Opening Weekend/Removing guides from Potholes

[mburrows]

Had some good luck this weekend, 30 the first day between 6 of us.  Shot 10 limits out on a field hunt at a buddies place the next day (unguided).

Also got to take my 8 month old lab on his first hunt during the opener.  By far exceeded my expectations and I couldn't be any happier.

Also, did anybody see the signs that somebody placed on cars parked out on Potholes about removing all guides from public land?  What do you guys think about this?

[300rum]

I still think its o.k. to make a living in this country by working, the harder the better. 

[brocka]

Do you happen to have a picture of these signs? I am curious to see what it said.

[CP]

I saw those signs last season and yes, I do agree with them.  Anyone who uses public lands for commercial purposes should at least have to pay for that right.  Grazing rights, timber rights, mineral rights are all paid for; guiding rights should be as well.   Or even better, guides should not be allowed to commercialize public lands.

[mburrows]

It was something to the effect of them wanting to close Pothole's and areas in that flyway until the state removes guiding from public land.  It was speaking towards both guiding and taxi services using decoy spreads in the hundreds and blah blah.  It was pretty irrational, but they do have a good underlying point.  Much like outfitters in the back country do, they should have to pay to make money off of public land and the money should go directly to improving the areas affected by such activity.

That area is flat out over hunted, and will be regardless of guides.

[SnowDog]

Was curious about this, so I called WDFW and asked. Turns out hunting guides in WA do not need any license. This is insane!!! Fishing guides pay about $250 for a commercial license. Hunting guides should pay the same at least.

[brocka]

It was something to the effect of them wanting to close Pothole's and areas in that flyway until the state removes guiding from public land.  It was speaking towards both guiding and taxi services using decoy spreads in the hundreds and blah blah.  It was pretty irrational, but they do have a good underlying point.  Much like outfitters in the back country do, they should have to pay to make money off of public land and the money should go directly to improving the areas affected by such activity.

That area is flat out over hunted, and will be regardless of guides.

Thanks for the info mburrows, That is interesting stuff.

[TommyB]

First post here from a registered fishing guide. I have never understood why my Food Fish and Game Fish permits for WA cost me $470 a year, (which is still cheap compared to most states) and a guy can take people hunting for no cost to him. This encourages bad business. I would imagine 99% of the people guiding hunters in this state are working under the table, without a business license, and surely without insurance.

This practice is the type of thing that makes the antis hate us average Joe hunters even more. I dont hunt the potholes area, but regardless, it seems like a state with their hand out could make a little money organizing some sort of agency in charge of gathering hunting guides $50 a year to hunt. Only problem with this is, where would that money be spent??? Surely not on conservation! My two cents!

[RadSav]

Washington is a goofy place for guiding for sure.  It is the only state I know of that does not require surety bonding, insurance, demonstrated competence with a boat, first aid, or CPR training unless you carry clients thru federal waters in a motorized boat where you then need a U.S. Coast Guard License.  Looks to me, though I was never a Washington guide, all you really need to guide big game is a business license of any sort.  That's crazy to me!  So much so that I hope my research is wrong and there is some hidden requirements I've missed.  Someone that doesn't do their homework opens themselves up to great risk as a client and even greater liability as a guide or outfitter.  Could destroy families on both sides for sure.

That being stated I do not see any reason to stop licensed, fully insured and bonded guides and outfitters from operating on any public lands.  It allows an economical choice for sportsmen all around the state to enjoy success and opportunities they might not otherwise have.  Especially sportsmen with handicaps, failing health and hunters who have grown up in environments were they are the blacksheep amongst many non-hunting friends and family.

[bearpaw]

In Washington all you need is a business license and permitted on federal lands. It is a federal offense to do business on federal lands without a permit.

I think Washington has avoided state licensing of guides mostly to avoid the additional cost to implement an agency I think it would cost the state more to implement licensing than they would take in from license fees because there are not all that many hunting guides in Washington. However there have been several past circumstances which have nearly resulted in legislation to regulate hunting guides.

I can tell you from personnal experience that if licensing is implemented in Washington it will cost the user who wants a guide more money. In Idaho and Montana I have to pay all sorts of operting fees and licenses, to have a positive bottom line I have to charge more for those hunts. Feel free to look at my website and you will see what I mean.

The federal agencies already require insurance and permitting, for example, I pay to operate on Colville National Forest and they require me to be insured. The state is also reviewing a plan to permit guides on state land, I have asked for my name to be on the list to be notified when that is implemented.

I would support a simple guide licensing program like fishing guides have but I would oppose an extensive licensing agency that has to charge large fees which must be passed on to the consumer. That is the kind of over regulation that is killing business in this country. But I would see no problem and some good for the industry if a simple license application and nominal fee was required in which you had to show proof of liability insurance and land manager authorizations to assure guides are permitted on public lands.

I get a lot of ordinary folks including members of this forum who come hunting. If I have to pay large amounts to an outfitter agency like I do in other states, to stay in business I will have to pass that cost on to my customers. Sometimes people overloook this simple fact that when they want business to be taxed and licensed in a costly manner, the business must pass the additional cost on to the customer.

[JCKILLSHOT]

I think guides have the right to hunt any where they want to doesn't matter if its public or private land. I think if people have a problem w it then they just need to hunt harder then the guide!! 

[scout/sniper]

I don't disagree with where guides hunt. However, some sort of regulatory body needs to be implemented. I think that we tend to believe that most hunters are like ourselves, respectful, responsible, safe etc. But with absolutely no controls I can just see it;
Joe blow in a pos boat that is overloaded to make the most money from every trip. Barely enough knowledge to call in ducks and since his ethics are questionable anyway he takes more than the bag limit or lets his clients shoot whatever they want. Oh, and probably sneaks in on private land as well.
Not everyone is a good steward for our sport. Especially when money is involved.  My .02

[RadSav]

In Washington all you need is a business license and permitted on federal lands. It is a federal offense to do business on federal lands without a permit.

The federal agencies already require insurance and permitting, for example, I pay to operate on Colville National Forest and they require me to be insured.

I would support a simple guide licensing program like fishing guides have but I would oppose an extensive licensing agency that has to charge large fees which must be passed on to the consumer. That is the kind of over regulation that is killing business in this country. But I would see no problem and some good for the industry if a simple license application and nominal fee was required in which you had to show proof of liability insurance and land manager authorizations to assure guides are permitted on public lands.

I had not noticed that federal land requirement in my research years ago.  I was hoping you would chime in and give us the real scoup  

Does the federal agency, like Oregon, require a surety bond if you accept deposits in excess of $100.00 and proof of efficiency in firstaide and CPR?  Besides the Liability insurance these are things I found great comfort in providing as a guide.  Legal waivers mean very little to slip and fall lawyers if you are not FA/CPR certified regardless of the requirements.  It's cheap security that benefits both guide and client

[Broker]

I've found that flyer a few times on my truck when I returned from hunting in the area. 
I don't know who is responsible for them but it seems they are upset with how the owners of the mar don resort (and possibly others) are using the reservoir.

I've seen a few permanent floating blinds out there that are pretty sophisticated.  They are floaters with adjustable legs and lighting systems with timers on them.  I suspect whoever put them out there has them rigged to light up a few hours before shooting light.  Maybe to keep others out of what they believe is their area.  Maybe they just can't afford a gps and use the lights to navigate.  Either way, the flyers I received encouraged hunters to torch those blinds on sight.

I don't hunt there a lot, but I've never seen a plume of smoke big enough for me to think one spontaneously combusted.  Apparently the flyers aren't that effective?

Seems pretty risky for these guides to leave these expensive blinds out on public land.  I wonder if they think because they are floating that they are somehow entitled to use the blind they abandoned?  Would be interesting to hear what the WDFW has to say about the blinds.  I've always meant to ask a warden when I'm there but rarely see one.

[worldsworsthunter]

As long as they are ethical I don't care. But if they do place some type of structure or bind on public land I believe it becomes public property. If the state removes guides, I would expect them to close the area to everyone. If anything the state should pay some of these land owners to open there land to walk-in areas.