House Bill 002: Regulation of Hunting Methods

T

Teepee

Active Member
Messages
264
Interesting amendment to HB2 discussed here before:

This bill has passed the house & has gone to the Senate.

(C) Persons selling on the internet for remuneration the location and identification information of an individual big game animal located using a GPS device.".

FULL Text
HOUSE BILL NO. HB0002

Regulation of hunting methods.


Sponsored by: Joint Travel, Recreation, Wildlife & Cultural Resources Interim Committee

AN ACT relating to game and fish; providing rulemaking authority for the regulation of methods of taking wildlife; providing a sunset date for the rulemaking authority; and providing for an effective date.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming:

Section 1. W.S. 23‑1‑302(a) by creating a new paragraph (xxxii) is amended to read:

23‑1‑302. Powers and duties.

(a) The commission is directed and empowered:

(xxxii) Subject to the limitations imposed in this paragraph, to regulate and control by rule the methods of taking wildlife including regulating, limiting or prohibiting the use of hunting technologies that significantly impact fair chase. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to the taking of predatory animals as defined in W.S. 23‑1‑101(a)(viii). This paragraph is repealed effective June 30, 2025. Prior to promulgating any rule under this paragraph, the commission shall present the proposed rule to the joint travel, recreation, wildlife and cultural resources interim committee at a public meeting. Rules promulgated under this paragraph shall only apply to:


A) Thermal or infrared imaging or other imaging outside the normal visible light spectrum;

(B) Real time video photography equipment or video imaging viewable remotely; or

(C) Persons selling on the internet for remuneration the location and identification information of an individual big game animal located using a GPS device.

Section 2. This act is effective July 1, 2019.
 
It's crazy. They want to claim that someone buying and/or selling information is violating the principles of fair chase. Yet I can sell the same information to an outfitter and he can use the information plus pack the client up the mountain, find the deer for the client, then field dress and pack the deer out and that IS fair chase....????
Exact same information provided to the outfitter by someone scouting for him.

Also, if I give the exact same information to someone for free, then that too IS fair chase. But if the dude buys me lunch or pays me cash, it's a violation of the principles of fair chase. Ridiculous.

Using the ?fair chase? angle is silly. It's fair chase for some to do it, but not for others??? The legislative travel committee gets to decide what is and isn't ?fair chase?....??? That's dumb.

But whatever, I'll abide by any law, no matter how biased or silly it might be.

They still keep nonresidents from hunting wilderness to benefit outfitters, so.........

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
@mm_founder on Instagram
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
The way this is written it doesn't seem like it would be hard at all to work around...so if I give a location of a group of bucks, on a detailed map not using coordinates and I sell this information at a sporting show...no violation.
 
That's true, and I personally have already decided to change the information I provide, and how.

For me it's just the ridiculousness that leaves me shaking my head.

Pay someone $1000 for a report on where a buck was seen and you do all the work to hunt it - Not Fair Chase

Pay outfitter $6000, he buys the report on where a buck was seen and takes you there and helps you - Is Fair Chase

Makes no sense!

Good thing Boone & Crockett doesn't work that way or only clients of outfitters would have records in the book. All DIY trophies would be disqualified.

It sure entertains me to see all the angles they take to try and take away my First Amendment right to publish my knowledge and give it or sell it.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
@mm_founder on Instagram
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-01-19 AT 12:24PM (MST)[p]This will be my only post regarding this subject again and it's that our hunting heritage that us older members grew up with and what hunting is all about has gone to hell in a hand basket and IMHO it isn't going to get any better from the looks of it!
 
>
>Great news. ?

Oh yes, always great news to let a handful of legislators, who likely don't even hunt, trample on a constitutional right to dictate what is and isn't fair chase in hunting.
Maybe it won't be long before they decide the use of binoculars is a violation of fair chase principles, unless of course you're an outfitter, then it is fair chase to use binoculars.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
@mm_founder on Instagram
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
>LAST EDITED ON Feb-01-19
>AT 12:24?PM (MST)
>
>This will be my only post
>regarding this subject again and
>it's that our hunting heritage
>that us older members grew
>up with and what hunting
>is all about has gone
>to hell in a hand
>basket and IMHO it isn't
>going to get any better
>from the looks of it!
>


In one form or another, the buying, selling and trading of hunting information has been around longer than you've been alive. You know what hasn't? Guns that shoot accurately at 600+ yards, muzzleloaders that shoot 200+ yards and bows that hit home at 80 yards. Plus high quality, high powered optics. Oh, and atv?s, google earth, map programs on our phones, high quality boots and apparel. The list can go on and on.
Where?s the legislation to do something about the things that really have an impact?
They want to outlaw a guy like me from sharing scouting costs with a few guys in exchange for information. Outlaw me and you might save 2 deer next year. Well worth 3 years of people?s time and money to pass a law to get around that darn first amendment all so that a few outfitters and local guys don't have to worry as much about someone else hunting their buck.

Give me a break!!!!



Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
@mm_founder on Instagram
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
I agree with founder. It's not fair chase to pay for info. But it is fair chase to pay someone for the info, plus a horse ride, plus butchering service, plus food, plus a cook to cook that food, plus shelter, plus someone to spot your animal, plus someone to tell you when you miss, plus someone to pack your animal, plus someone to wipe your ass. What a joke.

If selling info isn't fair chase neither should outfitted hunts be fair chase.

Topgun I believe you went on a guided hunt in G a few years ago. Did you tell the outfitter where to setup camp and where to hunt or did you guys hunt where the guide or outfitter led you to each day?
 
A and B seem pretty legit to me, but I am confused on C and what they mean:

(C) Persons selling on the internet for remuneration the location and identification information of an individual big game animal located using a GPS device.

What do they mean by "located using a GPS device"? That almost sounds like a drone or aircraft to me, not someone using binoculars and a spotting scope? Did they just write it wrong and did the mean: Persons selling GPS coordinates? If the latter and they meant selling GPS coordinates, what could stop Founder and others from circling where you were on a map?

I agree with Founder this is not a fair chase issue at all, it might be an issue that they could require him and others to have an outfitter's license or work for an outfitter...but it shouldn't be confused with A and B type things.
 
>I guess the "Evil" residents are
>up to no good again.
>

Evil? Absolutely not. Are there a silly few of you who spend too much time and effort trying to figure out how to stop someone like me from publishing and selling the information in my head? Yep
This new angle of trying to fool the ignorant into thinking that the information violates fair chase principles is ridiculous. Hopefully they see it all for what it is, just hunters trying to keep other hunters out of their spots.
It's entertaining, that's for sure.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
@mm_founder on Instagram
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
C) Persons selling on the internet for remuneration the location and identification information of an individual big game animal located using a GPS device

This doesn't really make any sense to me. I am sure there will need to be more clarification on this one
 
So is a armed camping trip out then too.
How about a leadership conference or a employee training seminar and we have to pay the lead speaker before we go on a hunt together.
Don't see how it can be enforced with a he said they said type deal.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-01-19 AT 07:21PM (MST)[p]What happens if someone wants to sell information gathered on topo maps, aerial photos, or a video with no GPS involved? An "X" marks the spot irregardless of whether it's with a GPS, map, or photo? If they regulate one they ought to restrict the others?

Pretty soon there will be law and reg on every minor thing conducted while scouting and hunting. I don't agree with a lot of it (drones, chute planes, selling info, etc) but it's getting a little out of control? Where does it stop and where is a line drawn?
 
>Check this out, because this is
>what happens when someone advertises
>game locations on the internet.
>
>
>
And that is worse than an outfitter holding your hand, feeding you, packing your fat ass in, wiping your ass, spotting your animal, butchering your animal, packing your animal, giving you a ride to the airport, how?

After thinking about it more I actually believe there are residents that are jealous of founder because he is obviously a better hunter then they are. So they are trying to do whatever they can to hurt him. ?Shut down point sharing and selling info?
 
>Check this out, because this is
>what happens when someone advertises
>game locations on the internet.
>
>
>
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...prehunt.com/&usg=AOvVaw2xK8YhFFiHwmUJYS8u81LH


Hey, I think it's fine and dandy if you don't like my selling information, but do you really believe that it's a violation of fair chase principles while the guiding industry is not? Come on!
That's the issue in this thread.

BTW - in a previous thread you claimed I was ?technically guiding?, therefore in violation of the law. If you're right, why is this new law needed????
I never heard the answer.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
@mm_founder on Instagram
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
Where do we draw the line? As much as I dislike outfitters, they are licenced, insured, regulated by the state. Sure one Brian Latturner running around unlicensed, uninsured, not paying permit fees, selling 5-3,000deer isn't going to have a huge effect. But what happens when 1,000 other little Brian Latturners start doing the same thing just so they can make a few bucks. Selling out wildlife is wrong.
It's disgusting what hunting has turned into the last 15-20 years. Bunch of flat brim Instagram Bad Ass' that only care about adding more followers so they can #all their 10% off sponsors.
But keep on complaining your first amendment rights are being violated because you can't pimp out deer.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-01-19 AT 09:08PM (MST)[p]If you've seen the extreme that some outfitters (one in particular in Utah) goes to for their commissioner tag hunters and other clients....selling info is nothing!

I'm pretty sure in Utah that an outfitter or 2 pays a "finders fee" to anyone that's willing to send him photos/video of trophy bucks and bulls. The guides pretty much stick with a particular whopper buck or bull until the pay client arrives in his leer jet. The hunter heads out from the airport to the guide keeping track of the trophy animal and then shoots it! I'm not exactly sure if I'd call that "fair chase?" I've also heard one of the same outfitters has guides running up and down roads and night spotlighting animals in search of a monster. They don't have a rifle with them so it's all legal?? Is that fair chase?

I wonder if any of those things are currently going on in Wyo? I wonder how many Wyo outfitters have guides keep track of a particular monster muley buck, bull elk, or ram until their client's season opens? Bright and early on opening morning their hunter harvests the critter. What is fair chase and where is a line drawn?
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-01-19 AT 09:16PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Feb-01-19 AT 09:15?PM (MST)

Brian,

I think you need to check yourself.

The group pushing the last bill, and this one, was primarily the outfitters.

It is true, however, that after JM77 and I attended the last couple roundtable discussions, it is becoming a topic that is concerning to just about all the various NGO's in Wyoming. The commission and GF is also not real impressed.

Point being, that you continue to rag on about it being a "silly few"...well, that just isn't the case. There is a concerted effort to stop what you do, as well as the pre-hunt BS.

You must have failed to read one of the posts by JM77, the part about me testifying AGAINST the bill last year. This years bill, we are trying to advance, but don't flatter yourself that its all about you. Its about giving the WY commission the ability to keep in front of technology, including some of the things you mentioned.

For the record, Montana has similar legislation this year.

One of the great things about hunting, is that we, as a community of hunters, get to decide on, and impose limits and regulations on ourselves, for a variety of reasons. Some of those reasons include ethics and fair chase.

If the greater hunting community in Wyoming decides they don't want people selling out their wildlife, we have the authority to make that happen. This bill will grant our commission the ability to do that, as well as get in front of other issues (smart rifles, range finding rifle scopes, etc.).

I think any State that drags their feet on keeping in front of these issues, will see nothing but shorter seasons, less time in the field, and less access to tags.

Last I checked, hunting wasn't supposed to be diluted down to justify any means to hurry to the finish line of a dead animal.

If that's all we're after, lets make it legal to use land mines, snares, and poison to take big-game...
 
>
>Where do we draw the line?
>As much as I dislike
>outfitters, they are licenced,
>insured, regulated by the state.
> Sure one Brian
>Latturner running around unlicensed, uninsured,
>not paying permit fees, selling
>5-3,000deer isn't going to have
>a huge effect. But what
>happens when 1,000 other little
>Brian Latturners start doing the
>same thing just so they
>can make a few bucks.
>Selling out wildlife is wrong.
>
> It's disgusting what hunting has
>turned into the last 15-20
>years. Bunch of flat brim
>Instagram Bad Ass' that only
>care about adding more followers
>so they can #all their
>10% off sponsors.
> But keep on complaining your
>first amendment rights are being
>violated because you can't pimp
>out deer.
>

Yep...couldn't agree more.
 
You?re welcome to your opinion BuzzH, I just think you are wrong. I do not believe the state has the authority to dictate what I publish and sell. The US government might have given states the right to manage wildlife, but they did not give states the right to ignore people?s First Amendment rights and decide who and what is said or published about wildlife in a state. I'm quite confident of that. That's why this bill hasn't passed, because it's unconstitutional.
This angle to let the game and fish pass an unconstitutional law is just silly.

You can act like you're doing something, but all you're doing is trying extinguish a roaring house fire with a squirt gun, while trying to argue that's it's more effective than the garden house, while ignoring the fire hose completely because it's too heavy to lift.

There are hundreds of things that effect wildlife quantity and quality more so than I or the website example above.

Keep telling yourself that my selling information violates fair chase but a guided hunt that uses my information doesn't. The angle you support is dishonest. At least have the guts to be honest. I think you're scared of that, because your true motive is petty and silly.

Play the lie bro, I'm entertained.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
@mm_founder on Instagram
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
>>Check this out, because this is
>>what happens when someone advertises
>>game locations on the internet.
>>
>>
>>
>And that is worse than an
>outfitter holding your hand, feeding
>you, packing your fat ass
>in, wiping your ass, spotting
>your animal, butchering your animal,
>packing your animal, giving you
>a ride to the airport,
>how?

Did you really have him wipe your a$$?
 
BTW - I'm sure you can get people to jump on board when you feed them full of BS like this fair chase angle. I've heard those legislators talk like all one has to do is show up and the deer is standing on the mountain right where I saw him 2 months earlier waiting to be shot. You guys are not honest about what it really is. You're actively involved in trying to pursued these legislators, yet you're ok with them believing a lie about fair chase to get what you want. Hopefully again they'll see you guys for what you are and AGAIN, kick it out the door.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
@mm_founder on Instagram
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
>BTW - I'm sure you can
>get people to jump on
>board when you feed them
>full of BS like this
>fair chase angle. I've heard
>those legislators talk like all
>one has to do is
>show up and the deer
>is standing on the mountain
>right where I saw him
>2 months earlier waiting to
>be shot. You guys are
>not honest about what it
>really is. You're actively involved
>in trying to pursued these
>legislators, yet you're ok with
>them believing a lie about
>fair chase to get what
>you want. Hopefully again they'll
>see you guys for what
>you are and AGAIN, kick
>it out the door.
>
>Brian Latturner
>MonsterMuleys.com
>@mm_founder on Instagram
>LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
>on Facebook!

I can only assume who you are talking about here Brian and you are wrong. For some particular reason you choose to ignore most everything BuzzH and I say about our involvement in this and how it came about. It's like you just want someone you can directly blame for what you believe is an injustice to you.

It's fine with me that you continue believing what you do, but do not say we are dishonest about something we are not even involved in. It only makes you the dishonest one.
 
Last week you were claiming you put an end to last years bill, now you say you have nothing to do with it. ???? Ok. I guess I really don't care. It doesn't matter.
Any idea who it is trying to sell the ignorant this whole fair chase BS? Who comes up with that stuff? Can?t believe the outfitters are pushing that ridiculousness. That?d be the pot calling the kettle black.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
@mm_founder on Instagram
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
So as long as there is no $$ involved guys like me, W-bob or TG-Mike can still help out others and not get in a jam, correct....


Robb
 
>So as long as there is
>no $$ involved guys like
>me, W-bob or TG-Mike can
>still help out others and
>not get in a jam,
>correct....
>
>
>Robb



Yes Robb, you're fine. You?ll only be violating fair chase principles if whomever you help buys you a cup of coffee, lunch or pays for your gas. Unless the one you're helping is an outfitter and he can bundle your information into a hunt package, then it's OK if you get coffee or gas money. As long as he makes his $6k, it's a fair chase hunt. If he's cut out of the loop, then just don't take the cup of coffee, or you may have just violated the fair chase principles.

Fair Chase in Wyoming will no longer have anything to do with the ?ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild game?, but is now based on ?who? might get compensated in some form.

Outfitter makes money = Fair Chase
Your buddy buys you coffee or gas for info = Not Fair Chase

They?re going to change the meaning of ?Fair Chase? and mold it to suit the interests of outfitters.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
@mm_founder on Instagram
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
>>>Check this out, because this is
>>>what happens when someone advertises
>>>game locations on the internet.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>And that is worse than an
>>outfitter holding your hand, feeding
>>you, packing your fat ass
>>in, wiping your ass, spotting
>>your animal, butchering your animal,
>>packing your animal, giving you
>>a ride to the airport,
>>how?
>
>Did you really have him wipe
>your a$$?


Hell yea ;). If I'm paying for a guided hunt instead of a scouting package than yep they are going to wipe my ass. Obviously its way easier to kill a deer with a scouting package then it is on a fully guided hunt. So if I'm going to put out more effort to use a guide and make it fair chase then they are going to wipe my ass.

I mean come on. Obviously thats why guys use a guide right? Because a guided hunt is fair chase and a scouting package isn't?

JM good job not answering the question though. I see you post a lot with a lot of fluff. Just like BH and TG
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-02-19 AT 07:37AM (MST)[p]>>>Check this out, because this is
>>>what happens when someone advertises
>>>game locations on the internet.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>And that is worse than an
>>outfitter holding your hand, feeding
>>you, packing your fat ass
>>in, wiping your ass, spotting
>>your animal, butchering your animal,
>>packing your animal, giving you
>>a ride to the airport,
>>how?
>
>Did you really have him wipe
>your a$$?


Haha same difference wiping your ass or buying locations !!
 
Founder, who are you trying to Bullsh#t? You are not doing it for a cup of coffee. You are selling deer GPS for $900-1,500. Depending on the size of the buck.
 
>Last week you were claiming you
>put an end to last
>years bill, now you say
>you have nothing to do
>with it. ???


Brian, this is what I wrote.

"I can only assume who you are talking about here Brian and you are wrong. For some particular reason you choose to ignore most everything BuzzH and I say about our involvement in this and how it came about."

I know this bill ticks you off, but you should read what others are writing if there is to be any meaning discussion. You have been told more than once, we weren't involved in this legislation and that we helped kill it last year because it only legalized the practice.

My opinion on this subject is that it is a stain on hunting. It's not talking over a cup of coffee or even looking at a map with your buddy. It is locating trophy animals, taking a GPS location and pictures and selling that as a package, based on the animal's size, on the internet. I don't like that and that's my prerogative and you have yours. Unfortunately, there are many in Wyoming, including WYOGA, that feel the same as I do and they are taking steps to ban your practice. My belief is eventually it will happen in some form and you will have to choose to live with it or not.

And it can be compared to outfitting all day long., but that's pissing in the wind in Wyoming. If you would have just spent the money to become a nonresident outfitter in the first place, I doubt anyone would have noticed. You went the cheaper route and here we are.
 
I just think it's BS that whomever is pushing this bill claims that someone buying and/or selling information is violating the principles of fair chase. Yet I can sell the same information to an outfitter and he can use the information plus pack the client up the mountain, find the deer for the client, then field dress and pack the deer out and that IS fair chase.
It just makes no sense!!!

The end doesn't justify dishonest means.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
@mm_founder on Instagram
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
Brian,

I cant help it if you aren't following along. I'm like Jeff, I don't really care if you want to lash out and wrongly blame he and I for your woes. Broad shoulders and I've taken more chit from better than you.

But it still doesn't change the fact that its outfitters who started the ball rolling on what you're doing in regard to selling your hunting/scouting services. They brought the bill to the legislature last year, and I was in the committee hearing when the WOGA lobbyist pushed the bill. I sat right next to him at the hearing. He testified in committee in support, and I testified against it. My reason was pretty simple, the bill would have codified a legal way for you to continue selling scouting services. That made ZERO sense, and the committee agreed and killed the bill. Bottom line the bill needed work and needed to take away the ability for ANYONE to sell scouting packages, including outfitters if it was going to have the desired result.

I think what the outfitters are pushing with HB002 is a much better approach. As per the other topic, the State of Wyoming via the Legislature and Commission, has the authority to regulate hunting and fishing any way they see fit. That includes the right to pass HUNTING regulations to limit things like selling scouting packages, etc. etc. etc.

Your first amendment rights will not be violated if the commission makes the practice illegal. You can still feel free to tell who you want, what you want, anytime you want. The regulation would only take away your ability to peddle/sell the State of Wyoming's wildlife for profit via your scouting packages. That is a hunting regulation, period.

Frankly, the reason that I'm supporting the bill has wayyyy more to do with regulations regarding technology than selling scouting packages. Sure, its a nice ancillary benefit, but not something that would cause me to support it or not.
 
It doesn't make sense to many in Wyoming that an out of Stater from Utah can exploit our wildlife either.

Why many are pushing for a regulation to stop it.

Being licenses, bonded, insured, regulated, and permitted to outfit makes sense to most.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-02-19 AT 10:22AM (MST)[p]Interesting discussion. I do agree - this is not at all an infringement on the 1st amendment. Governments have the right to regulate commercial activity - it would not stop you from proclaiming to the world where a 190" buck may reside...it's when you take payment that the Gov can absolutely regulate you.

I support the intent of this bill - but the way it is currently drafted does not seem like it would achieve anything. Am I misunderstanding the process here - is this bill just giving the Commission the ability to regulate things like location/scouting services and the commission will adopt the final rules/regs? Because if sec C of this bill is the exact wording that intends to limit this activity...I could drive a truck through the loopholes it affords.
 
About The 1st Amendment
?Justice Blackmun held that the states could not suppress truthful information about a lawful economic activity, simply out of fear of potential consequences.?

Freedom of Speech/Press applies to all publication, whether it's provided for free or profit.
Just because a newspaper sells for a dollar at 7-eleven doesn't mean the government has the right to censor the content. Nearly every publication in existence is supported financially in one way or another.

I own my dog just like Wyoming owns their deer. Anyone could publish and sell a report on where my dog likes to pee and crap on our walks in public view. There can be no laws to stop people from talking about someone else?s property.

But that's all beside the point of this thread which is fair chase.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
@mm_founder on Instagram
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
Idahohuntr,

That is correct, all this bill would do is give the commission to the authority to regulate the items mentioned.

Brian,

You can whimper all you want about the "fair chase and ethics" argument. Fine with me, but again, the State of Wyoming is free to pass regulations on what we think is ethical, fair chase or any other regulation we think is needed for the States wildlife resources.
 
I can see one big reason not yet discussed why the State might support allowing only licenced outfitters to conduct this type of business but not the common man. It's easier to collect taxes from the LLC / Inc.

I am SURE that anyone posting on these forums would have claimed this all as business income derived from the selling of game locations and list it on their income taxes, ;-) but other people who are a little more discreet about it might not be doing the same.
 
So if it is the outfitters that are sponsoring the bill? Why are they moving it forward? Fair chase? Or they don't like the competition. It's all right for a guide to make money on the wildlife of Wyoming as long as they have a license and permit. What if the guide is from California. He is making money on the wildlife of Wyoming. So it's only ok to help a NR hunter is he pays the full meal deal for 6K, but it's not ok to pay for information and try to seal the deal yourself for 1,500.00?

Fair chase has nothing to do with it. Would it be ok if Brian had a guides license? Then it is fair chase and he can profit from his knowledge. So what your saying is that it is ok as long as he had a piece of paper from the govt saying it is ok and he pays the fee. Then it's fair chase.

Sorry guys, but the answer to everything is not more government regulation.

Rich
 
State legislators took an oath to support, obey and defend the constitution of the United States.
I'm hopeful and optimistic that they'll consult attorney?s familiar with the constitution before passing laws or rules. I'm hopeful as well that they see this silly fair chase angle as BS to fool them into thinking that buying information violates fair chase principles, but guiding does not.
We'll see. It's an interesting topic and debate.

I'm guessing at this point that I'll be backpacking around Wyoming and sharing information reports again this year.

Like said above though, I've already planned to alter what information I provide to increase the value of the content and will only share it if I can do so legally, as I do now.

If the laws/rules pass and go into effect, then I guess I'll be donating some hard earned, highly valuable knowledge. ??? Maybe an outfitter will hire me and we can do it fair chase. Ha ha

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
@mm_founder on Instagram
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
Rich,

My guess is if the commission adopts a regulation regarding selling of coordinates and scouting packages, its going to apply across the board to even outfitters.

That's why Jeff and I opposed the bill last year, it codified a legal way to do what the outfitters were wanting to stop.

I also disagree with you that regulations are not needed. If not for regulations, we wouldn't have wildlife to hunt.

Personally, I would not, and will not ever pay for information. IMO, anyone doing so is robbing themselves of the best part of the hunt.

Its just another short cut to what shouldn't come easy, IMO of course.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-02-19 AT 01:08PM (MST)[p]What I find interesting is how come not your home state of Utah? Are there no deer to sell, or is there to much competition with SFW. I believe it has to with making friends for the point sharing game here in Wyoming.

For the record, I think outfitting is the biggest threat to our sport. They do more harm then good.
 
Slippery slope, so Joe Texan hires a outfitter and uses his 10k rifle for a 1000 yard shot is fair chase? Oh he has a license that doesn't necessarily help wild life so it's ok.
 
Buzz,

I believe we need regulations also to protect wildlife, so if that didn't come across that's my bad. That's not the point I was trying to make.

An outfitter and drop camp in region G has some prescouting along with it. Seems very similar to me, except for the outfitter license. Do you think this should be allowed?

I also appreciate the way this is being discussed,

Rich
 
That makes sense. To be effective it cant be limited to internet, GPS, etc.

Any form of advertising/sale, location information etc. has to be part of the law otherwise there are just too many work arounds.
 
The last line makes it worthless:

"Persons selling on the internet for remuneration the location and identification information of an individual big game animal located using a GPS device."

So you draw them a map or verbally explain how to get there. No gps coordinates, no law violation. Dumb, waste of time.
 
>For the record, I think outfitting
>is the biggest threat to
>our sport. They do more
>harm then good.

Glad to see that someone that is against scouting packages is also against outfitting. At least you aren't a hypocrite like others.
 
>Glad to see that someone that
>is against scouting packages is
>also against outfitting. At least
>you aren't a hypocrite like
>others.


It's obvious you really don't know when to call it good. I'm guessing it might be some affiliation with Brian. Maybe he helps you find deer or something else an outfitter might do for you, who knows? If you spent any length of time on the Wyoming Forum you would know who it is that does more than just talk about the down side of outfitters.

Since all I do is talk "fluff", I'll let you find out for yourself.
 
So you draw them a map or verbally explain how to get there. No gps coordinates, no law violation. Dumb, waste of time.

Pretty narrow bill with holes big enough to throw a cat through? Yep ...remember the aircraft/drone scouting bill....Its tuff if not impossible to enforce but it passed....a stepping stone to set precedent? Yep
To be argued and reworded a 100 times.

I wonder if the word intent will be used in the final
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-02-19 AT 08:09PM (MST)[p]You don't understand the bill.

The bill simply gives the commission the authority to set regulation.

The regulation is where the rubber hits the road.

Also, there wasn't a drone/aircraft bill, apparently you don't remember. The current drone/aircraft REGULATION was changed to more closely reflect Statute.

For the record, it has been enforced since being clarified.
 
Wyoming can regulate it's wildlife as long as the federal government hasn't superseded that duty. That aren't violating free speech. This is about commerce, and not fair chase, but they can still do it. Tough loss if this is your game, but kinda like no one can shoot deer out of helicopters, or I can't hunt wilderness because I'm a non-resident, it is the states duty to regulate to the benefit of its citizens, and not anyone or anything else.
 
In a reply to Marburg, what I am referring to is once the bill 002 is statute. Then G&F regs can reflect, wording added or removed. This would require no further legislation and leaves it to the commissioners.
A broad bill that will be narrowed by regs once passed.

All Pro-Outfitter Style!

Gives way to bigger can of worms in the future.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-03-19 AT 07:31AM (MST)[p]Spot on BG, and its irrelevant if we agree or not.
Wyoga has a lot of say in Wyoming.
 
If the bill passes, it?ll be interesting to see how a rule is drafted that prohibits someone from providing someone else with opinion and knowledge on where to hunt for a big buck, while still allowing publications and websites like Epic, Huntin Fool and gohont to provide opinions and knowledge (that just aren't as specific) at a hunt unit level.

It?d have to be a rule with some sort of area size restriction. Clearly the ?selling on the internet?, ?located using GPS?, ?individual big game animal? and probably even the ?identification information? can all be avoided while still being able to point someone into an area where a buck was seen.

And of coarse there?d have to be some exclusion that still allows an outfitter to sub-contract scouting services or employ someone to do the scouting.

The rule would also have to apply to more than just ?purpose of hunting?. The rule would have to encompass, viewing and photography purposes. Otherwise some could just provide all the same information but for viewing or photography purposes, which would then make it an unenforceable rule because the guy getting the ?for viewing purposes? information would be the only witness if he were to shoot the deer in addition to viewing it.

Also the question as to outfitter drop camps would have to be addressed. Would outfitters be able to sell the information as part of a ?drop camp? package as many currently do? If so, then one could just contract someone like me to scout areas available for drop camps and then offer the same information service they're trying to stop.

The rule could also reach and effect not only someone like me, but many in the hunting community. For example, one of the legislators stated once that he bought a landowner lunch in exchange for the landowner sharing information about where he's seen antelope on the ranch. Sure, it's just lunch, but it would still be a violation of the law, and many, many people take great pride in not breaking laws, regardless how minor it could be. And of course a game official who might not like you isn't going to care if it's lunch or a million dollars, he's hammering you.

Many things to address, huh?

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
@mm_founder on Instagram
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
Hey Buzz
State of Wyoming is free to pass regulations on what we think is ethical, fair chase or any other regulation we think is needed for the States wildlife resources.

SURE would throw money wrench into Wyoming plans if they couldn't do all that free outfitting on BLM,NF and Wilderness lands.
Maybe grazing fee for those state animals on Gov. land kind like a rancher grazing fee. That would sure help the national debt.
"Think is ethical, fair chase or any other regulation you think is needed for STATES wildlife resources.
Not if they are part of a Federal Govt.lands because the fed's just might start having a hand out for some fees.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-03-19 AT 11:48AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Feb-03-19 AT 11:46?AM (MST)

Gator,

First of all, the FS, BLM, and NPS do require fees to outfit on federal lands.

As to part 2 of your question...its not been the policy of the federal land management agencies to charge the state for wildlife use.

In fact, they are required to work with the States directly to benefit wildlife on public lands.

I suggest looking at 43 CFR ? 24.4 for clarification...in particular section (i) (3).

The Sikes Act is also probably worth looking at, as it directs the DOI Secretary to cooperate with the States on habitat issues.

Even the ESA has specific language that requires the Federal Government to cooperate with State agencies in regard to Endangered Species management.
 
>Good luck Brian!! You?re going
>to need it!

LMAO - That's exactly what one of the state legislators said to me last year!! The bill ended up not even being considered. I probably should?ve sent him a message about my luck, but no point in rubbing his nose in it. Ha ha that's funny as heck though.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
@mm_founder on Instagram
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
I'll tell you what would be lucky, and ironic, is if the legislature passes this bill and a rule is made that I can't publish and sell my personal knowledge that I legally gather on public lands, violating my 1st Amendment rights.
I'd be forced as an American to follow through and make certain my civil liberties were not violated. So, I'd have to consult a civil rights attorney.
Here?s the lucky, ironic part. If the attorney feels the same as I and other none civil attorneys I've talked with, they could sue the state of Wyoming, and if I'm right and the state loses, the state of Wyoming could quite likely be ordered to pay my attorney fees under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act (that's how us poor people can keep politicians, who think they can do whatever they want, honest and following the law, not just passing unconstitutional crap to make some outfitters happy).

Now that would be lucky! And very ironic.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
@mm_founder on Instagram
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
Hey Founder, to bad you have TDS, maybe Trump could help, he's for de regulation. Wyoming is all about its outfitter welfare, better hire that attorney now, I really hope you beat em!..Bh1
 
I think its disgusting that someone who claims to love mule deer would sell them out, anything for a profit. What next?
 
>I think its disgusting that someone
>who claims to love mule
>deer would sell them
>out, anything for a profit.
>What next?

So you hate all Outfitters and guides as well?

All of it makes no sense to me...I could do without Eastmans, Epic and a couple others though!



'Ike'

Bowhunter...
 
I have no use for outfitters or the WYOGA. What have they done to benefit the average Joe sportsman in the last 50 years? Anything they have done is for themselves, if it had any benefit to the average Joe it was simply the trickle down effect.
 
Gasman, you must hate New Mexico! It's custom designed for outfitters, guides, landowner tags, and a special set of guide only draw tags!!!!! I quit applying in NMex years ago when they took a chunk of average Joe tags (that all nonres could apply for) and handed them over to a guide draw. Talk about a slap on the face to those that prefer to draw tags and hunt on their own! Colo actually did the same thing a few years ago...but not near to the extent of NM.
 
I'm anti outfitter and proud of it. I'm also against the BS wilderness law.

Selling GPS cords is right there with the above. Only other person I know that does that is antlerquest Jeff Codwell. He?s a stand up guy with high morals and respect for laws and regulations. Founder and him probably are a lot alike.
 
>Gasman, you must hate New Mexico!
> It's custom designed for
>outfitters, guides, landowner tags, and
>a special set of guide
>only draw tags!!!!! I
>quit applying in NMex years
>ago when they took a
>chunk of average Joe tags
>(that all nonres could apply
>for) and handed them over
>to a guide draw.
>Talk about a slap on
>the face to those that
>prefer to draw tags and
>hunt on their own!
>Colo actually did the same
>thing a few years ago...but
>not near to the extent
>of NM.

Yup, quite NM long ago because of those reasons also....


'Ike'

Bowhunter...
 
Buzz right now I wouldn't bank on the Fed's doing anything normal. LOL
You know how I feel about the wilderness law. You can camp, bird watch, hike, fish, horse pack in, Etc. BUT you can't hunt it if you're a NR hunter without a outfitter or resident that willing to sign up to hunt with you. Welfare law for outfitters.


"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
>Buzz right now I wouldn't bank
>on the Fed's doing anything
>normal. LOL
>You know how I feel about
>the wilderness law. You can
>camp, bird watch, hike, fish,
>horse pack in, Etc. BUT
>you can't hunt it if
>you're a NR hunter without
>a outfitter or resident that
>willing to sign up to
>hunt with you. Welfare law
>for outfitters.
>
>
>"I have found if you go
>the extra mile it's Never
>crowded".
>>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>>the MM green signature club.[font/]

The Feds have nothing to do with the wilderness guide law, it is a state statute and it has been challenged all the way to the Wyoming Supreme Court.
 
>The Feds have nothing to do
>with the wilderness guide law,
>it is a state statute
>and it has been challenged
>all the way to the
>Wyoming Supreme Court.

Any idea why the restriction didn't get overturned?
 
Yes, because the State of Wyoming, despite what a few on this board think, has the authority to regulate and discriminate against NR hunters when it comes to our wildlife. I know many people may not like it, but just the way it is, and the law and courts agree.

Its not an access to federal land issue, you are not denied access to the land, you're being regulated by the State of Wyoming in regard to where you can hunt our wildlife. Alaska does the same with sheep, goat, grizzly bears.

I'll be the first to agree that its outfitter welfare and I don't like the law.

But, its totally within the State of Wyoming's authority to regulate NR hunters any way we wish to, up to and including, not even allowing NR's to hunt our wildlife. Yes, some States don't allow NR to hunt certain species at all...so it does happen.
 
The state does get to control access and use of wild animals within their borders, but their authority is not without limits. The supremacy doctrine is why a state law that violates the US Constitution would be unconstitutional.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
@mm_founder on Instagram
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-04-19 AT 02:20PM (MST)[p]Brian, you're only correct if the law violates a constitutionally protected right.

Hunting is not a right, like voting for instance, therefor there cant be a violation of Constitutionality under the Supremacy Clause.

Its already been argued in court and denied in Baldwin V Montana F&G commission, exactly what the lawsuit alleges.

Look it up for yourself.

" We perceive no duty on the State to have its licensing structure parallel or identical for both residents and nonresidents, or to justify to the penny any cost differential it imposes in a purely recreational, noncommercial, nonlivelihood setting. Rationality is sufficient. That standard, we feel, has been met by Montana. So long as constitutional requirements have been met, as we conclude is the case here,

"[p]rotection of the wildlife of the State is peculiarly within the police power, and the State has great latitude in determining what means are appropriate for its protection."

Lacoste v. Department of Conservation, 263 U. S. 545, 263 U. S. 552 (1924).
 
Freedom of Speech is a protected right. What the state is wanting to violate is my freedom of speech, not a hunting privilege.

What I do could easily have nothing to do with hunting. With a few minor changes, it could be reports for photographers or deer watchers.

I simply believe it's my right to share the information in my head, regardless what someone who buys it, does with the information. Hunting or Photography or whatever.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
@mm_founder on Instagram
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
>Freedom of Speech is a protected
>right. What the state is
>wanting to violate is my
>freedom of speech, not a
>hunting privilege.
>
>What I do could easily have
>nothing to do with hunting.
>With a few minor changes,
>it could be reports for
>photographers or deer watchers.
>
>I simply believe it's my right
>to share the information in
>my head, regardless what someone
>who buys it, does with
>the information. Hunting or Photography
>or whatever.
>
>Brian Latturner
>MonsterMuleys.com
>@mm_founder on Instagram
>LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
>on Facebook!

By your logic - I can fly my drone to video/photograph/gps mark wildlife. Then I turn to my buddy who just happens to be hunting - and I tell him, "yep 2 nice bucks just over that ridge"

My buddy has not operated the drone. In fact, in this instance he hasn't even paid me for the information. I'm just exercising my first amendment right with my friend on opening morning of deer season. All is legal right?

We both know its not...the State can absolutely regulate you and the information you provide. It is not an infringement on the first amendment...you are free to express yourself, tell everyone how bad the government is for regulating hunting activities etc...buy if Wyoming decides to outlaw the sale of scouting/location information...that will be the law and they have every right to do so. If you disagree with me, explain how me and my buddy with a drone could possibly be regulated?
 
Brian,

I think where your argument hits the ditch, is everyone knows what information you're selling, to what user group, and for what purpose.

I also believe what the law will address is the selling location and scouting services of our States wildlife for money.

The question you'll need to ask yourself, is not whether you can find a lawyer to take your case/money to fight it, but rather if it would be worth it and if you'll be successful in litigation.

I would argue that the selling of information specific to wildlife, for the purpose of hunting, like your are is under the states authority per Public Law Number 109-13 section 6036.

I don't see a violation of your 1st amendment rights either...but, good luck in court.
 
If they pass the bill and implement the rule, then it's the law. I'll abide by it. I just think it violates my First Amendment rights, and to relate to this thread, I think it's BS to call it a violation of Fair Chase principles, but outfitting isn't. ???

For sure, I could be wrong. I just have an opinion and like to debate it and interested in how it plays out. I also have the opinion that buying information is no more of an advantage for a hunter than using a guide. I think there is a place for both, if there's a place for either.

As far as the drone thing, I think we'd all be bothered if it were labeled as an unfair advantage if we were to use them, but not if an outfitter uses them. It's the same for all.

Would it be OK with you if locating game with a drone was OK for outfitters as part of the full service they offer? Because that's how the information is going to be regulated, that's one of my biggest complaints. It's unethical for some, but not for others.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
@mm_founder on Instagram
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/legislation_would_outlaw_selling_info_on_big_game_locations

I guess Montana is teaming up with Wyoming?

I'd like to see how this would fly in the Utah state legislator? Ha ha ha lol lol lol!!!

Not a chance in Hell.

What a bunch of BS.

I hope this backfires.

How about BHA just stick to the issue they founded on ?public Lands? and don't waste time fighting to prohibit how people hunt. Just focus on where people hunt. What a bunch of morons!
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-04-19 AT 04:06PM (MST)[p]>Brian,
>
>I think where your argument hits
>the ditch, is everyone knows
>what information you're selling, to
>what user group, and for
>what purpose.
>
>I also believe what the law
>will address is the selling
>location and scouting services of
>our States wildlife for money.
>
>
>The question you'll need to ask
>yourself, is not whether you
>can find a lawyer to
>take your case/money to fight
>it, but rather if it
>would be worth it and
>if you'll be successful in
>litigation.
>
>I would argue that the selling
>of information specific to wildlife,
>for the purpose of hunting,
>like your are is under
>the states authority per Public
>Law Number 109-13 section 6036.
>
>
>I don't see a violation of
>your 1st amendment rights either...but,
>good luck in court.


I wouldn't pay much to challenge it, but some civil rights attorney's, based on their confidence in the case, may challenge it given the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act would have the state of Wyoming paying attorney fees if they loose. That's how the ACLU works on many civil rights cases. In some cases, it's easy money for an attorney. States pass unconstitutional laws all the time.
I would just consult a civil rights attorney and see what they say. I've spoken to attorney's, but not civil rights attorney's or the ones that would know best. That's what I would hope the legislature will do, before passing it.
Most likely if it passes, then that'll be that and I'll just complain and abide by the law.

I do appreciate the good luck call, thanks. I think the good luck call from the legislature last year is what sealed the deal. ha ha

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
@mm_founder on Instagram
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
I agree - drones, scouting services, etc...if it is illegal for some, being an outfitter should not make it legal or ok. I am not a friend of or sympathetic to how guides have used the legislature in Wyoming. I also find the "fair chase" discussion lacking...if hiring a scout is not fair chase, then hiring a guide is not fair chase.

That said - if Wyoming wants to pass laws regulating how and who uses, profits, observes, harvests their wildlife - they have very broad discretion in doing so. For example, if they want to outlaw the sale of location information of deer - I don't think it matters how the person intends to use that info (hunt, photography, etc.)...they can still regulate it and in my opinion thats not a violation of any constitutional rights.
 
Honest question - how would they enforce a transaction that is occurring in another state? Wait until you cross the state line, pull you over, and write you a citation?
 
>https://www.backcountryhunters.org/legislation_would_outlaw_selling_info_on_big_game_locations
>
>I guess Montana is teaming up
>with Wyoming?
>
>I'd like to see how this
>would fly in the Utah
>state legislator? Ha ha ha
>lol lol lol!!!
>
>Not a chance in Hell.
>
>What a bunch of BS.
>
>I hope this backfires.
>
>How about BHA just stick to
>the issue they founded on
>?public Lands? and don't waste
>time fighting to prohibit how
>people hunt. Just focus on
>where people hunt. What a
>bunch of morons!

What about the other groups that are also supporting the legislation? Just forget to mention them out of convenience? Or do you just like to grind your ax?

The bill also saw support from Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, the Montana Wildlife Federation, Back Country Hunters and Anglers and the Montana Bowhunters Association.

Also, what part of HUNTERS and ANGLERS don't you understand?

I would say this bill is right in BHA's wheelhouse...
 
I would rather buy a circle on a map from where Founder saw some nice bucks five years ago than GPS coordinates from where he saw a shooter a month ago. How will that be regulated if I give him $500 for that information? You both make good points, but I am leaning towards Founder can sell info, but they are going to say no to specific coordinates for specific fee. Interesting.
 
the artical pretty much explains that BUZZ!

You are so uptight about any bad press for BHA? Wonder why?

I'm thinking you are the guy on Newberg shows and pod cast right?

So are you a crusader? Why doesn't BHA take care of that lander antelope hunt huh? That's more offensive than what founder is doing by a long shoot! So go waste time in legislating that, and stop wasting your time with regulating how government should control people.

That's what this is about control!!!
And as for Montana parks... and all the rest of the supporters they are liberal activists IMO and I choose long ago to not sell out and line myself with libs period!
 
>
>You are so uptight about any
>bad press for BHA? Wonder
>why?
>

What bad press?
 
Any mention of BHA in a negative way! All I did is criticize BHA for supporting the Montana legislation and BUZZ fires off making a point that it's not just BHA.

You two have lost my respect really. I mean all this BHA stuff. It took me a little to see through the bull but it's a total green decoy and you two hook line and sinker.

Honestly tell me where in the mission statement of BHA does it say that they existe to fight an opinion on (which that is all it is, on opinion) whether it is ethical to sell information about hunting?

Really, the truth is that you guys are pretty silly as founder said. Silly and petty that you would support and defend the bill that gives government more regulating control.

The state of Wyoming makes millions off non-res hunting. You two even went on Newberg pod cast and praised the non-res for all their contributions to Wyoming. So why cut the hand that feeds you?

How much money do you two think founder makes off selling info about where deer hang out? Honestly how much? Give us a number!

Compare that to epic outdoors, Eastman?s MRS, huntin? fool, Newberg sponsor ?Go Hunt? which is no different man no freaking different. They all sell information and you can call them
And get personal hunting consultations of where to apply, what units to invade in Wyoming.

Why doesn't that rubb you wrong? Why isn't BHA supporting/lobbying any law against that?

I think you two because of your positions in BHA lobbyed for this law and Montana?s legislation.

My question to you is ?WHY???!

This is easy to get around, I'll pay founder to give me a GPS coordinate to a ?great place to camp? in region G! Try to stop that! What a joke!!!!!!
 
Broomer,

Not sure why you're losing your chit over BHA supporting a fair chase issue?

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/fair_chase

Fair chase is one of the issues that BHA supports, and always has. Why do you think Jeff and I were the tip of the spear in changing aircraft/drone regulations to stop all the flying being done to locate bucks in the Wyoming Range? At the same time, we also worked a solution that gives hunters a legal way to hunt landlocked State via aircraft, that they couldn't do prior to the current regulation.

If the idea of peddling specific information about Wyoming's wildlife, with maps, photos, where to camp, etc. etc. and charging different fees depending on the size of the buck...is the same as compiling drawing odds, and providing hunters with "top unit picks" based largely on draw odds, then I see why you would have the position you do. To you, they're one and the same, for most its not the same at all.

What the various hunting rags are doing, is really no different than what the CODOW, WYGF, MTFWP, AZFG, etc. provide in their hunt planners. Most of the people I know that subscribe to the various rags, do so to avoid the recommended areas. They sure don't join to get specific information for a specific animal.

There's a vast difference and for you to compare the two at all, is being intellectually bankrupt.

Also, HB2 is a package that will give the WYGF Commission the opportunity to get in front of other technology, like smart rifles, range finding rifle scopes, etc. etc. Its not specific to what Brian is doing, at all.

As to your green decoy reference, old, tired, worn out news. Anytime you want to compare days in the field, full freezers, or trophy rooms with the WYBHA Board...that sounds like the test of all tests if you ask me, well, hell, I'm in....
 
The "Fair Chase" angle is what's so silly. There thousands and thousands and thousands of sportsmen every year who hunt with guides and outfitters who scout game and know where the game lives. They then provide that information to their clients in the form of taking the client to that spot. Then of course they help the hunter.

You're trying to say that my providing the same information to hunters that guides do, except I'm not there helping them, is a violation of Fair Chase principles. It's foolish. Maybe BHA should go after all outfitting for sharing the same information. Publish on your site that anyone using a guide is hunting unfairly, push bills to stop all outfitting. You won't. You guys are too chicken to do that because the number of people who go on guided hunts is too great and powerful, and there's nothing wrong with someone going on a guided hunt.

The information I provide to someone is the same information that any guide up there is providing their clients when they show up to a spot to look for a buck found during the summer.

You guys are after this issue only because you think it'll be easy to stop and you can pat yourself on the back and say, "look at us everyone, we save wildlife." Take on issues that really impact wildlife.


Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
@mm_founder on Instagram
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
>Any mention of BHA in a
>negative way! All I did
>is criticize BHA for supporting
>the Montana legislation and BUZZ
>fires off making a point
>that it's not just BHA.
>

How is mentioning BHA supports this effort in Montana "bad press"? Or negative? Who cares what you think about it? I believe the point Buzz was making is that several groups are supporting the effort with BHA in Montana.

>You two have lost my respect
>really. I mean all this
>BHA stuff. It took me
>a little to see through
>the bull but it's a
>total green decoy and you
>two hook line and sinker.

That's your opinion, but you are wrong. We have a record in Wyoming that proves otherwise.

>Honestly tell me where in the
>mission statement of BHA does
>it say that they existe
>to fight an opinion on
>(which that is all it
>is, on opinion) whether it
>is ethical to sell information
>about hunting?

I heard this same BS when we supported banning aircraft for locating game animals for the purpose of hunting. I don't know what kind of hunter you are, but I can only guess. If part of your "bag of tricks" is having someone else locate your game and you pay them for it, that's real impressive for sure.


>Really, the truth is that you
>guys are pretty silly as
>founder said. Silly and petty
>that you would support and
>defend the bill that gives
>government more regulating control.


Sticks and stones...

>The state of Wyoming makes millions
>off non-res hunting. You two
>even went on Newberg pod
>cast and praised the non-res
>for all their contributions to
>Wyoming. So why cut the
>hand that feeds you?

No one is cutting the hand that feeds anything. Nonresidents are their own worst emery, at least those like you. I have become friends with many nonresidents who might differ with your opinion.

>How much money do you two
>think founder makes off selling
>info about where deer hang
>out? Honestly how much? Give
>us a number!

Don't know and don't care, get a grip, your attempt to impress Founder has reached the epic stage.

>Compare that to epic outdoors, Eastman?s
>MRS, huntin? fool, Newberg sponsor
>?Go Hunt? which is no
>different man no freaking different.
>They all sell information and
>you can call them
>And get personal hunting consultations of
>where to apply, what units
>to invade in Wyoming.
>
>Why doesn't that rubb you wrong?
>Why isn't BHA supporting/lobbying any
>law against that?

They are not selling GPS locations of trophy deer.


>I think you two because of
>your positions in BHA lobbyed
>for this law and Montana?s
>legislation.
>
>My question to you is ?WHY???!

I have answered this if you read back in this post pertaining to Wyoming. I doubt you will do that or care anyways. You have done your due diligence to impress Brian. We had nothing to do with the bill, although I would support the right legislation to stop selling GPS locations because it doesn't fit into the definition of hunting. The same support to stop this is coming from several other sportsman and conservation groups. I can't say who did what in Montana and really don't care.
 
Gee Brian, I wonder who said this?

Different I guess, when its not your ox getting gored?

I mean, what's the difference between flying to locate a big buck VS buying information from you?

Where's your concern about your scouting packages increasing success and reducing opportunity and "give the game a better chance at survival"?

You appear to have no problem pushing what's fair to the game when it doesn't impact your bottom line...but whimper uncontrollably when it does.

IMO, you either care about fair chase and the game or you don't...pretty obvious your caring and fair chase values end where your pocket book begins.

"I had the plane buzz over me last year in Wyoming. I don't think it's fair to the game, but not much different than shooting them at 800 yards or rifle hunting during the rut. It's just unfortunate the way things go. I understand an outfitter trying to stay in business doing everything he can within the law to be as successful as possible. That's my perspective as a business owner.
However, as a hunter, I think it's crappy to fly an airplane to scout. I was sitting on that ridge last year in Wyoming after having packed in several miles when the plane buzzed over me. I could see the dude sitting in the backseat with big bino's and it disgusted me.
Could you imagine if flying cost nothing? There wouldn't be any big deer in western Wyoming because huge numbers of people would fly to scout. None of those bucks would be able to slip through the cracks.
Back to what I've said before, sportsmen are going to have to find a way to give the game a better chance at survival or tags will continue to decrease as success increases."
 
>Gee Brian, I wonder who said
>this?
>
>Different I guess, when its not
>your ox getting gored?
>
>I mean, what's the difference between
>flying to locate a big
>buck VS buying information from
>you?
>
>Where's your concern about your scouting
>packages increasing success and reducing
>opportunity and "give the game
>a better chance at survival"?
>
>
>You appear to have no problem
>pushing what's fair to the
>game when it doesn't impact
>your bottom line...but whimper uncontrollably
>when it does.
>
>IMO, you either care about fair
>chase and the game or
>you don't...pretty obvious your caring
>and fair chase values end
>where your pocket book begins.
>
>
>"I had the plane buzz over
>me last year in Wyoming.
>I don't think it's fair
>to the game, but not
>much different than shooting them
>at 800 yards or rifle
>hunting during the rut. It's
>just unfortunate the way things
>go. I understand an outfitter
>trying to stay in business
>doing everything he can within
>the law to be as
>successful as possible. That's my
>perspective as a business owner.
>
>However, as a hunter, I think
>it's crappy to fly an
>airplane to scout. I was
>sitting on that ridge last
>year in Wyoming after having
>packed in several miles when
>the plane buzzed over me.
>I could see the dude
>sitting in the backseat with
>big bino's and it disgusted
>me.
>Could you imagine if flying cost
>nothing? There wouldn't be any
>big deer in western Wyoming
>because huge numbers of people
>would fly to scout. None
>of those bucks would be
>able to slip through the
>cracks.
>Back to what I've said before,
>sportsmen are going to have
>to find a way to
>give the game a better
>chance at survival or tags
>will continue to decrease as
>success increases."


I stand by my opinion of flying planes to find deer. That's my opinion. My opinion on my selling reports is that there is nothing more unfair about what I do than what an outfitter does, so why is what I do painted as unfair, but not outfitting? Double standard, and that's why it's silly.

If the general pubic was banned from flying planes to scout, but outfitters could still do it as part of their package, that would also be ridiculous and silly.

If you really believed in your cause here to stop what I do, why not take on the big boys who go even further with the help they provide clients? It's cause you can't win. You'd loose, because there's nothing wrong with a guided hunted, nor is there anything wrong with someone getting help from me. You're only gunning to stop what I do because it effects few people and might be an easy win that you can use to pat yourself on the back.

You tell lies about me selling GPS coordinates and that it's so easy to just pull up and shoot the deer, therefore it needs to be outlawed. Dishonesty to pass a law so you can pat yourself on the back is sad.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
@mm_founder on Instagram
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
Brian,

The same exact excuses were made in regard to flying to locate big deer in the Wyoming range. People were flying and saying, well, what's the difference HOW you find the deer, either by foot, atv, plane, its all the same. All you're doing is locating game. Yet, you had no trouble with the aircraft regulations changing, only because: 1. You didn't do it. 2. You didn't make money from it. 3. You recognized that it was unfair and putting unreasonable pressure on deer. I don't disagree with the ETHICAL point you made regarding unreasonable pressure and the deer having nowhere to go anymore.

You're making the same excuse, but there is a difference, outfitter are licensed, bonded, insured, and REGULATED. They are regulated by the State and the Feds, that's what keeps the practice from becoming a complete free for all and chit show.

What you're doing is not regulated by the State at all, and has the potential to become a chit show. IT also, no question puts more deer at risk of being killed...same as scouting them from a plane.

What I find "silly" is that you on the one hand think the deer need a break (which I agree with), then you defend what you do, knowing full well it puts more and more pressure on the deer. It will all lead to what you described in your post about flying to scout...higher success and less opportunity.

That's the very definition of hypocrisy...and you're now part of the very problem you feel will lead to less opportunity.

I guess the money involved clouds where the line is drawn...that's fine, just stop pretending you care about "giving the game a better chance at survival".

Heard HB2 died BTW.
 
The amount of BS being spread by some on this thread is high. I wont speak for Buzz and Jeff, they do a great job of that themselves and are far more articulate than I am. I will say that I am proud to call both of them friends and colleagues. They are two of the most accomplished hunters I know and have done more for public land, fair chase, bootleather hunters than anyone I know. I'll also say that Broomer, you don't know what the F you are talking about in regards to these two men.

As for me I have spoken to several legislators about my support of this Bill. I talked to two more this morning. Don't know if it will make a difference but I sure hope it does. I don't love this Bill, I wish it went further on some aspects. But I will take it. It doesn't cure all the ills as I see them but it helps. I cant stand what Founder does in regards to selling big Wyoming bucks. Originally I hoped that it would go away on its own and that regulation would not be needed but that appears to not be the case. Since this Bill popped up on the docket, I'll support it. I particularly like the aspects around technology. Everything in this Bill will make the sport of hunting better off in the long run, in my opinion.

I also dislike a great deal what much of the outfitting industry has morphed into. I am sure that outfitters do the same thing and I find that sad. I cant imagine how unfulfilling it would be for me to have an outfitter send me pics of bucks and ask me which one I wanted to be taken to. Your opinion may be different and that's fine, you can speak to the same legislators I do and tell them you don't like the Bill. If a Bill was put forth that would stop that I would support that as well. But it wasn't, this one was so I'll take what was put forth.

Founder has tried to play his service as the same as meeting a buddy for coffee and telling him about a place to try, or the same as taking a friend to an old proven hunting spot. Well its not. If it was just that then this never would have been on anyone's radar screen. Any attempt to frame it as something other than selling bucks based on their B&C score is disingenuous. If my friend called me up and said I'll only hunt with you provided you can show me photographic evidence of a buck I deem to be acceptable, well I doubt we would be friends much longer.

Founder has also tried to say that his service is not really that big of an advantage to finding the target buck. I asked Founder a while ago on this Forum how many customers of his have taken the buck he provided information on, how many took a different buck and how many didn't take anything. As far as I know he has not answered this question. That level of information would be very helpful to me in knowing how impactful his service is and helpful to potential clients.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-05-19 AT 12:19PM (MST)[p]>Brian,
>
>The same exact excuses were made
>in regard to flying to
>locate big deer in the
>Wyoming range. People were flying
>and saying, well, what's the
>difference HOW you find the
>deer, either by foot, atv,
>plane, its all the same.
>All you're doing is locating
>game. Yet, you had no
>trouble with the aircraft regulations
>changing, only because: 1. You
>didn't do it. 2. You
>didn't make money from it.
>3. You recognized that it
>was unfair and putting unreasonable
>pressure on deer. I don't
>disagree with the ETHICAL point
>you made regarding unreasonable pressure
>and the deer having nowhere
>to go anymore.
>
>You're making the same excuse, but
>there is a difference, outfitter
>are licensed, bonded, insured, and
>REGULATED. They are regulated by
>the State and the Feds,
>that's what keeps the practice
>from becoming a complete free
>for all and chit show.
>
>
>What you're doing is not regulated
>by the State at all,
>and has the potential to
>become a chit show. IT
>also, no question puts more
>deer at risk of being
>killed...same as scouting them from
>a plane.
>
>What I find "silly" is that
>you on the one hand
>think the deer need a
>break (which I agree with),
>then you defend what you
>do, knowing full well it
>puts more and more pressure
>on the deer. It will
>all lead to what you
>described in your post about
>flying to scout...higher success and
>less opportunity.
>
>That's the very definition of hypocrisy...and
>you're now part of the
>very problem you feel will
>lead to less opportunity.
>
>I guess the money involved clouds
>where the line is drawn...that's
>fine, just stop pretending you
>care about "giving the game
>a better chance at survival".
>
>
>Heard HB2 died BTW.


So it's ethical and fair chase if an outfitter pays the state money to scout for deer and package into the hunt, but it's unethical if no money is being paid to the state? That's how you define ethical versus unethical? Are you getting paid by the state?
If the state required I have a license or permit, I'd pay it. No issue with that. But instead what they (you) whomever want to allow only outfitters to scout and bundle into a package. That's what wrong here, the double standards that you represent.
Read all the Fair Chase statements you can find and I'll bet you can't find a single one that says something is ethical or unethical based on your justification that outfitters buy a license.
It's just your dishonest angle to fool legislators. If you were to lay it out to them as it really is, the ones that support you would change their opinions.
Or, ask that the bill be change to stop outfitters from using scouting information as part of their package. Your support would vanish.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
@mm_founder on Instagram
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
When takein to task on their relative silence on the grizzly hunt BHA tells us they're a single issue outfit similar to the NRA and asks us why we aren't holding the NRA accountable for their silence on the grizzly hunt. Then on this issue they beat their chest and
condescendingly tell us how their name IS Backcountry "Hunters" and Anglers. SMH If I were king for a day I would outlaw founders practice, as well as outfitters. I'd outlaw rangefinders and scopes would be limited to 3x9 power and turretless. Of course I truly am about the resource, and desire more and bigger bucks and bulls with easier to acquire tags. But alas I'm just a commoner who loves to hunt. Carry on.



#livelikezac
 
Back on the First Amendment debate, the only chance a state has of winning the right to take away my First Amendment rights, is if they argue that it's of significant government interest.
I believe that is going to be a tough argument when they still allow thousands of guides and outfitters to provide their information as part of their hunting package as I do as part of my reports.
How do you argue that one dude from Utah is causing a significant impact, while the thousands of guides and outfitters are not? That'll be a tough one to swing I think. It's virtually impossible for states to take away constitutional rights as it is, never mind trying to take them away from a handful of people but still allowing thousands of others to speak freely about the exact same thing.
I really think it'll be easy to find a civil rights attorney to take this one, and at no charge. I think the state would easily lose.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
@mm_founder on Instagram
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 

Similar threads

gr8fuldoug
Athlon Winners Chosen - Enter to Win a Pulsar Thermal
Replies
0
Views
95
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
Industry News and Updates
Replies
0
Views
197
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

20230815_215307.jpg
523079E8-0980-46AF-B7CA-D23DD847F03B.jpeg
EB87CB75-9741-498A-B48A-AAE4A5E2D2E1.jpeg
How big is this bull?
Nice Bull Elk Score
23C1BADA-637A-4BD9-9650-CBA134883894.jpeg
20200915_090836.jpg
IMG_1657.jpeg
20190120_140246.jpg
elk6.jpg
IMG_2944.jpg
0856E5BF-606D-4BB1-93CE-24FB891FD1BB.jpeg

Wyoming Hunting Guides & Outfitters

Badger Creek Outfitters

Offering elk, deer and pronghorn hunts on several privately owned ranches.

Urge 2 Hunt

We focus on trophy elk, mule deer, antelope and moose hunts and take B&C bucks most years.

J & J Outfitters

Offering quality fair-chase hunts for trophy mule deer, elk, and moose in Wyoming.


Yellowstone Horse Rentals - Western Wyoming Horses
Back
Top Bottom