The Alberta Fish & Game Association 6924 104 Street Edmonton, AB T6H 2L7 Phone: (780) 437-2342 Fax: (780) 438-6872 Email: office@afga.org Website: www.afga.org March 24, 2015 Message to AFGA Members regarding the proposed 2016 regulation changes for Bighorn Sheep There has been much consultation and numerous meetings that have occurred since this proposal was first introduced and we have been challenged on a number of fronts to provide our assessment of the proposal, whether we agreed or disagreed, and if so on what was that decision based on and if not what would we propose as an alternative. After careful consideration, we agreed and signed on to a joint submission to the Minister of AESRD. In addition to ourselves, it was signed by The Wild Sheep Foundation of Alberta, Alberta Professional Outfitters Association, and Safari Club International. The document was sent to the Minister and the Department heads. Listed below are the comments for those that attended the March 4th meeting where all of this was discussed. They gave a deadline of March 17 th to get a response to them and that deadline was met via the joint submission mentioned above. Our AFGA Hunting Chair Ian Stewart has put together a summary of the meeting and has attached his notes and comments regarding the same. No decision on the proposal has been made as yet however we felt it important to advise you on the work that has been done thus far. Wayne Lowry President AFGA was represented at this meeting by Ian Stuart (Hunting Chair) and Neil Horvath (Leduc Fish and Game President and Zone 3 vice Director) Summary: Ultimately the reason for the changes proposed by ESRD can be reduced to whether or not we are currently harvesting more rams/young rams than is healthy for the long term sustainability of the species. The ESRD biologists believe we are harvesting an unsustainable number of rams, and that we need to reduce the total number of rams harvested. Heretofore, reducing the total number of rams harvested has not been frankly stated as the objective of proposed changes. Much effort has been expended debating the validity of data supporting the proposed change and the causes of the concern before defining the problem and the terms used. Mature, legal, trophy (3/4,/4/5, full curl?, mature ) are used interchangeably, and it is unclear to stakeholders (including the biologists, who appear as frustrated by the conflicting demands as anyone else) whether opportunity means opportunity to go hunting with a tag in one s pocket and an open season, or a realistic (as yet undefined) opportunity to harvest. These must all have common definition before meaningful debate and reaching a consensus on the path forward is possible. Stakeholder groups present were asked to indicate if they supported the proposed changes by March 17, 2015 and if not suggest an alternative. While the underlying debate has been going on for many years; absent clarity on the problem, the terms, and the objectives this time frame was and is insufficient. Page 1
AFGA Interim Position: Promoting the conservation of our natural resources, the non-commercial harvest of fish and game as a legitimate part of an overall wildlife management program; and sound long term management of Alberta s fish and wildlife in the best interest of all present and future Albertans are among the top objectives of the Alberta Fish and Game Association. Clearly, if we are in fact harvesting an unsustainable number of rams, changes are necessary and doing nothing is not an option. However, unless there is an immediate conservation concern, the AFGA cannot support the hunter harvest restrictions of full curl and shortened seasons as currently proposed prior to a very clear statement of the issue, the objectives, and the terms used. Meaningful action to enable reduced predation and reversal of habitat loss must also be part of a balanced solution, as hunter harvest is clearly not the only factor in the equation. If hunter harvest must be reduced, all options need to be on the table. Notes: The following (random) notes contain many redundancies as they are a compilation from the two attendees. We both had very similar observations, which is positive as Neil is new to this particular issue and brought a much needed level of objectivity. - The question posed as to the purpose for the meeting and answer given by Anne Hubbs (ESRD Biologist) at the beginning of the meeting was "to establish a clear definition of the problem". In our opinion unfortunately this has not been achieved. We believe there is key science missing for a clear definition of the problem as the honest answer to many of the questions asked at the meeting was that they did not know. We also do not see how the full curl and shorter season proposals alone will meet both (quality and quantity) objectives of the stated complaint. - According to ESRD the whole reason for the study and the proposed changes are as a result of complaints from hunters on the quality and quantity of big horn sheep - Following up on the stated reason for the changes, AFGA resolutions back to 2006 were reviewed by Executive Director Martin Sharren who reported: any sheep resolutions that arose dealt with draws and waiting times between getting drawn and harvesting a sheep. Nothing directly mentions improving size of horns. Doug Butler responded: as far as I know we have never had any resolution or even any feedback from members asking for the trophy status of our sheep to be increased. At many of the meetings I have attended it has been mentioned many times that our quality is decreasing but this has always originated from SRD staff. My main goal has always been resident opportunity more than anything but I have also stressed that Alberta is well known for trophy quality and we'd like to keep it that way, however I know of no push from us for anything that asks for increased trophy quality? We do, however, have correspondence from some AFGA members in the existing full curl zones that are supportive of the concept and reference improved trophy quality after several years of very low harvest. The first presentation was (hyperlink) Sheep Management Plan at Provincial Scale, by Kirby Smith. Apparently a couple of generally accepted rules of thumb and a principle of wildlife management relevant to this are that 100 sheep should produce 5 mature rams annually, and that Page 2
no more than 50% of the mature population should be harvested. (Dr. V. Geist and others support the 50% rule of thumb; the concept being that young animals learn habitat utilization, predator avoidance et cetera from the older individuals.) The key point was that the Ram Mountain study indicates <5 productivity of 3 or 4, mature rams. The conservation concern is that on a provincial basis (national parks excluded) the data indicates that we may be harvesting too many of the annual recruitment of mature rams. Using the average annual population figures provided, and year to year variation and 4 mature rams /100, calculations@95% confidence are: Bighorn Sheep Population Estimate Outside National Parks 2002-2011 Total Mature Ram Recruitment @4% 50% harvest Mean 6349 254 127 Minimum 5575 223 112 Maximum 6971 279 139 We and others have requested raw data, which would enable better analysis of the variation; it has been provided yet. (Basic Statics: Means don t mean much and show me the data is always a legitimate question ). However it is apparent that average harvest is typically closer to the total calculated recruitment than to 50% of recruitment. This would still be the case with 5% recruitment, which seems to be an accepted rule of thumb in other jurisdictions. The 3 to 4 recruitment figure derived from Ram Mountain studies may be flawed as it is an isolated population. Extrapolation when it comes to statistics is always dangerous but the only choice when insufficient data exists. (One could add that full curl and now closure on Ram Mountain has not allowed the population to recover; more evidence that we collectively do not have all the answers. Or perhaps that predation is more of a factor than acknowledged. The sighting of a cougar during one of the (winter) sheep transplants on to Ram Mountain was not discussed. (Maybe that one was a vegetarian?)) - The Ram Mountain study may suggest that artificial selection by trophy hunters is resulting in the smaller horn growth; however the data does not confirm whether it is from hunting pressure, environment, predation, or other causes, and the trophy hunting cause is not accepted by all scientists. There was much discussion on what the carrying capacity is for the sheep; the ultimate answer is that they do not really know. They did comment that the lamb/ewe ratios are an indicator to the health of the herd and that it was stable in many of the areas. A ratio of 35 lambs to 100 ewes is required to support the population. Many questions were asked as to why there have been no studies done on habitat, forest encroachment and moister/water levels. We believe this should have been one of the first items investigated completely to identify the cause of the (documented) slower growing horns. It is concerning that nutrition is downplayed over hunter selection, which is in dispute. The bio s do not know what the natural mortality rate is in many of the sheep management areas. - There a study on moisture/temperature that was presented at the last update Bighorn Sheep Resiliency Study update shows increasing temperature and reduced moisture levels in the sheep ranges. A comparison of old versus recent photos of much of the eastern slopes clearly shows the artificial (negative due to shrub/forest encroachment) impact of fire suppression Page 3
- There were questions regarding the accuracy of the aging process and how it may impact the accuracy of the data that was being shown. ESRD is aware that there are inconsistencies in the aging of rams and horn measurements; the current estimate is that as of now 25-35% of rams are aged incorrectly. However, the variation is in both directions - some are under aged and others over aged and it balances out in the mean data which we accept. The trend data does support the age increase, which would be positive if it was not correlated with declining horn mass. -ESRD will be moving ram registrations to select offices to have the aging of the animals done as previously proposed which should improve the accuracy. The Yukon Protocol, which provides much more information, will be followed. They will also be using a specialized jig for assessing the measurements (this is primarily to resolve disputes over marginal sheep). - The potential for disease is a higher concern for causing a major population crash than any other factor. They want to put into policy and legislation tools and restrictions to deal with grazing leases that border sheep areas, so that no animals that can carry pneumonia causing mycoplasma bacteria can be put on these leases. (Bison re-introduction to Banff was not discussed) There is not an issue at this point; this is more of a preemptive measure to control the issue in the future. After policy and legislation is in place provincially they will work with counties regarding bylaws to deal with private lands that border wild sheep populations. -After the furl curl rule was implemented in WMU 302 and 400 in 1995 the harvest went to almost nil until 2001. It is still not at the mean from 1971 to 2010 which is 5-8 rams/ year. After the die off of 1982 the herd went from approximately 500 to 175. It is now somewhat stable at approximately 275 from 1993-2011. Comments were made that this may suggest the current carrying capacity of the area has been reached The next presentation was by Jon Jorgenson: Trophy Sheep Management in Alberta (The link is slow to load.) This presentation also indicates that harvest of mature rams is close to or over 100% of calculated recruitment in many areas, but that message was largely lost in debate over the impact of hunter selection on horn size which J. Jorgenson cites as strongly hereditary. Dr. Boyce and others disagree with this and cite nutrition and the impact of predation as primary factors. At this point all studies have been done on rams only, there have been no studies on and the genetics ewes are contributing to horn growth, and apparently it is much harder to break down the genetics on the female side so they are only pursuing ram studies. -Aerial surveys are being conducted on average every 4 years (not because of funding, but because of sub-optimal conditions). There were questions regarding the accuracy of the aerial surveys: the answers were that the trend of the data over multiple surveys is more important than a single survey. (From a statistical standpoint this is correct, and also applies to other trends) -There were arguments that the data is incorrect and outdated for the area 4c. -Outfitters and others frequently report seeing many almost legal rams that should be legal (4/5ths) next year, and then the following year they have almost all disappeared. ESRD bio s explanation is that rams, especially young ones, will move anywhere from 30-50km or more during the year, but they can t explain why they are not showing up elsewhere. The fact that transplanted sheep often wander off to unknown areas confirms movement, but they should still be part of the population if they have not become predator scat? -The proportion of 4-5 year old rams in the harvest is decreasing provincially from.25 -.09. Harvesting no more than 50% of what is available was again cited. Page 4
- Matt Besko (ESRD Policy) requested each group to provide a position to him by March 17, stating whether we support the proposed changes, and if not provide an alternative. The reason for the March 17 date is that the ESRD Sheep Committee have a meeting on the updated sheep management plan draft which is currently in the peer (biologist) review stage. Thus far Dr Mark Boyce is the only one who has returned comments. - The debate over negative genetic selection due to hunting is almost a moot point that too much unproductive energy is spent on. Jon Jorgensen and the other Alberta sheep biologists are adamant that it is a primary factor. Others, such as Dr. Boyce and others disagree, and point to nutrition. The fact that forest encroachment due to fire suppression continues to artificially negatively alter sheep (and other) habitats, and the fact that horn size of harvested rams is decreasing in WMU s adjacent to sanctuaries supports the latter hypothesis, but if we are in fact harvesting an unstainable number of young rams the cause is only relevant to one of several actions that need to be taken. - Ultimately the entire debate can be reduced to whether or not we are currently harvesting more rams/young rams than is healthy for the long term sustainability of the species. If the answer is yes, then we have to accept reductions in the number of young rams harvested, which means less rams harvested period. I don t think that has been clearly stated by ESRD heretofore, hence the resistance to change. If the answer is yes, doing nothing is clearly not an option, and we have to accept that we are not going to know with 100% certainty what the right combination of option is. -We can all agree that full curl is one of several means of reducing the harvest of rams, younger included, that will undoubtedly accomplish that goal. But we do not (yet?) Have understanding/agreement in the hunting community that it is necessary. -The 1993 sheep management plan states that adopting full curl regulation would only be effective south of the Bow River. This line may have moved north due to the warming/drying trend that is documented from weather data; moving as far north as the Brazeau may be a watershed or two farther than is currently justifiable? (Fact: Historically few rams from the Brazeau region are recorded in the Alberta record book. Genetics, habitat, or inaccessibility? The latter of which would seem to discount hunting as a cause. ) Since the meeting, a conversation with the retired outfitter, who held the NRA Sheep permits in the Brazeau area for many years confirmed a statement by the current permit holder that very few of the rams in that area, and the 125 or so rams he had a part in harvesting were full curl; which seems to line up with the dearth of rams in the Alberta record book from that area. -We do have agreement that predation may be a factor and increasing cougar quotas may help; common sense dictates that less cougars on sheep ranges = less probability of sheep specialist cougars. ESRD has the ability and the will to increase cougar quotas in the sheep ranges and a commitment to do that will help gain support for whatever other changes may be necessary. -Habitat improvement/protection falls in a similar category as predation but is much more difficult to achieve due to the risks associated with fire. Hunters have to accept that activities Page 5
related to controlled burns as short term pain for long term gain. Organizations such as ours have tried to get that message out but probably not well enough; phone calls from outfitters and resident hunters have apparently stopped planned burns during the rare occasions when conditions are favorable. -Wildlife management is not an exact science; we collectively don t know everything and nature intervenes. That is a given we all can (or should!) Accept. Kevin Hurley of the (U.S.) Wild Sheep Foundation, a former Wyoming biologist, cautioned that: Striving for perfect should not stand in the way of moving forward with good.) -Our ESRD biologists are concerned that the downward trend of horn size and increasing age is approaching a tipping point whereby the lack of mature rams (<8 years old?) May ultimately lead to a population crash. (Populations are currently not the issue; ewes are being bred and lamb/ewe ratios are good) Sear s mandate is to protect the overall sustainability of the species first, which AFGA and others would agree with. However it is not clear to many that we are close enough to a tipping point that drastic action is required as proposed for the 2016 regulations. Can we wait for more progress on the Resilience study and the sheep management plan update? Or at least take a smaller bite? -Alberta is the only jurisdiction in North America where harvest levels of < fully mature sheep are virtually uncontrolled. Other jurisdictions have either an age restriction (thin horns), full curl rule (which allows some old rams to escape and ultimately succumb to predation or other natural causes), a draw system with limited tags, quota limits for over the counter tags or a combination thereof. - Bighorn Sheep seasons on the British Columbia side of the Continental Divide run from September 25-October 25 in the Kootenay Region, August 15-September 30 in Omineca-Peace and are for Full Curl rams. Natural movement of rams may suggest that alignment of management strategies for the continental divide population is indicated? However this was not discussed at the March 4 meeting. Page 6