Public Proposal Department Recommendation€¦ · Mt. Burnett/South Mtn. Helm Bay North Ridge . 2 ....

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Proposal 33

Create draw hunt for goats on the Cleveland Peninsula in Unit 1A and 1B

Public Proposal

Department Recommendation: Oppose

AC Recommendation: Ketchikan AC: Oppose

1 Proposal 33

Historically Occupied Mountains and Ridges on the Cleveland Peninsula

Port Stewart Ridge

Proposal 33Niblack Peak

Bald Ridge

Caamano Ridge

Bugge Ridge

Bear Lake West Ridge

Mt. Burnett/South Mtn.

Helm Bay North Ridge

2

1

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Proposal 33

3

Niblack Peak

Bugge Ridge



Current Occupied Mountains and Ridges on the Cleveland Peninsula

Proposal 33

4

Isolated population on the Cleveland Peninsula

~20 miles straight line distance to suitable goat habitat to the north

2

I

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Discussion

Former regulation: 1949-2002 two goats Management strategy: 100 goats, 6 points

total, nanny = 2 points, and billies =1 point 1996-2018: minimum counts of 7-30 goats Sightability correction for 2012-2014: 30-40

goats ADF&G best estimate 40-50 goats

5 Proposal 33

Discussion

Min

imu

m C

oun

t

35 Minimum Counts of Mountain Goats on the Cleveland Peninsula 1996 - 2018 302930 28 27

24 25 25

20 20 1817 16 15 15 15 15 13

10 10

7

5

0 2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

Year

6 Proposal 33

3

0

Total Population

0 10

20 40 80 80

,,. ,,, 1 , I

I I • ' , . I • I

0 -i 1.1 I I I I I I I •

' ' I I ' I

' ' . f I I i I I ~, : : ~

1 I I

' ' ' I I ' I I I

' ' ' I ' ~ ~ : ~

t';

' . I

' I :

RC

4, Tab 6.2

Discu

ssion

R

esearch suggests no harvest for population <

50 animals

M

inimum

of 100 goats to have huntingseason

Research suggests harvest of 1-4%

of native population

Since 1982, reduction from

eight to fouroccupied m

ountains

Research suggests only 1 im

migrant every

10-15 years

7 P

roposal 33

Discu

ssion

Initial P

op

ulatio

n =

50 go

ats

An

nu

al Harvest =

2 go

ats A

nn

ual H

arvest = 1 g

oat

Resu

lts: 40% d

ecrease in p

op

ulatio

n

Resu

lts: 2% d

ecrease in p

op

ulatio

n

94% o

f simu

lation

s declin

ed

53% o

f simu

lation

s declin

ed

8P

roposal 33

4

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Proposal 33

Create draw hunt for goats on the Cleveland Peninsula in Unit 1A and 1B

Public Proposal



9 Proposal 33

Proposal 34

Create registration hunt for goats on theCleveland Peninsula in Unit 1A and 1B

Public Proposal



10 Proposal 34

5

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Historically Occupied Mountains and Ridges on the Cleveland Peninsula

Proposal 34

Port Stewart Ridge

Niblack Peak

Bald Ridge

Caamano Ridge

Bugge Ridge



Helm Bay North Ridge

11

Proposal 34

12

Niblack Peak

Bugge Ridge



Current Occupied Mountains and Ridges on the Cleveland Peninsula

6

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Proposal 34

13

Isolated population on the Cleveland Peninsula

~20 miles straight line distance to suitable goat habitat to the north

Discussion

Former regulation: 1949-2002 two goats Management strategy: 100 goats, 6 points

total, nanny = 2 points, and billies = 1 point 1996-2018: minimum counts of 7-30 goats Sightability correction for 2012-2014: 30-40

goats ADF&G best estimate 35-50 goats

14 Proposal 34

7

I

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Discussion

24 25

17 16

10

7

15

28

18

29

13 15 15

20

30

27

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35 M

inim

um

Cou

nt

Minimum Counts of Mountain Goats on the Cleveland Peninsula 1996 - 2018 2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

Year

15 Proposal 34

Discussion

Research suggests no harvest for population <50 animals Minimum of 100 goats to have hunting

season Research suggests harvest of 1-4% of

native population Since 1982, reduction from nine to five

occupied mountains Research suggests only 1 immigrant every

10-15 years

16 Proposal 34

8

2

~ ii ~ , t ' -~ :;j i t-

1l --~ 1l 0

10 20 0

----- --- -- -- ---... -------

-----... - - .. ... ----, ... ___ _

-- ----------e ----- ..... _____ _

10 20 30 ,o

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Discussion

Initial Population = 50 goats

Annual Harvest = 2 goats Results: 40% decrease in population

94% of simulations declined

Annual Harvest = 1 goat Results: 2% decrease in population

53% of simulations declined

17 Proposal 34

Proposal 34

Discussion

Registration hunt gives less control overhunt

18

9

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Proposal 34

Create registration hunt for goats on theCleveland Peninsula in Unit 1A and 1B

Public Proposal



19 Proposal 34

Proposal 35

Eliminate the mountain goat draw hunt DG007, and add to registration hunt RG001. Increase draw tag allotment

Department Proposal

Department Recommendation: Neutral

AC Recommendation: Ketchikan AC: Support

20 Proposal 35

10

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Discussion

Proposal 3521

Discussion

Proposal 3522

11

Discussion

23

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Proposal 35

Discussion

Increase draw tag allotment from up to 25 permits per year to up to 50

Remove DG007, integrate into RG001

Introduced population high on Revilla

Provide increase opportunity to popularmountain goat hunt with easy access

24 Proposal 35

12

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Discussion Aerial Minimum Counts of Mountain Goats from Deer Mtn. to Mahoney Mtn. 250

Goa

ts c

oun

ted

200

150

100

50

0

Adults

Kids

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Year

25 Proposal 35

Proposal 35

Discussion

DG007 hunt created in 2011 Mean harvest <2 goats per season

26

13

~

�

�

~ ~

~

-~ n n

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Discussion 30 4.5 Goats harvested and days hunted with permits available

6 Permits 10 Permits 4

25 Days Hunted 3.5

Harvest 20 3

Day

s H

un

ted

15

10

5

0

2 Permits 10 Permits 6 Permits

2 Permits 2 Permits

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

Goa

t H

arve

st

Proposal 35

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

27

Discussion

Access currently limited to boat and airplane Future road may provide limited access Provides more opportunity for goat hunting Relieve grazing pressure on wintering

grounds

28 Proposal 35

14

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Proposal 35

Eliminate the mountain goat draw hunt DG007, and add to registration hunt RG001. Increase draw tag allotment

Department Proposal



29 Proposal 35

Proposal 36

Change deer bag limit from two bucks to four bucks on the Cleveland Peninsula

Public Proposal



30 Proposal 36

15

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Discussion

Proposal 3631

Proposal 36

Discussion

Bag limit 4 deer until RY2009 season Bag limit currently 2 deer on Cleveland

Peninsula

32

16

.... I\) w ~

1980(0) t 1981f0~ •

19 2i 1983

1984(302 t +

1985~1 Bm -+-19 6i 1987

1988f4m I --19 9i 1990

1991 (240 --1992t~

-+-1993 286 --+-

19 4 1995(2J4 <

--+- (")

1996(~ <= -< 1997i26 -+- ~ n, r» 1998 232 ... en ..,

1999bat -+- ::c

200 n,

2001 b2~1 ... 3 20 2( &' 2003'1

'<

2004f 0 ... 2005 286 +

20 6( 2001b24i .....

20 Bi 2009 woi~~r 20 1(

2012?43 -+-2013 291 •

2014(; 2015f61 + 20 6

2017(2J0 I -+-

2018(0)

RC

4, Tab 6.2

Proposal 36

Discu

ssion

33

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

2011 2012

2013 2014

2015 2016

2017

Days Hunted

Year

Days H

un

ted

Harvest

Harvest

Discu

ssion

34 P

roposal 36

17

~ c» ..,

Mean Deer Pellet GroupsiPlot & 95'/, COnfldence Interval

198010) 1981 m 1982 1983 1984 m 1985 1986 1987 m 1988 1989

1 ~~~(9,l 1992(ol

1993(28m 1994(

1995(278 1996(~ 1997(289 1998(

0

1999(18~

20~f~fa'gj I+

~~~~(9,l 2004(ol

~~~~(9,l 2001tm 2008 m 2009 2010 2011 ~ 2012

2013(284 I•

2014 (1~ 2015 2016

"' w J>.

-+-

-•-

2017(0) 2018(0)~--------~

~ c:: --.i ... "' "O 0 ;::i.

"' ~ :: c» ;::i.

RC

4, Tab 6.2

Proposal 36

Discu

ssion

35

Discu

ssion

D

eer abundance remains low

after hardw

inters from 1995-1998, 2006-2008, and

2011

Snow

fall higher on Cleveland

D

eep snow causes high deer m

ortality

Wolf harvest low

despite trapper effort

36 P

roposal 36

18

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Proposal 36

Change deer bag limit from two bucks to four bucks on the Cleveland Peninsula

Public Proposal



37 Proposal 36

Proposal 37

Reduce the harvest objective for deer inUnit 1A from 700 to 350-400

Department Proposal



38 Proposal 37

19

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Discussion

Harvest objective based on mean harvestfrom 1994-1998 plus 10%. Current harvest objective has not been met

for past 20 years (1998 – 2017) Changing habitat influencing deer carrying

capacity

39 Proposal 37

Discussion

Biogeographic Province High-volume productive Large-tree productive old old growth <800 ft. growth <800 ft. elevation

elevation

North Misty Fjords 91% 85%

South Misty Fjords 98% 96%

Revilla Island/Cleveland 81% 62% Peninsula

40 Proposal 37

20

Discussion VCU 763 Bostwick Inlet

4

3

2

1

0

Year(Plots)

41 Proposal 37

Proposal 37

Discussion

42

0

1

2

3

4

198

0(0)

198

2(0)

198

4(0)

198

6(0)

198

8(0)

199

0(0)

199

2(0)

199

4(0)

199

6(29

5)

199

8(0)

200

0(28

5)

200

2(28

4)

200

4(28

2)

200

6(0)

200

8(28

0)

201

0(0)

201

2(25

8)

201

4(26

8)

201

6(0)

201

8(28

5) Mea

n D

eer

Pel

let G

roup

s/P

lot

&

95%

Con

fiden

ce I

nter

val

Year (Plots)

VCU 765 Dall Head

Mea

n D

eer

Pel

let

Gro

up

s/P

lot

&

95%

Co

nfi

den

ce In

terv

al

1980

(0)

1982

(0)

1984

(0)

1986

(0)

1988

(0)

1990

(0)

1992

(0)

1994

(0)

1996

(0)

1998

(0)

2000

(0)

2002

(0)

2004

(0)

2006

(0)

2008

(0)

2010

(0)

2012

(0)

2014

(0)

2016

(275

)

2018

(251

)

RC 4, Tab 6.2

21

.. __ ,..., ........................................................................................................ , \ I \ l--1 I \ I \ -I ' ' I '

...... I ' - , \

\ ,

\ \ , ---, \ ,, , ' , ,

\ I \ I \ , ' , \ I ' I \ , ,,

\ I \ I \ ,

I \ I ' ' , I \ I

\ I

I '

, \ I ,, ---, I

I

' I

I I I I ','

I I I I I I I I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Proposal 37

Discussion

43

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000 D

ays

Hu

nte

d

Year

Days Hunted

Harvest

Harvest Objective

Dee

r H

arve

sted

ANS = 5 - 40

Discussion

Mean harvest from 1998-2017 was 301 deer. No proven options for improving habitat. The Department does not believe the

current harvest objective (700 deer) can beconsistently met. From 1998-2017 harvest exceeded 350

deer six times.

44 Proposal 37

22

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Proposal 37

Reduce the harvest objective for deer inUnit 1A from 700 to 350-400

Department Proposal



45 Proposal 37

Proposal 38

Extend the trapping season for beaver in Unit 1A

Department Proposal



46 Proposal 38

23

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Discussion

Current trapping season: Nov. 1 – April 30 Proposed change: Nov. 1 – May 15 Estimated increase in harvest of two beaver

annually This would misalign the trapping season in

1A from the rest of Region 1 1998-2017 mean harvest was 26 beavers

47 Proposal 38

Proposal 38

Discussion

48

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Year

Harvest

Number of Successful Trappers

Beaver harvest and successful trappers

ANS = 90% of the harvestable portion

24

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Proposal 38

Discussion

49

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

November December January February March April

Mea

n B

eave

r H

arve

st

Month

Proposal 38

Extend the trapping season for beaver in Unit 1A

Department Proposal



50 Proposal 38

25

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Proposal 39

Shorten the hunting season for deer in Unit 2

Advisory Committee Proposal


AC Recommendation: Craig AC: Support

Ketchikan AC: Oppose

51 Proposal 39

Discussion

Current regulations: four buck bag limit from Aug. 1 – Dec. 31. Proposed reduction: Aug. 1 – Nov. 30. Primarily limits hunting opportunity for non-

federally qualified hunters. ~78% of land in Unit 2 is USFS, ~22% state

and private. Mean harvest from 1998-2017 for non-

federally qualified hunters in December was 42 deer .

52 Proposal 39

26

--· ...... -• D .. , ... ..

" ~ .... I \ , I \ I ' -I \ I \ .

I.. I.. 11." \ ,,

................ ·····••\••········· ;,,· ... ... ... ... ... .... ... ... ... ... ..... ~

I ' I

I I I 't' I

Discussion M

ean

Dee

r H

arve

st

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Deer Harvest from 1998 – 2017 by month

Federally Qualified Hunters

Non-Federally Qualified Hunters

Month

53 Proposal 39

Proposal 39

Discussion

54

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

Day

s H

un

ted

Year

Harvest Days Hunted Harvest Objective

Har

vest

ANS = 1,500 - 1,600

RC 4, Tab 6.2

27

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Proposal 39

Discussion

Federal Subsistence Board reduced non-federally qualified hunters bag limit in Unit 2 to two bucks.

55

Proposal 39

Shorten the hunting season for deer in Unit 2





56 Proposal 39

28

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Proposal 40

Reduce non-resident bag limit in Unit 2 to two deer





57 Proposal 40

Discussion

Non-resident harvest is a small portion of overall harvest Mean annual harvest by non-residents is 9

deer on 3rd and 4th tags Increase in price of non-resident hunting

license and locking tag for deer

58 Proposal 40

29

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Discussion 4500

4002 Non-resident

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

4000 3803

166

0

151 249 232 142

3527 3324

2290

Resident

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

59 Proposal 40

Discussion Percentage of Deer Taken by Successful Hunters (2013 - 2017)

5%

Resident

Non-resident

Total Harvest (2013 - 2017) = 17,886 95%

Proposal 4060

Dee

r H

arve

st

30

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Discussion Number of Deer Taken by Successful Non-Resident Hunters (2013 - 2017)

19% Number of Deer Taken

1

2

3

4

Number of Hunters (2013 - 2017) = 720

61 Proposal 40

76%

4% 1%

Proposal 40

Decrease non-resident deer bag limit to twoin Unit 2





62 Proposal 40

31

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Proposal 41

Require attaching harvest ticket to deer in Unit 2

Craig Advisory Committee Proposal



Ketchikan AC: Oppose 63 Proposal 41

Discussion

Craig AC indicated that harvest tickets are not being validated

Prior radio-collar deer study indicated 67%(6/9 collared deer) deer were illegally harvested

64 Proposal 41

32

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Discussion

Paper tags may fall off of deer while intransit

2004 BOG meeting, similar proposal failed based on cost

Alternative tag?

65 Proposal 41

Proposal 41

Discussion

66

33

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Discussion

Mean number of deer hunters from in Unit 2 was 3,937 from 2008-2017 Assuming 5 tags per hunter at $0.10 per tag

= ~$1,900/year

67 Proposal 41

Proposal 41

Require attaching harvest ticket to deer in Unit 2

Craig Advisory Committee Proposal



Ketchikan AC: Oppose 68 Proposal 41

34

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Proposal 42

Change harvest guideline level for wolves for Unit 2

SE Alaska Subsistence Regional Advisory Council Proposal (Withdrawn)


AC Recommendation: Craig AC: TNA

Ketchikan AC: TNA 69 Proposal 42

Discussion

This proposal would increase the Harvest Guideline Level (HGL) from 20% to 30% of the most recent population estimate The author of this proposal submitted a

letter to the Board of Game to withdraw it in favor of Department proposal 43.

70 Proposal 42

35

f I

2012 2018

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Discussion

Initial HGL adopted in 1997 for 25% of population annually Changed to 30% in 2001 Lowered to 20% in 2015 Reduced based on low wolf population

estimate for Unit 2 Population has recovered to current

estimate of 225 wolves

71 Proposal 42

Discussion

Pop

ula

tion

Est

imat

e

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Wolf population estimate with 95% confidence interval

231 225221

108 89

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

72 Proposal 42

36

I I

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Proposal 42

Discussion

73

80

99 96

73

62 64

33

77

59

37 36

24 24 20

28

56 57

30

7

30

60

0

20

40

60

80

100

120 W

olf

Har

vest

Year ANS = 90% of the harvestable portion

Discussion

Unit 2 population varies more than others due to insular population Limited dispersal Road and beach access to wolves Federal seasons longer than State

74 Proposal 42

37

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Proposal 42

Change wolf harvest guideline level for wolves for Unit 2

SE Alaska Subsistence Regional Advisory Council Proposal


AC Recommendation: Craig AC: TNA

Ketchikan AC: TNA 75 Proposal 42

Proposal 43 Manage Harvest of Unit 2 Wolves to

Meet a Population Objective Department Proposal

Department Recommendation: Support

AC Recommendation: Craig AC: Support Sitka AC: Support

Ketchikan AC: Support Wrangell AC: SupportEast POW AC: Support

76 Proposal 43

38

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Effect

This proposal would change the harvest management strategy for Unit 2 wolves.

Current: Harvest guideline level (HGL) that is a percentage of the estimated population.

Proposed: Manage harvest to maintain the population within an objective range.

77 Proposal 43

Game Management Unit 2

78 Proposal 43

39

Trapping Season Denning/Recruitment

Lab DNA Analysis * Collect Data Math & Estimate

Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept

RC 4, Tab 6.2

DNA Population Estimates 1-Year Time Lag

Proposal 4379

Unit 2 Wolf Management 1997-2017

Proposal 4380

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Pop. Est. Quota Harvest

Num

ber

of W

olve

s

40

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Current Management Strategy

Focuses only on the number of wolves to harvest. Quotas and EOs.

No goal for the population.

Leaves ADF&G to determine minimum size of the population. Population size should be determined through a

public process. 81 Proposal 43

New Unit 2 Wolf Management Strategy

Board establishes a population objective range.

ADF&G will manage harvest to maintain population within that range.

Harvest management decisions guided by a written management strategy.

82 Proposal 43

41

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Population Objectives and Managing Harvest

Proposal 4383

XXX

XXX

XXX

0

Zone 3: Pop = Objective

Up to 2‐month season.

Zone 2: Pop < Objective

Up to 6‐week season.

Zone 1: Pop << Objective

Season closed until population increases to

> XXX wolves.

Estimated Population

Zone 4: Pop > Objective


Harvest Management

Proposal 4384

XXX

XXX

XXX

0

Zone 3: Pop = Objective


Zone 2: Pop < Objective

Up to 6‐week season.

Zone 1: Pop << Objective

Season closed until population increases to

XXX wolves.

Estimated Population

Zone 4: Pop > Objective


Harvest Management

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Pop. Est. Quota Harvest

Num

ber

of W

olve

s

42

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Proposal 43 Manage Harvest of Unit 2 Wolves to

Meet a Population Objective Department Proposal

Department Recommendation: Support

AC Recommendation: Craig AC: Support Sitka AC: Support

Ketchikan AC: Support Wrangell AC: SupportEast POW AC: Support

85 Proposal 43

Proposal 44

Extend Unit 2 wolf trapping season Craig Advisory Committee Proposal



Ketchikan AC: Support

86 Proposal 44

43

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Proposal 44

Discussion

Current wolf trapping season in Unit 2 Dec. 1 – Mar. 31 Proposed extension of 2 weeks:

Nov. 15 – Mar. 31

87

Proposal 44

Discussion

88

Pros Align Federal and

State seasons Tide sets possible

earlier

Cons Reach quota faster

44

RC 4, Tab 6.2

Proposal 44

Discussion

89

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Wol

f H

arve

st

Mean wolf harvest 2013 - 2017

Proposal 44

Extend Unit 2 wolf trapping season Craig Advisory Committee Proposal



Ketchikan AC: Support

90 Proposal 44

45

Public Proposal Department Recommendation€¦ · Mt. Burnett/South Mtn. Helm Bay North Ridge . 2 ....

Documents

Transcript of Public Proposal Department Recommendation€¦ · Mt. Burnett/South Mtn. Helm Bay North Ridge . 2 ....