Big sheep changes

[mountainascent]

I personally think if a change is made and only if a change should be made. There should be a longer wait to purchase a tag after harvesting a ram. A two to four year wait. I think this change would educate hunters in the ram they want to take. There would be a sense of consequence in taking a ram. It would make hunters rethink taking a squeaker ram after all the years of hard work and sweat they have put into getting a ram. Not being aloud to purchase a tag for a few years might change some peoples mind. And isn't our goal to leave a few more rams on the mountains at the end of the year? It could change that 4% to 5%. And over a few years, that would be significantly noticeable.

If this full curl rule goes true, we might see a record number of squeaker rams taken next year. The rams that have been passed on might not be so lucky next year. Take me for example. I have hunted long and hard for a ram and never have I actually laid my sights on one. Some would think I would shoot the first legal ram I saw but they would be wrong. Last year completely changed it for me. I was extremely fortunate enought to be on 2 successful sheep hunts. Both my cousin and brother took their first rams and both rams were beautiful and mature. At that moment I decided my first ram was going to be the same. I wanted to find a big old heavy looper. No matter how long it took me. My brother quickly changed my mind when he told me that sheep hunting could see a huge change in the next year or two. Either making it a draw or full curl. If the change goes through and I don't shoot my ram next year, I don't know what my chances are in the future. All of a sudden my goal in a ram could change and I might shoot that first legal ram I set my sights on.

[bdub]

Some more info posted on WSFA website recently. Probably going to cause more controversy but as a smart fellow on here pointed out to me it is good to keep the conversation going. Despite all the bickering back and forth and what side of it you are on I think it's important that we stay informed on the issues and info that go into the decisions being made in managing the resource. If we have accomplished anything with this thread I hope it is that. A bit of heavy reading but worth your time to look at.

http://www.wsfab.org/pdfs/esrdbio1.pdf
http://www.wsfab.org/pdfs/esrdbio2.pdf
http://www.wsfab.org/pdfs/esrdbio3.pdf
http://www.wsfab.org/pdfs/esrdbio4.pdf

[Acesneights]

Originally Posted by bdub

Some more info posted on WSFA website recently. Probably going to cause more controversy but as a smart fellow on here pointed out to me it is good to keep the conversation going. Despite all the bickering back and forth and what side of it you are on I think it's important that we stay informed on the issues and info that go into the decisions being made in managing the resource. If we have accomplished anything with this thread I hope it is that. A bit of heavy reading but worth your time to look at.

http://www.wsfab.org/pdfs/esrdbio1.pdf
http://www.wsfab.org/pdfs/esrdbio2.pdf
http://www.wsfab.org/pdfs/esrdbio3.pdf
http://www.wsfab.org/pdfs/esrdbio4.pdf

I do agree withy our comments that either way debating is healthy and even if we all have slightly different view on how this should be handle, we all care more about the future of these animals than most anyone.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by bdub

I don't think you read anything posted or linked anyway. Your poll doesn't bother me. It's kind of meaningless saying hunters pass or don't pass rams up, doesn't change the post season survey data.

As for being desperate lol. I've killed my fair share of rams. If I never kill another sheep I've been more than blessed with the ones I have killed and had the opportunity to help others kill. I'm not desperate WB. I'm just thinking about what's best for the resource and the future of sheep hunting staying off draw. I'm wondering what your angle is on this issue.

Some areas in the Clearwater/Ram are having too high a harvest due to hunting pressure (some areas are as high as 70%, and the target is to harvest 50% of the total legal rams). Overharvest is serious issues that ESRD is looking at – both by residents and non-resident aliens.

Originally Posted by bdub

Some more info posted on WSFA website recently. Improbably going to cause more controversy but as a smart fellow on here pointed out to me it is good to keep the conversation going. Despite all the bickering back and forth and what side of it you are on I think it's important that we stay informed on the issues and info that go into the decisions being made in managing the resource. If we have accomplished anything with this thread I hope it is that. A bit of heavy reading but worth your time to look at.

http://www.wsfab.org/pdfs/esrdbio1.pdf
http://www.wsfab.org/pdfs/esrdbio2.pdf
http://www.wsfab.org/pdfs/esrdbio3.pdf
http://www.wsfab.org/pdfs/esrdbio4.pdf

Fyi, the last three links are to research papers I passed to the WSF before f&w finally decided to state these documents are part of their evidence behind the regulation proposal.

I didn't post them up before because you, SLH and Crazy D claimed to have already seen this info.

So as you can see, f&w IS stating that the reason for the regulation change is due to hunting induced genetic selection. They are stating that the reduction in legal rams IS due to the genefic shift.

Of course the research has no control to compare its data against, which if I recall correctly from grade 9 science a control group is needed for such a modelling.



My angle, Bdub?

Quite simply to get the word out how this regulation change is being pushed by people with motives and evidence that must be questioned.

[huntwat]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Fyi, the last three links are to research papers I passed to the WSF before f&w finally decided to state these documents are part of their evidence behind the regulation proposal.

I didn't post them up before because you, SLH and Crazy D claimed to have already seen this info.

I don't normally post, but when I see something like this I really wonder what the posters agenda is?????

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by huntwat

I don't normally post, but when I see something like this I really wonder what the posters agenda is?????

Well, what do you believe is his agenda?

[bdub]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Fyi, the last three links are to research papers I passed to the WSF before f&w finally decided to state these documents are part of their evidence behind the regulation proposal.

I didn't post them up before because you, SLH and Crazy D claimed to have already seen this info.

So as you can see, f&w IS stating that the reason for the regulation change is due to hunting induced genetic selection. They are stating that the reduction in legal rams IS due to the genefic shift.

Of course the research has no control to compare its data against, which if I recall correctly from grade 9 science a control group is needed for such a modelling.



My angle, Bdub?

Quite simply to get the word out how this regulation change is being pushed by people with motives and evidence that must be questioned.

Haha WB. I challenge you to show me anywhere on this thread that I have mentioned this specific info. The genetic harm theory that you have been talking about is old news to most, lots of holes in that theory of which V. Geist disputes, (this is well publicized).

Control group hmm. Where and how are you going to find a suitable control group to test the theory of full curl regulation. Hmm.

The only thing you are showing me and I am learning is the politics that goes into the decisions being made in manageing our resource and the influence of various special interest groups on the decision process. Very enlightening. Hopefully everyone has the best interest of the resource at heart, but I doubt that.

Your angle is to let us know the biologists are a shifty bunch? Ok. Sounds reasonable. After all I've only been back in the province for a few years now so maybe they are all a bunch of crooked folks out to screw us over and I'm just out of touch with the reality of what goes on here.

This is good. Keep the conversation going.

[Lr1000]

I'm sorry. I haven't read through this whole thing yet, but something that I find ridiculous is how they think there is a shortage of large sheep based on the fact the non res are shooting small Rams!

1. Do they really not think there are residents here that don't have it figured out just as much as the guides if not more.

2. Do you not think the guide and hunter are going to shoot the first legal sheep they see. It's a $30000+ hunt with pretty low success harvest.

3. Non res season starts a week after res hunting. Do they not think some of those target sheep they have been scouted got shot opening week.

4. Non res closes a week earlier. They aren't getting some of the best hunting and shooting some of the big park Rams.

My conclusion is the bios are idiots based on this theory alone.

[bdub]

Originally Posted by Lr1000

I'm sorry. I haven't read through this whole thing yet, but something that I find ridiculous is how they think there is a shortage of large sheep based on the fact the non res are shooting small Rams!

1. Do they really not think there are residents here that don't have it figured out just as much as the guides if not more.

2. Do you not think the guide and hunter are going to shoot the first legal sheep they see. It's a $30000+ hunt with pretty low success harvest.

Both residents and non residents are shooting small rams, non residents even slightly smaller than residents on average. Why? Because there is hardly any big sheep outside of the sanctuaries and the resident hunters have already nailed quite a few of whatever legal sheep there are by the time outfitters can start hunting. Most residents and non residents are shooting the first legal sheep they see. Any big rams that get nailed are rams that come from the safety of the parks or mines or have unique horn configuration, brooming, that makes them big Rams but just legal. Everyone has sheep figured out, guides, residents, natives, we are all picking over the same sheep and killing off most of the just legals each season with the odd good ones coming from a park or mine. That's is the state of sheep hunting in Alberta.

[bdub]

Originally Posted by Lr1000

I'm sorry. I haven't read through this whole thing yet, but something that I find ridiculous is how they think there is a shortage of large sheep based on the fact the non res are shooting small Rams!

1. Do they really not think there are residents here that don't have it figured out just as much as the guides if not more.

2. Do you not think the guide and hunter are going to shoot the first legal sheep they see. It's a $30000+ hunt with pretty low success harvest.

3. Non res season starts a week after res hunting. Do they not think some of those target sheep they have been scouted got shot opening week.

4. Non res closes a week earlier. They aren't getting some of the best hunting and shooting some of the big park Rams.

My conclusion is the bios are idiots based on this theory alone.

I think that they expected non res harvest to show that they had better success at larger rams due to the professional services of an outfitter. What it shows is we are all killing dink rams equally as well. The residents get first and last crack at them so the data shows a slightly higher size for residents as we get those sanctuary Rams thrown in the data.

[Roughneck Country]

Originally Posted by bdub

Both residents and non residents are shooting small rams, non residents even slightly smaller than residents on average. Why? Because there is hardly any big sheep outside of the sanctuaries and the resident hunters have already nailed quite a few of whatever legal sheep there are by the time outfitters can start hunting. Most residents and non residents are shooting the first legal sheep they see. Any big rams that get nailed are rams that come from the safety of the parks or mines or have unique horn configuration, brooming, that makes them big Rams but just legal. Everyone has sheep figured out, guides, residents, natives, we are all picking over the same sheep and killing off most of the just legals each season with the odd good ones coming from a park or mine. That's is the state of sheep hunting in Alberta.

You just don't know where to hunt. I took a 9 yr old this year and another resident took a 11.5 yr old from the same drainage and it is no where near any sanctuary area. And no the old ram didn't migrate in he was there when I got mine he was just too close to call for me. Big sheep are smart and hard to hunt. They are out there and in non sanctuary areas as well. Changing the rules isn't going to put more sheep or bigger sheep on the mountain it will be like 400 where the ram drops the minute it's full curl

[Justahunter]

Lr I have to agree with you. Some things to keep in mind. The bio agenda is not about sheep . It is about shutting down hunting. Based on rersults from 328 -400 and 429 they know if full curl gets in there will be eventually a huge reduction in sheep hunting and that eventually the season will CLOSE. No draw ,no increased waiting time ,nothing NO HUNTING.
Second point -A 3 % change in horn length over 30 years is statisticly invalid. Habitat is more likely to cause any change then selective hunting.
Third point -if you read the contents of these other studies you will find that the bios are post season finding 21% of Rams are 4/5 or better in hunted areas and 34% of Rams are legal in buffer areas. The sheep management plan calls for 5% of rams ,post season to be mature (legal)
You will also find that the info from these 2011-2013 surveys is not to be available to the public but that the WSF funded survey from earlier (where they found 4% mature rams ) is the data they want us to believe is real
I call BS on all the things any biologist that is also a PETA member has to say. Especially when they hide the info that does not support their argument,
Bottom line is there may be evidence to support increased hunting pressure rather then less Think about that for a minute

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by bdub

Both residents and non residents are shooting small rams, non residents even slightly smaller than residents on average. Why? Because there is hardly any big sheep outside of the sanctuaries and the resident hunters have already nailed quite a few of whatever legal sheep there are by the time outfitters can start hunting. Most residents and non residents are shooting the first legal sheep they see. Any big rams that get nailed are rams that come from the safety of the parks or mines or have unique horn configuration, brooming, that makes them big Rams but just legal. Everyone has sheep figured out, guides, residents, natives, we are all picking over the same sheep and killing off most of the just legals each season with the odd good ones coming from a park or mine. That's is the state of sheep hunting in Alberta.

Good Mornin.

I know this has been said before, but for some reason you just refuse to accept it. Any chance you ate too much sheep and now you just can't stop butting heads?

The research is saying that the average age of hunted rams is getting OLDER. We are shooting more OLDER rams than ever before.

Do you recognize that the claimed size reduction of rams has only been accounted for 6 year old rams, and the claimed "shrinkage" is 3.5%. The margin of mathematical rounding (error) without accounting for human error or rounding of initial measurements, is around + - 3%. ? The statistic is benign.

Seriously Bdub, read the genetic harm studies many times over, the details will pop out and you will understand why this research is so weak.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Justahunter

Lr I have to agree with you. Some things to keep in mind. The bio agenda is not about sheep . It is about shutting down hunting. Based on rersults from 328 -400 and 429 they know if full curl gets in there will be eventually a huge reduction in sheep hunting and that eventually the season will CLOSE. No draw ,no increased waiting time ,nothing NO HUNTING.
Second point -A 3 % change in horn length over 30 years is statisticly invalid. Habitat is more likely to cause any change then selective hunting.
Third point -if you read the contents of these other studies you will find that the bios are post season finding 21% of Rams are 4/5 or better in hunted areas and 34% of Rams are legal in buffer areas. The sheep management plan calls for 5% of rams ,post season to be mature (legal)
You will also find that the info from these 2011-2013 surveys is not to be available to the public but that the WSF funded survey from earlier (where they found 4% mature rams ) is the data they want us to believe is real
I call BS on all the things any biologist that is also a PETA member has to say. Especially when they hide the info that does not support their argument,
Bottom line is there may be evidence to support increased hunting pressure rather then less Think about that for a minute

"Bottom line is there may be evidence to support increased hunting pressure rather then less Think about that for a minute. "




Finally!!!!

Yes sir, without a doubt we MUST evaluate the effects of population density, habitat loss and degradation along with an older average age of ewes in connection with a decreasing lamb survival and individual animal vigor/vitality.

The key to these smaller older rams may just be that the herd is at or past carrying capacity.

ALL sheep biologists understand and accept that a herd kept below carrying capacity will produce healthier bigger sheep with bigger faster growing horns.

ALL sheep biologists understand and accept that a herd at or above carrying capacity will produce smaller less vigorous sheep with smaller horns.

But some sheep biologists refuse to recommend a population reduction when they are opposed to killing sheep.

[bdub]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Good Mornin.

I know this has been said before, but for some reason you just refuse to accept it. Any chance you ate too much sheep and now you just can't stop buttimg heads?

The research is saying that the average age of hunted rams is getting OLDER. We are shooting more OLDER rams than ever before.

Do you recognize that the claimed size reduction of rams has only been accounted for 6 year old rams, and the claimed "shrinkage" is 3.5%. The margin of mathematical rounding (error) without ccounting for human error or rounding of initial measurements, is around + - 3%. ? The statistic is benign.

Seriously Bdub, read the genetic harm studies many times over, the details will pop out and you will understand why this research is so weak.

Good morning to you too WB and yes maybe I don't mind butting heads over this issue. Someone's got to be Devils advocate here or it would be a pretty short discussion.

I've stated over and over again how I don't believe in the genetic harm theories put forward, maybe 10 times now on this thread at least. I agree that theory is weak. All the data fits right in with the effects of harvesting to large a percentage of the age class of ram that we are taking. What I find hard to ignore is the low numbers of legal sheep left over after the season. I think that is the big issue that needs fixing.

[bdub]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

"Bottom line is there may be evidence to support increased hunting pressure rather then less Think about that for a minute. "




Finally!!!!

Yes sir, without a doubt we MUST evaluate the effects of population density, habitat loss and degradation along with an older average age of ewes in connection with a decreasing lamb survival and individual animal vigor/vitality.

The key to these smaller older rams may just be that the herd is at or past carrying capacity.

ALL sheep biologists understand and accept that a herd kept below carrying capacity will produce healthier bigger sheep with bigger faster growing horns.

ALL sheep biologists understand and accept that a herd at or above carrying capacity will produce smaller less vigorous sheep with smaller horns.

But some sheep biologists refuse to recommend a population reduction when they are opposed to killing sheep.

Yup that is the idea behind ewe harvests so that there is a surplus of resources for the females. Same thing with increasing habitat with burns. We increase the carrying capacity. For sure the effects of habitat are super important, will not disagree with that one bit.

[bdub]

Originally Posted by Roughneck Country

You just don't know where to hunt. I took a 9 yr old this year and another resident took a 11.5 yr old from the same drainage and it is no where near any sanctuary area. And no the old ram didn't migrate in he was there when I got mine he was just too close to call for me. Big sheep are smart and hard to hunt. They are out there and in non sanctuary areas as well. Changing the rules isn't going to put more sheep or bigger sheep on the mountain it will be like 400 where the ram drops the minute it's full curl

That's nice. I suppose your Rams and the drainage are indicative of the entire province?

And if we are dropping them the minute they are full curl, fine. We have probably increased the age of that ram by two years. Mission accomplished.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by bdub

Yup that is the idea behind ewe harvests so that there is a surplus of resources for the females. Same thing with increasing habitat with burns. We increase the carrying capacity. For sure the effects of habitat are super important, will not disagree with that one bit.

So perhaps someone should evaluate the correlation between historical sheep populations and ram harvest data alongside habitat evaluations. ...

Is it just a coincidence that when sheep pops maxed out in the mid to late eighties and have remained stagnant since then, the ram horn size has followed suit?

Read up on the suggested ewe harvest guidlines in the sheep management plan. We should be killing 600 + ewes a year as a baseline..we have not been anywhere near recommended ewe harvest levels for decades.

The current sheep pop has remained stable for the last 25-30 years. This is the sign of a herd at carrying capacity.

At the same time habitat loss due to forest encroachment ( and other factors) has been significant.

All these conditions add up to a sound case that our sheep are suffering from an overpopulation issue, a concern well studied by widely accepted research.

Particularly concerning is that IF the real problem is a population density issue, then the full curl rule will do absolutely nothing to help the sheep become healthier. In fact the opposite is true, the full curl regulation could make the problem even worse.

[Lr1000]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

So perhaps someone should evaluate the correlation between historical sheep populations and ram harvest data alongside habitat evaluations. ...

Is it just a coincidence that when sheep pops maxed out in the mid to late eighties and have remained stagnant since then, the ram horn size has followed suit?

Read up on the suggested ewe harvest guidlines in the sheep management plan. We should be killing 600 + ewes a year as a baseline..we have not been anywhere near recommended ewe harvest levels for decades.

The current sheep pop has remained stable for the last 25-30 years. This is the sign of a herd at carrying capacity.

At the same time habitat loss due to forest encroachment ( and other factors) has been significant.

All these conditions add up to a sound case that our sheep are suffering from an overpopulation issue, a concern well studied by widely accepted research.

Particularly concerning is that IF the real problem is a population density issue, then the full curl rule will do absolutely nothing to help the sheep become healthier. In fact the opposite is true, the full curl regulation could make the problem even worse.

Exactly. If the gov refuses to open up more habitat changing the regs is useless. As you stated before WB, the gov is finding the resources to do controlled burns in the parks to help and keep our already strong sheep population there. Why havent they found the resources to burn outside of parks? Maybe there is a hidden agenda? As bdub and crazy Dave have stated, we all should take off our tin foil hats off because there is no conspiracy. I'll keep that tinfoil hat on and keep from being brainwashed from those that are trying to stop sheep hunting all together in our province.

[Roughneck Country]

Originally Posted by bdub

That's nice. I suppose your Rams and the drainage are indicative of the entire province?

And if we are dropping them the minute they are full curl, fine. We have probably increased the age of that ram by two years. Mission accomplished.

Just saying if I can find old Rams others can as well. And a study done about full curl in BC found it increased age by under 1 year. As for the Rams we got neither one would have ever made full curl. They were broomed to heavy or didn't have the configuration.

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by bdub

Good morning to you too WB and yes maybe I don't mind butting heads over this issue. Someone's got to be Devils advocate here or it would be a pretty short discussion.

I've stated over and over again how I don't believe in the genetic harm theories put forward, maybe 10 times now on this thread at least. I agree that theory is weak. All the data fits right in with the effects of harvesting to large a percentage of the age class of ram that we are taking. What I find hard to ignore is the low numbers of legal sheep left over after the season. I think that is the big issue that needs fixing.

With no aerial studies done in the last 2 years, and previous flights were typically done in Feb, and March prior to that. I find it hard to believe that legal sheep percentages are a true representation of the numbers.

Hunting season end Oct 31st. Pre Rut, and Rut historically occur from the last week of Oct to the mid January, with the peak usually being somewhere in the middle.

Also, population density could definitely be an issue as WB, eluded to...Perhaps that's why non traditional winter ranges need to be located and studied!!!

Shouldn't the flights happen during the peak, and immediately after the season?

[rut]

Too late to feed the 74 Rams that winter killed late winter 2013.
Google sheep winter kill Cadomin for a look at the best of them being shown off. I was told they are not allowed to intervien by feeding but they can feed them to trap and transplant them. The unatural feed on the mine is like a worm hole sucking in all animals in the surrounding areas

[bdub]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

So perhaps someone should evaluate the correlation between historical sheep populations and ram harvest data alongside habitat evaluations. ...

Is it just a coincidence that when sheep pops maxed out in the mid to late eighties and have remained stagnant since then, the ram horn size has followed suit?

Read up on the suggested ewe harvest guidlines in the sheep management plan. We should be killing 600 + ewes a year as a baseline..we have not been anywhere near recommended ewe harvest levels for decades.

The current sheep pop has remained stable for the last 25-30 years. This is the sign of a herd at carrying capacity.

At the same time habitat loss due to forest encroachment ( and other factors) has been significant.

All these conditions add up to a sound case that our sheep are suffering from an overpopulation issue, a concern well studied by widely accepted research.

Particularly concerning is that IF the real problem is a population density issue, then the full curl rule will do absolutely nothing to help the sheep become healthier. In fact the opposite is true, the full curl regulation could make the problem even worse.

I agree we have multiple management issues. The herd being at carrying capacity, habitat encroachment etc. to name just a couple. I have no doubt about the relation to sheep horn growth, herd health in relation to habitat. I also believe a part of herd health is related to the issue of ram age class structure of which full curl will help. Ideally we could solve all the problems.

[rut]

With all the money made with the Ministers tag lottery and auction it is a bit pathetic that this would happen. The Alberta wildlife federation did not know about it till Late summer.

[bdub]

Originally Posted by pottymouth

With no aerial studies done in the last 2 years, and previous flights were typically done in Feb, and March prior to that. I find it hard to believe that legal sheep percentages are a true representation of the numbers.

Hunting season end Oct 31st. Pre Rut, and Rut historically occur from the last week of Oct to the mid January, with the peak usually being somewhere in the middle.

Also, population density could definitely be an issue as WB, eluded to...Perhaps that's why non traditional winter ranges need to be located and studied!!!

Shouldn't the flights happen during the peak, and immediately after the season?

Many past surveys have been flown anywhere from mid December to early March. They are trying to survey them when they are concentrated on the winter range. They typically stay on the winter range and disperse to the summer range as the snow goes.

http://www.ab-conservation.com/go/de...veys/overview/

[rut]

It was the local trapper that clued me in to the winter kill. Burn off the un natural feed or fence it off. There are huge numbers of protected predators picking them off in an unatural habitat.

[bdub]

And the trends from all past surveys all point to the same thing. To few mature Rams left over post season.

[mountainascent]

I received this from a good friend walking buffalo. I believe this backs your theory of over capacity hindering the growth of rams.

"Males are more strongly affected by early development than females. When the number of ewes in the population was included in multiple regressions, the multiple coefficients of determination obtained for rams were generally more than twice those obtained for ewes (see Tables 1 and 2). Indeed, our results suggest that over 70% of the variance in adult male mass and horn length is explained by population density in the year of birth and by weaning mass, while less than 20% of the variance in adult ewe mass is explained by the same variables. These results may at first appear counterintuitive, given that postweaning growth is much greater for rams than for ewes (Festa-Bianchet et al., 1996), and therefore the potential for compensatory growth should also be greater for rams. Differences in plasticity of resource allocation between growth and reproduction, however, potentially explain this paradox. By varying their age of primiparity, females can allocate resources to growth or to reproduction, and affect their mass gain between 2 and 4 years of age (Jorgenson et al., 1993a). Males, however, cannot redirect resources to growth from reproduction, even though young bighorn rams can reproduce (Hogg and Forbes, 1997). Energy expenditure during the early-winter rut likely affects the timing of consumption of fat reserves and possibly over-winter survival, but is unlikely to affect skeletal growth and mass accumulation over the following summer."

From this study http://beheco.oxfordjournals.org/content/11/6/633.full

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by bdub

Many past surveys have been flown anywhere from mid December to early March. They are trying to survey them when they are concentrated on the winter range. They typically stay on the winter range and disperse to the summer range as the snow goes.

http://www.ab-conservation.com/go/de...veys/overview/

Not much surveying done after 2011 for sheep.

Last flights south of the Bow river were in 2008

Most sheep surveys were done in late January and early Feb, from what your link shows...

consistent with what I've been reading and saying...unless I missed something...?

[bdub]

Originally Posted by Justahunter

Lr I have to agree with you. Some things to keep in mind. The bio agenda is not about sheep . It is about shutting down hunting. Based on rersults from 328 -400 and 429 they know if full curl gets in there will be eventually a huge reduction in sheep hunting and that eventually the season will CLOSE. No draw ,no increased waiting time ,nothing NO HUNTING.
Second point -A 3 % change in horn length over 30 years is statisticly invalid. Habitat is more likely to cause any change then selective hunting.
Third point -if you read the contents of these other studies you will find that the bios are post season finding 21% of Rams are 4/5 or better in hunted areas and 34% of Rams are legal in buffer areas. The sheep management plan calls for 5% of rams ,post season to be mature (legal)
You will also find that the info from these 2011-2013 surveys is not to be available to the public but that the WSF funded survey from earlier (where they found 4% mature rams ) is the data they want us to believe is real
I call BS on all the things any biologist that is also a PETA member has to say. Especially when they hide the info that does not support their argument,
Bottom line is there may be evidence to support increased hunting pressure rather then less Think about that for a minute

JAH you are not reading the info correctly. The 21% and 34% numbers you are talking about are the percentage of 4/5 rams in relation to the total ram population. They are interested in having the total rams that are above 4/5 curl be above 5% when compared to the total population. Lots of baltant misinformation and tinfoil hat fear mongering in your post bud but this really stands out and proves that you aren't really grasping any of the info presented or you are just spreading BS. Not sure which.