Changes to Sheep Hunting Regulations

[ksteed17]

Originally Posted by timmyt

What I would like to see done.
-Remove Bighorns from the sustenance hunting list for First Nations
-Reduce Outfitter allocations
-Controlled burns and other means to improve habitat
-Do away with the Non-Trophy licenses
-Go Full-Curl across the Province
-Longer wait periods between Bighorn kills

In my opinion, all of those should be done BEFORE they put the entire Province on a draw.

I realize that's it's high unlikely that they will go about doing the first one on that list, but it's something that seriously should be addressed. I don't want to see all these happen at once, but I think they should be 'tried' out before going to a draw, which would be disastrous for Resident Bighorn hunting.

I think going Full-Curl across the province would be ideal as it would result in less immature Bighorns getting killed by hunters each year. I think we as 'woodsmen' need to make a better effort in letting smaller Rams walk so they can grow and mature and breed, before we kill them.

Just my opinion.

Fire away

I agree with everything except the non trophy tags. It's been proven that harvesting ewes help rams grow bigger horns.

Originally Posted by ksteed17

I agree with everything except the non trophy tags.

X2 It's a valuable management tool when needed to preserve winter range.

Throw some predator control on that list too.

[trashheap]

There will be alot of huge mature rams walking around that will never make full curl!

Predator Control.

[timmyt]

Originally Posted by ksteed17

I agree with everything except the non trophy tags. It's been proven that harvesting ewes help rams grow bigger horns.

Originally Posted by sheephunter

X2 It's a valuable management tool when needed to preserve winter range.

Throw some predator control on that list too.

I think predator control would be a huge help to the herd. Maybe a larger quota to Cat hunts and even extending the season start and end date. Also, I would like to see a bounty on wolves for trappers, something worth while. Predator control will help all the ungulates and I think is a VERY important part to the equation. Not sure why I left it off my list tbh.

Originally Posted by trashheap

There will be alot of huge mature rams walking around that will never make full curl!

Predator Control.

There are also 4/5 Rams getting killed that will never breed. Some Rams are making 4/5 as young as 4.5 years of age. Does it not stand to reason that if these Rams live another 4-5 years they will make Full-Curl?

Originally Posted by timmyt

There are also 4/5 Rams getting killed that will never breed. Some Rams are making 4/5 as young as 4.5 years of age. Does it not stand to reason that if these Rams live another 4-5 years they will make Full-Curl?

Not all of them. Some are just too loopy to ever be full curl and some broom prior to being legal. No doubt a good percentage would make it though.

[ishootbambi]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Not all of them. Some are just too loopy to ever be full curl and some broom prior to being legal. No doubt a good percentage would make it though.

ya know, that argument makes good sense as a hunter....and one i believe as a hunter. the conservationist in me says though that protecting a few old boys might be good for the population. thats a way to do it without loss of opportunity that seems so imprortant.

[stringer]

A 2 week archery season before the rifle season would move the sheep around and would increase hunting opportunity and reduce the number of rams killed opening day of the rifle season.This was brought up earlier but thought I'd bring it up again.Better than having to draw a tag.or looking for full curl rams were very few or none exist.

[timmyt]

Originally Posted by stringer

A 2 week archery season before the rifle season would move the sheep around and would increase hunting opportunity and reduce the number of rams killed opening day of the rifle season.This was brought up earlier but thought I'd bring it up again.Better than having to draw a tag.or looking for full curl rams were very few or none exist.

I'm not too sure that would really make a difference. If they added that season I'd bet we'd still see the same 200ish Rams killed per year by hunting, maybe even more.

I think they need to look more towards sustenance hunting, predation, habitat and outfitter allocations.

If you want bigger and more mature Rams, IMO, the best way would be to go to Full-Curl. Which wouldn't restrict hunter opportunities. They also need stiffer penalties and backing from the courts on the killing of short Rams.

[stringer]

Originally Posted by timmyt

I'm not too sure that would really make a difference. If they added that season I'd bet we'd still see the same 200ish Rams killed per year by hunting, maybe even more.

I think they need to look more towards sustenance hunting, predation, habitat and outfitter allocations.

If you want bigger and more mature Rams, IMO, the best way would be to go to Full-Curl. Which wouldn't restrict hunter opportunities. They also need stiffer penalties and backing from the courts on the killing of short Rams.

You bring up some good points.Thanks

[SLH]

If any change is needed a full curl restriction seems to me to fix a lot of problems.

In 400 the harvest is now right were it was when it was 4/5 but that means the number and age structure of rams has improved with that.

I can't beleive there is any noticeable difference in 80% of this province to worry about loopy rams that won't make full curl. Those that don't make full will fill in the gap for age structure and the reality is that a great many will make full curl so oppurtunity is still there.

[V_1]

Originally Posted by ksteed17

I agree with everything except the non trophy tags. It's been proven that harvesting ewes help rams grow bigger horns.

X3.

Originally Posted by SLH

If any change is needed a full curl restriction seems to me to fix a lot of problems.

In 400 the harvest is now right were it was when it was 4/5 but that means the number and age structure of rams has improved with that.

I can't beleive there is any noticeable difference in 80% of this province to worry about loopy rams that won't make full curl. Those that don't make full will fill in the gap for age structure and the reality is that a great many will make full curl so oppurtunity is still there.

I agree for the most part but if as SRD believes that genetics are being harmed by hunting, is it not reasonable to believe that that 20% of rams that never become legal could become the dominant gene?

[timmyt]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I agree for the most part but if as SRD believes that genetics are being harmed by hunting, is it not reasonable to believe that that 20% of rams that never become legal could become the dominant gene?

Where are you getting the 20% number from?

Like you said earlier in the thread, that some won't reach Full-Curl because they will have broomed off. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't have had that ability to reach Full-Curl though. I think it would be really hard to prove that even loopy Rams don't have the ability to reach Full-Curl given the proper amount of time and habitat.

Originally Posted by timmyt

Where are you getting the 20% number from?

Like you said earlier in the thread, that some won't reach Full-Curl because they will have broomed off. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't have had that ability to reach Full-Curl though. I think it would be really hard to prove that even loopy Rams don't have the ability to reach Full-Curl given the proper amount of time and habitat.

Absolutely there are rams that will never reach full curl...I'd say they are most prevelant in K-Country. Not hard to prove at all....Not a large percentage but there are some for sure. I've seen quite a number of 8-9 year old rams that barely squeek 4/5 and are over 37 inches. The biggest ram I've ever seen in K-Country was well over 40" and likely 11 years old. I had a hard time making him 4/5 and he wasn't broomed. They are out there.

This ram is 37.5 inches and scores 170 and change. F&W aged him at 9 years old. He's only about 3/8 inch legal. I don't see him ever making full curl.

[timmyt]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Absolutely there are rams that will never reach full curl...I'd say they are most prevelant in K-Country. Not hard to prove at all....Not a large percentage but there are some for sure. I've seen quite a number of 8-9 year old rams that barely squeek 4/5 and are over 37 inches. The biggest ram I've ever seen in K-Country was well over 40" and likely 11 years old. I had a hard time making him 4/5 and he wasn't broomed. They are out there.

This ram is 37.5 inches and scores 170 and change. F&W aged him at 9 years old. He's only about 3/8 inch legal. I don't see him ever making full curl.

I'm not doubting that they are out there. Just saying that they are likely the exception and not the rule. IMO, to assume that they would become the dominant gene is a little foolhardy.

Originally Posted by timmyt

I'm not doubting that they are out there. Just saying that they are likely the exception and not the rule. IMO, to assume that they would become the dominant gene is a little foolhardy.

Ya you did I didn't say they were the norm nor that I believed the genetic arguement but SRD seems to believe that genetics can be manipulated by hunting.

[timmyt]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Ya you did I didn't say they were the norm nor that I believed the genetic arguement but SRD seems to believe that genetics can be manipulated by hunting.

Something must have been lost in translation when you said that 20% of the Rams will never make Full-Curl...

Originally Posted by timmyt

Something must have been lost in translation when you said that 20% of the Rams will never make Full-Curl...

Nope, nothing lost. I just threw the 20% number out there. There's no studies to say whether it's less or more....my only point was there are some that play into SRD's genetic theory.

[Speckle55]

Hey Alberta Sheep Hunters start narrowing down the focus of this chat

1 . can we say now that with the numbers of sheep in Province has not change much in 60 years SRD said no it hasn,t its healthy
2.Hunter harvest hasn,t change much in 60 years SRD graphs so not much change
3.so why is a change needed?

A. has 4 year old rams and higher been id because they are dieing off disappearing
B. if they have then why ?
C. normal herd management say that X number will make it to 4 years and x number will make to 9 years old this is well documented in North America
D. this is the managemant tool used in sheep management areas so why is there no 4 year olds in some areas .

I am not a Rancher but if i was i would be going broke if i could not get steers past 2 years old and i would be searching for a reason.


so of the 10 or so SMA 8 are low in rams .. has there been a differn,t ratio than before on survial to 4 years old..

Have the rams left the winter ranges and now survive in non tradional wintering areas as in staying in trees ..elk mature bulls leave the cows to the best areas and form bachelor and wander more. aerial did not find

is this a enforcement issue?

is this a agenda issue?

id what has changed?

is it Loss of Habitat and sheep areas in differn,t SMA (ie Prov parks/wildlife areas)
in zone 438 numbers are down in 1983 to 2011 in huntable areas
in zone 438 numbers are up on mines sites 1983 to 2011 in non-huntable areas don,t try to bs me i have the numbers and they are SRD/Parks Canada

Time to get Analyical
Time to crunch Their Numbers
Show me only the Facts
Tell me who said what and back that up in writing

Food for Thought
David

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I agree for the most part but if as SRD believes that genetics are being harmed by hunting, is it not reasonable to believe that that 20% of rams that never become legal could become the dominant gene?

If you buy that theory, then doesn't it make sense to cull such older, mature short horn rams?

Another method of determining what is, and is not, legal would be the logical solution; at least in some zones.

Restricting sheep hunting does not address that hypothetical problem. The only way to address that hypothetical problem with a hunting solution is to ban all sheep hunting. I think most people here sense that.

Originally Posted by Rocky7

If you buy that theory, then doesn't it make sense to cull such older, mature short horn rams?

Ya but how would how achieve that...if you buy into the genetic theory that is?

[outdoorsmen101]

As far as the predator control goes I was very suprised that SRD excluded most of the 400 zones in the cougar "dogless" season. I thought the idea was to get hunting opportunity into zones houndsmen don't get to which is in alot of the 400 zones. Maybe next year.

3/8" legal...SH that's a pretty close call!! Nice looking ram though!

Originally Posted by outdoorsmen101

3/8" legal...SH that's a pretty close call!! Nice looking ram though!

Thankfully he gave us a looong look!

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Ya but how would how achieve that...if you buy into the genetic theory that is?

Develop another measuring stick(s) for shooting rams.

[SLH]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I agree for the most part but if as SRD believes that genetics are being harmed by hunting, is it not reasonable to believe that that 20% of rams that never become legal could become the dominant gene?

Probably not. If it is then it is already happening.

If what you're saying is true, that 9 year old 3/8" passed 4/5th ram is a mature ram already doing his fair share of the breeding and has for a couple years. The fast growing full curl potentail rams are dieing at 4, 5 and 6 these would be less likely to pass on their genetics with a critter like that around. Now if you leave him on the mountain and implement full curl those full curl potential rams stick around a couple more years and they will be much more capable of breeding and more importantly competing against a mature ram like this one. Now everyone would be mature.

Also given that ram was 9 and it is quite normal for rams to make it to 15 or 16 years old wouldn't it be nice to see that thing stretch out for another six years. The "what if" of that ram making it to 15 is something we all dream of. Nothing saying he would make full but maybe. The really nice part about it is, what harm is there in having an old big ram like him on the mountain.

One last point; do we know for certain that his prodgeny wouldn't make full curl? His 20% mixed with the ewes 80% makes for some interesting offspring. Plus his 20% might produce full curls on its own, we just don't know.

[stringer]

As I see it this BS theory about genetics just dosen't hold water.SRD uses one study from one mountain and 35 years of useless data collected buy hundreds of CO of various levels of expertise in ageing and measuring big horn sheep and are missleading us into believing that it's scintific data.We slaughtered the mule deer in this province for years.After opening day there very few 3 pointers left.So if that wiped out all the trophy genetics were did all the big mule deer in this province come from.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by stringer

As I see it this BS theory about genetics just dosen't hold water.SRD uses one study from one mountain and 35 years of useless data collected buy hundreds of CO of various levels of expertise in ageing and measuring big horn sheep and are missleading us into believing that it's scintific data.We slaughtered the mule deer in this province for years.After opening day there very few 3 pointers left.So if that wiped out all the trophy genetics were did all the big mule deer in this province come from.

I believe you are correct. We were just "what iff'ing" and suggesting that, even if one assumes this SRD theory is correct, another solution makes more sense. That is to change the regulations so that short horned old rams are shot. Just change the regs to encourage that; it doesn't have to be 100% fool-proof, but I am sure SRD could come up with specs that include more than simple horn length. If we need to study a ram now with a spotting scope, why not study it for some other marker(s)?

Anyway, the "Trophy Hunting Results in Small Horns" theory has been around for decades and has been debunked. This looks like a re-incarnation of that debunked anti-hunting theory. One of the inconvenient facts disproving it is what you said about mule deer.

I posted a couple articles a while ago on this thread and think others have, too. Those are worth a read.

[Rocky7]

Trophy hunting smear evolves from fish tale
MARCH 15TH 2009
Mike Handley : March 15th 2009


-- Never underestimate the power of words or those who wield it.

A major news magazine, several newspapers, websites and bloggers last week published stories slamming the practice of "trophy hunting," or so it seemed to both hunters and anti-hunters who began circling wagons.

The first was offered by Newsweek, in an article entitled "It’s Survival of the Weak and Scrawny: Researchers see ’evolution in reverse’ as hunters kill off prized animals with the biggest antlers and pelts." http://www.newsweek.com/id/177709 Following suit were the Toronto National Post, the Calgary Herald and several others, both offline and on, like the National Geographic Society’s website.

Problem is: The study at the root of all the hoopla concerned mainly fish and snails.

There were references to Norwegian caribou, an isolated population of bighorns in Alberta and even plants like ginseng. But "trophy hunting," as we know it, was not the premise. The study’s conclusion was that man’s removal of the bigger and older fish (mainly cod and salmon) through commercial fishing has left younger fish to do the breeding, which has led to a significant decline in their general size.

The only reason the study jumped the species barrier is because a separate study in Alberta, where a bighorn sheep population has suffered a similar fate, augments the argument for man’s unhealthy influence over nature. Ditto for a certain snail and a caribou herd in Norway.

That hunting was even associated with the fish study is mostly due to the bighorn research, which in itself has spurred great debate within the sheep hunting and wildlife biology communities.

Yet this scientific research paper, thanks to poor or intentionally misleading reporting from media outlets, has fanned the flames of the anti-hunting debate.

Genesis

The grist for the mill, as one science journalism watchdog group put it, was a study - "Human predators outpace other agents of trait change in the wild" - published Jan. 12 in the online issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (www.pnas.org). The paper’s public unveiling spawned press releases from both the University of Calgary and UC Santa Cruz, because both institutions sought to garner recognition for faculty members Paul Paquet and Chris Darimont, respectively. Paquet and Darimont were among the six co-authors.

Neither the original study nor the press releases were anti-hunting per se. Slipshod or lazy reporting by Newsweek, poor choices in packaging the story and, quite possibly, simple bias are responsible for all the spikes in blood pressure.

Newsweek was first. The writer, Lily Huang, perhaps aware that she was going to scoop other news outlets, used creative license and - because of the "reverse evolution" theme - added references to tuskless elephants and shrinking red kangaroos, changes wrought mainly by poaching and the trade in ivory and leather. Most alarmingly, her article is short on attribution and just plain wrong where hunting and hunting regulations are mentioned.

The source for the study’s bighorn references is Marco Festa-Bianchet, a professor of ecology with the University of Sherbrooke in Quebec, who has spent much of his professional life studying an isolated population of bighorn sheep in Alberta. Thirty years of research on Ram Mountain raises compelling questions about the link between smaller horns and body weights to the systematic removal of the dominant breeders. But unless he changes his tune in a book due out next month, he has admitted that his findings aren’t necessarily provable.

The Newsweek reporter quoted other biologists as well, who supported the plausibility of selective harvesting’s effect upon a gene pool. One of those was Don Melnick, professor of conservation biology, anthropology and biological sciences at Columbia University, who was paraphrased thusly:

"Artificially selecting animals in the wild - in effect, breeding them - is ’a very risky game … It’s highly likely to result in the end of a species.’"

Yet for all the compelling quotes from learned sources, the Newsweek article makes some incorrect statements that, while supporting the overall premise, do not support the argument on the larger scale of big game hunting’s impact.

Debunking the Myths

The Newsweek article has drawn numerous complaints, from both within and outside of academia. The reluctance to point out that the findings are a hypothesis, not a statement of fact, aside, it has problems.

The magazine article’s lead photo shows Teddy Roosevelt and another man with skulls of three African antelope. The caption reads: Theodore Roosevelt and another hunter hold the heads of kudus they killed on an African safari in the 1910s. Wrong: Two of the three skulls pictured belonged to elands, the heaviest of Africa’s spiral-horned antelope. Only one might belong to a kudu, probably a representative of the western subspecies, judging from the mass and shortness of horn. But to compare an eland to a kudu is to compare a steer to a deer.

The article also contains this statement, sans attribution: "Elk still range across parts of North America, but every hunting season brings a greater challenge to find the sought-after bull with a towering spread of antlers." Wrong: Boone and Crockett Club records reveal a steady and amazing increase in the number of exceptional bull elk harvested in North America - from 106 during the 1980s to 279 in the ’90s and 431 since 2000. And these are the cream of the crop: with a minimum 360 inches for typicals and 385 for non-typicals. Hundreds of others qualified for the (lower) Pope and Young Club’s archery minimums. And many exceptional animals go unreported.

Another portion, possibly paraphrased from Montana conservation biologist Richard Harris, says: "The most popular method of regulating hunting - restricting legal game to males with a minimum antler size - results in populations overrun with females and inferior males, which is ultimately no service to hunters." Wrong: Wildlife agencies might have once restricted the harvest to males, but that is no longer the case in most areas of the U.S. And in the few places where actual antler size restrictions are in place, the state rules are designed only to protect one or two age classes of buck or bull - a correction to the decades-long overharvest of first- or second-year males. Regulations beyond this are generally self-imposed, not mandated by wildlife departments.

Neil Thagard with the Wild Sheep Foundation in Cody, Wyo., which has raised $70 million for sheep conservation in its 32 years, was among many who posted rebuttals to the Newsweek piece.

"For Lily Huang to cite Marco Festa-Bianchet’s work as gospel is erroneous journalism at best. This research only captures a small isolated population of bighorn sheep in Alberta, Canada, and the result of academia vs. wildlife management.

"In the Ram Mountain research, it states that hunter harvest of rams was very restricted with one to three rams being taken each year up until 1995, when the horn curl criteria was increased from 4/5 curl to full curl in 1996. With the new regulation, only three rams were harvested from 1996-1999. One of these was an 11-year-old that had sired a number of lambs and was well past his productive breeding years. The reduction of body and horn size of these bighorns may be attributed to nutritional factors as much as any other factor, not to mention the stress implied by the researchers through continued capture of these animals.

"Horn growth in males is a bonus. When rams receive nutrition through forage, the nutrients first enhance the body condition; additional nutrients then allow for horn growth. In good forage years, horn growth of healthy animals may be exponential; in poor forage years, horn growth will be less.

"I thank Lily Huang for elevating the interest of our wildlife and wild places; I just hope, in the future, she will do further research prior to publishing such a half-hearted report as she recently has done," Thagard wrote.

The attacks on the article don’t end there. Biologist Valerius Geist, professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Calgary, posted this response:

"While it is perfectly true that net-fishing and selective removal of large males leads to hereditary changes in the population affected, these insights are quite old, and, in the case of trophy hunting, have long ago been mitigated successfully. To claim otherwise is to mislead the public ...

"Elk, far from being remnants of an earlier abundance, are populations restored to unprecedented abundance as well as quality. That’s the miracle of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation that you have ignored. Ironically, that model is being discussed for potential global application. These matters are far more complex than you have exposed to the readers, misinforming such," he wrote.

One Got it Right

While Newsweek, science bloggers and many Canadian newspapers seized upon the hunting aspect of the study and portrayed trophy hunting and current wildlife management in a negative light, one American newspaper didn’t take the bait.

The New York Times’ version of the story - based on the very same study and subsequent press releases - was far closer to the nature of the study. While writer Cornelia Dean did refer to the findings as more sweeping than previous reports about the effects of overfishing, buoyed by the bighorn research, she did not choose to apply it to hunting in general or trophy hunting in particular.

See for Yourself

If you’d like to see exactly how various news outlets treated the story and the responses generated by it, simply Google "trophy hunting evolution."

-- By Mike Handley / Editor, Rack magazine

http://www.buckmasters.com/bm/Resour...fish-tale.aspx
or
http://www.wildsheepfoundation.org/P...200-1238472000

[stringer]

Interesting Read Thanks Rocky

[pottymouth]

Anyone hearing anything new??? or recieved any new letters???