LOL :snapoutofit:

And what places would those be :confused:

Last time I contacted anybody about this the story was that there was ONE zone where the legal ram count was SLIGHTLY below the desired level.

I spoke with APOS president Gordon Burton this morning and he was emphatic that APOS was not driving nor supporting any of the option proposed by SRD. It's interesting that seveal of the groups, the key hunting groups, are washing threir hands of these proposals. The question begs asking again, who is driving it and why was such a false picture painted of a province-wide draw. The finger keeps pointing back at SRD.

you guys are jumping on me as if im the one counting these sheep. sorry, im just repeating the info i have read. i agree that counting sheep on winter range doesnt always tell the entire picture. some rams on winter range in huntable areas spend the hunting season in areas not open to hunting. no doubt that goes the opposite way too.

if sid was the guy that wrote sacrificial ram and was a warden and not a fish cop....sorry....it was a while ago and im going from memory.

as far as counts showing no leagl rams in some areas...again, its what has been reported, but im not completely convinced of the accuracy. how can they be positive from a helicopter? im not sure how they would verify the squeaky kinda sheep?

wb, you are right...this coltman guy seems to be contradicting what registered rams over the past 40 years have shown....

ill also point out again that im not in favor of most of the proposals. i dont care if you disagree and get mad at me, just be mad for the right reasons....:)

see that i am against....a draw for some areas would be great in my opinion. now you can be mad at me for that...:fighting0030:

And who reported that and where was it reported?

srd info....it has been in all of these thread here over the past year. you read the links and stuff right?

That's what I was asking ISB. Not jumping all over you, I would just like to know where and from whom these numbers came from.

LOL...good save. No doubt there are a couple regions with low legal ram counts on winter range but zero rams....I don't buy it and it's not reflected in the most recent data I've seen. Perhaps it's not me that isn't reading?

good save? you asked i answered......huh? again...i didnt say i believed it, just that its what is being reported. from memory, wmus were not listed. i dont have time and honestly, i seldom have luck with the search function, but ill see if i can find it. im on my way to calgary right quick so tomorrow at the soonest.

Sounds to me like you believed it

Don't worry about searching ISB. It's just good to stick to the facts here....that's the only reason I pointed it out. You are correct that according the most recent SRD counts, most of the province is under 5% but none are at 0% that I've seen.

That seems to be the $64,000 question but so far no one from SRD is talking.:angry3:

SRD work for us who is above them to send a letter too ?

Frank and Alison and your own MLA.

It is puzzling to me that numbers of hunters and hunter killed rams and sheep population numbers haven't changed for decades. Yet SRD claims the ram populations are mysteriously down. Hunters aren't killing more to cause this so what is? And how is curtailing hunter numbers goiung to help the situation when hunters didn't cause it in the first place?

I have a March 2011 pdf from a presentation Anne Hubbs made regarding sheep. It is too large to upload to the forum. Her presentation gives off the feeling that a problem is being sought.

Maybe Anne will answer some questions. ;)

Anne Hubbs, PhD, P. Biol.
Senior Wildlife Biologist
Fish & Wildlife Division

Anne.Hubbs@gov.ab.ca

In that presentation, I find it interesting that the number of lambs per 100 ewes in declining at almost the identical rate as the number of trophy rams. I guess one could conclude as SRD has that this is a result of not enough breeding age rams breeding the ewes. I guess one could also consider the fact that the number of lambs has decresed in accordance with the increase in predator numbers. Perhaps if we could reduce lamb mortality, we'd have a solution? Just another way of looking at the data I guess. Since hunter kills really haven't changed much in the past few decades, it seems reasonable to me that SRD should perhaps pay a bit closer attention to lamb survival. The more lambs that survive, the more rams that reach breeding age. But it is easier to manage hunters rather than predators I guess.

I think I've mentioned who is behind it a dozen times at least. Ducks in a row yet?

Ya, the decrease in the number of lambs raises many more questions. Are less being born or are more being killed before the counts are done? Perhaps reducing lamb mortality and improving habitat may be the answer to the management issue for mature rams? Since hunting seems to not be the cuprit, looking elsewhere would seem prudent.

I gotta agree.

In the presentation page AVAILABLE RAMS (Survey Data) the comment is made that only 55% of sheep are observed during the Aerial Survey. :thinking-006:


I wish I could post the pdf here. I'll send it out by email to those who ask for it.

I guess a person has to question the methodology in recent sheep counts as well. Are sheep populations really going up and down 40% every two years in the past decade? The big crash in the mid 90s makes sense due to some brutal winters but after that the numbers seem to make no sense at all. This graph is from the Clearwater region.

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h4...Mar19_2011.jpg

From that graph, it would appear that they are missing a noticeable portion of winter range every couple of years from 2000 onwards. I can't see a population crashing by 300 and rebounding by a similar amount two years later, and then doing it again in almost a cyclical pattern. A biologist with any credit would have to question that data and why it is presented as is. I would guess that the population from that graph is actually in the +/- 1300 range, and not in the +/- 950 range, but if you want to show a big decrease in populations to force a decision, the lower of the counts would likely be used. Got to like statistics.

Ya, that's what it says to me as well. The graph is poorly laid out too as the span between years is not accurately portrayed. The peaks and valleys are not nearly as dramatic in earlier years as they are portrayed as the counts were done less frequently.

I think these two graphs tell a real story as well. Again, these are just from the Clearwater region.

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h4...Mar19_2011.jpg

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h4...ar19_20111.jpg

added these numbers 1067 on CRC and Gregg mine 2011 and 250 on Grande Cache mine site.. used to be 350 to +400 in 438 before mine this years 260 some outside mine..

Dale the point was that the hunter numbers kills has not gone up there for it is mother nature

in any given range at any given year there could be a die off

there is say 300 legal rams since 1970 s we (hunter s) take 150..

the mines are keeping 250 rams on property that never leave or very little.. 438 numbers of rams kill by hunting has not change much .. but the number of rams in huntable(less now) areas has!! and the chance of disease that lead to die off has increased drastically. and the sad things like horn rot /over grown hoof/selinium(160 sheep dead in 6hrs google)/heavy metal etc(spills) contamination like Montana..one ewe two years ago came in to esteris and the big rams open up her stomach and she was walking on her inards as rams after ram mounted her there was about 25 rams there the guys said it was sick to watch ..dead next morning..out of balance mother nature. no conservation principles used .. risk access needs to be done

CWD site has a study done to see what if and issue of animals gathering in one area it is on there site done by U of Sask and CWHC for Parks Canada and Sask & Man Gov.. jist don't have animals bunching up in one area

David

Chuck have you talked with the president of your club yet!!!!

I think too many guys are looking at the number of sheep and or rams in the population as the perceived problem. From the data we can see the populations and number of rams has stayed consistent.

It was mentioned by sheephunter in post #287 that SRD said the problem was the reduced mass and horn length of the rams being killed over time. This would tell me that the rams with the fast growing genetics are being harvested and the smaller slower growing rams are left to do the breeding amplifying the problem with each generation. Perhaps that is why they are trying to change something now is in order to protect those good genes?

Actually SRD did say they were worried about the number of legal rams as well. It's below the 5% target goal pretty well province wide according to them. Their 2011 counts appear to confirm that.

Ram Crazy, Willow Valley Trophy Club is not/and never was pushing for these said changes. 2 years ago, with the knowledge of 'major sheep changes' coming, we put forth a resolution to have a 5 year wait if one was successful in harvesting a ram. The club felt that a 5 year wait was far better than draw or full curl restrictions. The resolution was voted down at the AFGA convention and thus was never even submitted to SRD. In light of the proposed draw and draw stats it clearly would have been the lesser of the evils. Please understand these facts before implying our club is behind this!

Finally somebody that has come forward to admit that Willow Valley club put a resolution to have a 5 yr. wait for killing a ram, are you sure it wasn't a personal vendetta against the guys who were killing lots of sheep. Two years ago everybody was denying that Willow Valley had anything to do with the resolution.