WOW! Somebody is upset!

[grundy53]

 How is everyone differentiating the guides from public guys?

Guides get paid.

Therefore they are profiting off of a public resource.  That should be illegal or at the very least highly taxed and highly regulated.  Every person profiting off exploitation of public resources should have to post a sizable bond as insurance against damage to that resource caused by their actions and they should have to pay to use that resource just as they would have to pay to use private land.

But all that would require too much overhead for the state & feds to regulate.  Best option is to simply ban commercial exploitation (e.g. guides) from public land.

Guide all you want on private land, it’s a free and capitalistic country, but don’t take from the general public by exploiting the few resources that we have left.

Well by your standards then we should have the logging companies quit logging on dnr land since they make a profit. You see how good that's been in the NF. I have never used a guide but I have nothing against them either and the public land is for the  public. They are part of the public just as much as you and me.

[CP]

Well by your standards then we should have the logging companies quit logging on dnr land since they make a profit. You see how good that's been in the NF. I have never used a guide but I have nothing against them either and the public land is for the  public. They are part of the public just as much as you and me.

Logging companies should (and do) pay for the logs.

[Ray]

The person who has the hunting license is harvesting the animal. They probably paid for the license just like everyone else.

[CP]

The person who has the hunting license is harvesting the animal. They probably paid for the license just like everyone else.

As they should.  Licensed hunters hunt away, I have no issue with that, but still:

Every person profiting off exploitation of public resources should have to post a sizable bond as insurance against damage to that resource caused by their actions and they should have to pay to use that resource just as they would have to pay to use private land.

[Ray]

they should have to pay to use that resource just as they would have to pay to use private land.

This sounds like the typical ambiguous goal that a government is good at setting yet not achieving with any semblence of  measurable success.

If the guide is not actually harvesting the animal then are they really exploiting something in such a way that they are damaging a resource? If they are not harvesting an animal then what resource are they potentially going to damage?

[CP]

We’ll have to agree to disagree on this issue Ray. 

I’ve long believed guides need to pay their way; probably been conditioned to this belief by encounters with aggressive guides over the years:

blocking boat launches, trails and forest roads, trying to intimate people off public lands and waters, overfishing and overhunting the public areas then moving off to private

[Madison]

I'd rather hunt next to the guides that are out there in the shotholes than most of the average joes

[Packers10]

they should have to pay to use that resource just as they would have to pay to use private land.

This sounds like the typical ambiguous goal that a government is good at setting yet not achieving with any semblence of  measurable success.

If the guide is not actually harvesting the animal then are they really exploiting something in such a way that they are damaging a resource? If they are not harvesting an animal then what resource are they potentially going to damage?

Right on Ray, and guess what, friends of ours like Bearpaw employee people, pay business taxes (and many other fees), contribute to the local economy and provide a valuable service to individuals that are willing to pay for it.  If I want to pay for a guide and I want to go hunting on public ground (which I am paying taxes for) then I will ask the guide to take me there.  Don't get me wrong, anyone that is against guides and would be willing to take me out with them using their equipment for free, so that I don't pay a guide, I will be happy to take them up on an offer. 

[bearpaw]

The person who has the hunting license is harvesting the animal. They probably paid for the license just like everyone else.

As they should.  Licensed hunters hunt away, I have no issue with that, but still:

Every person profiting off exploitation of public resources should have to post a sizable bond as insurance against damage to that resource caused by their actions and they should have to pay to use that resource just as they would have to pay to use private land.

3.  Guiding is extremely restrictive on the National Forest. A special use permit is required and fees are collected based on the amount of use. Permittees are given about 10 pages of rules to follow. Camp sites are registered and if any guide is destructive, they will have to answer for it with likely loss of permit for repeat offenses. Guides are held to a much higher standard than any other hunters. If the persons you observed were actually guides, then they would have to answer for any mess they created to the supervising forest officer. I would suspect your story about misuse use involved public hunters or illegal guides.

To further elaborate, in addition to use fees for each day of use by each hunter, I also have to pay a fee for each camp site used. Now if you want to raise those fees dramatically, it will make hunting with a guide more costly. Because contrary to your way of thinking, it is not the guide who necessarily pays, it's the user that gets stuck, because to stay in business the cost has to be passed on to consumers. 

[sakoshooter]

 How is everyone differentiating the guides from public guys?

Guides get paid.

Therefore they are profiting off of a public resource.  That should be illegal or at the very least highly taxed and highly regulated.  Every person profiting off exploitation of public resources should have to post a sizable bond as insurance against damage to that resource caused by their actions and they should have to pay to use that resource just as they would have to pay to use private land.

But all that would require too much overhead for the state & feds to regulate.  Best option is to simply ban commercial exploitation (e.g. guides) from public land.

Guide all you want on private land, it’s a free and capitalistic country, but don’t take from the general public by exploiting the few resources that we have left.

Well said CP.

[Ray]

We’ll have to agree to disagree on this issue Ray. 

I’ve long believed guides need to pay their way; probably been conditioned to this belief by encounters with aggressive guides over the years:

blocking boat launches, trails and forest roads, trying to intimate people off public lands and waters, overfishing and overhunting the public areas then moving off to private

CP,

First, I respect your opinion and believe you have reached it based upon the experiences you described. I have heard countless reports like those before and believe those examples are a black stain on guides who do such things. At the same time I am always aware that there are two sides to every story and that is not just guide behavior. That doesn't mean I am discounting any specific reports of such behavior. It just means I know that in some cases tempers flare and there are some situations which could be avoided. I'll not dive any further on that detail other than to say that there are guides who would avoid any such behavior. People who are overfishing and overhunting as well as blocking launches, roads etc. - those are things which may be enforceable (depending on meaning of overfish and overhunt - does that mean poaching?). Unfortunately we know that the enforcement officers are not going to be available most of the time. If someone is overfishing and overhunting or otherwise doing anything illegal I intend to report them right away. Especially if they are poaching. Regulating overhunting and overfishing, as in taking more than their bag limit then it is not really a guide issue as much as it is a people issue. The guides go where the critters are, and so do other people. If we want to limit what their customers take then maybe we should be limiting harvest instead of guides.

-Ray

[CP]

The person who has the hunting license is harvesting the animal. They probably paid for the license just like everyone else.

As they should.  Licensed hunters hunt away, I have no issue with that, but still:

Every person profiting off exploitation of public resources should have to post a sizable bond as insurance against damage to that resource caused by their actions and they should have to pay to use that resource just as they would have to pay to use private land.

I understand how business works Bearpaw, pass your costs on to your customers, no one is saying that you shouldn’t.

3.  Guiding is extremely restrictive on the National Forest. A special use permit is required and fees are collected based on the amount of use. Permittees are given about 10 pages of rules to follow. Camp sites are registered and if any guide is destructive, they will have to answer for it with likely loss of permit for repeat offenses. Guides are held to a much higher standard than any other hunters. If the persons you observed were actually guides, then they would have to answer for any mess they created to the supervising forest officer. I would suspect your story about misuse use involved public hunters or illegal guides.

To further elaborate, in addition to use fees for each day of use by each hunter, I also have to pay a fee for each camp site used. Now if you want to raise those fees dramatically, it will make hunting with a guide more costly. Because contrary to your way of thinking, it is not the guide who necessarily pays, it's the user that gets stuck, because to stay in business the cost has to be passed on to consumers. 

I understand how business works Bearpaw, pass your costs on to your customers, no one is saying that you shouldn’t.

[Glockster]

I think when we lash out against fellow hunters (and guides are fellow hunters), we are lashing out at the wrong people!

I have been a duck hunter in this state since the 80's.  As a kid, I can remember hunting the public walk in areas like the farmed island unit at Skagit and Leque Islands.  More hunting licenses were sold back in the 70's -80's than now by over 40%!  There were more hunters back then and you know what?  We never had to get there at 1 am to hunt a good spot.  Why?  because there were so many spots in W. WA that people were not forced together in such small remaining areas by WDFW policies and urbanization.

Now fast forward 35yrs:  The Skagit wildlife area has been, for all intents and purposes, DESTROYED by WDFW's 'salmon restoration' programs.  Blow up the dikes and walk away...provide a "natural balance".  There are no more dairy farms to hunt on over here.  Regulated and taxed out of the westside.   Shoreline hunting on the Sound is severely restricted by "no shooting" ord's.  Where does the average guy have left where he can have a free roam hunt?  Potholes.

  

[singleshot12]

 How is everyone differentiating the guides from public guys?

Guides get paid.

Therefore they are profiting off of a public resource.  That should be illegal or at the very least highly taxed and highly regulated.  Every person profiting off exploitation of public resources should have to post a sizable bond as insurance against damage to that resource caused by their actions and they should have to pay to use that resource just as they would have to pay to use private land.

But all that would require too much overhead for the state & feds to regulate.  Best option is to simply ban commercial exploitation (e.g. guides) from public land.

Guide all you want on private land, it’s a free and capitalistic country, but don’t take from the general public by exploiting the few resources that we have left.

CP you are right on man and I don't care what anybody else says. The way things are heading all hunting and fishing will be guided or leased land hunts. Some of us don't ever want to hunt that way even if we could afford it.

[gasman]

So, do you want to stop big game guides in the Wilderness and NF areas also 

You're jumping to conclusions now.
I don't have much good to say about the condition some big game guides have left certain areas of the NF and some wilderness areas in after they've moved on. All I'm saying ist that it should be policed somehow.
When we allow hunting and fishing to completely turn into a rich man's sport, you and I will be nothing but spectators.

I don't think so.

Where does it stop. Take one right  (or privelage) away, then another, then another. Where does it end.

Now we have devision of waterfowler hunters 

We need to ban together and fight for each others right wether you support there views or not. We are hunter....