Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 40

Thread: Moose gmu15...Okay, so we know what you don't like... What's the answer?

  1. #1
    Member homerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    homer, alaska
    Posts
    3,922

    Default Moose gmu15...Okay, so we know what you don't like... What's the answer?

    well?
    what harvest strategy will work?
    Be realistic. We need to attain IM goals that are mandated and still provide maximum opportunity while conserving and maintaining the resource for the future.
    who has the answer?
    Alaska Board of Game 2015 tour... "Kicking the can down the road"
    http://www.alaskabackcountryhunters.org/

  2. #2
    Member tyrex13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Anchorage/Soldotna
    Posts
    1,176

    Default

    One moose every four years and make it draw permit at that.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Nikiski, AK
    Posts
    125

    Default

    We have just now started to reduce predator numbers. We need to enforce the current regulations and improve habitat where/whenever possible.

  4. #4
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,600

    Default

    Figure out how many moose you want harvested first. Then issue harvest tickets 10% over allotment. Folks that live in GMU 15 get to request the tickets for a week before open to folks living outside the unit. Its the only fair way.
    Now left only to be a turd in the forrest and the circle will be complete.Use me as I have used you

  5. #5
    Member SkinnyD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    20B
    Posts
    1,379

    Default

    Here's a graphic illustrating the problem.
    KPfire.jpg

    Areas shaded red and orange will always be fire suppression areas. Green and yellow areas could burn and the refuge would likely allow them to burn, but those areas haven't burned in the past forty years.

    So off the top of my head, I'd say that 60-80% of the peninsula is old-growth or otherwise non-moosey. 10-15% is urban and not good for moose hunting. Leaves the moose with about 15% of the entire peninsula..
    Passing up shots on mergansers since 1992.


  6. #6

    Default

    GOOD Post.........


    Quote Originally Posted by SkinnyD View Post
    Here's a graphic illustrating the problem.
    KPfire.jpg

    Areas shaded red and orange will always be fire suppression areas. Green and yellow areas could burn and the refuge would allow them to burn, but they haven't in the past forty years.

  7. #7

    Default

    To keep the moderators happy, I'll be short and sweet.
    1. Get rid of spike / fork rules
    2. Go to 3 brow tines with any width
    3. Non-residents must draw a tag
    4. Permit system for a pre-set number of any bulls tags.
    5. This will open a can of worms.....go to a weighted preference point system like Colorado.

    We've had to suffer the last several years to rebuild the bull-cow ratio, and I feel this years we took a step backwards.

  8. #8

    Default

    The solution is: Napalm.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Kenai
    Posts
    1,888

    Default

    Combine posts #7&#8 & make the any bull tags in post #7 youth hunts.
    Vance in AK.

    Matthew 6:33
    "But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you."

  10. #10
    Member Meanderthal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    288

    Default

    1) Make the hunt registration for residents only with mandatory 3 day reporting requirement and phone hotline for EO closures when goal is met.

    2) Require all moose to be sealed with antler specimen for bulls and naturally attached genitals for both sexes.

    3) Mandate that taking of bull not conforming to spike/fork or 50+/4 while not illegal would preclude you from hunting moose for X number of years.

    4) Launch a campaign to raise money and awareness for habitat improvement where feasible. Maybe solicit funding through "Pick, Click, Give"?

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    231

    Default

    I'd encourage a '3-7 MERCY RULE' (or something similar) as follows:

    This rule would grant a resident hunter 3" of mercy, once in a 7 year period. For instance, you see a moose that is only 3 brow tine but he looks to be an honest 50 inches ... after careful study and contemplation, you squeeze the trigger and discover it is only 49.5". At that point, you turn in the moose and they measure it. You then have the option of using your mercy/grace option (which is tracked under your hunter number by F&G). On the other hand, if the moose turns out to be 46" ... then no mercy/grace; You turn it in, pay the fine, lose the moose, etc.

    This would grant a little mercy to those hunters that were off a little bit on their honest estimate. At the same time, it would not grant grace to those who were off a lot ... more than 3 inches (and knew it). Knowing that you have a single grace granted per 7 year period would keep yahoos from shooting a sub-legal 47-incher every year and it would encourage hunters who make an honest mistake to turn-in. 3-inches is not that much ... it is 1.5" per side. That's tought to judge which is why a 'grace option' would seem in order. If not once in 7 years ... they could make it once in 10 years, 20 years or even a life-time. Just a thought -

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    221

    Default

    @ HomerAdam.... Can you explain how a weighted pref point system would be any better than the system we have now? Maybe I'm completely clueless, but I just don't see any benefits for unit 15 moose coming of something like that. Thanks.

    I think that SkinnyD hit the crux of the problem holding moose back on the penninsula. Habitat and food. It doesn't matter how we regulate the hunts or whether or not we reduce predator numbers if the available habitat won't support more moose. Sure maybe a few more moose will be available for harvest vs being taken by predators, but it is just a band-aid (temporary) solution to a larger more complex problem.

    Have many of you have seen the large clearcuts on the lower penninsula? They were supposed to improve moose habitat, but instead many grew in thick with tall grass and lower quality moose foods. Maybe we need to figure out how to burn and/or scarify the ground in those old clear cuts to encourage regeneration in willow for the moose eat.

  13. #13
    Member cdubbin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    KP, the dingleberry of Alaska
    Posts
    1,751

    Default

    I like the current regs as they are; in two years, we doubled our bull/cow ratio, and seriously reduced the number of hunters in the field, without opportunity-reducing measures like draw/ registration/ etc.....populations don't fully recover overnight, and this one won't either. As far as habitat goes, just protecting riparian zones and wetlands is a good start....I don't believe "any bull" tags are appropriate for the KP.
    " Gas boats are bad enough, autos are an invention of the devil, and airplanes are worse." ~Allen Hasselborg

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bairdi View Post
    @ HomerAdam.... Can you explain how a weighted pref point system would be any better than the system we have now? Maybe I'm completely clueless, but I just don't see any benefits for unit 15 moose coming of something like that. Thanks.
    Since you seem a little sarcastic, I'll try to explain for you. From the previous thread, Dave was worried about everyone in the state putting in for an "any bull" tag and never being able to hunt in our own backyard. Also we do have a cow tag on the lower peninsula (which I have never drawn either). If the ADFG awarded a preference point for every year that you were unsuccessful drawing a permit, everyone would eventually have the opportunity to draw one of these tags. For example if you had been unsuccessful drawing an "any bull" tag for 6 years and had acquired 6 points, your odds would be 6x better than a first time applicant for drawing that tag next year. For those who are unsuccessful on the drawing, you'd get your point plus still be able to hunt bulls with 3 brow tines without width restrictions with just a harvest ticket (which is better than we have now). Now that's not to hard to understand is it ?????

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,085

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HomerAdam View Post
    Since you seem a little sarcastic, I'll try to explain for you. From the previous thread, Dave was worried about everyone in the state putting in for an "any bull" tag and never being able to hunt in our own backyard. Also we do have a cow tag on the lower peninsula (which I have never drawn either). If the ADFG awarded a preference point for every year that you were unsuccessful drawing a permit, everyone would eventually have the opportunity to draw one of these tags. For example if you had been unsuccessful drawing an "any bull" tag for 6 years and had acquired 6 points, your odds would be 6x better than a first time applicant for drawing that tag next year. For those who are unsuccessful on the drawing, you'd get your point plus still be able to hunt bulls with 3 brow tines without width restrictions with just a harvest ticket (which is better than we have now). Now that's not to hard to understand is it ?????
    Preference points are like a pyramid scheme. They only pay off for those who get in on the ground floor. After a while you end up with a huge block of people with beau coup points and a bunch of new hunters who might draw in 20 years if they're lucky. Especially if it's a hard to draw tag. Look at the drawing pools in other states like Utah and you'll see what I mean. Weighted draws are a scam that give you the impression that there is an advantage to be had.

    Better to have a regular random draw and prevent successful applicants from putting in again for the same hunt for x amount of years. And get rid of multiple picks per species. Make hunters pick only one hunt per species to draw for. In Alaska, that would up your odds 200%. If you want an extra chance put all undrawn applicants in a second chance drawing for any tags undrawn in the first drawing. That would cover any tags undrawn if enough hunters didn't apply to fill all tags in a particular hunt.
    An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
    - Jef Mallett

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    AK
    Posts
    4,034

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cdubbin View Post
    I like the current regs as they are; in two years, we doubled our bull/cow ratio, and seriously reduced the number of hunters in the field, without opportunity-reducing measures like draw/ registration/ etc.....populations don't fully recover overnight, and this one won't either. As far as habitat goes, just protecting riparian zones and wetlands is a good start....I don't believe "any bull" tags are appropriate for the KP.
    I have to agree, I think the only way to allow opportunity and keep harvest in check is to actually go back to the 4/50, no spikes/forks rules from the past couple years.

    I also agree with ADFG that habitat is the primary problem and until that can be addressed with the feds, the carrying capacity of the KP is what it is. I'm a little surprised they haven't started issuing a few cow draw tags for 15A/B to open a bit of the carrying capacity to bulls. That's the one big modification I would make if I were in charge.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    AK
    Posts
    4,034

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twodux View Post
    Preference points are like a pyramid scheme. They only pay off for those who get in on the ground floor. After a while you end up with a huge block of people with beau coup points and a bunch of new hunters who might draw in 20 years if they're lucky. Especially if it's a hard to draw tag. Look at the drawing pools in other states like Utah and you'll see what I mean. Weighted draws are a scam that give you the impression that there is an advantage to be had.

    Better to have a regular random draw and prevent successful applicants from putting in again for the same hunt for x amount of years. And get rid of multiple picks per species. Make hunters pick only one hunt per species to draw for. In Alaska, that would up your odds 200%. If you want an extra chance put all undrawn applicants in a second chance drawing for any tags undrawn in the first drawing. That would cover any tags undrawn if enough hunters didn't apply to fill all tags in a particular hunt.
    Spot on, I am not a fan of the point system for the very reasons you point out.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    499

    Default

    I'll chime in with my observations from 10 days hunting around unit 15.

    I observed and talked with several other hunters on the southern peninsula and the general impression is that the moose numbers in unit 15C
    are off. I forget what the point estimate was last winter I believe 3200? The overwhelming opinion was that those numbers are off by a considerable amount. It's going to be hard to achieve IM for bulls, if populations aren't even in IM for total moose. Another common observation was decreased cow numbers from past years, but an increase in bull sightings. I don't believe there is an over-population of bulls though because most of these are still in the 40 inch class which are trying to recruit into the older class, so we still need to give these bulls another couple years of 4 brow tines regs. to keep them recruiting into the older class. The older bull class just plummeted 3 years ago because of lost recruitment from poor calf survival and poaching of the 40 inch class bulls, which is still a problem now. Although these two things have improved slightly with a brown bear hunt and sealing of the antlers.

    I don't think wolves should be overlooked either. This fall and last fall I have seen wolves on the ground. These animals are probably the hardest to spot in Alaska and for myself to be consistently seeing wolves on the ground is telling me their population is doing quite well. It would make sense that wolf numbers would be highest in 15C since moose pops. have dropped dramatically in units A and B.

    Obviously habitat can always be improved anywhere in Alaska, and it's a shame the refuge won't do more to improve the habitat situation. I will say the big fire in unit 15C has regenerated some great willow browse. The moose in 15C will still need improved winter areas and I think its a good idea to scarify the soil in some of the areas that were logged 20 plus years ago and are now losing moose forage availability.

    I think the spike/ 50/ 4BT needs another 2 years so the younger bulls can continue to recruit and hopefully the bulls will be distributed over all the age classes. When it's time for spike/fork to come back around something different needs to be looked at, because spike/fork hunting really hurt the bull population on the KP. 30 days of general season and another 7 of bow season is just too much pressure on this age class of bulls and then recruitment suffers.

    Be careful with any bull hunts on the KP, because as soon as general hunters get an any bull hunt, subsistence hunters will get an any bull hunt and then the bull numbers will be hurting again. Homerdave I recommend watching subsistence this winter, they are wanting a cow hunt pretty bad and if they get 25 cows like is generally what is shot out of Homer then that could really put a dent in moose populations. I really don't think moose on the Kenai could sustain 300 road kills, wolves, bears, poaching, and an additional 50 cows shot between draw and subsistence hunters.

  19. #19

    Default

    You said to be realistic...well here's my idea. Put a quota on bulls taken, get rid of spike/fork, once the quota is reached, which it should be a low number, the people of the kenai pen will just have to do what the majority of the state has to do and that's load up the truck and drive somewhere to hunt...this may piss people off....but in all honesty pen people hunting elsewhere means less pressure means less moose taken etc..it's not rocket science. Yes there is decent moose hunting on k pen, but a lawyer from Texas is most likely not goin to pay 15k to hunt on the pen..which means there isn't probably all that many out of staters hunting there..

  20. #20

    Default

    And what about all the people who get a "Subsistence" Moose Permit............????



    Quote Originally Posted by hunt/trapak88 View Post
    You said to be realistic...well here's my idea. Put a quota on bulls taken, get rid of spike/fork, once the quota is reached, which it should be a low number, the people of the kenai pen will just have to do what the majority of the state has to do and that's load up the truck and drive somewhere to hunt...this may piss people off....but in all honesty pen people hunting elsewhere means less pressure means less moose taken etc..it's not rocket science. Yes there is decent moose hunting on k pen, but a lawyer from Texas is most likely not goin to pay 15k to hunt on the pen..which means there isn't probably all that many out of staters hunting there..

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •