Wanton Waste Law- Spoke to a Trooper

[Snyd]

So, this is an update regarding the Moose in Dumpser thread. More details there.

I called and spoke to a Trooper. He said that 2 years ago the law was changed and that now it reads that meat must be processed for human consumption. Bottom line is that a whole moose quarter is NOT considered to be processed for human consumption. If you trash it you are guilty of Wanton Waste. He said the issue is "at what point does the state let go?"

Answer: The state lets go after it is processed for human consumption...

Processed for human consumption - prepared for immediate consumption or prepared in such a manner, and in an existing state of preservation, as to be fit for human consumption after a 15-day period.

 

[AkHunter45]

That should take care of that question. Thanks for making the call Snyd!!

 

[Snyd]

I should have called right away. Like a posted in the other thread...


My mistake was in that I should have called it in when I found it. They always like to take a look. Once he found a hide and guts in a dumpster next to a garbage bag with moose hair in it along with the guys junk mail. It was not hunting season and he busted the guy for poaching. Who knows, same thing may have happened here. Could have been other evidence.

So, if you find a quarter trashed somewhere, someone is guilty of Wanton Waste. Call it in. I should have.
__________________

 

[AlleninAlaska]

Bottom line is that a whole moose quarter is NOT considered to be processed for human consumption.

Must not be a very knowlegable Trooper if he could not even give you the Statue # that states this.

I'll believe it when you can show me a Statue that says a WHOLE moose quarter is not considered processed.

If I put a WHOLE moose quarter in my freezer to have a Family BBQ next summer, it has been proccessed until a Statue proving me wrong has been presented on these forums. I enjoy being proven wrong. Bet you can't.

 

[BrianW]

Your wasting bandwidth Alan, they ain't listening.

At least one other poster, and yourself have stated years of experience dealing with the same issue, and the resulting law enforcement response. All that is moot, because of one troopers response today.

It cracks me up, that some folks can't let it go...

 

[AlleninAlaska]

Yeah Brian and I won't even mention that I have 7 years of ADF&G work under my belt in the past.

 

[Snyd]

You're barking up the wrong tree. pm me and I'll give you the Troopers name and direct phone number.

Must not be a very knowlegable Trooper if he could not even give you the Statue # that states this.

I'll believe it when you can show me a Statue that says a WHOLE moose quarter is not considered processed.

If I put a WHOLE moose quarter in my freezer to have a Family BBQ next summer, it has been proccessed until a Statue proving me wrong has been presented on these forums. I enjoy being proven wrong. Bet you can't.

 

[375ultramag]

I called in an illegal moose kill

I called in an illegal moose kill

back in August. I actually gpsd it and put the points on a map and gave it to the troopers.

Their response was that they have so many sublegal sheep kills they would try to get to it.

Then they called back and said they couldn't find it.

Here is the kicker. It was on a trail next to a cabin and the troopers didn't even have to get off a 4 wheeler.

It was a moose shot with a rifle during bow season and they left all kinds of meat there and just took the quarters and back strap. The yahoos even left the tenderloin in it.

 

[ucohokie]

What the Law Says - Defenses for Wanton Waste

What the Law Says - Defenses for Wanton Waste

AS 16.30.017. Defenses.

(a) It is a defense to a criminal charge under AS 16.30.010 or 16.30.012 that the failure to salvage or possess the edible meat was due to circumstances beyond the control of the person charged, including


(1) theft of the animal or fowl;


(2) unanticipated weather conditions or other acts of God;


(3) unavoidable loss in the field to another wild animal.


(b) It is a defense to a criminal charge under AS 16.30.012 that the defendant does not possess the edible meat of the big game animal because the meat was


(1) consumed by human beings; or


(2) delivered to another person.


(c) In this section, "delivered" means given, sold, or bartered in a manner that does not violate state or federal law.


Bottom line is your both right and wrong (you two know who you are)! No one knows the exact circumstances under which that moose quarter ended up in the trash; but there are scenarios in which a wanton waste crime occurred here but also ones where it didn't...because the wanton waste law applies to the hunter who kills the animal and then fails to salvage as defined by the law. Maybe someone stole it. Maybe his buddy wanted a quarter and then had second thoughts. No crime under wanton waste law. If he shot and then dumped it on the way home, then a wanton waste crime was committed (but realistically unless he is stupid and dumps in full view of trooper, he will probably not get caught). You can read alot of debate in the legislature on this one, its hard to enforce, and no one is real comfortable with the idea of throwing someone in jail for 7 days and fines over rotten meat unless its a slam dunk.

Now cyber kiss and makeup and let's go hunting!


For reference:
AS 16.30.010. Wanton Waste of Big Game Animals and Wild Fowl.

(a) It is a class A misdemeanor for a person who kills a big game animal or a species of wild fowl to fail intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence to salvage for human consumption the edible meat of the animal or fowl.


(b) If a person is convicted of violating this section and in the course of that violation failed to salvage from a big game animal at least the hindquarters as far as the distal joint of the tibia-fibula (hock), the court shall impose a sentence of imprisonment of not less than seven consecutive days and a fine of not less than $2,500.


(c) The imposition or execution of the minimum sentence prescribed in (b) of this section may not be suspended under AS 12.55.080 or 12.55.085. The minimum sentence prescribed in (b) of this section may not be reduced.

 

[martentrapper]

AS 16.30.010. Wanton Waste of Big Game Animals and Wild Fowl.

(a) It is a class A misdemeanor for a person who kills a big game animal or a species of wild fowl to fail intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence to salvage for human consumption the edible meat of the animal or fowl.

If I use the definition of "salvage" given in the reg book, then this statute still reads that transportation to a place of processing satisfies the law. That's why I asked for the statute that snyd said the trooper told him was changed.

 

[8x57 Mauser]

'Round in circles

'Round in circles

Allen and Marten,

I've argued in the other thread that your reading of "salvage" only works if you ignore the 'processed for human consumption' language and pretend that intent to consume the meat doesn't enter into the calculus.

The subsequent banter about what constitutes 'processed' actually acknowledges that Snyd's original (hypothetical) situation was criminal. If somebody just drove the moose meat back to town and dumped it, as Snyd originally suggested, it's a crime. The rest of the discussion about smoking a whole moose or freezing a whole quarter is just moving the goalposts. They're interesting questions, but not the original one we discussed.

So I didn't convince you, and you certainly haven't convinced me since.

Before my interest wanes completely, I'll let you know the statute on wanton waste hasn't changed since 1982. The 'definitions' section of the regs covers just about every term in the book, and has changed in some way or other every year since 1990. I hope you'll pardon me not looking at each change to see whether it was the one the Trooper mentioned. Likewise, maybe we can refrain from going after the Trooper's competency because he doesn't keep a full list of every update to the Alaska Administrative Code in his patrol car.

And with that, today's date marks the shift from 'bucks only' to any deer down here, and the sun is shining on the high muskegs.

 

[martentrapper]

A troopers competency is VERY important. It would be very bad for someone NOT to get ticketed because an enforcement officer didn't know the law had changed..........and vice versa.

 

[Snyd]

Ok, one more post and Im done... I'll say it again...pm me and I'll give you the Troopers name and direct phone number that I talked to. Interestingly NO ONE has pm'd me yet or indicated that they have spoken with any law enforcement officer. Seems most are interested in thier own interpretation of the law as opposed to how a Trooper will approach and enforce the law.

A troopers competency is VERY important. It would be very bad for someone NOT to get ticketed because an enforcement officer didn't know the law had changed..........and vice versa.

 

[martentrapper]

I have talked to enforcement, and he was the one who I said was told he had to keep his meat 15 days before disposing of it. He was a fed officer tho.
However, just because one trooper says something, does not make it universally true. Your taking the troopers statement at face value. Troopers are human and they can be mistaken. It would have been good to have asked the trooper to quote, or referance, the reg he was speaking of.
You brought this guys statement to this discussion and even started a new thread to quote him. Unfortunately, you only quoted his words. Not the regulation he was saying was changed.