Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 38

Thread: New proposals on Spike/Fork, and the 50" clarifications

  1. #1
    Member Rock_skipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Deltajct
    Posts
    2,499

    Default New proposals on Spike/Fork, and the 50" clarifications

    O.K. we have had some pretty good debates on this subject, and I think it needs to be addressed here.

    First I have never wrote up one so some help on that subject would be helpfull.

    Secound how do you get it to the board?

  2. #2
    Moderator bkmail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Palmer, AK.
    Posts
    4,121

    Default

    What exactly are you proposing?
    Bk

  3. #3
    Member ak_cowboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,196

    Default

    Look up "Submitting a Proposal" on the F&G home page or just call the Anchorage office. 267-2257

  4. #4
    Member AK Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    South Central
    Posts
    2,541

    Default

    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm...gameboard.main

    I recommend opening up the Proposal Book link on the left and then reviewing the proposals for examples. Most site a regulation by number, and then state the regulation and then state the proposed change to the regulation and why its needed.

    Proposals are accepted from December/January to April 2016 and the specific dates are shown here with directions for submitting proposals.

  5. #5
    Member Rock_skipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Deltajct
    Posts
    2,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bkmail View Post
    What exactly are you proposing?
    Bk
    First thing I'm going to try to clear up is the ("palmated moose are seldom legal" ) I want that phrase changed to ( "palmated moose are NOT LEGAL in any unit that has a spike/fork rule.")

    Thanks guys I'm looking into it.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rock_skipper View Post
    First thing I'm going to try to clear up is the ("palmated moose are seldom legal" ) I want that phrase changed to ( "palmated moose are NOT LEGAL in any unit that has a spike/fork rule.")

    Thanks guys I'm looking into it.
    Oh Boy, here we go. LOL. You will need to include a very specific description of 'palmated'. Also clarify whether a bull with a spike/fork and palmated on the other side is legal. I stalked one a few years ago while bow hunting (couldn't get close enough) that had a large palm on the left, but a spike on the right that looked like a baseball bat.
    Hunt Ethically. Respect the Environment.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rock_skipper View Post
    First thing I'm going to try to clear up is the ("palmated moose are seldom legal" ) I want that phrase changed to ( "palmated moose are NOT LEGAL in any unit that has a spike/fork rule.")

    Thanks guys I'm looking into it.
    I doubt this will go too far. While a spike is fairly easily defined and measured, palmation is not nearly so. Rather than simple length measurements, you are going to ask people to figure area calculations in the field? Trying to define where those measurements are taken would be problematic when factoring in the varying shapes/sizes of natural antlers. If anything, maybe they should just take out the statement that "palmated antlers are seldom legal" because that along appears to confuse people into thinking they are never legal. Other than that, the current regs are pretty clear and easy to understand in a majority of situations. Changing it to disallow palmated antlers I think will just make it more confusing since you are adding an additional factor into the equation.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rock_skipper View Post
    First thing I'm going to try to clear up is the ("palmated moose are seldom legal" ) I want that phrase changed to ( "palmated moose are NOT LEGAL in any unit that has a spike/fork rule.")

    Thanks guys I'm looking into it.
    Why do you want them illegal? It would probably do more towards clearing up any confusion if they just dropped the part about "palmated moose are seldom legal"

  9. #9
    Member ak_cowboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,196

    Default

    Here is what Rock has decided "palmation" should be from another thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rock_skipper View Post
    Any 3 inch of soild bone up to the nearest start of a point in anyway you stretch the tape is a palm and that would clear up a lot of this palmed stuff. No more points. If it has a 3" palm it is illegal.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rock_skipper View Post
    Dang if it has a flat sufrace its more than likely 3" and its not legal, whats so hard to understand?
    (emphasis mine)

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ak_cowboy View Post
    Here is what Rock has decided "palmation" should be from another thread.





    (emphasis mine)
    Yeah, I saw that on the other thread. Seems that would make about 99.9% of "forks" illegal. If you go down just below the split, you would almost certainly find at least 3 square inches of antler area before the start of the point. Dang, now you have to add another definition for the start of the point and probably another for the start of the "palmation" area. Does palmation start at the base of the antler or where it starts to flatten out? How much curvature on the antler can still be qualified as palmation area?

  11. #11
    Member akiceman25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Two Rivers, AK
    Posts
    1,284

    Default



    That would make this guy illegal.

    I'll vote no.
    I am serious... and don't call me Shirley.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM2K7sV-K74

  12. #12
    Member Rock_skipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Deltajct
    Posts
    2,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by akiceman25 View Post


    That would make this guy illegal.

    I'll vote no.
    And yes that would be illegal under the new regs. How many on here could tell me if this moose has a palm started on either side?

    Yes I'm going for both sides as to how people want to use the loophole to there advantage.

    This moose was going on about 2-1/2 years old and was showing promise of being in the good part of the genitic pool.

    You guys might not agree with me, at the same time, I don't agree with you, lol.

    If you want to shoot a any horn shape, then hunt them in a any size bull unit, if not then know what you are shooting at.

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

    Default

    It looks like someone is blocking me from the forum. Click on it and get a ford 150 add that pops up and no way to get by it. The only way I can get back here is to go through the history file. Good luck all, Rock.

  14. #14
    Member 4merguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Alaska
    Posts
    9,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rock_skipper View Post

    Yes I'm going for both sides as to how people want to use the loophole to there advantage.
    .
    Sorry, but I think you are going to go nowhere with this. Reason being, is that you are going to try and completely change a major component as to how they view a legal moose. Meaning.....ON ONE SIDE. By you asking for this, it would be tantamount to saying..... in a 4 brow tine area, if it doesn't have the width, it would have to have at least 4 brow tines on both sides to be legal. I don't see that happening. It's been "on one side" for as long as they have had antler restrictions. For them to change that I feel would put too big a wrench in the whole works.....
    Sheep hunting...... the pain goes away, but the stupidity remains...!!!

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rock_skipper View Post

    This moose was going on about 2-1/2 years old and was showing promise of being in the good part of the genitic pool.
    That moose was a yearling; going on 1.5 years.

  16. #16
    Member ak_cowboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,196

    Default

    I can say that was a young moose with a spike on one side. Exactly the kind we want to remove from the gene pool. Especially if its a 2 year old!

    Have you ever watched the Moose Legal video? A healthy 2 y/o should be in the mid 30s

  17. #17

  18. #18
    Member AlaskaHippie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beaver Fork
    Posts
    3,853

    Default

    Just because weed is legal now, doesn't mean a guy should smoke the whole joint before starting a thread....


    -Grin-
    “Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.” ― H.S.T.
    "Character is how you treat those who can do nothing for you."

  19. #19
    Member ak_cowboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rock_skipper View Post
    And what does a 30 year old study on moose in British Columbia have to do with Alaskan moose?

    They didn't mention anything about nutrition or genetics having a major part of antler development.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rock_skipper View Post
    And yes that would be illegal under the new regs. How many on here could tell me if this moose has a palm started on either side?

    Yes I'm going for both sides as to how people want to use the loophole to there advantage.

    This moose was going on about 2-1/2 years old and was showing promise of being in the good part of the genitic pool.

    You guys might not agree with me, at the same time, I don't agree with you, lol.

    If you want to shoot a any horn shape, then hunt them in a any size bull unit, if not then know what you are shooting at.
    So, now you are not only talking about changing the regs to make anything with any palmation illegal (unless it is a 50"+ bull), but you are ALSO trying to change it so that both sides would have to be legal for a moose to be legal? I totally disagree with that idea. That is a great way to lead to a lot more illegal moose being taken. People have a hard enough time telling a legal bull when only one side is being judged, and now you want to make it so both side have to be judged? Have you really thought this through?

    What you are really accomplishing with your ideas to change the regs is to reduce the number of moose taken, plain and simple. That isn't something the BOG is going to even look twice at. No way you would get past the first round of evaluating the proposals.

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
  •