No announcement yet.

question about BOG game proposals

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • question about BOG game proposals

    in the november proposal book i see two proposals addressing the wounding of bears and whether or not a wounded bear should apply to a hunters bag limit.
    in proposal 9 the argument FOR having a wounded bear count against the bag limit is put forth...and i agree with it...HOWEVER it is only specific to unit 5.
    in proposal 11 the opposite argument is made for units 1-4.
    *** ? can there be a difference? if a wounded bear counts, and i believe it should (and anything else, for that matter), why in one unit but not another.
    yes, this is, unfortunately, the state legislating ethics, which we as hunters <should> be able to take care of ourselves.
    as to unenforcable, it isn't any more or less enforcable than most other regs, as unless a trooper actually witnesses a violation it is hard for them to write a ticket that sticks...but we all have cell phones and radios, and know how to use them when we witness violations...
    Alaska Board of Game 2015 tour... "Kicking the can down the road"

  • #2

    Anyone can submit a proposal. So what one person wants in one unit may not jive with what a person in another unit wants. It is up to the BOG to decide if the proposal has any merrit and/or should be implimented.

    Patriot Life Member NRA
    Life Member Veterans of Foreign Wars
    Life Member Disabled American Veterans


    • #3
      yes, i understand how it works

      i sit on the AC here in homer.
      i was wondering if anyone else had thoughts on the subject?
      how come proposal 11 is proposed by the alaska bowhunters, yet seems to espouse the opinion that bowhunters are going to be especially affected by this regulation? how is that? do bowhunters just stick critters until they can find one? i would think not! and i would think that any hunters advocacy group would be in favor of regulations meant to promote ethical behaviour and positive public image.
      like i said, i think it is a shame when ethics need to be worded into law...
      (but as a charter member of the Ethics Police i felt i had to bring this up<grin>)

      here is a link to the proposals:
      Last edited by homerdave; 10-22-2006, 11:25.
      Alaska Board of Game 2015 tour... "Kicking the can down the road"


      • #4
        Wounded Bear

        A wounded bear or any other animal, should definately count against your limit. And any hunter worth his salt would should abide by this even if it's law or not. We shouldn't have to rely on laws to do the right thing.
        Marc Theiler


        • #5
          I Agree

          with both theilercabin and homerdave. If you wound it and don't find it you should be done hunting for that species. Maybe then, more hunters would take the time to make sure they had a good shot and not just rush one.

          Plus it would put a bigger incentive to look doubly hard for the animal. I know I have spent long nights looking for a clients bear when most would have walked away and said oh well that bear is in the next county. I wish they had a law like that here in Maine. Especially for bear and moose.
          If you take the woods out of the woodsman you have nothing left but a man in the woods.


          • #6
            wounded animal

            Just a quick thought, who is going to enforce this? Is this only going to be enforced by guides (if they choose to report it-I would like to see how many of them are going to tell their client, guess what, you drew blood, your hunt is over!), or the hunter that ends his/her hunt because they will honor this regulation. My problem with it is that it CAN'T be legally enforced, so why put it on the books? JMO


            • #7
              Shot placement

              A poorly placed arrow is just as ineffective as a poorly placed bullet. In my days of hunting whitetails back in New York I have chased far more deer poorly hit by gun hunters than archers. Equipment is probably not an issue as most bow hunters use bait stand for bears.

              The wider issue is probably hunter ethics. People taking poor shots and not following up on wounded game. The old attage of, there are lots more out there. I saw some hunters take a poor shot on a caribou on the haul road this year. They (3-4 hunters) waited about 10 minutes and left. The bull, gut shot, wandered off and eventually laid down about 3/4 miles off of the road and probably died.

              How would you enforce the law anyways? There is seldom anyone around when I hunt and no one would know if I shot or not. Seems like an unenforceable law to me.

              Patriot Life Member NRA
              Life Member Veterans of Foreign Wars
              Life Member Disabled American Veterans


              • #8
                It can be legally enforced, just can't be ethically enforced.


                • #9
                  "Just a quick thought, who is going to enforce this? Is this only going to be enforced by guides (if they choose to report it-I would like to see how many of them are going to tell their client, guess what, you drew blood, your hunt is over!), or the hunter that ends his/her hunt because they will honor this regulation. My problem with it is that it CAN'T be legally enforced, so why put it on the books? JMO"

                  Why is this already a guide thing for you. I have been a guide for twenty two years here in Maine and let me tell you something. If we had a law on the books for this I would be the first to enforce it. It is a lot easier to enforce when you have the backing of game laws. Then the hunter doesn't have a leg to stand on. Many hunters feel since they paid for a hunt they deserve an animal (not so in my books). I tell them you paid for the opportunity to hunt that animal, if you get it that is a bonus.

                  Plus let me tell you something, in my experiences I don't know about Alaska but here in Maine there are more non-guided hunters who shoot an animal and walk away then there are guided hunters. I am really good friends with a lot of wardens and the horror stories I hear from them of hunters who have shot moose and because it walked off they didn't go after it would scare you.
                  If you take the woods out of the woodsman you have nothing left but a man in the woods.


                  • #10
                    Alaskan Bowhunters Assn. Proposal

                    C'mon, guys, lots of game regs can't be enforced. If a guy drives off-trail in a controlled-use area, when he is not supposed to, well we don't have enough ABWE troopers to enforce that law. Yet some of us pushed for it. Legislating ethics, like homerdave says, is a bummer to have to do, but we do it all the time with regs covering how we hunt.

                    Anyway, it seems like justifying opposition to a reg based on the fact that it is virtually unenforceable is a very weak argument. There will be instances anyway in which, because the law is on the books, other hunters (or guides) will abide by this law, and be able to turn in those who violate it.

                    In the case of proposal 11 by the Alaskan Bowhunters Assn., they are asking that a law already on the books (that says if you shoot and wound a bear, it counts against your tag) be REPEALED. The reasoning behind their proposal appears to be fourfold.
                    1) biologically unnecessary
                    2) impossible to enforce
                    3) it "discriminates against bowhunters and ethical hunters." (What? I'd like to know how this reg discriminates against ethical hunters! )
                    4) "It complicates the regulations and has complicated unintended consequences."

                    Complicated unintended consequences aside <grin>, the Alaska Bowhunters Assn. proposal seems to imply that a bowhunter in particular should be able to wound a bear, and if it gets away that he or she should legally be able to keep hunting for ANOTHER bear.

                    This is all strange, considering the motto of the org is "To foster and perpetuate fair chase hunting with the bow and arrow." I strongly advise the Alaskan Bowhunters Association to drop this proposal from the docket of the upcoming meeting. Not only does it raise questions about your org, but it makes bowhunters look like they really may not believe in those fair chase ethics espoused in your very motto. The dig in the proposal about guides is totally unwarranted as well. In the "Who is likely to suffer?" part of their proposal, the AK Bowhunters Assn. says, "Possibly a few guides looking for an excuse to quit a hunt early."

                    What!? No matter that many ethical guides would tell their client they are done anyway, regardless if there is a law on the books...I don't get this not-very-subtle hit on the guides in that region that is both unnecessary in a proposal and nonsensical.

                    Mark Richards
                    Mark Richards


                    • #11
                      A differnt view from a different bowhunter

                      Actually itís already on the books under definition of ďTakeĒ. Making it so that a wounded bear/animal counts toward your bag limit only narrows down the definition eliminating some gray area. Some friends and I had a run around with a guy this year that put two arrows through the chest of a moose, both killing shots and he lost the blood trail, likely pushing the animal. We told him to punch his tag; he didnít want to and didnít believe us that his actions constituted ďTakeĒ and he continued to hunt. He called a Trooper and the Trooper told him the same thing.

                      Any ethical hunter would punch his tag out in the event of loosing an animal. Others however, disregard the meaning of take, some out of ignorance and some out of denial. All putting this on the books as a wounded animal counts does is define it for those individuals. Itís like the definition of ďTakeĒ for dummies.

                      Personally I consider those that partake in ďShoot till you bag oneĒ as slobs. It may sound harsh but I rather they bag another and exceed their bag limit and get busted for that and wanton waste of the other animal causing them to get their hunting privileges revoked for quite some time.

                      This would help enforce ďTakeĒ in those instances where the wounded animal is not recovered. Speaking of enforcement, many, very many times itís hunters that enforce the regulations by turning in violators. Be they hunting partners that find out the hard way that the person they are with is lacking in ethics/character/moral values or another hunter that observes actions of another in the field, such as Daveís experience on the Dalton. It is enforceable by us in policing our own.

                      No one, not even a DVM can tell the extent of a wound without close examination of it. You draw blood; youíre responsible for it even when you donít recover it. Some survive, some donít but you canít be certain of which until it happens. Putting this on the books has no effect on me what so ever and no effect on the many ethical hunters I know. The only ones that I do see it effecting are those without regard for their actions in the field.


                      • #12
                        Great Postings

                        I am really digging this forum. Some very good discussions and very well made points.

                        At this time more than ever we as ethical hunters must do everything in our power to be leaders by our behavior, speech, and written word in and out of the field. We need and should be continuously cultivating the very spirit of the hunt, which is one of love, respect, heart, skill, elation, and sorrow.
                        Marc Theiler


                        • #13
                          Just to play devil's advocate

                          To those who are in favor of this rule, how far would you go to enforce it? Many animals are hit that the shooter has no idea he wounded an animal. So maybe if you want an other unenforceble rule on the books, the rule should be, if you shoot at an animal, we'll assume you wounded it and you punch your tag and your season is over.

                          Some hits are grazes. I've killed animals that had hair burned off their backs from someone else's shot. If you find hair after a shot, should that be counted as a wounded animal and your season is over?

                          Is this rule only going to be enforced if you find blood? Gutshot animals don't always bleed, but they are just as mortally wounded as a lungshot animal that gets away.

                          What if you really thought it was a miss and did a thourough check and didn't find any sign of a hit. And someone who was hunting nearby found the animal after you left the area and turned you in for not punching your tag? And wanton waste.

                          What if there were two very similar animals and you shot at one and were pretty sure you made a hit, then while tracking you saw the second one and mistakenly shot it thinking it was the first one you shot at and then realised your mistake when the wounded animal jumped up when you shot the other?

                          I don't care how self righteous you are, hunting isn't precise and mistakes happen. Especially when you are hunting in the brush in Southeast or Prince William Sound or Kodiak or along some of the major rivers in the state. Now if it's intentional or obvious, I can understand the sentimentality behind this rule. But I want to far are you willing to go to enforce it?
                          An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
                          - Jef Mallett


                          • #14

                            'wounded' means there is a sign of blood or other sign that the Bear has been hit by a hunting projectile.

                            2006/2007 huntng regs .... Page 24 .... yellow box ....

                            In units 1-4 a Black or Brown Bear wounded by a hunter counts as the bag limit for the regulatory year.

                            I believe it should be a law state wide on all species.

                            Sometimes like Twodux says you will not be able to tell; but most of the time it has been my experience that an animal hit by a boolit does bleed some. It is pretty obvious when it is wounded by an arrow (as you usually watch the arrow fly at close range).

                            Many Guides (statewide) already have that written into their contracts. Now if your guiding Bear in units 1-4 you must have that written into your contract.
                            johnnie laird


                            • #15
                              What Johnnie said!

                              Well I went and re-read the proposals just to avoid putting my right foot in my mouth, not much room with the left one in there all the time. The ABA prop reads very much like the one when they opposed the same regulation for moose in another area, which passed. Their legislative VP has also testified before the board on the subject along the same lines.

                              Iím fully aware that sometimes there are non fatal wounds but I believe them to be a lesser occurrence than those that those that become fatal either by time, becoming septic or reducing the animalís survival/physiology close to winter making it susceptible to predation or the environment. Itís an ugly picture I know but itís simply why many promote the taking of high percentage shots only and have a certain dislike for those that go about it haphazardly.

                              I donít understand what the ABA believes they are protecting with their philosophy. For one itís the right thing to do regardless if its law or not. It may cause those with less experience to give further thought to their attempts at taking game, reduce multiple occurrences and help clean up a bad element.


                              I donít see anything self-righteous about being responsible or promoting such behavior. Yes mistakes happen but that doesnít make anyone any less responsible for their action. If you shoot a bull that doesnít make the S/F 50Ē you donít just let it lay and press on, wounding is no different. All I do is bowhunt, every animal Iíve ever hit with an arrow, Iíve seen the impact. Itís a very low velocity projectile and not hard to see at all. I may not be able to tell the extent of the wound from a distance but I can tell the general vicinity of the impact, Iím not shooting around corners and wonít shoot over hills or obstructions where I can not see my target. Iím going to know with an arrow. Not to mention Iíll get a reaction out of an animal.

                              If you canít find any evidence youíll have to evaluate the situation yourself, if you herd the bullet hit what sounded like the animal and saw the reaction of an animal being hit, you would have to take that into consideration but if it was to go down due to your projectile, well then you killed it. If youíre only allowed on of that speciesÖyouíve killed one and youíre done.

                              If I was to see someone hit an animal and it went down, with them no where around. I would be looking for them to inform them I found it and where it lay. If I was to see someone gut shoot a caribou, then shoot a different one Iíd be looking for a Trooper. Unfortunately Iíve seen the later many times on the Dalton in the form of flock shooting.

                              I hear every org out there saying we just need to police our own. I ask with what tool? We canít beat stupid people with sticks or get into a fight with a slob hunter, you can yell at people all you want but it has little effect. The only tools we have to police ourselves with are these ethics laws, yes sad itís to that point but what else is there? Iím on board with this being state wide as well.


                              Footer Adsense