Haines Borough working group debates whether multiday trips and guided hunts belong in tour code

Haines Borough tourism advisory working-group members spent much of their meeting arguing for a clearer intent statement in the borough—s tour code and debating whether multiday trips and guided hunting should be regulated separately from short sightseeing tours.

The clerk, who introduced themselves to the group as the borough clerk, told the working group that "5.18.010 intent is, in my opinion, a very lousy intent statement," and said the current code forces administrators to apply subjective "impacts" criteria such as traffic, congestion, noise and displacement when deciding whether to require additional permits.

The concern centers on Title 5—s tour permit rules (sections discussed included 5.18.010, 5.18.015 and the application provision in 5.18.030C). The clerk said the code currently may require separate commercial tour permits for each "primary activity" (for example, motorized transport, hiking, or watercraft), potentially obliging a single operator to seek multiple permits. The clerk said the code—s subjective impact standard leaves too much discretion with one administrator and recommended an intent statement that gives clearer guidance.

Andy, a tour operator who submitted written comments and read them to the group, argued multiday trips and guided hunting "do not fit this model and should remain regulated separately due to their fundamentally different nature, impacts and management needs." He told the group multiday operations often involve overnight stays, specialized equipment and safety planning that align with state and federal wildlife and land-manager regimes rather than short, vehicle-based sightseeing tours.

Several participants said the current structure appears to favor large, established operators. The clerk and others noted that expansion thresholds and application procedures can advantage operators whose original permit capacities were set very high while placing smaller operators at a disadvantage when they seek modest growth.

To reduce discretion while protecting low-impact small businesses, participants proposed several options: explicitly define multiday tours (one suggestion was "tours operated by the same tour companies in excess of 24 hours"), exclude multiday and guided-hunt activities from the borough—s short-tour permit unless they operate in assembly-designated "high-impact areas," or allow administrative permits with objective size thresholds that trigger broader public review.

On permit terms and timing, the group urged changes to improve business stability. One working-group member said, "These permits are 2 years. They should be 5 years," and speakers pointed to existing five-year permits for some activities (for example, heliski operations) as a precedent. Members also urged taking up substantive code updates outside the busiest planning season and recommended an October review to allow local operators to prepare for the May—August season.

The group discussed the Chilkoot Corridor and Battery Point Trailhead as examples of places where impacts concentrate and where state control of land can limit borough authority. The clerk warned that some operator reporting is treated as confidential or proprietary and that the borough must balance impact monitoring with protections for business-sensitive data.

The tourism advisory board and the borough—s code-review committee (CRC) were identified as the next review steps: Andy said he would draft suggested code language and send it to TAB, and the working group planned to bring an intent-statement proposal to the TAB meeting scheduled for March 25. The CRC was asked to hold off further action while TAB considers the working group's recommendations.

The conversation produced no new motions or votes; participants framed the session as an early-stage working-group discussion about drafting clearer intent and procedural rules before any assembly-level ordinance changes were proposed.