Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Alaska ADN Sheep hunting articles

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?

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.

So basically you want resident hunters to take the hit?

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..

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 know a sheep bio. Maybe he will post here as I'm sure he is following this.

He can PM his thoughts, if preferred.

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 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.....

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.

I like it. Courts say can't cap guide # so lets let economics work. Too many guides for too little resource now.

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.

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.

+1. Good post, Art.

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