Sheep Changes Coming

http://www.wsfab.org/pdfs/esrdfeb2.pdf

Some good info here from a meeting with WSFAB and ESRD. Well worth a read.

The ideal solution for ESRD would be t
o go on limited entry draw. This would produce an older
ram (2+ years
)
, would control hunting pressure and
the number of rams harvested. The idea
that Alberta sheep hunters need to have the given right to purchase a sheep tag over the
counter is one that
ESRD is hearing loud and clear
, and they are working with to find a workable
solution to this issue
.

This is VERY important.
 
Last edited:
How a full curl rule will affect the outfitting business in the province is a bigger issue to deal with and beyond the scope of WSFA.

This should not be an issue at all. Lowest on any priority list. IMHO
 
patty59 said:
I really hope people in this thread have taken the time to read through those meeting minutes I posted.
Click to expand...

As do I, along with an understanding of the past and current research offered by those proposing the regulation change.

This proposed change is not about too few rams nor hunting induced genetic selection, this is about severely restricting the hunting of mature animals. The ram#s and horn size issues are the means to effect the end goal.

Unvetted acceptance of the researchers' claims is unwise. So is believing that a full curl restriction will satisfy these people.

Kool aid or coffee, your choice.
 
walking buffalo said:
As do I, along with an understanding of the past and current research offered by those proposing the regulation change.

This proposed change is not about too few rams nor hunting induced genetic selection, this is about severely restricting the hunting of mature animals. The ram#s and horn size issues are the means to effect the end goal
Unvetted acceptance of the researchers' claims is unwise. So is believing that a full curl restriction will satisfy these people.

Kool aid or coffee, your choice.
Click to expand...

The proposed change is about shifting the harvest to an older age class of Rams to the benifit of our sheep herd. Nothing more or less. What part of Geists research do you have such a hard time believing on this topic? As someone who comes off as so "knowledgable" about sheep behaviour etc it baffles me why you are so opposed to something that obviously benifits the health of the sheep herd and will most likely lead to better sheep hunting in the future as well as keeping us from having it go on draw. I guess we will continue to disagree.
 
walking buffalo said:
As do I, along with an understanding of the past and current research offered by those proposing the regulation change.
Click to expand...

Bear in mind the research limitations, and also the general trends and ultimately the benefit of the resource in mind.

This proposed change is not about too few rams nor hunting induced genetic selection, this is about severely restricting the hunting of mature animals. The ram#s and horn size issues are the means to effect the end goal.
Click to expand...

Its about retaining more mature rams in the picture a bit longer. Herd health with a improved structure.

Unvetted acceptance of the researchers' claims is unwise. So is believing that a full curl restriction will satisfy these people.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Vetting for the sake of vetting when a general trend has been established is also unwise. Have you talked to the bio's?(I am really getting sick of asking that). I know in the south, the data in 400 shows all of their management goals are being surpassed, so it is very difficult for them to deny the success of the full curl rule as a proposal moving forward. I think this really leads to an important point though, a draw would allow them the most control and from a managers point of view would likely be much easier to deal with. I think that all sheep hunters should really think about that before they bash the full curl idea, as it is the only option that allows us to retain the ability to hunt them with a general tag.
 
I'm really surprised that its not a draw, and that general tags for sheep still exist.

Having hunted moose for many years I remember being able to hunt in many zones, that changed a long time ago and its almost all on the draw now.

however my zone of choice was one of the zones where they did away with the Antlerless draw and substituted a Calf draw this upset a lot of hunters but I for one think it has made a huge difference to the population as I see a lot of moose now, just not a lot of bulls :(

point I'm trying to make is sometimes changes may appear to be bad decisions however the end result may be positive.

just because you can buy a general tag every year is not going to help if you don't have anything to shoot.
 
norskie said:
Bear in mind the research limitations, and also the general trends and ultimately the benefit of the resource in mind.



Its about retaining more mature rams in the picture a bit longer. Herd health with a improved structure.



Agreed. Vetting for the sake of vetting when a general trend has been established is also unwise. Have you talked to the bio's?(I am really getting sick of asking that). I know in the south, the data in 400 shows all of their management goals are being surpassed, so it is very difficult for them to deny the success of the full curl rule as a proposal moving forward. I think this really leads to an important point though, a draw would allow them the most control and from a managers point of view would likely be much easier to deal with. I think that all sheep hunters should really think about that before they bash the full curl idea, as it is the only option that allows us to retain the ability to hunt them with a general tag.
Click to expand...

The background and stated goals of the researchers responsible for proposing the the regulation changes must be recognized. Jorgensen, Bianchet, Pelletier, etc have long promoted that trophy hunting must be severely restricted. The unvetted used of our harvest records ( emgargoed until aug 15, 2015) places a huge question mark on the research.

These researchers have already stated that they want sheep on a very limited draw provincewide. The full curl regulation is just a stepping stone to get there.

There is a lack of current sheep surveys in effected areas to quantify a problem. Yet these researchers will do so anyways. And people will ignorantly submit to unfounded claims.

There is no proof that there is a shortage of rams in most of the effected areas as no surveys have been done since 2011.
Yet harvest and reproduction rates are stable.... where is the problem, what is the problem?

The regulation proposal is based on two interconnected concers. Hunter induced genetic selection is responsible for a shortage of large horned rams. These are not separate issues. Believe one concern based on the limited data and you must accept the other as it is symbiotic according to the proposal.

Why won't the gov release the data used to determine the concern? What are they trying to hide?
What is the need to have these changes made now? (Besides satisfying Jorgenson's legacy desires)
During the last round of discussions the gov agreed to a research project to be completed BEFORE making any changes.
Why has the gov reneged on this agreement? A lot of financial and time resources have already been spent.


All I am suggesting is that before any changes are made that the government must allow the current research to be completed, release the data used to "prove" hunting induced genetic selection is occuring, and complete population surveys for all effected wmus. Is that too much to ask?
 
walking buffalo said:
The background and stated goals of the researchers responsible for proposing the the regulation changes must be recognized. Jorgensen, Bianchet, Pelletier, etc have long promoted that trophy hunting must be severely restricted. The unvetted used of our harvest records ( emgargoed until aug 15, 2015) places a huge question mark on the research.

These researchers have already stated that they want sheep on a very limited draw provincewide. The full curl regulation is just a stepping stone to get there.

There is a lack of current sheep surveys in effected areas to quantify a problem. Yet these researchers will do so anyways. And people will ignorantly submit to unfounded claims.

There is no proof that there is a shortage of rams in most of the effected areas as no surveys have been done since 2011.
Yet harvest and reproduction rates are stable.... where is the problem, what is the problem?

The regulation proposal is based on two interconnected concers. Hunter induced genetic selection is responsible for a shortage of large horned rams. These are not separate issues. Believe one concern based on the limited data and you must accept the other as it is symbiotic according to the proposal.

Why won't the gov release the data used to determine the concern? What are they trying to hide?
What is the need to have these changes made now? (Besides satisfying Jorgenson's legacy desires)
During the last round of discussions the gov agreed to a research project to be completed BEFORE making any changes.
Why has the gov reneged on this agreement? A lot of financial and time resources have already been spent.


All I am suggesting is that before any changes are made that the government must allow the current research to be completed, release the data used to "prove" hunting induced genetic selection is occuring, and complete population surveys for all effected wmus. Is that too much to ask?
Click to expand...

If you take the tinfoil helmet off perhaps you'll stop hearing the ghost of TJ....

The information hasn't been rolled out correctly - but then again I don't blame them for being cautious as it seems the minute they release something they get stiff opposition from the most vocal early. And this often derails the process.

IF YOU CALL THE BIO you might get access to additional information that might make you think twice. I am not going to speak for him, but until you make that call you are just going with third hand info.

The full curl rule EXCEEDS the single most important metric and the one that I was told they are really trying to meet - the desire to achieve a 5% carry over of 4/5+ rams. In fact in the 400 zone that it is implemented it doubles that. Pretty tough to justify moving it to a draw with those results.

If you look at it from a management perspective - they have been trying to adapt the sheep management plan for 20 years. The data isn't perfect. The trends are established well enough that it looks like we have a real concern. There are data to suggest full curl is a option (Geist, Heimler) that still leaves the opportunity to hunt sheep at the current levels.

I don't think I can convince you White Buffalo, and that is fine we can agree to disagree. But please talk to the bios - heck even talk to Reg with the WSFA - his notes suggest he may have a bit of a different take after seeing the recent presentation too.
 
So how did the meeting go last night? I heard they said a change is a coming and it's either full curl or a draw. I also read that they are giving the gorups until the 17th to submit their alternate proposals. I'm interested to see what WSF, AFGA and APOS(lol) come up with.

People are fooling themselves if they think this current gov in this economic climate is going to go with some convoluted plan that costs a #### load of money.
 
patty59 said:
So how did the meeting go last night? I heard they said a change is a coming and it's either full curl or a draw. I also read that they are giving the gorups until the 17th to submit their alternate proposals. I'm interested to see what WSF, AFGA and APOS(lol) come up with.

People are fooling themselves if they think this current gov in this economic climate is going to go with some convoluted plan that costs a #### load of money.
Click to expand...

If you like the opportunity to hunt sheep in this Province you better say your piece.

I agree 100% that the government is going to take the path of lowest economic impact, and barring some miracle plan or idea from someone the full curl rule is the only way we are going to be able to maintain hunter opportunity.
 
It's such a load of BS. We should just be happy and take full curl because we are scared of draw? How about stand up to ESRD and say "no". They have not provided enough proof to show a problem. They are still riding on the genetic harm theory! I say we should all just shoot young Rams next year and show that theory is false. There still are these Rams around except people are passing on them. How can they even say there are less younger faster growing sheep? They said themselves you can't age from arial servays. So they are relaying on registration data. Well maybe these sheep are being passed up on..... I now I have. What is the point in shorting all the zones south of the bow??? These people have a agenda and it's not just to get mature sheep above 5%. But your all right. Let's give them no resistance so they can feel they can walk all over our rights as hunters, it'll be easy to close sheep hunting all together with that additude.
 
No lr100 what we need to do is stick our heads in the sand and pretend like nothing is going to happen. And while we're doing that team up with the likes of APOS to fight this change while they are offering there own proposals without WSF and AFGA to the tune of steep license increases and a 5 year wait out period, oh and nothing for them since they bring in big money to this province. It's funny when everyone was saying that APOS is the greatest and really has everyon's best interest at heart, all the while some of there members were lobbying the gov for a draw. I even read a comment on the save alberta's FB page, by a well known outfitter, saying that all sheep hunts should be done through an outfitter and that residents shouldn't be able to hunt sheep every year.


WSF and AFGA need to use their ####ing heads here, but it's probably too much to ask.
 
patty59 said:
No lr100 what we need to do is stick our heads in the sand and pretend like nothing is going to happen. And while we're doing that team up with the likes of APOS to fight this change while they are offering there own proposals without WSF and AFGA to the tune of steep license increases and a 5 year wait out period, oh and nothing for them since they bring in big money to this province. It's funny when everyone was saying that APOS is the greatest and really has everyon's best interest at heart, all the while some of there members were lobbying the gov for a draw. I even read a comment on the save alberta's FB page, by a well known outfitter, saying that all sheep hunts should be done through an outfitter and that residents shouldn't be able to hunt sheep every year.
Click to expand...

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...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom