This is bound to come up sooner or later at the BGCSB and its been bugging me for quite some time.
What does this really mean?

“ Field - an area outside of established year- round dwellings, businesses, or developments (usually) associated with a city town or village; “field” does not include permanent hotels or roadhouses on the state road system or state or federally maintained air ports.”

This definition applies to the conduct of guides and transporters, a lot of what a hunter may or may not do, and to how a persons rural private property may be used.

There is no clear delineation between “field” and “associated with a city town or village” Hotels and roadhouses on state roads are exempt. What about roadhouses and property on borough maintained roads. When do you become disassociated from a city town or village? Is it the municipal boundary, the end of utilities, the end of the city street, mailing address or what.

I was told by an enforcement trooper that a property I own within a municipal boundary was in the “field” because it was not connected by a maintained road or utility.
The present BGCSB tweaked the definition a while back by removing the word “usually”. To me “usually” would imply there may have been other exceptions considered to being “associated” when the definition was first written.

According to the 2007 minutes of a BGCSB meeting a guide asked to have the definition cleaned up and a subcommittee was supposedly to be set up but I find no reference to it ever happening.
Alaskan law has no legal definition of “associated.” Webster and American Heritage suggest “to keep company with; join or connect together; or a relationship in any of various intangible ways (as in memory or imagination); or to come or be together as partners, friends, or companions.”

A guide may “outfit” in the “field”. A private party or a transporter may rent or sell supplies and equipment (outfit) as long as the transaction is done in an area that is “associated”.
This all seems pretty muddy to me. I`m looking at it as a rural private property owner and I feel some what discriminated against.. The State for the benefit of guides is dictating how I may use my private property relative to one who is “associated” . Normally I would think borough zoning laws should govern commerce on private property.

Where does the BGCSB get the authority to define developed private rural property as in the “field”? It seems rather odd that a guide from Texas could have an exclusive right to all commerce in pursuit of big game in the “field”.

As resident non guided hunters are you disadvantaged in the “field” by not having the same access as a guided hunter to equipment and supplies in the “field”.
I think this definition and how it is applied needs to be looked at by the legislature and I am not sure that the BGCSB will have the best interests of all affected in mind when it is looked at. What do you guys think?

“ does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority to set brush fires in people's minds.”
— Samuel Adams