Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 39

Thread: Sub-Legal Moose

  1. #1
    New member akhunter02's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    682

    Default Sub-Legal Moose

    Just spent some time reading the Wildife Troopers Blotter and was amased at the number of Sub Legal Moose that are taken. Is it time to start sealing moose in antler restricted areas just like with Sheep?

  2. #2
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    seems like a good idea to me
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  3. #3

    Default

    Yeah, thats all we need, they can't even get the legal sheep thing right half the time and you want them to do moose too? Bad idea.

  4. #4
    New member akhunter02's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    682

    Default Bad Idea

    akhunter45

    First I didnt say the state should do it, I only possed a question.

    Secondly, why is it a bad idea? Its not hard to count brow times or put a tape measure across the palms. Its not like trying to determine weather a set horns go 360 degrees (full Curl). Read the blotter for this year, figure whats in those blotters are only a fraction of the total.

  5. #5

    Default

    Why not go the other way and reduce the requirements for moose to any bull? What is the purpose behind the antler restriction?

  6. #6

    Default moose

    Too many hunters and not enough moose. Sure it would be great hunting the first season then slim pickings after that. Keep the restrictions but I would rather not fool around with the techs at fish and game.

  7. #7
    Member tccak71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wbooth View Post
    Keep the restrictions but I would rather not fool around with the techs at fish and game.
    I agree and I don't think its necessary. What's the link for the blotter? How many illegal moose are on there so far?

    Tim

  8. #8
    Member mod elan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Glennallen
    Posts
    1,476

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by adfraiser View Post
    What is the purpose behind the antler restriction?
    This is from another thread: "It was supposed to allow for a healthy population, with a balanced demographic structure while still allowing maximum hunting opportunity under a long general season....."

    I don't think it would solve anything to check every set of antlers. It would only keep the honest people honest. Nothing to stop someone with a sublegal moose in one unit from claiming it was from a different less restricted unit. If it were to ever happen there would need to be check points when leaving each unit to have the inspection done. I would rather see the money spent on better enforcement in the field.

  9. #9
    New member akhunter02's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    682

    Default I agree

    more or better enforcement would be a better idea, but that costs more money, it really wouldnt cost anymore to seal moose since everything is already in place anyway

    Blotter link
    Fish and game violations are towards the bottom of each days page

    http://www.dps.state.ak.us/pio/dispatch/index.asp

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by akhunter02 View Post
    akhunter45

    First I didnt say the state should do it, I only possed a question.

    Secondly, why is it a bad idea? Its not hard to count brow times or put a tape measure across the palms. Its not like trying to determine weather a set horns go 360 degrees (full Curl). Read the blotter for this year, figure whats in those blotters are only a fraction of the total.
    I've read it already, for the size of this state the #'s of sub-legal bulls is not that high, though 1 is more than too many. So how are you going to enforce it? Where is the money coming from to pay them to check all those bulls? Where are they going to do the checks? I've seen in the lower 48 where they set up road blocks to check hunters for game but that wouldn't work in this state, there just aren't enough roads to do that. Like whats already be stated, enforcement is whats needed, not more sealing requirements.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    413

    Default

    I can give you a good forinstance why it would not work. Say a miner, homesteader, or occupant of the many villages scattered throughout the state, goes out and kills a Moose. They take it home and process it. They are not interested in the antlers, they are not ediable, so he leaves them in the field. Now who knows about the moose, or wheather it was sub-legal or not. Who will ever know, or care? He fed his family thats all he cares about.

  12. #12

    Default

    I think educating hunters would help. I don't think that the sub legal moose that are turned in are killed out of a blatant disregard for the law, otherwise they wouldn't turn them in. I would venture to say that it is either "buck fever" or someone just not counting brow tines or gambling that 2x2 clears 50 when it really is only 49.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    wasilla
    Posts
    26

    Default

    Here's a novel idea that should raise the hackles on more than one hunter. Since history keeps repeting itself and a fairly sizable number of sub legal moose are getting harvested, the game department should seriously consider determining the numer of bulls in each game management unit which can be harvested. With this information require a draw for these units and make it any bull. (Since year after year people have demonstrated an inablility to count or measure distance accurately.) Those persons like myself who don't seem to be lucky when it comes to draws will be out of luck come moose season, but maybe the reduced volume of hunters will result in better prosecution rates for those persons who choose to poach.

  14. #14
    Moderator LuJon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    11,415

    Default

    I agree with mod elan if you required sealing then people either wouldn't fill out the harvest tag at all or they would claim a different GMU which would throw off the numbers for the biologists. If these were the honest guys they would turn themselves in under the current regs.

  15. #15

    Default The Last Thing We.......

    want is a draw for moose. That is simply unaccpetable to me. Before we as residents start even considering a draw system, all other options need to be exercised. Firstly, the biology must be there. Are we doing predator control, do we have restrictions and then non-resident hunting must end in that unit. There is no way we can shortchange the residents of this state before eliminating the non-resident hunters. Of course this is the last resort, but it has to be brought up. Before I am willing to accept restrictions, the state must show me the resident that they have exercised every option available before limiting me from providing for my family.

    We are in a catch 22 with the illegal bulls. Cite them and hammer them hard for it or see moose left in the field. Cite them and basically make the punishment easy, you will see an increase in the take of illegal moose. If there isn't much of a punishment, then it will be worth the risk to many people in shooting a moose that they aren't sure is 50".

    More enforcement is a key, but the funding has to be there for it. For the love of God, no one would want to dip into our joke of a permanent fund to actually fund something that was needed.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Mountains of VA
    Posts
    224

    Default

    The antler restriction is simply a method of increasing the number of trophy moose for the paying hunter. More laws create more lawbreakers!

    We only got the spike-fork exception so us meat hunters will shut up.

    Lets do away with the antler restrictions and open the season for antlered moose. It used to be that way and worked just fine for most of us. I saw a lot more moose 20 to 30 years ago than I see now.

    If moose numbers dwindle, go to permits or close the season until the population rebounds.

    Never happen. The guides won't let it.

  17. #17
    MNTS_R_MY_PLYGRND
    Guest

    Default Wrong direction!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by bustedknee View Post
    Lets do away with the antler restrictions and open the season for antlered moose. It used to be that way and worked just fine for most of us. I saw a lot more moose 20 to 30 years ago than I see now.

    If moose numbers dwindle, go to permits or close the season until the population rebounds.

    Never happen. The guides won't let it.
    Could it also be that the increased hunting pressure is pushing the moose further out. Improved atvs allow it easier to get more people into the same area. For example there used to be a lot of places were people really had to work at getting 3 wheelers into. Now with improved atvs and what not that same area is much more accesible and more hunters are sharing the same area. There are more hunters now than there were 20 and 30 years ago.

    I don't know about you but gambling and allowing a any bull season in places with easy road access seems like a terrible idea. If it doesn't work and they close down the season I'm sure you'd be eating your words or bad mouthing F&G. I'd much rather have a chance to go out and shoot a moose under certain antler restriciton every year rather than not being able to go out and hunt at all because I didn't draw the permit or they had to close the season due to over hunting. The current system is designed to keep too many people from killing too many moose in areas close to the road system that get hammered by hunters. Just because you didn't see any moose in the area you've hunted for ever doesn't mean it isn't working, more than likely it just means you aren't the one getting the moose.

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MNTS_R_MY_PLYGRND View Post
    Could it also be that the increased hunting pressure is pushing the moose further out. Improved atvs allow it easier to get more people into the same area. For example there used to be a lot of places were people really had to work at getting 3 wheelers into. Now with improved atvs and what not that same area is much more accesible and more hunters are sharing the same area. There are more hunters now than there were 20 and 30 years ago.

    I don't know about you but gambling and allowing a any bull season in places with easy road access seems like a terrible idea. If it doesn't work and they close down the season I'm sure you'd be eating your words or bad mouthing F&G. I'd much rather have a chance to go out and shoot a moose under certain antler restriciton every year rather than not being able to go out and hunt at all because I didn't draw the permit or they had to close the season due to over hunting. The current system is designed to keep too many people from killing too many moose in areas close to the road system that get hammered by hunters. Just because you didn't see any moose in the area you've hunted for ever doesn't mean it isn't working, more than likely it just means you aren't the one getting the moose.
    quote=bustedknee;149586]Lets do away with the antler restrictions and open the season for antlered moose. It used to be that way and worked just fine for most of us. I saw a lot more moose 20 to 30 years ago than I see now.



    If moose numbers dwindle, go to permits or close the season until the population rebounds.

    quote]


    Of course the current regulations are desinged to keep a certain number of moose left for breeding. Why would you want to elminate that? These areas that have the antler restrictions get hammered by hunters. It only makes since to create some restrictions or the bull/cow ratio would be way out of whack in short order with the continuing growing number of hunters accessing these areas close to the road system. I don't know about you but I'd rather hunt every year under antler restrictions rather not being able to hunt moose at all either because I didn't draw a permit or they had to shut the season down to allow the bull/cow ratio increase.



    Chances are the same number of moose are being harvested as 20 or 30 years ago its just that number is being split up among more and more hunters. Just because you aren't getting a moose every year doesn't mean that others arent' getting moose. Its just the fact of dealing with a growing state. The carry capacity of the area is the same and we are trying to expect too much out of the area to support a grow number of hunters.

  19. #19
    Moderator AKmud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Wasilla, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    3,185

    Default

    Keep the antler restrictions, but get rid of the 50" part. Make it spike/fork or browtines only. It is a heck of a lot easier to count brow tines than to guess 50". The rule needs to be something black and white and not up to guessing. Either it has the tines or it doesn't plain and simple.

    If it is a 70" monster with only two brow tines.... Oh well, he has a pardon, move on to another bull.
    AKmud
    http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j96/AKmud/213700RMK1-1.jpg


    The porcupine is a peacful animal yet God still thought it necessary to give him quills....

  20. #20
    Moderator LuJon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    11,415

    Default

    I wonder if the state could subsidize taxidermy. I would pop a bear every few years if it wasn't over a grand to get the darn hide taken care of. That is one way to increase predator control which would increase the number of spike forks for the meat hunters. I think there are a ton of would be predator hunters that just don't want a $1200 bill instead of $1200 worth of meat. I don't know if there is a loophole that would allow that. Another thought is to eliminate trophy moose from unit 14. Take only 2 or less brow tines which would leave the best breeding bulls in the game. That should increase the total yield of offspring again more small bulls for the next year. just an idea

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
  •