Big sheep changes

[bdub]

Originally Posted by Titanium79

Well acording to this it shows that in a non hunted area such as banff the total % of rams is 5% show how is it going to be that high when a % of rams get shot every year. This is common sense and a truly poor peice to try and make a change. According to these numbers we should pull all outfitters tags and quit selling raffle tickets for the minister raffle and stop auctioning off the sheep tags as we don't want to hurt the herds in the parks either. These late season tags hurt numbers out of parks because these November rams killed are out of parks. The outfitters kill more rams then residents and so should be the ones having change. Changeling does not change % of rams that are legal. It will change nothing other than making a whole bunch of animal unable to ever be harvested.

Ok I will poke some holes in your point. For starters outfitters do not kill more sheep than residents. This is beyond argument. I don't even know how you could posibly come up with that falsehood.

Did you notice the dates of the survey. One was March, one was January. The lower number in March points to mortality of Rams post rut. Rams die after the rut. Just like elk, deer, etc they are low on reserves after breeding and winter takes them before spring. Without older Rams to regulate the rut the mortality of class 3 Rams is higher than what it should be in a healthy population.


March/2014 Results: Provincial Lands - Total sheep=398, total rams = 72 (8 legal or 2%),
rams/100 ewes = 35.2 and lambs/100 ewes = 35. Banff Park - Total sheep = 56, total rams = 15
(3 legal or 5.4%), rams/100 ewes = 53.6, and lambs/100 ewes = n/a – no lambs seen
 Jan. 11-13/15 Results: Provincial Lands – Total sheep = 1568, total rams = 260 (48 legal or
3.1%), rams/100 ewes = 28.2, and lambs/100 ewes = 37.7. Banff Park – Total sheep – 288. Total
rams = 87 (29 legal or 10.1%), rams/100 ewes = 59.2, and lambs/100 ewes = 36.7

[bdub]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

For starters, The enormous variables from year to year.The Clearwater/Ram SMA count went from 398 to 1568 in one year.....

Secondly these surveys are taken well after the rut. Migration studies are showing that many rams will travel much farther during and after the rut than previously accepted. There is a good reason to suspect that many rams simply are not on dedicated survey grounds when the counts are made. Sheep not physically within the survey area are noted, but not officially accounted for in the tally.

The rest of the province has not had any aerial surveys for four years. Does that build confidence in their numbers?

" Anne presented me with Ram/Clearwater aerial survey results from March, 2014 and Jan. 11-13, 2015. This region makes up 25-30% of the total sheep population of the province!! 

March/2014 Results: Provincial Lands - Total sheep=398, total rams = 72 (8 legal or 2%), rams/100 ewes = 35.2 and lambs/100 ewes = 35.
Banff Park - Total sheep = 56, total rams = 15 (3 legal or 5.4%), rams/100 ewes = 53.6, and lambs/100 ewes = n/a – no lambs seen 

Jan. 11-13/15 Results: Provincial Lands – Total sheep = 1568, total rams = 260 (48 legal or 3.1%), rams/100 ewes = 28.2, and lambs/100 ewes = 37.7.
Banff Park – Total sheep – 288. Total rams = 87 (29 legal or 10.1%), rams/100 ewes = 59.2, and lambs/100 ewes = 36.7

You are grasping at straws again. Survey conditions are not always ideal. Look instead at the percentages of each class. Survey after survey after survey is pointing to the same obvious fact. Trophy ram numbers are below 5% post harvest year after year in almost every area of the province besides the obvious Cadomin. Give it up already. You don't have a leg to stand on.

Oh yeah also 400 is above the 5% goal. Just about forgot about that spot and the success there.

[Lr1000]

I don't know how targeting only class 4 Rams will help out the rut tho? Unless your banking on a lot of class being broomed past legal. Otherwise class three Rams will still be doing most of the rutting as class 4 will still be harvested.

400 is not the best case study when it's comes to hunting. Very few Rams are shot in this easy access zone. It's also created a frenzy for substance hunting on the just under legal Rams.

[Titanium79]

Originally Posted by bdub

Ok I will poke some holes in your point. For starters outfitters do not kill more sheep than residents. This is beyond argument. I don't even know how you could posibly come up with that falsehood.

Did you notice the dates of the survey. One was March, one was January. The lower number in March points to mortality of Rams post rut. Rams die after the rut. Just like elk, deer, etc they are low on reserves after breeding and winter takes them before spring. Without older Rams to regulate the rut the mortality of class 3 Rams is higher than what it should be in a healthy population.


March/2014 Results: Provincial Lands - Total sheep=398, total rams = 72 (8 legal or 2%),
rams/100 ewes = 35.2 and lambs/100 ewes = 35. Banff Park - Total sheep = 56, total rams = 15
(3 legal or 5.4%), rams/100 ewes = 53.6, and lambs/100 ewes = n/a – no lambs seen
 Jan. 11-13/15 Results: Provincial Lands – Total sheep = 1568, total rams = 260 (48 legal or
3.1%), rams/100 ewes = 28.2, and lambs/100 ewes = 37.7. Banff Park – Total sheep – 288. Total
rams = 87 (29 legal or 10.1%), rams/100 ewes = 59.2, and lambs/100 ewes = 36.7

I ment success rates. Really what is full curl going to do? Is it going to put more sheep on the mountains? No it will not. The sheep will die as soon as they are legal. Does not matter if it is half cull, full curl or what ever they make it. To me this is just like everything else SRD does. It is all a theory and no hard fact to what is better. I see you use 400. I know that almost all legals that are in hunt able areas in that zone get shot as well every year. So please give me some hard fact to why this is better? I know one reason it will end up really bad for SRD but I will keep that for a further date.

[elkmakemecrazy]

Originally Posted by Titanium79

I know one reason it will end up really bad for SRD but I will keep that for a further date.

Why?

[Titanium79]

Originally Posted by elkmakemecrazy

Why?

Later date mean not for a while. Don't worry about it till it is done as we all have to see what SRD has for info first. Also have to see what there plan is after all the uproar.

[elkmakemecrazy]

Originally Posted by Titanium79

Later date mean not for a while. Don't worry about it till it is done as we all have to see what SRD has for info first. Also have to see what there plan is after all the uproar.

Why bring it up then? If you have pertinent info you should let people know.

[Titanium79]

Originally Posted by elkmakemecrazy

Why bring it up then? If you have pertinent info you should let people know.

it is NOT done yet so it is not pertinent info yet. When it is done I will make sure you have the info first.

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by bdub

Ok I will poke some holes in your point. For starters outfitters do not kill more sheep than residents. This is beyond argument. I don't even know how you could posibly come up with that falsehood.

Did you notice the dates of the survey. One was March, one was January. The lower number in March points to mortality of Rams post rut. Rams die after the rut. Just like elk, deer, etc they are low on reserves after breeding and winter takes them before spring. Without older Rams to regulate the rut the mortality of class 3 Rams is higher than what it should be in a healthy population.


March/2014 Results: Provincial Lands - Total sheep=398, total rams = 72 (8 legal or 2%),
rams/100 ewes = 35.2 and lambs/100 ewes = 35. Banff Park - Total sheep = 56, total rams = 15
(3 legal or 5.4%), rams/100 ewes = 53.6, and lambs/100 ewes = n/a – no lambs seen
 Jan. 11-13/15 Results: Provincial Lands – Total sheep = 1568, total rams = 260 (48 legal or
3.1%), rams/100 ewes = 28.2, and lambs/100 ewes = 37.7. Banff Park – Total sheep – 288. Total
rams = 87 (29 legal or 10.1%), rams/100 ewes = 59.2, and lambs/100 ewes = 36.7

Outfitters, harvest rates, as a % are way higher than resident hunters, I believe what t79 is trying to say.

There is no guarantee that rams are missing in March, because of mortality. There is much more probability that those rams, may have already moved on, and are sitting outside the research area !

[Roughneck Country]

Originally Posted by pottymouth

Outfitters, harvest rates, as a % are way higher than resident hunters, I believe what t79 is trying to say.

There is no guarantee that rams are missing in March, because of mortality. There is much more probability that those rams, may have already moved on, and are sitting outside the research area !

Your absolutely right. about outfitter success %, but what outfitter success rate don't indicate is how many resident hunters they take that are successful as well. The ave guy just isn't set up to hunt sheep like an outfitter is.

The full curl rule makes about as much sense as having a member of PETA be the biologist on hunting related issue.

There were a lot of older rams this year that were nowhere near full curl. Not sure what problem they are trying to solve but if they are concerned about age thy just need to implement government harvest fees on rams under 8 years old and have a 1/2 curl restriction. every year the ram is closer to 5 the harvest fee goes up exponentially. Age by rings and if there is a dispute pull a tooth and have it aged. That would deter people from shooting a 5 year old full curl with lamb tips but would allow a 10+ year old ram to be harvested that is heavily broomed. If the government Is really concerned with growing big horns on sheep all they need to do is look at Cadomine or the Missouri breaks, great feed = great horns. Imagine the rams they would have if they did some burns in K Country!

[bdub]

Originally Posted by Lr1000

I don't know how targeting only class 4 Rams will help out the rut tho? Unless your banking on a lot of class being broomed past legal. Otherwise class three Rams will still be doing most of the rutting as class 4 will still be harvested.

400 is not the best case study when it's comes to hunting. Very few Rams are shot in this easy access zone. It's also created a frenzy for substance hunting on the just under legal Rams.

Originally Posted by Titanium79

I ment success rates. Really what is full curl going to do? Is it going to put more sheep on the mountains? No it will not. The sheep will die as soon as they are legal. Does not matter if it is half cull, full curl or what ever they make it. To me this is just like everything else SRD does. It is all a theory and no hard fact to what is better. I see you use 400. I know that almost all legals that are in hunt able areas in that zone get shot as well every year. So please give me some hard fact to why this is better? I know one reason it will end up really bad for SRD but I will keep that for a further date.

LR you will still have class 4 Rams left over to rut, they do not have to be full curl to fit in that class. It allows many more Rams to reach that older age class rather than getting dumped at 5-7 years old like we have now. In a perfect world we would only harvest mature Rams, 8 plus years old but with bighorns that's pretty tough to do for reasons already discussed.

Fair enough titanium on the harvest success rates of outfitters.thing. I agree most legal Rams are harvested in each area of the province. The post harvest survey data clearly points to that. We have very high hunting pressure on Rams and easy access throughout the province. I strongly disagree that the regulation change will not increase the population of rams and here is why. By shifting the rut to an older class of ram those 5-7 year old Rams don't expend so much energy during the rut and mortality decreases. So instead of having a pile of those 5-7 year old Rams dying post rut we will see a much greater percentage of those Rams survive into class 4 rams. That is what the research points to. Read the link I posted earlier from the sheep and goat council on what can happen and what I expect will happen. There will for sure be a few lean years for resident and outfitter hunting until the age classes settle out. I expect that the outfitters for sheep will be crying the loudest as their success rates will be pretty dismal for a few years.

What is the alternative? The province has a stated mandate, well proven by research, that having 5+ percent trophy Rams post season is the minimum healthy level. They are going to reach that goal by some means and this is the best way that still provides maximum Hunter opportunity. If this doesn't go through the next step is going to be draw and then all resident sheep hunters are really going to be crying while the outfitters will be laughing. They will have limited resident hunting pressure and still have their permits. It's a win win for them and a loose, loose for residents. I imagine the outfitters are fighting this tooth and nail because they can see the next step of it going ing draw. I makes me question the motives of the people fighting the hardest against this. It's either short sighted thinking, or they haven't taken the time to understand what the research points to or they would rather see sheep on draw for residents. Idk

http://media.nwsgc.org/proceedings/N...&%20Watson.pdf

[Titanium79]

Originally Posted by Roughneck Country

Your absolutely right. about outfitter success %, but what outfitter success rate don't indicate is how many resident hunters they take that are successful as well. The ave guy just isn't set up to hunt sheep like an outfitter is.

The full curl rule makes about as much sense as having a member of PETA be the biologist on hunting related issue.

There were a lot of older rams this year that were nowhere near full curl. Not sure what problem they are trying to solve but if they are concerned about age thy just need to implement government harvest fees on rams under 8 years old and have a 1/2 curl restriction. every year the ram is closer to 5 the harvest fee goes up exponentially. Age by rings and if there is a dispute pull a tooth and have it aged. That would deter people from shooting a 5 year old full curl with lamb tips but would allow a 10+ year old ram to be harvested that is heavily broomed. If the government Is really concerned with growing big horns on sheep all they need to do is look at Cadomine or the Missouri breaks, great feed = great horns. Imagine the rams they would have if they did some burns in K Country!

I agree with this post other than charging more money. If you want to pay huge money "YOU" go pay it somewhere else. Hunting should not have ever had $$$ atached to it. Comments about $$$ for hunting sickens me.

[HuntingAlberta]

Is there any studies or information showing how many Rams are left after the Hunting season that are smaller than Legal but almost legal (3/4 or similar size)? From my hunting in the Sheep mountains, I think that we are short of that size of ram as well, meaning making the legal harvest size bigger won't change how many mature rams are out there.

Even in 400, there are more 4/5's rams then the north, but still not a ton.

If making the change to full curl means that we would save all the 4/5ths rams, then where are all the 4/5ths rams in 400? I hunted 400 for 7 days this year and saw 4 rams that were 4/5s to full curl. That isn't cause to believe the rams are surviving and thriving in this environment. If the cause for less numbers of Rams was truly due to Legal Hunter Harvest then we should see a substantial number of rams that are just under legal.

[bdub]

Originally Posted by HuntingAlberta

Is there any studies or information showing how many Rams are left after the Hunting season that are smaller than Legal but almost legal (3/4 or similar size)? [B]From my hunting in the Sheep mountains, I think that we are short of that size of ram as well, meaning making the legal harvest size bigger won't change how many mature rams are out there. [/B


Even in 400, there are more 4/5's rams then the north, but still not a ton.

If making the change to full curl means that we would save all the 4/5ths rams, then where are all the 4/5ths rams in 400? I hunted 400 for 7 days this year and saw 4 rams that were 4/5s to full curl. That isn't cause to believe the rams are surviving and thriving in this environment. If the cause for less numbers of Rams was truly due to Legal Hunter Harvest then we should see a substantial number of rams that are just under legal.

Can you walk me through your logic on this point? Do you understand how the reduced activity of young Rams partaking in the rut in a healthy herd structure leads to decreased mortality?

Prior to the change most likely the full curl would be gone and probably all the 4/5 curls by season end.

We do see a substantial number of Rams in 400 that are over 4/5 curl and 3/4 curl.

[bdub]

A few of that age class in 400 from a trip of mine not long ago Hunting Alberta.

[pottymouth]

Might as well be peta. The gentic harm gang has more in common with peta, than hunters or Albertans. This is nothing more than a plyte to save their jobs, defeat hunting and send Jorgensen off to retirement, knowing his life long dream has taken shape, thanx to his work.

Nobody wants to not see sheep off the mountain, nor does anyone want to hunt sheep if its not sustainable. But how they undermined the Alberta hunter on the grizzly hunt, people want facts and proof. Then we want access to their research, only then i believe most hunters would be willing to work with esrd.

Ironically, all their facts and eveidence has a embargo on the inforamtion until this August 2015. Thats when we have a chance to see it. But the Decision will be made long before August. If your theory is sound, give us and the organizations time to read, disiphere and understand it. Which they could have done years ago, and today we all would be sitting around the table collectively.

But instead they push agendas behind close doors... that alone makes feel that its an agenda issue, with a paper trail that swiss cheese would laugh at.

I've never seen in court a decision be made with only one side being heard, and no evidence..... maybe a lawsuit is what they need...

Originally Posted by Roughneck Country

Your absolutely right. about outfitter success %, but what outfitter success rate don't indicate is how many resident hunters they take that are successful as well. The ave guy just isn't set up to hunt sheep like an outfitter is.

[ B]The full curl rule makes about as much sense as having a member of PETA be the biologist on hunting related issue. [/B]

There were a lot of older rams this year that were nowhere near full curl. Not sure what problem they are trying to solve but if they are concerned about age thy just need to implement government harvest fees on rams under 8 years old and have a 1/2 curl restriction. every year the ram is closer to 5 the harvest fee goes up exponentially. Age by rings and if there is a dispute pull a tooth and have it aged. That would deter people from shooting a 5 year old full curl with lamb tips but would allow a 10+ year old ram to be harvested that is heavily broomed. If the government Is really concerned with growing big horns on sheep all they need to do is look at Cadomine or the Missouri breaks, great feed = great horns. Imagine the rams they would have if they did some burns in K Country!

[heretohunt]

Are we protecting our resource for our kids and our kids kids etc. or are we protecting our animals for industry $. I don't believe that certain species are sustainable enough to share with the world. From what I have seen from friends who are outfitters that they have a very distinct advantage in taking sheep specifically. They get payed to scout for weeks at a time, payed for horses, helicopters and camps. Give a decent hunter a 20k+Budget and 30 days and he should be able to get you a ram. Plus they typically know the area well and all of the tricks. (Not all are legal but that is another issue) Their success rate reflects it. They may not pull the trigger but there are several outfitters that when asked will have killed several rams every year. In my opinion they make a very modest income doing it too. Why do we need this industry? How does it help our struggling resource?
This specifically applies in 410 which is fast becoming a once in a lifetime hunt. Resident success rates are extremely low. Some residents will cough up the 10k+ to hire an outfitter and significantly raise their success rate. Not many people have the time and money to do that.
The outfitters there have had several advantages for years. Setting up semi permanent camps and taking over the best area and essentially forcing the residents out. While residents can be successful, competing with the outfitters is the biggest challenge in that zone. I spoke with a fellow sheep hunter with more years in than me and he said this was a problem even in the "good ole days". The reason that nothing is done is that after a hunter gets that draw, they are unlikely to be in a position to hunt it again. Time, money and age are key factors.
This is not to bash outfitters but the fact is next year there will be another select group of non residents completing their "slam", and from my experience, as tough as it is to believe, they may not even bother to get their trophy of a lifetime mounted. It may just be one of 10 or more trophy hunts done that year.
I would be in favour of partnering up with Srd to buy back some of those tags to give me and my future generations a chance to hunt sheep.

[Speckle55]

more sheep now in Alberta than in the 1960's/ 70's

every year age classes are coming up no loss in numbers

leave it alone

stop pushing Trophy hunting in Alberta

Food for Thought

David

[Dr Death]

If it goes to full curl Ken Nowicki will be very busy! If you are familiar with sheep hunting in Alberta you've likely heard of him. He's a lawyer that specializes in wildlife law. He has a great record of success of defending charges of 'short' rams. It will cost about $10,000 in legal fees but as long as it is close to legal length you likely get to keep it. ESRD does not like to go to court over these things and are known to plug/register some of these 'close' sheep.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Speckle55

more sheep now in Alberta than in the 1960's/ 70's

every year age classes are coming up no loss in numbers

leave it alone

stop pushing Trophy hunting in Alberta

Food for Thought

David

Here lies a common misunderstanding of what is really going on.

While some hunters are in favour of the proposed full curl rule for trophy desires, the researchers proposing the change have declared many years ago that the hunting of mature animals needs to be severely restricted.

This proposal is an agenda of ending "trophy" hunting. The researchers are using unfounded claims of hunter induced genetic selection and now "too few mature rams" as the tools to pry tighter reigns on hunting mature animals.


The government agreed in 2013 to complete a research project before making any changes. Halfway through the research and suddenly the gov will no longer honour this agreement. Why? Because Jon Jorgensen wants to retire and knows that if these changes are not made before he leaves then they likely will never happen. This is his legacy at stake.

Sheep populations are steady.
Harvest rates are steady.
Reproduction rates are steady.

Sound the alarm, we have a problem!!!

[243 wild cat]

Originally Posted by bdub

This is really at the heart of the matter when you boil it all down. Harvest numbers, trophy size and hunter opportunity can all increase if we pay enough attention to habitat. We could support double or triple the number of sheep in this province if we had the will and ability to burn most of the mountain country in the province. I've seen what happens in the big burns in N BC and it truly is amazing what happens to increase numbers of sheep and other game animals. Until this happens we are going to go down the other road of decreased harvest in one fashion or another, be it draw, full curl regulation etc. Harvest numbers will never increase and remain stagnant or decrease.

X2 well said really... I've seen where we need big burns in the zones i hunt i totally agree on this 100%. I'm sick & tired of our sheep # decreasing and it coming to all the arguments to this post yet we keep transplanting sheep to the US. I find it real hard to support the WSFA i have pulled out of it as a member 5 years back. I just did not see them or my money adding value to the Alberta Sheep herds. I **** you not i totally remember haveing this argument at a sheep convention in Alberta on whats happening to are sheep hunting changes right now! 6 years ago and nothing happend then to help the resources stay or increase our Alberta province herds then. Now look what's happening all i can do is LOL So i changed my support to other hunting values towards our dwindling sheep herds.

[HuntingAlberta]

Originally Posted by bdub

[/B]

Can you walk me through your logic on this point? Do you understand how the reduced activity of young Rams partaking in the rut in a healthy herd structure leads to decreased mortality?

Prior to the change most likely the full curl would be gone and probably all the 4/5 curls by season end.

We do see a substantial number of Rams in 400 that are over 4/5 curl and 3/4 curl.

Yes, I understand the point of decreased mortality if the older rams are left to breed. What I am wondering is if there are facts to support the numbers that they claim are saying as soon as a ram hits Legal it dies. I'd like to know if they have any mortality information from 400 or other zones that shows how many of these younger rams are dieing because of breeding and becoming weak for the winter. Is there a difference in how many 3/4 to 4/5 rams die after the season in northern zones compared to the full curl zones?

I appreciate your picture, awesome shot and nice to see some good healthy rams. How many of them are 4/5? How many of them died after the season from breeding or fighting? How many of them would have died in a 4/5 zone and not made it to the next season due to legal hunting?

As I said, there are more 4/5 rams in 400, that isn't the argument. But how much better is it? Is there any research showing actual mortality rates now that we have had the full curl zone in place for almost 20 years? How many of these 4/5 rams left to breed in 400 contribute to the health of the herd? What is the difference in mortality between 3/4 rams in 400 and the northern zones?

I keep hearing that it is scientifically proven that leaving 4/5 rams makes for a healthier population of Trophy Rams, where are the numbers from 400 showing this? If this is the case then there should be approximately 10-20% Trophy Rams that are 4/5 making it through the season. I saw 300+ ewes on my 7 day hunt and four "Trophy" 4/5 rams. If the Full Curl was so good, then there should be 50 or more Trophy Rams 3/4 to full curl left.

[bdub]

Originally Posted by Speckle55

more sheep now in Alberta than in the 1960's/ 70's

every year age classes are coming up no loss in numbers

leave it alone

stop pushing Trophy hunting in Alberta

Food for Thought

David

David the issue is not with overall numbers of sheep. The poulation has been stable. The issue is with the age class of Rams being messed up. The evidence doesn't show an improvement in the ram age class outside of Cadomin.

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by bdub

David the issue is not with overall numbers of sheep. The poulation has been stable. The issue is with the age class of Rams being messed up. The evidence doesn't show an improvement in the ram age class outside of Cadomin.

Can you post all evidence you always talk about?

I dont want to see Geist's theories.... i want factual numbers.... post them up...plz

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by bdub

David the issue is not with overall numbers of sheep. The poulation has been stable. The issue is with the age class of Rams being messed up. The evidence doesn't show an improvement in the ram age class outside of Cadomin.

Of course not. There have not been any recent surveys outside of Cadomin and Clearwater in the areas of concern.

There are two reasons of concern being promoted by the researchers behind the regulation change, Legal Ram numbers and hunting induced genetic selection. These two concerns go hand in hand, they are not separate issues.

These same researchers also state that winter mortality of rams and reproduction rates are NOT an issue. Since you are a strong supporter of their ram numbers, your theory (unfounded by any research) is out of left field.

[walking buffalo]

More breaking news from the last sheep meeting.

The past population crash at Ram mountain was due to an issue of overpopulation. Too many sheep for the habitat, which also causes rams to grow smaller horns.....

Interesting...
The researchers originally stated the crash was due to old age of ewes, ewe removal from trapping (population control measure), and cougar predation. This claim was made in explaining that the ram horn size reduction was Not due to overpopulation.




This new claim (ram mountain pop crash due to overpopulation) is now being used to justify that sheep populations are not over carrying capacity since they are not seeing (with no surveying) a reduction in overall numbers, thus reduced habitat quality cannot be a factor in explaining why their analysis shows rams are getting smaller.

Spin, spin, spin.....

[bdub]

Originally Posted by pottymouth

Can you post all evidence you always talk about?

I dont want to see Geist's theories.... i want factual numbers.... post them up...plz

http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife...Feb03-2012.pdf

Page 7 speaks to the evidence of ram class post season.
Page 6 speaks to the stability of the overall population.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by bdub

http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife...Feb03-2012.pdf

Page 7 speaks to the evidence of ram class post season.
Page 6 speaks to the stability of the overall population.

Evidence that mature rams are dying from rut induced fatigue due to low ram numbers?
Evidence that reproduction rates have dropped due to a lack of mature rams?

You said this was happening....

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by bdub

http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife...Feb03-2012.pdf

Page 7 speaks to the evidence of ram class post season.
Page 6 speaks to the stability of the overall population.

Again... those are all great... but without actual numbers, there theories have zero substance.

Also their main data is hunter sheep harvests, dating back from the 70's. How can we controll that all the measuring they have done, is in accordance to specific guide lines and instructions? We have already qualified numerous times , where they can't properly age a ram, never mind measure a length... they have gone on record stating, their measuring process is not as precise as the B&C system.

Dont you wonder what the variance number is? Dont you want to see the info, that has an embargo until August?

If you were charged with murder, would you through your hands up and give up, just cause some cop said its your fault?

[bonedogg]

IMO, it's just the good ol' boys with a handfull of squeeker rams that want a "big one" before they die want this to push forward... if you ask me the breeding grounds still have Class 4 rams migrating there from their sanctuaries. exshaw has rams coming from the park, wind and pigeon have them come from spray and Peter Lougheed, when the rut happens for sheep, mature rams are there breeding. The sky is not falling. would the below ram be considered a class 4 ram....do they have class 5 lol