Based on Bills actions after the fact it is certainly reasonable to draw conclusions not only about his character but the validity of his claims.

He's the guy who muffed a 200 yard shot at a brown bear on Kodiak, then proceeded to blame his guide and the State for all his problems. At first I felt sorry for him, but as his story unfolded, and then he began a campaign against all guides and outfitters in Alaska, I changed my mind.



Well we had some pretty good exchanges here about various hunting and guide laws. Of course his posts were always full of foul language and insults. I was glad he left, or at least stop posting here, and was willing to let everything die off...



Except two things happened. First he updated his website and once again in a very childish manner attacked me personally. Secondly, and more importantly he decided that if he couldn't sucessfully debate here in the open, he would try to have me censored by sending an e-mail to my employer.



Here's an exact copy of that e-mail, spelling errors and full rant mode uneditted...



To: CGAlaskaPublicAffairs

Subject: Punk

Dear sirs,

I live in the great lakes region of the United States of America, and I never realized that the USCG that I have had a lot of respect for in the past, now employs punks in Alaska that think a hunter getting screwed by the ADFG is his subject of discussion for the USCG, and it is soon going to be a product of my web site. Some grease monkey, winch operator, on a hilo in Alaska has chosen to embarrass the USCG with his smart ass comments on a hunting web site that thinks it is all fun and games that I got screwed out of about $18,000 while the ADFG spun rules and regulations to suit. This may be my cross to bear, but I certainly don't need the smart ass comments from one Brian Wamack along with his lies, while I am the one paying his wages. You want to make smart ass comments, step out of the tax payers arena and put the gloves on. Do something about it or I will, and disgrace the USCG on my website. You don't believe me, TRY ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! www.huntersbeware.com We will be updating soon. I will be awaiting your reply.



Thank You,

God Bless America,

Bill G,

www.huntersbeware.com



It's just beyond me belief that someone would stoop to such a low level of behavior! He actually threatened to tarnish the USCG's fine reputation because he was failing to prove his point here. And, he actually tried to get me in trouble with my employer over an internet debate.



I don't expect his supporters to do anything different, but I thought that his actions should be made public in order for everyone to draw their own conclusion.



I should point out, that I NEVER suggested I represented the Coast Guard. IIRC, it was Bill who asked me what I did for a living. It was no secret to many here, so I answered honestly. What I didn't realize, is that apparently Bill was planning to contact my employer in an effort to censor me.

Bill G. bragged on his shooting from the beginning. He also claimed to have killed nearly a hundred big game animals, including dangerous game in Africa without anyone ever having to help him. Now, taking it at face value, if you are his guide, he takes the shot (remember he never misses) and his bear takes off what are you to do? You are responsible and it's your ass that is going to get chewed up by the bear if you follow it in the pucker brush.
I tell all my clients that I will not shoot "their" bear if they shoot it correctly. They are supposed to be a hunter - I am just the guide - it is their hunt. But when they can't do the job then that is where I come in. Bill screwed up. Mayby his guide did too but it was Bill's job to kill the bear and he wasn't up to the task.

$100 says Bill G the lousy shooter doesn't have the Balls to come here and defend his actions. Real coward if I ever saw one. If that $100 does not get collected I will donate it to a shooting club that will instruct Bill G. in the intricacies of shooting at such close ranges of 200 yards.

HI,

ALLEN GORE, you are on the money, after reading a site he put out,the problem was with his shooting and should have been more upset with the fact his shooting is not up to snuff. If one is spending that kind of money you better get your ass out and shoot until you know you will not throw a airball,I understand anyone can miss but take the mistake like a man. And the fact that BW has been great to me and has help me out getting to this great state I kind of like him more, he is a stand up man,one more thing this was not about insurance or crappy service,but about a shot that would have stopped the game suffering more,but the customer throw a airball, not much time to make a call,
Kev

greg,

I'm not interested in legal matters. His is but a tiny webpage located on a huge internet. I just wanted to share his 'gift' to me (his e-mail further exposed his true side) with the rest of you folks here.

Allen,

You've always been a man of action! I suspect he'll show up sooner or later. I just hope the topic stays on the fact he tried to censor me, and not about his lousy hunting style.

Kev,

Glad to have been a help in your move. Someday we'll have to meet for a coffee or beer.

HI,

BW, anytime,Kev

BW-
Glad to see you take the high road. If it was me - having read the way he slandered you - I would be looking at getting punitive damages outta BillG! Fuel is gettin expensive for that big boat!

Gotta wonder if it was the one-eyed guide that shot BillG's bear for him! Bwahaha!

--Mike

The best thing bill g could have done was/is to sue the guide(s). I seriously doubt he could win this one though. Just because he loses a public debate with BW doesn't mean he should try to get the winner in trouble. What a poor sport he is.

Its quite obvious the guide thought/believed the bear was hit, and feared it may get away wounded (which would be unethical in and of itself), a situation that demands he had better shoot. After all, once they've heard all of bill g's hunting stories of success, they figued bill g could shoot. Lets face it, bill g didn't brag he was a lousy shot! We all know what bragging actually means!

The bear is indeed legally bill g's. That he couldn't make the bullet hit (damn, that must have hurt his ego!) is irrelevant. The guide believed the bear was hit.

There are plenty of wounded game that don't show any outward signs of being hit! You would have thought bill g would have known this, especcially after hunting all around the world.

The bottom line is bill g can't tell the 'bear hunting story' like he had invisioned.

"...it came charging! My guide dropped his rifle and high-tailed it up the hill, leaving me alone to face the monster! I shot once, twice, then another, and yet it still came. Closer, bigger, faster, the angel of death itself! My breathing stopped, my mouth dry, my life flashing before my eyes. I jacked the last round into the chamber, and prayed. Next thing I knew, the bear was dead at my feet. You can tell by the blood on my shoes. Danm I could shoot." ~~~Suluuq

Bill G.'s personal attacks on BW were un-called for. Bill missed his bear (he screwed-up). His guide thought he hit it, so he shot (he screwed up as well). If for some reason he didn't hear it "Whack" home after Bill shot, The bear would have let him know that he was hit, vocally, And/or his body language would tell as well. I think this was a case of "double" buck/bear fever! And Bill is milking it for all it's worth... He missed his shot, so he is trying to ruin every Guide in Alaska, Fish and Game, and the Coast Guard??? He must live a miserable life....

Dude..that is seriously funny. He can't hack it in a debate on open forums, so posts his shit on a web page where no one else can comment.

You did good, Brian! I'd have a grin on my face if I pissed him off enough to warrant a commentary on his web page...<grin>

I can't believe he's still crying....
dave

458 WIN

Good point. To listen to him he never missed!!!!

BW stated that initially he sympathized with what happened to Bill. I suspose I am still at that point. While I don't condone what he did after the hunt, I understand why he is upset about what happened during the hunt, and I would to if I was in his shoes. Any hunter worth his salt would not want his guide to shoot a unwounded animal for him. That is my main point, I personally would refuse to put a tag on a animal that I didn't put a bullet in, unless the outfitter made a deal to me to make up for his guides "mistake".
I agree that nobody wants to face a wounded bear in the bush, and I don't believe his guide intended to draw first blood. If he thought the Bear was wounded, I can't condemn him for doing what he did. However, hunting the big bears is a dream for most of us. If I ever get the chance, it would be a once in a lifetime opportunity. I would pray that some trigger happy guide doesn't turn that dream into a nightmare.

BW
I have already taken a once-in-a-lifetime vacation to Gods country only to come home knowing it was not going to be a once-in-a-lifetime trip. If things go well, I am hoping to take a drop-camp hunting trip this next season. As soon as I get a couple more kids out of school, I may be able to go after a big bear. I'll defintily look you up. If by chance I miss the bear, you have to promise to shoot me. I'd never be able to face this forum again

Oldfart,

Just to make it clear (again ) I'm not a guide. There are some very good guides who post here though, who could put you on a nice brown bear. At this point, I'm not even in the hunting business, but do plan on starting a transporting service within a few months.

(Now that I've admitted that, the guides here may never respond to my posts again. )

Nice to hear you've 'been there, and done that' and plan on coming back! If your ever headed this way, by all means drop a note here first, and we can meet. BTW, missing game happens, it's how the hunter handles the outcome after that which makes all the difference.

Old Fart, you are not far off on your assessment. While Bill G. may be an a$$hole, he had some right to bitch.

From a legal standpoint, if the guide reasonably believed the bear to be wounded, he had the legal obligation to use all means to bring it to bag. That means shooting it if necessary. That is the issue. If his belief was not reasonable (he knew or should have known that the bear was not wounded), then he was negligent in shooting the bear and is liable to Bill G. for damages (i.e. cost of hunt, transportation, loss of his one bear for four years, etc.). This could happen if the guide was tired and wanted to be done with the hunt - just kill the client's bear for him and get it over which, if Bill G had been such a jerk on the hunt, is within the realm of possibilities.

Bill G's problem with the State of Alaska was with the definition of "take" that they applied, saying had to tag the bear because he "took" the bear even though he never hit it with his bullet. This was based upon the fact that he "attempted to take" it (which is included in the definition of "take") by shooting at it. This regulation is especially troubling, since under it if you shoot at a duck and miss (whether your buddy kills it or not), you have to include it in your daily bag limit. Needless to say, this makes little sense, and makes the regulation vague and ambiguous to the point of perhaps not even being enforceable. To further illustrate how ludicrous the reg is, if Bill G's guide had not shot and the bear got away unharmed, using the definition of "take" as it was applied to him, Bill G would have been guilty of failing to tag his bear, failing to salvage the hide and skull, and failing to have the hide sealed in Kodiak by ADF&G, because by shooting at it, he had taken it within the meaning of the ADF&G reg.

While Bill G did have some room to bitch, as I believe he felt the guide should have known the bear was not hit - this certainly does not excuse what is an entirely classless act of contacting Brian's employer. His lack of tact throughout the process has discounted what could otherwise have been a valuable conversation on the role of guides and the meaning of Alaska regs.

Rob,
Excellent post. You have pretty much summed up my feelings on the subject. Regardless of if the guide knew the bear was unwounded or (as 458win pointed out) his guide believed Bill when he said he couldn't miss, it always will come down to hunters word against the guides, and the guide will always win (he just needs to state he thought the animal was wounded, you can't prove him wrong).
I guess if there is a lesson to be learned here, don't miss.

BW, does this mean you will handle drop camp hunts .

There is only one issue here. When Big bad Bill paid his 18k ( That's his number ) he thought he bought a bear and not a bear hunt. For people like bill they have a great program for some game where you can still be a blow hard and always fill your tag. Most of us call them canned hunts but I'm sure Bill might just call them fair chase high fence operations. With all the arm chair quartebacking that has gone on with this such as " it is in the realm of possability" ......It is also in the realm of pissability that Bill is just full of sheep dip and the guide really did believe the Bear was hit. In fact the guide is the only one I could ever give any benefit of doubt to after reading bills wild stories. The ADFG needs to make some sense out of their regulations. That's a seperate issue to be resolved. The guide fullfilled his contract once bill accepted the bear and took the shot. Case closed.

Rusty:

This subject continues cropping up, kinda like an old wart that keeps coming back.

My take on what happened is that Hero #1 suffered from "Bear Fever",completly misjudged the range or pulled the shot. I also think the one error commited by the guide was to allow our hero to take the shot at the range stated - 200 yds. Even if this was the first time our "experienced" hero encountered a large bear, common sense should have told him to try & get closer. On many previous threads, I've maintained that the max range one should attempt a shot on a large bear is about 100 yds. 458Win, with many more years of experience, than I have, has basically reinforced those comments, when in another thread, he sets a max range of about 125 yds for his clients. Hero #1, supposedly has vast experience in hunting large game. Common sense should have told him to get closer & he should have conveyed that to his guide.

In short, it's his fault & no one elses. Bear in Fairbanks

From what I've heard, it is not unusual for bears on Kodiak to have no holes from clients bullets.

All I can say about the whole debacle is, it's best to keep your mouth shut and have the world think you a fool, then to open it wide and remove all doubt.

made an hour long post on this and lost the whole thing.

i wish this topic would die.

i hate computers.........

Cold Zero,

I hate when that happens.

The subject was dead, until Bill updated his website, and e-mailed my employer. Blame Bill for not letting things go...

Has Bill G. blamed the Bear yet? Just wondering?? I know he's blamed everyone else involved. After all, it was the Bear's fault that he presented Bill with a shot to begin with. If the bear would have just stayed in the brush...Wild Bill wouldn't have had the opportunity to miss...his excited guide wouldn't have thought he had hit... The Bear could have prevented all of this. And, Bill could have preserved his self-proclaimed marksmanship abilities a little longer... Yep, I just convinced myself... It's the Bear's fault that we even know who Bill G. is...

b.i.f.;

o.k. if i scratch this wart again?

i will try again for a few thoughts....

pete e;

i agree there are many diff' issues here, and that is part of the problem.

b.w.;

i agree that the focus here, should have been the outfitter and the guide. also, the good guides post here and the bad/unethical ones don't. they hide. with regard to the high cost of hunts in this case since the outfitter had no insurance one major expense was negated and the savings definately were not passes along to the client. good to know if someone was hurt there was no insurance. i have not seen spiridon come on here or any other site and defend their actions. has anyone else seen this? if they cared about their reputation , they sure would have.

old fart;

i agree with you, the outfitter's next mistake in the series, was not to provide a free or reduced price make up hunt instead of all the hoopla.

paul h;

true too. some guys want to go home w/ a bear no matter what or who shoots it. apparently, this was not one of those guys. i do not beleive that this is the hunt to go on if your fitness and marksmanship is not up to the task.

.458 w.m.;

bragging counts for 0. was this hunter observed checking the zero on his rifle? that is the time to determine how he shoots, not rely on what he says. i can tell from watching a guy check zero, the guide, a professional who watches guys do this on a professional basis should be able to as well. i agree with your business philosophy and policy for in the field. all this being said.....the guide made a large boone and crockett size mistake here. a true professional owns up to his mistakes and makes them right. that is how a firm stays in business and protects a good reputation. i am sure u have had many men bragg about their shooting ability in camp over the years, no? maybe that is part of the reason they are now out of business ....

i was not there and don't know the lay of the land when the shot was taken. was there opp' for a followup if necessary? under the right circumstances maybe it was not to far for the right shooter, rifle/scope/caliber/bullet selection, the wind, the terrain features, uphill/downhill angle, etc..... i was not there.

that being said, it is a doable shot. afterall, the guide is in control of everything in the field by law, and allowed this hunter to take the shot. when the guide started shooting he too missed, that too does not speak well of the guide.

i took a b. & c. bear at a much greater distance in the closing days before range finders were available, scoring 5 fatal hits on 5 shots including a speed reload, from the sit and slung tight. i also could have continued to lay it in there all day long if necessary. i am sure there are other marksman on this site that could do the same. a great video i may add.

just m.h.o. no flame on anyone here...

Lot's of comments , I really wonder from the time you book a hunt with a guide or outfitter , that when it comes to the part in your contract about hunters "success" , what does this mean ? I have had plenty of success hunting , but this did not always include bagging game . I have not hunted AK as of yet , but I hope to someday , and I hope that I am strait forwared enough to let a guide know what my expectations are as well as them of me for "success" . Just some food for thought .

Yep.

None of us were there, nor know the facts, so taking sides in Bill G's dispute with his guide over the shot is presumptious. But taking sides over his conduct in messing with BW is not. Bill G certainly deserves condemnation on that count.