Alaska Nonres Sheep
- Thread starter jimss
- Start date
Lawnboy
Well-known member
I think they are in the discussion phase around the state on this. Maybe Bambistew has some more information as I believe he was going to attend some meetings up there discussing this topic.
I hope not but will support whatever they do as long as the outfitters are somehow cut back on their harvests as well. I was thinking a every other year idea would be better
. This particular proposal won't even effect them because I doubt they have very many annual returning non resident clients anyway.
I hope not but will support whatever they do as long as the outfitters are somehow cut back on their harvests as well. I was thinking a every other year idea would be better
. This particular proposal won't even effect them because I doubt they have very many annual returning non resident clients anyway.
Bambistew
Well-known member
Yep, APHA, took next of kin hunters to the cleaners. I figured this would happen.
They did set a precident for limiting harvest in light of "no biological concern."
Some of you may have heard but there is a new hunting org in AK dedicated to Resident hunting rights. RHAK Good or bad the big money outfitters are going to have some competition in Juneau.
Gellar
Well-known member
So, if I understand this correctly if I go with my brother who is an Alaskan resident he won't be able to harvest a ram that year or for the next 4 years?
If I'm understanding correctly, it will only affect the resident's bag limit for that year. I don't think residents went to 1 in 4, so it would mean that only you or your brother could kill a ram the year you go.
Gellar
Well-known member
Thanks!
I have read through the preliminary passed proposals, proposal 30 was "carried" which puts the sheep limit for non residents at 1 per 4years I cannot find where the next of kin rules were changed in any way. Where are you guys finding that next of kin harvest counts against the accompanying resident harvest
Bambistew
Well-known member
I listened to the meeting yesterday. They voted it (proposal 51) in 5 to 2, and amended it to remove the second part. They were concerned about the NR relative using their resident kin's Tok or Kodiak tag if they drew. The current register is incorrect, they show it as "tabled" but the proposal they tabled was one they had reconsidered previously in the day.
Last edited:
Flatland Crusoe
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2014
- Messages
- 572
They need to just drop the guide requirement for sheep for NR's all together. I'm sure it will never happen until the state realizes how much tag and preference point revenue that would generate. I don't think it would hit the outfitters that hard because I still doubt that most guys would go unguided and even the DIY guys still need an air taxi and assorted services.
Although I hope they do too, for my own selfish reasons of being able to actually afford to go sheep hunting, they had better quadruple their search and rescue budget, if they do. A lot of guys with more money than brains, will be getting themselves in a bad way if they can go sheep hunting without a guide.
LopeHunter
Well-known member
I was under the impression the air taxi companies do so much biz with outfitters that if you were wanting to get dropped near an outfitter that you would be refused service and in some cases no service to anywhere would be possible. Myth or fact?
Flatland Crusoe
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2014
- Messages
- 572
Its about money, not safety. Mountaineering doesn't require a guide as nonresident the same why wilderness areas of Wyoming require a guide to hunt. Tack $3/application onto each tag for search and rescue and call it a day.
Lawnboy
Well-known member
I think there is some truth to that. I've heard that some of the pilots are afraid to fly non outfitted folks for fear of losing the business they have with the outfitters.
So Bambi or others can you tell me in plain speak how this is going to affect me hunting with my brother? I'm just not sure I'm hearing it all correctly.
Bambistew
Well-known member
The 1:4 is only for NR sheep hunts, current bag limits still apply to goat/bears as far as time between harvest. Some bear hunts are already 1:4. The bag limit shared by next of kin (NOK) and kin is for all guide required animals, sheep, goat, grizz/brown bear.
So you and your brother can only kill one sheep (or bear or goat) together. Doesn't matter who shoots it, you both notch your tag. Your brother can not shoot another sheep (or what ever animal is tagged) that year.
The reality is, the odds of a hunting pair made up of NOK and kin both tagging out is extremely low to begin with. The resident kin will likely not go on another hunt that season for that animal, so in the end, the effect on harvest will be nill, but the psychological effect on the NOK and kin hunter will be much greater. The "what if" scenario may result in canceling of a trip or two. Maybe... What it will effect are parties where more than one NOK comes to hunt, or they go on multiple hunts for multiple species. Again, this is a very small portion of all hunters. Same goes for the effect of the 1:4 bag limit on NR. There are roughly 3% of NR, who kill more than one sheep in 4 years, split pretty evenly between guided and NOK. The guided hunter will be replaced by another guided hunter. The NOK get to sit out. Now we're talking a 1-2% reduction for NOK and zero for guided hunters. Resident percentage harvesting more than 1 in 4 years is not a lot higher, at about 4-5%.
This whole 1:4 harvest rule is some cocked up rule to reduce bear harvest years ago and made jealous people "feel" good because they feel that one bear is "plenty" for you every 4 years. It has basically zero effect on harvest totals. ADFG has never actually looked at it in depth to see what the real effect was. No comparison to population changes, weather, other rules in place, etc. Just assumed it worked. With bears they always mention the brown bears on the peninsula as a success with the 1:4 rule. What they always fail to mention is they closed the season every other spring and fall... Cutting the season in HALF is what helped the population not the stupid 1:4 rule. VERY few people shoot more than one brown bear in their life, let alone more than one in 4 years. Sheep are not a lot different.
ADFG mentioned that there was a substantial jump in NOK sheep hunters participating last year, something like 50% more than years past? I think the talk of limits on NR may have moved some plans up, but not sure.
Eliminating the guide requirement is a non-starter, has to go to the legislature. They will NOT change anything that could reduce revenue coming into the state, unless you can plainly show them that it will make as much or more money. With our current budget situation, and the hard headed GOP in control, this will not change anytime soon.
We're talking a grand total of about $8-9,000,000 a year as a direct result of NR sheep hunters... No one has run the economics on what would happen if the rule was eliminated. I think it would have a much smaller effect than everyone thinks. The cost for transportation to/from for everyone would increase. Many people would still go with an outfitter, the cost of a NR permit could be increased, maybe preference points, etc, etc. It wouldn't take long to make up that $8 mill. DIY hunters would spend more on the front/back end of a hunt than guided hunters, etc. Outfitters could make up their lost revenue with selling another moose or bear hunt, and increasing the cost of a sheep hunt, and so on. Going from OTC to draw is a big deal for them, you go from an unlimited potential client list to who ever draws the tag. I'm not in the guide business, but do understand the cost of a sheep hunt as I go on one or two a year... the cost of a sheep hunt is ludicrous considering the actual cost of the "hunt." There are many guys getting $11-12,000 for hunts that you can walk into from the road, ride an ATV too... or with a $1000-1500 bush flight... Logistically, most caribou hunts are tougher to plan and execute, yet cost 1/3 the price.
This fight is far from over, and IMO just starting to heat up.
Last edited:
Bambistew
Well-known member
Not sure if I answered your question or not?
Bush flights are a touchy situation. No one wants to hunt in an area where someone else is already, and taxis will generally not drop people on top of people. Think about it... how would you like it if someone dropped in on your "wilderness" experience? Now hogging an area for decades is a different story. Yes there are many air taxis that will not drop you where ever you want to go because they don't want to crowd out an area that a guide is using. There is only so much real estate to hunt The problem is a lot of the really good areas have established guide camps in them already, the good news is you can usually get to those areas with a lot of walking or your own form of transportation.
Some of the best sheep areas in the Wrangells are "locked" up by a couple guides. The local air taxi's will not fly you into their areas, and getting there on foot is a non starter. Too many rivers and too big of glaciers. In the Brooks its more of a marathon distance hike, in the western AK range, its a limit on air strips, most of which have guides camped on them. The central AK range, Talkeetnas, Chugach, and Kenai mountains are all easily accessible by foot/atv/horse or short bush flight.
Lawnboy
Well-known member
What a crock. This will have about zero impact on the the guided hunters. We have only once killed 2 sheep on the same trip but my brother has gone back out after i left and shot 4 I believe over the years, so this is a big sacrifice for him IMO having me come up. How about capping the outfitters numbers. They literally shoot out drainages year after year and then push into new country because they can't seem help themselves self manage their areas. Then complain when they bump into non guided hunters in the next drainages. It's An absolute joke!
So this isn't set in stone yet?
So this isn't set in stone yet?
