Management Plan for Bighorn Sheep in Alberta

Wildlife Management Series Number Wildlife Management Branch

June 25, 2015

Pub. No. ISBN No. XXXXXXXXX (Printed Edition) ISBN No. XXXXXXXXX (On-line Edition)

Copies of this report are available from: Information Centre Alberta Environment and Parks Main Floor, Great West Life Building 9920-108 Street Edmonton, Alberta T5K 2M4 (780) 422-2079

The Alberta Environment and Parks Web Site: aep.alberta.ca

Preface

This plan represents the Department’s goals, objectives and management strategies for the management of bighorn sheep in Alberta. It will periodically be reviewed and updated as necessary. Implementation will be subject to priorities established during the budgeting process. This plan includes historical information up to the winter of 2012-2013. Note: for the purposes of this publication, information is presented in a format that corresponds to fiscal years. Data for the year 2010, for example, corresponds to April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ...... 9 Executive Summary ...... 10 1.0 Introduction ...... 12 2.0 Background ...... 13 2.1 Biology, Ecology and Life History Traits ...... 13 2.1.1 Description ...... 13 2.1.2 Social Structure ...... 13 2.1.3 Habitat ...... 13 2.1.4. Parasites and Disease ...... 16 2.1.5 Population Dynamics ...... 22 2.1.6 Predation ...... 24 2.2 Current Status in Alberta ...... 26 2.2.1 Sheep Numbers and Distribution ...... 26 2.2.2 Hunting ...... 41 2.2.3 Non-consumptive Use ...... 86 2.2.4 Transplants ...... 86 2.2.5 Data Collection Guidelines ...... 87 2.2.6 Economic Aspects ...... 87 2.3 Summary and Management Challenges ...... 88 3.0 Management Plan ...... 91 3.1 Policy Framework ...... 91 3.1.1 Resource Protection ...... 91 3.1.2 Resource Allocation ...... 91 3.1.3 Recreational and Educational Use ...... 91 3.1.4 Commercial Use ...... 91 3.1.5 Protection of Private Property ...... 91 3.2 Management Goals and Objectives ...... 92 3.2.1. Business Goals of Alberta Environment and Parks (2015–2020) ...... 92 3.2.2. Goals, Objectives, Indicators, Targets for Bighorn Sheep ...... 93 3.3 Management Strategies ...... 98 3.3.1 Population Management ...... 98 3.3.2 Resource Allocation ...... 101 3.3.3 Resource Protection ...... 103 3.3.4 Data Collection ...... 104 3.3.5 Managing Commercial Use ...... 105 3.3.6 Managing Unlicensed Harvest ...... 105 3.3.7 Managing Non-Hunting Mortality ...... 105 3.3.8 Managing Scientific and Educational Use ...... 105 4.0 Management Plan Application ...... 107 4.1 Provincial Summary ...... 107 4.2 Regional Perspectives ...... 107 4.2.1 South Saskatchewan ...... 107 4.2.2 North Saskatchewan ...... 108 4.2.3 Upper Athabasca ...... 108 4.2.4 Upper Peace ...... 109 5.0 Literature Cited ...... 110 6.0 Appendices ...... 123

List of Tables

Table 1. Documented mortality events in Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in Alberta...... 20 Table 2. Selenium Concentrations (ug/g) in Blood of Bighorn Sheep Populations from Western North America (summary to 2006)...... 21 Table 3. Sheep Management Areas (SMA’s), winter ranges and estimated preseason populations of bighorn sheep in Alberta, 2013...... 31 Table 4. Estimated populations of bighorn sheep in North America, 2008.a ...... 33 Table 5. Bighorn hunting seasons for Alberta during 1887-1906...... 41 Table 6. The bighorn sheep kill recorded for Alberta during 1909-1924...... 42 Table 7. Success of being drawn and of harvesting a non-trophy sheep in Alberta by Wildlife Management Unit (WMU), 2012...... 76 Table 8. Goals, objectives, indicators and targets for bighorn sheep...... 94

List of Figures

Figure 1. Bighorn sheep observed during winter aerial surveys of native range in WMU’s 437 and 438 (light bars) vs. ground counts on reclamation on the Teck Coal and Gregg River Resources Ltd. coal mines (dark bars), 1972 – 2013 (ground counts provided by Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd.)...... 15 Figure 2. Visible scabs associated with contagious ecthyma in Ram Mountain population, early 1990s. . 19 Figure 3. Horn core erosions in rams from Cadomin population, ongoing since late 1990s...... 19 Figure 4. Comparison of actual spring numbers of sheep (dark bars) vs. the previous winter’s aerial survey results (light bars) for bighorn sheep at Ram Mountain, Alberta (1975 – 2010)...... 27 Figure 5. Bighorn Sheep Management Areas (SMA’s) in Alberta. Numbers correspond to the SMA numbers in Table 1. (Bow Valley-Ghost = SMA 4A; Clearwater-Ram = SMA 4B; Nordegg- Chungo = 4C) ...... 29 Figure 6. Pre-hunting season estimates of bighorn sheep populations in Alberta outside of National Parks, 1971 – 2013 (partial surveys were not included). (Includes trend line, equation and R2 value.) .. 30 Figure 7. Pre-season population estimates (winter aerial survey results +20% lambs) of SMA 1 (1971- 2010)...... 34 Figure 8. Pre-season population estimates (winter aerial survey results + 20% lambs) of SMA 2 (1988- 2005). (Includes trend line, equation and R2 Value.) ...... 34 Figure 9. Pre-season population estimates (winter aerial survey results + 20% lambs) of SMA 3 (1971 – 2011). (The die-offs only affected the Sheep River herd which represents about 12% of the SMA total.) ...... 34 Figure 10. Pre-season population estimates (winter aerial survey results + 20% lambs) of SMA 4A (1971- 2011)...... 34 Figure 11. Pre-season population estimates (winter aerial survey results + 20% lambs) of SMA 4B (1980 – 2015)...... 35 Figure 12. Pre-season population estimates (winter aerial results + 20% lambs) of SMA 4C (1972 – 2015)...... 35 Figure 13. Pre-season population estimates (based on the greater number from either the aerial survey or ground count from Ram Mtn. + 20% lambs) of SMA 5 (1972 – 2011). (See Figure 4 for a comparison of aerial survey results vs actual ground counts on Ram Mtn.) ...... 35 Figure 14. Pre-season population estimates (winter survey results + 20% lambs) of SMA 6 (1972 – 2013)...... 35 Figure 15. Pre-season population estimates (winter aerial survey results + 20% lambs) of SMA 7 (1972 – 2014)...... 36 Figure 16. Pre-season population estimates (winter aerial survey results + 20% lambs) of SMA 8 (1972 – 2011). (Includes trend line, equation and R2 value)...... 36 Figure 17. Lambs:100 ewes observed during composite aerial surveys of SMA 1 (1971-2011)...... 38 Figure 18. Lambs:100 ewes observed during composite aerial surveys of SMA 2 (1971-2005)...... 38 Figure 19. Lambs:100 ewes observed during composite aerial surveys of SMA 3 (1972-2015)...... 38 Figure 20. Lambs:100 ewes observed during composite aerial surveys of SMA 4B (1971-2011)...... 38 Figure 21. Lambs:100 ewes observed during composite aerial surveys of SMA 4C (1972-2015)...... 39 Figure 22. Lambs:100 ewes observed during composite aerial surveys of SMA 6 (1972-2013)...... 39 Figure 23. Lambs:100 ewes observed during composite surveys of native range vs. coal mines in SMA 6 (1994-2013)...... 39 Figure 24. Lambs: 100 ewes observed during composite aerial surveys of SMA 7 (1972-2014)...... 40 Figure 25. Lambs: 100 ewes observed during composite aerial surveys of SMA 8 (1980-2014)...... 40 Figure 26. Lamb:100 ewe (2 year old +) ratios in June and late the following winter relative to the number of ewes (2 year old +) on Ram Mountain, AB (1975 – 2012). (The thresholds of recruitment are necessary to maintain stability in herd size)...... 45

Figure 27. Lamb, ewe and ram annual survival at Ram Mountain, AB relative to the total summer population (1975 – 2012)...... 46 Figure 28. Resident trophy sheep hunter harvest and license sales in Alberta (1971-2014)...... 49 Figure 29. Non-resident trophy sheep hunter harvest and permit allocations utilized (1973–2014)...... 50 Figure 30. Non-trophy bighorn sheep licences sold and estimated harvest in Alberta (1966-2013)...... 50 Figure 31. Proportion of harvest by Non-Residents in SMAs 4a, 4b, and 4c (1990-2014)...... 52 Figure 32. Proportion of harvest by Non-residents in SMAs 6, 7 and 8 (1990-2014)...... 52 Figure 33. Licenced trophy bighorn sheep harvest in Alberta from 1971 – 2014 [includes resident (both general and limited entry hunt) and non-resident, but not native harvest]...... 54 Figure 34. Resident trophy sheep hunter success (general, not limited entry hunt) in Alberta (1971- 2014)...... 54 Figure 35. Non-resident trophy sheep hunter success in Alberta (1971-2014)...... 55 Figure 36. Trophy bighorn sheep harvest in SMA 1 (1971 – 2014)...... 56 Figure 37. Trophy bighorn sheep harvest in SMA 2 (1971 – 2014)...... 56 Figure 38. Trophy bighorn sheep harvest in SMA 3 (1971 – 2014)...... 56 Figure 39. Trophy bighorn sheep harvest in SMA 4A (1971 – 2014)...... 56 Figure 40. Trophy bighorn sheep harvest in SMA 4B (1971-2014)...... 57 Figure 41. Trophy bighorn sheep harvest in SMA 4C (1971 – 2014)...... 57 Figure 42. Trophy bighorn sheep harvest in SMA 5 (1971 – 2014)...... 57 Figure 43. Trophy bighorn sheep harvest in SMA 6 (1971 – 2014)...... 57 Figure 44. Trophy bighorn sheep harvest in SMA 7 (1971 – 2014)...... 58 Figure 45. Trophy bighorn sheep harvest in SMA 8 (1971-2014)...... 58 Figure 46. Resident trophy bighorn sheep harvest and mean age of harvested rams by 1 week intervals in SMA 1 (1971 – 2009). (Week 1 = August, Week 2 = Sept. 1 – 7, Week 3 = Sept. 8 – 14, Week 4 = Sept. 15 – 21, Week 5 = Sept, 22 – 30, Week 6 = Oct. 1 – 7, Week 7 = Oct. 8 – 14, Week 8 = Oct. 15 – 21, Week 9 = Oct. 22 – 30)...... 60 Figure 47. Resident trophy bighorn sheep harvest and mean age of harvested rams by 1 week intervals in SMA 2 (1971 – 2009). (Week 1 = August, Week 2 = Sept. 1 – 7, Week 3 = Sept. 8 – 14, Week 4 = Sept. 15 – 21, Week 5 = Sept, 22 – 30, Week 6 = Oct. 1 – 7, Week 7 = Oct. 8 – 14, Week 8 = Oct. 15 – 21, Week 9 = Oct. 22 – 30)...... 60 Figure 48. Resident trophy bighorn sheep harvest and mean age of harvested rams by 1 week intervals in SMA 3 (1971 – 2009). (Week 1 = August, Week 2 = Sept. 1 – 7, Week 3 = Sept. 8 – 14, Week 4 = Sept. 15 – 21, Week 5 = Sept, 22 – 30, Week 6 = Oct. 1 – 7, Week 7 = Oct. 8 – 14, Week 8 = Oct. 15 – 21, Week 9 = Oct. 22 – 30)...... 61 Figure 49. Resident trophy bighorn sheep harvest and mean age of harvested rams by 1 week intervals in SMA 4A (1971 – 2009). (Week 1 = August, Week 2 = Sept. 1 – 7, Week 3 = Sept. 8 – 14, Week 4 = Sept. 15 – 21, Week 5 = Sept, 22 – 30, Week 6 = Oct. 1 – 7, Week 7 = Oct. 8 – 14, Week 8 = Oct. 15 – 21, Week 9 = Oct. 22 – 30)...... 61 Figure 50. Resident trophy bighorn sheep harvest and mean age of harvested rams by 1 week intervals in SMA 4B (1971 – 2009). (Week 1 = August, Week 2 = Sept. 1 – 7, Week 3 = Sept. 8 – 14, Week 4 = Sept. 15 – 21, Week 5 = Sept, 22 – 30, Week 6 = Oct. 1 – 7, Week 7 = Oct. 8 – 14, Week 8 = Oct. 15 – 21, Week 9 = Oct. 22 – 30)...... 62 Figure 51. Resident trophy bighorn sheep harvest and mean age of harvested rams by 1 week intervals in SMA 4C (1971 – 2009). (Week 1 = August, Week 2 = Sept. 1 – 7, Week 3 = Sept. 8 – 14, Week 4 = Sept. 15 – 21, Week 5 = Sept, 22 – 30, Week 6 = Oct. 1 – 7, Week 7 = Oct. 8 – 14, Week 8 = Oct. 15 – 21, Week 9 = Oct. 22 – 30)...... 62 Figure 52. Resident trophy bighorn sheep harvest and mean age of harvested rams by 1 week intervals in SMA 5 (1971 – 2009). (Week 1 = August, Week 2 = Sept. 1 – 7, Week 3 = Sept. 8 – 14, Week 4 = Sept. 15 – 21, Week 5 = Sept, 22 – 30, Week 6 = Oct. 1 – 7, Week 7 = Oct. 8 – 14, Week 8 = Oct. 15 – 21, Week 9 = Oct. 22 – 30)...... 63

Figure 53. Resident trophy bighorn sheep harvest and mean age of harvested rams by 1 week intervals in SMA 6 (1971 – 2009). (Week 1 = August, Week 2 = Sept. 1 – 7, Week 3 = Sept. 8 – 14, Week 4 = Sept. 15 – 21, Week 5 = Sept, 22 – 30, Week 6 = Oct. 1 – 7, Week 7 = Oct. 8 – 14, Week 8 = Oct. 15 – 21, Week 9 = Oct. 22 – 30, Week 10 = Nov.)...... 63 Figure 54. Resident trophy bighorn sheep harvest and mean age of harvested rams by 1 week intervals in SMA’s 7 & 8 (1971 – 2009). (Week 1 = August, Week 2 = Sept. 1 – 7, Week 3 = Sept. 8 – 14, Week 4 = Sept. 15 – 21, Week 5 = Sept, 22 – 30, Week 6 = Oct. 1 – 7, Week 7 = Oct. 8 – 14, Week 8 = Oct. 15 – 21, Week 9 = Oct. 22 – 30)...... 64 Figure 55. Ram harvest expressed as a percent of the preseason population for SMA 1 (1971 – 2014). (The preseason population is based on the most recent survey and the black line illustrates the average proportion of the preseason population that ram harvest represents for the time period). 66 Figure 56. Ram harvest expressed as a percent of the preseason population for SMA 2 (1971 – 2014). (The preseason population is based on the most recent survey and the black line illustrates the average proportion of the preseason population that ram harvest represents for the time period). 66 Figure 57. Ram harvest expressed as a percent of the preseason population for SMA 3 (1971 – 2014). (The preseason population is based on the most recent survey. Black line illustrates the average proportion of the preseason population that ram harvest represents for the time period)...... 67 Figure 58. Ram harvest expressed as a percent of the preseason population for SMA 4A (1971 – 2014). (The preseason population is based on the most recent survey and the black line illustrates the average proportion of the preseason population that ram harvest represents for the time period) 67 Figure 59. Ram harvest expressed as a percent of the preseason population for SMA 4B (1971 – 2014). (The preseason population is based on the most recent survey and the black line illustrates the average proportion of the preseason population that ram harvest represents for the time period). 68 Figure 60. Ram harvest expressed as a percent of the preseason population for SMA 4C, (1971 – 2014). (The preseason population is based on the most recent survey. Black line illustrates the average proportion of the preseason population that ram harvest represents for the time period...... 68 Figure 61. Ram harvest expressed as a percent of the preseason population for SMA 5 (1971 – 2014). (The preseason population is based on the most recent survey. Black line illustrates the average proportion of the preseason population that ram harvest represents from 1971 – 1994)...... 69 Figure 62. Ram harvest expressed as a percent of the preseason population for SMA 6 (1971 – 2014). (The preseason population is based on the most recent survey. Black line illustrates the average proportion of the preseason population that ram harvest represents for the time period)...... 69 Figure 63. Ram harvest expressed as a percent of the preseason population for SMA 7 (1971 – 2014). (The preseason population is based on the most recent survey. Black line illustrates the average proportion of the preseason population that ram harvest represents for the time period)...... 70 Figure 64. Ram harvest expressed as a percent of the preseason population for SMA 8, (1971 – 2014). (The preseason population is based on the most recent survey. Black line illustrates the average proportion of the preseason population that ram harvest represents for the time period)...... 70 Figure 65. Mean trophy bighorn sheep hunter effort in Alberta by Wildlife Management Unit based on email surveys of resident trophy sheep license holders (2011 – 2013)...... 72 Figure 66. The average age of rams harvested in Alberta, 1974 – 2014 (adapted from Festa-Bianchet et al. 2014)...... 73 Figure 67. Proportion of 4 and 5 year old rams in the trophy bighorn sheep harvest in Alberta, 1974 – 2014 (adapted from Festa-Bianchet et al. 2014)...... 73 Figure 68. Percentage of trophy rams found in each SMA during post-hunting season surveys (1971 – 2011). (Red line illustrates the mean of all SMA’s). (Allen 2012). Note 1- in SMA 6, native range has a higher percent of trophy rams than the mine site...... 74 Figure 69. The percentage of the population estimate (based on aerial surveys) made up of trophy rams (≥ 4/5 curl) in SMA 1, 1971-2011...... 74 Figure 70. Non-trophy harvest expressed as a percentage of the preseason population estimate in SMA 1, 1971 – 2009...... 77

Figure 71. Non-trophy harvest expressed as a percentage of the preseason population estimate in SMA 2, 1971 – 2009...... 77 Figure 72. Non-trophy harvest expressed as a percentage of the preseason population estimate in SMA 3, 1971 – 2009...... 78 Figure 73. Non-trophy harvest expressed as a percentage of the preseason population estimate in SMA 4A, 1971 – 2009...... 78 Figure 74. Non-trophy harvest expressed as a percentage of the preseason population estimate in SMA 4B, 1971 – 2009...... 79 Figure 75. Non-trophy harvest expressed as a percentage of the preseason population estimate in SMA 4C, 1971 – 2009...... 79 Figure 76. Non-trophy harvest expressed as a percentage of the preseason population estimate in SMA 6, 1971 – 2009...... 80 Figure 77. Non-trophy harvest expressed as a percentage of the preseason population estimate in SMA 7, 1971 – 2009...... 80 Figure 78. Non-trophy harvest expressed as a percentage of the preseason population estimate in SMA 8, 1971 – 2009...... 81 Figure 79. Harvest strategies for management of bighorn sheep population demographic indicators. This figure is an example of how indicators can be linked to management strategies. Note- lamb: ewe ratio metrics assume that population units are correctly identified...... 99 Figure 80. Harvest strategies for management of bighorn sheep population numbers. This figure is an example of how indicators can be linked to management strategies...... 100

Acknowledgements

This plan was prepared by Kirby Smith, Borealis Wildlife Services Ltd., for the Wildlife Management Branch of Alberta Environment and Parks (Matt Besko, Director of Wildlife and Travis Ripley, Executive Director of Fish and Wildlife Policy). Much of the information in this plan is based on the previous version, which was compiled by Jon Jorgenson. Drafts of the plan were reviewed internally by Jon Jorgenson, Jim Allen, Anne Hubbs, Jeff Kneteman, Brett Boukall, Margo Pybus, Nathan Webb, Dave Hobson, Mike Russell, Greg Hale, Chiara Feder and Rob Corrigan. External reviews were conducted by Dr. Marco Festa-Bianchet (University of Sherbrooke) and Dr. Mark Boyce (University of Alberta).

Management Plan for Bighorn Sheep in Alberta

Executive Summary

Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) are likely the most iconic of Alberta’s wildlife species. Bighorn sheep are the provincial mammal and for many years were the symbol of the Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division. Today, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (O. canadensis canadensis) are among the most sought after watchable wildlife species in the province and provide hunting recreation for more than 2500 resident hunters (trophy and non-trophy combined) and 70 non-residents annually (2014). Given this high level of interest and status it is imperative that the Department of Environment and Parks (EAP) Management develop policies, guidelines and procedures that are designed to maintain, conserve and optimize the management of Alberta’s bighorn populations for the benefits of current and future generation of Albertans.

The objective of this document is to provide the body of knowledge and the current situation of bighorn sheep populations in Alberta, the conservation and the management objectives and the challenges that the department is facing in managing the species. This document also provides the rationale and the guidelines that can assist with the decision making process in managing bighorn sheep in Alberta.

The management plan for bighorn sheep in Alberta presents an introduction to the species and its life history traits and an overview of historic information on populations and management. It explains in detail the changes in population dynamics, in management perspectives and in hunting regimes and regulations for the last four decades. The document furthermore presents and discusses the challenges that wildlife managers are faced with and the most recent science that is considered to ensure that bighorn sheep populations in Alberta are conserved and managed sustainably. This plan includes a large body of knowledge about bighorn sheep and supplemental information is found in the appendices.

Current Status

A total of 6970 bighorn sheep occupy provincial lands with an additional 4500 inhabiting National Parks for a total population of approximately 11 470. This is the largest population of bighorn sheep in North America and represents more than 15 percent of bighorns on the continent. The population of bighorns in Alberta has remained relatively stable over the last 40 years. Recruitment appears stable; however, southern Alberta has experienced poor adult ewe survival perhaps restricting population recovery following pneumonia die-offs. Alberta is the only jurisdiction in North America that still allows unlimited hunting of trophy rams and harvest rates are the highest allowed anywhere (i.e. 40% greater than the mean of other jurisdictions). Non-resident hunters take 20% of the total harvest annually. Trophy harvest has declined in recent years and the overharvest of mature rams requires consideration of alternative management strategies.

Management Goals, Objectives and Strategies for the Future

Management objectives and strategies will include:  Ensuring that viable bighorn sheep populations are sustained on native ranges under optimal conditions that maximize resiliency (quality) and protects from long-term declines.  Sustaining benefits for Albertans through optimum allocation of the bighorn sheep resource amongst recreational, commercial, and First Nation users.  Sustaining the recreational benefits and enjoyment to Albertans from the bighorn sheep through the provision of a variety of recreational opportunities, including viewing and hunting.

 Providing a commercial benefit to Albertans from the bighorn sheep resource through tourism and non-resident hunting.  Prevent and possibly eliminate any contact between domestic sheep (and potentially domestic goats and cattle) and bighorn sheep to prevent transmission of pneumonia, or other diseases, to wild sheep.  Protecting and enhancing habitat within the historic distribution of the province through tools such as prescribe fires or other means.  Ensuring that bighorn sheep habitat is maintained and managed for continued use by bighorn sheep, especially important wintering habitat.  Promoting and encouraging scientific and educational activity to enhance knowledge of bighorn sheep.  Ensure new and existing motorized access into sheep range is carefully managed to reduce negative impacts to sheep populations (access management).

1.0 Introduction

Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) are probably the most esteemed big game animal in North America. The province of Alberta is home to more than 11 000 of these animals representing ~15 percent of the North American population. The “type specimen” for Ovis canadensis was collected by Duncan McGillivray on the Bow River just downstream from Exshaw, Alberta in 1800. Their distribution in the province is essentially the same as it was when the first Europeans came to Alberta. A new world record ram from Sheep River was killed in 2010 by a vehicle collision on Highway 940 at the entrance to the OH Ranch. This replaces the former world record bighorn ram harvested near Cadomin, Alberta in 2000 which had, in turn, supplanted the previous world record ram from Alberta (Blind Canyon, north of Waterton Lakes National Park) shot in 1924.

Historical Populations and Management

Although early estimates of populations cannot be verified in Alberta, it is thought that bighorns declined from an estimated 10 000 (including national parks) during 1800-1860, to about 2000-3000 in 1915. Bighorn sheep responded to management programs and increased in numbers, reaching about 4000 in Alberta (national parks excluded) by 1936. Hunting seasons allowed any size ram to be harvested with a limit of one. However, in the 1940s many populations declined, which was attributed to die-offs precipitated by what was deemed a lungworm-pneumonia complex, aggravated by poor nutrition on ranges that had been overgrazed by both wild and domestic ungulates. About 1500 bighorns existed on provincial lands in 1950. Trophy seasons for rams were introduced in Alberta during the recovery from the 1940s die-offs (3/4-curl restriction in 1956, 4/5-curl restriction since 1968). For non-trophy sheep (ewes and lambs of either sex), regulated hunting was introduced in 1966. Since then, non-trophy harvests have been used to stabilize bighorn numbers and/or decrease density to maintain range condition, increase bighorn sheep productivity, survival, growth rates and prevent further die-offs.

Alberta’s first Bighorn Sheep Management Plan (Alberta Fish and Wildlife 1993) was used to guide bighorn sheep management in the province for 2 decades. Extensive consultations with stakeholders, public opinion surveys, and discussion with other jurisdictions have all contributed to the development of this revised Bighorn Sheep Management Plan for Alberta. This plan reviews the biology of bighorn sheep, as well as their history and management in Alberta. It also summarizes the current status and use of the species in the province. Finally, it outlines goals, objectives and management strategies for the future conservation and use of bighorn sheep in Alberta.

2.0 Background

2.1 Biology, Ecology and Life History Traits

2.1.1 Description

The Rocky Mountain Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis canadensis) are named for the large, curved horns borne by the rams. Ewes also have horns, but they are shorter with less curvature. Adult males typically weigh 90–120 kg, while females are typically 60–85 kg. Males have reinforced sinuses and nasal septa and these adaptations serve to protect the brain by absorbing the impact of clashes. Bighorn sheep have three sets of glands (preorbital, inguinal and foot) that are used to secrete chemical messages and are thought to be important during the establishment of dominance hierarchy.

2.1.2 Social Structure

Bighorn sheep live in large herds, but there is sexual segregation between bachelor groups and nursery groups for most of the year. Young rams (up to 3 yrs) will spend a considerable amount of time with the female groups before entering the bachelor groups. The mating season or “rut” occurs in late fall, largely between the middle of November and the middle of December. Prior to the "rut", the rams attempt to establish a dominance hierarchy to determine access to ewes for mating. During the pre-rut period (late August-October), most of the characteristic horn clashing occurs between rams, although this behavior may occur to a limited extent throughout the year. Rams' horns can frequently exhibit damage from repeated clashes (referred to as “brooming”). The hierarchy ranking is often determined by a combination of mass and horn length, which are also correlated with age (Geist 1971; Hogg 1987; Pelletier and Festa- Bianchet 2006). Although bighorn sheep are reproductively mature by the end of the first year, younger rams (2-5) participate only marginally in reproduction as their low social rank will prevent accessing a high number of receptive females (Hogg 2000)). During the mating season bighorn rams employ a number of different courting strategies that are often determined by the ram’s social rank. The most common and successful in terms of siring lambs (Hogg 2000) is the tending strategy, in which a ram follows and defends an estrous ewe; tending takes considerable strength and dominance, so ewes are more receptive to tending males, which usually are the bigger and most dominant individuals. Another tactic is coursing, where rams fight for an already tended ewe. Ewes typically avoid coursing males so the strategy is not as effective. Rams will also employ a blocking strategy, where he prevents a ewe from accessing tending areas prior to her going into estrus (Hogg 2000).

2.1.3 Habitat

Bighorn sheep currently inhabit the Rocky Mountains of western Alberta from the Montana border north to the boundary with British Columbia where the mountains continue into that province; a distribution that has remained the same since the Fay Expedition first verified it for the Smithsonian Institute in 1914 (Fay 2009). They are generally restricted to semi-open grassy slopes adjacent to precipitous terrain, with rocky slopes, ridges and cliffs. Such habitat offers abundant forage, accessible escape terrain, and relatively little competition from other ungulates. Bighorns typically occupy four distinct, though often overlapping seasonal ranges: winter ranges, spring or lambing areas, summer ranges, and fall or rutting areas (Geist 1971). Rams generally occupy their own ranges separate from ewe groups, except during the rut. Ruckstuhl and Neuhaus (2002) argue that sexual differences in activity budgets is the main determinant of sexual segregation between rams and ewes, with predator avoidance strategies and forage selection also being contributing factors (also see Ruckstuhl and Kokko 2002). The capacity of a range to support bighorn sheep is governed by the amount of food available during the season of greatest food scarcity. Bighorns are not well adapted to deep or crusted snow and are forced to winter within the

confines of southern exposures or windblown slopes next to escape terrain. Such characteristic winter ranges are therefore most critical to the survival of provincial herds.

The timing and duration of high quality forage availability is very important to the productivity and distribution of bighorn sheep. Ewes that have access to high quality forage should provide better maternal care and achieve sufficient condition to breed in the rut. Lambs receiving better maternal care will be larger and achieve better overwinter survival. Late-born lambs do not survive as well as ones born earlier since they are smaller approaching autumn (Festa-Bianchet 1988b), particularly male lambs (Feder et al. 2008). As spring vegetation green-up begins at low elevations, rams will forage further from escape terrain than ewes and within ewe groups, ewes without lambs and yearlings will venture further from escape terrain than ewes with lambs providing evidence that pregnancy incentives and predator avoidance influence habitat use (Berger 1991, Bleich et al. 1997).

The timing of this rapid change in plant forage protein and digestibility is reflected in bighorn sheep fecal crude protein (FCP) (Hebert 1973). Hamel et al. (2009) demonstrated that the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index [NDVI: a satellite-derived global vegetation indicator obtained from the red near- infrared (NIR) ratio of vegetation reflectance] was highly correlated with FCP of both bighorn sheep at Ram Mountain and mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus) at Caw Ridge, AB and thus could reliably be used to measure yearly changes in the timing and availability of high-quality vegetation for both of these alpine ungulates. Growth in juvenile bighorns is positively correlated with the duration of spring green-up (as measured by NDVI; Pettorelli et al. 2007) and negatively affected by rapid changes in plant productivity which, in the alpine environment, equates to a shortened period of high quality forage availability. These authors point out the implications of climate change to bighorns as a result of more rapid snow melt in the spring reducing the duration of high quality forage availability.

In some portion of the province, sheep have moved in from adjacent alpine areas and colonized new habitat created by reclaimed coal mines. New bighorn habitat has been created in Wildlife Management Unit (WMU)1 438 on reclaimed coal mines adjacent to alpine range (in WMU 438 and 437) when reclamation has focused on establishing grasslands adjacent to “headwalls” that provide suitable escape terrain (MacCallum 1991, MacCallum and Geist 1992). Within these mined landscapes in west-central Alberta, undisturbed habitat is still favored by bighorns (MacCallum and Geist 1992) as is the case in desert environments in the United States (Jansen et al. 2006).

Bighorn presence is highest in the fall, declining in the winter with the lowest presence during summer (MacCallum and Geist 1992, ESRD unpublished data). Summer range shift is stronger for females than males and may be due to better lamb security on native range. The fall attraction begins prior to the hunting season and may be related to later curing of vegetation due to agronomic composition and/or lower elevation.

In Alberta, hunting is currently not allowed on the Teck Coal or Gregg River Resources Ltd. An increase in bighorn use has occurred concurrently with the sanctuary status and heavily fertilized agronomic forage used in reclamation. The number of bighorns using the mine has declined since 2008 (Fig. 1). This bighorn herd has traditionally been the primary source for transplants within and outside of the province (see Transplant Section).

Bighorn sheep also have colonized the abandoned Smoky River Coal Lease north of Grande Cache; however, reclamation had not progressed to the extent it has at the Cadomin mines nor are the

1 The Province of Alberta is divided into Wildlife Management Units in which wildlife within these boundaries are managed according to the regulations established in Alberta’s Wildlife Act.

headwall/grassland interfaces as prevalent. Consequently, the population response has been less (ESRD, unpublished data). High levels of selenium in blood values taken from bighorns using the mines are of concern (see Selenium discussion in the Parasites and Disease Section). Demographics and changes in seasonal presence of bighorns on mines are consistent with a dependency on emigration from high productivity native ranges and potential for an ecological trap on mines.

. Figure 1. Bighorn sheep observed during winter aerial surveys of native range in WMU’s 437 and 438 (light bars) vs. ground counts on reclamation on the Teck Coal and Gregg River Resources Ltd. coal mines (dark bars), 1972 – 2013 (ground counts provided by Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd.).

Prescribed burns have been used to rejuvenate bighorn range compromised by forest encroachment in Alberta. Most of the burns designed to enhance bighorn sheep habitat have occurred west and south of Rocky Mountain House (Michalsky and Woodard n/d) and Calgary (Rucksthul et al. 2000). Sub-alpine and alpine burns are difficult to conduct given steep topography, adjacency of highly volatile coniferous forests and higher priorities for fire suppression elsewhere in the province. At Ram Mountain, grass and sedges had increased 3 fold, forbs had increased 7 fold and shrubs and trees only represented 0.6% of total plant cover 9 years following a prescribed burn (Michalsky and Woodard n/d.). Ruckstuhl et al. (2000) conducted prescribed burns of grassland in 3 different springs at Sheep River, AB. Burning improved crude protein of forage up to mid-June, but there was no difference later in the year, nor in following years between burned and unburned sites. Bighorns increased their use of the burned sites by 2 to 5 times in spring and fall. These authors concluded that prescribed grassland fires provided a short- term increase in forage quality and suggested that bighorns benefited nutritionally.

Community types vary significantly in their response to fire, and whether they evolved with fire. Although fire in bighorn range may not change the forage value significantly, it may increase abundance and distribution of forage, increase accessibility and connectivity of grassland communities, and can change the distribution of other ungulates using the same forage resource. Burns can influence not only quality, but quantity, and maybe even more importantly, by creating disturbance on the landscape can influence diversity of vegetation species.

Under the current prescribed fire regime, spring or fall burns are most likely to occur, and the benefits and detriments of prescribed fire have to be weighed in regards to timing and the residual effects on the landscape. Although the implementation of prescribed fire as a tool to maintain/enhance and restore sheep habitat is difficult, both the long and the short term benefits for habitat enhancement are numerous and prescribed and/or controlled fire shall be considered an important tool for maintaining and enhancing healthy winter ranges.

2.1.4. Parasites and Disease

As with all species, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep are host to a broad range of parasitic species that live in or on individual sheep. Most occur in a delicate balance with each sheep and are benign or innocuous in the great majority of situations (e.g., ticks, nematodes, cestodes, trematodes), although imbalances can occur in any relationship. On the contrary, a few viruses and bacteria can create significant visible lesions that generate concern among those who see them (e.g. contagious ecthyma [CE]; Samuel et al. 1975, L’Heureux et al. 1996) or may result in decreased body condition (e.g., Johne’s disease; Forde et al. 2012) that causes concern in regards to individual sheep. A skin disease in bighorn sheep caused by Psoroptic mites was thought to have been partly responsible for historic declines in bighorns in the United States (referred to as scabies in Buechner 1960); however there has only been one case diagnosed in British Columbia, Canada. Nonetheless these situations pale in comparison to the significant ongoing pneumonia-related mortality events across bighorn range that pose great concern for bighorn sheep managers.

 British Columbia Psoroptic Mange Wildlife Health Fact Sheet

Historically, bighorn populations experience irruptive catastrophic die-offs throughout the species range. All such outbreaks are linked to insults to the lungs and have a common manifestation of pneumonia. Outbreaks usually are associated with a complex of factors, including nematode lungworms [Protostrongylus spp.], various bacteria, mycoplasma, harassment, overcrowding, and/or association with domestic livestock (including sheep, goats, and cattle) that can act in concert to stressed free-ranging bighorns (Marsh 1938, Stelfox 1976, Schommer and Woolever 2008, Wolfe et al. 2010).

Nematode lungworms are pervasive and occur in most bighorns that coexist with suitable terrestrial snail intermediate hosts. In earlier times, it was believed that lungworms were the cause of individual sheep mortality and played a significant role in pneumonia outbreaks. Transplacental transmission of larvae to foetal lambs appeared to coincide with early lamb mortality during outbreaks (Hibler et al. 1972, Gates and Samuel 1977) and further reinforced the perception that lungworms were the problem. More recent data largely refute this hypothesis. Variations in larval output (previously interpreted as ‘build-up’ of lungworms in a population) are instead associated with inherent seasonal and daily patterns, thus occurrence of larvae in bighorn faeces does not correlate with prevalence or intensity of adult worms in the lungs, nor does the occurrence of adult worms in dead sheep correlate with mortality events. Lungworms alone cannot be used to predict possible pneumonia die-offs (Festa-Bianchet 1991), although larval outputs in faeces may at times be related to physical condition of individual sheep (Festa-Bianchet and Samson 1984, Festa-Bianchet 1991). But even here, multiple faecal samples from the same individual over a prescribed time period must be collected, preferably in March or April. Attempts to treat wild

bighorns with antihelminthics were not successful at reducing the number of lungworms nor did they improve bighorn sheep population growth (Miller et al. 2000, Sirochman et al. 2012).

Disease in relation to exposure to livestock has been a common feature of many bighorn die offs and led the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) to complete an exhaustive review of the risk of disease transmission from domestic sheep and goats to bighorns (WAFWA 2012). The risks to bighorn sheep are irrefutable (Lawrence et al. 2010) and provide abundant justification for preventing range overlap and potential association of domestic sheep and goats with wild sheep (WAFWA 2012). Disease outbreaks, often following recent direct contact with domestic sheep or goats, follow two general patterns: 1) widespread all-age die-off’s of short duration but high intensity: 2) mortality followed by sporadic death of lambs for several years: a smoldering ground fire.

Bighorn sheep herds are particularly vulnerable to pneumonia when they approach high density (Monello et al. 2001, Cassaigne et al. 2010). However, circumstances and factors associated with mortality are not completely understood: 1) often no single pathogenic bacterial or viral species or biovariant is isolated from all or even most of the lungs of dead sheep, 2) bighorn sheep – domestic sheep encounters do not always result in die-offs, 3) bighorn sheep can experience death from pneumonia with no known prior contact with domestic sheep and 4) pathogenic bacterial species are cultured from healthy bighorn sheep (WAFWA 2012). Current theories include scenarios such as: Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae … although not pathogenic to bighorns on its own, M. ovipnemoniae causes cilliary dysfunction in the respiratory tract that may allow invasion of secondary pathogens.

The family of Pasteurellaceae bacteria represents the single greatest limiting factor for bighorn sheep conservation in North America (WAFWA 2012, Miller et al. 2013). One of the primary agents of concern in transmission from domestics to wild sheep is Mannheimia haemolytica (formerly Pasteurella haemolytica). Other bacteria implicated in bighorn pneumonia die-offs include Bibersteinia (formerly Pasteurella) trehalosi, Pasteurella multocida, and Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (George et al. 2008, Besser et al. 2012). The body of knowledge and understanding of these closely-related bacteria continues to evolve and provide new clues to help unravel the apparent confusion. Walsh et al. (2012) clearly demonstrate marked differences in detection probability depending on technique relating to field collection, transport and handling, and lab culture of samples. In addition, newly developed molecular methods are more sensitive than previous culture methods and are being used to sort out taxonomic relationships (Miller et al. 2013) and species occurrence during bighorn die-off’s (Shanthalingham et al. 2014).

Alberta has a relatively limited history of bighorn die-offs (Table 1) when compared to other jurisdictions in North America. This difference is likely due to fewer areas of contact between domestic sheep and bighorns British Columbia and the western US. Since 1978, four bighorn sheep die-offs were documented which involved pneumonia (Yarrow-Westcastle once, Sheep River three times). Mortality typically occurred in fall, over one to two months, and affected 10 – 65% of the herd. Population recovery was slow in conjunction with high mortality of lambs in succeeding years. This is consistent with outbreaks in other jurisdictions as it appears to take at least five years following a die-off before improved lamb survival can support a significant increase in herd size. Even low rates of pneumonia-related mortality in adults can retard growth in bighorn populations (Cassirer and Sinclair 2007). Although Pybus et al. (1994) provided guidelines for management when domestic sheep are used for vegetation management close to wild sheep in Alberta; the Government of Alberta has wrestled with a broader policy to provide ongoing range separation between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep since the 1990s. However, a final policy has yet to be adopted, despite renewed interest since 2010-11.

Other, less significant diseases occur occasionally in bighorns in Alberta. Johne’s Disease (Mycobacterium paratuberculosis) in bighorn sheep produces clinical signs and lesions similar to those in domestic livestock (Williams et al. 1979). Bacterial infection in the gut can result in clinical signs including gradual weight loss to a state of emaciation and persistent diarrhea; however, full manifestation of clinical signs is not common and can be associated with non-disease related complication or sensitivities (e.g. dietary imbalance causing diarrhea, particularly in young animals). Domestic cattle (dairy and beef) in Alberta have a low prevalence of the disease (Sorenson et al. 2003; Scott et al. 2007); however, they can harbor it without showing clinical signs. Transmission from cattle on shared range is a risk to bighorn sheep. A three-year-old bighorn ram was collected in southwest Alberta in 2009 and diagnosed with Johne’s Disease (Forde et al. 2012). Fecal collection from the same and adjacent herds documented the disease in other bighorns (University of Calgary and AESRD unpubl. data). Currently, the prevalence and risk of the disease to southwestern herds is undetermined. Further work is required to determine the potential implications to bighorn individuals and populations within southwestern Alberta and the potential risk to other herds throughout the province.

Oral scabs associated with contagious ecthyma (CE) (soremouth, orf) are readily observable (Fig. 2) but not considered lethal in bighorn sheep (Samuel et al. 1975). During an occurrence in the Ram Mountain herd that spanned 3 years (1990-93) (Table 1), lambs with large scabs had slower weight gain and were lighter as yearlings, but there was no significant effect on survival nor was CE considered a significant limiting factor to the bighorn population (L’Heureux et al. 1996). The virus associated with CE is a widespread environmental contaminant. The disease is enzootic in bighorns that occupy coal mines north of Cadomin; however, no severe cases have been documented (MacCallum 2008). In 2013, a number of lambs and yearlings in a herd of bighorn sheep transplanted from Alberta to Nevada in 2012 were found with lesions consistent with CE. No mortality was detected and the situation resolved quickly (P. Wolfe, Wildlife Veterinarian, Nevada Dept. of Wildlife, pers. comm.). However, this is an example of the disease and parasite risks that transplanted bighorn sheep face on the destination landscape.

Potential for transfer of brucellosis with transplanted bighorns remains a concern for livestock managers. Bighorns are susceptible to Brucella spp.: Kreeger et al. (2004) documented clinical brucellosis in captive bighorns exposed to an aborted elk foetus containing Brucella abortus, and McCollum et al. (2013) described Brucella ovis in experimentally infected bighorns, and a few wild sheep in the US were sero- positive for antibodies to Brucella ovis. However, brucellosis has not been documented in free-ranging bighorns despite widespread testing, particularly of translocated animals. In Alberta, over 400 bighorns from the Cadomin area were tested during transplant operations: none was positive for Brucella ovis, bluetongue virus, parainfluenza-3 virus, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, bovine viral diarrhea, vestiular stomatasis, anaplasmosis, Johne’s disease, or leptospirosis (MacCallum 2006). In addition, Psoroptes spp. mites were not found on transplanted sheep from Cadomin (MacCallum 2006).

Mammals have a narrow tolerance for selenium and deficient or excessive levels can be toxic (Ohlendorf 1996, Wobeser 2006). Natural and agronomic forages in the eastern slopes region of Alberta (Samson et al. 1989) and perhaps throughout bighorn range in North America are low in selenium. However, high selenium levels in blood samples from bighorns feeding on reclamation areas associated with a coal minesite near Cadomin, Alberta (Table 2, AEP unpublished data) are of concern to sheep managers. It may be that a selenium-rich stratum above coal seams is exposed to the environment during coal extraction procedures. The surface to mass ratio of the rock overburden changes exponentially and the overburden is then either placed in pits once the coal is removed or into “rock drains” where runoff may leach selenium and deposit it in watercourses. Reclamation vegetation on mined areas may concentrate selenium, which is in turn eaten by bighorns resulting in high levels in circulating blood. The levels of selenium documented in bighorns from these mine sites exceeded literature reports for bighorns; however, no examination of possible population effects (i.e. higher mortality, poor lamb crops) attributed exclusively to selenium toxicity has been undertaken to date.

Horn anomalies, in particular erosion of horn cores in association with apparent chronic bacterial infection below the horn sheath are a nagging ongoing concern in the Cadomin population. The problem was noted in the late 1990s and individuals with similar lesions are documented on a regular basis. The cause of the condition remains unknown. Lesions are seen only in large rams and are hypothesized to be associated with possible damage to basal tissues that allows secondary bacterial invasion leading to an osteo-degenerative condition in the underlying bony horn core (Fig. 3).

Figure 2. Visible scabs associated with contagious ecthyma in Ram Mountain population, early 1990s.

Figure 3. Horn core erosions in rams from Cadomin population, ongoing since late 1990s.

Table 1. Documented mortality events in Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in Alberta.

Beginning Location/ Pre- Post- Ultimate During & After After Disease Post event Reach pre- Comments of Event Herd Pop Pop Cause of Disease Event Event - Mgmt lamb event lamb Month Year Name % Loss Mortality Action survival ratios?

1937 Southern 8500 2500 Pneumonia/ Reduced hunter Increased elk & BHS Recovered Yes Domestics plus elk & domestic competition and to AB (71%) lungworm harvest harvest aka by 1960 severe winters. See Stelfox 1971 Canadian Field- 1949 overpopulation & Naturalist 85:101-122. range deterioration 1945/ Highwood ? “large Pneumonia & Closed all BHS seasons closed until 3 yrs Yes Dept Lands and Mines Annual Report 1945/46. 46 losses” lungworms hunting seasons 1948/49 "sickness, apparently contacted from domestic in southern sheep, is rather rampant amongst bighorn sheep in Alberta the Highwood." Ann. Rpts through to 1948/49 mention reduced number of BHS and low lamb survival. Sep 1978 Sheep 130 117 Pneumonia Necropsy Monitor population. 1 year Yes Short, fast, small die-off. All sex/age except older River (10%) Intensive lungworm rams. Wishart et al. 1980 NWSGC proceedings sampling Nov 1982/ Yarrow- 400 140 Pneumonia Collected dead Monitor population 5 years Yes All sex/ages, hard on older rams. Spread from BC 83 West (65%) or sick and post die-off die-off associated with domestic exposure. Then castle sampled non- spread from AB to Montana. Simultaneous die-off in clinical sheep adjacent Waterton National Park (~50% loss). Nov 1985/ Sheep 175 107 Pneumonia Collection of Monitoring of 3-4 years No All sex/ages except older rams (> 6yrs). Stress from 86 River (39%) dead animals for population post die-off road construction, increased human activities on necropsy winter range, increased grazing by horses/cattle, problems with off leash dogs in years prior to die-off. March l/e ratios averaged 0.61 in 4 years before pneumonia, 0.36 in 4 years after, then 0.45 in next 3 years. Declined again due to cougar predation. Festa-Bianchet 1988 NWSGC 6:66-76 Spring 1990- Ram 217 217 CE None increased surveillance 0 Yes Increased lamb morbidity, decreased weight gain, no 93 Mountain and population apparent population effects. Multiple years with a few monitoring. Three yr dead lambs initially but most lambs and some ewes research to monitor in following year. Rams (1+ yr) unaffected. Most effects on mass and severe lesions on lambs, minor scabbing on ewes survival. (largely on udders). Effects of trapping using salt blocks unknown but similar program in effect annually since 1971 without incident. L'Heureux et al. 1996 J Wildlife Diseases 32:286-292. Oct 2000 Sheep 106 78 Various, incl None remove water trough Many No Coincided with high cougar predation and very few River (26%) pneumonia shared between cattle carcasses necropsied. At least 5-6 animals with and bighorns evidence of pneumonia. In subsequent years lamb (possible site/source survival remained very low, perhaps due to of contagion) continuing cougar predation ongoing BHS pops nw Alberta Note: sheep populations in NW Alberta, with little if any overlap with domestics, have no known mortality event.

Table 2. Selenium Concentrations (ug/g) in Blood of Bighorn Sheep Populations from Western North America (summary to 2006).

SPECIES LOCATION Mo, Yr n X [Se] + SD RANGE SOURCE COMMENT BHS* Ram Mountain, AB 06-08,1986&87 51 0.025 0.011 0.005- 0.045 Samson et.al. 1989. 4 BHS < 0.005 ug/g BHS* Ram Mountain, AB 06-08, 2001 21 0.021 0.010 0.010-0.051 F&W Ram Mountain study 5 BHS < 0.010 ug/g BHS* Ram Mountain summary 72 0.024 0.011 0.005-0.051 As above As above BHS * Mount Allen, AB 06-08, 1986 8 0.120 0.030 0.070-0.160 Samson et.al, 1989 BHS* Sheep River 07, 2002 2 0.205 0.0212 0.190-0.220 F&W unpub. data BHS* Castle -Yarrow 01-02, 2003 27 0.056 0.023 0.017-0.097 F&W unpub. data BHS* Radium 09, 2002 4 0.017 0.015 0.016-0.018 F&W unpub. data BHS* AB Agric Lab 07-08, 1986 5 0.112 0.013 0.090-0.120 Samson et.al. 1989 Ration suppl.0.19 ug/g Se BHS* Valley Zoo, AB 1987 5 0.064 0.026 0.048-0.110 Samson et.al. 1989 BHS* Vulcan Mt, WA. 03, 1993 10 0.079 0.033 0.040-0.130 Hein et al. 1994 BHS* Sinlahekin, WA 03, 1992 4 0.097 0.027 0.070-0.130 Hein et. al 1994 BHS Luscar Mine, AB 02, 1999 51 0.633 0.118 0.370-1.000 F&W unpub. data Surface mine reclamation BHS Luscar Mine, AB 02, 2000 38 0.749 0.199 0.510-1.810 F&W unpub. data Surface mine reclamation BHS Luscar Mine, AB 01, 2001 41 0.443 0.063 0.300-0.580 F&W unpub. data Surface mine reclamation BHS Luscar Mine, AB Summary 130 0.607 0.182 0.300-1.810 F&W unpub. data Surface mine reclamation BHS Smoky R.Mine, AB 02, 2002 24 0.348 0.048 0.260-0.430 F&W unpub. data Surface mine reclamation BHS* Black Butte, WA 01, 2000 6 0.242 0.091 0.094-0.379 Hells Canyon BHS* Redbird, ID 01, 2000 5 0.247 0.100 0.104-0.329 Hells Canyon BHS* Wenaha, OR 01, 2000 17 0.126 0.086 0.015-0.326 Hells Canyon BHS* Imnaha, OR 01, 2000 21 0.108 0.053 0.023-0.198 Hells Canyon BHS** Lostine, OR 01, 1999 15 0.392 0.088 0.210-0.540 Hells Canyon Selenium suppl. project. BHS** Lostine ,OR 12,1999 & 01, 15 0.407 0.160 0.163-0.653 Hells Canyon Selenium suppl. project. 2000 BHS** Lostine, OR 12, 2001 9 0.411 0.112 0.130-0.490 Hells Canyon Selenium suppl. project. BHS* Lostine, OR 02, 2002 10 0.224 0.103 0.099-0.440 Hells Canyon, Se suppl. stopped 2 mo previously

*unsupplemented - or at least not known to be supplemented, potential for agriculture or Se contamination supplementation ** supplemented Se

2.1.5 Population Dynamics

Extensive research has been conducted on bighorn sheep population dynamics in western North America, especially for hunted populations. Alberta is fortunate that a wealth of bighorn sheep research has been conducted within the province. The Ram Mountain bighorn sheep study was initiated in 1971 by Wildlife Research Biologist, Bill Wishart and has been continued through the efforts of Alberta Wildlife Biologist Jon Jorgenson and Dr. Marco Festa-Bianchet and Dr. Fanie Pelletier of the University of Sherbrooke, QC. It is the longest bighorn sheep study in North America and one of the longest large mammal studies in the world. The Ram Mountain study has demonstrated that population characteristics (lamb/ewe ratios, age/sex structure, growth characteristics) are indicative of herd status and reflect range habitat conditions. Among the different findings the Ram Mountain research has shown that a healthy, vigorous population can be maintained by keeping population levels below biological carrying capacity through annual cropping of both sexes. Loss of potential breeders is compensated for by high productivity, breeding by yearling ewes, and high survival of remaining animals (Jorgenson and Wishart 1985, Jorgenson et al. 1993). Research at Sheep River by Dr. Marco Festa-Bianchet, Dr. Kathreen Ruckstuhl and colleagues also has been instrumental in formulating this and the previous management plan.

2.1.5.1 Reproduction

Bighorn ewes have a six-month gestation. In temperate climates, the peak of the rut occurs in November with one, or rarely two, lambs being born in May. Most births (70%) occur in the first two weeks of the lambing period, and 90% occur within the 3rd week (Feder et al. 2008). Pregnant ewes leave the herd some time before giving birth and migrate to areas safe from predation. They stay solitary or form small groups of mothers and new lambs. Lambs born early in the season are more likely to survive than lambs born later; especially male lambs (Feder et al. 2008). Newborn lambs weigh from 3.6 to 4.5 kg (8 to 10 lb) and can walk within hours. The lambs are then weaned when they reach four to six months old.

Bighorn sheep population growth rates can vary dependent upon environmental conditions (climate and habitat), ewe age structure, survival, and herd density. Pregnancy rates for adult ewes (≥ 2 years) appear to be relatively high as reported by Singer et al. (2000) in the United States (0.96) and Festa-Bianchet (1988a) in Alberta (0.92). Age of ewes plays an important role in recruitment of bighorn sheep at Ram Mountain. Ewes can breed between 1 and 6 years with 87 percent breeding by 4 years (Jorgenson et al. 1993b). During years of low population density, as many as 50% of the yearling ewes bred. Breeding in yearling ewes was correlated with fall weight. The density of ewes determined the age at which ewes first gave birth (Jorgenson et al. 1993b). Both reproductive effort and fecundity of bighorn ewes declined in the last 2 years prior to death, independent of age (Martin and Festa-Bianchet 2011a). In terms of a bias in the sex of lambs produced each year, when conditions were good, older females would produce daughters every year. When conditions were poorer, older females produced more sons, but not every year. “Sons of older females were of similar mass to those born to younger females under poor conditions but were smaller and likely disadvantaged under good environmental conditions” (Martin and Festa- Bianchet 2011b). Maternal care of lambs can affect their mass and reproductive success as adults (Festa- Bianchet et al. 1996). Parturition date at Ram Mountain is heritable, parturition date is based on maternal mass the previous fall and lambs born later in the spring suffer higher mortality (Feder et al. 2008). Lamb production increases from age 2- 4 then remains at 88% until age 13 when production lamb, but not survival, declines (Festa-Bianchet and King 2007).

2.1.5.2 Mortality and Survival

Mortality rates of bighorns vary with sex and age. Lambs have higher overwinter mortality than older individuals, and ewes have lower mortality than rams (Jorgenson et al. 1997). At high population density, larger lambs survive better than small lambs (Festa-Bianchet et al. 1997). Survival rates of lambs to one

year in herds that have not experienced die-offs have averaged 0.65 in the United States (Singer et al. 2000). In Alberta, lamb survival rates to 5 months varied from 0.53 to 0.87 (Festa-Bianchet 1988a) while survival to 10 months ranged from 0.41 to 0.54 (Jokinen et al. 2008). Lambs born later in the spring do not survive as well (Festa-Bianchet 1988a) and warm, wet springs appear to enhance lamb survival (Portier et al. 1998) which these authors attributed to better maternal nutrition and increased quality and quantity of forage available to lambs later in the summer. Orphaning of lambs in early September did not compromise lamb survival or growth rates (Jorgenson et al. 1997). Juvenile survival (0-2 years) has ranged from 0.39 to 0.48 (Gaillard et al. 1998). Festa-Bianchet (1989) reported an average survival rate of male lambs of 0.68 in a population that had experienced a die-off. Survival rates of male lambs were higher (0.89) prior to the die-off than during the die-off (0.57). Age-specific survival rates have been reported for adult ewes. Survival rates for ewes not subjected to die-offs in the United States average 0.89 (Singer et al. 2000). In Alberta, prime aged ewe survival ranged from 0.92 to 0.94 (Loison et al. 1999) while survival of older ewes was lower (0.89) (Jorgenson et al. 1997). Ewe survival rates documented during epizootics averaged 0.67 (Jorgenson et al. 1997). Jokinen et al. (2008) report survival rates ranging from 0.83 to 0.90 averaged over all ewe age classes in WMU 400, a unit that has not recovered to pre-epizootic population numbers. Longevity in ewes is not random, but rather correlated with body mass in midlife – a useful phenotypic indicator of individual quality (Bérubé et al. 1999). Ewes that live longer have increased lifetime reproductive success and this phenotypic heterogeneity has important implications for population demographics.

Ram survival rates are also variable. In Alberta, the survival rate for yearling rams at Sheep River was 0.68, and then remained high (mean = 0.88; range 0.82 to 0.94) from age 2 to 9 when rams taken by hunters were discounted (Festa-Bianchet 1989). Hunting resulted in ram mortality increasing by anywhere from 6 – 38% beginning in the fourth year. Survival of prime aged rams at Ram Mountain was slightly lower (0.83) (Jorgenson et al. 1997) as a result of very high density. In contrast, adult ram survival averaged 0.92 in increasing, protected bighorn populations in the United States (Singer et al. 2000). In Alberta, ewes typically live to 12 - 15 years with few ewes living past 18, while rams seldom live past 14 (Bérubé et al. 1999).

2.1.5.3 Effects of Density

Bighorn populations appear to be regulated by density-dependent feedback on fecundity and lamb survival (Jorgenson et al. 1993b, Jorgenson et al. 1997, Festa-Bianchet et al. 1997, Shackleton et al. 1999). As density was allowed to increase at Ram Mountain the age of first reproduction also increased (Jorgenson et al. 1997); however, other than lamb survival (Festa-Bianchet et al. 1997), only survival of yearling females was negatively affected (Jorgenson et al. 1997). Body mass of bighorn sheep was negatively affected as population density increased (LeBlanc et al. 2001). Females were able to compensate after 2 years of age, but males were affected until at least 7 years of age. These authors suggested that these sexual differences were due to the greater flexibility of resource allocation to growth or reproduction by females than by males.

At high density, ewes of all ages favored their own fitness over producing a lamb (Festa-Bianchet and Jorgenson 1998) and over the fitness of their lambs (Martin and Festa-Bianchet 2010). At high density, older females did not produce lambs every year and tended to produce male lambs while the sex ratio at birth did not differ for prime age ewes (Martin and Festa-Bianchet 2011b). Horns of rams born when the population was at low density were larger at 4 and 5 years than those of rams born at high density (Jorgenson et al. 1993a) and the proportion of rams 6 – 7 years old achieving 4/5 curl status declined from 61-73% at low density to 33 – 35% at high density (Jorgenson et al. 1998). The benefits of harvesting both sexes of bighorn sheep to maintain populations below carrying capacity was demonstrated by high survival, high growth rates (both horn and body), high productivity, and breeding by yearling ewes.

2.1.6 Predation

Bighorn sheep can be preyed upon by a number of predators including wolves (Huggard 1993, Hebblewhite et al. 2004, DeCesare 2012), cougars (Harrison and Hebert 1988, Ross et al. 1997, Rominger et al. 2004, Bourbeau-Lemieux et al. 2011, Knopff 2012 and others), golden eagles (Cunningham 1970, Akenson and Akenson 1992) and coyotes (Festa- Bianchet 1988b, Hass 1989, Akenson and Akenson 1992, Bleich 1999). Sawyer and Lindsey (2002) provide a comprehensive synthesis of predation on bighorn sheep.

Evidence of predation on bighorn sheep by wolves in Alberta is variable. Knamiller (2011) examined 55 adult and 77 neonate kills made by 4 wolf packs in the Nordegg area of west-central Alberta without documenting single bighorn mortality. Likewise, Webb (2009) located 192 wolf-killed ungulates in the same area from 11 different packs from 2003 – 2006 without detecting any bighorns. However, bighorn sheep in Banff National Park made up < 3% of the diet of wolves in a 2 year study (1988, 1989; Huggard 1993) and averaged 0.0017 bighorn sheep kills/day/pack in a later study (1986 – 2000; Hebblewhite et al. 2004). DeCesare (2012) investigated 271 kill sites made by 10 different packs of wolves in west-central Alberta and eastern B.C. from 2008 – 2011. Of this total, 24 were bighorn sheep representing ~ 9% of the overall total. By restricting the comparison to only those packs that actually killed bighorns, the proportion increased to 20.5% (24/117) of the total number of kills documented for those packs. There is no documented evidence that wolves have caused declines in any of Alberta’s bighorn populations; however, wolf populations in more northerly bighorn ranges are thought to have increased or maintained relatively high densities over the last 2 decades. The most recent density estimate for wolves in the Mountain Natural Region between the Clearwater and Brazeau Rivers of west-central Alberta is 9.7/1000 km2 which is almost twice the density estimates from the mid 80’s (Clarkson et al. 1984, Schmidt and Gunson 1985, Webb et al. 2009).

Cougar predation has the potential to be a more significant mortality source relative to bighorn sheep population dynamics under certain circumstances. Harrison and Hebert (1988) reported bighorn rams making up 55% and 40% of total cougar kills over 2 winters in west-central British Columbia, indicating selection for older rams after the rut by individual cougars. Ross et al. (1996), however, examined 320 cougar-kills in southwestern Alberta during the winters of 1985-1986 to 1993- 1994 and only documented 29 bighorn kills (9% of the sample). “Predation on bighorn sheep varied greatly from year to year; cougars were known to kill 0-13% of the November sheep population, and 0-57% of over-winter sheep mortality consisted of known cougar kills” (Ross et al. 1997). They concluded that cougar predation on bighorn sheep appeared to be largely an individual, learned behavior and indicated that the presence of one or a few individual specialist predators may strongly and unpredictably influence demography and behaviour of bighorns at the herd level. Localized predation could potentially become a concern with increasing habitat fragmentation and more isolated sheep populations (Festa-Bianchet et al. 2006). The “genetic recovery” being attempted on the bighorn herd at the Ram Mountain study area in west-central Alberta was apparently compromised by the presence of a single cougar that was specializing on bighorn sheep, exacerbating the Allee effect on this small population (Bourbeau-Lemieux et al. 2011). Most recently, Knopff et al. (2010) conducted an intensive study of cougar predation in west-central Alberta. They found that bighorn sheep made up only 3.4% (49/1428) of cougar kills between 2006 and 2008 and it was only an individual cougar responsible for bighorn sheep mortality; however, this study was primarily limited to the foothills where availability of bighorn sheep was low. Although there is evidence that cougars have expanded their range to the north and east over the last 20 years particularly north of the Brazeau River (Knopff et al. 2013), there is no evidence that cougar predation is contributing to the decline in availability of legal males. In summary, individual cougars specializing on small, isolated sheep populations can cause marked declines, but generally sheep comprise only a small proportion of cougar diet.

Coyotes have been observed feeding on bighorn lamb carcasses and pursuing bighorns on the low- elevation winter range at Sheep River, AB (Festa-Bianchet 1988), pursuing lambs as old as 6 months in Banff National Park (Shank 1977) and have been considered a significant predator on bighorns on the National Bison Range in Montana (Hass 1989) . Hebert and Harrison (1988) reported a significant improvement in bighorn lamb: ewe ratios in a low elevation California bighorn herd in British Columbia following coyote control.

Bears have not been reported as significant predators of bighorns in Alberta although grizzly bears have been observed chasing mountain goats (Côté and Beaudoin 1997) and bighorn sheep (J. Jorgenson pers. comm.) and have been documented killing mountain goat kids at Caw Ridge near the northern extent of bighorns in the province (Festa-Bianchet et al. 1994).

In summary, wolf densities have remained high or increased and cougar densities have increased particularly in the northern extent of bighorn range in Alberta (Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development 2012). Bighorn population declines caused by increased predator densities have not been documented in populations other than Ram Mountain and Sheep River (cougar predation - Borbeau-Lemieux et al. 2011). Although predation can be a significant factor for annual natural mortality of bighorn sheep, cougar predation probably poses the highest risk to small, isolated local populations. However, currently there is no evidence that predation has affected the number of mature rams in Alberta and predation would not affect reduced growth rates nor the number of legal 4-5 yr old rams in a population. Other species, predominately carnivores occurring sympatrically such as wolves, bears, coyotes, lynx and avian species such as golden eagles, also contribute to mortality, however, the extent and significance is still undetermined as previous research on these species has shown limited killing of bighorns in Alberta.

2.2 Current Status in Alberta

2.2.1 Sheep Numbers and Distribution

Bighorn sheep populations have been estimated using time-lapse photography, watercraft, fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter surveys. Intensive and repeated ground counts have also been used on small study areas where access, visibility, and consistent range use occurs. Helicopters have proven to be invaluable as a rapid, though expensive, method of providing superior estimates of numbers and age-classes over extensive areas. Age classification of ewes and yearlings is difficult from the air, though lambs and the various horn-classes of rams older than 1 year are readily identified [i.e. 1/4 curl, ½ curl, ¾ curl, 4/5 curl (legal)]. However, full curl rams are unlikely to be classified correctly from the air. With Alberta bighorns, the opportune period for surveys is during January-March, when all sex and age classes are concentrated on the winter ranges (Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division 2010).

The accuracy of aerial surveys for counting bighorn populations has never been experimentally determined in Alberta; however, at Ram Mountain where actual numbers are known, aerial surveys (1975-2010) have never accounted for more than 77 percent of the sheep actually present until the herd declined rapidly and the difference between winter surveys and spring ground counts appeared to have been significantly affected by late-winter mortality (i.e. animals observed in March died prior to counts in May) (Fig. 4). Sightability surveys reported in the literature consistently average ~ 60% (57% in canyons in Idaho, Bodie et al. 1995; 66% in canyons in Oregon, Taylor et al. 2002, 58% in Colorado, Neal et al. 1993; and 61% also in Colorado, George et al. 1996); however, under ideal conditions in alpine habitat sightability has been as high as 95% for ewes (George et al. 1996). Surveys of a GPS-collared population of bighorn sheep in the Elk Valley of British Columbia in 2010 and 2011 found sightability to be 0.82 and 0.77, respectively (Poole 2013). In Alberta, most survey areas are in alpine where sightability should be higher (i.e. perhaps averaging at least 70%) than for low elevation and/or canyon habitats with some tree cover that can obscure bighorns.

Ideally, current population estimates for any WMU should be obtained by using the maximum count from several replicate surveys flown over a short time span, preferably one winter. Surveys in Alberta; however, tend to be conducted once every two years when possible; therefore, too much time passes to provide the necessary replication. The size of populations can change rapidly when die-offs occur. For example, the major die-off in the Westcastle-Yarrow Creek area of southwestern Alberta reduced that population by about 65 percent. The die-off was rapid, occurring primarily over one winter, but was followed by five years of poor lamb survival and low recruitment. Such population changes could go undetected with infrequent surveys.

Aerial survey frequency and harmonizing timing between southwestern Alberta and southeastern British Columbia has been limited, even though the majority of bighorns occurring along the south continental divide utilize habitats on both sides of the divide seasonally (direct observations during annual and biannual Alberta mountain goat aerial surveys for WMU 400 and 402), where both BC and Alberta subalpine and alpine zones are flown. Historical winter ranges are limited along the continental divide in southwestern Alberta due to snow depth and the absence of windblown open grass habitats. Only 1/ 41 bighorns collared on Teck Coals coalmine in the Elk Valley of B.C. ventured into Alberta and only for 2.5 weeks (Poole 2013). Conducting joint aerial surveys along the Continental Divide would be desirable from a management perspective (I. Teske, Area Wildlife Biologist, B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Cranbrook, pers. comm.). More recently, shared surveys have been conducted with Parks Canada in Banff, Jasper, and Waterton National Parks to assess bighorn sheep population numbers in adjacent Protected Areas.

Ideal survey conditions (i.e., clear, calm, with fresh snow cover >10 cm) are critical for obtaining useful population data. When conditions are marginal (e.g. incomplete snow coverage, old snow, poor light) surveys should not be flown. In many instances in Alberta, the variability between surveys cannot be explained biologically (i.e. a very low count followed in 2 years by a very high count) suggesting that poor survey conditions, inexperienced observers/pilots and perhaps incomplete survey coverage could all been contributors. Given the importance of aerial surveys (i.e. this information is one of the main cornerstones for bighorn management in the province along with compulsory registration); experienced and consistent observers (the same individuals for the entire survey) should be used for all surveys (AESRD 2010).

Figure 4. Comparison of actual spring numbers of sheep (dark bars) vs. the previous winter’s aerial survey results (light bars) for bighorn sheep at Ram Mountain, Alberta (1975 – 2010).

The current (2013) provincial population of bighorns was estimated using the most recent survey results, carefully interpreted by local government biologists (Table 3). The preseason estimate was the sum of winter counts from the most recent winter survey plus the addition of 20% lambs as an estimate of recruitment (an average based on the proportion of lambs observed during aerial surveys throughout Alberta). This estimate does not account for sightability (the number missed during aerial surveys which would increase the estimate) or mortality between the survey and the following start of the hunting season (which would decrease the estimate). Consequently it is considered to be a conservative estimate of the actual number.

WMUs have been grouped into Sheep Management Areas (SMAs) based on preliminary DNA analysis from horn shavings of shot rams which identified some genetically distinguishable sheep sub-populations (Fig. 5). Major topographical breaks (e.g. river valleys and lakes) were also used to help refine SMAs into manageable population units. Further genetic analysis of fecal samples collected from additional bighorn sheep herds in the province may help better define genetic distinguishable populations. This grouping reduces the need to make adjustments for sheep movements across the numerous boundaries associated with smaller WMUs. The total minimum preseason population estimate on provincial lands has increased slowly over the last 35 years (Fig. 6) with the most current estimate being 6970 bighorns (Table 3; preseason 2013). [Note: Incomplete surveys (not all winter ranges flown) have been eliminated SMA specific trend data. Only trend lines that have a R2 value ≥ 0.5 are illustrated and reported on figures within the Management Plan]. Most of this increase has been a result of searching new survey areas and bighorns moving into refuge areas free of hunting. The provincial estimate south of the Brazeau has remained relatively stable. Alberta has the largest population of bighorn sheep in North America and combined with the National Parks, represents more the 15 percent of a North American estimate made in 2008 (Table 4).

Aerial survey results for SMA 1 (Fig. 7) illustrate the results of the pneumonia die-off that started in 1982 where the number of bighorns declined significantly. A full curl regulation was initiated in 1996. The population has not recovered to pre-epizootic numbers. SMA 2 has increased steadily (Fig. 8) as a result of numbers building up in the Crowsnest Lakes area; an area not surveyed until 1993. The pre-season estimates for SMA 3 (Fig. 9) document declines in sheep following the pneumonia die-offs in 1978 and 1986 in WMUs 404/406, but numbers have been relatively consistent for the last 20 years with the exception of 2003 when there were fewer sheep observed in WMU’s 404 and 406. Results from aerial surveys for SMA 4A were inadequate up to 1990. Consequently, inventory efforts focused on spring ground counts along Highway 1A (WMU 410A - where most of the sheep population winters) beginning that year and since then the population appears quite stable (Fig. 10). Population estimates in SMA 4B peaked in 1993 and, although variable, have been relatively consistent in recent years (Fig. 11). In SMA 4C, aerial surveys have also been variable, peaking in 2001 and then leveling off around 500 animals in the last 2 surveys (Fig. 12). Aerial surveys in SMA 5 have suffered from low sightability (see Fig. 4 in Census Section); however, the aerial survey trend information reflects the start of the population decline on Ram Mountain in the spring of 1993 (Fig. 13).

Figure 5. Bighorn Sheep Management Areas (SMA’s) in Alberta. Numbers correspond to the SMA numbers in Table 1. (Bow Valley-Ghost = SMA 4A; Clearwater-Ram = SMA 4B; Nordegg- Chungo = 4C)

The population estimate for SMA 6 has increased steadily which is partially explained by the probable redistribution of bighorns from Jasper National Park and other areas into SMA 6, hunting closures in WMU 437 from 1971 – 1996, and the sanctuary-like status of the mines near Cadomin (Fig’s. 1 and 14). Since 2011, the Ruby Creek winter range has been included in the survey accounting for almost 90 additional sheep. Population estimates for SMA 7 have increased over the last 30 years stabilizing at over 1000 animals (Fig. 15). SMA 8 has increased substantially (Fig. 16) with new survey coverage of the abandoned Smoky River Coal mine adding additional animals beginning in 2009. These additional survey areas may not represent additional bighorns in the provincial population.

In summary, despite local variability within the province, the provincial estimate has remained stable. Ground surveys in parts of WMU 410 and additional coverage of the Crowsnest Lakes (SMA 2), Ruby Creek winter ranges (SMA 6) and the Smoky River Coal Mine (SMA 8) has gradually increased the population estimates.

Figure 6. Pre-hunting season estimates of bighorn sheep populations in Alberta outside of National Parks, 1971 – 2013 (partial surveys were not included). (Includes trend line, equation and R2 value.)

Table 3. Sheep Management Areas (SMA’s), winter ranges and estimated preseason populations of bighorn sheep in Alberta, 2013.

Sheep Management Wildlife Major Total no. Preseason Area Management Unit winter ranges winter ranges population

1 400 Westcastle-Yarrow Ck. 5 287

2 303A-402 Crowsnest Lakes 1 391 306-402 South Livingstone 2 308-402 North Livingstone 3 402 Cabin Ridge 1

3 404 Highwood 3 935 406 Sheep-Elbow 9 408 Mt Allan-Wind Ridge 3 410B Pigeon Mtn. 1

4A 410A Bow Valley (north) 4 266 412 Black Rock-Orient Pk. 4 414 Burnt Timber 2

4B 416 Sheep Creek 1 1294 418 Ya Ha Tinda 4 420 Clearwater 3 422 Hummingbird 1 426A Whiterabbit 1 428 North Ram 1 430A Bighorn (south) 1

4C 426B Windy/Whirlpool Pt. 1 575 430B Bighorn (north) 1 432 Job-Coral 1 434 George Creek 1 434 Chungo-Blackstone 1

5 328 Shunda 1 71 429 Ram Mountain 1

6 436 Ruby Creek 1 1436 437 Redcap 1 438 Whitehorse Creek 1 438 Cadomin Mines 2 438 Folding Mountain 1

Table 3 (cont’d). Sheep Management Areas (SMA’s), winter ranges and estimated preseason populations of bighorn sheep in Alberta, 2013.

Sheep Management Wildlife Major Total no. Preseason Area Management Unit winter ranges winter ranges population

7 439 Solomon 2 1070 440 Mumm/Collie 1 440 Moon/Planet 1 440 N. Berland 1 440 Rocky Pass 1 440 Hayden Ridge 1 442B Monoghan 2 442B Triangle 2 444 Stearn 2

8 442A Swift/Horn 2 378 445 Torrens 1 446/444A Sheep/Caw 3

Peter Lougheed Provincial Park 1 100 Ghost Wilderness Area 1 100 Siffleur Wilderness Area 1 20 White Goat Wilderness Area 1 20

Total on Provincial Lands 86 6970

National Parks (Waterton, Banff, Jasper) 45001

Alberta Total 11,470

1Estimate from Jorgenson (2008); however, based on recent aerial surveys within Jasper and Banff National Parks, this may be a substantial overestimate (J. Kneteman, Senior Wildlife Biologist, Hinton, pers. comm.).

______Jurisdiction Population Estimate for Bighorn Sheep ______Alberta (RMb) 11 100 Arizona (DE) 4 600 British Columbia (RM,DE) 4 100 California (DE) 4 400 Colorado (RM) 7 000 Idaho (RM,CA) 4 000 Montana (RM) 6 700 Nebraska (RM) 220 Nevada (RM,CA,DE) 8 800 New Mexico (RM,DE) 1 400 North Dakota (RM) 300 Oregon (RM,CA) 4 250 South Dakota (RM) 450 Texas (DE) 1 200 Utah (RM,DE) 5 500 Washington (RM,CA) 1 600 Wyoming (RM) 6 200 Total 71 720

a Modified from Rominger et al. 2008a b RM = Rocky Mountain, CA = California, DE = Desert Bighorn

Figure 7. Pre-season population estimates (winter aerial Figure 8. Pre-season population estimates (winter aerial survey results +20% lambs) of SMA 1 (1971-2010). survey results + 20% lambs) of SMA 2 (1988- 2005). (Includes trend line, equation and R2 Value.)

Die-offs

No Trend

Figure 9. Pre-season population estimates (winter aerial Figure 10. Pre-season population estimates (winter aerial survey results + 20% lambs) of SMA 3 (1971 – survey results + 20% lambs) of SMA 4A (1971- 2011). (The die-offs only affected the Sheep River 2011). herd which represents about 12% of the SMA total.)

Figure 11. Pre-season population estimates (winter aerial Figure 12. Pre-season population estimates (winter aerial survey results + 20% lambs) of SMA 4B (1980 results + 20% lambs) of SMA 4C (1972 – – 2015). 2015).

Population Crash

Full Curl

Figure 13. Pre-season population estimates (based on the greater number from either the aerial survey or ground count from Ram Mtn. + 20% lambs) of Figure 14. Pre-season population estimates (winter survey SMA 5 (1972 – 2011). (See Figure 4 for a results + 20% lambs) of SMA 6 (1972 – 2013). comparison of aerial survey results vs actual ground counts on Ram Mtn.)

No Trend

Figure 15. Pre-season population estimates (winter aerial Figure 16. Pre-season population estimates (winter aerial survey results + 20% lambs) of SMA 7 (1972 – survey results + 20% lambs) of SMA 8 (1972 – 2014). 2011). (Includes trend line, equation and R2 value).

The standard method for measuring bighorn sheep recruitment from composite aerial surveys is to compare the ratio of lambs: 100 ewes. For these values to be most accurate, yearling rams must be properly classified and not mistaken for ewes. Only aerial surveys where > 100 ewes were observed are reported here to avoid error from low samples sizes. Ratios of at least 35 lambs: 100 ewes are required in late winter to sustain a population assuming a 50:50 sex ratio of lambs and an annual ewe survival rate of 0.9 to a breeding age of 2.5 years thereby giving birth in a ewes’ 3rd year.

Lamb:ewe ratios documented in SMA 1 have been variable, but do not show any clear temporal trend (i.e. > 35 lambs:100 ewes) over the last 40 years with the lowest values recorded during the pneumonia die-off in the early 1980’s (Fig. 17). SMA 2 also has been stable (Fig. 18), while lamb: ewe ratios in SMA 3 have trended below 35 lambs:100 ewes in the last 3 surveys (Fig. 19). Ratios observed in SMA 4B were low from 2005 – 2013, but have rebounded in 2015 (Fig. 20). Similarly, recruitment in SMA 4C was poor from 2005 – 2011 and then recovered in 2013 and 2015 (Fig. 21). Sample sizes of ewes observed in SMA’s 4A and 5 all have been below 100 and are not reported here. Lamb:ewe ratios for SMA 6 suggest a downward trend (Fig. 22). Within SMA 6, ratios from native range and coal mine surveys between 1994 and 2008 were similar (Fig. 23); however, since 2009, the ratios for bighorns on native range (Mean = 51.3 lambs:100 ewes) have been significantly greater than those observed on the mines (Mean = 20.7 lambs:100 ewes) (paired t = 8.812, P = 0.012). MacCallum (2008) documented low recruitment on the mines in the fall of 2011 (30 lambs: 100 ewes) and attributed it to the effects of delayed spring greenup; however, lamb: ewe ratios on native range were above average during that year and the years following. By the following winter survey (2012), the ratio on the mines had dropped further to 23 lambs: 100 ewes (Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd., unpubl. data). Since 2012, a total of 122 bighorns (the majority being reproductively mature ewes) have been removed from the mines for transplant (Appendix 2) and this may also have influenced subsequent lamb: ewe ratios. There have been a couple of poor years for recruitment in SMA 7; however, there seems to be an upward trend with most years being > 35 lambs: 100 ewes (Fig. 24). Recruitment in SMA 8 has been relatively stable and sufficient to sustain the population (Fig. 25).

Die-off

Figure 17. Lambs:100 ewes observed during composite Figure 18. Lambs:100 ewes observed during composite aerial surveys of SMA 1 (1971-2011). aerial surveys of SMA 2 (1971-2005).

Figure 19. Lambs:100 ewes observed during composite Figure 20. Lambs:100 ewes observed during composite aerial surveys of SMA 3 (1972-2015). aerial surveys of SMA 4B (1971-2011).

. Figure 21. Lambs:100 ewes observed during composite Figure 22. Lambs:100 ewes observed during composite aerial surveys of SMA 4C (1972-2015). aerial surveys of SMA 6 (1972-2013).

.. Figure 23. Lambs:100 ewes observed during composite surveys of native range vs. coal mines in SMA 6 (1994-2013).

. Figure 24. Lambs: 100 ewes observed during composite Figure 25. Lambs: 100 ewes observed during composite aerial surveys of SMA 7 (1972-2014). aerial surveys of SMA 8 (1980-2014).

2.2.2 Hunting

2.2.2.1 Evolution of Bighorn Hunting Management in Alberta

From 1800 to 1860 bighorn sheep were found in abundance; their total numbers on both provincial land and the land in national parks probably exceeded 10 000 (Stelfox 1971). Factors that may have restricted sizes of these early populations were severe winters, disease, predation, interspecific competition for range and/or forage, and primitive hunting by Natives. With the introduction of firearms about 1850, human harvest became an important limiting factor. After 1880, the number of settlers, miners, explorers, lumbermen and railway workers increased rapidly, resulting in increased exploitation of wild ungulates for meat.

As railroads expanded, the hunting of sheep by non-resident trophy hunters also increased. The sale of ram horns by local residents became profitable; individual heads sold for $25 to $50 (Stelfox 1971). Ram horns were used as trading items; one trading post reportedly had stored over 700 sheep skulls (Wishart 1958). In addition to hunting, range competition, with large numbers of domestic livestock introduced after 1900, may have adversely affected bighorn populations. By 1915, sheep populations had declined to 1/5-1/3 of their original numbers (Stelfox 1971). Declines were attributed to excessive and nonselective hunting with firearms by explorers, miners, railway workers and Natives. Particularly vulnerable herds (i.e., those along riverbanks and in the foothills) were the first to decline.

2.2.2.1.1 Hunting Seasons, 1877-1906

The first game hunting regulation which applied to Alberta (then part of the Northwest Territories) was evidently passed on March 22, 1877 (it conferred protection for bison). Protection for bighorns evidently first appeared in ordinance No. 11 (Nov. 19, 1887), which closed bighorn hunting during the months of February - August, inclusive (Table 5).

Table 5. Bighorn hunting seasons for Alberta during 1887-1906.

Year(s) Season dates Bag limits Remarks 1887-1892 Sept.1- Feb.1 none either sex 1893-1896 Oct.1- Feb.1 6 either sex 1897-1898 Oct.1- Dec.15 6 either sex 1899-1902 Oct.1- Dec.15 3 either sex 1903-1906 Oct.1- Dec.15 3 males only

Bag limits (six bighorn sheep) were first established by “The Game Ordinance" of 1893. In1899, bag limits were dropped to not more than three animals. The prohibition of Sunday hunting was introduced on November 21, 1903. The taking of females and young under 1 year of age was also prohibited that year (Table 5).

2.2.2.1.2 Hunting Seasons, 1907-1949

The hunting of bighorn sheep was prohibited during 1907-08 by the original Alberta Game Act of 1907. The first official season opened in September of 1909 and was province-wide. Until 1921, two sheep could be legally killed during the hunting season. In 1921, changes in the regulations restricted the shooting to one male sheep. The protection of big game animals (including sheep) under 1year of age and with horns less than 10 cm (4 in.) in length was also adopted that year. Then, until 1945, bighorn sheep

hunting was permitted annually from September 1 to October 31, throughout the province. In 1945, the area south of the Bow River was closed to sheep hunting because of large die-offs, cause undocumented. In the final two years of this period (1948 and 1949), with sheep populations generally low throughout Alberta, the season length was reduced from two months to one month.

2.2.2.1.3 Hunting Pressure and Numbers of Sheep Harvested, 1909-1949

During the 1890s and early 1900s, illegal killing of bighorns by settlers and miners was believed to be high, as a result of the lack of enforcement and a general disregard for game laws. At that time, most mining settlements were surrounded by a wide belt of country in which all forms of big game had been extirpated (Millar 1915). Hunting by Natives, especially the Stoney Indians, was also considerable. Before the inclusion of Stoneys under the Alberta Game Act in 1914, the Natives of this group were permitted to kill six head of big game animals throughout the year, in addition to game required for food. In 1913 alone, at least 200 sheep were killed by Stoney Indians (Millar 1915). Hence, before 1915, it appears that the unrecorded kill of sheep (those taken legally by Natives and taken illegally by others) probably exceeded the kill by licensed hunters (see following paragraph). With increased enforcement activity under the Alberta Game Act of 1907, the establishment of game preserves and the national parks, and the attempted regulation of Native hunting, the number of unrecorded kills of sheep probably began to decline after 1915.

During 1907-1950, all licensed hunters were required under the Alberta Game Act to return their big game licences, along with a statement of the number of animals they successfully hunted (Webb 1959). According to this information, an average of 77 sheep kills (range 40 to 110) was recorded during 1909- 1924 (1915, see Table 6). Harvest estimates for the period 1925-1947 are lacking; a general game licence was valid for all species during this period, so it was not possible to determine hunting pressure on any single species. However, in 1948, game seals were sold for each big game species; 78 non-resident and 421 resident seals for male sheep were issued. The non-resident sheep kills in 1948 and 1949 were 48 and 37 rams, respectively. In general, licence sales indicate that hunting pressure and legal kills of sheep by residents were not high (Forsland1950) and the kill by non-residents was about the same as it is today. The number of sheep seals issued in 1948 (421) probably indicates increasing interest in sheep hunting by resident hunters during the period, but accurate documentation of that interest is not available. Alberta's bighorn populations yielded many record-sized horns during this period. The horns of seven sheep taken in this period rank among the top 10 taken in North America (ranking first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth) (Nesbitt and Wright 1981). Perhaps of greater significance is the fact that, as of 1981, the horns of 60 of the top 100 rams in the record book were taken in Alberta.

Table 6. The bighorn sheep kill recorded for Alberta during 1909-1924.

Year No. sheep Year No. sheep 1909 40 1917 57 1910 54 1918 76 1911 49 1919 77 1912 90 1920 76 1913 65 1921 108 1914 78 1922 92 1915 110 1923 61 1916 83 1924 62

2.2.2.1.4 Licensing and Licence Fees, 1909-1949

During the period 1909-1949, the bighorn sheep hunter was required to possess either a resident Big Game Licence or a non-resident General Game Licence. In 1942, the resident Big Game Licence fee was $2 and the non-resident General Game Licence fee was $50. The latter entitled the holder to take one male mountain sheep, one mountain goat (male or female), one male deer, one male moose, one caribou (male or female), one male elk with antlers of eight or more points(both sides), two male antelope, and (subject to Section 9 (c) of the Regulations) one bear of each species (Alberta Gazette 1942). In1943, the resident Big Game Licence fee was increased to $3 and a non-resident Big Game Licence was introduced at a fee of $100. In 1944, a $25 sheep royalty was added to the non-resident Big Game Licence fee. In 1948, this $25 royalty was increased to $50 and a $2 royalty payable by resident sheep hunters was introduced. In1948, except for royalties, the Big Game Licence was free of charge. Royalties were removed in 1950 and the previous resident and non-resident Big Game Licences were reintroduced.

2.2.2.1.5 Hunting Seasons, 1950-1989

The period 1950-1989 showed significant changes in provincial management policies, with corresponding changes in both bighorn sheep hunting regulations and seasons. Important changes were the introduction of 3/4- and 4/5-curl regulations for rams, non-trophy seasons, extended seasons in November, compulsory registration, restrictions on non-residents, and a waiting period for successful hunters. Before 1989, the 4/5curl was defined as follows: "horns, one of which can be intercepted at both the front of the horn base and the tip of the horn by a straight line drawn along the front of the eye when viewed in profile." The 3/4-curl regulation had allowed hunters to take rams on which the line passed from the front horn base through the back of the eye to the horn tip.

To facilitate a closer examination of management policy changes, the following discussion has been divided into separate sections on rams and non-trophy sheep.

2.2.2.1.6 Ram Regulations, 1950 - 1989

From 1950 to 1956, the season for bighorns was province-wide. From 1957 to 1963, seasons were assigned to Special Areas and Big Game Zones. In 1964, a Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) system was designed and implemented. The WMU system was based on physical boundaries (natural and man- made), vegetation, soils, and the distribution and abundance of harvestable wildlife species. The province was divided into five ecologic-physiographic regions, which resulted in a total of 134 WMUs. The objective was to enable more careful regulation of game harvests. Since 1950, a number of major changes in ram regulations have occurred: 1) trophy seasons were introduced under the 3/4-curl restriction in1956; 2) the 3/4-curl was increased to 4/5-curl restriction in 1968; 3) extended November ("rut") seasons were implemented from1965 to1969; 4) compulsory registration of rams was introduced in1971; 5) restriction of non-resident sheep hunters to a draw system began in 1972; 6) a waiting period for successful trophy hunters of four calendar years for non-resident aliens and one calendar year for residents and non-residents was introduced in 1974;

Before 1956, Alberta's sheep population was still in a stage of recovery following the die-off of 1945- 1946. Consequently, young age classes predominated. Trophy rams were scarce (Annual Reports 1947- 1949) and hunters were harvesting many young rams and occasionally ewes by mistake. Records of sheep killed in the Sheep River Valley of Alberta showed that 9 of 13 yearling rams on Wishart's (1958) study area were taken in the fall of 1955 (one year before the introduction of the 3/4-curl law). The 3/4-curl regulation generally restricted the legal kill of rams to those 4 years of age and older (Wishart 1978a). In

the fall of 1965, a two-week season in November was introduced in WMUs S436 and S438 (Appendix 1) in a trial attempt to improve trophy hunting. This extension was intended to take advantage of rams that spend their summers in the national parks and traditionally migrate out onto provincial wintering ranges during the rut in November after the hunting season has ended. Hunter returns revealed that the horn length of rams taken during this season averaged nearly 15 cm (6 in.) more than for those rams taken in the same areas during the regular season (Stelfox 1966). Consequently, the program was expanded in 1966 to include all of November and additional WMUs (Appendix 1).

Kill statistics (Table 5) for 1966 showed a sharp increase (from 228 in 1965 to 312 in 1966). In 1967, the extended season was closed to non-residents and the number of rams killed showed a corresponding decrease (Table 5). The program of extended November seasons was discontinued in 1969 when it became apparent that, in addition to harvesting seasonally migrant "park" rams, a continued harvest of minimum-sized provincial rams was also occurring. The extended season allowed no escape of legal- sized provincial rams in return for the harvesting of park rams. The change in trophy sheep regulations to a 4/5-curl law in 1968 resulted in a drop in the sheep harvest in 1968 (from 216 to 172) despite the extended season in November. Apparently, few large rams were available when the 4/5-curl law was introduced. Furthermore, the curl laws resulted in considerable problems of hunters taking borderline rams. In 1974, a field guide was prepared for hunters as an aid to identifying horn size in the field.

2.2.2.1.7 Non-trophy bighorn sheep regulations, 1966 – present

Perhaps the most significant change in Alberta's sheep management policy occurred in 1966 with the introduction of the first non-trophy season. This new season was prompted by a die-off of sheep in the Kootenay region of British Columbia, and recognition that a males-only season was not sufficient for regulating sheep populations. Alberta's sheep populations had resurged to an estimated maximum of 5500 sheep in 1966, following the die-off in 1945-1946 (Stelfox 1971). Early signs of range deterioration and below-average lamb production in 1965 further suggested overpopulation. The non-trophy hunt in 1966 allowed the shooting of any sheep with horns < 30.5 cm (12 in.) in length under a permit system. By regulating the numbers in the nursery herds, it was reasoned that sheep populations could be stabilized to prevent another "boom and bust" as occurred in the 1930s and '40s. However, in 1967, yearling rams constituted 31 percent of the non-trophy kill; it became apparent that hunters were removing a significant number of potential trophies. Consequently, non-trophy regulations were changed in 1968 to permit the harvesting of ewes and lambs only. Geist (1971) concluded that populations that had exceeded their range capacity generally exhibited slow growth rates, low productivity, low survival and an old age structure, while the opposite was true of expanding herds that were below capacity. However, carrying capacities of Alberta's bighorn ranges are unknown at the present time. Quantitative range assessments have been conducted only on the Ribbon Creek (Mt. Allan herd) winter range (Jacques 1976). At Ram Mountain, stability in herd size was achieved when the harvest rate of non-trophy animals (ewes and lambs) was 10 percent of the total winter population (including rams) (Jorgenson and Wishart 1982), 7 percent of the total preseason population (including rams) or 12% of the summer population of ewes (Jorgenson et al. 1993). Such harvest rates were sustainable provided productivity and survival rates for lambs, ewes and rams remained high. Lamb productivity as measured by winter lambs:100 ewe (ewes = 2yrs+) ratios, should not fall below 40 (or 35 lambs:100 ewes if ewes include all ewes 1 yrs+) (AESRD Unpubl. data) (Fig. 26). Typically during aerial winter surveys, it can be difficult to differentiate yearling ewes from older ewes hence they are usually combined in one category. In that case, one should use the threshold where ewes include all ewes 1year old when assessing productivity and potential recruitment.

Overwinter survival rates (lambs, ewes, and rams) also will influence sustainability of populations and need to be considered when establishing non-trophy harvest rates.

250 Summer Population 100 Size Winter lambs per 100 ewes (2yrs+) 90 Winter lambs per 200 100 ewes (1 yr+) 80

150 60

100 Threshold 40 Threshol

Number of Sheep of Number 30

50 20 Winterlambs per 100 ewes(2yrs+)

0 0

Year

Figure 26. Lamb:100 ewe (2 year old +) ratios in June and late the following winter relative to the number of ewes (2 year old +) on Ram Mountain, AB (1975 – 2012). (The thresholds of recruitment are necessary to maintain stability in herd size).

At Ram Mountain, the maximum sustainable harvest rate that maintain a stable population size was achieved when survival rates of lambs, ewes and rams were at 75%, 90%, and 70% respectively (Fig. 27); however, the age structure of ewes and rams can influence the sustainability of harvest (e.g. declining populations typically have a higher proportion of older ewes unless the decline is predator related). Provided winter productivity and overwinter survival rates were consistently at or above these thresholds, non-trophy harvest rates were maximized. This assumes the population goal is to maintain numbers at their current level. If population goals are different or productivity and survival rates are less than optimum or unavailable, adjustments will need to be made to non-trophy harvest goals in order to avoid a rapid decline of population size. Festa-Bianchet suggests that sustainable female harvest should not exceed 7% (pers.comm.).

Figure 27. Lamb, ewe and ram annual survival at Ram Mountain, AB relative to the total summer population (1975 – 2012).

Surveys for bighorns are typically conducted in winter on post-hunt populations that have already experienced some winter (natural) mortality. To estimate annual preseason populations, it is necessary to estimate total winter mortality, summer productivity and summer mortality. These data are unavailable for provincial populations except Ram Mountain (1973 - present) and Sheep River (1982 – 2005). Basing harvests on total winter herd size (including rams) assumes that rams are equally visible during surveys as ewes and lambs, which may or may not be true. To avoid this assumption of equal visibility, a comparable harvest rate can be calculated (based on Ram Mountain data), using the size of the ewe and yearling ram component of winter surveys (yearling rams are included because they are difficult to distinguish from adult ewes during aerial surveys). This comparable harvest rate amounts to 10 percent of the total population and is the rate that should be used when determining harvest goals and setting permits for non-trophy seasons because the calculation avoids all but the inherent survey error. Such harvest rates are designed to maintain populations at a desired level but can only be sustained under ideal conditions with a young age structure and when survival rates and productivity are high and at, or above, threshold levels modelled at Ram Mountain (Figs 26 and 27) although this information is typically not available for most SMA’s. In addition, predation rates should be low (as they were at Ram Mountain during the experimental removal of the ewes). Sightability during aerial surveys is not accounted for in this calculation thereby making the computation inherently conservative.

Number of non-trophy permits = Harvest Rate(%) x Winter Population Size Hunter Success Rate (%)

The hunter success rate employed should be a running average of the previous five years and should be considered when determining the number of non-trophy permits.

Because the premise for applying maximum sustainable non-trophy allocations is to achieve population size stability but requires high survival rates, high productivity and low predation/mortality rate, the number of allocations should be reviewed annually to avoid potential declines due to unknown localized predation or disease outbreaks. Regular winter surveys under good conditions are needed to monitor population size and productivity to ensure that non-trophy harvests are meeting population goals. For the Ram Mountain population it is interesting to note that after population numbers peaked in 1992, density dependent factors resulted in a rapid decline exacerbated by specialized and localized cougar predation. Since the early 2000s the population remained low despite the attempts and the strategies adopted to allow the population to recover.

Non-trophy harvest in Alberta continues to be by LEH. Three other jurisdictions in North America harvest ewes (Rominger et al. 2008b). Jurisdictions that do not harvest ewes typically reduce herds through transplanting to augment other herds.

2.2.2.2 Ram Hunting regulations 1990 to present

Several significant changes were made to trophy regulations beginning in 1996 (Appendix 1) to accommodate and/or respond to specific management objectives at the local scale. The first limited entry hunt (LEH) for trophy bighorn sheep was initiated in WMU 437 in 1996 including a split season (August 25 – September 23; September 24 – October 31). The trophy sheep season in WMU 437 had been closed in 1971 in response to excessive harvest of rams (only one legal ram remained after the 1970 hunting season). The population at that time was at 91 animals and the entire west side of the range could easily be “glassed” from the forestry road going over the Cardinal River Divide. Given the high visibility of bighorns and the ease of access afforded by seismograph and coal exploration trails, a limited entry hunt was deemed necessary to control harvest in this WMU.

In the same year, a full curl regulation was also initiated in this WMU as well as WMU’s 302, 328, 400 and 429. The full curl trophy sheep is defined as “a male bighorn sheep with horns, one of which is sufficient size that when viewed in profile, its tip extends upward beyond a straight line drawn from the rear-most point of the base of the horn to the centre of the nostril”. The regulation change in the units other than WMU 437 was designed to restrict harvest without curtailing opportunity (i.e. hunters could still hunt in those WMU’s without having to participate in a draw) as well as to determine what effect such a change would have on the availability and size of future trophy rams. This change was an effort to respond to hunter concerns over the poor quality of available rams.

It was found that about 5 years was required before any full curl rams were harvested from these units. In WMU 400 it took almost 10 years before the number of harvested full curl rams started to reach the level when WMU 400 was managed under the 4/5ths curl regulation. The change to full curl in WMU 400 resulted in an increase in the mean age of harvested rams from 5.9 years (1972-1995) to 7.6 years (1996- 2014). Mean horn length increased from 81.2 cm to 88.3 cm and mean base circumference increased from 39.2 cm to 39.4 cm during the same time period. The increase in average age was the result of fewer 4 and 5 years old rams in the harvest. The proportion of 4 and 5 year old rams in the harvest declined from 13.6% to 1.2% and 28.4% to 2.0%, respectively following the change to full curl.

In 2002 a LEH draw for trophy sheep was initiated on the recently vacated Smoky River Coal Mineral Surface Lease (MSL) north of Grande Cache (parts of WMU 444 and 446) and a full curl restriction also applied for the LEH in WMU 446. The full curl restriction was later dropped for this and the WMU 437 LEH hunt in 2004 when it was confirmed that the draw system was sufficient to restrict harvest. An archery-only late season was created in that portion of WMU 408 west of Highway 40 from November 1 – 30 in 2003. This was in response to the creation of the Spray Valley Provincial Park which effectively removed previously available rams from harvest but left them available later in the season in the portion of the WMU where hunting was still permitted. A late season LEH for trophy sheep was instituted in WMU 438C (the portion of WMU 438 south and west of the Cardinal River Coals and Gregg River Resources MSL’s) with three 10-day hunts in the month of November. The intent of this new season was to offer residents the opportunity to harvest trophy rams leaving the MSL’s during the rut. In 2011, the trophy bighorn sheep season was closed in WMU’s 328 and 429 in response to a significant decline in the population in SMA 5.

2.2.2.3 Resident and Non-Resident Licence Sales and Costs, 1971-2014

Resident licence sales increased steadily from 1971 peaking in the mid 1980’s. In 1987 a licence fee increase (from $20 to $40; Note: $40 in 1987 is the equivalent of $84.40 in 2014 dollars) resulted in an immediate decrease of 1000 hunters followed by a further decline until the mid 1990’s. Resident licence sales then stabilized and have since increased to 2441 in 2012, or approximately 74% of the peak in 1984 (Fig. 28). Non- resident trophy allocations declined from 1973 to 1977 then increased and remained constant until 2007. Non-resident allocations have been based on allocating non-residents approximately 20% of the total harvest on a provincial basis. Non-resident hunting is currently restricted to areas adjacent to the Bow River (WMU 410) and north. No allocations are available for SMA 5. In the last decade outfitters have been unable to fill their quota as hunter interest has waned (Fig. 29) perhaps as a result of non-resident hunters not as willing to spend the money required or perhaps as a result of the declining quality of rams. Non-trophy sheep permits increased in the mid 1990’s as bighorn populations increased, but then were reduced in some SMA`s in response to a perceived increase of predators on bighorn range (Fig. 30, Table 7) (see Predation Section).

Trophy license fees for residents increased slightly from $41.00 in 1990 to $51.21 in 2012 while non- residents went from $276.00 in 1990 to $347.00 by 1996, but then dropped to $309.85 for 10 years before increasing slightly to $317.82 by 2012 (Appendix 1). The resident license fee in Alberta is one of the least expensive licenses amongst all jurisdictions in North America that have trophy rams seasons. Non-trophy special license fees are currently $27.40. (Note: None of the fee increases has kept up to inflation).

Figure 28. Resident trophy sheep hunter harvest and license sales in Alberta (1971-2014).

Figure 29. Non-resident trophy sheep hunter harvest and permit allocations utilized (1973–2014).

Figure 30. Non-trophy bighorn sheep licences sold and estimated harvest in Alberta (1966-2013).

2.2.2.4 Season Length, 1990 – 2014

The season length for trophy sheep hunting has changed little since 1990. Generally the resident trophy sheep season began August 25 north of the Bow River but the first Tuesday in September following Labour Day south of the Bow River, with all seasons ending the last or second last day of October (Appendix 1). In 1990 only the more remote WMU’s (WMU’s 440, 442, and 445) in Willmore Wilderness Park and north were open to Sunday hunting which resulted in a difference of 9 extra days. Gradually more WMU’s were opened for Sunday hunting until 2002 when all WMU’s could be hunted on Sunday. This resulted in a general season of 68 days north of the Bow River and 57 days in the south; however, no apparent increase in harvest or success rates of trophy sheep hunters was observed. The opening day for the archery-only season in WMU 410 coincided with the areas south of the Bow River, but ran to the end of November for a duration of between 83 and 88 days. Limited Entry Hunt seasons vary from 10 day hunts in WMU 438C to 86 days in WMU 410 which had only been on draw during November prior to 2001 (Appendix 1). The non-trophy season currently opens September 10th to avoid conflicts with trophy hunters but closes at the same time as the trophy season.

2.2.2.5 Harvest success, 1971 - 2014

As with other big game species, improved access to mountainous areas allowed hunter numbers and bighorn sheep harvests to increase. Since the initiation of compulsory registration in 1971, trophy sheep harvests climbed steadily until the mid 1980’s, leveled off and peaked in 1992. Since 1992 harvests declined approximately 25% and have remained fairly stable when compared to the historic highs of 1980 – 1995 (Fig. 33). The introduction of the full curl regulation (SMA’s 1 and 5) accounted for < 20% of the overall decline. The success rate of resident hunters under a general license increased as licence sales declined peaking in 1991 at just under 12% (Fig. 34). By the mid 1990’s, success rates had declined to approximately 7% and remained there until 2007 after which success declined further to currently less than 5% (Fig. 34). The success of resident LEH hunters in Alberta is 40 percent (Rominger et al. 2008a). The success of non-resident hunters has remained relatively constant averaging 47% since 1971 (Fig. 35). Despite not all non-resident allocations being utilized in recent years (Fig. 29), the non-resident harvest still accounted for over 22% of the provincial harvest in 2014 but has averaged 20.8% over the last 40 years.

Figure 31. Proportion of harvest by Non-Residents in SMAs 4a, 4b, and 4c (1990-2014).

Figure 32. Proportion of harvest by Non-residents in SMAs 6, 7 and 8 (1990-2014).

While the non-resident harvest has maintained itself at approximately 20% of the total provincial harvest, non-resident harvest in those SMAs with allocations is much higher (Figures 31, 32). In some SMAs (eg SMA 4c, and 7) it is not uncommon for the non-resident harvest to exceed 50% of the overall harvest for that SMA.

More restrictive regulations over that last 22 years (full curl regulation, limited entry hunts) in some WMUs has reduced harvest; however, new LEH opportunities have compensated to some extent. Trophy ram harvest in SMA 1 was limited for 3 to 5 years following the implementation of the full curl regulation in 1996 but then partially recovered (the time interval necessary to allow a portion of the 4/5 curl rams to achieve full curl) (Fig. 36). Access control measures (no motorized access during the hunting season requiring hunters to hike, mountain bike or use horses) were implemented in all the front canyons in SMA 1 by the mid-1990’s, tied to the Castle River Access Management Plan (1992). Motorized access management has contributed positively to the quality of ram harvest (in addition to regulation changes) by reducing disturbance (G. Hale, Senior Wildlife Biologist, Pincher Creek, pers. comm.). The number of rams taken in SMA 2 reached a low in the late 1990’s and has stabilized over the last decade (Fig. 37). SMA 3 harvest also declined thru the late 1990’s, but has recovered somewhat aided by the introduction of the late season LEH in the west portion of WMU 408 (Fig. 38). The trophy harvest in SMA 4A peaked in the early 1990’s as unlimited licenses in the archery zone (WMU 410) eventually resulted in excessive harvest. The introduction of LEH for archers in WMU 410 appears to be a more sustainable management strategy and the harvest has been stable for the last decade (Fig. 39) although down from its peaks in the early 1990s. Harvests in SMA 4A, 4B and 4C are highly influenced by the movement of rams out of Banff National Park.

The most marked decline in harvest has been in SMA’s 4B and 4C (Fig’s. 40 and 41), units that provided a significant number of trophy rams throughout the 1980’s. SMA 5 is a relatively small population hence harvest always has been small relative to other SMAs. Only 5 rams were taken in SMA 5 since the introduction of the full curl regulation in 1996 (Fig. 42). Trophy harvest in SMA’s 6 and 8 has been maintained by additional LEH opportunities in WMU 438C and 444/446 (Fig. 43 and 45) and the trophy harvest in SMA 7 has been consistent for the last 40 years (Fig. 44) reflecting the continual access restriction afforded by the wilderness status of the SMA.

. Figure 33. Licenced trophy bighorn sheep harvest in Alberta from 1971 – 2014 [includes resident (both general and limited entry hunt) and non-resident, but not native harvest].

Figure 34. Resident trophy sheep hunter success (general, not limited entry hunt) in Alberta (1971- 2014).

Figure 35. Non-resident trophy sheep hunter success in Alberta (1971-2014).

Die-off

Full Curl Regulation Initiated

Figure 36. Trophy bighorn sheep harvest in SMA 1 (1971 – Figure 37. Trophy bighorn sheep harvest in SMA 2 (1971 – 2014). 2014).

Figure 38. Trophy bighorn sheep harvest in SMA 3 (1971 – Figure 39. Trophy bighorn sheep harvest in SMA 4A (1971 – 2014). 2014).

Figure 40. Trophy bighorn sheep harvest in SMA 4B (1971- Figure 41. Trophy bighorn sheep harvest in SMA 4C (1971 – 2014). 2014).

Full Curl Regulation Initiated

Figure 42. Trophy bighorn sheep harvest in SMA 5 (1971 – Figure 43. Trophy bighorn sheep harvest in SMA 6 (1971 – 2014). 2014).

Figure 44. Trophy bighorn sheep harvest in SMA 7 (1971 – Figure 45. Trophy bighorn sheep harvest in SMA 8 (1971- 2014). 2014).

2.2.2.5.1 Timing of Trophy Harvest, 1971 – 2009

In general, the timing of resident trophy sheep harvest has a bimodal distribution with the first and last week of the season being the two time periods where Alberta resident hunters take the greatest number of rams (Fig’s. 46 - 54). The opening day of the resident trophy sheep season occurred in late August in SMA 1 until the die-off in 1983, when it was changed to early September. This later opening date has remained and is reflected in Fig. 46 with the second week also having a higher harvest than the following weeks. In the final week of October harvest increased dramatically coinciding with the pre-rut movements and the potential for rams to leave the sanctuary of Waterton National Park. The delay in the initiation of the resident trophy season also applies to SMA’s 2 and 3. In SMA 2, higher ram harvest prior to the opening day delay (1971 – 1982) have masked this change (Fig. 47), while in SMA 3, the increased harvest in Week 2 are evident in response to delaying the opening date to early September (Fig. 48). North of the Bow River, the initiation of the trophy sheep season in August has remained constant and the bimodal timing of harvest is evident in SMA’s 4A, 4B, 4C, 5 and 6 (Fig’s. 49, 50, 51, 52, 53). Additionally, the more recent November LEH harvest in SMA 6 is reflected in Fig. 53. In contrast, resident harvest is not pronounced at the end of the season in SMA’s 7 and 8 (Fig. 54). This is probably a result of the combination of more inclement weather, remote access to bighorn range and no ATV access in most of these SMA’s.

The non-resident season begins a week later and terminates 2 weeks before the resident season closes. Non-resident trophy harvest mimics resident harvest in terms of the frequency of kills during the opening 2 weeks and then declines after that. The exception is SMA 6 where the number of animals taken increases towards the end of the non-resident season (Fig. 53), probably in response to outfitter hunting effort focusing on the perimeter of the Cadomin mines to take advantage of pre-rut movements of trophy sheep off the unhunted mine properties (MacCallum 2008).

The mean age of rams harvested is variable from week to week with no set trend. The exception is in SMA 6 where there is a clear selection for older rams in the LEH November hunt (Fig. 53).

Figure 46. Resident trophy bighorn sheep harvest and mean age of harvested rams by 1 week intervals in SMA 1 (1971 – 2009). (Week 1 = August, Week 2 = Sept. 1 – 7, Week 3 = Sept. 8 – 14, Week 4 = Sept. 15 – 21, Week 5 = Sept, 22 – 30, Week 6 = Oct. 1 – 7, Week 7 = Oct. 8 – 14, Week 8 = Oct. 15 – 21, Week 9 = Oct. 22 – 30).

. Figure 47. Resident trophy bighorn sheep harvest and mean age of harvested rams by 1 week intervals in SMA 2 (1971 – 2009). (Week 1 = August, Week 2 = Sept. 1 – 7, Week 3 = Sept. 8 – 14, Week 4 = Sept. 15 – 21, Week 5 = Sept, 22 – 30, Week 6 = Oct. 1 – 7, Week 7 = Oct. 8 – 14, Week 8 = Oct. 15 – 21, Week 9 = Oct. 22 – 30).

. Figure 48. Resident trophy bighorn sheep harvest and mean age of harvested rams by 1 week intervals in SMA 3 (1971 – 2009). (Week 1 = August, Week 2 = Sept. 1 – 7, Week 3 = Sept. 8 – 14, Week 4 = Sept. 15 – 21, Week 5 = Sept, 22 – 30, Week 6 = Oct. 1 – 7, Week 7 = Oct. 8 – 14, Week 8 = Oct. 15 – 21, Week 9 = Oct. 22 – 30).

. Figure 49. Resident trophy bighorn sheep harvest and mean age of harvested rams by 1 week intervals in SMA 4A (1971 – 2009). (Week 1 = August, Week 2 = Sept. 1 – 7, Week 3 = Sept. 8 – 14, Week 4 = Sept. 15 – 21, Week 5 = Sept, 22 – 30, Week 6 = Oct. 1 – 7, Week 7 = Oct. 8 – 14, Week 8 = Oct. 15 – 21, Week 9 = Oct. 22 – 30).

. Figure 50. Resident trophy bighorn sheep harvest and mean age of harvested rams by 1 week intervals in SMA 4B (1971 – 2009). (Week 1 = August, Week 2 = Sept. 1 – 7, Week 3 = Sept. 8 – 14, Week 4 = Sept. 15 – 21, Week 5 = Sept, 22 – 30, Week 6 = Oct. 1 – 7, Week 7 = Oct. 8 – 14, Week 8 = Oct. 15 – 21, Week 9 = Oct. 22 – 30).

. Figure 51. Resident trophy bighorn sheep harvest and mean age of harvested rams by 1 week intervals in SMA 4C (1971 – 2009). (Week 1 = August, Week 2 = Sept. 1 – 7, Week 3 = Sept. 8 – 14, Week 4 = Sept. 15 – 21, Week 5 = Sept, 22 – 30, Week 6 = Oct. 1 – 7, Week 7 = Oct. 8 – 14, Week 8 = Oct. 15 – 21, Week 9 = Oct. 22 – 30).

. Figure 52. Resident trophy bighorn sheep harvest and mean age of harvested rams by 1 week intervals in SMA 5 (1971 – 2009). (Week 1 = August, Week 2 = Sept. 1 – 7, Week 3 = Sept. 8 – 14, Week 4 = Sept. 15 – 21, Week 5 = Sept, 22 – 30, Week 6 = Oct. 1 – 7, Week 7 = Oct. 8 – 14, Week 8 = Oct. 15 – 21, Week 9 = Oct. 22 – 30).

. Figure 53. Resident trophy bighorn sheep harvest and mean age of harvested rams by 1 week intervals in SMA 6 (1971 – 2009). (Week 1 = August, Week 2 = Sept. 1 – 7, Week 3 = Sept. 8 – 14, Week 4 = Sept. 15 – 21, Week 5 = Sept, 22 – 30, Week 6 = Oct. 1 – 7, Week 7 = Oct. 8 – 14, Week 8 = Oct. 15 – 21, Week 9 = Oct. 22 – 30, Week 10 = Nov.).

. Figure 54. Resident trophy bighorn sheep harvest and mean age of harvested rams by 1 week intervals in SMA’s 7 & 8 (1971 – 2009). (Week 1 = August, Week 2 = Sept. 1 – 7, Week 3 = Sept. 8 – 14, Week 4 = Sept. 15 – 21, Week 5 = Sept, 22 – 30, Week 6 = Oct. 1 – 7, Week 7 = Oct. 8 – 14, Week 8 = Oct. 15 – 21, Week 9 = Oct. 22 – 30).

2.2.2.5.2 Ram Harvest Relative to Availability

Aerial surveys provide a classified sample of the number of legal rams remaining post-season; however, the actual number is always underestimated. Moreover, the number of rams available the following hunting season is more difficult to estimate without knowing the proportion of 3/4 curl rams growing to 4/5 curl size. Based on survival rates of rams presented by Cowan and Geist (1971), Wishart (1978b) predicted that four or five 3/4 curl rams could be produced annually from 100 bighorns in the field. This is consistent with what was found at Ram Mountain for 4/5 curl rams during years of rapid population growth, but this then declined to an average of only 2-3 trophy rams per year once density dependent effects began to take effect and the population began to decline along with a decrease in horn growth rates. Annual ram harvests in this 3-4% range would indicate that the majority of the annual recruitment of trophy rams into the populations was harvested and that escapement from harvest is likely low.

The number of rams harvested expressed as a percent of the pre-season population varies in Alberta from 2.8% in SMA 6, where a large portion of the population is protected from hunting on the Teck Coal and Gregg River Resources mine sites, to 7.7% in SMA 2, where aerial surveys have chronically been difficult to complete and population estimates may have been particularly low (Figs. 55- 65). [This contrasts with most other jurisdictions in North America where the range is from 1.5 – 3.6 rams harvested per 100 sheep with an average of 2.5/100 (Rominger et al 2008a)]. SMA 1 experienced high harvests until the pneumonia die-off in the early 1980’s that resulted in high mortality of mature rams. There was no harvest for 3 years following the introduction of the full curl regulation in 1996, however, ram harvests have since recovered but not to levels experienced prior to the die-off (Fig. 55). Relative to population estimates, the ram harvest in SMA 2 appears high throughout the 1970’s (although this may reflect low population estimates), but has remained low for the last 20 years (Fig. 56). Ram harvest in SMA 3 was high in the early 1980’s, dropped off considerably in the 90’s, but has been relatively stable over the last decade (Fig. 57). A pattern of high harvests in the 1980’s applies to all of the SMA 4 units (A,B,C) (Fig’s. 58 - 60). This was also the case in SMA 5 (Fig. 61) where prior to instituting the full curl regulation, harvest at Ram Mountain averaged 4 percent of the preseason population (range 1-8%). This was equivalent to an average of 40% of the available legal rams (Coltman et al. 2003).

Ram harvests have been below 4 percent of the population in most years in SMA 6 (mean = 2.5%, 1971 – 2014) and generally declined as a greater proportion of the area’s rams took up residence on the protected mine properties (Fig. 62). Furthermore, WMU 437 didn’t experience any harvest of rams until 1996 when it was opened as a LEH hunt. This SMA has the highest proportion of legal rams in the population (average = 12.8 percent; range of 4.1 – 23.5 percent between 1972 and 2013, N = 13 years) which makes this comparison even more conservative. For example, there were 28 rams harvested in 2008 and 188 legal rams classified after the season indicating a harvest of only 13 percent of the minimum number of rams present during the hunting season. SMA 7, although variable, has averaged 4.1% over the last 40+ years (Fig. 63). SMA 8 appears to have had a dramatic increase in ram harvest (Fig. 64). This may reflect new hunting opportunities on the abandoned Smoky River Coal mine properties or given that it is a ratio of the number of rams harvested relative to the last aerial survey, it could simply be an artifact of a lack of survey data from 1995 - 2009.

Over time, it appears that the harvest of rams expressed as a percent of the population estimate exceeded the sustainable target of 3 - 4% in the 1970’s in SMA 2 and in in the 1980’s in the SMA 4 units. The northern units (SMA 6 to 8) have sustained ram harvest either through the number of rams avoiding harvest on coal mines or by virtue of limited access in Willmore Wilderness Park.

Full Curl Regulation Initiated (1996)

Figure 55. Ram harvest expressed as a percent of the preseason population for SMA 1 (1971 – 2014). (The preseason population is based on the most recent survey and the black line illustrates the average proportion of the preseason population that ram harvest represents for the time period).

Figure 56. Ram harvest expressed as a percent of the preseason population for SMA 2 (1971 – 2014). (The preseason population is based on the most recent survey and the black line illustrates the average proportion of the preseason population that ram harvest represents for the time period).

Figure 57. Ram harvest expressed as a percent of the preseason population for SMA 3 (1971 – 2014). (The preseason population is based on the most recent survey. Black line illustrates the average proportion of the preseason population that ram harvest represents for the time period).

. Figure 58. Ram harvest expressed as a percent of the preseason population for SMA 4A (1971 – 2014). (The preseason population is based on the most recent survey and the black line illustrates the average proportion of the preseason population that ram harvest represents for the time period)

Figure 59. Ram harvest expressed as a percent of the preseason population for SMA 4B (1971 – 2014). (The preseason population is based on the most recent survey and the black line illustrates the average proportion of the preseason population that ram harvest represents for the time period).

. Figure 60. Ram harvest expressed as a percent of the preseason population for SMA 4C, (1971 – 2014). (The preseason population is based on the most recent survey. Black line illustrates the average proportion of the preseason population that ram harvest represents for the time period.

Full Curl Regulation Trophy Initiated Season Closed

. Figure 61. Ram harvest expressed as a percent of the preseason population for SMA 5 (1971 – 2014). (The preseason population is based on the most recent survey. Black line illustrates the average proportion of the preseason population that ram harvest represents from 1971 – 1994).

. Figure 62. Ram harvest expressed as a percent of the preseason population for SMA 6 (1971 – 2014). (The preseason population is based on the most recent survey. Black line illustrates the average proportion of the preseason population that ram harvest represents for the time period).

. Figure 63. Ram harvest expressed as a percent of the preseason population for SMA 7 (1971 – 2014). (The preseason population is based on the most recent survey. Black line illustrates the average proportion of the preseason population that ram harvest represents for the time period).

. Figure 64. Ram harvest expressed as a percent of the preseason population for SMA 8, (1971 – 2014). (The preseason population is based on the most recent survey. Black line illustrates the average proportion of the preseason population that ram harvest represents for the time period).

2.2.2.6 Harvest Pressure Trophy Rams, 1971 – 2014

In 2014, 2386 licenses were sold to resident hunters to harvest trophy rams, including 2332 general tags and 54 limited entry hunt (LEH) tags available through a draw. In the past, the demand for trophy sheep hunting (as indexed by licence sales) had declined 50 percent by the mid 1990’s from a high in 1984 (Fig. 28), possibly attributable in part to a license fee increase in 1987 (from $20 to $40). It remained there until the mid 2000’s and has increased since that time to 2014. Limited entry draws were first initiated for trophy sheep in 1996 in WMU 437 (Redcap). Since that time LEH draws have been instituted in WMU 444/446 within the former Smoky River Coal Mine mineral surface lease (MSL) and for post- regular season rut hunts outside the Teck and Gregg River Resources MSL’s (WMU 438) and in Kananaskis (west portion of WMU 408). The probability of being drawn for a LEH hunt is very low. For example, the first permits offered in WMU 437 in 1996 had over 1500 applicants for 9 permits (0.6%). Non-resident opportunities have remained relatively constant since 1972 with just over 80 permits being allocated to bighorn sheep outfitters. However, in recent years the number of permits actually used has dropped almost 20% (Fig. 29) as outfitters are less able to book hunts with American clients coinciding with the downturn in the American economy.

A Special Ministers Bighorn Sheep Permit was instituted in 1995. This permit initially allowed the recipients to hunt trophy bighorn sheep anywhere north of the Bow River for the entire month of November. This opportunity was extended to include the first 2 weeks of December in 2005. A total of 2 permits are available: one that was originally auctioned off at the International Rocky Mountain Elk Foundations’ annual meeting (and now at the Wild Sheep Foundations’ annual meeting) to the highest bidder and a second that is available through a raffle administered by the Alberta Fish and Game Association. The funds raised are used for wildlife projects in Alberta with the highest auction price paid to date being $405 000.00 US.

Resident hunter questionnaires have been conducted since 2011. More than a third of resident trophy sheep licence holders respond each year. Based on hunter days, more than 50% of trophy sheep hunting effort occurs south of the Bow River in SMA’s 1, 2 and 3 (Fig. 65). The sample may have a slight bias as only hunters that have an email address are contacted; however that should still include the majority of hunters. The estimated harvest of trophy bighorns in 2011 through this questionnaire was 139 which is very similar to the compulsory registration number of 134 (includes LEH harvest as well). Based on this questionnaire, an average of almost 16000 hunter days have been expended by general license holders in the pursuit of trophy bighorn sheep over that 3 year period.

Rams in Alberta can attain legal size by 4 years of age; however, the average age of harvested rams has increased from 6.8 to 7.6 years between 1974 and 2014 (Fig. 66). This has coincided with a decline in the proportion of 4 and 5 year olds in the harvest from 25% to less than 7% during the same period (Fig. 67) (adapted from Festa-Bianchet et al. 2014).

The percent of trophy rams (out of all rams classified during aerial surveys) remaining in the population after the season averages ≤ 4 percent of the population (1971 – 2011) for all of the SMAs south of the Brazeau River (Fig 68). Although SMA 4B was an exception until the 90s, the proportion has averaged only 3.4 percent since 2000. North of the Brazeau, there are more legal rams surviving the hunting season. SMA 6 contains Cadomin and the reservoir of rams on the mines is rarely available to hunt hence there is a high proportion of legal rams in the winter populations (Fig. 68).

At current rates of harvest south of the Brazeau it is estimated that more than 90 percent of the annual recruitment potential (i.e.3-4 legal rams/100 sheep) is being harvested and in some SMAs, that number is estimated to be greater than the annual recruitment which results in a steady decline of trophy rams. The exception is SMA 1 where the initiation of the full curl regulation has allowed sufficient escapement that

has resulted in the percent of rams 4/5 curl or larger increasing to > 10 percent of the total population estimate (Fig.78). Based on this coarse estimate of the number of legal rams that were present, the former provincial mean harvest goal of 50 percent (not to exceed 70%) (Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division 1993) has likely been significantly exceeded in many areas of the province. Since the 1993 management plan, it has been recognized that the 50% goal of ram harvested out of what’s available is not sustainable. The absence of many very large trophies being registered on an annual basis in Alberta is indicative of heavy harvests on available rams (Festa-Bianchet et al. 2014). The age and size of rams killed by non-residents who have the added advantage of hunting with an experienced guide, were no different that of residents- further testament to a lack of larger trophy rams.

Figure 65. Mean trophy bighorn sheep hunter effort in Alberta by Wildlife Management Unit based on email surveys of resident trophy sheep license holders (2011 – 2013).

Figure 66. The average age of rams harvested in Alberta, 1974 – 2014 (adapted from Festa-Bianchet et al. 2014).

Figure 67. Proportion of 4 and 5 year old rams in the trophy bighorn sheep harvest in Alberta, 1974 – 2014 (adapted from Festa-Bianchet et al. 2014).

Cadomin (mine & native range 1)

(mine)

Clearwater-Ram (peaked late 80s) Increasing in SMA 1 since Since 2000, averaged 3.4% the full curl regulation was instituted % TROPHY RAMS

SHEEP MANAGEMENT AREA

Figure 68. Percentage of trophy rams found in each SMA during post-hunting season surveys (1971 – 2011). (Red line illustrates the mean of all SMA’s). (Allen 2012). Note 1- in SMA 6, native range has a higher percent of trophy rams than the mine site.

DIE-OFF

Figure 69. The percentage of the population estimate (based on aerial surveys) made up of trophy rams (≥ 4/5 curl) in SMA 1, 1971-2011.

2.2.2.6.1 Harvest Pressure for non-trophy sheep, 1971 – 2014

The demand for non-trophy hunting exceeds supply. The number of non-trophy sheep permits peaked in the mid 1980’s at over 1300, but has averaged just over 200 for the last decade (Fig. 30). Hunter success has averaged 30% between 1966 and 2013; however, this is highly variable from year to year (Fig. 35). Only 18.3 percent of 1749 applicants were successful in 2012. This opportunity is not evenly distributed as 89% of the 2012 permits were in units north of the Brazeau River and in Kananaskis (Table 8). The provincial harvest has averaged 3.1% (Rominger et al. 2008b); well below the harvest goals set out in the 1993 Management Plan (Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division 1993).

Non-trophy harvest, expressed as a percentage of the preseason population estimates, has been variable between SMA’s from 1971 and 2009. The non-trophy season was closed in SMA 1 following the die-off in 1982 (Fig. 70) and has remained closed since that time. The non-trophy harvest in SMA 2 initially appears to be excessive (Fig. 71); however, this is reflecting the infrequent and limited aerial surveys in the 1970 and 80’s. More recently, the harvest in SMA 2 has been very low. The harvest in SMA 3 has been relatively consistent since 1971 with a spike in the late 1980’s, then fluctuating around 3% for the last 15 years (Fig. 72). The harvest in SMA 4A was variable for the first 20 years; however, inventory was incomplete for that period. For the last 20 years it has fluctuated around 1-3% (Fig. 73). In SMA 4B, harvest varied between 3 – 8% in the mid to late 1980’s and has since dropped to between 1 – 2% (Fig. 74). Harvest in SMA 4C spiked in the mid 70’s and 80’s and has fluctuated between 1 – 4% since that time (Fig. 75). The harvest at Ram Mountain in SMA 5 has provided the basis for non-trophy management in the province and has been discussed earlier (see Section 2.2.2.1.7; Non-trophy bighorn sheep regulations, 1966 – 2013) but it has been closed for over a decade as the population is SMA collapsed due to density dependent effects and localized predatory events and population numbers are still too low to afford a non-trophy season.

Non-trophy management in SMA 6 has been accomplished through a combination of harvest and transplants in response to a large proportion of non-trophy sheep not being available for harvest while on coal mines. The combined removal averaged ~5% from the mid 80’s to 2001 and then dropped off when the border was closed to bighorn sheep transplants to the United States following the BSE scare in cattle (Fig. 76). Permit numbers have been reduced since the number of non-trophy sheep outside of the mine represents only 40% of the SMA total. The non-trophy harvest in SMA 7 has fluctuated between 1 – 3% (Fig. 77) despite hundreds of permits being available in the 1980’s. The remoteness of most of this SMA seems to preclude the harvest target in most years. SMA 8 has experienced fairly low harvest rates in most years (Fig. 78). In many of the more accessible SMA’s, there have been problems with local herd “burnouts” as hunters target a single band of sheep and don’t distribute themselves equitably throughout the WMU. In many cases, sub-units have been established for non-trophy hunting, but where this hasn’t happened, permit numbers have been reduced substantially.

Table 7. Success of being drawn and of harvesting a non-trophy sheep in Alberta by Wildlife Management Unit (WMU), 2012.

WMU Quota Number of % Success Harvest % Success Applicants drawn Harvest

306 1 136 0.74% 1 100.00% 308 1 117 0.85% 0 0.00% 402A 2 107 1.87% 0 0.00% 406A 9 76 11.84% 13 26.00%

406B 41 82 50.00% 408A 7 43 16.28% 12 34.29% 408B 28 83 33.73% 410 15 111 13.51% 4 26.67% 416 3 45 6.67% 0 0.00%

418A 1 24 4.17% 0 0.00% 418B 1 37 2.70% 0 0.00% 420 3 48 6.25% 0 0.00% 422A 3 54 5.56% 0 0.00%

426A 2 30 6.67% 0 0.00% 430A 2 19 10.53% 0 0.00% 430B 1 51 1.96% 0 0.00% 432 2 14 14.29% 0 0.00%

434A 5 19 26.32% 1 16.67% 434B 1 16 6.25% 0 437 15 142 10.56% 0 0.00% 438A 10 25 40.00% 6 17.14%

438C 15 70 21.43%

438D 10 66 15.15% 440 39 62 62.90% 5 12.82% 442 67 67 100.00% 4 5.97% 444 30 79 37.97% 0 0.00% 445A 2 31 6.45% 0 0.00% 445B 2 7 28.57% 0 0.00% 446 3 88 3.41% 3 100.00%

Mean Mean Total 321 1749 18.35% 49 15.26%

Figure 70. Non-trophy harvest expressed as a percentage of the preseason population estimate in SMA 1, 1971 – 2009.

Figure 71. Non-trophy harvest expressed as a percentage of the preseason population estimate in SMA 2, 1971 – 2009.

.. Figure 72. Non-trophy harvest expressed as a percentage of the preseason population estimate in SMA 3, 1971 – 2009.

Figure 73. Non-trophy harvest expressed as a percentage of the preseason population estimate in SMA 4A, 1971 – 2009.

Figure 74. Non-trophy harvest expressed as a percentage of the preseason population estimate in SMA 4B, 1971 – 2009.

Figure 75. Non-trophy harvest expressed as a percentage of the preseason population estimate in SMA 4C, 1971 – 2009.

Figure 76. Non-trophy harvest expressed as a percentage of the preseason population estimate in SMA 6, 1971 – 2009.

Figure 77. Non-trophy harvest expressed as a percentage of the preseason population estimate in SMA 7, 1971 – 2009.

Figure 78. Non-trophy harvest expressed as a percentage of the preseason population estimate in SMA 8, 1971 – 2009.

2.2.2.7 Potential Causes of the Decline in Trophy Ram Harvest in Alberta

Festa-Bianchet et al. (2014) examined horn measurements of trophy rams harvested in Alberta collected from compulsory registrations. These authors found that the mean age of harvested rams has increased between 1974 and 2011 and that trend has continued (Fig. 66). This increase was the result of a decrease in the proportion of 4-5 year old rams in the hunted sample (Fig. 67). Moreover, horn growth (basal circumference and horn length) has decreased over time when the age of sheep is accounted for. The decline has been most dramatic since the mid 1990’s but only in those SMAs south of the Brazeau River (e.g. Kananaskis (SMA 3), Bow Valley- Ghost (SMA 4A), Clearwater- Ram (SMA 4B) and Nordegg- Chungo (SMA 4C)). It has actually increased in others (e.g. Cadomin (SMA 6), Torrens (SMA 8). Three potential contributing factors are considered below: selective effectsof trophy hunting, climate change and density-dependence.

1. Selective Effects of Trophy hunting Festa-Bianchet et al (2014) argue that trophy hunting could artificially select against rams with fast-growing horns, potentially leading to slower horn growth rates and smaller-horned rams after accounting for age. In most jurisdictions in North America, bighorn rams are harvested based on a minimum legal horn curl limit (e.g. 3/4, 4/5, or full curl; Jorgenson et al. 1993); however, most have the additional limitation on harvest afforded by LEH . The concern is that, under a management regime that only limits the harvest of bighorn rams through a minimum size restriction but with no limit on the number of hunters (such as most areas in Alberta), heavy hunting and subsequent high harvests over generations would result in smaller horned rams as fast growing rams are removed from the population prior to achieving high breeding potential.

Fast growing rams become legal at an eariler age and thus become subject to harvest and removal from the population prior to breeding. In British Columbia, Hengeveld and Festa-

Bianchet (2011) examined 28 years of harvest information for trophy Rocky Mountain and California bighorn sheep. They found that males with the greatest early horn growth were harvested at the youngest ages under all regulations (i.e. 3/4 curl, full curl, any ram) and before the age at which horn size influenced reproductive success. The average age of rams harvested under a full curl regulation in B.C. was < 1 year older relative to rams harvested under the three quarter curl regulations.

Bighorn rams show variation ranging from slow to fast horn growth. Faster growing rams are the individuals with the greatest likelihood of having large horns as adults as long as they survive. Horn growth is influenced by primary productivity (Jorgenson et al. 1993a, 1998; Festa-Bianchet et al. 1997; LeBlanc et al. 2001), population density (Coltman et al. 2002, Coltman et al. 2005, Jorgenson et al. 1998, Rominger and Goldstein 2006, Wishart 2006), weather (Hik and Carey 2000; Loehr et al. 2007) and genetics (Fitzsimmons et al. 1995, Coltman et al. 2003). The proportion of variability in horn size attributable to heritability is 32 - 43% (Coltman et al. 2005; Poissant et al. 2008).

Horn size in bighorns confers breeding superiority (Geist 1971; Hogg 1987; Pelletier and Festa- Bianchet 2006) and higher mating success (Coltman et al. 2002). In terms of survival, yearling rams demonstrating early horn growth were found to survive better than those that exhibited slower horn growth (Bonenfant et al. 2009). Moreover, in management areas where curl size restrictions are the only limitations to harvest, the age at which rams are harvested is often potentialy before they reach their greatest probablilty of mating success. Coltman et al. (2002) found that mating advantage of fast-growing rams began to increase at age 6, but was still marginal compared to older rams. Coltman et al. (2003) showed that body weight and horn size of bighorn rams at Ram Mountain declined with unrestricted trophy harvest over a 30 year period.

The primary factor required for the evolutionary consequences of selecting for fast-growing rams to become evident is high harvest levels in areas where gene flow is not available from nonhunted (refuge) populations. Refuge populations (i.e National Parks) have the potential to restore alleles associated with large horns [Hogg 2000, Hogg et al. 2006, Coltman 2008, also see Tenhumberg 2004 regarding positive effects of movements from refuge areas relative to restoring alleles of red kangaroos (Marcopus rufus)]. However, Pelletier et al. (2014) compared rams harvested in Alberta from 1974 – 2011 that were adjacent to protected areas with those further away. Although rams taken near protected areas averaged 3% longer horns and were slightly older, both groups showed similar declines in horn growth and increases in age necessary to attain legal size, suggesting that there was insufficient movement of rams from protected areas to hunted areas during the rut to provide the “phenotypic rescue” necessary to buffer the effects of selective hunting pressure.

The Ram Mountain study reported selective effects of trophy ram harvesting at annual average harvest rates of 40% of the available trophy rams and this statistic was based on a known sample. In Dall’s sheep (Ovis dalli), Loehr et al. (2007, 2010) reported a 27% harvest of legal rams; however, this assessment is based on aerial survey results that are minimum counts and therefore would be considered a very liberal estimate of harvest rate. Another way of comparing harvest pressure is by calculating the number of rams harvested per 100 bighorns. In Alberta, “over-the counter” hunts result in an average harvest of 4 rams/100 bighorns which is.comparable to Montana (3-4 rams/100 bighorns) (Rominger 2008a), however, the over the counter hunts in Montana are applicable to only a few areas in the state and the actual harvest is controlled through a quota system. Trophy rams harvests in the rest of Montana are all on limited entry. All other jurisdictions restrict hunting opportunity through a limited entry draw with additional

restrictions on the number of permits one can obtain in a lifetime and with long wait-out period of up to 10 yrs. Consequently,harvest rates in Alberta are 40% greater than the mean of all other jurisdictions with much greater restrictions on hunter opportunity, illustrating a much more conservative approach used throughout the remainder of western North America (Rominger 2008a).

Fitzsimmons et al. (1995) studied a number of bighorn populations in Wyoming and documented that populations with greater heterozygosity result in larger and faster growing rams. They noted that little variation in horn size of young rams could be attributed to genetic factors, but 21% of the variation in ram horn volume of 7 year olds, an age coinciding with the onset of breeding, was attributed to heterozygosity. These authors predicted that a management strategy which: 1) removes a high proportion of large-horned rams through hunting, 2) does so over many generations, and 3) where the genetic variance of horn size is high will result in the greatest reduction in genetic variability.

The undesirable genetic consequences of trophy hunting have also been proposed for other alpine species. The body mass (weight) and body size (shoulder height) of both sexes and horn measurements of male mouflon (Ovis gmelini musimon) decreased as habitat condition (loss of open area) deteriorated and trophy hunting was initiated in southern France (Garel et al. 2007). Deteriorating habitat condition explained part of this change in horn mass; however, horn breadth, a characteristic desirable to mouflon trophy hunters, also declined over this period. This horn characteristic is selected by hunters and less likely to be influenced by habitat condition (opinion of the authors; no data is presented). Reductions in horn size also were documented in Iberian ibex (Capra iberica) and Barbary sheep (Ammotragus lervia) subjected to trophy hunting in Spain (Pérez et al. 2011).

The undesirable genetic consequences of trophy hunting hypothesis has however been disputed. Coltman et al. (2003) have been criticized for not having totally accounted for the effects of the environment in their analysis (Postma 2006), a caveat subsequently confirmed by Coltman (2008). This was due to the statistical limitation of the Ram Mountain dataset not having a sufficient sample size in any given year to use “Year” as a covariate in the analysis. This deficiency does not mean that environmental factors explain more of the variability in ram body weight and horn size than genetics, rather that it is very difficult to separate the influence of these variables in a small population.

More recently, Traill et al. (2014) examined lamb weights (not horn length) at Ram Mountain with integral projection models (IPM) and found that body size of lambs was weakly inherited. Based on this result, these authors argue that changes in bighorn sheep traits are determined by demography, not evolutionary change as proposed by Coltman et al. 2003. However, the Traill et al. (2014) model examined a fictitious harvest based on ram mass (not horn size) and ignored the lack of heritabilty between ram mass and lamb mass and thus has little validity (Hedrick et al. 2014, Chevin in press). Heritability increases with age (Réale et al. 1999; Poissant et al. 2008) and Coltman et al. (2003) had previously established that the body size and horn characteristic differences are not significant traits until 3 – 4 years of age thereby establishing that lamb mass has very low heritability

A recent evaluation of bighorn sheep recorded in the “Boone and Crockett Records of North American Big Game” found no reduction in horn size between 1900 and 2008 (Monteith et al. 2013). The Boone and Crockett (B & C) analysis (Monteith et al. 2013) reports on horn sizes from all North American populations, but ages were not available making it impossible to compare these results to the other long-term data sets. The bulk of bighorn populations in the B

& C records are managed under limited entry hunts resulting in harvests of 20 - 30% or less of the available rams (Rominger et al. 2008a, Idaho Department of Fish and Game 2010) all lower than the harvest pressure experienced in Alberta. In addition, rams submittted to B & C must meet minimum size requirements to be considered and therefore are not representative of all harvested rams, nor does the sample capture the full range of genotypes. Furthermore, harvest records analyzed from populations where the harvest is based on a horn size limit will underestimate the significance of temporal declines in horn size because of the influence of animals that do not achieve the threshold of the legal curl requirement (Pelletier et al. 2012). Small rams are not represented in the pool of harvested rams because they are not legal and cannot be shot, a caveat relative to all of the studies using only size-dependent harvested rams as the sample (Loehr 2007, 2010; Monteith et al. 2013, Festa-Bianchet et al. 2014).

Another consideration which might limit the ability of hunters to impose a strong selective effect is that older rams commonly broom the ends of their horns such that some rams will never reach 4/5th or full-curl status even though they are large old rams. The proportion of rams in a population where this occurs is unknown; however, young fast growing rams are not likely going to be the ones with heavily broomed horns if these young rams get shoot soon after they become legal.

2. Climate change A second potential contributing factor is that ram horn size in Alberta has been strongly influenced by changes in climate. Analysis of Dall’s sheep horn measurements from hunter harvest in the Yukon linked annual horn growth to precipitation and temperature cycles which likely influence plant productivity (Hik and Carey 2000). These authors observed a periodicity in horn growth which was correlated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (10 year cycle) and argued that this pulse wouldn’t be affected by hunter harvest influencing genetic quality or the ability to produce more or faster growing rams. In later analysis of this data set, it was demonstrated that rapid horn growth was associated with lower longevity for rams 5 and older for both the hunted and natural mortality samples (Loehr et al. 2007). Since age and longevity were the primary determinants of large horn size, these authors argue that hunter harvest shouldn’t have a negative effect. With additional data, the influence of spring weather was further supported as the most significant determinant of horn size (Loehr et al. 2010). In Europe, Rughetti and Festa-Bianchet (2010) indicate that sport harvests are unlikely to have a strong selective effect on chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra) phenotypic traits since body mass, rather than horn size, is more important for mating success in this species and hunters do not select trophies based on body mass. These authors implicate climate change-caused warm springs and summers as the most significant factors negatively affecting body mass (Rughetti and Festa-Bianchet 2012). The effects of changing climate (temperature and precipitation) on horn growth of bighorn rams is one of the main components of the University of Alberta bighorn sheep project being conducted by Dr. David Hik, students and colleagues (Hik 2014). Preliminary analysis suggests the central area of the Eastern Slopes of Alberta has experienced less snow, less annual precipitation and warmer temperatures between 2000 - 2010 compared to 1980 – 1990. This area roughly corresponds to the SMA’s in Alberta where the mean age of harvest rams has increased and ram horn growth has declined (Festa-Bainchet et al. 2014). Nonetheless the decline in the proportion of 4 and 5 years old in the harvest happened across the province and across the entire period of time, although it seemed more evident in the past two decades.

3. Density Dependence A third potential contributing factor is that ram horn growth is strongly influenced by density dependence. Jorgenson et al. (1998) demonstrated that ram horn growth decreased as density increased at Ram Mountain resulting in a substantial decrease in the number of 6 – 7 year old

rams attaining 4/5 of a curl (i.e. from 61 – 73% at low density to 31 – 35% at high density). These authors recommended limited ewe harvests to decrease populations where intraspecific density in nursery herds affects horn development of young rams. However, the SMAs where the increase in mean age of harvested rams and the decrease in the proportion of 4 and 5 year old rams in the harvest has been most pronounced (SMAs 3, 4B and 4C) are at lower densities now than at previous times during the last 40 years (Figs. 9, 11 and 12). Moreover, it is important to note that in British Columbia, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep managed under a full curl regulation have not shown any decrease in horn size of harvested rams despite not having a non- trophy season to reduce density (Hengeveld and Festa-Bianchet 2011).

While the the population estimates of bighorns in Alberta has increased slowly (Fig. 6), most of the increase has been a result of bighorns responding to new habitats, moving into refuge areas and survey efforts expanding into new areas. Meanwhile, non-trophy harvest has declined significantly (Fig. 30) in some SMAs. The public in the central and southern part of the province were concerned about a perceived increase of predator pressure on bighorn populations and managers responded by reducing the number of non-trophy permits being issued. However, there is insufficient evidence to determine if predation influenced bighorn numbers (see section on Predation). Additionally there were instances of non-trophy harvests being overly concentrated on a few accessible herds. In some cases, special non-trophy bighorn sheep harvest units were established to address this issue, but where this didn’t occur, non-trophy permit numbers were reduced.

In summary, there are a number of factors that could contribute to a reduction in trophy ram harvests in Alberta, a reduction in the size of harvested rams, and an increase in the mean age necessary to achieve “legal status” over the last 40 years. The conditions that might lead to a selective genetic effect of trophy hunting on bighorn sheep (i.e. excessive harvest) appear to pertain more to the situation in Alberta compared to other jurisdictions in North America. There heritability and genetic variation for horn growth and a harvest strategy based on a minimum trophy definition alone (rather than limiting harvest by Limited Entry Hunts) could impose selection on horn size. There is the potential for an evolutionary response in areas where harvest pressure is high and where genetic interchange from “no hunting” refuges is absent. However, the rate and magnitude of the response to selection is very difficult to predict because: 1) much of the variation in horn growth is non-genetic, 2) the horn genes carried by females plays a role and 3) it is unknown whether artificial selection is effective at a genetic level (i.e. whether hunters select genetically superior rams or rams that happen to live in good environments and grow fast). Density has been shown to play a role in ram horn growth and density has remained stable over the last 25 years - the exception being increases in SMAs 2, 6 and 8. There have been no changes detected in harvest or growth rates in SMAs 6 or 8.

Changes in annual temperature and precipitation appear to have taken place in bighorn range and may have influenced ram horn growth. It is possible that a combination of all 3 of these factors have contributed to the observed changes in ram horn growth. The 2 former factors have management solutions that can be directly implemented and the affects of climate change may be ameliorated by reducing bighorn density if habitat availability becomes more limiting. Alberta Environment and Parks will focus on hunter selection pressures as they can be readily managed, while additionally evaluating envirnonmental effects and implementing improvements where possible.

2.2.3 Non-consumptive Use

Non-consumptive use is difficult to assess. However, in a random sample questionnaire taken in 1976, bighorn sheep were ranked as sixth of all animals in the like-to-see category (Phillips et al. 1977). A wildlife viewing and interpretive site has been established in the Sheep River Provincial Park, southwest of Calgary. Bighorns can be easily viewed at the Teck Coal and Gregg River Resources minesites near Cadomin. Other bighorn sheep viewing opportunities are highlighted in the Alberta Wildlife Viewing Guide (Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1990) including Bow Valley/Yamnuska Mountain, Caw Ridge, Waterton Lakes, Banff and Jasper National Parks, Big Sagebrush, Crowsnest Lake, Beehive Natural Area, Peter Lougheed Provincial Park, White Goat and Siffleur Wilderness Areas, Ram Falls and the Cardinal River Divide.

2.2.4 Transplants

A total of 781 bighorn sheep have been captured in Alberta for transplants since 1922 (Appendix 2). Transplants haven’t been required as a management tool to any great extent within Alberta since all historical ranges are still occupied at densities that have remained relatively constant over the last few decades. Only 11% of the animals captured for transplants in Alberta have remained within the province. One area that did receive animals was Ram Mountain (SMA 5) which had gone into a period of population decline and then experienced significant cougar predation which seriously compromised population recovery (Festa-Bianchet et al. 2006). The herd was supplemented with 24 bighorns [6 rams, 6 ewes in 2004 and 2005; 12 lambs (7 males, 5 females) in 2007; 4 ewes, 6 lambs (1 male, 5 females) in 2015] to act as a “genetic rescue”. The supplement of adult sheep was not as successful as desired as most of these sheep disappeared from the study area –only one ewe and two rams contributed to reproduction on Ram Mountain. Of the 12 lambs transplanted in 2007, all 12 survived to yearling age and were still on the study area during the first year. As of 2013, however, only 4 of these individuals remain but they have contributed offspring to the Ram Mountain population. (The 2015 transplant has just occurred and there are no results to report yet).

Transplants also have been made to the Plateau Mtn. (SMA 3), Picklejar Lakes area (SMA 3) and Baldy Mountain (SMA 5) to supplement existing herds; however, the numbers have been low and the primary benefit would be the introduction of new genes. SMA 1 declined significantly during a pneumonia die- off in the early 1980’s, but would not have benefited from additional animals until the effects of the disease had disappeared, especially poor lamb recruitment caused by residual pneumonia. This SMA has recovered slowly (Jokinen et al. 2008, AESRD unpublished data). The vast majority of bighorns captured in Alberta have been transplanted to the United States (Smith et al. 1996, Appendix 2). Since 1989, 427 bighorns have been moved from the Teck Coal mine site near Cadomin to various destinations in the U.S. This location has been the focus of transplanting activities both to manage bighorn numbers on the mine in the absence of hunting and because of the limited logistical constraints afforded by the location.

The feasibility of introducing bighorn sheep to a “badlands” river system in southeastern Alberta was investigated by the Alberta Chapter of the Wild Sheep Foundation. Although the Milk River valley had many desirable characteristics for the establishment of a new herd in Alberta, the potential for emigrating/dispersing individuals and/or groups to leave the transplant site, contract pneumonia enroute and initiate a pneumonia die-off in a disease-free population in Alberta’s Rockies was considered too high a risk to take and the proposal has been abandoned (Smith 2014). Transplants need to be undertaken with caution because there is always the potential of disease transfer from infected or nonsymptomatic animals to naïve transplant stock. The International Union for Conservation of Nature has released guidelines for reintroductions and translocations (IUCN/SCC 2013). These guidelines have been endorsed by the Canadian Wildlife Directors, including EAP, and they will inform any new activities.

2.2.5 Data Collection Guidelines

To obtain SMA-specific information on horn growth of rams, it will be necessary to ensure staff are trained to take measurements of each annuli when trophy sheep are registered as illustrated in Appendix 5.

2.2.6 Economic Aspects

Resident trophy sheep hunters purchased 2411 trophy sheep licences in 2012 at a cost of ~ $123,467. Resident non-trophy sheep hunters purchased an additional 321 tags in 2012 at a cost of $8795. In addition, a $3.00 fee was collected from each hunter who applied for a limited entry hunt. Non-residents purchased 66 trophy sheep permits in 2012 for a total of $20 976. In addition, non-resident hunters contributed about $1 650 000 to the outfitting and guiding industry (average cost of a non-resident hunt is estimated at $35 000 CAN). Monies received from the Alberta Conservation Association levy on hunting licences, the auction and raffle of the Ministers Special Trophy Sheep permit and funds raised at the Alberta Chapter of the Wild Sheep Foundation banquets provide additional funding for wildlife projects, including work on bighorn sheep.

Although not specific to sheep hunting, a survey commissioned by the Alberta Foundation, “Hunting for Tomorrow”, determined that ” the direct hunting expenditures of Alberta resident hunters supported a permanent increase of Alberta Gross Provincial Income of $104.3 million and an increase in wages and salaries of $61.4 million” in 2008 (Economic Research Limited 2009). The survey estimated that over 1,054 Albertans owe their jobs to the direct hunting expenditures by residents in 2008. The study estimated that “the three levels of government collected $55 million in 2008, with the federal government deriving the largest share of about $27.8 million, followed by the provincial government with over $24.8 million and local governments collecting $2.4 million” (Economic Research Limited 2009).

More recently, a Canada-wide survey found that 32% of Albertans are actively involved in photography of wildlife, 23% are involved in nature conservation and 9% hunt (Federal, Provincial and Territorial Governments of Canada 2014). On an annual basis, those Albertans who hunt or trap spend an average of 25 days per year in these endeavors. Hunters of large game such as bighorn sheep spend an average of $1222/year with an estimated total expenditure of $169 million in the Province of Alberta (Federal, Provincial and Territorial Governments of Canada 2014).

2.3 Summary and Management Challenges

Consumptive use of the bighorn resource had increased several-fold from the early 1960s; declined for 20 years starting in the mid 1980’s and has begun to increase in the last half dozen years (Fig. 28). Increased demand may occur if interest in hunting parallels projected increases in Alberta’s human population. Current and projected status in terms of supply and demand for bighorns can be summarized as follows:

1. The current demand for trophy rams exceeds supply. Hunters are concerned about the lack of large rams in some WMUs and rams are taking longer to reach legal age due to slower growth rates. Non-residents are, on average, taking slightly smaller rams than residents despite being guided by experienced outfitters and hunting for longer periods suggestive of a lack of larger rams (Festa-Bianchet et al. 2014). Resident license sales during the 1980s were double that of the 1970s, declined in the 1990’s and have begun to increase again. Resident success fell below 7 percent in 2007 and has continued to decline to a low of less than 4 percent for the first time in 2014. Alberta has the most liberal trophy bighorn sheep harvest regime of any jurisdiction in North America with harvests rates of rams 40% higher than the mean of all other areas. Alberta also has one of the lowest trophy ram license costs of amongst all other jurisdictions.

2. Although guided non-resident hunter success has remained relatively constant (47 percent), non-resident interest has declined by 20% in recent years perhaps a result of the downturn in the US economy or fewer available trophy sheep. . Some outfitters are not using all of their allocations. The proportion of the annual harvest taken by non-residents has averaged 20% provincially but determined on an SMA basis, the proportion in some areas is over 40%.

3. The current demand for non-trophy sheep exceeds the supply available in the more accessible populations. Allocations of non-trophy permits, however, have declined from around 1300 in the mid-1980’s to only 200 for the last decade for a variety of reasons. Non-trophy hunter success has remained at ~ 30 percent.

4. Bighorn populations have remained relatively stable over the last 40 years; however, the addition of new survey units [e.g. Crowsnest Lakes (SMA 2); WMU 436 (SMA 6); Smoky River Coals (SMA 8)] has contributed to a higher population estimate in more recent years. Recruitment (as measured by winter lamb: ewe ratios) has varied but remained relatively constant for the last 40 years with a few exceptions. Current hunting demand exceeds the supply and cannot be maintained at present levels without further compromising the quality of bighorn sheep in Alberta. Although population numbers remained relatively constant across time, a number of other factors discussed in this plan suggest that the current management strategy for bighorn sheep in Alberta is no longer sustainable. A combination of reduced ram harvest, the protection of fast-growing rams (4 and 5 year olds) from harvest, increased non-trophy harvest to reduce density and increased habitat management opportunities (i.e. prescribed fire) should be considered if higher quality, larger rams are a desired outcome. Climate change may also influence this goal.

5. Potential increases in resident hunting of trophy rams cannot be met by the presently accessible sheep population without a further decline in hunter success rate (i.e. below 7 percent), and continued low quality rams. A number of alternative approaches could be used to reconcile the demand for larger trophy rams, but whatever strategies are employed should strive to optimize the reproductive contribution and horn growth of rams before they are harvested. Increasing the longevity of rams is expected to contribute significantly to this objective. Techniques such as increasing the trophy ram definition (e.g. full curl), reduced

season length, or restricted hunting opportunity through draws, are options to control the intensity of harvest so that longevity is increased.

A number of strategies or combinations of strategies exist that could accomplish the desired objectives but to varying degrees including: a. Reduce the harvest of young fast growing rams through more limited entry hunts b. Reduce ram harvest by reducing the number of hunters through increases in licence fees. c. Reduce harvest of rams and reduce harvest of young fast growing rams through implementation of full curl regulations in more areas. b. Decrease harvest by ending the hunting season earlier thereby reducing the harvest of larger rams that typically begin to move out of protected areas to rutting areas before the end of the hunting season. c. Reduce the number of bighorns that can be harvested in a hunter’s life-time. d. Lengthen the time interval of eligibility to harvest a ram (i.e. longer than the current 1 year wait-out). e. Lengthen the time interval of eligibility to harvest a ram based on the size of the ram harvested (e.g. harvesting a young 4.5 year old ram results in a 10 year wait- out; an 8 year old = 5 years; a 10 year old = 1 year).

6. Over 10 percent of the bighorn population using provincial lands currently occupies mine sites near Cadomin. Population increases have been observed on reclaimed coal mines possibly in response to changes in distribution from adjoining herds, fertilized forage and the “sanctuary-like” protection from hunting. Hunting management, however, has a role to play relative to keeping herds within the capacity of the range once new reclamation declines. The Gregg River Resources Ltd. mine site has been reclaimed and once certified by the government of Alberta, it will become vacant crown land. The Teck Coal processing facility will be operational for some time however, reclaimed lands will presumably become available for certification prior to the decommissioning of the processing plant.

An End Land Use Plan for the post-reclamation mine sites developed by EAP with representation from NGO’s and Industry proposes to gradually introduce hunting (primarily non-trophy sheep and antlerless elk) onto these reclaimed landscapes. An implementation plan has been developed by EAP, however, authority for coal mine activities now resides with the newly created Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) therefore requiring EAP and AER to work together on this initiative. There is an issue with selenium exposure on these reclaimed mines that needs to be investigated and whether these high levels affect survival, recruitment and/or horn size.

7. The harvest of non-trophy sheep has been well below guidelines established in the previous plan (3% vs. 10% of the winter population). This has the potential to impact the growth of rams should populations increase and density dependent effects result in lower growth rates. The harvest rates of non-trophy sheep should be continually reviewed where populations have increased and/or where the mean age of rams attaining legal size has increased. Where non-trophy permits have been reduced because of concerns over vulnerability of easily accessible herds, consideration should be given to subdividing WMUs into smaller units.

8. Disease: There is unequivocal evidence that bighorn sheep die-offs can result from contact with domestic sheep. These die-offs can dramatically reduce entire populations.

This is by far the greatest threat to bighorn population number in Alberta. A strategy is required to develop legislation and/or policy that directs land use management decisions that maintains effective separation between domestic sheep and wild bighorn sheep in keeping with guidance provided by the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA).

9. Habitat Protection: Recreational and industrial developments in mountainous terrain require close scrutiny to minimize negative impacts on bighorns. Detailed seasonal range use knowledge exists for only a few bighorn herds (Sheep River, Ram Mountain, Mount Allan, Cadomin). If negative impacts from developments are to be lessened, more extensive background data on bighorns (population health, movements, critical ranges) are required before developments are initiated. Road and railway mortality continues to be an issue in some areas (e.g. Bow Corridor and the Highway 3 Corridor through the Crowsnest Pass).

10. Recreational activities (use of all-terrain vehicles, cross-country skiing, mountain biking, heli-assisted recreational activities) have greatly increased access into previously undisturbed sheep ranges. Not only are new areas being exposed, but an increasing number of recreational users are moving to Alberta. Research in Alberta involving heart- rate telemetry on bighorn sheep (MacArthur et al. 1982, Stemp 1983) demonstrated negative responses to helicopter overflights. MacArthur et al. (1982) recorded heart rate responses when helicopters were within 400 m and direct overflights at 90-250 m above ground level resulted in significant responses in terms of level and duration of heart rate and the observation of animals running to escape terrain. Stemp (1983) documented much greater responses to helicopters with repeated overpasses producing sustained anxiety for several hours. Disturbance and subsequent abandonment of critical ranges (lambing areas, winter ranges) could lead to major reductions in sheep numbers. Policies to address helicopter activities on bighorn sheep ranges should be developed following the guidelines listed in Appendix 3.

11. Habitat enhancement activities such as prescribed burns and other habitat modification techniques are needed to address issues of forest encroachment on many bighorn sheep ranges. Loss of important range and/or reductions in range quality may lead to reduced carrying capacity with possible consequences to growth rates and overall quality of some bighorn herds.

3.0 Management Plan

3.1 Policy Framework

Wildlife resources in Alberta are administered according to policies outlined in The Fish and Wildlife Policy for Alberta (Alberta Energy and Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife Division 1982) and under the Authority of the Alberta Wildlife Act and Alberta Wildlife Regulation 143/97. These policies, summarized in the following statements, provide general direction for establishing goals and objectives for bighorn sheep management in the province.

3.1.1 Resource Protection

“1)…The primary consideration of the Government is to ensure that wildlife populations are protected from severe decline and that viable populations are maintained…”

3.1.2 Resource Allocation

“2)(a) The wildlife resource, as a Crown resource, will be utilized in a manner which contributes the most benefit to the citizens of Alberta.”

“2)(e) Wildlife will be allocated through a defined process whereby specific resources are deployed to specific uses in order to achieve stated public benefits.” “17) Wildlife must be allocated among different primary users in response to government policy. Until such time as supply and demand can be better rationalized, the following interim allocation guidelines will prevail in order of priority: (b) Resident recreational use of game will have precedence over non-resident use. Wildlife stocks not fully allocated or utilized to higher priority uses may be allocated commercially to non-residents.” However, the Fish and Wildlife Policy for Alberta is currently being revised. “18) The allocation of wildlife stocks to the different primary users does not imply that other uses cannot occur within areas where such uses are entitled.”

3.1.3 Recreational and Educational Use

“8) A variety of wildlife recreational opportunities, in addition to hunting, will be available for the benefit and enjoyment of Albertans.”

“9) The Government will promote the use of wildlife for the educational benefit of Albertans.” “21) A variety of hunting opportunities will be available for the recreational benefit and enjoyment of Albertans…”

3.1.4 Commercial Use

“22) The Department will encourage an environment that promotes the growth of the tourist industry…”

“22)(b)(ii) The Department will pursue this policy through: (e) Managing wildlife to produce marketable use opportunities.”

3.1.5 Protection of Private Property

“4) The Government, through the Department, will assist in preventing or controlling wildlife from damaging property and endangering human life.”

“5) Responsibility for damage in any form caused by wildlife will be shared in relationship to what people can reasonably do for themselves and to the amount of any additional damage beyond that which would normally be expected to occur in an area.”

3.2 Management Goals and Objectives

3.2.1. Business Goals of Alberta Environment and Parks (2015–2020)

Vision: Environment and Parks, as proud stewards of air, land, water and biodiversity, will lead the achievement of desired environmental outcomes and sustainable development of natural resources for Albertans.

 Environment and Parks Business Plan 2015-20

Strategic Context: There is a long tradition of stewardship in Alberta. The ministry works with all Albertans to build on that tradition and partners with Albertans to ensure we meet our environmental, social and economic goals for the future. Together, we ensure our natural resources are managed and developed using innovative and responsible approaches to maximize their value while protecting Alberta’s environment. The ministry works with all stakeholders to listen to and understand the challenges, and to find the correct path to attain desired environmental, economic and social outcomes. To ensure the sustainability of our air, land, water, and biodiversity, all Albertans will need to play a strong stewardship role.

Desired Outcome One: Healthy environment and ecosystems Albertans care about clean air, reduced greenhouse gases, quality water, sustainable water quantity, healthy and sustainable lands and biodiversity and conserved natural landscapes that support healthy ecosystems. To achieve these outcomes, the ministry works with Albertans to manage the cumulative effects of human development on the environment. Stewardship of the environment requires a collaborative effort by all Albertans, including businesses, non-governmental organizations, communities and individuals. Stewardship, a shared responsibility among citizens, communities, governments and industries, is key to achieving an outcomes-based cumulative effects management system as a basis for attaining desired environmental outcomes.

Desired Outcome Two: Sustainable natural resource development Working closely with Albertans, communities, governments and industries to develop strategic and integrated policies and plans ensures Alberta’s renewable natural resources are managed and sustained for all generations.

Desired Outcome Four: Protected public and environment Albertans want assurance the public and the environment are protected now and in the future.

3.2.2. Goals, Objectives, Indicators, Targets for Bighorn Sheep

A series of Goals, Objectives, Indicators and Targets were developed that provide key direction for the Plan, as well as implementation of all major strategies contained within the Plan. Additionally, this information can act to clarify what the Management Plan is attempting to achieve and provide deliverables for achieving these (Table 8). The terms objectives, indicator and target are described as follows:

Description Objective A broad statement that describes a desired future state or condition for a specified value (e.g. Ensure ewe harvest is sustainable). Indicator A variable that measures the state or condition of a specific value and for which one or more targets are set (e.g. ewe harvest rates). Target A specific statement describing a desired future state of condition of an indicator (e.g. ewe harvest should not constitute greater than 20%)

All of the targets listed in for each Goal in Table 8 need to be considered when assessing the level of success (e.g. the population indicator should be considered before determining the importance of the lamb: ewe ratios). The spatial scale under consideration is the SMA level unless otherwise indicated.

Table 8. Goals, objectives, indicators and targets for bighorn sheep. Goal: 3.2.2.1 Resource Objective Indicator Target Protection Maintain or re-establish Maintain or improve system Female (and yearling ram) population Females (& yearling rams) comprise 60-70 % of total sustainable populations resiliency1 of bighorn ratios adults observed during winter surveys (or % of females out throughout suitable native populations in suitable native of total adults) assuming there are a minimum 100 females range (Brewer et al. 2014). range within all SMAs by: per SMA.

Maintaining appropriate Percent of Lambs in Total Population Lambs comprise 20% of total sheep observed during sex/age ratios winter surveys. Not based on a single survey result.

Lamb: ewe population ratio Lambs ratios ≥ 35:100 ewes (ewes are greater than and equal to 1 year) during winter surveys (this requires a representative sample of at least 100 ewes). This metric is derived from the mean of multiple survey counts. Not based on a single survey result.

Maintaining viable population Median population size and standard Maintain the median population size within ± 1SD as sizes that are conducive to deviation for each SMA. determined over the last 10 sheep aerial surveys (Appendix supporting a healthy and 6). productive bighorn population Minimum viable population >125 sheep occur within each sheep population unit (Berger 1990). (Note: Unit to be defined based on genetic information as it becomes available and may refer to a spatial unit less than the SMA).

Maintaining high genetic Degree of heterozygosity2, gene flow & No long-term decline in measured genetic Heterozygosity, diversity, gene flow and trait- trait-specific loci for males and females at gene flow &trait-specific loci within & between SMAs. specific loci SMA-scale

Ensuring sheep populations are Maintain effective separation between Ideally domestic sheep operations should not occur within buffered from domestic domestic and wild sheep. Effective 14.5km of known sheep range (may not be achievable in pathogens and disease vectors separation will be defined as the SMAs 1 &2). Effective separation between the two species separation of species such that contact will be achieved through education, stakeholder between them does not occur. consultation, policy development, and on-the-ground mitigation (fencing).

Goal 3.2.2.2 Sustainable Objective Indicator Target Harvest Manage populations in each Allow fast-growing young rams Proportion of 4/5ths or larger curl rams in Harvest ≤ 15-20% of total number of trophy rams per year SMA for a harvestable to get old enough to maximize the post-hunt winter population per SMA. surplus3. opportunity to breed and pass on genes

Ensure that there is sufficient 4/5ths curl or larger rams comprise a minimum of 7 - 10% escapement of trophy rams after of total sheep observed during last 2-3 winter surveys. the hunting season. New recruitment of 4/5ths curl rams per year comprises a minimum 4-5% of total sheep observed in winter surveys.

Optimize horn growth in young The combined 1st - 4th annuli lengths of Increasing trend in annuli growth of rams from SMAs 1-5 rams. rams from hunter harvests and other and a stable or increasing trend SMAs 6 - 8. sources.

Provide harvest opportunity for Populations are independent from density- Evidence of age of first primiparity being 2 years of age. non-trophy as required to dependent effects. This would be obtained by a radiocollared sample of ewes. achieve population objectives Non-trophy sheep harvests are used to manage populations around the median population size±1SD.

A harvest rate of 10% of the winter population can be used to maintain herds at existing levels provided lamb: ewe ratios ≥35 (ewes ≥1yr)and the population trend is stable. If the population is declining, the harvest rate should be adjusted downward and the opposite would occur if the population was increasing. The 10% target assumes lamb survival ≥ 75%, ewe survival ≥90%, and ram survival ≥70%.

Provide optimal sustainable Manage harvest for quality Hunter satisfaction “high” for most questionnaire hunting opportunity in each experience by hunters. respondents. SMA4

Goal 3.2.2.3 Habitat Objective Indicator Target Protection Retain and enhance quality Maintain integrity of occupied Amount of occupied native sheep range. 100% of currently available native range is occupied. and quantity of existing native winter and summer bighorn sheep habitat ranges, lambing areas. Native sheep range is of good quality (i.e. >80% of all native sheep range in each SMA is of high throughout native range Manage cumulative effects source habitats5) quality6. (Brewer et al. 2014) throughout native range.

Maintain genetic connectivity Functional movement corridors (habitat All sheep populations have functional habitat linkages among and within populations linkages) are in place between populations connecting them to adjacent populations

Maintain the integrity of Protection of known mineral licks All known mineral licks designated with Protective mineral licks Notations and with a minimum of 800m no disturbance set-back.

Promote and support habitat Maintain and enhance sheep habitat To be Determined rejuvenation and diversity through the use of prescribed fires Goal: 3.2.2.4 Science and Objective Indicator Target Education To promote and encourage Continue management-oriented Scientific research that informs Priority research is accomplished in a timely fashion. scientific and educational research of Alberta’s bighorn management decisions on bighorn sheep activity to enhance sheep populations including a is supported by EAP (i.e. financially, in- knowledge of bighorn sheep focus on disease. kind).

Encourage partnerships to meet objectives.

Ensuring that Albertans have a The information is available in a variety Interested parties find the information readily. better understanding of of social media (i.e. EAP website, management and conservation YouTube videos, brochures). There is a variety of ways of obtaining the information. issues regarding bighorn sheep.

Educate Albertans to the Information is updated regularly. biological value of bighorn sheep in Alberta’s natural environment.

Educate Alberta over the Identification test for non-trophy hunters Identification test is mandatory and identification success morphological differences is over 85%. between a non-trophy sheep and a yearling or two years old male

1 “The capacity of a system to absorb disturbance & reorganize while undergoing change so as to retain essentially the same structure, identity & feedbacks” (Walker et al. 2004).

2 Heterozygosity refers to the genotype of an individual organism which has two different alleles at one gene locus. Genetic measures are concerned with measuring (1) gene flow, and therefore reproductive interaction, using microsatellites that do not contribute to fitness; and (2) heterozygosity at loci associated with fitness for a trait.

3 Number harvested does not affect average population size or long-term stability of population.

4 This would achieve all other bighorn objectives & maintains a "high quality" hunt.

5 Source habitats refer to those where birth rates exceed death rates.

6 High quality refers to large patches of source habitats with low risk of mortality & good productivity; these will be defined in the future using habitat selection models.

3.3 Management Strategies

3.3.1 Population Management

3.3.1.1 Trophy Sheep

A trophy sheep is defined as: a male bighorn sheep with horns, one of which is of sufficient size that a straight line drawn from the most anterior point of the eye of the base of the horn to the top of the horn extends beyond the anterior edge of the eye when viewed in profile. A full-curl trophy sheep is defined as: a male bighorn sheep with horns, one of which is of sufficient size that when viewed in profile, its tip extends upward beyond a straight line drawn from the rear most point of the base of the horn to the centre of the nostril. The definition and delineation of a full curl bighorn sheep must be developed in more detail to provide better certainty for hunters and law enforcement staff. The harvest level of trophy rams will be limited to 15-20 percent of the total number of trophy rams available and shall not be allowed to exceed 40 percent. The proportion of trophy rams in winter surveys will be used to determine if this objective is being met.

3.3.1.2 Non-trophy Sheep

A non-trophy sheep is defined as "a female mountain sheep or a male bighorn sheep under one year of age". Based on the Ram Mountain experience, about 10 percent of the winter population could be removed annually (conditional upon good productivity and survival rates) to maintain the population at a level where forage is not limiting population and body growth (Jorgenson et al. 1993a). The current harvest rates of non-trophy sheep need to be evaluated to ensure they are consistent with this objective. If factors other than habitat are thought to be limiting populations (e.g. predation, disease) then non-trophy harvest could be adjusted (Fig’s. 79 and 80). Establishment of appropriate population goals should be determined for each SMA using the median ± 1SD of historical survey results. Appropriate harvest rates should then be applied to maintain populations within this range. Subsequent surveys would be used to monitor herd status (e.g. lamb: ewe ratios, population size).

Management Goal

Population Demographic Indicators

Ram Abundance and Lamb: Ewe Ratio Size

Increase Mature Increase Total # If Lamb: 100 Ewe Rams Rams Ratio ≤ 35

 LEH  LEH  More liberal non-  Full Curl  Full Curl trophy season if  LEH and Full Curl range is limiting.  LEH and Full Curl  Other strategies to  Increase harvest of  Other strategies to reduce harvest of predators if reduce harvest of rams, particularly predation is thought rams, particularly young rams to be limiting (e.g. young rams increase cougar quota).  Monitor % of 2 year- old- ewes having lambs.

Figure 79. Harvest strategies for management of bighorn sheep population demographic indicators. This figure is an example of how indicators can be linked to management strategies. Note- lamb: ewe ratio metrics assume that population units are correctly identified.

Management Goal

Population Size

Maintain

Decrease Increase Management Options

 Conservative non-trophy season based on limiting factors  Habitat improvement

Management Options Management Options

 Increase non-trophy  Eliminate non-trophy harvest harvest  Transplant  Improve habitat through an aggressive prescribed burn program  Increase harvest of predators (e.g. increase cougar quota).  Reduce access

Figure 80. Harvest strategies for management of bighorn sheep population numbers. This figure is an example of how indicators can be linked to management strategies.

3.3.2 Resource Allocation

1. To achieve trophy ram targets, options that could be considered that would reduce harvest pressure on rams including young, fast-growing rams include the following:  longer waiting periods for license purchase for successful hunters; Benefits: Hunters may become more selective in what they kill (i.e. put more harvest pressure on older, larger rams thus sparing the younger, fast growing rams). Potential Negatives: Given the low success rate of trophy sheep hunters, and the high number of licensed hunters, the impact on reducing harvest will be negligible. Some recreational opportunity will be lost and the amount will depend on the length of the wait-out. (Over 80% of rams harvested in Alberta are taken by hunters who have never harvested a ram before).  higher license fees (e.g. $200 for residents, $1000 for non-residents); Benefits: This may reduce the number of hunters as it did in 1987. The reduction in hunting pressure will depend on the amount of the fee increase. Potential Negatives: there will be a loss of recreational opportunity but most importantly, it may reduce opportunity for Albertan’s with lower incomes depending on the increase in fees.  limit the number of trophy rams per hunter in a lifetime; Benefits: this will reduce hunting pressure. For the 5 year period of 2005 – 2009, an average of 33% (Range = 21 – 44%) of the resident hunters harvesting rams had previously harvested > 2 rams. These multiple ram hunters represented an average of 23.6% (Range = 16 – 33.3%) of the harvest over that period. Hunters may become more selective in what they kill (i.e. put more harvest pressure on older, larger rams thus sparing the young, faster growing rams). Potential Negatives: If there are more hunters being recruited into bighorn sheep hunting, it may not reduce harvest. This may not result in older, larger rams being selected. Moreover, it might actually place more pressure on younger rams if the more successful, experienced and perhaps selective hunters are eliminated.  restrictions on the number of big game licences that a hunter who purchases a trophy sheep license can hold? Benefits: this might reduce the number of sheep hunters. Potential Negatives: the reduction in sheep hunters would likely be of insufficient magnitude to reduce harvest. There would be a loss of recreational opportunity.  increasing the number of WMU’s with a full-curl regulation; Benefits: this will allow more rams to achieve sufficient size to participate in the rut and contribute genetically to better horn growth in the population. In addition, all sheep hunters could continue to hunt. Potential Negatives: The full-curl regulation would reduce the success rates of hunters substantially within the first 4-5 years following implementation (i.e. SMA 1). In addition, some rams would never reach the size requirement thereby further reducing the availability of trophy rams and lowering success. Needs standardized measuring methods and a means of assessing the number of 4/5 curl rams that don’t achieve full curl. May have limited benefits where hunter density is very high.  increasing the number of WMU’s restricted to Limited Entry Hunts (LEH); Benefits: This would allow the harvest of rams to be managed at a sustainable level. By limiting hunter numbers, higher hunter success rates should result. Quality of hunt higher when fewer hunters in the field. Potential Negatives: Recreational opportunity would be curtailed the most of compared to other strategies (e.g. in the order of 75% of the current number of

resident hunters in Alberta would not be able to hunt annually if the harvest goal was set at 20% of the trophy rams).  increasing the number of WMU’s restricted to full curl and LEH; Benefits: This would allow the harvest of rams to be managed at a sustainable level and would result in much larger trophy rams in a shorter time period. Most 4 and 5- year-old rams would be protected. Potential Negatives: This would result in a negative impact on recreational opportunity, but not quite as limiting as LEH combined with a 4/5 curl regulation.  shortening the season for trophy sheep by a week to 10 days; Benefits: This would potentially reduce the harvest of rams by eliminating harvest during the vulnerable pre-rut movement period. Additionally, it might increase the survival of larger rams in some SMA’s that aren’t as vulnerable earlier in the season, including rams that leave the National Parks. Potential Negatives: it would reduce available hunting days by 10 – 18% based on the current general seasons of between 56 and 68 days in length.  Increase the wait out period based on the size of ram harvested (e.g. if a hunter takes a full curl ram, the wait out is 2 years, a 4/5 curl ram, the wait out is 4 years); Benefits: it would reduce hunting pressure by the proportion of hunters who had harvested a ram within the wait out period. Hunters would probably be more selective. Potential Negatives: it may not result in sufficient survival of rams to make a difference. It would result in a decrease in recreational opportunity and probably success rates. This would result in a very complicated licensing system and would require far more diligence in terms of horn measurements, age classification, timely reporting of horn age before the June draw to determine eligibility etc. However, this may not be effective if the hunting public increases in number.  Split Seasons (late season post-rut while closing portions of the current season); Benefits: Harvest occurs after rams have had opportunity to breed. Higher quality of hunt as hunter densities expected to be lower in early winter. Potential Negatives: Success may be very low after the rut and many areas may be very difficult to access following the rut.  Royalty fee (cost increases with each bighorn harvested); Benefits: hunters may be more selective in harvest. Potential Negatives: Opportunity to hunt sheep available to only wealthier Albertans. May not decrease harvest.  Quota system with 4/5 curl regulation; Benefits: Opportunity to hunt each year. Reduces harvest pressure with quotas set for each WMU. Increased awareness by hunters of allowable harvest targets. Potential Negatives: Potential for increased harvest of young rams with pressure to harvest before season closes. Lower quality of hunt as higher hunter densities would be expected. Problem with unfair perception when residents’ quota is filled but non- residents still allowed to hunt. High potential for rams to be harvested in one WMU but registered in another.  Archery only from August 25 – September 14; Rifle season (4/5 or full curl) from September 15 – October 15th; Archery and Black Powder from October 16th to October 30; Benefits: Possibly reduce harvest pressure with more primitive weapons. Provide more opportunity to hunt each year, but perhaps not with weapon of choice.

Potential Negatives: Reduced opportunity for rifle hunters. Black powder weapons can be quite effective and may not result in sufficient reduction in harvest.  Access limitations where appropriate; Benefits: Still allows more hunters to participate in the hunt. Potential Negatives: May not be sufficient to limit pressure. No benefit in areas already limited by access. 2. A review of the current outfitter allocation is presently underway and the plan will reflect the outcome of deliberations on resident versus non-resident allocation. 3. Trophy sheep will be hunted by residents either through a general licence or by draw (LEH) such as currently done in WMU’s 408 (west portion), 410, 438C and 444/446. 4. Non-trophy sheep hunting will be restricted to residents in all regions of the province unless there is a lack of interest by residents in which case those WMU’s could be opened to non-resident hunters. 5. Non-resident (rifle) hunting for trophy sheep (and hence outfitting activities) will continue to be directed to more remote areas of the province (north of the Bow River) to reduce conflict with resident hunters. In addition, the non-resident trophy sheep hunting season will continue to begin a week after the start of the resident season and end 2 weeks prior to the end of the resident season. 6. Opportunities for viewing and photographing sheep will be made available to interested Albertans through outfitting and other viewing ventures, where such activities will not adversely affect bighorn sheep populations. The majority of nonconsumptive use of bighorn sheep will be accommodated by wilderness areas, national and provincial parks, wildlife sanctuaries and wildlife viewing destinations.

3.3.3 Resource Protection

Habitat protection should be secured for the 89 bighorn sheep wintering areas currently identified in the province (Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division 1993). Bighorn sheep in Alberta are fortunate in that most bighorn ranges are within “Prime Protection Zones” as defined in “A Policy for Alberta’s Eastern Slopes”. This zone is generally off-limits to industrial activity and therefore affords the highest level of habitat security next to park or wilderness status. To a large extent, this has been the most beneficial policy for bighorns in the province and because of it, most ranges have remained intact. More recently, the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan has been developed and will now address resource protection including wildlife habitat protection needs as will subsequent plans as they are approved (i.e. North Saskatchewan, Upper Athabasca and Upper Peace Regional Plans). In addition, the new Public Lands Administration Regulation will inform provincial habitat protection needs.

However, some ranges fell outside the former Eastern Slopes Policy’s protective category and have been subjected to “heli-portable” seismic programs, heli-hiking, or in some instances still fall under the extremely outdated Coal Policy for Alberta (1976) and can be considered for mining (e.g. Caw Ridge in SMA 8). Industrial or recreational development or activities of any kind will not normally be permitted on winter ranges during the period of occupancy by bighorns (see Recommended Land Use Guidelines for Mountain Goat and Bighorn Sheep Ranges in Alberta, Appendix 3). A comprehensive examination of range quality and quantity of wintering areas in all regions may be carried out, and strategies developed for habitat improvement in each wintering area if required. All significant summer ranges, rutting areas, lambing grounds and mineral licks (see Jokinen et al 2013) should be identified in priority areas (beginning with ranges that have the greatest potential to be negatively affected by human activity). Potentially disruptive human activities should not be permitted. Mitigative measures should be developed to prevent industrial or recreational disturbance when these areas are being used by bighorn sheep (Appendix 3). Reclamation of disturbed sites (e.g., roads, mine sites, and drilling sites for oil and gas) on sheep ranges should be mandatory. Overcrowded sheep ranges or ranges that have diminished in quality

as a result of forest encroachment may be upgraded through prescribed burning, slashing, and reseeding, as required.

Areas that exhibit persistent disease occurrence in bighorns will be assessed to determine the causative factors and identify remedial actions. Unlawful grazing of domestic livestock on bighorn range will be reported to the appropriate agency for action. A policy is required to address the grazing of domestic sheep on public lands near any occupied bighorn sheep range (Wild Sheep Working Group 2012).

If required, access should be closed or alternate routes developed for hiking, trail riding, or vehicular access (e.g. through Forest Land Use Zones) where such activities will disrupt normal sheep use of critical summer or winter ranges. All of the factors that could influence ecological carrying capacity for bighorn sheep should be discussed in all of the planning areas encompassing the Eastern Slopes. All ranges should be digitally referenced in EAP’s landuse referral system including “Recommended Land Use Guidelines for Mountain Goat and Bighorn Sheep Ranges in Alberta” (Appendix 3).

3.3.4 Data Collection

3.3.4.1 Population Inventory

Bighorn sheep winter ranges will continue to be surveyed, when appropriate survey conditions prevail, by rotary-wing aircraft during the December-March period and on the basis of SMAs. Only those survey complexes whose populations meet the following criteria will be surveyed: i) the population is subject to trophy and/or non-trophy hunting, ii) the population can be surveyed on fairly well-defined winter ranges and is not widely dispersed, and iii) the winter population is larger than 20 animals. For those SMAs meeting the above criteria, enough winter ranges should be surveyed to account for approximately 80 percent of the total sheep population within each SMA, based on historic population information. Winter ranges will be surveyed on a two-year rotational basis, so that a portion of the ranges in the north and south are surveyed annually (Appendix 4). Because of the clumped distribution of bighorn sheep, aerial surveys must include entire winter ranges. Any population that experiences a die-off should be surveyed several times during the year in which the die-off occurs, to determine the extent of mortality; thereafter, surveys should be done annually until winter lamb: ewe ratios reach acceptable levels.

Aerial and ground surveys should classify bighorn sheep into the categories of rams (1/4, ½, ¾, 4/5+), ewes or lambs. All locations should be digitally recorded (and mapped) and entered into the Fish and Wildlife Management Information System (FWMIS) promptly.

3.3.4.2 Hunter Harvest and Effort

The sheep horn plugging and compulsory registration program for trophy sheep will be continued. All trophy sheep heads should be registered within 14 days of the close of the season or 30 days of being shot. Native harvest of trophy bighorn sheep should be monitored through the compulsory registration process. Efforts will be made to restrict the registration process to specific district offices and by specific officers in an effort to reduce errors in measuring and ageing. During registration, horn annuli lengths will be recorded. All trophy sheep heads will require a permanent identification plug, the number of which will be recorded on the registration form. This plug will discourage illegal traffic in ram heads. All registration forms must be submitted to the Wildlife Management Division no later than December 31. The non-trophy bighorn sheep harvest and hunter for both trophies and non-trophies effort will be estimated annually through a voluntary web-based hunter survey program. Consideration will be given to

requiring compulsory registration of the non-trophy harvest if more emphasis is placed on this management option (i.e. where they hunted, if they were successful and if they harvested a ewe or a lamb). Failure to complete this requirement would result in their Wildlife Identification Number being taken out of the draw system for a period of years.

3.3.5 Managing Commercial Use

Currently, non-residents hunt under the authority of an outfitter-guide allocation The 1993 Bighorn Sheep Management Plan indicated that non-resident hunting was to be limited to 20% of the annual licensed harvest. In 2014, the non-resident harvest was slightly higher at 22.7%. Reducing the non-resident harvest of trophy rams must be considered if further restrictions on residents are required.

3.3.6 Managing Unlicensed Harvest

Native harvest of trophy bighorn sheep should be monitored through the compulsory registration process. Bighorn sheep herds should be protected from illegal harvest by closing motorized vehicle access to any sheep range where the animals are particularly vulnerable. Where this is impractical, road corridor sanctuaries may be established. Because of the importance of and the demand for trophy sheep, enforcement effort should be concentrated along major access routes and into occupied sheep range during September-October, and during the rut in November-December.

3.3.7 Managing Non-Hunting Mortality

Predation has been suggested as a factor limiting the production of larger rams; however, there is no empirical data to support this other than the study on the Junction Herd of California bighorn sheep in British Columbia (Harrision and Hebert 1988) implicating cougars. The policy of EAP is not to intervene with predator control unless a species in threatened (AESRD 2012; Section 3.3.5, Page 60) and there are not instances where this is the case for bighorn sheep in Alberta.

A number of opportunities exist in Alberta to reduce bighorn sheep mortalities caused by motor vehicles and railways through reductions in speed limits, fencing, intercept feeding (salting), aversive conditioning, warning signs and education (i.e. Crowsnest Pass, Bow Valley).

3.3.8 Managing Scientific and Educational Use

3.3.8.1 Research

Potential high priority research needs include: a) Compare male survival and horn growth for several populations with variable levels of harvest pressure, including protected areas to understand both the direct and indirect effects of hunting on the evolution of male life history (Bonenfant et al. 2009, Loehr et al. 2007, Coltman et al. 2003, Rughetti and Festa-Bianchet 2012). b) Understand the relationship of bighorn population resilience to environmental changes and disturbance. Use long-term demographic data and environmental conditions described by land cover, vegetation, historical fire, mining activities and projections form global climate models to estimate ecological resilience of bighorn populations to climate change and other disturbances. Resilience is defined as the magnitude of disturbance and change that an ecosystem or population can tolerate without changing self-organizing processes and structures (see Resilient Bighorn Sheep Project, University of Alberta, Kneteman and Hik). c) Determine the potential for disease transmission from domestic livestock to bighorns.

d) Study various phenotypic attributes of bighorn sheep, including growth rates, body condition, and disease resistance, to determine the importance of genetic variability to bighorn sheep (Fitzsimmon et al. 1995).

Potential lower priority research wants include: a) Determine aerial survey sightability from several different locations in Alberta to assess relevance of minimum counts to management needs. b) Determine the effects that recreationists have on bighorn sheep behaviour and habitat use by building on the literature from other jurisdictions, so that potentially stressful situations can be prevented. c) Examine the implications of “apparent competition” on bighorn sheep populations in areas where other species of ungulates are encroaching on bighorn range. d) Identify summer range, seasonal movement corridors, habitat selection, and critical habitat features within each SMA.

3.3.8.2 Collection

All scientific studies or collections of sheep for research will be authorized through a collection permit issued by the Wildlife Management Branch. To prevent injury to animals or excessive harassment, only persons experienced in bighorn sheep capture will be authorized to capture them.

3.3.8.3 Extension

An educational program should be developed to inform those interested in the history, habitat requirements, and management of bighorn sheep including the negative impact domestic sheep have on transmitting pneumonia to bighorn sheep. A webpage is being developed that allows hunters to view and assess legal rams. This website should also be used to make the Bighorn Sheep Management Plan readily available to the public and to continually update priority information about bighorns.

4.0 Management Plan Application

4.1 Provincial Summary

The primary challenges for management of bighorn sheep in Alberta are to:  Ensure that bighorns and domestic sheep do not come in contact with each other in order to avoid catastrophic die-offs as a result of transmission of pneumonia from domestics to bighorns.  Assess the “appetite” of Albertans to use adaptive management experiments and dedicated research efforts to examine the role of trophy hunting vs. population density in influencing ram horn size.  Continue to secure funding to ensure sufficient monitoring of herd numbers and health  Examine the implications of high selenium levels in bighorn sheep.  Emphasize the role of non-trophy sheep hunting to reduce herds below carrying capacity with anticipated benefits of increased survival of lambs and yearling females, a reduction in the age of first reproduction and increased horn growth of rams.  Examine the role of climate change in affecting bighorn populations and ram horn growth.  Examine predation rates as a contributing factor to carrying capacity and availability of trophy rams.  Identify summer range, seasonal range use and movement corridors, habitat selection, and critical habitat features within each SMA.  Develop models for sightability error for aerial ungulate surveys. Models should be representative for all SMAs

4.2 Regional Perspectives

4.2.1 South Saskatchewan

The South Saskatchewan Region contains SMA’s 1, 2, 3 and 4A. SMA 1 has been recovering from the pneumonia die-off that occurred in 1982, but has not reached pre-die-off population levels. Recruitment appears to have improved; however, below average ewe survival (Jokinen et al. 2008) could compromise the rate of recovery. This part of the province receives half of the trophy sheep hunting effort despite only representing < 25 percent of the bighorn population on provincial lands. The full curl regulation initiated in 1996 in WMU 400 has had a positive effect on increasing the number of 4/5+ curl rams from 2 to 10+ percent of the population in the last 15 years. Harvest of full curl rams has been increasing and the proportion of trophy 4/5th curl rams in the winter surveys is at the goal. The average age of harvested rams had also increased with the resultant decrease in harvest pressure on the younger, fast growing rams.

Trophy ram harvest in SMA 2 was excessive in the late 1970’s and it has been low since then. The ease of access in SMA 1 and 2 into a relatively narrow band of mountains, the close proximity of the City of Calgary, combined with a high proportion of Albertans who live in southern Alberta, results in extremely high non-consumptive use as well – a landuse challenge that will increase in magnitude as the provinces’ population increases. This region is the only bighorn range in Alberta (with a minor exception in the far northern end of bighorn range southwest of Grande Prairie) that shares a common boundary directly with British Columbia where bighorns are also hunted. To date, there doesn’t appear to be much sharing of herds based on radiocollared data (Poole et al. 2013); however, there is a relatively low degree of genetic separation based on DNA samples indicating genetic transfer (R. Jobin, Solicitor Generals Department, Government of Alberta, unpubl. data). It would be prudent to conduct joint aerial surveys at least a couple of times to ensure that jurisdictions aren’t double-counting bighorns and basing harvest calculations on the same animals (I. Teske, Area Wildlife Biologist, British Columbia Environment, Cranbrook, pers.

comm.). This region is the only one to have suffered pneumonia die-offs in the last 4 decades and given the close proximity of agricultural lands to bighorn habitat, it will be necessary to be increasingly diligent to ensure domestic sheep/wild sheep interactions do not occur. Local by-laws, as well as provincial agricultural restrictions, are required to accomplish this.

4.2.2 North Saskatchewan

The North Saskatchewan Region contains SMA’s 4B, 4C, 5 and WMU 436 in SMA 6. Trophy ram harvest has dropped off very considerably in this part of the province (i.e. down from 70 rams a year in SMA 4B to 35). The population estimates for 4B and 4C have remained relatively stable. Very excessive trophy sheep harvest occurred in the mid 1980’s in both 4B and 4C and a trend towards smaller rams being harvested at an older age seem most prevalent here (Festa-Bianchet et. al. 2014). The Ram Mountain study area (SMA 5) was allowed to build up to peak numbers by 1993 and then crash as part of the overall experiment. A management intervention transplant was conducted as part of a “genetic rescue”. Ram Mountain continues to offer opportunities for adaptive management experiments designed to isolate the effects of trophy harvest and climate change on ram horn growth.

4.2.3 Upper Athabasca

The Upper Athabasca Region contains SMA’s 6 and the south end of 7 (WMU’s 439 and the south end of WMU 440). SMA 6 has realized the greatest increase of bighorns on provincial lands over the last 20 years by virtue of bighorns colonizing reclaimed mine property from adjacent herds (including Jasper National Park). These animals are not however exclusive to mines, selecting for native range during the crucial periods of nutrient and energy acquisition (summer) and conservation (winter). Since the late 1980s, fall or winter composition surveys (n=30) of bighorns on surface mines appear to document an aggregation with reproductive and recruitment potentials significantly less than measured in winter bighorn aggregations on native range census zones (Kneteman, ESRD unpublished data). Moreover, since 2009 alone, lamb indices (e.g. lamb:ewe ratios or proportion of total sheep) from surveys have been lower on the mines than native range census zones. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that bighorn presence on surface mines is dependent on the resiliency provided by emigration from native range. Declines in sheep numbers since 2008 on the mines may also be partially explained by the reduction in new reclamation, potential competition with an increasing number of elk (~300) and an increase in the presence of major predators (C. Watson, Fish and Wildlife Officer, Hinton, pers. comm., B. MacCallum, Bighorn Wildlife Technologies Ltd., pers. comm.).

Ram harvest has declined over time as a higher proportion of rams in the SMA were occupying mine property where they were protected. The introduction of the November WMU 438 LEH hunts in 2005 has increased the harvest of rams to within 15 percent of the 1980’s level of harvest; however, the population base of rams could easily sustain double the harvest. A post-mining End Land Use Plan has been prepared by EAP with input from NGO’s and Industry for the reclaimed mine properties. The plan calls for the re- introduction of non-trophy bighorn sheep (currently represents 10 percent of the bighorn population on provincial lands) and antlerless elk hunting to reduce numbers.

Given the protected status and the ease of access, the Teck Coal mine site has traditionally provided a preferred location in Alberta as a source for transplants. However bighorn numbers are declining and transplant requests need to be evaluated annually. There is an issue with the high levels of selenium in bighorns foraging on the mine sites. Environment Canada has recently made a recommendation to the Federal Government that it expand monitoring of four new substances released from mining activity which are considered harmful or potentially toxic, including selenium (Edmonton Journal, June 14, 2013).

4.2.4 Upper Peace

The Upper Peace District within the Upper Peace Region contains the bulk of Willmore Wilderness Park (SMA 7) and SMA 8. The Willmore Wilderness Park bighorn population continues to be stable in terms of recruitment, numbers and rams harvested. This probably reflects the stability in access management and habitat availability inherent in wilderness areas. Land Use planning and the designation of recreational access plans within the SMA 8 sheep range will be a priority to support sheep management in the Land Use Framework and associated sub-regional planning. A recent development has been the increase in numbers of bighorns on the abandoned Smoky River Coal property (SRCL). (The mine site is inhabited by over half of the bighorns in SMA 8). The LEH season introduced in 2002 resulted in a significant increase in the number of rams available to hunters and the trophy harvest. Non-trophy harvest should be considered for this mine, as well, to reduce density dependent effects.

5.0 Literature Cited

Akenson, J.J. and H.A. Akenson. 1992. Bighorn sheep movements and summer lamb mortality in central Idaho. Bienn. Symp. N. Wild Sheep and Goat Counc.8:14-27.

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. 2012. Management plan for cougars in Alberta. Wildlife Management Plan Series No. 8. Wildlife Management Branch, Alberta Dept. ESRD, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

______. 2010. Aerial ungulate aerial survey protocol manual. Wildlife Management Branch, Alberta Dept. ESRD, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 65 pp.

Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division. 1993. Management plan for bighorn sheep in Alberta. Wildlife Management Plan Series No. 6. Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife. 1990. Alberta Wildlife Viewing Guide. Lone Pine Publishing. Edmonton, AB. 96pp.

Allen, J. 2012. Trophy bighorn sheep management in Alberta. Discussion paper prepared for public consultation. Wildlife Management Branch, Alberta Dept. ESRD, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Berger, J. 1990. Persistence of different-sized populations: An empirical assessment of rapid extinctions in bighorn sheep. Conserv. Biol. 4: 91 – 98.

______. 1991. Pregnancy incentives, predation constraints and habitat shifts: experimental and field evidence for wild bighorn sheep. Animal Behavior 41:61-77.

Bérubé, C. H., M. Festa-Bianchet, and J. T. Jorgenson. 1999. Individual differences, longevity, and reproductive senescence in bighorn ewes. Ecology 80:2555-2565.

Besser, T. E., Highland, M. A., Baker, K., Cassirer, E. F., Anderson, N. J., Ramsey, J. M., Mansfield, K., Bruning, D.L., Wolff, P., and Jenks, J. A. 2012. Causes of pneumonia epizootics among bighorn sheep, western United States, 2008–2010. Emerging Infectious Diseases 18: 406.

Bleich, V. C., R. T. Bowyer, and J. D. Wehausen. 1997. Sexual segregation in mountain sheep: Resources or predation? Wildlife Monographs 134: 1-50.

Bleich, V.C. 1999. Mountain sheep and coyotes: patterns of predator evasion in a mountain ungulate. J. Mammal. 80:283-289.

Bodie, W. L., E. O. Garton, E. R. Taylor, and M. McCoy. 1995. A sightability model for bighorn sheep in canyon habitats. J. Wildl. Manage. 59:832-840.

Bonenfant, C., F. Pelletier, M., Garel and P. Bergeron. 2009. Age dependent relationship between horn growth and survival in wild sheep. J. Anim. Ecol. 78: 161–171.

Bourbeau-Lemieux, A., M. Festa-Bianchet, J. M. Gaillard and F. Pelletier. 2011. Predator-driven component Allee effects in a wild ungulate. Ecology Letters, 14: 358–363.

Buechner, H. K. 1960. The bighorn sheep in the United States, its past, present and future. Wildl. Monog., No. 4.

Cassaigne, I. G., R. A. Medellín and J. A. Guasco O. 2010. Mortality during epizootics in bighorn sheep: Effects of initial population size and cause. J. Wildl. Disease 46(3): 763 – 771.

Cassirer, E. F. and A. R. E. Sinclair. 2007. Dynamics of pneumonia in a bighorn sheep meta-population. J. Wildl. Manage. 71:1080 - 1088.

Chevin, L.-M. Evolution and adult size depends on genetic variance in growth trajectories. A comment in analyses of evolutionary dynamics using integral projection models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. In press.

Clarkson, P. L., K. P. Schmidt, and J. R. Gunson. 1984. Evaluation of wolf-ungulate predation near Nordegg, Alberta: first year progress report, 1983-1984. Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division unpublished report, Edmonton, Canada.

Coltman, D.W., M. Festa-Bianchet, J. T. Jorgenson and C. Strobeck. 2002. Age-dependent sexual selection in bighorn rams. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 269: 165–172.

Coltman, D. W., P. O’Donoghue, J. T. Jorgenson, J. T. Hogg, C. Strobeck, and M. Festa-Bianchet. 2003. Undesirable evolutionary consequences of trophy hunting. Nature 426: 655-658.

Coltman, D. W., P. O’Donoghue, J. T. Hogg, and M. Festa-Bianchet. 2005. Selection and genetic (co)variance in bighorn sheep. Evolution 59: 1372-1382.

Coltman, D. W. 2008. Molecular ecological approaches to studying the evolutionary impact of selective harvesting in wildlife. Molecular Ecology 17:221-235.

Côté, S. D. and C. Beaudoin. 1997. Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) attacks and nanny-kid separation on mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus). Mammalia 61: 614 – 617.

Cunningham, E.B. 1970. Golden eagle harassing bighorn sheep. Canadian Field Naturalist 84:183.

Cowan, I. McT. 1940. Distribution and variation in the native sheep of North America. Amer. Midl. Natur. 24: 505 – 580.

______and V. Geist. 1971. The North American Wild Sheep. Pages 58 – 83 in North American Big Game. The Boone and Crockett Club, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

DeCesare, N. J. 2012. Resource selection, predation risk and population dynamics of woodland caribou. PhD. Dissertation, Univ. of Montana., 283 pp.

Economic Research Limited. 2009. Hunting in Alberta in 2008: Performance, value and socioeconomic impacts Volume II. Prepared for the Hunting for Tomorrow Foundation, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 45 pp.

Fay, S. P. 2009. The Forgotten Explorer: Samuel Prescott Fay’s 1914 expedition to the northern Rockies. C. Helm and M. Murtha, Eds. Rocky Mountain Books, Surrey, B.C. 292 pp.

Federal, Provincial and Territorial Governments of Canada. 2014. 2012 Canadian Nature Survey: Awareness, participation, and expenditures in nature-based recreation, conservation, and subsistence activities. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Councils of Resource Ministers.

Feder, C., J. G. A. Martin, M. Festa- Bianchet, C. Bérubé and J. Jorgenson. 2008. Never too late? Consequences of late birthdate for mass and survival of bighorn lambs. Oecologia 156:773–781.

Festa-Bianchet, M. and J. Samson. 1984. Lamb survival in relation to maternal lungworm load in Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. Bienn. Symp. North. Wild Sheep and Goat Counc. 4:364 - 371.

Festa-Bianchet, M. 1986a. Seasonal dispersion of overlapping mountain sheep groups. J. Wildl. Manage. 50: 325 – 330.

Festa-Bianchet, M. 1986b. Site fidelity and seasonal range use by bighorn rams. Can. J. Zool. 64:2126- 2132.

Festa-Bianchet, M. 1987. Individual reproductive success of bighorn ewes. PhD. Thesis, Univ. of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. 229pp.

Festa-Bianchet, M. 1988a. Birthdate and survival in bighorn lambs (Ovis canadensis). Journal of Zoology 214:653–661.

Festa-Bianchet, M. 1988b. Seasonal range selection in bighorn sheep: conflicts between forage quality, forage quantity, and predator avoidance. Oecologia 75: 580 – 586.

Festa-Bianchet, M. 1989. Individual differences, parasites, and the costs of reproduction for bighorn ewes (Ovis canadensis). J. Animal Ecol. 58: 785-796.

Festa-Bianchet, M. 1991. Numbers of lungworm larvae in feces of bighorn sheep: yearly changes, influence of host sex, and effects on host survival. Can. J. Zool. 69:547–554.

Festa-Bianchet, M., M. Urquhart and K. G. Smith. 1994. Mountain goat recruitment: kid production and survival to breeding age. Can. J. Zool. 72: 22 – 27.

Festa-Bianchet, M., J. T. Jorgenson, M. Lucherini and W. D. Wishart. 1995. Life-history consequences of variation in age of primiparity in bighorn ewes. Ecology, 76: 871-881.

Festa-Bianchet, M., J. T. Jorgenson, W. J. King, K. G. Smith and W. D. Wishart. 1996. The development of sexual dimorphism: seasonal and lifetime mass changes of bighorn sheep. Can. J. Zool. 74: 330-342.

Festa-Bianchet, M., J. T. Jorgenson, C. Bérubé, C. Portier and W. D. Wishart. 1997. Body mass and survival of bighorn sheep. Can. J. Zool. 75: 1372-1379.

Festa-Bianchet, M. and J. T. Jorgenson. 1998. Selfish mothers: Reproductive expenditure and resource availability in bighorn ewes. Behav. Ecol. 9 (2): 144 – 150.

Festa-Bianchet, M., D. W. Coltman, L. Turelli, and J. T. Jorgenson. 2004. Relative allocation to horn and body growth in bighorn rams varies with resource availability. Behav. Ecol. 15:305–312.

Festa-Bianchet, M., T. Coulson, J. M. Gaillard, J. T. Hogg and F. Pelletier. 2006. Stochastic predation events and population persistence in bighorn sheep. Proc Biol Sci. 273(1593): 1537–1543.

Festa-Bianchet, M. and W. King. 2007. Age-related reproductive effort in bighorn sheep ewes. Ecoscience 14 (3): 318 – 322.

Festa-Bianchet, M., F. Pelletier, J. T. Jorgenson, C. Feder and A. Hubbs. 2014. Decrease in horn size and increase in age of “Trophy” rams in Alberta over 37 years. J. Wildl. Manage.78: 133 - 144.

Fish and Wildlife Division. 1982. Fish and Wildlife Policy for Alberta. Dept. of Energy and Natural Resources, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 24 pp.

Forde, T., Kutz, S., De Buck, J., Warren, A., Ruckstuhl, K., Pybus, M., and Orsel, K. 2012. Occurrence, diagnosis, and strain typing of Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis infection in Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis canadensis) in southwestern Alberta. J. Wildl. Disease 48: 1-11.

Forsland, D. 1946–1950. Annual reports of Fish and Game Commissioner for fiscal years 1945-1950. Alberta Dept. of Lands and Mines (Forests), Edmonton, Alberta. King’s Printer, Edmonton, Alberta.

Gaillard, J-M., M. Festa-Bianchet and N.G. Yoccoz. 1998. Population dynamics of large herbivores: Variable recruitment with constant adult survival. Tree 13: 58-63.

Garel, M., J.-M. Cugnasse, D. Maillard, J.-M. Gaillard, A. J. M. Hewison, and D. Dubray. 2007. Selective harvesting and habitat loss produce long-term life history changes in a mouflon population. Ecological Applications 17:1607–1618.

Gates, C. C., and Samuel, W. M. 1977. Prenatal infection of the Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (Ovis c. canadensis) of Alberta with the lungworm Protostrongylus spp. J. Wildl. Disease 13: 248-250.

Geist, V. 1971. Mountain sheep: A study in behavior and evolution. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.

______. 1975. On the management of mountain sheep; theoretical considerations. Pages 77 – 98 in J. B. Trefethen, editor, The wild sheep in modern North America. Boone and Crocket Club, Alexandria, Virginia.

George, J. L., M. W. Miller, G. C. White, and J. Vayhinger. 1996. Comparison of mark-resight population size estimators for bighorn sheep in alpine and timbered habitats. Bienn. Symp. N. Wild Sheep and Goat Counc. 10:20-25.

George J. L., D. J. Martin, P. M. Lukacs and M. W. Miller. 2008. Epidemic pasteurellosis in a bighorn sheep population coinciding with the appearance of a domestic sheep. J. Wildl. Disease 44 (2): 388 – 403.

Hamel, S. M. Garel, M. Festa-Bianchet, J. M. Gaillard and S. D. Côté. 2009. Spring Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) predicts annual variation in timing of peak faecal crude protein in mountain ungulates. Journal of Applied Ecology 46. 582–589.

Harrison, S. and D. Hebert. 1988. Selective predation by cougar within the Junction Wildlife Management Area. Bienn. Symp. N. Wild Sheep and Goat Counc. 6:292 - 306.

Hass, C. C. 1989. Bighorn lamb mortality: predation, inbreeding, and population effects. Can. J. Zool. 67:699-705.

Hebblewhite, M., P. C. Paquet, D. Pletscher, R. B. Lessard, and C. J. Callaghan. 2004. Development and application of a ratio estimator to estimate wolf kill rates and variance in a multiple-prey system. Wildl. Soc. Bulletin 31(4):933-946.

Hebert, D. M. 1973. Altitudinal migration as a factor in the nutrition of bighorn sheep. PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada

Hebert, D. and S. Harrison. 1988. The impact of coyote predation on lamb mortality patterns at the Junction Wildlife Management Area. Bienn. Symp. North. Wild Sheep and Goat Counc. 6:283 - 291.

Heimer, W., S.M. Watson and T.C. Smith.1984. Excess ram mortality in a heavily hunted Dall sheep population. Bienn. Symp. North. Wild Sheep and Goat Counc. 4:425-432.

Hedrick, P. W., D. W. Coltman, M. Festa-Bianchet and F. Pelletier. 2014. Not surpisingly, no inheritance of a trait results in no evolution. Proceeding of the National Academy of Science, U.S.A. 11:e418.

Hengeveld, P. E., and M. Festa-Bianchet. 2011. Harvest regulations and artificial selection on horn size in male bighorn sheep. J. Wildl. Manage. 75(1):189–197.

Hibler, C. P., Lange, R. E., and Metzger, C.J. 1972. Transplacental transmission of Protostrongylus spp. in bighorn sheep. J. Wildl. Disease 8: 389-389.

Hik, D.S. & Carey, J. 2000. Cohort variation in horn growth of Dall sheep rams in the southwest Yukon, 1969–1999. Bienn. Symp. North. Wild Sheep and Goat Counc. 12: 88–100.

______. 2014. Ecological resilience of bighorn sheep populations to climate change and human disturbance in the northern Rocky Mountains. A discussion paper and outline for proposed research. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta

Hogg, J. T. 1987. Intrasexual competition and mate choice in Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. Ethology 75:119-144.

______. 2000. Mating systems and conservation at large spatial scales. In Vertebrate Mating Systems, eds. M. Apollonio, M. Festa-Bianchet & D. Mainardi, pp. 214–252. World Scientific, Singapore.

______, S. Forbes, B. Steele and G. Luikart. 2006. Genetic rescue of an insular population of large mammals. Proceedings of the Royal Society B – Biological Sciences, 273, 1491–1499.

Huggard, D.J. 1993. Prey selectivity of wolves in Banff National Park: I. Prey Species. Can. J. Zool. 71:130-139.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). 2010. Bighorn sheep management plan 2010. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, USA.

IUCN/SSC. 2013. Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations. Version 1.0. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Species Survival Commission, viiii + 57 pp.

Jalkotzy, M., Ross, I., and J. R. Gunson. 1992. Management plan for cougars in Alberta. Province of Alberta Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 5. Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Jacques, D. R. 1976. Winter alpine-subalpine wildlife habitat in the southern Rocky Mountains. Environmental Sciences Centre, Kananaskis, Univ. of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.

Jansen, B.D., P.R. Krausman, J.R. Heffelfinger, and J.C. DeVos, Jr. 2006. Bighorn sheep selection of landscape features in an active copper mine. Wildl. Soc. Bulletin 34(4):1121-1126.

Jokinen, M. E., P. F. Jones and D. Dorge. 2008. Evaluating survival and demography of a bighorn sheep population. Bienn. Symp. North Wild Sheep and Goat Counc. 16: 138- 159.

______., M. Verhage, R. Anderson, and D. Manzer. 2013. Monitoring mineral licks and their seasonal variation of use by ungulates in southwest Alberta. Alberta Conservation Association Report Series, 2013. Technical Report, T-2006-000, produced by the Alberta Conservation Association, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada.

Jorgenson, J., M. Festa-Bianchet and W.D. Wishart. 1993a. Harvesting bighorn ewes: consequences for population size and trophy ram production. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 57: 429–435.

Jorgenson, J. T., M. Festa-Bianchet, M. Lucherini and W. D. Wishart. 1993b. Effects of body size, population density and maternal characteristics on age of first reproduction in bighorn ewes. Can. J. Zool. 71: 2509-2517.

Jorgenson, J. T., M. Festa-Bianchet, J. M. Gaillard and W. D. Wishart. 1997. Effects of age, sex, disease and density on survival of bighorn sheep. Ecology 78: 1019 – 1032.

Jorgenson, J. T., M. Festa-Bianchet, and W. D. Wishart. 1998. Effects of population density on horn development in bighorn rams. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 62: 1011–1020.

Jorgenson, J. T. 2008. Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Status Report – Alberta. Bienn. Symp. North. Wild Sheep Goat Counc. 16: 30-36.

Knamiller, P. 2011. Seasonal wolf predation in a multi-prey system in west-central Alberta. M.Sc thesis, Univ. of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

Knopff, K.H., A.A. Knopff, A. Kortello, and M.S. Boyce. 2010a. Cougar kill rate and prey composition in a multiprey system. J. Wild. Mgmt. 74:1435-1447.

Knopff, K. H. 2012. Cougar predation in a multi-prey system in west-central Alberta. PhD. thesis. Univ. of Alberta. Edmonton, Canada. 271 pp.

Knopff, K. H., N. H. Webb and M. S. Boyce. 2013. Cougar population status and range expansion in Alberta during 1991 – 2010. Wildl. Soc. Bulletin 38:116-121.

Kreeger T. J., W. E. Cook, W. E. Edwards and T. Cornish. 2004. Brucellosis in captive Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) caused by Brucella abortus Biovar 4. J. Wildl. Disease 40 (2): 311 – 315.

Larsen, P. A. 1970. Bighorn sheep population estimates and harvest information. Prog. Rep. New Mexico Dep. Game and Fish, Aid in Wildl. Restor. Proj. W-93-R11. Job 1 Santa Fe, NM 10pp.

Lawrence, P. K., S. Shanthalingam, R. P. Dassanayake, R. Subramaniam, C. N. Herndon, D. P. Knowles, F. R. Rurangirwa, W. J. Foreyt, G. Wayman, A. M. Marciel, S. K. Highlander, and S. Srikumaran. 2010. Transmission of Mannheimia haemolytica from domestic sheep (Ovis aries) to bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis): unequivocal demonstration with green fluorescent protein- tagged organisms. J. Wildl. Disease 46:706-717, and erratum (46:1346-1347).

LeBlanc, M., M. Festa-Bianchet, and J. T. Jorgenson 2001. Sexual size dimorphism in bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis): effects of population density. Can. J. Zool. 79: 1661–1670.

L’Heureaux, N. L., M. Festa-Bianchet and J. T Jorgenson. 1996. Effects of visible signs of contagious ecthyma on mass and survival of bighorn lambs. J. Wild. Disease 32 (2): 285 – 292.

Loehr, J., J. Carey, M. Hoefs, J. Suhonen and H. Ylönen. 2007. Horn growth rate and longevity: implications for natural and artificial selection in thinhorn sheep (Ovis dalli). J. Evol. Biol. 20: 818–828.

Loehr, J., J.Carey, R.B. O’Hara, and D.S. Hik. 2010. The role of phenotypic plasticity in responses of hunted thinhorn sheep ram horn growth to changing climate conditions. J. Evol. Biol. 23: 783- 790.

Loison, A., M. Festa-Bianchet, J.-M. Gaillard. J. T. Jorgenson, and J. –M. Jullien. 1999. Age-specific survival in five population of ungulates: evidence of senescence. Ecology 80:2539-2554.

MacArthur, R.A., V. Geist and R.H. Johnston. 1982. Cardiac and behavioural responses of mountain sheep to human disturbance. J. Wild. Manage. 46(2): 351-358.

MacCallum, N. B. 1991. Bighorn sheep use of an open pit coal mine in the foothills of Alberta and mine reclamation. M.E.D. thesis, Univ. of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

______. and V. Geist. 1992. Mountain restoration: soil and surface wildlife habitat. GeoJournal 27:23-46.

______. 2006. Summary of health and trace mineral testing of bighorn sheep at the Luscar and Gregg River mine sites of west-central Alberta. Bienn. Symp. North. Wild Sheep Goat Counc. 15: 69 – 88.

______. 2008. Bighorn Sheep distribution and movement in the Nikanassin Range of Alberta’s Rocky Mountains. Bienn. Symp. North. Wild Sheep Goat Counc. 16:248.

______. 2012. Effects of delayed spring greenup on bighorn sheep of the Luscar and Gregg River Mines, Alberta. Bienn. Symp. North. Wild Sheep Goat Counc. 18:71 - 78.

Marsh, H. 1938. Pneumonia in Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. J. Mammal. 19: 214-219.

Martin, J. G. A. and M. Festa-Bianchet. 2010. Bighorn ewes transfer the costs of reproduction to their lambs. American Naturalist 176: 414 – 423.

Martin, J. G. A. and M. Festa-Bianchet. 2011a. Age-independent and age- dependent decreases in reproduction of females. Ecology Letters 14: 576–581.

Martin, J. G. A. and M. Festa-Bianchet. 2011b. Sex ratio bias and reproductive strategies: What sex to produce when? Ecology, 92: 441–449.

McCollum, M., Rhyan, J., Coburn, S., Ewalt, D., Lahr, C., Nol, P., Keefe, T., Kimberling, C., and Salman, M. 2013. Clinical, culture, serology, and histopathology outcomes of bighorn sheep experimentally infected with Brucella ovis. J. Wildl. Disease 49: 900-910.

Merchant, P., M. Hoefs, T. Nette, W. Kale, and M. Janssen. 1982, A simple measuring device for sheep horns. Bienn. Symp. North. Wild Sheep Goat Counc. 3:157-162.

Michalsky, S.J. and Paul M. Woodard (n/d). A 10-year recovery history of a burned subalpine plant community on Ram Mountain, Alberta. An unpublished report on file at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. T6G 2H1.

Millar, W. N. 1915. The big game of the Canadian Rockies. Conservation of fish, birds and game. Proceedings of Committee Meeting, Nov. 1-2, 1915. The Methodist Book and Publishing House, Toronto, Ontario. pp. 1-124.

Miller, M. W., J. E. Vayhinger, D. C. Bowden, S. P. Roush, T. E. Verry, A. N. Torres, and V. D. Jurgens. 2000. Drug treatment for lungworm in bighorn sheep: reevaluation of a 20-year-old management prescription. J. Wildl. Manage. 64: 505-512.

Miller, M. W., Hause, B. M., Killion, H. J., Fox, K. A., Edwards, W. H., and Wolfe, L. L. 2013. Phylogenetic and epidemiologic relationships among Pasteurellaceae from Colorado bighorn sheep herds. J. Wildl. Disease 49: 653-660.

Monello, R. J., D. L Murray and E. F. Cassirer. 2001. Ecological correlates of pneumonia epizootics in bighorn sheep herds. Can. J. Zool. 79: 1423 – 1432.

Monteith, K. L., R. A. Long, V. C. Bleich, J. R. Heffelfinger, P. R. Krausman and R. T. Boyer. Effects of harvest, culture, and climate on trends in size of horn-like structure in trophy ungulates. Wildl. Monographs 183:1 – 26.

Neal, A. K., G. C. White, R. B. Gill, D. F. Reed, and J. H. Olterman. 1993. Evaluation of mark-resight model assumptions for estimating mountain sheep numbers. J. Wildl. Manage. 57:436-450.

Nesbit, W. H. and P. L Wright, (eds.). 1981. Records of North American big game. The Boone and Crockett Club, Alexandria, Va. 409 pp.

Ohlendorf, H.M. 1996.Selenium. Pages 128-140 in A. Fairborther, L. Locke, and GL Hoff (eds.) Noninfectious Diseases of Wildlife. Iowa State University Press. Ames, Iowa.

Patterson, D. K., H. Archibald and R. M. Jobin. 2008. Forensic DNA-typing of bighorn sheep in the province of Alberta. Bienn. Symp. North. Wild Sheep Goat Counc. 15: 51.

Pelletier, F. and M. Festa-Bianchet. 2006. Sexual selection and social rank in bighorn rams. Animal Behaviour, 71: 649-655.

______., M. Festa-Bianchet and J. T. Jorgenson. 2012. Data from selective harvests underestimate temporal trends in quantitative traits. Biology Letters 8:878-881.

______., M. Festa-Bianchet, J. T. Jorgensen, C. Feder, and A. Hubbs. 2014. Can phenotypic rescue from harvest refuges buffer wild sheep from selective hunting. Ecology and Evolution 4(17): 3375-3382.

Pérez, J.M., Serrano, E., Gonzaléz-Candela, M., Léon-Vizcaino, L., Barbera, G.G., de Simon, M.A., Fandos, P., Granados, J.E., Soriguer, R.C., and Festa-Bianchet, M. 2011. Reduced horn size in two wild trophy-hunted species of Caprinae. Wildlife Biology 17: 102-112.

Pettorelli, N., F. Pelletier, A. Von Hardenberg, M. Festa-Bianchet, and S. D. Côté. 2007. Early onset of vegetation growth vs. rapid green-up: impacts on juvenile mountain ungulates. Ecology 88:381– 390.

Phillips, W., D. DePage and L. Ewanyk. 1977. A socioeconomic evaluation of the recreational use of fish and wildlife resources in Alberta with particular reference to the Athabasca Oil Sands Area. Vol. IV. Nonconsumptive recreational use of fish and wildlife. 220 pp.

Portier, C., M. Festa-Bianchet, J. M. Gaillard, J. T. Jorgenson, and N. G. Yoccoz. 1998. Effects of density and weather on survival of bighorn sheep lambs. Journal of Zoology 245: 271-278.

Poissant, J., A.J. Wilson, M. Festa-Bianchet, J.T. Hogg, and D.W. Coltman. 2008. Quantitative genetics and sex-specific selection on sexually dimorphic traits in bighorn sheep. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 275: 623-628.

Poole, K. G. 2013. Habitat use, seasonal movements, and population dynamics of bighorn sheep in the Elk Valley. Unpubl. Rept. Prepared for B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and Teck Coal by Aurora Wildlife Research, Nelson, B. C. (in prep).

Postma. E. 2006. Implications of the difference between true and predicted breeding values for the study of natural selection and micro-evolution. J. Evol. Biol.19: 309-320.

Pybus, M. J., R. A. Fenton, and H. Lange. 1994. A health protocol for domestic sheep on forest grazing allotments in Alberta and British Colombia. Bienn. Symp. North. Wild Sheep Goat Counc. 9: 20-24.

Réale, D., M. Festa-Bianchet, and J. T. Jorgenson. 1999. Heritability of body mass varies with age and season in wild bighorn sheep. Heredity 83:526-532

Rognrud, M. 1983. Final report – gnereal restocking in Montana. 1941-1982. Federal Aid Project W-5-D.

Rominger, E. M., H. A. Whitlaw, D. L. Weybright, W. C. Dunn, and W. B. Ballard. 2004. The influence of mountain lion predation on bighorn sheep translocations. J. Wildl. Manage. 68:993-999.

Rominger, E. R. and E. J. Goldstein. 2006. Decreased horn basal circumference in bighorn sheep rams following asymptote of population growth curves. Bienn. Symp. North. Wild Sheep Goat Counc. 15: 28-32.

Rominger, E. et al. 2008a. Ram harvest strategies for western states and provinces. Bienn. Symp. North. Wild Sheep Goat Counc. 16:92-98.

Rominger, E. et al. 2008b. Ewe harvest strategies for western states and provinces. Bienn. Symp. North. Wild Sheep Goat Counc. 16:99-102.

Ross, P. I., and M. G. Jalkotzy. 1992. Characteristics of a hunted population of cougars in southwestern Alberta. J. Wildl. Manage. 56:417–426.

Ross, P. I., M. G. Jalkotzy, and J. R. Gunson. 1996. The quota system of cougar harvest management in Alberta. Wildl. Soc. Bulletin 24:490–494.

Ross, P. I., M. G. Jalkotzy, and M. Festa-Bianchet. 1997. Cougar predation on bighorn sheep in southwestern Alberta during winter. Can. J. Zool. 75:771–775.

Ruckstuhl, K. E., M. Festa-Bianchet and J. T. Jorgenson. 2000. Effects of prescribed grassland burns on forage availability, quality and bighorn sheep use. Bienn. Symp. North. Wild Sheep Goat Counc. 12: 11 – 25.

Ruckstuhl K. E. and P. Neuhaus. 2002. Sexual segregation in ungulates: a comparative test of three hypotheses. Biol Rev 77:77–96.

Ruckstuhl K. E. and H. Kokko. 2002. Modelling sexual segregation in ungulates: effects of group size, activity budgets and synchrony. Anim Behav 64:909–914.

Rughetti, M., and M. Festa-Bianchet. 2010. Compensatory growth limits opportunities for artificial selection in alpine chamois. J. Wildl. Manage. 74:1024–1029.

Rughetti, M., and M. Festa-Bianchet. 2012. Effects of spring-summer temperatures on body mass of chamois. J. Mammal. 93 (5): 1301 – 1307.

Sage, R. D., and J. 0. Wolff. 1986. Pleistocene glaciations, fluctuating ranges, and low genetic variability in a large mammal (Ovis dalli). Evolution 40:1092-1095.

Samson, J., Jorgenson, J. T., and Wishart, W. D. 1989. Glutathione peroxidase activity and selenium levels in Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep and mountain goats. Can. J. Zool. 67: 2493-2496.

Samuel, W. M., G. A. Chalmers, J. G. Stelfox, A. Loewen, and J. J. Thomsen. 1975. Contagious ecthyma in bighorn sheep and mountain goat in western Canada. J. Wildl. Disease 11: 26-31.

Sand, J. L. 1967. Bighorn Sheep. Pages 69 – 82 in New Mexico Wildlife Management. New Mexico Dep. Game and Fish, Santa Fe.

Sandoval, A. V. 1987. Funds assist desert bighorns, mountain bighorns. New Mexico Wildl. 32: 9 – 12.

Sausman, K 1984. Survival of captive born Ovis canadensis in North American zoos. Zoo Biology 3:111- 121.

Sawyer, H and F. Lindzey.2002. A Review of predation on bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis). Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Box 3166 University Station Laramie, WY 82071. 37 pp.

Schwartz, 0. A., V. C. Bleich, and S. A. Holl. 1986. Genetics and the conservation of mountain sheep Ovis canadensis canadensis. Biological Conservation 37:179-190.

Schmidt, K. P. and J. R. Gunson. 1985. Evaluation of wolf-ungulate predation near Nordegg, Alberta: second year progress report, 1984-85. Alberta Energy and Natural Resources Fish and Wildlife Division, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Schommer, T. J., and Woolever, M.W. 2008. A review of disease related conflicts between domestic sheep and goats and bighorn sheep. Gen. Tech Rpt. RMRS-GTR-209, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 16p.

Schwartz, M. K., G. Luikart and R. S. Waples. 2006. Genetic monitoring as a promising tool for conservation and management. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22: 25 – 33. Scott, H. M., Sorensen, O., Wu, J. T., Chow, E. Y., and Manninen, K. 2007. Seroprevalence of and agroecological risk factors for Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis and Neospora caninum infection among adult beef cattle in cow-calf herds in Alberta, Canada. The Canadian Veterinary Journal 48: 397.

Shackleton, D. M. 1973. Population quality and bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis). PhD thesis, University of Calgary, Canada

______, C. C. Shank and B. K. Wikeem. 1999. Natural history of Rocky Mountain and California Bighorn Sheep. Pages 78-138 in R. Valdez and P. R. Krausman, eds. Mountain Sheep in North America. Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ.

Shank, C. C. 1977. Cooperative defense by bighorn sheep. J. Mammal. 58: 243 - 244.

Shanthalingam, S., Goldy, A., Bavananthasivam, J., Subramaniam, R., Batra, S., Kugadas, A., Raghavan, B., Dassanayake, R., Jennings-Gaines, J., Killion, H., Edwards, W., Ramsey, R., Anderson, N., Wolff, P., Mansfield, K., Bruning, D., and Srikumaran, S. 2013. PCR assay detects Mannheimia haemolytica in culture-negative pneumonic lung tissues of bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) from outbreaks in the western USA, 2009–2010. J. Wildl. Disease In-Press. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7589/2012-09-225

Singer, F.J., E. Williams, M.W. Miller, and L.C. Zeigenfuss. 2000. Population growth, fecundity, and survivorship in recovering populations of bighorn sheep. Restoration Ecology 8: 75-84.

Sirochman, M. A., Woodruff, K. J., Grigg, J. L., Walsh, D. P., Huyvaert, K. P., Miller, M. W., and Wolfe, L. L. 2012. Evaluation of management treatments intended to increase lamb recruitment in a bighorn sheep herd. J. Wildl. Disease 48: 781-784.

Smith, K. G., J. B. Stelfox and J. G. Stelfox. 1996. History of transplanting bighorn sheep and mountain goats – Alberta. Beinn. Symp. North. Wild Sheep Goat Counc. 10: 152 – 155.

______. 2014. Feasibility of introducing bighorn sheep to a prairie badland in Alberta. Final report prepared for the Alberta Chapter of the Wild Sheep Foundation, Rocky Mountain House, Alberta. 27 pp.

Sorensen, O., Rawluk, S., Wu, J., Manninen, K., and Ollis, G. 2003. Mycobacterium paratuberculosis in dairy herds in Alberta. The Canadian Veterinary Journal 44: 221.

Stelfox, J. G. 1966. Bighorn and Rocky Mountain goat populations, reproductions, harvests nda proposed 1966 season, June 22, 1966. Typewritten progress report in files of Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division, Edmonton, Alberta. 49 pp.

______. 1971. Bighorn sheep in the Canadian Rockies: A history 1800 – 1970. Can. Field Nat. 85(2):101-122. . Stelfox, J. B. and J. G. Stelfox. 1993. Distribution in: Hoofed mammals of Alberfta. J. B. Stelfox (ed)., Lone Pine Publishing, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 241pp.

Stemp, R.E. 1983. Heart rate responses of bighorn sheep to environmental factors and harassment. M .Env. Design. Univ. of Calgary. 314 pp plus Appendices

Stewart, S. T., and T. W. Butts. 1982. Horn growth as an index to levels of inbreeding in bighorn sheep. Bienn. Symp. North. Wild Sheep Goat Counc. 3:68-82

Taylor, E., D. E. Toweill and W. A. Van Dyke. 2002. Validation of a helicopter sightability model for bighorn sheep. Bienn, Symp. Wild Sheep Goat Counc. 13: 40 – 47.

Tenhumberg, B., A. J. Tyre, A. P. Pople and H. P. Possingham. 2004. Do harvest refuges buffer kangaroos against evolutionary responses to selective harvesting? Ecology 85(7): 2003 – 2017.

Traill, L. W., S. Schlinder and T. Coulson. 2014. Demography, not inheritance, drives phenotypic change in hunted bighorn sheep. PNAS.

Walsh, D.P., Wolfe, L.L., Vieira, M., and Miller, M.W. 2012. Detection probability and Pasteurellaceae surveillance in bighorn sheep. J. Wildl. Disease 48: 593-602.

WAFWA (Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies). 2012. Recommendations for domestic sheep and goat management in wild sheep habitat. Wild Sheep Working Group Report. 26pp.

Webb, N. 2009. Density, demography, and functional response of a harvested wolf population in west- central Alberta, Canada. PhD thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

Webb, N., E. Merrill and J. Allen. 2009. Density, demography and functional response of a harvested wolf population in west-central Alberta – Management Summary. Unpub. Rept. Wildlife Management Branch, Alberta Dept. ESRD, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 10 pp.

Webb, R. 1959. Alberta’s big game resources. Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division. Queen’s Printer. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 31 pp.

Wehausen, J. D., and R. R. Ramey. 1993. A morpho- metric reevaluation of the Peninsular bighorn subspecies. Desert Bighorn Counc. Transactions 37:1- 10.

Wild Sheep Working Group. 2012. Recommendations for domestic sheep and goat management in wild sheep habitat. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

Williams, E. S., T. R. Spraker and G. G. Schoonveld. 1979. Paratuberculosis (Johne’s Disease) in bighorn sheep and a Rocky Mountain goat in Colorado. J. Wildl. Disease 221 – 227.

Wishart, W. D. 1958. The bighorn sheep of the Sheep River valley. M. Sc. Thesis, Univ. of Alberta. 66 pp.

______. 1961. Bighorn roundup. Alberta Land, Forest and Wildlife Vol 3 (6): 4 – 17.

______. 1978a. Species management plan for the Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep in Alberta. Typewritten report in files of Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division, Edmonton, Alberta. 42 pp.

______. 1978b. Bighorn Sheep. Pages 161 – 172 in J. L. Schmidt and D. L. Gilbert, eds. Big Game of North America. The Stackpole Co., Harrisburg, Pa. 494 pp.

______., B. MacCallum, and J. Jorgenson. 1998. Lessons learned from rates of increase in bighorn herds. Bienn. Symp. North. Wild Sheep Goat Counc. 11:126–132.

______. 2006. Bighorns and little horns revisited. Bienn. Symp. North. Wild Sheep Goat Counc. 15: 28 – 32.

Wobeser, G.A. 2006. Essentials of disease in wild animals. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Ames, Iowa.243pp.

Woodard, P. M. and T. Vannest. 1988. A strategy for prescribed burning bighorn sheep range in winter. Bienn.. Symp. North. Wild Sheep Goat Counc. 6: 219 – 228.

Woody, N. 1971. General bighorn files. Warden Service, Canada Parks Service, Jasper, Alberta, Canada. Unpubl. Rept.

Wolf, P. 2012. Readers Digest Version: Respiratory disease in bighorn sheep. Powerpoint presentation prepared by Peregrine Wolfe, DVM. Nevada Department of Wildlife.

Wolfe, L. L., Diamond, B., Spraker, T. R., Sirochman, M. A., Walsh, D. P., Machin, C. M., D. J. Bade and Miller, M. W. 2010. A bighorn sheep die-off in southern Colorado involving a Pasteurellaceae strain that may have originated from synoptic cattle. J. Wildl. Disease 46: 1262- 1268.

6.0 Appendices Appendix 1. Hunting seasons and licence fees for trophy bighorn sheep in Alberta during 1990-2012.

Hunting Seasons Residents a Non-Residents a Licence Fees b Year Season Days Areas Open Season Days Areas Resident N.R./ Dates Open Dates Open Open N.R.A.a 1990 A25-027 55 326, 328, 412-434, 436-439, 441, 444, A31-O13 38 Same $41 $276 446 A25-027 64 440, 442, 445 A31-O13 44 Same S4-027 47 302, 306, 308, 400-408 Residents Only S4-D1f 81 410 S4-D1 Same 1991 A26-028 55 326, 328, 412-434,436-439, 441, 444, S1-014 38 Same $41 $276 446 A26-02 64 440, 442, 445 S1-014 44 Same S5-028 47 302, 306, 308, 400-408 Residents Only S4-D1f 81 410 S4-D1 81 Same 1992 A26-031 58 326, 328, 412-434,436-439, 441, 444, S1-015 39 Same $45.75 $306.45 446 A26-031 67 440, 442, 445 S1-015 45 Same S8-031 47 302, 306, 308, 400-408 Residents Only S8-O31 47 410 S8-N28 74 Same N2-N28f 26 410 1993 A26-030 57 326, 328, 412-434, 436-439 S1-014 38 Same $45.75 $306.45 A26-030 66 440, 441, 442, 444, 445, 446 S1-015 45 Same S7-030 47 302, 306, 308, 400-408 Residents Only S7-O30 47 410 S7-N27 74 Same S7-N27f 74 410 1994 A26-031 58 326, 328, 412-434,436-439 S1-014 38 Same $48.50 $324.86 A26-031 67 440,441,442,444,445,446 S1-015 45 Same S7-031 48 302,306,308,400-408 Residents Only S7-O31 48 410 S7-N26 73 Same S7-N26f 73 410 1995 A26-031 58 326, 328, 412-418,438, 439 S1-014 38 Same $48.50 $324.86 A26-031 67 420-437,440-446 S1-015 45 Same S6-031 49 302, 306, 308, 400-408 Residents Only

Hunting Seasons Residents a Non-Residents a Licence Fees b Year Season Days Areas Open Season Days Areas Resident N.R./ Dates Open Dates Open Open N.R.A.a S6-O31 49 410 S6-N25 73 Same S6-N25f 73 410 1996 A25-031 59 326, 328, 412-418, 438, 439 S1-015 39 Same $51.90 $347.60 A25-031 68 440, 441, 442, 444, 445, 446 S1-015 44 Same S4-031 51 302, 306, 308, 400-408 Residents Only S4-O31 51 410 S4-N30 80 Same S4-N30f 80 410 A25–S23 30 437 Residents Only S24–O31 38 437 Residents Only 1997 A25-031 59 326, 328, 412-418, 438, 439 S1-015 39 Same $51.90 $331.55 A25-031 68 440, 441, 442, 444, 445, 446 S1-015 44 Same S3-031 52 302, 306, 308, 400-408 Residents Only S3-O31 52 410 S3-N30 81 Same S3-N30f 81 410 A25–S23 30 437 Residents Only S24–O31 38 437 Residents Only 1998 A25-031 59 326, 328, 412-418, 438, 439 S1-015 39 Same $48.59 $309.85 A25-031 68 440,441,442,444,445,446 S1-015 44 Same

S9-031 46 302,306,308,400-408 Residents Only S9-O31 46 410 S9-N30 75 Same S9-N30f 75 410

A25–S23 30 437 Residents Only S24–O31 38 437 Residents Only

1999 A25-031 59 326, 328, 412-418, 438, 439 S1-015 Same $48.59 $309.85 A25-031 68 440, 441, 442, 444, 445, 446 S1-015 Same S4-031 51 302, 306, 308, 400-408 Residents Only S4-O31 51 410 S4-N30 Same S4-N30f 80 410 A25–S23 30 437 Residents Only

Hunting Seasons Residents a Non-Residents a Licence Fees b Year Season Days Areas Open Season Days Areas Resident N.R./ Dates Open Dates Open Open N.R.A.a S24–O31 38 437 Residents Only 2000 A25-031 59 326, 328, 412-418, 438, 439 S1-015 39 Same $48.59 $309.85 A25-031 59 440, 441, 442, 444, 445, 446 S1-015 44 S6-031 68 302, 306, 308, 400-408 Residents Only S6-O31 49 410 S6-N30 S6-N30f 78 410 A25–S23 30 437 Residents Only S24–O31 38 437 Residents Only 2001 A25-031 68 412-428, 430-436, 438-446 S1-015 45 Same $48.59 $309.85 S5-N30f 87 410 (Archery) S5-N30 87 Same A25-031 68 326, 328 Residents Only S5-031 57 302, 303, 306, 308, 400-408 Residents Only A25–S23 30 437 Residents Only S24–O31 38 437 Residents Only 2002 A25-031 68 412-428, 430-436, 438-446 S1-015 45 Same $48.59 $309.85 S4-N30f 88 410 (Archery) S4-N30 88 Same A25-031 68 326, 328 S4-031 58 302, 303, 306, 308, 400-408 Residents Only A25–S23 30 437 Residents Only S24–O31 38 437 Residents Only 2003 A25-031 68 412-428, 430-436, 438-446 S1-015 45 Same $48.59 $309.85 S4-N30f 89 410 (Archery) S3-N30 89 Same A25-031 68 326, 328 Residents Only S3-031 59 302, 303, 306, 308, 400-408 Residents Only A25–S23 29 437 Residents Only S24–O31 38 437 Residents Only N1-N30 30 408 (west of Highway 40) Residents Only 2004 A25-031 68 412-428, 430-436, 438-446 S1-015 45 Same $48.59 $309.85 S8-N30f 83 410 (Archery) S8-N30 83 Same A25-031 68 326, 328 Residents Only

Hunting Seasons Residents a Non-Residents a Licence Fees b Year Season Days Areas Open Season Days Areas Resident N.R./ Dates Open Dates Open Open N.R.A.a S8-031 53 302, 303, 306, 308, 400-408 Residents Only A25–S23 30 437 Residents Only S24–O31 38 437 Residents Only N1-N30 30 408 (west of Highway 40) Residents Only 2005 A25-031 68 412-428, 430-436, 438-446 S1-015 45 Same $50.09 $311.35 S7-N30f 85 410 (Archery) S7-N30 85 Same A25-031 68 326, 328 Residents Only S7-031 55 302, 303, 306, 308, 400, 402-408 Residents Only A25–S23 29 437 Residents Only S24–O31 38 437 Residents Only N1-N30 30 408 (west of Highway 40) Residents Only 2006 A25-031 68 412-428, 430-436, 438-446 S1-015 45 Same $50.09 $311.35 S6-N30f 86 410 (Archery) S6-N30 86 Same A25-031 68 326, 328 Residents Only S6-031 56 302, 303, 306, 308, 400-408 Residents Only A25–S23 30 437 Residents Only S24–O31 38 437 Residents Only N1-N30 30 408 (west of Highway 40) Residents Only N1-N10 10 438 Residents Only N11-N20 10 N21-N30 10 2007 A25-031 68 412-428, 430-436, 438-446 S1-015 45 Same $50.09 $311.35 S5-N30f 87 410 (Archery) S5-N30 87 Same A25-031 68 326, 328 Residents Only S5-031 57 302, 303, 306, 308, 400-408 Residents Only A25–S23 29 437 Residents Only S24–O31 38 437 Residents Only N1-N30 30 408 (west of Highway 40) Residents Only N1-N10 10 438 Residents Only N11-N20 10

Hunting Seasons Residents a Non-Residents a Licence Fees b Year Season Days Areas Open Season Days Areas Resident N.R./ Dates Open Dates Open Open N.R.A.a N21-N30 10 2008 A25-031 68 412-428, 430-436, 438-446 S1-015 45 Same $51.31 $317.82 S3-N30f 89 410 (Archery) S3-N30 89 Same A25-031 68 326, 328 Residents Only S3-031 59 302, 303, 306, 308, 400-408 Residents Only A25–S23 29 437 Residents Only S24–O31 38 437 Residents Only N1-N30 30 408 (west of Highway 40) Residents Only N1-N10 10 438 Residents Only N11-N20 10 N21-N30 10 2009 A25-031 68 412-428, 430-436, 438-446 S1-015 45 Same $51.31 $317.82 S9-N30f 83 410 (Archery) S3-N30 83 Same A25-031 68 326, 328 Residents Only S9-031 53 302, 303, 306, 308, 400-408 Residents Only A25–S23 29 437 Residents Only S24–O31 38 437 Residents Only N1-N30 30 408 (west of Highway 40) Residents Only N1-N10 10 438 Residents Only N11-N20 10 N21-N30 10 2010 A25-031 68 412-428, 430-436, 438-446 S1-015 45 Same $51.31 $317.82 S8-N30f 84 410 (Archery) S8-N30 84 Same A25-031 68 326, 328 Residents Only S8-031 54 302, 303, 306, 308, 400-408 Residents Only A25–S23 29 437 Residents Only S24–O31 38 437 Residents Only N1-N30 30 408 (west of Highway 40) Residents Only N1-N10 10 438 Residents Only N11-N20 10

Hunting Seasons Residents a Non-Residents a Licence Fees b Year Season Days Areas Open Season Days Areas Resident N.R./ Dates Open Dates Open Open N.R.A.a N21-N30 10 2011 A25-031 68 412-428, 430-436, 438-446 S1-015 45 Same $51.31 $317.82 S7-N30f 85 410 (Archery) S7-N30 85 Same A25-031 68 326, 328 Residents Only S8-031 54 302, 303, 306, 308, 400-408 Residents Only A25–S23 29 437 Residents Only S24–O31 38 437 Residents Only N1-N30 30 408 (west of Highway 40) Residents Only N1-N10 10 438 Residents Only N11-N20 10 N21-N30 10 2012 A25-031 68 412-428, 430-436, 438-446 S1-015 45 Same $51.31 $317.82 S6-N30f 86 410 (Archery) S6-N30 86 Same A25-031 68 326, 328 Residents Only S6-031 56 302, 303, 306, 308, 400-408 Residents Only A25–S23 29 437 Residents Only S24–O31 38 437 Residents Only N1-N30 30 408 (west of Highway 40) Residents Only N1-N10 10 438 Residents Only N11-N20 10 N21-N30 10 a A "resident" is a person who makes his home and is ordinarily present in Alberta and is either a Canadian citizen or has resided in Canada for the previous 12 months. A "non-resident" is a person who does not live in Alberta, but is and has been living in Canada for the previous12 months (acronym is N.R.). A "non-resident alien" is a person who is neither a resident nor a non-resident (acronym is N.R.A.). b From 1964 to1969 a Non-Resident Big Game Licence permitted a non-resident to harvest one trophy sheep, one antlered animal and one black bear. Separate trophy sheep licences were issued from 1970 33on. c Same indicates there is no difference between resident and non-resident for season dates, days open to hunting or areas open to hunting. d The 1965 and 1966 extended hunting seasons were available to both residents and non-residents. In 1967 and 1968, extended seasons were for residents only. e Sunday hunting introduced. f Non-resident hunting restricted to a draw system. g Season on draw from N5-D1

Appendix 2. Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep transplanted from Alberta, 1922-2015 (adapted from Smith et al. 1996).

Year No. Origin Destination Reference 1992 12 Banff NP Ntl Bison Range, Montana Rognrud 1983 1927 49 Banff NP Spences Bridge (Thompson R.), B.C. Stelfox & Stelfox 1993 1927 50 Banff NP Squilax, near Chase, B.C. Stelfox & Stelfox 1993 1928 14 Banff NP Wichita Mtns., Oklahoma Stelfox & Stelfox 1993 1932 6 Banff NP Peco Wilderness, NM Sand 1967 1940 3 Banff NP Sandia Mtns, New Mexico Sand 1967 1941 3 Banff NP Sandia Mtns, New Mexico Sand 1967 1942 3 Banff NP Sandia Mtns, New Mexico Sand 1967 1961 12 Sheep R. South Dakota Wishart 1961 1964 10 Banff NP Turkey Creek, New Mexico Sand 1967 1965 15 Banff NP Pecos Wilderness, NM Sand 1967 1966 20 Waterton Lakes NP Brigham City, Utah Smith 1988 1968 10 Banff NP Wheeler Peak, New Mexico Larsen 1970 1969 12 Banff NP Brigham City, Utah Smith 1988 1970 12 Jasper NP Fraser Canyon, B.C. Stelfox & Stelfox 1993 1970 24 Banff NP Challis Ntl. Forest, ID Stelfox & Stelfox 1993 1970 15 Banff NP Brigham City, Utah Smith 1988 1971 20 Jasper NP Upper Hell’s Canyon, Oregon Stelfox & Stelfox 1993 1971 20 Jasper NP Lostine River, Oregon Woody 1971 1972 18 Waterton Lakes NP Hall Mt. Washington Johnson 1983 1973 7 Waterton Lakes NP Fort Wingate, NM Sandoval 1978 1973 12 Waterton Lakes NP Desolation Canyon, Utah Smith 1988 1989 20 Cadomin Ruby Mountains, Nevada Alberta Nat. Res. Serv. Files 1990 25 Cadomin Ruby Mountains, Nevada MacCallum 2006 1992 31 Cadomin Ruby Mountains, Nevada MacCallum 2006 1995 49 Cadomin Snake River, Oregon MacCallum 2006 1997 14 Ram Mtn Picklejar Lakes, AB Alberta Fish & Wildlife Div. 1998 31 Cadomin Plateau Mtn., AB Alberta Fish & Wildlife Div. 1999 20 Cadomin Custer State Park, Sth Dakota MacCallum 2006 1999 20 Cadomin Hells Canyon, Oregon Coggins, 2000 2000 37 Cadomin Hell's Canyon, Idaho/Oregon Cassier 2005:18 2000 7 Cadomin Mt Baldy, AB MacCallum 2006 2001 22 Cadomin Rock Canyon - Provo Peak, Utah MacCallum 2006 2001 10 Cadomin Grove Creek - Mt. Timpanogos Utah MacCallum 2006 2004 6 Cadomin Ram Mtn., AB Alberta Fish & Wildlife Div. 2005 6 Cadomin Ram Mtn., AB Alberta Fish & Wildlife Div. 2007 12 Cadomin Ram Mtn., AB Alberta Fish & Wildlife Div. 2007 2 Cadomin Calgary Zoo, Calgary AB MacCallum 2006 2012 42 Cadomin Harrison, Nebraska Alberta Fish & Wildlife Div. 2013 20 Cadomin East Humbolt Range, Nevada Alberta Fish & Wildlife Div. 2014 25 Cadomin North Dakota Alberta Fish & Wildlife Div. 2015 25 Cadomin South Dakota Alberta Fish & Wildlife Div. 10 Cadomin Ram Mtn. AB Alberta Fish & Wildlife Div. TOTAL 774

Appendix 3. Land Use Guidelines

Appendix 4. Timing of survey occurrence for provincial winter ranges of Bighorn sheep in Alberta.

Region Sheep Wildlife Winter Range Management Management Area Unit Year 1 Upper Peace 8 445 Mt. Torrens 8 444 Mt. Stearn 8 442 Swift & Horn creeks The Triangle Monoghan 7 440 Hayden Ridge Rocky Pass N. Berland Moon & Planet creeks Mumm & Collie creeks Upper Athabasca 7 439 Solomon Creek 6 438 Folding Mtn. Whitehorse Creek Teck & GRRL mine sites 6 437 Redcap 6 436 Ruby Creek North Saskatchewan 4A 412 Blk. Rock Mtn. Orient Point End Mtn. 4A 410 Mt. Laurie Mt. Charles Stewart South Saskatchewan 3 408 Wind Ridge Pigeon-McGillivray Ribbon Creek-Mt.Allan Evans-Thomas 3 406 Forget-Me-Not Mt.Burns Mt.Ware Sheep River Gibraltar Mtn. Mt. Head 3 404 Mist Mtn. Cataract Plateau Mtn. Year 2 North Saskatchewan 4C 434A Wapiabi, George Creek 4C 434B Chungo-Blackstone 432 Coral & Job creeks 430 Front Range-Bighorn 426B Cline Point 5 429 Ram Mtn. 428 Shunda Mtn.

Region Sheep Wildlife Winter Range Management Management Area Unit 4B 428 N. Ram 426A Whiterabbit 418 Eagle-Bighorn Scalp Creek (East) Scalp Creek (West) Barrier Mtn. 4A 414 Burnt Timber 2 402-306 South Livingstone 402-308 North Livingstone 402 Cabin Ridge South Saskatchewan 1 400 Prairie Bluff-Yarrow Ck. 400 Table - Castle Mtn. 400 Barnaby Ridge 400-306 Crowsnest Pass

Appendix 5. Data sheet used to collect horn increment measurements of mountain sheep in British Columbia

Appendix 6. Median preseason population estimates ± 1 SD for SMA’s 1 – 8 in Alberta, 1971 – 2015.

SMA 1 (Median 275 ± 85) SMA 2 (Median 346 ± 71)

SMA 3 (Median 785 ± 160) SMA 4A (Median 254 ± 79)

SMA 4B (Median 1006 ± 223) SMA 4C (Median 455 ±174)

SMA 5 (Median 107 ± 51) SMA 6 (Median 995 ± 427)

SMA 7 (Median 913 ± 176) SMA 8 (Median 240 ± 90)