View Poll Results: What number would you like to see Non-Resident Dall Sheep tags capped at?

Voters
115. You may not vote on this poll
  • 10%

    80 69.57%
  • 15%

    10 8.70%
  • 20%

    6 5.22%
  • 25%

    10 8.70%
  • 30%

    0 0%
  • 35%

    3 2.61%
  • >35%

    6 5.22%
Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 119

Thread: Non-Resident Sheep Tag Allocation

  1. #1

    Default Non-Resident Sheep Tag Allocation

    With all the recent threads regarding the upcoming Board of Game meetings I thought it would be a good idea to start a poll and see exactly what number the majority of Alaskans would like see Non-Resident Sheep tags capped at.

  2. #2
    Member Bambistew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Chugiak
    Posts
    315

    Default

    Why do you need a poll... its in the Sheep survey that Dr. Brinkman put together. I believe 88% of those surveyed want NR put on a draw. The "mean" percentage reported was 10% of tags given to NR.

    Not sure how you quantify "percentage," is it 10% of all sheep hunters, sheep harvested, or some other percentage?

    The best thing you can do is go to a BOG or Advosory meeting and make your voice heard, or at the very least send in written comments to the BOG on the current proposals. Posting on the interweb does nothing. Frankly for as much time as people spend replying to these topics, they could have spent half the time and wrote a comment to the BOG.

  3. #3

    Default

    Trust me, I'll be attending the Board of Game Advisory meeting if possible. At a minimum a written comment will be submitted. I'd have to disagree with
    Posting on the interweb does nothing.
    . The more people become aware of the situation, the better the chances that more of us will show up to the Board of Game Meetings to push for the changes we desire.

    10%, 35% or whatever the percentage is would be the allocation of total sheep harvested by non-residents within a given game management unit. That is, statewide the amount of sheep harvested by non-residents would be limited to a certain percentage of the average total amount of rams harvested in that unit in the past. Thus, if around ~90 rams a year were killed in a certain unit then the non-resident take would be limited to 10% of that average yearly take (9 rams total for that unit). Numbers would also have to be adjusted for population increases and decreases, but would keep non-residents at 10% of the total harvest.

  4. #4
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,465

    Default

    So your asking for sheep harvested not tags...if they typically have 70% success then you need more than 10 percent of the tags to hit 10 percent of the harvest. I believe they have to be offered 10% of the available tags at a minimum.

    Also thinking if your just polling Alaskans and asking them if they want to share more than 10 percent of the sheep tags. I can see where this is headed already! Lol
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  5. #5

    Default

    Hard to cap the total amount of non-resident tags at 10% when residents have unlimited tags available. In draw hunts we can limit non-resident tags to (10%, 20% or whatever number you come up with) since they have a total amount of tags available for a given unit. However, in general season hunts where resident tags are unlimited I feel the allocation should be based upon harvest. So, yes fish and game would have to give out more tags than the amount of sheep they expect to be harvested.

    I just though it'd be wise to see what everyone here feels is fair. Obviously most residents who want non-residents limited will choose the lowest number available. However, the poll is open to everyone: guides, residents, non-residents, sheep hunters/non-sheep hunters. It'll be interesting to see what hunters as a whole feel non-res tags should be capped at. Although there might be some who think they shouldn't be capped at all, I guess I should've made "No Cap" an option as well.

  6. #6
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,465

    Default

    Gotcha. I misunderstood. Your original post said Alaskans.
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  7. #7

    Default

    None of the above. I don't think putting a flat, across the board percentage really works very well. Better way in my mind would be to look at historical data, before there were specific allocations (if possible since some hunts may not have been in place without resident/non-resident allocations splits). When everyone, resident and non-resident, went into the same pool for the drawing, what percentage of applicants were from residents versus non-residents. Set the allocation accordingly. If it comes out that 90% of the applicants in the past were residents, than allocate 90% of the permits to residents. If it was higher or lower for particular hunts, adjust accordingly. If we want to lean toward a resident priority, then make that non-resident allocation a maximum (so, for example, if there were only 15 permits available and a max of 10% were to go to non-residents, than only 1 of the 15 would be non-resident because 2 would push over the 10% threshold).

    I will admit here that I am not a sheep hunter myself, so I do not have a vested interest in this in either way. At the same time, I do not have an extensive background researching the sheep draw system either so I may be somewhat off base as well. Just adding in my ideas as an "outside" when it comes to sheep at least.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    AK
    Posts
    4,034

    Default

    I'm also not a sheep Hunter, but I don't understand why try haven't gone to one ever 4 years or even one every 10 years for non-resident. Certainly there is no subsistence value to a non resident.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #9
    Member oakman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Eagle River, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    1,172

    Default

    Here's the problem with your poll....you don't have any choices less than 10%

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by limon32 View Post
    I'm also not a sheep Hunter, but I don't understand why try haven't gone to one ever 4 years or even one every 10 years for non-resident. Certainly there is no subsistence value to a non resident.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Limiting Non-residents to a 1 in 4 system would do little curb the Non-resident Dall sheep take. Most Non-residents who hunt up here for sheep come for a once in a lifetime experience. The amount of non-residents who hunt dall sheep every year is a very small minority and limiting them would do little to affect the total amount of hunters/sheep harvested.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    AK
    Posts
    4,034

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LGraham View Post
    Limiting Non-residents to a 1 in 4 system would do little curb the Non-resident Dall sheep take. Most Non-residents who hunt up here for sheep come for a once in a lifetime experience. The amount of non-residents who hunt dall sheep every year is a very small minority and limiting them would do little to affect the total amount of hunters/sheep harvested.
    I would be interested to see ADFG stats on that, the few non-resident folks I know who have harvested sheep have each harvested multiple sheep.

    Washington, Oregon and Idaho are all once in a lifetime harvest, maybe that would be more appropriate for everyone?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  12. #12

    Default

    In the grand scheme of things I'd rather see that non-residents were limited to an allocation percentage rather than a 1 in 4 system because I believe it would do more to help the population. However you are right when you say that multiple non-residents kill sheep every year. My experiences lead me to believe that most of them are non-residents who are affiliated with guide camps. (I.E. Packers, Assistant Guides, Camp Cooks, etc.) I've met multiple non-residents in guide camps who say that one of the perks of guiding/ working for a guide up here is that they get to kill a sheep once clients have limited out or they have a break between groups. Also, I'm sure some guys come up and hunt with their father/brother/relative every year. I'm more opposed to the later than that though.

  13. #13
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,465

    Default

    "......For what it's worth, sheep numbers started to rebound in the new 13D drawing hunts (rams and ewes) but have since dropped back down to pre-draw levels because of factors unrelated to hunting. It's unfortunate, but there are less sheep out there across much of the state, and here inlies the biggest problem all sheep hunters have at the moment."

    Decreasing non res hunting opportunity is not going to help the sheep
    Population. I believe what you are trying to do is increase surplus of legal Rams for residents to harvest with less competition.
    The above quote is from someone who knows Alaskan south central sheep better than probably anyone in this forum.
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BRWNBR View Post
    "......For what it's worth, sheep numbers started to rebound in the new 13D drawing hunts (rams and ewes) but have since dropped back down to pre-draw levels because of factors unrelated to hunting. It's unfortunate, but there are less sheep out there across much of the state, and here inlies the biggest problem all sheep hunters have at the moment."

    Decreasing non res hunting opportunity is not going to help the sheep
    Population. I believe what you are trying to do is increase surplus of legal Rams for residents to harvest with less competition.
    The above quote is from someone who knows Alaskan south central sheep better than probably anyone in this forum.
    Somewhat Agree with the first part, Perhaps I should have said "rams available for resident harvest" instead of sheep population. it's no secret that the main problem regarding sheep right now has to due with icing events/bad weather years which have put a hurting on the sheep population as a whole. Add in the non-human predation factor, disease and you get the situation we have now. With hunts where only ~8+ year old rams are harvested, human predation/hunting plays a limited factor in how well sheep populations do.

    However, it is my belief that in certain units the population could actually benefit from a lesser harvest of legal rams (which limiting non-resident take would do). In certain units where competition and non-resident harvest is high, the average age of rams harvested has decreased. This leads to a lower amount of old legal/boss rams left on the mountain to breed in late October/November. As a result there is increased competition between younger rams for breeding rights (which leads to increased mortality) and also an increase in harassment of ewes from these sub-dominant rams. This in turn leads to a decrease in the overall health of the ewes which leads to lower fertility/higher mortality rates and less ewes/lambs in the population. In addition, during the winter many rams are led by the oldest lead ram which knows the best feeding grounds, mineral licks, escape routes in their area. The harvest of almost all older age class rams leads to higher mortality on the rest of the sheep herd as a result of lesser experienced immature rams leading the herd. Like I said though, overall this is peanuts compared to weather, disease and non-human predation.

    Finally, To answer the last part of your quote. Yes, my intentions are to increase the amount of rams available to residents as opposed to non-residents. I'm currently very disappointed with the amount of sheep that are harvest by non-residents. It is my opinion that the current decrease in hunters is not only due to the population decrease but also from resident hunters who have become discouraged by the amount of competition by non-resident guided hunters. The reduction in population has made this problem worse and enough is enough. It's time for a change!

  15. #15
    Member ramhunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    699

    Default

    Just got back from the sheep show in Reno, I spend an hour talking to Jack Atchenson about the new Alaska Chapter of WSF, of which Jack is on the board of this new chapter.


    Sounds like alot of the sheep guides in Alaska are very concerned about the proposed allocations of capping non-res sheep hunters!
    "Mountains are not fair or unfair, they are just dangerous" ~ Reinhold Messner

  16. #16
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,465

    Default

    I understand what your saying.

    Couldn't imagine why guides would be concerned about going out of business. From their perspective (some not all) they could loose their business and livelihood so residents could recreationally have more hunting opportunities with less competition.
    Until someday somewhere moose numbers drop and residents want bears killed but aren't willing to do it. Then they'll love having guides around. At least we are good for something other than supporting local businesses and pumping money into rural economies. ( tounge in cheek there guys, let's not flip out! )
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Finally, To answer the last part of your quote. Yes, my intentions are to increase the amount of rams available to residents as opposed to non-residents. I'm currently very disappointed with the amount of sheep that are harvest by non-residents. It is my opinion that the current decrease in hunters is not only due to the population decrease but also from resident hunters who have become discouraged by the amount of competition by non-resident guided hunters. The reduction in population has made this problem worse and enough is enough. It's time for a change![/QUOTE]

    maybe just limit us non resident to muzzle loaders lol, maybe residents need to hire a guide, 5 times as many residents hunted than non resident with yes 50% of the harvest we do have to use guides so hire one yourself, sounds a little harsh but so does the blame it on the non residents for residents failure to harvest more animal.

    so yes I am one of the non resident coming to your state to try my best to harvest a sheep this year, and have limited understanding of the problem you face but soon you will get change as we have these problems in every state in one fashion or the other turkey, elk, deer, bear & pure numbers of visitors to parks etc but in the end of the day more hunters trying harvest limited number of animals which last time I checked are in part owned by all Americans. So residents will also share in the pain as well as the non residents in the end of the day they will limit residents as well. just ask folks that live in Montana 10% is allocated to non residents but residents have to draw as well and limit on tags per X number years.

    Complex problem with no easy answer by the way I support 25% with residents having to draw as well, make no sense to limit non residents and unlimited residents that just taking out competition, used 25% due to the large amount of federal land which is not the same in Montana, Idaho and some other states as all Americans help support Federal Owned lands. I feel like we need a gate to stop anymore folks in coming to Florida but that not happening ether

    In the end gee what 2500 people arguing over some sheep tags heck we have 9000 gator tags in Florida and sold them all every year for the first time I did not draw one too many people is the real reason............................................ ......but sure glad I coming this year weak numbers or not.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BRWNBR View Post
    I understand what your saying.

    Couldn't imagine why guides would be concerned about going out of business. From their perspective (some not all) they could loose their business and livelihood so residents could recreationally have more hunting opportunities with less competition.
    Until someday somewhere moose numbers drop and residents want bears killed but aren't willing to do it. Then they'll love having guides around. At least we are good for something other than supporting local businesses and pumping money into rural economies. ( tounge in cheek there guys, let's not flip out! )
    Dang stole my reply about the money us non residents bring in to the economy of any state we hunt kind like tourist coming to Fla they pay sales tax keeps us from having state income tax, brings jobs clog up our roads crowed our beaches anyway thanks for such a great state were we can come and enjoy the few wild places left and guides earn every penny they charge putting up with us newbies no matter were I hunted if anything underpaid.

  19. #19

    Default

    [QUOTE=BRWNBR;1451779]So your asking for sheep harvested not tags...if they typically have 70% success then you need more than 10 percent of the tags to hit 10 percent of the harvest. I believe they have to be offered 10% of the available tags at a minimum.

    My math doesn't match up with the above statement.

    Using AK F&G 2013 sheep harvest statistics, 63.1% of non-residents sheep hunters were successful, compared to 22.5% for resident sheep hunters.

    If non-residents are limited to 10% of the harvest, they would be need to be limited to 3.8% of the tags.

    If non-residents are limited to 10% of the tags, they would end up harvesting 23.7% of the sheep.



    Show me the math (sorry, but can't get full credit if I don't show the work- mathematics class strikes again)


    10% of harvest (If non-residents were limited to 10% of the harvest)-hypothetical huntable surplus of 100 sheep (for simple math)
    10 sheep harvested by NR / 0.631 NR success rate= 15.9 NR sheep hunters would need to hunt to harvest this many sheep
    90 sheep harvested by R /.225 R success rate = 400 R sheep hunters would need to hunt to harvest this many sheep
    = 15.9 NR sheep hunters/ 415.9 total sheep hunters= 3.8% of the total hunters would need to be non-residents, if they were to be allotted 10% of the harvest

    10% of the tags- (If non-residents are given 10% of the tags) (hypothetical 100 total tags issued to keep the math simple)
    10 non-residents would harvest (10x.631 NR success rate)= 6.3 sheep
    90 residents would harvest (90x.225 R success rate)= 20.3 sheep
    6.3 sheep harvested by NR out of 26.6 total sheep harvested =is 23.7% of the sheep being harvested by non-residents

    As the saying goes, "there are lies, and darn lies, and then there are statistics".

  20. #20
    Member ramhunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    699

    Default

    Congrats HUNTINGBIGUN on you booking a sheep hunt this fall!....but in all fairness you should ease up on thrashing the residents about lower harvest rates compared to the guided hunters!....Think about it for a minute, if you or any other non-resident just came up to Alaska and hunted on your own without a guides help, you’re harvest rate would be the same or lower!
    Let me put it in to perspective for you, your guide will tell you what clothes to wear, what boots to wear, what sleep bag to bring, when and where you will sleep, he will cook you your food and tell you when you can eat, he will tell you when and where you can take a crap, he will pack your water and other stuff up the mountain, he will spot your sheep, he will tell you when and which sheep you will shoot, he will take pictures of you and your sheep, he will skin, bone out your sheep and pack it out for you, etc, etc….and you will go the Florida with a sheep thinking you really did something! You’re not coming to Alaska to hunt sheep, you’re coming to Alaska to pull the trigger on your rifle, that’s all you will be doing! So please think about this before you thrash us DIY Alaskans and our hunting abilities!
    Been there, I got a Stone Sheep on the only guided hunt I’ve ever been on, I’m glad I got that stone, but I have many, many DIY hunts that top that hunt!
    Good Luck and I hope you get a nice ram!
    "Mountains are not fair or unfair, they are just dangerous" ~ Reinhold Messner

Page 1 of 6 123 ... 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
  •