Jim,
As a guide you know better than most of the poster's here there are (2) books. The hunter goes to the store in Alaska and buys a hunting license. He/She is given the latest "Alaska Hunting Regulation Currently #44". The guide, (unknown to the perspective hunter) has in his posession a copy (which as of a week ago I now have in my posession), a copy of what is called, "STATUTES AND REGULATIONS, BIG GAME TRANSPORTERS AND GUIDES". There is no reference in either book that the other book exists. There is no common ground between the two books right??? This is why the guide has a legal obligation to read the client the rules because unless the client has read this forum, he will have NO indication anything other than the book which was given him/her at the time of license purchase even exists.

Jim, I like you hope this is a win, win for the state of Alaska, the guides, the non-resident hunter, the resident hunter. Thanks.

After reading the "Other Alaska Web Site", I am compelled to set the record straight about the cancellation of the SCI Hunting Report Seminar before it migrates over here. I am addressing this here simply because the other site does not approve of the truth about some findings, therefore the facts are not allowed to be published for fear that a non-resident might read them.

On 12/8/03, I received an E-mail after an earlier phone discussion with the Hunting Report's Don Causey. The Hunting Report always called the issue, "Trigger Happy Guides". The Huntersbeware initiative always called it "legalized deception", which was discussed in length and we proved our findings in another area of this forum. The round table discussion that the Hunting Report wanted was nice, but I did not think we could exclude the fact that all the laws were not in the hunting regulations book. When the discussion went into our suggestion of mandating that the system, (state or guide) tell the client all of the laws before contract time, the Hunting Report chose to bow out. The E-mail read, "I have decided to simply cancel the seminar".

We encouraged them to go on with the seminar without our attending, and handle it the way they chose. We thought something good could still come out possibly. They chose to cancel it, not us.

Needless to say a person posting yet another one of his asinine lies on that site will certainly tend to mislead people. "The several sides to the story". There was Don Causey and myself!!!

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.

Paul

Your quote on hunters no being able to shoot might be true. But I have yet to see an Alaskan Guide that can shoot worth a damn either.

On 6 guided hunts I have seen guides miss Moose at 50 yards, gut shoot them and even shoot into the horns, twice. I have seen two different Bear guides completely miss a total of 7 shots at Bears including three shots at Bears that were down on the ground at around 75 yards. I have hunted with one Bear guide that was afraid of Bears and wanted me to take a shot of over 200 yards from a boat because he didn't want to land and stalk up the beach.

I think that it is a miracle that the guide even hit the Bear in question let alone kill it. They all seem to favor big guns but can't or won't practice with them. On one Bear hunt on the Penninsula the Outfitter gave the guide a 458 to carry as a backup. The largest gun he had ever shot was a 30-06 as this was his first Bear Hunt. Not his first Bear client but his first Bear Hunt, period. He should have paid me. He would have if we would have been in Canada.

The law may make the guide responsible but he showed no responsibility in telling a client he didn't know from Adam to shoot at that distance. I would also guess that when it comes to hunting expensive animals the vast majority of the clients have more experiance and are better hunters than the vast majority of the guides. Exceptions always.

Mickey,

You've seen a lot of shooting being done by Guides! Kinda different, but okay. I'm glad that you chose not to shoot from the boat! It was a wise choice, and even though pressured by your Guide, you chose the correct path. That said, read below...

Quote:

---

The law may make the guide responsible but he showed no responsibility in telling a client he didn't know from Adam to shoot at that distance.

---

IMHO, there's only one person EVER responsible for taking a shot at an animal, and that's the actual shooter. There may be pressure from a Guide or fellow hunters, but the sole responsibilty lies on the shoulders of the man shooting the gun.

Let's see, I was addressing a concern about why the SCI Hunting Report seminar was cancelled. This was prompted by a lie posted on the other forum and since this forum is the one I choose to support, I wanted to head off any additional bullshit.

Paul, you can pick all the scabs you want, this is only discussion, along with mostly mature posts. (excluding a few of your recent one's). The most important point you seem to have continually missed is as follows. Under the responsibilities of guides, the client is supposed to be advised of all the state and federal laws as they pertain to hunting and land use. HAD THIS BEEN DONE I WOULD NOT HAVE BOOKED A HUNT UNDER THAT PREMISE. I have pointed out before, this is a little about the guide company and a lot about the laws. As far as your statement I am a client that cannot shoot, you can go pack sand. Your statement proves your ignorance. You don't know me or my shooting skills, nor do I know you or your shooting skills. You poor chumps are so desperate for a justification for your laws and a rationalization for guides actions, you will resort to anything to support your ignorant comments. That's fine.

I will say it again, I defy anyone of you arm chair critics to go on a hunt and discuss the parameters of the shooting, pull the trigger, realize you missed, and before you have your second round in the chamber, get muzzle blasted on the side of your face by the guides .416 and settle in for whatever takes place next. All this being contrary to the shooting parameters that were discussed.

Last but least, if the shortcomings of what took place with me don't concern you, you have lived in Alaska too long or have been sitting on your bar stool too long. I honestly don't care how you feel about my view of this case. My concern is for the next guy that might become victim of the asinine rules that the guides don't tell the client. Got the picture yet??

By the way, when the guide's bullet hit's your animal, except in the case of either party being in harms way, the animal cannot be entered into the B&C book. You guides make sure you tell your paying clients that after you shoot his animal and take his $15,000, he will love to hear that.

Rob R. just straightened out some jerk off over on the other forum with regard to the guide's shooting of an unwounded animal. Before you shoot your mouth off anymore you may want to read a legal eagles view on the subject. I think it might save you some embarrasment.

mickey;

i agree with u, points well taken.

billg;
i like the way that if u miss one time, automatically u are a lousy shot. did u know i missed once, that means i suck also.

i went to a marine corp. shoot in nov., 300 yds. prone no bipods, shooting off packs and slings only. i beat the majority of the active duty devildogs. i can hold my own against any guide. i bet an outfitter in n.w.t. canada my swarovski's against his leica's for 3 shots at 100 yds. i still have the same binos. missing 1 shot on 1 day, means diddly. even carlos hathcock missed.

don't listen to the insulting, ignorant, cheap, computer nerds out there. keep hunting. your welcome to come up to ak. with me this year.

paul h, he could not hit the inside of an outhouse from the inside. he sits on a bar stool and moderates a web site with one hand and his johnson with the other.

cold zero

Cold Zero,

Having taken my family to Anchorage, and met Paul and his wonderful family, I must tell you that your insults are way off base. I however have known a bar stool or two.

I see the smiley faces in your post though, and assume your insults are of a friendly nature. I wish more folks took this board a bit lighter.

What I gather from reading recent posts, is that the majority of the Alaska folks no longer care about this incident anymore. The 'pity train' has left the station, next stop, New York...

Given the comment about Paul, I say we should shorten cold zero's name to just zero.

I�ve sat here reading all these posts and wanted to try to clear a few things up. First of guides do not systematically shoot hunters animals regardless of what has been stated here. We want nothing more than our hunters to have the full experience of harvesting their own trophy. There are occasions where we must shoot and we have to usually decide that on a case-to-case basis. Brown bear hunting is very dangerous and as guides we have to determine what constitutes a dangerous situation and unless you�re in that position you have no idea because it�s real easy to make it behind a computer. Most if not all brown bear guides (as in this case) explain to their hunter that if a dangerous situation arises they will shoot. Whether I agree with this guides decision or no really doesn�t matter, however I understand it. I �m quite sure he did not shoot just to shoot I �m sure he felt the bear was getting away wounded escaping into the alders. I appreciate the fact that some hunters would crawl into the alders after a wounded bear but they don�t have to and a lot of hunters don�t, as guides we have no options we have to go in and yes that is a dangerous situation. I�m not trying to offend or defend anyone here I just want to express my opinion on the situation.

Easy there, AkDave, Ol' Bill's gonna call you a liar & a 2-bit grease monkey because you don't agree with him. The points you raise in your post have been mentioned numerous times before by others & they seem to just fly over his head. I suggest we just let him stew in his own juices as it is. I can't believe that his guide willingly allowed him to shoot at such an animal. I'd bet that it was the 1st brown bear Bill ever saw & that the excitement of the situation overtook him. He thought, incorrectly, that he could put the animal down at an estimated 200 yds. I'd also almost bet that the guide at least thought he saw a hit. But what the hell do I know? Supposedly, according to Bill, I wear Depends, which, BTW IS A LIE BILL! For all I care he can take that bear hide & stick it where the sun don't shine.

And yes, Dave! I too in the past, did some assistant guiding. You are absolutely correct about wanting clients to have a fully enjoyable & successful experience. If the client wasn't successful, for any reason, we too felt bad. This even if the client shot at his animal & missed. We always tried our damnedest to do right for the client. Regretably, upon occasion, the client didn't seem to appreciate our efforts. Bear in Fairbanks

AkDave,
Excellent post, appreciate the input. You are a fine representative of the guiding community and of the state of Alaska.

You guides, c'mon we all know you are a bunch of rich money hungry trigger happy grease monkeys

I understand that the shot that Mr. Gentner took on this animal was at a range of approx 200 yards. I've heard and read critics of his, comment that this range is much too far for a unsupported shot at a bear. I don't know about you guys, but I'll take that shot anyday as long as it is clear and slow moving or standing. That's a chip shot for most any experienced big game hunter with proper equipment. I've not only shot animals much farther than that, but have let clients shoot at game that far and farther. Do any of you guys really think thats too far for an unsupported shot at a bear?

I can say I personally would not be comfortable with a shot on a bear, even a black bear at that range in AK simply due to the terrain. He is either going to be in the brush or several hundred feet off the side of a foot hill if you dont bust that shoulder or get a good stopping shot. No matter what my comfort range I have never even heard of a professional guide before that would let a client take a shot at a bear beyond a hundred yards. This is a perfect of example of why not. The client can blunder the shot under pressure and the guide simply can not ascertain from that distance weather or not the animal has been hit. He must then operate under the premise that it has been hit. Overall IF and I want to stress IF this is what happened, It is a PERFECT example of why you do not go against the Master Guides rules. But to be perfectly blunt their are many elements in this case that I do not find plausable. However, even if this is the case the outfitter was perfectly reasonable in offering a future discount. Given the clients demeaner in this case I think he is probably a more generous man than I would be in similar circumstances. The ONLY element in this example that is critical in my minds eye is the failure of the client to accept any responsability. Much has been made about the rule of "take" and the guide shooting. From a legal stand point I would submit that the hunter ratified the contract upon arrival in camp when this was explained to him. IF the hunter was truelly opposed to this as he presents he should have left camp and sought reimbursement through the courts for breach of contract. He CHOSE not to do this. This case is one of responsability and nothing more. He accepted the terms. Even if they were at the late date of arrival. He accepted the animal that was spotted. He accepted the shot and then he simply did not like the out come. This fellow should stick with high fence operations in the future and looking at his posts else where that is apparently where the majority of his experience lies. In hunting free range their are no garuntees. NONE. This sort of thing degrades our sport all the way around. Placing totall emphesis on the kill is poor form at best. 200' was obviously 200' too far for this chap. Better luck next time old boy

This black bear was 170 yards according to the laser rangefinder.



bang - flop

I am assuming that was a self guided hunt. I never had any need to shoot that far on a blackie but I have heard in some cases on the beaches that further shots are necessary. All of the hunting I have done in AK has been in the foothills. One step here or their and whoops four more hours of work So I can only speak from my own experience. I would not pretend for a moment to know more than a resident or a guide. Just sharing my experience and my comfort level. Each time I have been for Blackies their have been so many animals the thrill of the stalk greatly exceeds the kill. Unless you run into a eight footer PS Well placed shoulder shot ! What did you use ?

Chuckwagon,

I'm no fan of long distance bear shooting myself. This bear was on the shoreline, and we were on a small island just offshore. There was no way to get any closer. It squared at 7 feet.

I shot him with my 416 Taylor using a 370r North Fork bullet.

Nice beast ! I have never been to Afrika but I can't imagine that life can offer much more excitement than a good stalk on a bear BTW the last blackie I took was well under a hundred yards with a 300 H&H and a nosler partition. It was a direct shoulder hit that did break the shoulder but it also stopped the bullet instantly ! Have you ever seen how fast a three legged bear can run Did a bit of extra climbing that day !

i heard that spiridon's area was recently awarded to another outfitter by the name of hirsch. does anyone know if this is accurate? i don't know if the billg stain on their reputation/business had anything to do with this decision. their business was way off anyway. see this months hunting report for yet another neg' article on spiridon.

shooting clients bears, can kill a bear and your business too. now that f. & g. and the state have conspired with spiridon to safely wiggle out of the billg problem. i wonder if they will help spiridon and their employees pay their mortgages/bills? anyone want to buy a b.b. hunt, cheap?

as for the distance of billg's shot.... i agree with aj.

i took my b.b. farther out than that and had no trouble consistently dropping the animal (see big grizzly thread for details). terrain, weather conditions, conditioning, etc. will have an impact on each situation.

good hunting

cold zero