# Legal or not spike bull?



## ExtremeHunter (Aug 12, 2010)

Saw this bull on camera and he came in while I was hunting. I wasn't 100 precent positive on if it was legal so I let it pass. What do you guys think?


----------



## APD (Nov 16, 2008)

that's a messed up rack. i haven't looked thru the regs on that in a while since i hunt any bull areas but i'd say that is branch antlered. if he breaks one side off then you're good to go.

edit: you might be good on that one. i had to look it up.

"Spike bull" means a bull elk which has at least one antler beam with no branching above the ears. Branched means a projection on an antler longer than one inch, measured from its base to its tip.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Looks to be legal to me.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Legal 

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## 7mm Reloaded (Aug 25, 2015)

You should of shot it. Sorry I guess what I should of said is you should of studied your cam pics and then you should of shot it


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

I'd have passed. If in doubt-don't shoot.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

You did the right thing. Like taxidermist said if not 100% sure at the time, pass. With that said, now we are 100% sure so if he comes in again, let him have it!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hunting777 (May 3, 2009)

I would say legal spike to me. It doesn't branch above his left ear. Plus, get that thing out of the Gene pool.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Ok, now I'm confused. The brow tines are above the pedicel of the Antlers, which also are above the ear base. Isn't that considered a "branch" of the Antler? Or, is a "branched antler" a branch from the main beam above the Brow??


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

The definition of spike does not say “above the ear base,” it says “above the ear.” 

So you’ve got the length of the ear as leeway.


----------



## twinkielk15 (Jan 17, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> The definition of spike does not say "above the ear base," it says "above the ear."
> 
> So you've got the length of the ear as leeway.


That's why long-eared elk are extinct. They were at a distinct disadvantage.;-)

I agree with everyone else - if you've got a shred of doubt then don't pull the trigger or release the arrow. Not worth the risk. But next time you won't have any doubt.


----------



## ExtremeHunter (Aug 12, 2010)

I should of went with my gut and took the shot, but I'm certain we all had that situation at some point. He hasn't come back so wonder if someone else didn't hesitate like I did. Either way I agree, we don't want that thing spreading any genetics. Thanks for all the input.


----------



## sheepassassin (Mar 23, 2018)

I’ve seen several “spikes” much shadier than that one in the backs of trucks before and no one seemed to question it, including a county sheriff on one occasion and a wildlife officer on the other.


----------



## moabxjeeper (Dec 18, 2012)

Personally, I don't think I would have shot it. Even if it meets the legal definition, it may come down to the individual officer's discretion, which may factor in what he had for breakfast that morning, if he got in a fight with the wife the evening prior, etc. That's a lot to put in someone else's hands.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

moabxjeeper said:


> Personally, I don't think I would have shot it. Even if it meets the legal definition, it may come down to the individual officer's discretion, which may factor in what he had for breakfast that morning, if he got in a fight with the wife the evening prior, etc. That's a lot to put in someone else's hands.


A nice close high defination picture on your phone would go a long way to improve the officers discretion I would think.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Whether you get a citation or not is certainly an officer discretion thing. Whether you followed the law or not is not an officer discretion thing. The definition is clear on what a spike bull is, and while some cases are pretty close calls, I do not believe this one is.


----------



## spencer_larsen (Jul 24, 2008)

The regs say a branch above the ear. Does that mean if the branch starts above the ear or if the length of the branch extends past the ear?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Just what it says "a branch above the ears" That branch could be 3' long as long as it starts below the ears it is legal.


----------



## ns450f (Aug 28, 2018)

spencer_larsen said:


> The regs say a branch above the ear. Does that mean if the branch starts above the ear or if the length of the branch extends past the ear?


I think it could be interpreted as a branch starting below the ear and extending above the ear. I think it depends on the officer and possibly the judges interpretation of the law. They should word it more clearly


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

There is really no interpenetration needed. 

If the branch starts below the ears it is legal. If it starts above the ears then it isn't legal


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Critter said:


> There is really no interpenetration needed.
> 
> If the branch starts below the ears it is legal. If it starts above the ears then it isn't legal


Agreed. I actually think it's a crappy definition for a "spike" and lends itself to unintended issues down the line, but I do not believe the definition is ambiguous. And I don't believe it lends itself to problems in interpretation for enforcement.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Here's a funner one. Had this thing at 100 yards... and I had a cow tag in my pocket for that area.



> *DWR Reg: *A "bull elk" is an elk with antlers that are longer than
> five inches (R657-5-2(2)(g)).
> A "spike bull" means a bull elk which has at least
> one antler beam with no branching above the ears.
> ...


Legal "Cow"









I'd love to see the "Boss" that broke both this guys antlers off at the base. That was one helluva bull!

-DallanC


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

No picture came through, Dallan. 

But by what you shared, I get the gist of the story. This is why we don't get "cow elk" tags, we get "antlerless elk" tags. 

It's also why "proof of sex" is meaningless in Utah, because the legality of killing the animal has nothing to do with what is hanging between the legs, and everything to do with what is on top of the head.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Vanilla said:


> No picture came through, Dallan.


Fixed... I think.

-DallanC


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Lots better, but I can hear the explanation to the DOW officer. 

But I had a cow tag and his antlers were less than what is required for a bull. But with the head in tow to show them I doubt that you would of had any problem. 

It is a lot like shooting a doe deer that is spouting antlers. I haven't seen any cow elk with them yet.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Under Utah's definition of "anterless elk," that would be a legal kill. A good example of why their definitions, while clear, may have unintended consequences. 

R657-5-2. Definitions.
(1) Terms used in this rule are defined in Section 23-13-2.

(2) In addition:

(b) "Antlerless elk" means an elk without antlers or with antlers five inches or shorter.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

cull that sumbeetch


----------



## DIRTYS6X6 (May 19, 2021)

Any thoughts on this guy?


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

DIRTYS6X6 said:


> Any thoughts on this guy?
> View attachment 148854
> View attachment 148855


Legal from what I can see in those pics


----------



## kstorrs (Oct 29, 2012)

DIRTYS6X6 said:


> Any thoughts on this guy?
> View attachment 148854
> View attachment 148855


Look legal to me. Is this the same bull that Ridge has on camera this year?


----------



## DIRTYS6X6 (May 19, 2021)

not sure


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

Looks legal to me as well. Would make a cool euro mount too.

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk


----------

