Licensed Guide requirement for hunting

[David58]

First, most of the land is federal land. Meaning that all taxpayers, or better, all citizens have access. To limit the use of that land to only those wealthy enough to spend thousands on a guide is simply not right. For the state to set license fees is one thing - they'll find out what the threshold is for NR hunters at some point - maybe it will be a number high enough that hunters will hire a guide to increase the odds of a return on investment. Or, they may chase off hunters (as I think requiring guides will do). Might actually reduce the number of hunters by requiring guides - that is a fine line. Guides might be slitting their own throats.

 

[mdhunter61]

If they were to ever remove the guide requirement,, the odds of drawing a license would take a dramatic change. It might even make the hunt largely out of reach for a different reason.

It is far easier to make a case to require a guide for non residents in very remote areas of Alaska than it is in the lower 48. It is very expensive to rescue a lost or injured hunter anywhere,, in Alaska even more so.

While your statement is factually correct - the odd thing about Alaska is that non-hunters can hike into these same mountains without a guide. Seems like Search and Rescue has to rescue hikers every year who overestimated their abilities or shouldn't have been out there. A few years ago, 2 guys called SAR because they were hot and there were too many bugs...

 

[shrapnel]

One component in this whole dialogue that doesn’t get considered is what it takes to live in Montana. Jobs and salaries for those jobs aren’t much compensation for the equivalent in almost every other state. A Montana resident isn’t here for the money.

I know of plenty out of state outfitters that live and work elsewhere, then come to Montana during the prime months to profit from guiding, buoyed up by their higher out of state salaries.

The NR hunters come here for the same reasons and still want access to all Montana has to offer with a claim to public land. I am not opposed to that access, as it is public land, but the “entitlement” attitude of what else they should be given seems to pollute the fairness to the whole hunting community.

I don’t see anyone thanking the FWP for anything they have done over the years, just bitching about what they haven’t done. While all of the NR hunters have been pursuing their careers to make more money so they can come to Montana and hunt, FWP has been trying to develop a fragile resource for the benefit of all hunters and fishermen.

When I was a kid in the 60’s, you could hardly find elk and deer weren’t all that plentiful. Now everyone is complaining about too many elk, shoulder seasons and no access. No matter what FWP does, it isn’t enough and the sparks are flying.

Is FWP perfect? No, but Montana has come a long way with the hunting and fishing opportunities that weren’t there in the 60’s. Landowners aren’t fair with their land and outfitters are stealing all the good hunting.

Can’t anyone find something good about hunting in Montana? I can, I hunt public and private ground where other people hunt and outfitters guide. I get deer, elk and antelope every year and see more than I kill. Frankly I am tired of all the whining because it isn’t what everyone wants to suit themselves.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

One component in this whole dialogue that doesn’t get considered is what it takes to live in Montana. Jobs and salaries for those jobs aren’t much compensation for the equivalent in almost every other state. A Montana resident isn’t here for the money.

I know of plenty out of state outfitters that live and work elsewhere, then come to Montana during the prime months to profit from guiding, buoyed up by their higher out of state salaries.

The NR hunters come here for the same reasons and still want access to all Montana has to offer with a claim to public land. I am not opposed to that access, as it is public land, but the “entitlement” attitude of what else they should be given seems to pollute the fairness to the whole hunting community.

I don’t see anyone thanking the FWP for anything they have done over the years, just bitching about what they haven’t done. While all of the NR hunters have been pursuing their careers to make more money so they can come to Montana and hunt, FWP has been trying to develop a fragile resource for the benefit of all hunters and fishermen.

When I was a kid in the 60’s, you could hardly find elk and deer weren’t all that plentiful. Now everyone is complaining about too many elk, shoulder seasons and no access. No matter what FWP does, it isn’t enough and the sparks are flying.

Is FWP perfect? No, but Montana has come a long way with the hunting and fishing opportunities that weren’t there in the 60’s. Landowners aren’t fair with their land and outfitters are stealing all the good hunting.

Can’t anyone find something good about hunting in Montana? I can, I hunt public and private ground where other people hunt and outfitters guide. I get deer, elk and antelope every year and see more than I kill. Frankly I am tired of all the whining because it isn’t what everyone wants to suit themselves.

I know two AK sheep guides who live in Colorado, 2 others I met at the airport live in Neveda, and the transporter I used lives in Ohio.

 

[AlaskaHunter]

There isn't enough dall sheep that meet the requirements if the NR outfitter rule was lifted. You wanna see 30+ people in the field per maybe legal ram? What you seem to be missing is if that type of squeeze happened, transporter costs would skyrocket, my guess is 2-3x at a minimum. Considering prices are still on the rise despite covid. Yes you can walk in, but truth be told how many people in the lower 48 are even capable of hiking in 20+miles to get to a hunt area. On top of all of that, the dall sheep population has been in decline, just not legal ones.

tldr; more at play than you think.

Yes!
The guiding requirement effectively reduces the number of hunters hunting brown/grizzly bears, sheep, goats.
For example, about 2400 hunter report hunting Dall sheep each year and the harvest is about 800 sheep each year.
Non-residents harvest about 40-50 percent of the sheep each year.
With no guiding requirement for non-residents, the cost would be $1000-$3000 DYI compared to $18,000-$20,000 guided.
A non-resident sheep tag cost is free for non-resident military, $800 for non-resident non-military.

The Board of Game sets regulations and there is no incentive from the residents perspective or the guiding industry to
propose any change in the guiding requirement.

 

[AlaskaHunter]

I know two AK sheep guides who live in Colorado, 2 others I met at the airport live in Neveda, and the transporter I used lives in Ohio.

Most guides work for a master guide who owns the outfitting company in Alaska.
Guides can not make a living working as a sheep guide from Aug 10- Sept 20,
many of the non-owner guides are non-resident guides making a living with other jobs.

 

[Buffs35]

Pretty soon every state is gonna be residents and rich non-residents only. Sad, especially when we need new hunters to replenish all us dinosaurs.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Most guides work for a master guide who owns the outfitting company in Alaska.
Guides can not make a living working as a sheep guide from Aug 10- Sept 20,
many of the non-owner guides are non-resident guides making a living with other jobs.

Net net a dude in CO is paying another dude in CO to take him on a guided hunt in AK.

There is a lot of pillage and plunder that happens on public lands, hunting, minerals, etc in western states; I think more than we care to admit has very little tangible benefit to local residents.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Also I can’t remember the name of the person but there was a couple of threads about this supper sketchy master guide running an operation in AK, I remember googling him at one point and he lives like .5 miles from me in Aurora.

 

[devon deer]

Also I can’t remember the name of the person but there was a couple of threads about this supper sketchy master guide running an operation in AK, I remember googling him at one point and he lives like .5 miles from me in Aurora.

https://www.hunttalk.com/threads/2014-alaska-moose.260920/
What ever happened to the OP, he was really helpful to me once.
Cheers
Richard

 

[Deleted member 28227]

https://www.hunttalk.com/threads/2014-alaska-moose.260920/
What ever happened to the OP, he was really helpful to me once.
Cheers
Richard

Yep that's the one

Colorado hunting guide accused of wasting meat fined $35,000

Thomas Shankster, 62, who led hunts in the Yukon-Koyukuk area, also faces jail time in the plea deal.

www.adn.com

 

[Panda Bear]

Control ( and Money )

I believe it is all about control and the long term goal of banning hunting.

Canada is the same size as the United States, but our population in the entire country is approximately the same as California. We ave approx 38 million people but half of them live in Ontario and Quebec, so nearly all of our country is similar to being in Alaska. So, on the basis of protecting people from themselves- i.e.-mainly getting lost in the wilderness. You must have a guide and in some areas two. In some cases you have to hire a guide and then the guide has to hire an Inuit. But getting back to control, even outfitters are not safe from the long term goal of no hunting. In 2018, 245 outfitters were hit hard financially by the banning of Grizzly hunting in B.C. ( they have recently filed a class action suit against this ban and I wish them well ).

Hunting, Death by a thousand cuts

 

[Deleted member 28227]

15% of Master guides are Non-Residents
14% of Registered Guide-Outfitters are Non-residents
37% of Assistant Guides are Non-Residents

28% of the those in the AK guiding industry don't have their primary residence in Alaska.

There are more registered Assistant Guides in Cody, WY than there are in Juneau Alaska.

 

[Randi]

You could move up and go for the price of a tank of gas. I mean we're a welfare state it should be easy to get a job and live here.

The states hold the wildlife in a trust for its citizens. Guide or no guide, a hunt out of state is a vacation. The cost is irrelevant. IMO. I wish it was cheaper to go to Hawaii.

Will a guide requirement really impact support to fund wildlife? 99.99% of hunters don't show up for anything except bitching about the price or availability of tags. Go to a management meeting sometime.

The older I get the less sympathetic I am to NR hunters who want it all.

dont hold back, tell us what your really thinking

 

[devon deer]

They could put in place an insurance requirement. Far less costly for the hunter than an outfitter. I believe you can buy coverage for getting airlifted and it is not horribly costly.

I thought a small part of the tag revenue in some states goes towards SARS?

Speaking for myself (non res alien) when ever I visited the lower 48 I made sure my insurance covered SARS and medical insurance.
I'm pretty confident in my abilities with navigation, but anyone can have an accident.

BTW I ain't wealthy

Cheers

Richard

 

[1_pointer]

Better be careful of what you wish for regarding pricing NR out of the game. When we don't get our hunting fix a lot will turn to other outdoor recreation. After a while the mass population that you kicked to the curb isn't gonna give 2 shits about YOUR public lands and rights as hunters. They'll be building mountain bike and running trails through your precious honey holes. This is the exact reason I think ALL public lands should go to a one price tag no matter residency or NR. If its public, its public for all. Yes, I understand how the state trust works, I think it's high time it's changed. For the better of all public land owners.

More than a nugget of truth in this post, IMO. Widespread application of a guide requirement or other ways of vastly reducing DIY public land hunting opportunities will greatly erode support for public lands from NR hunters. Especially those that live in states with little federal public land.

 

[44hunter45]

Well a NR could do a DIY sheep for $2500 or less vs $18,000 on guided. I'd call that pretty cheap. You're right nothing is cheap, but a guy going up to hunt caribou off the haul road spends very little in our economy. We could argue it till the cows come home, but IMO I really think NR could spend more, and I'm to the point that I just don't care to defend cheap hunting anymore. Its a vacation...

First - I think Alaska's outfitter laws have a far better foundation in safety than Wyoming's. If Wyoming said I needed a guide to hunt grizzly anywhere they are found, I would accept that. That I can't hunt a PLACE that any kid in lederhosen can backpack galls me.

@Bambistew - I'm heading to Alaska in 2021. I can't agree your statement in full, but I see your point.

If I were an outfitter, I would be arguing on their side. I'm not - so I'm definitely in this with the NRs who only have so much money to spend.

As far as license and tags, AK is the best value right now. In terms of getting there and operating DIY, it is not.

The single largest line item on my expense spreadsheet for my 2021 POW trip is vehicle rental. That definitely stays in the local economy. (I used Alaska Air mileage points for my airline ticket.) Once I hit the ground, every penny spent goes to the local economy, not just one outfitter.
The same was true for Marcus and Kara's DIY haul road trip in 2020.

If a DIYer could do a hunt for $2500, I really want to know I'm getting $15,500 worth of service from that outfitter before I spend the difference. While I might be getting that much extra value, I think is more likely that the outfitter price suffers from a bad case of ,"whatever the market will bear."

If outfitters are getting clients willing to pay their price, the rest of us are out.

 

[SummitsCalling]

But having a reasonable limited quota would limit this effect. I highly doubt AK would go OTC on the guided hunts. I don't see how transporter costs would skyrocket if the number of tag holders is limited...

The majority of dall sheep/moose (maybe goat as well?) are taken in general aka otc units already, that includes guided hunts for NR. Limiting that tag #'s wouldn't change that, and transporter costs would go up if the outfitter requirement was lifted, why wouldn't it? People already pay $8k+ for a diy moose hunt.

Ultimately the animal population would have to support it, which it doesn't. And truth be told seems like those that live in AK absolutely don't want it, and the sentiment for NR being guided is creeping up to be an issue as it always has been.

 

[Bullbrl]

They could put in place an insurance requirement. Far less costly for the hunter than an outfitter. I believe you can buy coverage for getting airlifted and it is not horribly costly.

I understand what you're getting at but it still doesn't fly with me. There are inherent risks each time you step into the woods, tundra, mtns, etc.. If it was truly about the cost of search and rescue then they should make hikers go with a guide. More time and money is spent rescuing that group than any other. Also, you can go climb Denali without a guide...I would consider that much more dangerous and just as expensive for a rescue.

 

[Wildabeest]

I understand what you're getting at but it still doesn't fly with me. There are inherent risks each time you step into the woods, tundra, mtns, etc.. If it was truly about the cost of search and rescue then they should make hikers go with a guide. More time and money is spent rescuing that group than any other. Also, you can go climb Denali without a guide...I would consider that much more dangerous and just as expensive for a rescue.

I think it would be tough for states to regulate non-consumptive recreational activities on federal land. With hunting and fishing, they mange the resource, and can thus control the activities via license and tag regs.