The Future of Sheep in Alberta

[Hagar]

The following are some of my thoughts on the future of sheep and sheep hunting in Alberta.It is fairly long and may seem unorganized but I am not an author.These are thinks I have thought about for a few years now and the recent thread on sheep hunting has finally made me organize my thoughts.

The Future of Sheep hunting in Alberta

There has been a lot of discussion on Alberta Outdoorsman Forum lately on proposed changes to sheep hunting in Alberta. Whether or not there is a problem, S.R.D. has decided to make some changes. They came up with four options:

1) Put sheep on a draw
2) 5 year wait between rams
3) Limit the # of rams per lifetime
4) Full Curl Rule for all of Alberta.

Each of these options have their pros and cons. There has been many other options put forward on Alberta Outdoorsman Forum. Some of these are:

1) Open more areas for late season draw
2) An 8 year rule
3) Increasing wait time between rams – #1 - #2, one year; #2 - #3, five years; #3 - #4, 7 years.

Each of these options also have their pros and cons. The one thing everyone seems to agree on is we all would like to see more mature rams.

Alberta is one of the only places where one can get an O.T.C. Tag for Bighorn Sheep. For those who hunt sheep this is very special. It is also something that, has to be looked after by all parties if it is to continue. We all love that we can hunt sheep every year looking for that special ram. Sheep are a special animal. They live in some of the most beautiful country and are held in very high regard by sportsmen everywhere. Sheep hunting is not like hunting any other game. It's very easy to tell the difference between a legal male and an illegal one on other game animals. This is not so with sheep.

It has also been said that 5% of the sheep hunters take 95% of the rams. Although this is an exaggeration, it does show a good point. There are sheep hunters and then there are those who hunt sheep, and the number of successful sheep hunters that are successful year after year are far fewer than the number of those who look for sheep.

As I think about his and look at the whole picture of sheep hunting I can see that something is not right. After reviewing the sheep study from 1990 and the future goals set forth in that study, the harvest numbers are much lower than planned. The number of sheep harvested is about one half of what goals were set forth in that study. Now a lot of finger pointing has been made as to who is pressuring S.R.D. For changes to sheep hunting but as I see it that study and the goals of that study not being reached may have a lot to do with the upcoming changes. Irregardless of where the pressure is coming from, the changes are coming.

What are the reasons for the shortcomings of the earlier study are I don't know. I know the Yarrow-Castle sheep have been studied for the answer as to why they have not rebounded as planned and this may be what is going on with the rest of the province. There are no answers yet so something has to be tried to change this.


Of the options put forth by S.R.D.:

1) Put all sheep on a draw: This option would be the quickest way to improve the number of mature rams as it would limit the number of sheep harvested. The number of tags in the draw would be very low as the number of sheep harvested by residents is only around 140 per year. I would guess the number of tags would be less than half this number for the plan to work. I feel this would make sheep hunting a once in a lifetime thing if you look at the current sheep draws.

2) 5 year wait between rams: As I think about this one, and remember the saying “5% of hunters take 95% of the rams”, it would over time reduce the numbers of real “Sheep hunters” in the mountains. It would in the long term have some affect and would have less of an impact on the hunters in general.

3) Limit the number of rams per hunter: This plan could also work, however the number would also have to be low (2-3) and would, in effect, be like a punishment for the true sheep hunter who works hard to be successful.

4) Full curl rule for all Alberta: This option has potential as most rams reach full curl at a young age and then broom back after as is their nature. This would allow many rams to grow old before they again reach full curl. However, many will never reach full curl and die of old age. I feel it would also reduce the size of rams as those with the genetics for full curl would be reduced.

Some of the ideas put forth on Alberta Outdoorsman are:

1) Open more areas and have more late season draws. Opening more areas sounds good on the surface as it would move hunters around to more areas thus reducing the hunter density in the current areas. However, it does not do anything to increase the number of mature rams and only adds to the reduction of sheep in the long run as it reduces areas where sheep are left to reproduce and provide sheep for the future.

2) The “8” Year Rule whereas if you harvest a sheep you wait out 5 years, if the sheep is over 8, you only wait out 1 year: Again this sounds good but there are also many problems. Using the large rams harvested in 402 as an example, it was aged by Game Branch as a seven year old, yet many others aged it much older. I can see this system ending in many court battles over t he age of harvested sheep and our C.O.'s have enough to do without having to spend more time in court battles.

3) Increasing wait time between rams, the more rams you harvest – between rams #1 and #2, 1 year; between rams #2 and #3, 5 years; between rams #3 and #4, 7 years; and 7 years between all subsequent rams. This in effect is putting a limit on the number of rams a person can harvest. Although this number would be a reasonable one, it still limits the successful hunter and limits the time one can spend hunting.

All of these plans have their pros and cons. Some will work better than others. I also have some ideas as well:

1) Sheep hunting is not like any other big game hunting, so there should be a “Sheep hunter's Education Course” for a sheep hunter The cost of this course should be such as not to make it an “elite” type hunt. I feel $200 would be a good price. This would go a long way in improving the sheep hunter in general. A hunter would have to take the course in order to not only get a sheep tag, but also to apply for any sheep draws. This would also help the current draws be less of a once in a lifetime type of hunt.

2) Have more late season trophy draws in existing W.M.U.s with the stipulation that all applicants of any sheep draw would not be able to have a general season tag. This would help reduce the number of hunters in the general season and at the same time give hunters a chance at a trophy ram. It gives sheep hunters a choice of how they want to hunt, those who love to spend time in the mountains looking for sheep can do so and take our chances at finding our sheep and those who want to hunt the late season rut for a ram can do so. By making a choice between these two hunts, it helps reduce the number of sheep harvested during the general season, but reducing the number of hunters, and help control the number of mature rams harvested by controlling the number of draw tags.

3) Reduce the number of non-trophy sheep tags. Instead of hunting for non-trophy sheep, use these tags as a number for transplanting sheep into other areas of low sheep populations. Also add some of the rams from the Cadomin area, with the ewe transplants to help increase genetic diversity. This would help sheep populations such as the Yarrow-Castle herd as was shown in a study in a herd that was transplanted in Montana.

4) Use the full curl rule but with some discretion. Meaning if a ram is harvested that is under legal and is young with lamb tips, then there should be stiffer penalties yet at the same time if a ram is mature and broomed off it should be a legal ram. This go with the “Sheep hunters Education Course”. Not all rams would reach full curl and would die of old age, if we only target full curl rams without an inclusion such as this we would lose the genetics of these full curl rams. It has been said on the Alberta Outdoorsman Forum, let's give both hunters and C.O.'s the tools to improve sheep and sheep hunting.

5) In areas where livestock graze in sheep ranges, have livestock removed by September 1st to allow better recovery of winter forage for sheep. This would improve the quality and quantity of winter feed for sheep and should improve the sheep themselves.

I have given this much thought and there are no easy answers. There are many different groups that have to be considered and not everyone is going to be happy regardless of any change. I would hate to see the future of sheep hunting in Alberta be a once in a lifetime type of hunt. I think it would be a tragedy for the future sheep hunters for us to leave them this kind of thing. We need to find a solution that addresses the concerns of all groups who care for sheep and make a better future for sheep in general. I don't have all, if any, answers, not do I know all the problems, these are just my thoughts on the subject through the recent discussions on Alberta Outdoorsman and thoughts about sheep in general. I also think anyone interested in sheep and sheep hunting should read Jack O'Connors' book Sheep and Sheep Hunting, paying special attention to the last two chapters – “The Sheep Trophy” and “The Future of the Wild Sheep”.

[sheepguide]

Great read Hagar. And hopefully we voice our concerns and get a plan that works the best for everyone and all sheep on the mountains.

[pottymouth]

Thanks Hagar, That's a great read forsure, Unfortunatly someone at the end no matter the decision, will feel riped off.

[Single Malt]

Thanks for sharing. Many good points.

[depopulator]

If changes are being proposed for how and when a resident can hunt bighorn sheep, then certainly the guide/outfitter allocations should have similar restrictions, or eliminate non-resident sheep hunting altogether. I suspect non-resident guided sheep hunts likely account for a major proportion of both mature rams and the "5% of sheep hunters take 95% of the sheep." Curious why that was not given any thought or discussion ?

[Hagar]

Depopulater,I agree with you about the outfitters however that is a whole other subject as I have very strong feeling regaurding the whole Outfitting industry. These thoughts are what we as indivuals are looking at for our future and the future of our sport.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by depopulator

If changes are being proposed for how and when a resident can hunt bighorn sheep, then certainly the guide/outfitter allocations should have similar restrictions, or eliminate non-resident sheep hunting altogether. I suspect non-resident guided sheep hunts likely account for a major proportion of both mature rams and the "5% of sheep hunters take 95% of the sheep." Curious why that was not given any thought or discussion ?

I certainly agree, what is good for one is good for the other. If all of Alberta goes on draw for sheep then outfitters should no longer have allocations.

[LongDraw]

Originally Posted by 209x50

I certainly agree, what is good for one is good for the other. If all of Alberta goes on draw for sheep then outfitters should no longer have allocations.

It certainly hasn't worked this way for other species/WMU's when they have gone to a draw.

[depopulator]

Originally Posted by Hagar

These thoughts are what we as indivuals are looking at for our future and the future of our sport.

And how is it that the outfitting allocations are not significantly factored into any proposed changes ? Sorry, I cannot accept your easy dismissal of this as a seperate issue. Non-resident sheep hunting allocations need to be upfront and center of any changes that are proposed or implemented for "our future and the future of our sport."

[depopulator]

Originally Posted by LongDraw

It certainly hasn't worked this way for other species/WMU's when they have gone to a draw.

Does "5% taking 95% of the game" apply to other species/WMU's?

[JustinC]

Originally Posted by depopulator

And how is it that the outfitting allocations are not significantly factored into any proposed changes ? Sorry, I cannot accept your easy dismissal of this as a seperate issue. Non-resident sheep hunting allocations need to be upfront and center of any changes that are proposed or implemented for "our future and the future of our sport."

x2

[209x50]

Originally Posted by LongDraw

It certainly hasn't worked this way for other species/WMU's when they have gone to a draw.

I think the tiny numbers of rams available maybe sets sheep apart from other animals that are on darw.

[harv3589]

Originally Posted by depopulator

And how is it that the outfitting allocations are not significantly factored into any proposed changes ? Sorry, I cannot accept your easy dismissal of this as a seperate issue. Non-resident sheep hunting allocations need to be upfront and center of any changes that are proposed or implemented for "our future and the future of our sport."

The outfitting tags should be the first on the cutting block...

[aarjay]

Wow! 35 pages of postings in - Sheep on a Draw - Us sheep hunters are a fanatical bunch. Probably because sheep hunting takes us, under the power of our own two feet, into the most beautiful country that God has created. Although it took me 10 years of hunting to get my first sheep, I think we have a great system here in Alberta. In my opinion any legal ram in Alberta is both a TROPHY and MATURE ram. I do not think we should change to accommodate the few trophy hunters out there. While we have not see any evidence that necessitates change, SRD seems to be considering some. While we have many dedicated people in our present F & W system they have been emasculated by our present government so they can barely keep up with enforcement, never mind the management of a species. Any changes would have to be simple and easy to enforce.
It seems given that SRD will most likely not change the following:
- the outfitter tags seem set in stone (they will probably benefit MOST from any changes)
- predator control of any sort (grizzly wolves and cougar) would create a political firestorm
- subsistence hunting will continue (as if anyone needs sheep meat for subsistence these days)

that the Alberta resident sheep hunter will have to bear the brunt of any new management controls SRD would put in place.

I would hate to see sheep go on a draw because this would increase wait times to get your draw immensely (probably ten or fifteen years). I would hope we all realize that hunting sheep is as much about exploring new country as it is actually shooting a sheep. Right now we have the opportunity to hunt almost 300 miles of the Eastern slopes. Putting sheep on a draw would mean narrowing your options of where to hunt.

Of all the suggestions given so far, increasing waiting times for 3rd and 4th rams seems to make the most sense. This is easy to enforce but will take the more time to see the tangible results in more trophy sheep. This waiting time is okay as we do not have a problem with our sheep populations.

One other suggestion is a surcharge on each tag sold of $100.00 for residents and $1,000.00 for non-residents to be set aside in a separate fund for habitat improvement and predator control. This would be an affordable price to pay to keep our sheep hunting opportunities available for the average Albertan. Which most of us are.

[JustinC]

Originally Posted by aarjay

Wow! 35 pages of postings in - Sheep on a Draw - Us sheep hunters are a fanatical bunch. Probably because sheep hunting takes us, under the power of our own two feet, into the most beautiful country that God has created. Although it took me 10 years of hunting to get my first sheep, I think we have a great system here in Alberta. In my opinion any legal ram in Alberta is both a TROPHY and MATURE ram. I do not think we should change to accommodate the few trophy hunters out there. While we have not see any evidence that necessitates change, SRD seems to be considering some. While we have many dedicated people in our present F & W system they have been emasculated by our present government so they can barely keep up with enforcement, never mind the management of a species. Any changes would have to be simple and easy to enforce.
It seems given that SRD will most likely not change the following:
- the outfitter tags seem set in stone (they will probably benefit MOST from any changes)
- predator control of any sort (grizzly wolves and cougar) would create a political firestorm
- subsistence hunting will continue (as if anyone needs sheep meat for subsistence these days)

that the Alberta resident sheep hunter will have to bear the brunt of any new management controls SRD would put in place.

I would hate to see sheep go on a draw because this would increase wait times to get your draw immensely (probably ten or fifteen years). I would hope we all realize that hunting sheep is as much about exploring new country as it is actually shooting a sheep. Right now we have the opportunity to hunt almost 300 miles of the Eastern slopes. Putting sheep on a draw would mean narrowing your options of where to hunt.

Of all the suggestions given so far, increasing waiting times for 3rd and 4th rams seems to make the most sense. This is easy to enforce but will take the more time to see the tangible results in more trophy sheep. This waiting time is okay as we do not have a problem with our sheep populations.

One other suggestion is a surcharge on each tag sold of $100.00 for residents and $1,000.00 for non-residents to be set aside in a separate fund for habitat improvement and predator control. This would be an affordable price to pay to keep our sheep hunting opportunities available for the average Albertan. Which most of us are.

Very well said. I agree with you This how I think it should be. As for trophy hunting for sheep I think there should be a late season in every zone in the province for a lottery draw for 1 or maybe 2. That is it.

[ishootbambi]

anyone else feeling deja vu.....is this page 35 of "sheep on a draw"?

[sheepguide]

Originally Posted by ishootbambi

anyone else feeling deja vu.....is this page 35 of "sheep on a draw"?

I was thinking the same thing. Every thing said here was said there also!

I do want to comment on the piece stating that "any legal ram is a trophy and mature sheep."

While I agree that any legal ram is a trophy it isnt necessarily a mature sheep. A mature animal in most peoples eyes is one that has reached breeding stature in the herds. A 5 or 6 year old ram hasnt done that. Sure maybe he will sneak in and breed a ewe but he doesnt do the majority of the breeding. All guys are looking at is to give some of these rams a chance to pass on there genetics instead of getting shot. And to go farther most guys dont mind seeing a guy get one of these rams for his first sheep but there are guys that have killed 3 or 4 of these rams. That is the reason most guys are in favor of the wait as it doesnt restrict the guys still looking for that first "Trophy". I also feel that the extended waits for the 2nd, 3rd,4th ram ect. is a good solution also.

[bigbore375]

I agree 100% if you shoot a nice legal 5 or 6 year old ram for your first ram then fine but after that look for something bigger and more mature.It took me 6 years of hard sheep learning and hunting to finally get my first ram a nice legal 7 1/2 year old ram.I may not shoot another ram for years and years untill I find a ram thats quite abit larger.My father in-law waited 15 years tell this year to tag another ram and he is a big old mature ram 10 1/2yrs that will be his 3rd ram in a 35yr+ sheep hunting career.If everyone who hunted sheep was that mind set then we would'nt have an issue.But yes I agree a 1yr wait between 1st and 2nd then 5 yrs between 2nd and 3rd and so on.

[crazyfish]

if sheep went to a draw , province wide, then so should the non residents, get your guide after the draw, seems to work in the us states, good guides with good reps. would still have work !

I'm not sure i like the 5 yr rule, i'd be more inclined to go with 3 lifetime personally. After the first one, then wait til you see what you want.

[podman]

IMO I feel that the province should go full curl with the exception of older broomed off rams. If you are sure it is 8 years or older than you are fine but if it is younger you pay a $1000 or more fine and cannot hunt sheep for 5-8 years. This would allow the older broomed rams to be taken but the hunter better be sure.

We would have to a panel of volunteers(other sheep hunters)who are trained in aging sheep to discuss cases where they are short and age would come into play.

I like the idea of a sheep course and increased price of a sheep tag with the extra resources going to sheep habitat and transplanting ewes from Cadomin to other areas in Alberta.

I also agree that outfitters should take the same or bigger hit than the general public takes.

[sheepguide]

Originally Posted by podman

IMO I feel that the province should go full curl with the exception of older broomed off rams. If you are sure it is 8 years or older than you are fine but if it is younger you pay a $1000 or more fine and cannot hunt sheep for 5-8 years. This would allow the older broomed rams to be taken but the hunter better be sure.

We would have to a panel of volunteers(other sheep hunters)who are trained in aging sheep to discuss cases where they are short and age would come into play.

I like the idea of a sheep course and increased price of a sheep tag with the extra resources going to sheep habitat and transplanting ewes from Cadomin to other areas in Alberta.

I also agree that outfitters should take the same or bigger hit than the general public takes.

I like your idea going with the full curl plus the age. I think thats a really good idea. Still be a few younger rams shot but not many. And still be able to shoot older rams with age on them. And with a panel of voted in peers to settle age conflicts then no possability of a bunch of court apperances.

[ishootbambi]

Originally Posted by crazyfish

if sheep went to a draw , province wide, then so should the non residents, get your guide after the draw, seems to work in the us states, good guides with good reps. would still have work !

I'm not sure i like the 5 yr rule, i'd be more inclined to go with 3 lifetime personally. After the first one, then wait til you see what you want.

i dont remember anyone saying they wanted the whole province to go to a draw through 35 pages of discussion and ideas. no question a draw would address the problem of age structure, but it seems the majority, at least on this forum, are not willing to give up the opportunity we have now. some of these wait times may be able to do the same thing, but it would be a much slower process if it worked at all. heck, a lot of guys out there dont see a problem with killing all the just legals that die every year. the only thing i can gather for sure is that doing NOTHING will change NOTHING. if the majority is against a draw, then lets try something that the majority of guys are willing to try. the entire thread has been a positive in my opinion. a good discussion and some rational ideas have come from it.

If there really is no problem with population numbers, then by looking at the big picture here, there are basically two sides to this issue that have nothing to do with game management and everything to do with hunter management......those that want to punish the successful and make it easier for them to kill a ram and those that have killed a ram and now want to increase their odds of killing a big ram. Who has more right to have sheep managed for them? Right now, we seem to be managing for both groups. There is still ample opportunity to kill a ram for those willing to put in the time and effort and there is still a good chance of killing a 8-year-old-plus ram for those that put there time in. So which side should we manage for or is what is being done now fair to both groups? Truthfully, I hate seeing wildlife managed for any special interest group as is being suggested by both camps in this issue. It comes across pretty greedy. Yes, I've had the good forture to kill a few rams and I'd love to see more big sheep in the mountains but I'm also pragmatic enough to realize how fortunate I was to have an opportunity to kill my first ram, regardless of size. At that time I'd have shot the first legal sheep I saw and I'm not sure that we should be lobbying to take that right away from others. To me, it seems awfully greedy!

Managing for hunters is always going to be compromize management and to me, the current system seems like a pretty fair compromise. Everyone is afforded ample opportunity to acheive their goals. Is age structure really a problem or are opportunities to kill a first ram really a problem.....or is that just the view from your side of the fence? I'm really not that comfortable with the government managing wildlife/hunters for the purpose of satisfying special interest groups. I'm sure there are other groups out there that would love to see more big sheep on the mountain too and I'm guessing hunting doesn't figure into their solution. Let's manage wildlife for wildlife.

With countless options for increasing hunting opportunity for bighorn sheep, why are people lobbying to reduce it?

[209x50]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

If there really is no problem with population numbers, then by looking at the big picture here, there are basically two sides to this issue that have nothing to do with game management and everything to do with hunter management......those that want to punish the successful and make it easier for them to kill a ram and those that have killed a ram and now want to increase their odds of killing a big ram. Who has more right to have sheep managed for them? Right now, we seem to be managing for both groups. There is still ample opportunity to kill a ram for those willing to put in the time and effort and there is still a good chance of killing a 8-year-old-plus ram for those that put there time in. So which side should we manage for or is what is being done now fair to both groups? Truthfully, I hate seeing wildlife managed for any special interest group as is being suggested by both camps in this issue. It comes across pretty greedy. Yes, I've had the good forture to kill a few rams and I'd love to see more big sheep in the mountains but I'm also pragmatic enough to realize how fortunate I was to have an opportunity to kill my first ram, regardless of size. At that time I'd have shot the first legal sheep I saw and I'm not sure that we should be lobbying to take that right away from others. To me, it seems awfully greedy!

Managing for hunters is always going to be compromize management and to me, the current system seems like a pretty fair compromise. Everyone is afforded ample opportunity to acheive their goals. Is age structure really a problem or are opportunities to kill a first ram really a problem.....or is that just the view from your side of the fence? I'm really not that comfortable with the government managing wildlife/hunters for the purpose of satisfying special interest groups. I'm sure there are other groups out there that would love to see more big sheep on the mountain too and I'm guessing hunting doesn't figure into their solution. Let's manage wildlife for wildlife.

With countless options for increasing hunting opportunity for bighorn sheep, why are people lobbying to reduce it?

Very good my thoughts exactly, and I'll add that I'm astounded by the number of "plans" that are being floated around here with out the slightest bit of science behind them. The first piece of science would have been a study that actually defined the condition of our sheep herds rather than just assume we need to do something.
Look at the disaster that is the sheep sanctuary. We allowed the govt to chip away at all the places where sheep were killed when they left the park and slowly though little additions here and there it was no longer any place hunters went. Over population + nothing pushing the sheep off winter range in the summer + lung worm = the current disaster served up to us who thought they knew what was best for the sheep there.
Gee, thought they knew what was best for the sheep,,, that sound familiar to anyone?

[Sheepcrazyguy]

Originally Posted by sheepguide

I was thinking the same thing. Every thing said here was said there also!

I do want to comment on the piece stating that "any legal ram is a trophy and mature sheep."

While I agree that any legal ram is a trophy it isnt necessarily a mature sheep. A mature animal in most peoples eyes is one that has reached breeding stature in the herds. A 5 or 6 year old ram hasnt done that. Sure maybe he will sneak in and breed a ewe but he doesnt do the majority of the breeding. All guys are looking at is to give some of these rams a chance to pass on there genetics instead of getting shot. And to go farther most guys dont mind seeing a guy get one of these rams for his first sheep but there are guys that have killed 3 or 4 of these rams. That is the reason most guys are in favor of the wait as it doesnt restrict the guys still looking for that first "Trophy". I also feel that the extended waits for the 2nd, 3rd,4th ram ect. is a good solution also.

SG, I agree with you about a hunters first ram only having to be legal. After that the hunter should try for a bigger ram not the next legal one.
I see the same thing with deer hunters. They'll look for a bigger deer but end up shooting a deer that isn't what they wanted just to kill one. If they'd let the deer live next year he'd be bigger. True there are lots of deer but the principal is the same. Why shoot an animal that isn't what your happy with just to shoot one?
Something else, a few years ago I spoke with one of the CO's in Grande Cache about one of the outfitters there. He stated they shoot anything legal and they were 11 for 12 on their allocations. I think if residents must make changes to sheep hunting then outfitters must too. Does anyone on here have up to date numbers on how many rams the outfitters take and what ages?
Also maybe restrict access to more areas to foot hunting only. I hunt only the Willmore and backpack only. The hunt I'm planning this year will be 2 days hike in. I'm 53 and if I can do it then I'm sure a lot of younger hunters can too. SCG

[209x50]

They killed 45 last year and I'm sure they are from just legal to good rams.

[Sheepcrazyguy]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

If there really is no problem with population numbers, then by looking at the big picture here, there are basically two sides to this issue that have nothing to do with game management and everything to do with hunter management......those that want to punish the successful and make it easier for them to kill a ram and those that have killed a ram and now want to increase their odds of killing a big ram. Who has more right to have sheep managed for them? Right now, we seem to be managing for both groups. There is still ample opportunity to kill a ram for those willing to put in the time and effort and there is still a good chance of killing a 8-year-old-plus ram for those that put there time in. So which side should we manage for or is what is being done now fair to both groups? Truthfully, I hate seeing wildlife managed for any special interest group as is being suggested by both camps in this issue. It comes across pretty greedy. Yes, I've had the good forture to kill a few rams and I'd love to see more big sheep in the mountains but I'm also pragmatic enough to realize how fortunate I was to have an opportunity to kill my first ram, regardless of size. At that time I'd have shot the first legal sheep I saw and I'm not sure that we should be lobbying to take that right away from others. To me, it seems awfully greedy!

Managing for hunters is always going to be compromize management and to me, the current system seems like a pretty fair compromise. Everyone is afforded ample opportunity to acheive their goals. Is age structure really a problem or are opportunities to kill a first ram really a problem.....or is that just the view from your side of the fence? I'm really not that comfortable with the government managing wildlife/hunters for the purpose of satisfying special interest groups. I'm sure there are other groups out there that would love to see more big sheep on the mountain too and I'm guessing hunting doesn't figure into their solution. Let's manage wildlife for wildlife.

With countless options for increasing hunting opportunity for bighorn sheep, why are people lobbying to reduce it?

Well said! I myself do not want to see any changes! If we must then maybe it should be things like foot access only! The rams are there, work for them!

[Sheepcrazyguy]

Originally Posted by 209x50

They killed 45 last year and I'm sure they are from just legal to good rams.

So is that included in the total number killed last year? How many allocations do they have?

Originally Posted by Sheepcrazyguy

So is that included in the total number killed last year? How many allocations do they have?

http://www.huntingfortomorrow.com/HF...20Oct%2008.pdf

[Sheepcrazyguy]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

http://www.huntingfortomorrow.com/HF...20Oct%2008.pdf

Interesting numbers, but I still agree with you. There's nothing wrong with sheep hunting. Leave it alone. If people want to change something go back to what I recommended, foot access only to more areas.