AK Sheep, Population Observations

[ColeyG]

Average annual harvest from 2000-2022 was 784 sheep.

The average was more like 850 leading into 2020 when 627 sheep were sealed, then 487 in 2021 and 424 in 2022.

 

[akwchil]

Based on what I recall, mortality in adult sheep has not and cannot really be studied very effectively for a wide variety of reasons.

In a number of studies done on lamb mortality, predation has accounted for 40%-95% of lamb mortality depending on the study, area, etc.

Winter vs. predators seems to be the big black hole of information with regard to adult survival. In the places that I have spent time in sheep country, it is really hard to fathom predators being the primary culprit of population decline. I think they take their cut, but old man winter seems to be be the primary factor in most areas I think.

Weather like the storm that is forecasted for the next few days in south central (heavy precip, warm temps to 2500') is not helpful...

considering a cycle is 8 years from our current management style and plan, there is a chance. It might be slim one though.

In the Chugach the study found that food and nutrition or the lack thereof has played a big role in the overall decrease as well. So the real questions is what can we do to help?

 

[AlaskaMark]

Some of you here probably remember that sheep town hall we had in Wasilla in 2015 when prop 207 was coming before the board. The room was packed! And every single one of the longtime sheep hunters spoke about the hundreds of sheep they would see every year where they hunted, and how it was so greatly diminished now. Lew Bradley's book(s) are a good overview. And if we could go back to pre market-hunting days for that delicious sheep meat, the story would be the same, except it was many hundreds of sheep.

Sheep have been slowly and steadily declining for a long time. And once they get so low it's really hard to rebound with successive weather events. Some things are gonna have to change. Obviously, sheep conservation should be the #1 priority. Re any hunting related effects, I do think taking a look at moving to a strict FC/broomed or no FC/broomed and doing away with the age requirement may help with sub-legal harvest, the counting of annuli going on when there are fewer legal rams. There doesn't seem to be any real efficacy in sheep-specific predation control plans if we can't deal with the eagles. Supplemental feeding where there are winter nutrition issues isn't really on the table.

More draw-only hunts and closures are likely, on both state and fed side. Who gets what part of the shrinking pie is what we're down to.

 

[ColeyG]

Under current regulations, there isn't really anything that can be done to "help" the sheep populations, other than kill the predators that it is legal to kill in areas where they interface with sheep. Most info that I am aware of says that this accomplishes little if anything on a population level for the prey species.

What can be managed is people and our experience, and as such, it seems like we are going to be the target of whatever management decisions will be made.

 

[diamond10x]

Why are we only looking at the last 20 years to make claims on the herd dynamics? If there is going to be any honest discussion, all the historical data needs to be looked at, not just the last 20 years or from 1985 when it was a known and documented spike in population numbers. Numbers of sheep hunters is also down from what they were 30 years ago. We can't just be screaming the sky is falling and cherry-picking data that supports the claim. Yes, numbers are on a down swing but it's also on the backside of a documented all time high.

 

[wantj43]

Some of you here probably remember that sheep town hall we had in Wasilla in 2015 when prop 207 was coming before the board. The room was packed! And every single one of the longtime sheep hunters spoke about the hundreds of sheep they would see every year where they hunted, and how it was so greatly diminished now. Lew Bradley's book(s) are a good overview. And if we could go back to pre market-hunting days for that delicious sheep meat, the story would be the same, except it was many hundreds of sheep.

Sheep have been slowly and steadily declining for a long time. And once they get so low it's really hard to rebound with successive weather events. Some things are gonna have to change. Obviously, sheep conservation should be the #1 priority. Re any hunting related effects, I do think taking a look at moving to a strict FC/broomed or no FC/broomed and doing away with the age requirement may help with sub-legal harvest, the counting of annuli going on when there are fewer legal rams. There doesn't seem to be any real efficacy in sheep-specific predation control plans if we can't deal with the eagles. Supplemental feeding where there are winter nutrition issues isn't really on the table.

More draw-only hunts and closures are likely, on both state and fed side. Who gets what part of the shrinking pie is what we're down to.

I suspect there are about as many “mis-judgements” about broken or FC as there are about age when dealing with marginal sheep.

 

[ColeyG]

Publicly available harvest data only goes back to 1975. Some survey data from the late 50's and early 60's is available as well. Based on what I have looked at, not much exists re: statewide harvest and survey data before that?

Maybe Joe or one of the other more knowledgeable folks can point us in the right direction for that info if it exists.

In my mind at least, I am more interested in what has happened in the last few decades because the environmental and human factors that existed then and exist now most likely to persist.

There is no perfect way to look at the data and get a real picture of exactly how many sheep were or are on the mountain. When considering harvest, one also has to consider hunter participation and other factors that limit or promote harvest in any given year.

Likewise survey methods use extrapolation and never account for all animals precisely, etc.

 

[ColeyG]

I suspect there are about as many “mis-judgements” about broken or FC as there are about age when dealing with marginal sheep.

Agreed.

 

[wantj43]

Agreed.

It may be of interest that “age” became part of the “full-curl” definition in 1990 and “broken” in 1987 for both 7/8s and full-curl.

 

[diamond10x]

Publicly available harvest data only goes back to 1975. Some survey data from the late 50's and early 60's is available as well. Based on what I have looked at, not much exists re: statewide harvest and survey data before that?

Maybe Joe or one of the other more knowledgeable folks can point us in the right direction for that info if it exists.

In my mind at least, I am more interested in what has happened in the last few decades because the environmental and human factors that existed then and exist now most likely to persist.

There is no perfect way to look at the data and get a real picture of exactly how many sheep were or are on the mountain. When considering harvest, one also has to consider hunter participation and other factors that limit or promote harvest in any given year.

Likewise survey methods use extrapolation and never account for all animals precisely, etc.

I recently ordered Heimers book but haven't had time to start reading. I have also read several books from guys who hunted sheep in AK since the 60's. From their accounts, sheep hunting was very similar to what it is now. That the 80's and 90's it was extremely crowded in all the ranges from so many hunters. If that was the case that would account for the high harvest numbers. Hunter harvest percentage helps paint the picture instead of just looking at total sheep killed, which goes hand in hand with how many guys are out hunting.

Something that needs to be considered when looking at harvest records is full curl regulations didn't come about until '92. Before that, it was 7/8ths all the way back to '79 I believe and before that it was only 3/4 curl and no minimum curl. How many of those sheep in 85-91 were actual full curl?

 

[Bambistew]

Something that needs to be considered when looking at harvest records is full curl regulations didn't come about until '92. Before that, it was 7/8ths all the way back to '79 I believe and before that it was only 3/4 curl and no minimum curl. How many of those sheep in 85-91 were actual full curl?

You can look at that old data all you want but it's not that accurate. Prior to 2006 all that data was provided by the hunter. I guarantee there was a lot of 7 yo and sublegal rams reported as legal FC or 8yo. The age of harvest remained relatively static prior to mandatory reporting and then the age dropped significantly the year mandatory reporting started and has remained relatively static (downward) there after. Also there is a ton of inaccurate data in the data set it's good for trends but not so much for micro level analysis.

The last 16-17 years is pretty good data in terms of credible information.

Also in some years there are 20-30 rams double counted. People forget their HT they check it under a new card at F&G and then they must send in the original, or F&G double entered data. None of that data has ever been QA/QC'd or double checked as fr as i know. They don't have an auditable record system.

Lastly, harvest numbers and success gives us an idea of abundance. I didn't hunt 30 years ago, but there is easily less than 50% less sheep in the areas I hunt today than 15 years ago when I started. One area is like 75% less. I have seen the same number of hunters in the last 15 years as well. I hunt sheep at least 10 days every fall, some years 18-20.

There are vast areas of the state that have never had consistent sheep surveys or have ever been surveyed. They can only see so many each time as well. It's just a snapshot. Harvest and hunter success also has its limits for use to determine abundance. However when we see success rates drop from historical averages for the last 30 years at 22% to 12%, it's pretty obvious that there is a hell of a lot less sheep on the mountain.

 

[wantj43]

Publicly available harvest data only goes back to 1975. Some survey data from the late 50's and early 60's is available as well. Based on what I have looked at, not much exists re: statewide harvest and survey data before that?

Maybe Joe or one of the other more knowledgeable folks can point us in the right direction for that info if it exists.

In my mind at least, I am more interested in what has happened in the last few decades because the environmental and human factors that existed then and exist now most likely to persist.

There is no perfect way to look at the data and get a real picture of exactly how many sheep were or are on the mountain. When considering harvest, one also has to consider hunter participation and other factors that limit or promote harvest in any given year.

Likewise survey methods use extrapolation and never account for all animals precisely, etc.

There is excellent

You can look at that old data all you want but it's not that accurate. Prior to 2006 all that data was provided by the hunter. I guarantee there was a lot of 7 yo and sublegal rams reported as legal FC or 8yo. The age of harvest remained relatively static prior to mandatory reporting and then the age dropped significantly the year mandatory reporting started and has remained relatively static (downward) there after. Also there is a ton of inaccurate data in the data set it's good for trends but not so much for micro level analysis.

The last 16-17 years is pretty good data in terms of credible information.

Also in some years there are 20-30 rams double counted. People forget their HT they check it under a new card at F&G and then they must send in the original, or F&G double entered data. None of that data has ever been QA/QC'd or double checked as fr as i know. They don't have an auditable record system.

Lastly, harvest numbers and success gives us an idea of abundance. I didn't hunt 30 years ago, but there is easily less than 50% less sheep in the areas I hunt today than 15 years ago when I started. One area is like 75% less. I have seen the same number of hunters in the last 15 years as well. I hunt sheep at least 10 days every fall, some years 18-20.

There are vast areas of the state that have never had consistent sheep surveys or have ever been surveyed. They can only see so many each time as well. It's just a snapshot. Harvest and hunter success also has its limits for use to determine abundance. However when we see success rates drop from historical averages for the last 30 years at 22% to 12%, it's pretty obvious that there is a hell of a lot less sheep on the mountain.

Though some of these data-sets certainly present some challenges, for the most part they provide good insight to the general chacteristics of the sheep harvest.
There are several data-sets from the early 50’s and late 60’s, collected by agency personnel, that in general mirror the harvest data submitted by successful sheep hunters.

 

[wantj43]

There is excellent

Though some of these data-sets certainly present some challenges, for the most part they provide good insight to the general chacteristics of the sheep harvest.
There are several data-sets from the early 50’s and late 60’s, collected by agency personnel, that in general mirror the harvest data submitted by successful sheep hunters.

 

[cbeard64]

I know this is heresy to AK residents who consider it a God-given right to hunt sheep every year, but it’s past time for all AK sheep tags to be put under a quota/draw system. These numbers don’t lie and they are speaking clearly that everything that can be done needs to be done.

 

[Htm84]

I know this is heresy to AK residents who consider it a God-given right to hunt sheep every year, but it’s past time for all AK sheep tags to be put under a quota/draw system. These numbers don’t lie and they are speaking clearly that everything that can be done needs to be done.

Considering NR success rates are far higher than residents. It would be far more effective to limit NR.

 

[ozyclint]

Non residents have to be guided? hunting guided might be more conducive to success?

outsider looking in.....

 

[cbeard64]

Quota means for everyone. R, NR, subsistence.
Predator control. Big penalties for non-legal rams. Habitat restoration. Trap and transplant. Whatever else the experts think will help.

Y’all got a problem and it isn’t going to solve itself.

 

[IBen]

Considering NR success rates are far higher than residents. It would be far more effective to limit NR.

Resident success rate would be just as high if the tag cost was 850.00.

 

[Atigun]

Quota means for everyone. R, NR, subsistence.
Predator control. Big penalties for non-legal rams. Habitat restoration. Trap and transplant. Whatever else the experts think will help.

Y’all got a problem and it isn’t going to solve itself.

Non of which help heavy winters or late springs, which is the reasoning behind the current population crash. The number of sub-legal rams taken is minimal compared to the amount of 6 & 7 year old full curls legally shot, which is an issue. Predator control would be great, but leading sheep biologists for ADFG openly say the return on investment is not great enough. With that said I will be spending my winter hunting wolves and running my trap line to help keep sheep on the mountain where I can.

Trust me resident sheep hunters and biologists are concerned and are actively seeking what solutions can be implemented, but it is not an issue of overly hunting the resource, it is weather related.

 

[AkMtnRunner]

Non residents have to be guided? hunting guided might be more conducive to success?

outsider looking in.....

Totally. Many resident sheep hunters aren't nearly invested in the hunt, nor do most have the skills of a guide. Perhaps guides shouldn't be allowed for NRs?