Historically Low Alaska Sheep Harvest

[ColeyG]

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.

 

[AlaskaMark]

I'm just back from the BOG meeting in Soldotna, and I gave testimony for RHAK telling the board that it would be shameful to impose any restrictions on residents at all after decades of allowing unlimited nonres sheep hunting, closing the subsistence hunt in RY20 due to "biological concerns," and continuing to allow unlimited nonres opportunity last year on a known severely declining populaiton that led to 90% nonres sheep harvest.

I also wrote an op-ed in the Anchorage Daily News about this that came out the week of the meeting: https://www.adn.com/opinions/2023/03/13/opinion-alaskas-nonsensical-dall-sheep-management-decisions/

The main takeaway from this meeting as far as sheep is that finally FC selective harvest mgmt is being questioned. And ADFG did not really come across well imo in their consistent position that FC mgmt is sustainable under all conditions. I asked them, well you said there are currently some 300 sheep in Unit 23 in NW AK, that you advised the board to close down in 2015. The stated reason they wanted it closed was because that is the farthest northwest range of Dall sheep in NA and they didn't believe it could support any more harvests. Unit 23 is still closed for any state sheep hunts. But If FC mgmt is always sustainable, why haven't you opened Unit 23 up again? How does that make sense? The answer: "Good point."

There was a proposal to eliminate any sheep hunts on Kenai Peninsula, due to such low sheep populations. There was also one for restrictions there. The Dept stated they saw 1 FC ram during the last survey. They said there are other areas in the state where there are distinct smaller populations where only 2 or 3 legal rams are taken every year. FC mgmt is working, we can't take every legal ram. No need to close the Kenai or impose any restrictions.

So when they were asked during deliberations on prop 204 to close 19C, how low does the sheep population have to get in 19C before they support restrictions or closures?, the answer the Dept gave was "We don't know, we don't have an answer to that. " That's cuz there is no number too low according to FC mgmt theory.

Over all these years, RHAK has put in proposals to limit nonres sheep hunters with a limited allocation in 19C. We started years ago with 50 permits, then as sheep further declined we went to 30, then 20, and in our last proposal, 10 permits. APHA & guides opposed any limits on their clients across the board. No draw permits ever (unlses we have an exclusive concession) cuz they don't provide stability to a guide business. All these years, I've told them, so you're gonna be fine when it closes down for everyone? And the answer I got was that would be better than draw permits, cuz when it comes back again they go back to no limits. It's just crazy. All this other bs, oh we can't limit nonres cuz that would mean less money to the Dept, less income to guides. So this is somehow better for the Dept and guides?

There are very few legal rams left in 19C, and in other areas of the state as well. We have been killing evermore 7 & 8 year-olds, sub-legal take last year by guided and unguided sheep hunters was around 13% of total harvests, with guided sheep hunters accounting for nearly 40% of the sublegal take. We don't really account for wounding loss we know happens.

The guides who testified at the meeting in opposition to a closure stated: "If we don't take these legal rams, they will just die on the mountain this winter." Really? Most 7 and 8 year-old rams die every winter? How are we missing the intrinsic and biological value of more 12-year-old rams out on the landscape? And what killing so many of the younger cohorts can lead to?

It never had to come to this. But I'm glad the board finally voted for the sheep and resident hunters.

 

[WalterH]

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

 

[SLDMTN]

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

 

[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.

 

[SLDMTN]

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.

Sorry, yes. I should have quoted or mentioned you.

What would your suggestion be to help increase the population as a whole?

 

[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!

 

[SLDMTN]

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.

Agreed on the winters. This one has actually been decent for the AK Range, hopefully it holds for another month.

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.

Agreed on eagles. Wolves could use some thinning from what I’ve seen. They run in very large numbers over that way. We have aerial videos of them leaving a moose kill and heading straight into sheep country last winter.

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

Could you point me to where this has been tried in Alaska? Big Nine and similar outfits in Canada have been implementing granular mineral feeding with tremendous success. Combined with aggressive predator control, their lamb/ewe ratios are unrivaled. They spoke heavily about it at the national WSF and SCI conventions.

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.

How will this closure benefit the ram crop in 19C when we can look directly at 13D (Chugach) and Tok (AK Range) limited entry hunts and say that it has no impact on numbers? Tok has produced very few rams of good size lately. 13D is still holding strong by producing some of the biggest rams in the state but their density is some of the lowest. Tok has been closed for ages and the Chugach for over a decade. Neither has seen any increase in sheep. For that matter, Tok is a barren wasteland compared to what it was. Both of those scenarios would indicate that harvest level has nothing to do with helping the population.

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!

WSF has been listening to the Canadian outfits who’ve been taking matters into their own hands. It would appear like they’re planning to put trappers on the payroll since there’s no easy or fast way to change the way state funds are being handled.

 

[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.

 

[SLDMTN]

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.

The level of pressure that my daughter and I witnessed near Metal Creek in the Chugach last October was astounding. Worst eagle behavior I’ve ever seen, more so than any range I’ve hunted in. There were no less than a half dozen eagles at any given time circling and swooping on a group of nannies and kids from sunrise to sunset. You’d think they’d find something more productive but they ride the updrafts, swoop in to check for weakness and it seemed very low energy for them.

 

[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.

 

[SLDMTN]

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.

I think it’s a brilliant idea. Same way they’re allowed to take marine mammals.

 

[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.