Contributors to this thread:
Ak NR Brown Bear season to open
I just read AK is opening non resident spring Brown Bear season.
Nothing published on AKF&G website, can you provide a link to what you read? If nothing is extended, NR will be able to hunt beginning June 1st.
Sorry Nick that’s what I read June 1st
I believe i saw an email from Steve’s outdoor adventures saying it was opening up. That was yesterday. I’ll try to find it again.
Yeah the F&G only closed it through 5/31. It had always been set to re-open June 1. As to whether we can travel to Alaska from out-of-state, and then go hunt immediately, that still remains to be seen. They've already extended the "14-day quarantine" into June. No one seems to know if people can quarantine afield.
The 14 day quarantine was extended til June 2. Will have to wait and see what happens. The Governor just opened the state as of Friday may 22- in time for the holiday weekend. Still have health mandates in effect.
-so all the villages are essentially still closed to travel indefinitely (if you can even find a flight there)
So NR bear will happen june 1 after Kodiak, and peninsula and a lot of units are closed. Black bear will be good for those who missed Canada
The Board of Game and the Guide Board are working on a regulation that would allow those who were headed to GMU 9 this Spring, to hunt in Spring 2021. (I have this on fairly good authority; I'm on the Guide Board...) It still has to pass the BOG, but I haven't heard anyone arguing against at least the concept. As some of you know, GMU is normally only open on alternate years.
We have to craft it so ONLY those who were contracted for Spring 2020 and got aced out will be able to hunt in 2021, not every client of every guide who wants a quick whack at that unit.
Any chance at cancelation brown bear hunts?
“Any chance at cancelation brown bear hunts?”
Looking for zero down, zero interest and no payments till 2022. Let me know if anyone can hook me up
Probably gonna be tough to find an open slot for the next couple or three years, since all the guys booked for spring 2020 had to be re-scheduled to future dates.
I'm not sure on how I feel about giving special privilege to only Those who had a contract in place for 2020. What about the Residents who had plans to go, but due to the interstate travel ban were unable? I'll Have to ask RHAK what they think about a special season for GUIDES only.....
I was thinking a cancellation hunt now, spring 2020.
I am personally against any special seasons for guided Non residents in 2021, although I’d never voice that opinion on behalf of ABA or other clubs I’m involved with due to the diverse makeup of membership. ANY and all hunting seasons offered in Alaska should be available to residents first and foremost. Some biologists seem to think if anything the peninsula could stand to use a break from the current harvest numbers, idk how true that is in reality but adding an extra season for guided hunters excluding residents goes against everything ADFG should stand for.
This is a tough situation with no perfect outcomes, will be interesting to see where the BOG lands on this topic.
Wildwilderness... why shouldn't the guides/NR hunters get a crack at recovering from the lost NR season this year? Why should resident hunters get to hunt two Spring seasons in a row? Resident hunters could hunt this year. Only NR bear hunters were banned.
Pete, -why not direct your comments to TEmbry as well?
In case you didn't hear the news, Residents were (still are to villages) barred from traveling Intrastate for anything non-essential. I had plans to fly to King Salmon, then out on the Peninsula from there. But out of respect for the order didn't go on my hunt.
So just because you are a Guide you can go back? Residents who had hunts involuntarily cancelled due to the State shouldn't get a second chance? Are Guides Better than Residents? More important?
From what I have heard, the proposals Will allow residents to hunt unit 9 if there is a special 2021 spring season
Bear hunting was not closed for Alaska residents. The NR season (statewide) was closed. How you gained access to where you wanted to hunt was, for lack of a better term, your problem. Plus, AK residents could hunt in any unit in the state.
I think the BOG is smart enough to realize that NR bear hunters are an important economic engine. They will consider that when they make their decisions regarding the upcoming season.
(PS: I am no longer a guide... but I do hold a seat on the Alaska Big Game Commercial Services Board.)
Maybe a fair way to handle this is if they do have this special season they should allow both Res and NR hunters to take part in it. But for Res hunters only those that did not get to hunt in 2020 due to travel restrictions or inability to get to your hunting area. Maybe even include the Res hunter who did not shoot a bear. Just another idea to think about.
That sentiment is exactly why there is such animosity on this issue statewide Pete. (Residents unable to hunt for the same reasons they simply cancelled NR season being “their problem”). NR hunting is most certainly an economic engine, who and how it benefits is what’s up for interpretation. It’s not about money to the state or that would be a call for draw systems and no guide restrictions. Not a system I’d fully advocate for personally, but one that would easily benefit Fish and Game Revenue far greater than the current one. But that’s another rabbit hole for another discussion.
I do hope those Non Residents who paid tens of thousands find a resolution with their outfitters to reschedule, whenever that might be. Everyone should get a chance to hunt this amazing state even if just for once!
"NR hunting is most certainly an economic engine, who and how it benefits is what’s up for interpretation."
Is it? It wouldn't be difficult to determine who benefits from NR hunters and by how much. Having watched these sorts of discussions for years, it seems to be more about how people spin the data to fit their agenda than it does whether the data exists or can be determined.
Sure it is up for interpretation. Hunter X pays $25k for a hunt. One side claims that is $25k pumped into the Alaskan economy and providing said hunt has trickle down spending of hotels, gear rentals, gas from villages, flight services, etc. The outlook is the guided service itself is what drives that money into the economy. Other points of view may counter with the fact that hunters would come to hunt the same bear regardless of a guide requirement. They would still pay for flight services, hotels, fuel from villages, etc. the only difference is the additional cost the hunter pays the outfitter as required by law. I’m not anti guide and I hope those that provide great services remain in business for decades to come. I just can see through the fallacy of the economic benefit always cited. It benefits a select few, and we should call a spade a spade.
Like I said. You are trying to theorize how funds would be allocated under an alternate system, and not who and how it benefits them under the current system. The latter is pretty easy to figure out and not very open to interpretation.
Anything inaccurate in my statements? I’m always open to discussion and there are many many valid reasons for guiding to survive and thrive in Alaska. Many hunters if given the choice would still hire guide services due to the difficulty and logistics of hunting here. There is just a flawed logic in seeing the money derived being from the service industry benefiting off the resource, not the resource itself. It’s not as easy as one may think to nail down the division of money from a guided hunt here (for one no outfitter in their right mind would divulge those details on big dollar hunts).
Plenty of hunting to go around up here and I’m happy all get to participate when allowable. It’s hard to even discuss these topics because both sides are so entrenched in their views it’s like a DNC/Republican debate.... it goes nowhere. I enjoy healthy debates or discussions on these types of topics.
"Anything inaccurate in my statements?"
Yes, there is no interpretation on who benefits under the current structure. It is determinable where the money flows. Either side can spin the narrative around it, but that doesn't change the facts.
When challenged you countered with the angle of a policy change, which has nothing to do with it. Does that speak to an agenda?
Only you are in a position to answer that.
"There is just a flawed logic in seeing the money derived being from the service industry benefiting off the resource, not the resource itself."
To a degree. There would be no industry without the resource. But I think the logic is sound that the state of AK and its resident benefit more financially from an outfitted hunt than a self-guided hunt.
I've seen these debates a number of times before, and IMO it can be distilled down to whether a person think the resource should be managed for the benefit of hunters or for the benefit of the residents of the state. I tend to fall in line with the latter.
Most tend to reference “the state” as Fish and Game or the state Government. My statement about a policy change was simply that if money to F&G was the issue, the current system does a horrible job on capitalizing on that. I’m not advocating for that change (although I certainly would if I didn’t live here).
If “the state“ references the local communities or Villages then again I stand by my statements that the resource brings in the money not the guide industry itself. We have clear cut examples of this with caribou, moose, Blacktail deer, etc. As you clearly point out, tracking down the flow of dollars from an outfitted hunt vs a self guided hunt would be very easy to do if private entities put forth all their financial data. I certainly wouldn’t in their position and I don’t expect them to either. As is stands, we have total sums of money but very little clear definition of just how much it is distributed to the benefit of the local communities. For dollars distributed among a community and dollars to Fish and Game, self guided/outfitted Hunts are very similar to fully guided. The additional funds remain with the few people who make this a full time occupation. And good for them for capitalizing on how the current system is set up. But let’s call it like it is, this economic engine exists because of the demand to hunt here. Not because our state requires non residents to pay large sums to another private party for the right to do it. I’m happy for those able to make the best of it, but find it difficult to agree it’s to the maximum benefit of anyone beyond that industry.
If the state is a general all encompassing term, then one might even venture to say that the benefit of spent money is... up for interpretation (the whole point you initially disagreed with). I’ve delved off topic long enough however, my opinion certainly won’t change anything. It’s deeply entrenched among the BOG and state law here. I have amazing opportunities as a resident and don’t feel the need to be the poster boy for change when change mainly would benefit non residents and F&G. Not all change is good, and hunting here could certainly be a lot worse in trying to make it better. I love how it is for me personally, just disagree with the logic used by many to justify the way it is.
I disagree That generating the most amount of money for a select few (read Guides), is the best “benefits of the residents of the States.”
Benefiting the Resident hunters, especially in AK where subsistence is real, is the best benefit for the residents of the state.
Of course humans are all prone to self interest and it is easy to see where one falls on the debate based on what they stand to gain.
Also on a side note, unit 9 has a 1 bear every 4 years limit so any hunter who may have been lucky to tag a bear spring 2020 will not be able to hunt 2021 if there was a special season.