Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Alaska Is this the present law?

2nd degree kinship and new hunting restriction?

http://www.adn.com/article/20160411/guided-hunting-industry-rewards-itself-through-alaska-board-game

Money always talks.

That was a hatchet job editorial by Mark Richards and fortunately Nate Turner was overwhelmingly chosen to sit on the board for another term.
The Alaska Board of Game is not, and never has been, beholden to any special intrest group. Which is why at times virtually every special intrest group from the Alaska Professional Hunters assoc, to Native corporations and village councils, and various other groups like the Moose Foundation and Mark Richard's group has their proposals rejected.

Even Alaska Fish & Game often has it's proposals turned down.

If you want to see NR sheep harvest numbers go down drop the guide requirement. I understand the difficulty in judging a full curl by a novice but if a NR wants to hunt sheep without a guide then require a mandatory class before issuance of a tag. The class can cover judging what is and isn't legal and can scare the beejesus out of what will happen should a sub legal animal be taken. The guide requirements for some animals is a defacto subsidy of the guide industry and is in no way a guarantee that the laws will be followed. It's ridiculous on its face that a non resident isn't capable of hunting some species but a NR guide is an acceptable alternative.

ADF&G is absolutely influenced by the APHA. Area 2 black bear is a prime example. No science was used in making that decision but rather emotion and $$. It's no secret that APHA makes the rules in many cases and anyone that says otherwise is either misinformed, delusional or outright lying.

I fail to see how requiring nonresidents to hire a guide results in higher harvests. I would like to hunt brown bears, dall sheep and mountain goats in Alaska. I'm a nonresident hunter in Alaska, but I can't afford $10,000-$15,000 for the guide. So I'm priced out of the system for those species. I suspect that there would be a lot more nonresidents hunting those species if we could do so without a guide.

I guess that some people think that nonresidents couldn't find sheep, goats or brown bears without a guide. I disagree with that idea. I know several places to find brown bears, dall sheep, and mountain goats and I would have hunted them if not for the guide requirement.

I don't think that there is anything new about allowing a relative of the second degree of kinship to act as a guide, and thereby eliminating the requirement to hire a guide. That requirement has not changed since I started hunting in Alaska in 1987.

The new requirements (hunt only every 4 years and relative gives up his license) only make it harder for nonresidents. They make it better for guides by eliminating some nonresidents as competition.

KC

KC, you actually believe that NRs would kill as many critters without guides? On the average?

Regardless, I'm not thinking the guide requirement is rooted in a desire for increased NR success.

I don't believe it is. It's rooted from my understanding to keep from wanton waste of game.

Brown bears go down easy, sometimes, other times you have to wonder if you need a 500 h&h or a RPG

wounded bears can be hard to recover. they are a valuable resource to the state and the guide industry

sheep hunting can be dangerous and easy to kill sub legal sheep

same with goat hunting, maybe more so than sheep to the danger aspect.


I believe the "reasoning" the state uses to require a guide for those species is to keep from losing animals to wounds rather than clean kills and to keep from losing hunters in difficult terrain.


there's been efforts in the past to do the same thing with moose.


it's a real dilemma, I know guys that live outside that are way more qualified to hunt those species on their own than residents that have lived here from anywhere to 1 year to 30 years.


but it definitely works to the guide industry's favor, which is not necessarily a bad thing.


but still it's a shame for the guys that are qualified to hunt but don't have the fund to obtain guide and services.

Lots of truth there, Randy. Well stated!

I can only think of one thing to add, that being the fact that guided hunting does help to spread the traffic around a bit. Guides can take you into country that you might not otherwise access due to a variety of logistical problems, or do it better at less cost.

those are salient points too Mark

I've been on both sides of the coin.

can really relate to a hard hunting, accomplished outdoorsman that wants to hunt any of those 3 species but just can't stomach the coin to pay for one of those hunts at the expense of his family.

and I've guided guys when I was doing that gig that many of them couldn't have done it on their own.

also guided some gents that could, man I enjoyed hunting with them instead of for them.


any of us that live and hunt here know this country can be mighty unforgiving (re; the thread you posted)


it would take the wisdom of Solomon (which I don't possess) to decide who's fit to hunt here on their own and who's not.

have also done enough hunting remote on my own or with pards that realize getting to good game country ain't cheap.

KK,

To the best of my knowledge, the new regulations will not go into effect until July 1, 2016, so it is not yet the "present" law, although it will be very soon.

As to nonresident sheep, if I am not mistaken all nonresident sheep hunters will be restricted to one sheep every 4 regulatory years, not just nonresidents accompanied by resident 2nd degree of kindred as I believe the article you posted indicates.

As to the second new regulation, this was taken directly from the ADF&G/BOG website:

"Brown bears, mountain goats, and sheep taken by nonresidents that are personally accompanied by resident relatives within the second-degree of kindred will count towards the bag limit of both the resident relative and the nonresident. Implementation of this is expected to occur between now and July 1, 2018, the exact implementation date will be noticed in the hunting regulations and other materials."

IMHO, this regulation was proposed by APHA without any documented biological reason the regulation change will benefit wildlife populations. I fail to see that it accomplishes anything other than punishing the resident hunter who hunts with a nonresident family member. In full disclosure, I have a daughter who essentially grew up in Alaska ( she was 7 when we moved here, and was 22 when she left last year), but found employment out of state after finishing college. She is an avid hunter and fisher, and we've talked about her hunting goats and brown bears with her (resident) brother and I. Now we can't without either myself or my son punching one of our tags as well, and frankly, unless someone can show me a valid biological benefit to the wildlife populations for this I think it's absolute BS. It strikes me that, if APHA could point to an actual biological necessity for the regulation change, the nonresident guided harvest levels should have been reduced as well, but I didn't see that anywhere in the regulation changes.

Chris

I agree. My take has been that it's been more about safety of the NR hunters than anything else. Sheep hunting takes one into dangerous terrain, brown bear hunting takes one into a potentially dangerous situation.

I never thought of the wanton waste angle, but it makes sense too. My brown bear was killed just "down the road a piece" and probably less than 100 yrds or so off the roadway (I closed within 40yrds before shooting). Due to the vehicle restrictions off roadway and the fact the bastid died in a muckhole, recovery was one of the longest and hardest 5 hours I've ever spent. In addition to the muckhole and tangled alders, a storm blew in with 40kt winds and rain.

I was sorry I didn't shoot him on a nice day, on flat, solid ground 20ft from a pickup. About the only thing in my favor, was I was able to to put the hide and skull on a tarp and drag it down hill to the road.

I've killed deer on the same mountain top, not 100 yards from where we've killed goats. \

No guide was needed for the deer, but would have been for the goats. That made no sense to me.

I get the idea behind some of it. I get the money likely behind most of it.

But then again I'm not likely to try to tackle something without a lot of research to see if I can do it.

Its why we cancelled a Kotz hunt years ago as I decided that my inlaws that wanted to go, needed a test.. the test was CO wilderness area.. walk in only. It turned out not good....

But I often wonder about the parts where you can kill something next to something else, same exact area, but one legal and the otehr illegal for whatever supposed reason.

OTOH its not like you couldn't get in trouble hunting deer either...but they are legal.

I certainly believe you and you can have grizzlies show up in your back yard too but it's not a productive way to hunt.
Using isolated examples to prove a point is something National Public Radio does quite often to sway people to their side, but it proves nothing. Ask 95% of goat hunters if they think goat hunting is as easy and safe as deer hunting !

The entire issue the F&G has to to face in order to regulate hunters and attempt to protect the game populations are more complicated than most realize. On top of that they have to respond to public and political pressure, which all too often trumps biology.

I hunted bear and could have taken a full curl ram and a large old Billy goat all in that same "extremely dangerous" area. Good thing I only had a BB tag or I could've died chasing sheep or goats. Lolol

I can climb any of the mountains, including Denali without a guide and can do anything I want in the sheep and goat haunts except hunt them.

The law has nothing and I repeat NOTHING to do with the states magnanimous concern for NR safety and everything to do with NR $$ money. The APHA owns ADF&G.

A once in a lifetime draw for NR's for the "big three" would also decrease pressure. Currently a rich man could go north once a year a take the big three each time. If the resources are finite then allowing NR's the opportunity to buy their trophies year after year isn't a smart management approach. I don't understand why a NR should be allowed any more than one of each in a lifetime. Once again the "science" is trumped by APHA and greed.

I'm not talking about my backyard or NPR. I'm talking about a big [bleep] mountain.

So long as the guides get their money, all is good is what I take from this.

Honestly, who gives a [bleep], ask 60% of the public if Obama is a good president, is that the deciding factor? Accommodating the lowest common denominator? So I've hunted the same frigging mountain for 10 years, but because I moved out of state for 2 years, suddenly I need a guide? Is that the sheit you're slinging?

I know, an NPR example.

I forgot, how do you make the majority of your money?

Without the guide requirement far more NR would hunt the indicated species.. The NR success rate would take a nose dive, but I think the illegal animal kill would increase, which would also increase the overall take rate, which would force reductions in allowable harvest rates in GMUs. More areas would go to permit only status, and it would be harder to get those permits from the sheer competition numbers.

It's true the guides benefit.

As far as BOG not being influenced by special interests, that is not always true. One just needs to see the way they rubber stamped the Natives "management" plan for caribou in GMU 23 last year. It won't make a damned bit of difference in the caribou population. It just wasn't worth fighting, politically.

The Feds manage almost exclusivly by politics - i.e. Feds restricting the NR harvest in GMU 23. 600- 800 nearly all bulls out of a population of over 100,000 animals is insignificant. Where that came from is the Natives absolutely hate NR hunters and guides/outfitters. They claim such activity "turns the herd from traditional migration routes (read near the villages)" . There is absolutely no empirical evidence of that. I personally doubt 500 hunters scattered across thousands of square miles over the course of NR season, doing stalk and kill. is significant. I am less sure of the air activity involved, however. I'm pretty sure of more importance is the fact that any caribou swimming a river may experience the phenom of being descended upon by a flotilla of high speed boats with semi-auto firearms... Not to mention being chased winter long by high speed snow machines. Caribou are dumb, but even so, eventually it will sink in that "if we go that way, I get stressed!"

I was inconvenienced for no good reason by the rule change last year , and that pisses me off! I'm probably gonna get into a whole lot of trouble at the WACH "management group" meeting here on May 4/5. Depending...

I can't buy the argument that it's for the safety of the nonresident in remote and difficult terrain. If that were the case then they would prohibit mountain climbers from venturing into even more difficult and more remote terrain without a guide.

I climbed Mount Blackburn when I was younger. That's a lot more dangerous than most any hunt for goats or sheep. All we needed was the skill, gear, stamina, gumption and a good bush pilot to drop us on a lake at the base of the mountain. No guide "for nonresident safety" required.

They have the same guide requirement for nonresidents hunting in wilderness areas for Wyoming. I climbed Gannet Peak, the highest mountain in Wyoming and in the Wind River Wilderness Area. No guide "for nonresident safety" required. But I can't hunt in a wilderness area in Wyoming unless I hire a guide.

Those laws are strictly to put money in the pockets of the guides.

KC

No, no. Natives couldn't survive without shooting caribou from their boats.

I'm good with it, but it should require a guide. I'm sure Phil would agree.

Good post las. As far as dropping the NR guide requirement, there are plenty of ways to limit participation and increase compliance. Like all NR's are issued the tag after completing the course in lieu of guide and no draw but permits issued first come to qualified applicants. The state could make a lot more than they do now and take exponentially bigger steps in real education. It doesn't have to be easy for a NR to hunt but there should be a way to qualify without being a doctor, tribal chief or NFL star.

That's silly, you should have to be rich to hunt on FEDERAL lands. You know, your lands.

Talus:

I can't speak for all nonresidents. But I guarantee that I could kill mountain goats, sheep, and grizzlies without a guide. I know exactly where I would go and how I would do it.

I suppose that there are some nonresidents and residents for that matter, that are a danger to themselves any time that they venture into the wilderness and they probably need a guide. I run into people like that occasionally. But there's no reason to penalize all nonresidents because of a few weaklings.

Like I've stated before, those laws are just there to put money into the pockets of the guides.

KC

It seems myopic to think that AK's game laws with regards to guide requirements are solely intended to put money in the pockets of guides. I'm not arguing that guides do not profit from the regulations, only that they serve other useful intended purposes as well. It's not a perfect system, what is? It is a useful management tool and I'm in support of the industry (though I receive zero remuneration from it), with a few notable exceptions.

I do not doubt you, KC. But NR success over time is much greater with a guide.

As for why AK requires a guide for some species, the factors more important than hunter success, and this is opinion, are:

Hunting sheep, goats and brown bears is more dangerous than hunting deer, 'bou, and moose in AK;

Requiring a guide, with the attendant certifications and insurance, assures a degree of accountability and professional standard, like a PE stamp does;

Guides have some political power in AK;

Guide fees are important economically in AK (somewhat);

It is easier for enforcement to manage a handfull of registered guides than hordes of free range hunters;

Pro guides doubtless save the state lots of SAR money.

To see the magazine half full, the caliber of that quarry warrants some guarantee of best management. Which brings the attendant bullshite. And yeah, I would like to hunt there too ...

I'd have to agree with that.

I've never wanted hunting to be only for the rich.


But lordy I'd hate to see the "test" folks would have to take to qualify.

imo the assistant guide license exam that used to be in place wasn't really sufficient, but at least there was exam, I hear that's not even necessary any longer. Just hunt 2 seasons and be reco'ed by a guide. That may be inaccurate, I've been outa the game awhile, perhaps Phil could let us know. Or I could look it up if I wasn't so lazy or cared more about it.


our Constitution does say that our game should be managed for the residents of the state IIRC.

I'm not sure that's always a priority in the rules that get passed.


I do believe guides perform a valuable service to many clients and often the health of our game. Not always though.


it's a complex problem with no easy answers from my viewpoint.

So are you buying a resident license in the state you now live in ? And think it is fair that you should pay less to hunt federal land in that state than non-residents do ?

I am also sure you knew the rules on non-residents hunting in Alaska when you moved out of the state and now you think they are unfair ? You can always move back.

I am sure you and most of the folks who have posted here are fully capable of safely hunting all Alaskan big game, you could probably hunt the big five in Africa on your own too, but there are one heck of a lot who can not and, litigation being what it is, the state has to take that into consideration as well as the legal enforcement issues involved. You think all guides are rolling in money and the living is easy ? Any hunting or fishing violation in any state will have a guide sitting on the bench and the state would much rather hold a guide accountable for a sub legal sheep or bear as they might get a $500 fine for a non-resident where a guide is likely to face a $5000 fine and a felony charge.
Read the guide statutes and talk with a few AK F&G biologists and you might see things a little different..
And for all you conspiracy theorists about how the F&G is in the pocket of guides, it would be nice if you could give us some real and verrfiable facts ! I am good friends with a number of game wardens, biologists and and upper level management in F&G, as well as a few politicians and I am sure they would be interested as well.

I managed to survive 5 seasons of resident hunting up there despite my status as a displaced dsmfer. Miraculous, that.

I think your reading comprehension SUCKS.

You can charge me $5000 for the NR tag, limit tags, draw, whatever the [bleep], but don't tell me I need a GUIDE to hunt goat in a mountain I've hunted 20 times in the past. Suddenly I need a guide because I left the state for 2 years, because obviously it's not SAFE.


The above and a few other posters read just like democrats. Legislate to the lowest common denominator. It's a bad way to role.


I recall the days and hunted goats in the days when a guide WASN'T required for hunting goats.

Again, the 'it's dangerous' without a guide is funny sheit. As I've said, myself and pards of killed deer atop the same mountain that we've killed goats.

Also, if it is so dangerous, as someone pointed out, why aren't guides required for hikers? How about folks with butterfly nets.

I also add that the waters in SE Alaska are far more treacherous than the mountains.

Why are boating guides NOT required? Fishing guides NOT required? Since obviously not all people can handle the seas and after all as Phil and a few others have stated, it's about safety.


I hope you guys push your officials to require a guide for anyone that fishes or goes out on the water. No more boat rentals, no more fly out fishing without a guide.


After all, if it saves one life.


What a bunch of liberal, democrats.

I have no problem with ANY state focusing their efforts towards non resident hunters being regulated . We have tourists here that require rescue every year because they hiked their way into a no way out situation.And some of those have been taken off the mountain in a black bag. I have hunted most of the western states and seen the cabelas army invade them all. Its America and we do have the freedom to hunt in any state as long as we meet the requirements of said state. I have no doubt many here could DIY anywhere , however unfortunate there are also many who think they can but could not. Funny to me that some folks refuse to ship a rifle up here (CONUS ONLY) but think they should be turned loose to do and take whatever they want once they get here (or any anywhere). I guess you cant make everyone happy. And as long as Govt" is involved someone is getting screwed.

My comparehension sucks ? You like to sling accusations but havn't answered any of my questions so I'll ask another --- where in the game regulations does it say a guide is required for safety?

Face it Scott, whatever you knew is gone.


Your mind is a blank.


you're a dsmf now and I'm afraid there's no cure. (grin)

You're correct in that the provision is not rooted in safety or a magnanimous concern for ones health. It's based upon money and illegally propping up a single industry, GUIDES. The provision is solely in place so that guides have government mandating the unnecessary use of an industry that without government intervention, would shrink substantially and the money they extort from hunters to line the pockets of state politicians would decrease substantially.

It was never about safety and strictly about money and power.

And I quote






You brought up the SAFETY issue in the above quote, mine was a retort to said quote. Did you see me mention SAFETY in my first post in this thread?

Again, reading comprehension is apparently a lost art.

I will also add that if you read my first post, there was no 'slinging', all I said is it didn't make sense.

You started with the NPR, smart ass comment. I appreciate they you make a living guiding and apparently so does your family, so you are obviously biased, just like a union worker.

I find when biased people get in a corner they are forced to sling comments around like NPR and throw around random statistics. Betcha got a Feel the Bern sticker on your outhouse.

Funny, yes!

Compelling, no!

You are right I am biased, just like everyone else. Before working as a guide I worked as a biologist and also did a stint in law enforcement and my bias is slated toward the long term viability of the game population. And since YOU decided to bring my family into it, ( nice classy touch!) they too are dedicated to both education and the long term sustainability of Alaskan game. My son currently flys polar bear, brown bear, and other wildlife surveys and my daughter ( besides being one of the few Alaskan registered guides) teachs youth ourdoor education courses, and womens shooting.
What are your biases? You seem to prefer attacking and slinging insults rather than answering questions and discussing issues. If hunting in Alaska was so improtant to you why did you move as you had to be aware of the guide requirements ? And you still haven't answered whenther you have claimed residency in the other state?

Not that it's fair or just, after all it is the law we're speaking about

Still it seems safety is a goal of the law

Safety of the animals. I've no doubt if anyone could just come up & hunt anything there'd be more wounded unrecovered game

Safety of state budget again open up the gates to anyone & sar calls would increase

Nope it's not fair. Plenty of guys outside capable of hunting any species up here

But many more that are not

No shortage of folks that live here that don't have the skills or knowledge to go after the forbidden 3

I truly do hate it for folks that have all the means necessary to hunt here except the willingness to part with 20k to do so

But I have no interest in just opening up the floodgates with an invitation y'all come on up & hunt


Hate gov't regulation for the most part but game needs to be regulated as its a finite resource

Also think there's too many guides & outfitters after that limited resource and that the number & areas they work should be limited

But gov Walker don't phone often for my opinion

I agree with you all all the above and think the state shot themselves in the foot when they decided exclusive guide areas were unconstitutional and opened all state lands to all guides and Transporters, with no limits on the number of hunters they could take. That is one area where the Feds did a better job.
I do think the current economic situation however will somewhat slow demand for expensive ( aren't they all ? ) Alaskan hunts, which will likely cut back on both the number of hunters and guides. I know it has really slowed demand for African hunts.

This what I do not like as a Resident it is punitive to the Resident if I take my out of state Brother for a hunt. Seems like a big loss for the residents.

Quote from original article.
(The board passed the APHA proposal that restricted nonresident next-of-kin sheep hunters to only being allowed to hunt sheep once every four years. And then the board passed the other APHA proposal, the end result of which is this new regulation: “Brown bears, mountain goats, and sheep taken by nonresidents that are personally accompanied by resident relatives within the second degree of kindred will count towards the bag limit of both the resident relative and the nonresident.”

So now if my nonresident brother wants to come up here to hunt sheep with me, he is limited to doing so once every four years, and we don’t ever have an opportunity to both harvest a sheep. Or a grizzly/brown bear or mountain goat.)

kk, that is true, but what the law does is it allow residents to effectively "guide" their relatives so that they don't have to hire a guide. Guides are also forbidden to hunt during the entire time they are under contract. While you both may not harvest a sheep, goat or bear, at least you could shoot deer, moose or caribou on the same hunt while a guide can not. And to look at the bright side, you could hunt with him one year and he could come back and enjoy a hunt with you another year.

If I'm very far back I mucho prefer 2 guys to haul out 1 sheep

Hell it may not be a preference anymore may be a necessity

HORSESCHIT!!!

It is stupid MFers posting pictures of cubs in the barditch that shut down black bears to drawing hunts! Call it any way you like it but claiming ANY special skills after that photo is pure horseshit!

While against the basic rules and the way they play out, there is still plenty of room to call the shots where they need to be called.

I think we currently have he best system going if you are a non-resident, even though I agree that many if not most NR could do it safely. It is about the availability of game. If you'd go to a non-guide requirement, everything would suddenly become a 1% draw for those 3 species. If you want that, push for it. Personally, I'd rather work overtime for a few years and squirrel away the 15k for a sheep hunt rather than wait 25 years to maybe draw a tag.

As mentioned with lower SE AK bears, is that mass non-residents were showing up and a good portion of them killing the first bear they saw. I had the displeasure of taking a handful of them fishing, and I said never again. I've never met a more unethical and clueless bunch. Wounding loss and sow kills were taking a huge toll on the population. KC and his group are the perfect example of NR hunters. They killed 3 bears, one of them borderline mature, and 2 cubs if I remember correctly. Well, extrapolate that out over the hears and hundreds of hunters and you have a problem.

Calvin
Agreed on most of that and to be fair to KC, though I still find his SE dinkathon "special" in a lot of ways, the cubs and immature bears taken were not as tough on the population as older bears as the population had very little invested in those animals. It was the sheer numbers that really did it.

Throw in a training program for the nr and do not let them slide because they attended class. Develop a competent score which has to be reached and throw in some practical time demonstrating the required skills.