Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Alaska Interesting Sheep Conversation

That too.

Folks have to face up if you use up and ruin the resource its gone. At least for a time.

I'd rather have the chance to hunt em every 5 years or whatever or X tags in a lifetime, than none at all.

Preference points are the way to go IMHO. It lets many folks pre plan, and thats helpful.

As to some residents being to old to ever get one , you could factor in age and give them a bump, once you realize what the initial point load will be. Or not. Just depends on the view. As it stands now, without PPs, many older folks could die or quit hunting without ever having a chance anyway.

I think anyone would love to have easy hunting for all species and an over abundance of them, but these days its simply not going to happen.

The more folks trying to utilize a fixed resource, will have to reduce their consumption at some point.

I'd much rather see it by limiting the tags but keeping em affordalbe to folks, and I can't even hunt sheep without a guide so I'll never be able to afford it anyway, but don't price the tags at 2000 bucks or such or even 1000, just limit the numbers as needed.

And in the end, often times the resource comes back stronger than it ever was if its carefully managed, and you can issue more tags.... Win win all around.

Maybe something similar to what they did to the Black Bear in SE ... put the Guides on a heavily restricted kill quota.

For starters.

First of all, there are areas open to hunt every year with no drawing required... Drawings are only in the areas used the most heavily.

Other states have plenty of takers for NR tags at up to $2,200. I would love to see tag price reciprocity... If your state charges NR hunters 2,200 for a sheep tag you should pay the same here.

If you do not have sheep the price could be calculated using a formula taking into account the animals you do have that are the same...

Oh I don't argue not having the cheapest tags out there.

And when you consider the sheep for whatever reason are already off limits to NR without a guide, it means those DIY types like me will never afford em anyway, then the higher tag prices can make sense.

I don't think tag prices in that scenario will cut your applicant numbers at all. After all if you can afford a sheep hunt, you can afford the tag.

I"d hate to see resident prices go that way though.

But having drawings at all, without PPs is not a fair way for folks. Not that life is fair.

Unfortunately you eventually get things to where only the elite can afford them if you are not careful.

Interesting topic... thanks for posting Sitka.

I've been dwelling on this situation for the last couple years, a few items for discussion.

-NR hunters currently make up about 23-24% of all sheep hunters in AK;

-NR are harvesting about 40%+/- of all sheep taken statewide;

-AK NR sheep tags are the cheapest in the US at $425, and purchased OTC

-Approximately twice as many NRs hunt sheep in Alaska than ALL western states combined.

-The total sheep taken statewide has declined nearly 50% over the last 20 years (1390 (in 1991) down to 670 (in 2012);

-Resident hunters have declined roughly 40% over the last 20 years (1992 = 2900 res hunters 2012 = 1700 res hunters);

-NR hunter numbers have remained fairly stable around 500 for the last 20 years (NR take has increased from 30% to 40% in the stem time);

-In 20A and 19C, NRs take 65% and 80% of all sheep killed, and make up 35 and 60% of all hunters in those areas;

-The average age of rams killed has declined in EVERY unit in the state, draw or not.

-In the last 20 years the % of rams taken less than 8yo (and full curl) has increased from about 5% to nearly 30% in some areas. As a result the number of rams taken older than 9 has decreased from 40% down to 20% in most aeas.

-The average age is shifting to the "minimum legal age" of 8yo, which happens to be the average age of a full curl ram;

-The total economic impact of Resident hunters vs NR hunters differs by about $1.5 million, most of which is attributed directly to license sales. Estimated impacts using todays $ and based on a study done 20 years ago indicates Resident impact = $5M, NR impact = $6.5M. Hard to say what the real number is now, considering how many guides live out of state;

-In unit 20A NR hunting pressure over the last 20 years has increased from 25, to nearly 100 non residents. Resident hunter numbers have remained basically flat at around 140;

-A guide concession program (GCP) is currently up for debate in the state house and senate, again. This program will essentially put a cap on the total number of guides who can operate on state land. Currently the only regulation on the number of guides is how many animals they can find and kill.

Something has to change and I'm not willing to let the BOG put Res on a draw just yet. The one thing that has remained constant through all this is NR harvest statewide, even with limited draw areas in the Chugache, and sheep populations declining. There is nothing to stop guides from jumping into a new area because of a newly implemented limited draw area, populating declines, what ever... There is money to be made and its going to be made at the behest of the wildlife.

I think our current draw system is the most fair out there as far as residents applying goes. Everyone is on the same playing field year after year. I have a hard time listening to guys that have lived up here complaining that they doubt they will ever get to draw a tag unless they go to preference points. My question is why didn't those individuals do a registration hunt before they got too old in the first place. IMO it is just a bunch of guys whining because they are no longer able to do the harder hunts and they didn't bother to do them when they were able, and now they want "easier" tags and they want them now.

I realize that with the current system there is a chance that I might never draw a sheep tag and I am fine with that because there are other opportunities available for those that are willing to work for it. If the whole state went to drawing tags for sheep then that would be a different story, but at this point in time that isn't the case. There are opportunities out there for those who will work for them.

Maybe guides need to draw to guide for sheep.

Like Kenai kings, perhaps it's time to lay off them for a while. I know that will never fly though.

I did not know that residents buy OTC. I assumed there was a limit to tags given by biologists per number of sheep available.

Thats a damn shame.

Kind of like New Mexico, use a guide and you are guaranteed a tag or dang near to it.

Sounds like guides lobbyists worked for them.

Great stats Bambi stew. I was familiar with them except the decline in harvest age and 9 year old rams killed. I didn't think that was the case. Anyway it is unlikely that hunting only full curl rams could decrease the population of sheep overall and I think all scientific studies support this. As you point out there are 40% less resident hunters now also. I think everyone agrees ( except the guides) that nonresidents need to be limited and pay more for tags. What isn't good for the resource is guys flying for hours plane spotting then stalking and harvesting the ram which all the famous sheep hunters did from the 50s to present. I wouldn't mind limiting resident harvest to every few years but I think resident draw would be terrible and not necessary.

Actually, taking out just full curls does do more harm to the population overall according to the bios... Younger rams stressed harder, before they should be ready to breed die more often in winter. If they go into winter unstressed because a mature ram kept them in check they are less likely to die, will grow more horn, and will start the spring in better condition which will keep it much healthier through the summer.

Limiting residents to a sheep every other year will have very little effect because the number of sheep hunters that kill a sheep two years in a row is very small.

What the full curl rule does do to the positive is allow more people to hunt... with a reduced chance of killing a sheep.

I'd have no trouble with reciprocity on tag pricing, if the guide requirement was also reciprocal.

And I would be good with that as long as folks from Indiana got exactly the same number of sheep tags as they gave out to AK residents...

When every Alaskan has shot as many sheep as they want, then it can be opened to out-of-staters.

The problem of too many hunters for too few sheep will probably be resolved when Obama's economic plan takes hold. Very few will have hunting funds!

Is their any part of the state that has not been over hunted and how is the sheep population there?

I was under the impression the the Brooks range still holds many sheep and has not been shot out. If this is true and the sheep population is also down then their is more to it then over hunting.

If the population is indeed hurting then maybe we should give them a break and residents should get preference over non residents. However, I do think that the economic impact from non resident hunters is way under estimated above. Be careful what you wish for.

It seems that a good alternative would be for the state to sell more guide concessions so the overall outfitter numbers and kill quota could be better controlled.

Hopefully things turn around for these beautiful animals.

There are many unhunted populations and they are down due to some bad winters... The Brooks Range has more sheep than any other in AK, but tend toward small bodied and small horned... There are exceptional areas in the Brooks though. The cost of getting there has protected their numbers...

One might look to Co elk seasons/ methods of harvest for ideas.

It would be interesting to look at numbers from Denali and other unhunted populations to correlate the effect of hunting on the population. As Art mentioned I'd expect that the numbers are down in these areas as well, but I'd be interested in seeing the data behind that. If anyone has numbers on that, please post or PM me.

The concern that I have is not that we are necessarily hurting the population directly by hunting, but that we are kicking them while they are down due bad winters/predators/etc. The effect of hunting may be magnified when combined with other factors. Of course, you'd expect hunters to have lower success rates when numbers are down as well, which is what makes the equation interesting.

The Brooks have sheep, no doubt, but there are certainly localized areas that get beat up pretty bad every year.

SD I have heard Wayne Heimer dispute this on many occasions and you can google him and read that only weather effects overall populations and full curl harvest hasn't yet been shown to,effect overall population size or even sub legal rams. Over harvest or rams, if it can be demonstrated only effects legal rams that year. Joe want gives a pretty good talk about the exaggeration of over harvest in alaska.