yeah guys - you can't possibly understand whats going on or have a view to what might be happening big picture.
It feels like this
Sheep Changes Coming
- Thread starter sheephunter
- Start date
It feels like this
The notion that there will be nothing to hunt is fabricated, full curl rams exist all over this province. But yes, the harvest rates will likely decrease for the first few years, but if we're looking big picture here, 5 years is nothing. Especially if it improves the sheep herd, like it has in wmu 400.
My theory is, hunting will be pretty slow for a couple of years down the road and then we will have a one or two seasons of high rates of success, followed by just about what we have now. Number of sheep hunters out there makes it unavoidable. Harvesting animals, based on visible characteristics, creates a population, the bulk of which will fall just below that.
Grizz
Funny they are making additional and more opportunity limiting restrictions to a herd that's doing so well. The stats from 400 are pretty clear what a full curl restriction will do.
Last edited:
Not according to the stats from WMU400...we can count on a reduction in harvest by 40-50% in the long term......90-100% in the short term.
I think u are pretty accurate in your estimation Grizz
Are you talking about the stats that show roughly 10% of mature ram carryover?
No the stats that show harvest numbers since full curl was instituted.
I agree, those harvest stats should be taken in stride with what was happening in that zone at the time.
Couldn't agree more...it's important to compare pre die off numbers(pre 80s) to current numbers if you want the real picture of what full curl means to harvest numbers.
After seeing the notes from the Sundre meeting it seems that ESRD will be hanging their hat on the shrinking horn size theory to justify the full-curl regulations. They seem to be smart enough not to refer to it as genetic harm any more but a pig with lipstick is still a pig. If, and it's a huge if, the data to support the shrinking horn size theory is correct, why are they looking at managing hunters to fix this when most scientists in North America say it's not hunter related and when their own studies have indicated it's more likely related to nutrition and densities on winter range? It's a sad day for Alberta's hunters.
Fast growing sheep are selected earlier. We as hunters have an active part in that.
The data from wmu 400 shows that the full curl rule exceeds the retention target of 5% of mature rams - the data shows that the average age of the rams being killed moves up almost 2 full years. And that data is from the guys managing sheep in Alberta. I will believe them over data solicited from US bio`s that is being sought because it matches the objectives of specific interests.
I agree there are other issues like habitat enhancement/predators etc. Trouble is the austerity days ahead mean the Cadillac management plans are unlikely.
Maybe time to "just give it a chance"
The data from wmu 400 shows that the full curl rule exceeds the retention target of 5% of mature rams - the data shows that the average age of the rams being killed moves up almost 2 full years. And that data is from the guys managing sheep in Alberta. I will believe them over data solicited from US bio`s that is being sought because it matches the objectives of specific interests.
I agree there are other issues like habitat enhancement/predators etc. Trouble is the austerity days ahead mean the Cadillac management plans are unlikely.
Maybe time to "just give it a chance"
After seeing the data from WMU400 on the mature ram carry over and with several WMU's not being able to meet the 5% mark a full curl regulation seems like a no brainer. Ideally there would be some data that showed there was no issues wahtsoever and no change was needed, but from what I can tell that doesn't exist.
In a prefect world they would focus their efforts more on the burns and other habitat enhancement programs, but not sure it's in the cards.
So if we can avoid personal attacks and smarmy remarks for a few minutes, I have some honest questions that I'd like to have an intelligent conversation about. You guys seem to be in the know so inform me.
What tangible benefits has WMU400 seen from this 10% carryover...is horn size increasing? When comparing full curl to full curl post '96 of course.
How many of the 10% carryover are full curl?
Why do we need a 5% carryover? It's not a scientifically accepted population goal that I can find. It's seems to be a random number that ESRD put in the sheep management plan. Sheep numbers are steady in the zones with less than 5% carryover and do we even trust the carryover surveys considering in many populations are only a couple individuals short to meet the goal and the accuracy of the survey is about 55%
If WMU400 is in such great shape, twice the goal of 5% carryover, why are further restrictions being placed an the ram harvest? Restriction that reduce hunter opportunity.
Common sense says it's impossible to prove a negative like why change isn't needed...the onus is on managers to prove why change is needed. If the best they can do is a faulty genetic harm theory, I'm not convinced. I anxiously await your informed and courteous response.
What tangible benefits has WMU400 seen from this 10% carryover...is horn size increasing? When comparing full curl to full curl post '96 of course.
How many of the 10% carryover are full curl?
Why do we need a 5% carryover? It's not a scientifically accepted population goal that I can find. It's seems to be a random number that ESRD put in the sheep management plan. Sheep numbers are steady in the zones with less than 5% carryover and do we even trust the carryover surveys considering in many populations are only a couple individuals short to meet the goal and the accuracy of the survey is about 55%
If WMU400 is in such great shape, twice the goal of 5% carryover, why are further restrictions being placed an the ram harvest? Restriction that reduce hunter opportunity.
Common sense says it's impossible to prove a negative like why change isn't needed...the onus is on managers to prove why change is needed. If the best they can do is a faulty genetic harm theory, I'm not convinced. I anxiously await your informed and courteous response.
Last edited:
No response to you I am afraid. I see an awful lot of threads go sideways, and you are in about 90% of them. My guess is you earn any "smarmy" remarks that might go your way. You blocked me anyway - remember?
Good questions that you should ask the bio directly, and if you were half as informed as you claim I would have thought you would have done that already.
Anyone else can ask me via PM - and I can give them my notes, or better yet put them in direct contact with the local bio. If you want to know and see it for yourself, just cut out the pontificating from the resident expert and go directly to the Bio and see if what he says makes sense. I can bet you will walk away with a better appreciation for the situation and the rationale.
Good questions that you should ask the bio directly, and if you were half as informed as you claim I would have thought you would have done that already.
Anyone else can ask me via PM - and I can give them my notes, or better yet put them in direct contact with the local bio. If you want to know and see it for yourself, just cut out the pontificating from the resident expert and go directly to the Bio and see if what he says makes sense. I can bet you will walk away with a better appreciation for the situation and the rationale.
Last edited:
This coming from the most discourteous, personal attacking, smarmiest remarking member of any forum I have belonged to. Won't even post on his buddies forum anymore.
All of these condescending comments...
And then you play the 'I take the high road' card? Honestly, I actually agree with some of your points and want more information on this issue myself- there is nothing I love more than time hunting in sheep country- but your demeanour does more damage than good to the cause... If you care so much about this, rise above the "personal attacks and smarmy remarks" and post only facts. Your condescending behaviour and insulting comments only serve to further cloud this important issue...
Hopefully you can understand that
Count down to norski getting on Google....10...9....8 You will likely want to edit your posts then
And then you play the 'I take the high road' card? Honestly, I actually agree with some of your points and want more information on this issue myself- there is nothing I love more than time hunting in sheep country- but your demeanour does more damage than good to the cause... If you care so much about this, rise above the "personal attacks and smarmy remarks" and post only facts. Your condescending behaviour and insulting comments only serve to further cloud this important issue...
I agree it would be very beneficial just to stick to the facts. I just haven't heard many yet. Lots of personal accusations and wild conspiracy theories. I'm trying to separate those from the facts with the use of the ignore button. So far it's working well. I don't have to continue to look at and perhaps inappropriately respond to the pointless personal attacks and crap spewed by a few. I find it helps uncloud the issue and hopefully allows those with some knowledge and concern for the resource to have an intelligent and respectful conversation. The ignore feature does work both ways for those that feel what I have to say is of no value.
I did get an answer to my last question but still can't find much info on the others. Thanks for any info you can shed.
I did get an answer to my last question but still can't find much info on the others. Thanks for any info you can shed.
Last edited:
