Anyone up to speed on the regulation changes for Caribou this year? Sounds like a change to one bull for NR hunters in most of 26. Scheduled to hunt with BRA there this fall. Sent them a note to ask but havent heard back yet. Opportunity for 2 bulls was part of the reason for selecting this hunt. Appears that a section is still multiple critters but not sure if that's accesible to them from Bettles. Thought maybe someone more familiar with the area / regs might have more insight.
Caribou Reg. Changes?
- Thread starter ckr
- Start date
I didn't follow this too closely, but here are the reasons and findings. Looks like most all the units in the Brooks went to 1 bull for NR hunters.
Note that reducing take by NR is the first step (even though NR take is pretty small), then non-locals (non-subsistence residents) then finally locals.
The original proposal submitted by ADFG
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static-f...4-2015/Southcentral_03_13_15/proposal_202.pdf
The amended proposal after hearing by the BOG
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static-f.../rcs/rc076_ADFG_Prop_202_amended_language.pdf
Summary of findings for all proposals
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static-f...5C4433FDCA92C74CA046DC4DD5/prelim_actions.pdf
The formal changes should appear (more legibly) in the regulations booklet in a couple months.
Note that reducing take by NR is the first step (even though NR take is pretty small), then non-locals (non-subsistence residents) then finally locals.
The original proposal submitted by ADFG
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static-f...4-2015/Southcentral_03_13_15/proposal_202.pdf
The amended proposal after hearing by the BOG
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static-f.../rcs/rc076_ADFG_Prop_202_amended_language.pdf
Summary of findings for all proposals
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static-f...5C4433FDCA92C74CA046DC4DD5/prelim_actions.pdf
The formal changes should appear (more legibly) in the regulations booklet in a couple months.
Nick Muche
WKR
"Looks like most all the units in the Brooks went to 1 bull for NR hunters."
Looks like only some did to me... 26B is still 5 "caribou" for NR per page 9 of the amended proposal...
Looks like only some did to me... 26B is still 5 "caribou" for NR per page 9 of the amended proposal...
- Thread Starter
- #5
Nick Muche
WKR
I'd guess they won't comment on any of it until the plan is approved (if it's approved)...
Proposal 202 was carried and amended. It's a done deal.
All units associated with the WACH were changed. I think bag limits for 26B were spared because it overlaps two herds? The rest were reduced from 5/year to 1/yr for NR, all added a reduced season, or set a season structure. Some of the extreme outer ranges of the WACH basically eliminated the NR hunt by virtue of adding a EO for season dates.
Not sure where BRA drops hunters, but you may or may not be affected by the change depending on what subunit of 26 you are hunting. I would presume you'd be hunting 26A if you're hunting in September as most of the caribou have moved off the slope and are heading south by then. The guys going out of Kotz (unit 23) will also be affected by this change.
I was having trouble getting the links above to work. I went to this website and clicked on proposal 202.
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=gameboard.meetinginfo&date=03-13-2015&meeting=anchorage
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=gameboard.meetinginfo&date=03-13-2015&meeting=anchorage
I read through some of the public comments and there was one that I found quite thoughtful and even incorporated some compromise. It is from a an outfitter named Terry Overly, Jr.
Terry Overly Jr
2/26/2015 11:55:04 AM
Affiliation
Cariibou Outfitter 26A
( Proposal 202 Oposse ) ~~Proposal 202 presents an arbitrary approach to game management that imposes undue burden on Alaskan enterprise, jeopardizes the long-term revenue stream for game management and does not present a method that is reasonably calculated to enhance caribou survival statistics.
According to the ADF&G statistics presented only 5% of the 14,000 harvested animals from the Western Arctic herd comes from hunters who are not resident to the area. That totals 700 caribou. Statistics on non-resident hunters for the Teshekpuk herd are not presented but local community hunting pressure is represented as accounting for a harvest of approximately 2400. Assuming a similar ratio (although such ratio is highly unlikely given the more difficult access to the Teshekpuk herd) the impact of non-resident hunters is negligible accounting for a total of 120 caribou. However, the impact of the proposed rule change is many times higher in terms of available harvest and will create more problems than it solves. As a rule, Proposal 202 seeks to impose the bulk of the restriction on non-residents but at numbers so low as to make virtually no contribution to the long-term game management plans for the areas herd. Assuming that in fact the reduction in available harvest correlates directly to a decrease in the actual harvest, reducing the bag limit from 5 to 2 would result in a total reduction in harvest of 480 animals. At a 5 to 1 reduction that is only an additional 240 caribou out of more than 14,000 harvested. Proportionally, the reduction in non-resident bag limit does little to actually adjust the harvest but it does discourage non-resident fees.
The inordinate imposition of these restrictions to non-residents will in fact produce a limiting effect on the taking of other game such as wolves and bears. A review of the statistics of non-resident tag purchases demonstrates a high number of wolf and grizzly tags accompany the purchase of caribou tags by non-residents. Traveling to Alaska and paying the license and tag fees to the state is a high expense and the numbers of non-resident hunters have fallen in comparison to resident hunters according to ADF&G statistics published on their website. Non-resident revenue is valuable because it helps directly underwrite the expense of performing the very surveys that led to the publishing of Proposal 202. Limiting the opportunities at such a disproportionate level will limit the attractiveness to non-residents of using the resources in Alaska - perhaps to the long term detriment of game management revenue. As stated in the supporting documentation to Proposal 202 one of the primary factors believed to be at play in the reduction of the caribou herd is natural predation. Accordingly, creating a game management policy and rule that would create a likely decrease in the hunting pressure on predators makes little sense. In fact, a more sound policy would couple a reduction in predator tag fees for non-residents. Combined with a more reasonable reduction in annual bag limits on caribou this would produce a decrease in overall hunting pressure on caribou with an increase in hunting pressure on predators.
A more reasonable proposal would seek to place less restriction on non-resident quotas coupled with an incentive to pressure predators as appropriate in the various GMU’s. A bag limit of 2 caribou per season would result in a 60 % reduction in the total limit for nonresidents and would be more reasonable.
Thanks Terry Overly JR R-935
Terry Overly Jr
2/26/2015 11:55:04 AM
Affiliation
Cariibou Outfitter 26A
( Proposal 202 Oposse ) ~~Proposal 202 presents an arbitrary approach to game management that imposes undue burden on Alaskan enterprise, jeopardizes the long-term revenue stream for game management and does not present a method that is reasonably calculated to enhance caribou survival statistics.
According to the ADF&G statistics presented only 5% of the 14,000 harvested animals from the Western Arctic herd comes from hunters who are not resident to the area. That totals 700 caribou. Statistics on non-resident hunters for the Teshekpuk herd are not presented but local community hunting pressure is represented as accounting for a harvest of approximately 2400. Assuming a similar ratio (although such ratio is highly unlikely given the more difficult access to the Teshekpuk herd) the impact of non-resident hunters is negligible accounting for a total of 120 caribou. However, the impact of the proposed rule change is many times higher in terms of available harvest and will create more problems than it solves. As a rule, Proposal 202 seeks to impose the bulk of the restriction on non-residents but at numbers so low as to make virtually no contribution to the long-term game management plans for the areas herd. Assuming that in fact the reduction in available harvest correlates directly to a decrease in the actual harvest, reducing the bag limit from 5 to 2 would result in a total reduction in harvest of 480 animals. At a 5 to 1 reduction that is only an additional 240 caribou out of more than 14,000 harvested. Proportionally, the reduction in non-resident bag limit does little to actually adjust the harvest but it does discourage non-resident fees.
The inordinate imposition of these restrictions to non-residents will in fact produce a limiting effect on the taking of other game such as wolves and bears. A review of the statistics of non-resident tag purchases demonstrates a high number of wolf and grizzly tags accompany the purchase of caribou tags by non-residents. Traveling to Alaska and paying the license and tag fees to the state is a high expense and the numbers of non-resident hunters have fallen in comparison to resident hunters according to ADF&G statistics published on their website. Non-resident revenue is valuable because it helps directly underwrite the expense of performing the very surveys that led to the publishing of Proposal 202. Limiting the opportunities at such a disproportionate level will limit the attractiveness to non-residents of using the resources in Alaska - perhaps to the long term detriment of game management revenue. As stated in the supporting documentation to Proposal 202 one of the primary factors believed to be at play in the reduction of the caribou herd is natural predation. Accordingly, creating a game management policy and rule that would create a likely decrease in the hunting pressure on predators makes little sense. In fact, a more sound policy would couple a reduction in predator tag fees for non-residents. Combined with a more reasonable reduction in annual bag limits on caribou this would produce a decrease in overall hunting pressure on caribou with an increase in hunting pressure on predators.
A more reasonable proposal would seek to place less restriction on non-resident quotas coupled with an incentive to pressure predators as appropriate in the various GMU’s. A bag limit of 2 caribou per season would result in a 60 % reduction in the total limit for nonresidents and would be more reasonable.
Thanks Terry Overly JR R-935
Only problem with Terry's opinion is that it doesn't pass the constitutional sniff test, nor subsistence test. Caribou is managed for Alaskan s first in time of less abundance, regardless of % take. His opinion like all of ours (selfish) is based purely on his desire to see fellow oitfitters make money and has nothing to do with helping out NR.
The predators bring killed really has little bearing. The locals kill/trap more wolves in a week than all the NR combined. the grizzly tags are for guided NR, not something they pick up just because. Those tags are going to continue to be hunted.
The fact is NR hunt for fun, most leave the meat in the village they started from. The locals depend on the meat to aford the lifestyle they live. NR deserve nothing in terms of the current laws and are the first to get cut. Once the trigger is tripped the managment requirements are set in motion.
The predators bring killed really has little bearing. The locals kill/trap more wolves in a week than all the NR combined. the grizzly tags are for guided NR, not something they pick up just because. Those tags are going to continue to be hunted.
The fact is NR hunt for fun, most leave the meat in the village they started from. The locals depend on the meat to aford the lifestyle they live. NR deserve nothing in terms of the current laws and are the first to get cut. Once the trigger is tripped the managment requirements are set in motion.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Featured Video
Stats
Latest Articles
-
BIG Buck Stories with Travis & Robby
-
TT#39 John Barklow: Going Beyond the Gear and Honing Our Skillsets
-
Coros Vertix 2 GPS Watch Review
-
Sometimes It’s Like That
-
Zeiss Conquest HDX Review
-
Mules vs. Horses, Rangefinders, & Hippie Yoga
-
Kuiu Hip Quiver Review
-
Big Mule Deer then and now with David Rydell
-
TT#38 Saving a Buck with Robby Denning and Travis Hobbs
-
Wildlife In Colorado In Peril