Wilderness Trapping and Living


No Profanity *** No Flaming *** No Advertising *** No Anti Trappers *** No Politics
No Non-Target Catches *** No Links to Anti-trapping Sites *** No Avoiding Profanity Filter


Home~Trap Talk~ADC Forum~Trap Shed~Wilderness Trapping~International Trappers~Fur Handling

Auction Forum~Trapper Tips~Links~Gallery~Basic Sets~Convention Calendar~Chat~ Trap Collecting Forum

Trapper's Humor~Strictly Trapping~Fur Buyers Directory~Mugshots~Fur Sale Directory~Wildcrafting

Trapper's Tales~Words From The Past~Legends~Archives~Kids Forum~Lure Formulators Forum


~Dobbins' Catalog~

ATS
(Please support Ted's Fur Shed, our sponsor for the Wilderness Page)


Alaska Trappers Association

Print Thread
Hop To
Defense of life and Property in Alaska #7487772
02/07/22 01:22 AM
02/07/22 01:22 AM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,489
Moved to Fbks, Ak.
M
martentrapper Offline OP
trapper
martentrapper  Offline OP
trapper
M

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,489
Moved to Fbks, Ak.
I'll assume most of you know about the DLP law that allows folks to kill wildlife out of season to protect property and lives. The law requires the shooter or person who kills the animal to salvage the required parts of the animal, either meat or hide. Salvage means to take the required parts to a place for human use or to a F&G office. A trooper office would probably suffice as well.
Last winter, a mushing kennel owner outside of Fairbanks fired off a shotgun during the night to scare off a cow and calf that had been getting in his dog yard. However, the next morning he discovered his "scare" shot had hit the cow and she was alive but seriously wounded. He called a wildlife trooper who responded and decided to put the cow down. The calf was possibly old enough to survive on it's own. Instead of instructing the kennel owner to complete the salvage requirement, he called the next name on the charity list who agreed to come take care of the cow. I found out about this because the charity person asked someone to salvage the animal for them and that person asked me to help. I asked the trooper why the kennel owner who killed the cow wasn't required to salvage it and he said he often calls the charity name if the animal is close enough to town.
This past week a moose attacked a dog team and almost got the musher too. It was killed in Defense of life and property. According to the newsminer story, the mushers friends hauled the moose out to the nearest road where the troopers called the next name on the charity list to come salvage it. The musher, or killer, of the moose was absolved of the legal DLP salvage requirement.

The DLP salvage requirement is supposed to serve as a deterrent to DLP. We don't want folks to get the idea they can kill wildlife out of season and walk away with no responsibility for the death. I'm bothered by the troopers lack of properly applying the salvage requirement. Not only is the person responsible for the deaths in these 2 cases off the hook, the public who reads, or hears of, these instances gets the wrong idea and may also think they can kill wildlife with no consequences.
I suspect that people like us, known hunters, trappers, outdoorsmen, would not be treated the same by enforcement!

Re: Defense of life and Property in Alaska [Re: martentrapper] #7487795
02/07/22 03:16 AM
02/07/22 03:16 AM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 9,154
Alaska and Washington State
W
waggler Offline
trapper
waggler  Offline
trapper
W

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 9,154
Alaska and Washington State
I suspect your last sentence is correct.
However, I'll bet a lot of people who shoot in DLP don't know how to properly take care of a game animal, or would do a terrible job in doing it.
Maybe they could be given an option to salvage it by themselves or pay a set fee if they opt for someone else to take on the project.


"My life is better than your vacation"
Re: Defense of life and Property in Alaska [Re: waggler] #7487906
02/07/22 08:16 AM
02/07/22 08:16 AM
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,420
Idaho
B
bearcat2 Offline
trapper
bearcat2  Offline
trapper
B

Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,420
Idaho
Originally Posted by waggler
I suspect your last sentence is correct.
However, I'll bet a lot of people who shoot in DLP don't know how to properly take care of a game animal, or would do a terrible job in doing it.
Maybe they could be given an option to salvage it by themselves or pay a set fee if they opt for someone else to take on the project.


I agree with your first two sentences, I've dealt with "donated" animals. I gaurantee one thing, I would be starving before I ate out of one of those "hunters for hunger" kitchens!

Second problem I see, which may very well be what the troopers are trying to alleviate, is that many of these "charity cases" are just looking for a free handout, they don't want to have to do any work themselves, I've dealt with that plenty. As a guide, we have a lot of people who fly out and hunt, then hual their weight limit of meat back on the plane (either 50 or 100 pounds, over that they charge so much for freight that it isn't economical) and then ask if we have a needy family to donate the rest to. There are always plenty of people who want it, at least until you call them up and say,"it is hanging in the walk-in cooler, come and get it." They want it cut and wrapped and preferrably delivered, they don't actually want to do any work to help themselves out.

Because of that I have some sympathy with the troopers calling the charity cases to come take care of it, and if I was a charity case myself, I would certainly prefer to take care of it myself rather than get the mess left by someone else who was never going to eat it. This of course assumes that the charity case is capable of doing so.

I'm not in Alaska, and don't have any right to comment on what your laws should be, just a little food for thought from my personal experience.

Re: Defense of life and Property in Alaska [Re: martentrapper] #7488145
02/07/22 01:08 PM
02/07/22 01:08 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,489
Moved to Fbks, Ak.
M
martentrapper Offline OP
trapper
martentrapper  Offline OP
trapper
M

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,489
Moved to Fbks, Ak.
The people on the charity list aren't folks who need the freeby. Anyone can get on the list. The charity list has been around a while. It's purpose is to relieve the state, I.e. Troopers, of having to deal with ROADKILLS! Alaska gets a lot of roadkill moose in winter. In a DLP scenario the charity, if one is even called, isn't called until the meat is delivered to F&G. Bear hides are kept by the state and sold later.
I'm sure plenty, if not most, folks who kill wildlife under DLP are not experienced hunters. That shouldn't be an excuse to excuse them from the law. If nothing else, the DLP person could be given a few names on the charity list to HELP, not excuse the shooter from the law.

Re: Defense of life and Property in Alaska [Re: martentrapper] #7488192
02/07/22 02:29 PM
02/07/22 02:29 PM
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 376
fairbanks,ak.
isnarewolves Offline
trapper
isnarewolves  Offline
trapper

Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 376
fairbanks,ak.
martentrapper, good topic of discussion. So when you read law, a person can do this a couple of ways. You can read it as to the "letter of the law". This means, as it is stated, with no flexibility. The other way you can read law is. What is the "intent or spirit" of the law. Both law enforcement and the court system have a long history of using or interpreting the law, by both methods.
Why is this? Some laws can be written, that clear and concise and the public, law enforcement and the court system,readliy understand it. "You must come to a complete stop at a stop sign". Other laws can not be so simplify wrote to cover all situations. DLP falls under this. Most all law enforcement and ADF&G will enforce this law by the intent or spirit.
The DLP law was not indented to punish or to deter a person from protecting themselves or property. It was wrote to hold the person using DLP to be held accountable and the animal taken is salvaged.
Martentrapper, you are correct, the law states the person taking game must immediately salvage it. This is where the spirit of the law can play in. The musher in this case, according to the news release stated the ordeal lasted an hour. It is easy to assume a normal person in this situation may not have had the mental or physical ability to complete the salvage process. After defending their life and watching their dog team getting stomped and finding help. One more scenario why this law as written does not work as to the "letter of the law" and happens at least once a year. A person hiking in the summer, gets attached by a grizzly bear. The hiker is badly wounded from the bear attack, but the hikers was able to kill the grizzly. How does this hiker immediately salvage the the hide and skull with claws attached to the hide, with a broke leg and his/her head is profusely bleeding?


Life is hard. It's even harder if your stupid!
Re: Defense of life and Property in Alaska [Re: martentrapper] #7488218
02/07/22 03:05 PM
02/07/22 03:05 PM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,064
Wasilla AK
HFT AK Offline
trapper
HFT AK  Offline
trapper

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,064
Wasilla AK
I cant see getting wrapped around the axel over the troopers calling someone on the list to come and retrieve the animal for a few reasons. Waggler is spot on about maybe that person doesnt know how to handle or care for the meat. So the troopers call someone that knows how to, that will put the meat to good use that wont waste it and your upset about that?
It also takes away incentive for someone to shoot an animal for meat or trophy value. Why shoot it if you have to turn it over to the state?
Now I am pretty sure that if someone has to put a animal down in a DLP situation the last thing from their mind is having to clean it. That probably aint even a blip in their thought process when stuff goes south.
I have alot of respect for the troopers in my area and feel that 99.9 percent of the decisions they make in regard to wildlife and wildlife violations are spot on.
If you think a list of helpers would benefit, then recommend it to the appropriate source.

bearcat2 none of what you wrote even remotely relates to the roadkill program we have up here.

Re: Defense of life and Property in Alaska [Re: martentrapper] #7488437
02/07/22 07:20 PM
02/07/22 07:20 PM
Joined: Feb 2021
Posts: 2,363
Interior Alaska
O
Oh Snap Offline
trapper
Oh Snap  Offline
trapper
O

Joined: Feb 2021
Posts: 2,363
Interior Alaska
I have not read the laws on salvaging but isn’t road kills and DLS salvage different?

Also if someone is in the middle of nowhere like trappers and mushers and after a DLS issue and like the recent musher with damaged or dead dogs required to salvage?


I love the smell of burning spruce---I love the sound of a spring time goose---I love the feel of 40 below---from my trapline I will never go!
Re: Defense of life and Property in Alaska [Re: Oh Snap] #7488532
02/07/22 08:33 PM
02/07/22 08:33 PM
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 376
fairbanks,ak.
isnarewolves Offline
trapper
isnarewolves  Offline
trapper

Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 376
fairbanks,ak.
Oh Snap, salvage is the same for DLP and road kill, All "edible" meat. The law is the same if you are in rural parts of the state. You still have to salvage (if you are able) and report and surrender. The difference maybe, once you contact (at whatever point you can report it), the authority may let you have it, because of logistics.
This is why i was trying to point out there are very few cookie cutter laws, that are black and white. While the law is there and for everyone, circumstances may dictate of how the law is applied.


Life is hard. It's even harder if your stupid!
Re: Defense of life and Property in Alaska [Re: martentrapper] #7488536
02/07/22 08:35 PM
02/07/22 08:35 PM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,064
Wasilla AK
HFT AK Offline
trapper
HFT AK  Offline
trapper

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,064
Wasilla AK
Oh Snap I do not believe there is any differance when it comes to moose. Bears I am uncertain of, all the ones I have recieved from F/G were quarted out so I assume they follow the same guidlines as outlined below.

As for the second question isnarewolves pretty much covered that with what he wrote and Ross had posted on the ATA FB page the process that is suppose to happen.

5 AAC 92.410. Taking game in defense of life or property
(a) Nothing in 5 AAC prohibits a person from taking game in defense of life or property if
(1) the necessity for the taking is not brought about by harassment or provocation of the animal, or by an unreasonable invasion of the animal's habitat;
(2) the necessity for the taking is not brought about by the improper disposal of garbage or a similar attractive nuisance; and
(3) all other practicable means to protect life and property are exhausted before the game is taken.
(b) Game taken in defense of life or property is the property of the state. A person taking game under this subsection shall immediately
(1) salvage and surrender to the department the
(A) hide and skull of a bear, completely removed from the carcass, and including all attached claws;
(B) hide and skull of fur animals or furbearers;
(C) meat and antlers or horns of ungulates;
(D) meat of all other game not specified in (A) - (C) of this paragraph;
(2) notify the department of the taking; and
(3) submit to the department a completed questionnaire concerning the circumstances of taking of the game within 15 days after taking the game.
(c) As used in this section, "property" means
(1) a dwelling, permanent or temporary;
(2) an aircraft, boat, automobile, or other conveyance;
(3) a domesticated animal;
(4) other property of substantial value necessary for the livelihood or survival of the owner.

5 AAC 92.220. Salvage of game meat, furs, and hides
(a) Subject to additional requirements in 5 AAC 84 - 5 AAC 85, a person taking game shall salvage the following parts for human use:
(1) the hide of a wolf, wolverine, coyote, fox, lynx, marten, mink, fisher, weasel, and land otter, and the hide or meat of a beaver, muskrat, pika, ground squirrel, or marmot;
(2) the hide and skull of a brown bear, except as provided in (5) of this section;
(3) from January 1 through May 31, the hide, skull, and edible meat as defined in 5 AAC 92.990, from June 1 through December 31, the skull and either the hide or edible meat of a black bear taken in a game management unit in which sealing is required;
(4) from January 1 through May 31, the edible meat, and from June 1 through December 31, either the hide, or the edible meat as defined in 5 AAC 92.990, of a black bear taken in any game management unit in which sealing is not required; however, from June 1 through December 31, the edible meat of a black bear taken by a resident hunter taking black bear under customary and traditional use activities at a den site from October 15 through April 30, in Unit 19(A), that portion of the Kuskokwim River drainage within Unit 19(D) upstream from the Selatna River drainage and the Black River drainage, and in Units 21(B), 21(C), 21(D), 24, and 25(D) must be salvaged;
(5) all meat of the ribs, neck, brisket, front quarters, hindquarters, and the meat along the backbone between the front and hindquarters of a brown bear taken under a subsistence registration permit in Unit 9(B), all drainages in Unit 9(E) that drain into the Pacific Ocean between Cape Kumliun and the border of Unit 9(D) and Unit 9(E), Unit 17, Unit 18, that portion of Units 19(A) and 19(B) downstream of and including the Aniak River drainage, Unit 21(D), Unit 22, Unit 23, Unit 24, and Unit 26(A) shall be salvaged for human consumption; salvage of the hide or skull is optional;
(6) in addition to (d) of this section, the heart, liver, kidneys, and fat of caribou taken in 5 AAC 92.074(d) must be salvaged, and the head, heart, liver, kidneys, stomach and hide of moose taken in 5 AAC 92.074(d) must be salvaged;
(7) the hide or meat of Alaska hares taken in Units 9, 18, 22, and 23;
(b) A big game animal killed or injured by a vehicle is the property of the state. The operator of a motor vehicle that collides with a big game animal resulting in death or injury to the animal shall notify the State Troopers or division of Alaska wildlife troopers in the Department of Public Safety, as soon as possible.
(c) Repealed 4/24/88.
(d) A person taking game not listed in (a) of this section shall salvage for human consumption all edible meat, as defined in 5 AAC 92.990. In addition,
(1) for moose and caribou taken before October 1 in Unit 9(B), Unit 17, Unit 18, those portions of Unit 19(A) within the Holitna/Hoholitna Controlled Use Area, and Unit 19(B), the edible meat of the front quarters and hindquarters must remain naturally attached to the bone until the meat is transported from the field or is processed for human consumption;
(2) for caribou taken before October 1 in Unit 21(A), the edible meat of the front quarters and hindquarters must remain naturally attached to the bone until the meat has been transported from the field or is processed for human consumption;
(3) for moose taken before October 1 in Units 13, 19, 21, 23, 24, and 25, for caribou taken before October 1 in Units 13, 19, 21(A), 21(E), 23, 24, and 25(A), and for bison taken before October 1 in Units 19, 21(A), and 21(E), the edible meat of the front quarters, hindquarters, and ribs must remain naturally attached to the bone until the meat has been transported from the field or is processed for human consumption;
(4) repealed 7/1/2009;
(5) repealed 7/1/2009.
(6) for moose and caribou taken under a community subsistence harvest permit in the area described in 5 AAC 92.074(d), the edible meat of the front quarters, hindquarters, ribs, brisket, neck and back bone must remain naturally attached to the bone until the meat has been transported from the field or is processed for human consumption.
(e) Antlers, horns, or the hide and skull of a brown or black bear may not be transported from the kill site until all edible meat salvaged in accordance with this chapter has been transported to the departure point from the field. However, antlers, horns, or the hide and skull of a brown or black bear may be transported simultaneously with the final load of edible meat salvaged.
(f) Antlers, horns, or the hide and skull of a brown or black bear may not be transported from the field unless accompanied by all edible meat or unless possession of the meat has been transferred in accordance with 5 AAC 92.135.
(g) Repealed 7/1/2002.
(h) A game animal taken in violation of AS 16 or a regulation adopted under AS 16 is the property of the state.
(i) repealed 7/1/2016.
(j) A person taking Rocky Mountain mule or white tailed deer must salvage the entire carcass, including the hide, and present it to the department within a time specified by the department, to a location specified by the department.

Re: Defense of life and Property in Alaska [Re: martentrapper] #7488630
02/07/22 09:41 PM
02/07/22 09:41 PM
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,420
Idaho
B
bearcat2 Offline
trapper
bearcat2  Offline
trapper
B

Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,420
Idaho
(1) for moose and caribou taken before October 1 in Unit 9(B), Unit 17, Unit 18, those portions of Unit 19(A) within the Holitna/Hoholitna Controlled Use Area, and Unit 19(B), the edible meat of the front quarters and hindquarters must remain naturally attached to the bone until the meat is transported from the field or is processed for human consumption;
(2) for caribou taken before October 1 in Unit 21(A), the edible meat of the front quarters and hindquarters must remain naturally attached to the bone until the meat has been transported from the field or is processed for human consumption;
(3) for moose taken before October 1 in Units 13, 19, 21, 23, 24, and 25, for caribou taken before October 1 in Units 13, 19, 21(A), 21(E), 23, 24, and 25(A), and for bison taken before October 1 in Units 19, 21(A), and 21(E), the edible meat of the front quarters, hindquarters, and ribs must remain naturally attached to the bone until the meat has been transported from the field or is processed for human consumption;
(4) repealed 7/1/2009;
(5) repealed 7/1/2009.
(6) for moose and caribou taken under a community subsistence harvest permit in the area described in 5 AAC 92.074(d), the edible meat of the front quarters, hindquarters, ribs, brisket, neck and back bone must remain naturally attached to the bone until the meat has been transported from the field or is processed for human consumption.

Is this just for roadkill? I've packed quarters of our little Shiras moose, if it was very far from a road I wouldn't want to be packing whole quarters with the bone in of your big alaska moose or bison!

HFK, was unaware you were required to salvage roadkill, the thread was on DLP. I was just pointing out that many of the "charity" cases are not so much charity as people looking for a free handout. Just for reference, here we are not required to salvage roadkill, in fact until a few years ago it wasn't legal to do so, they recently passed a law that allows you to salvage roadkill, you must contact F&G but you can salvage roadkill for personal use or sale (sale of edible meat is not allowed, but furbearers, bear hides & galls, horns, etc. are allowed to be salvaged and sold if you contact F&G).

Re: Defense of life and Property in Alaska [Re: martentrapper] #7488677
02/07/22 10:28 PM
02/07/22 10:28 PM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,064
Wasilla AK
HFT AK Offline
trapper
HFT AK  Offline
trapper

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,064
Wasilla AK
Bearcat nope that is for hunting. Saves on the waste of meat. It is a PITB but if you plan accordingly and have a strong back doable. Defiantly makes you think before you pull the trigger smile

The people on the road kill program list arent looking for handouts. The program has a list of requirments to participate. Many of those people didnt get a moose during the season or can't hunt for whatever reason. It is a good program and puts meat in peoples freezers. There are some aspects I do not agree with about it but in the big scheme of things it benefits alot of people.

Re: Defense of life and Property in Alaska [Re: isnarewolves] #7488799
02/08/22 12:44 AM
02/08/22 12:44 AM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,489
Moved to Fbks, Ak.
M
martentrapper Offline OP
trapper
martentrapper  Offline OP
trapper
M

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,489
Moved to Fbks, Ak.
Originally Posted by isnarewolves
Oh Snap, salvage is the same for DLP and road kill.


You are 100% incorrect, Al. A person who hits game with a vehicle is under NO requirement to salvage the animal. The animal, dead or alive, is reported to troopers and they call a charity person to salvage. In the case of bears I suspect a F&G person will take the hide. Road kills, at least in the road system of Alaska, immediately become the property of the state. The driver is not legally allowed to touch the animal and that includes killing an animal still alive.

HFT, thanks for posting the reg.
(b) Game taken in defense of life or property is the property of the state. A person taking game under this subsection shall immediately
(1) salvage and surrender to the department the
(2) notify the department of the taking; and
(3) submit to the department a completed questionnaire concerning the circumstances of taking of the game within 15 days after taking the game.

Nowhere in the regulation does it say the troopers may absolve the person taking the game of the requirements to salvage, report, and return the questionaire. Neither does the reg allow removal of requirements because the person taking doesn't know how to butcher the animal. In fact, the charity people aren't required to "know" how either. The moose I could have participated in last year, the charity person had no idea, and no experience, in field processing.

In the case of last weeks moose attack on a dog team, the woman driving the team did not kill the moose. A friend showed up later with a rifle and killed the moose. Pretty safe bet that person was in control of their wits and could have completed the DLP requirements.

People wounded, injured by the game they take under DLP are not expected to meet the salvage requirements.

Re: Defense of life and Property in Alaska [Re: martentrapper] #7488804
02/08/22 12:58 AM
02/08/22 12:58 AM
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,514
juneau, alaska
A
alaska viking Offline
"Made it two years not being censored"
alaska viking  Offline
"Made it two years not being censored"
A

Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,514
juneau, alaska
Well, in my humble opinion, once an animal has been killed, either by accident or intention, salvage should be undertaken, within reason.
As to DLP, while I 100% agree with isnarewolves on the "intent of the law", I can say with 1000% certainty that that is not how it is enforced.
I served 6 years on our A.C., and had a great relationship with our local Lt. WLT. I would constantly ask his opinion on regulation wording and field interpretation. He was very insightful as to how HE would instruct his men to deal with contemplated issues. Steve Hall was/is a great officer.
Time goes by, and rotations in said department change:
New lead officer decides that THE LETTER OF THE LAW IS WHAT WE ENFORCE! Period. Talk to the Judge.
This particular individual groomed other wildlife enforcement officers to do the same, which resulted in an environment of dis-trust, going both ways. It was in my eyes, a disaster.
As a hunter, fisherman, trapper, I didn't know who I could trust, as to where I was trapping, hunting, crabbing, and what-not. Troopers enforce ADFG laws, and I share my information freely with the Department.
I voice my concerns with a couple troopers, and next thing I know, I have a trooper not only visiting my very remote trapline, but crawling into wolverine cubbies, pulling traps out of marten boxes, and tromping through bait piles, under the premise of "checking for bait that is legal"!
I raised Cain, and to the credit of ADFG, one particular Regional Bio made a few calls and got a stop put to it.
I could fill multiple pages here on how wildlife troopers have taken INTENT OF THE LAW" way beyond intent, (even a couple I helped craft!), but you get the gist.

Last edited by alaska viking; 02/08/22 01:01 AM.

Made it almost 3 years without censor!

Re: Defense of life and Property in Alaska [Re: martentrapper] #7489117
02/08/22 11:45 AM
02/08/22 11:45 AM
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 376
fairbanks,ak.
isnarewolves Offline
trapper
isnarewolves  Offline
trapper

Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 376
fairbanks,ak.
Marten trapper, where do you find this statement in the reg book, "The driver is not legally allowed to touch the animal and that includes killing an animal still alive"?
Secondly, the regulation's first statement is, the animal is property of the state. Thus the state can determine what is in the best interest of the state as to who completes salvage and what is done with the unlawfully taken game.


Life is hard. It's even harder if your stupid!
Re: Defense of life and Property in Alaska [Re: alaska viking] #7489140
02/08/22 12:17 PM
02/08/22 12:17 PM
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 376
fairbanks,ak.
isnarewolves Offline
trapper
isnarewolves  Offline
trapper

Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 376
fairbanks,ak.
Originally Posted by alaska viking
Well, in my humble opinion, once an animal has been killed, either by accident or intention, salvage should be undertaken, within reason.
As to DLP, while I 100% agree with isnarewolves on the "intent of the law", I can say with 1000% certainty that that is not how it is enforced.
I served 6 years on our A.C., and had a great relationship with our local Lt. WLT. I would constantly ask his opinion on regulation wording and field interpretation. He was very insightful as to how HE would instruct his men to deal with contemplated issues. Steve Hall was/is a great officer.
Time goes by, and rotations in said department change:
New lead officer decides that THE LETTER OF THE LAW IS WHAT WE ENFORCE! Period. Talk to the Judge.
This particular individual groomed other wildlife enforcement officers to do the same, which resulted in an environment of dis-trust, going both ways. It was in my eyes, a disaster.
As a hunter, fisherman, trapper, I didn't know who I could trust, as to where I was trapping, hunting, crabbing, and what-not. Troopers enforce ADFG laws, and I share my information freely with the Department.
I voice my concerns with a couple troopers, and next thing I know, I have a trooper not only visiting my very remote trapline, but crawling into wolverine cubbies, pulling traps out of marten boxes, and tromping through bait piles, under the premise of "checking for bait that is legal"!
I raised Cain, and to the credit of ADFG, one particular Regional Bio made a few calls and got a stop put to it.
I could fill multiple pages here on how wildlife troopers have taken INTENT OF THE LAW" way beyond intent, (even a couple I helped craft!), but you get the gist.

Alaska V, your 100% correct, every law enforcement person, judge, DA, and personal esquires, will have a different opinion of the same law/regulation. Just like the trappers on this page. Some of agree with most of the intrepidations and none of agree with all the intrepidations.
That's what happens when let people make laws restricting others, Making laws based on someone's beliefs, ethics, upbring, experience and agendas, Never works out. these all have different meanings to each of us.


Life is hard. It's even harder if your stupid!
Re: Defense of life and Property in Alaska [Re: martentrapper] #7489858
02/09/22 01:23 AM
02/09/22 01:23 AM
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 643
North Pole ak
T
Team V Offline
trapper
Team V  Offline
trapper
T

Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 643
North Pole ak
A little story on what happen according to family friend. Shooter of moose was headed to cabin when he came across scenario . He shot the moose then wrapped up dogs in his gear that was injured and put in sled then tied moose to sled and drug it out to road were he met trooper who took possession of moose. Shooter then returned and spent several hr to find rest of dogs and return them . My opinion if troopers took possession of it and told him to go for lost dogs that resolved him of his duty to process it .

Re: Defense of life and Property in Alaska [Re: martentrapper] #7489859
02/09/22 01:34 AM
02/09/22 01:34 AM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,489
Moved to Fbks, Ak.
M
martentrapper Offline OP
trapper
martentrapper  Offline OP
trapper
M

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,489
Moved to Fbks, Ak.
Truthfully Al, I've never seen anything in writing about roadkill salvage. There was a fair amount of news last summer maybe, about the troopers changing some of the rules surrounding how and who would get called for roadkill moose. I think they removed the charity requirement and now anyone can put their name on the list. I assume that is statewide. I've been around the wildlife scene and the roadkill scene over the years that I know drivers aren't allowed to salvage, or kill their dead/wounded animal. If a kill shot is needed the trooper is the one to deliver it and he/she then decides who to call for the salvage.
I disagree that "the state" can determine what is best in each situation. There is a specific regulation concerning DLP and both the citizens and enforcement should follow that. I realize that DLPs are not always a black and white issue. But able bodied people who use the DLP reg to protect themselves or their property should be required to complete the job as specified in the regs.

Re: Defense of life and Property in Alaska [Re: martentrapper] #7489860
02/09/22 01:37 AM
02/09/22 01:37 AM
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 23
Girdwood, AK
TAtrap Offline
trapper
TAtrap  Offline
trapper

Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 23
Girdwood, AK
[Linked Image]

Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread

Moderated by  akntrpr, Ol' Blister, otterman 

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1