Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25

Thread: Looks like RHAK is going public

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

    Default Looks like RHAK is going public

    Alaska Dispatch Article today.

    https://www.adn.com/article/20160411...ska-board-game


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #2
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,456

    Default

    Interesting...not totally factual but he got his point across The comments are the end were "fun" to read. As Alaskas population increases we are going to suffer more separation and division on all issues. Tip of the iceberg. I was sad to read this article.
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    907
    Posts
    255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BRWNBR View Post
    Interesting...not totally factual but he got his point across The comments are the end were "fun" to read. As Alaskas population increases we are going to suffer more separation and division on all issues. Tip of the iceberg. I was sad to read this article.
    What did you decide is not factual?

  4. #4
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,456

    Default

    Off the top of my head he said they couldn't both hunt grizzly ever, wouldn't it work in a two bear limit area? One for each or am I misunderstanding the new reg?
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  5. #5
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,456

    Default

    The rest as I recal was mostly wording, "solely", "intent", "unfair", words that are meant to sway a readers opinions. But not based off factual information.
    Comments like the following give the impression that 60-80
    Percent of the total Population of sheep are being taken by non res, again worded in a way to sway readers into being drawn in.
    "Nonresident guided sheep hunters are taking 60 percent to 80 percent of our sheep in some areas ".

    First I've ever heard this one....and I've been in the "industry" for just shy of 20 years.
    "The guide industry does not appreciate that nonresident relatives of Alaska residents can come up here to hunt a must-be-guided species without having to hire a licensed guide."

    I spoke with a guide in the wrangles once,
    One of the ones that's commonly refernced when people talked about "locked up areas". His problem with residents wasn't that they hunted, but that they didn't have any qualms about shooting small sheep. He just wished they would at least hunt for mature Rams to keep the hunting quality high. This was back when it was not all full curl restrictions in unit 11. Ironically that locked up area, a resident aquantaince of mine takes a charter in and hunts it almost every year. Killed several great sheep.

    Marks letter really drags a nasty blanket over all guides and lumps the APHA in with the term "guide industry"
    Almost the entire time. Two things which are vastly different. I've never met a guide that didn't like residents,
    The biggest issue guides have had with residents is just how they hunt/treat an area. A common lack of caring about the longevity of an area, leaving parts of camp sights, trash, cutting trails, boats and planes buzzing other hunters and not hunting an area for its potential. Ie immature game, Kodiak bears, or the sheep situation I mentioned above.

    Guide industry is NOT anti resident hunters.
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  6. #6
    webmaster Michael Strahan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,767

    Default

    Wow.

    So I'm a Registered Guide, and I have an organization out there claiming to speak for me, though I am not a member.

    I'm also a resident, and now I have an organization out there claiming to represent my interests, and I'm not a member of that one either.

    Am I supposed to thank someone?

    I don't believe I have ever read anything like that from within the hunting community over all the years I've lived here. It's inflammatory, divisive, misleading, and presumptuous. Inflammatory because it paints all guides with the same brush. Divisive because it pits hunters against each other. Misleading because it uses extreme examples to give the impression that an issue is much larger than it really is. Presumptuous because it assumes it is representing all resident hunters.

    Thanks, but no thanks, to both groups.

    -Mike
    LOST CREEK COMPANY: Specializing in Alaska hunt consultation and planning for do-it-yourself hunts, fully outfitted hunts, and guided hunts.
    CLICK HERE to send me a private message.
    Web Address: http://alaskaoutdoorssupersite.com/hunt-planner/
    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

  7. #7
    webmaster Michael Strahan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,767

    Default

    Here's a great example of the kind of misrepresentation I found in the article, and this is a direct quote, in context:

    Meanwhile, a guide can take as many nonresident sheep hunting clients as he can book with absolutely no restrictions on the guide whatsoever.


    Really? No restrictions at all? So how does that work on our many permit hunts?

    I guess it's like that famous quote about China: "Whatever you say about China is true somewhere." Yes, there are areas where an unlimited number of nonresident sheep hunters could (theoretically) go. But are there not also areas where an unlimited number of resident hunters could (theoretically) go as well? But to write an article that said, "In a given season, resident hunters can kill as many sheep as they like." would sort of skew things a bit, wouldn't it? It's not really a forthright statement.

    The whole article reads like a hail Mary pass with three seconds on the clock, in hopes of knocking a Board member out before confirmation takes place.

    I know a few people who are in this organization and I consider most of them friends, for my part. I don't believe they would have had a hand in something like this.
    LOST CREEK COMPANY: Specializing in Alaska hunt consultation and planning for do-it-yourself hunts, fully outfitted hunts, and guided hunts.
    CLICK HERE to send me a private message.
    Web Address: http://alaskaoutdoorssupersite.com/hunt-planner/
    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

  8. #8
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Strahan View Post
    Wow.

    So I'm a Registered Guide, and I have an organization out there claiming to speak for me, though I am not a member.

    I'm also a resident, and now I have an organization out there claiming to represent my interests, and I'm not a member of that one either.

    Am I supposed to thank someone?

    I don't believe I have ever read anything like that from within the hunting community over all the years I've lived here. It's inflammatory, divisive, misleading, and presumptuous. Inflammatory because it paints all guides with the same brush. Divisive because it pits hunters against each other. Misleading because it uses extreme examples to give the impression that an issue is much larger than it really is. Presumptuous because it assumes it is representing all resident hunters.

    Thanks, but no thanks, to both groups.

    -Mike
    Respectfully; I don't believe one person generally stating what many of us feel is divisive, so much as it demonstrates the fact that we disagree. (Mark's statement isn't the root cause of divisiveness, it's an articulation of the fact that we are already divided). Seems there are more or less two camps: those who propose that the guide industry as it presently exists/operates is good for Alaska/Alaskans; and those of us who believe otherwise.
    ...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

  9. #9
    webmaster Michael Strahan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,767

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iofthetaiga View Post
    Respectfully; I don't believe one person generally stating what many of us feel is divisive, so much as it demonstrates the fact that we disagree. (Mark's statement isn't the root cause of divisiveness, it's an articulation of the fact that we are already divided).
    I agree in part with what you're saying. But it's one thing to be an observer of a division, and another entirely to jump in the middle of it and further polarize people with the kind of remarks I read in the article. That's a few degrees beyond. And from my perspective, the division is not nearly as dramatic as the article makes it appear. Just a cursory look through the hunting regulations should convince just about anyone that this state has a very strong resident preference.

    Anyway, this has all been hashed out many times. I'm not here to convince anyone. I'm just expressing some shock over the tone of the whole thing, and at what it appears to be.

    One thing we will have to disagree on; this was MUCH more than one person making some remarks. That person is representing an entire group, and is therefore speaking as their representative, is he not? I maintain that he's claiming an even broader reach than that, with implications that he's backed by the entire resident hunting population.

    -Mike
    LOST CREEK COMPANY: Specializing in Alaska hunt consultation and planning for do-it-yourself hunts, fully outfitted hunts, and guided hunts.
    CLICK HERE to send me a private message.
    Web Address: http://alaskaoutdoorssupersite.com/hunt-planner/
    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

  10. #10
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,456

    Default

    "The whole article reads like a hail Mary pass with three seconds on the clock, in hopes of knocking a Board member out before confirmation takes place."


    I think this sums it up. First step to changing law if the current board don't agree.....change the board. Pick one you don't think will agree with you, get rid of them. Replace with a person who agrees with your ideals and motives. THEN some
    Proposals will go your way and APHA will be powerless!!! (Insert evil laugh here lol)
    But can't change the board seat unless there's a villain to sacrifice to the horde. Enter mr turner. Black eye him to the public so you have the general public on board, makes these things much easier
    To accomplish.

    This article had a purpose. I don't think it was about non residents hunting sheep.
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  11. #11
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Strahan View Post
    I'm just expressing some shock over the tone of the whole thing, and at what it appears to be.
    I think people are fed up, and are going to start pushing back harder against what they perceive as a now longstanding, biased ("corrupted" if you will) system, which does not have the best interest of Alaskans at heart.
    ...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

  12. #12
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,456

    Default

    At least not the Alaskans like them. It does have the best interest of some Alaskans
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  13. #13
    webmaster Michael Strahan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,767

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iofthetaiga View Post
    I think people are fed up, and are going to start pushing back harder against what they perceive as a now longstanding, biased ("corrupted" if you will) system, which does not have the best interest of Alaskans at heart.
    I agree that *some* people don't like the way things are at present. But as I have pointed out many times, and have backed it up with actual accounts, there are MANY resident hunters who are enjoying the overwhelming benefits and opportunities to hunt all species here. Whenever I mention the folks I know, it is quickly discounted. My point is that we are hearing from a vocal minority, on BOTH sides of this. Neither represents a majority opinion; they are just the loudest voices in the conversation right now.

    I agree that if RHAK doesn't get what it wants, they will likely become louder and louder.

    We will have to disagree on whether "the system" has the best interests of Alaskans at heart. My hunting regulations say differently, on almost every page. As they should.

    -Mike
    LOST CREEK COMPANY: Specializing in Alaska hunt consultation and planning for do-it-yourself hunts, fully outfitted hunts, and guided hunts.
    CLICK HERE to send me a private message.
    Web Address: http://alaskaoutdoorssupersite.com/hunt-planner/
    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. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    907
    Posts
    255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BRWNBR View Post

    But can't change the board seat unless there's a villain to sacrifice to the horde. Enter mr turner. Black eye him to the public so you have the general public on board,
    So you don't agree that Turner has a conflict of interest?

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Southcentral Alaska
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tsunami View Post
    So you don't agree that Turner has a conflict of interest?
    I don't agree that he has a conflict. Not within the context of the Board of Game, where conflict of interest is standard operating procedure. I don't say that to disparage any of the board members. They are who they are. It's up to the governors to appoint wise arbiters to the board, and governors don't generally do that. Rather, they appoint rent-seekers.

    Within that context Turner isn't any more conflicted than the next member.

    That said, he absolutely should have disclosed is association with the Nonresident Hunting Preservation Fund. Lesson learned I guess.

    I'm certainly not pleased with the composition of the BOG, and when we talk about "divisiveness" I think we have to recognize which user groups and interests are not represented on the BOG and we need to realize that being shut out of the deliberative process is as divisive as it gets.

  16. #16
    Member Ken R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Strahan View Post
    I agree that *some* people don't like the way things are at present. But as I have pointed out many times, and have backed it up with actual accounts, there are MANY resident hunters who are enjoying the overwhelming benefits and opportunities to hunt all species here. Whenever I mention the folks I know, it is quickly discounted. My point is that we are hearing from a vocal minority, on BOTH sides of this. Neither represents a majority opinion; they are just the loudest voices in the conversation right now.

    I agree that if RHAK doesn't get what it wants, they will likely become louder and louder.

    We will have to disagree on whether "the system" has the best interests of Alaskans at heart. My hunting regulations say differently, on almost every page. As they should.

    -Mike
    Mike-
    You keep inferring that Scott and Steve are successful (along with the guy flying his plane in) every year to discount the argument about non-resident allocation issue. But, Proving Trails is on record as supporting a draw for non-residents because of crowding issues. If you keep using them as your example why residents already have preference, I think you are shooting holes in your own argument.
    And if RHAK doesn't get what they want--they SHOULD get louder. That is the point of forming the group. Residents aren't getting treated fairly by a board that is heavily weighted to guides. The recent changes by BOG prove that out.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    907
    Posts
    255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HikerDan View Post
    I don't agree that he has a conflict. Not within the context of the Board of Game, where conflict of interest is standard operating procedure. I don't say that to disparage any of the board members. They are who they are. It's up to the governors to appoint wise arbiters to the board, and governors don't generally do that. Rather, they appoint rent-seekers.

    Within that context Turner isn't any more conflicted than the next member.

    That said, he absolutely should have disclosed is association with the Nonresident Hunting Preservation Fund. Lesson learned I guess.

    I'm certainly not pleased with the composition of the BOG, and when we talk about "divisiveness" I think we have to recognize which user groups and interests are not represented on the BOG and we need to realize that being shut out of the deliberative process is as divisive as it gets.
    It's not that Turner did not disclose just the Non Resident Hunter Preservation fund.

    He did not disclose when he had a exclusive guide concession (sheep) in ANWR.
    He did not disclose his conflict with his USFW exclusive guide concessions vs USFW attempts to end state management of 10's of millions of acres
    He did not disclose that his hunt broker activities

    Failure to disclose is a violation of his duty.

    Failure to disclose is far different than participating AFTER disclosures are announced...

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Strahan View Post
    Wow.

    So I'm a Registered Guide, and I have an organization out there claiming to speak for me, though I am not a member.

    I'm also a resident, and now I have an organization out there claiming to represent my interests, and I'm not a member of that one either.

    Am I supposed to thank someone?
    And I'm a Kenai sportfisherman who unfortunately has a 501C3 "Charity" lobbying in Juneau for increased taxes on people in my area to fund their "conservation" projects. We can both thank the current structure of nonprofits for all of this. Bleh.

    I hunt quite a bit, but I've never guided (or been guided), and don't sheep hunt. I also don't fly, but would like to. I was happy to see the no-spotting law. It's IMO getting out of hand in some moose hunting areas also. I feel that hunting with a plane is similar to fishing with a net. It's different, and easier to kill stuff, therefore it needs to be regulated differently.

    I'm personally ok with the once every 4 years thing for the next of kin hunt, but could see how some dislike it. I was disappointed to see the proposal pass which makes the kill count towards both people's tags. That just sucks.

    I see the amount of money people spend on hunts, and am ok with a little less opportunity of my own so that we may have the economic boost from guided hunting trips. So long as we do everything we can to keep that money in our state. That said I like to see things kept fair, and hate seeing board shenanigans.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Delta Jct, Alaska
    Posts
    992

    Default

    Not to kick sand on others but once more I'd like to reiterate that Alaska does NOT have a "next of kin" law....we have a "second degree of kindred" [mother in law] rule

    I'm not a guide and I do think it is time for some limitations but I don't feel that we Alaskans owe your non-resident brother-in-law a chap hunt for a coveted specie. As we lay blame at the feet of guides and transporters we should consider cleaning up our own back yard. This second-degree-of-kindred hunting is significant.

    Second degree of kin [parent/child brother/brother] would be more acceptable and much more enforceable IMO!

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    907
    Posts
    255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VernAK View Post
    Not to kick sand on others but once more I'd like to reiterate that Alaska does NOT have a "next of kin" law....we have a "second degree of kindred" rule.....

    I'm not a guide and I do think it is time for some limitations but I don't feel that we Alaskans owe your non-resident brother-in-law a chap hunt for a coveted specie. As we lay blame at the feet of guides and transporters we should consider cleaning up our own back yard. This second-degree-of-kindred hunting is significant.

    Second degree of kin would be more acceptable and much more enforceable IMO!
    The better thing to do would be to do away with the "non resident must be guided law". Then a non resident is a non resident and if they want to hire a guide, hunt with their 2DK or on their own it eliminates all the special interests and loop holes and of course leads to putting all non residents on a draw.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •