Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 51

Thread: Fishing Guide Services Board

  1. #1
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,360

    Default Fishing Guide Services Board

    Well, its here! The state is establishing a fishing guide services board similar to the current big game guide services board. Among other things, it proposed to classify guides as outfitter, guide, and assistant guide, or some similar three part classification. Units would also be assigned.

    What are your thoughts? Good, bad, indifferent?

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Here is an article from the Peninsula Clarion about the meetings down there:

    http://www.peninsulaclarion.com/stor...49591320.shtml

    Despite all the posts and uninformed assumptions about the process the article does a good job of stating this is very early in the process and this is just a starting point, many unanswered questions. So far the guides have been testifying against it (so much for the fox in the hen house comments).

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon
    so much for the fox in the hen house comments
    Well, not really. The Task Force, who presented the language, is still made up of guides. And they will be the one's presenting the results of these meetings and making recommendations to the Commissioner.

    Not to mention the newly formed Board will have a large majority of guides on it. And it will be that Board of guides who will determine criteria used to select guides. Certainly a fox in the hen house.

    "The sport fish board would have nine members appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature. The language states it would consist of five licensed guides or outfitters, one licensed transporter, a member of the Board of Fisheries, a public member familiar with the state sport fishing industry and a public member to represent private landowner interests impacted by the industry."

    "He said that the board would determine criteria used to select guides."

    "the board would select the "best" guide operations based on criteria they set."


    I say let the public appoint the Board, write the language, and vote. No tip-toeing around the issue.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Can you name one board where the public appoints it?

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Gee, I don't know...School Board?

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Good call Gampy, so you are proposing a statewide election for a guide board, right?

    Maybe we should use that model for the Board of Fish and Board of Game as well.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Grampy, do you have any idea why almost all but one or two, if that, were against the proposal? Most of the people in attendance were guides who testified against it. It just doesn't make sense, if guides made the proposal, why are so many guides againt it?

  8. #8

    Talking That's a great idea!!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    I say let the public appoint the Board, write the language, and vote. No tip-toeing around the issue.
    Maybe we should do that with the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council.

    TOUCHE'

    Sorry I couldn't help it.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon
    Good call Gampy, so you are proposing a statewide election for a guide board, right?
    No. I haven't proposed a statewide election (although that would give us a positive indication of what Alaskan residents want).

    The way it's supposed to work is that the public elects their Governor, and the Governor appoints members to the Board on behalf of the public, after legislative confirmation. That is how the public process, in which the public appoints Boards, works. And that is the manner in which I said the public should appoint the Board.

    However, that's not the case here. This Task Force, made up of guides, is/has already determined the make-up of the Board...how many members, and how many from each group. These guides are already proposing that 5 out of the 9 Board members would be guides, and that only 2 members represent the public. This has not gone before the Governor or the Governor's F&G Commissionor. The public did not have a chance to provide input on the that appointment of the Board, and the guides decision does not represent the public. It represents what a group of guides came up with. I know I didn't get to provide input so the Task Force could propose 5 members from the public and only 2 guides. See, the public was left out of the process of how the Board would be appointed and how the language was written. It is only now, after the fact, that this Task Force of guides is seeking public comment...comment on what they came up with.


    Quote Originally Posted by yukon
    Grampy, do you have any idea why almost all but one or two, if that, were against the proposal? Most of the people in attendance were guides who testified against it. It just doesn't make sense, if guides made the proposal, why are so many guides againt it?
    I was hoping, as a guide, you could tell us. Because according to the Clarion, half of the guides in attendance did not support guide limitations....

    "When he asked if anyone supported some sort of guide limitations, approximately 50 percent raised their hands." - Clarion


    Shawn, the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council can hardly be compared to the Guide Task Force or the newly proposed oversight Board. It was established by the Federal Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Not a group of guides.

    The NPFMC has 11 voting members. One is a Federal representative. The other 6 from Alaska, 3 from Washington, and 1 from Oregon represent communities, the general public, State fishery agencies, and commercial and recreational fisheries. NPFMC also has 4 non-voting members; The United States Coast Guard, USF&W Service, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commision, and the U.S. Department of States. They also have 15 staff members.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    I think all but one raised their hand when they were asked if they were against the proposal as written. Seems the guides don't like what the all guide board proposed.

    WHen asked who support some form of limited entry (different than the proposal) about half raised their hands in support. There are divisions within the guides what if anything should be done. This is all new to everyone and everyone appears to be weary of the process and change, personally I am more concerned about what isn't written yet than what is currently written.

    I believe the proposed board where the real decisions will be made will be nominated by the governor and confirmed by the legislature. So maybe you could be a member, just apply.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon
    I think all but one raised their hand when they were asked if they were against the proposal as written. Seems the guides don't like what the all guide board proposed.
    You are being deceptive yukon. The proposal, as a whole, had elaborate language, numerous issues, and very little to do with limiting or reducing guides. Just because only one person was in favor of the proposal as it stood, does not mean the guides were in favor of limiting guides. It just means they didn't like the proposal as a whole, as its current fashion.

    That's exactly why Bentz asked a second question about limiting guides where half of the guides did not raise their hands in support of limiting guides....

    "When he asked if anyone supported some sort of guide limitations, approximately 50 percent raised their hands." - Clarion

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Grampy, I am not trying to be deceptive at all, I think I am trying to agree with you.

    What I am saying is basically this:

    Of the guides in attendance the vast majority did not like the proposal as written, period.

    Roughly half in attendance supported some sort of limited entry. Which, is not directly written into the proposal, and would be dealt with by the proposed board (my interruptation).

    So, I don't know if you agree or not, but I think roughly half of th guides supporting limited entry is a good starting point for limiting guides. I have a feeling if guides were asked the same question 5 or 10 years ago the answers would have been different.

    I am not sure what more you want, from personal experience, and this appears to be no different, trying to get a group of guides to agree on anything is like trying to herd cats.

    Sorry, I just re-read your post and I think we are talking words and definitions. I read "guide limitations" as limiting guides. As I believe that is the way (limited entry) the questions was presented in which half the guides raised their hands. Not sure on the exact number from the Responsive Management Survey but there were number of guides that supported some way of limiting guides.

    Maybe Iceblue can help out on this one.

  13. #13

    Default

    The group that formed was to look at limited entry - the problem was that you can't limit the charter fleet through the commercial fishery limited entry constitutional amendment. The only way you could set up a limited entry program would be to do another differnt constitutional amendment. The way that you can limit guides through this program is by a concessionaire program for a unit that was determined to have too many guides operating there. We couldn't come up with another way to get at limiting guides in areas that have too many operating there. For me, as important with the establishment of this guide services board you will get reporting from the "assisted" unguided segment of the industry because we need to know how much of what species is being harvested so that we may manage the fisheries for future sustainability.

    I agree that the devil is in the details but it's also a catch 22. If you outline every tiny detail through legislation - you have to change the legislation as you work out the bugs of the program rather than a regulation change. It's not too late to speak up and say that the board should be structured differently if that is how you feel. I think there actually needs to be a differnt group formed by the legislature to help develop the regulations and set up the guide services board that is larger and much more diverse than you would want on the board after it is developed.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Just the Facts View Post
    The way that you can limit guides through this program is by a concessionaire program for a unit that was determined to have too many guides operating there.
    So then it is without question that the proposed legislation does nothing on it's own to limit the numbers of guides?

    AND this concessionaire program; whatever it is, does not yet publicly exist.

    The public has not been privy to the development of this concessionaire program. Yet, the solution the task force accepted to limit guide pressure in some areas that may be currently over-pressurized is this mystery concessionaire program that will somehow interface later with this piece of legislation (should it pass) rather than proposing a constitutional ammendment.

    If it doesn't pass then the mystery program goes away too?


    If I am understanding correctly, in order to implement the mystery concessionaire program the proposed legislation is required to be in place? Is that because this board/legislation will have some authority to decide who gets awared these concessions and when an area or which areas are too pressurized?

    Despite that there is no mention of the concessionaire program in the proposed legislation; the implications of all that is that the task force surely must have been thoroughly briefed and deliberated on this 'secret' concessionaire program. The task force has a plan which is not been publicly revealed?

    It must also be assumed that the department of law and the department of natural resources has determined that no constitutional amendment is required to implement this kind of 'end around' "limited" entry program.

    Could you please explain; from the understanding and perspective of one who was on this task force, just what you think this concession program will actually 'look' like and how this proposed legislation (board) interfaces with these "limited" resource entitlements called concessions.

    There must be some kind of public record; documents, that even just outline this concessionaire program available?

    Can you disclose "who" briefed the task force on this program. Some specific person or department from within DNR, or was it someone from sport fish or someone from the Dept of Law? The FEDS maybe?

    It is my understanding that this undisclosed "concessionaire" program; what ever it is, still does nothing to limit the numbers of guides.

    It doesn't appear that the strategy to get around the constitution is working out; even if the mystery concessionaire program actually passes the public interest test.

    The mystery program (if it's not challenged) just ends up in making some kind of an entitlement for a few commercial sport fishing businesses and displaces other guide businesses currently plying their trade; forcing them either out of business or into some other areas less pressurized.

    So the after it's all said and done....the resource pressures are shifted somewhere else; the numbers of guides is not limited but we have yet another 'guide' board and no professional occupational standards that would limit the numbers of guides and the special interest commercial sport fishing industry remains completely unlimited and unregulated and sustained growth is achieved. W-O-W, that task force did pretty good for themselves I would say. Hats off to ya.


  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Wow, I'm learning a lot. Thanks for all the input!!!

    Also since this thread seems pretty friendly for now, I'd like to ask that it stays that way? Remember that someone can disagree with you and not be evil? Or deceptive?

    I know, who elected this guy? lol.

    AV, your post was right on, I'd like to know more about this concession thing. Yukon, would it REALLY limit numbers?

    Why NOT vote on an amendment to have a limited entry program? That's the real solution. I'm pretty sure most would agree? Just my 2 cents.

  16. #16

    Default I'll try to Answer a Couple of the Questions

    I'll see if I can answer some of the questions.
    In section Sec. 08.54.600. Duties of board b (4) it states that
    establish as necessary for resource conservation purposes and/or to promote economic stability within the sport fish guide industry
    1. the maximum number of certified licensees who may operate in a Sport Fish Guide Use Unit and
    2. a concessionaire program to limit participation by licensees within Sport Fish Guide Use Units.
    The guide services board would develop the criteria for awarding the permits under the concessionaire program. The Big Game guide services board is looking at this for the first time. And no the concessionaire program was not anymore fully develped then this.
    Is this legislation perfect - probably not - will it be effective in limiting guides - I don't know. will it help get more information on how much fish is being harvested - I really really hope so because that is where a lot of my support for this legislation comes from. We need to get a handle on the "assisted" unguided group and be able to distinguish them. I call "assisted" unguided all the operations that are provided GPS coordinates of exactly where to go, or buoys are put out for them to tie to, or they put the clients in some boats and then have the guide in another boat directing them etc.

    While it might be a little bit of assumption, but I believe this whole thing would be legal since it is legal for the big game guide services board. Do I hope it ends at this point probabaly not but without getting these definitions and defining the various groups and their level of activity how do we know what resources are being taken out of the water.

    The only chance to get a constitutional amendment going for a charter limited entry program is for the ordinary regular Alaskan sportfisherman to stand up and request it. I'm not even sure exactly how you get a constitutional convention going in order to have a constitutional amendment put on the ballot for a vote.

    I was not able to be at every meeting and my participation was not considered as critical as others since I was the "commercial" token representative.

    In answer to another question, yes all the meetings were open to the public, no they were not well advertised although I did try to pass the word to the people I was meant to represent and also notified the Juneau Douglas Advisory Committee several times of the dates of meetings. One meeting was advertised at Fish Expo last year when a seminar on this process was held.

  17. #17

    Default All roads lead back to Ground '0'

    Quote Originally Posted by Just the Facts View Post
    ....establish as necessary for resource conservation purposes and/or to promote economic stability within the sport fish guide industry
    1. the maximum number of certified licensees who may operate in a Sport Fish Guide Use Unit and
    2. a concessionaire program to limit participation by licensees within Sport Fish Guide Use Units.

    The guide services board would develop the criteria for awarding the permits under the concessionaire program.
    So no limits to the numbers of guides.

    No protocols are provided through this legislation for public resource managers to limit, regulate or collect slaughter taxes from the commercial sport fishing industry because that would require a constitutional amendment.

    The task force didn't want to propose a constitutional amendment.

    Imagine that.

    They like being unlimited by resource managers. This legislation lets them choose who among their own UN-limited numbers they will "limit".

    They like not being regulated by resource managers...I bet the tonnage dudes would like that too; maybe that is why the constitution was written the way it was?

    The "use" of free public resources they can exploit and allocate among themselves another reason to not change the constitution but rather go around it. AND hell if resource managers can not collect slaughter taxes from them they sure as hell are not going to put that language in their special interest guide board legislation.

    It is not surprising the public and a lot of guides don't approve of this legislation.

    Back to Ground '0'.

    By the way this whold discussion EXACTLY MIRRORS WHAT IS GOING ON WITH OUR RESOURCE ALLOCATION BY THE COMMERCIAL HUNTING INDUSTRY AND THEIR GUIDE BOARD.

    Resource managers make a conservation decision on how much harvest is available for public use.

    Then the commercial sport fishing and the commercial hunting industries exploit the public's harvestable resource. This 'exploiting' is against the law...that's why...for these industries that exploit public resources to be legal it requires a constitutional ammendment.

    It is not even reasonable to think any new legislation or law can be made that subverts the constitution will hold up to challenge.

    These special interest industries DO NOT stand down when resource stocks available for public harvest are limited. That is why harvest limits and restrictions trickle down to the non-commercial public sport fisherman and hunters.

    The growth of these industries can not be limited without a constitutional amendment. Ground '0'

    These industries can not be ordered by resource managers to stand down when public harvest limits are imposed without a constitutional amendment. Ground '0'

    These industries can not be ordered by resource managers to pay slaughter taxes without a constitutional amendment. Ground '0' shlt...even in third world countries commercial hunters and sport fisherman are required to pay slaughter taxes!

    There is no interest or incentive from these industries to limit the numbers of guides or to surrender industry growth or submit to regulation by resource managers or to pay slaughter taxes.

    The growth and the numbers are starting to creep the public out. The push back from the public is building. The public is starting to notice what these industries are doing to OUR CURRENT AND FUTURE resource opportunities!

    The industry fat cats are getting worried about the growth and the unlimited numbers of guides because it is jeopardizing their freewheeling outlaw nature.

    So, they avoid the constitutional questions and instead carve out this 'concessions' program. Which is not the legal end around they hope it is.

    These concession programs can not manifest as authorizations to exploit and allocate what resources managers have determined are available for public use.

    It is clear that what these special interst commercial sport fishing and hunting industries intened to get from these mystery concessions program is a security interest in public resources. Economic stability by way of allocation guarantees of the available harvestable public resource.....but only for a few of the fat cats will get them; and in the most productive accessible areas.

    Through this proposed legislation; and subsequent mystery concessions program the commercial exploitation of the public's harvestable resources becomes economically viable for a few sport fishing businesses that meet the 'criteria"....which has not been invented yet...and this special interest board will decide what the criteria is to award the "limited" permits that allocate what the resource managers decided was the public's use portion of the stocks and never considered any of these resources as 'exploitable' resources.

    This mystery contractual agreement entered into by State Department of Natural Resources with A special interest commercial sport fishing and hunting businesses that exploit the public's available resource harvest is illegal.

    There will be a public challenge of this fantasy concessions program.

    Quote Originally Posted by Just the Facts View Post
    The Big Game guide services board is looking at this for the first time.
    Yes they are. Along with administrators, behind closed doors without ANY public participation. Sound familiar??

    Quote Originally Posted by Just the Facts View Post
    ...will it help get more information on how much fish is being harvested - I really really hope so because that is where a lot of my support for this legislation comes from.
    You might want to read the legislative budget and audit report on the BGCSB form last year.

    After 35 years the hunting guides that represent the commercial hunting industry through their board has neither limited their numbers or contributed in any way to resource managers efforts to do a better job.

    This regulatory board doesn't EVEN COLLECT enough licensing fees from themselves to cover the actual costs of operating their board.

    The harvest information you hope comes out of this legislation it tuns out is not used by resource managers. The resource managers have more reliable and cost effective sources that already provide the information.

    The commercial hunting board collects; duplicates what is already collected by resource managers. The mirror image of the commercial sport fishing boards effort will be just as us redundant and useless. This quest for harvest information is yet another smoke and mirrors representation; a false representation, that this proposed legislation is good for the public and puts resource managers in the position of being able to do a better job.

    "The board should cease the electronic accumulation of information gathered from hunt records and transporter reports. Staff resources were ill-spent recording historic licensee reports into an electronic database. The cost versus the benefit of capturing information from reports is questionable."

    http://www.legaudit.state.ak.us/page...7/20052dig.htm

    Quote Originally Posted by Just the Facts View Post
    We need to get a handle on the "assisted" unguided group and be able to distinguish them. I call "assisted" unguided all the operations that are provided GPS coordinates of exactly where to go, or buoys are put out for them to tie to, or they put the clients in some boats and then have the guide in another boat directing them etc.
    Some of us call that 'assisted unguided' activity a do-it-yourself activity. Resource managers know who these people are; they get harvest data too.

    It is PERPEROSTOURUS to believe that the non-commercial do-it-youself sport hunter or fisherman some how benefits from legilstively authorizing the special interest commercial hunting and fishing guided industry to regulate these businesess or the public that uses these businesses.

    And again; the resource managers already have protocols to collect the harvest information directly from the non-commercial user of the resources.

    Businesses that do NOT include guide services should NOT be regulated by guides. It's a real good gig though for the guided industry if they can get thier mits on that authority though.


    [quote=Just the Facts;358366]While it might be a little bit of assumption, but I believe this whole thing would be legal since it is legal for the big game guide services board.[quote=Just the Facts;358366]

    Actually; it is not legal for a special interest group to exploit the public resources that resource managers have determined are available for the publics use. It would take a constitutional ammendment to make explotation of those harvestabel public resources legal.

    Resource managers have every authority (look at the hunting harvest reporting required of the public) and opportunity to require the public to report the services and the quantity of harvest and where the harvesting took place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Just the Facts View Post
    Do I hope it ends at this point probabaly not but without getting these definitions and defining the various groups and their level of activity how do we know what resources are being taken out of the water.
    Alaskans don't need commercial industry to do that job for resource managers. Again, going back to the legislative audit report on BGCSB, the information is redundant; resource managers have other sources for that information...directly from the non-commerical unguided users of the public resources.

    Quote Originally Posted by Just the Facts View Post
    The only chance to get a constitutional amendment going for a charter limited entry program is for the ordinary regular Alaskan sportfisherman to stand up and request it. I'm not even sure exactly how you get a constitutional convention going in order to have a constitutional amendment put on the ballot for a vote.
    I don't think there is much public interest in an ammedment; there should be a hell of a lot less interest in finding a way around the constitution. For State adminstrators and special interest industries to create a movement to go around the constitution when it's clear the public is not interested in changing the law needs to be exposed for that is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Just the Facts View Post
    I was not able to be at every meeting and my participation was not considered as critical as others since I was the "commercial" token representative.
    IN MY VIEW; you represented the only legal special interest in the public resources at the task force table.

    The fact that NOT ONE public person with no commercial interest at all was not there...............AND the fact that the State administrators clearly were not representing any aspect of the public interest, not even appointing one non-commercial interested public person on the task force calls for at least a few employment fitness evaluations.


  18. #18

    Default

    Thanks, I'll look up that information

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    AV I see what you are saying and personally agree. However, I'd like to point out JTF is simply giving info. The only view I got from JTFs post was that he/she hoped we'd get more/better/real catch data. I think all resource managers would. I think we are lucky to have her viewpoint as well as AKCapt and Yukon.

    I still think a LLP is the ONLY sensible method to limit harvest with areas being the current IPHC areas. I'd vote for it. I don't support much of what I'm hearing and like you not only wonder if it would have any real effect at all, I'd wonder why/how it's legal. Until a real solution is reached (I doubt this is it, but don't know enough about it yet to say) we'll be having this discussion again and again. Just like all the past attempts by the NPFMC.

    Can/will such a board REALLY limit or lower catch in the Southeast Halibut fishery? Will the GHL (or whatever overal catch accounting/limit is decided on) still be exceeded year aftre year? That will be the benchmark. So even if this goes full steam ahead and does happen in it's present form IPHC and the NPFMC will likely be looking hard at it to see if it does limit or not at least I think so.

    Will a board somehow reduce the use and crowding on the Kenai? This one seems even harder to me as I don't know if there IS a problem as far as how much is caught. While the effects of such overuse on the habitat can not be argued really. So what will it do for that?

    It's tough. When you add in the fact that real people are involved. People I want and hope to do well, and support thier business. I've been around long enough now to see some of the various LLPs enected. There has and will be losers and winners. Still in the long run we all need the resource to the be true winner........that way we all win.

  20. #20

    Default Thanks; the task force and the public are lucky to have your participation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Just the Facts View Post
    If you outline every tiny detail through legislation - you have to change the legislation as you work out the bugs of the program rather than a regulation change.
    This proposed legislation representing the commercial sport fishing industry special interests is the spitting image of the commercial hunting industries board. We all know that now.

    What everybody does not know is that the 35 year evolution of what is now the Big Game Commercial Services Board is very likely the most 'changed' and amended single piece of legislation ever undertaken by the Alaska legislature. Without challenge it is the most changed and amended piece of legislation of all occupational licensing boards in this State; ever.

    The total public cost of this legislation in both time and money is unfathomable.

    After 35 years the BGCSB still does not limit the numbers of guides, it still does not limit the industry, it still does not provide ways for resource managers to stand down the commercial industry when the available public use stocks are limited and it still does not provide (return) to the public in the way of slaughter tax provisions this industry profits from. All this industry has accomplished is significant contribution to the decline of our resources and economic interference to businesses that serve the non-guided hunters including more limited and restricted opportunity of non-commercial sport hunters. Oh, and then there is that whole non-resident must be guided thing....but that's not relevant here

    This proposed smoke and mirrors legislation is not going to make anything better. What it could do is get us on the right track BUT not unless people really think about the 35 year history of the BGCSB and apply that reality going forward. Probably the only people that can do that objectively are people who don't directly profit from the harvestable public resources.

    Quote Originally Posted by Just the Facts View Post
    It's not too late to speak up and say that the board should be structured differently if that is how you feel.
    No, it's not too late. It is amazing though that some 35 years later the State administrators, legislators and resource managers and the board of game are still favoring the special interest commercial sport fishing and the commercial hunting industry that can only subvert the constitutional provisions to get some kind of authorization that what never intended.

    The effort to authorize what is not permitted is the CAUSE for most if not all on the historical record of changes and amendments to the original legislation.

    The original intent of licensing guides by the legislature in 1973 was ONLY to provide a board that would establish and regulate the occupational standard by which the State would authorize a person to practice the profession of 'guiding' and then issue the license. This legislation did call out for the guides to pay a 'take' tax...but that has long been overlooked.

    When we are talking about 'guides' and guide boards the only legitimate discussion are the ones that deal exclusively and specifically to the occupational licensing of an individual to guide. AS was intended when the State decided to start licensing guides.

    When the discussion and regulations go beyond the occupational licensing of an individual and include some kind of authorization for a guide licensing board to regulate businesses it crosses the line of what is intended and what can be done by an occupational licensing board.

    All particularly true because resource managers make available for the public use resources for which no requirement to be guided is required by law. Guides have-GROUND '0'-authority; right, obligation or implied constitutional authorization to regulate any public person or business but the licensed guide.

    Water taxi's, air taxi's, boat rentals, cabin rentals, raft rentals, gear and equipment rentals and other such interference by any other occupational licensing board does not exist within the domain of any other occupational licensing board. Guides through their boards can regulate or interfere in other peoples businesses...ahh but not lodge businesses?

    ???????DOES ANYBODY BESIDE ME WONDER WHY 'LODGES' ARE NOT INCLUDED IN ALL THIS PROPOSED REGULATORY LEGISLATION????????
    I mean come on....pluezzz....if we got too much pressure somewhere why not put a cap or a moratorium or some other kind of LIMIT REGULATION on the numbers of beds out there????

    Allocations and limits or restrictions put the non-guided or "un-assisted" or do-it-yourself sport hunter and sport fisherman is beyond any authority an occupational guide licensing board has or was ever intended to have.

    Quote Originally Posted by Just the Facts View Post
    I think there actually needs to be a different group formed by the legislature to help develop the regulations and set up the guide services board that is larger and much more diverse than you would want on the board after it is developed.
    Yep. Go back to Ground '0'. Put together a public interest task force and give them the task of proposing legislation that puts the entire 'group' of Alaskan guides under one board.

    Every class of guide makes up the group of guides. Hunting guide, fishing guide, wildlife viewing guide, river rafting guide bla bla bla.

    This task force can easily develop and propose legislation that would establish a 'Board' that can sensibly leave it up to the entire group of guides to come up with a basic standard each guide must meet.

    If there are needs to go the beyond the 'basic' standard for a particular 'class' of guide this board collectively can establish the 'class standards' too. Just keep this new proposed legislation consistent with what was intended in 1958 and in 1973; an occupational licensing board that does not represent any special interest commercial industry that 'exploits' the public's harvestable resources managers have determined are available.

    That effort will bring about the end of special interest resource industry boards that (since 1977 when the first ammendment came) operate outside of the law and are consistently having to broaden their authority to gain more control over the harvestable resource opportunity.

    One true and authentic guide licensing board is the best public policy.

    Consumptive resource users (guides) and non-consumptive resource users (guides) sitting round the table looking out for the public interest.

    One guide licensing board brings into focus the best management practices of sustaining and conserving public resources into the future.


Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •