AK Sheep BOG Comments due Oct 13

[Altiholic]

It’s obvious time for change. If that means firing people that won’t change the sooner the better!

We need people who want to make something happen, not just keep their jobs til they get that gov retirement!!


What is the accountability for a Sheep biologist? Nothing right now.

Armchair biology at its finest. Yup, let’s fire the biologists for failing to manage a public resource based on your emotional reasoning.

I’m all for resident priority and believe it is mandated by the state constitution…but the mental gymnastics people will go through to deny the dire consequences of climate change is amazing. Hunting restriction ain’t gonna do it. Predator control ain’t gonna do it. Transplants ain’t gonna do it. Gonna be less sheep.

Advocating that public agencies squander public funds on “solutions” that aren’t gonna work is irresponsible.

I don’t like it either.

 

[wildwilderness]

Armchair biology at its finest. Yup, let’s fire the biologists for failing to manage a public resource based on your emotional reasoning.

I’m all for resident priority and believe it is mandated by the state constitution…but the mental gymnastics people will go through to deny the dire consequences of climate change is amazing. Hunting restriction ain’t gonna do it. Predator control ain’t gonna do it. Transplants ain’t gonna do it. Gonna be less sheep.

Advocating that public agencies squander public funds on “solutions” that aren’t gonna work is irresponsible.

I don’t like it either.

I am more than an armchair biologist. I do have a 4 year BS in Conservation Biology and have worked for the Utah DWR. I know what resources can go into help wild sheep. That said my current profession is not game related. What’s your degree in?


Utah is a state that puts hunters and animals first! They actively manage habitat, transplant sheep, Mt Goats etc. to increase habitat and numbers. I know managers in Canada that have also improved habitat and added supplements that greatly increase lambing rates compared to areas without. Way easier to bounce back from bad weather with more lambs.

What evidence do you have that it doesn’t work? Let’s do a real study first til your emotional reactions are validated.

I know climate change is real but to use it as an excuse to do nothing is pathetic.

I am not anti Non-residents since they provide funds. I did advocate for residents paying for sheep as well, with dedicated fund to be used on sheep only. No squandering of resources there! Pay to play

The fight of resources is scarcity related. Increase the resources and everyone can be happy.

Yes BOG needs to see it helps the guides and NR money to have more sheep on the mountain. Maybe then they will push for proactive change, no doomsday weather excuses.

 

[Movi]

It doesn’t take a four year degree to understand that the ADFG has the power to EO but basically everything else has to go through the BOG. I would steer clear of anyone that recommends UT as an example of wildlife management.

Let’s look at the UT DWR

1) ran by a private outside group that has been able to get hundreds of public tags in private hands to auction off for the highest $$$. This private group is similar to RHAK except they actually have power and control the UT DWR like a puppet.

2) basically the whole state is on a draw. The general hunts are garbage. The demand is so high now for even the general tags there’s a possibility you’re not even hunting every year.

3). Couldn’t even keep their herd of bighorns alive on an island and didn’t have the money to repopulate it. So KUIU stepped in to help them

4). Private landowners control some of the best areas and sit on the boards. Hmm similar to our BOG…

5). Deer population has been going downhill for the last 30 years. No problem they just change the carrying capacity.





6). Elk populations are stable but again a decent tag as a resident has about a 1 in 16 chance of drawing on average. There are some spike and general hunts that are crowded on a level no Alaskan has ever seen anywhere. Makes Denali highway bou hunting look like a remote paradise. Most good areas are OIL.


6). Invasive mountain goats are doing ok like you noted except it’s Once in a lifetime tag even if you draw it. Invasive species usually do pretty well. So yay? But even then there are more goats killed on one registration hunt in AK than all of UT every year. The population has plateau in UT and they give out a whopping 110ish tags a year.

7). You will be lucky to hunt sheep 1 time in your life in Utah and most will not even have that chance. Look at their sheep units right now. Almost all of them are down in their population estimates. Sounds like Utah is doing amazing on their goal. Here’s right before the antelope island reintroduction:


Maybe they need to fire their biologists!?!? Maybe they did and they became doctors for all I know?

I would argue UT is the worst state for wildlife management followed by MT.

 

[Movi]

What I would like to see to get the ball rolling on sheep etc:

1) stop the feds from managing our big game populations. What other state has the feds taken control of the hunting of big game? Those outfitters who feel comfortable with their federal concessions should be worried with the way it’s been going lately.

2). More diversified BOG. We shouldn’t have so many outfitters/guides on the board

3) Likely any predator control program is going to have push back from the feds (like it did on the kenai refuge) and could really be detrimental in the long game. So I would like to see WSF step up and provide incentives within the bounds of state law to trappers hunters etc that harvest wolves, wolverines, bears etc from areas there are sheep. Possibly RHAK could get involved. It might be something they are great at with their 100+ super cubs. God knows they are horrible about getting proposals passed at the BOG.

4) cap on non res. Either by quota or draw tag.

5) no killing of collared rams. Yes guys are doing it. Let the biologists do their studies

6) 4 year sit out for sublegal harvest. Make it an obvious section in the regulation book. Sorry I can’t let the sublegal kills get swept under the rug.

 

[william schmaltz]

What I would like to see to get the ball rolling on sheep etc:

I mostly agree here. We can all list what we would like to happen, but these are items that are feasible. The majority of the stuff posted in this thread isn't even somewhat feasible for a number of reasons.

When it comes to predator control, hunters are notoriously a group that want to swing for the fences and because of that, nothing ever comes to play. They want to go right to massively controversial methods like bounties and aerial shooting. Or shooting a federally protected species. Come on. I believe that a bounty program would need an FS that would include intensive public comment. You would also have to measure effectiveness. Good damn luck! One proposal to the board I am planning to submit for Mulchatna country that I believe would actually be achievable is allowing air and ground-based two-way communication for the use of hunting wolves in GMU18. Basically, aerial spotting with hunters on the ground. I may be tone deaf, but I feel something like that is not only achievable but would also be effective and not have near as much public push back. It's easy to point to a rapidly declining population like the Mulchatna herd and say it needs help and that a proposal like this is specific and targeted. You would have to sell that proposal in regard to specifically helping sheep. Which would essentially mean it would need to be implemented statewide. You would have to find a way for it to target the sheep mountains. It would be a very hard reg to write in that regard. Likely would need to draw up specific management areas, where you may run into regulations problems when you get too far in the weeds.

The board would have the authority to implement a simple regulation like that under AS 16.05.255. It can be argued that the board does not have authority to implement intensive management of identified big game prey populations as listed in 5 AAC 92.106 because Dall Sheep are not listed as an intensive management species. That could further rule out government-sponsored depredation measures such as a bounty program. Or creating management areas specific to targeting predators in Dall Sheep country.

I'm torn on shooting collared rams. IMO, mortality data should be collected for all groups causing mortality. That means all predators need to be unbiased. In this case, all others would be besides humans and that's an important data point. When I collared mountain lions, if we had 10 lions collared going into the season and 8 were shot, we knew that our harvest levels were way too high. The same would apply for sheep. But if the goal of a study is otherwise and mortality data will not be gathered at all, then yes, I agree.

As far as the previous comments about our state biologists, I can't imagine a state where the biologists have less of a say when it comes to quotas and regulations. They're researchers and IMO, they are doing a damn good job with what they have. They can make recommendations and present data, but all quotas and regulations are coming down form the BOG, BOF, and department directors/commissioners appointed by whatever the current administration is. If a person really wants to see heads roll and see some changes, your best bet is mobilizing people to whatever your preferred candidate is in the election in a couple of weeks.

 

[Movi]

I mostly agree here. We can all list what we would like to happen, but these are items that are feasible. The majority of the stuff posted in this thread isn't even somewhat feasible for a number of reasons.

When it comes to predator control, hunters are notoriously a group that want to swing for the fences and because of that, nothing ever comes to play. They want to go right to massively controversial methods like bounties and aerial shooting. Or shooting a federally protected species. Come on. I believe that a bounty program would need an FS that would include intensive public comment. You would also have to measure effectiveness. Good damn luck! One proposal to the board I am planning to submit for Mulchatna country that I believe would actually be achievable is allowing air and ground-based two-way communication for the use of hunting wolves in GMU18. Basically, aerial spotting with hunters on the ground. I may be tone deaf, but I feel something like that is not only achievable but would also be effective and not have near as much public push back. It's easy to point to a rapidly declining population like the Mulchatna herd and say it needs help and that a proposal like this is specific and targeted. You would have to sell that proposal in regard to specifically helping sheep. Which would essentially mean it would need to be implemented statewide. You would have to find a way for it to target the sheep mountains. It would be a very hard reg to write in that regard. Likely would need to draw up specific management areas, where you may run into regulations problems when you get too far in the weeds.

The board would have the authority to implement a simple regulation like that under AS 16.05.255. It can be argued that the board does not have authority to implement intensive management of identified big game prey populations as listed in 5 AAC 92.106 because Dall Sheep are not listed as an intensive management species. That could further rule out government-sponsored depredation measures such as a bounty program. Or creating management areas specific to targeting predators in Dall Sheep country.

I'm torn on shooting collared rams. IMO, mortality data should be collected for all groups causing mortality. That means all predators need to be unbiased. In this case, all others would be besides humans and that's an important data point. When I collared mountain lions, if we had 10 lions collared going into the season and 8 were shot, we knew that our harvest levels were way too high. The same would apply for sheep. But if the goal of a study is otherwise and mortality data will not be gathered at all, then yes, I agree.

As far as the previous comments about our state biologists, I can't imagine a state where the biologists have less of a say when it comes to quotas and regulations. They're researchers and IMO, they are doing a damn good job with what they have. They can make recommendations and present data, but all quotas and regulations are coming down form the BOG, BOF, and department directors/commissioners appointed by whatever the current administration is. If a person really wants to see heads roll and see some changes, your best bet is mobilizing people to whatever your preferred candidate is in the election in a couple of weeks.

Great detailed response. Boy we are dreamers though!

 

[fatbacks]

2). More diversified BOG. We shouldn’t have so many outfitters/guides on the board

Yes!

6) 4 year sit out for sublegal harvest. Make it an obvious section in the regulation book. Sorry I can’t let the sublegal kills get swept under the rug.

Yes!

 

[wildwilderness]

The difference in Utah is attitude. Willingness to create more opportunities. I’m not saying they are perfect but going from no elk to world class elk is a start, increasing sheep and goat tags is a start, sure politics gets involved, and deer may be down from historical highs, but overall Utah culture is very pro hunter


Hard to explain to career government people. I am sure we have competent bios from a scientific background, but not for thinking out of the box or trying new things.

Take for example a bio, who collars a lamb, let’s it go and watches an eagle immediately kill it! Unacceptable- you have already interfered with the capturing so get it back to safety!

Gov employees cant fight bad laws- sure the Feds say you can’t kill eagles, but they also say you can’t smoke Marijuana!!

I was in the military for a few years as well and couldn’t stand the mentality, do as little as possible and don’t get in trouble, take no risk.

Fighting over tag allocation will not help sheep. Figure if our how to get more sheep will stop the allocation fight.

Yes a better Governor, State officials who care about sheep can start a top down paradigm shift but so far I don’t see a Canadate who cares enough. That’s why I prefer a bottom up approach.

If the current bios say you can’t do anything to help sheep numbers then that’s why I say get new ones with new ideas and a willingness to try

 

[Movi]

If the current bios say you can’t do anything to help sheep numbers then that’s why I say get new ones with new ideas and a willingness to try

Which biologist said “you can’t do anything to help sheep numbers?”

 

[Bambistew]

Wishful thinking guys. We're not farming sheep anytime soon. Maybe we hire some herders for the spring to protect the flock for a few weeks? Maybe not close the season on wolverines? I usually see a few every year sheep hunting, but the season isn't open.

No amount of saving a couple rams, shooting a few wolves, or restricting residents by charging them money is going to change the biggest killer of all, winters. If we have a decade of "easy" winters we'll be lucky to get back to the population we had 10 years ago. We are down 50-70%, and on a good year we might recover 5-7% of the population. An average winter will hold populations steady. I have a feeling this winter is going to be like the last, the only good thing is there are fewer yearlings and lambs to winterkill. 5 years from now we'll harvest 200-250 rams, if that statewide.

We can study all sorts of things, but very few studies will result in any sort of meaningful increase in game populations. They will just help us predict fluctuations, or why we have less sheep. Remember we're shooting "surplus" animals anyway, who what will those studies really tell us?

It really just comes down to who can shoot what's left. Really that's what its all about and always has been. Every argument hinges around it, and has for decades.

Keep sending your money to the Alaska W$F, and they'll keep taking it. Read their comment to the board and tell me if I have poor reading comprehension. They specifically advocate against allocation. Weird they even mention it since its not part of their core values. I know, I know, their mission is to "keep sheep on the mountain." That's the easiest softball of a mission statement you could make. They really should just change it to "Try to keep sheep on the mountain long enough to allow hunters to shoot what's left." AK W$F bad-mouths ADFG and their lack of knowledge of aging sheep, or so I hear, amongst many other things in recent years. W$F membership's disdain for ADFG is funny. Pretty easy to bad-mouth a group when you don't do anything yourself (just like me). I'm still waiting to hear about those 3 projects (in the last 7 years) that the AK W$F has done in AK to "keep" sheep on the mountain. Just 3 projects that kept some sheep on the mountain, that's all I ask.

The outfitters will blame residents for the lack of sheep (because we kill them all at too young) It's our fault. I've heard those arguments many times form many different outfitters. They got to thump their chest about how great of a conservationist they are... yet 40% of sublegal rams were shot by guided NR this year. haha. We can play the blame game as well. (NR make up about 25% of hunters, so they disproportionally shot more sub-legal rams than residents).

The average age of harvest is another. NR vs Res is very close in age. Certainly not enough to lay blame.

My personal favorite jab is, "residents don't kill sheep because of our lack of effort." Then they lobby and whine about not having enough draw tags for their clients. So, maybe hunt harder in a HT area?!? Super Cubs, second houses and out of state hunting trips cost a lot of money and so does not working 6-8 months! Outfitters won't self regulate due to lack of sheep, they'll just sell hunts like before, because they gota eat! They'll just tell their clients the hunting is tough, they'll over-sell their hunts knowing there are fewer legal rams than hunters booked. They will blame residents for shooting the rams too young. Just go to a BOG meeting an listen in. Its comical.

Anyone that wants to hunt sheep in AK, the first place to look is figure out who the successful outfitter is in the area, and then go hunt their spot. Its pretty easy to look up their guide use areas, then go to their brag board (web sites) pages and find the terrain via google earth. THey are wising up though, and don't post pics many pics anymore. It will be one of the best spot to hunt in the unit. If residents really want to have the bulk of the sheep harvest, "hunt harder" in the areas where the guides hunt.

My personal favorite is that NR pay the bulk of management. APHA commissioned a study to show how much money they bring into the state via their welfare to us all (remember the same group that starves to death without sheep hunts). NR pay for all that magnificent sheep "management!" Never mind that the feds pay for ~65% of the wildlife budget. You could eliminate NR sheep tag money from the budget, and we wouldn't even notice it in the rounding error of the budget. Same goes for all that money that W$F sends in to the department. ADFG could offer the gov tag separately in the draw and make more money, and not lose out on the 15% "management fee" for auctioning it off the tag at the W$F backpack race.

I honestly hope that there is a way to put an initiative on the ballot, or better yet when the constitution is opened up, we redefine "the people" to "residents of Alaska." Its the only way allocation is going to change, otherwise we'll continue to see the same circle jerk.

 

[Movi]

Wishful thinking guys. We're not farming sheep anytime soon. Maybe we hire some herders for the spring to protect the flock for a few weeks? Maybe not close the season on wolverines? I usually see a few every year sheep hunting, but the season isn't open.

No amount of saving a couple rams, shooting a few wolves, or restricting residents by charging them money is going to change the biggest killer of all, winters. If we have a decade of "easy" winters we'll be lucky to get back to the population we had 10 years ago. We are down 50-70%, and on a good year we might recover 5-7% of the population. An average winter will hold populations steady. I have a feeling this winter is going to be like the last, the only good thing is there are fewer yearlings and lambs to winterkill. 5 years from now we'll harvest 200-250 rams, if that statewide.

We can study all sorts of things, but very few studies will result in any sort of meaningful increase in game populations. They will just help us predict fluctuations, or why we have less sheep. Remember we're shooting "surplus" animals anyway, who what will those studies really tell us?

It really just comes down to who can shoot what's left. Really that's what its all about and always has been. Every argument hinges around it, and has for decades.

Keep sending your money to the Alaska W$F, and they'll keep taking it. Read their comment to the board and tell me if I have poor reading comprehension. They specifically advocate against allocation. Weird they even mention it since its not part of their core values. I know, I know, their mission is to "keep sheep on the mountain." That's the easiest softball of a mission statement you could make. They really should just change it to "Try to keep sheep on the mountain long enough to allow hunters to shoot what's left." AK W$F bad-mouths ADFG and their lack of knowledge of aging sheep, or so I hear, amongst many other things in recent years. W$F membership's disdain for ADFG is funny. Pretty easy to bad-mouth a group when you don't do anything yourself (just like me). I'm still waiting to hear about those 3 projects (in the last 7 years) that the AK W$F has done in AK to "keep" sheep on the mountain. Just 3 projects that kept some sheep on the mountain, that's all I ask.

The outfitters will blame residents for the lack of sheep (because we kill them all at too young) It's our fault. I've heard those arguments many times form many different outfitters. They got to thump their chest about how great of a conservationist they are... yet 40% of sublegal rams were shot by guided NR this year. haha. We can play the blame game as well. (NR make up about 25% of hunters, so they disproportionally shot more sub-legal rams than residents).

The average age of harvest is another. NR vs Res is very close in age. Certainly not enough to lay blame.

My personal favorite jab is, "residents don't kill sheep because of our lack of effort." Then they lobby and whine about not having enough draw tags for their clients. So, maybe hunt harder in a HT area?!? Super Cubs, second houses and out of state hunting trips cost a lot of money and so does not working 6-8 months! Outfitters won't self regulate due to lack of sheep, they'll just sell hunts like before, because they gota eat! They'll just tell their clients the hunting is tough, they'll over-sell their hunts knowing there are fewer legal rams than hunters booked. They will blame residents for shooting the rams too young. Just go to a BOG meeting an listen in. Its comical.

Anyone that wants to hunt sheep in AK, the first place to look is figure out who the successful outfitter is in the area, and then go hunt their spot. Its pretty easy to look up their guide use areas, then go to their brag board (web sites) pages and find the terrain via google earth. THey are wising up though, and don't post pics many pics anymore. It will be one of the best spot to hunt in the unit. If residents really want to have the bulk of the sheep harvest, "hunt harder" in the areas where the guides hunt.

My personal favorite is that NR pay the bulk of management. APHA commissioned a study to show how much money they bring into the state via their welfare to us all (remember the same group that starves to death without sheep hunts). NR pay for all that magnificent sheep "management!" Never mind that the feds pay for ~65% of the wildlife budget. You could eliminate NR sheep tag money from the budget, and we wouldn't even notice it in the rounding error of the budget. Same goes for all that money that W$F sends in to the department. ADFG could offer the gov tag separately in the draw and make more money, and not lose out on the 15% "management fee" for auctioning it off the tag at the W$F backpack race.

I honestly hope that there is a way to put an initiative on the ballot, or better yet when the constitution is opened up, we redefine "the people" to "residents of Alaska." Its the only way allocation is going to change, otherwise we'll continue to see the same circle jerk.

I think you need to re read this thread. The easy way to bring back sheep populations is to kill predators. And the biologists need to be fired. And we need to be like Utah. Where the elk population is doing so great it’s only 20 years of applying for a decent tag.

You have the wrong attitude.

 

[realunlucky]

The difference in Utah is attitude. Willingness to create more opportunities. I’m not saying they are perfect but going from no elk to world class elk is a start, increasing sheep and goat tags is a start, sure politics gets involved, and deer may be down from historical highs, but overall Utah culture is very pro hunter


Hard to explain to career government people. I am sure we have competent bios from a scientific background, but not for thinking out of the box or trying new things.

Take for example a bio, who collars a lamb, let’s it go and watches an eagle immediately kill it! Unacceptable- you have already interfered with the capturing so get it back to safety!

Gov employees cant fight bad laws- sure the Feds say you can’t kill eagles, but they also say you can’t smoke Marijuana!!

I was in the military for a few years as well and couldn’t stand the mentality, do as little as possible and don’t get in trouble, take no risk.

Fighting over tag allocation will not help sheep. Figure if our how to get more sheep will stop the allocation fight.

Yes a better Governor, State officials who care about sheep can start a top down paradigm shift but so far I don’t see a Canadate who cares enough. That’s why I prefer a bottom up approach.

If the current bios say you can’t do anything to help sheep numbers then that’s why I say get new ones with new ideas and a willingness to try

Utah sent a survey out where it stated if first year hunters (12 years old) applied for the Dutton unit (not a top ten unit) they would be 63 years old before drawing in the max point pool. They wanted to know if that was acceptable or not.

Utah Iol only thing they do well is having a system where the richest are rewarded by getting a tag without waiting in line with the average peasants.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[Movi]

Utah Iol only thing they do well is having a system where the richest are rewarded by getting a tag without waiting in line with the average peasants.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

I’m sure doctors love that system! It’s that rich attitude!

 

[wildwilderness]

All L48 states have population issues and availability of trophy game animals. Alaska is lucky less than 1 million people live here with the largest amount of area.

That said when am I going to draw my musk ox tag? Or bison in AK? At least they are transplanting more bison here! Kudos for that, now let’s do it with sheep!

And I did move to AK to hunt sheep, my first ram was a solo hunt off the road system on a harvest ticket. I have never bought an auction tag/ landowner tag etc in Utah.

I grew up poor on school lunch, paid for all my school, joined the military for help, and my first kids were born on Medicaid.

You make out of life what you will but it says a lot when you bag on people for succeeding where others say it can’t be done.

 

[Movi]

All L48 states have population issues and availability of trophy game animals. Alaska is lucky less than 1 million people live here with the largest amount of area.

That said when am I going to draw my musk ox tag? Or bison in AK? At least they are transplanting more bison here! Kudos for that, now let’s do it with sheep!

And I did move to AK to hunt sheep, my first ram was a solo hunt off the road system on a harvest ticket. I have never bought an auction tag/ landowner tag etc in Utah.

I grew up poor on school lunch, paid for all my school, joined the military for help, and my first kids were born on Medicaid.

You make out of life what you will but it says a lot when you bag on people for succeeding where others say it can’t be done.

Ummmm ok weird flex but ok. Let’s get back on topic and answer the question :

Which biologist said “you can’t do anything to help sheep numbers?”

 

[fatbacks]

I'm still waiting to hear about those 3 projects (in the last 7 years) that the AK W$F has done in AK to "keep" sheep on the mountain. Just 3 projects that kept some sheep on the mountain, that's all I ask.

Me too. I was a member a while back and then I kept trying to see how they keep sheep on the mountain... never renewed when I found out they haven't done much.

 

[kaboku68]

I retire in a year and a half. When that happens the Ram magazine comes back. WSF will come back. The pieces are out there. I just don't have time for it right now.

 

[wildwilderness]

Ummmm ok weird flex but ok. Let’s get back on topic and answer the question :

Which biologist said “you can’t do anything to help sheep numbers?”

No one in particular, just the attitude I get when I take sheep to be sealed, ask about populations etc. the generic answer is “nothing we can do about the weather”

I know the solution will not be cheap or easy. Attitudes, and regulations will need to change, taking a risk in projects to see if they work etc. but mentality comes first.

 

[kaboku68]

I am curious about your view on ending federal subsistence sheep hunting. I would guess that fewer than 20 rams are taken that way statewide and I don't think that has anything to do with declining sheep numbers. The sheep that are hunted in those areas face tougher odds than those in the preserves because they don't have active predator hunting in those locations. South Wrangells has predator trapping and hunting of Brown bears active in preserve areas and the rams in those locations are surviving longer than those in hard park areas. No active research has been done but the taking of brown bears in sheep areas does increase sheep numbers.

 

[JBrown1]

I am curious about your view on ending federal subsistence sheep hunting. I would guess that fewer than 20 rams are taken that way statewide and I don't think that has anything to do with declining sheep numbers. The sheep that are hunted in those areas face tougher odds than those in the preserves because they don't have active predator hunting in those locations.

I lived in one of the communities that participates in subsistence sheep hunting. They hunt sheep in both the hard park. and in the adjacent native corp lands. They also shoot bears on sight and there are active trappers who have their traplines spread out throughout the park and the adjacent areas.

Your number of 20 rams statewide is probably a decent guess, but the one community I was in had a quota of 30(or 60?) sheep a year. They would take a hand full of rams. Most of those rams would be less than full curl and a lot of their sheep would be ewes,

My impression is that such take has little impact overall because of the amount of area/sheep that is being hunted is large, and because non subsistence hunted of these sheep is not allowed.

My impression is that the area that I was in, the predators in the areas where sheep were hunted were pressured a lot more than the predators outside of that area. One of the top trappers was known to run down entire packs of wolves by running them down on his snow machine. He took an entire pack of 8 by running them to exhaustion, then opening up as each wolf stopped due to exhaustion. Those trappers were hell on wolves, lynx, and wolverines.

Grizzlies were shot on sight when out hunting for caribou or sheep. We wouldn't raise an eyebrow when a 5th grader killed his first grizzly while out hunting with his family. It was just an ordinary part of life.

If I were to guess, I believe that the community that I was in probably kills at least two to three wolves for every sheep they take. And if you were to add the take of grizzly, lynx and wolverines together, it would possibly equal the total take of sheep. When all is said and done, they probably kill 3 to 4 predators for each sheep they take.

I'm sure that all susbsistence areas are different, but from what I saw, the predators in the area I was in were under a lot more pressure than the predators in most sport hunting areas.

I wonder, is any sport hunted area is seeing 3 or 4 predators killed for each sheep killed? Are there any outfitters who have dedicated predator control programs in their sheep hunting areas? Are there any outfitters employing trappers or assistant guides to kill predators throughout the year, or even just during the period when lambs are most vulnerable to predation?

In Africa it is the norm for outfitters to fund year-round anti-poaching teams. I'm not sure that I understand why this same type of stewardship, regarding predator control in exclusive use areas, isn't commonplace here in Alaska. $25k per sheep hunt should be able to fund a fair amount of predator control.