Big sheep changes

[Lr1000]

What is the logic behind shortening the season in 402, 404, 406, 408. Tho?

[GrtWht]

Originally Posted by stringer

There is NO "logic" they changed the regulation to target full curl Rams and now they what to shorten the season so we don't harvest full curl Rams. It was never about the sheep but about controlling hunters. If you can't see that maybe open your eyes.

Couldn't agree more!

[bdub]

Originally Posted by Lr1000

What is the logic behind shortening the season in 402, 404, 406, 408. Tho?

I agree. The original letter I recieved from the Minister in December only mentioned shortening the season in 302-400. Nothing about the other zones?

I don't understand the need to shorten the season in 302-400. Doesn't make any sense when they are already at 12 % in 400, well above the 5% level desired.

[Acesneights]

Originally Posted by bdub

I agree. The original letter I recieved from the Minister in December only mentioned shortening the season in 302-400. Nothing about the other zones?

I don't understand the need to shorten the season in 302-400. Doesn't make any sense when they are already at 12 % in 400, well above the 5% level desired.

Awesome bdub finally after 31 pages we can all agree on one thing. I knew this thread would pay off 🐑

[super7mag]

I'm not a sheep hunter as of yet but have still been following this thread trying to get enlightened. One thing has struck me as a simple solution that could easily keep the 4/5 rule yet reach goals of the 5% left as breeding stock .
Other then the obvious that's been stated on predator control and habitat improvement thru controlled burns . Why wouldn't hunters after registering a legal kill have to take a one season or two season hiatus before being able to kill another sheep? It seems like a logical step to me, more sqeekers get passed up as a result more Rams left on the mountain. Just a thought .

[300magman]

Originally Posted by super7mag

I'm not a sheep hunter as of yet but have still been following this thread trying to get enlightened. One thing has struck me as a simple solution that could easily keep the 4/5 rule yet reach goals of the 5% left as breeding stock .
Other then the obvious that's been stated on predator control and habitat improvement thru controlled burns . Why wouldn't hunters after registering a legal kill have to take a one season or two season hiatus before being able to kill another sheep? It seems like a logical step to me, more sqeekers get passed up as a result more Rams left on the mountain. Just a thought .

You do have to take a one season "hiatus" after killing a ram already.

[super7mag]

I did not know that. Thanks.

[bdub]

Stakeholder meeting tomorrow? And new sheep management plan soon?

[bark4]

Where and when is the meeting.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by 300magman

You do have to take a one season "hiatus" after killing a ram already.

Unless you get the minister tag.

LC

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by bdub

Stakeholder meeting tomorrow? And new sheep management plan soon?

No. Stakeholders were asked at the March 4 meeting to provide a position statement and any proposals to be in by the 17th. There is an internal government sheep meeting on the 18th.

The new sheep plan is still in the wet ink and crumpled copies phase. The meeting on the 18th and another internal meeting in April are scheduled for working on the plan. Projections are that the new Sheep management plan draft will be available for public review and comment some time in late April to May.

In other words, we might see the draft plan in May, but we must provide our thoughts and proposals in regards to future sheep management by tomorrow.

[bdub]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

No. Stakeholders were asked at the March 4 meeting to provide a position statement and any proposals to be in by the 17th. There is an internal government sheep meeting on the 18th.

The new sheep plan is still in the wet ink and crumpled copies phase. The meeting on the 18th and another internal meeting in April are scheduled for working on the plan. Projections are that the new Sheep management plan draft will be available for public review and comment some time in late April to May.

In other words, we might see the draft plan in May, but we must provide our thoughts and proposals in regards to future sheep management by tomorrow.

Thanks for the clarification.

[300magman]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Unless you get the minister tag.

LC

True, but I don't think that one person makes a significant difference in the context of the post I was replying to!

Sorry, 99.9999% of us have to take a year off after killing a ram

[Acesneights]

Things are pretty quite after the March 17th meeting

[fast_pass88]

Originally Posted by Acesneights

Things are pretty quite after the March 17th meeting

I was just thinking the same thing...nothing posted on the WSFAB website, haven't seen much anywhere else online. Can't be that bad, there hasn't been any riots on the news!

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Acesneights

Things are pretty quite after the March 17th meeting

Look up a couple of posts. There was no meeting on the 17th.

Waiting to hear back from the government after today's internal ( ESRD only, no stakeholders) meeting.

[Acesneights]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Look up a couple of posts. There was no meeting on the 17th.

Waiting to hear back from the government after today's internal ( ESRD only, no stakeholders) meeting.

Correction!!! There was a meeting but it was a stakeholders meeting. Correct me if I'm wrong. So my question was basically does anyone know what exactly was proposed by the stakeholders to esrd.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Acesneights

Correction!!! There was a meeting but it was a stakeholders meeting. Correct me if I'm wrong. So my question was basically does anyone know what exactly was proposed by the stakeholders to esrd.

I already tried.... But please correct me if I'm wrong.

There certainly was lots of communication and coffee shared between most of the stakeholders over the last couple of weeks.


I think the stakeholder reps need (and definitely deserve) a night without sheep keeping them awake. A copy of the submission will hopefully be available for publication very soon.

[Justahunter]

This one is directed to Bdub and to whoever has a mind to think about it. The whole genetic alteration theory is pure trash. I am sure that domestication would classify as being a very ,very significant factor leading to genetic changes. having said that consider this.
Horses were domesticated thousands of years ago ,as were dogs ,cats and a lot of other species (including human). Yet horses still display prey tendancies ,dogs and cats still hunt and do things that were essential to their survival .Thousands of years and no genetic harm yet our biologists truly think we are stupid enough to believe that less then 3 generations (sheep generation) of SELECTIVE HARVEST has caused irreversible damage. That is a direct insult to all of us. Sad point is ,is we are stupid ,stupid to continue paying them a great wage and retirement to feed us this BS.
I smell something here and it sure is not coffee.
Time to call a spade what it is. Their agenda is not about preserving anything but their EGO and their desire to put an end to hunting. i say we insist on cleaning house.

[dmcbride]

http://www.afga.org/pdf/announcements/msg_re.sheep.pdf

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Acesneights

So my question was basically does anyone know what exactly was proposed by the stakeholders to esrd.

The joint stakeholder position statement is linked below.


http://www.wsfab.org/pdfs/esrdmar.pdf


The Wild Sheep Foundation Alberta, Alberta Fish and Game Association, Safari Club International Alberta and Alberta Professional Outfitter Association all agreed to this common ground.

It's great to see these groups join forces in the desire to put this discussion back on track with requesting full disclosure of information alongside following appropriate procedures for both public consultation and wildlife management decisions.



The Alberta Bowhunters Association decided not to join ranks with the other hunting group stakeholders in this joint position statement.

It will be interesting to see what different perspectives were offered by the ABA or if the ABA proposed any ideas for a regulation change.

Anyone willing to step up here and inform the public on the ABA's sheep proposal?

[SLH]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

http://www.afga.org/pdf/announcements/msg_re.sheep.pdf

Well thought out valid letter. Gives me some hope for AFGA.

Anyone got the letter from APOS, that's a beauty.

[SLH]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

The joint stakeholder position statement is linked below.


http://www.wsfab.org/pdfs/esrdmar.pdf


The Wild Sheep Foundation Alberta, Alberta Fish and Game Association, Safari Club International Alberta and Alberta Professional Outfitter Association all agreed to this common ground.

It's great to see these groups join forces in the desire to put this discussion back on track with requesting full disclosure of information alongside following appropriate procedures for both public consultation and wildlife management decisions.



The Alberta Bowhunters Association decided not to join ranks with the other hunting group stakeholders in this joint position statement.

It will be interesting to see what different perspectives were offered by the ABA or if the ABA proposed any ideas for a regulation change.

Anyone willing to step up here and inform the public on the ABA's sheep proposal?

I hear through the grapevine you had a sit down with Besko. Any details you can pass on?

[SLH]

Originally Posted by Justahunter

This one is directed to Bdub and to whoever has a mind to think about it. The whole genetic alteration theory is pure trash. I am sure that domestication would classify as being a very ,very significant factor leading to genetic changes. having said that consider this.
Horses were domesticated thousands of years ago ,as were dogs ,cats and a lot of other species (including human). Yet horses still display prey tendancies ,dogs and cats still hunt and do things that were essential to their survival .Thousands of years and no genetic harm yet our biologists truly think we are stupid enough to believe that less then 3 generations (sheep generation) of SELECTIVE HARVEST has caused irreversible damage. That is a direct insult to all of us. Sad point is ,is we are stupid ,stupid to continue paying them a great wage and retirement to feed us this BS.
I smell something here and it sure is not coffee.
Time to call a spade what it is. Their agenda is not about preserving anything but their EGO and their desire to put an end to hunting. i say we insist on cleaning house.

Now this is the kind of post that makes you go WOW!

Google Przewalski's Horse then Google Shetland Pony then Percheron.

Then when you're done that Google Wolf then Great Dane then Bichon.

For good measure Google Low Line Cattle, you will have to do some reading on this one the pictures don't do it justice.

Maybe what you smell is burnt toast.

[bdub]

Originally Posted by SLH

Well thought out valid letter. Gives me some hope for AFGA.

Anyone got the letter from APOS, that's a beauty.

Can anyone post the the statements from them or give the gist of it?

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

The joint stakeholder position statement is linked below.


http://www.wsfab.org/pdfs/esrdmar.pdf


The Wild Sheep Foundation Alberta, Alberta Fish and Game Association, Safari Club International Alberta and Alberta Professional Outfitter Association all agreed to this common ground.

It's great to see these groups join forces in the desire to put this discussion back on track with requesting full disclosure of information alongside following appropriate procedures for both public consultation and wildlife management decisions.



The Alberta Bowhunters Association decided not to join ranks with the other hunting group stakeholders in this joint position statement.

It will be interesting to see what different perspectives were offered by the ABA or if the ABA proposed any ideas for a regulation change.

Anyone willing to step up here and inform the public on the ABA's sheep proposal?

I am interested as well.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by SLH

I hear through the grapevine you had a sit down with Besko. Any details you can pass on?

The conversation with Besko and others within ESRD confirmed that there is little agreement within ESRD staff as to a specific concern and cause with bighorn sheep and how to effectively go about identifying and correcting any potential issues.

Several within ESRD related awareness and concern that the full curl proposal has ties with my previously mentioned "Compassionate" wildlife management model that includes a very restricted role for hunting. People are paying attention to the difference in "hunter opportunity" and "hunter Harvest opportunity".

Besko was adamant that ESRD's lack of openness in releasing requested public data must be rectified. Certain individuals within ESRD are still strongly opposed to releasing this information, however I am cautiously confident that ESRD will take the high road and satisfy proper consultation requirements.

I do believe that Besko will help get these discussions back on track where all stakeholders involved will be able to have a fully informed background and the talks will follow a logical path. Eg. release Sheep management plan draft and all requested data... consult, debate, identify concerns, propose and initiate management practices to alleviate concerns....

Originally Posted by dmcbride

I am interested as well.

What I have heard recently is that the ABA's Sheep position statement basically aligns itself with the other hunting stakeholder's position. There does not appear to be any proposed regulation changes made by the ABA.

Anybody, please correct me if this is wrong or add any additional information.

So as it stands, ALL of the hunting stakeholder groups (WSF, AFGA, SCI, APOS and ABA) stand opposed to the current regulation change proposal, and that information request must be satisfied, and that the Sheep management plan draft must be released and consulted on before digging into possible regulation changes.

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

The conversation with Besko and others within ESRD confirmed that there is little agreement within ESRD staff as to a specific concern and cause with bighorn sheep and how to effectively go about identifying and correcting any potential issues.

Several within ESRD related awareness and concern that the full curl proposal has ties with my previously mentioned "Compassionate" wildlife management model that includes a very restricted role for hunting. People are paying attention to the difference in "hunter opportunity" and "hunter Harvest opportunity".

Besko was adamant that ESRD's lack of openness in releasing requested public data must be rectified. Certain individuals within ESRD are still strongly opposed to releasing this information, however I am cautiously confident that ESRD will take the high road and satisfy proper consultation requirements.

I do believe that Besko will help get these discussions back on track where all stakeholders involved will be able to have a fully informed background and the talks will follow a logical path. Eg. release Sheep management plan draft and all requested data... consult, debate, identify concerns, propose and initiate management practices to alleviate concerns....







What I have heard recently is that the ABA's Sheep position statement basically aligns itself with the other hunting stakeholder's position. There does not appear to be any proposed regulation changes made by the ABA.

Anybody, please correct me if this is wrong or add any additional information.

So as it stands, ALL of the hunting stakeholder groups (WSF, AFGA, SCI, APOS and ABA) stand opposed to the current regulation change proposal, and that information request must be satisfied, and that the Sheep management plan draft must be released and consulted on before digging into possible regulation changes.

Nice to see all organizations working together.

[HuntingAlberta]

Thanks Walking Buffalo. Glad to hear some of that information.

Scary how fragile such important resources (all of our wildlife) are.

[bdub]

I find it interesting that all of the groups in their statements, the ABA, APOS, WSFA, AFGA, all of them point out the and see the benifit of reducing the harvest of younger rams. However no one offered any reasonable solution to doing this other than "educating and encouraging hunters to select for older rams". Yup that should work real good.