Page 1 of 16 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 316

Thread: who'd be up for a non-res hunting regulation change

  1. #1
    Member cjustinm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Kotz
    Posts
    1,004

    Default who'd be up for a non-res hunting regulation change

    Talking to a friend the other day got me thinking about the guide requirement for non-resident hunters for bear,sheep, and goat. I understand the reason behind this (and the guide money) but..... I was wondering what do you people think of non-residents who were once alaska residents coming back and hunting these species without a guide. My point is lets say i move away next year and I have successfully harvested sheep and bears legally as an alaska resident while i was here. Isn't it stupid that if i were to come back up here in a couple years hunting as a non-resident i would have to have a guide for something i have already hunted and demonstrated that i was able to take legally and within the regulations. i know that there would be tons of grey areas but seems silly you could shoot a bear one year and then the next year come back as a non-res and you suddenly need to pay a guide 18k for what you've already competently done...what are your thoughts. I'm not saying being able to buy resident tags or anything i'm talking about paying non-res prices and being put into non-resident drawings just being able to do it without a guide.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    eagle river
    Posts
    142

    Default

    I think we should eliminate all non-resident guide requirements but at the same time make all non-resident hunting by draw permit only with a maximum of 5% of the permits in any permit area going to non-residents. thus any permit area with less than 20 permits - there would be no non-resident hunting

  3. #3
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,218

    Default

    It has been thoroughly demonstrated that the mandatory guide requirement has little or nothing to do with the hunters knowledge, skills or ability.... Personally, I think all Alaska guides should be required to be PFT Alaska residents. But given that point has been tested in the courts and ruled illegal, and given that many, if not most, guides operating in Alaska are Outside residents, I don't see the point in maintaining the mandatory guide requirement for Outsiders. What purpose does it serve? I'll also second jws' idea that non-resident hunts be limited by draw, with a low annual cap.
    ...he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. ~Thomas Jefferson
    I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief. ~Gerry Spence
    The last thing Alaska needs is another bigot. ~member Catch It
    #Resist

  4. #4
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,887

    Default

    If you want Alaska resident hunting privileges then become and remain a resident.
    Why should we allow people to skirt our rules/laws just because you were at one time a resident?
    A friend of mine just moved back from out of the country. He had to buy a nonresident fishing license. He has lived in AK for over 40 years before moving away for 18 months or so. But he realized that is what he had to do no whining no complaining.
    If we make exceptions like you are proposing when does it end?
    I personally feel if a person does not qualify for a PFD they should not qualify for a resident hunting/fishing. Granted that hurts a lot of snowbirds but hey I can/do hack it here year round why can't everyone else who claims residency?
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

  5. #5

    Default

    I would favor changing this, because I love hunting here but my career might take me to another state eventually.

    I would be fine with paying much more for a non-resident license/tag, having a lower preference in drawings, etc. But having to pay $15,000+ for a guide makes it basically impossible for anyone in the middle class to hunt these animals as non-residents (or ex-residents). It seems like the main purpose of this rule is to protect the business model of guides. If the guides were required to be residents, there would at least be some consistency to it as an Alaska-comes-first rule, but banning unguided non-resident hunting to boost business for non-resident guides seems wrong.

    There has to be some way to responsibly manage populations, preserve the current level of guaranteed opportunity for residents, and make Alaskan sheep/goat/bear hunting available to some outsiders who aren't ridiculously rich.

    Why should we allow people to skirt our rules/laws just because you were at one time a resident?
    It's not about skirting around the rules, it's about asking whether the rules are fair and should maybe be changed.
    Jason
    http://www.troutnut.com -- Fly fishing photos & insect hatch encyclopedia.
    http://www.daltoncorridormap.com -- Exact 5-mile Haul Road corridor boundary for GPS & Google Earth

  6. #6
    Member cjustinm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Kotz
    Posts
    1,004

    Default

    i agree with troutnut.. its not about skirting rules it's about changeing rules that are favorable to only the guide industy and not the guys who can't afford to spend a boatload to hunt. Im all for going to a nonres draw system that way its not increasing non res pressure just making it so you don't necessarily have to have a potential nonres guide telling somone whose already been there done that how to hunt something they've already hunted. im not trying to say open the floodgates for anyone whoses ever set foot here to come back and hunt as a resident just not having to deal with the expense of a guide. ill never be able to afford a 15k hunt nor would i pay that but if it were a nonres draw system it wouldnt necessarily be more people hunting just without a guide they didnt need.

  7. #7
    Member hodgeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Delta Junction AK
    Posts
    4,055

    Default

    I wouldn't support it... you'd have folks live here for one year and then come back every year to hunt sheep and/or bears as a non-res.

    I think the guide rule is silly from a technical standpoint but scads of "once upon a time" residents hunting under resident rules makes even less sense when you consider we turn over the entire population of the state every 5 years (20% turnover)- there's 10x the number of former Alaskans than current ones.

    Like it or not, the guide requirement (and the guide's fee) is probably the only thing keeping many areas in AK from being draw only for those species.
    "I do not deal in hypotheticals. The world, as it is, is vexing enough..." Col. Stonehill, True Grit

  8. #8

    Default

    You might be surprised by the numbers of nonresidents who drive the highway to hunt the dalton for caribou. Its more than you think.

    I think that there should be a cap on drawing permits. To me, its ludicrous that Steve Rinella from New York gets access to Chitina Bison, Delta Management Sheep, Tok Management Sheep, Mills Creek Goat and now Delta Management sheep while living in NYC.

    Somehow the state keeps 10% of tags for nonresidents. This makes their ability to draw the more valuable Alaska Tags easier than for instate residents. Case in point is Kodiak Island. I would have to move out of state if I really wanted a shot at drawing a Kodiak tag and to me that is a travesty.

    Sincerely,
    Thomas

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,587

    Default

    I like anything that throws a monkey wrench into the plans of non resident "guides."

    When I first came to AK and learned of the non-res requirement for a guide, I thought it was essentially a safety issue, to keep Lesser 48'ers from getting themselves into trouble. Later I learned that this is obviously not the case.

    I support anything that is "Alaskans First," event though, for some reason, people say it's illegal.

    I think we should completely drop the requirement for no re hunters to have guides in its entirety. On the other hand, I feel that like petroleum production, wildlife is an Alaskan natural resource that belongs to all Alaskans. If you want to extract our resources, then you pay the royalty on it. I think we should go to high fees for non res licenses, an additional fee if you harvest an animal, and, as others have said, very limited, draw only, permits for non residents. Add to that, some sort of Alaskan "hunter ed" that focuses on the issues and risks that outsiders seem to come into every year to cover the safety bit.

    I think this would continue to put revenue into F&G coffers, keep the non res harvest numbers down, and completely deflate the number of non-resident guides.

    I'm with Kasilofchristian on this one. We live here all year long. If you want the privileges and benefits of Alaskan residency, come join us for the responsibilities and challenges of Alaskan residency.

    PS: I think the definition of resident should be changed from one calendar year to five calendar years.

  10. #10
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,887

    Default

    If we make it easier for non residents will we not have an increase in the number of big game hunters in AK?
    With the increasing difficulty in harvesting AK big game in many areas these types of rules will not help but will only make it harder for everyone resident and nonresident to harvest big game.
    I don't think it is fair for a person to receive resident benefits in another state while in the same year receiving benefits normally received by AK residents while you are hunting in AK.
    If your job/career takes you elsewhere that is your choice to move. You could take a different job/career path.
    It will not be an issue for me as I fully intend to remain in AK for the rest of my life as an AK resident. That's why the PFD has the question as to whether we fully intend to remain in AK indefinitely. If you can't answer that question truthfully then you should not receive a PFD check.
    While we are at it lets go ahead and let the non residents dipnet if they once were legally allowed to. I don't suppose many would support that one.
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,587

    Default

    Hodgeman beat me to it. The turnover rate here is insane, and I think that is due in large part to the military people here. Come here, live here 3-4 yrs of your enlistment, and, in the second year onward, you take our money (PFD), our fish (dipnetting), and our foodsource (hunting) then split back to wherever you came from. A five year residency requirement would end all of that, which, in turn, would boost our PFD's at a minimum.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kasilofchrisn View Post
    If your job/career takes you elsewhere that is your choice to move. You could take a different job/career path.
    It will not be an issue for me as I fully intend to remain in AK for the rest of my life as an AK resident.
    AMEN!!

    I've been chronically under-employed and unemployed ever since I came to Alaska, yet I remain. "My job is making me move" doesn't wash with me.

  13. #13
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FL2AK-Old Town View Post
    AMEN!!

    I've been chronically under-employed and unemployed ever since I came to Alaska, yet I remain. "My job is making me move" doesn't wash with me.
    Usually job moves are expected (military) or come with increased benefits such as a salary increase. Those are benefits you accept at the cost of losing residency here.
    I have never heard of anyone legally forced to move by an employer. If there was something in your pre hire contract that stated there was a future mandated potential move then you knew about it(or should have) before you signed the paperwork.
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

  14. #14
    Member cjustinm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Kotz
    Posts
    1,004

    Default

    again, im not trying to increase hunting pressure im saying if you were to cap non resident hunter numbers which you absolutely should, you should do away with the guide requiremnt if you have a) been a resident and b) sucessfully and legally sealed the big game species you wish to hunt. NOT let everyone whose lived here a year get resident tags and preference. its not about opening up more opportunity for non-residents just making it so they dont have to use a guide for something they hunted while living here. i guess this would have to go hand in hand with a non res cap or quota. im not a nonresident ive been up here a while just don't like seeing the average hunter with alaska expierience having to pay ridiculous money for no good reason to come back and hunt.

  15. #15
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cjustinm View Post
    ive been up here a while just don't like seeing the average hunter with alaska expierience having to pay ridiculous money for no good reason.
    There is a good reason. It is because they chose to move out of AK and give up their residency status.
    I lived in MN for over 20 years before moving here. You won't find me petitioning them for residency benefits.
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

  16. #16
    Member cjustinm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Kotz
    Posts
    1,004

    Default

    so chris hypothetically say YOU (Chris) have harvested a dozen sheep in AK. you move away and wish to come back and hunt as a non res and put in for a draw tag...you think its fair you should have to pay a guide all sorts of money to tag along with you even though you may have more AK sheep expierience than them...and it gets better...the guide is from out of state... so i guess the residency benifit im asking about is the ability to wipe your butt without the guide having to hold the paper if you've shown you can do it yourself.

  17. #17
    Member hodgeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Delta Junction AK
    Posts
    4,055

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FL2AK-Old Town View Post
    Hodgeman beat me to it. The turnover rate here is insane, and I think that is due in large part to the military people here. Come here, live here 3-4 yrs of your enlistment, and, in the second year onward, you take our money (PFD), our fish (dipnetting), and our foodsource (hunting) then split back to wherever you came from. A five year residency requirement would end all of that, which, in turn, would boost our PFD's at a minimum.
    It's not just military, it's everybody. After 14 years I have more (many more) Alaska made friends outside the state than in, only a few were military. Alaskans are a transient bunch of folks- far more so than anywhere else I've been, regardless of how they got here.

    My career would certainly benefit from a move to the L48...but my lifestyle would certainly suffer, so I don't.
    "I do not deal in hypotheticals. The world, as it is, is vexing enough..." Col. Stonehill, True Grit

  18. #18
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hodgeman View Post
    ...Alaskans are a transient bunch of folks- ...
    I think it more correct to say that Alaska attracts a bunch of transients; they come and they go. But those who can correctly be called Alaskans, are by definition not transient. We live here. Those who merely visit here for a few years, due to employment or curiosity, then depart, were not Alaskans while they were visiting, and are not ex-Alaskans once they have gone.
    ...he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. ~Thomas Jefferson
    I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief. ~Gerry Spence
    The last thing Alaska needs is another bigot. ~member Catch It
    #Resist

  19. #19

    Default

    I lived in MN for over 20 years before moving here. You won't find me petitioning them for residency benefits.


    But you can probably hunt any game animal Minnesota has to offer, unguided, if you're willing to pay the state more money for a non-resident tag.

    The question is why shouldn't Alaska work like that -- why should the ability to hunt sheep/goat/bear unguided at all be a residency benefit? Residency already has the benefits of much lower tag/license fees and guaranteed tags or (in most cases) better drawing opportunities. Those resident advantages are definitely fair. But is it really right to force non-residents targeting certain game to shell out $15,000+ for a guide they might not need, especially if the guide isn't even a resident?

    If being able to sheep hunt itself should really be a "residency benefit," why not ban all non-resident sheep hunters? The way it is now, sheep hunting is not just a resident benefit, it's a resident OR rich guy benefit. Why should Alaska law favor the rich non-residents, if the only purpose is to benefit guides who are mostly non-residents themselves?
    Jason
    http://www.troutnut.com -- Fly fishing photos & insect hatch encyclopedia.
    http://www.daltoncorridormap.com -- Exact 5-mile Haul Road corridor boundary for GPS & Google Earth

  20. #20
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cjustinm View Post
    so chris hypothetically say YOU (Chris) have harvested a dozen sheep in AK. you move away and wish to come back and hunt as a non res and put in for a draw tag...you think its fair you should have to pay a guide all sorts of money to tag along with you even though you may have more AK sheep expierience than them...and it gets better...the guide is from out of state... so i guess the residency benifit im asking about is the ability to wipe your butt without the guide having to hold the paper if you've shown you can do it yourself.
    Yes it is 100% fair. This is not a secret thing. It is in the publicly printed and widely distributed AK hunting regs.
    I know if I leave state I loose my resident privileges. I know if I wanted to return and hunt those species I would have to hire a guide.
    Is it fair that I may be receiving resident benefits in another state and also receiving some benefits here normally reserved for AK residents?
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

Page 1 of 16 12311 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •