ALASKA PROFESSIONAL HUNTERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

P.O. Box 240971 ~ Anchorage, AK 99524

Phone: (907) 929-0619 ~ (907)-868-1562

Email: office@alaskaprohunter.org ~ www.alaskaprohunter.org

1

April,	24th	2017

Electronic	Submission

To:

Beth	Pendleton	

Regional	Forester	USDA	Forest	Service	

Alaska	Region	

709	W.	9th	Street	P.O.	Box	21628	

Juneau,	AK	99802-1628

From:

John	Thor	Stacey

Government	Affairs	Director

Alaska	Professional	Hunters	Association

PO	Box	240971

Anchorage	AK,	99524

RE:	 Comments	on Shoreline	II	Outfitter/Guide	Draft	Record	of	Decision

Summary

The	Alaska	Professional	Hunters	Association	(APHA)	appreciates	the	amount	of	time,	effort	

and	consideration	Tongass	National	Forest	(TNF)	leadership	and	staff	has	invested	in	

updating	Shoreline	Outfitter/Guide.	The	draft Record	of	Decision	for	Shoreline	II	

Outfitter/Guide	will	be referred	to	below	as	“Shoreline	II”	or	the	“draft	ROD.”	APHA	provides	

the	following	comments	on	the	draft	ROD.

APHA	is	pleased	that	the	draft	ROD	clearly	defers	to	state	wildlife	management	authority	

while	offering	a	necessary	niche	allocation	of	use	days	our	members	can	rely	on	in	the	“late	

spring”	and	“fall”	seasons.	APHA	supports	state	wildlife	management,	while	advocating	for	

use	day	allocations	that	ensure	a	viable	hunting	guide	industry	long	into	the	future.	APHA	

appreciates	these	policy	directions.	However,	APHA	is	troubled	and	concerned	by	a	myriad	

of	unanswered	questions	that	the	proposed	transition	to	a	“prospectus/concession”	permit	

system	pose	to	the	industry.	Given	APHA’s	experience	thus	far	working	with	the	TNF	on	the	
2

draft	ROD,	we	are	confident	that	our	objections	and	the	discussion	points	housed	within	

these	comments	will	lead	to	more	collaboration	and	an	improved	final	ROD.		

Alaska’s	Hunting	Guides-	SE	Alaska	Communities	of	Residence-	Rural	Economy

APHA	commissioned	its	first	socioeconomic	report	with	the	McDowell	Group	in	2014,	titled	

“Economic	Impacts	of	Guided	Hunting	in	Alaska.”		More	recently	(2017),	APHA	partnered	

with	SCI	to	add	to	and	update	the	McDowell’s	2014	work.	“The	Economic	Importance	of	

Hunters	Visiting	Alaska;	Alaska’s	Guided	Hunting	Industry	2015”	provides	new	information	

on	funding	for	conservation	that	our	visiting	clients	contribute	to	wildlife	management.			A	

copy	of	this	report	will	be	provided	to	TNF	upon	submission	of	these	objections.

Guiding	hunters	is	primarily	an	activity	that	occurs	in	rural	areas	of	Alaska.		Aas	such	we	

asked	McDowell	to	document	communities	of	residence	for	Alaska’s	hunting	guides.	

See	tables	below:

• $87.2	Million	total	

economic	output	(2015)

• 52.5	Million	new	dollars	to	Alaska	(2015)

• More	than	50%	economic	

benefits	occur	in	rural

areas	(2012,	2015)

• 1,550	people	directly	employed,	total	

employment	with	multipliers;	2,120	(2015)

• 89%	Active	Guides	are	

AK	Residents	(2012)

• Visiting	hunters	(guided	&	non-guided)	purchase	

13%	of	total	Alaska	hunting	licenses	(2015)

• Guided	hunters	are	

approx.	3%	of	total	

hunters	in	the	field	(2015)

• Visiting	hunters	(guided	&	non-guided)	

contribute	72%	of	total	revenue	to	the	ADFG	

wildlife	conservation	fund	(2015)

South	East	Alaska	Communities	of	Residence-	Registered	Hunting	Guides	

The	McDowell	Report	2014)	explains	that	the	registered	hunting	guides	in	Southeast	

Alaska	reside	in	the	following	communities

Juneau/Auke	Bay/Douglas	(18),	Sitka	(13),	Haines	(5),	Hoonah	(5),	Ketchikan	(5),	

Petersburg	(5),	Gustdavus	(4),	Klawock	(2),	Elfin	Cove	(1),	Thorne	Bay	(2),	Yakutat	

(2),	Wrangell	(2)

Guiding	hunters	is	part	of	the	social	and	economic	fabric	of	the	small	communities	that	are	

South	East	Alaska.	APHA	asserts	that	the	TNF	should	have	a	vested	interest	in	promoting	
3

healthy	and	sustainable	hunting	guide	businesses.	APHA	is	the	only	group	advocating	on	

behalf	of	the	regions	hunting	guides.	APHA’s	standing	is	informed	and	important.	

Selected	Alternative

Standing	to	ObjectAPHA	has	standing	to	“object”	to	the	draft	ROD	having	submitted	previous	written	

comments	dated,	April	25th,	2016.	

“Individuals or organizations who submitted specific written comments regarding the proposed 

project either during scoping or other designated opportunity for public comment in accordance 

with 36 CFR 218.5(a) may file objections to this draft Decision” 

Allocated	Use	DaysAPHA	supports	the	draft	ROD’s	proposed	allocation	of	use	days.	APHA	further	supports	and	

agrees	with	the	rational	for	breaking	up	the	use	day	allocations	into	four	periods:	early	

spring,	late	spring,	summer,	fall	and	winter.	

Guiding	hunters	is	only	possible	with	healthy	and	sustainable	populations	of	animals.	Bears	

are	sensitive	to	the	disturbance	caused	by	large	groups attempting	to	view	them	during	

their	spring	mating	season	and	during	the	end	of	the	fish	runs	in	the	fall	time.			These	large	

groups	can	be	“nature	tours,”	wildlife	viewing	walks	etc.	Critical	spring	habitats	are	the	

meadows	and	estuaries	or	the	“shoreline.”	Critical	fall	habitats	are	the	mouths	of	rivers	and	

the	first	mile	or	so	of	drainages	where	salmon	occur.	As	hunters	our	members	understand	

the	importance	keeping	a	small	footprint	on	the	land	and	respecting	bears	during	these	

critical	times.	While	the	“late	spring”	and	“fall”	periods	coincide	with	State’s	bear	hunting	

season,	hunting		is	done	usually	by	two	people	in	a	pair.	Hunters	are	cautious	not	to	disturb	

animals	unnecessarily	while	clients	experience	the	tranquil	and	pristine	wilderness.	

Guiding	hunters	is	the	most	ecologically	sustainable	commercial	use	during	the	“late	

spring”	and	“fall”	periods.	APHA	objects	to	any	attempt	to	change	the	draft	ROD’s	allocated	

use	days	during	the	“late	spring”	and	“fall”	periods	to	high	impact	commercial	uses.	

Number	of	Guided	Brown	Bear	HuntsAPHA	supports	the	draft	ROD’s	deference	to	ADFG’s	Unit	4	Brown	Bear	Management	

Strategy	(BBMS,	2000)	where	the	number	of	hunts	are	in	question.	APHA	objects	to	any	

departure	from	the	Unit	4	BBMS,	unless	the	BBMS	is	updated	in	the	future	and	APHA	is	a	

party	to	the	new,	agreed	upon	management	strategy.	
4

Change	in	OwnershipAPHA	appreciates	the	draft	ROD’s	proposal	to	rescind	the	“1/3	holdback”	of	permits	when	a	

change	of	ownership	occurs.	APHA	agrees	that	the	original	intent	of	the	“1/3	holdback”	has	

been	accomplished	and	it	is	no	longer	necessary.	

Number	of	Register	GuidesAPHA	supports	the	draft	ROD’s	deference	to	the	Unit	4	BBMS	recommended	total	number	

of	registered	guides.

Competitive	Interest	and	Prospectus:

Introduction:

Shoreline	II	Outfitter/Guide	proposes	a	radical	change	to	the	administration	of	the	areas	

limited	number	hunting	guide	permits.	Since	late	2015,	APHA	has	worked	to	inform	and	

educate	its	members	(and	the	region’s	guides	who	are	not	its	members)	about the	

prospectus	system	contemplated	in	this	proceeding.		By	far	the	most	contentious	portion	of	

the	draft	ROD	is	the	proposal	to	sunset	all	the	existing	guide	permits	in	2023	and	reissue	

them	through	a	competitive	prospectus	process.	Guides	currently	holding	permits	almost	

unanimously	oppose	this	direction	based	on	a	variety	of	legitimate	concerns	about	

destabilizing	a	process	that	is	working	for	them.	Some	guides	that	are	currently	operating	

in	the	area	recently	participated	in	a	“change	of	ownership”	while	others	have	held	a	land	

use	permit	in	the	region	prior	to	the	first	Shoreline	I.	Based	on	the	feedback	from	our	

members	in	the	region	and	our	experience	across	the	state	with	other	federal	land	

managers,	we	agree	that	a	prospectus	type	system	needs	to	be	approached	with	extreme	

caution.	

Objection:

APHA	objects	to	the	sunset	and	total	reissuance	of	all	the	existing	hunting	guide	permits	

administered	by	Shoreline	EIS	via	an	undefined	prospectus	in	2023.			APHA	has	no	

objection	to	use	of	a	prospectus	to	award	unallocated	areas/hunts	where	there	is	no	

current	permit	holder	and	a	competitive	interest	shown	by	two	or	more	guides.

Legal	Concerns:

APHA’s	members	who	hold	special	use	permits	(special	use	authorizations)	in	Tongass	are	

generally	opposed	to	adoption	of	a	prospectus	system	that	could	result	in	their	application	

for	permit	renewal	being	denied	(due	to	award	of	the	opportunity	to	someone	else)	even	

though	they	are	in	compliance	with	all	applicable	laws	and	regulations	governing	their	

permitted	guiding	operation.			As	explained	below,	Forest	Service	regulations	preclude	
5

denying	a	renewal	to	a	compliant	operator	where	the	existing	permit	has	language	

providing	for	renewal	and	the	permit	holder	is	in	compliance	with	applicable	rules.

This	matter	is	addressed	in	the	Forest	Service’s	Regulations,	which	discusses	permit	

renewal,	and	provide	that: 	“When	a	special	use	authorization	provides	for	renewal,	the	

authorized	officer	shall	renew	it	where	such	renewal	is	authorized	by	law,	if	the	project	or	

facility	is	still	being	used	for	the	purpose(s)	previously	authorized	and	is	being	operated	

and	maintained	in	accordance	with	all	the	provisions	of	the	authorization.” 	36	CFR	

251.64(a)	(emphasis	added).			Thus,	if	the	existing	permit	holder	is	in	compliance,	and	his	

or	her	permit	“provides	for	renewal,”	then	the	Forest	Service	“shall”	(not	“may”)	grant	the	

renewal.

Here,	many	and	perhaps	most	Special	Use	Permits	for	Outfitting	and	Guiding	issued	by	

Tongass	National	Forest	“provide[]	for	renewal,”	making	this	right	of	renewal	applicable.

We	bring	your	attention	to	the	October,	2009	version	of	Form	FS-2700-4i	(10/2009),	

which	provides	that: “This	permit	may	be	renewed	upon	expiration,	provide	the	use	is	

consistent	with	the	applicable	forest	land	and	resource	management	plan,	applicable	laws	

and	regulations,	and	the	term	of	this	permit,	and	the	holder	has	performed	satisfactorily	

under	this	permit,	as	demonstrated	by	acceptable	annual	performance	reviews.” 		Form	FS2700-4i,	Section	I.D	(10/2009). 	In	providing	that	the	permit	“may	be	renewed,”	those	

permits	with	this	or	similar	stock	language	“provide[]	for	renewal.”

This	conclusion	is	buttressed	by	the	references	in	the	permit	form	to	renewal	being	

contingent	on	whether	the	permit	holder	has	“acceptable	annual	performance	reviews.”	

Form	FS-2700-4i,	Section	I.D	(10/2009). 	That	provision	strongly	implies	that	permit	

holders	who	do	have	acceptable	annual	performance	reviews	are	not	going	to	suffer	denial	

of	a	renewal	just	because	someone	else	has	submitted	an	application	for	the	same	

opportunity	that	the	Forest	Service	believes	might	be	superior	in	some	way.			The	only	

language	in	the	stock	permit	form	that	arguably	cuts	the	other	way	is	a	statement	later	in	

Section	I.D.	of	the	form	that	whether	to	grant	renewal	is	in	the	“discretion”	of	the	Forest	

Service.			It	may	be	true,	as	a	general	matter	that	the	Forest	Service	has	discretion	whether	

to	renew	permits.			However,	the	Service	must	follow	its	own	regulations	in	exercising	that	

discretion,	and	adopted	regulations	published	in	the	CFR	are	a	higher	legal	authority	than	

permit	forms,	and	so	must	govern	in	case	the	two	are	in	conflict.			Here,	the	Forest	Service	

in	an	adopted	regulation,	36	CFR	251.64(a),	has	limited	its	discretion	by	committing	that	it	

“shall”	grant	renewals	to	compliant	operators. To	comply	with	this	regulation,	the	Forest	

Service	should	withdraw	the	plans	to use	prospectuses	in	any	situation	where	a	

competitive	award	could	deny	renewal	to	a	compliant	guide	who	is	an	existing	permit	

holder	with	acceptable	annual	performance	reviews.			

State/Federal	Cooperation:

It	is	absolutely	essential	and	necessary	that	the	state	and	federal	government	cooperate	in	

a	transparent	manner	to	develop	a	fair	prospectus	system.	Both	the	National	Wildlife	

Refuge	System	and	the	National	Park	Preserves	in	Alaska	administer	successful	hunting	
6

guide	concession	programs	that	are	awarded	via	competitive	prospectus.	Alaska’s	

Department	of	Natural	Resources	has	a	Guide	Concession	Program	ready	to	implement	

given	interest,	all	that	is	needed	is	a	small	amount	of	funding.	Alaska	is	also	the	resource	

manager	while	regulating	hunting	guides	professional	licenses.	APHA	recommends	that	the	

TNF	draw	on	the	collective	experience	of	other	land	managers	with	hunting	guide	

concessions	to	develop	a	program	that	incorporates	the	best	aspects	of	each	process.	APHA	

has	considerable	expertise	and	employs	knowledgeable	professional	staff	that	can	assist	in	

this	development.	APHA	requests	a	seat	at	the	table	during	the	development	of	any	

prospectus	system	to	be	applied	and	administered	by	Shoreline	II	Outfitter/Guide.		APHA	

objects	to	the	TNF	developing	a	prospectus	without	guide	involvement.	

Resource	Stewardship:

While	APHA	is	concerned	about	the	potential	for	destabilizing	SE	Alaska	guide	business	

with	a	poorly	planned	and	implemented	prospectus	process,	we	see	limiting	the	numbers	

of	guides	permitted	in	the	area	as	essential	to	resource	stewardship	and	wildlife	

conservation.	APHA	is	committed	to	working	with	the	TNF,	the	State	and	other	

stakeholders	to	develop	a	fair	and	legally	defensible	area	system	that	is	ecologically,	

economically	and	socially	sustainable.	

Professional	Hunting	Guide	Use	Requires	Special	Considerations:

Licensure:

Non-resident	hunters	are	required	by	Alaska	law	to	be	accompanied	by	a	licensed	hunting	

guide	to	pursue	brown/grizzly	bears,	dall	sheep	and	rocky	mountain	goats	in	Alaska.	The	

State	of	Alaska’s	Big	Game	Commercial	Services	Board	(BGCSB)	oversees	the	licensure	of	

hunting	guides	and	transporters.	The	BGCSB	also	investigates	complaints	and	brings	

disciplinary	action	against	violators.	

Guiding	as	a	Lifestyle:

Becoming	a	Registered	Hunting	Guide	is	difficult	and	requires	a	lengthy	apprenticeship	

working	under	a	Registered	or	Master	Guide/Outfitter.	A	person	cannot	simply	go	to	school	

or	take	a	course	and	become	licensed.	This	system	of	apprenticeship	has	developed	over	

many	decades	in	response	to	the	publics	demand	that	hunting	guides	be	competent	and	

highly	skilled	in	their	craft.	As	with	any	specialized	craft	or	trade,	guiding	hunters	becomes	

more	than	a	job,	it	becomes	a	lifestyle.	

Selection	of	the	“Most	Qualified”:

Permits	awarded	by	prospectus	seek	to	award	permits	to	the	most	qualified	or	the	“best	fit”	

for	a	particular	opportunity.	The	awarding	process	always	become	subjective	at	some	point	
7

because	of	the	high	standards	and	decades	of	experience	guides	who	will	compete	posses.	

It	become	very	difficult	to	rank	on	applicant	over	another	on	experience	or	“time	in	the	

field”	alone.	Prospectuses	pick	winners	and	losers;	Alaska’s	guides	are	very	competent	and	

qualified	as	a	group.	

New	Entrants:

Alaska’s	constitution	mandates	that	resources	be	held	in	public	trust,	with	common	

ownership.	Any	prospectus	must	fairly	consider	new	applicants	or	entrants	while	

balancing	other	important	concerns	such	as	experience,	knowledge	of	the	area	and	history	

of	compliance.	APHA	cautions	the	TNF	that	a	well	drafted	prospectus	must	provide	an	

avenue	for	new	entry	while	not	simply	becoming	a	mechanism	for	turning	over	permits	in	

good	standing.	The	draft	ROD	does	not	address	“new	entry”	and	therefore	APHA	is	

extremely	uncomfortable	and	concerned	by	stated	the	Service’s	intent	to	transition	to	

prospectus	permit	award.	

Social	Aspects:

Hunting	guides	endure	an	inordinate	amount	of	scrutiny	from	other	hunters,	non-hunters,	

visitors,	their	clients,	other	guides	and	local	communities.	The	ability	for	a	guide	to	foster	

healthy	relations	with	other	users	and	avoid	unnecessary	conflict	is	important	to	the	future	

of	the	industry.	Hunting	guides	capture	the	imagination	and	fascination	of	the	public,	to	the	

point	of	becoming	heroes	and	villains.	Guides	rescue	bear	cubs	out	of	dens	and	rescue	

other	hunters.			Guides	are	subject	to	an	extraordinarily	complex	regulatory	system	in	

which	federal	law	overlays	state	laws.		Despite	the	best	of	intents,	guides	(or	their	clients)	

can	make	mistakes	that	do	not	in	any	way	suggest	that	the	guide	should	be	disqualified	

from	holding	future	permits.			Any	prospectus	used	to	award	permits	should	be	designed	

with	consideration	to	unique	social	issues	that	surround	guiding	hunters.	

SE	Alaska	is	Unique:

Shoreline	II	Outfitter/Guide	encompasses	a	vast	and	unique	wild	resource.	The	“ABC”	

Islands	are	home	to	a	world	class	and	precious	population	of	Brown	Bears.	Northern	GMU	

1	has	healthy	populations	of	both	black	and	brown	bears,	deer,	mountain	goats	and	some	

moose.	APHA’s	members	and	the	other	guides	in	the	region	work	hard	to	offer	world-class	

opportunities	and	accommodations	in	a	world-class	wilderness.	Our	members	invest	large	

sums	of	money	and	time	in	their	boats	and	lodges.	These	investments	are	necessary	for	

safety,	success	and	competitiveness	with	other	regions.	Prospectus	applications	need	to	be	

carefully	evaluated	to	ensure	that	an	applicant	has	the	necessary	assets	to	provide	hunting	

opportunity	that	maximize	the	unique	nature	of	the	area.	Given	the	Service’s	high	turnover

of	permitting	officer’s,	due	to	duty	station	rotation, an	unfortunate	situation	could	easily	

develop	where	concession	the	competition	and	award	cycle	correspond	to	newly	arrived,	

“fresh	of	the	boat”	permitting	officers.	The	general	public,	the	animals,	wilderness	and	

small	communities	ultimately	demand	that	the	award	process	address	the	unique	nature,	

maritime	challenges	and	values	of	SE	Alaska.	A	prospectus	system	will	likely	fall	short	of	
8

serving	the	best	interest	of	the	public	if	these	concerns	are	not	addressed. We	feel	strongly	

that	a	nexus	between	those	with	knowledge	of	the	region	and	those	knowledgeable	about	

permitting,	generally,	will	need	to	be	set	into	policy	and	practice.

Prospectus	Summary:

APHA	sees	the	potential	that	an	abrupt	shift	to	hunting	guides	prospectuses	could	

completely	destabilize	hunting	guide	businesses	in	northern	SE	Alaska.	The	TNF	needs	to	

roll	up	its	sleeves	and	reach	out	to	the	state,	Alaska	Region	USFWS,	Alaska	Region	of	the	

National	Park	Service	and	APHA	to	develop	a	prospectus	process	that	is	tailored	to	hunting	

guide	use	specifically.	Merely	deciding	that	prospectus	permit	awards	are	necessary	and

then	implementing	some	generic	application	process	is	unacceptable.	Guide	

accompaniment	for	non-resident	brown	bear	hunters	is	mandated	by	Alaska	law,	a	limited	

number	of	guide	permits	are	authorized;	non-residents	have	reason	to	expect	honest,	safe	

and	knowledgeable	operators.	APHA	is	firm	that	a	separate	planning	process	begin	to	

develop	a	hunting	guide	prospectus	in	the	project	area.	

Areas to	be	Closed	to	Guiding:

APHA	is	concerned	that	the	draft	ROD	improperly	and	illegally	proposes	to	close	guiding	

opportunity	for	Sitka	blacktail	deer	on	Admiralty	Island.	APHA	is	aware	that	other	areas,	

outside	the	project	area	discussed	herein,	are	also	improperly	closed	to	guiding.	APHA	is	

unaware	of	any	reason,	social,	biological	or	for	public	safety that	could	possibly	justify

these	guide	exclusion	zones.	 In	fact,	guiding	hunters	has	demonstrated	to	be	compatible	

with	communities	across	the	project	area	and	in	fact	the	region	and	the	state.	The	proposed	

exclusions	and	preemptive	closure	of	guiding	opportunity	is	wholly inappropriate. Instead	

of	preemptive	closures,	the	Service	should	take	steps	to	develop	a	process	to	provide	for	

some	opportunity	(perhaps	via	prospectus)	that	addresses	whatever	concerns	they	may	

have.	What	is	most	troubling	to	us	is	that	local	residents	are	being	barred	from	accessing	a	

renewable	resource	that	provides	sustenance	both	as	food	security	and	cash by	what	

amounts	to	an	arbitrary	policy	that	effectively	states- “guiding	hunters	is	not	nor	will	it	

ever	be	compatible	here.”	APHA	is	adamant;	guide	exclusion	zones	are	an	unwarranted	

taking	of	opportunity	that	effectively	contravenes one	of	the	central	tenants	of	ANILCA:

conservation	units	are	“open	until	closed,”	not	“closed	until	open.”