Are yo including draw zones?
Sheep Changes Coming
- Thread starter sheephunter
- Start date
Are yo including draw zones?
My calculator is saying 12.9% increase over those years(2006-2011). Hunter success has stayed around the 7% mark, so an increase of hunters on average will lead to more dead rams.
I suspect so but honestly don't know...that's the government's numbers....although I doubt the few rams killed in draw zones would significantly skew the overall average.
Actually hunter success was 9% in 1994(166 rams killed) and 7% in 2011(134 rams killed).....so harvest actually decreased. There are highs and lows in success numbers ranging from 12% to as low as 5% but if we look at the trend over time ram harvest has not increased proportionally with hunter numbers, because the harvest is limited by the curl restriction. One must be careful when looking at short snap shots in time as things like major weather events can have a significant effect on harvest....just as it has with deer in the province. One is better to look at trends over longer periods of time.
But if you look at the period 2006-2011 you cite, ram harvest actually decreased then remained steady.
2006- 161 rams
2007- 143 rams
2008- 132 rams
2009- 134 rams
2010- 137 rams
2011- 134 rams
So your premise that an increase of hunters on average will lead to more dead rams doesn't show in the actual harvest numbers.
Last edited:
I know and I'm wondering why you keep bringing up 1994 numbers and not the average over the 20 year segment?
I brought it up in response to an earlier post that cited the 90s. I could skew the number much further by using 1992 but I didn't. Check my edit above to show actual ram harvest during the years you cited and you'll see more hunters don't equal more dead rams even when using the years you selected. The facts are pretty clear if you chose to look at them.
Actually I'll post it here to make it simple:
But if you look at the period 2006-2011 you cite, ram harvest actually decreased then remained steady.
2006- 161 rams
2007- 143 rams
2008- 132 rams
2009- 134 rams
2010- 137 rams
2011- 134 rams
So your premise that an increase of hunters on average will lead to more dead rams doesn't show in the actual harvest numbers.
Patty I appreciate the fact you attended a meeting with a government bio and if what you guys are regurgitating here was what you heard there, you were spoon-fed some very leading numbers. The actual semi raw data is readily available out there and I'd highly suggest you take a look as it pokes holes in a lot of what you guys seem to be accepting as fact. This demonstrates just how important raw data is and having it looked at by numerous sets of eyes. The government is obviously trying to lead us in a direction and it's sad to see you guys limning up to follow without taking a look at the raw data yourselves. I suspect you wouldn't be so quick to jump in line if you did.
At the moment I'm just talking about the license sales and harvest data. That chart has been out for years...
Your point make no sense. Look at the actual harvest numbers Patty...harvest did not increase during the same period that you say hunter numbers increased 12.9%. I used your period in time and everything. Please don't tell me you are arguing the actual numbers......More hunters does not increase harvest....period. The actual harvest rate over the past 20 years is 7.55...during the years you cited, 2006-2011 it's 6.33%. Explain your thought process again?
Yes it has and would definitely be worth a review for you.
You'd have to buy into the genetic harm theory to buy into that. Sorry, you aren't convincing me or the majority of the scientific community on that one. I would buy into the fact that rams may be growing faster because of lower densities on winter range in WMU400 as the population is still in a recovery phase after the die off. That would fall right in line with a scientifically accepted theory.
I'm not really sure I understand your point. If the harvest continues at 6.33% it will bring down the current 20-year average.
not if there is 2200-2300 hunters.
I'm confused Patty.....2300 hunters killing 140 rams is a 6% success rate. How is adding a lower success rate into the higher 20 year average going to increase it? Am I missing something?
Not trying to convince you of anything, you can have whatever opinions you want and carry on championing your cause that's the way it goes. But just because all opinions don't line up with yours doesn't make them "spoon fed" or "regurgitating data". In fact arguments can go on forever but what is wrong with putting up a solution? Everyone has a common goal and that's more, bigger rams and some people are trying to achieve that.
It's hardly my cause...AFGA, WSFAB, APOS and SCI have opposed this in the past and are again now. I'm just one of thousands but you do raise an interesting point and that is the matter of bigger rams. You are likely right that everyone would like to see bigger rams if there were no consequences but that's not realistic. So the question becomes are we willing to give up hunting opportunity or harvest opportunity to achieve this? What the groups that represent hunters in the province seem to be saying is no. I tend to agree with them. I feel we have adequate opportunity at bigger rams for those so inclined while still offering a reasonable chance of success for the 80% that kill their first ram each year. So really, the goal isn't so common and that why the vastly differing opinions.
