# Utahs new Guide/Outfitter law's



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Boy,,I'm here to tell ya, There's more to this than meets the eye!

To get the new Utah licenses , The requirements to qualify are pretty stiff.

1) Criminal history back ground check from Utah.

2) Criminal wildlife back ground check from DWR that actually covers 27 states.

3) Pass written exams given at PCI test center.

4) proof of education, High school diploma minimum.

5) Show proof "affidavit" of 100 days minimum guiding/outfitting experience or training.

6) Currant certificate for CPR and First Aid.

7) fill out qualifying questionnaire for state of Utah DOPL.

After obtaining all the documents required, you them submit them to the
Division of Occupational & Professional Licensing in SLC were it then has to pass a board.

Much more lengthily and expensive than most would think, two or three weeks minimum
and $400.00 plus in just testing, document , and application fees.

Looks like they are "dead serious" about enforcing this new law that go's in affect 1/1/2010.

I know most of you guys are going to say "IT'S ABOUT TIME',,,,,,and I agree 100%.

And I'm here to tell you, there is a whole bunch of so called guides that will not meet
these requirements and get licensed,,These are BIG changes for Utah's Guides and Outfitters Industry. Anyone making over $100. or equivalent helping a client has to have a license.
This includes spotters, camp cooks , and so on,,,This should cut down on the "gang" hunts.


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

Goofy Just curious, Does a private landowner have to get a guiding license if he's guiding on private land?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

The way I understand it as of now is,, No , no license required on private ground.


----------



## Wimpy_ (Dec 30, 2009)

Were you at the board meeting today?


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

What about all the "helpers" you see in the Mossback pics. I mean, sometimes there's 7 guys in one pic that were all in on the kill. Do they qualify as guides too? Do these "Mossbitches" have to go through the same testing? And what constitutes a guide? If you're in the field helping a client get his or her animal does that not make you a "guide"?

This type of gang-bang bounty hunting has been a real sore spot under my saddle blanket for a long time. Are these new laws designed to curb this kind of bounty hunting? GOD! I hope so!


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

TEX-O-BOB said:


> What about all the "helpers" you see in the Mossback pics. I mean, sometimes there's 7 guys in one pic that were all in on the kill. Do they qualify as guides too? Do these "Mossbitches" have to go through the same testing? And what constitutes a guide? If you're in the field helping a client get his or her animal does that not make you a "guide"?
> 
> This type of gang-bang bounty hunting has been a real sore spot under my saddle blanket for a long time. Are these new laws designed to curb this kind of bounty hunting? GOD! I hope so!


Yeah Tex and every General contractor that has helpers should not be allowed to "help" until they get their General Contractors licence as well. You need a chill pill before you have a heart attack. :mrgreen: 
For the life of me, I cannot understand what is wrong with a "guide" paying people to help him guide and get the job done. Who is in the wrong? The guide for extending his helping hand to a larger group? The shooter for shooting an animal that someone else was keeping their eye on for them until they got there? Or the DWR for allowing guides to have help? I am serious on this question. I have never hired a possy myself but I don't care that someone who has money does. I watched my first mossback video the other day of the spider bull. I could not for the life of me see how so many on this forum have tried to paint a horrible picture of mossback for me. It may not be how I do things by buying their services but surely cant see any harm in a very wealthy man putting hundreds of thousands of dollars in our ecconomy for the tag or the guides.


----------



## bigbuck81 (Oct 10, 2007)

+1 elkhunter22, I totally agree.


----------



## JRA (Nov 18, 2009)

Amen !


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Wimpy_ said:


> Were you at the board meeting today?


No I wasn't at the meeting,,But I do have the list of the approvals that were made..

And TEX,,Here's how its worded. Anyone receiving compensation of $100 plus.

Section 58-78-201.
53 (2) "Compensation" means anything of economic value in excess of $100 that is paid,
54 loaned, granted, given, donated, or transferred to a hunting guide or outfitter for or in
55 consideration of personal services, materials, or property.

I also agree,,elkhunter22 is right.


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

Wow! The rules...... It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. My opinion your going to see a lot of under the table payments... Then your going to see lots of undercover work done... then your going to see a lot of fines... My opinion, just more$$$$$$

I also want to see how this all works out... Such as having a high school education.... Many jobs do not require this, yet to show, point out, take someone to an animal you need one? Does a ski instructor need a GED also? Or does he/she just need to be able to ski?

And the camp cook has to have the same? McDonalds would go out of business!

I can see the back ground check, and I also can see SOME of the experiance stuff, but I think it is up to the hunter to check out who he hires for his hunt.

I know a lot of you might think this is a Law made to go against the Mossback moob, but in my thoughts I could see him backing this up 100%. He has the money to pay for it, and his name is in place of lots of Utah hunting history, so this is going to take more from the little guy guide than it will him. If you really think about it this is just making it better for him to funnal all business to him........


----------



## duckhunter1096 (Sep 25, 2007)

I'm on Tex's side with this one. I'm not a fan of gang hunting.....it's not hunting at that point. Granted, the one pulling the trigger still has to make the shot to seal the deal, but I (PERSONALLY) don't like it.

I am glad to see these new laws in place. I am curious to see how they enforce it though. Is it just going to be another law that gets put in place to make us all feel better, that doesn't get enforced?

Goofy, I know you are sitting on a different side of the fence than the most of us here.....So I am glad to see that you are excited to see the new guidelines. It shows me that you are legit, and I appreciate that.....I still don't agree with guided hunts, but that is just my opinion on the matter.


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

One guide to help a hunter that is one thing. A gang to find and sort through animals then take a shooter to the kill site is another. It is still called hunting not killing. Most sports have rules and codes of conduct off and on the field of play to maintain reasonable competetive atmosphere. Drugs are banned to prevent unfair and unreasonable advantage. As a sport, we should require that hunting remains part of the sport.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

I'm with TAK on this on this one. I don't think this law will have any effect on the big outfitters such as mossback and there multiple guide, type, operations. The money to registster is a flash in the pan compared to what is being spent on the tags and guides services. The guides and outfitters that are not in the public window all the time or don't have videos that make huge $$$$$ will be the ones to suffer.

I like the idea behind this but think this will do little to hinder the operations and practices we have all come to dislike so much.

I do like the Diploma, first aid and CPR requirements though. The diploma is what will kill it for some.

Does this mean the kid the high school kid that gets paid to tell mossback where they saw the huge buck/bull will have to get a guide license before telling or accepting money? :mrgreen:


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

I can't find any info on the web about this goofy elk....

Is this only _Outfitter's_ for big game...or fishing guides, tour guides, river runner guides, etc. etc...??


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

Many professions are licensed. You could see this coming with all the controversy about guided hunts. I think it will affect the bigger guides because they have more to lose if their license is revoked. The threat of license forfeiture is the big enforcer.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here ya go .45,,and everyone else that want to look at the requirements.....
I just hit the high lights opening the thread,,,,here's the details, LOTS of requirements!

http://www.dopl.utah.gov/laws/R156-79.pdf


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

Well, this will help fund a number of projects where our tax dollars are misappropriated. PCI gets a cut to help keep themselves in business. Someone gets a slice for doing the background check. Health departments drum up some business with the CPR and first aid requirement. DOPL gets some revenue in exchange for a "board" to examine the applicants. It smells to me like the state wanted a piece of the outfitter pie and found a way to get some greenbacks for their coffers.

Welcome to one of the most fiscally liberal states in the country, boys. It's not your money, says Utah, it's _OUR_ money!

There also appears to be a requirement for 100 days of guiding experience. Now you've given those wanting to run a "guide school" a chance to steal some dollars as well (cheap labor for the guides- they can get some kid out of high school to do their spotting and call it "guide school")...Wait a minute, I'm a certified teacher :? ...Anybody want to start up a new charter???


----------



## wapiti67 (Oct 2, 2007)

Ok...so, where do you guys draw the line at "gang-hunting"? Is it 7 people helping? 5? 2? you have to do it ALL alone? Is that the only way to hunt anymore? All alone?


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

wapiti67 said:


> Ok...so, where do you guys draw the line at "gang-hunting"? Is it 7 people helping? 5? 2? you have to do it ALL alone? Is that the only way to hunt anymore? All alone?


I can concieveably see somone having two, maybe even three guides with him. Depending on the hunting situation. Much past that and your not hunting with the guides anymore. At that point they are not guides but locaters being paid to track down the animal down and bring the shooter to it. So I guess my answer would have to be 3.


----------



## ramrod (Apr 15, 2008)

I am glad this has passed. if you have ever waited for years to draw a limited entry tag and then have to deal with outfitters and spotters all over the place, it kind of ruins the limited entry experience.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Don't think for one minute that this law was passed to stop the large successful guide outfits. This law was more than likely bought and paid for by the large successful outfits. Plug the costs of the licensing into the budget of any of the big boys and you'll see that these costs really amount to nothing to them. By eliminating the competition, Mossback and the others will only get bigger and more successful. All you boys that thought you were going to "get" Mossback by encouraging the passage of this law played right into his hands. I am sure he is going to be laughing at you every time he goes to the bank.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

I agree with BP. That law is gonna be a big Epic Fail, they aren't fixing anything with those rules. They should have just banned guiding on public land all together.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

wapiti67 said:


> Ok...so, where do you guys draw the line at "gang-hunting"? Is it 7 people helping? 5? 2? you have to do it ALL alone? Is that the only way to hunt anymore? All alone?


That is my thoughts and who really cares and why? I have been on many hunts that I have either helped a family member or friend. Other times the tables were turned. Who cares if someone has friends and family helping or if it is costing someone. if it is costing someone to have "Many" friends/guides............who cares. This is America where we are creative on getting the job done.

I am all for having to jump through a few hoops to distinguish the dedicated guide service from the crappy hole in the wall guides but for the life of me can not understand why I am not supposed to like these guys.

If I were to build a house, who says that I have to do the entire thing by myself? Why can't I hire experts in their fields to help also. If I have family that want to donate some time.......why not? If I hire a huge crew to get the job done faster, is that wrong. Should the little home builder get upset with me because I am building houses too fast without enough effort on my part? Do I really need to hammer every nail to have it appear as I am "really" the home builder? If I line everything up and hire good people to help, that still makes me the builder and ultimately when things go good or bad, I am responsible. 
I am sorry but I don't get it!


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

elk22hunter said:


> wapiti67 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok...so, where do you guys draw the line at "gang-hunting"? Is it 7 people helping? 5? 2? you have to do it ALL alone? Is that the only way to hunt anymore? All alone?
> ...


As long as they're all union, you should be okay !! :wink:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I can concieveably see somone having two, maybe even three guides with him. Depending on the hunting situation. Much past that and your not hunting with the guides anymore. At that point they are not guides but locaters being paid to track down the animal down and bring the shooter to it. So I guess my answer would have to be 3.


Ok so you think 3 guides is max, but what are your thoughts of having 10 family members on a LE or OIL hunt? Those family members are all there to help with the hunt. Many of them are used as spotters to help locate a bull, moose, buffalo for their buddies.

Here is a few videos.

http://connect2utah.com/content/roughin ... ?cid=64991

http://connect2utah.com/content/roughin ... ?cid=64982

I don't understand why so many of you have problems with guides. I think it's awesome that people can either hire guides or enjoy hunting with their family.


----------



## STEVO (Sep 13, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > I can concieveably see somone having two, maybe even three guides with him. Depending on the hunting situation. Much past that and your not hunting with the guides anymore. At that point they are not guides but locaters being paid to track down the animal down and bring the shooter to it. So I guess my answer would have to be 3.
> 
> 
> Ok so you think 3 guides is max, but what are your thoughts of having 10 family members on a LE or OIL hunt? Those family members are all there to help with the hunt. Many of them are used as spotters to help locate a bull, moose, buffalo for their buddies.
> ...


I have no problems with guides. The problem I have is the people that hire the guides try to take credit for harvesting a nice animal. In all reality they had very little to do with the "hunt". I have a problem with the fact that these guys for the most part hire these "guides" for their own ego, To get their name in the book, Or a big ass trophy for the wall. I can tell you that if I had the world record deer or elk on my wall and I knew deep down that all I had to do was pull the trigger on that hunt, that trophy wouldnt mean **** to me. It is no longer "hunter v/s animal" in todays world. A guy with money can outbid some other SOB to get his name in the books. All for the stroke of his ego. Thats what gives "hunters" a bad name in general!!!


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

elk22hunter said:


> wapiti67 said:
> 
> 
> > I am all for having to jump through a few hoops to distinguish the dedicated guide service from the crappy hole in the wall guides but for the life of me can not understand why I am not supposed to like these guys.


Elk.... I don't think you are supposed to hate or dislike Mossback for being a guide service (an expensive one at that). The animosity that is dished out towards them has lost its true reason for existing. I am not in favor of gang-hunts nor do I believe that guiding is a bad thing. I do believe in ethical practices and behavior which brings me to my point....

The main reason that the Mossback operation is disliked began with complaints about the behavior his people. I have had conversation with people telling me about Mossback people blocking public roads as well as threatening other hunters if they do not leave. I am only passing information along as it has been handed to me. I cannot confirm or otherwise prove that Doyle Moss has anything to do with this.

The point is that UNETHICAL behavior has been attributed to these high priced hunts. But then again how many of us behave unethically on DIY hunts also. If you talk to people that have hunted in areas where Mossback operates you will get similar stories.

Keep in mind that there is no proof of any of this other than stories passed along. Just like the 36" buck that got away! I say hate or dislike them after you have firsthand experience of what they do.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I have a problem with the fact that these guys for the most part hire these "guides" for their own ego, To get their name in the book, Or a **** for the wall. I can tell you that if I had the world record deer or elk on my wall and I knew deep down that all I had to do was pull the trigger on that hunt, that trophy wouldnt mean **** to me. It is no longer "hunter v/s animal" in todays world. A guy with money can outbid some other SOB to get his name in the books. All for the stroke of his ego. Thats what gives "hunters" a bad name in general!!!


OK Stevo, but how do you know it's for their ego? Do you know a lot of these evil men personally? The animal doesn't stay still for the hunters. Mossback or other guiding services do not have the animal tied up to a tree. I don't believe they do it just to get their names in the books. I have met a few of these high dollar rollers at the expos, and they seem like normal guys.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> The main reason that the Mossback operation is disliked began with complaints about the behavior his people. I have had conversation with people telling me about Mossback people blocking public roads as well as threatening other hunters if they do not leave. I am only passing information along as it has been handed to me. I cannot confirm or otherwise prove that Doyle Moss has anything to do with this.
> 
> The point is that UNETHICAL behavior has been attributed to these high priced hunts. But then again how many of us behave unethically on DIY hunts also. If you talk to people that have hunted in areas where Mossback operates you will get similar stories.
> 
> Keep in mind that there is no proof of any of this other than stories passed along. Just like the 36" buck that got away! I say hate or dislike them after you have firsthand experience of what they do.


Yes these rumors are like bigfoot and aliens. No one can seem to get a picture even in our world full of technology.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

A couple of points: 1) I am 100% in favor of better guidelines for guides/outfitters. I haven't taken the time to read through the whole new 'rules', but unless this applies equally to river/fishing/skiing guides on public land I foresee legal issues that WILL be raised. 2) The stuff I have read hurts the little guys and won't affect the Mossback's of the guiding world one bit. In fact, it will ensure the bigger operations of getting bigger. 3) Adding government regulations with weak oversight is begging for new problems to arise, and in most cases the new problems are much worse than the perceived problems they 'fixed'. 4) To pass new regulations based on what "I have heard" from 'friends' is beyond absurd, it is idiotic. 5) wapiti67/elkhunter22 made good points that folks like tex-o-bob and a few others seem to ignore; if you're going to limit the number of guides an "ego driven shooter" can have, are we going to limit the number of family members a "Joe Public hunter" can have? And if not, why? And if so, how are you suggesting it be enforced? 6) I am 100% out of this business for good, so this has no impact on me, but the enforcement of this will be a drag on monies that could/SHOULD be spent elsewhere for wildlife management. Do 'sportsmen' really think Mossback/Gooches/X-treme are the enemy? If so, we as 'sportsmen' have no chance of survival if we can't even identify the real enemies of hunting. Back to point #5, I am going to video some of the 'family'/DIY camps this fall so you guide haters can see FACTS as to who is crowding you on the mountain. Hint, it is NOT Mossback or any other guide services. The 'DIY' hunters and their 'helpers' far outnumber the 'paid goons' on every LE elk/deer unit in Utah. And here I was led to believe DIY meant Do it YOURself.

If REAL methods were enacted I would applaud them as loud as anyone. I see disturbing trends in the guide world that I am not liking one bit, but this seems to be more a 'feel good' reaction rather than a meaningful reining in of rogue guides/outfitters. This will hurt the little guys, keep many fine young hunters from doing what they enjoy doing due to a lack of resources to legally comply. Making guiding an 'elitist' business is a mistake, but that is what I see this doing. I'm just grateful I am out of the game. Guiding in Utah has just become akin to the Mickey Mouse Club. :?


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

See, it is what it is..........it is what it is becoming.
Folks shouldn't have any problem with it,.....it is money into the system and is good for the sportsman isn't it????????


----------



## hikein (Sep 19, 2007)

I hunt alone or with my kids. I'll never hire a guide. 

However, anyone doing commerce/business of one type or another, or providing some type service is required to have a license, or licensure; doctors. teachers, plumbers. Why not hunting guides? A licensure process, screening, whatever seem long overdue. I'm just pretty sure this "new law" won't affect me.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

STEVO said:


> I have no problems with guides. The problem I have is the people that hire the guides try to take credit for harvesting a nice animal. In all reality they had very little to do with the "hunt". I have a problem with the fact that these guys for the most part hire these "guides" for their own ego, To get their name in the book, Or a **** for the wall. I can tell you that if I had the world record deer or elk on my wall and I knew deep down that all I had to do was pull the trigger on that hunt, that trophy wouldnt mean **** to me. It is no longer "hunter v/s animal" in todays world. A guy with money can outbid some other SOB to get his name in the books. All for the stroke of his ego. Thats what gives "hunters" a bad name in general!!!


I guess that is the part that I don't understand. WHO CARES? I certainly dont. I would absolutely hate it if a canned hunt was above me in the record books but a legitimate hunt with a guy who is a wealthy steel mill owner out of the east coast comes to hunt deer in the wild and has many eyes helping him that he is paying for and goes into the economy of Utah and also a tag in his hand that cost him over $100 grand that goes back into the economy of Utah, then why should I care. It is legal and I believe ethical but not always for everyone. Just because I don't and CAN'T do it, doesnt make it wrong for someone else. It's not like he's using a helicopter or they tie it up for him. He has to find it again and hunt it without scaring it or letting it smell him. It is still hunting.


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

elk22hunter said:


> STEVO said:
> 
> 
> > I have no problems with guides. The problem I have is the people that hire the guides try to take credit for harvesting a nice animal. In all reality they had very little to do with the "hunt". I have a problem with the fact that these guys for the most part hire these "guides" for their own ego, To get their name in the book, Or a **** for the wall. I can tell you that if I had the world record deer or elk on my wall and I knew deep down that all I had to do was pull the trigger on that hunt, that trophy wouldnt mean **** to me. It is no longer "hunter v/s animal" in todays world. A guy with money can outbid some other SOB to get his name in the books. All for the stroke of his ego. Thats what gives "hunters" a bad name in general!!!
> ...


I agree 1000%. I'm getting into the cyber hunts as well. I haven't done one yet, but I'm waiting with baited breath. You know what I'm talking about, the cyber hunts you can sit on your computer and look at the game on your monitor. If you spot somthing on your monitor you would like to blast, you can toggle your crosshairs with your mouse and push the spacebar on your keyboard to fire. Its all real and in real time with the rifles mounted on tripods in different locations in the hunting area selected and remotely controlled by you at your computer. After the animal is harvested, you can have it mailed back to your address, for a fee of course. This is legal and I believe ethical but not always for everyone. Maybe Utah can look into this type of money maker as well. The only trouble I see with it, is there are no big money guides involved as they are not needed for these types of hunts.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

1BandMan said:


> I agree 1000%. *I'm getting into the cyber hunts as well*. I haven't done one yet, but I'm waiting with baited breath. You know what I'm talking about, *the cyber hunts you can sit on your computer and look at the game on your monitor.* If you spot somthing on your monitor you would like to blast, you can toggle your crosshairs with your mouse and push the spacebar on your keyboard to fire. Its all real and in real time with the rifles mounted on tripods in different locations in the hunting area selected and remotely controlled by you at your computer. After the animal is harvested, you can have it mailed back to your address, for a fee of course. This is legal and I believe ethical but not always for everyone. Maybe Utah can look into this type of money maker as well. The only trouble I see with it, is there are no big money guides involved as they are not needed for these types of hunts.


Can you imagine the possibilities ? Moose, caribou, elk , elephant, gazelle, pronghorn, tigers...all at your fingertips...

Fish around the world, fly fish in Russia without a passport, duck hunt Argentina in January without travel or airfare.

Something like this don't give me any wood at all.... -O,-


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

.45 said:


> 1BandMan said:
> 
> 
> > I agree 1000%. *I'm getting into the cyber hunts as well*. I haven't done one yet, but I'm waiting with baited breath. You know what I'm talking about, *the cyber hunts you can sit on your computer and look at the game on your monitor.* If you spot somthing on your monitor you would like to blast, you can toggle your crosshairs with your mouse and push the spacebar on your keyboard to fire. Its all real and in real time with the rifles mounted on tripods in different locations in the hunting area selected and remotely controlled by you at your computer. After the animal is harvested, you can have it mailed back to your address, for a fee of course. This is legal and I believe ethical but not always for everyone. Maybe Utah can look into this type of money maker as well. The only trouble I see with it, is there are no big money guides involved as they are not needed for these types of hunts.
> ...


It may not excite *you* but hey, if Utah can bring in $100,000 a head or more to cyber blast trophy elk and deer, I'm all for it. It goes back to the sportsman and to the state of Utah for conservation and the economy *so who should care*?????? It would indeed be a money maker.


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

> It may not excite you but hey, if Utah can bring in $100,000 a head or more to cyber blast trophy elk and deer, I'm all for it. It goes back to the sportsman and to the state of Utah for conservation and the economy so who should care?????? It would indeed be a money maker.


Have you ever heard of a hacker? It's all good until Habib behind his computer in India hacks the system and starts shooting everything in sight.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

When I started this topic, I hoped it wouldn't go down the guide/outfitter bashing,
cyber hunting, canned hunting, gang hunting road. And for the most part I think it's
been a good topic to discuss, wide spread opinions on this subject is the norm.

Just a few personal thoughts, I don't totally agree this law is playing into the bigger
outfitters hands to monopolize the business, They will be the ones watched like a hawk,
Anyone thought to be making any compensation with a client in camp will be checked 
for guiding licenses....Sending out multiple non-licensed spotters could be trouble..

Also , I'm very surprised at the low number of guides and outfitters that even applied
for applications this first time through, Less than a dozen guides even approved to legally
guide in Utah as the law go's into affect tomorrow....

I also personally believe there could be a guide shortage come fall, there are going to be
alot of "want to be" guides fall short on requirements and not get licenesed..........
I guarantee there will be a WHOLE bunch of made guys when this is said and done.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

1BandMan said:


> .45 said:
> 
> 
> > 1BandMan said:
> ...


Am I read'n this correctly? Who should care? I think everyone should care. This is not only in my opinion unethical but also potentially dangerous. Lets say I take a shot and miss my quarry...but i end up hitting a does or a cow? or Another hunter for that matter. Would this not open the door for someone hunting a hunter? I don't care about illegal as mush as I do ethical. They usually go hand in hand but on this I would have to say... if a cyber hunt is allowed legally someone has a few loose screws somewhere. Where has integrity gone?

Allowing anything for *money's sake only* is not the correct aproach. Yes you may get 100K a pop but I am sure that so many hunters will drop the sport it will end up hurting instead of benefitting. It seams to me that more and more people are willing to just bend over and take it up the rear as long as they get their cash. I certainly hope all us hunters stay true to our sport's traditions(and very proud traditions) and true to ourselves!


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

Mob guided hunts, $100,000 tags, and coming up strong.......cyber hunts. 
You may even get a quarter mill out of some of those rich buggers if they don't have to leave their house or office, and all this money going back into the sport for conservation purposes. Its a win-win proposition.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> When I started this topic, I hoped it wouldn't go down the guide/outfitter bashing,
> cyber hunting, canned hunting, gang hunting road. And for the most part I think it's
> been a good topic to discuss, wide spread opinions on this subject is the norm.
> 
> .


I'm glad you started this topic and posted the rules goofy elk...it's quite interesting. A good set of rules to help protect the client as well as the legitimate guide/outfitter service. Not something I'll probably ever use, but I am curious how the competition, pricing and availability of the 'fewer' guides will play out.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

.45,,,It will get interesting, There's already new rules coming out in the 2010 bear proc.
I've just thumbed through it, but it looks like, New laws were all dog handlers that are
any way shape or form involved with someone paying to hunt bears with dogs will have
to have a guide license. Pretty clear that even if the tag holder is only buying gas and
food everyone having dogs has to be licensed.
Also , any guides waiting to get licensed had better allow plenty of time in advance
of a hunt, Applications, Exams, Back ground checks and information gathering could
take weeks, then getting everything presented to the board, and approval another month.

Any rejections a person could be up to three months and numerous trips to SLC.....
Back ground checks have to be done in person for finger printing.
Exams can only be taken in certain PCI testing centers,,Ogden,SLC, Orem, or Hurricane.
Extremely difficult and expensive for guy's living in rural areas.


----------



## king eider (Aug 20, 2009)

i do have a honest question...

do most or all the guides carry a liability insurance? i mean if a client got hurt on a hunt with them, im sure some lawyer could have a field day.

just wondering...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Darin Noorda said:


> i do have a honest question...
> 
> do most or all the guides carry a liability insurance? i mean if a client got hurt on a hunt with them, im sure some lawyer could have a field day.
> 
> just wondering...


Guides don't normally, but the Outfitters have to in order to get Special Use Permits. They have to be insured and bonded for a minimum of $1 Mil.


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I also personally believe there could be a guide shortage come fall, there are going to be
> alot of "want to be" guides fall short on requirements and not get licenesed..........
> I guarantee there will be a WHOLE bunch of made guys when this is said and done.


You my friend is 100% right! There is not going to be enough guides to go around! UNLESS you have the fat wallet to get one. The more I read this thread and the more I see the views of many I can feel good in thinking the the "Big Guides" are all about this.....

It really reminds me of Dope dealers...


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Darin Noorda said:
> 
> 
> > i do have a honest question...
> ...


Tax I.D. number, city/county business license as well ?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

.45 said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > [quote="Darin Noorda":16ls73v4]i do have a honest question...
> ...


Tax I.D. number, city/county business license as well ?[/quote:16ls73v4]

Correct. That was under the 'old' rules, now I am not sure what hoops one must jump through.


----------



## Califbowmen (Jul 1, 2008)

Please clarify Gang Hunting!! Also, does this mean that if we hunters show up and camp together as a large group ( 6 or more) and hunt different areas of a unit, that we be regulated and only able to hunt as individuals or pairs! Are we now going to be assigned areas to hunt within hunting units to spread out hunter pressure?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Califbowmen said:


> Please clarify Gang Hunting!! Also, does this mean that if we hunters show up and camp together as a large group ( 6 or more) and hunt different areas of a unit, that we be regulated and only able to hunt as individuals or pairs! Are we now going to be assigned areas to hunt within hunting units to spread out hunter pressure?


I doubt it, but to be consistent that should be the case. Just one of many things that is idiotic about this.


----------



## Wimpy_ (Dec 30, 2009)

GoofyElk, where did you find any information about these laws affecting cooks or spotters? All of the rules that I have read on the DOPL site apply to guides or outfitters, including the section that you quoted: 
"Section 58-78-201.
53 (2) "Compensation" means anything of economic value in excess of $100 that is paid,
54 loaned, granted, given, donated, or transferred to a hunting guide or outfitter for or in
55 consideration of personal services, materials, or property."

Lloyd Nielson
Sunrise Outfitting


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Wimpy,,,PM sent.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

Feel free to interject or add to the points that I will share here. 
History has a repeating cycle in almost every "professional" field of employment for hundreds if not thousands of years where someone gets the brilliant idea to implement a "registry" or a system of licensing for their field or profession. 

In general, this type of licensing is implemented for one of two main reasons - One reason would be to ensure that services rendered meet certain levels of quality and professionalism through training and education. This type of licensing or certification is often implemented by the general populace to meet specific standards for that industry. 
A second reason for licensing or certifying people is often brought about by people in an industry who consider themselves "professionals". This form of licensing is usually done in order to weed out would be's and limit the competition in the marketplace they are in, securing their place at the top of the money train.

My first question regarding the changes would be: Who is sponsoring this kind of change? Second would be, how does this benefit the game or the hunting population of UT? Third, I would ask: Who will police the thousands of miles of backcountry roads and trails, business offices, coffee shops and other parking lots in order to catch people breaking the $100 limit and enforce those rules being implemented? and fourth would be: Will these rules be implemented across all forms of guiding? Fishing, Outfitting, Bike Tours, Horse Tours, ATV tours, Jeep Jamborees, snowmobile trips, etc, etc... 

I understand that if the new guide's licensing process were made too simple that anyone could do it, it would not serve its purpose, nor make sense to implement it in the first place. However, by making it so heavy a burden to acquire in the first place with - as I understand the information presented in this post - all of the various and multiple license applications, permits, business licenses, background checks, etc... as well as requiring 100 hours of guiding which will undoubtedly be under the umbrella of one of the already established guides ... only those at the top will be able to afford to get in the game the first couple years which will severely deter any new competition from entering the marketplace. 
Before you gut and quarter me with an Epic head Elk22, I ask that you look at guiding in your new home-state of WY... guides must be licensed and be affiliated with their guide's association through a board of peers...and non-residents are required to hunt with a guide in some of the key parts of that state. In ID, there is a limit to the number of guides per region, and you must buy one of the pre-existing guide's permits in order to guide in that region...which although it preserves or protects that guide's job, it limits the competition in those regions - which to me is an anti-trust violation in both cases as it creates a protected class in a professional industry - clearly the opposite of free-market competition.

Lastly, IF this is the direction that guiding in UT goes - with a restriction of competition through licensing, and the people who currently have been influencing so handily the DWR board get their way (recent board meeting in point!), every species of big game in the state of Utah could/will become limited entry allocation for ALL SPECIES, and could/will require a guide for all non-residents (or worse yet - all hunters!) to be able to pursue that animal for which they have spent 15, 20 or more years applying for... Imagine the monopoly that will be created by these businessmen who have entrenched themselves in the DWR's pocketbooks under the false pretense of looking out for the sportsmen, fish and wildlife... 
I am a sportsman, and don't feel that my interests have been considered through the current channels at RAC meetings and such nor by the afformentioned sportsmens group, so my confidence is very low that the DWR WB will take any heed to what I say here...

Again, I invite open commentary regarding my statements - we have to entertain all the possibilities here, and maybe someone can bring more to light than what I can. 
If any of you remember a year ago there was a poll online promoting the limiting of archery to regions in the state that was posed by a prominent and influential sportsmen's group - I brought that information to light to a few of their sponsors (who happen to be international Archery companies) and stirred a pot of hornets that I am still hearing about from both sides ... so in those conversations, I must have uncovered something they didn't want exposed to the public as to their intentions and goals... I trust that by open communication we can reveal the secret and dark plans that are being implemented here before they become a burden to all sportsmen except the privilaged (sp) and wealthy.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

TUA,,Great questions and points made!
First, Utah was one of the last states that did not require outfitter/guides to be licensed
through the state. I believe this was a factor involved with the State implementing this
new law, along with support from local organizations and outfitter groups. 

Second, I feel it will benefit game and Utah's hunting population buy keeping guiding
practices honest,,There was allot of illegal stuff going on our local law enforcement
could do nothing about..........Now that has changed.

Third, Enforcement is not as difficult as one might think, Outfitter camps are easy to
spot and not difficult to check. A simple check of non-res permits and COs know who
is guiding and who is not. Also , I don't see Utah requiring guides like Wyoming,,ever!

And finally, I believe the other forms of guiding you've listed are already regulated....
Other than fishing I'm not sure of,, and I don't think it falls under this new law??
anyone know for sure?

One other note,,Requirement to qualify is 100 days experience ,,not hours.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

TopofUtahArcher said:


> My first question regarding the changes would be: Who is sponsoring this kind of change?


Specific to these rules, members of the big game guiding industry and hunting organizations with a vested interest/partnership in the industry. But specific to "this kind of change", most of us are supporting it, either through direct support and participation or through complacency and apathy.



TopofUtahArcher said:


> Second would be, how does this benefit the game or the hunting population of UT?


As we're all aware, a growing number (maybe a majority) of folks see hunting today as an industry and that point of view is shared by some wildlife managers, including the DWR director. In that view, wildlife is a product that is sold to "customers". Customer satisfaction is key to the market. Without a market, there is no production. In other words, money = wildlife. This is the "ranch management" model that has slowly replaced the the North American Wildlife Conservation Model.



TopofUtahArcher said:


> Third, I would ask: Who will police the thousands of miles of backcountry roads and trails, business offices, coffee shops and other parking lots in order to catch people breaking the $100 limit and enforce those rules being implemented?


The same people who enforce most other game laws with the additional vigorous support of guides, outfitters and their potential clients. Sure, folks will get away with a little fudging here and there, but it will be pretty hard to do much serious guiding or even appear to do so without somebody somewhere making an accusation or lodging a complaint. (I learned that lesson the hard way.)



TopofUtahArcher said:


> Will these rules be implemented across all forms of guiding? Fishing, Outfitting, Bike Tours, Horse Tours, ATV tours, Jeep Jamborees, snowmobile trips, etc, etc...


No. The rules are specific to big game.



TopofUtahArcher said:


> However, by making it so heavy a burden to acquire in the first place with - as I understand the information presented in this post - all of the various and multiple license applications, permits, business licenses, background checks, etc... as well as requiring 100 hours of guiding which will undoubtedly be under the umbrella of one of the already established guides ... only those at the top will be able to afford to get in the game the first couple years which will severely deter any new competition from entering the marketplace.


Respectfully, that's nonsense. These rules are not so different from rules that have already been implemented in other states. Granted, there are some refinements to come, (such as dividing the classes, i.e. Master Guide, Registered Guide, Assistant Guides, Transporters.)

On the contrary, enforcement of these rules will open the market. Consider - why should a serious and qualified outfitter go through the hassles and pay the overhead required of a professional operation just to be undercut by some kid with a secondary Use Permit? And how can a serious and qualified outfitter expect to survive the first couple years of operation with so much distrust and trash talk towards outfitters (sometimes justified by drunks, frauds and poachers)? Get the riff-raff out of the way and people who are already set up to guide on private lands will fill some of the void. With the unfair competition and undeserved bad reputation eliminated, new operations will have a fair and reasonable shot.



TopofUtahArcher said:


> Lastly, IF this is the direction that guiding in UT goes - with a restriction of competition through licensing, and the people who currently have been influencing so handily the DWR board get their way (recent board meeting in point!), every species of big game in the state of Utah could/will become limited entry allocation for ALL SPECIES, and could/will require a guide for all non-residents (or worse yet - all hunters!) to be able to pursue that animal for which they have spent 15, 20 or more years applying for...


You can't (responsibly) claim that the guiding industry has some nefarious plot underfoot and I'm sure you wouldn't blame anybody for wanting to make a buck from hunting. The guiding business is only one piece of a much bigger puzzle. But yes, there's more pages yet to be added to the ranch management handbook in Utah and the stage is set for the future changes you're talking about. That's no more the fault of the guiding business than it is archery pro-shops. Both businesses are just filling the demand coming from us hunters. So the old saying applies, be careful what you wish for... Reminds me of my friend who got married, had 6 kids and now complains because he's broke and his wife's fat. :lol:


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Finnegan said:


> TopofUtahArcher said:
> 
> 
> > My first question regarding the changes would be: Who is sponsoring this kind of change?
> ...


*You are right the stage is being set to turn Utah into a ranch business and not managing for the general public's use. You have done a good job in letting the general public know where the DWR is headed.*


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

Finn, there is obviously something about me running an archery shop that you want to address, and I invite you to call or email me to discuss those with me privately as throwing a jab like that out in a public and unrelated forum was not only off-topic, but unnecessary.

Since you brought it up I have had a couple pm's regarding me operating a bow shop...
I won't dispute that requiring "Archery Pro-shop certification" over and above simply getting a business license would definitely benefit me financially. 
After all, how many archery shops in all of Utah can say "I have been factory trained and/or certified by PSE/Browning, Bowtech/Diamond/Ross, Hoyt/Reflex, Martin/Rytera and Mathews/Mission"? 
I stand to make big $ if that were to happen - but I am against Govt. regulation of private business or private citizens rights to work towards prosperity through ingenious legal methods - instead, I work a full-time job in addition to running a pretty successful archery shop in order to support my family and the DWR -)O(- as they work diligently to limit my opportunites to hunt to the point that I spend almost all of my hunting dollars in neighboring states where they welcome sportsmen...
so Finn, if you're sponsoring a bill at the UT Senate to bring an "Archery Pro-shop Certification" to pass that will limit my competition in the market, please let me know, cause though I don't support our Govt. determining how or if we can "get ahead" I will surely be in the front of that line to ensure my business gets that Govt. regulated $ success :mrgreen:

However - my point in posting in this issue is that America was founded on the premise of "Free Market", and this kind of limitation through certification for a field of "expertise" (sorry, I have to pause & chuckle a bit here!) such as guiding or outfitting is simply a way for them to either force out or limit the competiton in their field by making lesser known or part-time guides jump ship or to jump through a bunch of time-consuming and costly political hoops in order to make a little extra money each year - money that they no doubt would invest back into the hunting industry in other ways as they spend their income supporting and enjoying the outdoors buying tags, ammo, fuel, etc...

I have some very good friends who guide "professionally" and they stand to gain a lot if there is less competition, however, other good friends use their guiding income to pay for their hunting trips, guns, bows or even to make ends meet...and this legislation will severely hurt their opportunity to enjoy the outdoors or possibly even to subsist in small rural Utah towns.

Let's step back and play with this a little bit ... imagine any general sales or service industry being required to go through this kind of certification process to be considered "professional":
~$400 in fees, 
multiple background checks, 
100 days in the field unpaid,
CPR certification, 
Require this of anyone working in their particular field of expertise making over $100 annually ...

Anyone working in any field related to auto, atv, snowmobile, utility trailer, camp trailer or any other Over The Road (OTR) or Off Road (OR) vehicle production, sales or service...aftera all, we rely on them being honest and doing quality work...so that we can safely drive the highways, trails etc in our vehicles.

Imagine every corner market, service station, backwoods family store, agricultural operation, or anyone else selling or using over $100 a year of any sort of fuel, flammable petroleum or similar product of any kind (gas, oil, diesel, kerosene, fertilizer, propane, etc) ... It is after all flammable or hazardous materials that can be used to make things like bombs...

Lets get a little more specific and local ... Imagine imposing the rule that* every *employee at Smith & Edwards, Sportsman's Warehouse, Cabela's, or any other sporting goods store where ammo or gun related accessories are sold - even Walmart, Kmart and most of the backwoods country markets in rural Utah - *EVERY employee* making over $100 in a fiscal year now has to get their Federal Firearms License (FFL), complete the additional background checks being required of guides, become CPR Certified and have 100 days in their field of work prior to being given their "License" to work, even if they are just a cashier, shelf stocker or janitor... after all, they are in an environment where guns and ammo could be used for a dangerous or criminal act...

_"Wait Lance, that sounds pretty absurd - certify a cashier? How is that the same? These aren't what you'd consider 'Professional Occupations?" _
Sure they are - to the person doing that work for a living - arent they getting paid to do work? That qualifies them a professional just as much as a doctor, lawyer, Wildlife Commissioner or any of the "Top Guides" in our state and their many paid spotters and assistants who are backing this legislation...

So in retrospect of my points above, can you tell me why guides need this stringent of a licensing requirement versus certifying your local produce stocker, ammo store or gas station attendant?

In my opinion, the only real qualifications one needs to "guide" is that you have time to go into the woods to find game, and that you can then show another individual where that animal is so they can harvest it and have their photos pasted on magazine stands and websites for all to see...if that person offers to pay you $1, $100 or $100,000 for your help, who cares, they could pay a waitress that kind of tip for a good burger at McDonalds and then she'd have to pay income taxes on just the same...but many wouldn't, would they?

Yes, I think guides ought to be required to have a business license or something similar in order to receive money for work performed - just like any retail shop, service station, or other business is required in order to operate, but the system is already in place...

I think I've made my point here - this is just another way government (our employees, public servants) is imposing limits to our ability to compete in the marketplace or enjoy prosperity - in this instance we are talking about "professional" guiding, but it is happening in like manner in every facet of the sporting and hunting industry. I don't think it is the Govt's (read DWR) place to decide who can or can't help someone in the woods to be successful in taking a game animal or how they are thanked/compensated for their efforts and time they've invested, should they be rewarded by the hunter.

Again, I welcome comments about the topic, but please leave it to the topic at hand and leave personal comments out. 
LP


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Sooo, in reading over the DOPL statutes and rules, am I to assume that the qualifications for an outfitter are the same as those of a guide? There isn't much, if any clarity regarding this.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Never mind, this is disclosed under Section R156-79-302e


----------



## richardjb (Apr 1, 2008)

Great points TOUA! How long before my out of state relatives and friends are no longer allowed to hunt with me. Guides and outfitters DO NOT speak for me. You bring up valid points that the guides and outfitters don't want hear. Keep it up! Elitists in any endeavor are not our friends. Lets keep it simple!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here's some more interesting info.........
Now I'm hearing after next Tuesdays board meeting for approvals, They will NOT
meet again until the end of April.....................

Meaning,,If your not thru by Jan.19,,,,,,No new guides or outfitter licenses issued
for over THREE months!!!!!! Anyone wanting a license had better be on the BALL!


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

And the most recent... oh look - now we have a 3 day general deer rifle hunt in many units, with 5 day in the rest. Oh, look what a surprise - shortened archery and muzzle seasons even though they are 10% and 20% success on avg...

and I'd like to point out that Finn just posted on the BOU website within the last week or so that the Deer plan is for the whole state to be turned into an LE system for all deer permits within a year or two ... WOW!! Who was it just a few days back that was calling me "immature", "uneducated", "naive" and "irresponsible"....

I stand corrected - I don't think, I now KNOW that there are special interest groups within the guides & outfitters, WB and SFW that are working to capitalize bigtime on the general hunting public's hard work, lobbying efforts, and $ investments in order to make the industry a protected and limited access class.

It was obvious that LE needed to be done on OIAL tags such as sheep, moose and mt goats - but not so obvious was their intent regarding tags for mule deer and elk. They started small to not arouse suspicions -"bait the hook and dangle it in front of them for a while, then when they bite, set the hook hard and reel them in so they only have one option - statewide LE, which in this state is pretty much like saying everyone can put in for a OIAL elk or deer tag already for premium tags.

Just watch, it'll happen if we don't get up and oppose their current direction. Once it happens, then they'll hit you (us) where it hurts and make you hire a guide to "Preserve the hunting heritage" or to "preserve a trade" or whatever, like in Wyo and AK... you watch, that's what they want cause they make BANK off of it and there are people high up that just sit back and watch with a big grin cause $ they get to roll in our $ and they get special privelages or access to hunt more often than the avg. Joe.

Here is a different look at it...
If you want to catch a wild pig, you don't build a cage and expect him to just walk in... no, you throw out some corn and get him used to it, then you build one side of the cage and throw out some more bait. Once he's used to it, build another wall and bait again. Again, when he's used to it, put up another wall and bait again. When he walks in the cage, he doesn't see it as a cage, he only sees the food. Now you build the last wall and put a one way door in it...when he walks in the next time, it'll be his last.

Another word for what they are creating is "Communism" or "Marxism"... listen to this soundbite if you want http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQ7LcplfkgY , now this isn't specific to hunting, but Cruschev (sp?) describes exactly how our govt. (fisheries and wildlife included) is working this debate now with regards to LE hunting in Ut ... and this year is a big step, cause they now have 4 walls in place and are just waiting to close the door behind us.

We are now seeing a "Communist takeover" if you will of our right and ability to pursue the game that WE have fought so hard to build and spent our hard earned $ to preserve, just to have it taken by the very people we put in to protect our ability to annually pursue and take game...

I call it how I see it. There'll be no smoke and mirrors after they get their grasp and set the hook. They'll close the door behind us (or them) and leave the avg guy out of the loop. It's already happening in select circles here, and we're feeding right into their trap.


----------



## richardjb (Apr 1, 2008)

Pay no attention to the man behind the screen! Good job keeping this up front TOPO. Some of us see this for what it is. Others think that it doesn't effect them. This is just this archers thought.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

ToUA,,,,,,,,What in the world are you thinking???????????  

Communist takeover??? Feeding right into there trap??????? You can't be serious? :shock: 

In all most all states were there is a "hunting" or "guiding" market,they have regulated 
outfitters and guides for DECADES...........Utah was lacking soooooo far behind it was pathetic!

Now, this new law is not perfect, But its certainly better than doing nothing........
IMHO,,,,,It benefits everyone involved, especially HUNTERS who hire guides.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

goofy elk said:


> ToUA,,,,,,,,What in the world are you thinking???????????
> Communist takeover??? Feeding right into there trap??????? You can't be serious? :shock: In all most all states were there is a "hunting" or "guiding" market,they have regulated outfitters and guides for DECADES.....Utah was lacking soooooo far behind it was pathetic!
> Now, this new law is not perfect, But its certainly better than doing nothing........IMHO,,,,,It benefits everyone involved, _*especially HUNTERS who hire guide*_s.


I think my english is pretty plain, but if not I'll elaborate...

Not communist, but of that same nature and idealism... govt funded, govt run, govt dictated... not of the people, by the people, and definitely not for the people... which means not everyone currently involved will even have the choice to be later.
Yes, a trap for anyone who isn't in the "loop" now, and for anyone who wants to get involved in the future.

I don't disagree that _some_ guides in in our state were/are out of hand and needed someone to monitor them ...I have been pretty open about my disregard for what I feel is "Party Hunting" using "paid finders" and "spotters" ... but is this really the best and only solution we could come up with to stave off the issues within the ranks of the guides? I agree with you Goofy, it is far from perfect... but two wrongs don't make a "right".

I think there are lots of other things that could be done that would have benefitted the hunting community as good or better than the current "requirements"... I'll just throw out some idears for ya ... Why not make a rule that any guide making over "x" dollars or any sportsman paying "X" dollars be charged a "Wildlife Luxury Tax" that goes towards re-inventing our LE system? 
Or, lets get the state's Business License Division and the IRS involved properly and require guides to have a business license and pay income tax and employment taxes for any employee making "X" dollars for guiding - after all, aren't they running a business? 
Or let's make a rule in the Wildlife Bylaws that says no hunter may hunt with more than 1-2 paid OR unpaid guides and no spotters are allowed during a hunting season? (can you say "reduce crowding issues"?) 
And how bout restricting the use of radios in guiding hunters to game? etc...etc... These are just some general ideas...

"What am I thinking?
In a nutshell, here is the direction I think this will go ... "Special Interest Group(s)" have been trying to control the general hunting opportunities in our state for years, but it was taking way too long, so I believe they've changed their point of attack.

First they'll push to implement a registry for guides, then they'll limit who can or can't be in that registry. Then they'll go to those who make the laws and lobby as a powerful (read wealthy) "Professional organization" or "Union" to have the hunts for all big game be made into LE hunts (Hum... LE deer for 2011 or 2012? or how bout the "sudden" changes made to season lengths for 2010 - that resemble the archery "pick-a-region" farce of 2009...or Pro's suggestion to eliminate spike elk hunting on LE units in favor of more branch antler tags-which I agree with some parts of, but it plays the wrong way in general).

Then they'll push to require use of a licensed guide to hunt certain species like sheep, mt goats and moose (like in AK, Canada and Mexico), then they'll implement this same rule for deer, elk... etc. It is a progressive approach to limiting or eliminating anyone who can't "Pay-to-Play" that mirrors Europe's hunting industry. This is a business plan to me and the term "Ranch Management" comes to mind...not public land use or public wildlife management.

The only way I see that this "guide licensing" benefits the _average hunter _(read "majority of UT's hunting population") is:

It puts a name on a list so that when a hunter gets lucky enough to draw one of these coveted tags and goes in to the unit to scout or pursue his OIAL trophy, and then gets harassed or has his hunt foiled by one of the "paid posse" affiliates, the guy will be able to take action cause there'll be a name attached or a money trail ... and yes, I have seen this happen first hand.

On the other hand, it benefits the Guides who get in. It benefits the sportsmen's group who is pushing it to sell their conservation tags at the upcoming banquets and sportsman's show. It benefits those who use guides anyway... after all, these groups already have all the high dollar hunts and hunters in their "family circle", and it may benefit those who were behind in points cause they've already drawn and can afford guides fees cause a lot of average hunters will drop out of the race due to cost, time, etc...

:arrow: Here is why I don't like it ... *Plain and simple: I won't be able to afford it*. Even though I am a landowner, I don't have enough ground to meet the current CWMU requirements, and will be thus disallowed from hunting deer my own property.

My household income is currently about $15K above the UT Median Household Income (2008-09 census). With three kids and a mortgage, I am not wealthy enough to buy landowner tags or pay guides every year ... or every other year, or even every 5th year for that matter... in fact, I have NEVER been on an outfitted or guided hunt in 25+ yrs of hunting due to the costs involved - and they are only getting higher. Instead, I enjoy hunting 3-4 big game species every year out of state for under $1000 while waiting in line for my chance at a OIAL tag for elk, deer, sheep, etc. in my home state of UT.

With ever increasing costs of equipment and tags, and the ever increasing limiting numbers of tags, more and more people will leave the sport/industry to find things they can do - to the point that only the wealthy will be able to or allowed to participate.

Here's the simple math version:

less tags sold to adult hunters = less youth getting involved 
less tag $ to DWR = higher tag prices 
Higher tag $ = even less sportsmen

If the DWR keeps the trend going that Don started when he was head of the DWR, then they'll price themselves out of a job and a majority of Utah's hunting community will be priced out of the hunting game entirely. They will be forced to implement a "Farm management" plan and will try to convince us that will benefit all of us better than the "Public Wildlife Management Plan" ... they are already trying to persuade that idea.

It is a clearcut "If...then" statement that the general public _will be _priced out of hunting if this keeps going, and the WB will just turn to selling tags to the highest bidder - the tags once offered to you and I over the counter or through a public LE system gone corrupt.

It's easy for DWR or the FED Wildlife Agencies to throw the blame at "X-box" or "Play Station" for the decline in youth involved in hunting. But when parents can't afford to take their kids hunting regularly because of tag prices, because the rules are too complex, or because they have to wait 5 or more years to even be close to drawing a tag for a quality animal through the draw system, do you fault them for doing something else? "I know, look Honey! If we spend $300 for an X-box and $60 per game it is still more affordable than hunting...can you believe it?"

This is just the tip of the iceburg... If you reduce the number of people involved in a sport in any way, shape or form - it will inevitably affect everyone in that industry negatively - from small rural towns selling fuel, food, lodging, ammo, etc. - to sporting goods suppliers and retailers... etc

- that is what Government does, it is conditioned to grow itself ... there is a lot involved here more than just making a list of guides. Where does it go from here? I am just trying to see the big picture and ward off the possibility that my kids may not be hunting in UT during their lifetime cause we priced them out of the game.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

Let's just put guides in their proper place which is on private land hunts only. Take them off of the public lands and the conflict of interest in terms of wildlife management decisions is gone. It also eliminates the "need" for the govt to be beuracratic about what a small number of people are doing to satisfy their clients. Let the guides run their business in the way that brings them return business...just not on public lands. 

Easy.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

SteepNDeep said:


> Let's just put guides in their proper place which is on private land hunts only. Take them off of the public lands and the conflict of interest in terms of wildlife management decisions is gone. It also eliminates the "need" for the govt to be beuracratic about what a small number of people are doing to satisfy their clients. Let the guides run their business in the way that brings them return business...just not on public lands.
> 
> Easy.


Then you would have to do the same for ALL private citizens who benefit from using public lands. that means no more river guides, no more fishing guides, no more timber harvest, no more mining, no more ATV Jamborees, etc.. Is this what you really want? :?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Is this what you really want? :?


NO, just no more hunting guides! :lol:


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

I hadn't thought of some of those- like fishing guides. Are they regulated in the same way hunting guides are? I can see how that could make an argument of sorts within the same discussion, but not the rest. 

You are introducing much more than really applies. Mining and ranching are very complex issues that have their own set of unique pros and cons for public benefit vs. private good with a lot of history behind them. I'd venture to say they are antiquated laws in their approach, and I bet most would agree. Let's not go there, as we aren't truly talking about some umbrella of opportunity where you can only do one action that you do to all the rest of those things you mention if we were to limit guides to private land. That isn't the case.

Do you have more specific reasons for why you think it is wrong?


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

One other question, what percentage of guiding happens on public vs. private land? I would think it is somewhere near 10% public, 90% private right? I mean, I guess I could count available tags, but there have to be 10 times the number of CWMU's as compared to the percentage of the limited draws which actually choose a guide for the public land hunts. 

Anyone have an idea?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

SteepNDeep said:


> I hadn't thought of some of those- like fishing guides. Are they regulated in the same way hunting guides are? I can see how that could make an argument of sorts within the same discussion, but not the rest.
> 
> You are introducing much more than really applies. Mining and ranching are very complex issues that have their own set of unique pros and cons for public benefit vs. private good with a lot of history behind them. I'd venture to say they are antiquated laws in their approach, and I bet most would agree. Let's not go there, as we aren't truly talking about some umbrella of opportunity where you can only do one action that you do to all the rest of those things you mention if we were to limit guides to private land. That isn't the case.
> 
> Do you have more specific reasons for why you think it is wrong?


Do I have specific reasons why I think what is wrong? I will try and answer what I'm guessing you are asking.

I do think just banning hunting guides from public land and allowing others a pass is not only plain wrong, it would be unconstitutional. You can't single out one sector and have different rules for them than others. I know Obama is trying to do that with banks, and Congress wants to do that with Unions and Obamacare, but it is unconstitutional to do so. A wise man once told me to be careful what laws/regulations/restrictions you ask to be placed on your neighbors, as there is a very good chance those laws/regulations/restrictions will come back to bite your butt. I'm not sure who posted that hunters should be restricted to having only 2 guides with them, including 'non-paid' guides such as family friends. What happens when you draw a tag and you have three kids who are old enough to tag along, who do you leave home? And, WTH should ANYONE have to. paying clients included? :?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> SteepNDeep said:
> 
> 
> > I hadn't thought of some of those- like fishing guides. Are they regulated in the same way hunting guides are? I can see how that could make an argument of sorts within the same discussion, but not the rest.
> ...


Pro, wouldn't the fact that that there is money involved play a factor?

The forest service and BLM charge use fees a market value for commercial use, I don't see a problem with this.

TOUA, a good portion of what I am translating from your posts on this subject sound like have vs. have not issues. Our hunting is STILL geared to the majority of hunters who can't afford a guided hunt (Which is 100% their choice no matter how you slice it) and still would be under an LE system. I wish we had more deer or less hunters so everyone could get a tag to hunt where ever they wish, but that's not the case and it has almost 0 to do with special interest, it has to do with math.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Pro, wouldn't the fact that that there is money involved play a factor? Why? And, does that mean we include EVERY entity that makes $100.00/year off public lands?
> 
> The forest service and BLM charge use fees a market value for commercial use, I don't see a problem with this. Explain why the Forest Service should get a fee if someone takes photos of wildlife on public land?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > Pro, wouldn't the fact that that there is money involved play a factor? Why? And, does that mean we include EVERY entity that makes $100.00/year off public lands?
> ...


It's nothing more than a tax and truthfully, I'm not sure where the money goes. If the _tax_ money goes to things of a similar nature, than I am all for it. You know as well as anyone that things cost money and unfortunately, a lot of the allocated moneys for the forest service go into trying to keep people from destroying our public lands, making the money necessary for preservation.

Either way, it needs to be fair. (Only because it's government) Letting some use it for free for personal use is different than conducting commerce, big or small, on public lands. Besides, we're not talking about that much money for use permits.

I'd be all for it if we could let everyone who wishes to capitalize on public resources without depleting or permanently damaging it, but I don't trust for one second that stewardship and capitalism will intermingle without the former losing out.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

OK, we're starting to talk the same talk in an open conversation...which is what was intended in the beginning... so let's talk. 

Why are they implementing this "professional guide" rule in the first place? and who is it that is pushing for the legislature to do it? It goes back to my original statement - As far as having a NEED to implement a set of guidelines for taking peoples money in exchange for guiding... they already have a system in place called "Business Licensing" for this. With regards to "Regulating" guides, I think it is pretty simple that you implement something through the DWR that limits how many paid guides or "unrelated" helpers you have in the woods spotting game during the season... Yes I think the woods are pretty crowded with non-hunters during the hunt, but you can't go kicking everyone off the mountain either. 

The legislation in question regarding guiding is either being pushed by someone within the guiding industry who will benefit ($) greatly by its implementation... or by someone within the State Legislature who has been promised a piece of the pie in monetary support for re-election by someone with a business plan for making public hunting their private industry - some kind of porkulous reward to the politicians. 

Treehugger, you're right. Now that they are regulating hunting guides, what's to stop them from fishing guides, float trips, packing services, horse rentals, etc... is it fair to allow them to operate without CPR cert and 100 days experience and background checks, etc? You mention the FS charging people for taking photos and video on public land... yes it's an antiquated "Environmental Impact" fee designated for the movie industry back when they built sets and had hundreds of people living in the woods making films - and a rule that needs to be updated because it doesn't properly address current hunting video impacts.
Why doesn't the State take the simple route and make guides register their business with the state, get proper business licenses and pay appropriate income and payroll taxes. The way this has come about and the reasoning for it to me are both suspect and subject to questioning, especially when there is a system to take care of it already. 

Pro, good question about taking your 3 kids into the woods with you... I might adjust the wording to say "unrelated" adults or something to that effect...

Again, my point is, this is setting us up to be in a situation like AK where you HAVE to pay for a registered and licensed guide in order to even hunt for certain species, which will end up pushing people away from the sport and I don't like Govt. regulation of private industry and don't want to let them get a foothold, cause they'll try to get more and more.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

TopofUtahArcher said:


> Pro, good question about taking your 3 kids into the woods with you... I might adjust the wording to say "unrelated" adults or something to that effect...What if your 3 children are now adults? Which one gets to not share the hunt? Still makes no sense, and in truth would be a nightmare to enforce.
> 
> Again, my point is, this is setting us up to be in a situation like AK where you HAVE to pay for a registered and licensed guide in order to even hunt for certain species, which will end up pushing people away from the sport and I don't like Govt. regulation of private industry and don't want to let them get a foothold, cause they'll try to get more and more. I agree 100%, I also agree on the Special Use Permits being a holdover from the days of making movies/commercials on public lands, and that it needs to be updated to reflect the uses of public land in the 21st Century.


In general, I think these new regulations are poorly written, and they target one sector, while omitting other sectors, of the same rules/regulations, which is a breach of the Constitution of both the state and the nation. I predict it will be challenged in court and tossed out.


----------



## BradN (Sep 25, 2007)

Pro said:


> I do think just banning hunting guides from public land and allowing others a pass is not only plain wrong, it would be unconstitutional.


Which clause of the constitution would be violated?


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

proutdoors said:


> I agree 100%, I also agree on the Special Use Permits being a holdover from the days of making movies/commercials on public lands, and that it needs to be updated to reflect the uses of public land in the 21st Century.
> 
> In general, I think these new regulations are poorly written, and they target one sector, while omitting other sectors, of the same rules/regulations, which is a breach of the Constitution of both the state and the nation. I predict it will be challenged in court and tossed out.


Again I have to join you in this way of thinking - antiquated rules and poorly written and create an antitrust situation by protecting or limiting a trade. But it'll depend on someone with deeper pockets than mine to challenge them on it, and the guides I know or associate with are well enough off in their guiding business' that they will pay their dues rather than spend the time and money to do it either (even though they feel like you and I about it)... so who?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

BradN said:


> Pro said:
> 
> 
> > I do think just banning hunting guides from public land and allowing others a pass is not only plain wrong, it would be unconstitutional.
> ...


Are you saying we don't have equal protection any more in this country? How can you say forcing ONLY hunting guides to follow just inane regulations and pay these fees, but let river guides, fishing guides, atv trail guides, back country guides, have a different set of rules?



TopofUtahArcher said:


> Again I have to join you in this way of thinking - antiquated rules and poorly written and create an antitrust situation by protecting or limiting a trade. But it'll depend on someone with deeper pockets than mine to challenge them on it, and the guides I know or associate with are well enough off in their guiding business' that they will pay their dues rather than spend the time and money to do it either (even though they feel like you and I about it)... so who?


If I were still in the outfitter business I would try and round up other outfitters and find a sportsmen who is an attorney who will do the legal work. If any of your associates care about guiding down the road they better take a long look in the mirror and ask themselves if they are willing to do nothing.


----------



## BradN (Sep 25, 2007)

Pro wrote:


> Are you saying we don't have equal protection any more in this country? How can you say forcing ONLY hunting guides to follow just inane regulations and pay these fees, but let river guides, fishing guides, atv trail guides, back country guides, have a different set of rules?


Pro, the equal protection clause of the constitution provides that Courts will examine a law to determine if it violates the equal protection clause. The Supreme Court has set forth various levels of scrutiny. These include:

*Strict scrutiny* (if the law categorizes on the basis of race or national origin or infringes a fundamental right): the law is unconstitutional unless it is "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling" government interest. In addition, there cannot be a "less restrictive" alternative available to achieve that compelling interest.

*Intermediate scrutiny *(if the law categorizes on the basis of sex): the law is unconstitutional unless it is "substantially related" to an "important" government interest[19]. 
*Rational-basis test* (if the law categorizes on some other basis): the law is constitutional so long as it is "reasonably related" to a "legitimate" government interest.

Clearly this law would be examined under the rational basis test. I strongly suspect that the virtually any court would find that the regulation of guides would be reasonably related to a legitimate government interest (i.e. welfare of hunters, protection against unscrupulous guides, protection of land, etc).

I believe that the chance of setting aside this statute under either the state or federal constitution would be virtually nil.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

BradN said:


> *Rational-basis test* (if the law categorizes on some other basis): the law is constitutional so long as it is "reasonably related" to a "legitimate" government interest.
> 
> Clearly this law would be examined under the rational basis test. I strongly suspect that the virtually any court would find that the regulation of guides would be reasonably related to a legitimate government interest (i.e. welfare of hunters, protection against unscrupulous guides, protection of land, etc).
> 
> I believe that the chance of setting aside this statute under either the state or federal constitution would be virtually nil.


I disagree, it is NOT rational based, it is isolating ONE of many guide sectors that guide on public land and leave out the others. Have you read these joke that is being passed as regulations? How can the word reasonable be used to describe it?

Also, when was ANYTHING carried out by the government "reasonable" and "legitimate"? :?


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

:roll:


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

as always "my way or the highway" :shock: :lol: :shock: :lol:


----------



## BradN (Sep 25, 2007)

Pro, 

I understand your feelings about government. That said, whether you "disagree" or not makes no difference in the application of the rule of law. The state can choose to regulate one area and not the other so long as it has a legitimate interest in doing so and the regulation is rationally related to promoting that interest. The "rationally related" test requires that a legal analysis be made, not just a knee jerk reaction.

Can you honestly tell me that a hunter hasn't been scammed by an outfitter?

Can you see reasons why other states have regulated guides?

I don't like regulation, but I can see why a state would see a need for it.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

BradN said:


> Pro,
> 
> I understand your feelings about government. That said, whether you "disagree" or not makes no difference in the application of the rule of law.


I understand that, but cherry picking one group of guides and omitting the others is not consistent, therefor I believe it would not be held up in court.



sagebrush said:


> as always "my way or the highway" :shock: :lol: :shock: :lol:


Not "my" way, the American way. What a concept.


----------



## BradN (Sep 25, 2007)

The state can choose to regulate one area and not the other so long as it has a legitimate interest in doing so and the regulation is rationally related to promoting that interest. The "rationally related" test requires that a legal analysis be made, not just a knee jerk reaction.

Can you honestly tell me that a hunter hasn't been scammed by an outfitter?

Can you see reasons why other states have regulated guides?

I don't like regulation, but I can see why a state would see a need for it.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

BradN said:


> Can you honestly tell me that a hunter hasn't been scammed by an outfitter? Can you honestly tell me that hunters won't be scammed in the future by an outfitter, even with these new regulations?
> 
> Can you see reasons why other states have regulated guides? To a point, but I am familiar with the guide regulations on Colorado, Wyoming, and Idaho, ALL have much better written regulations than this stuff Utah just pulled out their backside. I also know that hunters are still scammed in EVERY one of these states EVERY year by outfitters.
> 
> I don't like regulation, but I can see why a state would see a need for it. Politicians and people who think they know what is best for everyone can always find 'needs' for regulation. The stated desired outcome from these regulations could be accomplished fairly easy w/o being so intrusive/invasive/divisive.





BradN said:


> The state can choose to regulate one area and not the other so long as it has a legitimate interest in doing so and the regulation is rationally related to promoting that interest. The "rationally related" test requires that a legal analysis be made, not just a knee jerk reaction.


Are you saying the ONLY hunting outfitters/guides have 'ethical' challenges? I contend a knee jerk reaction is what put in motion these new regulations, that and a desire for a "feel good" action. Making people on the outside feel good is a foolish way to enact new law/regulation. If the states desired outcome is not ENSURED by the action, it is a DUMB action.


----------



## BradN (Sep 25, 2007)

> Are you saying the ONLY hunting outfitters/guides have 'ethical' challenges? Nope.  I contend a knee jerk reaction is what put in motion these new regulations, that and a desire for a "feel good" action. Can't say that I disagree with you. Making people on the outside feel good is a foolish way to enact new law/regulation.  I agree. If the states desired outcome is not ENSURED by the action, it is a DUMB action.  You might be right.


Even though I agree with you about the regulation/statute, it is highly unlikely that it violates the equal protection clause (or any other clause) of the constitution.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

OMG PRO,,,,you might be getting a few folks bent out of shape here...... :shock: :shock:
I'm getting a few E-mails and PMs about you posting on this topic.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

I'm not buying that guides can't be cut out of the public picture. I still say why not? I finally got to read more of the earlier posts, and I do agree with most that this type of thing only helps the established guys stay that way while causing a barrier to newbies. Not that it's a huge one by any means. I asked my wife and she said that people have to get state certification to do nails or cut hair in Utah. Is cutting nails riskier and as potentially dangerous to all involved financially and physically as is hunting in the back country with loads of money on the line? Regulating the guiding business shouldn't be a shock IMO. 

Still, I'm a firm believer in the benefits of shutting them out of public lands entirely. Sounds better all the time.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> OMG PRO,,,,you might be getting a few folks bent out of shape here...... :shock: :shock:
> I'm getting a few E-mails and PMs about you posting on this topic.


 :roll: I do NOT care, I'm guessing who a few of them are, the same people that have had disparaging comments about you to me and how you run your biz as well. Guess what I did, I took it at face value and left it at that. Maybe until you know ALL the facts, which would mean talking to ALL involved, you should worry about your own 'image' and NOT worry about mine. Just a thought. -Ov-

Steep, them nail salons are dangerous places. I went into one with the wife, and I lasted less than 5 minutes before I had to bail.


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

Lets not even entertain opening *this* door **O**


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

The fact that I need a "professional certification" over and above a business license in order to give someone a $5 buzzcut is hilarious . . . and that Pro was scared so bad after 5 minutes that he had to "bail" from the salon is even funnier  ... 

to the points at hand...

I'm liking the suggestion that we eliminate all public land "paid" guiding in the state as was eluded to here . . . the Cache unit has been somewhat closed to guiding by the Forest Service for a long time (though there are still a lot of guys I know who take money to show people animals . . .right AP?) and I personally believe it has been a boon to the public land hunters to be able to access ALL of the public land there without the threat of some Mossthug or Mosshorde of highschoolers running off the guy or his quarry -though those guys have been seen spending more and more time up here of late too -O,-

Heck, isn't there enough private land around for the guides to make money off of?
I mean, if you think about it the general wildlife funds accumulated by general tag fees, license sales, Pittmann-Robertson taxes, auction tag funds, etc... are being used to pay DWR employees so they can buy and post limited access signs every 300ft around CWMU units (salaries and signs paid for with public sportsman's dollars), and often those funds are used to enhance wildlife habitat and in some cases (if not all cases) to provide publicly funded management of wildlife on private lands... which we the public can't hunt unless we pay the landowner tag fees? Sounds rediculously like the AIG bailout, doesn't it? You and me paying some guy we never met so he can have several million $ to walk away from his own bad investment? 

It occurs to me that the CWMU hunters hunting some cattleman's private property are benefitting from my sportsman's dollars as much or more than the public land hunters. As a landowner, I should be saying "I want a piece of this free pie!" but my work ethic and upbringing guides me to feel and act otherwise - it isn't fair for me to get fat off someone else's hard earned $ unless I am actually earning it.

Pro, I agree that we ought to get together a large group of public land sportsmen and some legal experts and put some fight into this and many other items that we feel are awry with the current trend in how our public servants in our legislature, WB and abroad are conducting the management of our public lands, wildlife and resources.... let US- the public -be involved as stewards of OUR lands.

I am not saying I have all the answers to this, but I am quickly learning how off-course things really are and have been for some time - and if you haven't noticed, a little peeved about it too. I hope I am not alone in wanting to be involved in making things better for all - not just the wealthy and privelaged.


----------



## dmuley (Apr 29, 2008)

I hear what your sayin Texobob the Mossback clowns hunt like a pack of wolves, 8-10 guys on a hunt thats a bunch of crap. What ever happened to fair chase?
The animals don't have a chance. I'v said it since I met the jerk at the huntin expo Doyle Moss is a DOUCHBAG!


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

dmuley said:


> I hear what your sayin Texobob the Mossback clowns hunt like a pack of wolves, 8-10 guys on a hunt thats a bunch of crap. What ever happened to fair chase?
> The animals don't have a chance. I'v said it since I met the jerk at the huntin expo Doyle Moss is a DOUCHBAG!


Pretty bold words from someone who would probably bring family and friends along to help you on your own LE tag just like everyone else does, what gives?
-O\__-


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

There's another interesting scenario taking place right along side of state licensing....

And you guys that don't like guides on public ground are not going to be happy... :evil: 
The forest service and BLM are issuing long term special use permits to those that
qualify and have existing permits........
The new forest service permits are 5 year deals,, and the BLMs are 10 years.....

Guiding on public land will not be ending anytime soon.


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

Skull, 
Which door are you talking about? 

Door #1
Door #2 
Door #3


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Is it really going to matter? 

They can't regulate the building industry with their rules and regulations. Have to have a contractors license, insurance. Ha. Many people ignore these rules and get away with it.

What makes you think they can regulate the hunting industry when there are not near enough people to cover it? 
Pay someone cash, just helping a friend out. I can hear the excuses already. Not much different than the building industry.

We all know where this is headed. If you draw an LE or an OIL you are going to have to pay for a guide. The richer you are the better the guide.

In the end it always comes down to money.

What is sad is that by the time I get to draw my once in a lifetime hunt I'll probably have to have a guide which I truly object to whole heartedly. If you don't think it is headed this way you are in denial.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Guiding on public land will not be ending anytime soon.


I agree with you on this, in fact guiding on public land in Utah will end the same time hunting ends on public land.


----------



## FishlakeElkHunter (Sep 11, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > Guiding on public land will not be ending anytime soon.
> ...


I very much agree with this Pro...I think if we do not quit this internal fighting among sportsman then this end will come a lot sooner than we all think!!! It makes me laugh when all these whine asses come on here and complain about 4 or 5 guides but they are more than happy to have 10 of their buddies out helping them. I know of FEW if ANY that actually hunt true DIY (ALONE).....and who would really want to....the reason I hunt and fish is to enjoy the time outdoors with my friends and family!

Some of the JOKERS on this forum sure make me think the end is nearer than we think!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I very much agree with this Pro...I think if we do not quit this internal fighting among sportsman then this end will come a lot sooner than we all think!!! It makes me laugh when all these whine asses come on here and complain about 4 or 5 guides but they are more than happy to have 10 of their buddies out helping them. I know of FEW if ANY that actually hunt true DIY (ALONE).....and who would really want to....the reason I hunt and fish is to enjoy the time outdoors with my friends and family!
> 
> Some of the JOKERS on this forum sure make me think the end is nearer than we think!


+1 We no longer need to worry about PETA, but the mindset of hunters like some on this forum. What difference does it make if someone decides to either hire a guide or decides to use his family and friends.


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

These new laws aren't there to monopolize the big outfitters by any means, they are there to protect the consumers from the vultures. 
It's about time Utah puts a stop to all the "fly by night wannabe's", and beleive me, there a some out there.


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Exactly how is it going to stop them?


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

horsesma said:


> Exactly how is it going to stop them?


No laws stop criminals, but they do slow them down and give prosecutors something to enforce and prosecute when they get caught.

This law has so many holes in it that it's still going to allow people to "help" hunters on the mountain, they just legally can't exchange any money.
You'll simply never get that stoped.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Hunters are going to be surprised,,,we got the standard check over Thursday,,,
First thing she ask for was guide licenses,,,It was the gal fish cop out of Price..

She was really nice about every thing, and went on to say how the Fish and game
were very pleased with the new guide licensing law and the fact they could now
"weed out" the illegal outfitters and guides.........
Even implied they already had a "lookout list" They are working together with the
FS and BLM..........Believe me,,,,They already have a hit list..

And for those out there this fall helping Dad, Mom, Uncle, or Aunt, friend or who ever,,,,,,
It would be wise not to tell everyone on the mountain guiding them.
If you do,,you'll probably have a DWR officer visiting your camp.


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

TAK said:


> Wow! The rules...... It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. My opinion your going to see a lot of under the table payments... Then your going to see lots of undercover work done... then your going to see a lot of fines... My opinion, just more$$$$$$
> 
> I also want to see how this all works out... Such as having a high school education.... Many jobs do not require this, yet to show, point out, take someone to an animal you need one? Does a ski instructor need a GED also? Or does he/she just need to be able to ski?
> 
> ...


 :mrgreen:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

You're a smart feller TAK!  :wink:


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> You're a smart feller TAK!  :wink:


Funny I hear this a lot! LIKE A LOT! :mrgreen:


----------



## wapiti67 (Oct 2, 2007)

How about all 3 doors?


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

OK, hold on a sec. Ending guiding on public land would somehow relate to the end of hunting in the state? And you act like those who want guides to have to only hunt on private land are somehow the type that are worse than PETA? Listen, if you're talking about me I had salmon on saturday and would have had king crab or lobster if I could afford it. 

We obviously see it differently. I don't consider guiding essential to our hunting future or our past. I consider the average hunter more crucial to our hunting future as any true risk would come at a populous vote like coyote or cougar bans in California. What happens when enough groundswell comes to a populous vote and we don't have enough public symapathy? We would lose every time. Humane, Peta, would have us losing. A lot like how we have to see a news article on some cat that was mauled on KSL. Who cares? Is it wrong to do? Absolutely. Should we punish those who did? Yep. Why is it a news story though? Because people apparently think it is, that's why. 

I am on the side of hunters and putting guides on private lands SEPERATES the government from the CASH that could or does influence wildlife decisions that affect ALL hunters in the state. Are we seeing the ABSOLUTE DECLINE of hunting opportunity (forget more and diverse species which is awesome- go straight by days and numbers in the field- and I hope someone actually proves me wrong) only because more hunters are hunting? Is it because winter range is the deciding factor? I wager it's because of the choices we make about quality vs. quantity. 

I know you guys want your quality, but don't be surprised that when general ranks get the shaft that they in turn quit hunting. That's an issue because traditions and guns, bows, or whatever are no longer in the home. Worse, when hunting seeks an image with the public, it needs to be more about the values and good that hunting brings and not TROPHY animals at insane high dollar prices. People love a feel good story about a kid shooting a monster with his dad, and people don't like stories about people shooting stuff out of helicopters for 100K- I know it's totally not true, it doesn't happen, but the stories will. Not only that, but hunters distrust the Division as they mix business with pleasure or there is no serpation of "church" and state - whatever church means which seems lately to be the wildlife show and its success....blah blah blah.

Hate me if you want, but I believe the future of hunting is safest with the general schmo. I think the image problems will come from big stories on licensed guides in ultra high dollar professional situations making very public and bad decisions. Watch- it will happen.

So why not seperate govt from private interests and not risk it? Put the 5% of guides successfully guiding on public land and tell them it's in everyone's best interest to only hunt on private lands. No good guide will go out of business.


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

We could gladly and publicly open all three doors, but the end result would still the same.
I'll give someone first draw if we really want to go there :EAT:


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > I can concieveably see somone having two, maybe even three guides with him. Depending on the hunting situation. Much past that and your not hunting with the guides anymore. At that point they are not guides but locaters being paid to track down the animal down and bring the shooter to it. So I guess my answer would have to be 3.
> 
> 
> Ok so you think 3 guides is max, but what are your thoughts of having 10 family members on a LE or OIL hunt? Those family members are all there to help with the hunt. Many of them are used as spotters to help locate a bull, moose, buffalo for their buddies.
> ...


As I recall these Lady was not guided at all. two lady's with great a great tag and had there family right there by there side to help pack the game out.They helped scout the elk out and picked there Owen elk.So I would this don't count.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

SteepNDeep, I'm not suggesting that doing away with guides will end hunting. What i am suggesting is that guiding on public land will end about the same time as hunting on public land, in other words guiding on public land is here for the foreseeable future.

Dustin, coyoteslayer is not saying these ladies were guided, he is showing how many people helped on their hunts, and that if you're going to limit the number of 'helpers' a non-resident can have, to be consistent you'll have to also limit the number of 'helpers' a resident can have. 

TAK, I'm guessing you hear such things mostly in your imagination, but you are spot on, IMHO, on this one. :mrgreen:


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

Ok, does anyone have the link to the total "general tag sales" and general season harvest data for the state of UT for the past 5 years? I have been trying to find all that and it doesnt seem to be there fo rthe public... I am trying to do some math but need the numbers to run the equations - Thanks.. and yes, it pertains to the discussion at hand...


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Dustin, coyoteslayer is not saying these ladies were guided, he is showing how many people helped on their hunts, and that if you're going to limit the number of 'helpers' a non-resident can have, to be consistent you'll have to also limit the number of 'helpers' a resident can have.


alright I got what your saying.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

TopofUtahArcher said:


> Ok, does anyone have the link to the total "general tag sales" and general season harvest data for the state of UT for the past 5 years? I have been trying to find all that and it doesnt seem to be there fo rthe public... I am trying to do some math but need the numbers to run the equations - Thanks.. and yes, it pertains to the discussion at hand...


http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/
scroll down to the annual reports...there's 1997-2008...


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

Thanks Stable, musta looked right at that a dozen times...but was too tired to recognize what I was looking at.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

Ok, here is the start of the research I've been looking at...

I took a random year - 1969 when my oldest brother was born (the golden years of the mule deer according to my Dad) and compared tag numbers, harvest numbers and success % against those of 2007 and at the end compared what overall tag sales revenues at current rates would be had the number of tags remained the same as those in 1969.

In '69 there were: 179,971 deer hunters and 5462 elk hunters for a total of _*185,433 tags sold *_for the combined hunt. The harvest data indicates that there were 81,921 deer and 1341 elk harvested totaling 83,262 animals with average success rates of 45% on deer and 24.5% on elk and a total success of 44%.

In 2007 there were: 82,747 deer hunters and 46,442 elk hunters for a combined total of 129,189 (including CWMU, LE and general deer and elk). The harvest data of 32,318 deer and 12,167 elk totaling 44,485 animals and had success rates averaging 39% for deer and 26% for elk and total success of 34%.

Here are some of the questions brought up about these numbers -
1- Is there a direct correlation between the steadily increasing elk herds and the overwhelming decline in deer herds and their respective harvest numbers/percentages?

2- What relationship is there between this data and the decline in the number of people involved in hunting, even though our State population has exponentially grown?

3- How much revenue has the State of UT lost from 1969 to 2007 and beyond due to decreasing numbers of outdoorsmen participating in big game hunting because of the transition they have effected with their management policies? And as a follow-up, how many tags would they have to sell to the public had they kept the management policies being used in 1969?

At current tag rates x tag allocation from 1969, the DWR would have taken in $12,099,493 in revenue had they simply maintained the number of tags avaiable from them till now, while actual tags sold in 2007 only total $12,068,551 - a loss in overall tag revenue. Not to mention that there was an overall decline in the number of permits sold in 2007 from 185,433 to 129,189 (56,244 less sportsmen - a serious decline in hunter opportunity, soccess rates and hunter satisfaction!). So, my final question:

Is our WB doing what they've been hired to do? If you have any additional numbers or equations to throw in the mix, please do so.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

TopofUtahArcher said:


> Here are some of the questions brought up about these numbers -
> 1- Is there a direct correlation between the steadily increasing elk herds and the overwhelming decline in deer herds and their respective harvest numbers/percentages? IMHO, only a small correlation. The biggest factor to declining deer numbers is loss of winter habitat due to development, encroachment of pinion-juniper and cheatgrass, increased traffic and highways in critical deer habitat, more predators than back then, and at least two severe winters in the last 25 years.
> 
> 2- What relationship is there between this data and the decline in the number of people involved in hunting, even though our State population has exponentially grown? A very close one, less opportunity will ALWAYS result in a decrease in demand. Another factor is the disconnect between the youth today and outdoor hobbies.
> ...


Good post.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

I agree that highways, winterkill during those 2 severe years and encroachment on wither habitat have all had their effects...and would love to see the DWR buying up land or - like cities do for parks - annex it into a "Safe-zone" for wildlife... but if you look at the distribution of deer vs elk in the state: 

The majority of the deer and elk are in relatively unpopulated areas where the deer wintering habitat has not been affected so much - exception along the Wasatch where the deer herds are doing just fine.

The majority of the roadkill is happening again, along major highways or thoroughfares in and around populated areas rather than in the back woods...

The recovery of a herd of deer following a severe winter die-off is directly proportionate to the herd's post die-off numbers. Does will have more likelyhood of having twins (even triplets) the second spring following the severe winter in order to replenish the herd numbers to ensure the survival of the species, so it usually only takes 3-4 years for a full recovery from a severe winter die-off.

In the Box Elder unit, the herd numbers were soaring during the late 80's and early 90's - we'd literally see 70-80 bucks a day during the rifle hunt. That particular area isn't plagued by roadkill (only a couple roads even bisect the area), harsh winters, predation (maybe some by coyotes) or encroachment on winter habitat (noone wants to live out in BFE!) by humans or elk (though they are finding home there in small numbers). 

But in about 1991-1992 there was a combination of sicknesses (blue-tongue, blight, Thiokol's disease) that killed off a large portion of the herd during their weakened conditions brought on by winter, and IMO they have never recovered because of poor management of the doe population (i.e. too many doe tags) as well as unrestricted numbers of hunters - keep in mind there is A LOT of private farm land in that county where deer can flee for refuge, but we are still not anywhere near the herd numbers or buck quality of those years mentioned. I realize those factors play into it, but there is something more to the equation that I can't seem to find published... I'll keep looking.


----------

