Should Alaska require out of state hunters to use a guide?

[2damnold4this]

Here is an interesting article on the Ted Nugent bear hide transporting case. While the article raises some interesting questions, it also leaves some for us.

Alaska requires out of state hunters to use a guide for hunting brown bear. I would think that the guide would be expected to know the regulations better than the average out of state hunter but that doesn't seem to be the case with Nugent. Perhaps Alaska didn't charge Nugent in the case because he used a state licensed guide on his black bear hunt.

It does seem to be a bit odd that the federal government charged Nugent under the Lacey Act without the state of Alaska also charging him with a crime. I'll bet Nugent wishes he left the hide back in Alaska.

[Double Naught Spy]

I think the requirement to use a guide isn't a bad idea, though maybe not a necessary idea. It is good for the state's people. Many or most of the guides are going to be residents. Ideally guides are going to be more familiar with the area and be able to help the hunter to be more successful. Successful hunts certain promote tourism.

You are right in that the guides should know the regulations, but that doesn't mean that they do. When I was looking up Nugent's lawyer who was also a guide, I learned that he wasn't a guide per se, but an assistant guide which is actually the second level down from being a guide. I think there was one level above that was master guide. IIRC, none of the guide requirements involved in testing over federal or state laws. Qualifying at the various levels involved experience, time in the field, being legal age, not being a felon (I think), and paying the license fees. I saw nothing indicating any sort of classroom instruction or testing being required and no demonstrated knowledge of the law.

I would be of the opinion that the requirement to have guides for certain types of hunts such as bear hunts also goes a long way toward keeping folks out of physical/environmental/geographic/climatic trouble. Ideally, that means that the guide will hopefully stop most naive or reckless behaviors that woudl result in needing assistance. That means that fewer hunters end up needing the help of state or federal search and rescue folks. Search and rescue endeavors are often extremely expensive. So the measure goes far in helping keep such expenses down.

Requiring a guide also means that such hunters won't be operating solo as some would otherwise do. Going solo certainly has a higher risk than going as a pair or team when it comes to dealing with adversity.

In the case of his lawyer, being as assistant guide also came with the requirement of having proof that the applicant would be employed by a guide. In other words, an assistant guide does not allow for being autonomous. The assistant guide is supposed to be assisting a guide...which makes sense.

[Jim March]

Sigh.

Nobody seems to get the import of this case:

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede.../418/case.html

A state can't discriminate against visiting residents of other states.

[NJgunowner]

Require by law... No.

Require by common sense... Yes

I would assume if I'm hunting a bear, the bear is hunting me (figuratively). If you are in bear country, it can't hurt to have backup

[sigcurious]

That was an interesting article.

I concur with double naught on the benefits of a properly trained and educated guide, particularly in a place like AK. People get lost and have mishaps all over the place, however the missing persons per capita in AK is roughly double that of the national average. It's a big wild place and people often underestimate that to more dire consequences than other places.

In Ward v Maryland, I'm not sure that would apply here. The decision seemed to focus solely on taxation aspects. The guide itself is not a state entity so that would not be considered taxation. IIRC many(if not all?) states have different prices for hunting tags/permits/licenses for residents vs non-residents. If this were applicable wouldn't hunters somewhere, at sometime, since Ward v Maryland have already brought it up and gotten fees equalized?

Also IIRC Article IV Sec. 2, has been judged that it has to be discrimination in favor of the states residents, and I think an argument could be made equally well that it is or is not favoring the residents.

[johnbt]

"People get lost and have mishaps all over the place"

Tourists get lost and robbed in D.C. too. Maybe they should be required to have a licensed guide instead of being allowed to roam around on their own. And don't get me started on tourists driving.

[C0untZer0]

I can see it quickly turning into a racket.

It would be a law that mandates people spend money - the state is going to want it's share.

Pretty soon every state will have the law on the books.

The very worst states would require that you have a state employee as a guide.

It can also be used to throttle hunting down to nothing - simply by the state not providing guides, licensing guides etc...

It's the camel's nose under the tent, with a lot of room for some states to abuse it.

[sigcurious]

That's an interesting comparison. Lost in an urban setting is kind of different than being lost in the wilderness. Nor did I say it should be required, rather that there are benefits to having one. In comparison there are benefits to taking a guided tour of DC, such as not getting lost, becoming a part of a group(reduces the chances of robbery).

[Brian Pfleuger]

I doubt anyone would argue that having a guide in Alaska isn't a really, REALLY good idea.

I don't like when government decides to legislate good ideas.

[Double Naught Spy]

Nobody seems to get the import of this case:

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede.../418/case.html

A state can't discriminate against visiting residents of other states.

Since you are using this case from Maryland, maybe you can explain why is it that Maryland is still violating the law? Maryland, like most other states, charges a premium on non-resident hunting licenses. While I have not checked all 50, those that I have all charge non-residents more. I am not challenging you on this, Jim. I actually hoping that you have some insight on the matter and can share it with us.

"People get lost and have mishaps all over the place"

Tourists get lost and robbed in D.C. too. Maybe they should be required to have a licensed guide instead of being allowed to roam around on their own. And don't get me started on tourists driving.

Don't get hung up with selective benefits as being causality of the law unless you know for a fact that they are.

Alaska requires out of state hunters to use a guide for hunting brown bear. I would think that the guide would be expected to know the regulations better than the average out of state hunter but that doesn't seem to be the case with Nugent. Perhaps Alaska didn't charge Nugent in the case because he used a state licensed guide on his black bear hunt.

As a further note, he wasn't hunting brown bear. The was hunting black bear, or at least that is what he shot two of. A guide is not required for black bear unless you are a non-resident alien.
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm...ting.guidereqs

[WV_gunner]

I know Alaska is much different than West Virginia, but I'd laugh if people here had to have a guide to hunt here from outbid state.
This is what I believe if there's going to be anything, to get an out of state license to hunt you should have to pass a test on the regulations.

[Wyoredman]

In my state, the Outfitters and Guides Association long ago was successfull in lobbying the State Government to enact a law requireing all non-resident hunters to secure the services of an outfitter if hunting in wilderness areas.

The whole purpose of the law was to guarantee business for the members of the Outfitters and Guides Association! If an out of state resident wants to go camp in the same wilderness as a hunter, he does not need a guide... as long as he does not have a hunting license. Where is the equity in that?

I have very strong feelings about these types of laws. I am of the opinion that the majority of them are designed to help the guides and outfitters make money, not for the safety of the hunter or the well-being of the game. As a matter of fact, some of the most egregious game violations are commited by people paying for an outfitter!

[Strafer Gott]

Getting the outfitters and their lobbyists involved can sure screw up a states hunting. Lot's of guys just dropped out when the state permit draw set aside something like two thirds of the tags for out of state and outfitters. I got turned down 3 times, only to see my hunt go to fire sale. Sometimes I forget that hunting is big business, too.

[alloy]

Do people fishing salmon, hiking, trapping, etc also need guides or are the bears aware that out of state hunters pose a specific threat and acting on that knowledge?
Maybe everyone visiting the state should have a guide.

[Double Naught Spy]

Do people fishing salmon, hiking, trapping, etc also need guides or are the bears aware that out of state hunters pose a specific threat and acting on that knowledge?

It is only specific animals and on top of that and from my link above...

Nonresidents:

A nonresident who hunts brown/grizzly bear, Dall sheep, or mountain goat must be personally accompanied by a licensed guide OR by an Alaska resident over 19 years of age who is within the "second degree of kindred" (see definitions below).

[alloy]

Odd, if it's to protect the bears by alerting hunters to current law, seems out of place unless every other game animal requires a guide so that hunters, fishers, and trappers are aware of the bag limits etc.

If it's to protect the hunters from the bears, then why not require everyone to have a guide because we all need that kind of protection.

Guess I just can't follow along on the logic of this one. But I heard him speaking recently and he said he/his lawyer has not been able to find anyone in a position of authority who thought his example had ever been used/prosecuted before(that of filling a bag limit, when an arrow simply brushes the game)....which seems to be what the Fed. Gov used as the basis for it's case.

[Double Naught Spy]

Guess I just can't follow along on the logic of this one. But I heard him speaking recently and he said he/his lawyer has not been able to find anyone in a position of authority who thought his example had ever been used/prosecuted before(that of filling a bag limit, when an arrow simply brushes the game)....which seems to be what the Fed. Gov used as the basis for it's case.

His assistant guide lawyer who wasn't familiar with the law (some assistant guide lawyer, huh) referred to the law as obscure. Apparently obscure means that it was not one of the highlighted passages in the hunting regs booklet and was less than 5 yeas old.

The issue isn't that if his arrow touched the bear, though that is what is being argued. Nugent's arrow didn't just brush by the bear. He wounded the bear and it left a blood trail that they were only able to follow a short distance.

It is a relatively new law and one not apt to be prosecuted very often. After all, hunters that know the law aren't going to make it known that they shot and wounded a bear and then killed a second one. That would be an admission of breaking the law. Also, game wardens can't watch every hunter all the time. However, in his ignorance, Nugent broadcast his hunt on TV that clearly documented him violating the law. It would have been a dereliction of duty for the wardens to not pursue the case. He is fortunate that they offered him a deal for a lesser charge.

I have a feeling that watching Nugent's show is pretty standard now by wardens from various states where he hunts. This is the second time he has broadcast himself violating game laws.

[Jim March]

The Supremes repeated themselves in 1999:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...l=526&page=489

So that's two different classes of cases where they say "no discrimination against visitors from another state".

How much can anybody limit this to any one type of case? The Supremes have spoken. Twice. Over 100 years apart, on exactly the same grounds. (And oddly, the Saenz case doesn't mention Ward.)

[wally626]

It is a relatively new law and one not apt to be prosecuted very often. After all, hunters that know the law aren't going to make it known that they shot and wounded a bear and then killed a second one. That would be an admission of breaking the law. Also, game wardens can't watch every hunter all the time. However, in his ignorance, Nugent broadcast his hunt on TV that clearly documented him violating the law. It would have been a dereliction of duty for the wardens to not pursue the case. He is fortunate that they offered him a deal for a lesser charge.

The game wardens did not charge him only the Feds

[langenc]

Way back in late 60s AK had a law that non-residents needed a guide for big bear(black??) and sheep.

It does get to be a racket.

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.

The guide thing is generally sold for 'asfety' and some here have noted to keep one from getting lost. How many AK residents have hunted many places and can still get lost?? Easily..

[sigcurious]

^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.

[Double Naught Spy]

The game wardens did not charge him only the Feds

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.

[BGutzman]

Of course as always we must have a law to regulate every possible thing a citizen could do... In fact it seems we need several layers of laws all mandating the same thing...

Land of the Free.... not so much..... we legislated it all away.

[BlueTrain]

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.

[Double Naught Spy]

Of course as always we must have a law to regulate every possible thing a citizen could do... In fact it seems we need several layers of laws all mandating the same thing...

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.