Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 106

Thread: AK Hunters screwed by Professional Hunter Aswsociation

  1. #21

    Default

    No, I think he is saying they they couldn't go hunt a sheep after guiding a client.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #22
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    9,753

    Default

    I don't know any guides who go hunt for themselves. Why waste time spending money when our time to make it is so short? I usually don't even get my harvest tickets. Can't hunt big game with a client in the field anyway.

    But if a guide punches his tag for one client, there's no tag left to punch for the second client.
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  3. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Delta Jct, Alaska
    Posts
    1,165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thunderhead85 View Post
    Once again the BOG showing alignment with the guiding industry. The APHA hates next of kin, they only see it as a loss of a $20,000 opportunity. I wish Alaska would just get rid of the guide requirements for the 3 species, make all nonresidents a draw and leave it up to them if they want a guide; we all know its not for safety. I know next state wide BOG meeting I will be submitting a proposal that all guides and assistant guides that successfully take one of the 3 required guided species will not be able to hunt those species that year.

    At least this pushed me over the edge to pony up the 1k for RHAK.



    I hope you didn't mean "next of kin" as Alaska is much worse with "second degree of kindred" and if your mother-in-law is also your "next of kin", I feel for you.

  4. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    wasilla
    Posts
    17

    Default

    No brwnbr, if a guide or assistant guide, guides for those 3 species he can't hunt them himself (assuming at least one of his clients are successful). Same if I take my brother sheep hunting, and he is successful I can't hunt sheep that year too. And moose are not covered in this new reg as far as I now.

    I personally know several guides that hunt for themselves after the clients are out of the field. Might not be common but does happen.

  5. #25
    webmaster Michael Strahan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thunderhead85 View Post
    Once again the BOG showing alignment with the guiding industry. The APHA hates next of kin, they only see it as a loss of a $20,000 opportunity. I wish Alaska would just get rid of the guide requirements for the 3 species, make all nonresidents a draw and leave it up to them if they want a guide; we all know its not for safety. I know next state wide BOG meeting I will be submitting a proposal that all guides and assistant guides that successfully take one of the 3 required guided species will not be able to hunt those species that year.

    At least this pushed me over the edge to pony up the 1k for RHAK.
    You might want to give Wayne Heimer's article a good read before you do that. Just in the interest of making an informed decision. He just sent the article to me and I posted it here a few minutes ago. HERE'S THE LINK.

    If it helps, Wayne gets nothing out of your decision, either way. His primary concern is the health of the resource.

    Seems to me that the BOG gave something to both residents and nonresidents this time, though folks on either side will claim it all went to the "other guys". Nonresident sheep hunters took a big hit with the 1 in 4 years requirement, and few residents who guide their nonresident relatives took a hit with Prop. 51.

    -Mike
    LOST CREEK COMPANY: Specializing in Alaska hunt consultation and planning for do-it-yourself or guided hunts.
    CLICK HERE to send me a private message.
    Web Addresses
    http://alaskaoutdoorssupersite.com/hunt-planner/
    https://akoutdoorsuniversity.com
    Mob: 1 (907) 229-4501
    "Dream big, and dare to fail." -Norman Vaughan
    "I have climbed my mountain, but I must still live my life." - Tenzig Norgay

  6. #26
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    9,753

    Default

    Ahh I see what your saying. If it's not that common why waste time with it? Might as well just try to limit the number of sheep clients a guide could contract hunts for. Make more of a difference that way.
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  7. #27
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,825

    Default AK Hunters screwed by Professional Hunter Aswsociation

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Strahan View Post
    Nonresident sheep hunters took a big hit with the 1 in 4 years requirement...

    -Mike
    A bit hit? How many non-resident sheep hunters pursue sheep a second time within four years of taking a ram? I don't have the numbers on hand, but it is a very small number. This will affect a very few non-resident hunters. How is that a "big hit"? I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but those that suspect this is just setting the stage for 1-in-4 for residents at a later date might have a point. At best this was a mostly meaningless bone to toss residents so that the BOG can claim to have done something. The actual effect on harvest will be nearly zero.

  8. #28
    Member AK Troutbum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Chugiak, AK.
    Posts
    1,641

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J in AK View Post
    Yep, I agree with ya Snyd. What really gets me, are the military guys that use the, "I got transferred out of state, but intend to retire to Alaska" that keep their residency in Alaska, when they really have no intention of doing so. Then, on top of that, they bring their brother up every year to kill a ram. It's ridiculous, and it happens.
    Not to mention the fact that they continue to collect the permanent fund along with the rest of their family (husband/wife, kids), and this can go on for many many years while they continue to be in the military but live in other parts of the country/world. But that's a whole other subject and I digress, sorry for the rant.

  9. #29

    Default

    Mike, please thank Wayne for that very detailed response. It's about time somebody present logic and reason to the melodrama that has become of sheep hunting in alaska.

  10. #30
    webmaster Michael Strahan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian M View Post
    A bit hit? How many non-resident sheep hunters pursue sheep a second time within four years of taking a ram? I don't have the numbers on hand, but it is a very small number. This will affect a very few non-resident hunters. How is that a "big hit"? I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but those that suspect this is just setting the stage for 1-in-4 for residents at a later date might have a point. At best this was a mostly meaningless bone to toss residents so that the BOG can claim to have done something. The actual effect on harvest will be nearly zero.
    I'm only basing that statement on what I have seen while I was guiding sheep hunters. About 20% or so were returning successful clients. Some of them fall as much in love with sheep hunting as do resident hunters.

    It would be interesting to see the hard data on this, on both sides.
    LOST CREEK COMPANY: Specializing in Alaska hunt consultation and planning for do-it-yourself or guided hunts.
    CLICK HERE to send me a private message.
    Web Addresses
    http://alaskaoutdoorssupersite.com/hunt-planner/
    https://akoutdoorsuniversity.com
    Mob: 1 (907) 229-4501
    "Dream big, and dare to fail." -Norman Vaughan
    "I have climbed my mountain, but I must still live my life." - Tenzig Norgay

  11. #31
    Member AK-HUNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Valley
    Posts
    1,034

    Default

    I listened to most of the Props discussions. The numbers F&G used were 3 to 4%. BOG and F&G both made comments that the effects will be negligible. You can pull the audio for yourself but those numbers were given in testimony.


    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Strahan View Post
    I'm only basing that statement on what I have seen while I was guiding sheep hunters. About 20% or so were returning successful clients. Some of them fall as much in love with sheep hunting as do resident hunters.

    It would be interesting to see the hard data on this, on both sides.

  12. #32
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    wasilla
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Mike,
    Ak-Hunt is right 3-4% is what was in the RCs from F&G. So back to Prop 51 and why did BOG pass it? One reason APHA... Thats why I am choosing to support RHAK. I can't understand why this was passed, as you have said before there is no biological reason for it. It will only remove some of the unguided non-residents out of the pool, which is good for APHA. I wish as residents we didn't need to have a lobbyist in Juneau, but in my opinion with the APHA influence in Juneau and the BOG, I think it is a necessary evil.

    Did anybody listen to the deliberation of Prop 51 and can say why it was passed????

  13. #33
    webmaster Michael Strahan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J in AK View Post
    Mike, please thank Wayne for that very detailed response. It's about time somebody present logic and reason to the melodrama that has become of sheep hunting in alaska.
    The tragedy is that this has gone beyond logic for some of the loudest activists. I am convinced that there is no information anyone can present that will change the views of some of those.

    I began my involvement in these discussions looking for facts. I found a lot of noise and confusion, a lot of anger among my fellow resident hunters, and tons of speculation about many aspects of this. There was also a lot of fear, assumptions, and accusations. But not very many actual facts. Here are a few that seem relevant.

    1. Dall sheep populations are cyclical. Some of our stocks are a bit low right now, but not to the point where those we've trusted with the management of our big-game resources believe a reduction in hunting is in order.

    2. In all of our general season and permit sheep hunts, resident opportunity and actual participation is significantly higher than that of nonresidents, and appears to have been that way for a long time.

    3. Resident participation in Dall sheep hunting has declined somewhat in the last couple of decades.

    4. Nonresident participation in Dall sheep hunting has remained level in the last couple of decades.

    5. General consensus in both the guide community and the resident hunter community is that we have too many guides in the field.

    6. The state lacks the constitutional authority to reduce the number of hunting guides. They also lack the constitutional authority to reduce the number of nonresident guides.

    7. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game is not going to make proposals to the BOG on the basis of allocation, particularly where there are no resource concerns that justify a reduction in hunting.

    8. Areas that have been historically managed on the basis of providing maximum opportunity to hunt sheep have hotspots where there is some crowding from both resident and nonresident hunters.

    That's what I think I see, anyway.

    -Mike
    LOST CREEK COMPANY: Specializing in Alaska hunt consultation and planning for do-it-yourself or guided hunts.
    CLICK HERE to send me a private message.
    Web Addresses
    http://alaskaoutdoorssupersite.com/hunt-planner/
    https://akoutdoorsuniversity.com
    Mob: 1 (907) 229-4501
    "Dream big, and dare to fail." -Norman Vaughan
    "I have climbed my mountain, but I must still live my life." - Tenzig Norgay

  14. #34
    webmaster Michael Strahan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thunderhead85 View Post
    Mike,
    Ak-Hunt is right 3-4% is what was in the RCs from F&G. So back to Prop 51 and why did BOG pass it? One reason APHA... Thats why I am choosing to support RHAK. I can't understand why this was passed, as you have said before there is no biological reason for it. It will only remove some of the unguided non-residents out of the pool, which is good for APHA. I wish as residents we didn't need to have a lobbyist in Juneau, but in my opinion with the APHA influence in Juneau and the BOG, I think it is a necessary evil.

    Did anybody listen to the deliberation of Prop 51 and can say why it was passed????
    I believe APHA made the proposal. So I suppose it makes sense to look for motives on their side.

    But there's another side to this. If this removes ANY hunters from the pool, will it not also benefit resident hunters?

    Did you get a chance to read Wayne's article? And if so, how were you able to get around the logic that none of those we have charged with the management of our sheep populations produced a single proposal that would reduce either group's opportunity to hunt sheep? Our biologists agree that numbers are down in some areas, but not reduced enough to force a reduction in hunting. Do you see that?
    LOST CREEK COMPANY: Specializing in Alaska hunt consultation and planning for do-it-yourself or guided hunts.
    CLICK HERE to send me a private message.
    Web Addresses
    http://alaskaoutdoorssupersite.com/hunt-planner/
    https://akoutdoorsuniversity.com
    Mob: 1 (907) 229-4501
    "Dream big, and dare to fail." -Norman Vaughan
    "I have climbed my mountain, but I must still live my life." - Tenzig Norgay

  15. #35
    webmaster Michael Strahan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AK-HUNT View Post
    I listened to most of the Props discussions. The numbers F&G used were 3 to 4%. BOG and F&G both made comments that the effects will be negligible. You can pull the audio for yourself but those numbers were given in testimony.
    Thanks!

    Okay, so if the effects are negligible, then why are folks so wrapped around the axle over it?
    LOST CREEK COMPANY: Specializing in Alaska hunt consultation and planning for do-it-yourself or guided hunts.
    CLICK HERE to send me a private message.
    Web Addresses
    http://alaskaoutdoorssupersite.com/hunt-planner/
    https://akoutdoorsuniversity.com
    Mob: 1 (907) 229-4501
    "Dream big, and dare to fail." -Norman Vaughan
    "I have climbed my mountain, but I must still live my life." - Tenzig Norgay

  16. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    wasilla
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Strahan View Post
    I believe APHA made the proposal. So I suppose it makes sense to look for motives on their side.

    But there's another side to this. If this removes ANY hunters from the pool, will it not also benefit resident hunters?

    Did you get a chance to read Wayne's article? And if so, how were you able to get around the logic that none of those we have charged with the management of our sheep populations produced a single proposal that would reduce either group's opportunity to hunt sheep? Our biologists agree that numbers are down in some areas, but not reduced enough to force a reduction in hunting. Do you see that?

    Mike I am not sure what you mean by "how were you able to get around the logic" I don't believe I have ever said we are in a biological concern to reduce hunting or even stated my thoughts on sheep management and populations. Since you asked though here it is in short. I believe we are in a down cycle due to weather and predation, biologically do we need to reduce hunting? Not if the biologist don't think so. I think in a couple of units we have a major allocation problem mostly 19c and 20a, which is why the F&G hasn't submitted proposals to reduce hunting, they stay out of allocation. I am worried about the BOG slowly eroding my hunting rights as a resident, which has been happening.

    The main point in this thread I am making is as long as there is the APHA, then the is going to be a need for the RHAK and that is why I will support them. (Not just sheep issues)

  17. #37
    Member Steve Springer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK
    Posts
    313

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BRWNBR View Post
    I guess the bright side is at least there's still a chance for him to hunt. Pretty soon non res will be a lot more limited. Gotta plan dual specie hunts now, one with the grizz tag and one with the sheep tag. Take turns. But at least you guys can still hunt together, those days are dwindling.....
    Yeah, no thanks to APHA, but yes, at least we can hunt together.....family... stop the family from hunting together and you stop hunting from perpetuating.

  18. #38
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    907
    Posts
    255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Strahan View Post
    The tragedy is that this has gone beyond logic for some of the loudest activists. I am convinced that there is no information anyone can present that will change the views of some of those.

    I began my involvement in these discussions looking for facts. I found a lot of noise and confusion, a lot of anger among my fellow resident hunters, and tons of speculation about many aspects of this. There was also a lot of fear, assumptions, and accusations. But not very many actual facts. Here are a few that seem relevant.

    1. Dall sheep populations are cyclical. Some of our stocks are a bit low right now, but not to the point where those we've trusted with the management of our big-game resources believe a reduction in hunting is in order.

    2. In all of our general season and permit sheep hunts, resident opportunity and actual participation is significantly higher than that of nonresidents, and appears to have been that way for a long time.

    3. Resident participation in Dall sheep hunting has declined somewhat in the last couple of decades.

    4. Nonresident participation in Dall sheep hunting has remained level in the last couple of decades.

    5. General consensus in both the guide community and the resident hunter community is that we have too many guides in the field.

    6. The state lacks the constitutional authority to reduce the number of hunting guides. They also lack the constitutional authority to reduce the number of nonresident guides.

    7. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game is not going to make proposals to the BOG on the basis of allocation, particularly where there are no resource concerns that justify a reduction in hunting.

    8. Areas that have been historically managed on the basis of providing maximum opportunity to hunt sheep have hotspots where there is some crowding from both resident and nonresident hunters.

    That's what I think I see, anyway.

    -Mike
    At the end of the day the sheep belong to Alaskans. If some residents are unashamed of claiming the maximum benefit comes to Alaskan's by limiting non residents then so be it.

    And...if not a single non resident came to hunt sheep next year (600 people?) there are still going to be 15,000 non residents coming to hunt Alaska...the Department won't miss the sale and matching PR funds from 600 non resident sheep hunters.

  19. #39
    webmaster Michael Strahan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tsunami View Post
    At the end of the day the sheep belong to Alaskans. If some residents are unashamed of claiming the maximum benefit comes to Alaskan's by limiting non residents then so be it.

    And...if not a single non resident came to hunt sheep next year (600 people?) there are still going to be 15,000 non residents coming to hunt Alaska...the Department won't miss the sale and matching PR funds from 600 non resident sheep hunters.
    Obviously we have completely different values. It would never have occurred to me to look at wildlife as personal property from which I can exclude others, for my personal benefit. I would be speculating to say that such a perspective is not held by most of the local hunters I know, but I think it's a safe bet. Thankfully the state is kind enough to our neighbors to allow them the privilege of hunting here. I always thought of wildlife as belonging to the earth, of which all of humankind is a caretaker.

    You make an assumption (I mentioned these discussions are full of those) that ADFG wouldn't mind the loss of around $306K in license and tag sales. Where did you get that information from? Can you provide a link?

    I think you "forgot" to add in the additional $9.6 million or so dollars those nonresident sheep hunters drop on the airlines, the air charters, hotels, car rentals, restaurants, sporting goods stores, gas stations, grocery stores and guides while they're here, much of which is circulated through our economy multiple times. Admittedly, that's not a lot compared to the $2.42 billion tourists spend here annually, but any loss impacts jobs and the Alaska economy. The average nonresident tourist spends about $940 while they're here; the average nonresident sheep hunter spends close to 20 times that amount. Perhaps that doesn't directly affect you, and so it is as of little consequence as "claiming" all the game for ourselves. But that sentiment is not shared at all by your fellow Alaskans. Last time I checked, I thought our state was trying to preserve revenue sources, not turn them away at the state line.

    I realize that none of this makes a bit of difference to some. Thankfully, they aren't the majority.
    LOST CREEK COMPANY: Specializing in Alaska hunt consultation and planning for do-it-yourself or guided hunts.
    CLICK HERE to send me a private message.
    Web Addresses
    http://alaskaoutdoorssupersite.com/hunt-planner/
    https://akoutdoorsuniversity.com
    Mob: 1 (907) 229-4501
    "Dream big, and dare to fail." -Norman Vaughan
    "I have climbed my mountain, but I must still live my life." - Tenzig Norgay

  20. #40
    webmaster Michael Strahan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thunderhead85 View Post
    Mike I am not sure what you mean by "how were you able to get around the logic" I don't believe I have ever said we are in a biological concern to reduce hunting or even stated my thoughts on sheep management and populations. Since you asked though here it is in short. I believe we are in a down cycle due to weather and predation, biologically do we need to reduce hunting? Not if the biologist don't think so. I think in a couple of units we have a major allocation problem mostly 19c and 20a, which is why the F&G hasn't submitted proposals to reduce hunting, they stay out of allocation. I am worried about the BOG slowly eroding my hunting rights as a resident, which has been happening.

    The main point in this thread I am making is as long as there is the APHA, then the is going to be a need for the RHAK and that is why I will support them. (Not just sheep issues)
    My apologies if I misspoke by assuming you shared the views published by the organization you support. They spilled a lot of ink focusing on declining sheep numbers (biological concerns) in their written response to Proposals 21-49 and 138. They were very clear that they believe numbers are down and that they expect the BOG to take action as a result of that. Here's a quote from their comments:

    "And yet, in the face of known sheep declines the Board for years has refused to take action on the myriad problems they themselves acknowledge, instead time and time again asking for more studies and more data while continually deferring sheep proposals..."
    You said you supported RHAK, and as this was their main case presented to the BOG, I'm sure you can see why I would get the impression that you agreed with them. My apologies if my assumption was incorrect or out of line in any way. Clearly the organization is completely out of line with the biologists we are paying to study this stuff.

    You are correct on the allocation issue, but you are mistaken that the Board is somehow trying to rob you of your rights as a resident. If you read your hunting regulations, you will discover that in every Game Management Unit, with nearly every species listed, the BOG has a well-established history of favoring subsistence hunters first, then residents. There is no way a rational person can read the regs and come away with a different understanding. Ironically, RHAK even quoted it from page 7 of the current copy of the regs! Clearly ADFG supports that mandate as well.

    Finally, its a mistake to think that RHAK is the "yin" to APHA's "yang". While it's easy (and sort of tempting) to think of them as opposite sides of a coin, that will somehow balance each other out, it's simply not true. APHA does not represent the majority of guides in this state any more than RHAK represents the majority of resident hunters in this state. I think some of us are being tripped up by the names of the organizations themselves (perhaps by the organizations intent?), which suggest a broader representation than they actually have. The fact is that Alaskans themselves, whether guides or not, form the largest lobby to the Board of Game. We're just not paying someone to lobby on our behalf.
    LOST CREEK COMPANY: Specializing in Alaska hunt consultation and planning for do-it-yourself or guided hunts.
    CLICK HERE to send me a private message.
    Web Addresses
    http://alaskaoutdoorssupersite.com/hunt-planner/
    https://akoutdoorsuniversity.com
    Mob: 1 (907) 229-4501
    "Dream big, and dare to fail." -Norman Vaughan
    "I have climbed my mountain, but I must still live my life." - Tenzig Norgay

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... 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
  •