Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 135

Thread: Profiting off of Alaska's game

  1. #1
    Member lab man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairbanks
    Posts
    551

    Default Profiting off of Alaska's game

    It has been years since I started a thread, but there are a couple of things that have been bothering me for quite a while. I have always believed that Alaska's resources belong to Alaskan's first. Harvesting Alaskan game should be a right for residents and a privilege for non-residents and those wishing to make a profit off these animals. Why does it often seem to work the opposite way? Why do guides, outfitters, and transporters (some of whom reside in Alaska only during hunting season) have such a large voice in what belongs to you and I? Although I still think hunting is a right, I would gladly pay more for my tags to help make up for some of the profit to Alaska lost in downsizing these hunting services.

    This is not a completely separate issue, but the number of hunters being outfitted by hunt planners such as Michael Strahan and Larry Bartlett are steadily increasing. I spent years finding my current hunting area. I work hard all year to go there. All of a sudden this river has been flooded by hunters being sent there by Bartlett and other planners, and to top it off this river was already being looked at by the feds for low moose numbers. While I am definitely frustrated by my area being basically ruined, this ties into my frustrations about making a profit off a resource that belongs to you and I. Is it right for a person to find a good hunting area and then get paid to send other hunters there? I don't think so. As far as I'm concerned this is a form of guiding and at the very least needs to be better regulated.

    Should guiding be allowed? Yes, there are many people who would rather use a guide. Should outfitters continue business? Absolutely. But why should making a profit off of harvesting our animals come before our needs and wants as residents?

    I'm tired of the status quo. Do what you like. As for me, I think it's time to get more involved in hunting politics in Alaska.

  2. #2
    Member 4merguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Alaska
    Posts
    9,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lab man View Post
    I'm tired of the status quo. Do what you like. As for me, I think it's time to get more involved in hunting politics in Alaska.
    Wrong or right, you definitely need to let your voice be heard...!!!
    Sheep hunting...... the pain goes away, but the stupidity remains...!!!

  3. #3

    Default

    It has been years since I started a thread, but there are a couple of things that have been bothering me for quite a while. I have always believed that Alaska's resources belong to Alaskan's first. Harvesting Alaskan game should be a right for residents and a privilege for non-residents and those wishing to make a profit off these animals. Why does it often seem to work the opposite way? Why do guides, outfitters, and transporters (some of whom reside in Alaska only during hunting season) have such a large voice in what belongs to you and I? Although I still think hunting is a right, I would gladly pay more for my tags to help make up for some of the profit to Alaska lost in downsizing these hunting services.
    What do you do for a living? Not wanting to be a jerk, but it's a fair question. As a resident, does the above statement of yours in bold make me less of a resident? Is how another man makes a living none of your business until it affects an area's resources (owned by Alaskan's, your words..)you're familiar with only?

    This is not a completely separate issue, but the number of hunters being outfitted by hunt planners such as Michael Strahan and Larry Bartlett are steadily increasing. I spent years finding my current hunting area. I work hard all year to go there.
    Do you have evidence that both Mike and Larry don't work hard?

    All of a sudden this river has been flooded by hunters being sent there by Bartlett and other planners, and to top it off this river was already being looked at by the feds for low moose numbers.
    Oh! I get it, now! As long as it was just you the low moose numbers wasn't such a big deal! NIMBY...

    While I am definitely frustrated by my area being basically ruined, this ties into my frustrations about making a profit off a resource that belongs to you andI. Is it right for a person to find a good hunting area and then get paid to send other hunters there?
    Everything around us is exploited as a resource for profit. Everything you touch, see, eat, wake up under, etc. has man's hand in it, even if you harvested it yourself. Men (read also women) take risks and start businesses then sell or market their goods and services to people willing to part with their money to purchase it. Larry and Mike aren't selling animals, their selling advise. Do you really want to start regulating that??? Good luck.

    I don't think so. As far as I'm concerned this is a form of guiding and at the very least needs to be better regulated.
    Yea, just what this world needs. More laws and regulations.

    Jim~

  4. #4

    Default

    Should guiding be allowed? Yes, there are many people who would rather use a guide. Should outfitters continue business? Absolutely. But why should making a profit off of harvesting our animals come before our needs and wants as residents?
    What of the residents of our state that employ Larry and Mike for their expertise? Am I not fairly taking a chance? Of course, taking into consideration my "needs and wants"?

    I'm tired of the status quo. Do what you like. As for me, I think it's time to get more involved in hunting politics in Alaska
    Thanks, I believe I'll do just that.

    (BTW, what river are you on? Thinking of changing my plans around for this year's float...)

    Jim~

  5. #5
    Member Milo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,472

    Default

    Yep, its January
    Death is like an old whore in a bar--I'll buy her a drink but I won't go upstairs with her.

  6. #6
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,886

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lab man View Post
    It has been years since I started a thread, but there are a couple of things that have been bothering me for quite a while. I have always believed that Alaska's resources belong to Alaskan's first. Harvesting Alaskan game should be a right for residents and a privilege for non-residents and those wishing to make a profit off these animals. Why does it often seem to work the opposite way? Why do guides, outfitters, and transporters (some of whom reside in Alaska only during hunting season) have such a large voice in what belongs to you and I? Although I still think hunting is a right, I would gladly pay more for my tags to help make up for some of the profit to Alaska lost in downsizing these hunting services.

    This is not a completely separate issue, but the number of hunters being outfitted by hunt planners such as Michael Strahan and Larry Bartlett are steadily increasing. I spent years finding my current hunting area. I work hard all year to go there. All of a sudden this river has been flooded by hunters being sent there by Bartlett and other planners, and to top it off this river was already being looked at by the feds for low moose numbers. While I am definitely frustrated by my area being basically ruined, this ties into my frustrations about making a profit off a resource that belongs to you and I. Is it right for a person to find a good hunting area and then get paid to send other hunters there? I don't think so. As far as I'm concerned this is a form of guiding and at the very least needs to be better regulated.

    Should guiding be allowed? Yes, there are many people who would rather use a guide. Should outfitters continue business? Absolutely. But why should making a profit off of harvesting our animals come before our needs and wants as residents?

    I'm tired of the status quo. Do what you like. As for me, I think it's time to get more involved in hunting politics in Alaska.
    While I agree on this one I have to ask this: What about our fishing guides in Alaska?
    AS our King Salmon and Halibut continue to decline should we not do more with them also?
    Or at the very least charge them a resource tax like we do oil and mining?
    "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"

  7. #7
    Member lab man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairbanks
    Posts
    551

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kasilofchrisn View Post
    While I agree on this one I have to ask this: What about our fishing guides in Alaska?
    AS our King Salmon and Halibut continue to decline should we not do more with them also?
    Or at the very least charge them a resource tax like we do oil and mining?
    I agree with that too. I posted in hunting so I didn't mention fishing.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lab man View Post
    ...my frustrations about making a profit off a resource....
    So you include hotels, restaurants, car rentals, airlines, air charters, charter boats, taxis, sporting goods stores, grocery stores in the profiteers?

    Your idea, you draw the line where to start excluding the other profiteers.

  9. #9

    Default

    It will get worse, then it will get even worse, and worse, and worse.

    There is two solutions.........make it a hanging offense to use any combustion engine between your front door and where you start hunting. The problem is to many humans....and to much machinery being used. That includes machinery that uses Gasoline, Diesel, Electricity, etc.

    But to be fair it is just the number of humans........Read: "Memories of Old Sunrise". People from Hope and Sunrise, Alaska walked clear over to Moose Pass area to harvest a moose. Read "Wilderness of Denali" they would come out of Fairbanks and kill thirty Dall Sheep, and if they got caught in a snow storm for 12 days and they had to feed the Sheep meat to the dogs, they would turn around and kill thirty more Dall Sheep.

    There are just to many human predators. Everybody wants More MORE.....MORE....MINE....MINE....MINE. Your Bait Station is to close to MINE...YOU MUST MOVE. MINE MINE MINE. I was here first, You have to move. MY Land, My Airplane, My Boat, My ATV, My Cabin, My Salmon, My Moose area, My Grouse area, My My My Mine Mine Mine...........Everyone go away, I want it all.....

    But MORE will COME.......and More....And MORE.........

  10. #10
    Member lab man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairbanks
    Posts
    551

    Default

    You guys can twist my words around however you like. I feel that regardless of the resource the needs of Alaskans should come before making a profit, and I don't think this is currently happening when it comes to game.

  11. #11

    Default

    And the "WANTS" of those who are employed should come second to those who really NEED the food for survival. Maybe we have an early Moose season and the unemployed, those on assistance get free license and a 30 day head start. And if the quota is met then there is no hunting for the employed. Or maybe the people who have a job and want to hunt should be required to tender all meat to processor PLUS pay two thousand dollars for processing and distribution of the meat to those who can't hunt.

    Maybe we should change it so you have to live in Alaska for 40 years befor you are a resident, even if you were born here you can't hunt till you are MORE than 40 years old.

    Or maybe is should be a hanging offense to hunt more than 20 miles from your front door.

    I really don't care as long as I get more than everyone else.



    Quote Originally Posted by lab man View Post
    You guys can twist my words around however you like. I feel that regardless of the resource the needs of Alaskans should come before making a profit, and I don't think this is currently happening when it comes to game.

  12. #12
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lab man View Post
    You guys can twist my words around however you like. I feel that regardless of the resource the needs of Alaskans should come before making a profit, and I don't think this is currently happening when it comes to game.
    Mike and Larry are both "Alaskans". They sell info to other "Alaskans"...........and non Alaskans. You are apparently complaining because some hunters have paid money to find a good hunting spot that you found, supposedly, from your own research and work. As I read your posts, you feel more deserving of your hunting area because you didn't pay money to "find" it. I don't agree with that attitude.
    I agree we Alaskans have a RIGHT to harvest our resources. Non res only have a privilege. The state grants them that privilege in areas with enough critters to allow non res.
    Everyone who hunts "profits" from their hunt, tho some profit more than others. Profit doesn't come in the form of money only. Food on the table is a form of profit. Recreation is another form. Mike and Larry do the same sorts of research you did but instead of actually harvesting the animals, they sell the info to others. I certainly don't have a problem with that.
    Each of us residents has the opportunity to hunt where ever we legally can. If others are hunting "your" area and you are no longer enjoying it, move on. Maybe you should pay Mike or Larry for some info!!
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    northern alaska
    Posts
    1,159

    Default

    It is happening all over lab man...not just in your area... Been going on for far too long...Greedy dirt bag guides and air transporters flood areas until there is nothing left and then move on to the next area (victim)....don't expect any relief from F&G, they are part of the problem.

  14. #14
    Member lab man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairbanks
    Posts
    551

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AGL4now View Post
    And the "WANTS" of those who are employed should come second to those who really NEED the food for survival. Maybe we have an early Moose season and the unemployed, those on assistance get free license and a 30 day head start. And if the quota is met then there is no hunting for the employed. Or maybe the people who have a job and want to hunt should be required to tender all meat to processor PLUS pay two thousand dollars for processing and distribution of the meat to those who can't hunt.
    Some of that sounds fine to me. I have a decent job. If unemployed people could hunt instead of being on welfare maybe that wouldn't be the end of the world.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    401

    Default

    Sounds like a pity party to me.

  16. #16
    Member tekla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    anchorage, alaska
    Posts
    261

    Default

    I agree that residents should take priority on sheep. Draw tags for nonresidents seems to be the best answer to me. Then on the other hand not if they issue enough tags that every non res guy who wants a sheep can get a tag. I am not an anti guide guy as I have a few guide friends and set netters ect. But I do believe that residents should get priority over for profit guides.

  17. #17
    Member lab man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairbanks
    Posts
    551

    Default

    Man, I didn't think you guys would be such small time thinkers. I care about my spot, but I have enough tools to get away again. Whatever.

    If an area is being considered for management due to low numbers and then a hunt planner suddenly sends people there for an unexpected harvest, how is that responsible? Those animals would not have been taken if not for the planner. You're blind if you don't see this as a potential management issue.

    I'm thinking big picture about our resources and use of these in the future. I feel the same about fish, oil, gas, minerals, timber, etc... They belong to us. Alaska needs to decide if giving up these resources is even worth the return. In this case, I say no.

  18. #18

    Default

    Hey lab man, I don't recognize your handle, but I'd like to say a couple of things on your note since you mentioned me specifically:

    1. I agree with you about the jest of your comments, which I interpreted as Hunt Planners should be regulated (perhaps the same way as guides) and area use should be controlled better to avoid high impact hunting.

    2. Don't lump me into a bundle with Hunt Planners who don't give a crap about the resources for Alaskans, please. When you say that my hunt plan services (and hunters afield) are increasing, you could not be more wrong, sir. Each year for the last 5 years I have dropped two rivers off my list of usable resources, so I'm down 60% from 2009 by choice. I'm just as concerned, if more not more critical, of high-traffic hunting corridors than anyone in the business. I suspect that by 2017/18 I will be down to very small hand full of remote pockets I help facilitate. Just for the record I accept 10-12 groups per year to date. If that's high impact, Lab, I cannot help your fight.

    3. Caring about the resource extends beyond taking game or crowding a river corridor. Conservation ethics must be observed to learn, practiced to incorporate, monitored for effectiveness, and reinforced by all. This care for the resource is not practical by law (state or federal), it must come from individuals who put their boots on the trail each season. I have wrapped my entire business model around caring for the resource, namely to better educate my small handful of clients and even more so to offer educational opportunities for customers of the general public.

    4. Status quo is getting us nowhere fast. But if you think a Hunt Planner has control over a resource, you're wrong. Without air support, I would not be a Hunt Planner. What I see, which I agree with you on, is the state and federal management authorities must eventually limit the numbers of air transporters and air taxis to one given area so that the experience is protected for longevity sake. At this rate, there wont be many hunting rivers left worth a ****.

    5. Ask numerous people on this forum if I haven't always sided on their behalf when they asked me to forgo a river option for the sake of their experience. My goal is for my groups to encounter zero hunters on their journey. Send me a PM or email me if you have a similar request and we'll see what can be done on my end.

    Strahan might blindly drop groups onto a river without knowledge of historical use and current impact trends, but that's not me. I'm doing as much as I can to co-exist in a business that caters to hunters and keep a stellar reputation, and I cannot escape the impact on the resources...but I do carefully manage my footprint and closely monitor rivers for the "experience" factor and harvest sustainability. If you're hunting a river that you're seeing my groups, it's likely raft renters, which I have no control over where they hunt.

    Hope this helps, lab, but I feel your frustration. If I can do anything to help your experience, please let me know.

    Larry

  19. #19
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,452

    Default

    I'm a guide. I'm an alaska. I have never wiped and area out and moved on. Never. That was one of the most prejudice statements I've heard in a while, has it happened yes, it happens more with transporters than guides. Per land use permits and guide use areas it's not so easy to jump around. And volume wise, most guides don't need half the gsme a transporter is looking for.

    Alaskans have been spoiled. Now things are getting busier, areas less of a secret, more people in the state and immediately guides are the problem. Ask the members of this forum how many of them I've helped out on hunting information...go ahead.
    Then ask how many of them I've ruined hunts for....go ahead....

    I've said for years...alaska will end up drawing like everywhere else, the more people
    Complain the faster it will happen. Non res should get it first. That would put alot
    Of guides out of business, open up a lot more
    Area for residents. More transporters would flood in, mostly ex-guides with planes that need to make a living. All those accessible areas will get flooded with people again.....and walla more
    Complaining. And here comes the draw restrictions....again. Writings on the wall guys. Pull it together.
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  20. #20

    Default

    Strahan might blindly drop groups onto a river without knowledge of historical use and current impact trends, but that's not me.
    Wow!

    Larry, I've been watching the thread in the float hunting forum. Figgured you two would work everything out... Guess not.

    But to come into another man's house, crap on the floor, and wipe your hind-end on the drapes... Totally unexpected.

    Loved your videos. Bought them all.

    Jim~

Page 1 of 7 123 ... 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
  •