Commercial guiding in the PU and Subsistence fisheries was a subject of discussion at the most recent Statewide BOF meeting. Local Sportfish Guide representatives were there, pushing for opportunity in both fisheries. Sounds like the BOF said no to commercial operation in subsistence fisheries, but reaffirmed their right to operate in AK PU fisheries. It reminded me of the last UCI BOF meeting, in which they had similar discussion. While they passed no regs, they affirmed that it was legal for guides to operate in the PU fishery, but determined that operating in the fishery fit the definition of "participation" in the PU fishery. You must be an AK resident to participate in the fishery, therefor non-resident guides are not allowed to operate in the fishery.
After a little digging, this is what I found for state requirements on sportfish guiding on the Kenai:
A Kenai River sportfish guide is required to have a guide permit from the state of AK, and a green sticker on their boat. Amazingly, guide registration/stickers are still 100% free, but still, gotta have that.
A Kenai River sportfish guide is required to have a USCG Captain's license. There are fees and whizz quizes involved.
A Kenai River Guide must get a Parks Permit through DNR, pay the fee, and make it to the wintertime class which is often booked full.
These requirements apply to sportfish guiding, not PU guiding. The ONLY state requirement for PU guiding is that you are an AK resident.
I'm no legal scholar, but a quick search on the internet shows that many states have struggled with the legality of discrimination against nonresident guides. The US Constitution's Interstate Commerce Clause, and Privileges and Exemptions clause both make this type of discrimination tricky, yet there has been no discussion of this at the BOF level. Am I missing something or do we simply have our heads in the sand thinking that these fish are a state resource and we can discriminate as we please?
The PU fishery often receives management priority. Due to it's location, PU fishermen get first whack at the fish before sport fishermen get a chance at them. So we've granted resident commercial operators an exclusive, priority fishery with reduced cost and barriers to entry, with absolutely zero rational explanation or defense for the practice. Seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen.
I'll probably submit a proposal to the BOF asking for clarification, since this is all based off of laws that aren't there rather than laws pertaining to the fishery - the BOF has addressed this issue several times but to my knowledge has not codified anything r.e. PU guiding. It's all based on what the law doesn't say, and board intent from their discussions. I fully expect my proposal to get dismissed/ignored, but I think a conversation is warranted. Personally I believe the entire PU fishery is on shaky legal ground Federally, but I use the fishery and don't want to see it go away. It certainly could if someone sues.
Would love someone with legal knowledge to weigh in and tell me if I'm missing something. I simply can't believe this hasn't come up or been addressed at a policymaking level.
https://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/aku/akug98001.pdf
After a little digging, this is what I found for state requirements on sportfish guiding on the Kenai:
A Kenai River sportfish guide is required to have a guide permit from the state of AK, and a green sticker on their boat. Amazingly, guide registration/stickers are still 100% free, but still, gotta have that.
A Kenai River sportfish guide is required to have a USCG Captain's license. There are fees and whizz quizes involved.
A Kenai River Guide must get a Parks Permit through DNR, pay the fee, and make it to the wintertime class which is often booked full.
These requirements apply to sportfish guiding, not PU guiding. The ONLY state requirement for PU guiding is that you are an AK resident.
I'm no legal scholar, but a quick search on the internet shows that many states have struggled with the legality of discrimination against nonresident guides. The US Constitution's Interstate Commerce Clause, and Privileges and Exemptions clause both make this type of discrimination tricky, yet there has been no discussion of this at the BOF level. Am I missing something or do we simply have our heads in the sand thinking that these fish are a state resource and we can discriminate as we please?
The PU fishery often receives management priority. Due to it's location, PU fishermen get first whack at the fish before sport fishermen get a chance at them. So we've granted resident commercial operators an exclusive, priority fishery with reduced cost and barriers to entry, with absolutely zero rational explanation or defense for the practice. Seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen.
I'll probably submit a proposal to the BOF asking for clarification, since this is all based off of laws that aren't there rather than laws pertaining to the fishery - the BOF has addressed this issue several times but to my knowledge has not codified anything r.e. PU guiding. It's all based on what the law doesn't say, and board intent from their discussions. I fully expect my proposal to get dismissed/ignored, but I think a conversation is warranted. Personally I believe the entire PU fishery is on shaky legal ground Federally, but I use the fishery and don't want to see it go away. It certainly could if someone sues.
Would love someone with legal knowledge to weigh in and tell me if I'm missing something. I simply can't believe this hasn't come up or been addressed at a policymaking level.
https://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/aku/akug98001.pdf
