Sheep Changes Coming
- Thread starter sheephunter
- Start date
That begs more questions.
Are the target goals reasonable?
Is the a basis in science for the target goals?
Is there sufficient data to assess why target goals are not being met?
Is the data reliable?
It seems in many cases the answers are no. If what ESRD is proposing was a peer-reviewed Masters thesis....you can bet those questions would be asked. Why should we treat this any differently?
Thank you LBL. I wanted to do this but it would have been a waste of time, since I'm being ignored.
All these quotes from this thread only. Imagine how many out of his 5650 or so posts.....
Guido,
and in the same time some want free for all in the territories for non-residents go figure...
enjoy your day.
Phil
PS: LBL you have done a great information work and what not to do if you dont want the rubber sling back to your face and with a great way i love it ...
and in the same time some want free for all in the territories for non-residents go figure...
enjoy your day.
Phil
PS: LBL you have done a great information work and what not to do if you dont want the rubber sling back to your face and with a great way i love it ...
Yes Phil, it is pretty easy to see who wants butter on both sides of his slice of bread.
Well at least if he puts everyone on ignore he can argue with himself about why his opinion has more merit than the whole group of Alberta's sheep biologists. Funny you run to find American Bio's with no direct experience with our terrain, fauna and populations to try to "derive" data to support your opinion. I am sure these guys have valid information about sheep management in their respective areas, but to suggest these Bios using populations of flat land sheep with disease from overlap with domestic sheep as a better case study than the data set we have on our sheep collected over 35 years is profoundly ridiculous. You only do that when there isn't any more room to move the goal posts. And I think most can see past the smoke, mirrors and extremely thick layer of bullsh!t.
And medvedqc, keep fighting to keep your wildlife resources front and centre. I was fortunate to go there for a caribou a few years ago - a great place and would hate to see external interests have any say over its management.
And medvedqc, keep fighting to keep your wildlife resources front and centre. I was fortunate to go there for a caribou a few years ago - a great place and would hate to see external interests have any say over its management.
Dear ..........
Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding your concerns with proposed
changes to bighorn sheep hunting in certain wildlife management units in Alberta.
The Government of Alberta's first priority is to ensure that we maintain healthy and
viable bighorn sheep populations, which will sustain high quality hunting opportunities
throughout the sheep range in Alberta. Trophy bighorn sheep are a limited resource,
and proposed changes to management are required to meet bighorn sheep
conservation needs and provide sustainable hunting opportunities.
Proposed changes will reduce the overall harvest of rams, as well as reduce the
number of four and five-year-old rams being harvested. The proposed change to only
permit hunting of full curl rams, and to prohibit harvest of four fifth curl, aims to help fastgrowing
rams reach ###ual maturity and reproduce before being harvested. This
measure is proven to have worked in WMUs 302 and 400 when implemented in 1996.
While harvest initially declined, within a few years trophy rams were again being
successfully harvested in these areas. Our department hopes to see a similar
sustainable harvest of mature rams in these additional hunting areas.
Environment and Sustainable Resource Development also proposes to shorten the
hunting season in WMUs 302 and 400, as we expect hunting pressures to increase in
these areas with fewer opportunities in other areas. The shortened season will occur at
the end of October when rams are more susceptible to hunting pressures due to the
breeding season. The shortened season would be a temporary measure until full curl
rams are harvested elsewhere.
Sincerely,
Kyle Fawcett
Minister
Temporary measures by the government are very seldom temporary.
__________________
Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding your concerns with proposed
changes to bighorn sheep hunting in certain wildlife management units in Alberta.
The Government of Alberta's first priority is to ensure that we maintain healthy and
viable bighorn sheep populations, which will sustain high quality hunting opportunities
throughout the sheep range in Alberta. Trophy bighorn sheep are a limited resource,
and proposed changes to management are required to meet bighorn sheep
conservation needs and provide sustainable hunting opportunities.
Proposed changes will reduce the overall harvest of rams, as well as reduce the
number of four and five-year-old rams being harvested. The proposed change to only
permit hunting of full curl rams, and to prohibit harvest of four fifth curl, aims to help fastgrowing
rams reach ###ual maturity and reproduce before being harvested. This
measure is proven to have worked in WMUs 302 and 400 when implemented in 1996.
While harvest initially declined, within a few years trophy rams were again being
successfully harvested in these areas. Our department hopes to see a similar
sustainable harvest of mature rams in these additional hunting areas.
Environment and Sustainable Resource Development also proposes to shorten the
hunting season in WMUs 302 and 400, as we expect hunting pressures to increase in
these areas with fewer opportunities in other areas. The shortened season will occur at
the end of October when rams are more susceptible to hunting pressures due to the
breeding season. The shortened season would be a temporary measure until full curl
rams are harvested elsewhere.
Sincerely,
Kyle Fawcett
Minister
Temporary measures by the government are very seldom temporary.
__________________
Last edited:
Curious to why yoiu think the answers to those questions is a no?
I guess it goes back to my original questions that no one wanted to tackle and a few absolutes that ESRD seems to be ignoring. I'll be a bit more specific.
1) What is the scientific basis for the 5% carryover goal?
2) What are the number of full curl rams in the 10% carryover in WMU400?
3) Has horn size increased in WMU400 since 1996?
4) Are our age and horn length measurements accurate?
5) Are population survey methods accurate enough to determine the 5% carryover goal in areas that are only missing one or two individuals?
6) Is shrinking horn size hunter related
7) Are we at carrying capacity or high population densities on much winter range?
8) Has science proven that these conditions can cause shrinking horn size?
9) Do we have a accurate assessment of lamb survival in Alberta.
10) Has science proven that trophy hunting in Alberta causes shrinking horn size?
11) Are overall sheep populations in Alberta stable and healthy?
From my research the answers seem to be:
1) Can't find any other than it's a number ESRD uses in management plan
2) No one seems to know
3) Can't get an answer
4) Definitely not
5) Definitely not
6) Doubtful
7) Yes
8) Yes
9) No
10) No, quite the opposite in fact
11) Absolutely
I'd appreciate any info you can share on these thoughts.
Last edited:
When you say "no one wanted to tackle" who are you talking about? I hpoe it's not some people on the internet. I'm sure if you called the local bio they would help you with your questions. You might not like the answers you get though. They are pretty open and this stuff isn't a secret. It's out there, you might just have to put in a little more effort talking to the right people and talking to them directly, not second hand.
I've talked to plenty of people including our province's managers and there are no answers to some of those questions...the research has not been conducted. As I say, I'm certainly open to being educated but it just seems as though there are some huge holes in our bighorn research in this province that should be considered before making sweeping changes to hunting regulations based on little more than a flawed genetic harm theory. Perhaps Kneteman's study will shed light on a few of the questions but the Government seems unwilling to wait for him to complete his resiliency study before pushing forward with change.
If as you say the answers are out there....show me where because after extensive research by myself and dozens of others, we couldn't locate it. Perhaps you are more in the loop. Please educate me. Let's take an easy one....how many of the 10% carryover in WMU400 are full curl rams? Heck, fill in any of the holes I've pointed out. Please, share your knowledge that your extra effort has granted you. I'm all about learning more.
Last edited:
That question is irrelevant to the sheep management plan, that's probably why their not tracking and have no answer for you. But, there are roughly 6-10 full curl rams per year shot in 400 and I can't remember the exact number of 4/5 rams they counted in 400, I think it was around 30 or so? By using math you could probably get a ball park number.
I'm just not sure where you're going with this one?
I'm just not sure where you're going with this one?
First you tell me the info is out there and now you tell me it isn't? What is it? Where I'm going is there is loads of info that no one knows...stuff that is critical to proper sheep/hunter management. You keep saying it's out there and I need to dig harder but the fact remains there are no answers to some of those questions and you don't know either...no one does. While I appreciate your coy dodging of the unknown, I'm not certain what purpose it serves other than you not having to admit you don't know something. If this really all about info sharing...let's share it and be willing to say there are some things that no one knows that we should know. Your blind faith in the government is terrifying when these changes are based on a flawed genetic harm theory that the rest of the scientific community has crapped on. Let's stop the coy games Patty and have a frank discussion about what we know and what we don't but should. Your games are getting tiring. Let's look at the big picture here...proper sheep and hunter management....based on sound science....not some cockamamie genetic harm theory. How can you even say what is and isn't relevant to the sheep management plan. Have you seen the new one. My understanding is that's it's out for peer review before being released. Are you part of that panel or is this just more of you claiming to know something that you don't?
According to what I've been told that would be a serious breech of ethics by whoever shared it with you...interesting...I'll have to make a few calls and see why no one else has been privy. I know many people that have been asking to see it before it's adopted but have been denied.
WTF are youtalking about? I have asked questions and got answers. Everyone has seen the proposals, it's what this whole thread is about???
