2023 Goat on Kodiak

[Brent]

The guide aged him. I don't think I have an up close of that one, just of mine. I'll look for one. Here's mine...

Based on the rings, this one looks 4+.

 

[Antares]

Two annuli + bottom edge = 3.5 yo.

 

[ttmannan]

I see a five year old goat. Definitely not 3.5

Ok. Outfitter put 3 on the hunt report card as well. His goat being longer and bigger bases than mine at the same age did have me wondering. Here’s another pic he sent me. This is the 8 3/4” long goat with 5 2/8 bases, not mine. It’s the first goat in the pics in daylight in my report.

 

[ttmannan]

3.5 yo is correct.

View attachment 612447

This one is mine and the shorter of the two at 7.5” with 5” bases. Both were called 3.5

 

[Nick Muche]

Not much age on them Kodiak goats these days, it seems.

 

[Brent]

Ok. Outfitter put 3 on the hunt report card as well. His goat being longer and bigger bases than mine at the same age did have me wondering. Here’s another pic he sent me. This is the 8 3/4” long goat with 5 2/8 bases, not mine. It’s the first goat in the pics in daylight in my report.

Looking at the rings, the bigger goat is at least 4.5. It's obviously older than the smaller goat.

I now agree with @Antares, your goat is likely 3.5

 

[Antares]

They are both 3.5 yo. Two annuli + bottom edge = 3.5 yo.

 

[Brent]

@Antares I'm curious. Do you see the same from the other angle? The size discrepancy between the goats has me wondering.

 

[Antares]

Pictures are hard. I still think 3.5 yo on this. What you have labeled as "4" may be a false annulus. It's hard to tell without being able to follow it all the way around the horn. It's placement is closer to the previous annulus than I would expect.

Here's a 2.5 yo from the same angle for reference. One annulus + the bottom edge = 2.5 yo.

There looks to be a second annulus there, but it's false. The age of 2.5 yo is corroborated by the tooth eruption pattern.

 

[Brent]

Ha! I don't know... starting to look like 2.5 yo from that angle...

Here's a 2.5 yo from the same angle for reference.

LOL!! I see 3.5 on this one! WTF?

Isn't the tip section to the first defined ring 2 years?

Ehhh... Whatever. Congrats on your goats @ttmannan

 

[ttmannan]

LOL!! I see 3.5 on this one! WTF?

Isn't the tip section to the first defined ring 2 years?

Ehhh... Whatever. Congrats on your goats @ttmannan

Thanks Brent!

 

[Antares]

Isn't the tip section to the first defined ring 2 years?

Yes and no. It's the second winter and marks 1.5 years of age. The age-naming convention is a little weird and I'm not explaining it well.

When I'm counting, I skip the first annulus (which is 0.5 yo; the first winter; it usually gets worn away in older goats) and starting counting with the second annulus (usually the most obvious (1.5 yo)). Count all the annuli, plus the bottom edge. So in my example above, I count 1 annulus and the bottom edge, for a final age of 2.5 yo. ADF&G would record that goat as 2 yo, because its in the second year of its life (it wouldn't have turned 3 until the following spring). Again, I like the half-year convention because it's more precise, that animal was 2.5 yo (plus minus a few months) when it died.

Here's another example. A nanny. I would call this 8.5 yo (seven annuli + the bottom edge). ADF&G would record it as 8 yo.

 

[Brent]

Thanks for the info @Antares.

I understand it the way it is explained here. The tip section down to the first distinct annulus is 2 years, perhaps minus a month.

 

[Antares]

Thanks for the info @Antares.

I understand it the way it is explained here. The tip section down to the first distinct annulus is 2 years, perhaps minus a month.

View attachment 612833

I agree with you, the image from you shared from Rocky Mountain Goat Alliance explains it well. I will edit my above post to avoid confusion.

Below is how I count and it gets me to the same age. Seven annuli + bottom edge = 8.5 yo.

 

[Antares]

I do not believe that low probability equates to irresponsible unless there is a chance to wound and lose an animal.

A lower probability of a good shot equates to a higher probability of a bad shot.

Bad shots result in more wounding than good shots.

Therefore, low probability shots result in a higher chance of wounding.

Where's the fault in that logic?

 

[Falcon]

Great write up and pics. Huge congrats on your goat. I was on a Kodiak island deer hunt last nov off the south side of the island. Rugged and steep Country.

Nice work!

 

[JoeB]

looks like an awesome hunt Congrats!!! Would you mind sharing the outfitter you went with as this is on my bucket list

 

[ttmannan]

Thanks @JoeB and @Falcon! It was a great hunt.
@JoeB, I went with Sam Rohrer as the outfitter. Rohrer Bear Camp. Great guys and a hard working crew. I'd be happy to answer any questions about them, the process, gear etc.

 

[twdjr]

Congrats!

 

[ttmannan]

Congrats!

Thank you!