Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 214

Thread: RHAK, Preference Points, and Wyoming's proposed bill

  1. #61
    Member 4merguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Alaska
    Posts
    11,725

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cdubbin View Post
    Canada requires guide-outfitters for most species for nonresidents and aliens, even for small game in some instances...the economic output of their hunting industry is staggering, and the opportunities are many...it doesn't seem to be all that controversial. If anything this state should follow their lead and stop giving away so much to Outsiders...
    Last I heard many lower 48 hunters were choosing to hunt Canada than Alaska. Easier to do and overall costs less.
    Sheep hunting...... the pain goes away, but the stupidity remains...!!!

  2. #62
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    9,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 4merguide View Post
    Last I heard many lower 48 hunters were choosing to hunt Canada than Alaska. Easier to do and overall costs less.
    Itís all exclusive guide areas. No competition over there. From residents either I believe. So a guide can ďmanageĒ the area more effectively with less of a ďi better shoot it or the next guy willĒ attitude.
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  3. #63
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cdubbin View Post
    Mark Richards for governor...
    Recall effort already in the works!!!!! :-}
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  4. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Redlander View Post
    Second topic, do people realize ADF&G is largely funded from the sale of licenses, tags, and the 75% matching from Pittman-Robertson funds?
    Point of clarity, it isn't 75% matching, it is 300% (3x).

  5. #65
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    960

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnnycake View Post
    Point of clarity, it isn't 75% matching, it is 300% (3x).
    Since nonresidents provide more funding for these matching funds, seems like we should be getting a premium for our licenses and permits. If a guy can afford $20,000 for a guide that is mandated from the state then certainly he can afford to pay the same amount for the permit and license he would pay in his own state. I wouldn't imagine any guide or resident would argue against getting fair market value for a once in a lifetime quality must be guided hunt, would they? Wait, what, that has already happened in this thread, well I never...
    ďI would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.Ē Physicist ― Richard Feynman


  6. #66
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BRWNBR
    If Iím wrong HB 137 hp for hearing on wendnesdsy has nothing to do with guide requirments? Am I right mark? I got the summary but couldnít get the whole write up opened. If this is the case, RHAK is on the right track.


    Yes, Jake, our bill, HB 137, is up in House Resources this Wednesday. It seeks to require the Board of Game, when game populations decline and there needs to be restrictions in seasons and bag limits for all, that nonresidents bear the brunt of those restrictions. Pretty common sense.

    I did want to comment on what you said about drawing hunts:
    Quote Originally Posted by BRWNBR
    With drawing hunts for non res guides will go outa business all on their own and just become transporters in the areas they guided. Probably taking more clients in than before. Be harder to make ends meet as a transporter or air taxi. So need more volume.


    Guides want stability, assurance they will get business. So with only three GUAs to choose from, a guide who chooses an area primarily to guide for sheep, if it's draw only with a limited allocation to nonres, and there are 4, 10, or 15 other guides registered for that GUA, there's no real assurance those who win a permit will come to him. Hunt bookers, and outfits like Cabella's, flood the system with applicants who when they win will pick a certain guide. RHAK gets all that Jake. But at the same time, in every other state there are no guide requirements and nearly everything is draw for nonresidents. Yet guides are doing fine; there are just fewer of them than up here. And look at the areas in the state where we currently have draw-only for sheep. The guides still guiding in those areas pretty much have those areas locked up cuz of their longevity and reputation and they are still guiding. It isn't worth it for other guides to register for those GUAs.

    There has to come a point to where the Board of Game recognizes it is not in the business of propping up or stabilizing the guide industry and individual guides and sticks to the mandates in Article 8 of our state constitution. If that means some guides go out of business, or become more of a "hobby" guide with other income sources, or turn to transporting, that's a correction that needs to be made.

  7. #67
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    9,893

    Default

    Force them to pay a premium for tags? But donít force them to pay a premium to hunt?
    I thought we are trying for fair here?
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  8. #68
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    9,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post


    Yes, Jake, our bill, HB 137, is up in House Resources this Wednesday. It seeks to require the Board of Game, when game populations decline and there needs to be restrictions in seasons and bag limits for all, that nonresidents bear the brunt of those restrictions. Pretty common sense.

    I did want to comment on what you said about drawing hunts:


    Guides want stability, assurance they will get business. So with only three GUAs to choose from, a guide who chooses an area primarily to guide for sheep, if it's draw only with a limited allocation to nonres, and there are 4, 10, or 15 other guides registered for that GUA, there's no real assurance those who win a permit will come to him. Hunt bookers, and outfits like Cabella's, flood the system with applicants who when they win will pick a certain guide. RHAK gets all that Jake. But at the same time, in every other state there are no guide requirements and nearly everything is draw for nonresidents. Yet guides are doing fine; there are just fewer of them than up here. And look at the areas in the state where we currently have draw-only for sheep. The guides still guiding in those areas pretty much have those areas locked up cuz of their longevity and reputation and they are still guiding. It isn't worth it for other guides to register for those GUAs.

    There has to come a point to where the Board of Game recognizes it is not in the business of propping up or stabilizing the guide industry and individual guides and sticks to the mandates in Article 8 of our state constitution. If that means some guides go out of business, or become more of a "hobby" guide with other income sources, or turn to transporting, that's a correction that needs to be made.
    Again, comparing alaska guide industry to guiding in the lower 48. Not working. Not the same. Totally not comparable. I agree fish and game isnít responsible for the guides. Also agree some will go out of business. I see you picked about the worst case scenario for your example, I get that, also 20k has been picked as the number we all apparently change. But your painting with a huge broad brush covering a lot of stuff that doesnít need to be covered, with inaccuracies.
    I donít understand why RHAK is so focused on guides. Limit non res to draw and the guide stuff will take care of itself. If your about resident opportunity. Limit the non res and let the guides guide. I wouldnít join a club for residents that had guides on the agenda. Believe it or not guided hunters are less likely to end up on top of resident hunters than a unguided non resident. We donít want to see other people. So we go places others donít no havenít seen a resident in years. Like maybe a decade? No residents are even out there!!
    Your post was well written. Appreciate that. I understood what you were saying.
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  9. #69

    Default

    Quality guides like Jake will have a job with or without the guide requirement. However, by having the requirement, a large % of non residents will never be able to afford those hunts. A side benefit of removing the requirement is perhaps air taxis will take hunters into areas that they currently refuse secondary to agreements with guides.

  10. #70
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    9,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bbags View Post
    Quality guides like Jake will have a job with or without the guide requirement. However, by having the requirement, a large % of non residents will never be able to afford those hunts. A side benefit of removing the requirement is perhaps air taxis will take hunters into areas that they currently refuse secondary to agreements with guides.

    Some guides will still have business, maybe wonít be able to make a living doing it anymore if prices have to drop to do the hunt, most outfitters Iíve talked to net about 10-15% of their gross, it pays for a lifestyle but itís not a money maker business. So taking a hit anywhere will be detrimental.
    That will be a benefit about air taxi access. And the upside that air taxi will be the guide that used to work the area. The down side. Prices will skyrocket. Fly in hunts for everyone will become more expensive. Since their insurance is already going up, supply and demand will increase. Transporters and air taxiís will recognize this.

    There will be no fix. It will just be a change of issues no matter what happens.
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  11. #71
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wasilla, Ak
    Posts
    4,432

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post


    Yes, Jake, our bill, HB 137, is up in House Resources this Wednesday. It seeks to require the Board of Game, when game populations decline and there needs to be restrictions in seasons and bag limits for all, that nonresidents bear the brunt of those restrictions. Pretty common sense.

    I did want to comment on what you said about drawing hunts:


    Guides want stability, assurance they will get business. So with only three GUAs to choose from, a guide who chooses an area primarily to guide for sheep, if it's draw only with a limited allocation to nonres, and there are 4, 10, or 15 other guides registered for that GUA, there's no real assurance those who win a permit will come to him. Hunt bookers, and outfits like Cabella's, flood the system with applicants who when they win will pick a certain guide. RHAK gets all that Jake. But at the same time, in every other state there are no guide requirements and nearly everything is draw for nonresidents. Yet guides are doing fine; there are just fewer of them than up here. And look at the areas in the state where we currently have draw-only for sheep. The guides still guiding in those areas pretty much have those areas locked up cuz of their longevity and reputation and they are still guiding. It isn't worth it for other guides to register for those GUAs.

    There has to come a point to where the Board of Game recognizes it is not in the business of propping up or stabilizing the guide industry and individual guides and sticks to the mandates in Article 8 of our state constitution. If that means some guides go out of business, or become more of a "hobby" guide with other income sources, or turn to transporting, that's a correction that needs to be made.
    yeah this law would be great for unit13 caribou oh wait no it wouldnít. No this law be great for unit 23 caribou oh wait no it wouldnít.. you see a trend??? The subsitance hunters will always get the priority over everyone to include us dirty nasty road system Alaskan residents. Letís be honest here this house bill is your groups way of restricting nr when it comes to sheep hunting.. you will get some data hot foot it to the BOG shaking papers in Your right hand proclaiming not enough sheep in Alaska, NR need to be cut out of the pool.

  12. #72
    Member cod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Ak.
    Posts
    2,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BRWNBR View Post
    Some guides will still have business, maybe wonít be able to make a living doing it anymore if prices have to drop to do the hunt, most outfitters Iíve talked to net about 10-15% of their gross, it pays for a lifestyle but itís not a money maker business. So taking a hit anywhere will be detrimental.
    That will be a benefit about air taxi access. And the upside that air taxi will be the guide that used to work the area. The down side. Prices will skyrocket. Fly in hunts for everyone will become more expensive. Since their insurance is already going up, supply and demand will increase. Transporters and air taxiís will recognize this.
    There will be no fix. It will just be a change of issues no matter what happens.

    Lets see see if I can interpret this for the average Joe....
    We guides are used to having wealthy fat cats come up and do these hunts that the working stiffs of the world normally canít afford. If we, guides, donít get the really big tips from our wealthy clients anymore, some of us canít afford to make a living guiding. Furthermore, the regular working stiffs will come in mass to the state to hunt. (Providing opportunities and money to others within this state, including more funding to F n G) So many working stiffs from out of state will come that some of guides will have to turn to becoming air taxis. There will be so many working stiffs hunting that it will create a shortage of air taxis to fly all of them out. So then the air taxis will raise their prices. The working stiffs who just saved 5-10 grand by not using a guide will have to use a fraction of their guide savings to pay for said now higher air taxi prices.
    When supply and demand of air taxis dictates thru pricing that the air taxi business is now lucrative, there is no way that more pilots will step up to provide air taxi services because......I donít know, canít speculate. But there will be other problems.

    Is that about right?
    Your sarcasm is way, waaaayyyyyyyy more sarcastic than mine!
    WWG1WGA! QANON

  13. #73
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    9,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cod View Post
    Lets see see if I can interpret this for the average Joe....
    We guides are used to having wealthy fat cats come up and do these hunts that the working stiffs of the world normally canít afford. If we, guides, donít get the really big tips from our wealthy clients anymore, some of us canít afford to make a living guiding. Furthermore, the regular working stiffs will come in mass to the state to hunt. (Providing opportunities and money to others within this state, including more funding to F n G) So many working stiffs from out of state will come that some of guides will have to turn to becoming air taxis. There will be so many working stiffs hunting that it will create a shortage of air taxis to fly all of them out. So then the air taxis will raise their prices. The working stiffs who just saved 5-10 grand by not using a guide will have to use a fraction of their guide savings to pay for said now higher air taxi prices.
    When supply and demand of air taxis dictates thru pricing that the air taxi business is now lucrative, there is no way that more pilots will step up to provide air taxi services because......I donít know, canít speculate. But there will be other problems.

    Is that about right?

    Aside from the ignorance and slander towards things you donít know anything about. Sure nailed it. Nice work.
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  14. #74
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    907
    Posts
    260

    Default Hb137

    Quote Originally Posted by 323 View Post
    Let’s be honest here this house bill is your groups way of restricting nr when it comes to sheep hunting.. you will get some data hot foot it to the BOG shaking papers in Your right hand proclaiming not enough sheep in Alaska, NR need to be cut out of the pool.
    You may have read HB137 but you surely do not understand RHAK is not just concerned with sheep LOL

    It also appears you may not understand the process swirling around HB137 either.

    HB137 is simply suggesting the Legislature consider statutorily requiring the BOG to limit NR opportunity to take Alaskans resource when a limitation for any particular hunt is deemed necessary that requires the BOG to implement a regulatory change.

    Under HB137 when Game Managers determine that in order to maintain its obligation to manage a particular resource on the sustained yield basis and the Department is advising the BOG; at its discretion, to limit (change a regulation) a particular hunt it would no longer be the BOG's discretion not to limit NR's participation in that particular hunt.

    The Department is not dictating "how" the BOG limits the hunt. The BOG can shorten the season, reduce the bag limit etc but the end result is statutorily the BOG will now be required to also limit NR participation in that particular hunt.

    HB137; the Legislature, is not dictating to the BOG how it limits NR participation in that hunt. HB137; the Legislature, is not dictating to the BOG how many NR's participate in that hunt.

    What HB137 does is simply tell the BOG when they decide to limit a current hunt on the books now, BOG will limit the NR participation in that hunt.

    So, under HB137 BOG still has discretion on how to limit a hunt, on deciding at what level NR can participate in that hunt but BOG could no longer shorten a season, reduce a bag limit or impose any other limitation requiring a regulatory change to a hunt currently on the books without also specifically spelling out in regulation how the BOG is managing the allocation to NR's for that hunt.

  15. #75
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wasilla, Ak
    Posts
    4,432

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tsunami View Post
    You may have read HB137 but you surely do not understand RHAK is not just concerned with sheep LOL

    It also appears you may not understand the process swirling around HB137 either.

    HB137 is simply suggesting the Legislature consider statutorily requiring the BOG to limit NR opportunity to take Alaskans resource when a limitation for any particular hunt is deemed necessary that requires the BOG to implement a regulatory change.

    Under HB137 when Game Managers determine that in order to maintain its obligation to manage a particular resource on the sustained yield basis and the Department is advising the BOG; at its discretion, to limit (change a regulation) a particular hunt it would no longer be the BOG's discretion not to limit NR's participation in that particular hunt.

    The Department is not dictating "how" the BOG limits the hunt. The BOG can shorten the season, reduce the bag limit etc but the end result is statutorily the BOG will now be required to also limit NR participation in that particular hunt.

    HB137; the Legislature, is not dictating to the BOG how it limits NR participation in that hunt. HB137; the Legislature, is not dictating to the BOG how many NR's participate in that hunt.

    What HB137 does is simply tell the BOG when they decide to limit a current hunt on the books now, BOG will limit the NR participation in that hunt.

    So, under HB137 BOG still has discretion on how to limit a hunt, on deciding at what level NR can participate in that hunt but BOG could no longer shorten a season, reduce a bag limit or impose any other limitation requiring a regulatory change to a hunt currently on the books without also specifically spelling out in regulation how the BOG is managing the allocation to NR's for that hunt.
    And you fail to understand the only time we had a resource issue has been with caribou in the last 10 yrs. I get it you drank the Kool-aid hell did the Kool aid man crash through your house yet?? How would this house bill address the resource issue for lets say unit 13 Caribou in 2018? Or unit 23 Caribou? this house bill will definitely wont impact anything going on in unit 23 because the feds will just stand their and flip the finger at the state going oh no you didn't.. the only thing this smoke and mirror house bill will do is impact a resource that really isn't impacted. Sure one side says sheep are in decline while the other side they are doing just fine. Kind of like climate change debate..

  16. #76
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    907
    Posts
    260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 323 View Post
    How would this house bill address the resource issue for lets say unit 13 Caribou in 2018? Or unit 23 Caribou? .
    LOL....apparently you were not around the very first time BOG went down the road of implementing a regulatory change (limiting) Unit 13 or Unit 23 Caribou. Or..if you were around maybe you could tell us how the BOG decided to limit non resident participation in those hunts at that time?

  17. #77
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wasilla, Ak
    Posts
    4,432

    Default

    DS123
    DS124
    DS125
    DS126
    DS130
    DS131
    DS132
    DS134
    DS135
    DS136
    DS137
    DS138
    DS140
    DS141
    DS160
    DS165
    DS170
    DS175
    DS180
    DS185
    DS190
    DS195
    These are residents numbers from 2018- 214 permits issued, 159 actually hunted, 39 sheep harvested. I know most of you are pretty smart. Same hunts for Non residents and guess what it works out to 12% of the NR got the permits, 25 were issued 21 hunted and 14 sheep harvested. Look at the number for residents 214 permits issued 159 hunted? that works out to 55 people who did not hunt. So lets take 22 of those permits away from the Non residents that add 236 permits issued to residents, lets take the 74% hunted which equates to 176 residents hunted which mean 17 of the 22 tags pulled from non residents were actually used and 5 went into the trash can along with the other 55 tags that were not used. Lets be honest the real issue is residents not using permits, but we all know the state factors that into issuing tags.

  18. #78
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,334

    Default For 323...

    So John, you ask how HB 137 will affect Unit 13 Nelchina and Western Arctic Herd in Unit 23. The bill is fairly straightforward and simple. If those herds decline and the board has to place any further restrictions on resident and nonresidents, nonres will bear burden of restrictions. Has nothing to do with fed system.

    Doesn't matter the species...if we residents are to be cut, the nonres component bears brunt of cuts.

    That's the way the system is supposed to work, as it says on page 7 of the handy dandy Hunting Regulation book: "
    Nonresidents are allowed to hunt when there is enough game to allow everyone to participate. When there isnít enough game, nonresident hunters are restricted or eliminated first. If more restrictions are necessary, seasons and bag limits may be reduced or eliminated for some residents.Ē

    Unfortunately, the BOG has not been following what it says in the handy dandy or our Constitution. This has nothing to do with sheep either, or one side saying there are plenty and the other side saying there aren't: It comes about when ADFG and BOG say there isn't enough for everyone and then the BOG places restrictions on everyone. You are a resident; do you not really think nonres should bear brunt of any new restrictions to hunting opportunities when there isn't enough to go around for everyone?

  19. #79
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    907
    Posts
    260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 323 View Post
    DS123
    DS124
    DS125
    DS126
    DS130
    DS131
    DS132
    DS134
    DS135
    DS136
    DS137
    DS138
    DS140
    DS141
    DS160
    DS165
    DS170
    DS175
    DS180
    DS185
    DS190
    DS195
    These are residents numbers from 2018- 214 permits issued, 159 actually hunted, 39 sheep harvested. I know most of you are pretty smart. Same hunts for Non residents and guess what it works out to 12% of the NR got the permits, 25 were issued 21 hunted and 14 sheep harvested. Look at the number for residents 214 permits issued 159 hunted? that works out to 55 people who did not hunt. So lets take 22 of those permits away from the Non residents that add 236 permits issued to residents, lets take the 74% hunted which equates to 176 residents hunted which mean 17 of the 22 tags pulled from non residents were actually used and 5 went into the trash can along with the other 55 tags that were not used. Lets be honest the real issue is residents not using permits, but we all know the state factors that into issuing tags.
    Careful...you will expose yourself as being unable to debate an argument you are likely to loose.

  20. #80
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wasilla, Ak
    Posts
    4,432

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tsunami View Post
    LOL....apparently you were not around the very first time BOG went down the road of implementing a regulatory change (limiting) Unit 13 or Unit 23 Caribou. Or..if you were around maybe you could tell us how the BOG decided to limit non resident participation in those hunts at that time?
    I was around when the only folks allowed to hunt unit 13 caribou were the tier permit holders. I remember not to long ago when us ordinary road system folks finally were thrown a bone and could apply through the draw to get a permit to hunt that herd or even better get a tier permit (a lot of folks do not give Vince Holton enough credit for spearheading that effort). if I wanted to hunt moose in unit 13. I wish I could get Vince to comeback to this site and join the conversation. But If recall the only way to get that proposal passed was NR could not participate in that hunt. Far as unit 23, the feds kicked everyone minus subsistence hunters off federal lands when it came time to go caribou hunting, what 5 yrs ago? and if you looked at map recently a big chunk of unit if unit 23 is all federal land so anything the BOG does concerning unit 23 is very very very limited.

Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •