question about BOG game proposals

[homerdave]

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.
WTF ? ....how 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...

 

[Daveinthebush]

Proposals

Proposals

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.

 

[homerdave]

yes, i understand how it works

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:
http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/gameinfo/meetinfo/gprop.php

 

[theilercabin]

Wounded Bear

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.

 

[Maineguide]

I Agree

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.

 

[northway]

wounded animal

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

 

[Daveinthebush]

Shot placement

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.

 

[AlleninAlaska]

It can be legally enforced, just can't be ethically enforced.

 

[Maineguide]

Northway,
"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.

 

[bushrat]

Alaskan Bowhunters Assn. Proposal

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.

Sincerely,
Mark Richards

 

[Bowshop Monkey]

A differnt view from a different bowhunter

A differnt view from a different bowhunter

Actually it’s already on the books under definition of “Take”. 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 didn’t want to and didn’t believe us that his actions constituted “Take” 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. It’s like the definition of “Take” for dummies.

Personally I consider those that partake in “Shoot till you bag one” 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 “Take” in those instances where the wounded animal is not recovered. Speaking of enforcement, many, very many times it’s 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 Dave’s 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; you’re responsible for it even when you don’t recover it. Some survive, some don’t but you can’t 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.

 

[theilercabin]

Great Postings

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.

 

[twodux]

Just to play devil's advocate

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 know....how far are you willing to go to enforce it?

 

[muskeg]

Wounded

Wounded

'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.

 

[Bowshop Monkey]

What Johnnie said!

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.

I’m 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 animal’s survival/physiology close to winter making it susceptible to predation or the environment. It’s an ugly picture I know but it’s simply why many promote the taking of high percentage shots only and have a certain dislike for those that go about it haphazardly.

I don’t understand what the ABA believes they are protecting with their philosophy. For one it’s 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.

Twodux,

I don’t see anything self-righteous about being responsible or promoting such behavior. Yes mistakes happen but that doesn’t make anyone any less responsible for their action. If you shoot a bull that doesn’t make the S/F 50” you don’t just let it lay and press on, wounding is no different. All I do is bowhunt, every animal I’ve ever hit with an arrow, I’ve seen the impact. It’s 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, I’m not shooting around corners and won’t shoot over hills or obstructions where I can not see my target. I’m going to know with an arrow. Not to mention I’ll get a reaction out of an animal.

If you can’t find any evidence you’ll 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 you’re only allowed on of that species…you’ve killed one and you’re 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 I’d be looking for a Trooper. Unfortunately I’ve 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 can’t 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 it’s to that point but what else is there? I’m on board with this being state wide as well.

 

[Longhunter7]

Hard to believe that all big game animals that are hit by bow or gun are going to die, I know a lot better! In some cases i've witnessed the same game animals the year after doing just fine! That also means that if you punch your tag, you will have to falsify your game report. At least in NY, they ask how many points on the left right, male , female etc. Should be left up to the hunter to do the right thing.Think of where this leads, no bowhunting in windy cond. because arrow flight is not so precise. Yardage limits on dangerous game, not a bad idea who can inforce this! Better yet if a guide is sure that their client has mortaly wounded a game animal, any animal , and it is going to count towards the bag limit they should retreve it .That should be written in the contract also.

 

[northway]

wounded animals

wounded animals

As I read this proposal it just seems that it is suited for guides. I am not saying all guides wouldn't enforce this as I know there are a lot of very ethical guides out there, but I do see some guides deciding not to do this. Just for your information, I was out on a$1,350 flight for sheep, wounded a sheep, it got away and I did not shoot another. I felt that was my sheep as I know it was going to die. I believe in the wounded animal is yours, so believe me, I am for it, just don't see how it will work. I guess you are right though Mark, just because there isn't enforcement doesn't mean we can't have the law. Besides guided hunting, this is going to be the "ethical" hunters choice of whether to stop hunting if he wounds game.

 

[Maineguide]

twodux, there is a big difference between someone making an honest mistake and someone who is just to lazy to look for a wounded animal. I shot at a deer last fall and evidently the bullet was deflected by a branch. There was snow on the ground and there was no blood or hair anywhere. Even so I followed the tracks for about two miles just to make sure that there wasn't a hit. When I walked away from the trail I was certain that there was no wounded animal and I was comfortable with that. Had there been blood and I lost the trail, well then I would have put my gun away for the season. If a hunter walks up finds blood and tracks for miles with no animal found but still has blood then that is a different story. He may think I am not going to carry this animal back that far or what ever, that is wrong and as far as I am concerned illegal. There will always be mistakes and it is up to the hunter to feel comfortable with whether they hit/or missed the animal and put in the time necessary to determine such.

Longhunter7, quote:
"Think of where this leads, no bowhunting in windy cond. because arrow flight is not so precise. Yardage limits on dangerous game, not a bad idea who can inforce this!"

And what is wrong with that. A prudent hunter shouldn't make a shot unless it is a almost certain shot. Shooting in windy conditions and stretching out the yardage just because you think you can make the shot are not ethical ways to hunt.

another quote:
"Better yet if a guide is sure that their client has mortaly wounded a game animal, any animal , and it is going to count towards the bag limit they should retreve it .That should be written in the contract also."

Easier said then done. I have guided bear hunters for 22 years. One thing about bears is they are notorious for not bleeding after they run a little ways. I have seen bears mortally wounded run themselves to death and when you started tracking them there was blood everywhere. Then 200 yards later you are finding a spot here and there the size of an eraser head. Throw in showers and your blood trail can get completely washed away. I am really tired of guide bashing here. I have guided over 800 bear hunters in the last 22 years and my hunters have taken 580 bear and let me tell you something. Most hunters are less then prepared for what they have to do. But they won't admit it. I make all my hunters, bow and rifle, shoot for me before I even take them out. If you don't shoot you don't hunt, thats my rule!!! I have hunters give me a hard time about this telling me they sighted in their gun before they left. Then when we check their gun it is off four inches. Most guides I know do their best to find game for there clients, the last thing we want is to loose an animal. But let me tell you something we cannot shoot for them and 90% of the wounded animals comes from nerves. I have seen it to many times to tell. You walk into a bear stand and the hunter can hardly talk they are so excited. You ask them which way the bear went, they don't know. Or worst yet they rush a shot. I could fill a book with stories about bad hunters. So the next time someone mortally shoots a bear with you and it is gut shot or liver shot lets see how well you fair with finding it. That hunter screwed up and should pay the price by punching out his tag, with or with out a bear.

 

[homerdave]

i can relate to maineguide

i can relate to maineguide

nothing like a bear to make a hunter blow a shot...even a little blackie that is just walking on the beach.

on another note, i can't say how many times i have had the following exchange with a client.
cl: how come i cant (insert game violation here)? who would know?
me: i would, and i would call the troopers.
cl: really?
me: yep.

as far as i am concerned having an ethics law on the book is just one more reason to give a moron for why he can't do something that is wrong anyway.

 

[muskeg]

already in effect

already in effect

This law is already on the Books in units 1-4 .... and being enforced.

The new props are to extend it to unit #5 ....

Or to repeal the law that is effect in units 1-4 ....

I do know in several situations in unit # 2 where it has been enforced.

When you have several persons hunting together it is not that hard to know (by all) that game has been wounded. Also like when people have a few beers they tend to talk about their hunt also.

If a Guide continues to let his hunter hunt ... he is an accessory to the crime and will get busted also.

There is also a question on the Registration hunt report that asks if you wounded a Bear. It's always been there.

ADF&G has struggled in recent years (especially in unit #2) to get a handle on how many Bear are actually wounded. This is because we are reaching the max kill threshold. If you figure the wounding rate in there it will probably exceed the max kill threshold. After many interviews (self guided non-residents; resident hunters and Guides) the figure is placed somewhere between 1 for 1 to 1 for 7. Guides keep good records and logs and are willing to share the info. The Guide wounding rate (not recovered) was about 1 in 7 (SE wide). Gleaning info from self guided non-resident and resident hunters was not so easy. Wounding is just not talked about or discussed much. There were reports where some hunters wounded 3 bears to tag the fourth one. You could use an average figure of 1 to 4 .... which is probably close. But as stated in some responses not all wounded animals die.

It is a problem for ADF&G where to draw the line or even to draw the line. But like I said the max kill threshold is at hand on several Islands and the issue has to be addressed. I see the new 'Wounding' law as a 'shot' at addressing the issue.

The other law used recently by ADF&G to address the issue is to take the hard line. Put a cap number on Bear killed (kuiu island at 120) and when that number is reached there is a closure on non-resident hunting.