We have a discussion on this over on Rokslide. Below is what I posted and what I think would be a nice proposal:
"I believe I have a decent idea here. You can buy a tag every year. However, once a ram is harvested (easy to keep tabs based on plugging), you may not harvest another ram for 3 years. This would keep those trophy hunters focused (only 40" or no sheep for me this year) and also allow there to be an abundance of legal sheep for those who just want to get a white sheep for the wall.
The 3 year rule would apply to both residents and non-residents. There are plenty of other species in Alaska to keep a hunter occupied during the 3 year sit. If they have a real passion for sheep, this would provide the opportunity to help a friend or youth hunter achieve a goal."
I support NRs (granted, I am one) buying a tag the following year if they were unsuccessful. People get socked-in, outfitters offer a discount return hunt to an unsuccessful hunter, etc. Perhaps make it a 5 year sit for successful NRs. The downside is that when people finally have $heep money, they don't have the body to do it for too long. 5 years might be too long for some people. But then again, how many NRs consistently head to AK and shoot sheep every year with a hired guide?
I refrained from commenting on the other forum, but I'll say my piece here. Restricting residents to one sheep every 3 or 4 years is not acceptable to me. That will shift even more of the harvest away from residents towards NRs. I believe that the biggest issue with sheep hunting in AK is that there is a perceived issue with over crowding. I'm sure it is there in some easily accessed areas, but the truth is there are fewer resident hunters in recent years. Until there is the biology that indicates harvest is too high, residents shouldn't be prevented from having the opportunity to hunt each year. I don't get to hunt sheep every year but I highly value that I have that opportunity at least. If harvests are too high at some point NRs should be restricted first or more. And before I'm labeled as anti NR, I'm not, I just feel that residents should come first. I'm not familiar with most other states but if I'm not mistaken, colorado residents get preference in their home state.
As a tangent to this conversation tag fees should go up. Both for residents and NR. I'm not advocating ripping people off but it seems like a NR sheep tag should cost at least $800 and residents should also contribute as well, say $20-$40 for a sheep tag. Because of the matching Pittman-Robinson funds (3or 4 to 1match I think) the increase in tag fees would be significantly leveraged. I think that the state left money on the table last year because they had no more money, but there were still matching funds left. Hell a NR sheep tag in AK is cheaper or close to the same cost as a NR bull elk tag is in colorado. That doesn't seem right to me. I realize that we all have differing ideas and I'm not saying my ideas are always correct in the end, but I am interested to hear others thoughts/ideas.
