The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 3, 2012, 04:47 PM   #26
Wyoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 1,249
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!
__________________
Go Pokes!
Go Rams!
Wyoredman is offline  
Old May 6, 2012, 09:07 AM   #27
jgcoastie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Location: Kodiak, Alaska
Posts: 2,112
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim March
So that's two different classes of cases where they say "no discrimination against visitors from another state".
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.

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...
__________________
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." -Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.
jgcoastie is offline  
Old May 6, 2012, 10:02 AM   #28
1911Alaska
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 23, 2012
Posts: 139
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
1911Alaska is offline  
Old May 6, 2012, 10:12 AM   #29
Willie Sutton
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
++ 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?)
Willie Sutton is offline  
Old May 6, 2012, 01:06 PM   #30
Fishing_Cabin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 712
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.
Fishing_Cabin is offline  
Old May 6, 2012, 01:12 PM   #31
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,398
Quote:
In 1967 the RR bridge at Healey was due to get planked so anyone could cross to get back into the coal area to hunt. The state rep that had that area as his assigned area fought and delayed the planking for most of the season. It does get to be a racket.
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.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old May 6, 2012, 02:14 PM   #32
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,520
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.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old May 6, 2012, 03:54 PM   #33
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,385
Quote:
You don't see Alaska residents creating threads on TFL to bicker about the draw hunts in the various states of the Lower 48...
Yeah, because one all 3 dozen of you get together and decide who is hunting what, there isn't any confusion.

Quote:
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.
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.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is online now  
Old May 6, 2012, 04:09 PM   #34
Eghad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
I beleive I read where a judge was not even familiar with the law.
__________________
Have a nice day at the range

NRA Life Member
Eghad is offline  
Old May 7, 2012, 09:29 AM   #35
jgcoastie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Location: Kodiak, Alaska
Posts: 2,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger
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.
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....
__________________
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." -Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.
jgcoastie is offline  
Old May 7, 2012, 09:36 AM   #36
jgcoastie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Location: Kodiak, Alaska
Posts: 2,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eghad
I beleive I read where a judge was not even familiar with the law.
I believe it is a Dept of Fish & Game regulation. Which should not be confused with statutory law.
__________________
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." -Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.
jgcoastie is offline  
Old May 7, 2012, 10:46 AM   #37
Eghad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
"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.
__________________
Have a nice day at the range

NRA Life Member

Last edited by Eghad; May 7, 2012 at 11:01 AM.
Eghad is offline  
Old May 7, 2012, 02:20 PM   #38
Fishing_Cabin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 712
Thanks DNS,

I happened to miss the link you posted earlier.
Quote:
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.
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.
Fishing_Cabin is offline  
Old May 7, 2012, 02:44 PM   #39
oneounceload
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2008
Location: N. Central Florida
Posts: 8,518
Quote:
You are right in that the guides should know the regulations,
Much as in the police should know thew law?

Parallel is the same, seems the results are as well.
oneounceload is offline  
Old May 7, 2012, 05:44 PM   #40
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,385
Quote:
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.
But you do still have to conform to all of the particular game laws as they still apply to you.

Quote:
You are right in that the guides should know the regulations,
Quote:
Much as in the police should know thew law?

Parallel is the same, seems the results are as well.
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...

Quote:
"even the resident judge at my hearing were unaware of such an unprecedented regulation."

Ted said this in his interview.
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.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is online now  
Old May 8, 2012, 07:33 AM   #41
stevelyn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2004
Location: Fairbanksan in exile to Aleutian Hell
Posts: 2,618
Quote:
Things may have changed now since production of coal has increased, don't know, that was '72-74.
We drive our 4-wheelers over the pedestrian walkway across the tressle to get over to Ferry now.
__________________
Herman Cain '12

Squished bugs on a windshield is proof the slow/heavy bullet theory works.
stevelyn is offline  
Old May 8, 2012, 01:02 PM   #42
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
The worst of both worlds is requiring guides but then not requiring anything of the guides - such as knowledge of the law.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old March 2, 2013, 11:33 PM   #43
sunaj
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2013
Location: California
Posts: 84
I am decidedly against the requirement for a guide in Alaska, or any other place,
I suspect there is quite a bit of money over and under the table that takes place between professional guides/outfits and Fish & Game that effect your rights in hunting, your fees, etc.,
If you want to use guides, fine, but forcing people to use guides encourages gouging (to be very polite),
of course it makes sense to use guides on dangerous game for example if you're a newbie, but I support ones right to hunt as he sees fit, even if that means an occaisional California boy decides to go live with the Kodiak bears in Alaska and gets eaten (you know the natives were gambling odds on that one!), let the Darwin Principle be invoked so if you get eaten you take full responsibility for your own stoopidity
sunaj
sunaj is offline  
Old March 2, 2013, 11:41 PM   #44
Quadpod88
Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2013
Posts: 93
No, if someone gets lost or dies it's their own fault.
__________________
God made all men, but it was Sam Colt who made them equal.
Quadpod88 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12898 seconds with 9 queries