ďI would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.Ē Physicist ― Richard Feynman
Originally Posted by BRWNBR
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:Originally Posted by BRWNBR
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.
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?
Master guide 212
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.
Master guide 212
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.
Master guide 212
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!
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.
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.
DS123 DS124 DS125 DS126 DS130 DS131 DS132 DS134 DS135 DS136 DS137 DS138 DS140 DS141 DS160 DS165 DS170 DS175 DS180 DS185 DS190 DS195
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?