CW
I don't have a dog in this fight.

But I THINK the point that is trying to be made is...If prospective clients(hunter) knew before booking a hunt,that the guide WILL shoot your bear regardless of your hit/miss/bad shot.Clients would not accept that arrangement.

Jeff

Ahhh hmmmm I would think that the average person who can pony up 10-20k to chase a big mean brown ball of fur through the willows will have a PC if they opt to. Clearing up the definitions would be a good thing for every one. Here is the twist I love in this debate. You act like this is the only "Gray" area in the law that exists. Give me a break. If we cleaned up the law and informed you of your rights would it have made you a better shot ? Would you have had enough gumption to tell your guide NO ! 200 yards is too far for ME ? I rather doubt it. More laws and regulations will never help every single person. The fact remains that even with a clearer definition of the law at 200 yards it would be IMPOSSIBLE for you or any one to say that in the guides view you positively did not hit the animal. I do still rather enjoy the notion of you personally chasing a teddy bear in the brush that you had gut shot when you can't shoot and do not have enough sticktoitveness to get within normal shooting range for such a beast. Remember next time you go to the range that 4" groups at 50 yards are probably not good enough especially when you are bench shooting

Bw,
Once again, go back and read everything. I never said it was a conspiracy, these are your words. Once again. A while back I made a comment that while I was up on the mountain I would just pull out my pocket computer and look up the regs. I know the reg's book comes from the ADFG. We all understood this a long time ago. Once again, We all know the guides and transporters book comes from the DCED. Key wording here, "WE" the folks that have been talking about this here. Not everyone in the lower (48) and other countries is viewing this or for that matter even has a p.c.

Based on your own post, I think if a hunter went into the ADFG office before the hunt, and had an officer go over the rules, I have my doubts that the DCED publication would be part of that conversation. Why? Because just like you have clearly stated, they are two different departments.

So, perhaps the guides should suggest that the hunter show up (2) days early so they can spend(1) day at the ADFG office. Then they can charter a plane to the closest DCED office. Would that be a better plan than enforcing on paper what the guide should do which is advise the hunter of the stuff that is only in their book?

Interestingly, (6) months ago none of you guys had never heard of the "take" definition used like this before. And the questionable use of that word by your own admissions is the only issue with the reg's book. I don't think anyone is trying to change the laws. Make them clear. If an Alaskan guide or resident has not heard of this usage before, what good is the trip to the ADFG office to discuss the reg's. What would you discuss, the interpretation for the day!!!

Bill G.,

Just another serious point...

The hunting regs are developed and published by the Dept of Fish & Game. A quick look at their on-line version of the regs here...

ADF&G Hunting Regs

...reveals a big square marked "Notice" in which this text is written...

These regulations are not quoted verbatim from state law. They have been simplified for your convenience. For further details, contact your local Alaska Department of Fish and Game office.

The reason Guide statutes are not published in the ADF&G reg book is because Big Game Guides (and Transporters) are regulated by the Department of Community and Economic Development, specifically the Division of Occupational Licensing.

It's hardly a conspiracy, it's just normal government practice.

Bill G.,

On a serious note (and I know they've been rare lately ) the "STATUTES AND REGULATIONS, BIG GAME TRANSPORTERS AND GUIDES" your talking about has been available on-line for as long as I can remember...

Statutes and Regs for Big Game Transporters and Guides

In the past you've referred to a statute 12 AAC 75.310. RESPONSIBILITIES OF GUIDES. (a) item #8...

advise clients and employees involved in a hunt of all applicable state and federal statutes and regulations

What I find interesting, is the next statute, item #9, reads...

advise a client before a hunt of the game population in the hunting area and the chances of encountering

...the bold emphasis is mine.

I'm thinking a very picky lawyer or judge could determine that statute #8 doesn't mention anything about informing the client BEFORE the hunt. Your guides did inform you of the rules DURING the hunt and therefore may have acted lawfully according to the statutes.

Sure #8 and #9 talk about different stuff, but the wording in #9 about the timeframe in which information must be shared could put a damper on the fact you thought you should have been read the rules prior to the hunt.

Just some thoughts. I'm not a lawyer, just a grease monkey as you like to put it, but I can read.