Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 129

Thread: Sheep hunters take a look

  1. #1

    Default Sheep hunters take a look

    I hope all take their time to read this. I came across this by accident. I am not sure if you've heard of the Glacier Mt control use area, but it is a unique area with a very low sheep population and is one of the few areas in the state that has limited access and no commercial (guiding) activities in the area. It allows people a very unique experience to walk into a rugged and wild area for a possible chance at a sheep.

    A guide has applied with the blm to guide in this area with a harvest of 3 sheep per year. I am hoping that all sheep hunters will ban together and sends comments opposing this application.

    Here is the website and an email contact. The deadline is in a few days, so share this with as many as you can.

    https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office...ing_032812.pdf

    Thanks!

  2. #2
    Member cdubbin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    KP, the dingleberry of Alaska
    Posts
    1,749

    Default

    Hmmm. From what I can tell, this is a non-motorized, draw-only sheep hunt open to both res and non-res, with no subsistence priority in the unit. Are you opposed to non-resident hunting in this area? 'Cause they gotta have a guide if they're gonna go, and the odds are the same for everybody.
    "– Gas boats are bad enough, autos are an invention of the devil, and airplanes are worse." ~Allen Hasselborg

  3. #3

    Default

    This is not a draw area. It is an open area. One area that was created to keep pressure hunting pressure down on the sheep and now a guide wants to come in and be allowed to harvest 3 sheep per year. I am opposed to having a guide come in and be allowed to harvest 3 rams out of an area set up to protect a very small population of sheep in an area that is very unique. Take it for what is worth. If you don't care about stuff like like this, no biggie. I happen to do.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Girdwood
    Posts
    1,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cdubbin View Post
    Hmmm. From what I can tell, this is a non-motorized, draw-only sheep hunt open to both res and non-res, with no subsistence priority in the unit. Are you opposed to non-resident hunting in this area? 'Cause they gotta have a guide if they're gonna go, and the odds are the same for everybody.
    FWIW - Non residents could hunt via second degree of kindred.

    If you're for opening the area to one guide? Then why stop there and not open it to all of them. You know - give everyone the same odds ... LOL.

  5. #5
    Member Chisana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Juneau, Alaska
    Posts
    1,439

    Default

    I believe this particular guide has a reputation for coming into an area, taking all he can from it, and moving on. The sheep population in the permit area is small and unique. It is likely to be harmed irreparably if this permit is approved.

  6. #6
    Member cdubbin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    KP, the dingleberry of Alaska
    Posts
    1,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by northway View Post
    This is not a draw area. It is an open area.
    OK, I think I had my forks of the Fortymile mixed up, much better to do on paper than on the ground
    I do care about stuff like this, Northway, I hunted that area once in the 90s, hope to again. Pretty weak nag, maybe, but she is in the race.
    "– Gas boats are bad enough, autos are an invention of the devil, and airplanes are worse." ~Allen Hasselborg

  7. #7

    Default

    Northway, thanks for the heads up. I sent my comments/concerns.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chisana View Post
    I believe this particular guide has a reputation for coming into an area, taking all he can from it, and moving on. The sheep population in the permit area is small and unique. It is likely to be harmed irreparably if this permit is approved.
    Yes sir. I think that you summed it up quite well. My whole concern is the resource.

  9. #9
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,191

    Default

    Northway...........looks like a somewhat difficult area to access. The CUA restricts hunters to foot or horse I would assume. Kind of a long walk for a non res. I see the guy is proposing to use horses. That would make it easier.
    As I read the regs, this is a harvest ticket hunt area. Unlimited access for both res and non res. With it being a HT hunt, and fairly difficult access, why are you opposed to a guide? Are there currently any other guides permitted for that area?
    Note: This application is only for BLM land. I see some state and native land the guy could possibly use without the BLM permit.
    Do you hunt this area.
    One more note: I am not supporting or opposing this permit, but I am curious why your interested.
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  10. #10
    Member TWB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    3,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by northway View Post
    I am opposed to having a guide come in and be allowed to harvest 3 rams out of an area set up to protect a very small population of sheep in an area that is very unique.
    Guide success rates are much higher given the amount of time they spend in the field.

    I see this as more about the future of the population. How long can an area sustain 100% success rates on an already low #.

    Haven't checked but what are the harvest counts vs population?
    We do not go to the green woods and crystal waters to rough it, we go to smooth it. We get it rough enough at home; in towns and cities; in shops, offices, stores, banks anywhere that we may be placed

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by martentrapper View Post
    Northway...........looks like a somewhat difficult area to access. The CUA restricts hunters to foot or horse I would assume. Kind of a long walk for a non res. I see the guy is proposing to use horses. That would make it easier.
    As I read the regs, this is a harvest ticket hunt area. Unlimited access for both res and non res. With it being a HT hunt, and fairly difficult access, why are you opposed to a guide? Are there currently any other guides permitted for that area?
    Note: This application is only for BLM land. I see some state and native land the guy could possibly use without the BLM permit.
    Do you hunt this area.
    One more note: I am not supporting or opposing this permit, but I am curious why your interested.
    MT, More of resource issue. This area was set up to be a hard area to access because of the low sheep population. By allowing this "said" guide in there, whom I will say doesn't care about any resource, and allow him to harvest 3 sheep just is against why the CUA area was set up. It really is a unique area and has been for a very long time. Just hate to see an area that was purposely set up this way to be violated by someone who cares less about the resources there. It is about $$ and not the resource and I will fight that every time.

    I am not "anti" guide here, I am "pro" leaving this area as it is without the commercial use in it.

    I am sure the native land is Doyon and that won't be happening for him. Guide has a reputation already, and I'll leave it at that.

  12. #12
    Member cdubbin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    KP, the dingleberry of Alaska
    Posts
    1,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TWB View Post
    Haven't checked but what are the harvest counts vs population?
    Here's the numbers for general season sheep in unit 20E from ADFG:


    YEAR :__________
    #HUNTERS:_____# SHEEP KILLED:

    2010______________10______________ 2


    2009______________13______________ 0


    2008______________13______________3


    2007______________21______________7

    2006______________14______________3


    2005______________14______________8

    2004______________13______________3

    2003______________24______________10

    2002______________26______________8

    2001______________20______________9

    2000______________32______________5


    According to a 2004 study: "The five year trend in Dall’s sheep numbers in the areas surveyed in the Yukon-Tanana Uplands indicates a stable population of sheep." http://www.arlis.org/docs/vol1/58732389/chapter1.html
    "– Gas boats are bad enough, autos are an invention of the devil, and airplanes are worse." ~Allen Hasselborg

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Girdwood
    Posts
    1,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by northway View Post
    MT, More of resource issue. This area was set up to be a hard area to access because of the low sheep population. By allowing this "said" guide in there, whom I will say doesn't care about any resource, and allow him to harvest 3 sheep just is against why the CUA area was set up. It really is a unique area and has been for a very long time. Just hate to see an area that was purposely set up this way to be violated by someone who cares less about the resources there. It is about $$ and not the resource and I will fight that every time.

    I am not "anti" guide here, I am "pro" leaving this area as it is without the commercial use in it.

    I am sure the native land is Doyon and that won't be happening for him. Guide has a reputation already, and I'll leave it at that.
    Seems like lots of contradictions in your statements.

    From your earlier post, "Yes sir. I think that you summed it up quite well. My whole concern is the resource." Yet statements like, "Guide has a reputation already, and I'll leave it at that." and "I am not "anti" guide here, I am "pro" leaving this area as it is without the commercial use in it."

    So I'm at a loss of why 1) you feel compelled to differentiate a guide that has a reputation from one that does not. For starters, what kind of reputation do you mean? 2) why you personalize your attack against the guide that applied to guide in the area. Despite the jumbled speech, please spare us from what appears to be the near slanderous undertones.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wet eNuf View Post
    Seems like lots of contradictions in your statements.

    From your earlier post, "Yes sir. I think that you summed it up quite well. My whole concern is the resource." Yet statements like, "Guide has a reputation already, and I'll leave it at that." and "I am not "anti" guide here, I am "pro" leaving this area as it is without the commercial use in it."

    So I'm at a loss of why 1) you feel compelled to differentiate a guide that has a reputation from one that does not. For starters, what kind of reputation do you mean? 2) why you personalize your attack against the guide that applied to guide in the area. Despite the jumbled speech, please spare us from what appears to be the near slanderous undertones.
    Just another reason not to post here on this forum. Just wanted to give any who gives a **** a heads up on this and that is it. If I post about a guide that is certainly "questionable", than so be it. I am not going to waste my time arguing, like what usually happens on this site.

    Even if the guide wasn't "questionable", I would still be against it just because the area is unique and doesn't need the added pressure of having a guide in there.

    I posted for those who understand the area and its uniqueness. If you don't care, then don't comment.

  15. #15
    Member mod elan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Glennallen
    Posts
    1,476

    Default

    Spin his words any way you want to Wet eNuf. Shall we all sit back and let bad guides go about their business and not say anything? I believe northway doesn't want any guide in that area because of it's uniqueness. If it weren't for a certain pillage, rape, and leave guide in 13D that unit may not have gone to a draw as soon as it did.

  16. #16
    Member PG13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    342

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by northway View Post
    Here is the website and an email contact. The deadline is in a few days, so share this with as many as you can.
    Thanks for the heads up. Don't want to have to explain my position so I'll just say I responded to BLM with my opinion of the situation.
    Go Big Red!

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Girdwood
    Posts
    1,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by northway View Post
    I would still be against it just because the area is unique and doesn't need the added pressure of having a guide in there.
    Thanks for your understanding.

    FWIW - I actually agree with this position. (If you check back to post #4, perhaps my attempt at humor missed the mark.)

  18. #18

    Default

    Regardless of the guide, ANY commercial operator in this area would potentially RUIN this unique sub-population. Glacier Mountain is a small geographically isolated mountain with a limited (50-80) number of sheep and produces just 2-4 legal rams per year. This small population can not sustain a harvest of three rams/year. To lump this area into all of 20E is not biologically sound. Glacier mountain has averaged 1.5 rams harvested/year the last 10 years. This is a sustainable number and it should stay that way. As others have said, this is a very unique and difficult place to get to and was reserved as a controlled use area to maintain this special character and to protect this small population from over-harvest. To allow a guide in here goes against the very nature of what this cua was originally intended to do. Northway-thank you very much for making us aware of this and I hope BLM is flooded with comments opposing this application.

  19. #19
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,600

    Default

    Why not cut it off to all hunting and let them build up without human pressure.
    Now left only to be a turd in the forrest and the circle will be complete.Use me as I have used you

  20. #20

    Default

    There's no building up this population. It is a very small isolated habitat that has a small range (numbers wise) of sheep it can support. Eliminating hunting won't increase this population. The way it is now, this sub-population can handle the hunting pressure it currently receives from the few hunters willing to work very hard to get there and allows for this small opportunity. This proposal would probably eliminate every mature ram from this population every year, and potentially threaten its long term viability. Plus the potential for user conflict in this small geographic area would increase exponentially.

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •