sigcurious
New member
^Very true, my friend recently had to be rescued by McHugh Creek, they were lost and roughly 750ft from the parking lot when he and his companion were found.
Should Alaska require out of state hunters to use a guide?
- Thread starter 2damnold4this
- Start date
Double Naught Spy
New member
I am not sure what dichotomy that you are trying to point out. He was charged in federal court as you noted. However, this bag limit law still is not apt to be witnessed in the field by game wardens, be they state game wardens or the (federal) USFWS game wardens who would be the ones most likely to take their game cases to prosecutors. The charges could have been from US Forest Service Police officers, but on Sukkwan Island, the most likely federal officers to bring such charges and the ones that did were USFWS.
There are simply not enough such wardens, park rangers, forest service police, etc. around to watch all the hunters and to count their hits. This is particularly true on Sukkwan Island that is isolated, very remote, only has about 9 people living on it, and has not towns. So unless hunters do what Nugent did and video their hunts and broadcast it far and wide, nobody in authority is likely to ever know that a hunter has broken the law.
Is a guide required for hunters in Maine? I do know there is such a thing as a Maine guide. There are licensed guides available for hire in D.C., by the way, although not for hunting (there are deer within D.C.).
Unfortunately, laws will always seem to be twisted and unfair because virtually everyone that has any interest whatsoever in the issue, hunting in this case, has their own interests in mind. We all have our own little selfish interests sometimes.
Unfortunately, laws will always seem to be twisted and unfair because virtually everyone that has any interest whatsoever in the issue, hunting in this case, has their own interests in mind. We all have our own little selfish interests sometimes.
Double Naught Spy
New member
You know, I have never figured out that second comment. Back in the 90s when there were all those church burnings across the South, I was shocked that they passed a lot to make that illegal, as if there weren't laws in every state against arson and the unlawful destruction of other people's property. I guess passing new laws makes it look like the government is doing something even if they aren't.
Something is messed up. If I wanted to float the Youkon this summer, all I would need to do would be to launch my raft. Yet if I want to hunt sheep during my float, I need a guide?
We hunters need to form a lobbying group to counter the lobbists for the special intrests like Outfitters and Guides Associations. Something like "American Hunters United". Nullifying these silly laws would force outfitters to reconsidder their prices and the market would begin to dictate what guided hunts are really worth.
Ethical hunters would have more access to the game fields. An outfitter may be more inclined to stop an unethical hunter if they know that they are not guraunteed that high trophy fee for looking the other way.
Thats what I think, anyway.
On a side note, after I graduated high school (many years ago), I took my guide exam in Wyoming and went to work for a local outfitter. The other three guides that he hired that year were all from out of state and had never been to the hunt area! So much for the argument that the guide requirement is for the safety of the hunter! The actuall paying hunters new more about hunting than these kids!
We hunters need to form a lobbying group to counter the lobbists for the special intrests like Outfitters and Guides Associations. Something like "American Hunters United". Nullifying these silly laws would force outfitters to reconsidder their prices and the market would begin to dictate what guided hunts are really worth.
Ethical hunters would have more access to the game fields. An outfitter may be more inclined to stop an unethical hunter if they know that they are not guraunteed that high trophy fee for looking the other way.
Thats what I think, anyway.
On a side note, after I graduated high school (many years ago), I took my guide exam in Wyoming and went to work for a local outfitter. The other three guides that he hired that year were all from out of state and had never been to the hunt area! So much for the argument that the guide requirement is for the safety of the hunter! The actuall paying hunters new more about hunting than these kids!
You won't find me knocking the state of AK over their requirement for non-resident hunters to employ a guide for certain hunts (Dall Sheep, Mountain Goat, Grizzly/Brown Bear)... It serves multiple benefits, though it is not perfect for all situations.
1. It, in theory, ensures that non-resident hunters (who are, presumably, less familiar with the game and region than residents) kill the right species and gender.
2. It, in theory, helps decrease the possibility that hunters would be harmed while afield, due to hypothermia, a fall, a bear attack, etc. By requiring a guide, the strain on state (AST/ADF&G) and federal (CG) search and rescue resources is, in theory, reduced. Having been in the CG for 6 years and involved with dozens of search and rescue cases, I can tell you first-hand that they are very, very expensive.
3. Helps keep hunters from getting lost, which often leads to the situations in #2....
4. Presumably, it helps keep people legal. Though not required for getting a license, for the most part guides are a lot more familiar with the laws for hunting, fishing, sealing/packaging/shipping hides and trophies.
5. Dall Sheep, Mountain Goat, and Grizzly/Brown Bear hunts are inherently dangerous. Dall Sheep & Mountain Goats are found up high in the mountains. Anyone who has been on a hunt way up in the mountains knows just how easy it is to get yourself into a spot that you can't exactly get out of real easy... This is where the guide comes in, you guide you to the animal safely. Ditto for densely wooded areas where bears are normally found. Guides are likely to be more aware of their surroundings, normal bear routes and activities than the average Lower 48 guy.
6. It creates a barrier for hunting. I know a lot of you see this as a MAJOR problem. I don't. The wildlife in Alaska is plentiful, for now. If the state allowed any yahoo with a plane ticket and thutty-ought-six to come up and hunt whatever they wanted to, it would have a negative impact on the population of those animals. There's plenty of deer in the Lower 48, so they're not worried about that. Ditto for elk, moose (to a lesser degree, though still available for hunting in the Lower 48), black bear, etc. But to hunt Grizzly/Brown Bear? Not many chances to do that in the Lower 48, so if that opportunity were available to everyone in the country, the population of bears would decline steeply.
The state of Alaska is the best state in the country as far as management of its natural resources, to include its wildlife population levels.
Not to mention that Alaska is a sovereign state in These United States. What they do with their natural resources is left to the discretion of their elected officials, who appoint people to manage it. If the residents of Alaska didn't like the way the state ran its wildlife policies, the policies would change. If you don't like it, quite frankly, they don't care. Move up there, become a resident, and vote if you want to change it.
You don't see Alaska residents creating threads on TFL to bicker about the draw hunts in the various states of the Lower 48... Different way of achieving the same goal, only Alaska's way puts food on the table for the families of guides and outfitters across the state. The system works, though biased, it works. I don’t think Alaska should get rid of the guide requirement based on the actions of this one guide and one hunter. The system as it is works well and the only people that complain about it are the ones who can’t afford to pay to play.
Does your home state require non-residents to purchase a separate hunting license? What about out-of-state tuition? Clean out your own house before you start telling your neighbor to do so...
1. It, in theory, ensures that non-resident hunters (who are, presumably, less familiar with the game and region than residents) kill the right species and gender.
2. It, in theory, helps decrease the possibility that hunters would be harmed while afield, due to hypothermia, a fall, a bear attack, etc. By requiring a guide, the strain on state (AST/ADF&G) and federal (CG) search and rescue resources is, in theory, reduced. Having been in the CG for 6 years and involved with dozens of search and rescue cases, I can tell you first-hand that they are very, very expensive.
3. Helps keep hunters from getting lost, which often leads to the situations in #2....
4. Presumably, it helps keep people legal. Though not required for getting a license, for the most part guides are a lot more familiar with the laws for hunting, fishing, sealing/packaging/shipping hides and trophies.
5. Dall Sheep, Mountain Goat, and Grizzly/Brown Bear hunts are inherently dangerous. Dall Sheep & Mountain Goats are found up high in the mountains. Anyone who has been on a hunt way up in the mountains knows just how easy it is to get yourself into a spot that you can't exactly get out of real easy... This is where the guide comes in, you guide you to the animal safely. Ditto for densely wooded areas where bears are normally found. Guides are likely to be more aware of their surroundings, normal bear routes and activities than the average Lower 48 guy.
6. It creates a barrier for hunting. I know a lot of you see this as a MAJOR problem. I don't. The wildlife in Alaska is plentiful, for now. If the state allowed any yahoo with a plane ticket and thutty-ought-six to come up and hunt whatever they wanted to, it would have a negative impact on the population of those animals. There's plenty of deer in the Lower 48, so they're not worried about that. Ditto for elk, moose (to a lesser degree, though still available for hunting in the Lower 48), black bear, etc. But to hunt Grizzly/Brown Bear? Not many chances to do that in the Lower 48, so if that opportunity were available to everyone in the country, the population of bears would decline steeply.
The state of Alaska is the best state in the country as far as management of its natural resources, to include its wildlife population levels.
Not to mention that Alaska is a sovereign state in These United States. What they do with their natural resources is left to the discretion of their elected officials, who appoint people to manage it. If the residents of Alaska didn't like the way the state ran its wildlife policies, the policies would change. If you don't like it, quite frankly, they don't care. Move up there, become a resident, and vote if you want to change it.
You don't see Alaska residents creating threads on TFL to bicker about the draw hunts in the various states of the Lower 48... Different way of achieving the same goal, only Alaska's way puts food on the table for the families of guides and outfitters across the state. The system works, though biased, it works. I don’t think Alaska should get rid of the guide requirement based on the actions of this one guide and one hunter. The system as it is works well and the only people that complain about it are the ones who can’t afford to pay to play.
They're not... Visit and travel all you want, uninhibited. But if you want to hunt the species discussed above, you have to have a guide.Jim March said:
Does your home state require non-residents to purchase a separate hunting license? What about out-of-state tuition? Clean out your own house before you start telling your neighbor to do so...
1911Alaska
New member
I say yes. I think its a good idea for everyone's safety. At the minimal they should take a course for both hunting and fishing about the local laws and requirements.
Alaska economy depends on tourism heavily, sometimes I wish it didn't though. I cant tell you how frustrating it is for me when I go walk do to the Kenai River and see some tourist trashing the place. Last summer we were hunting, Walking through the woods and found 3 trash bags all torn apart that someone just left there. With multiple empty cigarette boxes stamped from Idaho. Man that made me mad
But there are some great tourist that do come here, I have met some great people. But the bad ones always stand out
Alaska economy depends on tourism heavily, sometimes I wish it didn't though. I cant tell you how frustrating it is for me when I go walk do to the Kenai River and see some tourist trashing the place. Last summer we were hunting, Walking through the woods and found 3 trash bags all torn apart that someone just left there. With multiple empty cigarette boxes stamped from Idaho. Man that made me mad
But there are some great tourist that do come here, I have met some great people. But the bad ones always stand out
Willie Sutton
Moderator
++ 10 to JGCOASTIE
Take a look at the way that ANY hunting in Africa is done and you'll see the parallel: Good management is assisted by professionals who have a long term investment in keeping the resources managed for the benefit of all. The result is healthier stocks of animals, reduced poaching, local economic benefit, and fees returned for management. Hunters get better trophies, and all benefit. Personally, it seems that the system works pretty darned well.
Willie
(hope duty up there is fun for you, Coastie. I'm from Cape May originally. Traverse City now?)
Take a look at the way that ANY hunting in Africa is done and you'll see the parallel: Good management is assisted by professionals who have a long term investment in keeping the resources managed for the benefit of all. The result is healthier stocks of animals, reduced poaching, local economic benefit, and fees returned for management. Hunters get better trophies, and all benefit. Personally, it seems that the system works pretty darned well.
Willie
(hope duty up there is fun for you, Coastie. I'm from Cape May originally. Traverse City now?)
Fishing_Cabin
New member
I am curious if there are any exceptions for non-resident folks who own huntable land in Alaska? It would make things worse if a person owned a piece of land there, but had to hire a guide in order to use it.
I can see the reasons behind wanting to require one on national and state hunting lands, or also on private leased land if the land owner granting permission requires it.
I can see the reasons behind wanting to require one on national and state hunting lands, or also on private leased land if the land owner granting permission requires it.
I'm against the "required guide" bit, but Healy was a little different situation.
I spent my first two years in Alaska in Healy (actually three miles north, in Lignite).
The road across the Nenana rifle at Healy, goes up to the Usabili Coal mine. Its a private road. The reason they restricted traffic on that road (except for local residents) had nothing to do with Fish and Game, but the coal mine.
I also think that Usabili owned the railroad bridge as the only place it went was to the coal mine. I worked for the railroad getting coal cars from the mine and taking them to Healy to be added to the trains.
As with most all haul trucks, they are designed so you have to drive on the wrong side of the road. Safety of the coal production was the reason for restricting travel on that road, again a private road. The land is government so they didn't keep you out, but the road was private and they could keep you out.
This is completely different the Fish and Game or the state preventing one from using the area.
Where I lived their was a shallow spot on the Nenana river. As things frooze up in the higher elevations the water level of the Nenana dropped and people could cross the river in swamp buggies and such (or by horse if you had one), there was nothing illegal about it.
I use to hunt the east side of the river, But I'd row across in a boat, I lost a lot of ground but just had to drag the boat back up river.
Things may have changed now since production of coal has increased, don't know, that was '72-74.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
I prefer government to work on known and significant problems. Fixing "theory" is a big source for unreasonable, burdensome laws with dramatic unintended consequences and no real benefit.
And Africa and Alaska are DRAMATICALLY different situations.
Game populations in the United State are controlled by the number of tags issued. It works in all 50 states with every species. There's no reason it won't, can't, doesn't work in Alaska.
And Africa and Alaska are DRAMATICALLY different situations.
Game populations in the United State are controlled by the number of tags issued. It works in all 50 states with every species. There's no reason it won't, can't, doesn't work in Alaska.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Yeah, because one all 3 dozen of you get together and decide who is hunting what, there isn't any confusion.
You only have to use a guide for certain animals, not all of them. Black bear, the focus of the Nugent fiasco, was not one requiring a guide. If you are not a US citizen, there are additional taxa to go with the brown bear and Dall sheep. Beyond that, then yes you would if you are hunting animals that require that you either be a resident, hunt with a local, hunt with a guide. Just because you own the land does not mean you can shoot whatever you want just like it does not mean this in the lower 48. I have already posted links to the regs previously in the thread.
Brian Pfleuger said:
I prefer government to stay out of problems, they are often the source.
The difference between you and I, is that I don't think the guide requirement is a problem. I believe it is a benefit to the state and the residents of that state.
Alaska government's responsibility is to look out for their residents' best interests. Having every yahoo that can afford the plane ticket up there clamoring to hunt a species they have little to zero (often the latter) experience with is not what the voters in AK want.
Where else would people like yourself have the opportunity to hunt grizzly/brown bears? Very little to zero here in the Lower 48. Which amounts to the fact that most people would have no idea what they were doing, where they were going, what species (brown bears and black bears are often difficult to tell apart unless you know what you're doing), how to kill it, what to do with it once it's dead, what to do if you shoot it and it doesn't die (runs off and you have to track it)...
There are just to many variables involved and requiring a guide for hunting them is Alaska's way of covering their hindparts and protecting their resource.
Like I said before; if you don't like it, move up there, establish residency, and do something about it. Until then, you can vote with your tourism dollars and stay away from AK if it bothers you that much. I'm sure that will just annoy the heck out of the residents who are already drowning in tourists...
I don't patronize businesses in or visit New York for the simple fact that my 2ndA rights are not recognized there. Ditto for NJ, IL, MA, HI, CA, DC....
"even the resident judge at my hearing were unaware of such an unprecedented regulation."
Ted said this in his interview.
The case was heard in a U.S District Court and Magistrate Judge Michael Thompson accepted the plea form Nugent.
There were no state charges against Mr. Nugent as he pleaded guilty to a violation of federal law called the Lacey Act.
Which is precisely the point. Even the USSC has slapped the hand of the EPA lately. None of the people who made this law were elected.
The bureaucratic laws made by non elected officials should be required to be reviewed by Congress.
Ted said this in his interview.
The case was heard in a U.S District Court and Magistrate Judge Michael Thompson accepted the plea form Nugent.
There were no state charges against Mr. Nugent as he pleaded guilty to a violation of federal law called the Lacey Act.
Which is precisely the point. Even the USSC has slapped the hand of the EPA lately. None of the people who made this law were elected.
The bureaucratic laws made by non elected officials should be required to be reviewed by Congress.
Last edited:
Fishing_Cabin
New member
Thanks DNS,
I happened to miss the link you posted earlier.
I was just curious, the 2 states that I usually hunt (NC/VA) in do not even require a permit for hunting on your own land.
It was interesting to compare the requirements between Alaska, NC, and Va. After reading it now, I feel inclined to be more against a requirement for a guide.
I happened to miss the link you posted earlier.
I was just curious, the 2 states that I usually hunt (NC/VA) in do not even require a permit for hunting on your own land.
It was interesting to compare the requirements between Alaska, NC, and Va. After reading it now, I feel inclined to be more against a requirement for a guide.
oneounceload
Moderator
Much as in the police should know thew law?
Parallel is the same, seems the results are as well.
Double Naught Spy
New member
But you do still have to conform to all of the particular game laws as they still apply to you.
Not exactly. Requirements for being a guide in Alaska do not stipulate knowledge of the law. Guides are not tested over it and are not involved with enforcing the law like peace officers.
I do agree that the guides should know the law. Hunters should know the law as well. Like Ted Nugent...
Is it ever his fault for not knowing the laws? It seems he keeps getting busted for them, but tries to pass off blame elsewhere for his laziness in being familiar with the hunting laws of the land where he is hunting.
As for the judge not being familiar with the law, this is commonplace for technical aspects of many charges. Generally speaking, judges stay sharp on the laws that are commonly broken. They do not remain 100% of all laws all the time and that is why they have reference law libraries (and now online sources). That a law isn't familiar to the judge makes it no less of a law.