Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Guide Concession Program update from APHA

  1. #1
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default Guide Concession Program update from APHA

    At this spring's Board of Game meeting in Fairbanks, Bobby Fithian, representing the Alaska Professional Hunters Association, was asked to give an update on the guide concession program. I've transcribed his oral testimony of Feb 28, 2010, here it is, with some comments of mine afterward:

    Fithian/APHA: "We are moving forward. DNR came out with a proposed program and proposed selection criteria, I believe it was in December. And it’s been a public comment period allow people to comment on it. That comment period has now been extended to March. The legislature, the governor’s office, put in a 250,000 dollar budget request to the legislature. Through some miscommunication that was cut to 120,000. That 120,000 dollars was approved on the House side of the finance DNR subcommittee last week. I will tell you that we are asking for additional funds and staff positions for that, for the program.

    And most importantly, related to the program and the comments you’ve been hearing, I’ll address them two ways. First of all, through the current concession program, there are 244 business opportunities provided within that program, and it’s important to take into consideration that BLM will probably enter into this program with a master Memorandum of Understanding. They have showed their willingness from the beginning. Subsequently, when the guide industry came together and looked at trying to figure out how many, the regionalization of this program, the number of operators that each region would provide for a long term sustainable purpose, that’s where the 244 concession numbers came from, but primarily on state lands.

    So, there wasn’t a good focus on the BLM lands, mostly those are in the western and northwest part of the state. So we’ll probably see a slight increase in those business opportunities to maybe somewheres near 260. It might flesh out around 250 or so. There’s currently near 200 federal concession programs and business opportunities in the state under the Dept of Ag, Forest Service lands, under Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Refuge and National Park Service Preserve. There is no number that I can give you related to private lands, but I think currently, this is my best guess, we’re looking at about 35 existing private land use authorizations. And probably within a few years we’ll be seeing that near double.

    So, last year there were 305 contracting guides, guides that actually signed contracts and facilitated booked hunts. When you compare the number of the concession opportunities, state, federal, BLM, private lands, you’ll see that there’s at least near two business opportunities for every guide that contracted hunts last year. There’s a lot of guides that contracted hunts last year that operate on one land use authorization, or one concession. So the numbers you’re hearing about putting all these people out of business, we just can’t find the validity to that. [my emphasis]

    Then, the big mistake that I think has happened to date that’s kinda thrown a question mark into the whole program was that DNR came out with subject selection criteria and subject program management criteria that we would rate at a C-minus if we were to give it a grade. But we’re in the public process and we believe, APHA firmly believes, that we can make encouragement and make recommendations to DNR to adopt and develop a program that will raise that C-minus to a B-plus. We’d like to get them to an A and I feel that we can do that through the public process.

    And they have heard our concerns, they’ve heard a lot of concerns about the fee bidding, we want that out of there. The recommendations from the Big Game Commercial Services Board DNR land subcommittee requested that. APHA submitted 21 pages of comments on the program just a few days ago. I’ll have them posted on the website for your review, if you wanna take them and read through them there’s some really good comments in there. And, Mr. Chairman, if I am not taking too much of your time, I’d like to expand on one of those comments that directly relates to the Board and the Department."

    Chair Judkins: "Go ahead."


    Fithian/APHA: "Thank you. On the federal concession program on the Park Service side we have a post-season report requirement. So every year we have to compare what our plan of operations, our harvest objectives were within our plan of operations, to the actual numbers of clients we took and what our harvest was. And we also relate in there any accident injury concerns that may have happened, and we get graded on our performance in relation to our proposed business plan.

    And I think that we’ve been missing a real good opportunity for the Department and for the Board, through that process, and I’m encouraging the post-season report process to be taken up under the DNR concession program. And it includes anecdotal information from every guide that participates in the program. We’re not asking ‘em to show their harvestable surpluses, for good reasons, but I think it’s important that they show annually their cow:calf ratios, their ewe:lamb ratios, their range nutritional concerns they see, land and water concerns, and that data be given to ADFG regularly, and it will give you, although anecdotal information, it’ll give the Department a real good annual view in what’s happening in broad spectrums of the state where we currently don’t have funding to do the science gathering that we need. So I think that’s a real important aspect of it that we haven’t capitalized on in the past but needs to be included. I think I’ll conclude my comments with that, thank you."


    Questions from the Board

    Bradley/BOG: "Bobby could you expand a little on the fee bidding you’re talking about, you guys weren’t happy about that, and maybe the criteria, you gave them a C-minus, what the differences are there you want to see changed."

    Fithian/APHA: "We don’t like the concept that a person can win a concession through the amount of funding he provides to the state for that concession. We think that the selection criteria should be primarily based on stewardship-related factors, how that person is going to work withing the confines of prudent conservation, prudent social atmosphere, his history of compliance, those important factors. And I’ll just use this as an example, think about a person conducting a guided hunt down on a float trip, and he won the concession, and he’s doing the float trip with a husband and wife in a rubber raft. And the river’s got him turned around and he’s headed for a waterfall, and the client and his wife are looking at him and they ask him, “Have you had much experience at this type of activity?” and he replies, not knowing that there’s a waterfall right behind him, that “No, I won my concession in a bid.”

    We’re concerned that there is an opportunity for people to bid on this thing and take away from the stewardship-related aspects, and we have talked this through with our counsel, our counsel has talked with the state counsel, and we feel that we have been able to arrive at a conclusion that the fee bidding doesn’t have to be given a high level of criteria points that DNR is currently asking for. We’d like to see it taken out, or at least reduced significantly.


    In relation to the funding, currently we’re suggesting that there be an application fee, we don’t know what that is, 150 to 300 dollars per application. And that there be a minimum concession fee of 1,000 to 2,000 dollars per concession, and DNR can figure that out but also that an individual service provider would have to pay so much money per hunter. And our numbers right now are 120 dollars for 1 to 5 clients per year, and that increases per numbers of clients per year, so if you take five to ten, ten to fifteen, your remuneration to the state goes up per hunter. And with those fees and existing land use fees which are not included in the concession program, most of us still have to maintain land use authorization from the state or BLM and we have to pay for those. You combine the average numbers of clients per year, and the land use fees, and new concession fees, you’ll find that those fees represent around 3 ½ to 4 percent of the average guide’s gross, and that’s a number that has been able to, been the accepted number within the Dept of Interior agencies, and it works for us as an industry."

    Bradley/BOG: Whaddya think about the, like in Canada they have a trophy fee, so if a guy gets a sheep then he pays so much for that sheep or moose or whatever, and they seem to be pretty happy if they get an animal, if they don’t get one then they don’t pay anything. Would there be more money available for the state in that aspect, in most cases like if a guy’s coming up and it’s a once in a lifetime hunt, if he gets the animal then he’s probably not gonna be oppose to paying, you know, a trophy fee. And of course if a guy can come up every year and hunt money’s not an object to him. Would that work better or, I mean if your hunt was 10,000 for a sheep and it was 1500 dollars for, just gonna throw that out as example, for a trophy fee for a sheep then it’d be eleven-five for that hunt."

    Fithian/APHA: "Through the chair, member Bradley. I can’t give you an answer to that, I haven’t studied it. In recent years, I guess for the last 8 or 9 years that I’ve been coming before this body, at least the last 7 years, we have consistently supported in front of this body and in front of the legislature and to the Department a 25% across the board increase in non-resident licensing.

    And when we compare that 25% increase across the board, you know that should have started generating a couple million new dollars a year to the Department a bunch of years ago, but we’ve been fighting other bills that have asked for more monies and we haven’t got this important thing done. And of course we always ask that Alaskans start stepping up to the plate and start paying for wildlife conservation as well.

    That’s the concept that we’ve looked at it from. If we build an increase in licensing fees across the board, then it gives us an idea of what the clients are gonna have to pay to come here for the full gauntlet of services. And I would use an example such as myself, where I’m doing long term five species hunts, seven if you include wolverine and wolf. And if a person has the good fortune to harvest all five, he may have a substantial amount of fees under your program that would put me at a disadvantage in encouraging him to come to Alaska. So, I just know that right now we can sustain our client base, the 25% increase in fees across the board won’t hurt us, and it’s something we should have had done a long time ago."

    Barrette/BOG: "In the past there’s been testimony at this meeting that if there was any kind of motorized vehicle access into the Wood River Controlled Use Area, that it would put some guides out of business. But under the current guide use concession the way it’s set up 2/3 of the guys guiding in Unit 20A would not be in there, there would already be a reduction of guides in there if your concessions passed. Is that true?"

    Fithian/APHA: "Through the chair, welcome new member. Al, I don’t have a good answer for you there. The existing guide number, this is one of the bones of contention in the whole state concession program, this particular Wood River country in this particular subunit is garnering a lot of attention from within the industry, within DNR and within the Big Game Commercial Services Board.

    You heard testimonies prior to mine about people providing long term services there, primarily by horseback. You heard testimonies about how additional motorized use will disaffect existing hunting opportunities. I think the Board is gonna have to find those balances themselves, and listen to the testimony of the affected parties and make your best decisions.

    We’re gonna always try to fight for quality-of-experience factors, but we also understand that in any areas where we operate near a road system, we see the network of spiderwebbed trails getting bigger and bigger and bigger it never seems to stop as long as mechanized use becomes more effective. The three-wheelers put the lines in the tundra so far out of the villages, the four-wheelers put ‘em further, and Argos and putting ‘em further. So we’re gonna continue to have that impact, and I think this Board has some ability in working with DNR to deal with that impact, that’s your situation. But we will always be fighting for quality-of-experience factors."
    End of Testimony

    Comments: First off, I contacted Clark Cox recently, who is heading up the Guide Concession Program (GCP) for DNR, and he couldn't confirm yet whether the $120,000 allocated to DNR for the GCP would survive the governor's red pen as he goes through the new budget the legislature submitted.

    However, he did allude that if that 120grand is allocated, it won't provide any new staff to continue to work on the GCP. Currently, DNR is going over the 250 public comments that were sent in, and will likely revise the draft proposal and selection criteria etc based on all those comments, no inclination how long that will take, but after that is done DNR will post a new or revised plan that the public can comment on again, before any final version is decided upon. Still no clue either if this GCP will even survive the hurdles it needs to overcome as far as funding it through DNR, adding more staff now and in future to run it.

    Which brings me to one point I'd like to make. In the thread I did on resident sheep hunting preference, I posted Fithian's testimony just before this, in which he went on a lengthy rant against state and federal government employment and funding levels in Alaska, concluding that
    "Alaskans have developed an entitlement mentality and if we’re not very careful with our future we’re gonna have to face some serious accountability concerns which will probably result in high taxes for all of us."

    I found that interesting in light of the fact that ten minutes later when giving the GCP update he spoke about the 250grand of state monies the guide industry is wanting to fund this program, plus more state staff and even more additional monies down the line. I guess it's okay to ask for entitlements and more state govt. employees if it's for your own cause <grin>.

    But the one thing I couldn't believe in Bobby's testimony was this:
    "So the numbers you’re hearing about putting all these people [guides] out of business, we just can’t find the validity to that. "

    Note how that jibes with this written comment from APHA to the BOG in spring 2009, a year earlier: "APHA has been at the forefront of professional guide industry advocacy working to reduce negative social and wildlife/wildland conservation impacts generated by the guiding industry. During the past four years we have achieved substantial goals to this effect with the establishment (Dec. 2005) of the Big Game Commercial Services Board (BGCSB) and Development of the proposed Department of Natural Resources/ADF&G/BGCSB Guide Concession Program. This program scheduled to be implemented during January of 2011 will substantially reduce the number of guides operating on state lands. Tremendous work by numerous State agencies including the Board of Game has been put into development of this program which is designed to restrict guided hunting activity on State lands." [my emphasis]

    I guess now, APHA is alluding that the GCP won't put any of the registered contracting and booking guides out of business. Not sure about the assistants and other registered guides who contract out with concession winners. I have to wonder now, with all due respect to Bobby and APHA, just what the real truth is with this GCP and what it will really do. I'm continually hearing two very differing versions depending on the moment in time and the audience being addressed.


  2. #2

    Default

    Unfortunate.
    The "bottom line" should be the resource; the validity of what is being said, not who says it.
    Constant referencing who is say what rather than what is being said really distracts from what should be the real issue THE RESOURCE. But then perhaps that is the real objective.
    Joe (Ak)

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

    Default Hey Joe...

    Joe, you're really hard to read based on what you post.

    If I could do a do-over, I'd just post this without mentioning who said it. I am hoping you will understand that with me it's not about the person, it's about the message...I can't help who says it.

    Indeed, resource first...so based on what I posted that APHA has said, what do you think is really going on? Are a bunch of guides gonna go out of business and will nonresident guided hunting activity be restricted if the guide concession program goes through?

    What did you think about the entire APHA testimony?

  4. #4
    Moderator LuJon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    11,415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wantj43 View Post
    Unfortunate.
    The "bottom line" should be the resource; the validity of what is being said, not who says it.
    Constant referencing who is say what rather than what is being said really distracts from what should be the real issue THE RESOURCE. But then perhaps that is the real objective.
    Joe (Ak)
    I don't understand how it isn't prudent to review testimony by a specific individual who represents a major organization that is affecting change in our state. Especially when his words are in direct contrast to previous public testimony he has delivered. It seems extremely valid to name names when it comes to individuals in public service positions. What sense would it make to show contrary statements without identifying that they came from the same individual?

    If I were to say that it would reduce guides and "joe smith" said it wouldn't then we just have two differing viewpoints. If I said it WOULD reduce guides and then came back a week/month/year later and I said it WOULD NOT then I would dang sure expect people to question my change of stance and expect me to explain exactly how I came to it. It's simple accountability and when taking a seat on a board for any organization be it state, federal, or private that is something that an individual should expect and be prepared to explain.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Yukon Canada
    Posts
    1,289

    Default state

    In what Mark posted here the author gave the impression that there would not be a reduction in guide numbers. He talked about, state, federal, BLM and private land.

    In the past information Mark referred to the author was talking about reduced guide numbers on STATE land, he didnt say anything about federal, BLM or private. Based on what Mark posted here I dont see the contradiction. The way I understand it is... there might be fewer guides on state land but overall guide numbers wont be effected.

    If overcrowding is such a problem I would think they would want to reduce guide numbers and I dont see how the CP wont do that but reading the posts here they seem to think it wont.

  6. #6
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,190

    Default

    How has guiding got anything to do with the "resource"? Guiding is a "service industry". ADF&G provides the resource data, the BoG decides who gets to hunt, and the guides advertise for clients.
    Unless guiding is causing land damage, misuse, etc. the "resource" is managed by increasing or decreasing hunters in the field.
    All this concession plan is is a way to bring back some sort of quasi Registered Guide Area program, and do so under the false guise of "resource" protection!
    Have to agree with the points Mark makes. Fithian is talking out of 2 sides of his mouth.
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    44

    Default

    Equation: With roughly 300 contracting guides contracting hunts last year and there being roughly 250 'opportunities' being allowed under the proposed GCP, some would like us to believe that only 50 contracting guides would loose thier job...roughly 18%. That would suck, especially when it doesn't do anything for the resource. We should call this the 'Smoke and Mirrors Equation'

    Equation 2: 300 contracting guides with 250 opportunities...this time let's add to the equation the part where guides can get up to 2 or three areas (not just one like the SMOKE AND MIRRORS EQUATION misleads us into believing) 100 guides could get 3 areas and there would be 200 guides out of a job. That would REALLY suck! Or 100 guides could get 2 areas which would leave 200 guides to fight over the remaining 50 areas...that would REALLY suck too!

    Someone once said, " 'Misleading' is lying without the guilt". It is still immoral.

    BF had a cute annalogy about the husband and wife about to go over a waterfall. I assume it was quite moving to the crowd. A similar annalogy could go something like this: Imagine a husband and wife wanting to go hunting and REALLY wanting a trophy sheep or moose or bear. An immoral guide says, "Let's land and shoot that one, I have a lot of experience at breaking the law and not being held accountable........"

    There are so many good guides and good sportsmen, it is a shame that the state doesn't go through the books and trim out the abnormal guides.

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

    Default

    If someone cannot see the validity in basic math and if that person wants to plead ignorance to understanding HIS numbers in HIS equation, common sense would tell us that either he is misleading us by pleading ignorance OR ignorant. I don't think a person that ignorant can be considered the spokesman for any industry.

    Misleading/lying/exagerating/quoting out of context are all forms of lying. This is the catylist of the GCP. If a state employee tried that kind of web-weaving, they would be fired. If a McDonalds employee did it, they would be fired. If a CEO of a company did it, they would be fired/put in jail or be somehow held accountable for his actions.

    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

    It is amusing how some people can lie, lie, lie and some people will still listen to them and give them some credit. Normal people will not be fooled twice.

  9. #9

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by kent dorfman View Post
    If someone cannot see the validity in basic math and if that person wants to plead ignorance to understanding HIS numbers in HIS equation, common sense would tell us that either he is misleading us by pleading ignorance OR ignorant. I don't think a person that ignorant can be considered the spokesman for any industry.

    Misleading/lying/exagerating/quoting out of context are all forms of lying. This is the catylist of the GCP. If a state employee tried that kind of web-weaving, they would be fired. If a McDonalds employee did it, they would be fired. If a CEO of a company did it, they would be fired/put in jail or be somehow held accountable for his actions.

    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

    It is amusing how some people can lie, lie, lie and some people will still listen to them and give them some credit. Normal people will not be fooled twice.
    KD,
    You started down this road in the previous discussion and now here again. When I asked who were the Bad Guys, you did not respond. Seems to me the "industry" has placed their absolute faith in the guy and even pay him to speak for them. How can this atrocity be reconciled? Is there a Band of Guides that have another Organization, that have opted out of the APHA or never joined in the first place?
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    44

    Default

    I must have missed that question the last time around, sorry. The bad guys are the immoral guides that don't follow the rules, especially those who ALSO are campaigning to rid the industry of half to two thirds of thier competition by developing and promoting a seniority based criteria for selecting who should win a concession area. The bad guys are the guys that mislead State decision makers with information taken out of context, lies, and exagerations to create a government elimination of competition program because they can no longer compete with legitimate, honest, hard working guides who actually guide clients.

    When you say "it seems the 'industry' has put their faith in the guy and pay him to speak for them..." I don't agree with that although I guess he has been saying that he 'speaks for the industry......' for years. I don't believe that he speaks for the guide industry and I don't believe that the 'industry' has put their faith in him. I believe a 'very small portion' of the guides have put their faith in him because he convinced them that he/the APHA could tailor the criteria to favor certain guides. He speaks with a nice, sincere tone and says things that sound official and empathetic to the guides and the rest of us hunters but has to switch his story depending on who he is addressing to sell his conspiracy.

    I think all of us should have to follow the same rules. If a guide can break the rules/laws and talk enforcement into not arresting them because of their personal relationships or sweet talk, there is a problem. Most guides run respectable businesses and wouldn't dream of entering into the immoral acts of poaching, same day airborne, trespass, hunting without a license, falsifying contracts and other lawlessness. Those guys should not be run out of business because an immoral guide can get the prospectus set up to favor themselves.

  11. #11
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,435

    Default

    "Equation 2: 300 contracting guides with 250 opportunities...this time let's add to the equation the part where guides can get up to 2 or three areas (not just one like the SMOKE AND MIRRORS EQUATION misleads us into believing) 100 guides could get 3 areas and there would be 200 guides out of a job. That would REALLY suck! Or 100 guides could get 2 areas which would leave 200 guides to fight over the remaining 50 areas...that would REALLY suck too!"

    This was my first thought as well....not sure how Bo...oh wait...APHA thinks folks won't see thru and understand that its not a single serving concession program...its a grab as much as you can.
    most all of these areas won't/can't sustain a business by themselves. It'll sustian a hobby but not a business unless you really hammer the area with clients. Then we come back to the "resource"...by that i mean the animals. its an evil circle.

    What i've found is guys have a state land permit which gets them access to say area 13-2, then they go over and guide on BLM lands with out a BLM permit....but they are gaining time in 13-2...so when they apply for the GCP area inside of that they get rewarded with the area, even though they have been trespassing for X amount of time...
    A simple check of land use permits from all the land holders in an area will tell you who the guides are that area operating ethically...after you do that you'd probably just be able to hand out the GCA without having to do applications...
    There are only a couple guides in area 13-1 with BLM land use permits but there are 22 registered for the area...i know several who've been there a long time with no BLM land use permist or native land use permits..but they are operating on their lands. they could be rewarded for their time of trespassing with a concession area.
    (not all of them are trespassing, but i am saying that it is happening by some...)

    Then again, some guys don't use the BLM land and someone who does will have more land use permit records...possibly giving him an advantage...i just don't see how this'll come off being anywhere near fair...but you've gotta draw a line in the sand somewhere.
    i really don't want to see 14 people on a sheep lake again this year like last year..all were guides and or guided hunters.
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  12. #12
    wolfwatching
    Guest

    Default

    There will be SOON! Always barkin up the right tree if even the wrong way..

    Quote Originally Posted by Akres View Post
    KD,
    You started down this road in the previous discussion and now here again. When I asked who were the Bad Guys, you did not respond. Seems to me the "industry" has placed their absolute faith in the guy and even pay him to speak for them. How can this atrocity be reconciled? Is there a Band of Guides that have another Organization, that have opted out of the APHA or never joined in the first place?

  13. #13
    wolfwatching
    Guest

    Default

    Okay peeps, here’s the deal; We know they are throwing bones by their statistics and, for the most part, those statistics are misleading etc.. Talking endlessly on a forum will do and accomplish nothing so the end result is what? “They” expect this and “this” is exactly what they want to see happen. A bunch of unorganized hobby-guides whining and complaining….C’mon!!
    They will throw all sorts of bones including the “Interstate Crap” for justification for non-residents being able to hold a Reg BGG License – full of crap again.. That’s a constitutional Privileges and Immunities Clause issue not an Interstate issue. This issue will have to go to the Supreme Court once again and it won’t get there by complaining.. Time to get organized folks..

    Quote Originally Posted by BRWNBR View Post
    "Equation 2: 300 contracting guides with 250 opportunities...this time let's add to the equation the part where guides can get up to 2 or three areas (not just one like the SMOKE AND MIRRORS EQUATION misleads us into believing) 100 guides could get 3 areas and there would be 200 guides out of a job. That would REALLY suck! Or 100 guides could get 2 areas which would leave 200 guides to fight over the remaining 50 areas...that would REALLY suck too!"

    This was my first thought as well....not sure how Bo...oh wait...APHA thinks folks won't see thru and understand that its not a single serving concession program...its a grab as much as you can.
    most all of these areas won't/can't sustain a business by themselves. It'll sustian a hobby but not a business unless you really hammer the area with clients. Then we come back to the "resource"...by that i mean the animals. its an evil circle.

    What i've found is guys have a state land permit which gets them access to say area 13-2, then they go over and guide on BLM lands with out a BLM permit....but they are gaining time in 13-2...so when they apply for the GCP area inside of that they get rewarded with the area, even though they have been trespassing for X amount of time...
    A simple check of land use permits from all the land holders in an area will tell you who the guides are that area operating ethically...after you do that you'd probably just be able to hand out the GCA without having to do applications...
    There are only a couple guides in area 13-1 with BLM land use permits but there are 22 registered for the area...i know several who've been there a long time with no BLM land use permist or native land use permits..but they are operating on their lands. they could be rewarded for their time of trespassing with a concession area.
    (not all of them are trespassing, but i am saying that it is happening by some...)

    Then again, some guys don't use the BLM land and someone who does will have more land use permit records...possibly giving him an advantage...i just don't see how this'll come off being anywhere near fair...but you've gotta draw a line in the sand somewhere.
    i really don't want to see 14 people on a sheep lake again this year like last year..all were guides and or guided hunters.

  14. #14
    New member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2

    Default experiance or pride

    If a person who guides big horn sheep in lets say colorodo, and has been doing it for a while. I believe they should be given the chance to be a rbg hunting guide. I am a second generation guide in alaska, but i have known guides in the states who were just as skilled as ak hunting guides, not all of them but probably 20%. Iam talking about sheep hunting guides. We all know if your a big horn guide, you can certanly guide for sheep and goats in alaska.

  15. #15
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,190

    Default

    BLM enforcement sucks. Almost non existent. Not much reason to get a permit from BLM when nothing will happen to you if you don't. Well, you might get a couple letters!
    No help from Wildlife troopers either. Even tho they have authority to cite guides operating anywhere without proper permits. If it is just a little difficult to get to where a guide is operating (off airport landing of cub) very little effort is made by any agency to enforce permit requirements.
    If this GCA plan goes thru, will it only apply on state land? Increase crowding on fed/private land?
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  16. #16
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,435

    Default

    MT its suppose to include/state, state parks and BLM lands..thats the plan anyway.

    and yes, there is no enforcement on almost ALL lands..i've never been checked except by afognak native corp on kodiak. state/blm and CIRI have never bothered and probably never will.

    right now regulations in guiding are a sham....not even sure why we have them. i've never been checked,i'm out almost 160-200 days a year in the field you'd think sooner or later i'd see a trooper. wait no...once on kodiak Trooper Jones stopped and checked us, man was i glad to finally meet a trooper. 11 years guiding and i finally met one...
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

Tags for this Thread

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
  •