3Rivers Archery Supply
Alaska Moose
Moose
Contributors to this thread:
Matte 29-Oct-16
muskeg 29-Oct-16
skookumjt 29-Oct-16
Matte 29-Oct-16
Mr.C 31-Oct-16
Pete In Fairbanks 31-Oct-16
smarba 31-Oct-16
Pete In Fairbanks 31-Oct-16
muskeg 31-Oct-16
mrjeffro 31-Oct-16
Pete In Fairbanks 01-Nov-16
wildwilderness 01-Nov-16
Pete In Fairbanks 05-Nov-16
From: Matte
29-Oct-16
If I shoot and wound a Moose in Alaska do I have to punch my tag? The reason why I ask this as I have always thought that to be true but just watched an episode where a resident shot and wounded a Moose and then on camera shot another moose two days later.

From: muskeg
29-Oct-16
The only wounding law req you to count a wounding as your bag limit is with Black Bear in SE Ak.

From: skookumjt
29-Oct-16
I've always been curious why they have that law for one species in one area. Does anyone know?

From: Matte
29-Oct-16
Thanks for the reply.

From: Mr.C
31-Oct-16
key word Resident

31-Oct-16
Muskeg has it PARTIALLY correct! Bears (black or B/G) in GMU 1-5 and 8, AND elk in GMU 8 that are "wounded" count as part (or all) of your bag limit for the regulatory year.

This nonsense started over 10 years ago. I was serving on the Board of Game at the time. A couple of guides from SE wanted it, for whatever their own selfish reasons. While it may be the ETHICAL thing to do, it is virtually unenforceable.

The argument revolved around the statutory definition of "take." Take is defined as "taking, pursuing, hunting, fishing, trapping, or in any manner disturbing, capturing, or killing or ATTEMPTING TO TAKE [my emphasis], pursue, hunt, fish, trap, or in any manner capture of kill fish or game."

The guides (and Wildlife Troopers) thus argued that "wounding" was the same as "killing" by virtue of the definition of take.

I was able to convince the BOG to reject the idea for as long as I was on the Board, but once I left, they went ahead and passed it.

My argument was based on some of the other portions of the statute regarding the definition of "take." For example, since mere "pursuing" or "attempting to take" means exactly the same as actual killing of an animal, using their logic, why not require you to punch your harvest ticket or lock your NR tag as soon as you take 2 steps toward the bear during the stalk?

The departure from logic did not seem to phase the Board after I was no longer in the seat.

Bottom line for you Matte? Moose are not covered by this "wounding" reg, anywhere in Alaska

Pete

From: smarba
31-Oct-16
In some cases (I don't know of any specifically) a guide may have it spelled out in his contract that it is his policy if you wound the hunt's over. But certainly not the law as Pete spells out.

Also as he states, it's illogical. So you punch your tag for wounding a black bear. Now you have a punched tag but no carcass or hide. Can you be cited for not salvaging the animal?!

31-Oct-16
I brought that up too Smarba. I was told to trust in the "discretion" of the officers in the field! I offer again that it is NOT enforceable, unless the hunter admits to the act (of wounding the animal.)

Pete

From: muskeg
31-Oct-16
Actually it is enforceable .... just ask Ted Nugent.

From: mrjeffro
31-Oct-16
Interesting

01-Nov-16
Muskeg: Of course, because Nugent was honest about it and admitted the violation. Thanks for helping to make my point!

Pete

01-Nov-16
From an Outfitters POV it would help them pass the blame to the State for their own wounding policy. It's a lot easier to tell the client who made the bad shot that they are done with their hunt and it's not the guides fault, and send them home early because that's the Law.

05-Nov-16
Wildwilderness: I think you hit the nail on the head. Easier to shift blame to the State and not have to do what is right.

Pete

  • Sitka Gear