CCOOAASSTTAALL AALLAASSKKAA AADDVVEENNTTUURREESS Dedicated to providing access to Southeast Alaska

ToBeth Pendleton

Regional Forester, Alaska Region

PO Box 21628

709 W. 9th Street

Juneau, AK 99802-1807

(907) 586-8863

FromKeegan McCarthy

Owner-Master Guide

PO Box 240034

Douglas, AK 99824

(907) 723-3006

akpointer@hotmail.com

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing the following letter as objection/comments on the recent Shoreline II Draft 

Record of Decision. I commented during the required time frame last year on these 

related subjects involving big game hunting and guiding in SE Alaska, particularly Unit 

4. 

1) Prospectus

Overall I would like to object to the idea of a prospectus, unless it is further defined as to 

how it will be implemented. As it is understood the prospectus process could include 

taking away all of our special use permits in 2023 and reallocating them under a 

prospectus process. I feel a prospectus should only be instituted for new or under 

allocated use, such as if a operation goes out of business or use is rescinded due to 

violations. Permits currently in good standing should be renewed and not subject to a 

prospectus. 

To place us all under the threat of prospectus will decimate the guide industry on the

Tongass as well as putting the resource at risk. As has been discussed at great length, the 

industry in SE offers a wide variety of opportunity for forest users. Guest looking to 

come and hunt in SE can choose from small operators working from fishing vessels to 

guides using luxury yachts. Some say there is not room for both, but history has shown 
this not to be true. The guiding industry in SE has evolved into what it is today due to 

demand and process. The hunters wishing to hunt on luxury yachts will not come and 

hunt on fishing boats, even if that is the only option and the same holds true in the other 

direction, some can only afford to hunt on smaller boats, and this is good, this is called 

options and helps to best meet the need of the end user. 

It’s not just that the operators suffer, the SE economy as a whole does. If I only had a few 

brown bear permits, and no long-term guarantee that they will be mine, I am not going to 

spend the money I do. I am not going to hire full time employees; I am not going to 

invest in infrastructure and overall support the SE economy, especially in small towns. 

Take one full time job from Tenakee, or the $50-100k a year I spend in shipyards in 

Petersburg. Either way that affects the economy of small towns. Sure, guiding will 

continue, and maybe everybody is on a level playing field with a few permits, then 

everyone has to cut their operational expenses. No big boats, all fishing boats or small 

economical boats offering hunts. Guides may make a living, but money will not flow 

freely into SE Alaska as it does now. If you take a boat that is already a fishing boat, and 

now do a few hunts off of it all your are doing is putting extra money in the pocket of that 

guide. Yes, he may spend it around town, but he is not pouring extra money into 

shipyards or employment. He does not have a staff of 10-15 he keeps going. He may have 

him and one part time seasonal guide. There is a place for these guides, and they show a 

rich commitment and history in the industry, but you must have both. 

It is important we keep a system that works, and we have a system that has evolved over 

the last two plus decades and shows two important aspects, really the only two it boils 

down to- Conservation of the resource and the available experience for the forest user. 

We can have this while also contributing to the overall SE economy. 

2) Transferability

I have purchased 4 guiding businesses and had their existing use permit transferred to me. 

I did this because it was what I had to do to achieve my dream of guiding brown bears in 

Unit 4, where I grew up. Did I like it? No, but it was the system and I worked with it. 

But, now that other options may be there I do not see why this system should continue. I 

believe that the USFS should stop allowing the transfer of permits. No matter how you do 

it, it puts a value on the resource. If a guide/outfitter wishes to retire or exit the industry 

then his permit should be turned back over to the USFS and that permit, or it’s use be 

reallocated through prospectus. Truly, this would solve all of our problems and any 

questions of legality and fairness. I wish this had been the system in place when I started. 

Permits should not be part of a guides retirement plan; it is the use of a resource and 

should be allocated fairly. If we couple this with a good prospectus system that does not 

penalize existing operators we are creating opportunity for new operators while 

maintaining a working system. 

The system should be that if you have a use permit in good standing you receive an 

automatic 10-year renewal. This will allow for existing operators to feel comfortable 

investing in capital and growing businesses while supporting the SE economy. But, if a 
guide retires, is not a “good” operator, or otherwise exits the business then the permit is 

taken back by the USFS with guaranteed reallocation by prospectus. This system would 

allow for comfort and safety of existing business while allowing opportunity for new 

entrants. 

I would recommend that we give a grace period to implementing this new program, as we 

know there are currently some transfers in progress. 

3) Corporations/LLC

Corporations and LLC’s need to be closely looked at. Overall I would object to their 

inclusion in Shoreline. But, it could be a benefit to many of us. The main example I can 

think is that when I had children (I have a 2 and 4 year old) my wife and I had to plan 

around bear season. Not because I felt bear hunting was more important than the birth of 

my children, but because it is the main source of our income. The way permits are 

structured now I have to be in the field as the contracting guide, or within certain 

proximity. Had I been allowed to have a corporation, or LLC that had another guide 

listed on the permit then I could have allowed him/her to run the season while I stayed 

home for such an event. This would also be key if, as a parent, one of my children 

became ill or something else came up I needed to be in town. I could legally have another 

guide working and keeping my business afloat. A prime example of this was when Scott 

Newman from Petersburg was mauled by a bear on the first hunt of the season. At that 

time LLC’s were allowed and I was listed as a guide on his permit. I was able to finish 

the season while Scott was in the hospital. Saving him from bankruptcy and allowing the 

clients to come on their hunt. Had this not been allowed at the time Scott would have had 

to cancel the hunts, hunters would have been out plane tickets, travel, licenses, etc. It 

would have been a mess. 

While I do support the inclusion of LLC/Corporations for this reason I do not think it 

should be allowed for the expansion of business or use area. Each PERMIT, whether an 

LLC/Corp or not should only be allowed 3 GUA’s!!! This became the issue years ago 

and why they are currently not allowed. Again, we were case in point. Scott Newman 

added me to his permit and expanded his GUA’s by doing so from 3 to 6. While it did 

allow us to save Scott from financial ruin do to an unexpected occurrence that was not 

our original intent. Other guides complained and we voluntarily quit doing it once Scott 

recovered and after that the USFS said “no more”. I think at that time we all agreed is 

was best not to have such entities if they allowed for uncontrolled expansion. But we 

would welcome the idea if certain controls were in place. 

No permit, regardless of the size, if it’s a Corp/LLC or whatever should be allowed to 

have more than one guide at a time singing contracts or using more than 3 GUA’s. 

This also lends some question and confusion to the end of a business. In essence an LLC 

or Corporation can simply change the figure head or president, circumventing the 

transferability issue, or the idea of stopping transferability. At the time of issuance a 

permit the involved Corp./LLC must name a president/figurehead, which could never 
change, for the life of the permit, such a change would result in the permit being treated 

as if it had been retired, it gets returned to the USFS for reallocation through prospectus. 

Overall, the simplest and cleanest solution is no LLC’s or Corporations. Currently no one 

has them with the possible exception of one. The small benefits do not outweigh the 

consequences of in the field conflict and impact on the resource. There is no place for 

them and a permit should be issued to an individual. 

4) GUA’s

This is similar the above questions of LLC/Corps, we really need to address this issue and 

have some controls put in place. Currently, my permit dictates use by GUA. My permit 

was structured this way because then it was expected that this would be made the 

standard for the industry in the future. So far it has not been detrimental in any way for 

me. While I would appreciate the flexibility of being able to use my 13 permits for brown 

bear in either of my GUA’s it would not be prudent for the resource, or other users. I 

currently can use 10 in 04-12 and 3 in 04-09. Maybe some flexibility would be good, I 

have asked to use up to 13 in 04-12 (which has capacity for this use) or up to 4 in 04-09. 

So some limited flexibility at the Rangers direction is ok. But for me to be able to pick 

and chose is not good for the resource and can leave things unchecked, or disrupt other 

users. Leaving it up to the guides is not a good idea; certain levels of restriction must be 

in place. 

In short, one permit should equal three GUA’s. Period. And those GUA’s should have a 

cap as to how much harvest can occur in each one. This is critical to proper management 

and structure to avoid conflicts in the filed. 

Thank you for your time and consideration, 

Keegan McCarthy 

PS- Please use my wife’s email and phone number as well if trying to reach me. I will be 

out on the boat the next month but can use sat phone or come in to town as needed. 

Chelsea McCarthy (970) 217-6359 mvsikumi@gmail.com