I just read this while doing some research for our 2018 trip. I found interesting is the verbage being used by village residents, it was the same language being used in another thread describing non village residents.....non local hunters. It is also stated that non local hunters are harvesting less than 5% of the total harvest. If there is that much of a concern over the herd, then would it not stand to reason that regulations on the 95% of the total harvest would have a greater effect and be more meaningful in the long run towards herd dynamics and herd health?
To an outsider whom is very familiar with natural resource politics, and selfish user groups...something doesn't seem to add up. It appears to be similar in nature to the play book that has been run in the closure of 23 GMU.
Here at home, 5% or less impact on our white tail herd is a non starter when it comes to regulation change. That is very close to the impact of youth hunters on a 2 day special hunt for kids, but yet there are those upset with kids having a 2 day hunt just for them.
We have almost as many deer hunters in my home state, as you do here in Alaska total residents.
If caribou are similar to deer in how female cohort affects population size and replacement, maybe shooting of cows needs to be curtailed on all user groups, locals inlcuded until the herd rebounds to some degree?
I will be watching this closely, as the Western Arctic Herd is the particular herd we are interested in coming up to hunt.