Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Hunting Discussion

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #241  
Old 02-10-2010, 01:21 PM
sheephunter
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SLH View Post
I'm not sure either of you know what you're talking about anymore. 10% mortality is less than 50% mortality. If you start with 100 at 10% mortality you end up with around 45 10 year old rams (Natural Mortality only) @ 50% you end up with less than 1.
Actually the 50% mortality was not annually....it was from one year old to 10....if you start with 100, you end up with 50 according to Geist. That was a non-hunted population. Both studies come to a fairly similar conclusion. 45 vs 50.

Numbers from various studies are obviously going to vary but no matter whose study you look at, natural mortality is fairly high and not many rams make it 10 years old.

Last edited by sheephunter; 02-10-2010 at 01:27 PM.
  #242  
Old 02-10-2010, 01:24 PM
sheephunter
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
You keep bringing up 10yr old rams and no one has stated we should leave them till 10
You were the one that said there were lots of them...I was just showing some info that said there wasn't. You were the one that brought it up. I made no comment on what rams we should be killing, just that there were less older rams than there were younger rams and you've confirmed that...thanks!
  #243  
Old 02-10-2010, 01:27 PM
sheepguide sheepguide is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Rimbey
Posts: 5,908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 209x50 View Post
One statistic I found interesting was a study I read that showed that natural causes killed off 40 to 50% of the ram year class every year. So 60% go from 3.5 to 4.5 and 50% of those make it the next year and so on.
If you take Rich's statistics... if 100 sheep make 4.5 and 50% dies each year after you would have a grand total of 1.5625 rams that make 10 1/2. This is natural causes. Im thinking if you add hunting numbers there would be no sheep out there that reach 8.
  #244  
Old 02-10-2010, 01:47 PM
sheepguide sheepguide is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Rimbey
Posts: 5,908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter View Post
You were the one that said there were lots of them...I was just showing some info that said there wasn't. You were the one that brought it up. I made no comment on what rams we should be killing, just that there were less older rams than there were younger rams and you've confirmed that...thanks!
And of coarse there will be less! How many less is the discussion. There are a decent number of 10+ year old rams in areas that they are allowed to get older(mines and parks). These areas have the same amount of natural mortality as every other area. Only variable in age structure on rams then is the harvesting of younger rams in non protected areas.

Last edited by sheepguide; 02-10-2010 at 01:55 PM.
  #245  
Old 02-10-2010, 03:31 PM
Rockymtnx's Avatar
Rockymtnx Rockymtnx is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 8,815
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SLH View Post
I'm not sure either of you know what you're talking about anymore. 10% mortality is less than 50% mortality. If you start with 100 at 10% mortality you end up with around 45 10 year old rams (Natural Mortality only) @ 50% you end up with less than 1.
At what age are you starting your 10% decrease?
__________________
Rockymtnx

www.dmoa.ca

Pro Staff member for:
Benelli, Sako, Beretta, Tikka, Franchi, Burris, & Steiner
  #246  
Old 02-10-2010, 04:17 PM
Vindalbakken Vindalbakken is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheepguide View Post
Attachment 19369

Last sentance says quite a bit TJ

Also states that natural mortality of rams over 3 is 10% annually not 50% as you stated.
I have my daughter at the Univ. trying to get me the full copy of that study.
You will note that he makes reference to the Geist study and I am sure the full copy should give rationale for contradicting his findings with the radio collared findings.
  #247  
Old 02-10-2010, 05:04 PM
walking buffalo's Avatar
walking buffalo walking buffalo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,207
Default

Let's not forget that this study was from the late eighties. Predator populations were at a significantly lower level than today. Park biologists were very vocal about that fact, now Parks say they are not interested in counting the bears and wolves. Why? I have my guess. Probably the same as yours.

I doubt the mortality rates stated in that report would be applicable today.

Just to be clear, I am in favour of a healthy population of predators, they are important for the whole ecosystem, including sheep. However, and many ranchers will agree with this, there are a LOT of wolves in Alberta now.
  #248  
Old 02-10-2010, 05:09 PM
Tonto Tonto is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 281
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 209x50 View Post
One statistic I found interesting was a study I read that showed that natural causes killed off 40 to 50% of the ram year class every year. So 60% go from 3.5 to 4.5 and 50% of those make it the next year and so on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter View Post
Actually the 50% mortality was not annually....it was from one year old to 10....if you start with 100, you end up with 50 according to Geist. That was a non-hunted population. Both studies come to a fairly similar conclusion. 45 vs 50.

Numbers from various studies are obviously going to vary but no matter whose study you look at, natural mortality is fairly high and not many rams make it 10 years old.
I am starting to wonder if studies are worth the time and effort.

If you use 209's stats and start with 100 rams, by the time they reach age 10 you will only have one left if your lucky.

If you use Geist/SH's study you end up with 50 rams.
  #249  
Old 02-10-2010, 05:20 PM
sheephunter
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonto View Post
I am starting to wonder if studies are worth the time and effort.

If you use 209's stats and start with 100 rams, by the time they reach age 10 you will only have one left if your lucky.

If you use Geist/SH's study you end up with 50 rams.
It's always important to look at the location and parameters of a study. Geist's study was a non-hunted population so that would have a significant bearing. In heavily hunted population it's not hard to imagine that only 1% of rams might make it to 10. There is much more to a study than the final numbers.
  #250  
Old 02-10-2010, 05:43 PM
SLH SLH is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 764
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockymtnx View Post
At what age are you starting your 10% decrease?
I'm just following the last couple posts with regard to the link that SG posted.

So at age 3 10% mortality per year use any number I used 100 for easy calculating.

The thing here is that recruitment (anything that makes it through one year) numbers around 40% would be good to great. So 40% off births make it to one year 60% mortality. Usually then the next year you could be fairly high as well first winter on there own. I would suggest that up to 75% of lambs born never make it to be a two year old (I don't have numbers in front of me but something like that) then after that these animals along with most ungulates can manage quite well and it is stated in that abstract that 10% mortality going forward from that point.

So if it gets to the point that we are not able to keep the age classes above say 6 years old then the problem is probably with increasing that 10% as long as the first two years are stable. This then is increased predatation, decreasing habitat disease and unfortunately hunting.

The problem we have here is that there is a group pushing reduced hunter numbers for there own selfish reasons. If we follow the Bighorn Sheep management plan resident hunters come before allocations on the priorty list, and if numbers of harvested rams have been reported accurate in previous posts the allocations already exceed the 80/20 split that was agreed on quite some time ago.

If there is a problem then lets start there and work our way to other solutions later.
  #251  
Old 02-10-2010, 06:12 PM
Rockymtnx's Avatar
Rockymtnx Rockymtnx is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 8,815
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SLH View Post
So at age 3 10% mortality per year use any number I used 100 for easy calculating.
Yup just wondering as I was doing some calculating myself.
__________________
Rockymtnx

www.dmoa.ca

Pro Staff member for:
Benelli, Sako, Beretta, Tikka, Franchi, Burris, & Steiner
  #252  
Old 02-10-2010, 06:29 PM
Tonto Tonto is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 281
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter View Post
It's always important to look at the location and parameters of a study. Geist's study was a non-hunted population so that would have a significant bearing. In heavily hunted population it's not hard to imagine that only 1% of rams might make it to 10. There is much more to a study than the final numbers.
209's example was using death by natural causes, I wouldn't expect that to include hunting. Maybe I am wrong.
  #253  
Old 02-10-2010, 06:35 PM
sheepguide sheepguide is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Rimbey
Posts: 5,908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter View Post
Geist's study was a non-hunted population so that would have a significant bearing. In heavily hunted population it's not hard to imagine that only 1% of rams might make it to 10.
And that right there is the thing that alot of us would like to see change. Both through predator control and harvesting of older rams.
  #254  
Old 02-10-2010, 07:58 PM
JustinC JustinC is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 617
Default

I think the ral problem is predators. Why is it F&W can fly around our cwd zones and shoot every deer they see but they cant go and do it on predators in zones we cant hunt for after Nov 30th. I still think there would or is a great number of great animals in huntable areas.But like anything that gets big they dont get big by being stupid.Sorry Tj I am not 100% what you said. 209 was the one that forsure said what I was quoting.

Tj I was wondering what the answer was for what sheepguide asked you what does your sheep score???
  #255  
Old 02-10-2010, 08:07 PM
Hagar's Avatar
Hagar Hagar is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Pincher Creek,Alberta
Posts: 205
Default

209,Granted the logistics of such a course would have to be worked out but they would be similar to the present hunters ed.They would be offered prior to the opening of the season and with out prove of passing the course,as with the hunters ed.,you would not be able to purchase a sheep tag.If you can not plan ahead enough for this then to bad!I am not saying that anyone who hunts sheep must have the same values as me ,just hoping to educate hunters on the proper judging and conservation of sheep.And maybe if hunters are shown how passing on younger sheep can help to produce better sheep for all fewer young rams would be taken.I would not expect ever hunter have the values or ethics that I have as everyone is different.You are a great example of that,as it seems you seem to be against ever option and opinion that has been mentioned here and have yet to bring any ideas of your own to the topic.I get thew impression that you are one of those who would shoot any legal animal you can just because it is your right to.I could be wrong about you but that is how you appear to be to me.
  #256  
Old 02-10-2010, 08:24 PM
Hagar's Avatar
Hagar Hagar is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Pincher Creek,Alberta
Posts: 205
Default

walking buffalo I agree that more predator control would greatly improve any ungalate population.As would habitat improvement.A for the predator issue,although this year I have not been able to get out much,I have go out into the winter ranges hunting predators such as wolfs and cougars.Haven't had any luck with wolfs but have gotten 1 cougar.

As for habitat I feel that in the winter range areas where livestock are also present that the livestock be remove by Sept.1 to allow the regeneration of forage for the winter ranges.This would give the grasses a full month of good growth for the winter ranges and should help the animals that would use such areas as the quality of forage would be higher.
  #257  
Old 02-10-2010, 08:39 PM
ram crazy ram crazy is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,842
Default

In a couple of weeks at the AFGA conference I'm sure there will be some heavy discussion about the future of Sheep hunting. In the end SRD will have final say and you never know maybe no changes will be made for the upcoming season.
  #258  
Old 02-10-2010, 08:53 PM
sheephunter
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Tj I was wondering what the answer was for what sheepguide asked you what does your sheep score???
First ram scored 176...I've never had the others scored.
  #259  
Old 02-10-2010, 08:54 PM
sheepguide sheepguide is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Rimbey
Posts: 5,908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ram crazy View Post
In a couple of weeks at the AFGA conference I'm sure there will be some heavy discussion about the future of Sheep hunting. In the end SRD will have final say and you never know maybe no changes will be made for the upcoming season.
Lets just hope what ever is decided(no matter the effect on hunters) is for the betterment of sheep. And that what is decided is due to an aspect of population, age, or something affecting sheep in general. And hopefully what is decided actually works to move sheep in the direction that helps them.

I hate to see any bighorn hunting oppertunities lost but feel that the sheep should come first then our hunting needs and wants!!!!!

JMHO
SG
  #260  
Old 02-10-2010, 08:56 PM
JustinC JustinC is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 617
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter View Post
First ram scored 176...I've never had the others scored.
Thanks. how many rams have you passed up that were legal?
  #261  
Old 02-10-2010, 08:56 PM
sheepguide sheepguide is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Rimbey
Posts: 5,908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter View Post
First ram scored 176...I've never had the others scored.
So for a guy that says score is important your latter sheep scored less than your first?
  #262  
Old 02-10-2010, 08:59 PM
sheephunter
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinC View Post
Thanks. how many rams have you passed up that were legal?
Never kept track. There have been quite a few though.
  #263  
Old 02-10-2010, 09:14 PM
ganderblaster ganderblaster is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: WMU 226
Posts: 2,198
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by walking buffalo View Post
The focus on this thread seems to remain confined to horn size and hunter management. Other management tools regarding a healthy populaton of sheep including mature rams have been mentioned , but not discussed.

We all seem to accept that predation and habitat are important factors relating to sheep survival. It is well documented that sheep populations are most vigorous (high birth rates and large horned rams) when the herd has good winter range and is not overly stressed with predation.

There seems to be a reduction in wintering ground quality and size in many areas, often due to forest encroachment, resulting in less forage and higher predation rates. Habitat managment takes time to produce results, but is proven to increase herd vitality. Predators ( wolves cougars and bears), are increasing rapidly in Alberta, and are having a significant impact on ungulates, including sheep. Predation can be reduced very quickly, but our govt. has become scared of wolves (more accurately wolf advocates).

The govt. realizes that at present it is easier and less expensive to manage people than habitat and animals. The discussion here is becoming focused on the same thing.

I suggest we spend some of our time on this thread talking about other avenues to reach our desired goal, more sheep and larger, mature rams.
Excuse my ignorance but I was wondering if their are any charities focused on bighorn sheep(like Ducks Unlimited is for ducks)?
  #264  
Old 02-10-2010, 09:43 PM
Frans Frans is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,551
Default

The Federation for North American Wild Sheep, guess they are called Wild Sheep Foundation these days (http://www.wildsheepfoundation.org/) has an Alberta chapter (http://www.fnawsab.org/).

Since there are only bighorn in Alberta...

Frans
  #265  
Old 02-10-2010, 10:00 PM
ganderblaster ganderblaster is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: WMU 226
Posts: 2,198
Default

Thanks!Seems like a good thing.Hope most posters on this thread are membersIs there still raffle tickets available?

Last edited by ganderblaster; 02-10-2010 at 10:10 PM.
  #266  
Old 02-10-2010, 10:15 PM
TreeGuy's Avatar
TreeGuy TreeGuy is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 11,576
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheepguide View Post
So for a guy that says score is important your latter sheep scored less than your first?
Dude.........enough.
  #267  
Old 02-10-2010, 10:20 PM
bowhuntercam bowhuntercam is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 192
Default

I have to disagree that there are not enough mature rams here in Alberta. Many people on this forum have stated numerous times, sheep population is not the problem, but the number of mature rams being harvested is a problem. I disagree because the rams being harvested each year is a fraction of the total ram/ breeding ram population and has little effect on which rams are breeding. It may actually relieve some of the stress caused throughout the breeding season (I have no proof of this, just a guess). In some zones the breeding rams never moving to areas with hunting seasons. There are many 5, 6, and 7 year old rams that do the majority of the breeding. The 5, 6 and 7 year old rams that are harvested now are a fraction of the population.
Cam
  #268  
Old 02-10-2010, 10:21 PM
sheepguide sheepguide is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Rimbey
Posts: 5,908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeGuy View Post
Dude.........enough.
just an honest question. Usually when someone is a trophy hunter that is interested in score you hunt for something better than you already harvested!
If you dont like my post its easy, when you see it says sheepguide above it skip over it and continue on.
  #269  
Old 02-10-2010, 10:32 PM
Vindalbakken Vindalbakken is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,790
Default

Well, I have read the paper referenced by SG and it really doesn't shed much more light than is in the abstract. It raises serious questions about the validity of young ram survival numbers based on skull counts and gives several postulations of why the method would be so innacurate on that count. It draws no conclusions but seems biased to the end that high mortality of young rams is from vulnerability to environment conditions rather than decreased vigor from increased reproduction effort caused by an unsound harvest regime.

The other thing that is interesting was this quote "Survival varied among years if hunting mortalities were ignored, but not when all causes of death were considered." Which they make no futher comment on, but I interpret to be - Basically, when less legal rams were killed by hunters, more died from natural causes maintaining a stable death rate. This is very consistent with managed harvest theory.

The other thing to note is that the total annual death rate of mature aged rams in this hunted population mirrors the death loss numbers from studies on non-hunted populations in other studies such as the one conducted by Geist. The only discrepancy in the data from this study and others (regardless of whether the study is in a hunted or non-hunted population) is in the <2 year category where skull count studies have matching low loss rates and marked animal studies have consistent high loss rates. Personally I would place much greater stock in the numbers coming from the marked animal studies, but as the authors lament, published studies of marked ungulates are rare.

After reading this study I have serious doubts that a change in the harvest strategy would actually result in a greater number of older rams on the mountains, unless it is true that a reduced harvest of rams in the 5-7 year class would result in a decreased mortalility of the <2 year rams. If such were true then there would be an increase in older rams on the mountain as a result of the overall increase of the number of rams in total. As I said though, the authors raise a lot of questions that are as yet unanswered regarding the validity of such a theory.
  #270  
Old 02-10-2010, 10:33 PM
TreeGuy's Avatar
TreeGuy TreeGuy is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 11,576
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheepguide View Post
just an honest question. Usually when someone is a trophy hunter that is interested in score you hunt for something better than you already harvested!
If you dont like my post its easy, when you see it says sheepguide above it skip over it and continue on.

I do not want to skip over your posts because you are an accomplished sheep hunter who lives a life I can only dream of. 98% of what you post is worth reading. It is the petty 2% that only seems to repeatedly give an insight into your character that gets bothersome. It's not a competition SG, we should be supportive of each other, rather than desperately shouting, "I'm better than you are". Just my thoughts, skip over them at will.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.