View Full Version : Smallest legal spike moose????
I have a story, followed by some info, then followed by a question! Id like as many people ( both new & seasoned hunters) as possible to answer.
Here it goes.
A Coworker and avid hunter has been trying to bag moose in the "spike-fork" moose season here in the Okanagan.
The other day he sees a small bull. The bull has cleanly polished, visible bone spikes nearly an inch long. He made the decision not to shoot because he wasnt sure if the spikes were a full inch.
Then he gets to thinking???? What is the minimum length for a spike bull moose????
I dont want to hear opinions or ethics, simply by "DEFINITION OF THE REGULATIONS" (because this is what we all must live by) was that moose legal to shoot?
Would you have shot it??? Why or Why not, please back your answer by regulation definitions?
Personally I think this is a grey area of the regs which needs to be improved!
He has contacted a CO, and got an answer, (which I dont agree with) and I will fill ya in later but Id like to hear your honest answers please!
Benthos
10-28-2008, 07:14 PM
spike-fork is a moose having no more than two tines on an antler. a tine is defined as being at least 2.5 cm tall, and is considered a branch off an antler.
an antlered animal just means bearing visible bone
however, sounds like your moose didn't have any tines, it was just an antler...
i think it was legal, even if not an inch. it was bony antler, with less than two tines
but, i'm no wildlife guy, that's my interpretation
BCBear
10-28-2008, 07:18 PM
This seems too close to what happened in region 3 this weekend, a very small bull was taken which appeared to be a SPFork... too be sure a CO was consulted. Result: $800 fine and moose seizure because a approximate 1 inch protrusion that was rounded seperated the two spikes on one side. I didn't see this bull but a friend was there and spoke with CO in question and also saw the small moose. Friend said he thought it was a stretch and the CO mentioned that the "tine" in question was taller than it was wide so it counts.
spike-fork is a moose having no more than two tines on an antler. a tine is defined as being at least 2.5 cm tall, and is considered a branch off an antler.
an antlered animal just means bearing visible bone
however, sounds like your moose didn't have any tines, it was just an antler...
i think it was legal, even if not an inch. it was bony antler, with less than two tines
but, i'm no wildlife guy, that's my interpretation
Well written, thats exactly how I interpret it also! :smile:
bigmike
10-28-2008, 07:20 PM
spike-fork is a moose having no more than two tines on an antler. a tine is defined as being at least 2.5 cm tall, and is considered a branch off an antler.
an antlered animal just means bearing visible bone
however, sounds like your moose didn't have any tines, it was just an antler...
i think it was legal, even if not an inch. it was bony antler, with less than two tines
but, i'm no wildlife guy, that's my interpretation
x2
if the tines were longer than they were round,thats how the co's see it
longwalk
10-28-2008, 07:24 PM
Go ahead and shoot, all he needs is a visible antler.
born2hunt
10-28-2008, 07:27 PM
i would venture to guess that if in fact it was actually bone visible 2.5 cm long that it was a legal immature bull, the question is tho would I have shot it ? i think i would of let it walk if i could not of been absolutely sure they were over an inch long
Caveman
10-28-2008, 07:29 PM
If the horn meets the regulations definition of a tine I'm guessing it would be considered legal. It would be the same as a spike just a lot shorter I assume they were almost on top of this thing to see that little bone.
If you look at the first diagram of a spike/fork bull it has a spike on one side and three on the other, therefore if the spike meets the definition of a tine it is legal.
Myself, I don't think I'd shoot it, I think it would likely be a calf It's not a dispute I would want to be part of with a CO. One Co's interpretation may not be another's. I've shot a spike but they were 4 inches long
Jagermeister
10-28-2008, 07:29 PM
I would not have shot either. Reason, it's not a tine if the base width is greater than 2.5cm or 1 inch. Over the distance, it is too hard to determine that small a measurement. You stated the length as "nearly an inch long", a tine has to make an inch or 2.5cm or better. Your co-worker, by his prudent judgement is a Master Hunter.
Thanks for posting this thread.
Benthos
10-28-2008, 07:35 PM
i think what i was trying to say was, the spike isn't even defined as a tine... It is defined as an antler. It doesn't matter how big it is. A tine is a growth that forms off an antler.
as long as there is visible bone, it doesn't matter how long it is. it is considered an antler with less than two tines (it has no tines).
the way i interpret the regs, it was a legal spike-fork moose. it had small, single antlers with NO tines.
NaStY
10-28-2008, 07:38 PM
i think what i was trying to say was, the spike isn't even defined as a tine... It is defined as an antler. It doesn't matter how big it is. A tine is a growth that forms off an antler.
as long as there is visible bone, it doesn't matter how long it is. it is considered an antler with less than two tines (it has no tines).
the way i interpret the regs, it was a legal spike-fork moose. it had small, single antlers with NO tines.
Thats an interesting concept.
mrdoog
10-28-2008, 07:39 PM
I agree with Benthos' interpretation.
Caveman
10-28-2008, 07:42 PM
i think what i was trying to say was, the spike isn't even defined as a tine... It is defined as an antler. It doesn't matter how big it is. A tine is a growth that forms off an antler.
as long as there is visible bone, it doesn't matter how long it is. it is considered an antler with less than two tines (it has no tines).
the way i interpret the regs, it was a legal spike-fork moose. it had small, single antlers with NO tines.
Curious though......if the fork doesn't meet at least the definition of a tine would it be legal. Or do you think the individual CO's interpretation of the definition would come into play.
kennyj
10-28-2008, 07:48 PM
I would say it's legal.It has visible bony antler.
kenny
TimberPig
10-28-2008, 07:52 PM
i think what i was trying to say was, the spike isn't even defined as a tine... It is defined as an antler. It doesn't matter how big it is. A tine is a growth that forms off an antler.
as long as there is visible bone, it doesn't matter how long it is. it is considered an antler with less than two tines (it has no tines).
the way i interpret the regs, it was a legal spike-fork moose. it had small, single antlers with NO tines.
I'll have to agree with this, as my boss and I were discussing this very topic. He has previously discussed it with a CO who agreed with him, that so long as there is visible bony antler sticking out of its skull it would be considered a legal spike moose.
A tine has to branch off of an antler. A spike antler has no tines. An antler is undefined as having a required minimum legal length. So long as there is visible bone sticking up on its head, the animal is a legal bull.
300H&H
10-28-2008, 07:54 PM
DO NOT SHOOT !!!
I have had the same type of immature bull (2 different bulls @ 2 different times) in front of me at 30-40 yards and did not pull the trigger.
I was sure they were bulls (I could see the weiner & beans). BUT the "nub" antlers were not points but rounded off "nubs".
I called the COs. They said it was a good thing I did not shoot as they classiffy that type of moose as being "a calf".
Im no dummy :roll:. These bulls were NOT calfs !!! They just did not have tines as antlers.
Your buddy made the right call. If in doubt...don't shoot.
Those of you who are saying it should be an inch, where do you get this from????
Benthos, I agree with everything you said 100%
300 H&H, you say the CO's told you this animal is illegal, did you ask them to explain where in the regs does it clarify this??? Can you explain???
I will reveal what the CO told my friend in a while, but I dont want it to change everyones answer as I find alot of people to be rather spineless when it comes to making a call that might later make them look bad.
C'mon people would ya shoot or not, defend your answer like your on trial and the regs are your lawyer!
What Im trying to prove is that this is a very grey area of desperate need of improvement!
behemoth
10-28-2008, 08:15 PM
If this moose is not considered legal the entire regs are BULL***T!!! That is an immature bull moose. (or spike-fork if you please)
Please please dont tell me they took that precious moose away!!:shock:
Caveman
10-28-2008, 08:16 PM
The definition of an antered animal is of the deer family over one year of age bearing visible boney antler. Would this bull fit this category?? and how the hell would you know other than by body size making an educated guess.
Did you check it's temperature and birth certificate ?? :shock:
Jelvis
10-28-2008, 08:18 PM
I'd hold the cross-hairs on the bulls shoulder at heart level and i'd pull the trigger back til the firing pin hit the primer and I'd send that semi-boatail into the vital area with no thought of doing wrong.
Jel-well-all-depends-I-guess-lol.
If this moose is not considered legal the entire regs are BULL***T!!! That is an immature bull moose. (or spike-fork if you please)
Please please dont tell me they took that precious moose away!!:shock:
The hunter did not shoot the moose! But now he is second guessing his descision.
Can you guys actually answer my questions, are you afraid to try and understand the regs and make a call?????????? Wheres the backbone people??
I'd hold the cross-hairs on the bulls shoulder at heart level and i'd pull the trigger back til the firing pin hit the primer and I'd send that semi-boatail into the vital area with no thought of doing wrong.
Jel-well-all-depends-I-guess-lol.
Nice bullet placement jelly! At least you gave a definate and confidant answer! :razz:
bigmike
10-28-2008, 08:24 PM
I would have shot it.
I haven't read the answers because I didn't want any outside influence. In my opinion you did not give us enough information to decide. The key factor is whether the moose was a calf or not. If it was a calf, then it would be illegal. Here is why.
You asked for no definitions from the regs, but I think they are important in this instance. An immature bull still must be a bull. A bull is a male moose that is more than 1 year old bearing visibly bony antlers. A calf is a moose that is under 12 months old and usually weighs 300-400 pounds. As the regulations state, a calf is much smaller and has a distinctly stubby face. A hunter should be able to tell the difference between an immature bull and a bull calf.
Let's say the animal was over 1 year old bearing visible bony antlers. It would be legal if the antler was, as you stated exposed bone. Tine length doesn't matter because a tine is a branch of an antler.
The definition of immature bull does not contain a minimum, other than the animal's age. It defines a maximum, that is no more than two tines.
Quick version:
More than 1 year old, bearing visible bony antler = legal.
That is my opinion.
Bang! Flop. No justification needed!
Caveman
10-28-2008, 08:35 PM
I haven't read the answers because I didn't want any outside influence. In my opinion you did not give us enough information to decide. The key factor is whether the moose was a calf or not. If it was a calf, then it would be illegal. Here is why.
You asked for no definitions from the regs, but I think they are important in this instance. An immature bull still must be a bull. A bull is a male moose that is more than 1 year old bearing visibly bony antlers. A calf is a moose that is under 12 months old and usually weighs 300-400 pounds. As the regulations state, a calf is much smaller and has a distinctly stubby face. A hunter should be able to tell the difference between an immature bull and a bull calf.
Let's say the animal was over 1 year old bearing visible bony antlers. It would be legal if the antler was, as you stated exposed bone. Tine length doesn't matter because a tine is a branch of an antler.
The definition of immature bull does not contain a minimum, other than the animal's age. It defines a maximum, that is no more than two tines.
Quick version:
More than 1 year old, bearing visible bony antler = legal.
That is my opinion.
I'm with 1899 here, only thing I wasn't clear on was the age, but if it looked like calf I would have passed.
M.Dean
10-28-2008, 08:35 PM
My definition of legal and the C.O's definition may very a bit,so if i had any doubt i'd let it walk! The C.O's going to measure that bull in the back of my truck to see if it's legal, i have to do it through bino's while the bull is moving and make a decision in seconds. 800 bucks buys lots of beef!!! Next fall there will be no doubt about his head gear!
Bighorn hunter
10-28-2008, 08:35 PM
I deffinatly would not have pulled the trigger. I have never shot a moose, but when I do it will be a wall hanger
Caveman
10-28-2008, 08:38 PM
I deffinatly would not have pulled the trigger. I have never shot a moose, but when I do it will be a wall hanger
Well you better have an LEH or be somewhere up north, Good Luck!! ;)
BigBanger
10-28-2008, 08:38 PM
I would have shot it
I haven't read the answers because I didn't want any outside influence. In my opinion you did not give us enough information to decide. The key factor is whether the moose was a calf or not. If it was a calf, then it would be illegal. Here is why.
You asked for no definitions from the regs, but I think they are important in this instance. An immature bull still must be a bull. A bull is a male moose that is more than 1 year old bearing visibly bony antlers. A calf is a moose that is under 12 months old and usually weighs 300-400 pounds. As the regulations state, a calf is much smaller and has a distinctly stubby face. A hunter should be able to tell the difference between an immature bull and a bull calf.
Let's say the animal was over 1 year old bearing visible bony antlers. It would be legal if the antler was, as you stated exposed bone. Tine length doesn't matter because a tine is a branch of an antler.
The definition of immature bull does not contain a minimum, other than the animal's age. It defines a maximum, that is no more than two tines.
Quick version:
More than 1 year old, bearing visible bony antler = legal.
That is my opinion.
Actually, I wanted people to quote the regs to back-up their answer (as you did).
You have probably had the best overall responce to this legal question IMO.
My friend is a seasoned hunter and he did ID this moose as a calf, BUT it was alone and then, there lies another grey zone. There are large and small calves out there, hows a rookie hunter to safely make that call???? As someone else mentioned they dont have birthcertificates taped to their heads!
The rule of thumb I use is if you can hang a hat off it, it is legal and meets the 2.5 cm minimum. I'de shoot.
Blainer
10-28-2008, 08:49 PM
Meat in the freezer.
No immature is a trophy,so if it is legal,it is coming home and I'm thinking legal.
tinhorse
10-28-2008, 08:50 PM
Shoot! Now what about a mature large bodied moose that has had its antlers broken off fighting and now has 2 bases sticking out of his head 6" long?
Caveman
10-28-2008, 08:51 PM
It appears a lot of people here may of made a mistake in shooting it. In their defence though, if you had told them it appeared to resemble a calf, although alone, I would think some of these guys answers would be different.
Unless you have read the regs and understand them they are unclear. If the definitions of the spike fork bull included tine definition and the definition of an antlered animal with it more people would have known the answer right away. Why you have to go searching through the whole set of regs under three different defintions to get the whole picture is insane
The rule of thumb I use is if you can hang a hat off it, it is legal and meets the 2.5 cm minimum. I'de shoot.
Says nothing about hanging a hat in the regulations????
Where for spike fork moose does it say 2.5 cm????
Shoot! Now what about a mature large bodied moose that has had its antlers broken off fighting and now has 2 bases sticking out of his head 6" long?
This has been debated recently, totally legal buddy, shoot and be proud!
steel_ram
10-28-2008, 08:55 PM
Shoot it, be willing to accept the consequences if the wrong CO pulls you over. He's got a bigger book on his passengers seat than the flimsy magazine guide you have on yours. Their always something in there. ;)
Caveman
10-28-2008, 08:56 PM
Shoot! Now what about a mature large bodied moose that has had its antlers broken off fighting and now has 2 bases sticking out of his head 6" long?
Technically it would be legal as long as there are no saw marks or rifle holes breaking it off. As well as a deformity of a spike on one side and a paddle with a tri-palm and 14 points would be legal, but good luck finding that one!!
doubled
10-28-2008, 09:00 PM
Technically it would be legal as long as there are no saw marks or rifle holes breaking it off. As well as a deformity of a spike on one side and a paddle with a tri-palm and 14 points would be legal, but good luck finding that one!!
Saw one this year while out hunting and almost crapped my pants. It ran quicker than that Jamaican from the Olympics.
Actually, I wanted people to quote the regs to back-up their answer (as you did).
You have probably had the best overall responce to this legal question IMO.
My friend is a seasoned hunter and he did ID this moose as a calf, BUT it was alone and then, there lies another grey zone. There are large and small calves out there, hows a rookie hunter to safely make that call???? As someone else mentioned they dont have birthcertificates taped to their heads!
Well, it is not really a grey zone. If you are not sure then don't shoot. It is the hunter's responsibility to learn how to id game before they shoot. A calf would probably be 1/2 the size of an immature bull. Remember that moose calve from May to June. So in October a calf is only four or five months old. An immature bull is 14 to 15 months old! I can not imagine a calf so big that it would be comparable to an animal 3 times it's age. Plus the head on a calf is very stubby.
I commend your friend for using restraint and knowing the animals he is hunting well enough to make the right choice.
quadrakid
10-28-2008, 09:01 PM
bang followed by one more bang a few seconds later.
steel_ram
10-28-2008, 09:08 PM
bang followed by one more bang a few seconds later.
What's the second bang for?
http://www.huntingbc.ca/photos/data/500/medium/moose14.jpg (http://www.huntingbc.ca/photos/showphoto.php?photo=11016&size=big&cat=500)from what i see if the animal is more than 5 ft at the shoulder and has less than two points on one antler, but still showing bone. it's legal. i would have shot this animal. there is no mention as to minimum antler size. as long as he has bony antler showing to make him antlered. BANG
Caveman
10-28-2008, 09:11 PM
How did you determine it was more than 5 ft tall??? I don't mean the reg I meant in the field
Jelvis
10-28-2008, 09:12 PM
No one wants a little 6 month old moose---Why?
1. not enough muscle meat and no taste therefor all bones and sinews. No weight at all no meat on bones yet.
2. not for trophy antlers
Point--- shoot only yearling animal 12 months plus 6=18 months old, for meat purposes, if open or through leh.
Jelly-18 monther + imho
Antlered Animal = means a member of the deer family over one year of age bearing visible bony antlers. Boom nice young moose
How did you determine it was more than 5 ft tall??? I don't mean the reg I meant in the fieldIF IT'S SHORTER THAN ME IT'S NOT A SHOOTER if it's my height or taller it's fair game
quadrakid
10-28-2008, 09:18 PM
the second shot was cause i was so excited at seeing what i thought was a legal bull that i pulled the first shot.got him on the second.
budismyhorse
10-28-2008, 09:19 PM
If the antler isn't 1 inch long, I wouldn't shoot it......same rule for whitey bucks. can't shoot a button buck...even if you know dang well its a buck.
that gives me some room for error being 5' 11
Jelvis
10-28-2008, 09:22 PM
Only time a person can see how big an animal is, is by comparisons. Big compared to what?
You've seen deer in different settings, with varied numbers in a group. Comparing to each other.
But--when something stands alone nothing to compare.
Now if that makes scents I'll get ya dollars. Jelly-dollars.
Fisher-Dude
10-28-2008, 09:24 PM
1899 has the best answer so far. The spike/fork bull has to meet TWO criteria:
1.) It must be a BULL. From the regs:
Buck or bull: with reference to deer, moose, or elk, means one bearing visible BONY antlers.
Calf: means a moose, elk, or caribou less than twelve months of age.
2.) It must be a spike/fork bull. From the regs:
Spike/fork bull: means a bull moose having no more than two tines on one antler.
The shiney "nubs" on the head of a male calf moose are NOT considered "visible bony antler" to meet the definition of "bull moose". I let one go last year that had 2.5 - 3 inch shiney velvet nubs. There was no bone visible. The moose was a calf (he was with mom and his sister, albeit nearly twice the size of his sister). My CO buddies confirmed that my choice was the right one when I told them about it.
Mark says his buddy talked about "visible bony antler" - I've never seen a male calf with visible bony antler, only velvet nubs. Mark, is he sure that it was bony and not just polished velvet nubs? The ones I've seen are shiney velvet.
It does meet the specification for no more than 2 tines on one antler, but I kinda doubt that it meets the criteria for "bull" moose unless they were solid bone, and the animal has to be greater than 12 months of age.
Overall, buddy did the right thing by not shooting it. Any doubt means DON'T SHOOT!
http://www.huntingbc.ca/photos/showphoto.php?photo=9720
sorry, to copy someone's pic. Legal or not?
bsa30-06
10-28-2008, 09:29 PM
1899 has the best answer so far. The spike/fork bull has to meet TWO criteria:
1.) It must be a BULL. From the regs:
Buck or bull: with reference to deer, moose, or elk, means one bearing visible BONY antlers.
Calf: means a moose, elk, or caribou less than twelve months of age.
2.) It must be a spike/fork bull. From the regs:
Spike/fork bull: means a bull moose having no more than two tines on one antler.
The shiney "nubs" on the head of a male calf moose are NOT considered "visible bony antler" to meet the definition of "bull moose". I let one go last year that had 2.5 - 3 inch shiney velvet nubs. There was no bone visible. The moose was a calf (he was with mom and his sister, albeit nearly twice the size of his sister). My CO buddies confirmed that my choice was the right one when I told them about it.
Mark says his buddy talked about "visible bony antler" - I've never seen a male calf with visible bony antler, only velvet nubs. Mark, is he sure that it was bony and not just polished velvet nubs? The ones I've seen are shiney velvet.
It does meet the specification for no more than 2 tines on one antler, but I kinda doubt that it meets the criteria for "bull" moose unless they were solid bone, and the animal has to be greater than 12 months of age.
Overall, buddy did the right thing by not shooting it. Any doubt means DON'T SHOOT!
This is my opinion aswell.From the info provided i could not clearly make a decision without actually seeing this animal.
http://www.huntingbc.ca/photos/showphoto.php?photo=9720
sorry, to copy someone's pic. Legal or not?
SORRY. JULY LONG WEEKEND PIC REG 8 OUT OF SEASON:lol:
BCrams
10-28-2008, 09:31 PM
I wouldn't shoot. With nubs that small, its highly likely to be a calf under the age of 12 months of age. Hell, there was a bull calf hanging with its mother on Sunday right by my place and he had shiny nubs about 1-1.5 inches. Was he legal to shoot....... no. He's a calf under 12 months of age.
I agree with Fisherdude and 1899.
Your friend did the right thing by not shooting and he shouldn't second guess himself. Next time he sees a 'spike' he will know it as it will be a clearly legal immature bull.
Also in the regs it says any antlered game over 1 year of age bearing visible antlers.
If you cannot distinguish between a calf with nubs and a immature bull - you shouldn't be shooting - or start looking at photographs again until you can.
blackbart
10-28-2008, 09:32 PM
Excellent thread. Personally if any doubt exists I would not shoot the animal. Better off to let it walk and keep hunting than risk the alternative option.
Question for the moderators / owner of this site: Have you ever considered adding a forum dedicated to "ask an expert"? My idea would be to have one or more CO's act as moderators of this specific section of the site. They could then provide answers to these very types of questions. Perhaps if any of the members of this site are executives of BCWF, or currently CO's they could ask the question to the appropriate government officials.
I see this as an excellent opportunity to add some validity to these ongoing debates. Our collective responsibility as hunters is to promote hunter education in order to preserve our future rights.
I welcome additional thoughts or feedback.
Ok gang, About 50 replies, and were roughly split 50/50 as to who would shoot or not. this alone tells me the regs certainly need some attention on this matter, anyone here know the right people to forward this link too????
Heres the shocker.... doesnt even compare to anything anyone else has come up with. This is what the CO told my friend, "The mooses spikes have to be 7 cm. long" W.T.F.???????
This CO is from Penticton is all I know, I think thats a crock of crap, he said the bull would be illegal and would of seized it!
I think this thread proved beyond a doubt that this area of the regs needs to be clarifyed.
To all those that said youd shoot it, dont feel bad as I think youve read the regs more than this particular CO has.
Bedtime for me!
NEED http://www.huntingbc.ca/photos/data/500/medium/P5080092.JPG (http://www.huntingbc.ca/photos/showphoto.php?photo=4405&size=big&cat=500&ppuser=225)
[quote=Fisher-Dude;349222]1899 has the best answer so far. The spike/fork bull has to meet TWO criteria:
Mark says his buddy talked about "visible bony antler" - I've never seen a male calf with visible bony antler, only velvet nubs. Mark, is he sure that it was bony and not just polished velvet nubs? The ones I've seen are shiney velvet.
He was 100% sure it was velvet free, clean polished bone, his son was there also and they were about 50 Yards away with binos on it! The very weekend before he saw a calf bull with golf balls popping under the hide, big difference he noted!
Caveman
10-28-2008, 09:54 PM
SORRY. JULY LONG WEEKEND PIC REG 8 OUT OF SEASON:lol:
Not Legal without a card
todbartell
10-28-2008, 09:57 PM
I would pass on the bull if I was unsure if its spikes did not comfortably surpass the smallest tine length. Id want a few inches of spike before Id flip the safety
jml11
10-28-2008, 10:00 PM
Heres the shocker.... doesnt even compare to anything anyone else has come up with. This is what the CO told my friend, "The mooses spikes have to be 7 cm. long" W.T.F.???????
This CO is from Penticton is all I know, I think thats a crock of crap, he said the bull would be illegal and would of seized it!
I think this thread proved beyond a doubt that this area of the regs needs to be clarifyed.
This CO is clearly wrong, from what I can tell this CO is referring to the diagram in the regs which defines a tine. Within that diagram they have used the 7cm location on a single long tine as an example of how to measure the length to width ratio, in this case the tine is 3cm wide 7 cm from the tip, clearly longer than it is wide. It is just an example of how to measure and nowhere does it say it has to be at least 7cm long. This CO needs to brush up on the regs himself.
I realize a lot of people are saying that a single spike is not defined as a tine, which is seems justified based on several good posts (convinced me at least), however from conversations I have had with CO's I think most would say that a single spike antler is also considered a single tine and would probably seize any bull or buck with spikes less than 1 inch in length. I would agree with most that the regs need to be revised to clarify these definitions.
Caveman
10-28-2008, 10:03 PM
Ok gang, About 50 replies, and were roughly split 50/50 as to who would shoot or not. this alone tells me the regs certainly need some attention on this matter, anyone here know the right people to forward this link too????
Heres the shocker.... doesnt even compare to anything anyone else has come up with. This is what the CO told my friend, "The mooses spikes have to be 7 cm. long" W.T.F.???????
Does anyone collect or have some copies of old regulations? For some reason the 7cm thing rings a bell, but I think that was dropped years ago. I can't find any reference to that now, so how the hell would anyone know this or for that matter have to abide by it if it's not in our bible of rules
steel_ram
10-28-2008, 10:06 PM
How would you see anything less than an inch? If an inch is there, it's there. I wonder if there's more to the definition in the actual regulations compared to the synopsis readily available to hunters.
Fisher-Dude
10-28-2008, 10:07 PM
Does anyone collect or have some copies of old regulations? For some reason the 7cm thing rings a bell, but I think that was dropped years ago. I can't find any reference to that now, so how the hell would anyone know this or for that matter have to abide by it if it's not in our bible of rules
Elk tines used to have to be 7 cm (3 inches) in length in the old 3 point definition.
boxhitch
10-29-2008, 12:28 AM
The regs call for a spike bull or a fork bull with no more than 2 tines.
A spike is called a spike because it is different.
If I could see that it was in fact bone/antler, and tell that it was last years calf which wold be obviously bigger than this years, I would shoot it in a heartbeat.
No need to confuse tines with spikes. Spikes have no length definition because they can't be measured on a live animal.
But I would never shoot anything by someone elses opinion.
Glenny
10-29-2008, 02:36 AM
Right on the nail Boxhitch. That moose was a keeper. Spikes are spikes and forks are forks. If its got bony protuberances with o tynes on it, it is a spike bull. Simply 0 tynes is less than 2. There is nothing re length on bony protuberance. If it has a bony prot. it is a spike. If it has skin or hair covered protuberances it is considered antlerLESS ...A calf. :razz:
As far as Fig.C on page 5 of the regs goes..WTF is that used for. It only serves to contradict fig B.
hunter1947
10-29-2008, 03:10 AM
My opinion is that the regs should be changed.
The confusing part is that it stats that a tine as being at least 2.5cm tall and is considered a branch off an antler.
This is my understanding what the regs really are trying to say is that you can't shoot this bull if there is a third branch off that is 2.5cm or longer which means that if it was it would be a 3 point antler.
If it was me i would have taken this bull moose.
Where does it say in the regs if you see button spikes you can't shoot this animal ???? ,show me in the regs where it says it is illegal ???.
Glenny
10-29-2008, 03:21 AM
It doesn't. Only says its anterless if the protuberances are covered in skin or hair. ( Can we assume hair is velvet?) See page 3 "antlered and antlerless animal" of the regs
hunter1947
10-29-2008, 03:26 AM
It doesn't. Only says its anterless if the protuberances are covered in skin or hair. ( Can we assume hair is velvet?) See page 3 "antlered and antlerless animal" of the regs
There was bone showing and that the antler did break through the velvet tissue???.
Glenny
10-29-2008, 04:25 AM
The story at first thread states "cleanly polished, visible bone spikes nearly an inch long" I'll take it!!
Glenny
10-29-2008, 04:30 AM
Hunter1947. Yes the regs should be changed. Maybe a few extra illistrations on spike bulls along with what they got on page 4 of regs. Seems to mostly cover forks more except for top left one.
Stone Sheep Steve
10-29-2008, 05:14 AM
7 cms sounds like he pulled that one out of the air.
A numer of years ago I watched a 3x2 bull moose and the side with 2 pts widened out and made a small split. This was back when an elk had to have points 3" to count.
I passed on the bull and asked a CO next time I saw one.
He said the only thing that I could go on was the definition of a "point"....which was (and still is) 1".
Having said all this... I believe that bull your friend saw was legal...if he wasn't a calf.
SSS
BiG Boar
10-29-2008, 07:21 AM
I would shoot it if it was over 5 ft at the shoulder.
As well as a deformity of a spike on one side and a paddle with a tri-palm and 14 points would be legal, but good luck finding that one!!
ive got one of those racks at home. Not an "Immature bull" but legal by definiton.
Steeleco
10-29-2008, 08:14 AM
The hunter did not shoot the moose! But now he is second guessing his descision.
Can you guys actually answer my questions, are you afraid to try and understand the regs and make a call?????????? Wheres the backbone people??
I'll admit, I'm afraid. The reason for this fear is due to the complete ambiguity of the whole stinking book and the ability of each enforcement person to read it how they see it. Which is not always how we see it.
And at the end of the day, they have the ability to end my hunting for 5 years. Because of an "OPINION" :mad::mad:
jrjonesy
10-29-2008, 08:52 AM
We've determined from the original post that it has visible bony antler and thus meet the definition of a bull moose. (Tine length definition has no bearing hear)
We also know that the definition of spike fork bull is only to PREVENT you from shooting an animal with MORE than the required tines.
There is a definition of Calf moose in the Regs because there are seasons for calf moose. Presumably the definitiion is provided to PREVENT you from shooting a mature Moose during a LEH Calf season.
I don't see anywhere in the regs where it says a Spike/Fork Bull cannot be a calf moose. IF IT MEETS THE DEFINITION OF BULL ABOVE it would be legal. Age is not an issue here. Which is also the reason you can shoot an old bull with a deformed antler.
abbyfireguy
10-29-2008, 09:22 AM
Its actually quite simple. Spike/fork does not necessarily mean a spike with a fork its spike or fork...A spike is a single antler with no branches more than 2.5 cm is it not?
It does not state now long the "spike" has to be in the regs. I would go with visible bony antler. Granted our system sucks as the CO can and will confiscate the animal and it is lost period. They should allow you to process the animal at least and after the court date when you successfully defend your actions before a sane judge the meat is still consumable. To me thats the stupid state of affairs,the meat quite often gets wasted,thats totally immoral and unacceptable.
CO's should not be able to interpret the regs 12 different ways, they should have the unclear points and misleading "what ifs" fixed. Its not rocket science and it would make it much easier for enforcement with fewer of the dumb ass interpretations by CO's with fantasy land interpretation methods bouncing around in their brains or a Rambo attitude that they are God's gift to planet earth and us lowly ignorant hunters better watch out. Seen it too many times in the field and I've had a few CO's start on a lecture about a point or two in the regs until I drag out the regs and calmly show them the error of their ways and why I read them the way I do..
Most of the CO's will cut you some slack and at least listen to your reasoning,some others,well to put it nicely,they need to be knocked off their high horse every so often to make them realize they need an attitude adjustment.
Phew, too much coffee and not enough sleep,,Rant over..
Go shoot a spike, season ends on Friday for spike/fork moose...
Crap, I'm not going out till Saturday when its 4 points and no spike bulls:cool:..Oh well, already have one bull in the freezer,so its just a camping/hiking trip if we see no 4 Pointers,life's good..
Caveman
10-29-2008, 09:39 AM
I don't see anywhere in the regs where it says a Spike/Fork Bull cannot be a calf moose. IF IT MEETS THE DEFINITION OF BULL ABOVE it would be legal. Age is not an issue here. Which is also the reason you can shoot an old bull with a deformed antler.
But it does.....
Buck or Bull - with reference to deer,
moose, or elk means one bearing visible bony
antlers. Buck or Bull - with reference to
caribou, means a male 1 year of age or over,
bearing visible bony antlers.
Calf Moose - a moose less than 12 months
of age usually less than 5 feet at shoulder
height weighing 300-400 lbs.
So if a calf is under 12 months old it does not not meet the definition of a bull, so it cannot be a spike/fork bull
greasysidedown
10-29-2008, 09:57 AM
This happened to me a number of years ago.
I came face to face with a moose in the thick stuff {5 yards}.
He's got a 1 1/4" tine on one side and 1 3/4" on the other side.
I'm thinking 1" to make a tine, as he turns broadside and takes two steps I'm thinking boney visible projections.
BOOM, flop. 1st moose. 300lbs at the butchers.
The co that showed up looked at the antlers to see if the skin had been rolled back. He then got on a bought it having to be 12 months old.
I said if we're going to go there, I'll see you in court.
He left and all was good. Very tasty too.
Steeleco
10-29-2008, 09:57 AM
I have an idea!! Why don't we just look to see if it's got a third appendage back there. Sorta like looking up a cats butt to see if it's a boy of girl.
These rules can be ridiculous. When the guys enforcing them have differing opinions, it's time to re-write them!!
Steeleco
10-29-2008, 09:59 AM
I said if we're going to go there, I'll see you in court.
Somehow knowing you tells me this is distinctly possible!! ;);)
Good job GSD!!
Caveman
10-29-2008, 10:02 AM
This happened to me a number of years ago.
I came face to face with a moose in the thick stuff {5 yards}.
He's got a 1 1/4" tine on one side and 1 3/4" on the other side.
I'm thinking 1" to make a tine, as he turns broadside and takes two steps I'm thinking boney visible projections.
BOOM, flop. 1st moose. 300lbs at the butchers.
The co that showed up looked at the antlers to see if the skin had been rolled back. He then got on a bought it having to be 12 months old.
I said if we're going to go there, I'll see you in court.
He left and all was good. Very tasty too.
300 pounds at the butcher is right in the ball park. I've taken in quite a few over the years and they average about 325lbs on the hook. Yours was likely a twin.
bighornbob
10-29-2008, 10:12 AM
You have to look at what the regs say and how a lawyer or judge would look at it.
Here are some definitions from the regs.
Antlered Animal - means a member of the
deer family over one year of age bearing visible
bony antlers.
Calf Moose - a moose less than 12 months
of age usually less than 5 feet at shoulder
height weighing 300-400 lbs.
Or in other words show me where in the regs there is a season for Spike- Fork Calves.
BHB
Caveman
10-29-2008, 10:15 AM
I'm also guessing when they say weighing at 300-400 lbs they are referring to live weight not at the butchers.
KevinB
10-29-2008, 12:38 PM
I'm also guessing when they say weighing at 300-400 lbs they are referring to live weight not at the butchers.
Yup, any calf weighing 300-400 lbs on the hook is has been eating Farmer Jack's steroid stash...or else the hunter has brought it in skin, guts, and all!
eastkoot
10-29-2008, 12:55 PM
From Queens Printers if this helps..Age is the only thing keeping Bullwinkle in question alive if the nubs were indeed rubbed to bone!! It is not a bull because it fits the definition of a calf (less than 12 months old). There is no body size or weight mentioned in the definitions. Remember that the Synopsis is a guide it is not the legislation (stated right under table of contents). Weight and height are mentioned in synopsis only as a guide and clarification and must not be confused as being the law.
Division 1 — Interpretation
Definitions and interpretation
1 (1) In this regulation:
"Act" means the Wildlife Act;
"antlerless animal" means a member of the deer family bearing no visible bony antlers and, for the purposes of this definition, the small skin or hair covered protuberances on male fawns and calves are not antlers;
"bag limit" means the maximum number of a species of wildlife or a type of wildlife that a person may take or kill
(a) in the case of mammals, in one licence year,
(b) in the case of birds other than turkeys, in one day, and
(c) in the case of turkeys, in one licence year
unless another period is specified;
"bait" means any thing, including meat, cereal, cultivated crops, a restrained animal or any manufactured product or material, that may attract wildlife, but does not include a decoy;
"bearded turkey" means a turkey with a tuft of hair-like feathers that grow larger with age, and are found on the chest of the turkey;
"brow tine" means the first lateral branch, of an antler of deer, elk, moose or caribou, that projects forward and occurs in the lower one third of the antler;
"buck" or "bull" with reference to deer, moose or elk means one bearing visible bony antlers;
"buck" or "bull" with reference to caribou means a male bearing visible bony antlers;
"calf" in reference to a moose, elk or caribou means one that is less than 12 months of age;
jrjonesy
10-29-2008, 01:49 PM
But it does.....
Buck or Bull - with reference to deer,
moose, or elk means one bearing visible bony
antlers. Buck or Bull - with reference to
caribou, means a male 1 year of age or over,
bearing visible bony antlers.
My reading of the above is "in reference to Caribou, means a male 1 year of age or over..."
Antlered Animal
- means a member of the
deer family over one year of age bearing visible
bony antlers.
Calf Moose
- a moose less than 12 months
of age usually less than 5 feet at shoulder
height weighing 300-400 lbs.
Or in other words show me where in the regs there is a season for Spike- Fork Calves.
BHB
I had missed the 'antlered animal' definition. But for the sake of argument, why would they provide two different definitions for essentially the same thing? If it's antlered...it will be a member of the deer family, and if its' a buck or bull, they make reference to it being a member of the deer family...yet only refer to a caribou being over 1 year old. My explanation would be that definitions are not meant to be combined with each other. When you need the definition of "antlered animal", that's when you use it, when you need the definition of "bull", you use the definition of "bull". The season is specifically for a spike-fork bull.
There does not have to be a specification of 'spike-fork calves' as the definition of bull specifically excludes age for deer, moose and elk.
We're all just guessing at the correct interpretation but that's the way I would still interpret it.
jrjonesy
10-29-2008, 01:58 PM
For clarity sake, the above is how I believe the regs should be interpreted. I wouldn't pull the trigger though because the whole issue (which is the point of this thread) is too gray and it wouldn't be worth the ensuing fight.
Hard enough to find a spike-fork as it is, little own a calf that has bony antlers.
This thread has become quite something.
There is too much analyzing going on, imo.
1. If it is a calf (less than 12 months old) it is illegal.
2. If it is a bull (more than one year old and therefore not a calf) and has a visible bony antlers, with two or less points on one side it is legal.
You really should be able to tell the difference between a calf and a bull, just by body size and the shape of the animal's head.
If someone here has actually been charged in a situation like the "must be 7cm" example, or if it is really a contentious issue (ie - not you shot a mature bull and you got caught) then feel free to PM me.
Caveman
10-29-2008, 04:15 PM
My reading of the above is "in reference to Caribou, means a male 1 year of age or over..."
I had missed the 'antlered animal' definition. But for the sake of argument, why would they provide two different definitions for essentially the same thing? If it's antlered...it will be a member of the deer family, and if its' a buck or bull, they make reference to it being a member of the deer family...yet only refer to a caribou being over 1 year old. My explanation would be that definitions are not meant to be combined with each other. When you need the definition of "antlered animal", that's when you use it, when you need the definition of "bull", you use the definition of "bull". The season is specifically for a spike-fork bull.
There does not have to be a specification of 'spike-fork calves' as the definition of bull specifically excludes age for deer, moose and elk.
We're all just guessing at the correct interpretation but that's the way I would still interpret it.
Simply put the calf does not meet the definition of a bull (age). Therefore illegal.
bc-shedder
10-29-2008, 04:55 PM
would have to be common sence button bull to me is a calf that pushed lil nubs through and is illegal. To me a point has to be a inch to classify as a point in boone and crocket scoring.
jrjonesy
10-29-2008, 06:31 PM
I'm going to try one more time, just because I'm enjoying this.:tongue:
I don't believe the 'antlered animal' definition applies because the spike-fork bull season fits directly into the definition of a bull. THe antlered animal definition refers to age but the 'bull' definition(which has been posted several times in this thread) SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES AGE as a requirement for the definition. It does this by ONLY indicating that there is an age requirement for Caribou. For what other reason would age for deer, moose and elk in the definition of 'buck and bull' be specifically excluded?
Therefore, as far as I can see, the only reason your saying it is illegal to shoot a calf with antlers is because the regs give a definition of what a calf is. I think this definition is provided to identify a calf for an area where limited entry calf is open, NOT to exclude it from being also a legal bull if it meets the antler restrictions. Does it say somewhere in the regs that it is unlawful to shoot a calf moose with antlers or 'bony protusions"?
Again, I think a person would loose this discussion 9 times out of 10 with a CO convinced otherwise, but I don't think the CO could make it stand up in court.
Good thread Mark.
NaStY
10-29-2008, 06:44 PM
To me this is a great learning curve but one I will take as a grain of salt. Not because I agree or disagree with it. Just that i am a new hunter and would rather walk away from a situation then to try to prove a point. I have waked away from a couple legal animals just because I wasn't 100% sure it was legal.
I do however agree that the reg's need to be more clear on there definition.
eastkoot
10-29-2008, 06:50 PM
Because a calf is defined as being less than 12 months old, there is no need in legislation to exclude it from being a "bull" in the definition of a bull. Age is the only determining factor. If age wasn't mentioned in the definition of "calf" anything with bony protrutions would be legal regardles of age. It is NOT a bull if it is defined as a "calf". Believe me, I've dealt with this kind of stuff for close to 30 years although in different statutes..Has nothing to do with LEH.
Wow, I see most are even more confused than yesterday. For the record, I believe I could shoot that moose and win in a court case! I dont care what any Ignorant CO thinks.
I believe jr.jonsey explains it all the best of anyone, couldnt have wrote it better myself if I tried twice!
Anyone who still says it illegal because its a calf should re-read jr's last few posts (a few times)
This is the definition that sums it up for me, one more time for those that missed it!
Buck or Bull - with reference to deer,
moose, or elk means one bearing visible bony
antlers. Buck or Bull - with reference to
caribou, means a male 1 year of age or over,
bearing visible bony antlers.
READ VERY CAREFULLY GUYS, do it 5 times and think about it! This definition clearly does not exclude moose calves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Or fawns for that matter!
I dont care what the definition for a calf IS. The def for a bull does not exclude calves!!!!!! Any questions????
Im certainly not saying that im right and others are wrong, but I think I proved beyond argument that the regs contradict themselves and certainly need to be re-written!
Jetboat
10-29-2008, 07:29 PM
I shot this bull a couple years ago and it's the smallest racked bull I've ever put the crosshairs on (and one of the tenderest)...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v383/338winmag/Spikebull2.jpg
On two occasions, I've seen spikes very similar to this bull's 1X1 rack on calves less than a year old that were still with the cow. Would they be legal? I'd say not as they were both obviously less than 12 months old but by antler definition, they could be interpreted as legal by some folks.
Fisher-Dude
10-29-2008, 07:38 PM
I'm going to try one more time, just because I'm enjoying this.:tongue:
I don't believe the 'antlered animal' definition applies because the spike-fork bull season fits directly into the definition of a bull. THe antlered animal definition refers to age but the 'bull' definition(which has been posted several times in this thread) SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES AGE as a requirement for the definition. It does this by ONLY indicating that there is an age requirement for Caribou. For what other reason would age for deer, moose and elk in the definition of 'buck and bull' be specifically excluded?
Therefore, as far as I can see, the only reason your saying it is illegal to shoot a calf with antlers is because the regs give a definition of what a calf is. I think this definition is provided to identify a calf for an area where limited entry calf is open, NOT to exclude it from being also a legal bull if it meets the antler restrictions. Does it say somewhere in the regs that it is unlawful to shoot a calf moose with antlers or 'bony protusions"?
Again, I think a person would loose this discussion 9 times out of 10 with a CO convinced otherwise, but I don't think the CO could make it stand up in court.
Good thread Mark.
BUT, statutes aren't written for exclusion in every definition. The definition of bull doesn't specifically have to exclude calf if calf is defined elsewhere. The definition elsewhere excludes by inference. That's how statute definitions work. Calves aren't bulls, and vice versa.
BUT, statutes aren't written for exclusion in every definition. The definition of bull doesn't specifically have to exclude calf if calf is defined elsewhere. The definition elsewhere excludes by inference. That's how statute definitions work. Calves aren't bulls, and vice versa.
I disagree with ya FD!!! The def for buck or bull clearly includes moose calves regardless of what the def for a calf is! It also clearly states differently for a caribou! Explain to me how MOOSE calves "meeting the criteria I explained" are excluded from being a bull.
But it does.....
Buck or Bull - with reference to deer,
moose, or elk means one bearing visible bony
antlers. Buck or Bull - with reference to
caribou, means a male 1 year of age or over,
bearing visible bony antlers.
Calf Moose - a moose less than 12 months
of age usually less than 5 feet at shoulder
height weighing 300-400 lbs.
So if a calf is under 12 months old it does not not meet the definition of a bull, so it cannot be a spike/fork bull
Buddy, explain to me how a calf does not meet the definition of a bull?????? I see absolutely no grounds for your statement!
I say if you want to explain to a CO why you shot a CALF in a 2pt season, go for it. Me? No thanks, I'll take my moose the legit way.
Elkhound
10-29-2008, 07:55 PM
Okay Mark.....I agree...guys are wishy washy when it comes to putting their opinion up cause it looks bad if they are wrong....well here it goes.....If I see antlers that look like they are an inch long and I am hunting a spike fork bull....well lets just say I would have been all to happy shooting that guy.....even after your post that apparently I would be wrong......Hell...I think I would still shoot it cause I think that CO has no clue. There......I said it. LMAO:biggrin:
And Blackbart
Question for the moderators / owner of this site: Have you ever considered adding a forum dedicated to "ask an expert"? My idea would be to have one or more CO's act as moderators of this specific section of the site. They could then provide answers to these very types of questions. Perhaps if any of the members of this site are executives of BCWF, or currently CO's they could ask the question to the appropriate government officials.
.
In the summer Marc and I approached the COs at the abbotsford outdoor show asking if we could get someone to do just that.......we wanted a "COs Corner" or something like that......just for questions like this. The 2 we talked to were aware of the site and thought it was a good idea but they would have to check in with the higher ups to get permission of course. We gave them all the contact info and they said they would get back to us. Well guess what.....no one has. Too bad. It would be a very good idea to keep communication open with the hunters in this province.
So if any of them see this thread......and they are interested...please feel free to PM me or Marc. Would love to have a resident CO willing to answer legitimate questions...it would not be an attack the CO thing.....8)
Would be monitored well.
Fisher-Dude
10-29-2008, 07:56 PM
I disagree with ya FD!!! The def for buck or bull clearly includes moose calves regardless of what the def for a calf is! It also clearly states differently for a caribou! Explain to me how MOOSE calves "meeting the criteria I explained" are excluded from being a bull.
They are excluded by being defined as any moose under 12 months of age. That makes them a calf, and there is no season on calves here. There's only a bull season. If they had a season on calves with bony antlers, they would say "spike/fork bulls and calves" in the regulations under the season date listings. ;-)
NaStY
10-29-2008, 07:57 PM
No offense but it sounds/looks to me like your looking for an excuse to shoot the animal. Why dont you go ahead and do that and then phone the CO for an inspect and let us know how the court case is going? :biggrin:
They are excluded by being defined as any moose under 12 months of age. That makes them a calf, and there is no season on calves here. There's only a bull season. If they had a season on calves with bony antlers, they would say "spike/fork bulls and calves" in the regulations under the season date listings. ;-)
Still disagree with ya here, sure, the calf definition defines a calf, ok we all know what a calf is now, BUT if that calf has visible bone on its head it classifys as a bull moose, clear as a bell to me. The definition of a bull goes out of its way to "exclude" any indication of age, thus including calves. If it were caribou were talking about, Id agree with you, but its not its moose! :-)
No offense but it sounds/looks to me like your looking for an excuse to shoot the animal. Why dont you go ahead and do that and then phone the CO for an inspect and let us know how the court case is going? :biggrin:
Not at all, my freezer is full, Im simply picking these lousy regs to pieces as a good lawyer would!
Fisher-Dude
10-29-2008, 08:09 PM
Still disagree with ya here, sure, the calf definition defines a calf, ok we all know what a calf is now, BUT if that calf has visible bone on its head it classifys as a bull moose, clear as a bell to me. The definition of a bull goes out of its way to "exclude" any indication of age, thus including calves. If it were caribou were talking about, Id agree with you, but its not its moose! :-)
Nope. Calves are defined by age. Bull doesn't have to exclude calves if the definition of calf excludes it from being a bull.
I'm gettin' dizzy! :biggrin:
NaStY
10-29-2008, 08:14 PM
In the summer Marc and I approached the COs at the abbotsford outdoor show asking if we could get someone to do just that.......we wanted a "COs Corner" or something like that......just for questions like this. The 2 we talked to were aware of the site and thought it was a good idea but they would have to check in with the higher ups to get permission of course. We gave them all the contact info and they said they would get back to us. Well guess what.....no one has. Too bad. It would be a very good idea to keep communication open with the hunters in this province.
So if any of them see this thread......and they are interested...please feel free to PM me or Marc. Would love to have a resident CO willing to answer legitimate questions...it would not be an attack the CO thing.....8)
Would be monitored well.
Man i think that would be a great idea. But it would only work if there were several CO's to represent them selves. That way we would have CLEARER direction for specific questions....
Everett
10-29-2008, 08:16 PM
So for the record I would have shot him if he was by himself (no cow) and he was over five feet
But this year I saw a calf in 4-21 with THREE INCH ANTLERS still with his Mom and half her size. They were out of velvet as well.
The CO corner is an awsome idea
boxhitch
10-29-2008, 08:17 PM
F-D you are not right.
Mark has it better.
Maybe the def for a calf should read bull calf with desc and cow calf with desc.
Take humans for comparison....A baby is a boy or a girl, boy or girls being any age,
also seperated by boney protuberences
Steeleco
10-29-2008, 08:31 PM
Im simply picking these lousy regs to pieces as a good lawyer would!
How much and where do I send my retainer? I hope never to need to defend my hunting habit, but even honest folks make mistakes. And these reg's don't help any!!
krazy
10-29-2008, 08:46 PM
I don't believe the 'antlered animal' definition applies because the spike-fork bull season fits directly into the definition of a bull. THe antlered animal definition refers to age but the 'bull' definition(which has been posted several times in this thread) SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES AGE as a requirement for the definition. It does this by ONLY indicating that there is an age requirement for Caribou. For what other reason would age for deer, moose and elk in the definition of 'buck and bull' be specifically excluded?
Therefore, as far as I can see, the only reason your saying it is illegal to shoot a calf with antlers is because the regs give a definition of what a calf is. I think this definition is provided to identify a calf for an area where limited entry calf is open, NOT to exclude it from being also a legal bull if it meets the antler restrictions. Does it say somewhere in the regs that it is unlawful to shoot a calf moose with antlers or 'bony protusions"?
Again, I think a person would loose this discussion 9 times out of 10 with a CO convinced otherwise, but I don't think the CO could make it stand up in court.
Good thread Mark.
Right on the money jr!
READ VERY CAREFULLY GUYS, do it 5 times and think about it! This definition clearly does not exclude moose calves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Or fawns for that matter!
I dont care what the definition for a calf IS. The def for a bull does not exclude calves!!!!!! Any questions????
Im certainly not saying that im right and others are wrong, but I think I proved beyond argument that the regs contradict themselves and certainly need to be re-written!
OK I'll say it then - you are right and others are wrong!
Here's my smallest:
http://www.huntingbc.ca/photos/data/500/medium/Spiker.jpg (http://www.huntingbc.ca/photos/showphoto.php?photo=11042&size=big&cat=500)
If you are passing on these guys you are missing out on the best legal vittles out there .... your loss ... more for the rest of us :)
Nope. Calves are defined by age. Bull doesn't have to exclude calves if the definition of calf excludes it from being a bull.
I'm gettin' dizzy! :biggrin:
FD im getting dizzy here too, but the defintion of a calf, defines a calf, it does NOT exclude it from being a bull!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
F-D you are not right.
Mark has it better.
Maybe the def for a calf should read bull calf with desc and cow calf with desc.
Take humans for comparison....A baby is a boy or a girl, boy or girls being any age,
also seperated by boney protuberences
Thank you, maybe he will listen to you, hard to accept yer wrong from a young guy I suppose! :wink:
How much and where do I send my retainer? I hope never to need to defend my hunting habit, but even honest folks make mistakes. And these reg's don't help any!!
Steeler, Ill PM you my address to send yer retainer, but im expensive! :tongue:
For the record, I have emailed the Chief CO of BC and sent him a link to this thread, I sure hope something good comes from it!
bc-shedder
10-29-2008, 08:55 PM
I shot this bull a couple years ago and it's the smallest racked bull I've ever put the crosshairs on (and one of the tenderest)...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v383/338winmag/Spikebull2.jpg
On two occasions, I've seen spikes very similar to this bull's 1X1 rack on calves less than a year old that were still with the cow. Would they be legal? I'd say not as they were both obviously less than 12 months old but by antler definition, they could be interpreted as legal by some folks.
That is a nice legal immy if i do say. Button bulls like what everyone is talking about is clearly not legal a tine of any sort has to be a inch or better to class.
jrjonesy
10-29-2008, 08:59 PM
As intended, the thread has pointed out how unclear the regs are. I think we've narrowed it down finally to two pretty strong arguments on both sides. Of course I still think my interpretation is more accurate but that doesn't matter one bit. The point is that several, I'd say "very logically" thinking individuals can read the same thing and come up with different interpretations, and likely not be able to change each others mind. The regs have to be clarified for the next printing.
Caveman
10-29-2008, 09:03 PM
For the record, I have emailed the Chief CO of BC and sent him a link to this thread, I sure hope something good comes from it!
Interesting Mark, I e-mailed Fish and Wildlife Branch with this question
Hi, I was wondering if you could help to clarify an interesting question
In the regulations you have a definition of a calf moose being under the age of 12 months
The buck/ bull definition declares a male bearing visible boney antler. In reference to Caribou a bull is over 12 months old
So if a hunter was to encounter a moose resembling a calf sporting visible boney antler protruding about 1 inch from the hair line, would he be fair game under the definition of a spike/fork bull moose and being under 12 months of age
Look forward to clarification. Thank You very much!! Greg.
This is being debated on a hunting forum and the general population seems to be split 50/50. We understand if in doubt don't shoot, but the point being, just reading the regulations, different conclusions are drawn
Could be interesting to see if the answers differ.
jrjonesy
10-29-2008, 09:08 PM
BC-Shredder,
as per the regs it clearly states:
Tine or Point: means a BRANCH of an antler that is longer than it's breadth...(etc,etc, regarding 2.5 cm length)
as per the regs: Buck or Bull : with reference to deer, moose or elk means one bearing visible bony antlers.
The length requirement is for branches off antlers only.
I believe way back in the original post it was stated that the bull had visible bony antler which possibly were not an inch long, but were not buttons covered by velvet.
That is a nice legal immy if i do say. Button bulls like what everyone is talking about is clearly not legal a tine of any sort has to be a inch or better to class.
Shedder???? What to say??? you should re-read this thread! The 1 inch thing doesnt even apply!
As intended, the thread has pointed out how unclear the regs are. I think we've narrowed it down finally to two pretty strong arguments on both sides. Of course I still think my interpretation is more accurate but that doesn't matter one bit. The point is that several, I'd say "very logically" thinking individuals can read the same thing and come up with different interpretations, and likely not be able to change each others mind. The regs have to be clarified for the next printing.
Again very well said, I think this is the only thing we all agree on!
FD if you still do not the see the point Jonsey and I both agree on, thats fine no need to go back and forth again. I feel you are simply arguing your original statement, not even looking at the other angle, and thats fine, thats exactly what I wanted to prove, is that the regs are flawed and all people interpret them very differently!
Fisher Dude is right - from a statute interpretation perspective. Would a charges stick considering the way the regs are written? That is a tough question. I have done some research on the matter, but it doesn't appear to have come up in court. Rather, I couldn't find any reported cases.
These types of offences are strict liability offences. That means once the offending action is proved by the Crown, your only defence is that you took reasonable care in not breaking the law. What constitutes "reasonable care" will be determined by the facts of the situation.
In my first post I made a mistake in my wording: "A bull is a male moose that is more than 1 year old".
However, as FD pointed out, if it is less than 1 year old then it is a calf.
boxhitch
10-29-2008, 09:15 PM
Caveman, ask that same question and use the term 'young moose' instead of 'calf', and the answer may be entirely different.......or the same.
Questions can be very leading when the desire is a certain answer, its a science.
phearless
10-29-2008, 09:18 PM
I passed on a button bull myself today.
Here's hoping we get this put to bed for good soon.
boxhitch
10-29-2008, 09:18 PM
In my first post I made a mistake in my wording: "A bull is a male moose that is more than 1 year old".
However, as FD pointed out, if it is less than 1 year old then it is a calf.Again, that is your wording, not the Regs.
A calf is a baby, but it is still a bull if it is a male. M O
Fisher Dude is right - from a statute interpretation perspective. Would a charges stick considering the way the regs are written? That is a tough question. I have done some research on the matter, but it doesn't appear to have come up in court. Rather, I couldn't find any reported cases.
These types of offences are strict liability offences. That means once the offending action is proved by the Crown, your only defence is that you took reasonable care in not breaking the law. What constitutes "reasonable care" will be determined by the facts of the situation.
In my first post I made a mistake in my wording: "A bull is a male moose that is more than 1 year old".
However, as FD pointed out, if it is less than 1 year old then it is a calf.
1899, yer post about a bull threw me for a curve last night just before bedtime, today I re-read the regs and was so pissed at you. Have you read the last few pages???? Have you carefully read both jr.jonsey's as well my posts???? I cant comprehend how you can agree with FD on this.
Like I said, yes the moose is a calf cut and dried, but "that calf moose" also CLEARLY falls into the definition of a bull, no if's, and's or but's! Re-read the definition for a bull!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
With all due respect to CO's, including the Chief CO, they are not the ones that are going to decide a question of law. They may very well tell you one thing, but a judge will decide another way.
The other point that FD didn't touch on, but it is important when considering definitions, is legislative intent. That intent can, and does, affect interpretation.
boxhitch
10-29-2008, 09:22 PM
Maybe the wording has to go the way of beef with cows, heifers, calves, steers, bulls, etc.
Looking back at some of the old Regs, and the whole age,sex,tine, definition has been changed several times.
Maybe to address confusion in courts ?
They still haven't got it all right. Although the def. of a tine is the best so far.
Caveman
10-29-2008, 09:25 PM
Looking back at some of the old Regs, and the whole age,sex,tine, definition has been changed several times.
Maybe to address confusion in courts ?
They still haven't got it all right. Although the def. of a tine is the best so far.
Maybe they should ask the guys who use it year to year to clarify it :wink:
boxhitch
10-29-2008, 09:27 PM
The other point that FD didn't touch on, but it is important when considering definitions, is legislative intent. That intent can, and does, affect interpretation.
Such as the old reg. that spoke of immature bulls. The intent was clear, shoot yearlings. Due to confusion of wording, and desire to be clarified, the term immature was dropped. Has the intent changed ? Now a four year old with two points on one side is legal.
boxhitch
10-29-2008, 09:29 PM
Maybe they should ask the guys who use it year to year to clarify it :wink:I don't know who was consulted for the changes, I can only assume they would confer with the guys in the field ? But then again, this is Victoria we are dealing with here
With all due respect to CO's, including the Chief CO, they are not the ones that are going to decide a question of law. They may very well tell you one thing, but a judge will decide another way.
The other point that FD didn't touch on, but it is important when considering definitions, is legislative intent. That intent can, and does, affect interpretation.
I dont think that the statement of any one CO means much at all, as they just people with a badge, their interp of the regs will fall one way or another just as all of our opinions have. I just hope that this thread will spawn change, the higher-ups in the regulation dept will have to bang their heads together come up with a crystal clear, cut and dried answer to this debate and word it so common folk can understand it!
Can we all agree on this much?? :-|
kloosterboer
10-29-2008, 09:39 PM
I'm sorry mark but i dont think it is a bull. Because a bull must be an antlered animal and by definition an antlered animal must be atleast one year old. Therefore a calf could not be a bull.
Caveman
10-29-2008, 09:42 PM
I don't know who was consulted for the changes, I can only assume they would confer with the guys in the field ? But then again, this is Victoria we are dealing with here
Well with the 4500 members here and the 3500 views we still seem to be no farther ahead, so I'd think the bureaucracy in Victoria did it themselves without the input from the user groups as usual
jrjonesy
10-29-2008, 09:48 PM
kloosterboer,
you appear to be creating your own wording and inserting it into the regs. The definition of bull does not refer to it being an "antlered animal", it refers to it as having visible bony antlers.
I agree that if it did word it as you suggest, it would in fact be much,much clearer. You would then have one definition pointing to another and there would be no question.
Caveman
10-29-2008, 09:49 PM
I'm sorry mark but i dont think it is a bull. Because a bull must be an antlered animal and by definition an antlered animal must be atleast one year old. Therefore a calf could not be a bull.
To be antlered it is a member of the deer family over 1 year of age, to be a bull it has to sport visible bony antler and to be a calf it is under 12 months of age. So if a calf by age can't be considered an antlered animal by definition how can it be defined as a bull Clear as mud???? :eek:
1899, yer post about a bull threw me for a curve last night just before bedtime, today I re-read the regs and was so pissed at you. Have you read the last few pages???? Have you carefully read both jr.jonsey's as well my posts???? I cant comprehend how you can agree with FD on this.
Like I said, yes the moose is a calf cut and dried, but "that calf moose" also CLEARLY falls into the definition of a bull, no if's, and's or but's! Re-read the definition for a bull!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*shrug* I admitted a mistake in my wording - I guess I was tired too. I don't need to reread it again.
Here is a hypothetical moose. It has a bony spike antler on each side. The moose was born this year, meaning that it is less than 12 months old. Is the moose a calf?
The answer MUST be yes. Is there a calf season in the area? If the answer is no, then it is not legal to shoot it.
The fact that there is a separate definition of moose calf and a separate season for moose calf shows the intention of calves being in a separate category.
Let's keep the questions going. Is a spike-fork bull an "antlered animal"? The answer is yes. An antlered animal is a member of the deer family over one year of age bearing visible bony antlers. So again you are outside the definition of a calf.
Like I mentioned, you could probably take a good run at it in court based on the defence available to strict liability offences. I'll call one of my colleagues who practices criminal law and ask him. He is an avid hunter and sometimes lurks here.
Sorry Mark and Jr., I still think you are wrong. Try to read the other definitions too - I think you may be too focused on the one definition of bull moose.
jrjonesy
10-29-2008, 10:08 PM
1899,
I'm trying to be really open to your reasoning here and I will continue to try and digest your last post.
My question would be in your hypothetical situation, you are refering to a bull with visible bony antlers, that was born this year and is thus less than 12 months old. You are making an assumption that most every hunter, if they see that bull, out in a cutblock (by itself), with those small 'antlers', could identify based on appearance and size, that it was born this year. Now I admit that you and I and many others could. The regs however go as far as to provide direction or assitance in this area of identification but do not use it as a regulating factor. I believe they don't use size/appearance as a determining factor because they realize that this can be impossible, without experience to determine in the field. Therefore they defer to something that can't be questioned...the presence of antlers.
I've typed so long I don't know if I make sense anymore? I don't even think I ended up asking a question there, but do you see my point?
Jelvis
10-29-2008, 10:12 PM
A six month bull does'nt have antlers at least not in Kamloops, where you from? Around here the baby moose which are under six months don't have antlers lol.
Hunters get mixed up about yearlings and calves which are two totally seperate age groups.
You are talking yearlings not baby moose I believe that is where your confusing everyone. lol.
Look up gestation of moose birth and you will see a big difference. Calves are born in beginning of June so july aug sept october nov = six month baby moose
Six months + 12 months = Yearling
Now you know the difference and where your mixing yourself and others up. ok
Jel-baby has no antlers here in Region 3 anyways
Caveman
10-29-2008, 10:12 PM
1899,
I'm trying to be really open to your reasoning here and I will continue to try and digest your last post.
My question would be in your hypothetical situation, you are refering to a bull with visible bony antlers, that was born this year and is thus less than 12 months old. You are making an assumption that most every hunter, if they see that bull, out in a cutblock (by itself), with those small 'antlers', could identify based on appearance and size, that it was born this year. Now I admit that you and I and many others could. The regs however go as far as to provide direction or assitance in this area of identification but do not use it as a regulating factor. I believe they don't use size/appearance as a determining factor because they realize that this can be impossible, without experience to determine in the field. Therefore they defer to something that can't be questioned...the presence of antlers.
I've typed so long I don't know if I make sense anymore? I don't even think I ended up asking a question there, but do you see my point?
Or in better judgement don't shoot if you cannot 100% identify what you are shooting!!
Fisher-Dude
10-29-2008, 10:15 PM
FD im getting dizzy here too, but the defintion of a calf, defines a calf, it does NOT exclude it from being a bull!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Once again, there is no season in the season listings for CALF moose, which is ANY moose under 12 months of age. CALF is defined, BULL doesn't have to exclude it.
I asked this very question of two of our COs when I told them about the calf I saw with 2 - 3 inch knobs, and they said it wasn't legal because it was STILL A CALF under 12 months of age. That's good enough for me.
There's no way in hell I need to shoot a moose so bad that I have to go to court and fight it - life's too friggin' short to put myself through that bullshit. Live on the edge by pulling crap like this, and the next time the COs stop you, they will find something to write you a ticket on, even if it's a broken windshield or an improperly filled out firewood permit. Who wants that stigma? I work with the COs all the time, and they KNOW exactly who the guys are that push the rules around here. They are watching those guys, and well they should.
I'll agree with one thing, the regulations are vague in some areas. We all know what the statutory intent is of the regs, and going contrary to that intent will result in getting a bad name, with bad experiences in the bush. That's NOT what hunting is all about, for me anyways.
jrjonesy
10-29-2008, 10:22 PM
Caveman,
No argument there...I've said several times earlier I wouldn't shoot as it's not worth the potential hassle. More discussing the ambiguity in the regs.
Jelvis,
Your point is definitely a good one. Wierd things happen with antlers though. Maybe we are dealing with a year and half old with tiny antlers. For that matter maybe it was a cow with tiny antlers. My brother has trail cam pictures of a cow with 2 inch antlers in velvet. A month later it walked with its calf directly under his tree stand and had all of the velvet rubbed off it's antlers.
So if this cow is out in a cutblock by itself, do you now have to identify through a bell or 'organs' that it is a bull? How do the CO's tackle that?
I know that it at least 'used' to be that if you shot a doe with antlers, it was legal.
krazy
10-29-2008, 10:24 PM
This has all prob already been said but this is how I worked it out. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed but this seems clear to me:
From the regs:
Buck or Bull - with reference to deer,moose, or elk means one bearing visible bony antlers. *Note there is no age restrictions for bucks or bulls in the regs like there is for caribou.
Conclusion: if it's a moose bearing visable bony antlers it's a bull.
Calf Moose - a moose less than 12 months of age usually less than 5 feet at shoulder height weighing 300-400 lbs.
Conclusion: if it is as described above it is a calf. If it is as described above AND bears visable bony antlers it's a calf bull moose.
Tine or "Point" -
means a branch of an antler which is longer than its breadth and is at least 2.5 cm in length, and for the purpose of determining the length of a tine (a) the breadth of the tine is measured (if extending from a palmation of an antler, then in the plane of the palm) at a location at least 2.5 cm from the tip of the tine, and (b) the length of the tine is measured from its tip end, following the midline of the profile of the tine, and following the natural curvature of the tine, to the midpoint of the straight line along which the breadth is measured. (See How to Measure a Tine diagram below)
Conclusion: I think everyone agrees that an antler is not a tine so therefore not restricted to the 2.5 cm definition and that a tine is a branch off the main antler at least 2.5 cm in length.
Moose (with respect to spike-forks): means a bull moose having no more than two tines on one antler. (Includes tines on main antler and brow palms.). See diagram."
Final Conclusion: If it is a moose AND that moose bears visable bony antlers AND that mooses visable bony antlers have no more than two tines on one of its antlers then (regardless of it's age or size or color or anything else) it is a spike-fork bull - if you gots a tag for one you should be shooting now!
I don't see anything in the regs that condratics this but if you are still not sure follow the golden rule and don't pull the trigger.
Ambush
10-29-2008, 10:29 PM
KRAZY WINS
Read the above posthttp://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif
I'm sorry mark but i dont think it is a bull. Because a bull must be an antlered animal and by definition an antlered animal must be atleast one year old. Therefore a calf could not be a bull.
Klooster, have you even read the def of a bull???? It certainly doesnt have to be 1 year old!
To be antlered it is a member of the deer family over 1 year of age, to be a bull it has to sport visible bony antler and to be a calf it is under 12 months of age. So if a calf by age can't be considered an antlered animal by definition how can it be defined as a bull Clear as mud???? :eek:
Greg, most of you are reading way TOO far past what is necessary, an "antlered animal" covers alot of bases, go straight to the def. for a "BULL" as thats what were talking about hunting here, and it does not have to be 1 year of age!
A six month bull does'nt have antlers at least not in Kamloops, where you from? Around here the baby moose which are under six months don't have antlers lol.
Hunters get mixed up about yearlings and calves which are two totally seperate age groups.
You are talking yearlings not baby moose I believe that is where your confusing everyone. lol.
Look up gestation of moose birth and you will see a big difference. Calves are born in beginning of June so july aug sept october nov = six month baby moose
Six months + 12 months = Yearling
Now you know the difference and where your mixing yourself and others up. ok
Jel-baby has no antlers here in Region 3 anyways
Jelvis, there are no strict rules in nature! I admit Ive never seen such a moose as my friend describes, but it is very possible as Ive seen lots with big nubs covered in hair or velvet, this one just poked through, thats all. I think your statement is very narrow minded!
Once again, bedtime for me, im out!
Once again, there is no season in the season listings for CALF moose, which is ANY moose under 12 months of age. CALF is defined, BULL doesn't have to exclude it.
I asked this very question of two of our COs when I told them about the calf I saw with 2 - 3 inch knobs, and they said it wasn't legal because it was STILL A CALF under 12 months of age. That's good enough for me.
There's no way in hell I need to shoot a moose so bad that I have to go to court and fight it - life's too friggin' short to put myself through that bullshit. Live on the edge by pulling crap like this, and the next time the COs stop you, they will find something to write you a ticket on, even if it's a broken windshield or an improperly filled out firewood permit. Who wants that stigma? I work with the COs all the time, and they KNOW exactly who the guys are that push the rules around here. They are watching those guys, and well they should.
I'll agree with one thing, the regulations are vague in some areas. We all know what the statutory intent is of the regs, and going contrary to that intent will result in getting a bad name, with bad experiences in the bush. That's NOT what hunting is all about, for me anyways.
Again I agree with FD.
Jrjonesy - I am not making any assumptions about every hunter. I am saying it is the hunter's duty to properly id the animal. Look at the regs talking about the age of sheep. I think we can all say that relying on the counting annuli method can get you in trouble very quickly if you are not careful. In the same way you should be very careful when looking at a moose - you really should be able to tell the difference between a 16 month old bull and a 5 month old calf. Their heads look completely different.
Caveman
10-29-2008, 10:35 PM
KRAZY WINS
Read the above posthttp://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif
This has all prob already been said but this is how I worked it out:
From the regs:
Buck or Bull - with reference to deer,moose, or elk means one bearing visible bony antlers. *Note there is no age restrictions for bucks or bulls in the regs like there is for caribou.
Conclusion = if it's a moose bearing visable bony antlers it's a bull.
Calf Moose - a moose less than 12 months of age usually less than 5 feet at shoulder height weighing 300-400 lbs.
Conclusion = if it is as described above it is a calf. If it is as described above AND bears visable bony antlers it's a calf bull moose.
Tine or "Point" -
means a branch of an antler which is longer than its breadth and is at least 2.5 cm in length, and for the purpose of determining the length of a tine (a) the breadth of the tine is measured (if extending from a palmation of an antler, then in the plane of the palm) at a location at least 2.5 cm from the tip of the tine, and (b) the length of the tine is measured from its tip end, following the midline of the profile of the tine, and following the natural curvature of the tine, to the midpoint of the straight line along which the breadth is measured. (See How to Measure a Tine diagram below)
Conclusion = I think everyone agrees that an antler is not a tine so therefore not restricted to the 2.5 cm definition and that a tine is a branch off the main antler at least 2.5 cm in length.
Moose (with respect to spike-forks): means a bull moose having no more than two tines on one antler. (Includes tines on main antler and brow palms.). See diagram."
Final Conclusion: If it is a moose AND that moose bears visable bony antlers AND that mooses visable bony antlers have no more than two tines on one of its antlers then (regardless of it's age or size or color or anything else) it is a spike-fork bull.
I don't see anything in the regs that condratics this but if you are still not sure follow the golden rule and don't pull the trigger.
Not so fast!!! A calf does not meet the definition of an antlered animal, which is a member of the deer family over one year old bearing visible boney antler. This being said how can it be a bull but not an antlered animal????? I think if you rely on one definition that this animal meets you may be making a big mistake.
Jelvis
10-29-2008, 10:35 PM
krazy --- for Prime Minister.
Jel-krazy wins!
KRAZY WINS
Read the above posthttp://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif
x2 yes Krazy does win, I think thats as clearly put as possible, anyone who disputes this has reading comprehension issues IMO. Thank you Krazy, jr.jonsey, boxhitch and anyone else who has made an effort to try and help those that still dont understand!
Caveman
10-29-2008, 10:41 PM
The one thing I will definitely agree with is, the regs need a major overhaul
Thank you Krazy, jr.jonsey, boxhitch and anyone else who has made an effort to try and help those that still dont understand!
Guys, not that it means I can't make a mistake, but I look at legislation and consider interpretation pretty much every day. I am quite confident that FD and I are correct. Edit - and Caveman.
jml11
10-29-2008, 10:49 PM
Wow, a lot of good points from both point of views (legal/illegal). Definitely got me intrigued. Mark I look forward to the response you get from the CO office.
This how I see it.
Yes I would agree that the definition of a bull does not directly have an age criteria (and i'm not sure why a bull caribou does?); however, the definition of a bull does state that it must have visible bony antlers thus it is classified as an an antlered animal, would we agree?
Now if you look at the definition of antlered animal, it states that this a member of the deer family over one year of age bearing visible bony antlers, thus no calves would be defined as an antlered animal whether it had bony protusions or not.
However, the fact that the definition of a bull moose and spike fork moose lacks an age component but the definition of bull caribou does consider age, makes me wonder what's up, seems like some information is missing. It also seems the regs do contradict themselves with the bull moose and antlered animal definitions. You shouldn't have to read numerous definitions to get the answer, as many have stated, maybe the regs need to be revised to clear this up.
jrjonesy
10-29-2008, 10:53 PM
1899, I totally agree with what your saying regarding duty, annuli, and identification of calf moose.
I look back at Mark's original post and it says 'small bull'....somehow we did turn this into a calf...even though that may not be the case.
Although my argument still stands on the wording of the regs, of all the 1/2 year old antlered animals I've ever seen, I don't recall one having anything that could be mistaken for an antler. I think realistically this is going to more often happen in the case of a 18 monther. (that's a new word:smile:). So I'm assuming with your argument, you then can shoot that bull because it can be identified by appearance as no longer being a calf (I'm not being facitious).
Please reply to my question regarding the cow with antlers...I'm interested in hearing other opinions...although this may already be stated in fact somewhere else.
krazy
10-29-2008, 10:58 PM
Not so fast!!! A calf does not meet the definition of an antlered animal, which is a member of the deer family over one year old bearing visible boney antler. This being said how can it be a bull but not an antlered animal????? I think if you rely on one definition that this animal meets you may be making a big mistake.
The definition of Buck or Bull removes the age restiction you are refering to from deer moose or elk. It still remains for caribou. Here it is again:
Buck or Bull - with reference to deer, moose, or elk means one bearing visible bony antlers. Buck or Bull - with reference to caribou, means a male 1 year of age or over, bearing visible bony antlers.
You are hanging your hat on one definition but I think you need to look at all that apply. The "antlered animal" definition is very broad and general while the "buck or bull" definition is much more specific as it breaks it down into species.
1899, I totally agree with what your saying regarding duty, annuli, and identification of calf moose.
I look back at Mark's original post and it says 'small bull'....somehow we did turn this into a calf...even though that may not be the case.
Although my argument still stands on the wording of the regs, of all the 1/2 year old antlered animals I've ever seen, I don't recall one having anything that could be mistaken for an antler. I think realistically this is going to more often happen in the case of a 18 monther. (that's a new word:smile:). So I'm assuming with your argument, you then can shoot that bull because it can be identified by appearance as no longer being a calf (I'm not being facitious).
Please reply to my question regarding the cow with antlers...I'm interested in hearing other opinions...although this may already be stated in fact somewhere else.
I also haven't seen a calf with anything you could call an antler. I doubt such an animal exists. I think a cow with antlers would be fine to shoot - if such an animal exists. But I hesitate to get into a discussion of that, as we are already have enough to discuss.
Didn't Mark say his friend id'd the animal as a calf?
Fisher-Dude
10-29-2008, 10:58 PM
Guys, not that it means I can't make a mistake, but I look at legislation and consider interpretation pretty much every day. I am quite confident that FD and I are correct.
I do the same thing every day at work 1899. Reading legislation and interpreting contracts is a big part of my job. To those that don't do this regularly, it can be confusing if one doesn't take the ENTIRE piece of legislation into consideration and gets focussed on one narrow part of it (such as the bull definition not specifically excluding calves).
It's like reading that the speed limit is 50 kmh in one section, and then stating categorically that because it doesn't specifically say that school zones are 30 kmh in the section that defines where 50 kmh is, that you can do 50 in a 30 zone. We all know the $173 answer to that one! :shock:
First and foremost B O O M ! FLOP:D
calf is born male no antlers = calf
calf grows small antlers still in velvet = calf
calf rubs off velvet = Bull.
This is defined on page three and has been printed here repeatedly.
As soon as those Bony antlers are visible he becomes a bull.
The calf defintion comes into play for those hunting calves. So yearlings are not mistaken for calves.
I have seen calves born as early as March. These, if male, will be sporting head gear by Oct. I have also handled a calf killed during a Sept. calf LEH that I could pick up off the ground field dressed. My guess is it was born late July or early Aug.
Now, I 'll stir the pot a little. Those of you who don't argee that the animal in question was legal, Would you take a moose with three points on one side and two on the other, during a spike fork season, if he was with a cow and was less than five feet at the shoulder and had a distincly stubby face? This could easly be one of the little brown guys I repeatedly see when fishing steelhead in March. Especially if his father happend to have good antler genetics. As I understand it you would pass this moose as a calf. Correct?
Personally, I DON'T want the regs clarified any further, hunters who let eather of these guys walk increase my chances of sucsess.:wink:
Just my 2 c :roll:
I would like a c.o. corner , but I don't think it will happen. Too much liability.
O.K. 3 c
Jelvis
10-29-2008, 11:03 PM
Don't mess with krazy---krazy's got it right!---krazy 4 Sheriff.
Jel-krazy
Caveman
10-29-2008, 11:05 PM
Krazy, Show me where it states that one definition supersedes the others
Fisher-Dude
10-29-2008, 11:06 PM
Now if you look at the definition of antlered animal, it states that this a member of the deer family over one year of age bearing visible bony antlers, thus no calves would be defined as an antlered animal whether it had bony protusions or not.
Ding! Thanks JML, I wanna ask all the would-be shooters of this calf HOW do they punch their tag out correctly in the "antlered" or "antlerless" section, since in order for it to be "antlered" it must be over one year of age per the regulations - so do you punch out the antlerless section of your tag? BUT, there's NO antlerless season. Uh-oh!
Go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200. :biggrin:
jrjonesy
10-29-2008, 11:09 PM
I just re read the first post so I'm not sure if it was later identified as a calf. Can't be bothered to sift through it all.
Being a controller, CGA, and also having 15 years experience in an accounting firm dealing with tax, I believe I have some experience in dealing with contracts, etc such as FD....although I don't claim have to have any official legal knowledge as it appears 1899 does. I think I've tried to be pretty open to your opinions here and discuss everything in a civilized manner. I'm not quite sure why you felt it necessary to question my honesty in my comments regarding the cow moose with antlers. That's pretty off.
It appears that rather than say this is discussed to death (as we don't at this point know the true intentions of the regs), you and FD have thought it better to essential just post that "hey, we're smarter than all of you so just believe us". Time for bed...
krazy
10-29-2008, 11:16 PM
Krazy, Show me where it states that one definition supersedes the others
I don't think one supercedes the other .... I think one is a general definition (antlered animals) that is further clarified by another definition (bulls or bucks). They can both be correct ... one is just more specific than the other.
ie) the "antlered animal" definition does not say ALL members of the deer family ... it says a member of the deer family. The "buck or bull" definition clarifies the members of the deer family (deer, moose or elk) that are treated differently than the others (ie caribou), with respect to age, for the purpose of regs pertaining to that particular definition ... ie. the spike-fork bull season.
On another note (sort of)... this discussion is about moose but in terms of deer, and according to your application of the "antlered animal" definition then would you also say that it is illegal to take an antlered deer under the age of 1 year during an any buck season?
I wanna ask all the would-be shooters of this calf HOW do they punch their tag out correctly in the "antlered" or "antlerless" section, since in order for it to be "antlered" it must be over one year of age per the regulations
Intersting, I admit. However I am hunting spike or fork bulls. Since bulls are antlered as this moose clearly is I cut out antlered.
Fisher-Dude
10-29-2008, 11:17 PM
No one said they were smarter, just that they may have more experience with legislation and interpretation. Just because I can't fix an automatic transmission doesn't make me less smart than the guy at Aamco. He might not know how to gut a moose, doesn't mean I'm smarter than he is, just that he doesn't have the experience with moose.
Fisher-Dude
10-29-2008, 11:21 PM
Intersting, I admit. However I am hunting spike or fork bulls. Since bulls are antlered as this moose clearly is I cut out antlered.
You can't punch out antlered if it doesn't meet the definition of antlered, which is over 12 months of age AND having bone, clearly stated in the regs. It must meet BOTH criteria to be considered antlered, not just one.
Jelvis
10-29-2008, 11:26 PM
Any one boney antler showing itself to the hunter = spike
cuz baby moose---don't have bony antlers--2-young born in end of May/beginning of June. Moose breed in region 3 around October's first week. Add gestation period=June
So milk sucking babies don't have antlers in the loops.
At least never seen one yet a six month baby with antlers?
lol. Be realistically biological my friends too young.
Jel-like a baby with a beard. lmao that's funny.
jrjonesy
10-29-2008, 11:39 PM
FD, posts all well taken, including the ''Smart' one:smile:. Can't sleep:?.
Humour me if I go at this from a different angle.
Take my cow with antlers situation. Rare, but does occur at least in both deer and moose populations resulting from high testosterone levels. Probably no more rare than true 6 month old calves with the antlers that we are currently discussing.
A new hunter shoots one of these. Using your reasoning with cow definition and cow seasons, what would be the ramifications. THe only out I see here is that it appears from the regs that a cow is only a cow if it doesn't have antlers....otherwise it must be a bull. Sounds weird heh? Would that mean that a bull with no antlers then becomes a cow?:smile:
That would mean that even though you've shot a cow moose, which is illegal, you have not broken the law. Could this also transend to the Calf situation?
I'm just stating my thoughts and asking your opinion.
Gateholio
10-30-2008, 12:17 AM
SO, did Mark ever give the CO's decision? I didn't want to wade through it lal on dial up!:tongue:
hunter1947
10-30-2008, 05:55 AM
If it has bone showing on this moose it is legal ,and in this case the hunter could see the antler growth.
It did not have button nipples with no bone showing.
The regs don't say what the length of the antlers should be on a spike-fork bull moose.
So if I had shot this moose and in this case I would have droped it and if the CO was going to charge me with an illegal animal he would loose this case in the courts.
Fisher-Dude
10-30-2008, 12:18 PM
FD, posts all well taken, including the ''Smart' one:smile:. Can't sleep:?.
Humour me if I go at this from a different angle.
Take my cow with antlers situation. Rare, but does occur at least in both deer and moose populations resulting from high testosterone levels. Probably no more rare than true 6 month old calves with the antlers that we are currently discussing.
A new hunter shoots one of these. Using your reasoning with cow definition and cow seasons, what would be the ramifications. THe only out I see here is that it appears from the regs that a cow is only a cow if it doesn't have antlers....otherwise it must be a bull. Sounds weird heh? Would that mean that a bull with no antlers then becomes a cow?:smile:
That would mean that even though you've shot a cow moose, which is illegal, you have not broken the law. Could this also transend to the Calf situation?
I'm just stating my thoughts and asking your opinion.
The cow has antlers, AND is over 12 months in age. It meets the antlered animal definition. The calf, however, doesn't, based solely on age.
To all those who think a 5 month old calf is indistinguishable from a 17 month old bull, may I suggest you take your CORE again. The bull will be 3 to 4 times the size of the calf, and have a big, wide, long snout, and black/brown glossy fur as compared to the little pointy-faced calf with brown fuzzy hair. HUGE difference. If a newbie is in doubt, DON'T SHOOT!
I'm amazed at how many seasoned hunters on here would break the law and want to fight it in court. Is killing an animal THAT important to you? :neutral:
jrjonesy
10-30-2008, 01:00 PM
I'm amazed at how many seasoned hunters on here would break the law and want to fight it in court. Is killing an animal THAT important to you? :neutral:
I haven't seen that from being involved in this post. I wouldn't shoot it because it's not worth it, but admittedly there are some posting that would shoot it while realizing they may be in for a fight. I think that most of the others posting on here that would shoot, firmly believe that there is no question about the legality. I think the whole point of this thread has been to prove that with the current regs, there is huge question as to the legality.
Thanks for replying to the cow question.
So here's another scenario. And please don't think I'm just trying to find some justification for shooting a calf because it's the least thing I'm interested in.
Let's just forget about the wording in the regs for a minute. Assume that is not intentially unclear.
What do you think the INTENT really is?
The reason I ask the question is this... We went from an immature bull to a spike-fork bull. The season originally would have been intended to hunt a sustainable herd while still protecting the older bulls in numbers to ensure "successful" breeding. I don't know that the calf question had ever been raised before but in going to a spike-fork definition, they appear to have put all their eggs in one basket. They likely did not intend it to include mature bulls with deformed or broken antlers however that was the result. So even though it isn't their intent, (and it is VERY easy to distinguish a bull with one 10 point antler and one 2 point antler as a mature bull) they have accepted that some older bulls will be killed. Does it not stand to reason that they would not be attempting to protect a calf (that meets the antler restrictions) from Harvest in those very limited situations? AFter all the intent is to protect older bulls (yet they are in fact allowing a limited Harvest)(and I'm not refering to LEH). I don't believe there is anywhere in the regs that requests you do not shoot calves (although that in itself isn't relevant).
hunter1947
10-30-2008, 01:31 PM
The cow has antlers, AND is over 12 months in age. It meets the antlered animal definition. The calf, however, doesn't, based solely on age.
To all those who think a 5 month old calf is indistinguishable from a 17 month old bull, may I suggest you take your CORE again. The bull will be 3 to 4 times the size of the calf, and have a big, wide, long snout, and black/brown glossy fur as compared to the little pointy-faced calf with brown fuzzy hair. HUGE difference. If a newbie is in doubt, DON'T SHOOT!
I'm amazed at how many seasoned hunters on here would break the law and want to fight it in court. Is killing an animal THAT important to you? :neutral:
FD What makes you think that this bull moose was not 17 months old and having a small growth ???.
straight from the mouth of the senior CO from Smithers:
"a calf will never have a bony protuberance, it will always be fur covered"
AND
"you can only harvest a calf if there is a calf season"
AND
"the intent of the spike-fork season is the harvest of animals over 1 year of age"
AND
"you can id a calf by its distinctive short face"
We went over the issues of the thread and those were the answers.
Ron.C
10-30-2008, 02:38 PM
To me it's pretty clear if you forget about the what if's as stated in the origional post.
The Moose in question has small clean bony protrusions. There are no tines, just a visible bone. So to LEGALLY call this visible bone an antler according to the Regs, the animal would have to be over a year old. Period.
If it is less than a year old, according to the Regs, it is not classed as an antlered animal, BUT, it still doesn't meet the description in the regs of an antlerless animal either. Either way, it's not a spike fork.
To me the only point of dispute here is it an antler or not, which in this case would come down to the age of the animal. If you shot this animal and a CO wished to challenge the legality of it by laying a charge, before you are found guilty and sentenced, it would have to be proven "to a court" that the animal was less than a year old. And if it was, you would be guilty.
to answer the origional question posted by Mark, If the moose body size was obviously in my oionion larger than a yearling calf " which I admit is an assumption but a safe one unless the calf is abnormally large and developed" and as Fisher Dude stated and I agree is easily identifyble not only by size but body features, I would have shot.
jrjonesy
10-30-2008, 03:34 PM
So from the provided information so far, in regards to INTENT, this is how this appears to be summarized.
- A Calf has a calf season therefore it can ONLY be harvested during that specific season.
- IF a calf were to meet the antler SIZE requirement it could not be harvested because as per 1899's discussion with a CO it can only be harvested in a calf season.
- A mature bull has an "any bull" season and can therefore only be harvested during that season
- IF however a mature bull is unfortunate enough to meet the antler requirements of the spike-fork, it now becomes legal during a different season.
- a cow moose can only be harvested during a cow moose season.
- IF however a cow moose is unfortunate enough to have high testosterone levels and meet the antler requirements of the spike fork, it now becomes legal during a different season.
So for two of the above they can become legal during a different season but the other can't. Remember I'm only talking how it appears the intent of the regs are...we've discussed the wording to death.
1899, thanks for the input from the senior CO. I would suggest that as a senior, he would know the INTENT of the regs in order to properly enforce them. From an INTENT perspective however does the above summary appear CONSISTENT to you.
We're basically just dealing in what ifs here for the fun of it because I think we've all excepted that the chance of seeing a 6 month old that qualifies is slim to none.
I had to run off, hence my short post. I should point out that I tried to contact several CO's from different regions. I talked to 2 biologists, from two different regions. The biologists initially thought the calf with antlers would be legal. The short question was, "would a calf, that is a moose under 12 months old, that has a bony protuberance, not covered by fur or velvet, be legal to harvest in a spike-fork season?"
Then I asked numerous questions regarding the definition of "antlered animal" etc etc. Both of them then said they see the problem and directed me to a CO. One of them gave me the direct number to the CO, advising me he was the senior CO for the region, I talked to in Smithers.
One of the biologists said nobody had ever pointed the problem out to them and that he would bring it up at the next meeting where they seek input for regulation updates.
Based on my coversation with the CO I stand by my position that I would not shoot a calf moose with bony protuberances on its head in a spike-fork season.
BTW, the CO knew of this site and said he sometimes visits. Perhaps he will add to my post if I have inadvertantly misquoted him.
straight from the mouth of the senior CO from Smithers:
"a calf will never have a bony protuberance, it will always be fur covered"
AND
"you can only harvest a calf if there is a calf season"
AND
"the intent of the spike-fork season is the harvest of animals over 1 year of age"
AND
"you can id a calf by its distinctive short face"
We went over the issues of the thread and those were the answers.
1899, thank you for your continued efforts to get to the bottom of this problem. If we accept what this CO said as the FINAL LAW.
And I quote..... "a calf will never have a bony protuberance, it will always be fur covered"
That statement right there says that the moose I described is 100% legal. By his statement if a moose (regardless of size or shape) has visible boney stuff on his head, then it cannot be a calf, therefore it must be a bull!
Anyone still bent on the antlered animal def. is on the wrong track. As Krazy clearly pointed out that covers a broader spectrum, were not talking about elk, caribou, or jackalopes for that matter:-P. Were talking about hunting a "bull moose with less than 2 tines" So go to that definition, not something else that covers other areas, the 1 year thing is so far out the window it shouldnt even be discussed anymore!!!!!
Personally I disagree with that statement from the CO as theres no hard rules in nature, and I for 1 have certainly seen such lil spikes on fawns killed in doe seasons! So if a male fawn can poke through lil spikes, why not an early born moose with good genes and food intake????? Doesnt matter anyways cuz my buddy and his son have both seen one at very close range with binos and were 1000% sure about it!
Obviously the CO's word is not the final decision on the law. As I pointed out earlier, it is a judge's decision. But if the senior CO of Region 6 says you can only shoot a calf in a calf season, then I strongly believe that anyone caught with a calf better have shot it in calf season. Otherwise they will be charged. As I also mentioned earlier, I don't know if the charges would stick in court; given the current state of the regulations I think you'd have a decent shot at "winning".
I have the name and phone number of one other CO, maybe I'll call him in the morning. Although you already have a lawyer's and a senior CO's opinion, so I don't really think it will change your mind. Hey, and that's fair enough. Charges can get thrown out and legislation can get struck down for vagueness.
I'm not going to argue the point any further. We can agree to disagree. I should add that just because we disagree doesn't mean I don't see and understand your point of view. PM me if you actually do have a problem and I'll try to do my best to help out.
T300WSM
10-30-2008, 07:49 PM
This has been a very good topic and good to read the posts.
Let me tell you what I read in the regs......the key words or phrases are "spike fork" and "visibale bony antler"......looks clear to me. I also see that the use of "immature" is not as common in the regs now.
kloosterboer
10-30-2008, 08:05 PM
[quote=mark;349889]Klooster, have you even read the def of a bull???? It certainly doesnt have to be 1 year old!
quote]
Ya i have and would u not agree that a bull must be an antlered animal? And for it to be an antlered animal it must be atleast one year old.
Obviously the CO's word is not the final decision on the law. As I pointed out earlier, it is a judge's decision. But if the senior CO of Region 6 says you can only shoot a calf in a calf season, then I strongly believe that anyone caught with a calf better have shot it in calf season. Otherwise they will be charged. As I also mentioned earlier, I don't know if the charges would stick in court; given the current state of the regulations I think you'd have a decent shot at "winning".
I have the name and phone number of one other CO, maybe I'll call him in the morning. Although you already have a lawyer's and a senior CO's opinion, so I don't really think it will change your mind. Hey, and that's fair enough. Charges can get thrown out and legislation can get struck down for vagueness.
I'm not going to argue the point any further. We can agree to disagree. I should add that just because we disagree doesn't mean I don't see and understand your point of view. PM me if you actually do have a problem and I'll try to do my best to help out.
1899, From what the CO said, the moose I described is not a calf, because it has visible bone on its head, because of this, it cannot be a calf (according to him).Therefore... we have to realize that the minute a male calf rubs the velvet off his nubs he enters the definition of a bull with less than 2 points, thus making him legal game by definition of the regs!!!!!!!!
[quote=mark;349889]Klooster, have you even read the def of a bull???? It certainly doesnt have to be 1 year old!
quote]
Ya i have and would u not agree that a bull must be an antlered animal? And for it to be an antlered animal it must be atleast one year old.
No Klooster, an antlered animal covers a broader range of animals, were not "antlered animal hunting today" We're "bull moose hunting today"......Sooo see definition for "bull moose" before hunting one!
The fishing regs say I can keep a fish, but if Im fishing for sturgen I better check out what it says for sturgen as its more specific, get it now Kloost!
Steeleco
10-30-2008, 08:18 PM
Obviously the CO's word is not the final decision on the law. As I pointed out earlier, it is a judge's decision.
Agreed. But in the field the CO's decision is the only one that matters. And should you need to dispute his/her decision your meat is gone and your wallet is getting cleaned!!
Hopefully some new and CLEAR definition will come of this excellent thread.
Thanks Mark
Agreed. But in the field the CO's decision is the only one that matters. And should you need to dispute his/her decision your meat is gone and your wallet is getting cleaned!!
Hopefully some new and CLEAR definition will come of this excellent thread.
Thanks Mark
Which is why I put "winner" in quotation marks.
hunter1947
10-31-2008, 07:58 AM
Obviously the CO's word is not the final decision on the law. As I pointed out earlier, it is a judge's decision. But if the senior CO of Region 6 says you can only shoot a calf in a calf season, then I strongly believe that anyone caught with a calf better have shot it in calf season. Otherwise they will be charged. As I also mentioned earlier, I don't know if the charges would stick in court; given the current state of the regulations I think you'd have a decent shot at "winning".
I have the name and phone number of one other CO, maybe I'll call him in the morning. Although you already have a lawyer's and a senior CO's opinion, so I don't really think it will change your mind. Hey, and that's fair enough. Charges can get thrown out and legislation can get struck down for vagueness.
I'm not going to argue the point any further. We can agree to disagree. I should add that just because we disagree doesn't mean I don't see and understand your point of view. PM me if you actually do have a problem and I'll try to do my best to help out.
All CO have different opinions on what they would judge on an animal.
As I said earlier if there is antler grout the has identifiable bone sticking up it is legal in my books.
If for some reason this animal was this years calf and it the antler bone broke through the men brain and had 2 or 3 inch growth on them ,then there has to be a change in the regs ,I myself probably would not shoot a bull of this size anyway but others might so thats why this issue should be solved..
Thank you 1899 for looking into this issue http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif.
Now, I 'll stir the pot a little. Those of you who don't argee that the animal in question was legal, Would you take a moose with three points on one side and two on the other, during a spike fork season, if he was with a cow and was less than five feet at the shoulder and had a distincly stubby face? This could easly be one of the little brown guys I repeatedly see when fishing steelhead in March. Especially if his father happend to have good antler genetics. As I understand it you would pass this moose as a calf. Correct?
O.K. 3 c
Any takers?!?!?:twisted:
Any takers?!?!?:twisted:
The answer is still the same for me. If it is a calf then no.
I talked to another CO on friday. We had a really good discussion and he ended up giving me an email address to the people who will give us a definative answer. I sent them an email and expect to have a definative answer this week.
I will post the response as soon as I get it.
Looking forward to the reply. But I still think any lawyer worth half his/her salt would kick the living daylights out of this.
mrdoog
11-01-2008, 09:57 PM
This part of Caveman's quiz, isn't it?
Seeing moose with stubby faces and 2x3 antlers in March?
HMMMMM.
OK, I'll bite:
-don't moose generally give birth in the spring?
-don't moose generally lose their antlers late winter/earl spring?
So by the time hunting season rolls around the moose you're seeing in March will be well over a year old.
I'm guessing they lose their stubby faces pretty quick once the male hormones start flowing.
So to answer your question, yes it would probably be considered a calf in March, but not in the fall of that year.
So many of you keep calling it a calf????? regardless of size, or head shape, the minute a "moose" has visible exposed bone on its head its a bull!!!!! Therefore 100% legal!
This part of Caveman's quiz, isn't it?
Seeing moose with stubby faces and 2x3 antlers in March?
HMMMMM.
OK, I'll bite:
-don't moose generally give birth in the spring?
-don't moose generally lose their antlers late winter/earl spring?
So by the time hunting season rolls around the moose you're seeing in March will be well over a year old.
I'm guessing they lose their stubby faces pretty quick once the male hormones start flowing.
So to answer your question, yes it would probably be considered a calf in March, but not in the fall of that year.
I think they're considered calves until a new calf crop is born the following spring.
Um..........I guess I didn't quite make myself clear. I have seen calves born within say 2 weeks. (little brown guys) While Steelhead fishing in march.
No they dont have antlers yet ( I am sure their mothers are thankfull) but eight months later, Oct of that same calender year (NOT a year later) they can and do grow antlers. Some of which may be substantial. (They also change from paper bag brown to Black.) Thus makeing them bulls and fair game. ( The visible bony antlers not the hair colour makes them legal)
My mistake my have been not quoteing more of my original post on page 17.
My question still stands.
Would you take a moose with antlers in the presents of a cow, who is short and stubby faced?
ratherbefishin
11-01-2008, 10:41 PM
this is exactly why I don't bother going moose hunting in antler definition areas-you can make a decision in good faith-go to the CO,and get nailed for it,plus one CO might see it one way-another take a diferent view-who's to know?-it's their call..It might be fine in theory and on paper-but in the bush it's too easy to make a mistake.I'll only go in an ''any bull ''area or if I have an LEH.Maybe thats one reason why so many guys just don't go any mor.
hunter1947
11-02-2008, 06:52 AM
this is exactly why I don't bother going moose hunting in antler definition areas-you can make a decision in good faith-go to the CO,and get nailed for it,plus one CO might see it one way-another take a diferent view-who's to know?-it's their call..It might be fine in theory and on paper-but in the bush it's too easy to make a mistake.I'll only go in an ''any bull ''area or if I have an LEH.Maybe thats one reason why so many guys just don't go any mor.
Very good point RBF ,I feel the same way as you dohttp://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif .
hunter1947
11-02-2008, 07:40 AM
I have seen calf moose with there mother into the second year of life.
How many times have you others seen a fork or spike fork with there mothers into the second year ,this smallest legal spike moose might have been into his second year of life and has a small growth on the antlers dew to a for jean pool or other.
Oct of that same calender year (NOT a year later) they can and do grow antlers.
Not according to two experienced COs and a wildlife biologist. But what do they know?
I have seen calf moose with there mother into the second year of life.
They are no longer categorized as a calf when they hit their 2nd year.
one CO might see it one way-another take a diferent view-who's to know?-it's their call.
This "flexibility" is something the 2nd CO talked about - he actually talked about fawn deer with little spikes (which he said exist, contrary to moose calves, which he said never saw/heard of one with spikes). I don't want to say what he told me because he said he didn't want to be the one sticking his neck out as there is an appropriate avenue for getting the answer to this question.
Like I said, I'll post it when I get a reply.
hunter1947
11-02-2008, 08:49 AM
Not according to two experienced COs and a wildlife biologist. But what do they know?
They are no longer categorized as a calf when they hit their 2nd year.
This "flexibility" is something the 2nd CO talked about - he actually talked about fawn deer with little spikes (which he said exist, contrary to moose calves, which he said never saw/heard of one with spikes). I don't want to say what he told me because he said he didn't want to be the one sticking his neck out as there is an appropriate avenue for getting the answer to this question.
Like I said, I'll post it when I get a reply.
This calf moose that has this small growth of antlers might have been into his second year of life and still with the mother.
Tell me who would ever know this unless you shot this cafe and had a DND or other to find out the age ???.
As I said earlier the regs have to be changed on the antler growth in order to make it more clearer.
Any takers?!?!?:twisted:
I don't think it's possible for a calf of the year to have 2x3 antlers or even spikes.
I think we're making a mountain out of a molehill here. The regulation is sufficient, if it's got antlers it's a bull, if the antlers meet the definition he's legal game.. Calf moose don't grow antlers. I've seen cow moose being accompanied by a calf and a yearling which is likely last years calf. It's not difficult to identify a calf of the year.
Ambush
11-02-2008, 09:42 AM
I have shot somewhere between 12-15 immature bulls [LEH sucks]. I have seen likely close to 200 calves, though I've never shot one.
Our strategy was to use very high tree stands and spotting scopes in good areas. We found that starting later in October the small bulls would join up with the cows after the big guys were done.
If you saw a cow, keep looking , good chance a small bull will show.
This aproach gave us LOTS of time for observation and identification. When you see a 1 1/2 year old bull with an old mature cow there is a huge size difference, but he's no calf.
I have never seen a calf, in the fall, with horns. Fuzzy bumps, yes.
I have never actually seen a moose with only one inch boney spikes either, but not saying that doesn't happen.
I also think that the LEH has given us [in this area] a geneticly better moose. Because the best bull wins the cow, instead of getting shot, and letting a young, possibly inferior bull, to the breeding.
The cows genes are just as important as the bulls. So we want all the calves born to be of good stock.
Just my obsevation, but I do think that the yearling bull of today is, on average, a bigger, better bull. I see way more yearlings with small paddles now than 20 years ago.
Although LEH is not kind to me, I do realize that there are benifits. Ask any cattle rancher which stock he keeps for breeding to build a superior herd.
Same with deer. If people want to see more four points, quit shooting the bucks with big four point racks. All that's left to breed is deer that are geneticly engineered to grow three points. Maybe even big three points, but three points all same. {sorry, off topic}
If I saw a moose with boney spikes, with a cow or not, I would shoot it.
I have shot somewhere between 12-15 immature bulls [LEH sucks]. I have seen likely close to 200 calves, though I've never shot one.
Our strategy was to use very high tree stands and spotting scopes in good areas. We found that starting later in October the small bulls would join up with the cows after the big guys were done.
If you saw a cow, keep looking , good chance a small bull will show.
This aproach gave us LOTS of time for observation and identification. When you see a 1 1/2 year old bull with an old mature cow there is a huge size difference, but he's no calf.
I have never seen a calf, in the fall, with horns. Fuzzy bumps, yes.
I have never actually seen a moose with only one inch boney spikes either, but not saying that doesn't happen.
I also think that the LEH has given us [in this area] a geneticly better moose. Because the best bull wins the cow, instead of getting shot, and letting a young, possibly inferior bull, to the breeding.
The cows genes are just as important as the bulls. So we want all the calves born to be of good stock.
Just my obsevation, but I do think that the yearling bull of today is, on average, a bigger, better bull. I see way more yearlings with small paddles now than 20 years ago.
Although LEH is not kind to me, I do realize that there are benifits. Ask any cattle rancher which stock he keeps for breeding to build a superior herd.
Same with deer. If people want to see more four points, quit shooting the bucks with big four point racks. All that's left to breed is deer that are geneticly engineered to grow three points. Maybe even big three points, but three points all same. {sorry, off topic}
If I saw a moose with boney spikes, with a cow or not, I would shoot it.
I think you've hit the nail directly on the head Stringfling. It's not rocket science.
This calf moose that has this small growth of antlers might have been into his second year of life and still with the mother.
Tell me who would ever know this unless you shot this cafe and had a DND or other to find out the age ???.
As I said earlier the regs have to be changed on the antler growth in order to make it more clearer.
This year's calf is 1/2 the size or less than an animal in it's second year (at fall time). Remember that this year's calf will only be about 5 months old versus 17 months old next fall.
Here is a calf (less than 12 months old). Notice how short the animals face looks? It almost doesn't look right for a moose.
http://www.photoscanada.com/gallery/albums/moose/moose_and_calf.jpg
another calf:
http://douglloydphotography.com/mediac/400_0/media/DIR_9698/DIR_11267/calf~527.jpg
LAST year's bull (~15 months old):
http://douglloydphotography.com/mediac/400_0/media/DIR_9698/DIR_11267/bull~581.jpg
another picture:
http://douglloydphotography.com/mediac/400_0/media/DIR_9698/DIR_11267/bull~566.jpg
Here is a cow with last year's bull. Compare their sizes and head structure:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3124/2864957618_3d03b750ba.jpg?v=0
Does that help?
hunter1947
11-02-2008, 10:21 AM
Ya I know the difference of a 6 month old calf to a 17 month old moose.
What I am saying is that this person that did not shoot this moose it could have been a 17 month old bull moose still with its mother at this age with antlers that are small spikes so it makes it legal to shoot it.
1899 Who would know unless you or I was there to see the whole pic on what this moose looked like ??.http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif
Freshtracks
11-02-2008, 10:55 AM
My take ... after wading through this thread ... which has some very good debates pro and con.
We're all hunters by sport.
We all are bound by a synopsis that gives us open seasons and legalities we're bound by. Now how one determines this info is the responsibilty of said hunter to ensure he act accordingly. If an interpretation is grey ... then it's up to you to ensure it's clear.
We're out moose hunting, no LEH, legal spike/2 point season. See a moose. You ask yourself 2 questions.
1) Is it a spike/2point bull?
2) Is it a calf?
Scenerio ... you make a call based on those two scenerio's if you are clear on the synopsis. Questioning ones non-shot IMO ... means you take great pride in your recreation.
Now debating the clearity of what the actual legality of a spike/2 point bull is after the fact? A simple call, IF UNCLEAR to your local CO would have resolved that.
IS the definition in the synopsis unclear? Not in my opinion.
Hence the moose lives to grow bigger.
kgriz
11-02-2008, 06:01 PM
Had a big explanation and then noticed I missed the part about antlered animal.........I guess that if you have to research 4 or 5 definitions to shoot an animal for meat especially the regs definitely need changing.
hunter1947
11-03-2008, 06:24 AM
What I think should be implemented in the regs for antler growth on a calf is that one side of ether antler should be a fork branch and the one point off the main beam being at least 2.5 cm in length ,just my thoughts ???? :roll:.
Then there would be no problems with misunder standing the antler growth on what is legal and what is not ???? :roll:.
Great read all. Thanks.
I think for the most part I agree with 1899 and FD. (Yes FD, put a mark on the wall) 1899 summarized what I would be thinking in the field.
1. If it is a calf (less than 12 months old) it is illegal.
2. If it is a bull (more than one year old and therefore not a calf) and has a visible bony antlers, with two or less points on one side it is legal.
If it's a calf (#1), it likely has great genes and is showing it will grow to be a brute. If it's a bull (fits #2), it should be culled as having poor genes.
The regs are somewhat ambiguous in this regard and simply for lack of clarity could lead probably 50% of the hunters astray.
Rather than add definitions to the regs, perhaps simplify the regs in the area to "calf or immature". Less reg, less reading, rather than more.
Caveman
11-06-2008, 07:46 PM
Here is the response to the E-mail I sent to the Fish & Wildlife you may all find interesting to read[/B]
Hello Greg,
Thank you for your email dated October 29, 2008, regarding the distinction between calf and spike-fork moose. Your inquiry has been forwarded to me for response.
It is apparent by reading the online forum that clarification of this component of the annual hunting and trapping synopsis is required. Ministry of Environment staff are aware of the issue, and will be taking steps to develop a more coherent definition for the 2009-2010 hunting and trapping synopsis.
The following provides some background on the development of a spike-fork moose season. This may give you an idea as to the direction the Fish and Wildlife Branch will go in clarification of "what is legal to harvest during a spike-fork bull moose season?".
Bull moose are a highly desired big game species. With some exceptions, any bull GOS seasons are not sustainable in BC due to high hunter demand.
When conservation becomes a concern (i.e. when demand exceeds supply), various regulations may be implemented to control the bull harvest within sustainable limits.
LEH is one mechanism to control the bull harvest, but because it limits hunter participation, it is generally least favoured by hunters.
Other mechanisms for controlling the bull harvest are antler point regulations during the GOS. Currently BC provides 3 types of antler regulations: spike-fork bull, tripalm bull and 10 point bull.
Of the 3 regulations, the spike-fork bull is most commonly used. This is because it focuses the harvest on immature (yearling) bulls.
A spike-fork moose means a bull moose having no more than two tines on one antler (see page 4 of the 2008-09 Hunting and Trapping Synopsis). A tine if defined as a branch of an antler that is at least 2.5 cm (1 inch) in length
Studies have shown that generally no more than 50% of yearling bulls have the spike-fork antler configuration. Thus, it is considered a safe regulation because it ensures that enough yearling bulls will survive the hunting season to become mature bulls.
Occasionally, a male calf moose may be observed during the fall with small "button" antlers caused by rubbing the skin and hair off the forehead. The spike-fork definition was not intended to include these calves.
Thank you for bringing this issue to the attention of the Ministry.
Sincerely,
Stephen MacIver
Senior Wildlife Regulations Officer
Fish and Wildlife Branch
Ministry of Environment
Phone (250) 387-9767
Fax (250) 387-0239
Email: stephen.maciver@gov.bc.ca
Caveman
11-06-2008, 08:43 PM
Occasionally, a male calf moose may be observed during the fall with small "button" antlers caused by rubbing the skin and hair off the forehead. The spike-fork definition was not intended to include these calves.
So what do you think?? At least we know we can get responses to our questions
[/color][/b]
So what do you think?? At least we know we can get responses to our questions
The intent of the regulation is pretty clear, thanks for your efforts Caveman.
Dannybuoy
11-06-2008, 09:00 PM
Well done Caveman ... after this thread it had me wondering exactly what was a intended etc . I for one have a much better understanding !
Thanks for posting that Caveman.
Caveman
11-06-2008, 09:27 PM
My question still stands.
Would you take a moose with antlers in the presents of a cow, who is short and stubby faced?
Not if he is standing near her and the size difference is very apparent. A yearling is going to be smaller in body weight, but height is going to be very close
Almost all the Spike/Fork moose (12) I have shot have been in the presence of a cow. I think that most times it is last years male calf yet to be chased off by a dominant male looking for love.
jrjonesy
11-06-2008, 10:18 PM
Thanks for posting Caveman. This clearly defines the INTENT of the season, of which my conclusion had been wrong.
I still believe however that if this is the intent of the season, the new regs should stipulate clearly that a mature bull with multiple branches on one antler and only two on the other should not be legal. Where do you draw the line...let the ministry decide. Maybe if it is palmated on one side or has more than 5 points. I don't know if any or many such bulls are actually killed as spike-forks but it would be worth the effort to try and minimize it.
Caveman
11-06-2008, 10:23 PM
Thanks for posting Caveman. This clearly defines the INTENT of the season, of which my conclusion had been wrong.
I still believe however that if this is the intent of the season, the new regs should stipulate clearly that a mature bull with multiple branches on one antler and only two on the other should not be legal. Where do you draw the line...let the ministry decide. Maybe if it is palmated on one side or has more than 5 points. I don't know if any or many such bulls are actually killed as spike-forks but it would be worth the effort to try and minimize it.
I know of an 8x2 taken last year and my neighbor has a 6x2 from several years back. I called and talked to someone in Victoria last year and the response was that it would be legal because they are rare. A deformity that doesn't make great breeding stock anyways. As you said though, maybe in all this some clarity will come in the Regs next season
boxhitch
11-06-2008, 11:08 PM
maybe in all this some clarity will come in the Regs next seasonGlad this one is settled. Now we can move on to the next 'what if' loophole in the regs and bash that to $#!t.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.