Historically Low Alaska Sheep Harvest

[WalterH]

If I am not mistaken, fed lands in 19C are open to all rural residents for 7/8 curl harvest per subsistence regs.

 

[AlaskaMark]

Do you think the change will help pregnancy rates and lamb mortality rates?

Not sure if that question was for me, Kyle, but of course the answer is no. I don't believe leaving more rams on the mtn will have any real effect on either of those.

 

[Cynoscion]

Do you think the change will help pregnancy rates and lamb mortality rates?

This is my thinking also. I manage wildlife populations for a living. If my harvest strategies don’t work, over a given period of time, then those strategies need to be assessed and possibly changed.
I’m one of the unfortunate non residents who won’t be going on his dream sheep hunt in 2024 due to this closure. If the full curl harvest strategy is what is truly responsible for the lack of sheep on the mountain, then another strategy needs to be substituted. Simply closing the unit for 5 years and then reopening to the same harvest criteria will lead to the same problems again.
My guess is that, just like the populations that I manage, there are multiple causes at work which all come together and manifest in a lack of mature animals.
I’m not a sheep biologist but it seems to me that a more refined harvest strategy may be the answer.

 

[Cactus kid]

Do you think the change will help pregnancy rates and lamb mortality rates?

RHAK cannot be bothered with such things, they don’t care so much about the actual population as long as it is the residents who are shooting them.

 

[AlaskaMark]

As far as helping the sheep population(s) as a whole, there isn't a lot we can do. Weather and a changing climate are the main factors influencing overall mortality and less recruitment. Mild winters, no icing events...that is what we need the most to help the sheep. Say a prayer.

In looking at pred control, there doesn't appear to be efficacy in it as one of the main predators is federally protected. We'd have to go after all the other predators simultaneously and that is difficult and costly. We shoot wolves out in an area and coyotes can increase, that type of thing. Perhaps some control efforts could help with lamb mortality and recruitment....not sure. Again, though, we can't stop the eagles.

Alternative feeding? That's come up. Salt licks; we've done that before. Doesn't seem to be much benefit there.

All we can do now is kill fewer sheep. Leave more rams on the mtn. We can speculate forever on whether or not that will help. I think it may, you may think otherwise. Certainly the Dept thinks it may help some, otherwise why cut tags so much. Yeah, TMA is managed for trophy quality, not max opportunity, but still.

Also remember that the entire "closure" idea came from a guide with 20 years experience guiding in 19C. That steamrolled, then the AC from McGrath, made up of some guides, pushed for a closure for all as well. Their testimony was moving I thought, and it all centered around the same concerns RHAK has long opined on.

More research and monitoring will help aid as well in being better informed. FC mgmt meant we didn't really have to intensive monitoring. Trend counts every couple years in smaller areas were fine. And those were/are important. Brad Wendling's research in the Brooks is designed to help us better understand the effects of harvesting only mature rams. Tom Lohuis also doing great research. WSF is trying to give money to the Dept for more study and research and is having a hard time, we can't dedicate funds specifically to sheep...there are those kind of issues too. If NGOs want to give us money, for God's sake let's find a way to take it and get things done!

 

[MBN]

In my experience the numbers were decent even after the bad winters of 2012/2013. The last 2 winter/spring did major damage to the population in multiple ranges. Many of the legal aged rams aren't here because they didn't make it in 2013 spring when they were in womb or lambs and vulnerable. (8 years later) The ones that did make it got hit with 2 hard winters/springs in a row when they came back into the vulnerable ages of there life. Many of the sheep died obviously. If sheep hunting was shut down and we have winters like the last 2 the sheep population would continue to decrease. The numbers in the parks where there isn't hunting are just as bad. I really don't see the problem being the few young full curl rams harvested. From my experience the majority of that age class is illegal. I would guess the number of illegal rams killed is greater than the number of 6 year old and younger full curls harvested. It is going to take some years to get the population back to what is was there is no way around it. From what we have been told since I have been around is harvesting rams 8 or older has little effect on population. The data from F&G shows mortality dramatically increases after there 8 years. Every animal in interior Alaska seemed to be affected by last years winter/spring from bison/musk ox/moose to voles and everything in between. Seems like a overreaction from something we can't change(weather) all we can do is hope for better winters/springs and hope to find a mature ram in the mean time.

 

[MBN]

I am curious what others might propose to solve the problem of too many young rams dying under the full curl restriction.

I looked back through my notes from the ADFG meeting and based on the numbers shared there, approximately 47% of the rams killed last year were 7 or younger. I'd be willing to bet this has been the case for the last 2-3 years at least if not longer.

This is obviously contrary to one of the stated goals for and intended effects of the full curl requirement, which is to take animals that are at the end of their useful and likely life, making no significant impact at the population level in years to come.

Kyle's matrix above seems like a pretty good proposal to me. A good starting point at least.

How many of the rams were 7? I would bet the majority. In years where there is a 8+ year old in the band of rams it would have been harvested instead of the squeaker. Times are tough as a sheep hunter. I do not know your experience in the matter. But if you think a ram harvested at 7 instead of 8 has anything to do with the predicament we are in I think you are off. When there are old legal rams with young legal rams the bigger ram is harvested. When there is one legal -7 year old in the band…..

 

[VernAK]

I'm anxious to see the survey results this summer as this has been a moderate winter in DCUA. Driving south of Delta on the Rich, many of the slopes are blown snow free.

Usually in the October, I shoot a few coyotes as they prowl the barley fields in search of the crippled cranes and geese that couldn't migrate. This past fall there were very few coyotes and that may be attributed to the lack of hares and grouse but the number of golden eagles is astounding.

 

[207-12A]

I'm anxious to see the survey results this summer as this has been a moderate winter in DCUA. Driving south of Delta on the Rich, many of the slopes are blown snow free.

Usually in the October, I shoot a few coyotes as they prowl the barley fields in search of the crippled cranes and geese that couldn't migrate. This past fall there were very few coyotes and that may be attributed to the lack of hares and grouse but the number of golden eagles is astounding.

This brings up a great point. Sometimes sheep hunter's seem like a pretty aloof group when it comes to other issues, but with how charismatic wolves have become, and eagles being untouchable - perhaps an effective way to retain lamb crops is to ensure healthy ecosystems of other small game for those predators to focus on. At the risk of anthropomorphizing, after a few weeks or so it's gotta be easier to pick off marmots and ptarmigan rather than chasing 'mature' lambs.

That sword would be almost certainly double edged in the long term, as predator populations with access to plenty of prey essentially always boom.

 

[207-12A]

I wonder if Alaska would consider a limited Native golden eagle hunt? Before people come crashing through the rafters, any Alaskan resident can take Snowy Owls from Bethel all the way to up the coast and over to Canada. I'm sure if that got proposed today it'd cause a cataclysm.

 

[WalterH]

I wonder if Alaska would consider a limited Native golden eagle hunt? Before people come crashing through the rafters, any Alaskan resident can take Snowy Owls from Bethel all the way to up the coast and over to Canada. I'm sure if that got proposed today it'd cause a cataclysm.

There is this pesky little problem called the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act enforced by the feds that makes killing eagles, and endangered species, a big problem. In theory they can issue permits for native take for religious purposes, I don't think that happens often, especially up here.

Snowy owls can only be taken by certain qualified subsistence hunters, in certain units, during a certain time of year, not any AK resident.

 

[207-12A]

There is this pesky little problem called the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act enforced by the feds that makes killing eagles, and endangered species, a big problem. In theory they can issue permits for native take for religious purposes, I don't think that happens often, especially up here.

Snowy owls can only be taken by certain qualified subsistence hunters, in certain units, during a certain time of year, not any AK resident.

Not true on the Snowies, any resident can take them in the areas I mentioned - not just FQSH's.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Alaska Department of Fish and Game

www.adfg.alaska.gov

Regarding Goldens and the Act you mentioned, in legal speak it wouldn't be hard to get a Natives-only hunt. From 50 CFR 22: "[T]he taking, possession, and transportation within the United States of bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) and their parts, nests, and eggs for scientific, educational, and depredation control purposes; for the religious purposes of American Indian tribes; and to protect other interests in a particular locality". Seems like Interior could approve it (I know, they won't - but they could).

Lastly Golden Eagles are very much not endangered by any metric. Listed as least concern by the IUCN.

 

[WalterH]

Not true on the Snowies, any resident can take them in the areas I mentioned - not just FQSH's.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Alaska Department of Fish and Game

www.adfg.alaska.gov

View attachment 535099

Regarding Goldens and the Act you mentioned, in legal speak it wouldn't be hard to get a Natives-only hunt. From 50 CFR 22: "[T]he taking, possession, and transportation within the United States of bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) and their parts, nests, and eggs for scientific, educational, and depredation control purposes; for the religious purposes of American Indian tribes; and to protect other interests in a particular locality". Seems like Interior could approve it (I know, they won't - but they could).

Lastly Golden Eagles are very much not endangered by any metric. Listed as least concern by the IUCN.

Well. Apologies and I stand corrected. Should have done a little more homework before chiming in in each case.

I thought I remembered the snowy issue coming up back in 2015-16 where the state changed their regs to line up with fed subsistence. It does look like all residents can hunt them in a handful units up north. Wonder if they are good eating?

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[diamond10x]

Does anybody know when harvest info comes out? Seems like its running late this year or it could just be me being anxious.

For discussion sake, what would the consensus be if harvest numbers are higher in '22 than '21? Does anybody think this is just a normal valley in the cyclical population dynamics of sheep and other animal species of Alaska?

 

[WalterH]

The numbers are in but haven't been formally published yet on the ADFG site that I can find. It is cited in the 10/2022 ADFG/BOG presentation though.

420-ish rams sealed in AK in the 2022 season, down 13% from 2021 (490 rams)

https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/regulations/regprocess/gameboard/pdfs/2022-2023/sheep/adfg-presentation.pdf

 

[alexanderg23]

So quick recap.
Heli in minerals.
Horses and wolfers strychnine.
No more unlimited #’s of NR’s.
And a loop-hole for the birds.

Sounds like a plan.


Edit. Concessions and trappers on payroll would seem to help also. You’d only have to sell a couple hunts to pay for the trappers I’d guess.

 

[WalterH]

So quick recap.
Heli in minerals.
Horses and wolfers strychnine.
No more unlimited #’s of NR’s.
And a loop-hole for the birds.

Sounds like a plan.


Edit. Concessions and trappers on payroll would seem to help also. You’d only have to sell a couple hunts to pay for the trappers I’d guess.

Easy. I don't understand what is taking so long...

 

[as.ks.ak]

Easy. I don't understand what is taking so long...

Everybody wants a piece of the pie instead of just worrying about there being any more pie.

Nonresidents. Residents. Resident hunters with planes. Guides. BOG. The state. Everyone has a different piece of pie they’re after instead of coming together to make sure there’s going to be another freakin pie.

If the state is operating on the eff around and find out matrix, I’d say we’re all fixing to find out.

Institute concessions with quotas per year on species, maybe not just like Canada, but similar. Feed the sheep, kill the wolves, and regulate the age class that’s being taken off of the landscape better. I think Kyle’s suggestion is a pretty good idea. It’s self policing. Gives you a real push to shoot an older ram, and look harder before making that selection. And if you don’t, you don’t hunt sheep for a few years. Aside from a handful of killers, I’d think a system like that would certainly make a lot of the tally markers think twice before shooting that third seven year old. Or third sublegal in one instance…

If there’s anything I do know. Shutting down 19C isn’t going to magically put more sheep on the mountain. Leaving rams on the mountain isn’t going to magically put food in sheep bellies in January and February. And it definitely isn’t going to kill wolves.

If RHAK wants to whack it’s willy because it thinks it may have had some form of a hand in taking away another opportunity for non-resident harvest, Mark, I’d say you’re wasting your time with all the wrong goals. As a resident, I’d like to see RHAK do a much better job standing up for the resource instead of the resident group. You want to make change, advocate for change that puts the resource first. Not just one group of hunters vs. another. I also suggest not cherry picking statistics to bend arguments in your favor. Any of us who know the numbers, are well aware when you’re just shining light on half of the battlefield. Do everything with the betterment of the resource and the resource alone in mind. You’d probably get much more support and quite frankly your organization would be much more legitimate. I personally won’t support RHAK because it’s predominantly a bunch of residents who want to play the “poor me” game and bitch and moan in the corner instead of standing up and actually effecting change. Instead, RHWP will put some decent proposals up, and some I would even support, but there’s always some line in there where RHWP go out of their way to only make the change if there’s something in it for them.

Support the resource. That’s all any of this should be about.

Sorry for the rant. Back to scheduled programming.

No clue what’s taking so long…

 

[207-12A]

Raising penalties for sub legal harvest seems like a good idea, but is usually counter-productive. Almost always leads to decreased "I'm honest, but my bad" reporting, which will depress apparent harvest numbers. Keeping penalties less severe for those that shoot marginal sheep that turn out to be sub legal gives biologists a better understanding of how many rams are actually taken.

 

[william schmaltz]

Everyone suggests predator management, but no one wants to touch the how. AS 16.05.255 gives the BOG authority to implement intensive management plans as outlined in 5 AAC 92.106. However, by current definition in AAC, sheep are not an intensive management species. So as far as I understand, it would take some mental gymnastics, but the agency/commissioner would need to propose a change to the administrative code to incorporate sheep as an intensive management species. That would include a rigorous public comment period, potentially opening a larger can of worms by introducing the general public to IMPs already in place. So is the risk of that worth the reward? I don't know. I believe a plan could be drafted by the department outside of the BOG; but that would require a Feasibility Study/Proposed Plan that again would be unlikely to get past public comments/litigation. Actual solutions within control of BOG that could be implemented quickly would be less stringent regulations on methods and means. Allow wireless communication and same day airborne for wolves/coyotes/wolverine from November 1 to May 1. Less likely, but also allow wireless communication for take of brown bears within the same period. I see no path forward to deal with eagles.

I have no clue on what the legality is, but the quickest way to take action on predators would be the AK hunting/conservations orgs coming together to financially reward trappers or by putting trappers on the payroll. Again, not sure of the legal loopholes, but we commercialized and destroyed most every other fish/wildlife population in this state, we just need to figure out how to do that for wolves! Just disguise it under a fur buying program. I'd be more than happy to donate and I'm sure they would be amazed how many people would throw in the pot.

Supplemental feed/mineral has been hashed out. It would need to start in November and go through April. If nothing is done about predators, concentrated sheep will just make the pickings even easier for wolves/coyotes/wolverine/etc. Trapping/hunting off supplemental feed to eliminate predators would cause additional stress.

I can get on board with the penalty system Kyle proposed. I personally don't think it does anything standing on its own. Half the residents take is by the killers that are doing it every year and are already self-policing; unfortunately, the other half is the guys that live here for 3-5 years and are "I just need to get my one ram" guys. Or the "I drew the Big Ass Ram Basin tag and looking for a nudge, don't need a monster, just anything legal" guys. I don't think a punishment that just means lost opportunity for a couple years is going to sway any of them folks from putting a 6-year-old legal ram in the crosshairs. The NR guys are already on a 4-year timeout after a kill and most of them are one and done anyways. So, in order for the proposed system to work on that side of things, the guide or outfitter would need to bear the punishment. That's where I really stand behind the concession system where you could implement things like this. A guide that makes a tough read and kills a 7 year old shouldn't be kicked out the next year, but maybe lose a sheep off the established quota the next year. For nonresidents hunting under 2DK, the penalty would have to go on the resident, which I think we would all get behind. If a resident kills a non-legal, no sheep for 5 years. Guide kills one, they lose a sheep off their quota for 5 years.

I'll state it over and over that I don't have the answers. I don't see a way that any of the conservation orgs can help besides what I stated above. The funding structure for the state is extremely restrictive and based in "equal opportunity". As a trained and practicing biologist/ecologist, I don't see anything that could've been proposed to the BOG that could've slowed the trajectory. As far as I'm concerned, 7 members of the general public shouldn't be making biological/ecological decisions anyways, which is why 95% of the proposals brought forward are social issues. And that's what everyone continues to fight about like a bunch of firefighters from two separate parts of town arguing about how to best put out a house fire while the house is golfing with flames (if you know you know) behind them.

It takes 10 years to see one generational impact on the policies we implement and numerous generations to form a model. That's without outside factors such as weather. We will never have enough time to see if FC management or limited any ram harvest is better. The hard parks are following the same trend as everywhere else so it sure seems that everyone is just throwing darts at the wall. As the general public, we don't typically have access to the data and we're arguing from our 10,000 foot view. Across the board, the way the general public likes to oversimplify these issues is extremely frustrating to watch.