Alaska Sheep, 19C Working Group

[WalterH]

Some here may be following the unit 19Csheep issues in AK.

Short story is that sheep in 19c, the central/wester Alaska Range, are hurting bad, just like they are in most of the other parts of the state.

Two years ago the state shut down all non-resident hunting in 19c and put together a “working group” to make recommendations to the board of game on what to do with 19c into the future.

The working group met last week and a friend that was at the meeting shared their final recommendations with me today.

You can see those here and attached: https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/...2025/sheep_10-17-24/recommendation-litzen.pdf

I’ve been tracking this pretty closely as I’ve spent a fair bit of time in 19c over the years and the place is near and dear to my heart. I’ve seen firsthand the dramatic and rapid decline of the population and what used to be problems with over crowding and way too much commercial pressure. Not long ago, when populations were better, guides took 60-70% of the sheep out of this area.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at most of the recommendations, that are obviously aimed at curtailing resident opportunities while preserving guaranteed commercial access, given the make up of the working group. But this was far worse than I was thinking they would do.

A few points and thoughts in response.

1. In putting in place restrictions on harvest and in making comments like “hopefully with …lighter harvest sheep populations will be back on track” the group seemingly ignores the science of full curl management which says that harvest doesn’t affect sheep populations. As such, a complete closure and/or limiting resident opportunity accomplishes nothing, in terms of the population, and is a needless waste of opportunity.

2. One ram every 4 years for residents is, again, a needless loss of opportunity if, again, harvest doesn’t negatively impact population recovery. It would however, confidently, limit competition with the guided clients. Limiting non res to 1 every 6 is meaningless since 90+ percent of non res hunters are one and done.

3. The sole use areas for guides is likely a good thing and a long time coming. This will be an interesting case study if the state can organize that. The problem of where the other displaced guides go to still needs addressed as most other areas in the state are already at capacity for guides and resident pressure.

I see a lot of problems and faulty logic with what has been proposed for 19c, but also problematic is what has not been proposed there or statewide. 19c is not unique with the problems it is facing. 16b that shares a boundary with 19c is hurting just as bad. I don’t understand why this working group can’t focus on statewide issues than than one area.

Likewise there are some things that do affect sheep at the population level that could be addressed that have largely been ignored, sub-legal harvest and the age of “legal” rams trending down for example.

Overall super disappointed at the outcome of the working group and there recommendations.

Hopefully there is another opportunity to comment before the board of game moves forward on any of this.

Lots of other thoughts on all of this. Hoping to get a few takes from others interested in this business.

 

[FAAFO]

Interesting, thanks for sharing!

How has science proved full curl management doesn’t affect the population?

 

[WalterH]

That is ADFG position based on their “science.”

Based on past mortality studies, rams 8 y/o and older stand a 70% chance of dying in the next winter. Rams 8 and older are a harvestable surplus that are not needed to ensure all available ewes get bred. Therefore their loss has no net negative impact at the population level.

That is the baseline that ADFG has been operating on and should continue to do so until science says otherwise.

That having been said, there are some problematic issues under full curl that need studying. One being the number of 5-7 year old sheep getting killed with legal horns. Two being the volume of sublegal animals take . Three being the loss of senior leadership on young rams and how that impacts their survival.

As has been hashed out over and over on the various AK sheep threads, as things currently stand, the board of game/adfg can’t manage animals. They can manage hunters.


So proposals citing restricted harvest as a means to conserve sheep at the population level should be non-starters. IMO

 

[Bambistew]

That is ADFG position based on their “science.”

Based on past mortality studies, rams 8 y/o and older stand a 70% chance of dying in the next winter. Rams 8 and older are a harvestable surplus that are not needed to ensure all available ewes get bred. Therefore their loss has no net negative impact at the population level.

That is the baseline that ADFG has been operating on and should continue to do so until science says otherwise.

That having been said, there are some problematic issues under full curl that need studying. One being the number of 5-7 year old sheep getting killed with legal horns. Two being the volume of sublegal animals take . Three being the loss of senior leadership on young rams and how that impacts their survival.

As has been hashed out over and over on the various AK sheep threads, as things currently stand, the board of game/adfg can’t manage animals. They can manage hunters.


So proposals citing restricted harvest as a means to conserve sheep at the population level should be non-starters. IMO

Do you have a study or link for the 70% mortality number?

 

[Kisaralik]

How has science proved full curl management doesn’t affect the population?

Based on past mortality studies, rams 8 y/o and older stand a 70% chance of dying in the next winter. Rams 8 and older are a harvestable surplus

FC management, at least according to old-guard AK biologist to Wayne Heimer who helped develop the plan, is mainly to ensure all viable ewe's enter estrus each fall. Back in the 3/4 days, without "prime" rams present, some studies showed that only about half of ewes would enter estrus and hence low lamb recruitment the following year. Also when no "prime" rams were present, immature rams extended the rut which led to late lambing. Essentially, wether the "prime" ram breeds all the ewes is irrelevant, we just need a few old rams around to get the ewes juices going - even if it means little rams are getting some

I'm not sure about the 70% mortality at ages greater than 8...

I probably butchered summarizing that, but I highly recommend reading Wayne's book (https://site-9733970-5709-6696.mystrikingly.com/#store). Good $15 to spend.

 

[207-12A]

A couple thoughts on full curl management. From my research and relationships with sheep biologists in ADF&G, this started in the mid 70s with Wayne Heimer and a study on Kenai MTNs and Alaska Range populations. Check out his great short read "Dall Sheep Management" (https://site-9733970-5709-6696.mystrikingly.com/) which also details how biologists came to the conclusion that taking ewes is a really bad idea - though this was common practice in the mid 1900s.

In my opinion, sometimes the department walks a fine line with its rhetoric regarding full curl harvest. The commonly accepted science regarding thin horns is that letting rams achieve full curl makes for a less "messy" rut, in that mature rams on the mountain keep the dumb 4-6 year olds from blowing their winter fat reserves chasing ewes when they are sexually but not yet behaviorally mature (sounds like high school).

So, in requiring that hunters only take full curl rams, you ensure that there are at least some mature rams left to keep the pecking order in line - which should be good for ram populations on the whole. *End of science, start of opinion*. I think that the problem facing sheep managers today is 1. a series of horrible warm and wet winters, and 2. the efficacy of 20th century hunters. #1 means deep snowpack and freeze-thaw cycles that hamper access to winter food, reducing lamb survival rates. #2 means that a greater percentage than ever of those older rams are getting killed as soon as they reach full curl, thereby reducing the number of mature rams to keep that rut "clean".

Does full curl harvest have zero negative impact on sheep populations? Hard to say, given aforementioned point #1, but it may be time to reduce hunting pressure if only with the express goal that more mature rams are left on the mountain to accomplish what full-curl-management set out to initially accomplish.

Last opinion: more no fly in areas, almost no motorized (wheeler) areas. And a mandatory wait period for successful (NR and R) sheep hunters. Sharing the resource may be the only way we keep from loving it to death, and will keep federal mitts out of Alaska's pie.

 

[WalterH]

Do you have a study or link for the 70% mortality number?

I think I have it saved somewhere.

And I may well be off on the exact number. I remember it being more than half, which surprised me because I feel like the average 8 y/o ram is in prime condition and should have 2+ years before decline.

But that is all opinion and no science…

 

[idelkslayer]

As an outsider looking in I find it interesting to listen to this discussion. I gather that the declining age of rams is of concern but it is difficult to regulate that harvest if the rams meet the full curl requirement. And requiring rams to be older than 8 introduces difficulties with field identification.

What if a wait period was based on the age of harvested rams? If you kill an 8 yr old ram then you have no wait period and you can hunt the next year. If you kill a ram younger than 8 yrs old your wait period is 1 yr for every year younger than 8. Example, you kill a 6 year old ram, your wait period is 2 years. Or maybe you double it and a 7 yr old ram gets you a wait period of 2 years and a 6 yr old ram gets you a wait period of 4 years. Maybe the target age is moved to 9 years old. The devil is in the details but I'm curious about the concept.

This could maintain hunting opportunity and incentive harvest of older animals while not severely punishing harvest of younger rams.

Would this concept create enough incentive for hunters to pass on full curl rams that are younger than 8 years old?

 

[Kisaralik]

To me, the benefit of 19c closure was to at least diminish the amount of sub-legal and squeaker-legal harvest. They definitely need to find a place before displacing all the 19c guides into new areas...

As far as the state-wide "suggestions" go, my thoughts:

1) I don't like the one every 4 years; this would be a good penalty for those residents who harvest a sub legal. And along the sub-legal lines, there should be a black and white published fine attached to deter the "shoot and find out " hunters.

2) I have no problem paying a "sheep fee" and think it's a good idea - it will no doubt increase real sheep hunters odds in the draws - but I want the revenue to be going to SHEEP management.

3) Let the youth hunt. Those are our future advocates.
_____________
*edit add-on:

4) ADFG could add a 10 minute mandatory course on aging and judging FC prior to printing a HT or license? While % of sublegal harvest has remained historically consistent, that doesn't mean its not an area for improvement.

19c thoughts:
I'm skeptical about making 19c into draw areas. The caveat that "The 2028 season would hopefully..." reopen to harvest ticket has me extremely skeptical. Clearly these 19c sunset proposals are revenue driven and diverging from ADFG's science based management practice - like OP mentioned.

Personally, I'm not of the mindset that more draw areas are in a hunter's best interest, particularly for already low-odds ram hunting. It's always disheartening to see how many hunters don't hunt a draw tag - again, maybe a "sheep fee" would help with this?
___________

What if a wait period was based on the age of harvested rams

lol. on paper this is a good thought. But there are a ton of discrepancies with different biologists aging rams. Maybe if we started looking at teeth instead of annuli.

 

[FAAFO]

That is ADFG position based on their “science.”

Based on past mortality studies, rams 8 y/o and older stand a 70% chance of dying in the next winter. Rams 8 and older are a harvestable surplus that are not needed to ensure all available ewes get bred. Therefore their loss has no net negative impact at the population level.

That is the baseline that ADFG has been operating on and should continue to do so until science says otherwise.

That having been said, there are some problematic issues under full curl that need studying. One being the number of 5-7 year old sheep getting killed with legal horns. Two being the volume of sublegal animals take . Three being the loss of senior leadership on young rams and how that impacts their survival.

As has been hashed out over and over on the various AK sheep threads, as things currently stand, the board of game/adfg can’t manage animals. They can manage hunters.


So proposals citing restricted harvest as a means to conserve sheep at the population level should be non-starters. IMO

Is this from the same agency that’s let our sheep get to the situation we are in now? That’s the baseline we are operating on so we need to keep it? Look around. It’s not working.

How much of that 70% mortality is by lead?

Just because those rams are not needed for breeding (subjective) doesn’t mean they are not needed for overall herd health.

It’s easy to just blame winters. Let’s keep doing that. Let’s not do anything else but keep blaming winters.

 

[FAAFO]

To me, the benefit of 19c closure was to at least diminish the amount of sub-legal and squeaker-legal harvest. They definitely need to find a place before displacing all the 19c guides into new areas...

Interesting, were the outfitters taking that many sublegals??

I don’t understand the fixation hunters have on the sublegals. Sublegals are like herpes, it happens. Just part of it. Play stupid games get stupid prizes. Doesn’t really affect “management” that much does it? Hell a couple Rokslide Randy’s have been involved with sublegals. Doesn’t make them bad people or unethical. Shit happens. The sublegal harvest hasn’t increased like one would believe. It’s holding steady. Unlike our sheep populations.

 

[FAAFO]

As an outsider looking in I find it interesting to listen to this discussion. I gather that the declining age of rams is of concern but it is difficult to regulate that harvest if the rams meet the full curl requirement. And requiring rams to be older than 8 introduces difficulties with field identification.

What if a wait period was based on the age of harvested rams? If you kill an 8 yr old ram then you have no wait period and you can hunt the next year. If you kill a ram younger than 8 yrs old your wait period is 1 yr for every year younger than 8. Example, you kill a 6 year old ram, your wait period is 2 years. Or maybe you double it and a 7 yr old ram gets you a wait period of 2 years and a 6 yr old ram gets you a wait period of 4 years. Maybe the target age is moved to 9 years old. The devil is in the details but I'm curious about the concept.

This could maintain hunting opportunity and incentive harvest of older animals while not severely punishing harvest of younger rams.

Would this concept create enough incentive for hunters to pass on full curl rams that are younger than 8 years old?

Great concept that’s been brought up before. I like a similar one which is:

1) if you shoot a ram and have to post the miles and vertical you did you sit out 2 years

2). If you post it on social media 1 year

3) post it in a photo contest to win gear. 5 years

4) if you use a hashtag you get 1 year added to any of the above for EACH hashtag such as #fullcurlfriday #wsf #conservation #rokslide #dallsheep #whatevercamocompanyyouwanttosuckoff

5) also for every person and company you tag is an additional year you can’t hunt sheep.

According to ADFG this will cut hunter participation by 70% so no work will need to be done on their end from a management perspective.

 

[AKPA18]

Great concept that’s been brought up before. I like a similar one which is:

1) if you shoot a ram and have to post the miles and vertical you did you sit out 2 years

2). If you post it on social media 1 year

3) post it in a photo contest to win gear. 5 years

4) if you use a hashtag you get 1 year added to any of the above for EACH hashtag such as #fullcurlfriday #wsf #conservation #rokslide #dallsheep #whatevercamocompanyyouwanttosuckoff

5) also for every person and company you tag is an additional year you can’t hunt sheep.

According to ADFG this will cut hunter participation by 70% so no work will need to be done on their end from a management perspective.

There’s an idea I can get behind.
#socialmediaisruininghunting

 

[AK4]

I was all for shutting down 19C to non residents for 5 years at the beginning. Now i think my outlook has changed a bit. just in the last few years we have lost the ability to hunt sheep in the central brooks (24A) 19C, and the Yukon charley's. 19c may open back up but pretty doubtful the other 2 areas will. more areas we close more hunting pressure. That doesn't even include the western brooks and the hard parks. I do like the idea I saw in a proposal to have non residents start date August 15. that gives residents the first 5 days of the season. this could eliminate the complaining that the non residents shoot all the sheep. We all know that we will continue complaining about something though... we are sheep hunters.

 

[Kisaralik]

Interesting, were the outfitters taking that many sublegals??

I have no idea on guided sublegal harvest, nor was that my point. Areas with high harvest rates seem to have higher harvest of sublegals, or so I've heard.

 

[FAAFO]

I have no idea on guided sublegal harvest, nor was that my point. Areas with high harvest rates seem to have higher harvest of sublegals, or so I've heard.

So you saw a benefit in something you know nothing about? Noted.

 

[WalterH]

As an outsider looking in I find it interesting to listen to this discussion. I gather that the declining age of rams is of concern but it is difficult to regulate that harvest if the rams meet the full curl requirement. And requiring rams to be older than 8 introduces difficulties with field identification.

What if a wait period was based on the age of harvested rams? If you kill an 8 yr old ram then you have no wait period and you can hunt the next year. If you kill a ram younger than 8 yrs old your wait period is 1 yr for every year younger than 8. Example, you kill a 6 year old ram, your wait period is 2 years. Or maybe you double it and a 7 yr old ram gets you a wait period of 2 years and a 6 yr old ram gets you a wait period of 4 years. Maybe the target age is moved to 9 years old. The devil is in the details but I'm curious about the concept.

This could maintain hunting opportunity and incentive harvest of older animals while not severely punishing harvest of younger rams.

Would this concept create enough incentive for hunters to pass on full curl rams that are younger than 8 years old?

This has been informally proposed and discussed a fair amount and I really like the idea. Creating an incentive to harvest older rams but still giving people the opportunity to take any legal ram under the current regs.

 

[WalterH]

To me, the benefit of 19c closure was to at least diminish the amount of sub-legal and squeaker-legal harvest. They definitely need to find a place before displacing all the 19c guides into new areas...

As far as the state-wide "suggestions" go, my thoughts:

1) I don't like the one every 4 years; this would be a good penalty for those residents who harvest a sub legal. And along the sub-legal lines, there should be a black and white published fine attached to deter the "shoot and find out " hunters.

2) I have no problem paying a "sheep fee" and think it's a good idea - it will no doubt increase real sheep hunters odds in the draws - but I want the revenue to be going to SHEEP management.

3) Let the youth hunt. Those are our future advocates.
_____________
*edit add-on:

4) ADFG could add a 10 minute mandatory course on aging and judging FC prior to printing a HT or license? While % of sublegal harvest has remained historically consistent, that doesn't mean its not an area for improvement.

19c thoughts:
I'm skeptical about making 19c into draw areas. The caveat that "The 2028 season would hopefully..." reopen to harvest ticket has me extremely skeptical. Clearly these 19c sunset proposals are revenue driven and diverging from ADFG's science based management practice - like OP mentioned.

Personally, I'm not of the mindset that more draw areas are in a hunter's best interest, particularly for already low-odds ram hunting. It's always disheartening to see how many hunters don't hunt a draw tag - again, maybe a "sheep fee" would help with this?
___________


lol. on paper this is a good thought. But there are a ton of discrepancies with different biologists aging rams. Maybe if we started looking at teeth instead of annuli.

Agreed in each case.

 

[WalterH]

Interesting, were the outfitters taking that many sublegals??

I don’t understand the fixation hunters have on the sublegals. Sublegals are like herpes, it happens. Just part of it. Play stupid games get stupid prizes. Doesn’t really affect “management” that much does it? Hell a couple Rokslide Randy’s have been involved with sublegals. Doesn’t make them bad people or unethical. Shit happens. The sublegal harvest hasn’t increased like one would believe. It’s holding steady. Unlike our sheep populations.

In years past when there were more rams on the mountain, sub-legal harvest was less of a concern. These days, every ram matters and 10-15 percent of the overall number of dead rams being sub-legal is not cool. Typically about 1/3 of the sub legals are taken by guided clients.

 

[WalterH]

I was all for shutting down 19C to non residents for 5 years at the beginning. Now i think my outlook has changed a bit. just in the last few years we have lost the ability to hunt sheep in the central brooks (24A) 19C, and the Yukon charley's. 19c may open back up but pretty doubtful the other 2 areas will. more areas we close more hunting pressure. That doesn't even include the western brooks and the hard parks. I do like the idea I saw in a proposal to have non residents start date August 15. that gives residents the first 5 days of the season. this could eliminate the complaining that the non residents shoot all the sheep. We all know that we will continue complaining about something though... we are sheep hunters.

Once opportunity is lost, it is rarely regained. We've all seen that play out too many times to count.