Non-Residents can Guide? How Crazy.....

[bizymocha]

is that!!!! I had it explained to me while up in Alaska a few weeks ago and cannot believe that it is true! How can it be justified that a non-resident can pay a fee and maybe take a test and guide other non-residents? Does the non-resident guide have to hire another guide to hunt a sheep, grizzly, goat or moose? That defies any logic! Say it isn't just for State income. Has is come down to this?
What is the position of the AK. Guide Association?
What are your thoughts?

 

[Blink]

You know, I cant understand it either. From how it was explained to me that a non-res guide cannot hunt for big bear sheep, etc without a guide. he is still a non-res hunter.

As for the guide association, well the practice is still legal.........

Like I said, I still dont understand it, I know there has to be a non-res around here that is/was a guide up here that maybe able to shed light on the subject.

I've met a few non-res guides and they seem to know there business, more so than some residents I know but it just doesnt fit if you know what I mean.

 

[fullkurl]

tis true!

tis true!

Bizmoke,
My reaction when I heard of this quite some time ago was the same as yours.
I also remember some heated discussion on the ODD, but surprisingly many fell on the side of the nonresident guiding.
If I remember correctly the non-res guide posted some dandy trophies (many) from his season and the rest, as they say, was history.
I think many of us that questioned the system wondered how the situation would go if it was reversed. That is to say, what if you or I guided in a trophy Pike County, Illinios whitetail area, or plopped down in the Gila Nat Forest for trophy Elk and mule deer. etc. I would think the locals would go beserk. Maybe I'm wrong.
Quite a few assistant guides also come from out of state. I've met quite a few over the years.

 

[EricL]

Pike County and guides

Pike County and guides

It is funny you mention Pike County, Ill. FullKurl. I am from there, somehow even got an education there! Anyway, I didn't know any law like this existed. I guess I always thought the law of needing a guide for a non-res was more for safety concerning the game that needs a guide. Trust me, most folks who hunt whitetail in the farm country of Pike County would have no idea what they are getting into in Alaska! As for the financial side of it, what does the average guy who wants to guide in Ak have to pay out to be a guide? Never heard of such a thing!! EricL

 

[AZ Hunter]

I would have to say that I don't agree 100% with the guide requirements that Alaska imposes on nonresidents hunters hunting Brown/Grizzley Bear, Dall Sheep and Goat. Why is it that I have to hunt with a guide for the these three species and someone that is related to a resident can hunt without?

I currently have two good friends that are Alaska residents; why is it that I can't hunt along side them? I even have a buddy that works with me (in Arizona) that is an assistant guide in Alaska and from what I understand, I can't even hunt along side him, he can guide me but he can't hunt himself, I don't think that he can hunt himself until I have left the unit, and he has to hunt under another guided.

It seems to me that the guide requirements are more about the local economy rather than the safety of the hunter, or making sure that the hunters follow all the rules.

 

[Blink]

AZ, I dont agree with non-residents all that much (not just on hunting issues) but I do agree with you on the guide rule. I know alot of my buddies who live outside that can handle themselves alot better than most residents.

If your friend is a guide, or even an assistant guide and he has a weekend off, you fly up. why cant you hunt with him without "hiring" him? It doesnt change anything. Its all money. Why cant he hunt by himself?

It is all about money. Some peple say its for conservation of game. To a certain degree on some animals I can agree...ie: sheep, but I still dont buy it fully.

residents get in trouble after the "dangerous" critters just like a non-res would if they were allowed to hunt them on there own. I call it population control. The state is still gonna get there money.

 

[BRWNBR]

why is there a speed limit on the highway....some guys can drive just fine doing 120 mph....basicly the guide regulations are to protect the state and some folks who aren't as experienced. if they dropped the requirment you'd get alot more folks who don't understand whats going on out there in bear/sheep/goat country and things would get a bit outa control in some areas.
I understand some guys have it all figured out and are fine in the woods/mountains on there own. but they have to generalize the regs to cover a broad spectrum. Alot of the clients i guide are great hunters and "know what they need to know, i'll be fine, you just make it legal", about 90 percent of them sing a new song in about four days. just my experience, theres alot of touchy spots on the regs, like non res guides, relatives guiding and so on. But if they changed it so a buddy can take a non res out, we'd all become someones buddy real fast...one of those deals we gotta live with regardless of how we feel the state justifies it. It may be about the money, but our states economy is sorta important, or did i miss something about alaska?

 

[martentrapper]

I believe there are some constitutional issues involved with limiting non residents from working in any particular state. Can you imagine what this country would be like if you had to be a resident to work at ANY job in a state? While a state is allowed to require testing and permitting to do a particular job, outright banning non residents from working in a state would meet with alot of court challenges.

 

[Blink]

I can agree with you and unfortunately all non-res get punished cuz of it. To bad there isnt a way to regulate the res, you know who I'm talking about, the ones who cant walk and breathe at the same time without hurting themselves.

Heres an idea, in the predator control areas, let the non-res hunt without a guide, even raise the tag fees by a little and the state would make alot, plus it would knock a few bears out. For that matter, make it so they can hunt with locals without having to hiring a guide. If folks screw up, it all goes back to that population control thing I mentioned before...lol

 

[Milo]

Don't think the state has a choice.

Don't think the state has a choice.

I'm guessing the state doesn't have a choice in the matter, because it gets into Federal issues dealing with interstate commerce and restraint of trade - Sherman Act of 1890. If the guide meets all requirements to obtain a license, I don't think the state has a constitutional right to prevent them from doing business. Then again, I'm not a lawyer and I am drinking beer right now.

What doesn't seem right to me is that the state can require non-resident hunters to be guided, but thats not my battle to fight.

 

[Blink]

Milo, that is my question I guess, why can non-res be guides for other non-res hunters but they need a guide themselves if they want to hunt? Whats the difference, your putting somebodies lifes hand in a non-res that the state deemed incompetant to hunt onthere own in the first place.

Its beyond me. if somebody can explain it to me, I'm all ears. Maybe I'm thinking to much into it.

 

[fullkurl]

good points...

good points...

AZhunter, I agree with your thoughts in particular. Its odd that if someone leaves this state, even after proving himself as a cable and experienced hunter over the years, he's right back into the "requiring a guide" line. Even if he's twice the hunter, stud, and ethically sound man as the person "guiding" him.
I suppose the resources and way of setting up a system for this would be overwhelming--redtape and controversy for miles.

For those on you outside Alaska, fortunately the "next of kin" allowance can afford a chance to avoid the expense of a fully guided hunt here. Of course, donno if Sourdough Grams is ready to climb for that 10 inch billy, though.
For those without family, its 'bite the bullet' time.

Brian (B_M) makes an excellent point along these lines in the DonV post further down....

fk

 

[twodux]

guides

guides

There is only one reason for requiring non residents to have guides and that is to make jobs for the guides.

You say it's a safety issue? or some other reason? You're fooling yourself. How can you say a non resident isn't qualified to hunt without a guide but then turn around and say he's qualified to be a guide? If he's qualified to be a guide, that implies he's more qualified than someone who is just a hunter. Or how is a person (who had never hunted before) qualified to hunt in the same "dangerous" hunts just because he moved to Alaska last year? And how is this same person (who has never hunted before but moved to Alaska last year) "qualified" to guide relatives on one of these "dangerous" hunts? And why should you be required to hire a guide if say after 30 years of hunting all kinds of game in Alaska you should decide to move out of state? Did you suddenly forget everything you ever knew about hunting? I don't think so. The State's regulations conflict with each other and make no sense. This is a rule that the guides put forth so they'd be guaranteed work, nothing else. Just like the Canadians force you to hire a guide to hunt deer. It has nothing to do with whether you're a competent hunter and has everything to do about money.

I say let non-residents come here and hunt anything they want without a guide. Put limits on the number of non-resident tags like say 10% of the available tags. Make them draw for the tags. The ones who want to up their chances of success will hire a guide. The ones who don't care won't.

 

[fullkurl]

no could do.

no could do.

Respectfully, 2dux, things would be catastrophic.
We'd have dead sows with cubs, more dlps (unjustified), more maulings, more dead nannies, more illegal sheep, on and on.
And more importantly, we'd have casualties in the field, lots of rescues of those who have no business out there. It happens to even rawhide-tough locals, can't imagine how bad it'd be for greenhorns.
We've all heard the stories from guides about those that they've had to spoon feed. Imagine many of those guys ON THEIR OWN.
The state revenue losses would be huge all the way around. My .02.

 

[martentrapper]

Take a look at what it requires to be a guide. 3 years experience in the area as an assist. guide. 8, I believe, letters of referance from clients you have guided. Support from one registered guide you have worked for. Then passing a test to get the license, and a test on the area you wish to guide in.
Those of you who can't see the difference between a non res. guide and a non res hunter are just plain stupid!
No state in this country has the RIGHT to limit, based upon residency, who can do business in that state. EVERY state in the country has the RIGHT to limit who can hunt their game. Get over it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Anton74]

Guides

Guides

One point I think should be mentioned is that Alaska requires a non res, to be with a guide or relative, but it doesn't require the guide to charge $10K or more. So the part about it being about the money really isn't a valid arguement.

 

[PC]

My thoughts

My thoughts

The state of Wyoming requires guides in the wilderness areas only and is the only state besides Alaska that requires a non resident to hire a guide. I believe that Wyoming successfully defended its rights to allocate a certain number of non resident licenses in the 10 th circuit court of Appeals recently but the court left open the challenge to over turn the guide law. The State of Alaska in not going to relax the non resident guide law but I believe that eventually the courts will over turn Wyoming's law and that dicision will be used to over turn Alaska's law. In the 1960's Montana had a guide law in that a non resident had to use a guide or a non resident had to accompany a resident. The state did away with that law a number of years ago.

I am certainly reluctant to used to federal courts to challenge any hunting laws as it could be both positively or negatively. They are a large number of non resident who live east or west of the Rockies and feel that they are being incriminated because a limited number of elk licenses are available to them and the elk live on federal or private land hence there should be a equal allocation to all. Eventually they will prevail and it will change hunting for all. I hope that this never happens.

I have often wondered how many Alaskan's apply for sheep tags in the Western states. Sooner or later an Alaskan will win and will he/she will be able to hunt without a guide. How many Alaskan's through the years have hunted in the unlimited sheep areas of Montana without a guide? This is the only place that a hunter can buy a Big Horn Sheep tag over the counter and after several years of very hard hunting can get a sheep.

Montana, Idaho and Washington are the southern end of indigenous mountain goat habitat and range. Montana issues approximately 300 permits, Idaho 75 permits and I believe Washington is around 1000. A non resident can hunt goats in those state without a guide -- why is Alaska different. Yes in some areas in Montana and Idaho one can while hunting goats see and encounter grizzlies.

I believe the fair way to do this is by experience and education. Before a non resident or a new resident can hunt in Alaska they must attend a 8 to 16 hour hunting seminar which is beyond a hunting safely course and deals with Alaska hunting. This course could be similar to ones that are taught by Mike and Larry but with emphases on Alaska hunting not float hunting. After that course a resident or non resident would be allow to hunt all the animals except the ones that require a guide: brown bear, sheep and goats. After that individual has acquired 30 days of hunting in the north country which in includes Alaska, Yukon, NW Territories and Northern BC either guided or unguided he/she should be able to hunt brown bear, sheep and goats. Maybe an additional 8 hours of education is needed.

This is fair and restricting a percentage of permits to non residents is fair.

In a reply to Martintrapper yes a state can restrict who can hunt there. But remember that a court can and will change to law. Alaska a part of the 9th court of appeals and that court is liberal. I believe that Wyoming will have there guide law over turn and that will over turn Alaska's law.

 

[bushrat]

I am certainly reluctant to used to federal courts to challenge any hunting laws as it could be both positively or negatively. They are a large number of non resident who live east or west of the Rockies and feel that they are being incriminated because a limited number of elk licenses are available to them and the elk live on federal or private land hence there should be a equal allocation to all. Eventually they will prevail and it will change hunting for all. I hope that this never happens.

Exactly, PC, my fears as well. I just posted in the Subsistence Suit thread above, with some interesting links:
http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/showthread.php?p=23672#post23672

All this pertains to the subsistence debate/suit as well, since it is partly non-res hunters involved in the suit saying they've been unfairly discriminated against. I am in favor of individual states giving preference to that states' residents over non-residents. Many hunters are not, and feel since fed lands belong to us all, and most hunting is on public (fed) lands, there should be no discrimination. BIG HUGE can of worms.

Mark

 

[twodux]

non-res hunters

non-res hunters

I agree with PC that all new hunters to the State should be required to take an orientation class as far as ID'ing legal game, saftey, and logistics. But I still maintain a person shouldn't be forced to hire a guide against their will.

martentrapper, you pointed out the requirements to become a guide, but you didn't point out a reason that a person with no experience should be able to guide family members just because they are a one year resident. The people who need to be babyset will hire guides. There are very competent hunters in other states who have no need for a guide. I know people who regularly pack elk out of the mountains three or four miles. On Kodiak, I hunted goats in some of the same area I hunted deer in, should non-res be forced to hire a guide to hunt deer there? And Alaska doesn't control the market when it comes to dangerous hunting. An orientation class would suffice.

And fullkurl, you're giving Alaska residents way too much credit and being too paternalistic with the non-residents. I guarantee you that most of the hunters I grew up around in Washington State are equal or better hunters than the average hunter I've met in Alaska. And I'm talking better woodsmen too. Of all the DLP's over the last few years I've heard of, they have all been done by longtime residents, and there have been quite a few. Around Prince William Sound, and Kodiak, and even in Southeast, the most common thing to be doing when you have a run-in with a bear is either fishing, or deer hunting. And a non-resident can do either of those things without a guide. So why are the residents doing all the DLP's? As far as shooting sows or cubs or female goats or sheep, an orientation class before going into the field would cure most of that. In fact, here in Cordova, when you get a registration tag for goats, you have to meet with the biologist and he gives you a pamphlet describing how to identify a legal animal.

I'm not saying give non-res hunters or even new resident hunters a free rein, I'm saying make things equal. New hunters get an orientation class, but don't force anyone to hire a guide.

 

[bigmuley]

non-res

non-res

Martentrapper is right. Before we had our first child I was trying to become a guide. I have 10 years guiding experience in Colorado but I needed to start as a packer or have two hunts previous in Alaska, have a referrel from a registered guide, referrels from hunters, a certain amount of weeks in the field over the course of 3 years under the watchful eye of a registered guide, pass the tests, and pay the money. There is no reason why a non-resident cannot be a guide. You have to be just as qualified as a resident. As for non-residents hunting bear-goat-sheep, I have no complaints as the state SHOULD be able to set there own regs. One day I will be able to afford a sheep hunt just like one day I will draw an Arizona elk tag. I would love to hunt bear and sheep but I understand the generalization of non-res hunters. Can you imagine my fellow non-res hunters on the haul road flying out to the peninsula and doing a spring bear hunt? Some would make it but a lot wouldn't.