Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Expect to pay more for guided hunts.

  1. #1
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,190

    Default Expect to pay more for guided hunts.

    Here's the latest effort from APHA and the Comm. Services Board. This isn't the whole letter, but it gives you the idea of what they want:

    With respect and consideration to all of the above:
    We the undersigned organizations hereby request that you in as timely
    manner as possible help us develop and implement a competitive
    guide lease area program by requesting that the Department of
    Natural Resources make this a priority project and work towards
    implementation during the year of 2008 and,
    That the first area of implementation be Game Management Units 13
    and 14 and,
    That you help to secure the budget needed to see this project established.
    Very respectfully,
    The Alaska Professional Hunters Association, Inc.
    Big Game Commercial Services Board
    Alaska Board of Game

    As I read it, we go from a sytem of guides competing with each other for clients, and for hunting areas, to a system where guides lease hunt units and will most likely have sole use of that area.
    Looks like a great idea if you get a lease area. Maybe not so great if your a small time guy just doing a few hunts and trying to keep costs down.

    I don't get this CSB group. They've done all they can to make it harder to be a registered guide. Now they want to basically go back to the registered guide use areas this state had in the past. If things keep going in this direction, a relatively small number of large guide businesses will control all guiding in this state.
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  2. #2
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,432

    Default

    "If things keep going in this direction, a relatively small number of large guide businesses will control all guiding in this state."

    Boom! and walmart controls the guiding industry. bottom line. Hit it right on the head APHA wants the money guides to control the vast majority of the guiding, small outfitts don't do them much good and money is the main motivator, got a letter from them once, stating that they felt non residents should basicly have preferance over other alaskans...to a degree.

    You want to control guides overlapping each other. limit a contracting guide to a maximum of three guides working under him...eliminate the outfitts running more than 4 guides and you'll see guides areas shrink and quality of hunts go up.

    Big box guiding outfitts....what'll they think of next.
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    140

    Default

    Big box guiding outfitts....what'll they think of next.
    Heck we have had them on the Kenai for years! I sure hope this one does'nt go through.

  4. #4
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    Cabela's hunts should not exist
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Deep in Hllary country NY
    Posts
    446

    Wink How about this?

    If it happens how long would the lease be? This could happen. 1. First big game guide holds lease. 2. Area is transfered to new lease holder. 3.New lease holder turns out to be a Anti hunter group, Corp. who hunts the area a few times, and then stops all hunting in the area! Don"t think this can"t happen, I understand this is going on in BC now! Anti hunters have plenty of money!!
    ; for them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed. 1 SAMUEL 2;30

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    26

    Cool Befuddled--

    The DNR does not enforce the laws that are set now.

    In SE at least, there is absolutely NO enforcement of the DAY registration required by law for businesses using state ground (mean high tide out three miles). It only cost $25.00 if done over the internet. http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/mlw/permit_lease/index.cfm

    Look at the laws that require a commercial business staying overnight on state land to have a land use permit-in SE it doesn’t exist, why-because the DNR doesn’t enforce it. A land permit is supposed to be obtained even for “submerged” land use (ie, guides using boats to house clients, anchored, even for one night). http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/mlw/forms/#land (land forms, then land use authorization, look at all under this category)

    The Guide Board doesn’t make the guides follow the laws either. What about all those new “ethic” laws? Let’s make the guides follow the laws that are in place before wanting new laws and programs for them to follow!

    Government corruption is in our newspapers everyday. There are so many requirements now --a guide cannot use state tidelands unless they have permission from the upland owners of at least 5,000 acres, so many requirements to become a guide, and now this—corruption in the ranks will be huge. The only way a guide will be able to get permits is with lots of money in someone’s pocket!!!!

    Now it is for guides, however, watch out, #$%# falls downhill, at the bottom of the hill-the lone hunter wanting to hunt for meat for his family---NOPE, have to have a land permit; have to have 5,000 acres, etc., etc.

    GREED, hate it!!
    CuriousOne

  7. #7
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,432

    Default

    nail on the head...no enforcement for the laws we do have....
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Mountains of VA
    Posts
    224

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by martentrapper View Post
    ...I don't get this CSB group. ... a relatively small number of large guide businesses will control all guiding in this state.

    First you say you don't understand -- then you provide the bottom line explanation.

    I think you have a good understanding.

  9. #9
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default How about showing us the other part

    Mike, how 'bout showing us the rest of the letter? Hard to really tell what the reasoning is without the other part.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    1,131

    Default good idea

    "You want to control guides overlapping each other. limit a contracting guide to a maximum of three guides working under him...eliminate the outfitts running more than 4 guides and you'll see guides areas shrink and quality of hunts go up."

    Now theres a great idea. How about no more than two assistant guides under a Master guide? And require him to be in the field half time with each client/guide?
    Last edited by Sollybug; 06-26-2007 at 09:46. Reason: clarify
    “I come home with an honestly earned feeling that something good has taken place. It makes no difference whether I got anything, it has to do with how the day was spent. “ Fred Bear

  11. #11
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,190

    Default

    OK, Mark, here is the whole ball of wax I think.


    RESOLUTION
    Honorable Sarah Palin
    Governor
    State of Alaska
    Whereas,
    In respect of the need to enhance the great State of Alaska's integrity
    regarding our wildlife, wildlands, rural social atmosphere, public safety,
    cultural ambiance, subsistence needs, economic sustainability,
    industry stewardship and national esteem.
    Whereas,
    Alaska's big game wildlife resources on State of Alaska lands are in
    danger of being over exploited as a result of limited restraints on commercial
    use.
    Whereas,
    Alaska's public trust wildland and wildlife resources need protection
    from commercial industry impacts for the best interest of these
    resources.
    Whereas,
    Alaska's Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife
    Conservation has continuing and compounded problems with managing
    Alaska's wildlife because of this lack of stewardship by commercial
    users on State Lands.
    Whereas,
    The Alaska Board of Game has to spend a tremendous amount of
    their time, and make hard decisions that limit hunting opportunity for
    all hunters because of this problem.
    Whereas,
    For over one hundred years Alaska's professional guiding industry
    have represented a significant annual financial contribution to the
    State, and are dependent upon renewable resources.
    Whereas,
    Alaska's rural regions social atmospheres have been adversely affected
    with ever increasing hunting guide and big game transporter activity
    on state lands.
    Whereas,
    Alaska's subsistence dependent people have been adversely affected
    with ever increasing hunting guide activity, all vying for reduced
    wildlife populations, particularly on State lands.
    Whereas,
    United States Department of Interior recognized this need of stewardship
    which led to development and implementation of concession pro-
    The following resolution drafted by APHA, supported
    by the Big Game Commercial Services
    Board and the Board of Game, was recently submitted
    to the Governor’s office.
    grams that protect the wildlife, wildlands, subsistence hunting opportunity,
    hunters and the social atmospheres within National
    Park/Preserve and US Fish and Wildlife Refuge Lands.
    Whereas,
    Competitive concession programs developed and administered by the
    Department of Interior in Alaska have been proven to be legally and
    constitutionally acceptable.
    Whereas,
    Lack of stewardship of the hunting guide industry in Alaska has contributed
    to substantial additional Federalization of Alaska and will continue
    to do so without remedy.
    Whereas,
    The Alaska Department of Law has determined that the Alaska
    Department of Natural Resources has the authority to develop and
    administer a competitive lease area system that would control the
    number of guides operating on State of Alaska lands.
    Whereas,
    The hunting guide industry has spent many hundreds of thousands of
    dollars working within the public process trying to establish such a
    program.
    Whereas,
    The Alaska Department of Natural Resources in conjunction with the
    Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the Department of Law
    have already done significant work with the preliminary development
    of this program, including recommendations for fiscal year 2008 budget
    and staffing requirements.
    Whereas,
    The lease area system would be resourced based and would require
    that to varying degrees, the Alaska Department's of Natural
    Resources, Fish and Game, Commerce, Community, and Economic
    Development, Public Safety, and Environmental
    Conservation all be participants in development, implementation and
    oversight of this program.
    Whereas,
    Such a system would have a fee component which will represent a
    substantial positive financial benefit to the State of Alaska, would be in
    the best interest of prudent wildlife and wildland conservation, would
    present a much needed relief of the social relations in rural Alaska,
    would provide consumer protection, better hunting opportunity for resident
    hunters and would require guide industry service providers that
    operate on State of Alaska lands to be good stewards of Alaska's
    wildlife and wildland resources.
    Whereas,
    Selection criteria for ranking and evaluating applicants would be
    established in such a manner as to allow for reasonable entry level
    opportunity of qualified industry providers.
    Whereas,
    Such a system allows for optimum value to be garnered from professional
    guide services and Alaska's wildlife and wildland resources.
    Whereas,
    The Palin Administration, Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
    Wildlife Conservation Transition Team recommended that continued
    development and implementation of this program should be on the
    State's top three priorities regarding wildlife conservation.
    Whereas,
    This program was listed as a works in progress by the Governor Palin
    and form Governor Murkowski's Department of Natural Resources
    Transition Team as a program that needs attention and support in the
    near term.
    Whereas,
    Alaska's hunting guide service providers, the Alaska Professional
    Hunters Association, US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National
    Park Service have all been integrally involved with the design and
    implementation of the existing very similar program being utilized by
    the US Department of Interior and have substantial knowledge to
    assist with development of a similar program for State of Alaska
    Lands.
    Whereas,
    Alaska's newly developed Big Game Commercial Services Board is
    providing a significant and much needed service to Alaska's guide
    and transporter industries that is vital to their long term sustainability,
    the consumer and the best interest of the State.
    Now and Therefore, Honorable Governor,
    With respect and consideration to all of the above:
    We the undersigned organizations hereby request that you in as timely
    guide lease area program by requesting that the Department of
    Natural Resources make this a priority project and work towards
    implementation during the year of 2008 and,
    That the first area of implementation be Game Management Units 13
    and 14 and,
    That you help to secure the budget needed to see this project established.
    Very respectfully,
    The Alaska Professional Hunters Association, Inc.
    Big Game Commercial Services Board
    Alaska Board of Game
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  12. #12
    Member Whitetail1der's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Chugiak
    Posts
    102

    Default What's the little guy to do?

    If this passes or is acted upon, we all lose! It's simply disgusting. The state wants better bear control management in GMU-13 and the majority of the states population lives in GMU-14. Anybody see where I'm going with this? ADN should get their hands on this one and really open-up the matter to the public. Did I mention I was disgusted! I can see it now, the little guy will get squeezed out eventually because the guides will end up with exclusive rights to GMU's. If I've misunderstood any part of this, I'm sure somebody will let me know.

  13. #13

    Default

    please understand that an exclusive guide ara concept only eliminates other guides from conducting hunts in the area. Resident and nonguided hunters may see decreased competition as a result.

  14. #14
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    Mike, thanks for posting the rest of the letter. Will have to look into it a bit more to discover the details of how this idea would work, if it would mirror the fed system or just how many guides they are talking about allowing in certain areas by competitive bidding for concessions.

    You might recall I was just one of many who pushed for reinstatement of CSB...many bios had also pushed for it. When the exclusive GUAs were deemed unconstitutional it really became a free for all. A lot of areas got hammered too hard, including with transporters. Lots of folks were looking at a way to better regulate the overall industry in order to protect the resource. We had enough guides doing bad things that it was making the entire guide industry look bad. Things kind of hit the wall the last couple years with confrontations and violence in the field. I don't know offhand what would be the "most fair" system of allocating guide use areas or actually solving the problems we have. It's always the bad guys who ruin it for the rest of us, and that's true whether it's bad guides or bad hunters or bad transporters.

    Would like to send in comments from our org on this, just have to look into it more. The system in place now isn't working statewide on state lands. Basically because of the greed of the few. Alaska's politicians, the guide industry, the BOG, and ADFG do not like to read state or national coverage about some guide using his airplane as a weapon, or "wing bouncing," or any of the other problems we've had lately with too much competition for a limited resource. When push comes to shove, they will eventually do something about it. The key is in helping them do something about it that doesn't disenfranchise those like Jake and others and turn the state into a box-store sort of guiding.

    I think it was the Owsichek decision that overturned exlcusive GUAs...I read that decision a year or so ago and I really don't see how it can be constitutionally legal for the state to do what was presented in that letter. Someone (a guide) would again sue, based on the grounds that he is being unfairly discriminated against (according to our state constitution) because of the amount of money in his bank account. Just what is "reasonable entry level opportunity for qualified industry providers"? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if we open it up to any competitive bidding who would win out. Not the small-time guys. Heck, what's to stop non-resident guides from winning concessions of some areas because they are able to live a lot cheaper in the lower 48 for 9 months of the year and develop bigger bankrolls? What's to prevent Cabela's from someday basically owning the entire guiding industry in Alaska? And how are we going to regulate transporters who fly out hunters...even if we institute some form of limited guides in specific GUAs, what's to stop transporters from dropping off too many hunters in those same areas and causing the same frictions we already have? We're lucky no one has been killed so far...I'm not sure how many of you are really aware of the problems we have in some outlying areas, the fights on gravel bars, the threats between guides and transporters, the safety problems of disabling airstrips or removing markings etc. The cases that made the news are just the tip of a huge iceberg

    We know we have a problem. This may not be the best overall fix for it. Some of us better chime in with comments to those in charge if we don't want to see things really get even screwier. I know there are plenty of guides out there not enamored with APHA...imo you guys need to either form your own org or work with other orgs on comments on stuff like this . (Jake, drop me a pm on this if you want, would like to get your thoughts on some comments.)

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CuriousOne View Post
    The DNR does not enforce the laws that are set now..................
    Actually its more along the lines that DNR has no method or ability to enforce land use laws... Mining, Land & Water has no enforcement ability or authority...
    (Parks being the exception of enforcement within DNR, but they are limited to park lands exclusively)

    Not really DNR's fault... They work with what authority the legislature has given them.. And there is no motivation there to increase enforcement of land use laws, much less refine the laws so they are more enforceable..... There is very little ability to enforce land use laws in AK, because DNR, ML&W cannot do it themselves, and these types of infractions are not high priority for DPS and local prosecuters (who DNR would have to go thru).

    Its the exact issue of enforcement thats the crux of the problem with the Knik Public Use Area...


    Most F&G employees are deputized and can enforce, and even cite the public for F&G violations, the same is not true of DNR-ML&W employees and land use violations.

  16. #16
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,432

    Default

    AHPA think they speak for the guide industry, but they only represent a small portion of it, i'm not so sure i want them telling me whats best for the area i guide in, i haven't seen another guide in four years and now someone wants to tell me i have a overrun guide use area in unit 13. Someone would have to sit down and decide where the problems are before they throw a broad blanket and make it all lease everywhere.
    This could work if they could take some imput from every guide out there and adapt in, semi-exclusive in some areas, guides getting togehter and ironing out some issue to share an area, X number of clients permitted in certian size lease areas, X number of clients permitted to hunt with a guide and so on would go a long way to make guides more selective in how they run their business.
    Maybe rather than change the land use...change the guides, be cheaper and eaiser. just drop a law that a guide can only emply three other guides under him and take a max of 6 clients at any one time. (2x1 hunts) you'd see a big reduction in the area guides take up then. But instead big outfitts just yell that little joe average guide is in "his" area, "make a law to keep him out would ya...oh ya and i'll fork out some more money to do it!!!"
    ya, make alaska proud.
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    26

    Default Donuts!

    I'm not sure if I even like what I'm about to say, but---example---if there are 10 donut shops in a town, we don't start regulating it, eventually the best donut wins the other move out! This would be the same with hunting if they numbered the amount of animals to be killed per unit.

    I said it---it was hard but this goes back to the how many licenses for "out of staters", how many for subsistence, how many for locals. Problem is, this is the only way, IMO, that this problem can be taken care of. Just because a guide has money, a fancy yacht, doesn't mean that he is the best guide, word would get around, then when a person did get a license to hunt in a certain area, it would be the best guide wins!

    Now I will go eat my donut!
    CuriousOne

  18. #18
    Member SoggyMountain's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bait Station, Alaska 99801
    Posts
    861

    Default

    "Whereas,
    Such a system would have a fee component which will represent a
    substantial positive financial benefit to the State of Alaska...."

    Cha Ching

    "...would be in the best interest of prudent wildlife and wildland conservation....."

    Because people who spend more are just better

    "....would present a much needed relief of the social relations in rural Alaska...."

    That is known as speculation, not fact

    "....would provide consumer protection...."

    The guy with the richest outfitter is always protected

    "....better hunting opportunity for resident hunters..."

    Until such a time as we close Guide Areas off to residents under the next phase of the program in order to protect our "substantial positive financial benefit"

    "...and would require guide industry service providers that operate on State of Alaska lands to be good stewards of Alaska's wildlife and wildland resources....."

    If they aren't licensed in 4 continents, 49 states, and 400 other countries

    BRWNBR, I agree with you. Regulations, for what they are worth, should limit the size of the operation. Aside from that, residency, good standings, and success in the field could also be points to be tallied.

  19. #19
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,190

    Default

    Like bushrat says, I think this idea would get struck down by a court. Hope so. I prefer to see F&G regulate the number of hunters, and let economics determine who, what, and where guides are working. The free market/competition should allow the quality businesses to flourish, while the rip offs, etc. die off. If Alaska goes to a GUA lease, I would expect the quality of the service to decrease and the cost to increase.
    The guide biz has always had problems and problem people. Every biz has problems and people in that biz who cause problems. I just don't see those people as a valid reason for more and more regulation.
    APHA is all over this idea, saying it will increase the quality of hunts, etc, etc, yadda yadda. If this is what we need to supposedly improve the quality of the guide biz, they are already beyond help.
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  20. #20
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Northeast US
    Posts
    75

    Default Draw for NR Tags

    As others have already mentioned, controlling the number of Non-resident hunters should be done with a draw. The state and hunters should determine who is allowed to hunt, not the outfitting industry. We don't need the the African/Canadian model to penetrate any further in Alaska. I would support a Non-resident draw for all species.

    Alpine

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
  •