The Future of Sheep in Alberta

Originally Posted by Vindalbakken

Thanks Walking Buffalo, missed that the first time.

Science is always evolving SG, but you need to really look at the facts, and not be cherry picking for corroborating evidence.

Funny how some people can totally discount science to the point of mocking it when it doesn't support their position and then fall back on carefully cherry picked pieces to support their arguement to the point of waving it around like the bible itself. I think a guy by the name of Al Gore did something similar.

As you say Vin...studies need to be read in their entirety and put in the context they were meant to be. I spoke with Mark Boyce a few weeks ago and it seems there is more research being conducted into how trophy hunting affects trophy quality over time. It's always been a subject that facinates me. It's not hard to believe how we could select for certain genetic traits by only targeting certain trophy qualities like 6-point elk, full curl sheep but I'm not sure I buy into Coltman's theory.....Be interesting to see what comes out of it.

[ganderblaster]

Originally Posted by sheepguide

Your second link you have posted has been brought up many times and may be true about base mesurment on a few southern rams and says that this is due to the chinook belt which gives greater feed and nutrition. Well if this was the actual reason then why does the south produce on average lower scoring rams. If these rams have extra to put into bases why do they not put it into the rest of the horn?

As far as the article being pro hunting or anti hunting is a guess. If its anti then discount it, if its accurate then its a good read.

In the forum rules it clearly states antihunting propaganda is not welcome on this forum so would you please do a little research before posting,please SG I believe that would be appreciated by most people who want their unborn kids to be able to hunt in 2060

[JustinC]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Hi Justin,

The paper by Coltman has been picked up by the anti-hunting community and is used widely for their agenda. Google it and see for yourself who is promoting this paper.

Other, much broader(in terms of years and sample size)studies have refuted the 'theory' that selective hunter harvest (legal rams)has a effect of reducing horn size in a population.

Dale

Thanks Dale I did not read in to it before I replied.Thanks for the heads up. Those anti's will do anything to screw us.

[JustinC]

Originally Posted by ganderblaster

In the forum rules it clearly states antihunting propaganda is not welcome on this forum so would you please do a little research before posting,please SG I believe that would be appreciated by most people who want their unborn kids to be able to hunt in 2060

Sorry man that was not his intension Trust me.If he beleives that it is his right to post that.I read it again and does not say anything about anti hunting.I would have caught that.At least I hope I would have.

[sheepguide]

Is anyone discounting science TJ. If one wants to you can get info to back any side you want. And you can get any to back any point you wish. I posted a few links that I thought were interesting. I dont try and claim I am a personal friend of every Bio or scientist out there like some. Just because you say you talked to so and so and oh this is the way it is because he told me... well im sure this impresses some but not all. If there was a study and written statistics that havent been disputed or disprooven by one group or another I love to see them!

[sheepguide]

Originally Posted by ganderblaster

In the forum rules it clearly states antihunting propaganda is not welcome on this forum so would you please do a little research before posting,please SG I believe that would be appreciated by most people who want their unborn kids to be able to hunt in 2060

LOL ya im promoting anti hunting. Give me a break. Just because Peta uses something doent mean it isnt factual.(I personaly dont know whether what I linked isor isnt) Of coarse I dont wanna see anything used against hunting just like everyone, but unlike most I do not put hunting ahead of what is best for our animals.

Have you ever hunted bighorn sheep Gander?

[walking buffalo]

HI SG, First off, I need to learn how to do the Quote part of posting.

Second, I'm glad you are here (most of the time ) keeping this thread active.

THird, I really think we should be discussing pressuring Gov.ab.ca to get active with predator control (selective wolf kills) and habitat enhancement (controlled burns for winter range), NOT HUNTER MANAGEMENT!

THird, I really think we should be discussing pressuring Gov.ab.ca to get active with predator control (selective wolf kills) and habitat enhancement (controlled burns for winter range), NOT HUNTER MANAGEMENT!

Don't you hate it when you say something really smart and no one listens?

For what it's worth, I totally agree.

[JustinC]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

HI SG, First off, I need to learn how to do the Quote part of posting.

Second, I'm glad you are here (most of the time ) keeping this thread active.

THird, I really think we should be discussing pressuring Gov.ab.ca to get active with predator control (selective wolf kills) and habitat enhancement (controlled burns for winter range), NOT HUNTER MANAGEMENT!

yes Dale great Idea. I am with you on this.

[walking buffalo]

Hi SH,........... ANyone else here anymore?

?

?

Did I kill a thread?

[sheepguide]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

HI SG, First off, I need to learn how to do the Quote part of posting.

Second, I'm glad you are here (most of the time ) keeping this thread active.

THird, I really think we should be discussing pressuring Gov.ab.ca to get active with predator control (selective wolf kills) and habitat enhancement (controlled burns for winter range), NOT HUNTER MANAGEMENT!

The biggest issue with pressuring the Gov is that not enough people get past talking the talk to doing some thing about it.

I agree and have stated numerous times that predator control has to be number one.

[JustinC]

Originally Posted by sheepguide

The biggest issue with pressuring the Gov is that not enough people get past talking the talk to doing some thing about it.

I agree and have stated numerous times that predator control has to be number one.

When we going then?

[Vindalbakken]

There are a couple of things I took from the facts of these studies so far. One of them is that increased number of rams will not necessarily equal increased opportunities at larger rams. "but at high population density several rams never became legal."

[sheepguide]

Originally Posted by JustinC

When we going then?

To pressure the gov't or do some predator control? Or are they one in the same

[sheepguide]

[QUOTE "but at high population density several rams never became legal."[/QUOTE]

I remember a 177" ram shot on the panther that was confiscated as it was a half inch short of 4/5. Frank Coggins was the back country gaurdian then and told me it was a massive ram that was at best guess 10 yrs old, 35" long and broomed big time. Shows that even large old rams may never make legal.

Originally Posted by Vindalbakken

There are a couple of things I took from the facts of these studies so far. One of them is that increased number of rams will not necessarily equal increased opportunities at larger rams. "but at high population density several rams never became legal."

No doubt Vin and that's one of the main justifications for the ewe harvest. But, and it's a big but, if we could increase the carrying capacity of the range with habitat improvement projects, then we would could have more rams without increasing density. It's a fine balancing act for sure and more definitely doesn't mean better.

[walking buffalo]

I posted this thread a few days ago. Read for yourself, conclude your own opinion. THe way I read it, the govt. is already sacrificing hunting to the wolves.
http://www.westfraser.com/environmen...0-%20final.pdf

SRD Culling Moose for Caribou ?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I really wasn't sure how I wanted to title this thread, this is a "big picture" managment issue. I"ll need another coffee and more time than I have right now.

This relates to hunters and harvests being managed by SRD before taking direct action with predator control, specifically wolves.

Back in 2000, ACA and SRD decided to experiment with reducing moose populations in many areas in an attempt to reduce wolf numbers, to protect caribou. See #27 on this link.
http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/facul...a_Needs_04.pdf

The 2009 Aerial Ungulate survey shows moose population in the targeted wmu's have been reduced by 40-60% since 2001. See Aerial Ungulate Survey 2008-2009, pages 48 -104 on this link.

http://www.ab-conservation.com/go/de...ighorn%20sheep

Is there a connection here?

From the recent sheep threads, SRD seems to once again be willing to reduce hunter opportunity before dealing with predator control, especially wolves. Do you agree with this?

Please give your thoughts on this topic, and share them with ACA and SRD.

and even the forestry industry is working the same management plan.Pg. 22

http://www.westfraser.com/environmen...0-%20final.pdf

Remember, ACA gets a lot of our hunting liscence money, and they are promoting wolves before hunters. Call write knock on their door (politely)!

[sheepguide]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

No doubt Vin and that's one of the main justifications for the ewe harvest. But, and it's a big but, if we could increase the carrying capacity of the range with habitat improvement projects, then we would could have more rams without increasing density. It's a fine balancing act for sure and more definitely doesn't mean better.

One thing that would be nice with the Ewe harvest is if some how it could be spread out through out whole zones. As with many zones the ewe harvest is lots of times concentrated in small accessable pockets. This doesnt really affect the zone as a whole.

Burning would be an option to help increase the carrying capacity but it seems many times when burning is done it doesnt burn into these higher areas of just grasses and lichens. They need to maybe put the time in to just target these areas.

[Vindalbakken]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

No doubt Vin and that's one of the main justifications for the ewe harvest. But, and it's a big but, if we could increase the carrying capacity of the range with habitat improvement projects, then we would could have more rams without increasing density. It's a fine balancing act for sure and more definitely doesn't mean better.

Although Coltman does make much of it, his data would support a strong case for habitat improvement. He has graphs that show a very strong correlation between resource availability and horn length in the first 3 years of a rams life. He also makes the connection that if resource availability improves in later years the lack of early horn growth is never compensated for. Young rams with inadequate resources will have smaller horns for the rest of their life.

Interestingly, in the study to show that hunter selection had a negative effect he does not make mention of the fact that the herd he was studying went through a tremendous growth period which greatly stressed the resource base of the herd. From the data he shows mentioned above it would seem that resource availability would be a stronger factor than hunter selection in the results seen. (there is another paper that addresses specifically the negative effect of hunter selection. It is available from publications page for Dr. Coltman at U of A.)

[sheepguide]

Would be nice if these studies were province wide and not just a couple areas. Most data that any of these studies reports is from Sheep River Sanctuary, Ram Mountain, a couple mines, and a little in Banff. With these areas they are documenting alot of unhunted sheep herds and as with ram mountain, a geneticly stale gene pool. Just be good to have a larger geographical base for their studies.
SG

Originally Posted by Vindalbakken

Although Coltman does make much of it, his data would support a strong case for habitat improvement. He has graphs that show a very strong correlation between resource availability and horn length in the first 3 years of a rams life. He also makes the connection that if resource availability improves in later years the lack of early horn growth is never compensated for. Young rams with inadequate resources will have smaller horns for the rest of their life.

Interestingly, in the study to show that hunter selection had a negative effect he does not make mention of the fact that the herd he was studying went through a tremendous growth period which greatly stressed the resource base of the herd. From the data he shows mentioned above it would seem that resource availability would be a stronger factor than hunter selection in the results seen. (there is another paper that addresses specifically the negative effect of hunter selection. It is available from publications page for Dr. Coltman at U of A.)

Jorgenson's work on Ram Mountain mirrors a lot of the horn growth issues. It just goes to show how important good habitat is and how important controling densities is. The ewe hunt is an important part of the equation for having bigger rams from what I've read.

[sheepguide]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Jorgenson's work on Ram Mountain mirrors a lot of the horn growth issues. It just goes to show how important good habitat is and how important controling densities is. The ewe hunt is an important part of the equation for having bigger rams from what I've read.

Ram mountain is a pretty tough study area to compare to anywhere. Of coarse habitat is a major factor and at only a few square miles the ram mountain area has minimal habitat but I beleive any animal needs a genetic diversity to do well. Ram mountain doesnt have this. It has no new genetics entering the herd. And with the poaching of some of this areas young rams(east of Nordegg) it has even been hit harder.

[trashheap]

I have been reading all the post and don't remember all of them now but I was wondering if anyone could awnser if the F&W have a reason for keeping ewe tags open? I know lots of the guides that put in for them and when they get them they rip them up. Just wondering.

[sheepguide]

Some info on Ram Mountain...

38sq.kms

30kms from nearest mountain range.

Population high of around 200 but has dropped to around 30 animals.

Only genetic change was in 2005 when they transplanted 6 young rams and 6 ewes from Cadomin to try and get a little diversity. As far as I can find so far no studies have been done to show the affects of this transplant(but im still looking).

Hunting is allowed but has had little or zero effect on population as recorded harvests from the area are low to non existant.

Originally Posted by trashheap

I have been reading all the post and don't remember all of them now but I was wondering if anyone could awnser if the F&W have a reason for keeping ewe tags open? I know lots of the guides that put in for them and when they get them they rip them up. Just wondering.

The big reason is that winter range is limited throughout much of Alberta and it's important to keep sheep densities in check. Several studies have shown that horn size on rams is reduced when desities get too high and of course there is always the danger of having enough feed for the number of sheep. The ewe hunt is an important population management tool. Some of the studies Jorgenson did on Ram Mountain are the most compelling evidence for the ewe hunt.

[ram crazy]

[QUOTE=sheepguide;507676]

And if these 5, 6 and 7 year old rams were allowed to age a little more we would have 8, 9 and 10 year old rams doing the breeding.

That funny on the big horns on draw post you had stated that 5-7 yr old Rams weren't the ones doing the breeding because they haven't reached breeding status yet and that it was the older Rams in fact doing the breeding. Now you make it sound like the younger Rams are the ones doing the breeding. So which is it the young or the old Rams breeding, from what I seen it's the younger Rams!!

[sheepguide]

[QUOTE=ram crazy;507911]

Originally Posted by sheepguide

And if these 5, 6 and 7 year old rams were allowed to age a little more we would have 8, 9 and 10 year old rams doing the breeding.

That funny on the big horns on draw post you had stated that 5-7 yr old Rams weren't the ones doing the breeding because they haven't reached breeding status yet and that it was the older Rams in fact doing the breeding. Now you make it sound like the younger Rams are the ones doing the breeding. So which is it the young or the old Rams breeding, from what I seen it's the younger Rams!!

You stated these ages and I just commented that if they were doing the breeding then if they werent killed soon older rams would be doing it!!

Never stated that this is the actual ages of rams breeding.

And if your right and we only have young rams breeding then its all the more reason to push for a more mature group of huntable rams.
IMO
SG

[Bigfeet]

These discussions on sheep management have been great. Aside from a little bickering here and there, and with everyone's passion on the subject a little bickering is to be expected, our concern for properly managing our wildlife is really good to see. If nonhunters could see how much we care about wildlife, hunting would be viewed in a much better light.
So how do we present our ideas to F&W so we can be part of establishing a management plan? I have wildlife management training (from many years ago) and some of my family has worked for Canadian Wildlife Service for many years. I have been impressed, and CWS biologists family would be too, by the knowledge and understanding of the issues facing sheep. I'm sure the people in charge of managing sheep in the province would learn from much of what we have to say. Biologists do not always understand the full scope of what they are studying unless concerned parties bring ideas to them. I spoke to a young bio out of RMH last year about sheep. While quite knowledgable, it was clear that they did not have a complete grasp of all the issues. Do management suggestions come from groups such as FNAWS or AFGA? I think a coherent presentation compiled from much of what has been brought forward here, would be of benefit to those putting together management plans. Some on this forum, I'm sure, have contacts with people who work on wildlife management plans for the province. How can we make a difference?

[ram crazy]

[QUOTE=sheepguide;507920]

Originally Posted by ram crazy

You stated these ages and I just commented that if they were doing the breeding then if they werent killed soon older rams would be doing it!!

Never stated that this is the actual ages of rams breeding.

And if your right and we only have young rams breeding then its all the more reason to push for a more mature group of huntable rams.
IMO
SG

You better go back and read the posts again I believe it was pg 29. Just how I understood it anyway. If the genes are there already then it shouldn't matter which are doing they breeding, young or old.

[ram crazy]

Originally Posted by Bigfeet

These discussions on sheep management have been great. Aside from a little bickering here and there, and with everyone's passion on the subject a little bickering is to be expected, our concern for properly managing our wildlife is really good to see. If nonhunters could see how much we care about wildlife, hunting would be viewed in a much better light.
So how do we present our ideas to F&W so we can be part of establishing a management plan? I have wildlife management training (from many years ago) and some of my family has worked for Canadian Wildlife Service for many years. I have been impressed, and CWS biologists family would be too, by the knowledge and understanding of the issues facing sheep. I'm sure the people in charge of managing sheep in the province would learn from much of what we have to say. Biologists do not always understand the full scope of what they are studying unless concerned parties bring ideas to them. I spoke to a young bio out of RMH last year about sheep. While quite knowledgable, it was clear that they did not have a complete grasp of all the issues. Do management suggestions come from groups such as FNAWS or AFGA? I think a coherent presentation compiled from much of what has been brought forward here, would be of benefit to those putting together management plans. Some on this forum, I'm sure, have contacts with people who work on wildlife management plans for the province. How can we make a difference?

I think some of the biologists aren't hunters but are tree huggers JMO