Alaska Range Dall Sheep: My First Sheep Hunt

[land cruiser]

As you see it, I have an unfair advantage because I can pack and go while you need a guide? Come live your winters in Alaska bud. And the non resident restrictions are coming. Name one other state where there is unlimited over the counter tags for non residents for big game species, and more specifically, sheep.

I don't see how you living winters in Alaska entitles you to preferential treatment, are you paying extra taxes during those winters? Should people from places with equally harsh weather like Montana or Siberia get the same advantage in AK?

As for other state, you need to compare apples to apples: for sheep every country (with probable exception of Mexico because of population depletion) does otc if you hire a guide (e.g Canada, Russia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, need more?) . For other big game shall we talk elk, whitetail or hogs, black bear or blacktail? Pick

Also, how many out of staters do you see coming back year after year because they need that white ram? Ask yourself, how many residents you know with more than 3 on their walls and consider what type of impact this has on already dwindling population.

We are on the same page - we need restrictions. But sticking them to non residents will likely make the issue worse.

At any rate, there is no state I love more than Alaska and will continue coming there and sending friends and family your way. Good luck in getting this resolved, I sincerely hope that resolution will help conserve the species for both my kids and yours.

 

[bergnp]

I don't see how you living winters in Alaska entitles you to preferential treatment, are you paying extra taxes during those winters? Should people from places with equally harsh weather like Montana or Siberia get the same advantage in AK?

As for other state, you need to compare apples to apples: for sheep every country (with probable exception of Mexico because of population depletion) does otc if you hire a guide (e.g Canada, Russia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, need more?) . For other big game shall we talk elk, whitetail or hogs, black bear or blacktail? Pick

Also, how many out of staters do you see coming back year after year because they need that white ram? Ask yourself, how many residents you know with more than 3 on their walls and consider what type of impact this has on already dwindling population.

We are on the same page - we need restrictions. But sticking them to non residents will likely make the issue worse.

At any rate, there is no state I love more than Alaska and will continue coming there and sending friends and family your way. Good luck in getting this resolved, I sincerely hope that resolution will help conserve the species for both my kids and yours.

You want to compare apples to apples? How many other states in our country, governed by our laws, give OTC tags for sheep? It's an honest question.

 

[land cruiser]

None. All other states allowed to kill off tiny (in comparison to AK) population of sheep before harvest could be controlled. But non otc applies to everyone in those states not just non residents. Do you not see that this is exactly what I am trying to convey?

 

[bergnp]

None. All other states allowed to kill off tiny (in comparison to AK) population of sheep before harvest could be controlled. But non otc applies to everyone in those states not just non residents. Do you not see that this is exactly what I am trying to convey?

I'm not saying we don't need to control the numbers of residents hunting sheep. You won't find me claiming that we DON'T need to control all numbers of hunters. But we need to start with the huge numbers of non-residents and work from there. Residents should be given preferential treatment when it comes to the distribution of our animals IMHO.

 

[land cruiser]

Well that's a half measure and it will do more damage than good. It is unwarranted, biased and will antagonize people who support conservation in AK. Start soon and start right otherwise you will find yourself in CA shoes. We got sheep. All 3 of them

 

[bergnp]

Well that's a half measure and it will do more damage than good. It is unwarranted, biased and will antagonize people who support conservation in AK. Start soon and start right otherwise you will find yourself in CA shoes. We got sheep. All 3 of them

Please explain and help me to understand why it will do more damage than good. I'm maintaining an open mind and want to understand the mistakes of others because I haven't researched what they did wrong.

 

[bergnp]

Well that's a half measure and it will do more damage than good. It is unwarranted, biased and will antagonize people who support conservation in AK. Start soon and start right otherwise you will find yourself in CA shoes. We got sheep. All 3 of them

A quick look at our numbers gives managers lots of things to consider. The numbers I'm reading from the most recent studies are as follows:

1) Approx 2500 sheep hunters in alaska per year.
2) Approx 450 non resident sheep hunters per year (18% of total sheep hunters) at a tag price of $425 per tag ($191,250 generated in tag fees)
3) Approx 800 sheep harvested per year. Non-residents harvest 40% of those. That's 320. Which leaves a success rate of 71% or so.
4) 480 sheep harvested by residents with 2050 hunters is a 23% success rate.
5) Non-residents have approx 3 times the success rate of residents, largely because they are guided (which is required).

Reading the above numbers leads me to the understanding that sheep in Alaska are disproportionately going to non-residents compared to the harvest of big game in other states. And reading the story that this thread originated with leads me to believe there are many greedy, unethical guides in this state who simply look to take money from individuals because of the guide requirement. I think a simple solution for conservation purpose would be to cut the nonresident tags in half by eliminating OTC and going to drawing only (once drawn for a particular hunt, that person can never be drawn for it again), double the tag fees (to continue to bring money in for conservation), continue with current resident drawing numbers in particular areas based on viable sheep numbers, and institute a registration OTC hunt for residents that only allows residents to hunt sheep every other year. This will cut resident numbers in half, non-resident numbers in half, raise more money for conservation, and ensure guided non-residents get more attention from guides who have less clients.

It's important to me that we eliminate the mistreatment of the OP when hunting in Alaska, while maintaining healthy sheep populations, ensuring individuals have ample hunt opportunities, while ensuring all user groups make sacrifices.

 

[realunlucky]

This is a great discussion but really needs its own thread

 

[JustOneMoreShot]

berg
Interesting topic and it is fine that the thread has moved in this direction. Of course the residents and non residents will have different opinions on how the game should be managed. It seems by your numbers that more sheep are harvested by residents but you still seem upset that the resident success numbers are not high enough. Simple solution everyone gets a guide. Happy now? I promise that the resident success ratio will skyrocket and likely even surpass the nonresidents. If you believe that a full 90% of the harvest should be by the residents then it will have to change to all hunters both res and non must use a guide. When you pay that much to hire a guide it really ramps up the pressure to have a successful hunt ending with a harvest.
450 nonres sheep hunters each paid a guide between $15,000 to 25,000. Plus add in air travel/private charters, hotels, meals, sporting goods purchases, etc... That is a ton of cash into Alaska's economy. The residents do not inject that much cash with a relatively inexpensive tag leave the house and drive to a destination and start the hike in. Or pay for a transporter or friend to fly them out and drop them off and DIY it or hunt with a friend. If they don't get one that's ok. They can go home and back to work for a week or two then head back out and try again. Rinse and repeat until they tag or season closes.
I'm not saying either way is right or wrong. Just that the powers that be do not want to shut out the big bucks from the out of staters as long as the game populations can sustain it.
Perhaps a draw for all hunters with more tags (how much more I don't know) obviously to the residents.
After doing the hunt I would honestly say that I would gladly pay more and go with a better outfitter in an area not over pressured or just save for an extra year, spend the money and hunt the Yukon instead.

 

[bergnp]

Requiring guides for residents would be a purely greed driven option. I think 1/4 resident sheep hunters succeeding each year isn't a low number. It's just for comparison over how successful non residents are because they go with a guide. Residents are welcome to pay for a guided trip right now and I don't think they should change that.

I absolutely agree that non resident hunting injects money into the economy, but with a reduction in non resident hunters, the cost of hunts with a guide would go up. And all that money in the economy does virtually nothing to help run state government. If you think residents don't pay more than that $15,000-$25,000 each year into this economy, you're confused. We live here and spend money here all year long buddy.

 

[JustOneMoreShot]

I don't believe that residents should be required to have a guide. It was just a half joke/idea if you want the total harvest to be 90% in favor of residents as the guides will give you the same advantage that the nonresidents have.
You can't want the hunt to be cheap and have the same high success as with being guided. You can't have it both ways.
Nonresident hunting injects huge money into the state. Why the heck does the state gov need more money from nonresidents? You want less nonresidents but more money for the state gov?
Of course the residents contribute to the state economy more than $25,000 a year. Lol at least the ones who are working no different than the residents of my state to my states economy. I am afraid to think of the total cost of my trip to chase my white ram! All that cash was spent over a 2 and a half week stay your welcome. I think AK got a pretty fair shake on that deal. I wonder how many times you have left your state and spent $25,000 over a two week stint?
I think we are closer in agreement on a lot of things just maybe different ideas on ways to get there but both want the best for the game populations and hunter success!

 

[bergnp]

I don't believe that residents should be required to have a guide. It was just a half joke/idea if you want the total harvest to be 90% in favor of residents as the guides will give you the same advantage that the nonresidents have.
You can't want the hunt to be cheap and have the same high success as with being guided. You can't have it both ways.
Nonresident hunting injects huge money into the state. Why the heck does the state gov need more money from nonresidents? You want less nonresidents but more money for the state gov?
Of course the residents contribute to the state economy more than $25,000 a year. Lol at least the ones who are working no different than the residents of my state to my states economy. I am afraid to think of the total cost of my trip to chase my white ram! All that cash was spent over a 2 and a half week stay your welcome. I think AK got a pretty fair shake on that deal. I wonder how many times you have left your state and spent $25,000 over a two week stint?
I think we are closer in agreement on a lot of things just maybe different ideas on ways to get there but both want the best for the game populations and hunter success!

You're right. We are closer in agreement than it seems. Ultimately we both want to have success as hunters and preserve the resource for our children someday. Ethical hunters universally agree on that. And from reading your story, you are no doubt ethical and a stud hunter. And I salute you for putting up with what you did and powering through.

The action I want taken isn't about increasing resident success rate. It's about reducing pressure on the animals by both residents and non-residents. I want everyone to have an opportunity to hunt and have an opportunity at success. I can pay a MUCH cheaper rate to be flown in to a drop off location in the brooks range than a non-resident and increase my odds substantially. And I'm not claiming that residents don't have all the advantages. We can pay the same price a non-resident pays for a guide, but avoid tag fees and the other costs of flying here, hotels, etc.

Whether it's hard winters or overharvest, our sheep numbers have been and continue to decline. It's something we need to fix, and I believe the board of game is going to take action on it in the coming weeks. We're at a turning point in the hunting of this great resource, and things are going to change. I dread to think Alaska will find itself in a similar position as so many of the other states in our country with such low sheep numbers.

I hope everyone reading this, resident or non-resident, will have the opportunity to harvest a Dall Sheep in alaska during their life. It's something I've just started to get into, and I look forward to learning the mountains and teaching it to my children.

 

[land cruiser]

Please explain and help me to understand why it will do more damage than good. I'm maintaining an open mind and want to understand the mistakes of others because I haven't researched what they did wrong.

This isn’t hard at all. Your thinking is based on 1 experience, 1 guide, and 1 hunt. It is not statistically sound. In fact I can provide several names in the industry who will be just as appalled as readers of original story with outfitters approach to business. Now let’s look at what you’re proposing from the sheep’s view, isn’t it what it’s all about after all?

In the respectable outfitters area (like the one I hunted with) the quota is largely controlled by the outfitter/transporter even when there is no official quota. Their business depends on what can be harvested in their concession and as such the resource is watched/guarded very closely. There are years when they choose to take fewer hunters and transfer fewer residents. Especially after harsh winters. This is trophy quantity, for trophy quality I would argue that less mistakes are made by experienced guides in judging legality of the trophy, thus likely taking out specimen’s no longer meaningful for gene pool.

Enter draw for non-residents. Suddenly guides in the same area start competing for high dollar hunts. Some get their quota to break even, others don’t. From a business owner stand point your ROI on infrastructure, planes, upkeep, overhead etc plummets. Ethical person with deep pockets walks away from a business model that is no longer viable. Ideally. Now consider building your business for 60 years. Investing your life into it. Caring for what you do and suddenly not being able to make ends meet. Picking quantity over quality is an easy way out to minimize your losses. Many will start transporting and not caring how many they take in. Guess what happens to sheep population?

Year one and two you may see your resident success ratio improve. By then it will be too late to reverse the damage. I hope this helps.

 

[realunlucky]

Its not up to the outfitter to set the harvest objectives that should be controlled by the state. The only reason it halfway works like that now is because of backroom agreements with transporters that lock out most access to everyone else. Just because the game has always been played dirty doesn't have to mean or always will. It's political which means money one day residents will unite and pool their money for a larger voice at the table.

 

[land cruiser]

Its not up to the outfitter to set the harvest objectives that should be controlled by the state. The only reason it halfway works like that now is because of backroom agreements with transporters that lock out most access to everyone else. Just because the game has always been played dirty doesn't have to mean or always will. It's political which means money one day residents will unite and pool their money for a larger voice at the table.

Of course or is not, your are right. But a lot of them care and know about the area way more than folks who are out there hunting for two weeks out of the year and when there is nothing left to hunt - move on to destroy the next range.

 

[bergnp]

This isn’t hard at all. Your thinking is based on 1 experience, 1 guide, and 1 hunt. It is not statistically sound. In fact I can provide several names in the industry who will be just as appalled as readers of original story with outfitters approach to business. Now let’s look at what you’re proposing from the sheep’s view, isn’t it what it’s all about after all?

In the respectable outfitters area (like the one I hunted with) the quota is largely controlled by the outfitter/transporter even when there is no official quota. Their business depends on what can be harvested in their concession and as such the resource is watched/guarded very closely. There are years when they choose to take fewer hunters and transfer fewer residents. Especially after harsh winters. This is trophy quantity, for trophy quality I would argue that less mistakes are made by experienced guides in judging legality of the trophy, thus likely taking out specimen’s no longer meaningful for gene pool.

Enter draw for non-residents. Suddenly guides in the same area start competing for high dollar hunts. Some get their quota to break even, others don’t. From a business owner stand point your ROI on infrastructure, planes, upkeep, overhead etc plummets. Ethical person with deep pockets walks away from a business model that is no longer viable. Ideally. Now consider building your business for 60 years. Investing your life into it. Caring for what you do and suddenly not being able to make ends meet. Picking quantity over quality is an easy way out to minimize your losses. Many will start transporting and not caring how many they take in. Guess what happens to sheep population?

Year one and two you may see your resident success ratio improve. By then it will be too late to reverse the damage. I hope this helps.

I've said multiple times that it isn't about resident success ratio. I think it's fair to think a man might hunt 4 years to get a nice ram. It's about the population of sheep that is gradually declining. And that we need to limit residents and non-residents. And the way the guides lock things down with transporters now is disgusting. This resource is driven by dollars instead of biology. It's become a very sad thing and it's going to change.

 

[land cruiser]

Have you looked at the data? Non residents kill over 40% of the sheep in Alaska every year and have an incredibly high success rate due to using guides. The average kill rate for residents is 23%. I think we need controls in place for residents too, but like the majority of the states in this country, residents should be taking 90% of the total harvest.

Is it me or are you forgetting what you said?

 

[bergnp]

Is it me or are you forgetting what you said?

I did not forget what I said. Let me help you with the math. If residents are currently killing 60% of the total harvest and the total harvest is 800 in a year, that means residents are killing 480 rams and non-residents are killing 320 at 40% of the total. If the same number of residents kill the same number of Rams (480) next year and we reduce the non-residents to 10% of the total harvest, non residents would get 53 rams for a total harvest of 533. It's simple math

 

[land cruiser]

So essentially what you are saying is a harvest quota in favor of residents would solve the issue? This is not Chicken we are talking about, how are you going to control this? More game wardens? Who will be paying? Residents?

Thanks for the math lesson, Captain

 

[bergnp]

Residents are who pay now. We pay all winter. I'm not sure it will solve the issue, but it would be an excellent start.