Alaska Nonres Sheep
- Thread starter jimss
- Start date
Bambistew
Well-known member
For those interested. Implementation of Proposal 51 (sharing bag limit for guide required animals) will be delayed 2 years according to the final findings of the Board of Game. They want time to implement a program for tracking, review the current harvest rates, and see what will really become of this new regulation.
Sorry, spring break family plans prevented me from answering sooner.
A bit, but it's true. How many people apply for sheep, which is one of our most limited big game resources and one that has much room to grow, yet don't even send in an annual membership check to their local organization?
No doubt the sheep issues in AK are much different than those in the lower 48. But as you recognize, there are things that can be done to better inform the management decisions being made in the state.
Does Alaska have the money to conduct survey flights on all of their sheep herds every year? Do they do so? If not, maybe your local organization can raise the funds necessary to conduct such surveys.
How old is the sheep management plan your state is using to manage sheep? Perhaps your local organization can raise the funds necessary to help the state write a new management plan.
Perhaps your local organization can do what is necessary to protect your herds from the primary issue negatively impacting sheep herds in the lower 48.
How many people are supporting those organizations? Working to make more sheep does not have to involve supporting an organization.
It can mean writing effective comment letters on land use plans and grazing analyses.
It can mean insisting that your local public land mangers use the best available science to conduct those analyses.
It can mean expressing to your elected officials that you believe wild sheep should take precedence over domestic sheep in current and historical habitats on public lands.
It can mean insisting that your state wildlife managers put wildlife interests ahead of the interests of the state ag industry.
And if you're not willing to do those things, the very least you can do is scratch a check once a year to the group in your state that is doing those things.
And the orgs are making a difference. For example, Wyoming WSF has spent approximately $2 million to incentivize retirement, conversion, or other alterations to domestic sheep grazing allotments near their core herd areas in the NW part of the state. They currently have only 1 or 2 remaining allotments of concern. Of that $2 million, approximately $700,000 was "sheep" money. The rest came from other sources such as NWF.
Idaho and UT have also incentivized retirement or conversion of numerous allotments in their states. Idaho transplanted sheep into a mountain range after retiring the last allotment of concern, and that herd has grown to approximately 350 sheep the last I heard (brymoore may have better info, my memory is sketchy).
Colorado is actively working on 7 ongoing grazing analyses and 5 land use plan revisions. They have insisted that the agencies use the best available science to analyze grazing renewals, which has resulted in the vacating of one critical allotment and the current proposal to vacate 4 more critical allotments.
Fixing sheep problems takes a lot of time and a lot of money. It is not going to be done overnight, and only recently has the science and the judicial system become favorable for ensuring that decisions are made in favor of bighorn sheep over domestic sheep. So you can sit there and make your jabs about nothing being accomplished, while men resolve the problems that were created by men.
Meanwhile, we will continue to have this:
Someone's fishing.
A bit, but it's true. How many people apply for sheep, which is one of our most limited big game resources and one that has much room to grow, yet don't even send in an annual membership check to their local organization?
No doubt the sheep issues in AK are much different than those in the lower 48. But as you recognize, there are things that can be done to better inform the management decisions being made in the state.
Does Alaska have the money to conduct survey flights on all of their sheep herds every year? Do they do so? If not, maybe your local organization can raise the funds necessary to conduct such surveys.
How old is the sheep management plan your state is using to manage sheep? Perhaps your local organization can raise the funds necessary to help the state write a new management plan.
Perhaps your local organization can do what is necessary to protect your herds from the primary issue negatively impacting sheep herds in the lower 48.
How many people are supporting those organizations? Working to make more sheep does not have to involve supporting an organization.
It can mean writing effective comment letters on land use plans and grazing analyses.
It can mean insisting that your local public land mangers use the best available science to conduct those analyses.
It can mean expressing to your elected officials that you believe wild sheep should take precedence over domestic sheep in current and historical habitats on public lands.
It can mean insisting that your state wildlife managers put wildlife interests ahead of the interests of the state ag industry.
And if you're not willing to do those things, the very least you can do is scratch a check once a year to the group in your state that is doing those things.
And the orgs are making a difference. For example, Wyoming WSF has spent approximately $2 million to incentivize retirement, conversion, or other alterations to domestic sheep grazing allotments near their core herd areas in the NW part of the state. They currently have only 1 or 2 remaining allotments of concern. Of that $2 million, approximately $700,000 was "sheep" money. The rest came from other sources such as NWF.
Idaho and UT have also incentivized retirement or conversion of numerous allotments in their states. Idaho transplanted sheep into a mountain range after retiring the last allotment of concern, and that herd has grown to approximately 350 sheep the last I heard (brymoore may have better info, my memory is sketchy).
Colorado is actively working on 7 ongoing grazing analyses and 5 land use plan revisions. They have insisted that the agencies use the best available science to analyze grazing renewals, which has resulted in the vacating of one critical allotment and the current proposal to vacate 4 more critical allotments.
Fixing sheep problems takes a lot of time and a lot of money. It is not going to be done overnight, and only recently has the science and the judicial system become favorable for ensuring that decisions are made in favor of bighorn sheep over domestic sheep. So you can sit there and make your jabs about nothing being accomplished, while men resolve the problems that were created by men.
Meanwhile, we will continue to have this:
I wasn't making a jab at Alaska residents wanting the lion's share of the quota. I support that notion for the residents of all states. However, since this issue seems largely about limiting the opportunities of more successful hunters to no real benefit for less successful hunters (since NR are already limited in the draw areas), I would liken it to us in Colorado limiting the number of backcountry hunters in hopes of making the road hunters more successful.
Lawnboy
Well-known member
Just read this article (commentary) and have heard rumors from up North. Looks like I will be hunting every 4 years and on those years we will only get a chance to harvest 1 sheep between the two of us. Glad I got to go as often as I did earlier.
http://www.adn.com/article/20160411/guided-hunting-industry-rewards-itself-through-alaska-board-game
http://www.adn.com/article/20160411/guided-hunting-industry-rewards-itself-through-alaska-board-game
Last edited:
