any info on spiridon bear camp, gentner, a.d.f.g. controversy

07 February 2004, 09:36

Mickey1

If the State of Alaska requires the guide to shoot than I can guarantee you that if I am in a situation where the guide will shoot. I will never allow the guide to stand behind me and shoot. He can stand in front of my muzzleblast instead of the other way around.

06 February 2004, 06:27

JeffP

Quote:

even carlos hathcock missed.

cold zero

LIES LIES LIES

Say it ain't true!

07 February 2004, 06:59

JeffP

CW
I think it is more a truth in advertising type problem.
If I knew before hand,that my guide WILL shoot my bear,no
matter what.I would not pay that money nor go on the hunt.

I don't think MOST guys would have a problem with a guide
shooting in a dangerous situation.Or if a wounded animal
was escaping.However,I don't think too many high $$$ bear
hunts would sell...IF the hunting public knew before hand
that in AK the guide is going to shoot,no matter the circumstance.

Just my perspective.

06 February 2004, 11:16

BW

Hello AlaskaJim,

I don't care for the definition of the word 'take' as referred to in the law. That could be tightened up a bit.

What GUA's are you working?

BTW, you did sort of a 'double tap' when you submitted your post above. But that sort of thing seems to happen a lot when it comes to Bill G and Alaska guides.

07 February 2004, 08:42

ChuckWagon

I think you have to define " no matter the circumstance " In this case the PH shot AFTER the client. I would agree that a few might shy away but that is not likely going to affect those who travel and hunt regularly. Considering the one sided contracts that most Outfitters offer in regard to cancelations etc this is really pretty small stuff. No matter how hard we try to regulate our selves with excessive government their will always be someone who gets their drawers in a bunch. For those who really have deep seated concerns I believe Jack Atchinson offers insurance etc that might be of assistance. The thing that stands out in this case is that their was some attempt to rectify things by the outfitter. The client wanted nothing but a full refund. If that's the way it works in Alaska in the Future please book me now. How many millions do you think have been spent over the years on hunts where the client had either unreasonable expectations or was not satisfied with the animal taken or missed ? A full refund every time I am not satisfied

Count me In

06 February 2004, 09:41

AlaskaJim

Mr. Gentner has a strong case, weather you want to believe it or not. I hope this case will cause us to re-examine the language used in hunting/guiding regulations. I have lived and hunted in Ak for 32 years and am now a guide. This case has been a long time coming, it's a miracle it hasn't happened until now. I hope this case becomes a win-win for everyone, including the guiding industry.

07 February 2004, 10:22

Bill G.

Jeff P.
EXACTLY. I have tried since the beginning of this debate to make that very point. I am not trying to change Alaska Laws. I would hope the people that created them were smarter than most of us here and that they were created for a legitimate reason. Hopefully!!!

The paying hunter has a right to know up front, before a penny in transferred, not upon arrival in camp, but at contract time. Then if the guide can legally shoot, and the legal circumstances were agreed to by both hunter and client, then all is well. I would like to see this a written form for both the sake of the guide and the client. The paying client has a right to know. It is a law, it just needs enforcement.

07 February 2004, 06:46

ChuckWagon

How do you see that changing ? Is it realistic to think guides are going to let any one with a few extra bucks shoot a dangerous animal and not put a finishing shot in it ? It seems the ADFG would be a little concerned about the body count on that one. Maybe we should give all PH's in the future squirt guns and have our advisors read the contracts before we just go hunting

05 February 2004, 23:37

Bill G.

Bear in Fairbanks,
No, didn't say they were not available to the public, said they were not in the hunting regulation book which they are not. I also am bored with your lies and inability to keep the facts straight. Go change your depends and go back to bed.

Chuckwagon, you will make Al Sharpton proud in the election

06 February 2004, 18:02

tsturm

Quote:

I hate to pick a scab, but I don't think I've ever thrown my two sheckles into to ring. I guess I've already offened the non-residents so what the heck.

Bill, I appreciate the fact that your opinion is that you'll sort out whatever trouble you get into, and the guide won't be allowed to shoot. The fact is, by law, the guide is required to shoot. It doesn't matter what agreement the client has with the guide, the law prevails. It seems that your biggest beef is that you weren't informed of the law, and I can understand that.

As far as most bears leaving Kodiak with more than one whole, that is true. The over-riding reason for that is, most client hunters don't make very good shots in the field. This may be too blunt, but you are a perfect example of a client that can't shoot. You didn't just make a bad shot, you completely missed the animal!

Are there some shortcomings in the wording of the laws? Absolutely, all laws and statutes have shortcomings. Should the guide requirements to shoot be made more clear? Absolutely.

But with all that asside, it was your inability to make a good shot that caused the whole fiasco. You can howl and carry on about how horrid the guides are, and the ADF&G for standing up for the guides, but it completely ignores the person solely responsible for making the mess. We all make bad shots on occasions. The difference is, most of us don't try to blame the world for our mistakes.

You had the bear in your sights, you missed. You can blaim the guide, you can blame ADF
&G for backing them up, but you screwed up, and you'll have to live with that.

EXACTLY Paul !!!!!

If you do not like the way things are in ALASKA, STAY HOME!!