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?
Addressing a few of these in one post, so apologies in advance, cause I already feel long winded. I'll try to stay civil.
If you don't want to read my ramblings, consider it a "+1" to what Calvin said in 10 words, just with more explanation.
The proposal above, as mentioned does little to affect the harvest, since few residents actually kill sheep every year, and few non-residents hunt in AK every year. In fact, on the non-resident side, I'd expect the effect to be absolutely nothing - the pool of people to draw from is just too big. For the proposal to make a difference on the NR side, you would need to exhaust the supply of NR hunters to the point that guides are selling fewer hunts. I'd bet that there are more non-residents that guide for sheep every year than hunt sheep every year.
If they have a real passion for sheep, this would provide the opportunity to help a friend or youth hunter achieve a goal.
I wanted to address this one specifically. We already have the "opportunity" you mentioned. This proposal would not provide any opportunity, it would only remove it. Much like saying that outlawing rifles will provide the opportunity to brush up on your handgun skills. The group most affected under this proposal is the habitual resident sheep hunters.
So basically you want resident hunters to take the hit?
It sounds like the sheep are the ones taking the hit...
You all are blessed to have so many species at your disposal. Consider yourselves fortunate. My moose permit in CO is a once-in-a-lifetime permit. 1 and I'm done. Let's talk about sheep, goats, and prime units for deer, elk, and pronghorn. I'll take a hit there because I can't hunt those every year. I can hunt elk and deer every year but not in the best units. I'm okay with that. As hunters, we need to be conservationists too.
[....]
It's obvious that changes need to be made. Unfortunately, these changes will negatively affect residents and some NRs. If the biologists come back and say this is what is best for the state's herd and is necessary, I support this change. I love and respect the animals I hunt. Their future is what I find most important.
Agreed on most points. We are blessed to have the opportunities we have, and I'm sorry that you chose to live in a state with fewer opportunities.
I disagree that "It's obvious that changes need to be made" (unless you mean changes in weather). What is obvious is that sheep populations are down - changes to hunting regulations may or may not have an impact on that. The first article linked in the OP does a good job covering that in the "Most Alaska sheep populations declining" section.
The biggest issue I have with your last paragraph however is the the logical fallacy it implies. I can't explain it better than
this , so I'll let wikipedia do the talking there.
I very much appreciate that you are trying to help and are proposing a solution. I don't mean to belittle that effort at all, and I don't mean to pick on you, just your ideas. I do have a problem with passing laws that will restrict opportunity without helping the resource.
