parts of the province. We will be posting this analysis shortly on our website at
www.srd.alberta.ca. In response to your comments at the end of your letter, the
department's analysis is based on the best information and the best science available,
including aerial surveys using highly trained staff and state-of-the-art methods.
Regarding your point about questionable theory, we are not aware of any suggestions that
there has been a genetic change in our bighorn popUlation. In most of the province, the
horn size in trophy sheep has been decreasing, while the age of harvested rams has been
increasing. Rams now need to be older to reach trophy size. While these results cannot
conclusively be attributed to hunting pressure, they are consistent with findings from
Ram Mountain in Alberta and other jurisdictions.
. . .12

420 Legislature Building, Edmonton, Alberta T5K 2BG Canada Telephone 780-415-4815 Fax 780-415-4818
Printed on raycled plIFer Page 2
The main issue being addressed through the established consultation process with
AGMAG is the harvest level of trophy rams. The Management Plan for Bighorn Sheep
in Alberta indicates that the harvest level of trophy rams will generally be limited to
50 per cent of the total number of available rams and shall not exceed 70 per cent. We
are currently harvesting up to 90 per cent of available trophy rams in some areas.
I recognize your concerns about a proposed draw to hunt sheep. A draw was just one
topic the department presented at a recent AGMAG meeting as an option for further
discussion. As I indicated, no decisions have been made at this early stage. I also note
your comments about the aboriginal harvest of bighorn sheep. Our first priority in
bighorn sheep management is the conservation of the species, followed by the
requirement to meet the rights of aboriginal hunters as set out in the treaty obligations
and the Canadian Constitution. Recreational hunters are next on the list of resource
allocation priorities.
I appreciate your interest in bighorn sheep and will consider your comments as part of the
consultation. I can also assure you that any changes to trophy sheep regulations would
occur only after a wide-ranging discussion that includes the issues and suggestions you
raise.
Sincerely,
....

Frank Oberle
Minister
cc:MLA
Rick Blackwood, Sustainable Resource Development
Ron Bjorge, Sustainable Resource Development
Jim Allen, Sustainable Resource Development
Rob Corrigan, Sustainable Resource Development

[Rocky7]

That sounds hopeful. It might be smoke, but maybe not.

I wonder if the season opens back up in 429, then?

[silver lab]

[QUOTE=Rocky7;1288135]That sounds hopeful. It might be smoke, but maybe not.


Sounds what??? Sounds like they will be doing nothing about the native harvest. Sounds like they will shut down our harvest altogether before they do anything about it. Thankfully it sounds like they wont let them all die first.

[MountainTi]

[QUOTE=silver lab;1289239]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

That sounds hopeful. It might be smoke, but maybe not.


Sounds what??? Sounds like they will be doing nothing about the native harvest. Sounds like they will shut down our harvest altogether before they do anything about it. Thankfully it sounds like they wont let them all die first.

You're right, sounds to me that the licence purchasing recreational hunter is a little low on the priority list. Of course I fully agree with the 1st priority, but the 2nd, not so much.
Actually really baffles me how trophy bighorn sheep could be considered subsitence hunting for indians.
I'll leave it at that before I start to get myself all worked up

[bdub]

I just talked to friend down south yesterday and he told me three rams were taken just off the highway in the pass by natives from Medicine Hat in January this year. It is a political hot potato that nobody wants to touch.

[BigJon]

[QUOTE=MountainTi;1289299]

Originally Posted by silver lab

You're right, sounds to me that the licence purchasing recreational hunter is a little low on the priority list. Of course I fully agree with the 1st priority, but the 2nd, not so much.
Actually really baffles me how trophy bighorn sheep could be considered subsitence hunting for indians.
I'll leave it at that before I start to get myself all worked up

This baffles me as well...Zama buffalo kills are regulated even for indian harvesters...why can't something like this happen for bighorns as well....weird

[MountainTi]

[QUOTE=BigJon;1289344]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

This baffles me as well...Zama buffalo kills are regulated even for indian harvesters...why can't something like this happen for bighorns as well....weird

Guess them old rams are better eatin' than a young moose. Too bad it takes 3 rams to get as much meat as from said moose

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by V_1

ALBERTA
SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
Office ofthe Minister
AR29331
February 2, 2012

Dear Mr. :
Thank you for your email of January 19, 2011 regarding trophy sheep hunting. I am
pleased to provide the following information.
Sustainable Resource Development staff recently initiated a discussion with key
stakeholders through the Alberta Game Management Advisory Group (AGMAG) on
issues regarding trophy sheep management. The Management Plan for Bighorn Sheep in
Alberta was issued in 1993 and is being reviewed to determine if any updates are needed,
including changes to regulations. This discussion is at the preliminary stage. No
decisions have been made on any new management approach to date and no major
changes are expected for this year's hunting season.
As part of this process, the department's Wildlife Management Branch has completed an
analysis of the registration data of harvested trophy rams over the last 35 years and sheep
population surveys. This analysis was also undertaken in response to concerns expressed
by some resident hunters about the quality and quantity of trophy bighorn sheep available
in some parts of the province. We will be posting this analysis shortly on our website at
www.srd.alberta.ca. In response to your comments at the end of your letter, the
department's analysis is based on the best information and the best science available,
including aerial surveys using highly trained staff and state-of-the-art methods.
Regarding your point about questionable theory, we are not aware of any suggestions that
there has been a genetic change in our bighorn popUlation. In most of the province, the
horn size in trophy sheep has been decreasing, while the age of harvested rams has been
increasing. Rams now need to be older to reach trophy size. While these results cannot
conclusively be attributed to hunting pressure, they are consistent with findings from
Ram Mountain in Alberta and other jurisdictions.
. . .12

420 Legislature Building, Edmonton, Alberta T5K 2BG Canada Telephone 780-415-4815 Fax 780-415-4818
Printed on raycled plIFer Page 2


The main issue being addressed through the established consultation process with
AGMAG is the harvest level of trophy rams.

The Management Plan for Bighorn Sheep
in Alberta indicates that the harvest level of trophy rams will generally be limited to
50 per cent of the total number of available rams and shall not exceed 70 per cent. We
are currently harvesting up to 90 per cent of available trophy rams in some areas.

I recognize your concerns about a proposed draw to hunt sheep. A draw was just one
topic the department presented at a recent AGMAG meeting as an option for further
discussion. As I indicated, no decisions have been made at this early stage. I also note
your comments about the aboriginal harvest of bighorn sheep. Our first priority in
bighorn sheep management is the conservation of the species, followed by the
requirement to meet the rights of aboriginal hunters as set out in the treaty obligations
and the Canadian Constitution. Recreational hunters are next on the list of resource
allocation priorities.
I appreciate your interest in bighorn sheep and will consider your comments as part of the
consultation. I can also assure you that any changes to trophy sheep regulations would
occur only after a wide-ranging discussion that includes the issues and suggestions you
raise. Sincerely,
....

Frank Oberle
Minister
cc:MLA
Rick Blackwood, Sustainable Resource Development
Ron Bjorge, Sustainable Resource Development
Jim Allen, Sustainable Resource Development
Rob Corrigan, Sustainable Resource Development

Originally Posted by Rocky7

That sounds hopeful. It might be smoke, but maybe not.

I wonder if the season opens back up in 429, then?

The only positive I see is the purported commitment to a thorough dialogue before making any changes.


The comment regarding the "Main issue" being defined is also revealing, and progressive. The statement expressed the potentially high Ram harvest is only a concern in a few areas, NOT PROVINCE WIDE.



The reference to Coltman's Ram mountain is still very concerning. Why is this being taken as fact? Coltman even states in the paper the multiple sources of unknowns that could influence his theory. And what are the "Other Jurisdictions" they mention?



Where is the data?

It has been over a month since it was promised to be released in a couple of weeks?

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

Actually really baffles me how trophy bighorn sheep could be considered subsitence hunting for indians.

Agreed.

I don't think the letter says that treaty and/or constitutional hunting for natives means they get to kill as many as they want, where and when they want, does it?

The real problem here seems to me in defining what "subsistence hunting" is - and isn't.

[bdub]

From what I understand the limit is all you can kill plus one, no closed season.

[silver lab]

I don't think the letter says that treaty and/or constitutional hunting for natives means they get to kill as many as they want, where and when they want, does it?
Last I herd there was no limit (but I could be wrong).


The real problem here seems to me in defining what "subsistence hunting" is - and isn't.[/QUOTE]

agreed 100%!

[depopulator]

How about establishing more extensive road corridor wildlife sanctuaries along public and private roads to reduce access to bighorn winter range and therefore, address, in part, natives access and take of these vulnerable sheep. That should be something SRD could get accomplished, maybe ??

[bdub]

Originally Posted by depopulator

How about establishing more extensive road corridor wildlife sanctuaries along public and private roads to reduce access to bighorn winter range and therefore, address, in part, natives access and take of these vulnerable sheep. That should be something SRD could get accomplished, maybe ??

That would be a good idea. I believe they are restricted as to wildlife sanctuaries, parks etc. in the same manner as non-native hunters.

[Rocky7]

Well, we keep that particular (and small) gang of native miscreants out of the national parks, so we can stop this, too, if any politician can find the guts to tell the truth. Or our own F&W org. Or ?

It'd also help if somebody caught them on video and posted it. The furry-headed folks think it's about bows and arrows. It's not.

[ram crazy]

Originally Posted by depopulator

How about establishing more extensive road corridor wildlife sanctuaries along public and private roads to reduce access to bighorn winter range and therefore, address, in part, natives access and take of these vulnerable sheep. That should be something SRD could get accomplished, maybe ??

Where these sheep are being killed on highway 3 there is no hunting for 1/2 mile on either side of the highway, but I guess that only applies to white man.

[V_1]

Originally Posted by depopulator

How about establishing more extensive road corridor wildlife sanctuaries along public and private roads to reduce access to bighorn winter range and therefore, address, in part, natives access and take of these vulnerable sheep. That should be something SRD could get accomplished, maybe ??

That's exactly what I have suggested in my letter and they seem to ignored it. And I did ask them how's taking trophy rams can be subsitence hunting. Ignored. And of being 'next' after so called 'native' resource allocation is ****ing me off. So much for equality.

Originally Posted by Rocky7

Well, we keep that particular (and small) gang of native miscreants out of the national parks, so we can stop this, too, if any politician can find the guts to tell the truth. Or our own F&W org. Or ?

It'd also help if somebody caught them on video and posted it. The furry-headed folks think it's about bows and arrows. It's not.

In former Russian Empire there was a ban on selling steel fishing hooks and gun powder to natives who insisted on their exclusive privileges to hunt and fish. Funny enough it all makes sense to me now.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by depopulator

How about establishing more extensive road corridor wildlife sanctuaries along public and private roads to reduce access to bighorn winter range and therefore, address, in part, natives access and take of these vulnerable sheep. That should be something SRD could get accomplished, maybe ??

While that is a fine idea and may help the problem a little. why not actually get to the heart of the matter and put a stop to trophy hunting by indians for sustinence altogether. I know this is the reasoning behind the new wildlife corriders along the trunk road, but is it really gonna help that much?
Register all sustinence kills, trophy rams, 170" whitetails ect......not allowable. Probably as much chance of any of this happening as me legally packing a handgun while hunting.

[depopulator]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

While that is a fine idea and may help the problem a little. why not actually get to the heart of the matter and put a stop to trophy hunting by indians for sustinence altogether. I know this is the reasoning behind the new wildlife corriders along the trunk road, but is it really gonna help that much?
Register all sustinence kills, trophy rams, 170" whitetails ect......not allowable. Probably as much chance of any of this happening as me legally packing a handgun while hunting.

I think everyone would totally agree with that. The trophy hunting by indians under the guise of subsistence hunting is such a transparent abuse of the system that it's hard to believe it is still legal in this day and age. The letter I sent also referenced subsistence take (read: legalized poaching) of trophy rams and recommendations to remove sheep from the subsistence species list. No comments on that given in the response from 'Oberle'.

I also read in this thread that it is illegal for indians to kill game within road wildlife sanctuary corridors. So then why is it happening or not being enforced ?

[ram crazy]

You guys that are complaining about the Indians to the Provincial Government should be going the the Federal Government, because it is the Feds. that control this sort of thing. Maybe that is why you are not getting any response from the Provincial Government.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by ram crazy

You guys that are complaining about the Indians to the Provincial Government should be going the the Federal Government, because it is the Feds. that control this sort of thing. Maybe that is why you are not getting any response from the Provincial Government.

That's not correct.

The Provinces and Territories have been given the reponsibility to manage wildlife within their respective jurisditions. Changes to "subsistence" harvest rights are allowed under the Alberta Treaties and the Charter. Changes to harvesting rights implemented by provincial and territorial governments happen every year all across the country.

It is not an easy path to take. Which seems to deter this Alberta government when it comes to Wildlife and licenced hunting.

This is why I exclaimed as unacceptable the comment by F&W that licened hunting wildlife mortality is "artificial" while Native harvest is "natural". The provincial government is going down a terrible road where non-treaty hunting rights are concerned.

The actions by the Alberta government and F&W on this issue effect much more than just changes to sheep hunting. This is a fight worthy of an effort from ALL Alberta hunters.

[Pudelpointer]

As an aside, the reason native harvest is labelled "natural mortality" while licensed hunting is labelled "artificial mortality" is strictly to identify what they (SRD) have the ability (or desire) to control.

Because SRD believes they have no control over native harvest, it gets lumped in with all other causes of mortality they have no (very little) control over, such as weather, predation, disease, etc.

I don't believe that SRD truly considers the harvest of wildlife by one group or another as more/less morally acceptable.

JMO

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

As an aside, the reason native harvest is labelled "natural mortality" while licensed hunting is labelled "artificial mortality" is strictly to identify what they (SRD) have the ability (or desire) to control.

Because SRD believes they have no control over native harvest, it gets lumped in with all other causes of mortality they have no (very little) control over, such as weather, predation, disease, etc.

I don't believe that SRD truly considers the harvest of wildlife by one group or another as more/less morally acceptable.

JMO

That's not the feeling I get after various discussion over the years with different officers regarding the Indian harvest of trophy sheep

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

As an aside, the reason native harvest is labelled "natural mortality" while licensed hunting is labelled "artificial mortality" is strictly to identify what they (SRD) have the ability (or desire) to control.

Because SRD believes they have no control over native harvest, it gets lumped in with all other causes of mortality they have no (very little) control over, such as weather, predation, disease, etc.

I don't believe that SRD truly considers the harvest of wildlife by one group or another as more/less morally acceptable.

JMO

Get the scotch, this sub-topic is worth a long discussion. I'll bring the tinfoil and a mug.




Wildlife managers have always tried to influence ALL mortality factors that effect a species under management, be it weather, predation, disease, habitat qualities, Natural and Artificial human beings.

I have never come across the artificial/natural labelling of native/licenced hunter induced mortality mentioned in Alberta research or government statements until the Moose paper I linked earlier, and the comments of F&W regarding sheep.



Yes, I agree fully that the reason for F&W's new definition of Artificial and Natural human induced wildlife mortality is based on a desire to completely avoid the issue of Treaty harvest.

Unfortunately the concern goes even deeper than an unwillingness to deal with Subsistence hunting.


There is a policy indoctrinated through many international "conservation" groups to eliminate wildlife consumption (hunting and fishing) through a
divide and conquer technique. These groups will support "aboriginal" harvest while calling for an outright ban on "non-aborigingal" use of the same wildlife.

Anti-hunting propoganda that is Racist to it's rotten core.

The definition of human induced mortality being "Artificial" began within the inter-national anti-hunting community, and now it has shown itself within Alberta wildlife research and F&W.


I wonder just how entrenched the individuals within F&W and Alberta research community endorsing this language are. This is a serious concern to me, and should be to all hunters.

Anti/non hunting people are taking the department over. It's time for a Alberta Hunting Community Scholorship. We need to get like minded people into Wildlife management positions.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

This is why I exclaimed as unacceptable the comment by F&W that licened hunting wildlife mortality is "artificial" while Native harvest is "natural". The provincial government is going down a terrible road where non-treaty hunting rights are concerned.

No question.

It is quite bizarre - and quite racist - to view one division of humankind as part of Nature but other divisions of humankind as something alien to Nature.

It gets real wonky when the first division uses implements provided by the second to kill more and more animals and to kill animals they don't need and often don't use.

Thanks for that. I had no idea.

[ovis40]

http://srd.alberta.ca/FishWildlife/W...anagement.aspx

[Rocks]

Thanks Ovis, I hadn't seen the new discussion paper yet from your link, the paper is here: http://srd.alberta.ca/FishWildlife/W...Feb03-2012.pdf

They are making some assumptions on the age structure/horn size data and sure seem to like Coltmans theories. I sure wish they had included their horn size data from hunter kills in this paper.

I notice the outfitters have taken a bit of a lickin the last 3 years both in tag sales and harvest rate.

[depopulator]

Interesting read for sure. Nothing about biases or error in survey methods and confidence, although federal parks and provincial lands were both surveyed - good. But it's totally biased to hunting vs trophy rams management at this point.

Since horn growth is a highly heritable trait, the loss of these fast growing rams prior to there ability to contribute genetically could result in artificial selection against large rams (Coltman et al 2003). While we cannot conclusively attribute these results to hunting pressure, they are consistent with findings from Ram Mountain (Coltman et al. 2003) and other jursidictions (e.g., Britsh Columbia Henveveld et al. 2011).

SRD, Good point. You really don't have enough studies to know it is hunting related, but all your management options are directed at it. Gotcha !

Other possible factors that could contribute to decline in horn growth over time include climatic conditions and habitat quality associated with sheep densities (Jorgensen et al, Romer and Goldstein 2006, Whishart 2006).

Regrettably, what is not presented are options for habitat (or predator) management, other than this one single sentence. More burns in timber encroaching winter ranges (due to climate change?) to decrease population density and competition seems like a valid management option. What is the overall picture of sheep winter range health in Alberta and the federal parks, and how is it distributed and used? How is decreasing winter range availability and quality impacting migratory movements of rams between SMA's and federal parks, and could consequent loss of genetic drift be attributed to the decline in horn growth ? Habitat management has been grossly overlooked and should be the on the table as a primary management option. But I guess its easier to manage hunters than habitat...

[walking buffalo]

When reviewing the 2012 Draft, have these papers open for cross referencing.



2012 Trophy Bighorn Management In Alberta
http://srd.alberta.ca/FishWildlife/W...Feb03-2012.pdf

Management Plan for Bighorn Sheep in Alberta
http://www.assembly.ab.ca/lao/librar...993/135915.pdf

2008 Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Status Report - Alberta
http://media.nwsgc.org/proceedings/N...%20alberta.pdf

Delegated Aerial Ungulate Surveys ACA 2011 Pages 40-45
http://www.ab-conservation.com/go/de..._ACAJune07.pdf




Funny how the Park population is still 4500 animals. This number has been used for decades. I doubt there was a new Park survey.


It is disapponting but expected that SRD did not include any detailed data regarding age/horn size, The long term goal of certain researchers to have All trophy hunting on a draw is now rooted within F&W. It will take more digging to get at these roots.

Wisert showed that Rams HAVE NOT increased or decreased in horn size significantly from the 60's through 2005.
http://media.nwsgc.org/proceedings/N...rt%20FINAL.pdf

Has F&W abandoned Wisert and his research, one of our pre-eminent biologists in Alberta?



Why wasn't Harvest results shown based on SMA? This info is crucial to show if any SMA's are being overharvested by Licenced hunters.


What were the idividual SMA survey population breakdowns? Ewe:lamb, Ram 1/4 1/2 3/4 Legal.... As is shown in the ACA survey results?


Figure 3 is VERY misleading, and I suspect perhaps inconsistent with today's situation. A proper discussion paper would show individual survey years and results.


What was the number of registered Subsistence sheep taken over the years?





This requires clarification from F&W....

WHERE ARE THE MISSING RAMS?

Overall population 6466 sheep
4-5% of the population (legal Rams) 4.5% is 291 Legal rams.

A licenced harvest of 138 rams represents 2.13% of the population (6466 animals), or 47.4% harvest rate, not the claimed 90%.


Where are the 153 Legal rams that are MISSING every year?

[flyguyd]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

WHERE ARE THE MISSING RAMS?

Overall population 6466 sheep
4-5% of the population (legal Rams) 4.5% is 291 Legal rams.

A licenced harvest of 138 rams represents 2.13% of the population (6466 animals), or 47.4% harvest rate, not the claimed 90%.


Where are the 153 Legal rams that are MISSING every year?

Maybe thats the subsistence harvest

I sincerely hope not