Hi all,
I've been reading some of the discussions on here concerning guides and regulations and wondered if you could tell me how long the guide requirement has been in use in Alaska.
I have always wanted to hunt grizzly in Alaska, and hope to some day when I have more hunting experience, but why exactly are there guide requirements for bear (not black)? and sheep? I could see bear as being dangerous game and more liability, but why sheep?
I understand that sheep are in remote and rough terrain and I guess you don't want greenhorns prancing around the mountains shooting at sheep--too many search and rescue issues? From what I know there aren't any restrictions on hikers, and hikers essentially can travel any accessible area w/out a guide, it's the same terrain, they just aren't killing anything.
---I just wondered why non-residents can't just apply for a bear permit and go hunt w/out a guide if they get drawn. There are many you can pay to fly you in and out and don't charge you thousands for help. Granted your chances are increased with a guide, but what happened to just being able to go out on an adventure? Whether or not I get a bear is not the most important thing to me, but if I had to pay $10,000 or more then I would end up expecting success, and ending up much more dissappointed w/out it. Could you shed some light on my ignorance?

300H&H,
I could be wrong, but I believe a guide is required because of the impact that out of state hunting has on the localized economies in Alaska; no guided hunts = less money to the local economies. Nothing more or less than that, IMHO

Craig

Too many stupid (no one here included) people don't come back from the bush!! They are trying to prevent spending my tax dollars looking for more of them!!

Craig is right. For example, the guiding association is trying to get laws enacted that require non-residents to have a guide for ANY hunting. It's all about the money...SHOW ME THE MONEY! Alaska has some interesting F&G regs...like needing a state fishing license to fish offshore in federal waters.

By the way, I like your point about hikers being able to travel the same places without guides.

300H&H,

I can't say why exactly but, I think Craig nailed down one of the the major reasons.

I am NO expert but, a couple of possible others reasons....as I see it anyway.

Just because a hunter has the money to hunt Alaska doesn't mean he knows what the hell he is doing. I heard a story a year back where a hunter shot a Mt Goat thinking it a Dall sheep..!! A much longer story in and off itself but, suffice to say the ADF&G doesn't want characters like this out on their own. The outfitter almost lost his license over that one. I think in alot of respects guides are there to ensure the ADF&G Laws are followed and believe me there are ALOT of them that vary from area(drainage)to area.
You must know the area you can hunt...where it begins and ends. Just try to go salmon fishing throughtout the state and you will see just how complicated it can get!!!

Alaska is so big it is hard to imagine until you are there. My wife & I tent camped there for 3 weeks last year and it was an eye opener. Once you get out of the Southern part of the state you feel like you are alone. I imagine unlike the hikers you mentioned the "average" hunter knows little of real wilderness travel. The weather can be pretty severe. Last 4th of July I was taking a bus tour in Denali and it was snowing. A day later I was in jeans & tee shirt. Drop someone off out on the peninsular or Kodiak for bear and the weather might get them long before the bears do. While this might sound like I am being a bit dramatic if you are not prepaired it can do you in quick. How many first time hunters from much warmer climates really understand how server the weather can be & how quick it can change? From warm and pleasant to cold and rainy, sleet & 30-40mph winds in an hour. This happened to me last year. In the mountains it can be even more dramatic and dangerous. Not to metion how easy it is to get turned around. We took a few hikes on the tundra looking to photograph game and after a short time it all starts to look the same... Without a landmark you must keep your bearings(will you be able to SEE your landmark....there is...fog,snow,rain,overcast etc). ie...if you know there is road to your North you will probaly be okay. If you have to find something as small as your drop camp(a pin point)in the wilderness after you have been gone for 10-12 hours and are completely turned around it another deal altogether.

Then there are the slobs. People who are bad news where ever they hunt. Receintly a hunter shot a hole in the AK Pipeline. How about judging game. I'd bet big money alot of sow Brown bears would be shot because the hunter can't tell the differance between a sow & boar.

To expand upon what Craig said I think that a successful hunter is a happty hunter. If the state wants hunters dollars & return hunter dollars it pays to have a hired helping hand to ensure the hunters success. Alaska is not teaming with game. In alot of ways it could be called a Northern desert. The game is in pockets and you have to find it. Sure its possible to do a hunt on your own and be successful but, it's also a very real possibility you will leave empty handed. Like everything else there is a learning curve and a "best" or "most likely to succeed" way of doing things. How well would a I a New Hampshire & Maine whitetail deer hunter do on a self guided Brown Bear hunt? Hell I wouldn't want to think about it. Sure it would be a TON of fun, real adventure out in true wilderness but, could I really pull it off on a trophy boar. What are their habits? Where are they likely to be at any given time? How best should I hunt them? I'd like to look you in the eye and say yes, I could do it but, the truth is I doubt it. Just 3 weeks up there convinced me otherwise.

Alot of what I have said is my own judgement and VERY limited experience. There are alot of Alaskans that frequent this forum and I am sure they can tell you much more and correct what I said. The prospect of planning a big trip, getting on a plane and teeing off into the Alaskan wilderness to hunt Brown Bear for the first time on my OWN sounds rather bleak to me.

The guides may be expensive or they could be a bargan depending upon how you look at it.

Best Regards,
Dave

It is all about guides and outfitters making money. No other reason at all if some fool wants to spend his money wandering around looking for something to shoot with no idea where it might be so what. If guides were for safety of nonres. They would be required for all game animals. I call laws requireing guides, guide and outfitter protection acts.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DavidC:
[QB]300H&H,

Then there are the slobs. People who are bad news where ever they hunt. Receintly a hunter shot a hole in the AK Pipeline.

That guy WAS NO HUNTER! Just a drunk asshole!!

You summed it up well DavidC

It has only tangetially to do with safety or the economic benefits of reguiring a guide.

In reality it is to limit pressure on the resource. By requiring a guide, the number of non-resident hunters is diminished. But for that requirement, there would be drawing hunts for probably all sheep hunting areas and many if not most brown bear hunting areas. Goats is another matter, and the safety issue may factor more into that requirement.

All states limit access to non-residents. This manner of limiting access has the advantage of providing economic benefits and decreased demand for emergency services. Certainly, there are many residents who are less experienced than some non-residents, but if there were no guide requirement, the demand on emergency servies would be increased.

Thanks for the replies,
I went with a friend to summers ago and we drove to Alaska from Colorado. We were gone for a month, and we spent a couple weeks in Alaska. We went in late june/july, so the weather was nice. It is vast to say the least, but if one does some research and comes prepared they should be fine if the weather turns. The only grizzly we saw was in Montana, and in AK we did a lot of salmon fishing!

I've known friends that have hunted AK in late August when I'm still on vacation. They knew someone up there with a plane and he got drawn for Grizzly. If I were to go I would like to hunt with a buddy, and just take a couple weeks and camp/hunt. With GPS and other tech. there is less chance of getting lost, and I think with the right equipment and connections you could do it yourself, it would just take time and planning.

I've always thought of guides as professionals who you pay to have a good hunt. They increase your chances dramatically, but there's more to it than success. I just don't think they should require guides for certain animals. I would be for just giving a certain amount of tags to non-residents and let them, idiots or not, the opportunity to hunt. When I lived in CO, there is some rough terrain, deep snow, as dangerous as AK, but you have idiots out there too. I just don't like the idea of restricting people from hunting. Requiring a guide prices most people out of hunting. They did it in Africa and it's happening here too.

PS: The story posted by "Gatehouse" about the BC grizzly hunt was what got me thinking. That is the kind of do-it-yourself experience I like to have. A hunt with friends without the feeling of "damn I paid 9 grand, I better get a bear."

Gentlemen,
Excellent topic of conversation. I agree that a guide should be a choice at least for citizens of the U.S. who's tax dollars end up
in Alaska also.

Harvest concerns would be resolved with the drawing system that is already in place. Beyond that, every man must know his limitations. There could be equipment recommendations and then let nature take it's course. I don't agree with the idea that no guide will mean more emergency rescues. Are your rescue people in Alaska not full time employed people? If they are then rescue work is their job. If they are not, then hand the hunter a bill for services rendered. Having a guide will not save you from a sprained ankle or getting your butt bit by a bear. If your number is up, that's part of hunting dangerous game, or hunting not so dangerous game in dangerous locations.

300 H&H. Comparing the Alaska guiding situation to Africa could be debated. Not being a resident of that country, and not having to share tax dollars would be a start. Then would come the language barrier, more species of dangerous game, malaria, reactions from anti-malaria medications, which is worse than the malaria. (Speaking from experience!!) And let's not forget the vast array of deadly snakes and armed poachers.

Speaking from experience paying for an Alaskan guide can bring a lot of head aches also!

I hope all this debate brings a positive resolve.

[ 11-07-2003, 02:24: Message edited by: Bill G. ]

Bill,

The majority of the Search and Rescue folks seem to be volunteer teams in various cities across the State. The Air Force National Guard has the 'inland' responsibility for most helicopter type SARs, while the US Coast Guard watches over all the South East, South Central, Kodiak, and out the Chain. The USCG and the Air Guard also perform various rescues for villagers stranded out on ice flows out west.

Just as an example to show the size of the State... About once a year a crewmember out in the Bering Sea will need a medivac (crushed body parts, etc. Those traps are huge) off of their crab boat. A USCG helo will launch from Kodiak with a full crew (4 people) and fly the helo straight to St. Paul Island way out west. A C-130 will take off a few hours later carrying another helicopter crew to meet the helo at St. Paul. At that time the 'fresh' crew will take the helo, fly to the crabber, hoist the injured crewmember, and fly back to St. Paul. The crew which did the rescue will then get back on the C-130 with the injured party and fly back to Kodiak (or Anchorage if medical needs dictate.) The crew which flew the helo to St. Paul will get their crew rest, then fly it back to Kodiak.

What of real interest is that the trip from Kodiak to St Paul Island is the same distance as flying from St. Louis, Missouri to Los Angeles, California! That's a long way to fly, mostly over water too.

The cost to the taxpaying injured crewmember?...

$0.00, Nada, nothing. BTW, the USCG calculates the expenses of running a helicopter, and the crew, for one hour is about $3500. The C-130 goes for about $5000 and hour.

Here's a favorite picture of mine, which I took of a USCG helo flying by our boat...



I turn wrenches, and fly in (nope not a pilot, I run the hoist) them for a living.

BW,
Thanks for the information. If it is teams of volunteers,than it certainly must be considered a labor of love, right? Some of the posts kind of imply that the rescue mission expenses means people will not be able to feed their kids the next meal, which I find hard to believe. I also find it hard to believe every mishap in Alaska is a non-resident that had no guide.

You are right, those crab traps are awesome.
We did a little looking around Kodiak before my disasterous hunt. We fished before we left for home, and that helped the psyche a little.

Here in the great lakes region, not all of our resident sportsmen, or out of staters are rocket scientists either, but accidents and mishaps will happen. Every March our coast guard is working around the clock rescuing some of our ice fishermen, that think just maybe, 2" thick black ice will not be a bad thing that calendar year.

One of my most memorable days of my tournament mad man salmon fishing days started out in a heavy fog on lake Huron. Sixty five boats left the harbor and we were all sure the fog would lift mid morning like it always did. By 1 p.m. two hours before weigh in, the cries for assistance became so overwhelming on the radio, my crew and I pulled lines and got to the mouth of the harbor. I was the only guy out there with a VHF/RDF. I responded to the next caller and gave him a target heading. That was like opening pandoras box. Before it was over we had assisted (46) of the (65) boats in the tournament. At the awards banquet we got a standing ovation and newspaper recognition all over the area.

Back to the issue. If any Alaskans come to Michigan and need a helping hand, speaking for the majority, we will oblige with no malice.

BW, thanks again for the response.

Nope not all un-guided hunters. Last Fall one of our crews hoisted a non-resident Mountain Goat hunter off a local mountain after he slipped and fell a bit. Twisted an ankle I believe. The guide was Jim Boyce. The Goat he got before the acident was a good'un!

Allen,
Not hogwash. If there were guide requirements for non-resident moose, deer, and caribou hunters there would be less demand for emergency services - just a matter of numbers, as there would be a lot fewer such hunters if there were such a guide requirement. Note that I said this was only an incidental benefit - not the reason for the rule.

Bill G. - taxpayer of the US means nothing, whether on federal or state land. Under the equal footing doctrine each state owns its game, and can allow whomever it may wish to hunt it. If the State of Alaska decided to prohibit non-resident hunting completely, even on federal land, that would be within its rights (albeit rather shortsighted). I came from Illinois to Alaska over 20 years ago - at that time only residents could deer hunt in that state. Non-residents were prohibited from doing so, even on the federal wildlife refuges that all US taxpayers and sportsman contributed to funding. BTW I understand this issue is being litigated in New Mexico, but I would doubt that the litigation gets very far. I think a solution would have to be legislated.

I can already hear the arguments that if the state owns the game, why can the federal government implement subsistence regulations on federal lands that affect residents' rights to hunt there. Good question - ask Tony Knowles why he dismissed the lawsuit to determine this question "with prejudice" before the issue was decided by a court.

There are many probable reasons for requiring guides on certain hunts but I don't believe for a minute that the #1 reason is safety for those hunters. To propose requiring guides for all non-resident hunting has more to do with money than with safety. The guide association has a LOT of pull in this state and it's their idea.

The guiding situation is spiraling out of control in my opinion...from the process on making guide status to the fees they charge (on big ticket hunts)...out of control. Look at how much the hunts have increased in the last couple of years. Some guys are now getting as much for moose as they did for brown bears just a couple of years ago. I guess it doesn't hurt to ask for high wages but I can't believe how many guys will pay it.

Allen G,

You are of coarse correct and I am aware of the legality of hunting sows vs sows with cubs. The point I was trying to make was that I suspect alot of "do it yourself" out of state hunters couldn't tell the differance between a boar and a sow(no experience). They would head out hunting with the idea of taking a big boar but in reality could not really identify the differance between the sexes. This would result in many more sow deaths and as we know the big bears reproductive rate isn't exactly that fast. I believe an experienced guide would be a huge asset in this area helping both the hunter & the bear population stay strong.

Just my opinion.

Regards,
Dave

DaveC,
I will be honest and say that I can't tell the difference between a sow and boar, but it's all about education and the willingness to learn. I don't know about the registration of game, or particular regulations up there, but I think you'd be in big trouble if the regulations said you could shoot a boar and you shot a sow.
In Colorado there are point restrictions on elk in certain areas. You have to be familiar not only with what areas have these restrictions but also obviously the size of the elk. When an animal is 300 yards away or inside thick timber it's hard to tell.
---To me it would be all about preparation if I had the chance/choice to hunt Alaska w/out a guide, and if I ever went I would want to know everything about the animals and their habitat before anything else. Africa IS way different, so many species, etc. but the prices seem to reflect what Alaska is becoming, as well as other hunts throughout the U.S.

Wyoming requires non-res. hunters to hire a guide in the wilderness areas, & for that reason I will not hunt there. The same applies to Alaska. The tax revenue lost from barring the non-res. has to be considerable.
Even if I was wealthy beyond description I would not pay a guide unless it was my choice.
The concept is very un-american...

It's possible, that in the future they will open up grizzly hunting in the lower-48. Until then, there's no pressure on Alaska to change the rules. Probably no chance of getting a Dall Sheep down there though. The one animal that can be hunted down there, but which requires a guide up here, is of course the Mountain Goat. There's still folks who pay to go on guided Mt Goat hunts up here. So at least there's a demand for Guides, even when there are alternatives.

This is a subject that generates lots of heat.

I happen to agree with Allan Glore's posts.

I also agree with the wonder expressed by 300H&H:

"From what I know there aren't any restrictions on hikers, and hikers essentially can travel any accessible area w/out a guide, it's the same terrain, they just aren't killing anything."

I figured that elimination or revamping of the non-resident hunter guide requirements would end up being a hard, long fight here in Alaska. but the injustice demands that something be done.

That's why I'm submitting a proposal to the February Board of Game meeting agenda. It will propose that the guide requirement be expanded to include non-resident NON-CONSUMPTIVE wildlife users, like the deceased Timothy Treadwell.

If the guide requirement was enacted for safety reasons, then non-consumptive users (photographers, viewers, studiers, etc.) need the same safety net.

If the guide requirement was enacted to enrich the guiding industry, this proposal will enrich them even more.

And if the guide requirement was enacted to limit pressure on the wildlife resources, than this proposal will accomplish that as well.

The bottom line?: What's good for the goose (hunters) is good for the gander (non-hunters).

Allen - let's see. Here are my numbers - if there can be only 0 unguided non-residents, how many can require emergency services - 0. Unless you wan't to say that unguided, non-residents will never, ever require emergency services, then there will be an increase. Pretty simple.

Doesn't surpirse me that residents require most of the emergency services. I am curious as to what your experience is regarding how many of those were area residents versus residents from outside the area. I will bet from my experiences that most of them were locals.

huntersnorth,
If the non-resident guide requirement were revoked, it is extremely likely that there would be drawing hunts for all Kodiak and penninsula brown bear hunts, as well as for all Dall sheep hunts. Goat hunts in SE Alaska I am not so sure about, but in southcentral they would all be by drawing. Call me selfish, but I do not like the idea that I may not be able to hunt these animals when I chose to do so, in order that non-residents would be allowed to do so without the expense of a guide. If drawings are required and residents prevented from hunting, I do not think it would be too long before there would be no non-residents allowed or their opportunity severely restricted (probably to the point where there would be fewer non-resident hunting sheep and the big coastal bears than there are today).

For example, the drawing odds for an Alaska resident to hunt one of the better areas on Kodiak Island for brown bears is now once every 75 years or less (less than 1.5%). Can you imagine what the odds would be if unguided, non-residents were allowed into the pool of applicants? The same is true of Dall sheep. Most non-residents do not attempt to draw tags in Alaska as the guides focus mostly in areas where tags are guaranteed. The odds of drawing an East Fork of Eklutna River tag in Chugach Mountains is about 0.7% (or once every 125 years). What would it be if it were open to unguided, non-resdients?

What would probably result from doing away with the guide requirement is what has happened to big game hunts in the western states - a maximum of only 10% of the tags would be allowed to non-residents in any particular area.

If that were the case, I think that non-residents might actually be better served by the present system. It is more expensive to hunt, but if they save up the opportunity will be there for them. And not only will their chance of success be greatly improved, but they will have the luxury of someone doing all the work for them. I know that because the tags are so scarce that, if I ever draw a sheep tag in the lower 48, I may hire a guide even though I may not be required to do so. I may need horses and my job may not allow the necessary time to scout the entire area to find the game and learn what is a good animal for the area and what is not. I am guessing that this would be the same for most lower 48 hunters coming to Alaska if they had to draw against the rest of us for a long shot tag.

Bottomline is that for the quality hunts, non-resident access to game would probably be decreased by a removal of the guide requirement, if not immediately then within a few years as resident demand grows.

I think the "be careful, you may get what you wish for" saying may apply to this issue.

Rob ask the guide up on the Holitna River how many emergency dollars were spent on the customer that drowned in his camp two hunting seasons ago. None were called for non-guided hunters up there. You still haven't proven that non-guided hunters require more of our emergency service dollars than guided hunters. I just showed one case of guided hunters spending those dollars. I can probably show more. So far BW and I have shown 2 cases of guided hunters that used our emergency service and you have yet to show one case of a non-guided hunter doing the same. Still waiting for the numbers from you to back up your claim that non-guided hunters are a drain on our emergency service money.

After following this thread for a few days, I have to add my comments.
First of all, the original question is a very good topic for discussion. Great question. In my opinion, the best answer was posted by Rob. The guide requirement for certain species is a management issue, though I think the safety of non-residents also enters the equation.
My second comment has to do with the "show me the money" and "the guides association has so much pull" type of comments while discussing the guide requirement in this state. In my opinion, whoever believes that the guiding industry in Alaska has any clout at all is not in touch with reality. In the past few years there has been proposed legislation introduced by the Alaska Professional Hunters Association to include moose to the guide required list. The last time was a coupe of years ago when the proposed legislation died in sub-committee. Does the guide association have legislation introduced at this time to include all species of game in Alaska? Show me the proof!

Allen, you completely misunderstand my point. You think I am saying that non-residents will require more emergency services per capita than will residents or guided non-residents. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that if you allow non-residents to hunt bear, sheep and goats unguided, you will have more people in the field, and more people in the field means more demand for emergency services. Accidents happen. The more people in the field, the more accidents there will be.

If the debate is whether non-residents will be more likely to get in trouble while hunting brown bears or sheep or goats, than would a resident, then that is a tougher question. There could easily be 100,000 resident big game hunters that go afield every year. Since it is easier and cheaper for residents, all types and levels of intelligence and experience go big game hunting, including quite a number that should just stay home. It is likely that the non-resident hunters coming to hunt bear, sheep or goats unguided would not include so many novices, but the easier and cheaper you make it then the more of the slob/idiot hunter crowd would show up. It may not be enough to make the unguided non-resident a bigger problem than the resident hunters on a per capita basis, but there would still be more problems than there are now.

Most emergency services are required for local people because they spend more time in the field year around and have the most opportunity to get in trouble. A few of them also have serious alcohol problems, and end up getting in trouble or killing themselves as a result. That seems to happen on about an annual basis out in your neck of the woods.

For the record, I can think of one rather celebrated instance of where an unguided, non-resident goat hunter had to be rescued back before the guide requirement was passed. Outdoor writer Bob Robb (now a Valdez resident, he says) was hunting goats solo. He fell and broke his leg. Fortunately for him, he carried an airband VHF and was able to contact a commercial jetliner who got word to authorities. He was airlifted out at taxpayer expense.

A few examples does not prove anything. To prove something would require considerable data gathering and statistical analysis. I don't know if that has ever been done. And as far as I am concerned, it need not be done as I don't see that as the primary rationale for the guide requirement anyway. It is enough for me to realize that putting more unguided non-residents in the field will result in more accidents and more demand for emergency services.

Just a few numbers to better quantify our subject matter:

In 1994 (and the numbers haven't changed much since) there were 95,000 hunting licenses sold (and that doesn't include lifetime licenses for hunters over 65 years of age, or hunters under 16 years of age).

Approximately 10% (just under 10,000) were non-resident licenses.

Also, for the record, those 10,000 non-residents had an overall hunt success rate significantly higher than resident hunters. Why? Because most of them were guided.

Huntsternorth,
Your statiscal analysis of superior non resident success due to guides is a debatable issue. Frankly I believe the non resident hunter success is accredited to people from the lower (48) having superior shooting skills along with superior hunting skills. That being said, the mandatory guide situation in your state, as stated by many of the people from your state contributing to this issue, is a money for the state and guide pocket issue, not a skill issue.

Interesting post, Bill G.

First you state that my "statiscal analysis of superior non resident success due to guides is a debatable issue", then you go on to profess that "Frankly I believe the non resident hunter success is accredited to people from the lower (48) having superior shooting skills along with superior hunting skills".

I'm not sure carrying this on with you will be worth the effort, but I'm prepared to begin research on guided and non-guided harvest data in Alaska if you can figure out a satisfactory way to validate your silly "superior skills" statement.

huntsternorth I think Bill G is referring to the non-residents hiring "Superior Skilled" charter pilots who know where the animals are. Then he goes on to talk about the "Superior Herds" of our caribou making it easy for those same non-residents not having to work too hard to find them. Wonder how many of those "Superior Skilled" non-residents would even know where to begin looking for sheep without our "Superior Skilled" fish and game department giving out information to them over the phone. Wonder how many of them "Superior Skilled" non-resident hunters could just jump on a jet, come to Alaska, get in a plane and fly off to a great hunt without any information from the "Superior Skilled residents of Alaska telling them where to fly into.

Huntsternorth,
I am validating the "silly" superior skills statement on your posted, "significantly higher success rate". I am sorry, I guess I must have mis-interpreted that. You will have to decide if this issue is worth the effort or not.

Allen Glore,
Pilots, herds, and game departments, are a bit of a reach from the mandatory hand holding guide don't you think? And as far as the Alaska residents passing on information, if you are not comfortable with passing on information, don't do it.

Actually, I found the 'superior' shooting skills mentioned above as a reference to the thought that most hunters paying for a Guide in Alaska would tend to be experienced hunters. Not too many 'first timers' hunting Alaska.

I sort of agreed with the thought, that most folks willing to spend that kind of money were 'hard-core' hunters who knew their rifles.

In that light, it makes sense that the non-resident paying the big bucks, is likely an experienced hunter, so should be a decent shot.

Of course, we can't discount the few who expect Alaska to be like Texas, or some South African operations. They may not realize Alaska makes South Africa look easy.

It really is a matter of logistics, communication (if any), transportation, and basic survival skills which seperate Alaska from the 'lower-48'. It's not so much the hunter, as it is the conditions.

It's too late to argue the need for Guide when hunting Brown bears, Sheep, and Mt Goat. We need to focus on the rest of the animals. Guides provide a much neede service, and do a good job at that, without getting rich.

Bill G it looks like the little smiley faces went right over your head. So much for Superior Skilled non-resident internet posters.

Perhaps I misunderstood Bill G’s point. BW’s interpretation (“Actually, I found the 'superior' shooting skills mentioned above as a reference to the thought that most hunters paying for a Guide in Alaska would tend to be experienced hunters” makes excellent sense, and is one of the primary reasons why, as an Alaskan resident myself, I oppose the guide requirement as it is presently written.

ADFG keeps very good records on harvest data, including success rates for guided and non-guided hunters (but sometimes their data is difficult to access). It is well documented that guided hunters (resident or non-resident) enjoy a higher harvest success ratio than non-guided hunters. So, clearly, if non-residents are required to hire a guide, there will be fewer of them, and their harvest success will be greater.

Bill G, if I misunderstood your post, please accept my apology.

Bill G.

Are you by any chance related to the hunter from michigan whose superior shooting skills were discussed extensively in another forum. Something about a "missed" grizzly that was then killed by the guide? As I recall, that person was "superior" in many ways.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bill G.:

Frankly I believe the non resident hunter success is accredited to people from the lower (48) having superior shooting skills along with superior hunting skills.

Got the following friendly email, apparently in response to the comment above.

From: "William Gentner" <WGENTNER@twmi.rr.com>
To: douthat@mtaonline.net
Subject: Accurate Reloading Forum
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 17:02:49 -0500

I have been out of town and just got back to catch up and noticed your comment directed at me on the referenced forum.
Yes, I am that guy from Michigan. What the fuck are you talking about, "Superior in many ways". I never implied in any way, shape or form that I was superior in any post regarding the screwing the state of Alaska gave me. Don't tell me at your age of sixty something that you have never missed a shot. Oh, that's right you are a trapper so all of your kills are at point blank range because the animal is in a leg hold or a snare. Other than you and a couple of other jerk off's like you, 99% of the Alaskan residents have been grateful that I have stepped up to the plate against your corrupt ADFG. Apparently you are too fucking ignorant to realize that what took place with me could just as easily happen to you. Oh, that's right you are a vagrant or a pedophile or something along those lines. Never mind you are not capable of understanding something quite this complex. Get a life, looser!!!

This guy gets personal real quick! Even my parole officer was shocked by the language.