Albertan's Want More Antelope

[elkhunter1234]

Kinda glad to see this thread has still got some life... Moose or Antelope, this chart just makes sense to me..

Jim...

[wbl170]

The herd has to be balanced to be successful. ( age structure, buck/doe ratio) How do we reach that goal? I have never shot a cow/doe nor will I ever( just me). But I do realize there is a need to do so.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by packhuntr

There is no plan. Besides that us resident hunters have been heard multiple times, and the consensus is in... we want to shoot the hell out of them because trophy pronghorn draw stats show that its now once in a lifetime draw. Does, bucks, we want to hammer down. WB wants tag increases on does. He and friends want to light em up, they want those 2 safeway bags of meat from thier antelope does. Yup, the voice of us, the resident has been clear. Dont let them make more antelope that can further benefit hunters, kill em and keep pointing fingers.

I no longer apply for trophy tags because I am more interested in the opportunity to hunt and enjoy the two bags of meat more than the trophy.
Not applying for a trophy tag will give you a better chance. I do not think me giving up my once in 10 year non trophy opportunity will do anything for the herd. I do not think my approach is any more scientific or less scientific than your approach.

I do not see where you get off suggesting that all WB wants to do is light em up.

I like the hunt because I can often do it in shirt sleeves and sneakers and I can often carry a NT antelope by myself and I love the two bags of meat.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by elkhunter1234

Kinda glad to see this thread has still got some life... Moose or Antelope, this chart just makes sense to me..

Jim...

If a Rancher had a hundred cows,
would you consider it to be bad herd management if he harvested two cows a year?

[packhuntr]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

If a Rancher had a hundred cows,
would you consider it to be bad herd management if he harvested two cows a year?

Losing two cows, how ever it happened, broken leg in a texas gate, whatever it is, is a bad deal for ANY BIG RANCH OR SMALL OPERATOR. Lost mothers to unfortunates are usually not old ones, by fluke and bad luck they are more likely to be heifers and good young cows with lots of years of reproductive potential and good calves for years into the future. Replacements are often needed purchased to assure the viability and productivity required to keep the herd producing the numbers needed TO PRODUCE ENOUGH THAT THERE IS MARKET POTENTIAL ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. This WILL TRANSLATE DIRECTLY ACROSS TO WHAT IS REQUIRED TO HAVING ANIMALS TO HUNT, for the slow ones... Only you Walking Buffalo, and AEP believe killing your cows with a herd like these antelope is smart, and provides sustainability. Take a wild guess who in the crowd has no idea what they are doing with this, and believes they could run a profitable business as such. The only, AND I MEAN ONLY reason we actually still have ungulates in some areas in Ab, is because of the actual size and productivity of the herds being handled here, its hard to completely screw up with something this big, though its being proven it can be done! And ranchers, farmers etc that dont believe for one minute that anyone alive could be dumb enough to do whats been done over the years, on multiple levels, in turn shuttting down access to hunting due to low ungulate levels.... If you boys had a ranch, the neighbors would be drooling waiting for the place to hit the market as FOR SALE.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by packhuntr

Losing two cows, how ever it happened, broken leg in a texas gate, whatever it is, is a bad deal for ANY BIG RANCH OR SMALL OPERATOR. Lost mothers to unfortunates are usually not old ones, by fluke and bad luck they are more likely to be heifers and good young cows with lots of years of reproductive potential and good calves for years into the future. Replacements are often needed purchased to assure the viability and productivity required to keep the herd producing the numbers needed TO PRODUCE ENOUGH THAT THERE IS MARKET POTENTIAL ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. This WILL TRANSLATE DIRECTLY ACROSS TO WHAT IS REQUIRED TO HAVING ANIMALS TO HUNT, for the slow ones... Only you Walking Buffalo, and AEP believe killing your cows with a herd like these antelope is smart, and provides sustainability. Take a wild guess who in the crowd has no idea what they are doing with this, and believes they could run a profitable business as such. The only, AND I MEAN ONLY reason we actually still have ungulates in some areas in Ab, is because of the actual size and productivity of the herds being handled here, its hard to completely screw up with something this big, though its being proven it can be done! And ranchers, farmers etc that dont believe for one minute that anyone alive could be dumb enough to do whats been done over the years, on multiple levels, in turn shuttting down access to hunting due to low ungulate levels.... If you boys had a ranch, the neighbors would be drooling waiting for the place to hit the market as FOR SALE.

I thought WB asked about harvesting two from the herd?
I do not think he asked about losing two?

I thought that ranchers sell or harvest some of their herd?

If the rancher did not sell or harvest a couple the cattle might overpopulate or cost too much to feed. Is this a herd of pet cattle?

packhuntr, what the heck is your point? I am obviously not as smart as you

I think a planned cull is part of any wise herd management. Cattle or game.

[packhuntr]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

I thought WB asked about harvesting two from the herd?
I do not think he asked about losing two?

I thought that ranchers sell or harvest some of their herd?

If the rancher did not sell or harvest a couple the cattle might overpopulate or cost too much to feed. Is this a herd of pet cattle?

packhuntr, what the heck is your point? I am obviously not as smart as you

I think a planned cull is part of any wise herd management. Cattle or game.

Well bud, when he specifically said, selling COWS.... there really is nothing more that can be said here. Hunters, the vast majority are from town, have zero clue, and show up looking to kill. These are blatant realities at this stage. Heck even our game managers fall into this urban crowd lolol. Wonder no more...

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by packhuntr

Well bud, when he specifically said, selling COWS.... there really is nothing more that can be said here. Hunters, the vast majority are from town, have zero clue, and show up looking to kill. These are blatant realities at this stage. Heck even our game managers fall into this urban crowd lolol. Wonder no more...

Back at you little buddy! You don't mind me calling you that! Do you?
He never specifically said that. "selling COWS..."

His question was "If a Rancher had a hundred cows,
would you consider it to be bad herd management if he harvested two cows a year?"

Wonder no more? I do wonder about you! Especially about you attitude towards hunters from town.

[packhuntr]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

Back at you little buddy! You don't mind me calling you that! Do you?
He never specifically said that. "selling COWS..."

His question was "If a Rancher had a hundred cows,
would you consider it to be bad herd management if he harvested two cows a year?"

Wonder no more? I do wonder about you! Especially about you attitude towards hunters from town.

Covey. The point is man, it matters NOT what happens to any cows. They HAVE TO BE REPLACED IMMEDIATELY or you face the consequences of GOING OUT OF BUSINESS. This applys to any and all programs on planet earth that require production to satisfy ANY demand, wether to pay bills, or to supply markets. This is not complicated. The only time one "gets rid of ones baby machines", is when he or she has determined there to be capacity related crisis. And thats it. Beyond that, you dont kill what provides.
In the game of wildlife that do not see the easy life of domesticated animals, it need go a step further such as in the case of northern range pronghorn, where higher numbers are crucial to sustainability.
If its higher level antelope hunt allocation guys want, make more antelope. The more the better it is for everyone, antelope included!

[walking buffalo]

Hey Covey,

We've all seen the kid that screams when things don't go his way.

Deer Hunter was kind enough to actually dig for the Pronghorn data, something Pack was desperately trying to ignore.

Now we can speak with some semblance of knowledge.

2017 Pronghorn Population estimate

18,200
42/100 bucks to does
51/100 fawns to does

This equates to
3968 Bucks
9427 Does
4805 Fawns
14232 Non Trophy Pronghorns (Does and Fawns)

There were 238 NT Pronghorn licences issued, for a potential MAXIMUM harvest for this hunt of 1.7% of the Doe/Fawn population.

This does not include potential Doe/Fawn harvest during the Archery season.
With a much lower success rate and a predominance of bucks harvested under this licence, the Archery Doe/Fawn harvest at most possibly replaces licences Not sold or filled by NT Licence holders.

So Pack and others are calling for the ending of the NT Pronghorn season because they feel it is wrong to kill less than 2% of the does when the population is strong.

Pamela would be proud of them.

[elkhunter1234]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

If a Rancher had a hundred cows,
would you consider it to be bad herd management if he harvested two cows a year?

Interesting question my friend... I would say that if said rancher was truly trying to manage his herd for a profit he would take a look at what he has for winter pasture and what he has for feed for the winter, than he would be culling his older and open cows, selling some heifers and buying some replacement heifer. He would not be going out and killing his 2, 3, 4, and 5th year old calvers that's for sure. Most ranchers I know have a very good idea how many cow/calve pairs his operation can handle and keep there herds towards the max for maximum profit. But we can't compare ranching to wildlife management. If we were talking about Moose, Elk, or deer we would not have this conversation as I'm well aware that wildlife management has to include harvisting females as those herds can support that.
I grew up in the heart of antelope country in the 70 and 80 that pack speaks of and know our numbers are nowhere near today what they were than.
We were smart enough to stop killing hen pheasants 50 years ago for the betterment of the flock but yet today we are still killing female antelope and sheep.. I for one can't figure that one out..
we might just have to agree to disagee on this one my friend...

Jim...

[packhuntr]

EXCELLENT, justification for killing does, WBuffalo, Deerhunter and friends have provided! Guess when the fight erupts over not enough antelope to supply demand, AEP subsequently lets out too many trophy and non trophy tags to satisfy AFGA and resident demands that something be done, and our next string of kill winters hit, decimating a herd that could have went into it much stronger,,, it wont be you guys standing with your hands at your waists, demanding that you blindly become the recipients of the outfitters 40 annually utilized tags.... BRAVO!
So much to gain, nothing for net loss! Keep at it WBuffalo and friends, indeed this is a job very well done LOL

Huh,,, does this whole thing sound like its happened before, to a tee?? Naw...
This is like living in a bad dream boys. Rock on

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by elkhunter1234

Interesting question my friend... I would say that if said rancher was truly trying to manage his herd for a profit he would take a look at what he has for winter pasture and what he has for feed for the winter, than he would be culling his older and open cows, selling some heifers and buying some replacement heifer. He would not be going out and killing his 2, 3, 4, and 5th year old calvers that's for sure. Most ranchers I know have a very good idea how many cow/calve pairs his operation can handle and keep there herds towards the max for maximum profit. But we can't compare ranching to wildlife management. If we were talking about Moose, Elk, or deer we would not have this conversation as I'm well aware that wildlife management has to include harvisting females as those herds can support that.
I grew up in the heart of antelope country in the 70 and 80 that pack speaks of and know our numbers are nowhere near today what they were than.
We were smart enough to stop killing hen pheasants 50 years ago for the betterment of the flock but yet today we are still killing female antelope and sheep.. I for one can't figure that one out..
we might just have to agree to disagee on this one my friend...

Jim...

Nope, we can't directly compare the two.

Still, at the most basic level, would you give the rancher a bad rap for killing two cows out of a hundred? You express there are variables to consider. Exactly!

Our current Pronghorn population is estimated to be 18,000 plus.
Recruitment this year is looking strong at over 25%.

The years of 30,000 Pronghorns (yes, I hunted Pronghorns then too) also occurred with 30% more critical summer and winter habitat. Habitat that has been lost and is not likely to be replaced any time soon. Expecting wildlife to always prosper as it once did despite the changes mankind has brought to the landscape is unrealistic. This is especially true south and east/northeast of Lethbridge where the habitat is becoming severely fragmented.

It doesn't make much more to suggest that the current herd is is doing well and is possibly nearing a realistic carrying capacity when current habitat is considered.

Taking 2% of the does at this time is not going to dull future population increases, if that is the goal. Remember that hunting mortality is often compensatory not additive to Natural mortality. They are going to die, be it by a hunter or something else, suggesting that the 2% hunting mortality is likely only 1% additive.

For sure I don't expect that I will be able to change your mind.
Doesn't mean I won't keep hammerin' even after the bottle is dry.

[packhuntr]

To state that we are nearing carrying capacity is confounded. We have litterally thousands upon thousands of square miles of ground with virtually NO ANTELOPE representation RIGHT NOW, and there should be. I would LOVE to see where this 30 percent loss in plains habitat has transpired. That is 1/3 devoured by farming in how many, 20 odd years??? Antelope numbers are down, this is an irrefutable FACT, i care not what reliable source your numbers stating otherwise come from,, AND IF they are indeed actually what they are being advertised to be, true carrying capacity numbers, then numbers seen just a couple decades ago are being mis presented in attempt to make todays numbers appear pallatable through high demand and the subsequent high harvest rates witnessed in the 2000's and onward. This might lend itself to entertaining the thoughts that there would have to have been some heavy manipulation of the numbers on all levels with pronghorn in Ab. to provide justification for management choices/needs. Has there been more than meets the eye with efforts to satisfy the masses, the AFGA etc, and it fit the means. Right up until when the herd is down, and it all sticks out like a sore thumb. None of that would also be linked directly our unbelievably high harvest rates with further justifications regarding our Ab antelope specifically maturing at 3 years of age. As this is apparently where top trophy potential is seen, that was the age class the herd was to be managed HARD to represent? LOL Hmmm?

[covey ridge]

[QUOTE=packhuntr;3612483].

it need go a step further such as in the case of northern range pronghorn, where higher numbers are crucial to sustainability.

I do not think that higher numbers is what is crucial to northern range sustainability. I think it is the northern range itself that is a threat and dictates sustainability. I think that in good years with mild winters the antelope will do well. Double or triple the numbers going into the winter and if that winter is one of the more brutal ones winter will just kill off more antelope.

If its higher level antelope hunt allocation guys want, make more antelope. The more the better it is for everyone, antelope included!

I do not think it should be up to what hunt allocation guys want. I think that everything should be decided on what is best for the antelope herd. If our northern range allows a few easy years for the antelope great and if not well
1 or 2 % cull will not matter much.

I remember my first antelope kill about 55 years ago. There was an antelope behind every blade of wild grass. That winter there was a massive kill off because of deep snow and bitter cold. There was also a major kill off along rail road tracks where hugh herds got trapped because of the snow. The following years allotted tags were down, not because of hunter overkill but because Alberta winter overkill.

I would prefer Alberta manage for a smaller sustainable herd and not feed the coyotes during the bad winters.

Winter is coming