Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 52

Thread: My last spiel on sheep

  1. #1

    Default My last spiel on sheep

    This will be my last go round for sheep before the BOG meeting.

    After looking at the proposals and reading comments from viewers here I will try my best to represent the ideas that I feel will benefit sheep hunters of this great state.

    #1-Limits like "one sheep every four years" are DETRIMENTAL to resident Alaskan sheep hunters. I have read here where people say that residents don't need to hunt sheep every year. I ask why? Do you have a problem with sheep hunting every year? It is something that I LOOK forward to each and every year. I am selfish and greedy by wanting this? If so, too bad. Call me what you want. I want my kids to be able to look forward to it each and every year. Realistically, when my kids go sheep hunting, I will probably cease my harvest of a ram to allow them to harvest a ram.

    #2-Creating new DRAW AREAS are DETRIMENTAL to resident Alaskan sheep hunters. All this does is "displace" hunters into other open areas further reducing the quality of sheep hunting "down the road" which will in turn lead those areas to "DRAW AREAS".

    Both these choices are BAD for the do it yourself, every year sheep hunter and new up and coming sheep hunters, or even the person who wants to draw a tag and can't. How many of you have been putting in for the TMA? How many years has it been for NO DRAW? Exactly, it could be years. Could you imagine an Alaska that is exclusively a draw area all the way across and the only way you could hunt sheep is by drawing a tag? That would be sad and would hurt residents ability to hunt sheep.

    Both the "one sheep every four years" and a draw is BENEFICIAL to guides. First of all, none of their clients are return hunters for sheep, so realistically the one in four is a joke to them! They are laughing their butts off for this to happen as then darn well know it ONLY penalizes resident hunters. Again, creating drawing areas only benefits them as well as there will be a limited amount of resident hunters getting drawn and however many of their hunters that they FLOOD the drawing hunts with they will get to guide. And for the new drawing areas created, those resident hunters that used to hunt there are going to be going somewhere else, creating the same situation in another place.

    What is ironic here is Alaskan residents selling themselves short with we don't need to shoot a ram each year. Well where is this going to lead? We don't need to shoot a moose each year, a caribou each year, a black bear each year? Putting a one in every 4 year period is ridiculous and makes no sense. Our state constitution protects the "RESIDENTS" of this state first. Before any restrictions are put on residents, we need to exhaust all avenues of restricting NON-RESIDENT hunting first.

    For this reason, I recommend creating drawing areas for non-resident sheep hunting. This would not in any way affect resident sheep hunters as they could still hunt there in a general hunt. Limit the non-resident hunters to at the most, 10% of the harvest that F & G decides is best. This 10% rule needs to be put into ALL drawing hunts that are now in place.

    If you look at Proposals 162, 163, 166, and 167, I believe these proposals are all written by an NON-RESIDENT guide. He KNOWS that his proposals do not hurt non-resident hunting (particulary his guiding business), but restrict resident hunting. I am appalled that someone from "outside" is wanting to change our regulations and make it more difficult for Alaskan residents to hunt sheep. If there is that big of a problem in Unit 13 for sheep, then maybe sheep hunting needs to be closed to everyone for 2 years? We can not sit back and let non-residents continue to have an unfair advantage to our sheep.

    All sheep hunters, please send or fax a letter to the BOG stating your opposition to Proposals: 158,160,161,162,163,164,166,167. These proposals are bad for resident Alaskan sheep hunters.

    Send or fax proposals to the following address or fax # by 5:00 pm Friday, February 16, 2007. Let your voice be heard. The BOG needs to know that we are against the limiting of resident sheep hunting before measures are taken against non-resident sheep hunters.

    ATTN:

    BOG COMMENTS
    Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game
    Boards Support Section
    P.O. Box 115526
    Juneau, AK 99811-5526

    Fax # 907 465-6094

    Best wishes to all whether you agree or not.

  2. #2
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,440

    Smile

    but how do you really feel about non res guides??
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  3. #3

    Default Non-resident guides

    BRNBR,

    As negative as I sound, I just feel it is right to stand up to what is happening. Unfortunately, this is the road I have to take. I am not sure if I have stated this before, but it has always been a dream of mine to become a guide, it would be on a small time basis like you do. More of a "retirement" dream, but if I don't ever achieve that dream because of this situation, so be it. I can't sit by and let someone write these proposals while they are sitting in the easy chair in Colorado hoping that the one in every four rules passes knowing darn well that it in NO WAY affects their guiding business, but in every way affects the do it yourself resident hunter by limiting him to harvesting a sheep once every 4 years. I don't mean to sound so badly toward guides, but know of no other way to explain it. I appreciate and respect your comments and feel that you are a darn good example of a guide who does things right.

    Northway

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Juneau
    Posts
    2,127

    Default Dead on

    Northway I think you are spot on that this is 100 percent not affecting a nonresident guide and am in shock and horror at the idea of a one in four rule for residents. For a resident to go from a yearly to every four year for anything (except the spotted owl...I'd wait a few for that one) is ridiculous. I am an up and coming sheep hunter (ok, wishful for now) and the idea of this would sort of negate the whole benefit of residency, especially if this is already an annual event for you and fam. This is certainly an issue of the entire board process (which I like overall) that anyone can throw their idea in...no matter how one-sided or self serving it is. I would like to think though, that without a proven biological reason...the board would have a hard time passing something this restrictive to residents.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    1,131

    Smile thanks

    Northway:
    Thanks for advocating for sheep hunters and taking the time to participate in the BOG!!!!!

    Pete
    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

  6. #6
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,440

    Default

    The guy who proposed that 1 in four for 13a and d is from the lower 48 and a registered guide here in alaska. that proposal would only slow resdient hunt pressure, but it would be minimal, since resident success is only 10 percent anyway, it wouldn't really change much. and since his clients probalby don't shoot more than one or two sheep it wouldn't hurt him either. I just don't see any benefit from his proposal, i do see some negative drawbacks, but then again we do it with bears when the population is where we want it and when the numbers get higher we liberate the regs a bit.
    I would rather not see this one pass...just be an annoying reg and doubtfull it would do what its designed to do. i wonder if he'll be at teh BOG meeting....or is it to much money to fly up and argue his points.
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  7. #7

    Default thanks

    Northway, your arguments make sense. I firmly agree with non-resident draws and only 10% allowed. One question though-----anybody know if, for example, through the lottery non-residents draw less than 10%, does F&G then kick out resident candidates to fill the non-res quotas with non-res? I would hope not, but always wondered about that.

  8. #8
    Member shphtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Chugiak
    Posts
    1,376

    Default

    shphtr Posted on: February 13th, 2007, 7:28pm

    Medium Member

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------





    "Actions speak louder than words"


    Posts: 108

    My letter is on the way....hopefully accompanied by MANY others from fellow hunters...not just sheep hunters...remember the domino theory!!!

  9. #9
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Formerly Alaska/Now Idaho
    Posts
    48

    Default Good luck

    Northway,
    I certainly don't want to rile you any, but objectively reading your post I don't see anything but emotional appeal in your argument. If that's all you present to the BOG they'll likely negate your input. Honestly, read it over again yourself with this question in mind: "How does this help with the problem of too many people competing for a limited resource?" IMO opinion, it doesn't. It does highlight that many people want to hunt sheep every year and its their right as a resident to do so, but that doesn't fix the problem. Change is going to happen. It has to. Alaska isn't the place it was 20 years ago. In the next 20 years even more people will want to hunt sheep. Like it or not, the way you hunt now will change. Proof: Other western states, at one time or another, had over the counter sales for sheep tags. How many do now? I think Montana might still have a few for some extremely rugged country, but that's it from my knowledge. In Idaho a resident can kill one sheep (of each of the two sub-species) for life. Kill one and you're done forever. Most other states use a preference point system and realistically, unless you're extremely lucky, if you draw a tag you'll never draw another one...so in essence, once in a lifetime.
    Alaskans have been very fortunate to be able to hunt sheep whenever they choose. You'll probably be able to do that still for a while. But, it will change. You'll be upset and angry about it, but if you truly value sheep hunting you'll find a way to hunt them irregardless of the restraints placed on you. If you could hunt sheep once every 4 years or hunt until you killed one and then never be able to hunt them again, which would you choose?
    I do like your proposal to put a cap on the number of non-resident tags; many other states do that already. But, your option to continue allowing residents unlimited access (hunting every year) isn't making any concessions (and I take it you don't believe you should make any). It can be viewed as residents aren't paying their part of the bill. IMO, the best option to offer the board is both; non-resident caps on tags and limited access for residents. After all if you don't KILL a sheep you can hunt every year; if you do you'll have to wait for a few years. Isn't that reasonable? There are worse alternatives! Best regards and good luck at the board!

  10. #10

    Default sculpin

    Good question. Our advisory committee is really pushing to make sure that there is only a 10% resident draw. If there is 10% drawn, than no other non-residents can be drawn for that hunt. Only fair? Just like they do it in Montana for Big Horn sheep draws. I am "not" sure if the 10% rule is in, but how will you residents feel if you are seeing 20% of the TMA tags going to non-residents? I surely get upset! This is exactly why we need to make sure the 10% non-resident rule gets put in.

  11. #11
    Member RainGull's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The S.E. of the N.W.
    Posts
    950

    Default

    For humors sake 1 sheep every 4 years, 10% success rate...So you would never be restricted as a resident right?

  12. #12

    Default Sheep

    I guess I am not surprised by the 10% harvest rate by residents. I can honestly say I am above 90% on sheep. I have been hunting sheep for 12 years and have 10 rams. The first year sheep hunting was what I would call a "learning" year. Crappy tent, down sleeping bag, bad back pack, lost our food, lost our canoe, melted the rain gear, fogged up the spotting scope, etc. It was one hell of an adventure to say the least! One year I "CHOSE" not to shoot one as the rams we saw were small (only in the low 30's) and the other year I wounded one and decided that it would eventually dies, so I chose to put my tag on it. I am one that will spend the extra day, climb the extra mile, etc. to get what I am after. The one in every four will affect me. Like I said earlier, when my kids and wife start going, I will probably stop hunting, but I surely don't see why we would restrict ourselves to one in every four. It seems to me that where there are declining sheep populations, it is more to blame on weather and predation. If it is that bad in these areas, then maybe close it to all sheep hunting for a year or two? Better than restrictions where we may NEVER draw a tag. I am doing this because I believe there are better ways of dealing with the problem, but I have a fall back that others don't, so in more ways than one, I am doing this for all sheep hunters in general. Do I have my selfish reasons? Yep, just like anyone else when they are passionate about something.

  13. #13
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Formerly Alaska/Now Idaho
    Posts
    48

    Default Good success....

    but I don't know if I'd mention those statistics to the BOG. They might not be sympathetic to a person who has killed 10 rams who is asking them to place limitations on the number of non-residents who likely just want to kill one. I'll definitely be interested in hearing how it goes. Seriously, good luck!

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Juneau, AK
    Posts
    17

    Default

    I'm will be hunting sheep for the first time this year. I'd love to take just one but I'll be bowhunting so I have an idea of what I'm up against. I've enjoyed hunting goats for about 5 years down here (Juneau) and have yet to take one. I know guys that go out their first time and rifle one. If your success rate is above 50% how about limiting yourself without the government having to do it? Same goes for the guides. Try a bow or shoot a wolf instead. I bet the goat hunting here will soon go to hunt until you kill one and then sit out a year or two.

    What are the chances of expanding sheep range by transplanting some to suitable habitat where no populations currently exist?

  15. #15
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,392

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juneaubow View Post
    What are the chances of expanding sheep range by transplanting some to suitable habitat where no populations currently exist?
    What areas qualify? Any ideas? I can't think of many off the top of my head - at least not any without another dominant ungulate like goats that would compete for limited food resoureces.

    -Brian

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Juneau, AK
    Posts
    17

    Default

    I'm not sure either that's why I asked "what are the chances." How about the Kuskokwim/Ahklun/Kilbuck/Kaiyuh mountains or parts of the Aleutian Range? Do these have sheep already or are they unsuitable? Or mostly caribou habitat?

  17. #17
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,440

    Default

    gonna be tough to transplant something thats already got lower numbers to begin with. pretty soon they have to reintroduce them to areas they were just 10 years ago. lack of funding and enviros would put a stop to that idea i think. i'm guessing the days of transplating are few and far between.
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  18. #18

    Default Limiting yourself?

    I am not sure where that was aimed at. I am efficient at what I do. Should I penalize myself? Shoot a wolf. I can almost guarantee that I have taken close to 100 wolves if not more out of the equation along with a "healthy" # of bears. I try to do my part and then some when it comes to predator control. I am not a sit at home and toot someone's horn kind of guy. If we all did our part instead of saying, well I shot a bear, why shoot another? We'll maybe a moose or caribou would benefit?

  19. #19
    Member tccak71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,174

    Default

    Folks, if your writing letters check the adf&G website and look at the stats to support your argument. Hit them with their own numbers! Check out the link below to view harvest reports and annual reports.

    http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=pubs.main


    Tim

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Juneau, AK
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Northway,

    Thanks for doing your part for predator control. I'd love to take a few wolves myself but rarely see them.

    What I mean by limiting yourself is...it's going to happen one way or another...either the government will do it(ADF&G) or hunters/guides with do it themselves. Sooner or later I bet the "efficient" guys will be sitting out a year or more between kills, short of a miraculous sheep population boom.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •