Historically Low Alaska Sheep Harvest

[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.

 

[AlaskaMark]

Regarding pred-control, Bill, I believe there are current legal means to institute specific control efforts to benefit sheep, even though they are not on the IM list. A recent example is the limited grizzly bear control we did for muskox on the north slope to protect that population. Muskox aren't on the IM list.

And as far as RHAK doing a much better job standing up for the resource, as.ks.ak...I'd refer you this quote from Dr. Ira Gabrielson's comments to the Resource committee of the AK constitutional convention back in 1955/56: "Wildlife management, if you could deal only with the wild populations and their problems, would be relatively simple, but in my opinion most wildlife management consists of five per cent dealing with wildlife things and 95 per cent dealing with wild people, and most of the problems and most of the headaches in wildlife administration come from human attitudes and human problems not from the wildlife problems.."

His whole speech is well worth a read: https://www.akleg.gov/pdf/billfiles...Day 37 - December 14 1955 - Pages 847-865.pdf

Limits on hunters protect wildlife populations from overharvests, protect the resource. Unlimited Dall sheep hunting for all was never in the best interests of our sheep resource. The guides know it (except their solution is to limit guides) and we know it (our solution is to limit nonres who are required to hire a guide). Advocating to limit nonres sheep hunters where they are unlimited, in our view is all about the betterment of the resource, and sure we also want to protect and ensure future sheep hunting opportunities for Alaskans.

 

[as.ks.ak]

Regarding pred-control, Bill, I believe there are current legal means to institute specific control efforts to benefit sheep, even though they are not on the IM list. A recent example is the limited grizzly bear control we did for muskox on the north slope to protect that population. Muskox aren't on the IM list.

And as far as RHAK doing a much better job standing up for the resource, as.ks.ak...I'd refer you this quote from Dr. Ira Gabrielson's comments to the Resource committee of the AK constitutional convention back in 1955/56: "Wildlife management, if you could deal only with the wild populations and their problems, would be relatively simple, but in my opinion most wildlife management consists of five per cent dealing with wildlife things and 95 per cent dealing with wild people, and most of the problems and most of the headaches in wildlife administration come from human attitudes and human problems not from the wildlife problems.."

His whole speech is well worth a read: https://www.akleg.gov/pdf/billfiles...Day 37 - December 14 1955 - Pages 847-865.pdf

Limits on hunters protect wildlife populations from overharvests, protect the resource. Unlimited Dall sheep hunting for all was never in the best interests of our sheep resource. The guides know it (except their solution is to limit guides) and we know it (our solution is to limit nonres who are required to hire a guide). Advocating to limit nonres sheep hunters where they are unlimited, in our view is all about the betterment of the resource, and sure we also want to protect and ensure future sheep hunting opportunities for Alaskans.

Ironically enough, back to that whole only shining light on one part of the battlefield thing.

I would advise you to read that exact speech you referenced in its entirety again. Specifically this part…

“…The next phobia we had that was going to
solve all problems was making refuges. We made refuges by the thousands and covering millions of acres. Many of them were paper refuges with no
boundary markers or no enforcement and they did no good. Refuges again, we found had their value and they also had their limits. They were not
the answer to all the problems. They are chiefly valuable in many cases as a way of preserving suitable habitat for a game or fish or wildlife population and they have their place in the picture. They are not a cure-all. They do not solve anywhere near all the problems…”

Sounds like a sharp cookie, that Dr. Gabrielson.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AlaskaMark]

Glad you read through it, as.ks.ak. Yep, he was a sharp cookie. I don't get your comment on refuges in his speech though, as another battlefield to spread out the light on. Again, my point with the Gabrielson quote was really that there just isn't much we can do with wildlife mgmt beyond dealing with people (hunters).

 

[Cactus kid]

Limits on hunters protect wildlife populations from overharvests, protect the resource. Unlimited Dall sheep hunting for all was never in the best interests of our sheep resource. The guides know it (except their solution is to limit guides) and we know it (our solution is to limit nonres who are required to hire a guide). Advocating to limit nonres sheep hunters where they are unlimited, in our view is all about the betterment of the resource, and sure we also want to protect and ensure future sheep hunting opportunities for Alaskans.

This is where your argument doesn’t hold water.

You frequently cite the “unlimited non residents” as the main cause of the lack of sheep. But every one knows non resident pressure is bottlenecked by the amount of outfitters. So it’s not unlimited in the true sense of the word.

Resident pressure is actually unlimited. Any resident with the means and tenacity can chase these rams. Moreover, by your own admission, residents shoot the majority of sub-legal rams. It does not make sense to me that limiting nonresidents and not limiting residents will do anything to help sheep. Residents will just fly into the areas the formerly hunted by guides of and shoot a higher proportion of sub legal rams. I don’t see how this benefits the resource.

If limiting tags is the answer, then tags need to be limited to both res and non res.

 

[Cynoscion]

This is where your argument doesn’t hold water.

You frequently cite the “unlimited non residents” as the main cause of the lack of sheep. But every one knows non resident pressure is bottlenecked by the amount of outfitters. So it’s not unlimited in the true sense of the word.

Resident pressure is actually unlimited. Any resident with the means and tenacity can chase these rams. Moreover, by your own admission, residents shoot the majority of sub-legal rams. It does not make sense to me that limiting nonresidents and not limiting residents will do anything to help sheep. Residents will just fly into the areas the formerly hunted by guides of and shoot a higher proportion of sub legal rams. I don’t see how this benefits the resource.

If limiting tags is the answer, then tags need to be limited to both res and non res.

I agree but it really doesn’t sound like limiting tags is the answer bc sheep numbers are down everywhere, including areas with limited tags.
It really sounds to me like it’s time that the sheep biologists change harvest criteria if there are a lot of younger than ideal sheep are being killed.
As for lamb survivability, that’s a tough one. Where I live and work, our biggest limiting factor is always going to be our fawn crop (due to high fawn mortality in drought years). This manifests itself 6 or more years down the road in that you have a less than ideal number of mature bucks to harvest. The thing is, we as wildlife biologist/managers can predict it and see it coming so we adjust harvest parameters so that it doesn’t sting so bad in the year (or 2 or 3 lately) that it happens.
Comparing whitetail management to sheep management is apples to oranges but the principles remain the same.
If the harvest criteria isn’t working, change the criteria but you can’t shut it down for some period of time and then open it back up to the same criteria and expect a different result.

 

[WalterH]

If one of the problems facing sheep populations is the unintended consequence of the FC regulation, too many 5-6-7 yo rams dying, what about doing away with the FC requirements and limiting harvest strictly based on age?

Bump the age limit requirement up to 9 and/or double broomers? No more harvest based on full curl.

That would certainly lead to less harvest of rams overall and hopefully shift the harvest more towards the intended age class of animal.

Would this scenario lead to more or fewer sub-legal kills?

 

[cbeard64]

This is a scary situation and I don’t have the answers. Seems that when a situation is this dire a multi-faceted approach is called for with drastic action being needed.

I do know that limiting NRs alone while there are no limits on residents is always a political/preference move, not a conservation move.

I get why it’s done, but I prefer that all involved just call it what it is (residential preference) rather than try to cloak it as a conservation measure.

 

[Cynoscion]

If one of the problems facing sheep populations is the unintended consequence of the FC regulation, too many 5-6-7 yo rams dying, what about doing away with the FC requirements and limiting harvest strictly based on age?

Bump the age limit requirement up to 9 and/or double broomers? No more harvest based on full curl.

That would certainly lead to less harvest of rams overall and hopefully shift the harvest more towards the intended age class of animal.

Would this scenario lead to more or fewer sub-legal kills?

Exactly! It seems to me that this is the obvious thing to do.
And then, you could look at lamb survival rates in any given year and decide if it’s worth it to you to attempt to sheep hunt in that year. For example if 2012 lamb survival was horrible and 8 year old sheep harvest is the goal, then 2020 probably wasn’t going to be the best year for numbers of mature rams. Educated hunters could choose to sit out that year if killing a sheep was the most important thing to them.
There are plenty of folks though, myself included, that just want the opportunity to hunt sheep even if the odds of killing one are lower than ever. Keep the access open and change the criteria. It’s a win for all parties. The state still gets their revenue on licenses/tags, local businesses still get the income from NR’s in food, hotels, guides/outfitters, etc. but the younger age class of sheep stay on the mountain.

 

[TWHrunner]

Could you put in place a system that only allows you to buy a tag if you first fill a wolf tag, say the year before? May be far fetched and I’m sure there a lot of arguments why it wouldn’t work but it’s an idea.

 

[cubguy]

Lots of great ideas in this thread. Will be interesting to see how many rams are taken this fall.

 

[DBMR]

Great News on AK BOG closing 19C for non resident take for 5years. Should have been done years ago but the bulk of the guiding activity in this unit are non residents taking non resident hunters, this influential group were against this.
Aside from the obvious crowding issues this will address which is a win for all sheep hunters. Thiis will be a victory for the unsuspecting non residents (which there are plenty of) coming up to 19c for their once in a lifetime saved for sheep hunt only to be extremely disappointed and $20K lighter in the wallet.

 

[DBMR]

The next allocation issue on the horizon in AK that will address this will be the DNR proposal of State Land Outfitter Concessions. This will ultimately be the best thing for all recourses and non resident hunters alike in this primarily AK state land GMU area. Currently in 19c and many other state land areas an unlimited number of outfitters can sell an unlimited number of sheep (or any species) tags to clients. Currently it is one of the most greed based regulation the AK Big Game Commercial Services board still allows to continue. And largely they are not responsible for the way it is but they still hand out guide use areas to ANYONE qualified for it. MOST NON RESIDENTS have no clue this is how AK manages state land commercial services until it is too late; when they are sitting on an airstrip with 4 other guide outfits using the same strip to access.