Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 204

Thread: link to DNR's guide concession plan website

  1. #1
    Member homerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    homer, alaska
    Posts
    3,922

    Default link to DNR's guide concession plan website

    makes some interesting reading...

    http://www.dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/gcp/
    Alaska Board of Game 2015 tour... "Kicking the can down the road"
    http://www.alaskabackcountryhunters.org/

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by homerdave View Post
    makes some interesting reading...

    http://www.dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/gcp/
    Thank you for posting the website.
    Joe (Ak)

  3. #3
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default Please send in comments!

    Now that DNR has finally put up a website on this, and provided a place to send in comments, would strongly advise all hunters to send in their (respectful) thoughts on this guide concession program. Also if you can make the meetings listed, that is your chance to voice your thoughts on this idea:
    Public Meetings
    Below is a tentative meeting schedule as of November 16, 2009:
    City Date Time Location
    Anchorage 12/07/2009 6:30 - 8:30PM Central Middle School, Multipurpose Room
    Tok 12/08/2009 6:30 - 8:30PM Tok School, Multipurpose Room
    Fairbanks 12/11/2009 6:30 - 8:30PM Fairbanks North Star Borough Chambers
    Dillingham 12/14/2009 6:30 - 8:30PM Dillingham City Hall Chambers
    Kodiak 12/16/2009 6:30 - 8:30PM Kodiak High School Commons
    Kotzebue 12/18/2009 9:30 - 11:30AM Borough Assembly Room
    Juneau 1/05/2010 6:30 - 8:30PM Centennial Hall Convention Center,Hickel Room
    Little Rock, Arkansas 1/14/2010 --TBD-- --TBD--

    (Note that the state lists a meeting in Little Rock, Arkansas. What the!? I'm hoping that is just some kind of error)

    Couple comments:
    This is the first I've seen definitively that the minimum bid for a guide concession area would be $3,000/year. Since that is the min. bid, I'd think there would be bids put in that are much higher in the more coveted areas.

    I see the info on the DNR site alludes that the state general fund will be paid back monies used to fund this program, would hope that DNR would give some real cost estimates and what the state has already spent on this concession idea.

  4. #4
    Member homerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    homer, alaska
    Posts
    3,922

    Default little rock?!?!?!

    i see there is no meeting on the Kenai at all...
    Alaska Board of Game 2015 tour... "Kicking the can down the road"
    http://www.alaskabackcountryhunters.org/

  5. #5
    Member Vince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fairbanks most the time, Ancorage some of the time,& on the road Kicking Anti's all the time
    Posts
    8,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by homerdave View Post
    i see there is no meeting on the Kenai at all...
    maybe most the guides the operate the Kenai vacation in little rock
    "If you are on a continuous search to be offended, you will always find what you are looking for; even when it isn't there."

    meet on face book here

  6. #6
    Member AlaskaTrueAdventure's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Paradise (Alaska)
    Posts
    1,543

    Default Little Rock and more....

    I believe they are projecting a public meeting in Little Rock, Arkansas only because they, the DNR rerps, will be there for another function. So they are proposing an additional public meeting there.....because they will be there.

    The bid price/cost for a yearly concession area is listed as $3000.00. Months ago, it had been tentatively projected to be $2000.00. Oh well.

    I am not certain, but will surely be educated soon, if a guide-outfitter can bid higher than the $3000.00 bid deal. Again, in the past, it was discussed that a "concession bid" would be a "standard bid cost" for all involved. And that the concession area winners would be determined on the application questions, which are listed on the web address. And, oh well again, I could be wrong.

    Keep in mind that, currently, a guide-outfitter can operate in up to three guide use areas (GUA's) for a "DNR commercial services permit" costing only $1000.00. So, $3000.00 for one concession area, or up to $9000.00 for three concessions areas is a substantial cost increase, that will be passed on to contracted (mostly nonresident) client-hunters.

    In the past, it was also discussed and projected that the "bid/application" process would cost about $400.00 per concession area applied for. It was discussed that a concession area hopeful could apply for up to four concession areas, and could win up to three (max) concession areas. So if a guide-outfitter applies-or-bids for four concession areas, there could/would be an initial application fee/cost of up to $1,600.00. The info at the web address does not address this "cost-of-bid/applications", or did I miss that?

    Both guide-outfitters, as well as hunters, residents and nonresidents need to consider this gig...what's in it for each used group?

    And the rate of unemployment in the state of Alaska (for those seeking work) has exceeded 8.9 percent now. Unemployment in AK will exceed 9 percent next month. Furthermore, the rate of unemployment for males in Alaska (for those seeking work) currently exceeds 11 percent. Hundreds of guide businesses will be terminated in Alaska through this proposed process.

    Dennis

  7. #7
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default Dennis - from the FAQs

    1. Question: Will there be a bidding process or a set price for each concession? Answer: A bidding process has been discussed as a possibility but currently we are looking at set prices for each concession. Additionally fees will be charged for each client that is taken into the field as well.

    Oh, and I got a kick out of this in the FAQs, below. If it's "really" going to happen, why bother with public input?


    1. Question: Is this really going to happen?Answer: Yes, DNR is actively working on building this program towards a viable and helpful tool for the big game guiding industry. We have the support of many in the industry in addition to the other agencies and boards involved.

  8. #8
    Member AlaskaTrueAdventure's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Paradise (Alaska)
    Posts
    1,543

    Default Per client fees...

    The "per client fees", that each could be several hundred dollars per client (or more), will also be added on to the cost of a guided hunt for our nonresident client hunter guests.

    Yes Mark, it will apparently happen....if funded through our political legislative process.
    Or has it already happened, as they indicated (as you pointed out in the above post).

    Perhaps the members of The Dallas Safari Club will be interested in paying a couple thousand dollars more per hunt.
    (Supply and demand, in conjunction with greater/higher overhead costs and fees.)

  9. #9
    Member BlueMoose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Rifle River MI
    Posts
    1,835

    Default Ouch Call Me Stupid

    Ok that is not an open invite however I guess I am at a loss for words on the double talk listed by the ADF&G and what exactly they are trying to accomplish.

    Their words not mine from their web page:

    This system of exclusive guiding areas was found unconstitutional by the Alaska Supreme Court in 1988, in what is commonly known as the "Owsichek Decision" and was abolished. However in its decision, the court did point out that "Nothing in this opinion is intended to suggest that leases and exclusive concessions on state lands are unconstitutional". The decision goes on to suggest that the Alaska Department of Natural Resources has the necessary authority to develop such a system under their long term lease or concession provisions.

    Now it is either unconstitutional or constitutional? So what I basically understand that because it was exclusive to hunting originally it was decided it was not constitutional however because only hunting was addressed and no one said they could not because the court did not point it out they could do as they wished for other things i.e. mining etc....
    And
    Now we are back to the first part which basically states its for hunting again. Now I do realize that I am not sharpest tool in the shed but something is not adding up.

    Oh I get it because it is not exclusive guiding areas but Exclusive Concession Areas the original ruling is null and void! Smells Like bacon got to be a pig.

    I am not here to fight a fight be it good or poor nor take sides however just like any other guide operation in my case fishing there are several possible changes that will help some and hurt others. Those who will benny from the change are all for it those who will not and more than likely be forced out are voicing their concerns. This does not come down to Game Management by the ADF&G IMO. Guiding is guiding the state controls the numbers of guides & also make the rules concerning harvestable areas and animals. What this is selling our resources to the highest bidder, best connected, longest hunted whatever you wish to call it.

    If someone could please enlighten me on to how this change or possible change is going to allow the ADF&G to better manage Game to meet the constitutional requirements I am all ears.

    I am honestly not trying to Spill my guts honest, honest, honest. I still have trouble with their own language and any potential benefit that might occur from the change. Just can't see it! (Exclusive Guiding Areas = Exclusive Concession Areas)

    Richard M. Mousseau

    Disclaimer:

    I do not know ATA never met him maybe I will someday have not provided him rep points in anyway shape or fashion however I think I am starting to think like him on this.

    Does this make me Crazy?

  10. #10
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default Richard, some answers

    First off, it's DNR that this program falls under, and where the website originates. Not ADFG. That's an important distinction.

    Re the Owsichek decision, the AK Supreme Court basically told the state just how a similar exclusive guide-use area could work within the framework of our constitution, by assigning concession areas via DNR. Meaning, they implied "we think this method may hold up to constitutional inquiries."

    Having said that, however, it is likely that if this concession program ever did come to fruition, someone (or many together) will sue the state over it. Which will cost the state yet more money to defend. Will the state win? Just my opinion, but I think if they have all their legal ducks in a row, yes, they would win. They've already incorporated all the things the Supremes said in Owsichek. Such as concession permits not being property per se, not being transferable or able to be sold.

    We're heading the same place, Richard, with guided fishing concessions on state lands. We've already limited fishing guides in some areas.


  11. #11
    Member BlueMoose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Rifle River MI
    Posts
    1,835

    Default Sorry ADF&G

    Correct 100% my Bad sorry to them that is the ADF&G. Shame on the DNR. I knew I was going crazy this just confirms it.

    I know the fishing thing is driving me bats as well as you can tell. I hate being the right /left wing nut job posting hence I as you know I normally refrain from such inputs. However this chaps my knickers if you know what I mean.

    As always all comes down to slices of the pie and who is holding the pie cutter.

    I will PM about something else much more important for a crazy person like me to address. To much Beck and Hannity and MSNBC.

    Thanks Mark for the correction.

    Moose-O

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    First off, it's DNR that this program falls under, and where the website originates. Not ADFG. That's an important distinction.

    Re the Owsichek decision, the AK Supreme Court basically told the state just how a similar exclusive guide-use area could work within the framework of our constitution, by assigning concession areas via DNR. Meaning, they implied "we think this method may hold up to constitutional inquiries."

    Having said that, however, it is likely that if this concession program ever did come to fruition, someone (or many together) will sue the state over it. Which will cost the state yet more money to defend. Will the state win? Just my opinion, but I think if they have all their legal ducks in a row, yes, they would win. They've already incorporated all the things the Supremes said in Owsichek. Such as concession permits not being property per se, not being transferable or able to be sold.

    We're heading the same place, Richard, with guided fishing concessions on state lands. We've already limited fishing guides in some areas.

    I certainly, in general would not disagree, however, if the "system" ends up creating a situation where one individual is the best qualified because they won a concession and they fail to "sanitize" the applications before the evaluation process, the whole program will be subject to challenge. In areas with little interest it will not be a problem, however, in other areas such as GMU 08z it isn't going to be a "cake walk".
    Joe (Ak)

  13. #13

    Default

    This new conssesion program will put alot of guides out of business and drive the price of hunts way up. I dont like it. I'm a reg. guide but usually work for someone eles. I Like to contract a hunt every few years though , usually an out of state buddy. But that will soon end. Most of the small ma & pa outfitters cant aford to pay for these consessions. Not alot of money in guiding unless your booking 30 plus hunters per year. Just more regulations that arent needed. The currrent system seems fine. Its the "have mine's vs. the have nots" and this all started with that worthless Commercial guide servises board.

  14. #14
    Member AlaskaTrueAdventure's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Paradise (Alaska)
    Posts
    1,543

    Default Winner/Wealth...Losers/Genocide

    Hello SwentnaMan,

    I am glad to see that there are a few, or at least one, new player(s) interested in the professional genocide w/i the guide-outfitter industry that will take place, or could take place in the next year because of this potential DNR Guide Concession Area program endorsed by SOA-DNR, SOA-BGCSB, and APHA.

    On the new DNR website I did not see the number of projected guide concession areas or the number of business opportunities listed. If they were listed on the maps, I could not see them. But in my 70-something pages of notes taken during only half of the BGCSB DNR Guide Concession Area teleconference planning meetings, it was established that there would be 166 Guide Concession areas. Within those 166 areas it was projected that 241 business opportunities would be available to the Registered and Master Guide-Outfitter community. It is very difficult to nail down the precise number of contracting guide-outfitters, but I believe it could number as high as 600. Please, anybody, correct that number if you believe it is incorrect, or if you have that information.

    So as low as 80.333 bussinesses could gobble up all 241 opportunities. While some long time well established guide businesses will obtain three cocncession areas, certainly many businesses will obtain fewer, or none at all. It is impossible to exactly estimate how many guide-outfitter businesses will be aborted. Most concession areas were established to support only one lease winner, only one business. Other guide concession areas were projected to support two winners. A few would have three business winners.

    For example...both TMA and DCUA were eash split into two concessions (total four concession areas), and each concession area was projected to support one (1) concession winner. So there would be only four (4) area winners working w/i TMA and DCUA. This could be as few as two guide businesses working where at least 15 businessses recently have.

    Another example...GMU 17B was projected to be an entire guide concession area that would support only three (3) lease winners. In 2007 26 businesses were registers to operate in GMU 17B. In 2008 23 businesses were registered in 17B. And in 2009 22 businesses were registers to operate within GMU 17B. That means that in 2011 the 22 to 26 businesses that have operated in GMU 17B will be reduced to three (3) businesses, or "superbowl" winners. Note that I can quickly think of three businesses that have between 20 and 30+ years of operations in unit 17B. These long-time business operators will certainly have strong and competitive applications for those three concession area opportunities. I am not suggesting that they should be among those that will be aborted. I am definately suggesting that we all should have the liberty to work there on that state owned public land.

    Months ago I estimated that 150 businesses would be initially aborted, and that 50+- others would starve out because they had not obtained enough concession areas to sustain a business. After much thought, I now estimate that 250 businesses will be initially aborted and that an additional 100 will starve out within a year or two.

    Keep in mind that a long-time business operator with a great concession application for 17B may very well have an even greater, an even more competitive application for 17A or 17C, or wherever. This proposed system does not provide an area for everybody. Professional genocide for many. Alaska federal lands are already involved in exclusive guide use areas. If or when this DNR plan is implimemted, all the state owned DNR land will be leased to the fortunate winners and that will result in professional genocide for many businesses. There simply will be no place to operate. And again, keep in mind that the losers have not necessarily done anything wrong. And this is one of the many reasons that I believe this program will result in an UNJUST LOSS OF LIBERTY for many honest and hard working business owners.

    I strongly urge everyone concerned, those for it as well as those of us againt it, to inform DNR of your feeling and beliefs. In addition, this program is not completely funded. Therefore, your legislators need to become aware of your concerns with this questionable concession program that will destroy many professional guide-outfitter careers.

    I hope I have provided you with the info you were seeking.

    Dennis

  15. #15
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,600

    Default

    Some small outfits will have trouble and some will carry on as normal. My main goal is to have all guides be able to purchase a res.hunting license and if you can't you can no longer guide.

  16. #16
    Member Vince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fairbanks most the time, Ancorage some of the time,& on the road Kicking Anti's all the time
    Posts
    8,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amigo Will View Post
    Some small outfits will have trouble and some will carry on as normal. My main goal is to have all guides be able to purchase a res.hunting license and if you can't you can no longer guide.
    well one of the AC's up here was headed that way also Will, it will take strong legislative action and prolly be shot down...

    there was a Bcgb ( ?) person at the meeting last week but kept saying she did not know how much she was allowed to say.

    a few of the guides at the meeting all complained that the board no longer had nay teeth or the ability to hammer poor guides or those that were out of complinance...

    we got a full lesson from the DNR on the land use permits... both commercial and personal... but it all in the end came back to non res guides...

    and sounds like they are here to stay....
    "If you are on a continuous search to be offended, you will always find what you are looking for; even when it isn't there."

    meet on face book here

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskaTrueAdventure View Post

    Dennis
    In most of the circumstances I've heard there has been a big difference in the number of guides registered for a GUA and the number that actually conducted guided hunts.
    Rather than trying to figure out if the number of displaced guides is going to be 50, 150 or whatever, we all will better off to present possible solutions such spatial based exclusive camp registrations, and/or other proposals that will address some of these issues. Unfortunately, if the normal course is followed, all or most of the time will be spent trying to resolve the issues by trying to exclude non-residents or some other solution(s) that are based on "cya" solutions, rather than providing workable alternatives.
    Joe (AK)

  18. #18
    Member AlaskaTrueAdventure's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Paradise (Alaska)
    Posts
    1,543

    Default Concessions...

    WantJ,
    I do understand and agree with what you wrote in post #17.

    Several forum members have wrote that they object or question why nonresidents are allowed to have a Registered/Master Guide-outfitters License in Alaska...These questions have come up in every guide license discussion in the last 50 years.

    Some points... many of the guide-outfitters licensed in AK lived here and were sometimes sometimes born here in the great white north, and then temp or perm left AK for many different reasons. Many nonresident guide-outfitter business owners already have federal exclusive guide areas also. As has been pointed out, it will take substantial legislative action to eliminate nonresident from holding these licenses, and that is not going to happen and has not ever progressed past the griping stage. So lets all get over that.

    However, the proposed DNR Concession deal will bump some, perhaps most (?), off of state owned land. As Wantj pointed out in post #17, it is very difficult to estimate how many businesses, either AK residents or nonresident, will be eliminated from working on state land.

    (For those who might be inclined to toss a small flame towards me simply for reported on the nonres license issue...I'm [only] a 20+ year resident. I wish I could report 30, of 40, or 50 years.)

    Also, six months ago there were two groups forming for the purpose of a legal challenge. Actually there was one group and one individual with a very close lawyer contact. DNR was very aware of the legal challenge concern. Therefore, I would think that SOA-DNR involved SOA-Dept Of Law throughout their planning process. I would have expected their proposed application process to be fire-proof. However, as some other posters have initially pointed out, there is some questionable application questions that might support a legal challenge. Be aware that I'm no lawyer so, clearly, I have no real idea of what could really support any legal actions.

    More later,

    Dennis

  19. #19
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    Have to agree with Joe's last statement about trying to find workable solutions.

    Once and for all, people (especially AC members) need to get it through their noggin that we can't ban non-res guides! It's a federal thing; American citizens can't be barred from employment in other states if they hold the proper licenses. All states can do is charge higher fees to non-residents for those licenses.

    I honestly think there are better workable solutions than this guide concession program idea. But that's the only solution being proposed that has the support of state government and the various Boards.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskaTrueAdventure View Post
    WantJ,

    Dennis
    Most of the time, in these situations, a pretty predicable course is followed. "Minimums" on Kodiak were a great example. No one wanted to see the number of permits reduced - but then neither did many want to see an alternative concept such as "minimums" implemented. Most hoping the "status quo" could be maintained. There were just a few guides that would support "minimums", this is until the rest realized it was either "minimums" or a reduction in the number of permits that would be available.
    It will be the same with the "concession" concept, many will stand in opposition to the proposed program, but will not back any alternative until it becomes obvious the program will be implemented.
    I strongly suspect that the real "down fall" of the concession program will be when it comes time to find the the "most qualified" in some of these real hot beds of experience such as Kodiak or some of the GUAs in other parts of Alaska.
    Joe (Ak)

Page 1 of 11 123 ... 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
  •