Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Determining legal antler points

  1. #1
    Member Erik in AK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,008

    Default Determining legal antler points

    Piggybacking on the discussion in the "Legal or Not" thread, I'm thinking about submitting a proposal to clarify the definition and method for how a point is actually measured.

    Attached is a possible replacement diagram for the current on on page 30. If submitted my proposal would include deleting the following statement from page 31
    A point or tine is an antler projection at least one
    inch long, and longer than it is wide, with the width
    measured one inch or more from the tip.

    My idea is basically a reversal of the current measuring logic. I'm not a moose antler expert but it seems to me that establishing the baseline of a point using a straight edge and working from there is simple and easy to do in the field.

    Looking for feedback from you guys to see if what I have makes sense to you.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    If cave men had been trophy hunters the Wooly Mammoth would be alive today

  2. #2

    Default

    Just my opinion, but I think your proposal makes it a lot more confusing. Here are a couple reasons:

    1.) many points don't have a valley on one side or the other (a spike for example or the outside of either points for a fork since there would only be a valley between the two points and not on the outsides).

    2.) Your method of defining exactly where to measure it at (assuming you could get past the issue noted in #1 above) would likely make many "points" that are legal now to be "illegal" due to them flaring out at the base of the point faster than it is getting longer. It would be hard to judge from a distance where the valley is, while it is a lot easier to judge whether something looks long and skinny versus short and fat (current definition in very rough terms...).

    3.) By using the midpoint, C, as shown in your diagram, the length would often be measured at an angle as opposed to straight down the point adding a bit more confusion.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    3,246

    Default

    Wouldn’t it be easier to just put a 1 inch I.D. x 1 inch long pipe over a tine? I've been told that what the Trooper carry in there bag.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver View Post
    Wouldn’t it be easier to just put a 1 inch I.D. x 1 inch long pipe over a tine? I've been told that what the Trooper carry in there bag.
    That would not fit the description in the Alaska Administrative Code or what is described on the regulations, so it wouldn't be much use as the regs are currently. To use something like that, you would have to change the AAC language.

    EDIT: That method would also mean a blunted off point would not be legal. It could be 10 inches long and 1.5 inches wide, but if it was slightly blunted off on the end, as one of the "points" in the other thread appeared to be, it would not count with the 1" ID pipe idea. It can be really hard to tell from a distance if a point is pointy or blunt, but fairly easy in most cases to tell if it is long and skinny versus short and fat.

  5. #5
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,219

    Default

    To my way of thinking, the current language seems straight forward (?). (And for the very short, borderline points, the pipe method would be definitive).
    ...he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. ~Thomas Jefferson
    I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief. ~Gerry Spence
    The last thing Alaska needs is another bigot. ~member Catch It
    #Resist

  6. #6
    Member highestview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Haines
    Posts
    1,308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iofthetaiga View Post
    To my way of thinking, the current language seems straight forward (?). (And for the very short, borderline points, the pipe method would be definitive).
    I have to agree.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Born in Alaska: The boundary lines have fallen for me in pleasant places; surely I have a delightful inheritance. Psalm 16:6

  7. #7
    Member Erik in AK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,008

    Default

    (anchskier) Thanks for your feedback.
    If I may address them
    1. A spike is a spike and doesn't have a width requirement. Any spike with a protrusion not meeting the definition of a point is still a spike.
    2. This is a valid point. Some points do have a wide parabolic arc and could be legal if measured 1" from the tip but illegal if measured from the base in a pure L vs W ratio.
    3. This is true but would benefit the hunter as it would tend to create a longer B axis.

    Going back to #2. How then do we tighten the definition? Or, put differently, How do we better eliminate the subjective interpretation of well meaning LEOs in the field?

    In the case of the other thread that bull was shot for meat, obviously, and that hunter has likely lost his. The spike/fork restriction was intended to protect "tweener" bulls (2.5 to 5.5 year olds). The bull in the pics is clearly a fork. Yes, there is some palmation but there is no legally definable 3rd point and the antler damage does not appear to be human caused. If there is no 3rd point and no brow tine then it's a fork. If either of the two forks doesn't meet the definition of a point then it's a spike in purely legal terms.
    If cave men had been trophy hunters the Wooly Mammoth would be alive today

  8. #8
    Member Steven_JR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    301

    Default

    Hypothetical question here:

    Is a large palmated antler with no brow palm and no points around the edges (think smooth edges all the way around) a spike?

    By the way I read the regulations, it has only one discernable 'point' (the entire palm) and would fall under the spike regulation (longer than one inch and longer than it is wide).

  9. #9
    Member 4merguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Alaska
    Posts
    9,750

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erik in AK View Post
    If either of the two forks doesn't meet the definition of a point then it's a spike in purely legal terms.
    I would think, seeing that none of the projections qualify as a point, that somewhere along there it has to start getting into the idea of it being just a palm, or making it palmated, which they say is "seldom" legal. We all know that, what I/we call a little "paddle" bull which has no discernable points is not legal. Yes, it's got one big projection sticking up there but they don't consider it a spike anymore.
    Sheep hunting...... the pain goes away, but the stupidity remains...!!!

  10. #10
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erik in AK View Post
    1. A spike is a spike and doesn't have a width requirement. Any spike with a protrusion not meeting the definition of a point is still a spike.
    Not so quick:
    (B) "spike-fork antler" means an antler of a bull moose with only one or two tines; male calves are not spike-fork bulls

    40) "tine" or "point" means any antler projection that is at least one inch long, and that is longer than it is wide, measured one inch or more from the tip
    Quote Originally Posted by 4merguide View Post
    Yes, it's got one big projection sticking up there but they don't consider it a spike anymore.
    ...Yes, because once that spike becomes palmated such that when measured at a point one inch down from the "tip" it's going to be wider at that point than it is long from that point to the "tip". At that point it no longer meets the definition of "spike" or "point".
    ...he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. ~Thomas Jefferson
    I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief. ~Gerry Spence
    The last thing Alaska needs is another bigot. ~member Catch It
    #Resist

  11. #11
    Member Rock_skipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Deltajct
    Posts
    2,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erik in AK View Post
    (anchskier) Thanks for your feedback.
    If I may address them
    1. A spike is a spike and doesn't have a width requirement. Any spike with a protrusion not meeting the definition of a point is still a spike.
    2. This is a valid point. Some points do have a wide parabolic arc and could be legal if measured 1" from the tip but illegal if measured from the base in a pure L vs W ratio.
    3. This is true but would benefit the hunter as it would tend to create a longer B axis.

    Going back to #2. How then do we tighten the definition? Or, put differently, How do we better eliminate the subjective interpretation of well meaning LEOs in the field?

    In the case of the other thread that bull was shot for meat, obviously, and that hunter has likely lost his. The spike/fork restriction was intended to protect "tweener" bulls (2.5 to 5.5 year olds). The bull in the pics is clearly a fork. Yes, there is some palmation but there is no legally definable 3rd point and the antler damage does not appear to be human caused. If there is no 3rd point and no brow tine then it's a fork. If either of the two forks doesn't meet the definition of a point then it's a spike in purely legal terms.
    Erik, I know I said I was done with this, but nobody has prodused a picture of the right side. There might be something there that could give a reason for the LEOs disission. You raelly can't see what is in the moss.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rock_skipper View Post
    Erik, I know I said I was done with this, but nobody has prodused a picture of the right side. There might be something there that could give a reason for the LEOs disission. You raelly can't see what is in the moss.
    Are you talking about the side that is on the bottom in the photos, partially buried in the grass? If so, that doesn't really matter. Only one side of the antlers need to be legal. The other side could be no antler at all or a 30" palm with no points. Either way, if the side we can see meets the legal definition of a spike or fork, then it is a legal animal.

  13. #13
    Member Rock_skipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Deltajct
    Posts
    2,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anchskier View Post
    Are you talking about the side that is on the bottom in the photos, partially buried in the grass? If so, that doesn't really matter. Only one side of the antlers need to be legal. The other side could be no antler at all or a 30" palm with no points. Either way, if the side we can see meets the legal definition of a spike or fork, then it is a legal animal.
    I guess I need to go back to school on the way we read the regs, lol.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rock_skipper View Post
    I guess I need to go back to school on the way we read the regs, lol.
    From the center on page 31: "A spike-fork bull is legal if it has one antler on either side that is a SPIKE (1 point) or a FORK (2 points). The
    antler on the other side can be any configuration. "

    bold and underline added by me.

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
  •