Epizootics have occurred periodically, especially in Rocky Mountain bighorn, and together with over-harvesting and competition from livestock at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th, reduced numbers significantly. Most populations recovered with the aid of wildlife management and conservation efforts, but pneumonia and mange epizootics still occur today, particularly in populations that come into contact with domestic sheep and goats. Poaching of large trophy males is a problem in some areas, including within national parks, but not at a level that threatens population status.
In the USA as well as Mexico, small (< 100) numbers in many herds, and pathogens from domestic sheep are major threats (Cassirer et al. 2018). Additional threats in Mexico include habitat degradation, fragmentation and loss resulting from competition with domestic livestock and exotics, and poaching.
Name
Emma Hemmerlé
Scientific Name
Ovis canadensis
Common Name(s)
Bighorn Shee
Type of Use
Extractive (i.e., the entire organism or parts of the organism are removed from its environment)
If extractive, for the target species, is this use
Is the use part of a strategy to generate conservation incentives, to finance conservation, or to improve tolerance/stewardship?
Yes
Is there evidence that the use is affecting the conservation status of the species? HIDE
Yes – use is improving the status (e.g., population is increasing or stabilising, extraction effort OR catch per unit effort is decreasing or stable)
Is there evidence that the use is affecting natural selection?
Unknown/not recorded
Is there evidence that the use is affecting poaching of illegal wildlife trade?
Unknown/not reported
Since then, based primarily on more than US$100 million contributed by trophy hunting groups through fees and donations, hundreds
of thousands of hectares have been set aside for Bighorn Sheep and other wildlife and the bighorn population has more
than tripled from its historic low to roughly 80,000 today
Is there any evidence that this use of the species is having a knock-on effect on the status of non-target species
Unknown/not recorded
Yes, positive (e.g., it increases / retains land area for conservation)
Additional Details (if available)
Restoration in Canada and the U.S. was largely based on hunters working
with state/provincial wildlife agencies to support research, habitat acquisition and management. For example, in the state of Wyoming, auctions of Bighorn Sheep hunting tags yield approximately $350,000 annually, of which 70% goes to conserving Bighorn Sheep and 10% to other wildlife.
Has a valuation of financial flows from this use at the site/national/international level been recorded
Roe, D., Cremona, P. (2016) Informing decisions on trophy hunting: A Briefing Paper regarding issues to be taken into account when considering restriction of imports of hunting trophies.
Threats/pressures impacting the species at the scale of this record