Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: Resident vs non-resident guides

  1. #1
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default Resident vs non-resident guides

    I know I could be firing up a fine kettle of fish stew with this one.....

    BUT, the tone of one of the threads about the L'il Su on the main board really got me thinking.

    What is the role of the non-resident guide in providing a much needed and valuable service to the non-boating and/or novice angler who would otherwise be unable to access a particular fishery? Should AK resident guides be given some sort of priority or preference? Should there be caps or other restrictions on the non-resident guide? Does it even matter? Are some guys just blowing smoke on this issue?

    Let's try to keep the discussion civil and flesh out the subject matter on principle without resorting to personal attacks or outright slams of the non-resident guides.

    ***

    I haven't really put much energy into the subject, but it seems to me that commercialized sport-fishing is all about providing better access to the fish resource... the industry provides the talent and technology to put the novice or ill-equipped angler on the local fish.

    In that regard, it's similar to how commercial fishermen provide comsumptive access (thru talent and technology) to the fish resource for the non-fishing public.

    Is there any precedent in the commercial fishing indusrty that gives preference to resident over non-resident fishermen?

    And what about resident commercial fishing/guiding operations who hire non-resident fishermen/guides on a seasonal basis? Does that make any difference?

    No answers from this end... just trying to get a feel for the lay of the land.

    Anyone else?
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    providing a much needed and valuable service to the non-boating and/or novice angler who would otherwise be unable to access a particular fishery?
    A nonresident guide is no different than a local.

    Lets NOT overlook the fact that many guided fisherman "fish a lot" and have boats, just not "with" them. And many guided fisherman are not even novice fisherman but for one reason or another have chosen to hire a guide; and take "local" fish. Most likely don't even care where the "guide" comes from.

    A 'guide' license is nothing more than an occupational license. It is not a business license.

    If a person has the license; he is entitled to work unrestricted. Right?

    There are plenty of legal ways of establishing guide licensing standards that can justifiably put limits on guides. Right? Guides themselves will never impose standards that limit guides; it is a very un-natural thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Should AK resident guides be given some sort of priority or preference?
    NO......there is no legal justification for it.


    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Should there be caps or other restrictions on the non-resident guide?
    NO...again no legal justification. Non resident guides are not the issue.....let me ask you this. Suppose the nonresident guides were displaced; what would prevent the resident guides from filling the vacuum?

    As far as resource impact; allocation, opportunity and limits on commercial sport fish guides......nothing changes if rid of nonresidents guides are limited or 'outlawed".

    The debate and the issue's are about:
    resource impact;
    allocation,
    opportunity and
    the lack of limits and the affect commercial sport fish guides have on:
    resource impact;
    allocation,
    opportunity

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Does it even matter?
    Resident vs nonResident guides is not the issue. The subject only matters in the since that it is a red herring and a waste of time to be talking about preferences for guides; a time suck.

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Are some guys just blowing smoke on this issue?
    Yah; I am afraid so.

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Let's try to keep the discussion civil and flesh out the subject matter on principle without resorting to personal attacks or outright slams of the non-resident guides.
    It does; and in fact by law can not, matter where the guide is from. If the person he is certified by the State through a professional occupational licensing standard AND further permitted by the State to sell me the resource that belongs to all of the residents of this State AND that person is obligated to perform at the professional level as promised through the States professional occupational licensing system.....then what can be the problem?

    ***

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    I haven't really put much energy into the subject, but it seems to me that commercialized sport-fishing is all about providing better access to the fish resource... the industry provides the talent and technology to put the novice or ill-equipped angler on the local fish.
    Guides sell the resource.

    Outfitters are Selling access OR "providing better access"......altogether different than selling resources; or guiding.

    to guide.....an occupational license....is not a business license.

    to outfit.....is a business....that is; outfitting is not an occupation

    Outfitting and Guiding are not the same thing.

    Selling the resource AND selling access are not the same thing; though often lumped together. This is having an impact on cost's to both residents and nonresident to access the resources; unguided, and may even be affecting the equal access provisions in law.

    Not everyone who buys outdoor services buy's or wants to buy both "outfitting" and "guiding". Those public persons who wish to buy only access but not guide service should not be penalized and may not be regulated by those who sell the resources and only by default; provide access's.




    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    In that regard, it's similar to how commercial fishermen provide comsumptive access (thru talent and technology) to the fish resource for the non-fishing public.
    Commercial fisherman have a transferable permit that anyone regardless of residency can own; with that comes the right to make money off a public resource.

    UNLIKE "guides" Commercial fisherman pay for the take.

    The essential difference between commercial fishing and guiding is:

    Guides don't pay for the resource they sell.



    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Is there any precedent in the commercial fishing indusrty that gives preference to resident over non-resident fishermen?
    Nope; not that I am aware of. If you have the money to buy into the business of commercial fishing then your in; don't even matter what country your from I don't think....might be wrong about that one.

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    And what about resident commercial fishing/guiding operations who hire non-resident fishermen/guides on a seasonal basis? Does that make any difference?
    Nope...

    To make a difference; establish legitimate and justifiable limits that could affect nonresidents more than residents who wish to be or hold a guide license. Encourage the State to establish some real costs and standards to acquiring and maintaining a professional occupational license to guide.

    Kind of like a doctors license; or a pilots license. Lots of nice smart people want to be doctors and lots of student pilots with a solo endorsement want to be professional pilots............but to get an occupational license to do those things, and to keep them current requires more than....

    A FIRST AID CARD AND A $100.00...and it does not get any easier when a person takes either the occupational license to be a doctor or a pilot and take it to the next step and make a business out of it..........

    That COST A LOT MORE THAN ANOTHER $100.0 AND AN INSURANCE POLICY and 7K for a used boat and motor.

    And for the doctor or the pilot to make money with their occupational license and business model they don't have free raw material to work with.


    As long as there are no standards to acquiring a 'guide' licenses there will be no limits and no let up on the pressures put on our resources.


  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    soldotna
    Posts
    841

    Default

    There are some states that require a person to be a "resident" of that state or they cannot hold a guide license in that state.

    In order to become a license guide on the Kenai River you must first pay a State Park Fee of $750 a year for a resident and $1500 a year if you are a non resident of Alaska.

    I personally do not think that it should matter if a person is a resident or a non resident in order to be a fishing guide in Alaska.

    In my mind if a "cap or limit" is implemented requirments should be based more on what that individual has vested in the industry and in the area that they are guiding in. I know several non resident Kenai River guides that have houses, boats, and property here in the area and I know of some resident guides who do not even own the boat that they are using to guide out of.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iceblue View Post
    There are some states that require a person to be a "resident" of that state or they cannot hold a guide license in that state.
    Which ones?

    Lets have a link to the law on it too......would these be states that do not permit nonresidents to hunt or to fish???

    Quote Originally Posted by iceblue View Post
    In order to become a license guide on the Kenai River you must first pay a State Park Fee of $750 a year for a resident and $1500 a year if you are a non resident of Alaska.
    That's one way of legitimately differentiating between residents and nonresidents. Why not increase the difference by 10 times? That might shake a few out?

    Quote Originally Posted by iceblue View Post
    I personally do not think that it should matter if a person is a resident or a non resident in order to be a fishing guide in Alaska.
    I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by iceblue View Post
    In my mind if a "cap or limit" is implemented requirments should be based more on what that individual has vested in the industry and in the area that they are guiding in. I know several non resident Kenai River guides that have houses, boats, and property here in the area and I know of some resident guides who do not even own the boat that they are using to guide out of.

    A guide license is nothing more than an occupational license.

    The State can not go around and measure everybody's tackle box who holds a guide license and 'GIVE' the ones with the most invested a preference to work......it wont happen.


  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    soldotna
    Posts
    841

    Default

    On Federal Waters in Alaska such as the Upper Kenai River and the Situk River in Southeast guides submit a perspectus that details what the guide have vested in the area, experience in the fishery, and so on. Based on the "rank" on this application style process it then determines who gets the allotted days to guide in that fishery. Why would this not work on State Waters if it would pass muster with the State Constitution since it is a proven method on Federal Waters?

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iceblue View Post
    On Federal Waters in Alaska such as the Upper Kenai River and the Situk River in Southeast guides submit a perspectus that details what the guide have vested in the area, experience in the fishery, and so on. Based on the "rank" on this application style process it then determines who gets the allotted days to guide in that fishery. Why would this not work on State Waters if it would pass muster with the State Constitution since it is a proven method on Federal Waters?
    Fundamentally or Constitutionally; the resource belongs to everyone; that is where the game begins.

    I don't know how the Fed's justify special "resource" harvest opportunity for commercial 'sport' purposes that impacts personal use opportunity and does not account for the take.

    I'm guessing that such a proposal for State Waters would not have a bias towards residency?

    I assume you are considering that the alloted days would be only issued to the person with the guide license; not delegated to others. In other words this "allocation" would not be sold-transfered or sub-contracted out.

    State Waters proposal appear to be some sort of special interest [allocation] in the resources which I don' think is protected in the constitution. Additionally; their may be others willing to pay more for the right [if there is any right] in which case the State is further obligated to essentially 'sell' to the highest bidder.

    What's your point with this anyway?

    Some sort of way of limiting commercial impact on the resources or some sort of way of protecting a share of the resources for a special commercial interest?

    Why is this needed for a person who holds an occupational license?

    We don't have special deals for people with pilot licenses or outfitting or air taxi business who also depend on access? Why do guides need this?

    What about lodges? Should they have special allocations? What about waterfront hotels in 'Southeast' or Homer, Seward, Kodiak, should they have special allocations too?


  7. #7

    Default my kinda guy

    why continue to allow so-called "guides," resident or nonresident, to continue to capitalize on a public resource at all? guides provide no "needed and valuable service to the non-boating and/or novice angler who would otherwise be unable to access a particular fishery." guides are not "similar to how commercial fishermen provide comsumptive access (thru talent and technology) to the fish resource for the non-fishing public." today's so-called guides sell an amusement ride crossed with a game of chance.

    a non-boating angler,s needs could be easily met with a rental boat. a novice angler, boating or non-boating, could hire a coach with or without a boat.

    John Geirach boasted that he'd never used a prostitute and he'd never used a guide. there are some things a man's got to do for himself.

  8. #8

    Default Respectfully,

    I completely DISAGREE. Keep in mind, this is just my opinion, so add a dollar and you might be able to buy a cup of coffee with it....

    It has been my experience, in witnessing the actions of non-resident guides versus resident guides, to be entirely less respectful of other fisherman, the resources and the land. The resident guides, on the other hand, have to live here too, and have a much higher respect for their name, and are much more willing to interact with fisherman and offer sage advice on various locales. It is entirely in their best interest to do so. The non-resi though, what does he care? He is only here during the summer to make as much $$$ as he can and then get out. Up here for the summer, having a blast, partying, fishing, etc..

    HUGE DIFFERENCE in attitude, mentality, and respect for the resource. I can point to experiences on the Talkeetna River, Kenai River, Seward, Kasilof River and Valdez.

    Again, just my opinion...

  9. #9
    Member offcenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    10

    Default

    (apologizing in advance for some overgeneralization)

    Well, I question whether the state needs the guides at all. If they are actually a "commercial in-river industry" then they need Greenpeace, the EPA, PETA, and the cast of usual suspects keeping them honest. And they are nowhere near being kept honest at the moment. They are a nearly completely unregulated and receive little active oversight. They offer little for the community, pollute the Kenai, and ring up hook-and-release mortality numbers. For nothing -- what keeps the KP going is oil; the same goes for the state. We don't need them, and we don't need what they are doing to the fishery.

    They misrepresent what Alaska is, and they are doing it on the cheap with a public resource. There's no excuse for what the industry has done to the fishery. And every year they just connive for more. Shame on them.

    Most importantly they have turned an epic fishery into nothing more than a inbred tailgate party. Very few of the "clients" I've seen show a shred of respect for the animals they are screwing with -- even fewer have the skills necessary to fish for a King -- never mind the boat -- and I'd hazard a guess that even fewer will ever eat what they've killed (after they finally become board exhausting 40-60 pound animals 'fer fun.') At least the commies know why they are out there, busting their humps for 40 cents a pound.

    They are a nuisance, and need to be gotten rid of -- or regulated to the point were it costs $1000 for a half day. And, no, no one who is a non-resident has any business being a guide. They come, they eat, they leave.

    They all need sensitivity training, and so do their clients. The Kenai should be a world-class shrine, not a floating pimp circus of "reel slammers," "hawg hunters," and "fishun addicshun" punters.


    /rant
    In our desire to impose form on the world and our lives we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
    and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. -- Colin Gunton

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by offcenter View Post
    (apologizing in advance for some overgeneralization
    No apology necessary...........some of you might be interested to know the Department of F&G in conjunction with a task force appointed by the commissioner of ONLY fishing guides has embarked on a new regulatory board whereby "guides" will regulate themselves. A very interesting broadening or deepening if you will of the unbridled expanding influence guides have over our resources. Out for public comments this summer.....rise up now and pay attention or it's going to get worse.


  11. #11
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post

    Let's try to keep the discussion civil and flesh out the subject matter on principle without resorting to personal attacks or outright slams of the non-resident guides.
    WHOA!

    Guess that was a little too much to ask for.

    Tough crowd...
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  12. #12

    Default KeenEye

    I think you will find that most, if not all, Resident Sportsman here take this all quite personally and passionately.

    I think part of it stems from seeing the cruise industry raping this state and it's resources as well....

    I have no exact numbers, but my guess is that if you were to 'ask' a resident about a 'recommended' guiding service for fishing or hunting, 99% of the time you will be pointed in the direction of a 'resi' service....

  13. #13
    Member offcenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AVALANCHE View Post
    No apology necessary...........some of you might be interested to know the Department of F&G in conjunction with a task force appointed by the commissioner of ONLY fishing guides has embarked on a new regulatory board whereby "guides" will regulate themselves. A very interesting broadening or deepening if you will of the unbridled expanding influence guides have over our resources. Out for public comments this summer.....rise up now and pay attention or it's going to get worse.
    Exactly -- Penny and KRSA run a whorehouse down here -- it is completely out of control. They're up there right now drifting the Kenai down from Skilak -- drifting for rainbows and tearing the ***** out of them, waiting for the Kings -- and for nothing. An utter disgrace.

    'Time has come to put a smackdown on the old 2-strokes -- but how many of the "35 hp" 4-strokes on those Willie Predators will ever get a looksie?

    That's right, none.

    What happens when you put a 35hp engine on a boat designed to take four times that power?
    In our desire to impose form on the world and our lives we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
    and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. -- Colin Gunton

  14. #14
    Member sayak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
    Posts
    5,788

    Default My kinda girl

    Quote Originally Posted by Gretchen View Post
    why continue to allow so-called "guides," resident or nonresident, to continue to capitalize on a public resource at all? guides provide no "needed and valuable service to the non-boating and/or novice angler who would otherwise be unable to access a particular fishery." guides are not "similar to how commercial fishermen provide comsumptive access (thru talent and technology) to the fish resource for the non-fishing public." today's so-called guides sell an amusement ride crossed with a game of chance.

    a non-boating angler,s needs could be easily met with a rental boat. a novice angler, boating or non-boating, could hire a coach with or without a boat.

    John Geirach boasted that he'd never used a prostitute and he'd never used a guide. there are some things a man's got to do for himself.
    You said a mouthful there. I concur completely.

  15. #15
    Member .338-06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    Outsourcing ANY of the jobs up pushes my buttons! During the oil boom most of the roughnecks and such all lived in the Gulf-Texas-OK region. Nowadays it's insane! For every "carpetbagger" who works up here there's an Alaskan who's missing a job oppertunity!
    Why does the Fed government pay dentists from California to come up here to run circuts through Western Alaska? Why don't hunting and fishing guides look for assistants/junior guides locally? AAARRRGGGHHH!

  16. #16

    Default

    Do you ever think that they're hiring the best qualified employee for their business? Where people come from should be secondary and if you think different you've never owned your own business.

  17. #17

    Default

    In my area any local guide who is competent can find work.

    I have seen a few outfits though who hire "outdoorsy" people from down south to use and abuse for a summer and forget about. It's tougher to screw over locals as everybody is related in smaller towns.

  18. #18
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    32

    Default Nonresident

    (There are some states that require a person to be a "resident" of that state or they cannot hold a guide license in that state. )




    I think Federal law protects everybody's right to work in any state they want.. States however can impose rules like requiring nonresidents to get a drivers license, license plates on their cars and high fees. But Nonresident still have the same right to work in any state they want. I don't know of any state that has a no nonresident law that has held up against against a court challenge.

    One thing I do not like is how easy it is to "be" a resident! I would love to see Alaska law makers change the requirements to must be "in" the state at least 9 months each year.

    I

  19. #19
    Member AKBassking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    SE Alaska-Summer Columbia River-Winter
    Posts
    2,007

    Default Stae Waters

    Quote Originally Posted by iceblue View Post
    Why would this not work on State Waters if it would pass muster with the State Constitution since it is a proven method on Federal Waters?
    I would argue that the upper Kenai is a State navigable water way that runs through federal land.

    ALASKAN SEA-DUCTION
    1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
    MMSI# 338131469
    Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/

  20. #20
    Member AKBassking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    SE Alaska-Summer Columbia River-Winter
    Posts
    2,007

    Default Yes and

    [quote=akseakayaker;275442]I think you will find that most, if not all, Resident Sportsman here take this all quite personally and passionately. [quote]

    My $.02

    I would have to agree. Non-resident guides are up here for only one reason.....the money. They take this money and leave the state and are not really interested in the survivability of the resource.

    I have witnessed this on Lake Creek where the lodges would hire fellow Europeans to guide. I have witnessed illegal catches and overharvest (5 fish a day when the limit is 1!).

    I believe if you want to be an Alaskan fishing or hunting guide you should be required to posses a resident hunting or fishing license. Simple and easy. This would keep jobs and money in Alaska.

    I also believe the State should invoke its right to require that all commercial fishing vessels operating within Alaskan waters be owned and registered in Alaska. Further require all commercial caught fish to be processed on land.

    ALASKAN SEA-DUCTION
    1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
    MMSI# 338131469
    Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/

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
  •