Changes to Sheep Hunting Regulations

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I've heard the idea of an any sheep draw talked about in passing and it's referenced in Anne's Clearwater presentation but SRD presented the number of 1150 draw permits to AGMAG. There's no way they could give out that many permits with an "any sheep" draw. The idea of central registration offices has also been discussed. I see this happening long before an "any sheep" draw. We'd be down to a couple hundred permits province wide on an any sheep draw. I don't buy it.

And yet four posts down from this one you say SRD screwed up on a draw for sheep? The whole premise behind putting this on draw makes no sense. None. Like I said, this isn't about sheep, it's about people.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by SLH

Hey Chuck thanks for the info, I've heard especially last year that on more than one occasion that short sheep were plugged knowing full well they were short but that SRD has gotten to the point that they were done charging anyone for short rams. The reason told to me was that they can not get a conviction. Up until now I haven't heard a good reason why they can't get these convictions. With your recent discussions can you comment a little on this if it was part of the discussion and if this is part of the issue at hand.

Thanks.

I am convinced that it is a big part of it. I started a thread on some such issue not long ago and was absolutely blasted for it.

I don't know who is to blame and I can see both sides of the fence. It's an interesting "problem".

[steve]

Another round of emails sent out, 7 in total..... Have yet to get a response, pizz poor PR.

[SLH]

Originally Posted by chuck

I am convinced that it is a big part of it. I started a thread on some such issue not long ago and was absolutely blasted for it.

I don't know who is to blame and I can see both sides of the fence. It's an interesting "problem".

So we need to figure out why this is happening. Is it lack of effort on measuring sheep, is it lack of funding in the offices to take short sheep cases to court, is it the courts being liberal, is it a lack of support from SRD for the field personel taking these cases forward.

It would seem fairly straight forward to me if you have a harvested ram that is short you lose the ram to the crown, you lose one year hunting privleges as a fine and you get fined accordingly to the extent to which you screwed up honest mistakes maybe nothing more, complete disregard for the system and the animal lifetime bann and huge cash.

Originally Posted by chuck

And yet four posts down from this one you say SRD screwed up on a draw for sheep? The whole premise behind putting this on draw makes no sense. None. Like I said, this isn't about sheep, it's about people.

I said they screwed up with the way they set the draw codes up...they did. They were warned that it was a plan full of pitfalls. You are right to some degree, it is a lot about people. Unfortunately they are so much easier to manage than wildlife.

Originally Posted by SLH

So we need to figure out why this is happening. Is it lack of effort on measuring sheep, is it lack of funding in the offices to take short sheep cases to court, is it the courts being liberal, is it a lack of support from SRD for the field personel taking these cases forward.

It would seem fairly straight forward to me if you have a harvested ram that is short you lose the ram to the crown, you lose one year hunting privleges as a fine and you get fined accordingly to the extent to which you screwed up honest mistakes maybe nothing more, complete disregard for the system and the animal lifetime bann and huge cash.

If this really is an issue and I'm not convinced it is, why not just go to three or four central registration offices in the province where the personelle are highly trained in measuring and aging sheep rather than putting the entire province on draw? This has been discussed. I've honestly never heard officers complaining about registering sheep. Perhaps it's an issue in the south but I really haven't heard of it being an issue province wide. I do believe SRD is behind this but it's not enforcement IMHO. I realize there have been a couple issues in the south with people being charged for short sheep that are very close to a couple of you....perhaps you judgement is a bit clouded on this one. I don't see this any other way than SRD wanting to reduce the harvest of rams to increase trophy quality and the easiest means of achieving this are by reducing hunter opportunity.

I guess at the end of the day, it doesn't matter who is behind it, the key is to find the week link in the information they are providing us with and fight it based on that. With RAMP it was money. In this case it seems to be the fact that hunter harvest hasn't really changed for decades so obviously hunters are not the problem...so why are they managing hunters only. The outfitters may be our biggest ally in this fight too. If the allowable harvest is cut back to say 150 sheep, they would see a severe reduction in tags.....and income.

[Huntnut]

Originally Posted by chuck

SRD is behind this initiative 125%. They are driving it. Specifically their enforcement. It has nothing to do with sheep and everything to do with simplifying their job. Got it?

In my humble opinion of course.

So training half a dozen officers and having two measuring stations-(say one in the north and one in the south) would be too difficult for them???

Originally Posted by Huntnut

So training half a dozen officers and having two measuring stations-(say one in the north and one in the south) would be too difficult for them???

This is directly from the AGMAG proposal from SRD

- Designated registration offices to keep measuring fair (this could increase travel of successful harvesters)

[SLH]

If they are not getting convictions and not getting any return for dealing with short sheep, and if harvesting of short sheep is now considered the cause of reduced trophy quality, I don't see how having centralized measuring departments is going to change anything. (I bring in a short ram, they charge me, they lose in court, and trophy quality is decreased not only this year but over the next two or three years when that short ram should have been harvested)

Again if what chuck says is accurate we need to answer those questions as to why there is an increase in short sheep being killed and why SRD is becoming unable to deal with short sheep in the courts.

The rant for hunters taking short sheep will only get me vilified around here but that is also something that should be of great concern to anyone that hunts sheep.

The inability of SRD to deal with rule breakers is the other concern of the same issue.

Originally Posted by SLH

if harvesting of short sheep is now considered the cause of reduced trophy quality, .

I have never heard that said. I suspect the overall number of short sheep killed in the province in a year is but a tiny percentage of the overall ram mortality.

[Huntnut]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

This is directly from the AGMAG proposal from SRD

I know. It was a rhetorical quuestion to what Chuck was saying about SRD.

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

I have not been able to obtain the number of Rams harvested under Treaty rights. SRD obviously does have this information, at least for rams that have been registered. Non registered rams killed by Treaty holders would be considered Illegal Harvest, another number that needs to be looked in to.


As mentioned earlier, APOS is presently in negotiations for the next 5 year Allocation agreement for 2013-2017. I suspect APOS and the GOV will get this completed before any new sheep hunting restrictions are implemented.

This is a recent letter from our Ex SRD minister Mel Knight. Note that he states there is an Allocation Guideline of 10% of harvest going to Outfitters.





1997-2007 Licenced Ram harvest. Residents averaged 78.3%, Outfitters averaged 21.%.

According to the Allocation guideline, Outfitters are already taking twice as many Rams as they should be.

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

I just found out that sheep allocations are covered seperate from the 10% allocated to other species. They are based on 20% of allocated harvest. Sheep are covered under seperate policy.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I just found out that sheep allocations are covered seperate from the 10% allocated to other species. They are based on 20% of allocated harvest. Sheep are covered under seperate policy.

Well if Mr. Knight doesn't know the policies....and he helps set them! It only tells us how well his office represents the interests of the people his decisions affect.....in his letter to WB his percent allocation number is off by 100% of what he stated....

LC

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Well if Mr. Knight doesn't know the policies....and he helps set them! It only tells us how well his office represents the interests of the people his decisions affect.....in his letter to WB his percent allocation number is off by 100% of what he stated....

LC

He did use the word "generally" in the letter.....perhaps that was the sheep caveat.

[Sharp Stick]

I "generally" think that this whole thing stinks

[209x50]

I just spent an hour on the phone with a well known sheep hunter in Wyoming. Their sheep hunting and draw are the largest in the states. It takes over 15 years to draw a tag now. Their draw is 75% preference points and 25% random draw. They draw 250 tags a year and kill 85-90% of that every year. Any ram is legal with these tags. There are no outfitter tags. Their average ram age at time of kill is now up to 6.4 years of age. They are ecstatic at that number and consider 8.5 year old rams past prime and burden on the habitat.

What does this mean to us under such a system?
We would have to draw 200 to 250 tags a year to meet the desired kill goals. Not the pie in the sky 1150 of SRD. Outfitters would have their tags slashed by at least 24 tags to maintain their 20% harvest rate.
I don't see a 6.4 average age as being a desirable goal to aim for.
We need to wake up here folks this isn't going to pretty if we stupidly keep squabbling amongst ourselves.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I just found out that sheep allocations are covered seperate from the 10% allocated to other species. They are based on 20% of allocated harvest. Sheep are covered under seperate policy.

20% Outfitter allocation for sheep. This % was negotiated with Rams being a General season. If Rams go on draw, then the Outfitter allocation should be made on the same % as other Draw species hunts, 10%.



Why are Resident Hunter's being kept in the dark regarding the 2010/11 Sheep survey and these hunting regulation proposals?

If anyone here has info on the AGMAG meetings and proposals, or 2010/11Sheep survey, 2010/11 sheep Harvest information, please share. It is the only the way Public will have a chance to become informed and be able to make any informed arguments to the Gov.


I understand sheep hunters being secretive about hunting areas, but lets continue with this secretive nature when it comes to sharing information pertaining to the fight for our rights to pursue the creature.

Originally Posted by 209x50

I just spent an hour on the phone with a well known sheep hunter in Wyoming. Their sheep hunting and draw are the largest in the states. It takes over 15 years to draw a tag now. Their draw is 75% preference points and 25% random draw. They draw 250 tags a year and kill 85-90% of that every year. Any ram is legal with these tags. There are no outfitter tags. Their average ram age at time of kill is now up to 6.4 years of age. They are ecstatic at that number and consider 8.5 year old rams past prime and burden on the habitat.

.

I've just started wading through the Montana management strategy as well and it looks as though they are acheiving similar results. They have a 3/4 curl minimum in most draw zones and are targeting a 6.5-7 year old harvest average from what I've read so far. Tags are very limited, basically once in a lifetime and harvest success is very high.

So looking at Wyoming and Montana as examples, what is that we are hoping to gain by putting sheep on draw again? Aren't we already averaging in that age range with no draw or loss of hunter opportunity?

[SLH]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I have never heard that said. I suspect the overall number of short sheep killed in the province in a year is but a tiny percentage of the overall ram mortality.

Maybe I should have said "one of the causes". Just trying to move along on this line of reasoning.

Originally Posted by SLH

Maybe I should have said "one of the causes". Just trying to move along on this line of reasoning.

Ya, that is likely far more accurate and I suspect it's quite a ways down on the list of causes of ram mortality. No doubt there are a few killed each year that don't measure up but I suspect wolves, cougars, habitat loss, lamb recruitment, disease and possibly even First Nations harvest would exceed it exponentially.

[SLH]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I just found out that sheep allocations are covered seperate from the 10% allocated to other species. They are based on 20% of allocated harvest. Sheep are covered under seperate policy.

3.3.1 Population Allocation
At least 80 percent of the harvestable surplus of trophy rams will be allocated to recreational hunting by residents (256 trophy sheep).
Provincially, a maximum of 20 percent of the harvestable surplus of trophy rams may be allocated to the outfitting-guiding industry (i.e., 41 trophy sheep to non-resident/alien hunting).

The important parts are “at least”, “a maximum”, “harvestable surplus” and “may be”. This is a floating number based on past harvests and population numbers. Nothing says it is 20% and considering the original deal with all species that they were to get 10% then there is nothing wrong with the letter. Especially considering that perhaps we are not at 256 rams for residents and perhaps because of other factors.


All that being said I think we may be close to the 250 number but as WB keeps stating nobody knows for sure.

[SLH]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Ya, that is likely far more accurate and I suspect it's quite a ways down on the list of causes of ram mortality. No doubt there are a few killed each year that don't measure up but I suspect wolves, cougars, habitat loss, lamb recruitment, disease and possibly even First Nations harvest would exceed it exponentially.

That's all fine but if this (as chuck may have stated) is one of the fears driving this issue then it needs to be addressed.

As we have all been saying "What is the Problem" if this is one of the "Problems" as SRD sees it then lets get to the bottom of it.

[SLH]

Originally Posted by 209x50

I just spent an hour on the phone with a well known sheep hunter in Wyoming. Their sheep hunting and draw are the largest in the states. It takes over 15 years to draw a tag now. Their draw is 75% preference points and 25% random draw. They draw 250 tags a year and kill 85-90% of that every year. Any ram is legal with these tags. There are no outfitter tags. Their average ram age at time of kill is now up to 6.4 years of age. They are ecstatic at that number and consider 8.5 year old rams past prime and burden on the habitat.

What does this mean to us under such a system?
We would have to draw 200 to 250 tags a year to meet the desired kill goals. Not the pie in the sky 1150 of SRD. Outfitters would have their tags slashed by at least 24 tags to maintain their 20% harvest rate.
I don't see a 6.4 average age as being a desirable goal to aim for.
We need to wake up here folks this isn't going to pretty if we stupidly keep squabbling amongst ourselves.

I sure hope we are not looking to the States again to come to a solution to something here in Alberta.

As you have it stated this is not a solution to any of us.

Originally Posted by SLH

All that being said I think we may be close to the 250 number but as WB keeps stating nobody knows for sure.

I agree but apparently SRD feels that number is too high or at least they must considering the measures being proposed to reduce ram harvest. I can see outfitters being very concerned about the management strategy being proposed as well. Say the allowable harvest number was dropped to 150 for example...it could mean a significant reduction in allocations for them. I don't see outfitters as the culprit here but they sure are a player with a lot to lose.

Originally Posted by SLH

That's all fine but if this (as chuck may have stated) is one of the fears driving this issue then it needs to be addressed.

As we have all been saying "What is the Problem" if this is one of the "Problems" as SRD sees it then lets get to the bottom of it.

Perhaps that's where the idea of regionalized inspection stations came from...to address that one issue. Unfortunately, Im doubt it will do much to address the bigger problem as seen by SRD....or at least what they are stating they see as the problem.

[SLH]

Well considering that those are the rules that were agreed on long before any of this came up to manage the herd I'm not sure I have any concerns with allocations to guides vs. allocations to residents being reduced.

Goose v. Gander.

[SLH]

A scientist will break down a big problem into smaller problems which can each be solved to come up with a solution.

A politician will pull many problems even some which are not related onto one pile so as to produce new rules which only benefit him by showing that he is doing something.

If there is a big problem lets fix all the little problems that caused the big problem.

Originally Posted by SLH

A scientist will break down a big problem into smaller problems which can each be solved to come up with a solution.

A politician will pull many problems even some which are not related onto one pile so as to produce new rules which only benefit him by showing that he is doing something.

If there is a big problem lets fix all the little problems that caused the big problem.

Absolutely!

[209x50]

Originally Posted by SLH

Well considering that those are the rules that were agreed on long before any of this came up to manage the herd I'm not sure I have any concerns with allocations to guides vs. allocations to residents being reduced.

Goose v. Gander.

Without question when the owners of the resource (Alberta residents) have their opportunity slashed then the non residents must also by at least the same percentage. The scary part here is the deceitful sell job that is being done to get the draw in place. If we are killing to many rams 1150 tags isn't going to change that and the true number that SRD wants is MUCH lower than that. They'll be happy to get to the desired number in a few years after they slip the draw in place. Many of us here may NEVER hunt sheep again in Alberta under a draw.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by SLH

Well considering that those are the rules that were agreed on long before any of this came up to manage the herd I'm not sure I have any concerns with allocations to guides vs. allocations to residents being reduced.

Goose v. Gander.

Goose V Orange....

The difference is the hunt allocation would no longer be based on a Resident General season.

Resident General season Vs Resident Draw. Huge difference in Resident hunter opportunity. Unlimited opportunity to Very limited opportunity ( once in 15 years).