Sheep Question

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by bdub

Fear mongering, tinfoil hat stuff.

When ya got nothin', play the tinfoil card.

[bdub]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

When ya got nothin', play the tinfoil card.

My thoughts exactly WB, or the fear mongering card.
But enough derail, the answer to the original post, Geist is in support of the harvest of old, mature Rams. Not sure how anyone who has read his research could believe otherwise.

[Chukar Hunter]

Interesting to see a lot of folks following this thread. At the end of the day, the best decision has to favor the sheep not the hunters, myself included.

For those "seriously" interested in the science of sheep (Proven in Alaksa by Dr. Weimer), In the very near future, I will post an original speech Dr. Geist delivered in FNAWS's very first meeting in Missoula over 40 years ago as a key note speaker on instituting the Full curl rule. I will post it on WSA website as well as here, file size allowing. Stay tuned!

Yours in good hunt'n,

CH

[SLH]

W. Heimer.

Look forward to reading it.

I'll have to wait on replying to WB take on some of his numbers, been a long week with little sleep.

Medians!

4,4,5,5 = 4.5
4,4,4,5,5 = 4
4,4,4,100,100 = 4
4,4,100,100 = 52

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by SLH

W. Heimer.

Look forward to reading it.

I'll have to wait on replying to WB take on some of his numbers, been a long week with little sleep.

Medians!

4,4,5,5 = 4.5
4,4,4,5,5 = 4
4,4,4,100,100 = 4
4,4,100,100 = 52

You sure have become blinded by conviction.

The info I stated was calculated using the same techniques the government used. If you have a problem with my numbers then you must have a problem with theirs too.

There is a reason why there was such opposition within F&W to release this info....

[bdub]

Originally Posted by Chukar Hunter

Interesting to see a lot of folks following this thread. At the end of the day, the best decision has to favor the sheep not the hunters, myself included.

For those "seriously" interested in the science of sheep (Proven in Alaksa by Dr. Weimer), In the very near future, I will post an original speech Dr. Geist delivered in FNAWS's very first meeting in Missoula over 40 years ago as a key note speaker on instituting the Full curl rule. I will post it on WSA website as well as here, file size allowing. Stay tuned!

Yours in good hunt'n,

CH

Unfortunately this simple truth is lost on almost everyone. The folks making a living hunting sheep don't care, most hunters looking for a first ram don't care, and so on and so on. I brought up what Dr. Weimer discovered in the other thread. Of course the naysayers like WB etc will dismiss it as garbage and throw a different spin on it. Don't get your hopes up on changing many minds, their minds are already made up, whats best for the sheep herd be damned. Thanks though and looking forward to your future post on this.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by bdub

Unfortunately this simple truth is lost on almost everyone. The folks making a living hunting sheep don't care, most hunters looking for a first ram don't care, and so on and so on. I brought up what Dr. Weimer discovered in the other thread. Of course the naysayers like WB etc will dismiss it as garbage and throw a different spin on it. Don't get your hopes up on changing many minds, their minds are already made up, whats best for the sheep herd be damned. Thanks though and looking forward to your future post on this.

Unfortunately this is not an unexpected reply from you, but is deserves addressing. Many people that are opposed to this regulation proposal are also independently spending hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars in working through sheep management issues. These people care and prove it by making the effort, giving up work and family time in order to consult with all stakeholders and participate in field projects on ALL areas of sheep management. Your crass uninformed insult truly reveals just who and what you are.

[SLH]

So you're doing this for the betterment of the herd. I commend you.

So what is best for the herd?

[SLH]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

You sure have become blinded by conviction.

The info I stated was calculated using the same techniques the government used. If you have a problem with my numbers then you must have a problem with theirs too.

There is a reason why there was such opposition within F&W to release this info....

Umm, which data are you talking about, the stuff in the power point presentations, the published works by Marco et al. or is there something else. I really haven't been up on this the last couple months.

[bdub]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Unfortunately this is not an unexpected reply from you, but is deserves addressing. Many people that are opposed to this regulation proposal are also independently spending hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars in working through sheep management issues. These people care and prove it by making the effort, giving up work and family time in order to consult with all stakeholders and participate in field projects on ALL areas of sheep management. Your crass uninformed insult truly reveals just who and what you are.

Oh boy, must have touched one of your nerves WB. Just calling it like I've seen it by what you and others on this side of the debate have said on this topic here and elsewhere. Damn few of you saying lets do what's best for the herd. Keep twisting around your BS. Disgusting.

[crazy_davey]

Originally Posted by albertadave

What I AM concerned about is where/who he's getting his information from.

What information are you speaking of Dave? Did more information come out recently that isn't public? Do you know something we don't?

Maybe you are speaking of the fact that Geist is in favor of a full curl regulation? The fact that he supports Hunting old, large-horned males that have done most of their breeding? That is nothing new as Geist stated this 40 years ago.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming, Walking Buffalo talking about genetic harm, a theory that was proven to not be the issue, yet he has nothing else so around and around he goes...

[crazy_davey]

Originally Posted by bdub

Unfortunately this simple truth is lost on almost everyone. The folks making a living hunting sheep don't care, most hunters looking for a first ram don't care, and so on and so on. I brought up what Dr. Weimer discovered in the other thread. Of course the naysayers like WB etc will dismiss it as garbage and throw a different spin on it.

And that is about as truthful as it gets.

There are lots that will say they want what is best for Alberta's bighorn sheep population. I reality all they care about is killing their first squeaker ram or making the almighty dollar guiding someone to their first. And they will say anything to try and stop any change.

Save Alberta's Sheep Hunt facebook page, what a joke . That page is a perfect example of how people wont accept change and only care about putting sheep on the wall and nothing about the betterment of the Alberta bighorn rams and the overall population.

[Roughneck Country]

The eye ball in the drawings are placed too far back but this is what I was referring to where the big horn full curl in BC is not much differn't than an Alberta 4/5. "Mature Big horn" is a true full curl.

[albertadave]

Originally Posted by crazy_davey

What information are you speaking of Dave? Did more information come out recently that isn't public? Do you know something we don't?

Maybe you are speaking of the fact that Geist is in favor of a full curl regulation? The fact that he supports Hunting old, large-horned males that have done most of their breeding? That is nothing new as Geist stated this 40 years ago.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming, Walking Buffalo talking about genetic harm, a theory that was proven to not be the issue, yet he has nothing else so around and around he goes...

Haha, now you're asking questions! That's funny. Still waiting for someone from the full curl clan to answer mine.

[Roughneck Country]

Originally Posted by crazy_davey

And that is about as truthful as it gets.

There are lots that will say they want what is best for Alberta's bighorn sheep population. I reality all they care about is killing their first squeaker ram or making the almighty dollar guiding someone to their first. And they will say anything to try and stop any change.

Save Alberta's Sheep Hunt facebook page, what a joke . That page is a perfect example of how people wont accept change and only care about putting sheep on the wall and nothing about the betterment of the Alberta bighorn rams and the overall population.

Or maybe just people that want it to continue because it has worked for 20 years already. There is no issue with the Big Horn population, if there is step one is to quit sending them south of the border, step 2 and 3 would be to burn the mountain tops and hand out more cougar allocations. Obviously none of these options are on the table so I would say it is an anti hunting agenda guised as a "genetic harm" or "population" issue

400 is a joke for such a large zone that is heavily hunted and only a couple rams a year get pulled from it? The overwhelming success the government claims is only a success if you don't want sheep harvested period.

Mature rams broom, good habitat = bigger horns, and if my aunt had nuts she'd be my uncle.

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by crazy_davey

What information are you speaking of Dave? Did more information come out recently that isn't public? Do you know something we don't?

Maybe you are speaking of the fact that Geist is in favor of a full curl regulation? The fact that he supports Hunting old, large-horned males that have done most of their breeding? That is nothing new as Geist stated this 40 years ago.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming, Walking Buffalo talking about genetic harm, a theory that was proven to not be the issue, yet he has nothing else so around and around he goes...

I'd like to see where Geist, has stated he supports the full curl rule. I haven't been able to find anything that supports that .

As far as Geist supporting the harvesting of mature, older males. I do agree he has always said that! But, that includes heavy 4/5th's broomed rams, that don't meet the full curl rule!

[crazy_davey]

Written by Geist in 2009. The rest is on the web for those who care to look. And as far as I know he is still in favor of this.

From June 18-20, 1974 the Boone & Crockett Club, National Audubon Society and the Wildlife Management Institute held a seminal meeting on mountain sheep at the University of Montana, Missoula. The participants comprised scientists, wildlife mangers, members of conservation organizations, but also outdoor writers, including the famous Jack O’Connor. I was given the honor of presenting the Key Note address on the management of mountain sheep. I explained two crucial matters: namely, (1) how the behavior of the mountain sheep preclude their dispersal from relict population to abandoned habitat. This had to be countered by aggressive reintroductions, which was done, and which led in 25 years to an increase of about 50% of mountain sheep populations in North America (see for details Dale Toweill and Valerius Geist 1999 Return of Royalty, Boone & Crockett Club and Foundation for North American Wild Sheep. This book won the 2005 Literary Prize for technical writing, Prix Technique, of the Conseil International de la Chasse, Paris). Within two years the Foundation for North American sheep came into being largely financing and guiding this recovery. Secondly (2) I dealt with how the biology of mountain sheep dictated a totally different management compared to that applied to the ever popular white-tailed deer. It focused on how to hunt trophy rams without hurting the population (based on ancient European understanding). This also was effective, as it was now a science-based approach to mountain sheep management. Hunting old, large-horned males after that had done most of their breeding was the goal. Let me explain: rams grow horns massively early in life, and less and less after about seven years of age. However, some horn growth occurs throughout life. The peak of rutting activity resides with six years old rams carrying ¾ curled horns. They become full curls at 9-10 years of life, although there is variation. Many rams, especially the most vigorous, those with the best horn growth, do not survive the fatal stresses and strains of reproduction and die before 9 years of age. Roughly 50% of the rams survive to that age. That is, natural selection for large horns is limited by the early death of rams with vigorous horn growth. Taking a small fraction of the remaining full curled rams would thus do least damage (breeding is not the only thing full curls can still do, they also are key to leading young rams to distant habitat patches, maintaining the populations tradition of range utilization. They also “police” rutting, subduing excessive activity by young rams and thus allowing them to enter winter in better body shape, increasing their growth next year, and reducing their mortality. Most breeding is done by vigorous, young full curls. Old full curls drop off in breeding activity. Some of the very largest-horned rams I observed during the rut were bystanders! Matters are complex! ).

[SLH]

Originally Posted by pottymouth

I'd like to see where Geist, has stated he supports the full curl rule. I haven't been able to find anything that supports that .

As far as Geist supporting the harvesting of mature, older males. I do agree he has always said that! But, that includes heavy 4/5th's broomed rams, that don't meet the full curl rule!

I think the article that Chuckar is going to post will be the one you're looking for as well as what Davey just posted.

As for the 4/5 heavy broomed I'd say you're correct it isn't so much full curl as it is old mature >10 yrs. of age. The issue you have with that is how do you right that in a regulation so that 4 yr. old 4/5 don't get harvested.

[SLH]

That should be "write".

[bdub]

Originally Posted by Roughneck Country

Or maybe just people that want it to continue because it has worked for 20 years already. There is no issue with the Big Horn population, if there is step one is to quit sending them south of the border, step 2 and 3 would be to burn the mountain tops and hand out more cougar allocations. Obviously none of these options are on the table so I would say it is an anti hunting agenda guised as a "genetic harm" or "population" issue

400 is a joke for such a large zone that is heavily hunted and only a couple rams a year get pulled from it? The overwhelming success the government claims is only a success if you don't want sheep harvested period.

Mature rams broom, good habitat = bigger horns, and if my aunt had nuts she'd be my uncle.

Try and keep up RC. If you consider 400 to be such a large zone perhaps you should hunt it or at least pull out a map. As for the numbers harvested there have been several seasons where they have taken 8 Rams a year out of there. Extrapolate those numbers to the provincial population outside the parks and you would have a provincial harvest of roughly 200 Rams. I can do the math for you. 8 Rams divided by 260(sma 1 population estimate) = .030769 multiply by
6500(provincial estimate outside the parks) = 200 Rams. How many rams do we currently kill province wide. Take a wild guess RC.

[Chukar Hunter]

Originally Posted by SLH

I think the article that Chuckar is going to post will be the one you're looking for as well as what Davey just posted.

As for the 4/5 heavy broomed I'd say you're correct it isn't so much full curl as it is old mature >10 yrs. of age. The issue you have with that is how do you right that in a regulation so that 4 yr. old 4/5 don't get harvested.

I have the article and will post it in a couple of days, work and family engagements permitting. The long discussion that follows will also be included. I will also append my recent discussion with him regarding the subject. Because the file size is around 1.5MB, not sure if I can post it on the Forum. Will most probably be on the WSA website and once there, I will append the link. A more knowledgable, fair, respectful and visionary man for sheep does not exist.

[Diamondhitch]

I certainly have spent many days on the mountain thinking about this.

I think we can all agree that, just like fish, most rams get harvested shortly after becoming legal, no matter what size standard we apply to them and that will not change. Despite their amazing table fare I think most can agree that due to their limited numbers available for harvest, there is no need for harvesting them solely for food, they are inherently a trophy animal. At the same time is there not a way to satisfy both the trophy hunter and meat hunter alike?

Currently most sheep hunters hunt until they kill a barely legal ram and then quit, others harvest a squeaker every few years, but this crowd is very small, and many after putting a ram on the wall, hunt for a whopper and eat tag after tag in pursuit of one.

Alberta is capable of producing the biggest rams in the world, yet we seldom do. Our current system does not sufficiently allow rams to live long enough to achieve these dimensions in most cases. This is the reason that, with the exception of Cadomin, Montana and Colorado are leading the world in monster ram production (their record of killing these populations off with poor domestic stock practices not withstanding).

I have some thoughts on potential scenarios that could put more old rams on the mountain right here in the heartland of giant bighorns, without resorting to the excessively restrictive draws available south of the border.

1) The current practice of not being eligible to hunt sheep for 1 season following the harvest of any ram does nothing to encourage the taking of older rams. I would propose the following: 1 year ineligibility for every year less than 10. In this regime killing a 10+ yr old ram allows the hunter to buy a tag the very next season while someone killing a squeaker 5 yr old ram would be ineligible for 5 years. This would constitute a a voluntary period of ineligibility, which I prefer greatly to legislated constants. Why force compliance when you can get it voluntarily.

2) Continue general 4/5 season (or general full curl for that matter) and add an any ram special draw subject to provision #1. Most guys who just want a sheep could shoot a 1-3 year old ram which would satisfy most for life and since these young rams are far more quickly replaced would have less impact on the population than the 5-6yr old rams being taken currently. This would also help distribute the harvest over the entire age range contributing to a diverse age structure. Remember that those killing a 2 yr old ram cannot hunt sheep for at least 8 seasons.

3) Im not sure the long term impact of this one but believe it could be positive, unfortunately the short term impact would likely be severe and make implementation impractical. Implement an any ram general season subject to provision #1 but increase the ineligibility period. For example, min 3 yr + 1yr <10yr age +2yr <8yr age. So if you kill a 10 yr old ram, you wait 3 years to hunt, kill a 4 yr old ram you wait 13 years.

In any case I think there are many options to both increase opportunities and avoid going to a draw system where everyone always waits for a tag. Any opportunity to keep guys hunting while allowing those who choose to shoot what they wish is a winner by me. Choose to hunt for trophies or choose to wait a long time between meat hunts, the choice I yours and I like choice.

[Lr1000]

I also think ewes should be registered! I would like to know how many 2 year old Rams are shot on ewe tags.

[Roughneck Country]

Originally Posted by bdub

Try and keep up RC. If you consider 400 to be such a large zone perhaps you should hunt it or at least pull out a map. As for the numbers harvested there have been several seasons where they have taken 8 Rams a year out of there. Extrapolate those numbers to the provincial population outside the parks and you would have a provincial harvest of roughly 200 Rams. I can do the math for you. 8 Rams divided by 260(sma 1 population estimate) = .030769 multiply by
6500(provincial estimate outside the parks) = 200 Rams. How many rams do we currently kill province wide. Take a wild guess RC.

I have hunted it, The average season they only pull 2 out of there. Also comparing a southern zone to say the Wilmore is like comparing apples and oranges. If you want full curl, move back to BC

[bdub]

Originally Posted by Roughneck Country

I have hunted it, The average season they only pull 2 out of there. Also comparing a southern zone to say the Wilmore is like comparing apples and oranges. If you want full curl, move back to BC

You are making this to easy RC. Do you look at any of the data or information out there or are you just winging it? From 2001 to 2014 we killed 84 rams in sma 1. That works out to an average yearly harvest of 6 full curl rams out of a population of 260. Do you want me to do the math again? Extrapolate that over the province outside the parks it works out to 150 rams per year. In the years from 2001 to 2011 we have killed an average of 173 rams a year province wide. There is no reason we couldn't expect to harvest almost as many rams under the full curl regime as we do under the 4/5 regime given a few years for the population structure to catch up. And if it follows what Dr. Weimer found that happened in Alaska after they stopped harvesting young rams and focused on old mature rams. Guess what happened. The ram harvest actually increased and the herd size increased. Few people realize the intricacies of sheep behaviour, the importance of having healthy ram herd structure and how it is related to herd health. And far fewer could care less.

As for moving to BC comment RC lol. How bout you do some reedin and rithmatic. Then we could have an educated discussion.

[hal53]

I would venture to guess that 90% of the hunters don't know the difference between a SMA and a WMU...

[bdub]

Originally Posted by hal53

I would venture to guess that 90% of the hunters don't know the difference between a SMA and a WMU...

True enough. Don't confuse them, it's bad enough already. I will from here onward only refer to the area that includes wmu 400 and a small chunk of a couple 300s as the major sheep area as sma 1 so as to keep it clear.

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by Diamondhitch

I certainly have spent many days on the mountain thinking about this.

I think we can all agree that, just like fish, most rams get harvested shortly after becoming legal, no matter what size standard we apply to them and that will not change. Despite their amazing table fare I think most can agree that due to their limited numbers available for harvest, there is no need for harvesting them solely for food, they are inherently a trophy animal. At the same time is there not a way to satisfy both the trophy hunter and meat hunter alike?

Currently most sheep hunters hunt until they kill a barely legal ram and then quit, others harvest a squeaker every few years, but this crowd is very small, and many after putting a ram on the wall, hunt for a whopper and eat tag after tag in pursuit of one.

Alberta is capable of producing the biggest rams in the world, yet we seldom do. Our current system does not sufficiently allow rams to live long enough to achieve these dimensions in most cases. This is the reason that, with the exception of Cadomin, Montana and Colorado are leading the world in monster ram production (their record of killing these populations off with poor domestic stock practices not withstanding).

I have some thoughts on potential scenarios that could put more old rams on the mountain right here in the heartland of giant bighorns, without resorting to the excessively restrictive draws available south of the border.

1) The current practice of not being eligible to hunt sheep for 1 season following the harvest of any ram does nothing to encourage the taking of older rams. I would propose the following: 1 year ineligibility for every year less than 10. In this regime killing a 10+ yr old ram allows the hunter to buy a tag the very next season while someone killing a squeaker 5 yr old ram would be ineligible for 5 years. This would constitute a a voluntary period of ineligibility, which I prefer greatly to legislated constants. Why force compliance when you can get it voluntarily.

2) Continue general 4/5 season (or general full curl for that matter) and add an any ram special draw subject to provision #1. Most guys who just want a sheep could shoot a 1-3 year old ram which would satisfy most for life and since these young rams are far more quickly replaced would have less impact on the population than the 5-6yr old rams being taken currently. This would also help distribute the harvest over the entire age range contributing to a diverse age structure. Remember that those killing a 2 yr old ram cannot hunt sheep for at least 8 seasons.

3) Im not sure the long term impact of this one but believe it could be positive, unfortunately the short term impact would likely be severe and make implementation impractical. Implement an any ram general season subject to provision #1 but increase the ineligibility period. For example, min 3 yr + 1yr <10yr age +2yr <8yr age. So if you kill a 10 yr old ram, you wait 3 years to hunt, kill a 4 yr old ram you wait 13 years.

In any case I think there are many options to both increase opportunities and avoid going to a draw system where everyone always waits for a tag. Any opportunity to keep guys hunting while allowing those who choose to shoot what they wish is a winner by me. Choose to hunt for trophies or choose to wait a long time between meat hunts, the choice I yours and I like choice.

This Idea has been purposed numerous times, by multiple people. Every time I hear it, I hate more and more!

Between being broomed and the difficulty that Bighorns present in identifying annual rings on the mountain(much more difficult than thin horns), and never mind that our own enforcement, can't seem to get the age right, while holding them this system creates more problems than solutions.

I can just see it now.... Imagine a heavy, broomed ram, with a tight curl ... That you count 6 yrs, and can imagine another 4 are busted off, but F&W says he's 4yrs old. We got a ram that's 4,maybe 6 and potentially everything from 6 to 10 ...NO Thanks!

It does nothing to educate and preserve sheep, to the newbie hunters who only wants one! The seasoned Vet, and odd new guy already, hunt in this fashion and they get to hunt yearly, while being selective...that's the education part and not a problem.

[WildernessWanderer]

Why do so many sheep hunters find it unpalatable that some mature rams may never be "legal" because of a regulation change?

I like the idea that I can buy a tag every season and there is a regulation in place that not only ensures I can buy an over the counter tag, it also creates a healthier heard dynamic, from an age perspective.

Or we could do what Montana does; give out one tag via a draw (lottery) for every 10 mature rams on the mountain, somewhat like our Cadomin draw but Province wide.

I believe a full-curl rule is a good compromise.

[Keeleclimber]

Originally Posted by WildernessWanderer

Why do so many sheep hunters find it unpalatable that some mature rams may never be "legal" because of a regulation change?

I like the idea that I can buy a tag every season and there is a regulation in place that not only ensures I can buy an over the counter tag, it also creates a healthier heard dynamic, from an age perspective.

Or we could do what Montana does; give out one tag via a draw (lottery) for every 10 mature rams on the mountain, somewhat like our Cadomin draw but Province wide.

I believe a full-curl rule is a good compromise.

Why do we need to put more restrictions on the sheep hunter in the first place?
Do you think decreasing the harvest from 150 rams from a population of ~11000 will make things better!?
Why not leave the hunter alone and focus on the real influencing factors like habitat enhancement and predator management.
In Alberta hunters only impact 1% of the total population.
I agree that killing older rams is hugely beneficial to the quality of the harvest, but no amount of hunter regulation will ever get hunters to select older rams, including full curl. Remember the age average in the existing FC zones is the same as the 4/5 zones.
Lets focus on 1) habitat enhancement, 2) predator management and 3) collecting sound accurate data for the next 10 years. By then we will have science we can truly critique the hunting regulations with unlike the current data which is garbage.