I am wondering if any Canuks reading these forums are sheep bioligists or sheep experts.

What I am trying to figure out is why there is so much land here in the US that would seem suitable habitat for sheep but no sheep, which of course puts a lot of pressure on Canadian Sheep and Canadian Sheep Hunters.

Is there anythning that can be done to increase the population of wild sheep? Seems like a lot of outfits are out there than want to do this (Like NAFWS and others) but I don't hear much about it happening. I understand that there used to be a plains sheep that is now supposedly extinct. Was it really a truly differnt species, or one of the same species that just lived on flatter ground.

Do wild sheep really need to live on high mountains.

Interesting questions, 22wrf. North America's wild sheep could quite likely tolerate and thrive in a variety of habitats. They ended up in the mountains and deserts quite likely because they could adapt to the physical limititations of the habitat using several mechanisms:

1. They could tolerate high elevations in rugged landscapes.

2. They could satisfy their bioenergetic requirements using sub-optimal forage.

3. They can utilize cover, both hiding and thermal (which is lately hotly debated in biological circles) in those extreme habitats.

The above factors enable them to survive away from habitats in more favourable elevations/moisture/temp/nutrient regimes and subsequently, they can avoid predation more efficiently, both incidental and direct, better than other ungulates. They do so with little competition from other big ungulates.

However, they can be highly susceptible to human predation, depending on the stability and age-class distribution of the sheep population, the allocation of hunting opportunities to hunters, and the ability of the population to sustain a reasonable harvest of animals that ensure adequate recruitment into older age classes.

Habitat issues that limit populations are hab fragmentation, hab loss and hab alteration. Secondary effects to those of habitat can be access management, which affect the ease of which hunters can hunt a habitat, and subsequent harvest success, or illegal harvest. Through the setting of adequate hunting regs, we can limit the direct causes of population variability through human caused mortality. We can also manipulate natural predator effects to limit direct predator mortality. What is more difficult ot mitigate is the illegal hunting, as it requires a pile of enforcement dollars in remote habitats.

Another difficulty is the habitat loss, alteration and fragmentation, as it requires restoration, mitigation, prescribed-burns or whatever. That becomes a tenured responsibility.

I am not an expert on US habitats, but it could be that a) the sheep have been locally extirpated by direct mortality over many years.
B) the habitats are either not capable or currently suitable, limiting their effectiveness for a predicted positive population response from wild sheep or c)they never had sheep in them in the first place since the last glaciation 10 000 yrs ago.

I would talk to the local BLM bios to get a specific answer for any particular area you have an interest in.

So, getting to the answer in the long way,

1. yes, there's always things we can do to get good pops of sheep out on the landscape - many of the options are long term and expensive, but doable.

2. We likely had a sheep on the plains, likely a sub-species of one we have now, but they have adapted to more rigorous conditions better than other ungulates.

3.We dont "need" to have sheep in mtns and deserts, but that's likely where they will thrive better - apart from than places like the bayous.

4. I think we get well-managed pressure from hunters on Canadian sheep, as most pops are highly regulated for age class distribution and recruitment/mortality.

Hope this helps,

Can't speak for other areas in the states, but NW Wyoming has had problems with pinkeye and pneumonia in the sheep heard for some time.

oops, that's herd , not "heard"

There are some areas in Canada where the population has been altered through disease. Even with stringent controls those areas don't seem to be rebounding.

I've also heard that since the herd is led by an old ewe who follows traditional trails. If sheep are transplanted into a new area- they don't have their known trails.

It certainly would be nice though to increase their numbers wouldn't it?

the chef

I guess I don't understand why a dall sheep and a stone sheep can't live on a mountain in wyoming or montana or for that matter a little hill in Minnesota or Wisconsin.

Seems to me that if there are so many hunters that want to hunt these things, then they ought to pitch in to figure out a way to increase their range.

Dalls or stones could probably live in similar habitats in different places. You then have to contend with issues such as historical range, effects on other ungulates, capture mortality, possible introduction of diseases, genetic variability, ecosystem effects etc.. Generally biologists do not want to transplant species into areas outside their historic range. I know there's lots of exceptions to that, but i tends to be quite problematic. I would focus on re-building native species in their historic ranges. If you want Rocky Mountain Bighorns in the southern Rockies, lobby for it.

Here in Alberta I have been involved with a couple of Bighorn sheep capture projects. On a coal mine in the mountains (Cardinal river coal) the sheep get kind of tame and somewhat used to people. Thet live on a lot of reclamation areas that have great forage planted and fertalized. Anyway they are fed alfalfa hay under a drop net for awhile then a group of people arrives and the net is dropped on a bunch of sheep. They are sorted and inspected, injected, tagged, collared, blood samples taken and loaded into trailers for transport. I know that a couple of these capture efforts have gone to Nevada to an isolated mountain range that once held bighorn.
Not sure where other captures have gone.

Alberta has also provided Elk for relocation into eastern Canada and a couple eastern states. The Elk Foundation and Alberta Fish and Wildlife were involved with these relocations.

Robin

Good example of re-intro into formerly occupied historic range, Duffy.

There was also that transplant that happened in '95. Those ones went to some place in Oregon.

Graylake

i have read that one of the reasons that there is such good sheep hunting in alberta is because of the chinooks (warm wind) we get in the winter that melt the snow on the west slopes of the monutains.the ues are able to produce lots of milk in the spring because they have acess to good feed. that means that there is healthier and stronger lambs.

That is definitely part of the story. There are some beautiful winter ranges with good feed, freed up by warm chinooks, helping animals get through the winter. Many traditional winter ranges though have been taken by cattle farmers though, ski hill operators, etc. Some areas are protected, and closed off during the winter.

Some are protected year round leading to other problems. In the Sheep River area, sheep tend to stay on the winter range year round. The sheep don't migrate into the mountains in summer anymore, or less than they used to, giving a certain parasite a chance to complete some cycle, causing diseases... similar problems with elk on the Yahatinda Ranch... elk stay year round, increased grazing leads to less winter feed...

Frans

We have a captive bighorn sheep herd over at WSU and I am not involved with them in any way nor would I consider myself a sheep biologist but it is my understanding that the limiting factor in the U.S. is inbreeding depression and disease. Habitat is far too fragmented in the U.S. which limits gene flow and small sub-populations are easily wiped out from tranferable diseases from domestic livestock.

IV

Idaho

So what is the solution to those problems?

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:
Idaho

So what is the solution to those problems?

There isn't one.

You cant' buy every mountain in the west and put bighorns on it.

You can' remove all the domestic livestock.

You can't kill all the wolves.

You can't kill all the mountain lions.

Your not going to make sheep hunting an everyman sport.

If you want to hunt sheep, save your money and go. It's the only way.

There will be more sheep on the mountain, but the damn things could catch a flu virus and all die.

Eur-Asian sheep are much hardier than ours our and more resistant to disease.

Just the price we pay for living here.

We don't want dalls and stones on a mountain in the lower 48. We don't want them in the lower 48 as it's possible some could be released and mix with our native bighorns.

According to Dr Valerius Geist sheep expert and bilologist extraordnaire, there are:

80-100,000 Dall in North America
18,500 Stones
35,000 Rocky Mountain Bighorns
10,500 California Bighorns
22,000 Desert Bighorns

So that's 120,000 Thin horns and 80,000 Bighorns.



These numbers are 5 years old.

Sheep don't like preditors, domestic livestock, dogs, people, disease, or stress.

As we are now seeing on this thread, the issue of transplants is very complex, expensive and maybe more problematic than we can imagine. I think the more conservative and realistic approach to this issue is to keep healthy populations in habitats that they currently occupy or that they are ecologically capable of occupying within the context of social choice. Val Geist's data are appreciated, but it is more important to look at

1.) Do we want lots of native sheep in 'native ' habitats?

2.) Are we willing to push for transplants of different species and sub-species into areas outside their historical range?

I think the former option is more acceptable socially and ecologically. It would be nice to hunt Marco Polo Argali a few hours drive from home, but it somehow ruins the whole experience, too.

This sort of bridges into a related issue, and that is how does our social choice as hunters play into 'ecological' and economic systems when it comes to transplanting non-native species into habitats not historically occupied by that species. Private ranches in texas offer African species hunts, we stock and maintain non-native ringnecks like crazy in the mid-west, and even in Africa you can find all sorts of species moved all over the place for hunts.

As a biologist, my opinion is that we should maintain native species wherever possible on native habitats. What does everyone else say?

I have the utmost respect for Dr. Val Geist and discussed this very issue with him back in the '70s; he is one of the truely outstanding biologists of the entire history of wildlife "management" here in Canada. He also actually spent a great deal of time living alone, in the winter, in various remote parts of western Canada while conducting his studies. I have done similar stints starting about five years later and know how tough this is, so, I admire the man more than I might the lab-trained "experts" so prevalent today.

His books on Sheep are highly entertaining and very worth reading as are his more popular works on other ungulates. One of my professors in biology was quite a good friend of his and he has done "yeoman service" in conservation in Alberta and B.C. I wish that there were more like him in the field today.

I very strongly believe that introducing non-indigenous species into any given area is largely a mistake and would lobby against that here in B.C. I was just starting to work in the B.C.F.S. in the East Kootenays at the time of one of the great outbreaks of disease among the R.M. Bighorns that just devastated the population there and this was largely due to habitat degradation and the presence of "foreign" ungulates on the Bighorn range.

Given the demographics of contemporary B.C. and Alberta and the very marked social degradation as a result thereof, I am not optimistic about the longterm prospects for Bighorn hunting. I think that most hunting will go to very strictly limited "draw" opportunities only and the rare animals such as Grizzlies, Bighorns and even Shiras Moose will be totally protected.

In northern B.C., Stone's Sheep are still relatively abundant, but, here again the pressures on their habitat are growing and the herd is relatively static. I expect this to become a "draw" only situation within the near future.

Preserving B.C. wilderness and wildlife has been my primary interest in life since 1960 and I see the future as not being especially hopeful due to the enormous increase in human demands on wildlife habitat. I think that introduction of any "exotic" species would simply exacerbate the problems.

Too often, the demand for hunting/fishing opportunities leads society, including many biologists, to initiate changes in the species makeup of a given area with results that are less valuable than they had wanted. The introduction of Carp into American waters is one example and the plant "Broom" onto Vancouver Is. by the early British settlers who missed England is another. I think that Stone's Sheep wandering the "Missouri Breaks" would be as bad, but, that's a subjective, not a strictly biological judgement.

I agree with Kutenay (I never thought I would say that - but here it is). I think it is almost always a bad idea to introduce non-native species into new habitats for many of the biological reasons outlined throughout this thread. I certainly hope that there will always been hunting opportunities for species such as bighorns and grizzlies as long as populations are stable or increasing, and can sustain a regular harvest. However, as Kutenay suggests, social choice may dictate otherwise.

Val Geist's opinions on wildlife management, sadly, have fallen out of favour with many biologists over the last 10-15 years. I think he's changed his tune on a number of issues since he wrote his great works on Mule Deer and Bighorns. When I was studying at university, he was one of the lone voices speaking out against game ranches, specifically cautioning against the transmission of diseases. He was much crticized for this but 20 years later we are seeing the hard evidence of his cautions with CWD. Very interesting.

Interesting and related Announcement out of Colorado recently:
-----------------------------------

Majestic Ram Dies of Natural Causes

Colorado Bighorn Sheep Ram Among the Largest Ever Recorded

A world-class bighorn sheep ram that lived along the Arkansas River was found dead in late November. Over the past few years, the ram was spotted in a small herd of sheep that lived on private property west of Pueblo Reservoir.

Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) biologists estimate the ram was between 12 and 13 years old and was driven from the herd by younger males. At that point, he traveled north onto property owned by Fort Carson where it died of old age. A necropsy indicated heart and lung problems along with arthritis and a chest infection.

“This old guy is one for the record books,†said Allen Vitt, a terrestrial biologist from Pueblo. “Based on the initial measurements, the ram will score among the largest in the world.â€

The current Boone & Crocket world record ram is 208 and three-eighths. Scoring is done by taking a series of standardized measurements. Boone & Crocket requires that horns dry for at least 60 days before measuring, so a final score will not be calculated until February.

One thing that might prevent this sheep from becoming a new world record is that fact that one of its horns was broken off at the tip. “Brooming†is the name for the chipping and fraying of the horns. It is usually caused by fighting.

Regardless of the final score, the ram was one of the most majestic bighorn sheep recorded in Colorado.

One of the reasons this ram’s horns grew to such massive proportions is because he lived a long time in relative seclusion. There is no public access to the portion of the Arkansas River where it lived. The rocky cliffs adjacent to the river provided ample protection from predators and there was good access to forage and water.

Fort Carson military and wildlife officials discovered the ram on the southern end of their property in late August and kept a close eye on it to ensure its safety. The ram was showing signs of old age including decreased muscle mass, fatigue, and had become seemingly unafraid of humans. “We were very fortunate that personnel at Fort Carson found the ram,†said Shaun Deeney, an area wildlife manager from Colorado Springs. “Due to their vigilance, we will be able to preserve this majestic animal for future generations.†The DOW plans to have the ram mounted to use in an educational display.

“Our records indicate that bighorn sheep were first documented along the Arkansas River between Pueblo and Cañon City in the early 1990’s, said Bob Davies, a senior biologist with the DOW. “We believe the sheep migrated into the rugged cliffs along the river after transplant operations along Hardscrabble Creek in 1988.â€

Bighorn sheep are the official state mammal in Colorado. They are an extremely popular animal both for hunting and for wildlife viewing. Many areas of the state have developed wildlife viewing areas specifically for bighorns including Georgetown west of Denver and along the Arkansas River west of Cañon City.

At the time of the arrival of European settlers, bighorn sheep were very common throughout Colorado and the Rocky Mountain West. By the end of the 19th century, however, populations of bighorn sheep declined.

Although the exact cause of the decline is not fully understood, wildlife biologists believe that parasites and diseases, such as lungworm and pneumonia, may have been key factors. Other reasons included market-hunting to feed a growing population in the gold mining camps.

Over the past 50 years, the Colorado DOW has taken a proactive role in sheep management and today there are approximately 8,000 sheep roaming the mountainsides and canyon lands in the state. “Intensive management efforts began in the 1970â€s and bighorn sheep populations have been on the rise ever since,†said Davies.

In 1962, there were at least 52 known herds of bighorn sheep in Colorado ranging from the Continental Divide to Mesa Verde National Park. Today the number of herds in Colorado has more than doubled.

Photos of the bighorn sheep ram can be found by clicking on the links below or by copying the following URLs into your Internet browser address line.



http://dnr.state.co.us/imagedb/images/2342.jpg
http://dnr.state.co.us/imagedb/images/2343.jpg
http://dnr.state.co.us/imagedb/images/2344.jpg
http://dnr.state.co.us/imagedb/images/2345.jpg
http://dnr.state.co.us/imagedb/images/2346.jpg
http://dnr.state.co.us/imagedb/images/2347.jpg

Nice post Kutenay and Matt.

Nice ram, hope there are more on the mountain like him.

They call those fantastic Alberta bighorns "Alberta Argalis"

The sheep in Montana and Alberta just get bigger for some reason.

If we could build some new mountains someplace that didn't have sheep and implant High Altai Argalis, I would be all for it.

For now they can stay in Mongolia, and I can day dream about having $50K for a ram.

22WRF: Boy, if I knew the solution I would be funded for the next 30 years! But, besides the forementioned skepticism about inroducing species into non-native habitat (which could fill pages of debate beyond the scope of this question) I agree with what a few have mentioned: lobbying.

Unfortunately, land has more demands put upon it than anyone could possibly manage for. Everything is a series of trade-offs between competing interests. The more people that stand up and demand attention to the sheep herds, the more attention they will get. Bringing attention to something can be a double edged sword however, just look at the wolf issue. THEY ARE HERE TO STAY, yet many continue to try and fight them using JUNK SCIENCE and the USFWS has to spend money exposing the junk science, money that could be spent somewhere else. I always love when I hear how wolves were killed off last century with good reason.....didn't they think cigarettes were actually good for you last centeury also????? (Not to turn this into another stupid wolf thread)

As far as Dr. Geist goes, I have read many of his books and being as I study mule deer he is kind of an icon to me..........

IV

IV it's good to know you're studying Muleys - If you're in Moscow chances are you have inherited a bit of the Jim Peek legacy of science and management. I presented a paper in Nelson, BC on Mule Deer Winter Range in 1999 and the conference was big retirement shin-dig for Jim Peek. Many of his former students were there including Evie Merril who is at UofA now along with her husband, Mark Boyce, who is a quite a hunter. Small world.

The problem with ignorance re: Wolves and other organisms is probably eternal; most people make decisions about environmental issues based on very little REAL knowledge as I have seen during decades of interest/involvement in these issues.

It reminds me of a biology professor in Nelson, B.C., over 30 years ago, who openly sneered at the local attitudes concerning Grizzlies and told me, in his usual arrogant way that my ideas were essentially bullshit, whereas his, derived from reading American biologists were correct. He was from California, had never actually seen a Grizzly and spent his non-teaching time reading Sci-Fi and drinking to excess. Such are the opinions of those whose expertise is largely a form of self-delusion.

The entire practice of environmental management is determined by the social constraints of a given time/place and strict, empirical science is never a determining factor in decisions made by either politicians of bureaucrats. It is also crucial to realize that changing social attitudes can and will continue to change and very few management decisions are longterm. The hunting in the Flathead area of southern B.C. is one of the better examples of that, considered over the past 50 years.

I like lots of Wolves, Bears and everthing else; my attitudes tend toward the "green" and self-limiting for conservation instead of self-gratifying for trophies aspect of the situation. This is why I favour local control and use of resources and my experiences throughout western Canada bear this out.

I don't care for wolves in the Yellowstone eco-system but it looks like they are here to stay.

Wolves are hell on wild sheep, hopefully they won't spell the end of the big rams on the mountain in my lifetime.

22WRF-
if you are really interested in helping sheep, then join FNAWS. They do more work and spend more moeny than almost anyone realizes. Reading their magazine will answer a lot of your questions. You asked some good questions, but they have very long and complex answers. And for one thing, sport hunting mature rams in Canada does not hurt thier population. Sheep are much more "fragile" than other game animals like deer, elk, bear, whatever. They regularly have die-offs and rebound slowly. THere have never been a lot of sheep in any of their ranges anywhere around the world. It is just the nature of the animals and their enviroments. But FNAWS has done tons to transplant sheep and grow populations.

ANd if you or any one else wants to hunt sheep, there are plenty to go around. You can hunt withour drawing in a lot of places in North America.

Sheep are different. Read up on them, talk to real sheep hunters, and learn as much as you can. But first join FNAWS and help "put sheep on the mountain." (their/our slogan) THere is nothing like hunting wild sheep. Do it once and you will either be hooked for life or swear you will never do it again!

...sport hunting mature rams in Canada does not hurt their population... Oh, really?

I don't know what your personal level of experience is concerning wild Sheep and I am not sure what you mean by ...a real Sheep hunter..., BUT, many of the Canadian wildlife biologists currently involved with wild Sheep management have flatly stated opinions in recent years that contradict your point. In Alberta, one of the guys at the the University of Alberta has strongly criticised shooting mature rams due to it's negative impact on population makeup, etc.

I was born, raised and have spent my entire life in Sheep country and have witnessed, first hand, the deleterious effects of a heavy harvest of "trophy" rams in various Kootenay areas; this goes back over 40 years. This is also the case with Mountain Goats and was one of the major reasons for the almost total extirpation of Woodland Caribou, the other being massive clearcut logging.

I am and have always been strongly in favour of we Canadians GIVING wild Sheep breeding stock to you guys in the States for transplants into areas where they once roamed; in fact, this was done from the "Junction Herd" of California Bighorns some time ago. This herd is draw hunt only for we residents, but, many of us were willing to forgo some of our own opportunity to help with Sheep re-establishment in continental terms and I, for one, still am. This includes donating Bald Eagles, etc. as well....Wolves, anyone?

I have no issues with FNAWS, RMEF, etc., EXCEPT, I do not want them purchasing property in Canada OR having ANY input on hunting allocations or practices. Most of these volunteer groups have an agenda which tends to favour relatively well-off "trophy hunters" and I am absolutely adamant in respect of Canadian self-determination concerning our resources and the use thereof.

I cannot remember the name of the biologist in Alberta; his thesis is that the over-all size and vitality of the Albertan Bighorns has and is being reduced by hunting selection for the big, mature rams. I am inclined to favour a very conservative harvest based on this approach....and there are a lot more really bushwise hunters here in Canada than you seem to think, we LIVE among these animals.

quote:

Originally posted by Marc_Stokeld:
22WRF-
if you are really interested in helping sheep, then join FNAWS. They do more work and spend more moeny than almost anyone realizes. Reading their magazine will answer a lot of your questions. You asked some good questions, but they have very long and complex answers. And for one thing, sport hunting mature rams in Canada does not hurt thier population. Sheep are much more "fragile" than other game animals like deer, elk, bear, whatever. They regularly have die-offs and rebound slowly. THere have never been a lot of sheep in any of their ranges anywhere around the world. It is just the nature of the animals and their enviroments. But FNAWS has done tons to transplant sheep and grow populations.

ANd if you or any one else wants to hunt sheep, there are plenty to go around. You can hunt withour drawing in a lot of places in North America.

Sheep are different. Read up on them, talk to real sheep hunters, and learn as much as you can. But first join FNAWS and help "put sheep on the mountain." (their/our slogan) THere is nothing like hunting wild sheep. Do it once and you will either be hooked for life or swear you will never do it again!

I have been to FNAWS headquarters in Cody on a number of occasions, and actually was going to join the last time I was there last summer, but while I was in the parking lot, Just before I was going to go into the building, I was having a snack, an Apple, and I usually eat my apples by cutting them with my jackknife, and wouldn't you know it I slipped and actually cut a rather large piece of my finger off. Had to quick run over to the emergency clinic where the good folks patched me up, but I never made it back to join up. Maybe this summer I will get back there.

Anyway, it is my understanding that there was a subspecies of bighorn sheep that at one time inhabited the midwestern states before it was killed off. Those that did so should have had their balls cut off!

What got me thinking about this is a trip that I had to Jasper Park a number of years ago. I saw so many sheep next to the highway that I really couldn't almost believe it. Stopped a few times and actually had them come up to the window of the car and lick my hands. And I now think to myself, why couldn't some of those sheep be on a mountain somewhere where there currently aren't any sheep.

Surely, if Colorado can double the amount of sheep, then surely every other State and Province should be able to do the same, I would think.

This is where I think that a gift of California Bighorns from B.C. would be both ecologically appropriate and a way to gradually buildup a herd in that area for eventual hunting. These Sheep seem to do quite well in broken country with a relatively arid moisture regime and are probably very close in genetic terms to the original indigenous stock.

Sometimes, minor differences in "race" or sub-species is not hugely important in re-stocking an area such as this and it would be a project that FNAWS, the USFWS and the B.C. wildlife boffins could, and IMO should, cooperate on. This type of thing benefits everyone and especially the Sheep. California Bighorns are actually native to much of the U.S. west and this would be sound management, IMHO.

22WRF,we(hunters)are the animal lovers and protectors.Good point.

With respect to hunting mature rams, harvest has to be very tightly regulated to ensure recruitment into the older age classes. The first sign of trouble (overharvest) with any wildlife population is the absence of the mature age classes. Harvest of the mature rams must be managed to ensure that there are enough rams in the younger age classes that can be recruited to the older classes over time. The variables used to do this are subject to all sorts of uncertainty and risk. One bad winter can affect populations in a big way. Secondary effects such as predation also influences your recuitment, as well as the previously mentioned variables of disease and parasites. Illegal harvest, which is something difficult to monitor without a very intensive monitoring and enforcement program, may account for a significant amount of mortality, especially in areas where access is readily available. Biologists here in Alberta, as well as in many other jurisdictions, buffer the uncertainty by conservatively allocating hunting opportunities.

Because bighorns live in ecological systems which are highly limited by physical variables such as elevation, ruggedness, short-growing seasons, cooler temperatures, 'poorer' quality forage, etc, they tend to be more susceptible to biotic pressures. Ungulates like whitetails, conversely, are much more plastic in response to preturbations to both abiotic and biotic pressures. I remember once hunting black bears on avalanche tracks at 7500 ft. in the back end of drainages in the West Kootenays. I saw a flicker of movement on a slope that must have been 60% or more - very steep indeed. I put the binoculars up and it was a whitetail doe! I was shocked. Even the Muleys were still on their winter ranges at that time of year, but there was this whitetail hanging out with the grizzlies and the sheep.

On the other hand, Maybe, just maybe, Sheep suffer from all of the maladys that they do because they haven't been as diverse as they should be. Their lives are so remote, and so they probably inbreed, which can't be good for them. Might be a good thing to take a sheep from one band and stick it into another band, and vice versa, and get that genetic diversity that seems to help other species, like for example, Whitetail deer.

Jack O'Conor, in his classic book Sheep and Sheep Hunting, talks about a farmer he knew in Mexico that has his farm sheep actually bred by Desert Bighorn sheep. He says the offspring did well.

Question. Are the California Bighorn a genetic cross between a true bighorn and one of the thin horn varieties of sheep. I see that although they look like a bighorn they have pointed ears and a little bit different horns. Or is that a truely different species, and if so, how come there isn't a 5 Slam instead of the Grand Slam.

California Bighorns and Rocky Mountain Bighorns are sub-species. They are both bighorns, but because of geographic distribution, have developed some behavioural and morphological characteristics distinct to ehtir sub-species. Thinhorns (Dall's and Stone's)are subspecies within themselves and are a different species to that of the Bighorn.

Because the farmer's sheep and the bighorns shared the same genus, Ovis, they were able to breed. However, because they were not the same species, the offspring were sterile. They probably did well alive but were not able to producing offspring themselves.

I think that wild sheep, bacause of their habitat and behaviour, are probably more susceptible to genetic isolation than other species that withstand habitat fragmentation, alteration, loss and harrassment. However, what is genetically 'optimal' for sheep in terms of their population viability may be very different from other species. I am not a wildlife geneticist and cannot comment any further, but think that sheep can probably do just fine in isolated habitats provided that some measure of connectivity to other meta-pops is provided.

Christmas dinner is waiting and the in-laws will be here shortly..............

When I was young, I also read O'Connor and even corresponded with him. He was an entertaining professional writer, highly derivative from America's premier novelist, Mark Twain and VERY opinionated. He was a "dude" and I worked with people who had guided him as well as Warren Page during my early years in the Forest Service.

O'Connor was not an authority on Sheep and his anecdotal opinions, some of which are simply bullshit, are not in accordance with contemporary thought on wildlife management. Gun writers are enjoyable characters, at least most of them, but very few of them have much REAL bush experience or biological education. So, I would be very cautious where their opinions on wildlife genetics, for example, are concerned.

The phenotypical traits in California Bighorns you refer to are not sufficient to differentiate between them and Rocky Mountain Bighorns in specific terms, at least not to any taxonomist I know of. As to inter-breeding with other species, I don't honestly know and have never heard of this here in B.C.

I would be extremely cautious about making assumptions about the genetic variability of a given population of organisms and the wisdom of forced introduction of non-indigenous genetic strains into such a population. This type of speculative "management" has been disastrous in the past and teleogical proposals based on human desires are NOT superior to empirical science where maintenance of viable wildlife populations is concerned.

We must, IMHO, simply accept that wild Sheep are an animal that is not for everyone to hunt and I loathe the very term "Grand Slam" due to my feelings about wildlife and hunting, as well as Canadian self-determination concerning resources. I reiterate, the best way for Americans to have some, at least, wild Sheep hunting is to obtain breeding stock from us here in Canada and re-build your own herds on traditional ranges, a slow but worthwhile process.

Genetically, the small sub-populations are in very poor shape. It has been clearly established the inbreeding trajectory of many of the fragmented populations is heading toward a high probability of extinction. Mixing the genetics of the different sub-pops is something that has garnered a lot of attention as of late and the tide may be turning in their favor but it will be a few years I would guess before someone does a study focusing on this question (genetic recovery) at a broad enough range and a fine enough scale (if that makes sense) within that range to see a turnaround in heterozygosity or Fst levels. On the flip side, heterozygosity levels and Fst levels as they are currently studied (using usats) may not be as accurate an indicator of population scale genetic health as looking at genetic data from areas of the genome which are under selection. (Now I am bloviating...I hate that...)

In other words (at the risk of sounding like a self serving researcher)....more money is needed for research and management.....

IV

One of the very first things Jack O'Connor says in his book is that he is a sheep hunter and not a sheep biologist. He then goes on to recommend that if one wants a scientific bent on what he has to say one should read the work of of Valeriest Guist, specifically "Mountain Sheep, A Study in Behavior and Evolution".

I think that Jack hunted bighorn sheep enough, and talked with enough biologists and others who knew sheep, that some of his ancedotal opinions are very much worthwhile.
I have no problems with Canadians self determining what they do with their sheep. What I want is to see more sheep in the U.S. so that we don't have to go outside of the U.S. to hunt them.

quote:

Because the farmer's sheep and the bighorns shared the same genus, Ovis, they were able to breed. However, because they were not the same species, the offspring were sterile. They probably did well alive but were not able to producing offspring themselves.
......

Ok, your slightly mistaken. Your right sheep are order Artiodactila, sub order ruminatia, family bovidae, genus ovis, and then sheep are broken down into 6 more species Argalis, Mouflons and domestic sheep, Bighorn sheep, Thinhorn sheep, Asian bighorns, and Urials and countless more subspecies.

Now said that, all sheep can crossbreed and have fertile babies. The infertility that happens 9 out of 10 times with horses and donkeys doesn't happen with sheep.

While living in New Mexico in the late 1980s, I had a herd of mouflon, bighorn, red sheep crosses. We had two rams that were brown and hand white rump patches and heavy horns that they had to broom to see. They looked like they were 100% bighorn but the guy that we bought them from said they were 3/4s.

Anyway we never had a problem with fertility. We have also crossed red sheep on Wiltshire horn sheep (an old English hair sheep breed) to make a bigger trophy animal.

I had never even heard of this before in sheep. Where did you get the infertility information? Some sheep biologist professor who never looked into and tought it as gospel even though he didn't really know.

I knew a really nice guy that was a bear biologist in Montana. He told me that within a few months of field study everything his U Of Montana professors had tought him about bears was debunked as bullshit.

The man spent about 200 days a year in the field doing research, the problem is this guy wasn't making management decisions with the Game and Fish or Federal Fish and Wildlife agencies. I know there are some really intellegent biologist and zoologist who have spent countless hours in the field doing reasearch. But those people are small in numbers. Most "experts" have spent 2 weeks a year doing research, and the rest attending class of someone else that never spent any real time in the field.

My mistake on the sheep crosses. I'm so used to working with the other ungulates that I forget who does what. I've encountered many managers and bios who do little field work as well, and can appreciate the frustration.

My copy, quite well-thumbed, of Dr. Val Geist's book, "Mountain Sheep, etc." is the 1974 edition. I got the info. on the book from Val, himself, at David Thompson University, when he gave a presentation there while I was still living at home, in Nelson. I know quite a number of the wildlife biologists and foresters here in B.C., this includes a couple of the Chief Foresters of B.C., a former Director of the B.C. Wildlife Branch and have met and discussed these and related issues with both Dr. McTaggert-Cowan and Dr. Vlad. Krajina.

I spent many years of my life where I would spend 120-175 days in a row, alone, working in some of the most isolated wilderness of both B.C. and Alberta and also spent multiple day periods in the bush on recreational trips during those same years. I have been going into Sheep, Grizzly and so forth country for 50 years this coming spring and may actually know just a bit about this topic, based on this level of actual experience.

I kinda think that I might just be capable of judging the relevance and worth of a popular writer's opinions on topics concerning B.C. wildlife and, oddly enough, so are the Canadian wildlife biologists I know and have worked with. If, you can point out a technical error in my posted opinions based on your experience, please do so, but, I doubt that you have anywhere close to the level of mountain experience in western Canada that I do or the level of biological knowledge that MattB does.

If, you did not want opinions from those of us who live and work in Sheep country, why did you ask? Jack O'Connor was a joke among the guides that I knew who worked in the parties that he was in here in B.C. and Alberta; he was derisively known as "Free Hunt O'Connor" and his egotism, mediocre shooting and self-aggrandizing bullshit provided mirth for many a old bushwhacker....see Andy Russell's comments for just one example.

If, there are biologists out there who are full of crap due to exposure to university profs only; they do not last very long here in B.C. or Alberta. The competition for the very few government positions and for any academic posts is ferocious and "peer review" as well as public pressure for results weeds out the very infrequent incompetents quickly. Most of the people in the profession deliberately shun the limelight, for some strange reason they view themselves as scientists, not entertainers of self-styled hunting experts who want to use their reputations to further a given agenda...this has happened to a friend of mine, whom MattB probably knows, Dr. B.F., the former Principal of Selkirk and Malaspina (?)

If, you met Val Geist, the first thing you would notice is that he is a very precise speaker and a rather humble, even slightly shy man. Those biologists who publish popular material at a very young age are usually those whose peers have little respect for their "accomplishments", a certain Dr. David S. comes to mind. Anyway, read O'Connor, he was very entertaining and requires only a slight suspension of belief in reality to "learn" from.

As to more Sheep in the U.S., I have already stated what I think is the best method to accomplish this and would actively support a gift of breeding stock from B.C. to the U.S. THIS is where you would be wise to put your efforts into FNAWS and lobbying your political boffins; the current B.C. government is likely to be open to such a situation as would most knowledgable bushwhackers here. But, when the N.D.P., aided by the Green Party forms a government and they will, (gag), ALL non-resident hunting and much of the resident hunting will be eliminated, so, do it now when we might be able to get some Bighorns into the US for you to re-build your herds from.

Kutenay, your comments are very relevant and very much appreciated. One thing I've learned in my short career (14 yrs.) as a wildlife biologist in 3 provinces, is that everybody is a self-professed expert on wildlife and wildlife management. As a government official, one is especially vulnerable to criticism as he/she holds some measure of the public trust. That's not necessarily a bad thing, either. Many of my colleagues, both young and old, have deliberately shunned the spotlight, as Koots says, because of this criticism. I don't think it is in the public's best interest to stuff our heads into the sand, and neither do I think we should be the scapegoats to the world's wildlife problems. We usally take empirically based information and a good deal of intuition, feed it to the statutory decision makers, and they base the final verdict on that coupled with social, economic and political realities. Sometimes it works for us, sometimes it doesn't.

As for the academics, I could not do my job without them. They are the idea people, the researchers, the catalysts for change on the landscape. Like everyone, some are good, and some are not. Yes it takes fieldwork, but it also takes good ideas and thoughtful consideration of theory as well. To parralel, I know alot of field people who know alot or little, depending on what they've done and where they've done it. We all make errors. I've learned from very simple people and very complex people.

And yes Koots, I know who you speak of, as well as the former director of wildlife as well, who taught me alot too.