Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: AK FNAWS sheep sealing proposal

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

    Default AK FNAWS sheep sealing proposal

    If you're interested in sheep take a look at Proposal 168 submitted by AK FNAWS and the Anchorage AC. Can someone explain why they are opposed to sealing only in the southern ranges? The proposal is a bit vague.

  2. #2

    Default Alaska FNAWS sheep sealing

    The only reason this proposal related to sheep in the southern ranges was because this particular board of game meeting was only accepting proposals for that geographic area, not because FNAWS had any particular partiality to them.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Fairbanks
    Posts
    78

    Default

    FNAWS is the one who put in the original proposal several years ago to start sealing sheep in Alaska. Why the change of heart now I wonder.

  4. #4
    Member Alaska Gray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    4,925

    Default

    One reason may be new leader ship with FNAWS...
    Just a gusses
    Living the Alaskan Dream
    Gary Keller
    Anchorage, AK

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

    Default

    Why on earth would anyone oppose sheep sealing? So people can get away with taking sub legal sheep?
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  6. #6
    Member Chisana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Juneau, Alaska
    Posts
    1,439

    Default

    Folks, You've come in on this a little late. The BOG considered this proposal earlier in 2007 and rejected it at the same time they adopted the ridiculous any ram drawing hunt for the central and eastern Chugach. Best I can tell FNAWS opposed sealing because it was being inconsistently implemented throughout the state by the various ADF&G offices and that they believe ADF&G's limited resources should be devoted to better managing sheep (like doing surveys) rather than putting plugs in sheep horns.

  7. #7
    Member AK Wonderer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    717

    Default

    I picked up a newsletter at the FNAWS booth at this years Sportman's Show which had a write up about sealing. The article talked about why sealing was originally implemented then towards the end it stated that they were looking to do away with the sealing requirement. They went on to give a number of reasons why. One was inconsistencies in implementation as Chisana just stated. Another was inconsistetencies and arguments over the method used to judge full curl, stick method or pvc tube. One of the biggest reasons was because ADF&G and FNAWS had no means of compiling all of the data which was collected to use it for any type of management or biological purpose. "No means" meaning no money.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ak_powder_monkey View Post
    Why on earth would anyone oppose sheep sealing? So people can get away with taking sub legal sheep?
    Why on earth would someone with a sublegal ram take their sheep in for sealing? So they can face fines, lose hunting privledges and give up their gunsafe full of long rifles?

  9. #9

    Default Why

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Urban View Post
    Why on earth would someone with a sublegal ram take their sheep in for sealing? So they can face fines, lose hunting privledges and give up their gunsafe full of long rifles?
    Because they are law abiding citizen. I know of two people who shot sub-legal rams and did exactly what they were suppose to. They salvaged all meat and turned themselves in to F&G. Are you saying if you made a mistake and shot a sub-legal ram or moose you wouldn't do the same? The penalties were not as severe as you indicate.
    "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything."

  10. #10

    Default Sealing

    Some of the previous FNAWS board felt that sealing would prevent sub-legal ram take. In passing a sealing regulation, they hoped that there would be a zero tolerance policy by Fish and Game sealing officials and by the troopers in allowing anyone with a sub-legal ram get off without a ticket. Not only did Fish and Game have no authority to give anyone a ticket, the hunter who had to take their sheep and confess to the troopers for their punishment. But did the troopers do anything to the hunters? Not more than a warning. This isn't what Alaska FNAWS wanted at all. I believe the current board is more interested in sincere and proactive management of sheep by Fish and Game (which they haven't had for about 20 years) than having a sealing program without real benefits to biologists or sheep themselves. A hunter who is not honest will not bring the sub-legal sheep off the mountain, so sealing will most likely only catch the honest hunters.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sherpa View Post
    A hunter who is not honest will not bring the sub-legal sheep off the mountain, so sealing will most likely only catch the honest hunters.
    Exactly! Blackfoot, I think the two people you speak of are the exception. Good on them for doing the right thing though.

  12. #12

    Default

    the hunter who had to take their sheep and confess to the troopers for their punishment. But did the troopers do anything to the hunters? Not more than a warning



    there is a yes and no to this which imho is kind of hypocritcal, here me out here.

    If you kill a ram, under full but 7/8's curl or larger, they have the option to fine you or issue you a warning. Because of the shady what is legal gray area judging, the general rule seems to be a warning, though some get fined. Every situation is different though.

    The hypocritical part is, fish and game DOES NOT have to fine you on a moose that is under 50"es but and dont quote me but I believe it's 48"es, then can issue you a warning and not a fine. which because you can tape and see clearly over or under, they just fine everyone who comes up short.

    The plugging is ludicrious. It's not going to stop poaching! It's not going to stop a value to these horns. The big reason plugging became in the other areas on sheep is the value of a desert or bighorns horns are extreme compared to a Dalls. It's so bad you have people going from all over the state to other offices (like the glennallen office area people are going to Palmer). It's not the first I've heard of it and it's coming right from the office itself, my good buddie works in it. It's a shame!!!! The hole deal.

    It is however nice in one regards. It makes many more people think before they shoot however I still see way to many rams I'd pass, those rams that are past 7/8 but not quite full. Even some guides on here are horrible for it. "Well ya, I've killed a bazillion sheep and everythign 7/8 or bigger is over 8 yrs old" I've heard and seen way to much!

    People have to push the issue and abuse the system, and here we are, discussion plugging laws or not.

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
  •