Bowsite.com

God Bless men

I understand the original spirit of the law but in today's world it's just abecome a way for guys to skirt the guide requirement and the costs associated with it.

I do feel bad for the legit father son/daughter, and brothers and sisters who may hunt together every year but fortunately there are still plenty of other species to chase that don't have the guide requirement.

Im sure some 2nd degree kindred are going to bitch about this but they should be glad they didn't just group all non residents together and do away with the provision altogether.

I am sorry this hurts. My parents live in Alaska, this is how my family does our hunting. If my father and I want to go hunting together this law allowed us to do this easily for certain species. In the past my brother, father and I have gone on hunts for these guide required species, this has likely eliminated that possibility of all three of us going.

I understand non-residents who don't like the second degree law, but I personally feel that dislike should be towards the guide requirement and not the exemption for relatives.

To me the worst part of all these changes they are making will do nothing to help the residents who don't think their sheep hunting is good enough. The number of non-residents taking sheep under this law could have been only a few. And the number of nonresidents taking more than one sheep in 4 years also had to be very few. I hope they at least had hard numbers when these proposals were discussed.

Is there an effective date on this? I searched online and could not come up w/ anything.

I can't imagine being upset that my neighbor was able to hunt sheep less expensively in AK because he has relatives there and I really can't imagine being happy that his opportunity to do that has been further restricted.

These recent changes to NR sheep access (every 4 yrs and family tags) will result in very few extra sheep on the mountain.

If people want better ram numbers when they hunt, then someone's going to have to make the tough decision and piss off one or both of the two lobbies above. There's not going to be more rams unless less rams die.

I think the truth is that Alaska is headed toward eventually implementing more nonresident restrictions on the game species we can currently hunt unguided. I will not be surprised to see NR unguided moose, caribou and some other tags available only for specific areas where there isn't competition with outfitters and residents...read that as 'specific wilderness or roadless areas'. Or the scenario could be tags available only per lottery. I guess my advice is to get there and hunt now, as the future appears very cloudy for unguided NR hunters.

As an aside: I have hunted moose and caribou in some very bear-rich areas...lots of grizzlies. There are also lots of wolves there. Neither species gets much, if any attention from residents. It's just too remote and hunting them would be low odds. No outfitters work that area at all. It's open season on wolves...kill them if you can. The grizzlies are off limits, even though the state would like to see more killed in that GMU. I could have killed at least 3 in the past 7 years with my bow. I would be helping reduce moose calf predation. I would be more than happy to buy a grizzly tag AND pay a fee to Alaska if I'm successful. I'm pretty sure the residents could care less if a grizzly is killed 50 miles from the nearest road in an area where moose are king. No can do. It's disappointing.

It provides a perk to a semi-random group of people over others, neither that have any real connection to the State of Alaska.

Example. I could take my half brother in law who I've met twice, maybe three times and has no real connection to the State of Alaska on a brown bear hunt. Why should HE be able to receive some special perk over, say his next door neighbor, for where his half sister and BIL live?

The issue of guide requirement is a spate issue. Does everyone understand (no they don't) that if the guide requirement was lifted that there would be extreme limiting of opportunity by some other administrative method like lottery tags?

I would rather we limit N.R. permits to 10% of all available and to 0 in areas such as MT Harper where only 4 are awarded per year.

Hunting regulations that do not pertain directly and specifically to either game management or public safety shouldn’t exist.

I believe the triad of outfitters, residents and reduced game populations (some, in some areas) can be the forces which leave the NR unguided hunters wishing. At that point it might then be the residents and the outfitters eyeballing each other

Residents wanted less NR sheep Hunters.

Guides didn't want to give up much.

There were nearly double NoK hunters vs Guided (both non residents of Alaska) as of recent years.

The BOG helped the residents concern while not eliminating the guiding industry which definitely provides ample income to the state, by limiting the ability of the group of folks that have no stake in the game.

I personally think it was the best way to make everyone besides those that don't have a stake in the game happy.

I hope that there are zero more changes in any of this for many many years so they can accumulate actual data to base future decisions off of.

Bob, I've heard em use public safety as a reason. I do imagine if they lifted the guide requirement for goats and sheep they could have a few extra "incidents" in the mountains to deal with, rescue wise. But It's not like they never have to deal with any right now.

Personally I'm thinking somewhere along the lines of NR non-guided archery only seasons.... =D

Or maybe just "somewhere.... over the rainbow..."

You're an incredible Hunter no matter where you hunt and no matter the specie.

That said, do you really think that just anyone should be able to be dropped off in some remote area to go hunt for these animals?

The answer is No.

I know many folks who after seeing photos of mine want to go do it. Honestly; they just couldn't. But, by law they can and without a guide.

Imagine if anyone could...

There are very knowledgeable folks out there, way smarter and hunt savy than I.....but there are even more who have no clue.

Eliminating the guide requirement wouldn't be a positive change.

There is no sense in arguing what takes place in any one state as the residents are normally anti non-resident, and in the case of Alaska, once NR reach resident status they tend to jump on board with the fence builders.

Alaska has, and will continue to pass regulations like this in the future. Most, without any real substance by the looks of things. I'm not sure why I'm even commenting on this as its another "whine fest" that has no end effect on outcome. Everyone knows this, even residents with blinders on.

That was the EXCUSE given. If it were really true, then again, the same restrictions would apply to EVERY back country user, regardless of what they were doing. Treadwell would never have been allowed to be mauled and killed.

So the government should be making the decision what's safe for hunters and what isn't?

If it's NOT safe for Joe Blow to hunt sheep and goats, why IS it safe for him to hunt moose and bou which are often in closer proximity to grizz?

It's because they're OIL hunts. The sort of people who want to hunt sheep and goats will pay for it and that's the plain and simple reason. Except for Grizz hunting, this comes down to $$$ and that's it.

If you honestly think NRs shouldn't be hunting sheep and goats without a guide, than they shouldn't be hunting anything in AK without a guide and that extends to a ton of stuff west of the Mississippi River.

These blanket government exclusions exclude everyone: The 4-toothed half-wit from Appalachia, the suburbanite from Chicago, and also Ron Niziolek. Does Ron need a guide? Hell no. Should we let Appalachia JimBob and Preston from Chicago die in the wilderness so that Ron can hunt DIY if he so chooses? I say yes.

Does it cost money to haul dead people out of the wilderness? Yes. So charge NRs a S&R fee.

I really have no dog in this fight. My dad only wants to hunt bou and moose and my brother has no interest in shooting a sheep or a goat. He does want a grizz, but I'll be happy to give up my registration tag for his once-in-a-lifetime grizz. I stand nothing to gain or lose in 23 with any of the changes. All I know for sure is this:

"Hunting regulations that do not pertain directly and specifically to either game management or public safety shouldn’t exist."

-BTB

I agree with this 100%.

Personally, these safety issues are pretty suspect. There's a huge difference between someone who has no chance of ever killing their target animal and someone who will probably die in a drop camp. We have to draw the line in the sand somewhere. Personally, I want the freedom to die on my own terms doing what I love and I'm happy extending that freedom to others.

That is the most obvious choice, but that hardly solves the real issue but I get it. We can whine and complain all we want, at the end of the day, make the decision and move, or continue on with our joe lunch bucket complaints.

Please, find one. Tell me. Then I'll move there...

Sure, I've met a lot of hard-core bad-asses in my short time in AK, but I've met even more people who I wouldn't hunt with if you payed me. You wanna talk about a danger to themselves and others? There are TONS of morons in AK who are a danger to themselves and others just owning a gun, much less hunting the wilds.

I've never met so many punch-drunk, 3rd grade educated, alcoholic, inbred, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, drug-fried idiots as I have since coming to AK. And I've been in 40 of the 50 states and circle the west 2-3 times a year.

God Bless men

Give or take.

I guess we're on two different pages. This thread in my mind is about the BS laws put in place to fence NRS out for the sole purpose of keeping certain groups happy not about what AK has to offer vs. Other states nor safety, or resource management.

You are more inclined to depict village life, since that is where you've spent most of your time here in Alaska, away from your home in California.

I agree. The people who make the sacrifice to live in AK should be able to have advantages that NRs don't.

The same as people who live in MT instead of NY, sacrificing the jobs for the lifestyle, should have an advantage: it's their state.

You're 100% right.

But ultimately, what this is about is tags, not safety.

We should stop beating around the bush: Limit the tags. Put them on a lottery. Cap them. Create waiting periods after successful kills.

In short, manage the animals, not the hunters. Excluding the DIY hunter is a ridiculous management tool. The fat-cats should be subject to the same opportunity as the DIY hunter.

I know of more than one AK guide who is not even an AK resident. They come here and guide for someone else.

They have far less experience in Alaska's wilderness areas than many of the hunters they guide. Yet, they are supposed to be qualified to protect the safety of the non-resident hunter. I don't buy it. The reason non-residents are required to have a guide is because there is a bunch of money in it for guides. Its pretty simple.

The guide requirement might have verbiage rooted in safety, but I think most of us understand the meaning of camouflage.

Nick....I'm with you. We know who belongs and who doesn't. It's a shame good hunters are shut out unless they are accompanied by a guide who....far too often...isn't an AK resident either.

How about Shiras Moose?

You're an excellent Hunter, no denying that but can you please see that there are real issues in AK and as far as I know none of the recent changes affect you.

They do affect me and many of my friends. Mostly in a positive way.

I'm sorry for you that you disagree but the most recent BOG deliberation actually helped both residents and guides without limiting either.

It was a Win.

Just like the WY wilderness rule. It's outfitter welfare. Pure and simple.

If you can drop someone off 50 miles from the nearest road for moose or bou, than you can do it for sheep and goat. Both have very similar overall risk of death. I won't have that smoke blown up my ass.

There is a direct correlation between the number of tags available in AK and the guide requirement.

You can limit NRs by drawing and continue sound management of the resource. That's a win for all and at the end of the day protects the resource, and keeps residents happy. State BOG meetings these days in many states are more politically driven than your average election. Alaska may be amongst the top, but it is more complex up there for sure with all the parties involved.

Question for you, does it make sense to limit NRs on drawing bear tags in SE alaska, but allow AK residents to kill 2 without drawing? We all know very few SE bears end up on one's dinner table.

Unfortunately the only way I see this changing (in AK and WY) is to threaten their PILT payments they receive from the federal government to offset some of the states lost revenue associated with federally owned land that is not subject to property taxes. This is a political issue and will need to be handled as such. I bet many of your representatives don't even know about these issues. As non-residents all you can do is complain about it, or have your representatives hit them in their pocket book. Hunters would have to organize for this to happen and they probably won't.

In regards to charging for search and rescue efforts, I get the concept, but don't like it due to the fact that it will make people more reluctant to use it and will often compound the problem.

Problem is, SE is popular but where I hunt isn't.

Perceptions have changed. Alaska is full of superb outdoorsmen and women, but it has no lock on that. As has been alluded: I can go hunt moose or caribou in places abounding with bears and other hazards. I can walk up to a bear and take his rectal temp if I'm crazy enough, but I can't hunt him. Don't even ask me about sheep....lol.

NR should be restricted to a draw only for sheep capped at 10-15%. Period.

Sure one could go down the road of saying in a perfect world you would also eliminate the guide requirement. (I think the state would be smart to do this... they would make 100x what they currently do off of NR by switching to draw with no guide requirement and app fees/point fees). All that said, I don't care about NR Non guided access right now to be honest. I too didn't like the rules in place, so I MOVED HERE.

Animals in the state of Alaska should be managed with RESIDENTS of Alaska in mind first and foremost (every single other state in our Nation operates this way). These family guided NR hunters should be coming out of the NR draws, not Res tags. But that is yet another can of worms.

I'm going to do an about-face on the NoK issue and I hope it does something for the quality of sheep hunting in AK as the rule was intended.

That said, I still bristle at the idea of a guide requirement being coupled with a safety issue. If you want to have a guide requirement, just come out and say that it's a management tool.

My biggest problem with the guide requirement right now, is that there are unguided moose and bou hunters out there that would not only have grizz tags in their pockets, the money from which would help game management in AK, but are teaching grizz that they have nothing to fear from humans who can't touch them. That hasn't worked out in the lower 48.

Additionally, the bou and moose populations would stand to benefit from more grizz hunters in some areas.

In the end, I have to admit that my biggest problem with the whole thing is that I'm forever a DIY hunter and will always defend the DIY hunter. That's not where the money is (usually) so the DIY hunter always gets thrown under the bus because his voice ($$$) isn't as loud.

In the end, the animals of AK should honestly be managed with the AK resident in mind first and so the NoK change, IMO, is righteous.

If it doesn't work, though, and we need further cuts, then either the residents or the guides (or both) need to give up ground. If it comes to that, who's going to take the hit?

Right now, the bulk of the rams are dying to guided hunters. Will they and their money win out with the guides as their voices? Or will the DIY resident hunter be next on the chopping block?

We see this all across America. It's part-and-parcel to the SFW conversation. The commercialization of hunting is not good for the culture of hunting.

It's a slippery slope and it seems that every couple years, more money is needed, more cuts have to be made. And it's always the working-class hunter that takes the pinch and the big dollar hunters are unaffected.

It's not good for hunting. I'm telling you now, once the working-class guy is priced out of hunting and vanishes, the liberal side of this country will get hunting banned. And then there'll be one less reason to own guns and they'll go after them even harder too.

So there it is: The end of DIY hunting is the end of the United States of America. :)

Great point Idyll. That's a 2-part deal: the guide or outfitter plus the nonresident client. With both parties having a financial stake in the killing of rams it seems instantly logical that success rates and ram harvests would be skewed toward them.

I'm that diy nonresident and I'm far closer to the AK resident ideologically than most might think. I can easily (I think) see the paradox of resident diy hunters coupled-up with outfitters who have somewhat different reasons for hunting big game. In a showdown, I would 100% support the resident Alaskan even though doing so might restrict my own opportunity to hunt there (with an outfitter, if I was interested).

They have always used the Alaskan version of second degree of kindred. Marriage does not blood transfusions.

I lived in Alaska for nine years and killed brown and black bear, sheep, and moose plus I am an Alaska bowhunted certified instructor.

I view this like Wyoming's wilderness area law as unconstitutional and infringement on basic rights especially when on federal land.

Just my two cents.

Of course. However, there's no way in heaven the law could be openly written to protect and support the guides and outfitters.

For the record: I completely support the rights of guides and outfitters to do their thing. I simply don't think their industry should operate under the protections of a law disguised to look like it's doing something else. If safety was a real concern, it surely wouldn't be judged by the location of one's physical address. Residency doesn't confer ability.

I also easily can see why AK residents (some) push back against nonresident hunters. Anything which seems to be NR-negative is often interpreted as resident-positive. That might not be the case here. Tightening restrictions on NR hunters while (essentially) forcing them to utilize the outfitting industry simply strengthens...financially...that industry. It's the industry which probably enjoys the highest success rates and perhaps accounts for a disproportionate percentage of big game kills when compared to AK residents and especially NRs who don't employ outfitters to help them kill game.

Come on...we all know the diy nonresident hunter has the greatest odds of failure (unfilled tag) of any hunting group up there.

The trick is, how do we get these laws changed?

Without a plan to change these types of laws, what you end up with is some guy getting nailed for a wildlife violation, spending boatloads of money on lawyers that do nothing, having to make expensive trips back to the state where the violation occurred, losing their hunting privileges in most of the 50 states, and getting nowhere. It is not something to be taken lightly.

There really is not an organization out there with that objective as their mission.

The Outfitters clearly had a mission and an agenda to increase their revenue. They organized and focused on getting these laws passed in these states with lobbying efforts. As a Non-Resident, it is extremely difficult to influence state legislatures to change these types of laws since we are not voters of those states.

I really don't want to become the guinea pig for breaking the law just to get it in court for a fight but I would definitely support an organization that would go after these laws.

I agree with Nick. As long as the demand is higher than harvestable populations for the species unique to state of AK the law won't change. Canada has the NR guide requirements for the same species. Pay for a guide or move to AK are (& will remain) the only options.

"You're an incredible Hunter no matter where you hunt and no matter the specie.

That said, do you really think that just anyone should be able to be dropped off in some remote area to go hunt for these animals?

The answer is No." "Imagine if anyone could"

Nick I hope this isn't part of your reasoning? Yes anyone should be able to hunt wherever they have a tag. If that means in a remote area in CO then yes! I agree that a lot of people couldn't handle the situation, but that shouldn't be an argument if they should be permitted to or not. Who's to judge if they have the ability or not?

DJ

The demand wasn't that high in all likelihood when the guide requirement laws went into effect. The bear harvest isn't even keeping up with the recommendations of the state in many areas. The guide requirement exists mainly to funnel hunter money into that industry, unless you believe it's to keep us safe and free of harm secondary to inexperience. Demand will always be high but can be controlled through several different means. I admit I would enjoy it if the state of Ohio forced nonresidents to use my business/industry at the clip of $10-25k per head. Pretty nice.

Nick is complimenting me way beyond what's accurate. I'm an average hunter who spends a good bit of time in AK ever year chasing game without an outfitter. Everything I've killed there has been brought out to consume. I hunt with a longbow usually. Any smart Alaska resident hunter would love seeing me have a sheep tag in place of Mr SCI paying $20k and toting a 500 yard magnum. You could sell me a tag every year until I die and I might kill one sheep. That's enough for me anyway.

Is there something that comes with an Alaskan drivers liscence that gives you superpowers? Simply living in Alaska does not make one more qualified to hunt than the next guy. If you are saying a guide is needed for safety, save the BS for someone else.

If I draw a tag, I should decide if I want an outfitter or not.

Don't even get me started on th BS wilderness zones in Wyomiing?

Would you REALLY want to see the Fed managing the wildlife because they manage the lands? Can you say set up for failure?!

Another thought. When we walked up to my AK guided moose, that my guide wanted to pull off of on the 9th day of a ten day hunt, until I insisted that I would start making the decisions, the second thing out of his mouth was "do either of you have a knife?' The first thing he said was "look at my bull". His bull?! I thought my wife was gonna kill him. Half way back to camp that night, as the weather was finally breaking, and the temps began to drop, he first wanted to know if we had any extra clothes he could borrow. Then he asked us to slow down, 'cause he couldn't keep up. I was leading us back to camp - again. Yeah, guides are a real safety net in the back country. He did have his .416 Rem. at the ready all the time, and was pretty proud of it.

Anyway, I stand by my first post in this thread. I also think there could come a day when AK residents realize the best seat at the hunting table is taken by the outfitting industry (which means high-$ NR hunters) while everyone else gets what they can. It says a lot when Alaskan politicos are afraid of endorsing any changes to limit outfitters and their earning potentials, even if doing it would ultimately benefit resident hunters.

In the lower 48 NR get 10% or less tag allocations for their OIL animals. That's not driven by anything more than residents.

Does it this change suck for those lucky enough to have an Aunt in Anchorage who has never stepped foot outside city limits? Sure.

However, if you can afford to hunt these species every year (or as law allows) you can.

I would take AK situation ANY DAY than to have to play the lottery odds every year.

For those thinking that you will ever have a time where neither will happen you live in the wrong country. When money is to be made laws will cover the benefactor.

Take the compliment from Nick I'm sure you live up to it! I was just trying to clarify that Nick wasn't "hinging" his opinion on ability alone. I'm sure he wasn't but just looking to clarify.

DJ

really? that is what should be the basis? how much money you have, what you can BUY?

Love to bowhunt many of these animals, perfectly capable of doing so. On my own. I don't need a guide. Don't want any help but maybe a transporter. If I'm successful great, if not, not a bit of sweat off anybodies... brow...

Yet I would be forced, forced to pony up and PAY someone to do what exactly? I have all the gear I need. All the experience I need. But I'm supposed to subsidize someone else's living for what exactly? So I can go hunting? I don't need nor want them.

I know it's just a rant. I know the chances of anything changing are slim to none. But honestly, I'm not going to drop $15,000, $20,000 or more on a hunt, even if I could. No offense to anyone, but it would feel like paying a hooker to me, and a good many others here feel the same way, I know it from talking to them. I can cover my expenses. My fair share. At least with some form of NR DIY draw I'd have a shot at it, whatever small percentage it would be.

But... again... it is their state. They run it as they see fit, fully within their rights, justly so. I can appreciate, be grateful for the many game animals that I would be allowed to do DIY. Just have a hard time with the breakdown, or lockout really. Not like sheep, goat, or big bear hunts are anything remotely subsistence or some other reason given in other cases. Would not want to reduce resident opportunity over NR.

But, man... just a chance, a shot at it... could have been a contender.... =D

To the OP and changes... it is what it is, I'm sure many abused the rules. This puts a bit of skin in the game for them, or at least an attempt to.