Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 38 of 38

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

  1. #21
    Member dkwarthog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Mat-Su
    Posts
    2,156

    Default

    My family likes to eat moose so I'd vote against any of Rockskippers ideas on this, but I agree with anch skier that requiring the brow times on both sides would cause a ton of problems. At least the way that I hunt, verifying that both sides has 4 brow tines before firing would probably have cost me 1/3 of the legal moose I've shot over the years. You just don't always get a good look at both sides. Maybe the better rule would be to require guided hunters to harvest moose more than 10 miles from a public road to reduce the competition with joe six pack trying to find a moose for his family in the evenings after work. Just a thought mind you, not a BOG proposal..

  2. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dkwarthog View Post
    My family likes to eat moose so I'd vote against any of Rockskippers ideas on this, but I agree with anch skier that requiring the brow times on both sides would cause a ton of problems. At least the way that I hunt, verifying that both sides has 4 brow tines before firing would probably have cost me 1/3 of the legal moose I've shot over the years. You just don't always get a good look at both sides. Maybe the better rule would be to require guided hunters to harvest moose more than 10 miles from a public road to reduce the competition with joe six pack trying to find a moose for his family in the evenings after work. Just a thought mind you, not a BOG proposal..

    Who you calling 'Joe Six Pack?'
    Hunt Ethically. Respect the Environment.

  3. #23
    Member dkwarthog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Mat-Su
    Posts
    2,156

    Default

    Me..........

  4. #24
    Member 4merguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Alaska
    Posts
    11,491

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dkwarthog View Post
    ......but I agree with anch skier that requiring the brow times on both sides would cause a ton of problems.....
    Hmmmm..... I thought I said that...???.......lol


    I would have to agree with him though here.....

    Quote Originally Posted by anchskier View Post
    No way you would get past the first round of evaluating the proposals.
    Sheep hunting...... the pain goes away, but the stupidity remains...!!!

  5. #25
    Member Rock_skipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Deltajct
    Posts
    2,499

    Default

    O.K. guys, Maybe I did'nt express myself as the way it was supposed to come out, but I did get a feel of how you all feel.

    I guess I should ask first as to how the unit that you live in is doing with the moose population? Did the spike/fork work there?

    Why do you travel this far to shot a moose? ( The ones from the south ) ITS because its on the road system and you could'nt give a **** about the territory that you invade because you are only going to be there for a week out of the year and they have moose that fits that profile.

    I dont know how to show you guys that what you are doing by letting people get by with shooting a questionable moose will kill all the moose hunting here, and it will go to permits only and then you have just taking the locals out of the picture.

    Yes I would take back the statement on the fork bull that I said would not be legal and would state in that instance that a fork on one side and the other could not be palmed larger than 6 inchs anyway you spread the tape, and if it has palms on both sides it is ILLegal no matter what tines it has.

    Thanks.

  6. #26
    Member ak_cowboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,235

    Default

    I've never hunted near Delta, the spike/fork has been working in the 7,14 and 15 units that I do hunt.

    You are ASSuming a lot about the relatively few hunters and why they hunt near you and their dispositions.

    Just because you have a feeling that shooting questionable moose will cause it to go to permit doesn't mean its true.
    How many illegal moose were shot there this year? How many were "questionable "? What is the overall impact on the total population?

    Finally, by making an animal illegal according to BOTH sides and REGARDLESS of tines is going to guarantee that your proposal wont make it part the local A.C.

  7. #27
    Member Rock_skipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Deltajct
    Posts
    2,499

    Default

    Thanks AK.

  8. #28
    Member ak_cowboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,235

    Default

    I'm not against restricting harvest, just additional regulations.

    Have you looked at getting rid of the fork legality like they did it 15? That had a dramatic impact on harvest and made it fairly simple to tell if a young bull was legal. Its hard to argue a spike Lol.

    It would have precedence going before the Board and you could have biological data backing it up as well.

  9. #29
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,614

    Default

    Wouldnt make rock happy if the fork had palmation though. While you are at it, skipper, add a proposal that no resident hunter may hunt moose outside the unit of his residence. That is, afterall, what seems to have you most upset.

  10. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    99

    Default

    Here to cast yet another loud "NO" vote, little to NO support here for the nonsense you want to propose there, Rockskipper!

  11. #31
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    5,178

    Default

    Yes another big NO vote here as well.
    While we occasionally have a few questionable odd bulls that current regs make legal that is not the norm.
    No matter how it is worded or what laws are passed there will always be a few odd bulls that are legal but questionable due to abnormal antler configuration/growth.
    The wording "on at least one side" is not a loophole. It is as they intended when they wrote the regs.
    They obviously wanted hunters to be able to harvest moose such as in post #11.
    It really sounds like you want to make things more complicated and I definitely do not support that.
    If you think moose season is bad in Delta Rockskipper try living on the central Peninsula during dipnet season!!
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

  12. #32
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,614

    Default

    I think its good to discuss things like this. My former post may have been a bit harsh; for that i apologize. I do believe that if hunting opportunity exists and the game population supports the harvest, we should not be trying to further restrict the pool of hunters hunting that game, nor the pool of animals open to harvest. Do so only in the name and spirit of conservation. Not in the name of bigotry.

    The case that fired Skipper up and inspired this proposal fired me up, too, but for a different reason. I plan to write a proposal addressing what to me is a much, much bigger issue. That is the seizure and confiscation, with no return, of a hunter's legally harvested moose.

    The only person with skin in the game is the hunter. Burden of proof is on him. Packing meat to the trailhead is on him. Time and cost of court is on him. Reward of winning in court is not the return in full of his property. The best he will receive is a road kill or another person's seized asset. If a roadkill, he will have to drive to the site and butcher and transport the meat, at his own cost for time and labor.

    The state and the employee of the state who mistakenly seized his fully legal moose suffer no loss; only the responsible hunter sees a loss. My proposal will adress monetary compensation from the state equal to replacement cost of the meat or state established value of the animal, whichever is higher.

    I will also propose that perishable assets seized from hunters be placed in cold storage until the call in the field can be certified by a 2 or 3 member panel, or decided in court.

    I understand this may add an aditional financial and personnel burden to the state. That's fine. Anytime the state seizes a man's assets, the state should be prepared to pay the consequences of being wrong, and fully compensate the victim.

  13. #33
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    I think its good to discuss things like this. My former post may have been a bit harsh; for that i apologize. I do believe that if hunting opportunity exists and the game population supports the harvest, we should not be trying to further restrict the pool of hunters hunting that game, nor the pool of animals open to harvest. Do so only in the name and spirit of conservation. Not in the name of bigotry.

    The case that fired Skipper up and inspired this proposal fired me up, too, but for a different reason. I plan to write a proposal addressing what to me is a much, much bigger issue. That is the seizure and confiscation, with no return, of a hunter's legally harvested moose.

    The only person with skin in the game is the hunter. Burden of proof is on him. Packing meat to the trailhead is on him. Time and cost of court is on him. Reward of winning in court is not the return in full of his property. The best he will receive is a road kill or another person's seized asset. If a roadkill, he will have to drive to the site and butcher and transport the meat, at his own cost for time and labor.

    The state and the employee of the state who mistakenly seized his fully legal moose suffer no loss; only the responsible hunter sees a loss. My proposal will adress monetary compensation from the state equal to replacement cost of the meat or state established value of the animal, whichever is higher.

    I will also propose that perishable assets seized from hunters be placed in cold storage until the call in the field can be certified by a 2 or 3 member panel, or decided in court.

    I understand this may add an aditional financial and personnel burden to the state. That's fine. Anytime the state seizes a man's assets, the state should be prepared to pay the consequences of being wrong, and fully compensate the victim.
    I agree. Your moose is mistakenly seized, yet it's on you to field dress it, quarter it, pack it out who knows how far, and haul it in. Decision reversed, and your almost back at square one. Only know you have a moose with plastic and anti freeze injected into the meat. Yeah, nice trade off. I think many hunters would be tempted to harvest another. I keep my meat exceptionally clean. I wouldn't be much interested in someone elses experimental butchering job. Many of the seized moose come from inexperienced hunters.
    Hunt Ethically. Respect the Environment.

  14. #34
    Member Dupont Spinner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Chugiak
    Posts
    1,436

    Default

    The funny thing about the whole palmated antlers is the only place that it is mentioned in the the regulations book put out by Fish and Game. If you go read the actually law, which was posted in the other thread, there is NO mention of palmated anthers anywhere in the actually law.

    The F&G regulations book you pickup is not the law it is suppose to be used as a guide. It is no different then the drivers handbook you pickup at DMV. Just because it is in the book does not make it the law.

    The following is a paragraph taken right from the regulations book

    "This publication is an interpretive summary of the Alaska Hunting Regulations and contains
    rules, which affect most hunters, which have been simplified for your convenience.
    It is not a legal document and it is not quoted verbatim from state law. For further details,
    consult your local Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Division of
    Wildlife Conservation representative."


    This paragraph is also on the opening page of the website.

    Also so you do not have to dig very far to find what you need.

    "The regulations in this publication are taken from Title 5, Alaska Administrative Code and
    Title 16 of Alaska Statutes, both available for inspection at any Alaska Department of Fish and
    Game office."

    Rockskipper I understand your frustration. It is very sad the amount of animals taken that are no where close to being legal. A change in the regulations, especially what you are proposing is not going to make it any better. Now if you want to eliminate the spike/fork rule, which is almost what you are proposing, you are going to run into a concrete wall on that one. I use to hunt in an area that just got overrun by hunters with the changes made to the caribou hunt in unit 13. Alaska is not getting any bigger......on the other hand our state population has been growing pretty steady lately. So we all are feeling the pressure. Unfortunately just like everything else, most are in to much of a hurry up let's get it done and mistakes are made. I believe ALL state fines need to be increased dramatically. If a LEO has to go to court most times the fine does not even cover the costs for him to be there. Second to help DETER some of the illegal shooting that is happening you MUST have a better enforcement plan and changing a law does nothing for enforcement. Just look thru the threads about illegal moose being shot. Where's the enforcement?

    If you knew a LEO was close by I guarantee most would think twice about shooting an animal. To the doubters....next you see a LEO sitting on the highway let me know how quick you slow down....or how many drive around a patrol car even when the LEO is driving under the speed limit.

  15. #35
    Member Rock_skipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Deltajct
    Posts
    2,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anchskier View Post
    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.
    Go to Max's post on the legal moose thread and read the last sentence of his post. ( The secound to the last one.) ( Read your regs next year )

  16. #36
    Member 4merguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Alaska
    Posts
    11,491

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    I think its good to discuss things like this. My former post may have been a bit harsh; for that i apologize. I do believe that if hunting opportunity exists and the game population supports the harvest, we should not be trying to further restrict the pool of hunters hunting that game, nor the pool of animals open to harvest. Do so only in the name and spirit of conservation. Not in the name of bigotry.

    The case that fired Skipper up and inspired this proposal fired me up, too, but for a different reason. I plan to write a proposal addressing what to me is a much, much bigger issue. That is the seizure and confiscation, with no return, of a hunter's legally harvested moose.

    The only person with skin in the game is the hunter. Burden of proof is on him. Packing meat to the trailhead is on him. Time and cost of court is on him. Reward of winning in court is not the return in full of his property. The best he will receive is a road kill or another person's seized asset. If a roadkill, he will have to drive to the site and butcher and transport the meat, at his own cost for time and labor.

    The state and the employee of the state who mistakenly seized his fully legal moose suffer no loss; only the responsible hunter sees a loss. My proposal will adress monetary compensation from the state equal to replacement cost of the meat or state established value of the animal, whichever is higher.

    I will also propose that perishable assets seized from hunters be placed in cold storage until the call in the field can be certified by a 2 or 3 member panel, or decided in court.

    I understand this may add an aditional financial and personnel burden to the state. That's fine. Anytime the state seizes a man's assets, the state should be prepared to pay the consequences of being wrong, and fully compensate the victim.
    I agree, and in your proposal you may want to add..... If a game animal is to be confiscated, at the time of the confiscation the officer should be required to ask the hunter if he intends on appealing his findings. If the answer is yes, then asap the hunter's meat will be placed in ideal cold storage. The officer will then inform the hunter that he will only have up to two weeks to legally appeal before the meat gets donated. If the hunter's answer is no, only then can it be donated immediately. This may also make a hunter think just a little more about dropping the hammer down. He will know that he will have one chance, and one chance alone, to possibly get HIS meat back.
    Sheep hunting...... the pain goes away, but the stupidity remains...!!!

  17. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rock_skipper View Post
    Go to Max's post on the legal moose thread and read the last sentence of his post. ( The secound to the last one.) ( Read your regs next year )
    Could you link to the thread or quote the post so I know I am looking at the one you are referring to? Thanks

    EDIT: Is this the post you are referring to from MaxBasargin?

    "Yes of course we were in the right. We got the gun and antlers back and they were offering the next confiscated moose at that time.
    My family likes to handle all the meat by ourselves so we declined the offer. I cannot disclose any more information since we have an attorney working for us.
    Please refer to the thread for any missed information."

    If so, I am not following your meaning by referencing it. Maybe some further clarification.

    Sorry, EDIT #2: Okay, I think I found the post you were referring to. This one?

    "Got the rifle and antlers back. Here are some pictures of the antlers for those that wanted to see the other side.
    The trooper said they are working on rewriting the spike/fork regulations to make it clearer for hunters."

    If so, I am interested to see how they rewrite the regs. I read them every year and usually multiple times before heading out just to make sure I catch any changes they may have made from previous years. His interpretation of the regs was determined to be correct and the antlers met the legal definition. I don't see any mention of changing the legal definition, just changing the wording to make it more obvious.

  18. #38
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,614

    Default

    Changing the legal definition would require a proposal and action by Board of Game. Changing the way it is worded in the regulation booklet is done at the Fish and Game level without public process. Troopers can work with both entities, but must go through public process to change definitions.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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
  •