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

Thread: A New/Another Guide Concession Option

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

    Exclamation A New/Another Guide Concession Option

    Hello Management Forum,

    The following is an ALTERNATIVE DNR Guide Concession Prospectus plan being "hawked/sold" by another APHA member, Master Guide-Outfitter Brian Peterson.
    __________________________________________________ ________________

    Clark,
    I previously told you I would take it upon myself to write out a pro forma prospectus for the project we have been trying to implement the last few years. You probably thought I was yanking your chain, so to speak. I was not. As you will see, I have put considerable thought and effort into this project. I have been through the federal process with the USF&W and have seen the good, the bad and the ugly associated with it. I really did try to avoid any bias by comparing my own operation to the prospectus. There are several areas I would not maximize points/percentages.

    My goal for the state program, is to keep it as simple as possible, yet allow those qualified individuals to represent the professional hunting industry of Alaska to the world. The major constraint taken into consideration is the previous court ruling (I’m not going to try to spell it) that said seniority could not be the ONLY criteria for allotting concessions. As you can see, seniority as an outfitter represents only 10% of the scoring in this plan. Please contact me at your convenience to discuss the pros and cons of this plan, specifically on impacts of other users.


    Thank you for your attention to this,



    Brian Peterson
    Master Guide and Outfitter 114

    ______________________________________


    The prospectus is organized into five categories, each worth a certain percentage of the total. Points and percentages are interchangeable in this draft.
    Catagories:

    EXPERIENCE 25%
    Guiding Experience 10%
    Outfitting Experience 10%
    Other Experience 5%

    IMPACT 35%
    Impact on Habitat 10%
    Camps 5%
    Transportation 5%
    Impact on Wildlife 10%
    Harvest 5%
    Camps 2.5%
    Transportation 2.5%
    Impact on Other Users 10%
    Impact on Professional Hunting Industry 5%

    BUSINESS PLAN 20%
    Safety 10%
    Quality 10%

    FINANCIAL CONCERNS 10%

    VIOLATIONS 10%


    In the attempt to simplify, the following would be required to apply. Note that some of these were removed from separate categories and all are currently required to operate. They must be current as applicable.

    Business License
    Registered or Master Guide License for GMU
    FAA license if required, w/affidavit for hours
    Coast Guard License if Required
    First Aid/CPR Certification
    Liability Insurance
    Workman’s Compensation Insurance
    Professional Hunting Agreement. Guide/Client Contract
    Application Fee per concession $3000 (not presently required)



    EXPERIENCE 25% possible

    Guiding Experience 10% possible w/o bonus
    Any ten years of last 20 would be scored as follows. Individuals could only score in one category for each year. Acting as:

    Reg/Master guide in concession area - 1 pt.
    Reg/Master guide in GMU - .5 pt
    Reg/Master guide in state -.2 pt
    Assistant guide in Concession are - .5 pt
    Assistant guide in GMU - .2 pt
    Assistant Guide in State - .1 pt
    Bonus 1pt over 10 years experience
    Bonus 1pt over 20 years experience
    Bonus 1pt over 30 years experience
    Bonus 1pt over 40 years experience
    (This is for guiding, not outfitting. Hunt records/affidavits must be able to show actual accompanying client in field on hunt.)

    Outfitting Experience 10% possible w/o bonus
    Any ten years of last 20 may be scored as follows.
    Reg/Master in Concession – 1 pt
    Reg/Master in GMU - .5 pt
    Reg/Master in state - .2
    Bonus 1pt over 10 years experience
    Bonus 1pt over 20
    Bonus 1pt over 30
    Bonus 1pt over 40
    (In guiding and outfitting experience categories a minimum time may be required for a year to qualify. Based on different seasons throughout the state it may be difficult to generalize all concessions together.)

    Other Experience 5% possible
    Score any 10 of last 20 years
    Live in the field, in the concession, the majority of the year -.2
    Guide in the concession for fishing or waterfowl - .2
    Personal use of concession -.1
    (Note individuals may qualify for all three categories in an individual year)

    IMPACT 35% possible
    IMPACT ON HABITAT 10%possible
    CAMPS impact on Habitat 5% possible
    No Camps on state land 5%
    Roving Spike camps on state land 4%
    Registered Spike camps on state land 3%
    Registered Base camps on state land 2%
    State Lease-permanent facilities on state land 1%


    TRANSPORTATION impact on Habitat 5% possible
    Foot, boat, float plane use only- Leave no trace 5%
    Wheel Plane, foot boat use only-minimal trace 3%
    Land vehicle on designated trails- 2%
    Land vehicle off designated trails 0%

    IMPACT ON WILDLIFE 10% possible
    HARVEST (impact on wildlife) – 5% possible
    Harvest w/in historic levels for all species or w/in levels that can be justified by increases/decreases in population. 5%
    Harvest w/in historic levels for most species or w/in levels that can be justified by increases/decreases in population. - 2.5%
    Harvest not w/in historic levels for most species and cannot be justified by increases/decreases in population. 0%

    CAMPS on State Land (impact on wildlife)- 2.5% possible
    Leave no trace - 2.5%
    Leave tent frame/storage – 1.5%
    Permanent Structures – .5%

    TRANSPORTATION on state land (impact on wildlife) 2.5% possible
    No motorized vehicles on state land-2.5%
    Airplane landing only on state land- 1.5%
    Land vehicle on designated trail- .5%
    Land vehicle off designated trails. – 0%

    IMPACT ON OTHER USERS 10% possible
    Access points-2%
    Access state land with limited to no potential for conflict - 2%
    Access state land with limited to moderate potential for conflict - 1%
    Access state land w/moderate to high potential for conflict - 0%
    Camp locations-4%
    No camps on state land - 4%
    Only use roving spike camps used to avoid other users - 3%
    Registered base/spike camp that cannot be moved to avoid others - 1%
    Letters of support-2%
    1% for each letter of support by individuals living in the concession
    Transportation –2%
    No motorized vehicle use on state land –no conflicts-2%
    Limited motor vehicle use on state land-limited potential for conflict 1%
    High motor vehicle use on state land-high potential for conflicts 0%
    (This is one area that individual concessions would vary greatly. Scoring must be relative to other applicants. Hours of operation and landings should be included)

    IMPACT OF PROFESSIONAL HUNTING INDUSTRY 5% possible
    Member in Good Standing of APHA- 1%
    Has Participated in BOG process during last 10 years. 2%(by attending meetings and testifying or introducing proposals)
    Has participated in Big Game Commercial Services board process during last 10 years-2% (by attending meetings and testifying or introducing proposals)

    SAFETY 10% possible
    1% for each year operating as a Registered or Master Guide w/o an injury to clients or employees. Any ten years of last twenty years may be scored.
    .3% Operating as an assistant guide w/o an injury to clients. Any ten of last twenty years may be scored.

    QUALITY OF OPERATION 10% possible
    Maximize variety of species to public. 3% possible
    Offer all big game species available plus waterfowl and fishing. 3%
    Offer all big game species available 2%
    Offer some of big game species available 1%

    Maximize availability to public – days of operation 2% possible
    (scored relative to other applicants) 2% high,1%medium, 0%low

    Maximize Variety of Accommodations 3% possible
    Offer lodge facilities and camping to clients.(lodge defined as having real mattresses, box springs, running water, electricity 24/7). 3%
    Offer cabin facilities and camping to clients. 2%
    Offer only one variety of accommodations of lodge, cabin or camping facilities to clients. 1%

    Client recommendations 2% possible
    .2% for each recommendation. A maximum of two allowed per year maximum of 10 total, for any of last 20 years.(A lot of choices on time,# and score)

    FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS 5% possible
    Level of Investment in Concession Plan 4% possible
    Lodge Operation or other large investment valued $200,000 or more 4%
    Cabin on lease or private land or other medium investment valued at less than $200,000.- 2%
    Minimal investment-no permanent buildings or land. 0%

    Not declaring bankruptcy last 7 years. 1%

    VIOLATIONS 10% possible (choose one for each year)
    1% for each of last ten years applicant operated as an Outfitter w/o a violation
    .5 for each of last ten years applicant operated as an assistant guide w/o a violation.
    (this category could be split between major and minor violations also)(I have some concerns about double jeopardy and constitutionality w/punishing for previous violations.)

  2. #2
    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 this is from my Email....

    I think ol dennis been passing my addy out these two guys are sure all over the mail the last two days... but interseting to read non the less


    ************************************************** **************************

    On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Don Duncan <apgs@gci.net> wrote:
    I was the first person to testify in ffront of the new guide board in dec. 2005. I told them that if they tried to get back to this exclusive guide use area sytem, I would do everything i could to see that they were sunsetted and all the regs they passed.
    Then I told them that the last 2 boards were sunsetted over the same issue because they could not come up with a fair system to allocate the areas.
    I further told them the only way it would pass is if they put it up for a straight bid. Winner take all. high bidder wins.
    They stop the public comments passed a bunch of rules and sicked the investigater on me. In march 2006 he threatened me with arrest by the end of the meeting. I called his bluff and held my hands out for the cuffs. He didn't even know what the stautes said. he was wrong. i was clearly right word for word in the stautes. I never heard nothing again. Now who you think pushed him on me?

    There used to be some good guide regs in some ot the previous regs. Like you have to tell the truth in client recruitment. You have to do what you say. good and plenty food and camp don't mean a tarp and 1 freeze dry a day. I do shows and hear the complaints on basic failures. Big well known operations charging 19,000 for 15 days. and no food! Transporters droping people off with out half the gear and not coming back. Youy are right! we need our ranks policed and prosecuted. The laws are there. Or were there in some cases but never used. A mistake is just that but a habit or business as usual is not right. An d I for one am tired of losing client to liars and then have them come back and tie up my booth telling me how they got screwqed. They seldom report it and when they do npothing happens. Just like when Byron lamb took about $75000 worth of deposits between convictoion and losing his license. The consumer protection division did nothing. The cops the lawyers and the judge knew what potential damage he could and did do under apeall. And they all did nothing.

    Maybe they are trying to get around leasing law by calling it a concession. Either way we need to have set in stone that for 5 years with 5 year renewal we get 5 moose, 5 bear, 5 black bear, 5 wolves, 5 cariubou 5 sheep or what ever. And then we are guarrantteed that or we are reimbursed byt the state 5 times out hunt fee for any animals we acoercion, bribery, favoritsm, nepotism etc....

    For Brian
    Correct. transporters and particularly the allocations between transporters and and guides for non residents. Hard to stpop a resident from going anywhere but we need to address them as part of the crowding problem

    Correct, the BGCSB says they can not regulate transporters to area. But not true. Look at the statutes. The statutes clearly give the Board the authority to create transporter use areas. Dick Rorher said they couldnot not and would not because they would all become air taxis and not regulated at all. My biggest pissed off is they have never once asked the legislature for additional statutes needed to regulate both air taxis and transporters properly. The legislature can do it and probably would. I have been hammering them to do it for the Board for 3 years now. But the board does nothing.

    There are 150 state GUAs. 244 state concession opportunities. give or take

    LAst I looked APHA had about 100 or less members and not all were guides or even assistant guides. That was about 2 years ago. maybe more joined but i have never work for or with any one who was APHA. in 20 years. I don't really know anyone that is a member except maybe ralph miller and not sure he is a member. I have had some members say they don't agree but are afraid to speak up.

    The number of contracting guides is more than the State admits. 4 work for me that did not contract last year.

    But say there are 250 guides contracting and each one gets 3 areas. that leaves 2/3 with no State area. My operation can not exist with one GUA with 11 days of moose hunting, closed caribou, no black bear, and ever smaller brown bears. DNR and the rest have no study or idea about what the minimum over head is. Particularly when seasons are concentrated and over lap. If I were to have to live off one GUA I would fail quickly. BEcause the cost of many guides for 11 day moose, setting up and tearing down camps, launching boats, fixing, getting ready etc... just eats up the profit. The cost pewr hunting day goes way up.
    I can't stand it when some one says this is for game conservation. It is not. Look at the proposals for the BOG feb. 26 2010. In them you will find F&G state that they can lengthen sheep seasons because sheep is protected with full curl rule. They say the same thing about moose with the 50 inch 3-4 brow tines. But in their letters they and the BOG keep saying "over harvest" as a reason to reduce guides. It is not over harvest. it may be over crowded. So oermits are the solution. 5 guides racing 5 residents to the top of the mountain as 1 guide with 4 assistant racing 5 residents to the top of the mountain. There is no difference. F&G and the BOG know drawings reduce tag sales. They want it both ways. Can't have it. They must make the decision. it is tough but put the truth where it is. Their call and they should not ask for our heads to prevent them from having to make the call.

    I agree with HArley, if you are going to put me out of business do it humanely. Straight bid no BS application that is a liars contest.

    I have 17 boats registered, a 4 place super cub and 9 snow machines. If I get kicked out, the transporter license looks good and cheap.

    I have also been told by reputable members of Dallas SC $10000/year and Houston SC $5000/year and lord only knows what SCI gives APHA.

    And why has everyone refused to do a simple mail out survey?
    The legislature at the teleconference Wed. were listening real hard to the for and against comment numbers. Against was winning 2:1 about. A lot were rulesd in the middle. That was DNRs call. My call might have been more like 10:1 against.

    Brian, you are right. I want this done right for the right reasons. And to do that all users must be equally involved. Guides are getting the short end on this deal and transporters and everyone else, the state included is making out like bandits. All at our expense. A cost plus deal for the State.

    The raise our license fees twice and come to find out it goes to pay lawyers. not for meeting expense, not for mail out keeping us informed, not for any thing good for us. What the hell!
    smokey

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Harley davidsonTo: brian patterson re not allowed to take because the BOG closed the season. But we shou;ld all be bidding on the same thing. That takes out the @att.net
    Cc:Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 2:55 PM
    Subject: Re: Guide Concession Program


    Actually the law determines who is qualified. Not DNR. Title 8 section 3 and 17 taken together with the Owesheck decision make it clear.

    A "guide" is no different than a licensed hunter.

    No "special privilidges" for "guides".

    Guides are not going to be super exclusive bidders when (if) leases are sold.

    Leases are sold to the highest bidder.

    Then the operating plan is approved.

    That is the leasing law.

    Providing for the special interest of hunting guides is not a permissable lease sale provision in law.

    Any " business interest" sold by DNR will not be sold super exclusive only to an individual with a guide license.

    It doesn't matter how much APHA wants this program it is just not going to go down that way.

    This program is DOA and the sooner the guide board realizes that fact the better.

    In fact the sooner guides realize what APHA has done to the profession of "guiding" the sooner guides will find a voice that speaks to the profession of guiding instead of the special interest of a few.

    And the sooner we will get down to the uncomfortable work of cleaning up our own house. It is not up to APHA/DNR to clean up and everybody that. It's time to quit fooling ourselves with false hopes.



    On Feb 19, 2010, at 12:31 PM, brian peterson wrote:
    I wish for what you wish for, but it's not going to happen. DNR doesn't lease to the public, they lease to the qualified public. Therein lies the rub. They determine who's qualified. I would love to see what you want.
    Brian
    -------------- Original message from Harley Davidson <>: --------------
    DNR is "selling" a LEASE. Lease sales go to the highest bidders..

    Then the bidder submits his operating plan.

    No matter what APHA trys to sell DNR...DNR has to sell to the public...and the "public" is not going to allow DNR to give away our "leases".

    So bid like you want to win....just like the oil companies do when they buy a business interest from the 'State'.

    After you win the bid......all you have to do is comply with the terms of the contract.

    You see man.....all the worry about 'scoring' and writing skills is a waste of time.

    LEASES dude NOT CONCESSIONS.

    DNR is NOT NPS.

    If you want more clues......just ask.




    On Feb 19, 2010, at 10:09 AM, brian peterson wrote:
    Fellow Guides and interested parties,
    Attached please find a prospectus I wrote and sent to Clark Cox and Bob Fithian in early January. Please take a few minutes to read it. It is clear, concise and objective. It will work, will pass constitutional questions and can be implemented. It is defensible in court.

    I have maintained from the beginning of this process that the procpectus process must be objective. A prospectus is a test, an exam of an operational plan. Questions must be clear and answers must be multiple choice with associated scoring. An operator must know his score after filling out the prospectus.

    The sample prospectus sent by DNR was none of these things. I do not and will not support a program using anything close to their sample. I strongly urge you to oppose it also. It will not be good for the industry. It will not be defensible in court.

    The prospectus attached shows that there is a workable solution. It needs to be tweaked in a couple spots, but that can be done later. Please read this over. If you feel it is better than what we were presented with earlier by DNR let them know. This is intended to inform and to show there are options.

    All the best,
    Brian Peterson
    Master Guide #114
    -------------- Original message from "Colles, Christianna D (DNR)" <christianna.colles@alaska.gov>: --------------

    <mime-attachment.jpg>


    The Public Comment Deadline for the Proposed Guide Concession Program has been extended to March 15, 2010 at 5:00PM


    Any further information can be found on the Guide Concession Website:


    http://www.dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/gcp/

    <DNR Prospectus 2010.doc>


    On Feb 19, 2010, at 10:09 AM, brian.petersonwrote:
    Fellow Guides and interested parties,
    Attached please find a prospectus I wrote and sent to Clark Cox and Bob Fithian in early January. Please take a few minutes to read it. It is clear, concise and objective. It will work, will pass constitutional questions and can be implemented. It is defensible in court.

    I have maintained from the beginning of this process that the procpectus process must be objective. A prospectus is a test, an exam of an operational plan. Questions must be clear and answers must be multiple choice with associated scoring. An operator must know his score after filling out the prospectus.

    The sample prospectus sent by DNR was none of these things. I do not and will not support a program using anything close to their sample. I strongly urge you to oppose it also. It will not be good for the industry. It will not be defensible in court.

    The prospectus attached shows that there is a workable solution. It needs to be tweaked in a couple spots, but that can be done later. Please read this over. If you feel it is better than what we were presented with earlier by DNR let them know. This is intended to inform and to show there are options.

    All the best,
    Brian Peterson
    Master Guide #114
    -------------- Original message from "Colles, Christianna D (DNR)" <christianna.colles@alaska.gov>: --------------

    <mime-attachment.jpg>


    The Public Comment Deadline for the Proposed Guide Concession Program has been extended to March 15, 2010 at 5:00PM


    Any further information can be found on the Guide Concession Website:


    http://www.dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/gcp/

    <DNR Prospectus 2010.doc>

    No virus found in this incoming message.
    Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
    Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2699 - Release Date: 02/19/10 22:34:00
    "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

  3. #3
    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 and this was on top but only allowed 20,000 charcters

    again from my email not me
    ************************************************** ********************************************



    Just look at the agenda at the BGCSB in March??? Has anybody loo
    quote

    Just what is it that makes a hunting guide think there is any kind of an entitlement to make a living off public resources. That is retarded. All a person has to do is read a little law, a court case or two and think for themselves and realize that special interests in natural resources held in trust by the state for the common use of all the people have no entitlement or special privilege.

    Like it or not, most legislators actually can read a little law, a court case or two and think for themselves.

    And most guides should understand to that there are enough resident hunters out there that will make sure legislators are getting their message. It is already happening if you listened to the questions legislators were asking Clark Cox on Thursday down in Juneau and heard Kevin Saxby and Rick Thompson you would know that GCP is actually DOA.

    What is it that makes guides think the Osewchek decision was a bad decision....for hell's sake it was an illegal program AND THE COURT DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ILLEGAL ISSUES which is very important to realize when APHA spouts it's propoganda.

    Is there some reason guides can not read the Osewchk decision and understand what the court did not address is as important as what they did address....what about reading "leasing" law and understanding what the state must do when they dispose of a a public lease.....and understand that APHA is conning the public and trying to sneak another special interests favor past the public and that this time APHA is not going to get away with it if for no other reason than probably half if not more of the "guides" don't believe in the scam.

    I really don't get that the BGCSB members can not read the writing on the wall. I get that not all guides are in tune with all this but man...surely enough guides read and understand the end is near and we would be better off to take control of our own destiny rather than leaving it up to APHA and the APPOINTED members of the BGCSB to just do nothing.

    Has anybody read the letter the BGCSB sent to DNR in December ???????? What a joke and those are the guys that represent us?

    It's a shame most guides don't get what no special privileges means. Don't get what "common use" is. Don't get that seasons and bag limits cause conflicts...not air taxis. Because the BGCSB sure doesn't' get the truth of it all.

    They don't get that the 3 bean rule and jumping around from here to there and hiring unlimited assistant guides and guides who haven't guided a hunt in 10 years but make a living off their exclusive federal areas by selling high dollar hunts and hiring tons of non resident 'assistant' guides are what caused the guide issues and is responsible for the imminent crash if nothing is done to change all of those practices.

    An APPOINTED guide board is never going to take the bull by the horns fix the industry UNLESS guides stand up to the appointed guide board and APHA and make them fix this mess. There is not much time left for that if there is any time. Waiting until the DNR program craters to do something positive is retarded.

    It's a shame guide's don't get that the exclusive federal program is an illegal program in extreme conflict with all the federal management agencies mandates that it (exclusive federal areas) are going to start go away in the next 5 years. Agencies are working on an exit strategy for this program now.

    What is that makes guide unable to comprehend that the federal program has caused all the guide pressure to be put on State land and has messed it up for everyone and those who "think" the federal program is the answer are people who have federal areas like the high rollers running APHA....and if they are smart they will do what Butch King is doing right now and sell out to some sucker who thinks that federal exclusive commercial hunting concessions will last forever!

    It's a shame guides Don't get that residents will be first and that already almost all if not all our harvestable surpluses are allocated to RESIDENTS!

    It's a shame most guides don't get that air taxi's are almost 100&#37; resident Alaskan operators. Unlike "guides" who are about 30% non resident operators. Guides are headed to the bottom of the gene pool in Alaska. The writing is on the wall.

    Guides don't get that air taxis carry residents primarily and as a practical matter..... "air taxi's" are NOT going to be regulated without regulating every hunter with a hunting license.....regardless if that hunter is using his own airplane or his own boat......or a guide. Not the ADF&G, Not the BOG, Not the BGCSB and NOT the legislature is going to selectively "regulate" air taxi's.

    It might feel good to talk about regulating transporters...but it's not going to happen.

    Neither is this DNR proposed program. Ohhh there will be something come out of all this all right. APHA will go down the tube, all classes of guides will be regulated by one guide licensing board and air taxis will go back to being air taxis regulated by the FAA and federal exclusive hunting concessions will go away. They will go away.

    ked at it. Funny.....the guide board is worried about how close guides are camping to other guides...how to make guides and air taxis "ethical'....not one minute is scheduled to be spent actually working on the issues of cleaning up the industry practices like making guides "guide" or taking some beans away or making it so a guide can not change an area but once every five years or limiting the numbers of assistants a guide can hire or doing something about guides signing contracts for other guides or on and on.


    No, it appears we all just think DNR and new maps are going to save us. It aint gonna happen. People are just not that gullible to buy this crap coming out of the BGCSB and APHA much longer and if it goes any further past this March meeting without making some real progress towards cleaning our own house then APHA just succeeded in making us all look like fools.

    Residents hunters are going to fix the guide problems if the BGCSB doesn't.

    Remember 100% of guide clients are non residents.

    70-80% of air taxi passengers are RESIDENTS.

    Who do we really think is going to win this end of an era battle!

    It is not going to be "guides" with 30% non residents and 100% of the clients non residents.

    The fix is coming.

    We have already heard Ted Spraker and the BOG talking about 10% opportunity limits for non residents.

    We have not heard the BOG and Spraker talking about "10%" limits on air taxi's and we wont. Regie Joule's air taxi bill is a joke and the Alaska Air Carriers have already shut it down.

    When it's all said and done most of us can look back and say....yep we should have taken control of the situation back in 2010 instead of leaving it up to APHA and the APPOINTED leadership at the BGCSB to fix the issues.

    I doubt enough Smokey Don Duncans have the courage yet to stand up to the mess APHA, BGCSB and exclusive federal concessions have made but March is probably the last real chance at being proactive to clean up the house and unless guides can put on their resident hunter hat first the fix is going to cut deep and wide. It's been said, you can not expect a bandaid on a cut artery to save an industry and if the leg has gangreeen then cut it off.

    Time will tell but 30 years of letting the APHA big dogs have their way, every way, every time leaves little doubt what the outcome of the March meeting will be or who will end up fixing the guide industry in Alaska I guess in the end APHA will get the credit. That should be comforting for some
    "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

  4. #4
    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

    Cool and this... these guy send me a lot of stuff...

    Harley,
    I find it interesting that you know more about the applicable law on the DNR project than the state's attorneys who advise DNR, the DNR permitting employees, who deal with it on a daily basis and the state officials who enforce it. Have you ever wondered why they are spending all this time and money on a project that has no possibility of ever being implemented? I would think there would be something illegal about gvt officials purposely wasting public money on an illegal program.

    Why do you seem to dislike APHA so much? In your opinion what have they done that is so negative to the guiding industry? While statistics can pretty much show anything, it appears that the majority of legal guide businesses are the "they". I do know that APHA has saved many a nonresident allocation from the chopping block.

    As far as you wondering why many guides think the Osweicheck decision was a bad one. The basis of the ruling was that licensed non resident hunters were not the consumptive users of the resource. Even though the state licensed them to be the consumptive users, they had no rights to the resource under the ruling. The outfitter was found to be the consumptive user, even though he had/has no ability to harvest the resource. It makes the leap that a service provider, to a consumptive user, is the same as a consumptive user. Many people , guides and non guides believe the licensed non resident is the consumptive user and the state should have the ability to regulate access to the client non resident hunter, who would not be under the equal access clause of the constitution. I hope that helps.

    I appreciate your point of view. It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out.

    All the best,
    Brian Peterson


    Brian.

    Osechek was about a guide not a non resident hunter. In fact I'm fairly certain Osechek makes absolutely no reference to non resident hunters. Osechek talks about licensed hunters and registered "guides" and the prohibition of special privileges for guides.

    And what is this "outfitter" stuff.....Osecheck never used the word outfitter either. Sheesh....Guides really do have a hard time reading and understanding Osecheck.

    You make my point well. Guides just don't get the Osechek decision and particularly don't get what questions of law the Osechek decision did not consider.

    Osechek says guides don't get special privileges. "laws and regulations governing the use or DISPOSAL of natural resources shall apply equally to all persons similarly situated ...". That means, I am pretty sure, that guides have no more rights than any other person with a hunting license. "Guides" don't get any special privileges.

    The concept that the only qualified bidders for state leases would be guides is half baked.

    It's clear DNR is proposing to sell [DISPOSE] a business interest in natural resources only to guides.

    There has been no "best use" evaluation of the program lease area by lease area and DNR will have to do that before this program could ever hit the auction blocks. There is no "use of independent information" for wildlife management purposes specific to even ONE lease area let alone 153 lease areas. READ the law and the regulations regarding "leases". READ Osechek and the case references. This GCP is not going to fly.

    There is no evidence that the DNR program has any benefit to wildlife management or that it is even intended to...let alone that is was developed "primarily for" the benefit of wildlife management.

    It is apparent that "lease areas" are not based primarily on wildlife management concerns. In fact the overwhelming evidence, right from the start of this proposed DNR/GCP is all but about how many guides the game [Alaskans common use resource] would support economically.

    This whole APHA exercise is EXACTLY repeating what the Osecheck decision said was illegal about EGA's.

    DNR and APHA would have us somehow believe Osechek is not valid today...I just don't get what people don't understand about the GCP-APHA's con game with the public and that the Osecheck decision somehow provided DNR/APHA an 'end around' the common use clause and Gillman vs Martin.

    EVEN if the GCP did go to a bid 'Guides' have no "exclusive right" to bid on a state lease. DNR may not "exclude" others "similarly situated" from bidding on the GCP's if it ever gets that far....which it wont.

    I don't know more about the applicable law on the GCP than anybody. I know how the public process is supposed to work. I know that the GCP was cooked up by APHA, introduced to the Governor, supported by some phony letters from the BGCSB/BOG and the governor told DNR to get it done. I know it took 20 years for APHA to find a governor they could mislead well enough to try and sneak one by the public.

    Parnell will get up to speed on this before long and he will pull the plug. He does not want the subject of this program coming up in a debate with Samuelson this summer and neither Samuleson or Panell want to be caught in the same room alone with APHA.

    What DNR got done or is bringing forward for public review is nothing less than a proposed "special privilege" for guides no matter how Kevin Saxby or Bill Horn "interprets" what the GCP "is". Connecting the dots is not all that hard. Most people can do that but guides seem to have the hardest time with it.

    What you said about APHA saving many a non resident allocation from the chopping block is why APHA is of no value to Alaskans.

    Resident hunters have no use for APHA. Resident hunters will not continue to let APHA manipulate the BGCSB/BOG/DNR/ADF&G so "they" can have their special privileges.

    APHA is on it's death bed. We all know that. Even the leadership at APHA knows that.

    So, why let APHA and the BGCSB take all guides down with them? I don't get that mentality.

    Almost all if not all of our harvestable resources are 100% allocated to resident hunters. What part of that don't guides and the BGCSB understand?
    "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

  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

    sorry for all that you almost have to start at the bottom read up then read the one from dennis....
    "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

    Exclamation Disclaimer

    Vince,
    I clearly posted the original thread letter written by APHA former BOD Brian Peterson.
    It is an alternative concession area deal.

    But I absolutely positively have not included you or anybody else to any list of recipients.
    If I did...If I had, I would tell ya.

    But, you must admit, it is interesting stuff!

    Dennis

  7. #7
    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

    i figured dennis but yours was the only name i knew in the list so hd to pick on ya
    "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

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    44

    Default

    I hate to attack a guy that is offering an alternative but the alternative looks like it lacks all of the foresight that the original APHA program does... specifically around the area of "who is being regulated and how in the wide wide world of sports will it make a conservational impact?"

    Equally wrong is the violation and safety sections where 'each year without a insance' gets a point...Same day shoot a bear this year and only loose one point???????

    Letters of recommendations and client testimonials is also BS. Anyone can come up with ten clients in 20 years of guiding that will say the guide walks on water...that is a joke.

    Evaluating a lodge with springs in the bed vs cots in a spike camp points vs a lodge with waterbeds, etc, etc. Clearly a great criteria point if you are a client that wants to hunt out of a lodge with showers, toilets, beds with springs, etc but CERTAINLY NOT a good criteria point if you want to hunt with an outstanding outfitter that operates out of spike camps.

    Impact on wildlife section...he couldn't even get through the first sentence without quoting Bobby Fithian's "historical harvest numbers" official sounding stuff that overlooks the fact that the "historical harvest numbers" are what put the caribou, moose, and sheep numbers where they are today.

    The holes in this proposal are the same, only different, when compared to the original APHA stacked deck. It misses the mark fundamentally by not regulating the harvest numbers and numbers of hunters, creates a monopoly in the guide business, counts on the fox to guard the henhouse with dignity and accountability.

    There is a more effective option out there that all 50 states have been using with 100% success. There, the guides are doing great business. Their big game resources are doing better than they ever have been while ours are at the worst level I have seen in my lifetime. There, they don't cry about only Montanans, Coloradans, Minnesotans, Floridians, etc should be the only ones guiding here. Why don't we quit p&*ing and m^&*ing and fix the problem. We can then compete with the world for clients.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Yukon Canada
    Posts
    1,289

    Default guide programs

    Good luck on this issue guys, you have a lot up there to offer but you do need this issue settled one way or another. I would be interested to know from some long time outfitters up there if their bookings are suffering due in part because of the publicity about this issue??
    I just returned from a long show season, and once again heard from a number of outdoorsmen who will not return to AK because they are afraid to book (they think the outfitter they book with might not be there next year).
    I will give you what i think you are up against and how I would fix it, take it however you want..... This is one thing we commonly hear from hunters who have hunted AK before... to many hunters.. they tell stories of outfitters hunting on top of each other. Lots of outfitters trying to hang on so they end up treating hunters unfairly.
    The outdoor community is small now and very well connected, Alaska IMO has got to do some massive changes to stay competitive and even then when you consider your population vs northern canada it will be a tough battle. After talking to hundreds of Fishermen I think we will continue to draw more fishermen away from AK, they are just finding to many people. I think that will help you guys tho.
    In the hunting, Ive said this before... go to Albertas tag system... I am in the process right now of buying some good whitetail and bear tags there myself, so have been learning more about the system lately and the more I learn the better I like it. Big exclusive areas will not solve your problems(it will make some a ton of money tho and thats why its on the table!, watch how much flak I get from that comment) all exclusive areas do is make it impossible for young guys to get in the game. one thing is certain if you dont do something 5 years from now you will have a lot fewer outfitters, I watched some of them at the shows.... pretty tough sell for them when myself or another Canadian had a booth right beside them.

  10. #10
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,465

    Default

    if the state would just limit the number of permits they give out, or limit the number of clients PER MONTH the permit would allow..we'd fix the problem and not cost hardly a thing...tada
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  11. #11
    wolfwatching
    Guest

    Default

    If only they really cared enough to listen to alternatives.. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

  12. #12
    Member AlaskaTrueAdventure's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Paradise (Alaska)
    Posts
    1,543

    Default And Yet Another....

    Hello Management Forum.
    Here is yet another alternate concession plan offered up by Willie D, a guide-outfitter that has also voiced objections to the current DNR-APHA-BGCSB concession plan....an ill conceived concession plan, that is no longer simply a concession plan. It is now a LEASE plan, a competitive bid lease.
    Lets see what Willie D. suggests.....
    Dennis
    ************************************************** *

    Here is what I (Willie D.) sent...


    I am writing to ask you reject or eliminate any funding for the study or operation of a guide concession program.



    I would like to offer a solution to be considered to effectively stop over crowding of hunters and over harvest of big game animals. The proposed concession program lacks the teeth needed to be an effective tool to attain the goal of easing over crowding and over harvest of animals due to the fact that it does nothing to address the natives, the resident hunters, or the unguided non-resident hunters.

    If the proposed concession program is implemented and SOMEHOW WAS to be effective in easing the over-crowding and over-harvest issues in the short-term, there would be an immediate surge of native, resident, and non-guided non-resident hunters into the area to reap the benefits which would cripple the surviving guide’s ability to conduct business in a profitable manner. There could actually be MORE overcrowding and more animals harvested with the proposed concession program than there currently is. The surviving guides would then be right back in front of the BOG and BGCSB asking for the State to address over-crowding and over-harvest issues once again costing tax payers huge amounts of money. And more importantly, we would be several more years away from having an excellent conservation plan protecting our natural resource and our guide businesses. The reason for this is the proposed concession program addresses ONLY GUIDES, which is a small portion of the hunters hunting Alaska .

    A better, more flexible, more cost effective, and more effective conservation plan would be to instigate a limited tag drawing system similar to those used in other parts of Alaska and other states where overcrowding and over-harvest "was" a problem. This would immediately solve the over-crowding AND over-harvest issues where it is currently a problem and immediately put Alaska ’s stressed natural resources on the road to recovery so we all can continue to hunt and our kids can continue to hunt in the future. The limited tag drawing system is a proven, conservation tool to ensure hunting and guiding for generations to come. I have contacted Fish and Game representatives in several states (including Alaska) and it should be noted that they ALL say limited tag drawing system is 100&#37; successful in solving over-crowding and over-harvest issues wherever it has been implemented while at the same time allows all of us the opportunity to run a profitable guiding business now and in the future.

    By definition, it has the flexibility to tighten the harvest numbers when AND where game is limited and allow for more liberal harvest numbers in areas where the game populations are healthy. At the same time, the guides can maintain their businesses and thrive due to quality of the hunt.

    It should also be understood that this concession program was started by the APHA as a way to use a real problem of over-harvest and over-crowding as a dynamic to necessitate limiting guides and then it was backed it up with false and/or exaggerated statements in order to promote a program that only eliminates competition for the guiding business. I am a member of the APHA and believe they do a lot for the guide industry. However, in this case, they are misrepresenting what the guide industry wants and I disagree with their stand on the issue. The public comments posted on the DNR website at http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/gcp/commen...w_comments.cfm reveal I am not the only guide to feel this way.



    The APHA claims they stand for the professional guides in the state but that is exaggerated at best and incorrect at worst. There is no conservation goal associated with this concession program because of its lack of foresight. In this case, the APHA has used a real problem of OVER-CROWDING and OVER-HARVEST to spring board a plan that does nothing more than increase regulations, put many great guides out of business, eliminate fair market competition among guides, allow for unrestricted harvest of animals, and allows for unrestricted numbers of hunters in the field. It only creates a monopoly of the guiding service by APHA members to gain a leveraged position for the world's sportsmen dollar.

    The program that would instantly cure the problem of over-crowding AND over-harvest is the limited tag drawing system. I have been running a guiding business in a limited tag drawing area for years and the limited tag drawing system is great for the guiding business AND the natural big game resource. I have to make only small management changes to allow for conducting business in a limited draw area and my clients are more than willing to book a hunt in a limited draw area because they know that an area that is managed by the limited tag drawing system is more likely to produce more/bigger trophies.

    Facing moose, sheep, and caribou population numbers as bad as the state has ever experienced, a more reliable program is required to get the big game populations on the road to recovery than to implement a guide restriction and HOPE that it works. The proven method all other states and Alaska has used to curb over hunting is the lottery draw. It works all the time and is instantly effective while allowing guides to make a living doing what they do. It allows for reasonable hunting pressure to allow the big game resource to thrive. Implement a conservation program that will cure the problems instantly.

    The state should drop the idea of a concession program in favor of a limited tag drawing system to immediately cure the problem of over-crowding and over-harvest so we can concentrate on making a living and quit wasting time/money on a program that is based on only HOPES. All 49 of the other states also use it effectively to achieve the same and still allow free market competition among guides.

    The lottery draw system is the most cost effective, least restrictive, most flexible, most accurate, most timely, most fair, most user friendly, and (most importantly) the most conservation friendly system to allocate hunting opportunity available today. The state of Alaska uses it in some areas with 100% success in achieving ideal harvest numbers and limiting overcrowding in the field. The guide concession program is a poor attempt to reinvent the wheel when there is such a workable solution available to lessen over crowding and over hunting of big game. Choose the lottery draw system to solve the problem instantly.


    Please rethink the need for such an ineffective program when there is such a better option available. I urge you to vote against any line item or other funding approval for the guide concession program.



    Thank you.

    Willie Dvorak
    605-887-3561 or (cell)...605-228-8162
    www.jimriverguideservice.com
    www.guidedalaskahunting.com

  13. #13
    Member AlaskaTrueAdventure's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Paradise (Alaska)
    Posts
    1,543

    Default APHA Sue E reply/responce

    ....and APHA BOD Sue E. responds to Willies suggestions...

    Note that Sues son does runs a sensational guide service.
    Also note that what Sue wrote is exactly 50&#37; what APHA "management" has been privately saying (wink) for the last 10 years....that they wish to abort the nonresident guides. The other 50% of what they have been privately saying (wink, wink) is that they have always intended to squash/abort newer and smaller guide-outfitter businesses by initiating a state land concession plan.
    (...and they are accomplishing that second half...)

    ********************************************

    Willie,


    I believe you are the NON-resident who thinks he knows everything. Let me tell you something you do not know. Subsistence has a PRIORITY USE IN ALASKA which WILL NOT GO ON A LIMITED TAG DRAW. Non-residents will be eliminated first. So if you think you have the answer for Alaska, keep your ideas in the lower-48. If it works so great there for you, just stay there and make it there. Be happy there. You should not need Alaska to make a living. You are so full of yourself. Good luck to you.


    Tired of listening to all this BS, Sue

  14. #14
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    That's some funny stuff there, Dennis <grin>.

    Was set to have lunch with Bobby at the BOG meeting, but in the end I think meeting with Ralph Seekins and the other extremists was more important <grin>. So my lunch date was cancelled, and I didn't get to speak much with Bobby on the GCP questions I had. Neither can I make the upcoming BGCSB meeting.

    Interestingly though, what I did hear from Bobby was that APHA was working on several bills in Washington D.C.

    Would sure like to know what that's all about.

  15. #15
    wolfwatching
    Guest

    Default

    Go SUE!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskaTrueAdventure View Post
    ....and APHA BOD Sue E. responds to Willies suggestions...

    Note that Sues son does runs a sensational guide service.
    Also note that what Sue wrote is exactly 50% what APHA "management" has been privately saying (wink) for the last 10 years....that they wish to abort the nonresident guides. The other 50% of what they have been privately saying (wink, wink) is that they have always intended to squash/abort newer and smaller guide-outfitter businesses by initiating a state land concession plan.
    (...and they are accomplishing that second half...)

    ********************************************

    Willie,


    I believe you are the NON-resident who thinks he knows everything. Let me tell you something you do not know. Subsistence has a PRIORITY USE IN ALASKA which WILL NOT GO ON A LIMITED TAG DRAW. Non-residents will be eliminated first. So if you think you have the answer for Alaska, keep your ideas in the lower-48. If it works so great there for you, just stay there and make it there. Be happy there. You should not need Alaska to make a living. You are so full of yourself. Good luck to you.


    Tired of listening to all this BS, Sue

  16. #16
    wolfwatching
    Guest

    Default

    I think the first approach should be that if you want to be a registered guide in the state of Alaska then you should be a resident of the state of Alaska.
    Why does anyone actually believe the law they were given to chew on?? Do some research folks.. Serious.. It’s almost irritating.. Read the SOA Workplace Alaska.. See where it says “Alaska Residents Only?” Gesh, how do they get away with that for a simple admin position that really affects no Alaskan..? hmm..
    Okay, but, non-residents can remove our resources without a blink. Seems like a spooky trap to me. Hint hint – The alternitive can only apply if there is a concern over resources..
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskaTrueAdventure View Post
    Hello Management Forum.
    Here is yet another alternate concession plan offered up by Willie D, a guide-outfitter that has also voiced objections to the current DNR-APHA-BGCSB concession plan....an ill conceived concession plan, that is no longer simply a concession plan. It is now a LEASE plan, a competitive bid lease.
    Lets see what Willie D. suggests.....
    Dennis
    ************************************************** *

    Here is what I (Willie D.) sent...


    I am writing to ask you reject or eliminate any funding for the study or operation of a guide concession program.



    I would like to offer a solution to be considered to effectively stop over crowding of hunters and over harvest of big game animals. The proposed concession program lacks the teeth needed to be an effective tool to attain the goal of easing over crowding and over harvest of animals due to the fact that it does nothing to address the natives, the resident hunters, or the unguided non-resident hunters.

    If the proposed concession program is implemented and SOMEHOW WAS to be effective in easing the over-crowding and over-harvest issues in the short-term, there would be an immediate surge of native, resident, and non-guided non-resident hunters into the area to reap the benefits which would cripple the surviving guide’s ability to conduct business in a profitable manner. There could actually be MORE overcrowding and more animals harvested with the proposed concession program than there currently is. The surviving guides would then be right back in front of the BOG and BGCSB asking for the State to address over-crowding and over-harvest issues once again costing tax payers huge amounts of money. And more importantly, we would be several more years away from having an excellent conservation plan protecting our natural resource and our guide businesses. The reason for this is the proposed concession program addresses ONLY GUIDES, which is a small portion of the hunters hunting Alaska .

    A better, more flexible, more cost effective, and more effective conservation plan would be to instigate a limited tag drawing system similar to those used in other parts of Alaska and other states where overcrowding and over-harvest "was" a problem. This would immediately solve the over-crowding AND over-harvest issues where it is currently a problem and immediately put Alaska ’s stressed natural resources on the road to recovery so we all can continue to hunt and our kids can continue to hunt in the future. The limited tag drawing system is a proven, conservation tool to ensure hunting and guiding for generations to come. I have contacted Fish and Game representatives in several states (including Alaska) and it should be noted that they ALL say limited tag drawing system is 100% successful in solving over-crowding and over-harvest issues wherever it has been implemented while at the same time allows all of us the opportunity to run a profitable guiding business now and in the future.

    By definition, it has the flexibility to tighten the harvest numbers when AND where game is limited and allow for more liberal harvest numbers in areas where the game populations are healthy. At the same time, the guides can maintain their businesses and thrive due to quality of the hunt.

    It should also be understood that this concession program was started by the APHA as a way to use a real problem of over-harvest and over-crowding as a dynamic to necessitate limiting guides and then it was backed it up with false and/or exaggerated statements in order to promote a program that only eliminates competition for the guiding business. I am a member of the APHA and believe they do a lot for the guide industry. However, in this case, they are misrepresenting what the guide industry wants and I disagree with their stand on the issue. The public comments posted on the DNR website at http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/gcp/commen...w_comments.cfm reveal I am not the only guide to feel this way.



    The APHA claims they stand for the professional guides in the state but that is exaggerated at best and incorrect at worst. There is no conservation goal associated with this concession program because of its lack of foresight. In this case, the APHA has used a real problem of OVER-CROWDING and OVER-HARVEST to spring board a plan that does nothing more than increase regulations, put many great guides out of business, eliminate fair market competition among guides, allow for unrestricted harvest of animals, and allows for unrestricted numbers of hunters in the field. It only creates a monopoly of the guiding service by APHA members to gain a leveraged position for the world's sportsmen dollar.

    The program that would instantly cure the problem of over-crowding AND over-harvest is the limited tag drawing system. I have been running a guiding business in a limited tag drawing area for years and the limited tag drawing system is great for the guiding business AND the natural big game resource. I have to make only small management changes to allow for conducting business in a limited draw area and my clients are more than willing to book a hunt in a limited draw area because they know that an area that is managed by the limited tag drawing system is more likely to produce more/bigger trophies.

    Facing moose, sheep, and caribou population numbers as bad as the state has ever experienced, a more reliable program is required to get the big game populations on the road to recovery than to implement a guide restriction and HOPE that it works. The proven method all other states and Alaska has used to curb over hunting is the lottery draw. It works all the time and is instantly effective while allowing guides to make a living doing what they do. It allows for reasonable hunting pressure to allow the big game resource to thrive. Implement a conservation program that will cure the problems instantly.

    The state should drop the idea of a concession program in favor of a limited tag drawing system to immediately cure the problem of over-crowding and over-harvest so we can concentrate on making a living and quit wasting time/money on a program that is based on only HOPES. All 49 of the other states also use it effectively to achieve the same and still allow free market competition among guides.

    The lottery draw system is the most cost effective, least restrictive, most flexible, most accurate, most timely, most fair, most user friendly, and (most importantly) the most conservation friendly system to allocate hunting opportunity available today. The state of Alaska uses it in some areas with 100% success in achieving ideal harvest numbers and limiting overcrowding in the field. The guide concession program is a poor attempt to reinvent the wheel when there is such a workable solution available to lessen over crowding and over hunting of big game. Choose the lottery draw system to solve the problem instantly.


    Please rethink the need for such an ineffective program when there is such a better option available. I urge you to vote against any line item or other funding approval for the guide concession program.



    Thank you.

    Willie Dvorak
    605-887-3561 or (cell)...605-228-8162
    www.jimriverguideservice.com
    www.guidedalaskahunting.com

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    44

    Default

    Willie D makes some sturdy points.

    1- Our big game populations are poor in many areas and guide business is not so hot in comparison to many other places in the country. 2-The permit system's track record is untarnished. 3-if the program works, it will be the best for the resource. Which means more/better hunting opportunities for all of us residents, natives, non'residents, guides, transporters, etc.

    While he is a non'resident guide, maybe he brings some insight to the table in the fact that he has worked with different programs than all of us work with? He guides in South Dakota, they are very conservative and they have great hunting. He runs a profitable business under the kind of permit system he works with. I am just saying that it isn't smart to shun someone's ideas just because they are not our own.

    If the guide concession plan goes through, THERE WILL BE A LOT MORE RESIDENT GUIDES GO OUT OF BUSINESS THAN THERE WILL BE NON'RESIDENTS GUIDES GOING OUT OF BUSINESS. If we go to the PROPER FORM of the permit system, we all stay in business and the hunting gets better, win/win. We shouldn't cut off our nose to spite our face.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Yukon Canada
    Posts
    1,289

    Default guides

    Dont know what the answer is but I doubt trying to make it so only AK residents can hold a guide or outfitters lic. would stand up to a lawsuit. Outfitting/guiding is a business and or job. Unless I am way off here cant imagine a law that would limit jobs/businesses to state residents only??

  19. #19
    Member anonymous1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Kodiak Is.
    Posts
    304

    Default BGCSB meeeting

    Did anyone attend the recent BGCSB meeting that would care to report their take on how the discussions went.

    I heard a rumor (mind you just a rumor a friend told me a friend told him)
    that a proposal was in to restrict Transporter access to areas with a guided hunt in progress. It stands to reason some thing like this would go hand in hand with exclusive areas. Does anyone know for sure if this is happening.

  20. #20
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    Rick, I wasn't there, heard not much was accomplished. Yes, their is a push to also work on the transporter side of things, but it doesn't seem to be legal according to what some are arguing.

    CUAs where the BOG restricts certain types of access for hunting are legal. But the state telling air-taxis they can only fly out a certain # of "hunters," or can't fly out "hunters," is another ball game. Technically then, the air taxis could fly out "non-hunters." It's the same transporter quagmire really, some air-taxis are licensed transporters, some aren't, and seems like requiring all air-taxis who fly out hunters to become licensed transporters also isn't going to fly.

    Someone is gonna challenge it in court, just like someone (or a group) is gonna challenge any Guide Concession Program.

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
  •