AK Sheep BOG Comments due Oct 13

[wildwilderness]

Exactly.

So how can this be changed? Federal level only? Talk to senators? Lawsuit?

 

[Mykolaivka887]

So how can this be changed? Federal level only? Talk to senators? Lawsuit?

Federally, at the two executive branches of government (legislative and administratively).

 

[B_Reynolds_AK]

There have been some very good points made in both directions on this thread.
Personally I can see benefits to both a dramatic shift in mgmt policies/thinking outside of the box, as well as a shutdown.
Limiting non resident harvest before resident makes sense for a lot of people I know and discuss this with, as is the case with wild sheep in every other place in N. America, but in all reality will most likely not happen.
We definitely need to think bigger in ways to communicate the points that have been made here if we want to effect any change.
However, at the same time, those of us here can also help on a personal basis helping others see the importance of selective harvesting and valuing age over a horn size or even taking a sheep for just the sake of doing so.

What I do appreciate about this thread is that it has maintained a healthy and respectful discussion, which we need to keep going.

 

[william schmaltz]

As someone who has worked in a state wildlife lab for several years and been involved with a few sheep transports, I can tell you with nearly 100% certainty that they will not be moving pen-raised (domestic) sheep into the wild. There isn't a wildlife vet in the nation that would get onboard with that. The wood bison thing was a whole different thing. Those animals were extirpated from the landscape and it was a reintroduction. There was no chance of them contacting established herds.

I used to be on the fee for resident HT wagon, but what does that do? Put more money in the general F&G fund to be used on spruce grouse studies? Basically. People in the know from the WSF have said that money donated from banquets rarely goes to sheep. I believe there is Alaska law that prevents allocating funds beyond the fish and wildlife fund. And once it's in there, where it goes is sorted out at an admin level. Not saying that banquet money does nothing, but it's not doing what's advertised. I believe they can pick up line items for the department such as purchasing m.ovi test kits and donating them to the department or buying them dumb plugs they're so obsessed with.

If we want to study and/or help sheep, we need sheep-specific money. From my understanding based on the research my tiny non-lawyer brain has done, something along the lines of a conservation stamp could do it. We already have this for king salmon in the state to earmark king salmon studies. Several states require habitat stamps in order to purchase upland license. Implement a sheep stamp in AK. Required to enter any sheep draws and/or to hold a harvest ticket. $100 NR and $50 for resident. I'd buy one for everyone in my family. Instead of spending $500 at the WSF banquet only to see most it go towards the banquet and other national and state organizations such as the APHA that continue to fight against resident preference, just buy $500 worth of stamps. Sheep hunters are a special breed where they're almost lined up and chomping at the bit to pile back into the resource. I don't think there would be much pushback, if any.

 

[diamond10x]

As someone who has worked in a state wildlife lab for several years and been involved with a few sheep transports, I can tell you with nearly 100% certainty that they will not be moving pen-raised (domestic) sheep into the wild. There isn't a wildlife vet in the nation that would get onboard with that. The wood bison thing was a whole different thing. Those animals were extirpated from the landscape and it was a reintroduction. There was no chance of them contacting established herds.

I used to be on the fee for resident HT wagon, but what does that do? Put more money in the general F&G fund to be used on spruce grouse studies? Basically. People in the know from the WSF have said that money donated from banquets rarely goes to sheep. I believe there is Alaska law that prevents allocating funds beyond the fish and wildlife fund. And once it's in there, where it goes is sorted out at an admin level. Not saying that banquet money does nothing, but it's not doing what's advertised. I believe they can pick up line items for the department such as purchasing m.ovi test kits and donating them to the department or buying them dumb plugs they're so obsessed with.

If we want to study and/or help sheep, we need sheep-specific money. From my understanding based on the research my tiny non-lawyer brain has done, something along the lines of a conservation stamp could do it. We already have this for king salmon in the state to earmark king salmon studies. Several states require habitat stamps in order to purchase upland license. Implement a sheep stamp in AK. Required to enter any sheep draws and/or to hold a harvest ticket. $100 NR and $50 for resident. I'd buy one for everyone in my family. Instead of spending $500 at the WSF banquet only to see most it go towards the banquet and other national and state organizations such as the APHA that continue to fight against resident preference, just buy $500 worth of stamps. Sheep hunters are a special breed where they're almost lined up and chomping at the bit to pile back into the resource. I don't think there would be much pushback, if any.

This IMO is the best post in this whole thread. The idea for a required stamp that earmarks funds specifically for sheep could sure do more good than harm. Heck, every state that has wild sheep could benefit from doing that in their state.

 

[JBrown1]

If we want to study and/or help sheep, we need sheep-specific money. From my understanding based on the research my tiny non-lawyer brain has done, something along the lines of a conservation stamp could do it. We already have this for king salmon in the state to earmark king salmon studies. Several states require habitat stamps in order to purchase upland license. Implement a sheep stamp in AK. Required to enter any sheep draws and/or to hold a harvest ticket. $100 NR and $50 for resident. I'd buy one for everyone in my family. Instead of spending $500 at the WSF banquet only to see most it go towards the banquet and other national and state organizations such as the APHA that continue to fight against resident preference, just buy $500 worth of stamps. Sheep hunters are a special breed where they're almost lined up and chomping at the bit to pile back into the resource. I don't think there would be much pushback, if any.

I really like this idea. I would argue that it should be a flat $300(or maybe $500)for residents and nonresidents. Nonresidents are already paying for a tag so why charge them extra? Residents get the HT for free, so why not make the conservation fee substantial enough to make a difference?

 

[william schmaltz]

I really like this idea. I would argue that it should be a flat $300(or maybe $500)for residents and nonresidents. Nonresidents are already paying for a tag so why charge them extra? Residents get the HT for free, so why not make the conservation fee substantial enough to make a difference?

Ya, the fees were just an I'd example, I'd just like to see it implemented and then hopefully someone can figure which fees make the most sense. I think going from $0 for a HT to charging $300 would be too much and cause backlash to the point where something like this wouldn't get established. Additionally, at the end of the day you probably have the same numbers. At $50 the current amount of people hunting and applying likely changes very little. How many people fall off as you raise that? Sure I'd like to weed people out and improve my draw odds and see less people in general zones, but we have to be careful. Need to be careful with NR too. They already pay $30 to apply plus have to buy a NR license every other year to apply and then the HT once the tag is drawn. How many we weed out of the draw if it's $300-$500.

Now imagine if we did away with the ridiculous must-be-guided rule and put all NR on draw. Let's say we have 20,000 nonresident applicants annually. I personally think that number is substantially lower than what it really would be, but let's start there.

20K x $30 draw application fee = $600,000
20K x $130 annual license to enter lottery ($260 license required every other year) = $2,600,000
20k x $100 sheep stamp = $2,000,000

That's just from Non residents involved in the draw. And again, that's less than $200 a year to apply for a dall tag that doesn't require a guide, I think we would see a number WAY higher than 20k people. And all that gets P-R matching. Then add another couple million in resident conservation stamp revenue. How much research or depredation work can we do for the sheep with $12-$16 million annually (including P-R match) just from implementing a sheep stamp and opening up the lottery.

 

[Mykolaivka887]

Ya, the fees were just an I'd example, I'd just like to see it implemented and then hopefully someone can figure which fees make the most sense.

Hate to burst your bubble there, but you'll never get s state senator or state representative to draft that legislation. Just saying ....

 

[william schmaltz]

I'm very aware. Nothing presented here or suggested in the open comments will happen. If voting or input changed anything, they wouldn't let us do it.

The boards and legislature will do what they have always done and that's bow down to what the commercial lobbies tell them to do. Nothing more, nothing less. The track record for how the BOG, BOF, and legislative vote on the allocation of fish and game resources in this state is very clear. There's a reason that rural communities have resorted to going right to the FSB to get their preference and lock everyone else out. That board is the only set of ears that will listen to their concerns.

 

[Mykolaivka887]

Thing is, the current Full Curl Harvest Strategy is sustainable. So, since it's a sustainable management strategy, changes to it won't garner support from the Division, nor the Department (as a whole).

Therefore, the Department will remain neutral on any changes to the current harvest strategy, because it's a sociological issue and not a biological one.

Question is, though, even though the current Dall Sheep harvest strategy is a sustainable one, is it the best strategy?

 

[Movi]

Do you care about our low sheep population or do you care about sheep hunting?

Like the glaciers disappearing maybe it’s time for dall sheep to go away like hundreds of thousands of species before them?

Sometimes money can’t fix a problem.

There will be even fewer dall sheep 10 years from now. 2022 will one day be considered the good old days of sheep hunting for some.

 

[Mykolaivka887]

Do you care about our low sheep population or do you care about sheep hunting?

I think every Alaskan hunter and a lot of non-Alaskans, care about Dall sheep hunting.

 

[Bambistew]

Thing is, the current Full Curl Harvest Strategy is sustainable. So, since it's a sustainable management strategy, changes to it won't garner support from the Division, nor the Department (as a whole).

Therefore, the Department will remain neutral on any changes to the current harvest strategy, because it's a sociological issue and not a biological one.

Question is, though, even though the current Dall Sheep harvest strategy is a sustainable one, is it the best strategy?

You said its sustainable, but then question that its sustainable?

Since state implementation of FC requirement in 1992 (minus a couple areas that went FC later), the total harvest of rams has declined. It doesn't take a biologist or a shitload of money worth of study to look at it and go, hmmm. I wonder if the "management" is really working? The management is hands off. At this rate will have no sheep to shoot in another 20 years. But hey, its sustainable, right? You think this year was awful, give it another 5 years and we catch up to the winterkill we had last year. I'll bet the harvest will be 200 rams. I suspect we'll see a small up tick in harvest the next couple years (above the hole we're in now), but then it will drop off a cliff. You want to flatten the curve at the cliff, close it down. I hope we see a presentation from ADFG that forecasts what will happen when we hit the winter of 2021/2022 trench. We had some pretty crappy winters before that as well, with lower than normal lamb recruitment. At the rate we're going we need a decade of easy winters to get anything near what we had in the early 2000s even.

Its not about going to a draw, we just don't have the sheep we did before. Its not about who shoots the sheep, its about hopefully preserving what we have now for the future.

1992 -1010 rams
2002 - 850 rams
2012 - 712 rams
2022 - 399 rams (yes this is the preliminary harvest for 2022) +/-

 

[Mykolaivka887]

You said its sustainable, but then question that its sustainable?

I said that it is sustainable (Full Curl Harvest Strategy) and from a biological perspective, it is sustainable.

What I questioned, is whether or not the Full Curl Harvest Strategy is the proper management strategy right now.

I do not (at all) question the sustainability of the Full Curl Harvest Strategy.

 

[Bambistew]

I said that it is sustainable (Full Curl Harvest Strategy) and from a biological perspective, it is sustainable.

What I questioned, is whether or not the Full Curl Harvest Strategy is the proper management strategy right now.

I do not (at all) question the sustainability of the Full Curl Harvest Strategy.

What makes it sustainable? Sustainable as in we can just shoot every FC ram until there are none left knowing that we'll have a fresh crop to blast away on the next year? Is it purely coincidence that the decline started the same time as FC implementation?

No one can say for certain that its sustainable, or that its not effecting the overall harvest. ITs nearly impossible thing to study. Why do some areas of the state have such low pregnancy rates? Is it due to the majority of older FC rams missing? Is it something else?

 

[Mykolaivka887]

The biology authenticates or verifies or corroborates (whatever vernacular) the sustainability.

But again, my question wasn't about sustainability of the Full Curl Harvest Strategy, but rather, is that management strategy the proper one at this time?

 

[Htm84]

One thing I’d be interested in seeing is a comparison between the population numbers inside the parks vs outside. Is wrangell and Denali seeing the same declines? I’ve looked but can’t find anything.

 

[adventure907]

One thing I’d be interested in seeing is a comparison between the population numbers inside the parks vs outside. Is wrangell and Denali seeing the same declines? I’ve looked but can’t find anything.

I have no knowledge of what's happening in Denali Park, but yes, the Wrangell hard park is experiencing much of the same problems that we see elsewhere.

 

[Movi]

What makes it sustainable? Sustainable as in we can just shoot every FC ram until there are none left knowing that we'll have a fresh crop to blast away on the next year? Is it purely coincidence that the decline started the same time as FC implementation?

No one can say for certain that its sustainable, or that its not effecting the overall harvest. ITs nearly impossible thing to study. Why do some areas of the state have such low pregnancy rates? Is it due to the majority of older FC rams missing? Is it something else?

It’s ok they are just surplus rams!

 

[JBrown1]

You want to flatten the curve at the cliff, close it down.

Suppose that we close down hunting and leave those 8+ year old rams on the mountain, can you explain how those rams are going to help "flatten the curve"?