Public Proposal Department Recommendation€¦ · Mt. Burnett/South Mtn. Helm Bay North Ridge . 2 ....
Transcript of 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
Bear Lake West Ridge
Mt. Burnett/South Mtn.
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
Department Recommendation: Oppose
AC Recommendation: Ketchikan AC: Oppose
9 Proposal 33
Proposal 34
Create registration hunt for goats on theCleveland Peninsula in Unit 1A and 1B
Public Proposal
Department Recommendation: Oppose
AC Recommendation: Ketchikan AC: Oppose
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
Bear Lake West Ridge
Mt. Burnett/South Mtn.
Helm Bay North Ridge
11
Proposal 34
12
Niblack Peak
Bugge Ridge
Bear Lake West Ridge
Mt. Burnett/South Mtn.
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
Department Recommendation: Oppose
AC Recommendation: Ketchikan AC: Oppose
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
Department Recommendation: Neutral
AC Recommendation: Ketchikan AC: Support
29 Proposal 35
Proposal 36
Change deer bag limit from two bucks to four bucks on the Cleveland Peninsula
Public Proposal
Department Recommendation: Neutral
AC Recommendation: Ketchikan AC: Support
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
Department Recommendation: Neutral
AC Recommendation: Ketchikan AC: Support
37 Proposal 36
Proposal 37
Reduce the harvest objective for deer inUnit 1A from 700 to 350-400
Department Proposal
Department Recommendation: Neutral
AC Recommendation: Ketchikan AC: Oppose
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
Department Recommendation: Neutral
AC Recommendation: Ketchikan AC: Oppose
45 Proposal 37
Proposal 38
Extend the trapping season for beaver in Unit 1A
Department Proposal
Department Recommendation: Neutral
AC Recommendation: Ketchikan AC: Support
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
Department Recommendation: Neutral
AC Recommendation: Ketchikan AC: Support
50 Proposal 38
25
RC 4, Tab 6.2
Proposal 39
Shorten the hunting season for deer in Unit 2
Advisory Committee Proposal
Department Recommendation: Neutral
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
Advisory Committee Proposal
Department Recommendation: Neutral
AC Recommendation: Craig AC: Support
Ketchikan AC: Oppose
56 Proposal 39
28
RC 4, Tab 6.2
Proposal 40
Reduce non-resident bag limit in Unit 2 to two deer
Advisory Committee Proposal
Department Recommendation: Neutral
AC Recommendation: Craig AC: Support
Ketchikan AC: Oppose
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
Advisory Committee Proposal
Department Recommendation: Neutral
AC Recommendation: Craig AC: Support
Ketchikan AC: Oppose
62 Proposal 40
31
RC 4, Tab 6.2
Proposal 41
Require attaching harvest ticket to deer in Unit 2
Craig Advisory Committee Proposal
Department Recommendation: Neutral
AC Recommendation: Craig AC: Support
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
Department Recommendation: Neutral
AC Recommendation: Craig AC: Support
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)
Department Recommendation: Neutral
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
Department Recommendation: Neutral
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
Up to 4‐month season.
Harvest Management
Proposal 4384
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
Up to 4‐month season.
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
Department Recommendation: Neutral
AC Recommendation: Craig AC: Support
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
Department Recommendation: Neutral
AC Recommendation: Craig AC: Support
Ketchikan AC: Support
90 Proposal 44
45