Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 67

Thread: BOG Jan. Proposals Online

  1. #1
    Moderator Daveinthebush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    4,402

    Default BOG Jan. Proposals Online

    Here they are folks. The new proposals for the Jan. BOG. meeting.

    http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/g...jan08-prop.pdf
    Last edited by Daveinthebush; 11-30-2007 at 13:50.

    Vietnam - June 70 - Feb. 72
    Cancer from Agent Orange - Aug. 25th 2012
    Cancer Survivor - Dec. 14th 2012

  2. #2
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    Boy all of the Anchorage Advisory Committee proposals look like they were written by an 8th grader...

    Some interesting ones in there for sure.
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  3. #3
    Member jkb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    1,466

    Default oh boy!!

    With all the preference point proposals I can only imagine the fury about to be unleashed by some on this forum.

  4. #4
    Moderator Daveinthebush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    4,402

    Default Bear Baiting

    There is another proposal that allows a guide to register bait stands for clients. The client does not need to take the bear baiting class as the guide is responsible for setup and cleanup.

    While it sounds fair, I can not imagine a guide setting up 20 or 30 stands in different locations. So mainly, a guide is running the same stand for different people in the same location. This seems to be a rewritten proposal from last year when some guide wanted to register 6 stands.

    In many areas, it is very difficult to even find a good baiting spot. On PWS, you are not limited by land availability but by safe anchorage. I can not see the BOG approving this one.

    Vietnam - June 70 - Feb. 72
    Cancer from Agent Orange - Aug. 25th 2012
    Cancer Survivor - Dec. 14th 2012

  5. #5
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,391

    Default

    Looks like we'll be seeing a preference point system in one form or another, as even ADF&G put in such a proposal at the behest of the BoG.


  6. #6
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,391

    Default

    Proposal 66 sure is an interesting one. Eliminate all antler and horn size restrictions for those over 70? That'll never pass.


    The one thing that I keep seeing over and over in these proposals is that the writer thinks that "no one" will suffer because of the proposed regulation. With very few exceptions, that is blatantly false. Many of those doing the proposing seem unable to see past their own noses to see that others may in fact be negatively impacted by the new regulation. That is not to say that the proposals are without merit, for some would be beneficial for the majority of hunters, but for so many to suggest that no one will suffer due to the new regulations is just asinine.

  7. #7
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,391

    Default

    Or...they use the "who will suffer" portion to spread misinformation about those who they disagree with. For example, take a look at prop. 68, which would make the entire state a 1 ram every 4 years area:

    Who is likely to suffer? Those who want to hunt sheep every year without regard to current sheep population conditions.
    As though those of us who hunt sheep every year give no regard to population trends and prudent management.

  8. #8
    Member Roger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Sunshine Alaska
    Posts
    2,049

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian M View Post
    Proposal 66 sure is an interesting one. Eliminate all antler and horn size restrictions for those over 70?

    Look who it was proposed by !!!! Most of them are going to be over 70 .
    PEOPLE SAY I HAVE A.D.D I DON'T UNDERSTA.....OH LOOK A MOOSE !!!

  9. #9
    Member Alasken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Eastern Oregon
    Posts
    457

    Default

    After my minute and a half looking at the proposals the one that really caught my eye was one for a sheep every four years. Great idea. 15 years or so too late, but progress is what it is. And it was submitted by a non-resident guide to boot.

  10. #10
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,435

    Default

    i know the guides will get the blame for the 1 every 4 prop for sheep, but i've gotta say i think its a great idea, not just from a guides standpoint. we alaskans have taken our sheep for granted for to long and look where we are now. Its time we actually protect and save our selves, from ourselves. Limit the harvest of sheep, so we can actually always have a harvest of sheep. i know this'll make some die hards break down and tear up, but sooner rather than later (i think we are already in later) something needs to change. if i had my druthers i'd be shooting a kodiak brown bear every year, but realisticly thats not a safe practice.
    Any guides in here get excited when they saw their license renewal prices?!?!
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    1,131

    Red face proposals

    Well I thought I would be in the minority, but maybe not. Since sheep hunting is my favorite hunting I support anything that will slow down the entire state going to draw. Guys who are against the 1:4 had better consider the alternative which leads to unlucky saps like me losing hunting privileges.

    Speaking of unlucky, I cant see a downside to preference points for us unlucky guys. It will give me hope to actually get a permit now and then. Praise the lord.
    I come home with an honestly earned feeling that something good has taken place. It makes no difference whether I got anything, it has to do with how the day was spent. Fred Bear

  12. #12
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BRWNBR View Post
    Limit the harvest of sheep, so we can actually always have a harvest of sheep. i know this'll make some die hards break down and tear up, but sooner rather than later (i think we are already in later) something needs to change. if i had my druthers i'd be shooting a kodiak brown bear every year, but realisticly thats not a safe practice.
    Jake, isn't the harvest of sheep already limited by full curl restrictions? No such regulation exists for Kodiak bears, thus there must be some other form of restriction. When it comes to sheep, though, it really isn't possible to over-harvest a population of sheep as long as only mature rams are targeted. Yes, we're seeing a decline in sheep populations in many areas of the state, but that is primarily due to predation and poor winter conditions, both of which have led to low lamb survival. Going to a 1 every four year restriction will do nothing to address the real issue. Nothing.

  13. #13
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alasken View Post
    After my minute and a half looking at the proposals the one that really caught my eye was one for a sheep every four years. Great idea. 15 years or so too late, but progress is what it is. And it was submitted by a non-resident guide to boot.
    That's to be expected. Very, very few guide clients come up more than once in a four year period (if ever) to do a sheep hunt. They're simply too expensive, so for most guided sheep hunters it is a once in a lifetime deal. This new regulation would have a huge impact on resident do-it-yourself sheep hunters, while having almost no effect on non-resident sheep hunters and their guides.

    The only way I could possibly support this proposal is if it were accompanied by the other proposal that seeks to limit all non-resident hunting to no more than 10% of the total harvest. Otherwise this is a blatant grab of Alaska's resources for non-residents.

  14. #14
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,435

    Default

    well most hunts has a restriction, no sows and cubs, only 50" bulls, spike fork and the like. And lets face is how you gonna put a restriction on a bear, most guys can't tell the difference between and 8' sow and a 9 foot boar.
    Now we are gonna start getting into biolodgy here, not something i'm really that great at.
    1:4 i would guess, would slow sheep harvest. If not as many legal/mature rams are killed wouldn't that leave more breeding sheep for the rut which is later than hunting season, so wouldn't our lamb/ewe ratio go up...hypothecially of course, winters play a huge roll in sheep as well.
    So i would guess that if we have more ewes knockin' out more lambs sheep numbers would stabilize quicker and "bounce" back faster?!
    If you've got one or two breeding rams for two or three drainages, they are gonna be doing alot of work trying to breed what they can find, if we have one legal ram in each drainage more of the ewes will get breed.
    again this is biology here, if ONLY mature rams breed then this holds up if not..well screw the 1:4 just shoot them all and leave a couple 3 year olds...

    limit the non-res i think would be the best way to do it. or allocate the tags specificly for non res and not a mixed pot as it is in some areas..since most of AK will be draw in less than a decade anyway.
    I knew guides would get hit with this, didn't think it would come from brian though, well first anyway 1:4 hits guys on buffalo, brown bear and tok as well, i know guys who'd give anything to hunt brownies every year down there, or least have a shot at drawing a tag for one or a buff. sheep guys aren't the only fanatics, just most don't see past the mountain their on...BRIAN...
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian M View Post
    Or...they use the "who will suffer" portion to spread misinformation about those who they disagree with. For example, take a look at prop. 68, which would make the entire state a 1 ram every 4 years area:



    As though those of us who hunt sheep every year give no regard to population trends and prudent management.

    Yeah thats a bogus proposal. Not all of us get a sheep every year that we sheep hunt, yet each year we are called to the mountains in search of them. I can think of a lot of things that would help eliminate the reducing numbers in the sheep population and restricting residents from hunting them for 4 years because they were successful last year is not one of them. Its only a "once in a lifetime hunt" for non-residents not for those of us who live here.

  16. #16
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,391

    Default

    Leave a few 3 year olds? That's a little over the top, don't you think? Most rams don't reach full curl until 7-8 years. 5-6 year old rams are plenty capable of impregnating multiple ewes, and still are passing on the same genetic potential for large horns as they would a few years later after actually growing those horns.

    I guess we'd have to look at the data to really make this decision. Are there a significant number of ewes that are not being bred? I have been under the impression that the vast majority of ewes get impregnated every year, but I could be wrong on that. Being as they are herd animals, it's not exactly hard for a few rams to find all the ewes, even if they have to work a few drainages to do so.

    I don't know...this just doesn't seem like prudent management to me. I really have seen absolutely zero evidence that mature rams are being overharvested. If we're going to look at such a drastic change, it sure as heck better be based on sound science.

  17. #17
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,435

    Default

    i hate to say it, but we won't get science out there. we'll get theory and ideas and trends, some data but no/little science.
    Frankly if they go to 1:4 it'll tick some guys off, they'll learn to live with it like all other reg changes that limit our hunting "freedom" here in alaska and then we'll flip out with the next BOG props, life goes on and we tell our kids how it was in the "good 'ol days".
    If they don't go 1:4 then they'll go to draw....then you can only hunt maybe every 1-10 years, regardless of success, pick your poision i guess.
    i'm thinking the science is this...more and more hunters each year, less sheep...they gotta do something, rather than sit back and let us/winter/predation work them over.
    Maybe this prop is in there just to slow down harvest and spread hunting opportunity out and has nothing to do with data..?
    can't make them all happy.
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  18. #18

    Default

    I know this one affects you Jake but I definately agree with the proposals to limit the number of tags the guides get for non-resident hunters for sure. If someone is gonna tell me that there arent enough rams for us Alaskans to hunt them each year then they **** sure better cut off the non-residents at the same time. The 1:4 will not affect the non-resident hunter or large scale guide businesses one bit, but directly affects us resident Alaskan sheep hunters in the shorts. Aint right anyway its explained! Cant take from one side without the other side doing some serious sacrificing too!

  19. #19
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,391

    Default

    I think that it's driven at least in part by a desire for more trophy management. Look at the recent addition of 13D and 14A to the drawing system. While sheep numbers are down a bit in these areas, there is no real conservation concern. The concern that was mentioned over and over, however, was the lack of true trophy quality rams. Some hunters complained (loudly enough, apparently) that few rams were living long enough to reach 40", as they were being harvested once they reached full curl. Personally, I think this is a sorry way to set regulations. Eventually the entire state may go draw, not because there is a shortage of sheep, but because of this drive for trophy quality. I've taken one ram that comes semi-close to the mythical 40" barrier, but my favorite by far is my little 32" ram, as the experience was truly second to none. I, along with many other sheep hunters, head to the mountains for the experience far more than the trophy potential. That's being taken from us, and many seem to advocate that we roll over and accept it because "it could be worse".

    What a sad state of affairs.

  20. #20
    Member jkb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    1,466

    Default Need more legal sheep

    I have not studied the question 1 sheep every 4 years, but if I pretty much knew if I put in the effort I could get a full curl every four years it would be worth it. As it stands it doesn't matter how much you work if there are no full curls left alive in a valley your out of luck. I personally don't like trying to count rings on a 7/8s.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •