Shocker, they can't afford a good server on such an important day. So far been trying for 30 Min or do and still can't verify that I didn't get drawn for anything.

Hope you guys get drawn.

I was able to download the pdf file. I didn't draw a damn thing.

I got through and downloaded the PDF file of results. Drew second choice moose(easy draw) and first choice black bear (new for self-guided NRs). No love for the other species, but still very happy.

haven't been able to get through yet...

drew nuttin ...again.


http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=huntlicense.drawresults

Congrats fin. Glad you got second and not 3rd.

Any idea why DM400-412 has no results? Other than that question a big blank for me.

Those hunts all got cancelled due to all the moose killed on the roads this year.

Took 45 minutes but it's verified I didn't get drawn for anything. Maybe next year, 18 is a Lucky number.

Good luck to everybody else.

Yeah, my 18th year at applying for bison. And no Kodiak brown bear again. Dammit.

Funny, they never sent a refund check out!

so did you get your bison? I'm hoping 18 is a lucky number.

It took me 45 minutes, but I got in.

It's true. There is a news release on the F&G website.

Joel,

No, I did not. Probably will never get one. Just got the Tier I tag for caribou, but so did 5000 other people....

Missed that, thanks for the heads up. No suprise really, and certainly for the best. I just hope the best for the moose population in the area I normally hunt, it was pretty good last fall.

Jack Schitt for me . . .

I drew my first choice for caribou, but no moose or brown bear.

Now I have to write a letter to AK F&G why they should let me use it, as I forgot to fill out a hunt info card last year . They ended up sending my notices to an old address, and it was only the very last one that was forwarded to me.

In viewing the results, I was wondering what "DL" stood for. Makes sense now.

Art drew my sheep tag. SOB better not be whining about the draw system!

Son drew caribou, I drew moose and goat.

One pard drew the same 'bou as my boy and DanH here drew a different 'bou.

Damn, I was hoping the wife would finally draw something but again she gets nothing. Glad we already booked our air charter for sheep.

Saw that.

I drew a 'bou tag in 827 ( Healy Creek area). Guess I'm going sheep hunting....

KP brown bear, and late archery Ft Rich.

In clarification of my last post, which made sense to me but might be a bit obscure to others....

Too many years ago I was hunting sheep up Healy Creek, and five times in a row a stalk was ruined by bumping caribou (no open season at that time), which then ran right through the groups of rams we were after, spooking them.

I carry a grudge really well, and hunting sheep is seemingly a foolproof way of finding caribou in that country... I want revenge! But I'll take a sheep if offered....

That was actually BW's tag, same area, same time frame (second hunt). I also drew a 'bou for the Paxson area, while Miss T drew a muzzleloader moose tag for Fort Rich and Riley drew Ol'Blue's Kodiak brown bear tag in Terror Bay. The sheep tag is a tough draw, the 'bou easy... M's moose tag is fairly easy and Riley's BB tag is pretty easy... and first choice.

I still hate the system...

Way to go, Art! Looks like a great hunting season this year for you guys. Maybe see you up in the caribou grounds.

Looks like Kurt (KKA) and my luck held up, nothing again this year --- Mel


I too hate this system!

I keep trying for the west side of Kiliuda Bay and have drawn blanks the past 17 years. During the past 25 years or so, I've drawn only two permits - an any caribou permit and a ewe sheep permit. Just call me Mr Lucky (NOT).

Yup. I saw your haul.

Are you going to hunt 7 or 15?

We ALL get to hunt browns on the KP this year.

Seriously?!?

Yes. BOG approved a registration brownie hunt for the KP. I *think* it is for Unit 15, but not certain if 7 is included.

IIRC, permits open Sept 10? and registration opens Oct 1.

Don't hold me to the dates and I don't swear by them, and I hear reporting requirements on the reg hunts will be short and tight.

But, there will be a reg hunt.

Are you serious bender? if so that is great news.

zip for me but I kind of expected it this time. Funny though one of the tags I applied for had 7 permits available but I only see 6 people drew it WTF is that all about?

Serious as a heart attack.

Unless something happens. Most is on the refuge, yanno.

Hell, it's a start. I'm sure it will close the same day, but finally they realize they need to knock some bears down.

I just hope there's not a high DLP count.

I think you're right Mike, those dates sounds pretty close. Permit holders get to hunt the spring season as well as the fall.

I bet a moose calf call would work great in the Refuge....

That's not the first time they've lowered the number of permits after the fact. Luckily though, there's still some general harvest areas to hunt. If we're talking about moose anyways. Not sure what you put in for.

What we really need in 15 is an open season on pyromania to bring the moose numbers up....

I'm determined more than ever to get a ram this year out of unit 14A before it (or the whole state for that matter) goes to draw. Also hoping to get a nice bull caribou out of unit 13 this year, too.

I doubt that highly...















They've never seen nor heard a moose calf there!

I guess I should have been a little more clear when asking Bambi Stew about his Kenai brown bear hunt. I was referring to the spring season. But, thanks for the clarification, I.B. .

You drew a tag in Unit 14A? Congratulations!!! Do you have a spot picked out? If not, hit me up and I'll share some info with you.

Permit holders for KP brownies have two seasons.

No, I will just have a harvest ticket, again. I didn't draw a sheep tag.

nuttin for me.

Sure they have - for the last few years it's called come-to-dinner! And the remaining cows are getting long in the tooth, with no replacements, tho they keep trying.

Got it - north side of the road. I know a lot about that country, too. There's a drainage on the south side of the range that's pretty tough to get into and I've seen some good genetics in there. There's also a drainage on the west side of the range that's a helluva long hike and I know a guy (now deceased) who whacked a 173 B&C ram near the headwaters. Anyway, I really hope you get a good one. Let me know how you do.

I'm wondering how the DLP quota will play into this? I haven't seen anything reguarding dates, other than what was in the proposal of replacing the permits with a registration hunt during the Sept 15-Nov 30 time frame.

Do you have any other information?

Bambi:

The way the it works it that DLP is deducted from the harvestable surplus quota. In other words, DLP bear count against the quota and a female bears killed exacerbate the decrease in the total harvestable surplus. What that means, is that when a certain percentage of female bears are killed, then the entire quota is "capped", or has reached it's goal, whether or not the actual quota of male bears was met. So, in a nutshell, DLP bears are also counted against the human-caused mortality quota.

Maverick

you'd think the bastids could afford 23 cents to send me a postcard that says "thanks for donating again you big jabroni, hope you'll play again next year!" bwaaaahaaa


and folks wonder why I never play the lottery? (grin)

I'm only hearing this second hand as I was unable to make the BOG meetings. the details will come out with the regs by 1 July.

My understanding is that because brown permits were let in the recent supplement and a registration hunt was approved, permit winners get a 16 day, IIRC, head start over the registration hunt start. Additionally, they may get a spring season depending on numbers of bears killed by all means and the gender distribution.

IOW, permits start Sept 15 and the registration opens Oct 1. So, permit winners have some overlap with moose season and hopefully gut piles can be put to good use. Registration hunters will likely focus on stinky bears.

Like the fish would not have them stinky enough already...

Out over $200 again for nothing? Congrats Art! They cancelled the Cow moose hunts and kept the money don,t seem right if my information is right.

I've done that KP brown bear registration hunt before and if they in fact do it again, you best be out there the day they open it. We hiked over 24 miles round trip in our waders looking for a brownie and all we saw were tracks, 1 dead blac bear (hit by a train) and a couple of bull moose. I'll be surprised if they actually open it to registration hunters.

That was my reference, or did you mean by the time they get to a gut pile?

Bears that time of year go back and forth between berries and fish, usually have the runs, and can be "special."

Wouldn't stop me from making a hole.

The suplement says fall is tentive and spring is for sure? I thought the bears had taken over? Cant imagine it can be that hard of a hunt?

Fall is tentative because it depends on the level of mortality - DLP, HBC...hit-by-car, mistaken ID, hunting kills, etc. and how close to the mortality allowed by the faulty model that's in place.

The calendar starts fresh in Jan.

But, but, but... they run on a special calendar that starts July 1 for EVERYTHING else!

F&G is going to refund the money for cancelled Cow moose hunts in SC AK.

Never could understand cow hunts when the population is too low to start...

Is there any documentation on the registration hunt? The only thing I've seen is the BOG approved the proposal.

I figured the fall hunt was tentative, I believe it has been since this hunt started. I presume the registration hunt will only be held if the harvest quota is higher than the permit number? The F&G also increased the permit numbers by 22, from 15-37. I'm thinking the registration hunt might not happen this year?

I'm not sure I understand the faulty model reference? Why doesn't the harvest rate reflect a large bear population? From the way some talk I should be able to swing a dead cat and hit a bear. I like those odds. I've seen a fair number of brownies down there, but not that many. Talked to one guy that spent a lot of time hunting it and never saw one.

I'm going to have fun trying to kill one that's for sure.

The number of permits for 7 & 15 is 61. That's for DB; 301 (8), 303 (3), 305 (10), 307 (3), 309 (37).

The faulty model reference is to the model from the mat-su being used on the KP in spite of different population dynamics, different human interaction, different topography, different food sources, etc. Other than that, it's a perfect fit.

Getting F&G to loosen up permits and help moose in other ways (wolf reduction) is like pulling teeth, but nearly as tough as getting the refuge to do habitat improvements.

The BOG approved wolf reduction (aerial ungulate enhancement) in 15A and 15C to begin Mar. 1. 15A is to be conducted by the Dept. and 15C is to be conducted by permitted public. From what I have heard, the Dept has not yet moved toward 15A operations nor 15C permitting.

As an aside, I would request folks write to the Governor to require F&G to get this AUE started this winter.

To put that in perspective, the BOG instructed the department to formulate a plan for intensive management of moose and bring that to the BOG. It was sent back 3TIMES before the fourth was acceptable to the board.

The refuge has done a barbwire hair-DNA brown bear population study that the results of which so far has been closely held. A lot of people have been trying for a long time to get F&G to do a true brown bear population study on the KP. F&G does not believe it is necessary in spite of saying that knowing the true population would greatly alter their brown bear management. Even if this study had Dept. support, it estimated to cost about $2M.

Brown bears "can" be hard to find on the western KP for much the same reason that black bear baiting (spring) is important - dense foliage growth. In spite of the aggressive, full-blown charge belief, brownies would just as soon avoid humans.

Especially this year with all the road and train kills.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/species/speciesinfo/moose/pdfs/interior_moose_news_fall_2011.pdf

Reasons for anterless moose hunts on Page 4.

None of which is pertinent to the areas involved...

OK. I'll assume we were looking at the same 5 lines in a 12 page document.
What is the difference?

As I understand it, the DFG manager has the ability to allow for up to 50 brown bears taken by all means. Of course, dlp's count and also the # of females taken will apply.

With that said, pressure is mounting for the ADFG to apply ALL of the tags...

We shall see?

Why would they stabilize the population well below the capacity? That is a proven way to allow the forage to outgrow its usefulness for moose...

Reduce hunting pressure on bulls? Hunters in the field are going to do about as much to bulls as antlerless... Maintaining a bull:cow ratio that is badly skewed is more than a little condescending.

Maintain intensive harvest goals??? Like opening an EMERGENCY hunt for bulls in 13 because there were too many moose?!?!? Gaseous colloids into a ticklish orifice comes to mind.

Reduce moose vehicle interaction... Well why not just kill them all if that is how you determine carrying capacity of a given area?

If the population is still way below carrying capacity the last reason does not apply...

Well, that would be how I would respond to the reasons based on the areas where they are giving out cow tags...

One thing to bear in mind, is that you can't hold a sub-population at total carry capacity in a northern ecosystem. Another thing to keep in mind, is the productivity of a sub-population based on its composition and, the subsequent behavioral characteristics of a specie based on composition of cohorts within the population. What that all means is, that in a northern ecosystem it's better to manage below carry capacity and to distribute a healthy equilibrium among cohorts in order to have healthy productivity.

Nice bio-babble, but the fact is the units in the Mat-Su valley are seriously below carrying capacity for an average year. When the population is way down it is time to limit the bull kill to achieve a better bull:cow, not increase the cow kill.

Not enough browsers allows the willows (especially) to outgrow their usefulness as browse and reduce the carrying capacity. As a kid I saw the Knik River flats absolutely covered with moose every winter. We are not within an order of magnitude of those days in the moose population.

Contrary to what you perceive, it isn't bio-babble. But, the question is; what would you consider an adequate and/or productive bull:cow ratio? I mean, if you reduce the number of bulls, does that thereby make a sub-population more productive and much more healthier? I'd like to know your reasoning on that, to know where in the heck you're coming from in reference to a sub-population's productivity.

Your earlier bio-babble:
"One thing to bear in mind, is that you can't hold a sub-population at total carry capacity in a northern ecosystem. Another thing to keep in mind, is the productivity of a sub-population based on its composition and, the subsequent behavioral characteristics of a specie based on composition of cohorts within the population. What that all means is, that in a northern ecosystem it's better to manage below carry capacity and to distribute a healthy equilibrium among cohorts in order to have healthy productivity."

As I stated in my post the carrying capacity is determined based on an average winter. Total carrying capacity can be based on a number of factors and can be much higher than average winter numbers. But the bigger question is what does that have to do with the Mat-Su currently? The moose population is no where close to carrying capacity no matter how you calculate it.

As to cohorts and behavioral considerations... Seriously? This is the same outfit that thinks 14A should remain full curl only despite the behavioral evidence to the contrary. Three and four year old rams would not be stressing if there were enough big old rams to keep them in check. Lots of guys were happy to kill 3/4 curl for years before that brainchild came along. And it was known what would happen and it was to be an "experiment" with a sunset clause.

But back to moose... I clearly stated that if the bull:cow ratio is too low you reduce the killing of bulls until you have enough to work with...

When a predator pit is not the issue killing cows to equalize the fact you killed too many bulls is backwards. Killing cows to maintain a healthy population is obviously a great plan... hammering the cows because you bow to public pressure and kill too many bulls is stupid, but par.

Now, when bio-babble does not address the issues extant it simply shows the intent to hide behind language because the facts are not running your way. The language is nowhere near adequate to cover the bullshit.

Point, set, and match to Sitka.

The only time cow hunts were allowed (historically) was when the population was exploding and, in an effort to maintain a less than 30 percent (maximum) bio-mass (browse) destruction by the population, F&G issued the order. It was clear then that the twinning rate and overall size of the less than 36 month animals was suffering. The key words found above are "exploding" and bio-mass destruction."

I certainly do not believe these two events are taking place there today. I cannot believe that the cow hunt is...

Bear Hunter & Odocoileus Fan:

I can appreciate both your concerns about antlerless moose hunts. The hunts are being held because the extrapolated population exceeds carry capacity. That's fact. Carry capacity isn't estimated on an annual basis and never was, so you're wrong in that regard. Population density isn't estimated annually, either, but it is estimated as frequently as possible when late fall weather is optimum for composition counts. Currently, antlerless hunts are based on the most recent data and the most recent data clearly indicates that the extrapolated population exceeds carry capacity. If you have issues with management strategy and/or allocation of resources, make your complaint(s) known to the BOG and stop whining online in a nebulous venue.

Maverick

What makes you think this is the only venue one uses? Who gave you authority to control what others post? Just because you cannot answer the very basic questions about current populations... such as why they have been at least an order of magnitude higher in the past in the current MatSu cow hunt units... you are left with a very hollow argument.

I am not suggesting those higher numbers were within carrying capacity, but suggesting they are not now is laughable. Take a walk out on the Knik River flats and take a look at the browse and tell me it is over-utilized.

The condition of wildlife populations in AK is currently a frigging joke of the highest order. ADF&G and the BOG can add all the variables they care to and arrive at a number the pompous pricks on the BOG (and all past, for that matter) can swallow, but the biologists themselves are strongly divided, the management is a joke, morale is and has been in the toilet for ever, and they are doing a very [bleep] job in about every aspect.

With all due respect to your rant, I can attest to the fact that things changed after statehood. When looking back at management practices during territorial days and then the practices after statehood, it's no great wonder as to why wildlife populations are somewhat reduced from territorial years and the decade which followed. With what is now available to wildlife managers (state and federal) and wildlands managers (state and federal), we're never going to see wildlife numbers like we did in the 50's and 60's. It's just not possible. Again, if you have issues with how things are being done, you should do something about it instead of just whining about it in dubious fashion.

I am talking about far more recent times than the '60s... Actually right up to Predator Pit Tony took over and did more damage to Alaskans, partiularly hunters and fishermen, than any administration before or since. And capping that with dropping the Katie Johns lawsuit was unbelievable.

The string of subsistence decisions made by the BOG was beyond pathetic. The Nelchina herd caribou decisions should have subjected them to more than just the intensive ridicule and disgust most hold for them...

Now, one more time nice and slow so you can understand it: ADF&G does not consider the area to have moose in excess of the carrying capacity at the present time... nor did they when they started the cow hunts. Black Bear Rossi did not really believe the unit 13 moose population was too high in 2010 when they had an "Emergency opening" for bull moose. It is all about politics and anyone that thinks otherwise is dreaming with his eyes tightly closed.

SD:

GMU 14A moose have been near and at and above the available carry capacity since the 60's, so what's your point? It seems you haven't had any access to historical data or even the current data.

In terms of the Knowles Administrations application of predator control, an actual predator control program was engaged during that administration and it had fantastic results.

In relation to GMU 13 caribou, that herd has been mismanaged since territorial days, even prior to statehood. Currently, the population is being managed in a way that benefits both the environment and the various allowable user groups and that includes non-consumptive uses (resident and non-resident).

I think you should become involved more so you could learn more about the history of Alaska, rather than just grabbing bits of sound-bites from thin air.

Have a nice day !!!!

Maverick

You might be mistaking for fact, printed assumptions on data from the 60's as being hard science...they are not necessarily so. It is fact that numbers were compiled. It is also fact that these numbers were crunched from much lesser data available to the citing biologist into the now well used models somewhere around 1988 to 1990, many years later.

Fast forward to the mid 70's. As time marched on from statehood, increasing populations of hunters came into play. New data was needed to better understand the moose population's relationship to new pressures- automobile strikes, many more consumptive users, a viable railroad booming with newfound customers, and the like. Predator information had always been a factor, though not as forefront in the news as it is today.Of course, good scientific information regarding predators didn't show up until the 70's. There was also the pressure given by the constitution to manage for MSY. Read as "political pressure from above." Things were changing quickly.

Others here have given you what you you might consider anecdotal information. What that means is "not scientifically" formulated...simply observed. What is fact is that population densities and carrying capacity for the unit 14 herds were "estimated" from statehood through the 60's and early 70's, then built by todays current practices and model. When a comment like "The best data/information available at the time was utilized" comes to print, one must understand what is being said. I can understand your acceptance as "fact" as what has been printed. It was "fact" that prompted scientific men of the day to document their observations as "fact" on the notion of "spontaneous generation."

You claim as one of your bonofides "hunting in Alaska for over 4 decades." If this is true (I have no reason to doubt this, though you might want to update your web-site) you will remember that the population of Anchorage, Wasilla, and Mat/Su in the pre-quake days were less than 50 thousand souls. The number of consumptive user man-hours to bag a moose was far less than currently required. The number of moose taken was as many as 4 times greater in peak years in the 1960's than is currently managed for on the low end, over twice on the high end. Also fact.

I was rather dissappointed in the manner you chose to hold discourse with people here at the 'fire. At first I reasoned another professional here might allow for more information of the "positive kind" to leach out to the masses. I realize that my opinion and three bucks might buy you a cup of Joe at one of the little stands downtown. Right now that opinion suggests you are a condesending, arrogant ass and need go on ignore.
What that means is that "you are a condesending, arrogant ass and need go on ignore."

Have a nice day!!!!

hehe

Bear Hunter:

Your distaste for and/or unacceptance of my varied experience aside, I will state some pertinent accountabilities in terms of GMU 14A moose, as follows;

Science is an evolutionary process, so of course science shall change over time. Computer models can tell scientists whatever they want to read. However, the development of science over time provides data which is applicable in future realms.

Anyway, the fact does remain that the current abundance of moose in GMU 14A is on par with what the carry capacity can sustain over long term. With that being said, the carry capacity has diminished over the past 50 years, but not because of biological mismanagement. Rather, reduction in carry capacity is and has been caused by societal displacement.

Going back to when I grew up in Alaska, moose were much more abundant because several federal programs - both societal and biological - created an atmosphere for overtly abundant sub-populations which turns out, wasn't healthy in an ecological sense.

In specific reference to GMU 14A, the current situation - long sense the establishment of statehood - is the result of things which are well beyond wildlife managers' ability to control. The leading constraint to having moose sub-populations at levels of the 50's, 60's and 70's, is that there's not enough habitat nor the potential for habitat to maintain and sustain that many moose.

Therefore, to keep sub-populations in check and to promote productivity as well as long-term habitat benefit, wildlife managers manage through a sustainable male harvest and if applicable, a sustainable female harvest. In the case of GMU 14A, the current bull harvest is and has been sustainable and, an appropriate number of female moose in the overall harvest has been warranted the past 10-15 years.

In terms of your self-assessed disappointment in what I've contributed in text on this nebulous website, I'm sorry that you're having issues with that. Hopefully over time it will alleviate.

You have a nice morning, as well.

Maverick

Maverick
To start, your pretentious use of words you do not understand gives you away, big time... Here is just a single example, temporally closest to the issue:

"Hopefully over time it will alleviate."

Suggesting 14A moose have been at carrying capacity since the '60s is preposterous given the extreme range of populations over that time frame. Suggesting so would indicate the populations of the '60s would have severely damaged the browse... they did not.

Reducing the population to reduce vehicle-moose collisions is not a function of carrying capacity in the biological sense.

Unfortunately for you, your bio-babble is no better than your English. And neither are worth wasting time on.
art

[quote=Sitka deer]Maverick
To start, your pretentious use of words you do not understand gives you away, big time... Here is just a single example, temporally closest to the issue:

"Hopefully over time it will alleviate."

Suggesting 14A moose have been at carrying capacity since the '60s is preposterous given the extreme range of populations over that time frame. Suggesting so would indicate the populations of the '60s would have severely damaged the browse... they did not.

Reducing the population to reduce vehicle-moose collisions is not a function of carrying capacity in the biological sense.

Unfortunately for you, your bio-babble is no better than your English. And neither are worth wasting time on.
art

[/quotArthur:

Rather than go into a lesson concerning application and use of the English language and its context per word-use, I'll mention the following;

Obviously, you weren't around this area during the 60's, or you wouldn't of proffered your synopsis concerning former/present habitat conditions.

And, the biological community isn't managing a population for public safety, as that's not provided under statute.

Again, if you have issues with the science of wildlife conservation and lands management and, the allocation of those resources among user groups, then do something tangible about it.

Maverick

Dang. Fresh out of popcorn.

It looks like nachos for me.

On the bright side, Bearhuntr and his snowblower are up on his roof.

Wind has some negatives, obviously, but the fact that it voids the need for snowblowers on roofs is not one of them.

It..is....................................................................................................................................finished

Thanks to Ironbender's sense of orientation, the crane worked...the snowblower went up (and came down) and...most importantly...momma is happy!

The beer's on beerhuntr

I believe you've mentioned here tenure as a member of the BOG. You must have been otherwise occupied to have seen it?

Truth be told...as directed by the BOG, the DF&G has set up archery only hunts for cow moose in order to alleviate ...wait for it... Automobile/Moose collisions! Yepper, I even got one of those tags a couple of years ago. Up by Fairbanks IIRC. Got to meet a kindred spirit up there-very helpful was he Just another helpful, regular, sourdough kinda fellow, that TLTQ fellow.

I'm gonna start a business named "Speedy Helper" or "Is That Fast Enough?"

He's just another beer hunter.

Really... They did it up there, too?

Indeed

Someone with arrows needs to write a proposal for BOG along those lines for 15.

Recall the last RAC BOG meeting we attended? I brought that very point up to Corry Rossi. We chatted about it but, at the time I'm guessing he was more concerned with bears...

Of course you know why it was fresh in my mind to do so

Yep and yup.

Still should/has to, go to BOG.

Mavrich940

Is your first name Harold? If so, (then I know your last name) I met you on the train about 35 years ago.

Just curious. Your posts remind me strongly of a first and only encounter of a person who later went on to become a Big Game Guide and author... one of which I never aspired to, and the other never achieved, repectively.