A moose hunt near Nikiski, Alaska, turned into a wildlife investigation after a hunter admitted shooting a bull that a trooper later measured below the legal size requirement.
Body-camera footage presented by the YouTube channel WardenPOV showed the hunter, identified as Nathan, speaking with Alaska Wildlife Trooper Wood beside the partially processed animal. Nathan said he believed the bull was legal when he fired, but realized after examining the antlers that he had made a serious mistake.
The shooting itself was not the only concern.
Trooper Wood became suspicious after learning that Nathan had removed the head from the kill site, carried it into the trees, and begun processing the meat without first contacting authorities, even though his phone appeared to have service.
Nathan repeatedly insisted that he intended to report the mistake and was only trying to prevent the meat from spoiling. The trooper did not accuse him of intentionally poaching the animal, but said the circumstances prevented the case from being handled as a straightforward self-report.
Hunter Said He Miscounted the Brow Tines
Nathan told Wood that the bull appeared early that morning with several other moose.
He said he initially believed the animal had enough brow tines to be legal. From one angle, he thought he saw two on each side, and when the bull turned again, he believed a third point was visible.
Nathan admitted that he became excited and fired before taking enough time to confirm what he was seeing.
“I didn’t wait long enough,” he told the trooper, describing the shooting as a complete disaster caused by his own mistake.
The bull reportedly ran only a short distance before collapsing near the road. Nathan said the animal briefly moved toward him after being shot, forcing him to back away before it fell.
Under the rules discussed in the footage, the bull needed to meet a legal antler standard, including either the required spread or qualifying brow tines. Wood said it was clearly under 50 inches and did not have the necessary configuration.
A later measurement placed the antler spread at roughly 45½ to 46 inches, with two brow tines on each side.
For a hunter, that difference is not minor. Legal identification must happen before the trigger is pulled, and uncertainty should always favor letting the animal walk.
Trooper Questioned Why the Head Was Hidden in the Trees
When Wood arrived, he found the moose near the road but learned that Nathan had moved the head and antlers 15 to 20 yards into the woods.
Nathan explained that he was trying to clear the roadway and planned to quarter the animal and hang the meat in nearby trees before leaving to call the troopers.
He said the antlers were moved first because the head was one of the easiest parts to carry.
Wood was not immediately convinced.
He told Nathan that the setup looked unusual because the animal had fallen near the road while the most obvious identifying part of the moose had been placed out of sight.
From a game warden’s perspective, moving antlers into cover before reporting an illegal harvest could look like an attempt to conceal evidence.
Nathan acknowledged that it appeared suspicious but maintained that he had not intended to hide anything.
He repeatedly showed Wood where the animal had been shot, where it fell, and where the head had been placed. He also explained his plan to stage all the meat in the trees so it could cool and remain protected until officers arrived.
The explanation was possible, but it left an obvious question: why not call first?
Nathan Said His Priority Was Saving the Meat
Nathan said he believed the most important thing was preventing waste.
The weather had recently been warm, and he was concerned that leaving a large animal intact could cause the meat to spoil. He had already begun skinning the moose when Wood arrived.
Nathan said he planned to process the animal completely, get it off the road, and then reach an area with better cell reception.
Wood agreed that the meat needed to be salvaged, but said a phone call would not have delayed that work. Troopers likely would have instructed Nathan to continue processing the moose normally and then bring the meat and antlers to the post.
The trooper also noticed that Nathan’s phone displayed LTE service and two bars while showing his digital hunting license.
Nathan said his wireless provider had unreliable coverage in the area and that he could receive texts more easily than calls. However, he admitted that he had not actually attempted to contact the troopers.
That detail weakened his claim that poor reception prevented an immediate report.
Taking care of edible meat was responsible, but it did not replace the duty to notify authorities as soon as possible. Both actions could have happened at nearly the same time.
Trooper Knew Nathan Had Reported Violations Before
The interaction became more complicated because Wood recognized Nathan and knew he had dealt with wildlife authorities in the past.
According to WardenPOV, a database check showed that Nathan had called troopers several times to ask about hunting and fishing rules or report possible violations. He had even reported himself previously after taking too many sockeye salmon.
Nathan also mentioned having the phone number of another officer, Trooper Johnson, and said he had contacted him during earlier situations.
Wood later reviewed phone records provided by Nathan’s hunting companion, which showed that Nathan had called the companion shortly after the shooting.
The trooper said this history showed Nathan knew how to contact wildlife officers and was not normally hesitant about doing so.
That made the delay more difficult to explain.
Wood told Nathan that he did not believe he had gone into the field planning to poach a moose. Instead, the trooper suggested embarrassment may have influenced his decisions after realizing the bull was too small.
Nathan admitted feeling embarrassed but denied trying to avoid reporting the animal.
He said he had stopped to ask himself what the right thing was and concluded that he needed to call the troopers, but became focused on cooling and salvaging the meat first.
The Case Was Not Treated as a Self-Report
Wood explained that voluntary and immediate self-reporting can affect how an accidental illegal harvest is handled.
Because the trooper arrived before Nathan contacted authorities, and because the head had been moved into the trees, Wood said he could not treat the incident as a normal self-turn-in.
That distinction mattered.
The trooper told Nathan that standard procedure allowed officers to seize property involved in the violation. Technically, that could include vehicles and other equipment, although Wood said he was limiting the initial seizure to the rifle.
Nathan identified the firearm as a 7mm Magnum that had belonged to his father.
Wood made clear that taking the rifle did not necessarily mean it would be permanently forfeited. It was being held while the investigation and court process moved forward.
Nathan cooperated and later brought the processed moose, the antlers, and the rifle to the wildlife trooper post.
The meat was set aside for charity rather than being wasted.
That outcome preserved something useful from an unlawful harvest, but it did not erase the original mistake or the questions raised by Nathan’s actions afterward.
Trooper Explained What Should Happen Next Time
Nathan asked Wood what a hunter should do if a similar mistake ever occurred again.
The trooper’s answer was direct: report it immediately.
A hunter who realizes an animal may be illegal should contact wildlife authorities as soon as service is available, explain exactly what happened, and follow their instructions.
In most cases, Wood said, officers would tell the hunter to salvage and process the animal as usual while arranging for the meat and evidence to be turned over.
The call itself would take only a few minutes and could prevent an honest mistake from appearing like concealment.
Nathan said he understood and repeatedly apologized.
He described himself as an ethical hunter who had become rushed near the end of the season and convinced himself he had seen a legal third brow tine.
That is perhaps the clearest lesson from the encounter. Excitement, limited hunting time, and fear that an animal may disappear into the woods are not substitutes for certainty.
Nathan Received a Court Summons
After the moose was processed and delivered, Wood issued Nathan a summons for taking a sublegal bull.
The court appearance was scheduled in Kenai.
The footage did not show a final court outcome, but the investigation had already resulted in the loss of the moose, temporary seizure of the rifle, and a wildlife charge.
Nathan’s cooperation likely prevented the situation from becoming worse, but it came after decisions that made the trooper question whether the violation would have been reported without police arriving.
WardenPOV’s footage showed a case that sat somewhere between an obvious hunting mistake and a possible attempt to quietly manage the consequences.
Wood ultimately said he did not view Nathan as a poacher, but that did not mean the violation could be ignored.
The bull was clearly under the legal standard, and once Nathan discovered that fact, the proper next move was a phone call – not moving the antlers into the woods and waiting until the animal was fully processed.
A mistaken shot can happen in seconds. What a hunter does in the minutes afterward may determine whether officers see an honest error, a delayed confession, or an effort to hide an illegal kill.
Ed spent his childhood in the backwoods of Maine, where harsh winters taught him the value of survival skills. With a background in bushcraft and off-grid living, Ed has honed his expertise in fire-making, hunting, and wild foraging. He writes from personal experience, sharing practical tips and hands-on techniques to thrive in any outdoor environment. Whether it’s primitive camping or full-scale survival, Ed’s advice is grounded in real-life challenges.
