Sheep Changes Coming

LittleBoyLefty said:
patty59,



If this is true, I do believe the time has come for Alberta resident hunters to work for the dissolution of APOS and the outfitting industry in Alberta as a whole. I'm fed up with their garbage. Taking the games APOS has been playing along with the nonsense in BC... It is time we recognize that outfitters are not our friends in any way...
Click to expand...


This has been my thoughts for quite some time now.
 
http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/proposed-changes-to-big-horn-sheep-hunt-cause-concern

“So, if that’s taken away, we would not be able to sell our hunts.”

boo ####ing hoo

LBL, I have not found that letter posted anywhere, but I have seen and I will try to track it down to PM it to you. I have also heard that there are some APOS members pushing the government hard for a draw and are willing to give up allocations to get it. I'n guessing they are will to concede allocations since they aren't selling all their tags in the first place.
 
freakin outfitters some how think their existence takes precedent over wildlife management, or for that matter anything. Sickening.
 
LittleBoyLefty said:
patty59,

Is this on public record anywhere? Meeting minutes, etc?

If this is true, I do believe the time has come for Alberta resident hunters to work for the dissolution of APOS and the outfitting industry in Alberta as a whole. I'm fed up with their garbage. Taking the games APOS has been playing along with the nonsense in BC... It is time we recognize that outfitters are not our friends in any way...
Click to expand...

After yesterday, this may be a possibility???
 
Not much new information out there on this matter that I can find. Has anyone heard anything or spoken with the new Minister about this?

I wonder what a guy like Dr. Geist would think about a full curl rule???
 
Here. As far as I know his opinion has not changed on the issue. Written 2009.

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! ).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
patty59 said:
Not much new information out there on this matter that I can find. Has anyone heard anything or spoken with the new Minister about this?

I wonder what a guy like Dr. Geist would think about a full curl rule???
Click to expand...

Do you think anyone on WSF of alberta board of directs has thought to get in touch with him?
 
So recently I emailed Dr. Valerius Geist to ask him his current opinion on the subject. He stated to me that he recently sent an email to WSFA and in his words he called it a very blunt response. He sent it to me and I asked him if I had his permission to post it here.

Here was his response:

Dear Mr. ******, By all means do. Sincerely, Val Geist
Click to expand...

So here it is exactly as he sent it to me, name omitted:

To ***** ***********

Dear *****,

Sorry, I am behind on all mail. As to the Alberta problems with bighorns: I am in the not-so-happy position of saying: I TOLD YOU SO!
Managing for ¾ curls is very bad, and it defies science. Yes, you read me right: it's unscientific! It defies what your managing biologists should know about bighorn sheep biology, but obviously do not. Maybe they do not even care. And what I am say in is nothing new. I wrote it down in clinical detail and it was published over 40 years ago, but your mangers do not read, so you and your colleagues will have to do it for them. Forget all the trendy questions that are being raised. The case is of brutal simplicity and hinges on some basic facts about bighorn sheep biology.
Here is a bit of history: over 40 years ago, bighorns contientally were in trouble. The Boone & Crockett Club called a meeting of interested parties in Missoula, and yours truly was given the honor of making a key note address on the management of mountain sheep. I did that in clinical detail, and it was published – but largely in vain because so many biologists simply do not read. I re-read it and I would not change a word! So, my problem is how to get it into your hands. And I suggest you and several of your colleagues read it, and discuss it so that you are prepared. (See pp. 77-97 in James B. Trefethen, Editor, The Wild Sheep in Modern North America. Boone & Crockett Club. V. Geist, On the management of mountain sheep: Theoretical considerations).
The gist of it all is that if you kill off your old rams, and with a ¾ curl rule you kill off ALL the old and the most active breeding rams as well, leaving sub-2/4 curl youngsters. These take over the rut. However, because there are nor older rams to thwart the enhanced activity of the youngsters, they go overboard chasing ewes, fighting and utterly exhausting themselves. LARGE RAMS PREVENT THAT. When the – totally - exhausted youngsters enter the hard winter ahead, they suffer exhaustion- mortality. THEIR MORTALITY GOES UP! You have set in motion a ram-killing machinery, depleting rams. The result is fewer rams, poor body growth and poor horn growth. In short, with a 3.4 curl regulation hunters kill FEWER rams than with a full curl regulation – besides damaging rams. If that is a smart way of managing sheep, you better define the meaning of smart.
And I will make you a bet: your managing biologists do not even know about the above. Try them! The one who does know, who actually studied what the full curl rule did is Wayne Heimer from Alaska. And it works like a charm. You retain reasonably natural populations, and horn size does not decrease. Invite him to speak!
So, in addition to shrinking horn-size due to poorer body growth, you also have the negative selection effect of vigorous rams being quickly eliminated by hunters as soon as they turn legal. Nothing controversial here either – at least not from the perspective of wild sheep biology or science. Nothing new to history either, because the effect of reduced trophy size due to hunter selection was experienced – and remidiated! - in Europe over and over again. You read me right: REMIDIATED. This decade old mismanagement in Alberta can be REVERSED. However, it will take time and there is not guarantee that ignorance will not triumph once again.
When I was active in Alberta my views on management were not heeded, so I have no illusions that they will be in the future, and I predict you will see wasted a lot of time on irrelevant questions. Poor sheep!
What I can do for you is first of all get into your hands – somehow – a copy of that summary paper on sheep management. Read it, please, preferably with several buddies. Secondly, you can always e-mail me or call on the phone. It's difficult for me to get away as somebody needs to look after this place in my absence. Please say a warm hello to my old friend and comrade in arms, Bill Wishart.
Before I sign off, I would like to make yo aware of what science does when applied. Said conference in Missoula tried to answer, in part, why sheep failed to spread to available habitat. The short answer is that young sheep do not explore a place to live as do deer or moose, but rely closely on a tradition of using specific habitat patches as passed on by the the female to her daughter, or full curled rams to younger rams. There is no option but to place sheep yourself on the mountains, which was done, increasing by 2000 the sheep population by nearly 50%. It could have been better had one introduced them smartly, as – independently – Tom Bergerud did with 19 populations of Newfoundland caribou, however, I will not quibble. This policy of course flooded the Boone & Crockett club with record heads, for obvious reasons.
The only other time when your's truly had a say was via a wonderful graduate student I had called Mrs. Beth MacCallum. She is the genius behind creating custom mountain sheep habitat from a strip mine near Hinton. We had a chance to put into practice our knowledge about mountain sheep. The weight of females doubled with in 15 years. It generated the largest bighorn rams in North America seen since the end of the Pleistocene. When you see somebody grinning over a huge Alberta record ram, remember where it came from. Did your Alberta mangers appreciate it? Did they? We created a virile oasis of life there. Are any more mines being rehabilitated in to superior wildlife let alone superior bighorn habitat? And if not, why not?
I mention the above case because if you act on knowledge, real knowledge, the knowledge we justly call science, the knowledge you get from detailed, ongoing field observations, as well as a contrast to history, well you get results. And the ¾ curl rule is based on ignorance!
Sincerely, Val Geist
Click to expand...

I would have to wonder why this was not posted on the WSFA website for all to read.
 
crazy_davey said:
So recently I emailed Dr. Valerius Geist to ask him his current opinion on the subject. He stated to me that he recently sent an email to WSFA and in his words he called it a very blunt response. He sent it to me and I asked him if I had his permission to post it here.

Here was his response:



So here it is exactly as he sent it to me, name omitted:



I would have to wonder why this was not posted on the WSFA website for all to read.
Click to expand...

Good question
 
crazy_davey said:
The question was rhetorical. I have a damn good idea why...

It would be the same reason that I mentioned in my email when I revoked my membership from the national Wild Sheep Foundation.
Click to expand...

As was the rebuttal Dave :)

I don't think it takes a great deal of cerebral horsepower to see that the WSF is simply a shell group that represents the ilk that benefits from the commercialized side of sheep hunnting that have taken it over.

It sure as hell isn't about what is best for the sheep, and I have let my membership lapse as well. If they want to have any respect with me they will have to abandon the political side and concentrate on habitat. Until then they are simply a political lobby group IMHO.
 
Big shocker from APOS:

APOS Position Statement on Proposed Changes to Sheep Harvest Strategies

The Alberta Professional Outfitter’s Society (APOS) is a major stakeholder in the realm of sheep hunting, a species that has been a long-standing staple of the outfitted hunting industry in Alberta. Sheep outfitters annually guide numerous Resident, Non-Resident and Non-Resident Alien sheep hunters. To achieve consistent success, sheep hunting requires specialized equipment and knowledge—this is a major reason for the difference between the commercial harvest rates as opposed to the resident rate of harvest. In fact, we believe the true resident harvest rate is even lower than recognized, as a large portion of successful residents are guided by outfitters. This data, however, is not being collected. That outfitters are helping to increase the resident success rate in turn helps APOS maintain our 20% allowable Non-Resident/Non-Resident Alien harvest. As per the 1993 management plan, we would like a minimum 20% of the bighorn resource allocation moving forward, with no less than 41 trophy rams allocated to the outfitting industry. At one time, the Non-Resident/Non-Resident Alien harvest exceeded the resident harvest; not only have outfitters been reduced to 20% of the allowable harvest, but we also have a shorter season at a less productive time in which to conduct our sheep hunts. In short, outfitter opportunity is highly restricted when compared to that enjoyed by residents.
Obtaining transparent and accurate data continues to be an issue for those trying to sort through the many management options being considered for sheep management. Further, there is significant conflict in how the available data is interpreted by stakeholders, including wildlife managers, with regards to sustainable management options and preferences, appropriate horn-measuring methodologies and sheep population numbers. This could be improved by having an intensive training program that offers information on how to properly age, measure (using the B&C or SCI systems) and count rams. Having reliable data on registered rams that includes horn configuration (tight or open curl) and whether they’re broomed or full-curl would be very valuable as well.
Aerial population counts are very unreliable due to the time of year they’re conducted and the influence of weather on both sheep behaviour and visibility. Further, it’s difficult to find all the sheep in a given area within the confines of limited flight time. More intensive ground counts need to be conducted to supplement the information gathered through aerial surveys. Local outfitters, as well as other stakeholders, could assist in this effort.
No data has been collected on the impact to sheep populations and hunting related to the reduction of areas formerly available to hunting that are now captured within parks where hunting is prohibited. These encompass vast areas that, in most cases, include very productive bighorn ranges where hunter access has now been eliminated or significantly reduced – i.e. - White Goat Wilderness Area, Siffleur Wilderness Area, Ghost River Wilderness Area , etc. Additionally, there’s been no evaluation of the relationship between these areas, National parks and the open-to-hunting crown land that many, if not most, of our sheep share. We are not aware of any data on specific seasonal herd migration other than on Ram Mountain and Sheep Creek, which don’t reflect the majority of Alberta’s sheep range. There’s also been no analysis conducted as to why some WMUs produce more sheep than others, particularly as it relates to historic harvest rates. We believe these data gaps must be addressed before any long-term management decisions are made.
With respect to predation issues, we would like to see additional studies that document sheep mortality by predation. We also support increased predator harvest opportunities and effort throughout our sheep ranges.
There has been a decline in range quality and quantity across much of our best sheep habitat. We do not advocate the increased harvest of ewes as a way to mitigate this. Rather, we support the use of fire, both natural and prescribed, as a means to realize improved sheep range.
We would like a commitment to follow a sheep management plan - the 1993 plan was well-reasoned and detailed but it was not followed, to the detriment of sheep and the sheep hunting fraternity.
APOS finds the new draft sheep management plan to be unreasonably vague, with no identified population goals, harvest goals or specific management plans for key sheep ranges in Alberta. We don’t believe that a blanket approach is the answer to sheep management issues, as each herd is facing different influences across its home range and, therefore, requires individually-developed management strategies.
Several suggestions for strategies to achieve trophy ram goals are included in the draft plan; following is APOS’ position of support, or not, for each proposed strategy: (These are in point form and are meant to represent a direct quote from the current draft plan)
Longer waiting periods - Support
Increased license fees - Support
Limited number of trophy rams in a lifetime - Support
Restrictions on the number of big game licenses held- Not in Support
Increasing the number of full-curl minimum WMUs – Not in Support
Limited Entry Hunting (LEH) – Support, depending upon the details and their effect on outfitted hunting
LEH full-curl – Not in Support
Shortened season length – Not in Support
Increased waiting periods based on the size of ram taken - Support
Split seasons – Support, depending upon the details and their effect on outfitted hunting
Royalty fee - Support
Quota 4/5-curl – Support, depending upon the details and their effect on outfitted hunting
Archery seasons or primitive weapons – Support, depending upon the details and their effect on outfitted hunting
Access restrictions – Support, depending upon the details and their effect on outfitted hunting

Although we are not in support of a blanket fix, at this time APOS member outfitters have made it clear that when considering any regulation change, they should be implemented both north and south of the Brazeau River to avoid putting increased pressure on sheep in the north and creating another potential problem. We realize the Management plan is a work in progress and hope area-specific management issues will be addressed in the future for those specific issues. We are opposed to the implementation of any full-curl seasons for Non-Resident/Non-Resident Alien hunters.
Most sheep outfitters are very concerned about the prospect of a full-curl only regulation due to the expected lack of success they’ll experience as a result. One idea we could support is the implementation of a full-curl general license during the resident-only general season, and a resident draw for 4/5-curl rams during the Non-Resident/Non-Resident Alien season. In other words, the first week and the last two weeks of the resident season would be open for full-curl rams only. The middle weeks of the season would have a resident draw for 4/5-curl rams. All current sheep draws would remain 4/5-curl . This would allow unlimited opportunity for residents seeking full-curl rams, while concurrently allowing for some of the older, broomed rams to be harvested and not die of old age. All Non-Residents/Non-Resident Aliens would be on a 4/5-curl tag. Alternatively, APOS would consider supporting a total 4/5-curl LEH for all residents, or a 4/5-curl LEH in combination with the supported options listed above.
A major concern is the impact of hunter numbers on the quality of the hunting experience. This year, the proposed sheep regulation changes resulted in a significant increase in resident hunter numbers afield. Many of these residents were serious about hunting sheep and, throughout the Resident and Non-Resident season, put in the extensive required time to find and harvest a ram. The resultant crowding on the mountains reduced the quality of the sheep hunting experience for all hunters, Resident and Non-Resident alike.
Outfitters also have concerns about the increased access in WMUs 420 and 422 due to the impact of ATV clubs, new roads, trail system repairs and bridges in high harvest areas. We also have some concerns about the lack of road-corridor enforcement in sheep areas.
Outfitters are willing to adopt changes to ensure that Alberta’s sheep hunting continues to be among the best in the world. Sheep outfitters have suggested many alternatives to the full-curl proposal and believe most would contribute to meeting the department’s objectives; we have been, and will continue to be, more than willing to work with wildlife managers and other stakeholders in seeking reasonable and meaningful solutions. APOS outfitters are available to work with wildlife managers in identifying responses to region-specific concerns, and believe that the extensive time they spend in the very heart of Alberta’s sheep ranges can provide added value to management decisions impacting our sheep herds.
Lastly, irrespective of any regulation changes enacted, it’s critical that a 3- or 4-year transition period for outfitters be implemented; sheep hunter’s book outfitted hunts several years in advance, and any changes put into immediate effect could result in significant legal and financial problems for both industry members and the government.

Chad Lenz and Neil Beeman
Sheep Task Force
Click to expand...
 
So much of this pisses me off I don’t know where to start!!!

A LARGE portion of successful residents are guided by outfitters.
BS!!!

Interesting these guys would extol the virtues of the 93 plan yet not understand what it actually says.
“At LEAST 80 percent of the harvestable surplus of trophy rams will be allocated to recreational hunting by residents”. AT THE LEAST!!!!
So 20% is the MAX for allocations to the outfitters. The number of 41 that they would like is not a minimum it is an example based on a desired goal of the population targets set out in the plan. So for them to then go and threaten legal action against the govt for managing the herd based on the ’93 plan is stupid. Their allocations need to be set at a proportion not some minimum #. If they need to book in advance then they better understand the need to manage the herd as well and how that effects their allocations. To manage the herd appropriately they have to be on a floating target so get used to it.

If these clowns know of a better way to count any of our wildlife then they should be publishing that information because it would be valuable to many jurisdictions.

“More intensive ground counts need to be conducted…” by them no less!

The fact that they even suggest this illustrates how absolutely uninformed they are about wildlife counts, in what world can an individual from the ground more effectively count any mountain species.
For them to suggest that they know how to measure age and count sheep better than anyone else is Absurd!!!

That's just what I could write quick in this red haze of anger.

At least we know where these buffoons stand.

Sheep Task Force can kiss my ass!
 
seems sheep populations and outfitters are getting along very well will it be in YT, NWT,BC or AB maybe it is time to create our own way across the west on that matter ....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom