Alaska Sheep, 19C Working Group

[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.

 

[FAAFO]

HaPpY FuLl CuRl FrIdAy Y’aLl

 

[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?

 

[FAAFO]

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

Nope

 

[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.)

 

[FAAFO]

I doubt there’s much wounding loss with sheep. I mean FFS people kill them with 6.5s

 

[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

 

[FAAFO]

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.

too easy

 

[FAAFO]

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

Lots of wounded sheep? Yeah no!

 

[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.

 

[Ecampbell25]

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.

I agree with this. Non motorized would be huge. People will have to use the quads GOD gave them!

After hunting my first sheep season I found it very difficult to get off the beaten path…

There are very few walk in non motorized areas.

The state has been pimping out its resources for years… time for a change…

What’s going to end up happening is everything will end up going to draw…

Which I hope doesn’t happen. But the draw areas seem to be fairing better.