AK Sheep, Population Observations

[kaboku68]

I think that there are many parts that make a person a hunter. I have the gear and stuff to do the long range hunting but I really like getting close to the animal. However, to me, that is not the element of what makes a person a hunter(it is an aspect of that). I truly believe that a hunter respects the life of the animal and its contribution to his or her life. I respect the meat. So I use a rifle load and shot placement that kills cleanly with a minimum loss of meat but with enough power so it doesn't run off to where it is lost. I am not tech or gear adverse but the biggest thing to me is the respect to the animal. Maybe my definition is different than most. IDK. I have let full curl sheep and legal moose go. Just didn't feel right. I am more into the stalking and interacting that with the kill counts. I do favor wild meat and believe that the primal connection that we make with animals really is an essential part of being human.

I can tell you that watching all of the 40 mile hunters haul out caribou whole that look like they are starting to sour upsets me. I think that there should be a meat treatment and instruction course mandatory for big game hunting in Alaska but most probably would disagree with this. I have so many wives come in and ask how to process and package meat and then they just buy the biggest LEM meat grinder that they can and grind it up. It is just so tough for me to see. Or to see moose meat on a ribcage or neck that is thrown in the recycling center dumpsters. It just pisses me off. I shouldn't rant. I have lost goats before. But I now really slow down and make sure that recovery is at a slam dunk percentage and I have left goats to their cliffy cliffs since I lost that goat on Barnard. I guess that hunting shouldn't have an almost religious quality to it but I find myself that way about it so I am sorry if this comes across in the wrong way. It is just how I was raised and how I have been taught by the people who have mentored me.

 

[Bambistew]

We can at minimum do something to stave off that happening to residents, by limiting the # of nonresident sheep hunters now on all state lands that aren't already on draw. It's the right thing to do as a start. It's what CA does on their lands, along with limiting # of guides.

What type of limit are you talking?

 

[Fullcry]

I love it!LOL
ALWAYS start with Non -Residents!
Every body in every state says start with that.
Eliminate more competition for you the residents of any state.
Don’t totally agree with the archery line either.
I know too many guys who are shooting 100 plus yards with a bow now.All the new archery equipment isn’t enough.
Now many states are allowing crossbows.
Everyone trying to get an edge on everyone else.
500 yard plus muzzle loaders.Might as well be single shot rifles now.

 

[AlaskaMark]

What type of limit are you talking?

Well, as you know we've tried various proposals to the BOG to see where guides and the board may be inclined to compromise. The proposal linked below (sorry, system changes the link to gobbledegook) is a place to start I think, dealing with 20A and 19C, and asks to put nonres on draw only in both areas with a 50-permit allocation. I have this 2019 data handy for 19C:


So just taking 2019 data, it shows 93 nonres sheep hunters and 90 resident hunters. So 50 permits would be be almost half of that. If we use the same 80% success rate, those 50 nonres hunters would take 40 sheep instead of 75. With less pressure from guided nonres, residents may do better and take more than 35. Guided hunters could also do better. So essentially, if we want to go by harvest, with that proposal the harvest would be about split 50/50 between res and nonres with ~ 75 sheep taken overall instead of 110.

Now that didn't seem unreasonable two years ago, but guides and BOG would have none of it, even though back then guides and others were saying the sheep were way down in 19C.

The entire reason none of these type of proposals have passed is cuz guides argue (rightly) that draw permits don't guarantee clients and it's much harder to run a guide business that way. We get that, always have. We also get that the Dept would lose some hunting license revenue, P-R funds etc, always have. But what is going on is not sustainable, which makes all of that moot if we truly care about sheep conservation AND ensuring at least for now that residents don't end up losing gen sheep hunting opportunity in those areas. Like I said, limit the nonres component first, see how things go. We'll likely submit similar for just 19C next Region III meeting, see where it goes.

FYI, we also have outlined ways for the Dept to increase revenue to offset any losses from proposals like this.

Proposal Link: https://4290fa4a-1f95-42fa-8ca6-85e...d/038ca3_972140eeaa034771b2e659d495c8fcd2.pdf

 

[Thunder]

I love it!LOL
ALWAYS start with Non -Residents!
Every body in every state says start with that.
Eliminate more competition for you the residents of any state.
Don’t totally agree with the archery line either.
I know too many guys who are shooting 100 plus yards with a bow now.All the new archery equipment isn’t enough.
Now many states are allowing crossbows.
Everyone trying to get an edge on everyone else.
500 yard plus muzzle loaders.Might as well be single shot rifles now.

Cool story bro.

 

[SLDMTN]

Just a point of clarification, 80% success isn't 80% of all harvest. In the last three years strictly speaking about general harvest, nonresident hunters have accounted for 41-43% of harvest numbers in total.

 

[Thunder]

I have to disagree with RHWP (resident hunters with planes) proposal to make 19c a quota for sheep. 19c is primarily accessed by aircraft so access is very limited. There are very few transporters willing to take you into there too. If you make it a quota for sheep i feel like this will put pressure by outfitters in other areas. Just my opinion.

I've never heard anyone complain about 19c in terms of crowding etc. I have heard numerous complaints of some RHWP founding members getting called out for circling sheep in those areas. Always a little truth in rumors.

- RHARHAK

 

[ttk]

So the sheep numbers concern and and the Kenai river Kings seem to me tohave the same problem, if we can’t catch a king why even have a run. The minute they open king fishing people are out there catching kings,and I would bet that 80% of king caught are done so by those who have already caught multiple kings in their lifetime (guides and res). We all know there are multiple reasons for low numbers of kings and everyone argue‘s over who’s fault it really is, but we can’t argue that once a king makes it to the river the only thing killing them is us. Yes we all know about over escapement of other species but we can’t control that, we can control killing the kings in the river and the government has to make us stop or we would catch the last one.
So the same applies to sheep, how many hunters claim sheep hunting is the greatest hunt yet complain about numbers and kill the only legal ram they see, again I would imagine very high percentage of successful sheep hunters have killed multiple sheep. Yes guides (just like the river) have much more success than the weekend hunter/fisher so they need to take a lot of responsibility. If we are putting sheep on such a pedestal why we that have killed multiple sheep still taking the only legal ram we saw ? You don’t feed your family on kings that’s what reds are for (also what moose caribou and deer are for) . Two things hunters can control, kill predators when you legally can and leave sheep on the mountains. Even without guides I believe hunters would kill the last sheep unless government tells us not to, especially these instafame days, it seems to be more about our post then the love of the outdoors.
Yes I am a lifetime Alaskan,yes I have killed multiple sheep ( have not killed one in 20 years and never killed one that wasn’t bigger than my others ) . Yes I guided both hunting and and fishing and had a great time doing that . But times have changed and I still hunt for that 40” ram and would love for my sons to be able to take a sheep then hunt for a truly large sheep.Just my opinion but wouldn’t it be great to go back to the pre electronic days, no inreach,no sat phone no gps that lets you know exactly where you are in relation to where the ram is that you flew 20 hours to find. Long post to say so many of us claim the kill isn’t necessary for the hunt to be successful but yet came home with a sheep that was not any bigger than previous ones. You can’t control the weather or the eagles,or the other guy, but we can quit killing sheep when you have same quality ones hanging on your wall

 

[Thunder]

So the sheep numbers concern and and the Kenai river Kings seem to me tohave the same problem, if we can’t catch a king why even have a run. The minute they open king fishing people are out there catching kings,and I would bet that 80% of king caught are done so by those who have already caught multiple kings in their lifetime (guides and res). We all know there are multiple reasons for low numbers of kings and everyone argue‘s over who’s fault it really is, but we can’t argue that once a king makes it to the river the only thing killing them is us. Yes we all know about over escapement of other species but we can’t control that, we can control killing the kings in the river and the government has to make us stop or we would catch the last one.
So the same applies to sheep, how many hunters claim sheep hunting is the greatest hunt yet complain about numbers and kill the only legal ram they see, again I would imagine very high percentage of successful sheep hunters have killed multiple sheep. Yes guides (just like the river) have much more success than the weekend hunter/fisher so they need to take a lot of responsibility. If we are putting sheep on such a pedestal why we that have killed multiple sheep still taking the only legal ram we saw ? You don’t feed your family on kings that’s what reds are for (also what moose caribou and deer are for) . Two things hunters can control, kill predators when you legally can and leave sheep on the mountains. Even without guides I believe hunters would kill the last sheep unless government tells us not to, especially these instafame days, it seems to be more about our post then the love of the outdoors.
Yes I am a lifetime Alaskan,yes I have killed multiple sheep ( have not killed one in 20 years and never killed one that wasn’t bigger than my others ) . Yes I guided both hunting and and fishing and had a great time doing that . But times have changed and I still hunt for that 40” ram and would love for my sons to be able to take a sheep then hunt for a truly large sheep.Just my opinion but wouldn’t it be great to go back to the pre electronic days, no inreach,no sat phone no gps that lets you know exactly where you are in relation to where the ram is that you flew 20 hours to find. Long post to say so many of us claim the kill isn’t necessary for the hunt to be successful but yet came home with a sheep that was not any bigger than previous ones. You can’t control the weather or the eagles,or the other guy, but we can quit killing sheep when you have same quality ones hanging on your wall

Sourdough?

 

[wantj43]

In about 1850 Teben'kov transplanted wild sheep to Kodiak (they did not survive). Since then there have been many attempts to "manage" wild sheep populations. How successful these efforts have been may be up for debate. What is not debatable is that if we reduced or eliminated the SUB-LEGAL harvest and WOUNDING LOSS there would be more sheep.

 

[Thunder]

In about 1850 Teben'kov transplanted wild sheep to Kodiak (they did not survive). Since then there have been many attempts to "manage" wild sheep populations. How successful these efforts have been may be up for debate. What is not debatable is that if we reduced or eliminated the SUB-LEGAL harvest and WOUNDING LOSS there would be more sheep.

That will help put more rams on the mountain for sure, but what about ewes?

 

[Sourdough]

but we can’t argue that once a king makes it to the river the only thing killing them is us.

Not "Exactly.
Black Bears
Brown Bears
Harbor Seals
Osprey
Eagles
Beluga's at the mouth and a ways up river.

 

[wantj43]

That will help put more rams on the mountain for sure, but what about ewes?

Reducing the sub-legal and wounding loss probably does not do much for the ewes. However, does increase opportunity to harvest legal rams - assuming they will become legal.

 

[Bambistew]

Well, as you know we've tried various proposals to the BOG to see where guides and the board may be inclined to compromise. The proposal linked below (sorry, system changes the link to gobbledegook) is a place to start I think, dealing with 20A and 19C, and asks to put nonres on draw only in both areas with a 50-permit allocation. I have this 2019 data handy for 19C:
View attachment 333203

So just taking 2019 data, it shows 93 nonres sheep hunters and 90 resident hunters. So 50 permits would be be almost half of that. If we use the same 80% success rate, those 50 nonres hunters would take 40 sheep instead of 75. With less pressure from guided nonres, residents may do better and take more than 35. Guided hunters could also do better. So essentially, if we want to go by harvest, with that proposal the harvest would be about split 50/50 between res and nonres with ~ 75 sheep taken overall instead of 110.

Now that didn't seem unreasonable two years ago, but guides and BOG would have none of it, even though back then guides and others were saying the sheep were way down in 19C.

The entire reason none of these type of proposals have passed is cuz guides argue (rightly) that draw permits don't guarantee clients and it's much harder to run a guide business that way. We get that, always have. We also get that the Dept would lose some hunting license revenue, P-R funds etc, always have. But what is going on is not sustainable, which makes all of that moot if we truly care about sheep conservation AND ensuring at least for now that residents don't end up losing gen sheep hunting opportunity in those areas. Like I said, limit the nonres component first, see how things go. We'll likely submit similar for just 19C next Region III meeting, see where it goes.

FYI, we also have outlined ways for the Dept to increase revenue to offset any losses from proposals like this.

Proposal Link: https://4290fa4a-1f95-42fa-8ca685e71778f572.filesusr.com/ugd/038ca3_972140eeaa034771b2e659d495c8fcd2.pdf

We've looked at all these stats ad nauseam.

How would this proposal have any real effect on sheep populations? Seems we'd just swap the harvest ticket from NR to Res. If killing less rams a year was the silver bullet, we should have seen an explosion of sheep numbers in the Chugach post draw. Yet here we are 15 years later with fewer sheep and still 1/4 of the sheep hunters.

The success rate for residents in 19C is actually quite high compared to all other units (~38-40%). I think its the highest in the state, but I didn't compare every single unit. Here are a few of the popular ones... Resident success for the last 10 years (20A ~ 25%, Eastern Books ~ 33%, 14/13 draw areas ~17%).

Plunking down a lot of money for a hunt usually increases the incentive to hunt harder, flying into an area where few to no people have been also increases your chance of success. The eastern Brooks has limited NR pressure through the concessions, yet harvest is about the same 50/50 split between res/nr and success is lower.

Finding a legal ram still takes a little luck as well. I don't see how limiting NR is going to magically increase resident take or have any meaningful effect on sheep populations. 38-40% success for an OTC sheep tag is pretty amazing, actually. Compare that to any other animal in the state (in any state) success rate for an OTC tag, and its likely twice as high. I do understand the frustration that 25% of the hunters are taking 40% of the sheep in the state. You can't force residents to hunt harder, most sheep hunters every year are on their first hunt ~68%. I find it funny how so many Alaskan's say they don't want to do things like other states, yet here we are limiting NR because other states do it.

The king analogy above is silly. We are targeting a very select portion of the sheep population not anything that swims up the river, so to speak. There have been numerous studies that point out that rams over 8yr of age are "surplus" to a herd's sustainability. If you believe that or not is a different story. Saying you only want a 40" ram is on you, it has zero impact on the sustainability of a herd. What if that 40"er was 6 years old, is he more or less of a "trophy" than a 36"- 12yo ram with no teeth left in his head? The older ram arguably had a much larger impact on the success of the population than the younger 40" ram that you selected because he was 40". Lastly, in the history of stats available the number of 40" rams killed has never been a significant part of the harvest record 5%+/- of all rams killed. The majority of rams will never reach 40" even if they lived to be 12+. Kings are targeted big/small buck/hen... we are targeting 5% of a sheep population (legal rams).

One last parting thought on 19C hunting. since the ban on aerial spotting of sheep the success rates for residents using private aircraft has gone from 19% success average (2005-2015) to 35% success (2016-2020). 75% of the rams killed in 19C by residents are done so by guys with planes, not a surprise, but the success rate doubling above is...

I have no idea what the answer is to increase sheep numbers, but cutting out a few NR isn't going to change much.

 

[Nick Muche]

We've looked at all these stats ad nauseam.

How would this proposal have any real effect on sheep populations? Seems we'd just swap the harvest ticket from NR to Res. If killing less rams a year was the silver bullet, we should have seen an explosion of sheep numbers in the Chugach post draw. Yet here we are 15 years later with fewer sheep and still 1/4 of the sheep hunters.

The success rate for residents in 19C is actually quite high compared to all other units (~38-40%). I think its the highest in the state, but I didn't compare every single unit. Here are a few of the popular ones... Resident success for the last 10 years (20A ~ 25%, Eastern Books ~ 33%, 14/13 draw areas ~17%).

Plunking down a lot of money for a hunt usually increases the incentive to hunt harder, flying into an area where few to no people have been also increases your chance of success. The eastern Brooks has limited NR pressure through the concessions, yet harvest is about the same 50/50 split between res/nr and success is lower.

Finding a legal ram still takes a little luck as well. I don't see how limiting NR is going to magically increase resident take or have any meaningful effect on sheep populations. 38-40% success for an OTC sheep tag is pretty amazing, actually. Compare that to any other animal in the state (in any state) success rate for an OTC tag, and its likely twice as high. I do understand the frustration that 25% of the hunters are taking 40% of the sheep in the state. You can't force residents to hunt harder, most sheep hunters every year are on their first hunt ~68%. I find it funny how so many Alaskan's say they don't want to do things like other states, yet here we are limiting NR because other states do it.

The king analogy above is silly. We are targeting a very select portion of the sheep population not anything that swims up the river, so to speak. There have been numerous studies that point out that rams over 8yr of age are "surplus" to a herd's sustainability. If you believe that or not is a different story. Saying you only want a 40" ram is on you, it has zero impact on the sustainability of a herd. What if that 40"er was 6 years old, is he more or less of a "trophy" than a 36"- 12yo ram with no teeth left in his head? The older ram arguably had a much larger impact on the success of the population than the younger 40" ram that you selected because he was 40". Lastly, in the history of stats available the number of 40" rams killed has never been a significant part of the harvest record 5%+/- of all rams killed. The majority of rams will never reach 40" even if they lived to be 12+. Kings are targeted big/small buck/hen... we are targeting 5% of a sheep population (legal rams).

One last parting thought on 19C hunting. since the ban on aerial spotting of sheep the success rates for residents using private aircraft has gone from 19% success average (2005-2015) to 35% success (2016-2020). 75% of the rams killed in 19C by residents are done so by guys with planes, not a surprise, but the success rate doubling above is...

I have no idea what the answer is to increase sheep numbers, but cutting out a few NR isn't going to change much.

Holy Sheep Shit, he did it. He really did it…. Thank you Bambi…

 

[Outdoorsman12b]

My wife says it’s fine so we’re good to go!!! Or are we????

 

[Thunder]

I have no idea what the answer is to increase sheep numbers, but cutting out a few NR isn't going to change much.

Exactly. No one knows. The sheep population in areas that are closed/limited to hunting are also decreasing. It would be interesting to know what RHWP thoughts are about the hard park. Instead of spending so much time trying to limit some NR opportunity in RHWP's playground, they could be trying to get the discussion going on opening a few more areas.....

I would guesstimate that a decent % of rams that are shot every fall wouldn't make the winter regardless. Like its been discussed once a ram gets to 8 they start dropping off pretty fast. I see no reason even with the current status of the sheep to change seasons, limit NR even more, etc etc etc.

Sublegal harvest was high this year. I wonder what % of sublegal sheep are first time sheep hunters? Can you crunch that number @Bambistew

 

[fatbacks]

I think it would be interesting to see the sheep population trends in Denali NP, Wrangell St Elias NP, and Gate of the Arctic NP. I know there is some subsistence hunting going on, but likely not enough to have any meaningful impact. If nothing else, it is a good baseline against areas adjacent to them on sheep populations that are hunted vs not.

 

[Thunder]

I think it would be interesting to see the sheep population trends in Denali NP, Wrangell St Elias NP, and Gate of the Arctic NP. I know there is some subsistence hunting going on, but likely not enough to have any meaningful impact. If nothing else, it is a good baseline against areas adjacent to them on sheep populations that are hunted vs not.

They've done a study down in the WSENP but I don't believe they have released it yet.

 

[SLDMTN]

I think it would be interesting to see the sheep population trends in Denali NP, Wrangell St Elias NP, and Gate of the Arctic NP. I know there is some subsistence hunting going on, but likely not enough to have any meaningful impact. If nothing else, it is a good baseline against areas adjacent to them on sheep populations that are hunted vs not.

I don’t believe you’re going to like the answer. Two sole use concession outfitters bordering WSENP each guided one sheep hunter this year. Neither is guiding sheep next year.

When one of them wrote a paper years ago with photo evidence about wolves killing sheep for sport, no one wanted to hear it. People still don’t seem to want to hear it.

Well there’s entire bands of sheep missing this year on both sides of the imaginary line. Weather? Wolves? Both?

The rams below are gone. They shouldn’t be. It wasn’t from hunters, not two legged ones at least.

Now imagine with me if you will, after your family has lived and guided out of the area referenced above for 75 years, being told that you are the main problem by a group of folks.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk