Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Alaska ADN Sheep hunting articles

There is more than a little evidence many bad things are happening as a result of the full-curl rule. First, much more effort is being put into killing sheep and every full-curl killed is very valuable to the herd and the herd has a lot invested in the ram.

With few or no big rams around younger rams go into "rut" at a very early age and are more driven to expend valuable fat while fighting and fornicating instead of just watching.

They then go into winter with depleted reserves at an age when they are not really old enough nor physically large enough to handle the stress.

Further, the old rams are important for leading the herd through bad weather, icing, and so on... in essence they should be leading them to safer places.

Further yet, there are many, many cases of under-size rams being killed and the brown shirts look the other way. It is easy to look on the internet and find lots of examples of clearly illegal, but properly sealed sheep the Troopers passed on prosecuting. The rule is hard to define and if they prosecute the wrong guy and he prevails in court it would be a mess.

I have also seen rams that were aged at two different ages based on each horn... even one where they decided the two horns were two years apart!!!

I for one believe that residents also should have to pay for something like a sheep tag, where the sheep a special animal, that's highly desireable. No reason for someone be going out every year and shooting another sheep. If a resident had to pay a $150 or so for a tag, would perhaps place more value on it. I've told folks in Colorado the same thing. If I have to pay $500 for an elk tag, a resident should have to pay a $100, not $5 or $50. Md. is filthy with deer, we're allowed 40 each, but a NR is only going to pay $250.00 for a full tag here, because other states charge our folks that much. We have to pay about $50-$75 here for a hunting license, that includes deer. If Dall sheep going to be considered a trophy animal, as opposed to say Caribou, with is both, then it (sheep) should be a trophy animal for everyone, and priced accordingly. I don't think anyone going out and shooting sheep for subsistence food.

You bring up a ton of really good points... but you do need to realize there are legit subsistence sheep hunters. It was an animal viewed as food for a long time and it is good food.

But the next problem is "how much" to charge for a resident sheep tag... we only charge residents $25 in the best brown bear areas in the state. The rest are free... Few confuse brown bear with food...

I am not being a smart ass here... your points are good and valid, just asking how much...

Considering the amount od money it takes for most sheep hunters to fly into and out of their sheep hunting areas, there is no reason a resident tag shouldn't be higher.

The state is full of resident-only harvest hunts for caribou and moose. Extend that to sheep in the CUAs. Cap nonresident tags at the unit's ten year average and make it a draw. Most Important: get rid of the nonresident guide requirement.

Compensate lost revenue by charging nonresident and resident tag fees that are in line with the rest of the country.

Shouldn't be too hard to run some numbers to justify this. Every non-guide resident should endorse this. Nonresident harvest rate drops to 25% of what it is now, and sheep numbers bounce back. L48 hard core diy guys get their kick at the cat without forking out 15G for their trouble. I keep looking for a downside but can't see it.

Curious how much revenue they'd bring in by dropping the NR guide requirement, charged NR $20 per "draw choice", made em buy a licenses to enter the draw, and let the masses put in for those coveted NR unguided sheep tags. And then make it a more expensive tag.

I'm thinking it would be a blessing/curse. Blessing that those who were lucky enough to draw could do it without a guide. Curse that you couldn't just suck it up and pay the 15k and do it whenever you wanted. I'd guess that odds would be in the 1-2% for any NR unguided sheep tag, and with no preference point system, you could never draw.

One thing I didn't think of (that perhaps all of the old salts have though of): if NR can hunt without a guide, then this more or less guarantees that any sort of access secrecy related to sheep hunting (airstrips, hike/climb routes, etc.) will vanish in a few years. Once-in-a-lifetime diy guys from down here will put up multi-page successful hunt posts full of pics with recognizable terrain. Guys will sell hunt planning a la Bartlett and Strahan for sheep.

I think it's safe to say that hunting planning would boom. Transporters would raise rates to the point that it'd turn into a 4k flight similar to what you see for most NR moose hunts. So by the time you got all your gear up here, hotels, rental cars, etc you'd be saving 7-8k and have years of applying? By the time you figure in all all the licenses and tag applications, you might not save much.

If NR tags are limited to 10%, those 15k hunts will most likely turn into 20-25k hunts as supply will be cut.

Going to 1-4 for sheep screws the residents, and it's them who take the cut.

No easy way about this that I can see.

Very informative, thank you taking time to share that information.

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.


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.



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.

that was a classy response Chris, kudos to you

I'll likely never hunt sheep unless the NR guide requirement is dropped. If it is dropped I'd not care if the tag was $2500 and honestly wouldn't even care if I killed a sheep. Shucking out $20k for something I could do myself would make me more likely expect to kill something and I hear that sentiment echoed widely.

What other species in AK are NR guided only?

Sheep, goat, brownies.

Damn I was under the impression moose was too. That may change my thought process.

Couple thoughts...

The 1:4 restrictions would impact about 4-5% of resident sheep hunters and about 2% of NR, mostly next of kin. Lots of probability in there when you consider weather issues, poor lamb/ram recruitment years etc. The end of the day its 4-5% reduction of hunters over a 4 year block.

Based on the last 10 years worth of data... Roughly 80% of resident hunters have hunted 2 times or LESS in the last 10 years, 75% of them being unsuccessful. Roughly 60% of all resident sheep hunters are going their first and likely only time each year. Roughly 93% of all NR hunters are going their first and only time, roughly 70% of them are successful.

The 1:4 hunts are more feel good than management. It makes the "have nots" feel good that they're somehow limiting take by reducing the "killers" from killing more. I spoke at length about this with ADFG. Really we only have bear management to compare this to.

The peninsula bear hunts went to a 1:4 prior to the every other year hunt season restriction. The 1:4 was a carry over after the season split. The bio I spoke with had heard from a few outfitters that they would easily be able to book return NR clients if they could.

After the 1:4 rule, the reality is about 2-3% of both resident and NR return to hunt bears for a second time 4+ years later. Its a one and done type hunt, the 1 in 4 did nothing, the split season is more effective. Also... 80-82% of bears on the Peninsula are taken by NR hunters. If we go the same way with sheep, I think we'll see the % of animals taken by NR sway to similar direction.

There is no way to ensure residents get the "majority" of the animals because so many residents are novice hunters and don't have the means to compete. That's reality. Can't fault NR for killing more animals, they're just more fortunate or more prepared and have saved the cash to make it happen. How do you take wealth out of the equation? Good luck with that... IMO, eliminate the guide requirement, and set a limit on the number of permits issued. Don't even have to reduce the number of permits issues, just level the playing field. Changing the rule requires a trip through the legislature. They will not pass or undue a rule that would reduce money coming into the state.

If we go statewide draw it will be a total cluster and the folks that really want to hunt sheep on a regular basis will be reduced to getting the scraps from the ones that don't even care if they hunt more than once in their life. So who do we cater to the ones who really have no stake (one and done) or the ones who like to hunt?

Since the draw was implemented in the Chugach, we're seeing a NR harvest swing. NR are killing close to 80% of the sheep now. When it was a HT it was similar to what we had statewide. 60/40 split (Res/NR). The residents who draw the tags are pulled for a pool of hunters, where a large majority have never hunted sheep, or are completely ill prepared. Remember 60% go their first and only time each year... They can't compete with an outfit who has hunted the same area for years. Really no different than any other hunt where locals, or a hunter has the knowledge.

I wish we had the magic bullet for the "issue" but we don't have one.

IMO the 1:4 is probably the dumbest rule you could implement.

Keep in mind that the antlers have to stay at the kill site until the last load of meat comes out; also, some units require that meat is transported 'bone-in'. Lots of good reason to hire a guide for moose aside from the laws.



….boat(s) required to bring the Hondas, Hondas parked in plain view a half mile or so distant…………..moose didn't want to walk anymore, so we had to carry him……and only a mile off the beach, all tundra……..., but don't worry, anybody can show up and do it. …………………… or not

(My bud, in the pic, is most of 300 pounds.)

Is it known how many sheep are killed each year by subsistence hunters?

Bambi - thanks for the numbers. Much better than my guesses.

Thanks to Ironbender's other thread, I found the survey results that were mentioned in the first ADN article and figured I'd throw up a link for those that haven't seen it. Interesting reading so far.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static-f...t_rpts/14_sheep_hunter_survey_report.pdf

appreciate that link Chris, obliged