New Alaska Sheep Regulations

[Yellowknife]

For those that aren't keeping track, the Alaska Board of Game is currently meeting. They worked their way through a bunch of sheep proposals this afternoon and will do more tomorrow. Most have gone down in flames (or certainly will tomorrow), however a couple have been approved so far.

The first would modifies the definition of "broken" as it refers to a broomed ram. A little more restrictive as I understood it.

The second is only going to directly effect a bare handful of non-resident hunters, but from now on it looks like the non-resident bag limit is 1 sheep every 4 years. Similar to coastal brown bear in some units. Considering how few out of state sheep hunters return within four years of taking an Alaskan ram, the effect will be minimal... but they voted it in anyway. Might hurt a few of the "next of kin" hunters who come up to hunt with family.

Prop 207 (prohibition against airplane spotting) that was approved last year will stay. They resisted a number of proposals to either repeal or reword that one.


Yk

 

[land cruiser]

Wow, that's sad, hopefully not going to hurt the outfitters. How does it go into effect, anyone who harvested a sheep from 2016 on or those who got one in 2011 can return this year?

 

[Yellowknife]

Wow, that's sad, hopefully not going to hurt the outfitters. How does it go into effect, anyone who harvested a sheep from 2016 on or those who got one in 2011 can return this year?

It won't hurt any outfitters to speak of. Sheep clients normally return because they were previously unsuccessful... not because they were successful. Total impact on outfitter harvest will be close to nil.

You have to understand... sheep are a hot button issue in the state right now. Populations are at an all time low in many places and everyone wants non-residents to feel the pain before residents have to take a hit. 1:4 is the very LEAST painful NR option currently on the table. Others still to be debated have the potential to be much worse. Statewide draw for NR and reduced season length are both on the table tomorrow. Draws are not likely to be passed IMO, but reduced season lengths might be.

Yk

 

[land cruiser]

It's too bad 1:4 is not considered for residents as well. I don't understand why someone would need a sheep every year. Save your sheep, after NR get the boot, who else will be left to blame? Sad.

 

[adventure907]

It's too bad 1:4 is not considered for residents as well. I don't understand why someone would need a sheep every year. Save your sheep, after NR get the boot, who else will be left to blame? Sad.

There were proposals to limit residents as well, but thankfully, those did not pass. When a game population gets to the point that allocation needs to be limited, it should be the non residents that get limited first.

Notably, it was the Alaska Professional Hunters Association that proposed the 1 in 4 limits for non residents.

 

[land cruiser]

Half measures will bring little results. YK is stating that there will be no impact, not sure I see any logic in this approach.

 

[adventure907]

I agree, there probably won't be much impact, and I think the board recognized that. I think one of the main reasons they passed it, was to bring it in line with the 1 in 4 brown bear rules. Why, I don't know, but thats what I gathered from their discussion.

 

[RdRdrFan]

When a game population gets to the point that allocation needs to be limited, it should be the non residents that get limited first.

I guess that depends on whether they are interested in solving a problem or interested in paying lip service and doing little/nothing to solve the problem.

I've got an idea (all states and species...not just Alaska and sheep) let's eliminate the availability for NR's to hunt state owned land but at the same time make everyone (NR's and residents) equal in the draw and laws for federally owned land. After all, there are a lot more NR's paying for the management of the federally owned land than there are residents.

It just always makes me shake my head when residents (doesn't matter the state) throw rocks at the NR's.

Off of my soapbox.

 

[adventure907]

I don't think anyone is throwing rocks at non residents here. I certainly am not, I love non residents, I take them hunting every year. But when there is a resource concern, limits have to be established somewhere, no?

 

[bosox2850]

I guess a better question would be what percentage of Rams are taken by NR compared to Res, I can't see with the cost of the hunt there that NR's really put much of a dent in the population compared to Residents. As stated above why does anyone need to kill a sheep every year? They should be limited for residents as well if population concerns are the issue..

 

[adventure907]

I guess a better question would be what percentage of Rams are taken by NR compared to Res, I can't see with the cost of the hunt there that NR's really put much of a dent in the population compared to Residents. As stated above why does anyone need to kill a sheep every year? They should be limited for residents as well if population concerns are the issue..

Nonresidents harvest 40% percent of the annual sheep harvest.

 

[bosox2850]

Nonresidents harvest 40% percent of the annual harvest.

I don't disagree from a conservation standpoint about the 1:4, better to limit it than to eventually have to cut it off altogether.

 

[adventure907]

The 1:4 will have little effect on things, other than for maybe a very small group of hardcore non resident sheep hunters that like to hunt Alaska frequently. I am not sure what the rationale behind the 1:4 move is, but it passed. As far as the 40% non resident harvest goes, many residents do take issue with that. Not saying I am one of them, but many do feel that non residents take too big of a slice of the pie.

 

[Broomd]

i'm an ex-Alaskan, have enjoyed the sheep mountains many times. I'll likely try to get up there to take one more ram. With the opportunity dwindling I'll probably get on it. My son stayed in AK when the family moved out, so I hunt with him as I did when I was an Alaskan.

Hopefully the whole state will go 1 in 4. The experience and harvest odds would be greatly enhanced for everyone. And if the BoG had brain one between them, they would set real fees for harvest tags for sheep, goat etc in AK. That fact that those tags are free for Residents is ludicrous, and I said that for all the years I was a resident there as well.

 

[Bambistew]

1:4 for residents would have similar results as the NR restrictions. Very few residents kill more than 1 sheep in 4 years... like 4-5%. About 60-65% of resident hunters each year are virgin sheep hunters. 80% of all resides will never kill a sheep, nor hunt them again. BFD, the 1:4 is a feel good regulation with basically zero result, besides justifying the jealous whiners feelings, aka the 80% unsucessful. What I find funny about the 1:4 argument is the proponents are generally either NR or residents who don't hunt sheep.

The 1:4 brown bear restrictions resulted in an increase in NR harvest%. Currently nearly 80% of brownies are killed by NR. Prior to the 1:4 it was about 60%. I spent quite a bit of time looking into this one talking to bios and others involved in the original regulations. The bears rebounded due to the split season, not the 1:4... they had to split the season because the 1:4 didn t really reduce the harvest, because very, very few want to kill more than one bear.

NR should be restricted on a draw, next of kin included in the same pool. Tough titty... don't like the rules you can move here. The NOK is abused, IMO. The first thing a new resident does is invite all his family up to hunt... it was set up to allow kids, and siblings to come back and hunt with family after they moved out of state. NOK are about 25% of NR now, up from 15% about 10 years ago.

On the Fed land deal, the state holds the animals in trust for the people, we all pay the same freight to manage the land. Don't like it, you can move to Alaska. You know what, there are a hell of a lot of sheep on state lands, roighly 1/2 of NR harvest actually. I say ban NR from state land altogether. They don't pay to manage it, same goes for other animals as well... I'm joking, but this argument is just as logical.

We have 25% fewer sheep today than 30 years ago, but we don't have a problem, it's just natural fluctuations of game numbers according to ADFG. I'd love to see an example of sheep populations increasing, anywhere in the state, you know "natural fluctuation" if it was narural we shold see some populations booming... yet the populations have been declining everywhere for 30+ years. When are they going to pull their head out of their ass and realize this.

The hunter survey that Dr Brinkman prepared 2 years ago resulted in approximately 80% of resident respondents wanting NR put on a draw, and 60% of commercial opperators in favor as well, but, but, but.. we need to get more imput from the public and special intrest groups, er ACs.

Also 44% of the sheep were taken by NR last year, 30 years ago it was 29-30%. At what percent should we be worried? Some areas have 60-80% of harvest by NR. Right or wrong, this is a resource owned by the people of the state, not 90 sheep guides to sell off for proffit, under the guise of supporting the economy and ADFG. It's peanuts in the grand scheme of things.

I've yet to hear a NR with a "solution" willing to offer up 40-50% of their permits in their state to NRs. Shit most lose their mind over the thought of NR getting 10% of their tags. Every Alaskan should be guaranteed a sheep tag in CO, MT, and WY., or premium deer tags, or elk, or... you know we deserve them because wed be paying for your game management.

Reducing NR harvest to just 20% (or 10% of all hunters) would result in about a 10% increase of sheep on the mountain over night. That would be the first time AGFG actually increased a sheep herd!

I'm tired of pussy footing around this issue, and tired of the same excuses by the BOG to do nothing. I'm hopeful tomorrow is the day they grow a pair and stand up for the resource and residents.

 

[SpannerAK]

I personally would like to see the NR go draw and as a concession drop the guide requirements, that alone will keep many sheep on the mountains.

 

[RdRdrFan]

1:4 for residents would have similar results as the NR restrictions. Very few residents kill more than 1 sheep in 4 years... like 4-5%. About 60-65% of resident hunters each year are virgin sheep hunters. 80% of all resides will never kill a sheep, nor hunt them again. BFD, the 1:4 is a feel good regulation with basically zero result, besides justifying the jealous whiners feelings, aka the 80% unsucessful. What I find funny about the 1:4 argument is the proponents are generally either NR or residents who don't hunt sheep.

The 1:4 brown bear restrictions resulted in an increase in NR harvest%. Currently nearly 80% of brownies are killed by NR. Prior to the 1:4 it was about 60%. I spent quite a bit of time looking into this one talking to bios and others involved in the original regulations. The bears rebounded due to the split season, not the 1:4... they had to split the season because the 1:4 didn t really reduce the harvest, because very, very few want to kill more than one bear.

NR should be restricted on a draw, next of kin included in the same pool. Tough titty... don't like the rules you can move here. The NOK is abused, IMO. The first thing a new resident does is invite all his family up to hunt... it was set up to allow kids, and siblings to come back and hunt with family after they moved out of state. NOK are about 25% of NR now, up from 15% about 10 years ago.

On the Fed land deal, the state holds the animals in trust for the people, we all pay the same freight to manage the land. Don't like it, you can move to Alaska. You know what, there are a hell of a lot of sheep on state lands, roighly 1/2 of NR harvest actually. I say ban NR from state land altogether. They don't pay to manage it, same goes for other animals as well... I'm joking, but this argument is just as logical.

We have 25% fewer sheep today than 30 years ago, but we don't have a problem, it's just natural fluctuations of game numbers according to ADFG. I'd love to see an example of sheep populations increasing, anywhere in the state, you know "natural fluctuation" if it was narural we shold see some populations booming... yet the populations have been declining everywhere for 30+ years. When are they going to pull their head out of their ass and realize this.

The hunter survey that Dr Brinkman prepared 2 years ago resulted in approximately 80% of resident respondents wanting NR put on a draw, and 60% of commercial opperators in favor as well, but, but, but.. we need to get more imput from the public and special intrest groups, er ACs.

Also 44% of the sheep were taken by NR last year, 30 years ago it was 29-30%. At what percent should we be worried? Some areas have 60-80% of harvest by NR. Right or wrong, this is a resource owned by the people of the state, not 90 sheep guides to sell off for proffit, under the guise of supporting the economy and ADFG. It's peanuts in the grand scheme of things.

I've yet to hear a NR with a "solution" willing to offer up 40-50% of their permits in their state to NRs. Shit most lose their mind over the thought of NR getting 10% of their tags. Every Alaskan should be guaranteed a sheep tag in CO, MT, and WY., or premium deer tags, or elk, or... you know we deserve them because wed be paying for your game management.

Reducing NR harvest to just 20% (or 10% of all hunters) would result in about a 10% increase of sheep on the mountain over night. That would be the first time AGFG actually increased a sheep herd!

I'm tired of pussy footing around this issue, and tired of the same excuses by the BOG to do nothing. I'm hopeful tomorrow is the day they grow a pair and stand up for the resource and residents.

I'm fine (as I stated earlier) with not allowing NR's to have tags on state land. Just make it fair and have a draw for the tags on federally owned land and don't put limits on the NR percentage. And not just in Alaska. All states. I agree that people bitching and moaning about 10% of NR's getting the tags is ridiculous. I don't think there should be a residency consideration when drawing a tag to hunt on federally owned land.....in any state.

But it doesn't sound like anyone really cares about doing much more than griping about reduced sheep numbers. The hard decisions haven't and likely won't be made. They will make a token swipe at those horrible NR's and point a finger at them as the source of the problem. All the while, they are unwilling to take the steps necessary to really solve the problem.

 

[SJ-AK]

1:4 for residents would have similar results as the NR restrictions. Very few residents kill more than 1 sheep in 4 years... like 4-5%. About 60-65% of resident hunters each year are virgin sheep hunters. 80% of all resides will never kill a sheep, nor hunt them again. BFD, the 1:4 is a feel good regulation with basically zero result, besides justifying the jealous whiners feelings, aka the 80% unsucessful. What I find funny about the 1:4 argument is the proponents are generally either NR or residents who don't hunt sheep.

The 1:4 brown bear restrictions resulted in an increase in NR harvest%. Currently nearly 80% of brownies are killed by NR. Prior to the 1:4 it was about 60%. I spent quite a bit of time looking into this one talking to bios and others involved in the original regulations. The bears rebounded due to the split season, not the 1:4... they had to split the season because the 1:4 didn t really reduce the harvest, because very, very few want to kill more than one bear.

NR should be restricted on a draw, next of kin included in the same pool. Tough titty... don't like the rules you can move here. The NOK is abused, IMO. The first thing a new resident does is invite all his family up to hunt... it was set up to allow kids, and siblings to come back and hunt with family after they moved out of state. NOK are about 25% of NR now, up from 15% about 10 years ago.

On the Fed land deal, the state holds the animals in trust for the people, we all pay the same freight to manage the land. Don't like it, you can move to Alaska. You know what, there are a hell of a lot of sheep on state lands, roighly 1/2 of NR harvest actually. I say ban NR from state land altogether. They don't pay to manage it, same goes for other animals as well... I'm joking, but this argument is just as logical.

We have 25% fewer sheep today than 30 years ago, but we don't have a problem, it's just natural fluctuations of game numbers according to ADFG. I'd love to see an example of sheep populations increasing, anywhere in the state, you know "natural fluctuation" if it was narural we shold see some populations booming... yet the populations have been declining everywhere for 30+ years. When are they going to pull their head out of their ass and realize this.

The hunter survey that Dr Brinkman prepared 2 years ago resulted in approximately 80% of resident respondents wanting NR put on a draw, and 60% of commercial opperators in favor as well, but, but, but.. we need to get more imput from the public and special intrest groups, er ACs.

Also 44% of the sheep were taken by NR last year, 30 years ago it was 29-30%. At what percent should we be worried? Some areas have 60-80% of harvest by NR. Right or wrong, this is a resource owned by the people of the state, not 90 sheep guides to sell off for proffit, under the guise of supporting the economy and ADFG. It's peanuts in the grand scheme of things.

I've yet to hear a NR with a "solution" willing to offer up 40-50% of their permits in their state to NRs. Shit most lose their mind over the thought of NR getting 10% of their tags. Every Alaskan should be guaranteed a sheep tag in CO, MT, and WY., or premium deer tags, or elk, or... you know we deserve them because wed be paying for your game management.

Reducing NR harvest to just 20% (or 10% of all hunters) would result in about a 10% increase of sheep on the mountain over night. That would be the first time AGFG actually increased a sheep herd!

I'm tired of pussy footing around this issue, and tired of the same excuses by the BOG to do nothing. I'm hopeful tomorrow is the day they grow a pair and stand up for the resource and residents.

Well said. I echo your comments completely but have very little faith in the BOG.

 

[duchntr]

Thanks for taking the time to write that Bambi, that about sums it up

 

[Bambistew]

When have a small user group taking a disproportionate amount of the resource and we have a resource problem... who should feel the pain first? Everyone or the ones taking the disproportionate amonunt? I really could give two shit's about NR feelings, or having the same chance as a residents to hunt. Please name a state that looks out for NR interest above residents? Yet in Alaska were supposed to be different? That's some funny stuff.

Game managment is half social and half science. For what ever reason, ONLY sheep management is argued with science. Every other species is managed for residents first. Do we have a concern for caribou, or moose, or bears? If not why do we limit NR?

Game management based on land ownership is the bighest issue, but nothing will be done. Game on federal and state land is already manged differently for guided NR here.. And you know what? Harest by comercial operations amounts to about 20% of all take. It's the state land that is getting raped and pillaged. Those areas where 60-80% of the sheep are being killed by NR. These are the biggest issue areas.

You have to be hard headed to believe that reducing the harvest by that 80% NR wouldn't change anything, or that 20% residents are just as much to blame. Hard to imagine after the countless discussions, and meetings that there are people out there too stupid to figure this out... we can put at lest 10% more rams on the mountain EVERY year by reducing NR to 10%. It may be enough to pull us out of the "natural fluctuation" were in, but we'll never know unless we try. It it still doesnt work, the go for restrictions on residents. The issue is we have a Board who weighs the priblem of all equally... unless you own a plane

Alaska has reached the lowest age of harvest on rams ever. The average is now 8.5 years. When we had 3/4 curl regs we were in the low 9s. We have a frigging resource problem. Let's start with something, rather than a shotgun approach.