Bill G. wrote (bold empahsis is mine)...

Quote:

---

Tell us how to get around the set of laws that are described above, which by the way I was not aware of until long after the hunt, and nor was one viewer of this forum.

---

here's another quote of yours from the "spiridon bear camp, gentner, a.d.f.g." thread which you posted yesterday...

Quote:

---

Interestingly, (6) months ago none of you guys had never heard of the "take" definition used like this before.

---

Well Bill, hate to burst your self inflated ego, but check out this thread at the 24hourcampfire website from April 2002. It's all about the definition of "take" in ADF&G hunting regs...



New definitions for Kodiak bear "taking"



As you can read, this is nothing new to most of us. Your claims of introducing this topic to the hunting world are FALSE.



You still have failed to show us one statute which backs up the claim you make here...

Quote:

---

The paying hunter has a right to know up front, before a penny in transferred, not upon arrival in camp, but at contract time.

---

Again this statute...



Alaska Statute 12 AAC 75.310. � It is the responsibility of a registered guide, class-A assistant guide, and assistant guide to: (#8) advise clients and employees involved in a hunt of all applicable state and federal statutes and regulations related to hunting, land use, wildlife, big game hunting services and conservation



Doesn't state when the advising must be done. You were advised as the situations dictated. Your guides saved your legal butt by taking the correct action in the field after the bear was down.



You keep making claims, but not backing them up and it's getting old.

BW,



First let me sayI have no horse in this particular race and don't wish to get dragged into the name calling and muck spreading..



You may be correct that the guides or booking agents have no legal requirement to spell things out, but I would have thought that they would have a moral requirement. Does not the booking agent reresent the interests of the hunter as well as the outfitter?



Regardless of the circumstances of the this particular incident, if Bill made it clear to the booking agent and the outfitter he did not want anyone "assisting" in any way in the actual kill, i think they should have dicussed this issue and the various legal requirements and what the guide would and would not do for any given set of circumstances at that point ie before the hunt was booked.



I think Bill just wants these folks to be "upfront" about how the operate and what they are required to do...



Whether you like Bills approach or not, or whether you think he simply messed up is his hunt or not, I don't think asking for full disclosure of these things before the hunt is booked is unreasonable?



Out of State hunters are looking to booking agents, outfitters and guides for assistance in all aspects of the hunt and i think setting the ground rules straight before booking is not a bad start?



Regards,



Pete

Pete,

The only thing that went wrong with Bills hunt, is that his guide mistakenly shot his bear thinking Bill had wounded it.

The problem is between Bill and the guide service he was using. Not the State os Alaska as Bill likes to claim.

Sure the "take" definition is questionable, but that has nothing to do with this case. The assistant guide shot at Bills bear as per the statute concerning a guides requirement to stop wounded game...

12 AAC 75.310. RESPONSIBILITIES OF GUIDES. (a)(5)

use every lawful means at the licensee�s disposal to bag a wounded animal while it is in danger of
escaping, or, in a serious emergency, while human life or well being is endangered;

Anyone who comes to Alaska to hunt Brown bear, and claims to not understand or have knowledge of that rule is an idiot. That's what guides are for!!!

Bill constantly accuses others of misquoting him, or lying on this subject. I want him to address my points in the first post and show me the statute which he claims backs him up. Otherwise he's just blowing hot air...

Show us were the State of Alaska legally wronged you Bill.

BW,

Leaving Bill's case aside for one moment, I see the issue as whether the booking agent or outfitter/guides were upfront in explaining just how they operate and what the would do and not do in certain circumstances. If I were booking a hunt in Alaska through a booking agent I would expect something along the lines of the following conversation:

Booking Agent: "Right thats settled then...a couple more points before you send your deposit..You realise that if you wound a bear or make a bad shot, the guide is going to shoot too, in fact is required too?"

Me: "I am not sure i want that, ;I mean it won't feel like "my trophey"...Can't I go in after the bear myself if I wound it??? I will sign a disclaimer absolving everybody of responsibility.."

Booking agent: " Well, the guide is actually required by law to try to dispatch the wounded animal and most won't let you in on the follow up...the State gets a bit upset if visiting hunters get hurt, you understand?"

Me: "I guess so, but I am not too worried as this will only apply if wound my bear; I don't intend doing that!"

Booking agent: "Again, technically, the guide might shoot if he *thinks* you have wounded the bear...some times its kinda hard for him to tell, and the law allows him to use his descretion...better that way, than having a wounded bear laying up in the Alders..."


I am not saying that the law requires a booking agent to explain things like this by statute, but moraly, I would like to think my booking agent operating in an honourable way and being my repesentive, (and also being far more expirienced than I), would "hold my hand" and lead me through such legal niceties????

Is that too much to expect?

Regards,

Pete

Pete,



Your clouding the issue. This is about Bill making claims and statements he hasn't back up. Also, there has been no mention of a booking agent in this case.



But, yes, your scenerio is just fine.



Here's another quote from Bill (bold empahsis mine)...

Quote:

---

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.

---

So you see, Bill is letting his guide off the hook, and blaming Alaska. That's why I asked Bill to show me the statute where he claims Alaska has wronged him.

Yes it honestly is too much. This is not a issue of a booking agent so lets leave the third parties out of it. It all settles down to this. If Bill had arrived in camp uneducated and unknowing but dead set against this he could have LEFT when he found out. Would that be dissapointing ? Yes. But you can NOT get informed, agree, then cry about the out come. He simply should have said NO ! That's NOT acceptable and that's not was discussed or disclosed to me before I arrived. Then IF he and his outfitter could not have reached terms he should have left camp on the next charter. Bill then would have had a case to argue and a point to make.

Brian,
The first quote you refer to is from AS 08.54.790 (7) (B) from Howard Starbard and it was discussed on this forum.

I am not familiar with the (24) hour forum. I have just scrolled through it though. Some claim they have heard of it, some have not. Most people on THIS forum had not and that is what I stated.

The quote about the hunter knowing up front is my input not a statute. Never stated otherwise.

Doesn't state when the advising must be done. Yup, you are perceptive. Just suggested an approach.

I guess what I keep coming back to is that the guide (allegedly)shot an unwounded bear. I'm not totally sure if anything else makes a difference, including the definition of 'take'. For the hunter to sign a harvest report saying that he killed the animal, I'm not sure if thats right either. I believe that Gentner made the right decision with that. This is why I believe that this needs to be taken as a court case and rectified. In the end, hopefully some of the ambiguous language will be changed or clarified so we don't have to go through this again.

What I keep going back to is how can we armchair quarter back and guess based on skewed third party info that the guide was NOT under the impression or belief that the bear was hit

Your absolutely right there chuck. Us 'armchair quarter backs' are maybe only getting part of the story, Lets see what comes out in court. BTW, if you were the guide, what would you of done? How 'bout if you were Gentner or 'dickweed' as you call him? Would you of been upset that you had to bring home someone else's animal?

Bill,

You did more than just "suggest an approach." By your own words you claim to have dissuaded over 400 hunters from booking hunts in Alaska.

Your actions, and the actions of the guide you hired caused the death of one brown bear. The State of Alaska is not big into issuing "do-overs" because a hunter messed up.

This issue is between you and Spiridon Bear Camp, or whoever the Guide was, but not the State of Alaska.

Well if I was as "Special" as your friend and I had such lofty morals I would simply have not gone on the hunt. I would have returned home and this case would have had some legal teeth. Your friend accepted the outfitters terms that were explained to him upon arrival. By his OWN admission ! I realize that the concept of responsability is a bit tough for you. You claim to be a guide so you tell me. What would you have done from 200 yards and let me guess, you NEVER EVER put a second shot in a clients animal. Give me a break. If you are unhappy with the laws in your state that are applicable to you as a guide then deal with it ! But this case has no relevance.

'''If you are unhappy with the laws in your state that are applicable to you as a guide then deal with it ! But this case has no relevance. '''

I do deal with it chuck, but I don't like it and I would like to see some wording changed in the regulations. I hope this case can do that.

What would I have done? Where I guide a bear has little/marginal cover, we hunt them down and kill the wounded ones, which hasn't happened to me in 9 years. So far, I've always had a client who put in the first fatal shot and the bear either dies there or doesn't go far before dying, so no, I've NEVER EVER. I'm either damned lucky, or good.

You wanna see my license? Here ya go, look for license 5270: http://www.dced.state.ak.us/occ/pgui7.htm

Tell me the year you hunted in AK and I'll check you out.

year 2000. And I could care less about your license. I am all for you getting things in your area squared away chuckster. I just do not see how the grandstanding of this fellow who made a informed choice is going to help your cause. In fact I see far more harm than good. Perhaps you just need another book of regulations and rules Either way I wish you luck with that remarkable record as a guide

And good luck to you too chuck. If bagging a blackie one year in AK makes you an expert, well.... Since you are now an expert and a well seasoned traveler in AK, you probably noticed that there is no shortage of rules and regulations.

I suppose it does look like I'm siding with Gentner, thats okay with me, I hope he's gonna help get some things straightened out.

Good luck chuck, hope you get a deer this year.

And I hope things go well for you too chucky. I am perfectly fine with you siding with the other fellow. I would expect that we all lobby for our own best interest. I have no steak in this other than I really disslike those who go to such great lengths to destroy what another man has worked for simply because they could not master their own fears or accept the consequences of their own actions.

PS, Don't forget. I did NOT bag a bear. I missed, but I did fill my tag as that was the law and the result of my error.

Brian,

You are wrong. Things started really hopping when I made your Captain Howard Starbard's letter known. When a non-resident hunter starts reading that there are laws that state, that when you hire a guide you have hired him to, "KILL BIG GAME FOR YOU". That was the clincher. Brian, I am not kidding, I responded to him, that was the most stupid thing I have heard yet in this case. If the state of Alaska thinks people would "KNOWINGLY" book a hunt under that premise, they are foolish. You may dislike me for making this public, but I swear to God, if it were in my state I would be doing the same thing. I would want every hunter alive to know it. Once again Brian, I was just the messenger. Captain Howard Starbard or whomever is pulling his strings did the dissuading.



Pete E.

Exactly right regarding your posts, that is the message I am trying to get enforced. I can add nothing.



Brian,

"Take" is applicable here because the state applied it here. Sorry, but they did, assistant, or maybe deputy commissioner Reglin, that's the right last name, the title may be skewed. If it becomes important I will gladly look it up.



Chuckwagon,

I sure hope your reference about being told about the laws was not referring to me. My guide and I talked about the shooting parameters and I said don't shoot my bear unless one of us was in harms way. There was NO dispute nor was there further discussion. All these laws coming to light all came AFTER the hunt not during or before. Even at that I learned them from the ADFG not the guide. All but the "take" usage are in the guides book not the ADFG book. I hope I have clarified this.

f.y.i.
i heard that recently spiridon's area was recently awarded to an outfitter by the name of hirsch.
have no way of knowing if this is really accurate. does anyone know for sure? maybe billg' stain on their sinking reputation/business had something to do with it?

cold zero

Bill G wrote...

Quote:

---

Things started really hopping when I made your Captain Howard Starbard's letter known. When a non-resident hunter starts reading that there are laws that state, that when you hire a guide you have hired him to, "KILL BIG GAME FOR YOU". That was the clincher.

---

So know it's NOT about when the guide must inform the client of the various rules and regulations. Hmmm, you quoted that statute before, but I guess it no longer holds water since there is no timeframe mentioned in that statute.

But okay, let's look at your NEW real reason for warning other hunters away from Alaska (from your post above)...

Quote:

---

Things started really hopping when I made your Captain Howard Starbard's letter known. When a non-resident hunter starts reading that there are laws that state, that when you hire a guide you have hired him to, "KILL BIG GAME FOR YOU".

---

Well here's that statute...

7) "guide" means to provide, for compensation or with the intent or with an agreement to receive compensation, services, equipment, or facilities to a big game hunter in the field by a person who accompanies or is present with the big game hunter in the field either personally or through an assistant; in this paragraph, "services" includes


(A) contracting to guide or outfit big game hunts;


(B) stalking, pursuing, tracking, killing, or attempting to kill big game;


(C) packing, preparing, salvaging, or caring for meat, except that which is required to properly and safely load the meat on the mode of transportation being used by a transporter;


(D) field preparation of trophies, including skinning and caping;


(E) selling, leasing, or renting goods when the transaction occurs in the field;


(F) using guiding or outfitting equipment, including spotting scopes and firearms, for the benefit of a hunter; and


(G) providing camping or hunting equipment or supplies which are already located in the field;

I highlighted the statute you refer too. Let's break it down, as it does NOT say (and I quote you again) "KILL BIG GAME FOR YOU".

It does mention "stalking, pursuing, tracking", those should be self-explanitory.

It also goes on to say "killing, or attempting to kill big game". Well of course it does! As guides are required by law to kill or attempt to kill wounded game that is endanger of escaping.

Only a simpleton would equate your definition "KILL BIG GAME FOR YOU" with the states simple statement that a guide may actually kill a clients animal.


So let's see Bill, what's next? The definition of "take" again?

If you can sit there and honestly state that your actions of booking a Alaska brown bear hunt, buying the needed license and tags, traveling all the way to Kodiak, actually going afield and hunting brown bear, then PERSONALLY pulling the trigger on said bear, are in no way responsible for that bear being "TAKEN", then I have seriously over-estimated your intelligence.

I know this will be a lot to grasp, but there were multiple issues from the start and still is today. You did a lovely job of posting the statute. Once again, what I posted was Captain Howard Starbard's reply to me exactly as it was printed in that letter. I would recommend contacting him and asking him why he added a couple words to the statute. Often times they added words, other times they took them away. It was kind of make up the wording to suit the direction they wanted the case to take.

cr/BG

Bill G.,



It's all very easy to grasp.



At first you referenced statute after statute listing how the guide and the State violated those statutes. I've gone over all the statutes you've listed and found that not a SINGLE ONE has been violated. Your website is plastered with State of Alaska statutes about guide laws, followed with your nice little quotes pointing out where you were wronged. These were the foundation of your whole movement here.



BUT NOW...



...according to you, it's about some letter which you received from a State official. A letter which you only summerized on your webpage. Based on the rest of the incorrect "facts" on your webpage, I seriously have to doubt you summerized the letter in a fair and honest manner. The "Laws" page on your website is so wrong it's almost funny.



Once you admit that your responsible for the death of that bear, therefore "taking" it under the laws of Alaska (and perhaps two other States) the rest of your case holds no water.



Only two mistakes were made in your case. You missed (and that happens) and your guide thought the bear was wounded and escaping (that happens, especially at far distances.) After that, all the laws concerning "take", "tagging", and whatever else you can think of, were complied with according to the letter of the law.



So once again, I believe your problem is with the guide/outfitter and not Alaska. Your actions since then have been geared towards disuading other hunters from booking hunts with ANY guide in Alaska. That is a true injustice to them and the people who depend on them.