DNR Guide Concession Program
DNR Guide Concession Program
Alaska Guides and interested forum members,
The Alaska Dept of Natural Resources has updated their website for the upcoming, projected Guide Concession Program (GCP).
This GCP was a hot topic when originally proposed back in 2009. A lot of stuff has changed since 2009 and 2010.
Alaska's guide community, as well as anybody else interested in the future of the commercial services guiding industry in Alaska needs to check it out at.....
This is a long read. I hope a good read.
I'll need to read it twice to digest it all. But at first glance...
...I'm not as against it (?!?) as I once was.
Of course, at this time I reserve the right to change my mind...
A note to forum moderators/admin...please keep this thread here
I was going to post a thread here on this, I see it was also posted on mgmt forum.
I've just read the entire new draft of the proposed guide concession program, and the implications of this are extremely important to all nonresident and resident hunters. And as we had a thread here on hunting forum about the must-be-guided regulation that went many pages and many thousands of views, I respectfully request that this thread stay on the hunting forum.
I'll be putting together some comments on the new draft Dennis linked to (thank you Dennis!).
This all relates to all the sheep hunting threads and sheep proposals too.
The short version basics: This proposal on guide concession areas would have two classes of concessions, "full" and "limited" concessions. Under a full concession the guide could only have THREE assistants, under a limited concession only ONE assistant.
I will give quotes later on how this will definitely reduce both guides and nonresident opportunities in many areas.
In order to pay for all this, there would be client fees of $750 for all the must-be-guided species (brown/grizzly, sheep and goat) and $500 for the other species. The required annual guide concession fees may also cause overall guide fees to increase
So this is an extremely important hunting issue for all, as well as how it relates to the must-be-guided reg...I sincerely think it's an issue we can and should discuss here on the hunting forum that gets so many more views.
Originally Posted by AlaskaTrueAdventure
lol, i love that last part dennis...and thanks tons for posting it...and continueing to contribute to this crazy forum...i for one pretty much always appreciate your posts.
so far i like it...lol, and i too reserve that right
it's hard enough to find assistants worth a crap anymore...just ask my boss, and any outfitter that hires...i'm all for leaving the great ones in the field...and forcing the others to quit or become better....i'm sure i've got more on this later when i read it better...and try to decipher all the mumbo jumbo...a difficult task.
i'm with mark moderators...leave it here.
So far it doesnt seem to out of the question but I do question one thing and maybe I missed something.Say this goes through and we limit guides,whats to stop the transporters from taking advantage of this and upping their drop offs so to speak wont we be in the same situation,I guess theorectically they could do that now so who knows.Alaska True thanks for the link its a good read.Zack your right a lot of mumbo jumdo to decipher....lol
...a little more information, including the schedule for public meetings...
...I know you guides want to mark your calendars....
The Department of Natural Resources will be holding public meetings on the proposed statewide Big Game Guide Concession Program. There will be an opportunity for public testimony at each meeting. The proposed program will select qualified individuals to conduct big game commercial guiding on state land through an allocation process that would involve registered and master guides submitting an application with supporting documentation to Division of Mining, Land and Water (DMLW). Through this process a limited number of commercial guides will be selected to operate in designated areas throughout the state.
Meeting dates, locations, and times:
• March 6, 2014 Juneau Hickel Room, Centennial Hall 6:00 - 8:30pm
• March 14, 2012 Fairbanks FNSB Noel Wien Library 6:00 - 8:30pm
• March 20, 2012 Anchorage Central Middle School 6:00 - 8:30pm
Members of the public are encouraged to attend the meetings and comment on the proposed program. Written comments must be received prior to 5:00 pm on April 23, 2012 to be considered. If you have questions you may call (907) 269-8587 or inquire via email at firstname.lastname@example.org.
i havent been able to get around to the forum the last few days, busy working without my computer along. the past few months there sure has been lots of posts and threads concerning overuse of areas by guides, resource problems as a result of guiding, and other related concerns.....guides and guiding being the most commonly mentioned "culprit" ...
then dennis (a guide) posts a thread about a new proposal that will greatly limit state land guiding....and nobody posts. me, bear, and mark were the only ones that posted so far... not sure what that says....but its interesting to me.
anyway: dennis, bear, jake, joe, muskeg, strahan....anyone read this thing? i tried, and while i managed to understand a bit of it, my boss (much better at translating such wording to real world stuff that i can understand) brought it too my attention that the "limited" permit would be available to newbies and green guides just getting into their registered status...and that the picking of the guides, and the dispersing of the limited permits would be based on more or less a lottery system after the required points be met by said guide. (of which didnt seem very difficult to obtain) am i right? in which case any ol joe blow (along with his one assistant) that scores so many points can compete on the same peice of land that the extablished experienced guide (with his three allowed assistants) hunts? thats pretty much crap in my opinion if thats the case, and isnt too far removed from the screwed up system all ready in effect.
also...when the hell are they gonna address the transporter problems that will arise from ANY gcp program...not to mention the heinous transporter problem that allready exists? alot of guys with alot of equipment will get pushed aside by ANY gcp program...in guiding terms.
which will leave them with a transporter liscense, alot of expensive equipment, a guide liscense that would be relatively moot, and zero vested interest left in the game animals that they once guided hunters for...which will invariably lead to over transporting without a care in the world for the resource.........seems to me anyway.
So I have read it but now I am questioning something after your post Zack.First I will have to reread but let me ask first. I dont actually get the whole "limited guide" thing myself,I mean I understand the basis and why, buT if I am correct and areas are going to be based on points then limited guides are always going to be limited since they will always have less points then the the guides assigned an area .And Zack your right I dont think it will be much different except if limited guides get an area by lottery,also what happens if they get an area that they never hunted,lots of questions,ahh crap let me reread this thing....
To go back to this transporter thing I think if you are going to limit guides you also have to adress transporters at the same time or in my opinion labels will be the only thing that will change not the amount of people....
You said it Zack I can see the advertising already...FORMER GUIDE FOR HIRE TO TRANSPORT.....
That will be interesting to see. I do know that I have flown with three transporters that care as much for the resource as I do.
ok so I was wrong on one point (man I hate reading this crud) the lottery is if you have minimum scoreing and then you will be placed in the lottery for a concession of interest and that is just one method they are considering.The preferred method they are considering is a combination of points and lottery for the 85 limited slots.Ill keep reading its going to be real interesting to see how all this pans out.
Absolutely....as in our industry , good and bad ... But I'm not referring to the good.
Originally Posted by AKDoug
I pretty much consider myself an Average Joe resident hunter. Never hunted sheep. Mostly looking for meat from deer, elk, moose and bou. I have a couple of nice trophy's because I happened on to them not because I hunted them. More than anything I enjoy the outdoors and comradery of hunting camps.
I am concerned about how this exclusive consession will affect me.
When I fly into Anchorage or where ever for a hunt I take a cab to my transporters base and head out. I never really considered the difference between the two. For a competitive fee they both take me where I want to go. If I change my mind in rout I expect to be accommodated.
Correct me if I`m wrong but as I understand the guide laws. Only a guide can "outfit" a big game hunter in the "field" Does outfit include renting equipment to a non guided DIY hunter?
Lets say there is an area with 5 guides competing for the non res tags. They offer a full range of service and facilities. A couple of them offer outfitting to res DIY. Maybe tents, stoves, gear atv,skiff etc. This reduces the costs of the res hunter having to haul it all in and broadens the horizon he can hunt and supliments the guides income.
I don`t think State land cossessions will be good for the resident hunters of Alaska. In my opinion it would be better to limit res and non res tags and make guides exercise their already exclusive outfitter rights to supplement their incomes by helping outfit resident hunters.
Another thing I am wondering about this is if it will cause more guides to apply in the already exclusive Fed areas.
I am some what familiar with some guides on NWR lands who have had areas for over 30 years. I guess this is the year that some of the leases are up for reissue.
I have friends in some of the areas with pretty exclusive inholding properties. They tell me they have each been approached by 2 other guides who are filing for the areas and are looking for a base of operation. They say this has never happened before. I wonder if this has caused an increase in competition on Fed land or if it has always been open season for Fed consessions. Will this cause more friction between guides.
Please excuse my ignorance and bluntness but I see the res hunter as a loser to any further exclusive concessions to the guide industry.
Originally Posted by fishguts
no apology or excuse necessary...thats the point of dennis posting this, to see our concerns.
i'll state a few things...the fed areas that i know of and have hunted only get an alotted amount of pressure. the feds give there areas to select outfitter for a select amount of years, then everyone gets to compete for them again. many outfitters will good names and lots of usage continue to get these areas because of the obvious usage accompanied with using the land commercially, and if they keep theyre nose clean then they are (many times) better suited to continue commercial use. so while theyre may be more competition for the fed areas...the resource wont be affected any differently unless the feds change the way the do things...i dont see that happening
your air taxi of choice is in fact that...a taxi. but my point was that theres alot of outfitters that act as both, and if they get bumped because of a gcp, then in my opinion theyre vested interest in the land and the resource is nill...they still gotta make money, and they have all this equipment...however sad it is to say, ethics are a relative thing in many people eyes, and seemingly subject to change with changes to pocketbook. so without an interest in any management issues or the long term sustainablility of the local resource, it leaves alot of guys with little to no ethics that can no longer guide a venue to rape and pillage...this may seem extreme, but i think we all know that theres guys out there that could really give a rats ass about what theyre doing. if you take away that vested interest that at one time at least kept them in some sort of line in terms of keeping a resourcec out there for there clients to hunt...well, i dont think the outcome will be pretty.
this is all just my opinion though.
air taxis and transporters as you mentioned are a great thing and offer access to country otherwise unhuntable by many...we'd all be pretty bummed without em...but in my opinion they've gotta be regulated...have to be. as 425 express posted in another thread a few weeks ago: if you think that transporters didnt have a LOT to do with the problems in the mulchatna heard then your being naive (or something to that sort) i agree and its just one example. the brooks being a great example in recent times.....
Ok a lot of this seems to be similar to the process the feds use with the exception of the limited guide thing. I am hoping someone can help answer something for me. Do feds limit the amount of transporters that operate in the refuge like they do with guides,I have worked in refuges for years but never really thought about this one,for the life of I cant find that answer
Glad some of the guides here are reading up on the new draft. I've been so busy with getting ready to head to town, pulling lines, working on BOG stuff etc that I haven't gotten too far in the nitty gritty of this yet, but been asking some questions and also trying to figure out just what this would mean as far as reductions in nonres opportunity and license/tag fees and game harvests in the problem areas.
Maybe some of you guides can fill me in better on some things. I was looking at some of the problem areas like 20A North, in area 20-04. The stats in Appendix C show that we have about 21 guides in 20-04 with around 200 contracted hunts in 2009 and 2010. Obviously the 21 guides isn't the total number of guides, so I assume that is just the contracting guide totals. So I'm curious, how many total guides do you guys think there are to do 200 total hunts with a 40 day sheep season, the Sept moose season? I assume there aren't too many guides doing 1x2 hunts too, and 95 percent of all hunts are 1x1?
The GCP says 20-04 would have 4 full and 2 limited concessions. The full concessions allow for a max of 3 assistant guides, so that's 4 guides per full concession, which would make 16 total, then we have 2 limited concessions which allow only one assistant guide, so that's 4 more guides for a total of 20 guides in 20-04. Assuming every hunt is a 1x1 hunt and they typically are scheduled for ten days, that's a total of 60 hunts every 30 days. Sheep season runs 40 days, so I'm seeing I think a pretty big reduction in the total # of hunts in 20-04 under this plan, does that line up with what others are seeing too?
Re transporters, for years now the BGCSB has said they will take on the transporter problems after they deal with the guide issues, but in talking with the transporters on that board over the years what I'm hearing is that there just isn't really much they can do to limit transporters. Not every Part 135 air-taxi needs to have a transporter license to haul out hunters and/or their game meat and trophies. The guide board has no power of authority over those guys. And I don't think they have much authority over the licensed transporters either as far as restricting where they can go and how many hunters they can drop off.
Re fed concessions, I think the lack of limits on guides on state/BLM lands has caused more guides to apply for fed concessions, because those areas have strict limits on the # of guides and guided hunts.
The guide-outfitters who are pilots operating under part 91 regs, if they don't get a concession I am not sure that we'll see a bunch of them flying out hunters on "outfitted" hunts using their guide license and part 91 regs to do so. Actually this question came up when I spoke with another guide, he isn't sure just what the law is on that and neither am I. Maybe someone who knows can fill us in on how that works and if it's legal to do it under part 91 regs.
Originally Posted by Bear
absolutely on some of them....the fed ground i hunt currently with my boss' outfit gets transported only with permitting....as it should be. but i think it differs some from area to area...someone else may have some answeres on different federal areas. i know my boss used to have permitting to transport on federal ground that he didnt have guide use of...and vise versa. jake brought it to our attention on another thread that not all federal land is permitted the same, so i assume its likewise for transporting.......
See Mark to me at least I think you have to adress both issues at the same time ie Guides and transporters or else I think labels will just change not the amount of hunting pressure. That is why I was asking about the refuges I am pretty sure I know the answer to my question and Zack even helped out on that one, Feds have done both limit guides and limit transporters but I dont claim to have all the info on that(yet)....
Originally Posted by bushrat
I chatted with a guide/transporter/air taxi owner about this the other day. Although it was highly likely that he would end up with a concession, he did say that one of the potential flaws in the system is that he, or any other transporter, could fill in revenue shortfalls by transporting un-guided hunters into the neighboring concession.
Personally, I don't expect it will be a huge issue for a number of reasons:
1. With less guides in some of the currently crowded areas there will be more "room" for some additional hunters.
2. Unguided hunters are less successful.
3. The number of transported hunters will be somewhat self limited by the number of people willing and able to pay the cost.
But that's just my opinion.
Overall, I think this current proposal is far better thought out and likely to be adopted than the first version. It's a much more elegant solution than trying to force more non-res to draw I think.
Regarding Refuges, right now as far as I know the feds don't have any limits on the number of permits they give to air-taxis and transporters to operate on Refuge lands. Nor any limits on the # of dropoffs/landings those guys can do. I know in ANWR this issue has come up, you see it in the public comments over the new management planning, and hear it when talking with Refuge staff.
All commercial use does have to be permitted, which I think is what Zack was alluding to, but still no limits on a permitted/authorized commercial air taxi or transporter. This whole notion of regulating/restricting that type of activity has a whole bunch of downsides for hunters, as already in some cases there have been attempts on NPS lands to limit only one type of client air-taxis/transporters can drop off: Hunters. I don't see that washing in court. Same thing with trying to regulate/limit these guys on state lands in similar fashion.
Your first point is exactly what ninefoot and I are talking about, same pressure different labels..I am just real curious to see how this will work out..
Originally Posted by Yellowknife