|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 7,908
Campfire Outfitter
|
OP
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 7,908 |
kk alaska
Alaska 7 months of winter then 5 months of tourists
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 494
Campfire Member
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 494 |
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?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,908
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,908 |
A once every four year sheep is not a bad idea for sport hunters. It has worked well for grizzly and brown bear hunters. However there will always be the cry of "needing" the sheep for subsistence from locals but that can be addressed by F&G ( and the hated till you want them Feds) if deemed necessary.
Biologically however the "need" to change the rules is not cut and dried. While the sheep populations have dropped since the 1980's, so have the number of hunters and so the overall hunter success remains nearly the same, even with the full curl addition.
Phil Shoemaker Alaska Master Guide, Alaska Hunter Ed Instructor FAA Master pilot www.grizzlyskinsofalaska.comAnyone who claims the 30-06 is not effective has either not used one, or else is unwittingly commenting on their marksmanship.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 23,270
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 23,270 |
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? So basically you want resident hunters to take the hit?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,394
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,394 |
What I never understood why is Alaska NR fees so damn cheap arizona as an example there bighorn sheep tags are $1815 plus $160 for NR hunting license. But again Arizona and several others states are one and done if you get a tag as well. The state needs to manage it like the bison if you are a resident and you get a sheep need to wait 10yrs before you can hunt another one. It you are NR resident regardless if you get one or not your done its once in a lifetime. Also a lot these fly by night operation guide services will disappear..
Then STFU. The rest of your statement is superflous bullshit with no real bearing on this discussion other than to massage your own ego. Suckin' on my titties like you wanted me.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,683
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,683 |
bitter pill for me to swallow
sitting here with an employee of F&G having this conversation
by constitution our game is to be managed for the benefit of the residents here
but the money comes from out of staters no doubt
I'm pretty certain when we sing our anthem and mention the land of the free, the original intent didn't mean cell phones, food stamps and birth control.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 85,982
Campfire Oracle
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 85,982 |
bitter pill for me to swallow
sitting here with an employee of F&G having this conversation
by constitution our game is to be managed for the benefit of the residents here
but the money comes from out of staters no doubt Coulda stopped right there. If numbers are down, AK res get dibs. Open it to DSMFers when numbers come back up.
If you take the time it takes, it takes less time. --Pat Parelli
American by birth; Alaskan by choice. --ironbender
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,908
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,908 |
The only problem with following our constitution is that the Feds have already trumped it by taking over game mgmt. on Fed lands. And by being Fed lands they also belong equally to all US citizens. With some being more equal than others.
Phil Shoemaker Alaska Master Guide, Alaska Hunter Ed Instructor FAA Master pilot www.grizzlyskinsofalaska.comAnyone who claims the 30-06 is not effective has either not used one, or else is unwittingly commenting on their marksmanship.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 464
Campfire Member
|
Campfire Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 464 |
Resident up here argue and dont want any limits on their harvest. Personally i recognize the need for limits and would support any that do not turn the state into a once in a lifetime draw which would pretty much end sheep hunting for most.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 8
New Member
|
New Member
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 8 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 494
Campfire Member
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 494 |
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. I am originally from Kansas where I hunted whitetails. I hunted bucks every year but never shot one every year. I could have but it's about age structure. One needs to be okay with tag soup. As I get older, I get a real sense of pleasure passing on a 3.5 140" buck that some guy from the NE would be drooling over. It's just part of the game. 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.
Last edited by kscowboy01; 02/17/15.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,683
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,683 |
hate getting the gov't involved in anything, often turns into a soup sandwich
but this matter is an exception.
game is finite, only so much game areas will support. I believe the change in weather may indeed be having an impact on sheep along with the loss of alpine habitat.
not picking on the guides, they perform a valuable service to those wanting to hunt here from outside.
but imo, the number of guides needs to be limited by concessions available.
ime, the family tree from the guiding industry has too many branches.
I came from the tree via Sandy Jameson, even though I never worked for Sandy, I worked for guys that had worked for him. They each went on to create their own guide/outfitting businesses and each of them do well. One I believe is a board member now, he has a long history in this biz, he's a good guy, runs a respectable biz and provides a good service.
During the time I worked for them, they each had guys strike out on their own.
pretty typical of majority of biz owners to want to grow their biz by multiplication, you hire folks so you can service more customers.
1 master guide begets a couple of registered guides that strike out on their own, they each hire ass't guides to run more clients through their biz.
always admired both outfitters I worked for in their self imposed conservation limits to the areas they hunt.
some guides don't practice those conservation principles in areas they hunt.
imo the state needs concessions similar to what the Feds employ
if you have a concession you can take your registered guide license and run a biz, if no concession is available, well you get to work for someone else or wait till one of the guides that has a concession is willing to sell his biz.
but even in those concessions harvests to NR's should be limited and monitored, pretty easy with the sealing requirements now in place.
know of one area that 3 guides kinda overlapped each other, and they each ran it professionally even though they bumped into one another on occasion. One of them branched out and found a new area by scouting it via airplane, I did the first season they worked that valley.
the next year another guide came in with cubs and shot the crap out of sheep in that valley, heard 15 rams were taken by him.
it was a great area with a natural mineral lick
imo that's too many sheep out of that valley for one year
but the temptation is too great for many outfitters to self impose harvest limits
figure a sheep hunt for 10-15K and he stood to gain 150 to 225K just in a 20 day season.
now we have weather factors and other factors leading to a declining sheep population.
it could get ugly fast imo.
our state F&G needs to move and move fast.
hard thing to tell a guy that's counting on X number of dollars his biz will be restricted in upcoming years, but may in fact be necessary.
I agree with kscowboy that science needs to rule the decisions, but also feel strongly that even a minority of guides that won't practice self imposed limits can ruin things fast for the vast majority of guides that do.
there's also the temptation of guides that have practiced good management in their areas to approach the end of their career and let some of those practices slip to gain another 30-50 K in their final years.
I'm ok with residents having to participate in restrictions to allow sheep pops to rebound as well.
but think between lack of predator control, changing weather conditions and loss of habitat, along with some guides trying to kill everything that walks to fill tags that the latter is the area the F&G could implement that would have the greatest short term impact.
what we have is an increased number of guides trying to make a living off declining populations.
that can't end well without some intervention on behalf of the sheep populations.
I'm pretty certain when we sing our anthem and mention the land of the free, the original intent didn't mean cell phones, food stamps and birth control.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 85,982
Campfire Oracle
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 85,982 |
I know a sheep bio. Maybe he will post here as I'm sure he is following this.
He can PM his thoughts, if preferred.
If you take the time it takes, it takes less time. --Pat Parelli
American by birth; Alaskan by choice. --ironbender
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,683
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,683 |
he probably has to be careful Mike putting out info for general public consumption.
I'm in private enterprise so can blow loudly about it.
hope my preceding post didn't seem like I'm trying to blame it all on the guides.
but seems that would have to be having some negative impact as the guide industry has grown.
again science should trump it, your sheep bio guy could correct me if guide numbers and clients have been stagnant for the last 20 years or so.
but my best guesstimate there's a whole lot more guys trying not just to eat out of the same size pie, but a diminished pie when it comes to sheep
I'm pretty certain when we sing our anthem and mention the land of the free, the original intent didn't mean cell phones, food stamps and birth control.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 31,970
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 31,970 |
I'm largely in agreement with biardi. NR sheep tags are vastly underpriced. CO is filthy with elk, and it costs NR nearly as much for a cow elk tag as it does for an Alaskan Ram, and, IIRC from my hunt in Idaho a decade or more back, (Idaho is also also filthy with elk) $800 for a tag there. Surely NR Alaska Sheep tags should go for at least $750. I'm not against a $20-40 resident tag fee either. I want at least one more sheep hunt with a reasonable chance of success, within my budget......... There would be more sheep available in saome locations if there was less poaching by "those more equal", judging by stories I've heard locally in the last 3 years.. I've been here 5, but these "trust/BS" things take time.....
The only true cost of having a dog is its death.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,708
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,708 |
Costs about a grand for NR deer/elk combo in MT. Idaho is a fair bit less for elk, but still way more than AK.
Lift and cap, Alaska. Lift the guide requirement for sheep hunting, and cap nonresident licenses in a random draw. ALL of your guide abuse problems go away with the stroke of a pen.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 31,970
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 31,970 |
I like it. Courts say can't cap guide # so lets let economics work. Too many guides for too little resource now.
The only true cost of having a dog is its death.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 818
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 818 |
Are hunters really the reason the sheep populations are down and not bouncing back? If they are only taking full curl rams, why would the overall population be taking such a hit?
If hunters are to blame then breaking up the state into management units would make a lot of sense. It would be easier to control tags and limit pressure.
How are the sheep doing in the limited draw areas? Do you see an increase in ewes and lambs with the limited hunting?
I agree with some of the posts above. The sheep tags are way too cheap and I would pay more for one. AK is leaving money on the table.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 50,593
Campfire Kahuna
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 50,593 |
Limiting residents to one sheep every three, four, or five years would not actually reduce the sheep take all that much as not many are that dedicated and effective.
Guided NR are far more effective and should be significantly reduced and the tag fees should be raised a great deal. It will not change the overall cost much for most NR hunters, but the NR hunting with resident relative numbers would probably be sharply reduced.
There are more sheep killed by guided NR hunters in AK each year than there are NR tags available for the rest of the states combined.
Implementing a system where NR hunters must have a draw tag AND all hunters from states with NR quotas must draw their tag before their state's NR quota rate has been met. For example, AZ has a 10% NR cap so if there are 20 NR tags available in a given unit an AZ hunter would have to pull one of the first two. Hunters from states without NR tag caps would be "in the drawing" for all 20 tags.
The benefit would be that as AK hunters we might see exceptions to NR caps in some states, like AZ. And if we did not we would at least be playing fair with those that do not.
Mark Begich, Joaquin Jackson, and Heller resistance... Three huge reasons to worry about the NRA.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,921
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,921 |
|
|
|
706 members (222Sako, 007FJ, 09wingates, 10gaugemag, 12344mag, 204guy, 78 invisible),
2,922
guests, and
1,290
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,187,778
Posts18,401,620
Members73,823
|
Most Online11,491 Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|