Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Sheep Work Session at BOG meeting 2/13/15

  1. #1
    Member polardds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    802

    Default Sheep Work Session at BOG meeting 2/13/15

    Not exactly sure what people thought they were going to see. Allot of the public showed up thinking they were there to discuss all the sheep proposals before the board. The board chairman, filling in for the vice chair who was sick, moderated the event. He started the work session with the statement that there were two questions he wanted answered. One: Does the Dall sheep management plan from the 1970's need to be revisited/redone? Two: Do we need a work group to address all the Dall sheep issues?

    During the meeting it was brought up several times that the Dall sheep management plan from the 1970's was only recently unearthed and addressed by F&G. So the general consensus there was yes it does need to be revisited/revised, but that this should not be a lengthy process. That there is a problem now and working over a plan for five years is unacceptable.

    The work group issue was a mixed bag. Allot of the Advisory Committee (AC) people who spoke stated that is what the AC's are for so a work group is unnecessary. A lot of people spoke as to their fear of who would pick who gets put on this work group and therefore steer the direction of the work group before it even starts. A group dedicated to a specific issue with a good moderator was the best solution in my opinion. So not quite sure what is going to happen there.

    There were a lot of passionate pleas from guides and non guides. Allot of people spoke of how the state constitution sets forth a resident preference. It was brought up if sheep hunting goes permit everywhere be careful because on Federal land (which a lot of sheep country is) the residents of the subsistence communities would get most of the permits. Also that there already is a limited number of guides on Federal land so then most of the over crowding would be definition be on state land if it was from guides and that it would have to be from residents only if it was on Federal land.

    The guides were pushing hard to get people to contact their legislatures to get them to get the State guide concession program off the shelf and that would limit guides on state land. It was suggested that the reason only 5 or so of the over 100 sheep proposals that have been presented to the BOG over the last several years have been passed is because the BOG was waiting for the Guide Concession program to be passed by the legislature and that would address allot of these proposals.

    Most of who spoke were from organizations. Not enough of Joe public got up there and spoke (myself included).

    Allot of the proposals deal with allocation, which the board can do.(Resident vs Nonresident) Allot of the problems are constitutional, or legislative that need our elected officials to fix and the BOG can't touch. The biggest problems are environmental. We can't control the weather and we can't do predator control on Federal land.

    Everyone who was there agreed that we needed more sheep on the mountain.

    That was my take on the work session.

    (You can view the the state guide concession information online at DNR's website, I have yet to do that myself)

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Thanks for the update. Interesting take on the Federal lands, I never thought of it that way.

    I was wondering why the GCP stalled out myself. It seemed like it had a lot of momentum last year and then it just stalled. From my understanding of the issues, it seems like this would be a good thing for both guides and residents. And, I thought APHA supported the GCP? Sure some guides would be cut out, but it seems like overall this would be in the best interest of the resource and something the residents and the guiding industry could support. Maybe our legislators need to get back on board and make some tough decisions.

    Arguably, with respect to sheep, it seems like the Owsichek decision had the unintended consequence of squeezing out the resident hunter by allowing more guides/guiding pressure. If so, wouldn't this violate the common use clause of the Alaska constitution?

  3. #3
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    GCP wasn't
    Given the funding it needed to continue.
    Apha loves it as long as all their big players keep their businesses and they have a big say in how guides are chosen for an area. They are not the voice for guides in alaska. They are the voice for the guides in their club.
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  4. #4
    Member Bambistew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Chugiak
    Posts
    315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BRWNBR View Post
    GCP wasn't
    Given the funding it needed to continue.
    Apha loves it as long as all their big players keep their businesses and they have a big say in how guides are chosen for an area. They are not the voice for guides in alaska. They are the voice for the guides in their club.
    It is my understanding that it was shelved because the "big" outfits will likely lose out. The way the program is written all perspective outfits have to write a proposal outlining how their operation will run, how many clients, how many animals, day in the field, references, etc. Its a competitive proposal much like any public project, i.e. highway construction. Who do you want building your highway? The big contractor who has been in business for years, but has a terrible reputation, or the small contractor who has a Superior reputation and cost less?

    The BEST outfitter will be selected based on the above mentioned criteria. The outfit with the LEAST impact to the resource will be selected. The big outfits you mention that are against this are the guys that have established camps and have run them for years. They stand a really good chance of losing out to a better proposal. This is the #1 reason the GCP keeps getting shot down. Another issue is they're worried about who is doing the selection...

    The funding issue can be worked out one way or another. Its not like the increased cost wouldn't just be passed on to the NR client... I've listened to hours of public testimony, read public comments, and fully understand the proposal process because I work in this type of environment on a daily basis. The ones against this know they will lose out because they either can't win with their current business/operation model, or want to by de-facto, continue to monopolize an area by virtue of "established" camps, cabins, etc. I can see both sides of this issue, but at the end of the day its a public resource (state land) and should be managed for the most benefit of the people, not some guide who has built a cabin, or landing strip for his own personal gain. I've spoken with many of the folks at APHA who are in favor of this, and a few who are against it. The ones that are for it know they can win the proposals they submit because they run solid operations. The ones who are against it are afraid of the competition, or know they don't have a chance with their current model. Lots of unknowns with who will "win" a concession.

    The state GCP will basically mirror the Federal program. Strange how those seem to be the most coveted areas to have in the state for guiding.

    As long as citizens continue to do nothing, the GCP will stay where its at. The BOG, ADFG and of course the DNR are in favor of the program. It will promote reasonable and sustained used. How much longer can areas like 20A operate with the saturation level of guiding it currently sees? As a NR where would you rather hunt? With a pile of other guides, or in an an area with limited guiding pressure? It creates a better environment for everyone. Again, why are the Federal Concessions "the" place to hunt sheep?

    BRRWNBR, you being a small established outfit would have nothing to worry about. You could likely get what ever GUA you applied for...

    YMMV

  5. #5
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    I cannot get s federal area due to the size of my business. Because I'm not an established camp I don't score high enough to even be considered. It's a good ol' boys club when you get into the federal areas. People that live there, long established lodges and so on. Because my business plan is a leave no trace small foot print plan im not s high scorer based off the system they use for scoring.
    The GCP shouldn't mirror the Feds! I believe there's s place for different styles of outfits.
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  6. #6
    Member Bambistew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Chugiak
    Posts
    315

    Default

    You would be a shoe in for the limited concession. The limited concessions are designed for small outfitters and guys trying to get established. 4 clients per year or less...per GUA. I honestly don't see how you wouldn't win at least one concession. The vast majority of your competitors are not in the same league.

    One issue maybe if you need two concessions to be viable due to the limitations of clients.

  7. #7
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    12 clients a year would be doable, depending on the areas. The concession areas wrote up were alot smaller than the GUA's. It would all depend on the concession areas. If you only got one and could take four clients I'd be out of a job. I don't need to be established, already am. I need to be able to run at least 12 hunts a year to stay above water. I just picked my areas so the hunting seasons work out to do one hunt at a time but get a dozen in a year.

  8. #8
    Member Bambistew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Chugiak
    Posts
    315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BRWNBR View Post
    The concession areas wrote up were alot smaller than the GUA's.
    Have you seen the current plan? You might want to take a look. I think some of the things you have mentioned may have been in the original plans?

    The concession areas are the same boundaries as the GUAs. They just allow more than one guide per "concession". Some areas have 2-3 with a "limited" concession or two as well. Overall the reduction is about 50% of guide permits issued per GUA. I think you can still have up to 3 GUA per guide license. There are lots of guides that have GUAs that don't even hunt them. So the 50% may not really even be a reduction of 50% of the total number of guides.

    Still think you could get a full concession. It doesn't favor big operations, actually the opposite. The "leave no trace" would get you lots of points.

    I doubt it will ever make it off the shelf anyway... it can't even make it out of committee. $$$ talks.

    The guys that have lodges and established camps would have to cut back on something to make themselves competitive against the guys with less impact. They could keep their camp/lodge, but would have to cut back on the number of clients they took or animals they killed, number of days in the field, etc. I believe there is also brownie points for predator control. Its competitive, the best proposal wins... by creating a fair system with fair scoring. We have a competitive process for every other public resource (tax dollars spent) but we can't have the same thing for our animal resources?

    I don't think there is a perfect system for management, but there has been a lot of effort and time put into creating the GCP. There is no program that is going to please everyone. This is the most fair system they can come up with. It keeps the quality guides in business and it makes the ones that have monopolized areas become competitive and less consumptive, or they get a pink slip.

  9. #9
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    The maps I saw were draw up different than the GUA's. But like say, it's all closed up in a box in the back corner by Clark cox's office. Lotta man hours poured into that thing. Doubtful it will ever be resurrected.
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

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
  •