Alaska Sheep, 19C Working Group

[207-12A]

10 day season for non-res,
30 day season for residents.
Thats basically one sheep hunt per guide.
Also full curl managemnt needs to go. Rams should be 8+ years old and full curl. Lots of rams especially in areas within19c hit full curl at 6 and 7.

This is a proposal I can get behind, and if you’re clever with a series of 10 day windows for NR draw tags, guides can get more than one 10 day hunt in different GMUs to maintain their livelihood. I’m not jumping off of the FCM model, but the population decreases across the state are an indicator that more needs to change. It doesn’t condemn FCM as ineffective, but times and conditions have certainly changed since its adoption.

 

[Bambistew]

I went in search of source data for that recollection and came up with the following:

View attachment 780437

View attachment 780438


So based on these two studies (Deevey and Murie), mortality rates from ages 8-9 were 10% and 23% respectively, and then 16% and 43% from ages 9-10?

Not sure where I pulled that 70% number from. I think the it was likely the graph below that showed approximately 70% of rams born are dead by age 9. Sorry for the fake news on that anyhow.


View attachment 780439

Thank you for these. Do you have links for full references?

I have a age regression model built using harvest data, that projects age of harvest and success in the future based on observed winter mortality and population data. Its pretty sad to predict how bad the sheep population will be in in a few more years. I'm surprised the BOG hasn't asked ADFG to provide future population modeling, they could easily do it.

You think its tough now, wait a few more years when we work through the winter we had a couple years ago. We lost that years lambs, yearlings, ewes aborted, and many ewes died, Many areas have less than half the sheep they did going into that winter, and 20-50% than they did prior to 2011 winter. The number of young rams in the population is far less than it was when the population nose dived 4 years ago. It takes decades to build populations back after a big die off like that, the worst part was another big die off 9-10 years later.

The first table shows nearly 57.1% of their cohort and older are still alive at 8-9, and 25.2% are still alive at 10.

That last graph says it all. That's the population dynamic we have in Alaska right now. Virtually no old rams in many areas, and a big trough at year 3-5. The number of rams over 9yo killed this year will be 15-20% tops, less than half of what it should be. Last year was similar.

 

[Nick Muche]

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.

So you’re book smart but not street smart?

 

[207-12A]

So you’re book smart but not street smart?

I try my best not to claim either, but looking forward to hearing some counter arguments that will highlight my lack of street smarts.

 

[ColeyG]

Thank you for these. Do you have links for full references?

I have a age regression model built using harvest data, that projects age of harvest and success in the future based on observed winter mortality and population data. Its pretty sad to predict how bad the sheep population will be in in a few more years. I'm surprised the BOG hasn't asked ADFG to provide future population modeling, they could easily do it.

You think its tough now, wait a few more years when we work through the winter we had a couple years ago. We lost that years lambs, yearlings, ewes aborted, and many ewes died, Many areas have less than half the sheep they did going into that winter, and 20-50% than they did prior to 2011 winter. The number of young rams in the population is far less than it was when the population nose dived 4 years ago. It takes decades to build populations back after a big die off like that, the worst part was another big die off 9-10 years later.

The first table shows nearly 57.1% of their cohort and older are still alive at 8-9, and 25.2% are still alive at 10.

That last graph says it all. That's the population dynamic we have in Alaska right now. Virtually no old rams in many areas, and a big trough at year 3-5. The number of rams over 9yo killed this year will be 15-20% tops, less than half of what it should be. Last year was similar.

Yikes.

That is a pretty grim outlook. I was hoping we were at the bottom and would soon start working our way back up.

Is your model something you can share?

I would imagine future population modeling would be darn near impossible to do accurately given the wild range of winter weather mass mortality events?

 

[WalterH]

Thank you for these. Do you have links for full references?

I have a age regression model built using harvest data, that projects age of harvest and success in the future based on observed winter mortality and population data. Its pretty sad to predict how bad the sheep population will be in in a few more years. I'm surprised the BOG hasn't asked ADFG to provide future population modeling, they could easily do it.

You think its tough now, wait a few more years when we work through the winter we had a couple years ago. We lost that years lambs, yearlings, ewes aborted, and many ewes died, Many areas have less than half the sheep they did going into that winter, and 20-50% than they did prior to 2011 winter. The number of young rams in the population is far less than it was when the population nose dived 4 years ago. It takes decades to build populations back after a big die off like that, the worst part was another big die off 9-10 years later.

The first table shows nearly 57.1% of their cohort and older are still alive at 8-9, and 25.2% are still alive at 10.

That last graph says it all. That's the population dynamic we have in Alaska right now. Virtually no old rams in many areas, and a big trough at year 3-5. The number of rams over 9yo killed this year will be 15-20% tops, less than half of what it should be. Last year was similar.

The info I found largely cited the following sources and/or reproduced their own survivor ship tables and graphs based data from these studies.

• Deevey (1947)
• Taber and Dasmann (1957)
• Buechner (1960)
• Caughley (1966)
• Bradley and Baker (1967)
• Murie (1944)

The two tables above were Murie and Deevey I believe.

I was not able to track down any of the papers or publications in their entirety, just excepts and cites.

 

[Bambistew]

What do you think can or should be done?

Maybe we should ask the W$F? They're good at selling hunts and raising money, just not good at doing much else for Alaska sheep. Still waiting to hear of 3 successful projects they've performed in Alaska with any sort of measurable outcome. Hell, I'd take just one example. 7 years and nothing to show for it except for back slaps and atta boys for selling governors tags. The sub-legal ram shot on the governors tag this year was a nice touch.

Honestly, I don't think there is really much that can be done. Everything is just a band aid, or pushes harvest to another user group. Weather is 100% the controlling factor for sheep, virtually everywhere in Alaska. All climate models predict that Alaska will be getting warmer and wetter, none of which will be beneficial to our sheep. I work on multi $B projects and everyone of them includes climate modeling to inform future risk. Some areas there will be less water, others more water. There are 40+ different climate models and virtually all of them predict similar outcomes at varying magnitude and time.

The limited harvest areas including the parks have seen similar declines. While they may have more older rams, the population/age dynamic is similar, gaps in age classes, etc. The winter kill is the controlling factor, period. All other factors are marginal.

Intensive predator management in some areas could help some, but as far as I understand they can't or won't implement IPM for sheep as they are not a subsistence animal. Mortality in some areas is highly skewed to weather/avalanche death while its predator take in others, so its not a one fits all.

Limiting hunting just limits who gets to kill what. Sill only so many "surplus" to harvest.

Closing it wont' do anything either. Not like saving a couple rams is going to magically increase sheep populations.

Say you have 10,000 sheep, and lose 50% them in the winter. On average with favorable conditions you're lucky to increase populations by 5% a year with normal mortality. That's 15 years to get back to your original population prior to the die off. Now say you lose another 50% 8-9 years into the rebuilding cycle... now you're looking at anther 20 years to rebuild to the original 10,000. The sheep population isn't coming back before I'm too old to hunt them.

I'm not going to stop hunting sheep unless forced to. Limiting my take to some silly 1:4 or something harvest per year isn't going to do anything except let someone else shoot the same sheep. The writing is on the wall.

Yikes.

That is a pretty grim outlook. I was hoping we were at the bottom and would soon start working our way back up.

Is your model something you can share?

I would imagine future population modeling would be darn near impossible to do accurately given the wild range of winter weather mass mortality events?

I won't share my model, sorry.

Predictions are not hard, and there are many methods to simulate outcomes given parameters with limits. We do simulations all the time with far more complex data sets and parameters. You don't get exact numbers, but you get a range high/low of probable outcome. Predicting mortality is tough, but we know the high and low boundaries and the probability of them occurring, which is all you really need.

 

[WalterH]

Spot on.

 

[SubparSheep]

Maybe we should ask the W$F? They're good at selling hunts and raising money, just not good at doing much else for Alaska sheep. Still waiting to hear of 3 successful projects they've performed in Alaska with any sort of measurable outcome. Hell, I'd take just one example. 7 years and nothing to show for it except for back slaps and atta boys for selling governors tags. The sub-legal ram shot on the governors tag this year was a nice touch.

Honestly, I don't think there is really much that can be done. Everything is just a band aid, or pushes harvest to another user group. Weather is 100% the controlling factor for sheep, virtually everywhere in Alaska. All climate models predict that Alaska will be getting warmer and wetter, none of which will be beneficial to our sheep. I work on multi $B projects and everyone of them includes climate modeling to inform future risk. Some areas there will be less water, others more water. There are 40+ different climate models and virtually all of them predict similar outcomes at varying magnitude and time.

The limited harvest areas including the parks have seen similar declines. While they may have more older rams, the population/age dynamic is similar, gaps in age classes, etc. The winter kill is the controlling factor, period. All other factors are marginal.

Intensive predator management in some areas could help some, but as far as I understand they can't or won't implement IPM for sheep as they are not a subsistence animal. Mortality in some areas is highly skewed to weather/avalanche death while its predator take in others, so its not a one fits all.

Limiting hunting just limits who gets to kill what. Sill only so many "surplus" to harvest.

Closing it wont' do anything either. Not like saving a couple rams is going to magically increase sheep populations.

Say you have 10,000 sheep, and lose 50% them in the winter. On average with favorable conditions you're lucky to increase populations by 5% a year with normal mortality. That's 15 years to get back to your original population prior to the die off. Now say you lose another 50% 8-9 years into the rebuilding cycle... now you're looking at anther 20 years to rebuild to the original 10,000. The sheep population isn't coming back before I'm too old to hunt them.

I'm not going to stop hunting sheep unless forced to. Limiting my take to some silly 1:4 or something harvest per year isn't going to do anything except let someone else shoot the same sheep. The writing is on the wall.


I won't share my model, sorry.

Predictions are not hard, and there are many methods to simulate outcomes given parameters with limits. We do simulations all the time with far more complex data sets and parameters. You don't get exact numbers, but you get a range high/low of probable outcome. Predicting mortality is tough, but we know the high and low boundaries and the probability of them occurring, which is all you really need.

While I am also not the biggest proponent of the W$F and I am not a member of them, I can at least give one example of their usefullness. They almost completely funded ADFG's sheep survey in the 16B Alaska range in 2022. Would not have happened without their $.

Besides that, I agree with every other one of your points.

 

[LivinGood]

Proposal 101 by ADF&G for the upcoming statewide BOG meeting is getting sheep added to the IM species list. Lets hope the BOG approves it to get that ball rolling.

 

[Liv2HntBigBullz]

Hate to be blunt and likely unpopular opinion here but look at Colorado OTC elk, terrible idea and no doubt sheep are more delicate. Why Alaska hasn't gone to straight draw across the state with resident/non resident allocation is beyond me.

It was mentioned before but the efficiency of the 20th century hunter cannot be ignored. Resources to fly units, glassing and identification miles away and legitimate ability to shoot north of 500 yds makes the success rates unsustainable for "hunt every year" opportunity. Could you imagine the same principle applied to antelope hunting in Wyoming and the state being 90% public land? There is a reason the mathematical odds of a nonresident drawing a desert sheep tag in AZ is better than that of drawing a nonresident rifle buck antelope tag...

Sent from my Pixel 8a using Tapatalk

 

[WalterH]

Hate to be blunt and likely unpopular opinion here but look at Colorado OTC elk, terrible idea and no doubt sheep are more delicate. Why Alaska hasn't gone to straight draw across the state with resident/non resident allocation is beyond me.

It was mentioned before but the efficiency of the 20th century hunter cannot be ignored. Resources to fly units, glassing and identification miles away and legitimate ability to shoot north of 500 yds makes the success rates unsustainable for "hunt every year" opportunity. Could you imagine the same principle applied to antelope hunting in Wyoming and the state being 90% public land? There is a reason the mathematical odds of a nonresident drawing a desert sheep tag in AZ is better than that of drawing a nonresident rifle buck antelope tag...

Sent from my Pixel 8a using Tapatalk

Based on the best available science, harvest is not the problem.

To have constructive conversations we first need to define the problem(s).

If harvest isn't the problem, solutions limiting harvest make no sense.

If one of the problems identified is overcrowding and too much competition for too few animals, aka people problems, then solutions aimed at spreading people out and dividing opportunity in some sort of equitable manner make more sense.

 

[Bambistew]

While I am also not the biggest proponent of the W$F and I am not a member of them, I can at least give one example of their usefullness. They almost completely funded ADFG's sheep survey in the 16B Alaska range in 2022. Would not have happened without their $.

Besides that, I agree with every other one of your points.

I've always been under the impression that ADFG had all the funding they wanted due to PR fund match. They leave money on the table most years.

A population survey isn't real cutting edge stuff, its basic maintenance. Many areas aren't surveyed on an annual basis, some areas haven't been surveyed in many, many years. My understanding was the reason the survey was done, was to determine if they needed to close 16 along with 19... so a favorable count kept it open and the guides from 19 could bail into 16 and save their season, which a number of them did.

Don't kid yourself, that population survey wasn't for the benefit of the sheep. It resulted in more of them being converted into conservation $$$.

That survey resulted in a net negative benefit to the sheep, because more ended up dead. Pretty common theme of W$F.

 

[diamond10x]

HaPpY FuLl CuRl FrIdAy Y’aLl

Wasn't it you who posted a video from youtube of your buddy who is the king of FuLl CuRl FrIdAy?

 

[207-12A]

Based on the best available science, harvest is not the problem.

To have constructive conversations we first need to define the problem(s).

If harvest isn't the problem, solutions limiting harvest make no sense.

If one of the problems identified is overcrowding and too much competition for too few animals, aka people problems, then solutions aimed at spreading people out and dividing opportunity in some sort of equitable manner make more sense.

You may be hitting at (one of) the problem(s) though. I’m not confident that the best available science describes sheep population effects in the 21st century. Full curl management worked when a bunch of them survived each hunting season. We’re just not seeing that anymore due to winters and 21st century hunter efficacy. I see 10+ year old sheep in national parks (anecdotal not science), I don’t see them in huntable areas.

 

[WalterH]

You may be hitting at (one of) the problem(s) though. I’m not confident that the best available science describes sheep population effects in the 21st century. Full curl management worked when a bunch of them survived each hunting season. We’re just not seeing that anymore due to winters and 21st century hunter efficacy. I see 10+ year old sheep in national parks (anecdotal not science), I don’t see them in huntable areas.

Yep. The science is in bad need of updating.

 

[Kisaralik]

Small potatoes here, but I'd like to see a statewide clarifying policy update - at least for sheep - on recovering wounded animals. If we are to a point that proposals for 1 sheep every 4 years is being taken seriously than the current verbiage on recovery of wounded animals needs to be clarified.

Currently, the ADFG website (https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=hunting.wounded) states "To repeat, you are responsible for tracking and recovering every animal that you shoot. When you wound an animal, you must make every effort to track, find and kill it. If you fail to recover the animal, it could be considered part of your bag limit."

It's the "COULD BE" part that needs to change in my opinion. Sure, it would be hard to regulate, but again, if the state is moving towards decreasing resident opportunity then changes like this need to be made. (I posted something similar as moose thread and my sentiments were not unanimously shared for moose.)

 

[B_Reynolds_AK]

Like @Kisaralik said, there are numerous areas that could be cleaned up on the management of hunters side of things.

There are wounding loss of sheep, as with goats. The losses I’ve personally been aware of could have been potentially limited by shooting with a 6.5 and UNDER cartridge, rather than what the avice comment alluded to.

Why is this? Because the wounded/lost sheep were shot with magnum cartridges by people who had insufficient skills, exacerbated by the tool they were using.

Also, while ADF&G enforces a 5 year waiting period in parts of Southcentral for shooting a Nanny goat, indicating high importance of protecting the resource, why on earth is that not the standard for shooting a sublegal ram.

A waiting period for shooting a sub 8 y/o that still makes full curl is also something I could get behind. Not a penalty, but perhaps a 2 year time out. Once again this would indicate the importance of not taking an animal out of the population that could even potentially still add value.

ADF&G has a responsibility to manage wildlife for the opportunity of harvesting wildlife in our state, so if they were to jump all the way to the far end of the spectrum and eliminate hunts the way that the Feds have without first implementing intermediate steps in the same vein as these, it would be a real shame.

 

[rickyw]

Change it all to bow hunting only for 10 years and see what happens

 

[AK4]

I think this is all overthinking, if the sheep in the parks are doing just as bad as the sheep in heavily hunted areas… humans are not the problem. Everyone wants a fix. Time and weather is the only hope.