Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 158

Thread: All Non-Res have to draw for Sheep Tags Statewide!!!...BOG Proposal

  1. #1

    Default All Non-Res have to draw for Sheep Tags Statewide!!!...BOG Proposal

    Well theres been lots of talk about our sheep problems and many already know where I stand. If you dont, heres my stance. Sheep hunting has become a very popular activity for our state. Guides are booked out years in advance, and some are charging outrageously high fees and having no issues booking them. Its obvious that the non-res are far more successful than residents are because theirs no $$$ spared in scouting and access to the point of keeping residents out of many areas by controlling much of the business done by local air charters. The residents arent becoming any more successful than they were and the sheep numbers arent growing. So in addition to predator control my main concern right now is that there is no limit or control on how many sheep are killed by the efficient guided non-res sheep hunters annually in the non-draw units, which are vastly large areas of sheep country. I believe the issue is not about charging more money, but restricting the number of sheep hunters from out of state that are allowed to harvest sheep in the non-draw units. The Dall Sheep is a precious and easily categorized as a prized trophy worldwide and why should Alaska just sell each one with no difficulty to a non-resident in obtaining the privaledge to harvest one of these magnificent animals other than writing a check for it!

    So with that said, how would one generate a proposal requiring all non-res sheep hunters to draw a tag and how do we determine how many tags they should be allowed? Our voice as residents must be voiced and heard or what has happened in units 13 and 14 this past year will repeat itself in every other unit at some point. I am not against non-res sheep hunters haing the opportunity to harvest a dall sheep but its gotten out of control as to how easily it can be done with the effectiveness of guided non-res in big numbers and the resource cant handle the continued pressure combined with the predation problems we already have.All those with ideas please voice your thoughts.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    somewhere in Alaska
    Posts
    51

    Default Finally!!!

    PM on the way...

  3. #3

    Default what happened

    Units 13 and 14? Please fill me in..

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wilsonsmw View Post
    Units 13 and 14? Please fill me in..
    Heres a link to detailed info about it.

    http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/...ighlight=sheep

  5. #5

    Default

    Heres a link to view the numbers, it shows how many residents and non-residents hunt each of the general harvest units and sub units and then it shows the success rates. Its plain silly, in every single unit the non-res out harvest the residnets by as much as 50%. Even 14A and 13D show its not the residents that harvested so many sheep that it was turned to draw, it was the wonderful success of the non-res guided sheep hunters. Check it out, its an eye opener. Just enter sheep and pick the unit of your choice.

    http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index...streports.main

  6. #6
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,453

    Default

    punish the successfull....dumb. some other points on success because of money and scouting is pretty much inaccurate as well. Most guide success comes from experience in an area and know how the sheep there travel and habitat they prefer at different times of the year. but thats not the point...

    but the idea is good, i like the idea of draw for non res state wide, that would certainly accomplish something, as long as the draw numbers they came up with were reasonable. Better than draw for non res and res.

    Do it man, take the flack and stick to your guns, its a good idea. i'm sure there are some drawbacks we don't see yet that will come to light but take it one bridge at a time.
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BRWNBR View Post
    punish the successfull....dumb. some other points on success because of money and scouting is pretty much inaccurate as well. Most guide success comes from experience in an area and know how the sheep there travel and habitat they prefer at different times of the year. but thats not the point...
    Jake its not about punishment its about stabilization of the resource. The numbers are there and the success is there. Its not any different than predator control, Predators are built for killing and do it better than anyone else If we cant stop them from continuing to kill we just gotta at least try to slow em down by thinning them a bit. This is about the resource not about who gets more,thats already evident. The numbers of non-res that harvest vs res is easily explained, the non-res are more efficient because of their guides so if we can reduce the more succesful party the resource gets some relief. You know as well as I do Jake that if the non-res didn't have guides they would not be near as succesful, I dont believe in removing the guide requirement because the number of players in the game would increase sooo much that the tag would have to go up to the price of a current guided hunt to slow em down some. Or we would all be forced to draw. The resource just cant support sheep hunts to everyone who lives in the other 49 states that wants to kill a dall sheep , even if its a once in a lifetime hunt. The privaledge needs to be earned or won, not bought with $$$$$.

  8. #8
    New member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,416

    Default

    It seems that some sort of statistical analysis should be done by simply compiling all the ADF&G data for say the last 10-15 years so one can refer to it in the proposal. Then you could say something like " Since 1997 Non-resident sheep hunters have harvested 48% more sheep that residents and have a 73.4% success rate as oppoesed to 33.5% blah blah blah...."

    I'd be willing to help with that. Maybe we could actually get it from ADF&G and then one could refer to "the report supplied by ADF&G".

    Not sure, just a few thoughts.

    Perry
    Last edited by Snyd; 12-27-2007 at 15:19. Reason: typo
    A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and donít have one, youíll probably never need one again

  9. #9
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,453

    Default

    i hear ya akcub.
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  10. #10
    New member akhunter02's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    682

    Default true to some extent

    Quote Originally Posted by BRWNBR View Post
    punish the successfull....dumb. some other points on success because of money and scouting is pretty much inaccurate as well. Most guide success comes from experience in an area and know how the sheep there travel and habitat they prefer at different times of the year. but thats not the point...

    but the idea is good, i like the idea of draw for non res state wide, that would certainly accomplish something, as long as the draw numbers they came up with were reasonable. Better than draw for non res and res.

    Do it man, take the flack and stick to your guns, its a good idea. i'm sure there are some drawbacks we don't see yet that will come to light but take it one bridge at a time.

    Experience does play a part. but im sure you know as well as I that sheep will move from one area to another within the same drainage. So experience will tell the guide where to start, which drainage to go to. But then out comes the planes to pin point the rams. I beleive thats one of the main reasons success rates are so high. I have lots of experience in one location, some years Im able to find them within 10 days, some years I cant, but they are there every year (somewhere).

    BB, I know that you only take a couple clients out a year, but your the exception not the rule. And yes residents with thier own planes do the same so its just not a guide thing.

    Ever watch the Video called white sheep black shale, or something like that? The guide even mentions in the film locating the rams by scouting them prior to the clients arrival. You know he is not out on foot looking scouting for rams, that would eat up too much time. If he spent that much time scouting by foot he wouldnt have enough time to actually guide hunters

    If it was as simple as experience then the success rates for residents would be more in line with the guided hunters

  11. #11
    New member akhunter02's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    682

    Default great idea

    Quote Originally Posted by Snyd View Post
    It seems that some sort of statistical analysis should be done by simply compiling all the ADF&G data for say the last 10-15 years so one can refer to it in the proposal. Then you could say something like " Since 1997 Non-resident sheep hunters have harvested 48% more sheep that residents and have a 73.4% success rate as oppoesed to 33.5% blah blah blah...."

    I'd be willing to help with that. Maybe we could actually get it from ADF&G and then one could refer to "the report supplied by ADF&G".

    Not sure, just a few thoughts.

    Perry

    hard facts such as that is what can get things done, putting opinions and emotions on paper wont help. I dont mind putting in the time tring to crunch numbers, if you need help Im in

  12. #12
    New member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,416

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by akhunter02 View Post
    hard facts such as that is what can get things done, putting opinions and emotions on paper wont help. I dont mind putting in the time tring to crunch numbers, if you need help Im in
    Ya, unless you're an anti and your trying stop predator control or Brown bear hunting then science goes out the window and bleeding heart emotional rhetoric gets results. Or at least gets it to the ballot box.
    A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and donít have one, youíll probably never need one again

  13. #13
    Member fullkurl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Alaska/Idaho
    Posts
    2,162

    Default

    Give 'em heck, Roland, but I don't think it will happen anytime soon.

    Too much state revenue lost...

  14. #14

    Default

    I think this is the kind of stuff we need. For the period of 2000-2007 (7 hunting seasons)

    There were 1312 hunters that hunted sheep under general harvest in unit 20 A. Of that 1312 hunters 426 were non-resident and 886 were resident. The 886 resident sheep hunters harvested 185 rams. The 426 non-resident hunters harvested 291 rams. So of the 1312 hunters 32% of the total hunters were non-residents. That 32% of the hunters killed 69% of all the sheep taken in unit 20 A in a 7 year period. The non resident sheep hunters harvested an average of 41 rams a year in unit 20A were as the residents averaged a harvest of 26 rams a year in unit 20A. That means that of the 1312 sheep hunter that hunted in unit 20A harvest success for non-res hunters for a 7 year peiod equated to 80% succes rate. Resident success rate equated to 20% for unit 20A.

  15. #15

    Default

    If you guys crunch the numbers you 'll see that the numbers were almost identical for 13D and 14A. You end up with 25-30% of the hunters (non-resident) killing 55-70% of the sheep. And then when the number of sheep drops we all pay the price. These are the kind of figures we rarely see and as a result the highly successful few (non-res guided) literally take away our freedom to hunt a general harvest sheep unit completely, rather than just reducing the opportunity from the few highly successful that DONT even live in the state. The number of resident sheep hunters is almost the same across a 7 year period with almost the same level of success about 20% its not us (resident hunters) thats dwindling the sheep numbers its that small percentage of non-res sheep hunters that are guided. I am sure I could crunch numbers for many units and come up with the same results, this is not a newsflash.

  16. #16
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    I am Valley trash.
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Lets do this one online and I will bring it up to the MATSU AC once it is finished. Here is the form lay out:

    PROPOSAL "X"

    Alaska Administrative Code Number 5 AAC____________ Regulation Book Page no. _______

    What is the problem you would like the Board to address?

    What will happen if this problem is not solved?

    What solution do you prefer? In other words, if the Board adopted you solution, what would the new regulation say?

    Solutions to difficult problems benefit some people and hurt other:

    A. Who is likely to benefit if your solutionis adopted?

    B. Who is likely to suffer if your solution is adopted?

    List any other solutions you considered and why you rejected them.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskaCub View Post
    I dont believe in removing the guide requirement because the number of players in the game would increase sooo much
    You state; correctly so, that Nonresidents without guides are less likely to harvest. But, to Continue the commercial "take" regulations that require nonresidents to be guided; and support the proposal by demonstrating factually just what the effect guided hunts has on residents first right to the resource? Ummm........that does not add up.

    Anyway; how does an increase come about by repealing the MUST be guided regulation as a part of your proposal? What "players" would increase if your proposal considers repealing the MUST be guided regulations? Guides or nonresidents?

    Are you not also proposing nonresidents must draw a tag; and that "we" have to come up with the number of tags available to nonresidents to draw and use the facts ("guides" take) to support that position too.

    If we are really going to fix the problem of continued and annual restrictions, limits and loss of opportunity for residents.........and our rights to "limit" nonresidents..........we just can not avoid fixing THE BULL SYSTEM. We don't just have "a sheep" problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskaCub View Post
    that the tag would have to go up to the price of a current guided hunt to slow em down some.
    $5,000.00 for nonresident sheep, bear or goat tag is "fair" to consider as a part of the "global" resolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskaCub View Post
    The privaledge needs to be earned or won, not bought with $$$$$.

    Privilege is not a factor if your buying a lotto ticket or buying a Toyota instead of a Hummer; this whole debate is tied to money..........and it will always be about money.

    Alaskans have a right and an obligation to "limit" nonresidents opportunity to our resource; but we have no right to force them to be guided.


  18. #18
    Member fullkurl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Alaska/Idaho
    Posts
    2,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AVALANCHE View Post


    $5,000.00 for nonresident sheep, bear or goat tag is "fair" to consider as a part of the "global" resolution.
    What you guys keep failing to realize is that, yes, sheep tags are expensive in other states, but thats because they are all but protected everywhere else! Same goes for moose, goat, brown bear and caribou. You name it other than deer and elk.
    The few paltry sheep tags offered in all states are just a token to maintain a barely huntable population of trophy rams. The revenues, well, they love 'em because most are nonrefundable! Thats why I say a "token" and the revenues are anything but!!

    Huntable, mature rams in Alaska are numerous (aside from the "herd in peril" speak, whether real or unsubstantiated.) Moose, goat, caribou...all healthy and therefore available here over the counter for non res. Some, like goat via registration.


    Solution? Drop the guide requirement, raise non res tag fees 200% and limit guide activity. Cap nonres tags between 10 and 20%.--maybe a points system.

    Unfortunately there will still be residents who won't get a sheep. It's not like "road" moose hunting, or ATV hunting the Taylor. It takes special effort and fitness as you guys know.

  19. #19
    New member akhunter02's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    682

    Default either way

    Quote Originally Posted by fullkurl View Post
    What you guys keep failing to realize is that, yes, sheep tags are expensive in other states, but thats because they are all but protected everywhere else! Same goes for moose, goat, brown bear and caribou. You name it other than deer and elk.
    The few paltry sheep tags offered in all states are just a token to maintain a barely huntable population of trophy rams. The revenues, well, they love 'em because most are nonrefundable! Thats why I say a "token" and the revenues are anything but!!

    Huntable, mature rams in Alaska are numerous (aside from the "herd in peril" speak, whether real or unsubstantiated.) Moose, goat, caribou...all healthy and therefore available here over the counter for non res. Some, like goat via registration.


    Solution? Drop the guide requirement, raise non res tag fees 200% and limit guide activity. Cap nonres tags between 10 and 20%.--maybe a points system.

    Unfortunately there will still be residents who won't get a sheep. It's not like "road" moose hunting, or ATV hunting the Taylor. It takes special effort and fitness as you guys know.

    You can do away with the guide requirement or keep it, I really dont care. Either way sheep hunting for non residents should go draw, period, then cap the amount of permits going to non resident hunters to 10 or 15 % Raise the price of tags to at least meet what other states are charging. Theres no way a sheep or goat tag should be priced as it is now, it costs 300.00 for me to hunt deer in Ill.

    the Guides will still be booked years in advance, those that want to hunt without a guide can, and anyway you look at it total non resident harvest will drop.

    And I dont remember reading anywhere on here that we are wanting 100% success rates for residents.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    the Break Away Republic of Eagle River
    Posts
    513

    Default

    there is probably alot more to those numbers that just Harvest %

    1) how many of the 886 preseason scouted
    2) how many of the 886 passed on a legal ram
    3) how many of the 886 saw rams they couldn't tell were legal
    4) how many of the 886 were 1st time Dall Sheep Hunters
    5) how many of the 886 spent 5 days or less and harvested
    6) how many of the 886 spent 5 days or more and harvested
    7) how many of the 886 lied about actually hunting sheep

    If the average Res paid a guide what the Non-res paid....thier Success % would be dang near the same, you think we have a problem now....

    One cannot compare how a Non-Res Hunts vs how a Resident hunts by looking at harvest stats alone

Page 1 of 8 123 ... 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
  •