Freedom of Speech - Can one be forced to shut up?

Founder

Founder Since 1999
Messages
11,448
So I've got a topic for discussion. As some know, I provide Hunt Consulting, focused for the most part on Western Wyoming. I understand everyone has a different opinion on the matter, and I'm cool with that. I have mine too. This thread however isn't looking for opinions on whether my service is right or wrong, but rather the attempt by some Wyoming legislators to outlaw it.

During the last session they tried to pass a law, but it failed. However, they're still working on it. My question and what I'd like to hear opinions on is whether a state (any state) has the right to pass a law that simply tries to stop someone from telling someone else what they saw while on a vacation or whatever. And whether it matters if it's for remuneration or not.

Currently, the Wyoming state travel committee is working on a law that includes the following:

"Hunt consultation services" means providing to a hunter:
(A) Specified geographic locations defined by a universal coordinate system for the purpose of locating and specific previously scouted big or trophy game animals; or
(B) Maps, drawings, illustrations or any other documents for the purpose of showing the location of any specific previously scouted big or trophy game animals.


They want the "Hunt consultation services" to be something only licensed outfitters and state employees can offer.

The Wyoming state constitution, Sec. 20, reads; Freedom of speech and press; libel; truth a defense. Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and in all trials for libel, both civil and criminal, the truth, when published with good intent and [for] justifiable ends, shall be a sufficient defense, the jury having the right to determine the facts and the law, under direction of the court.

Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects seems to contradict the law trying to be passed. Of course I believe it also contradicts the U.S. First Amendment.

So what's your take on this? Whether you think my service is right or wrong, does a state have the right to pass laws to stop someone from telling others what they saw while visiting their state? Do they even have jurisdiction if I share the information from outside of their state with someone else outside their state? The state owns the wildlife, but can they also dictate what is said about the wildlife?

If I were consulting people on the best rivers to kayak, or best rock climbing spots, or where I saw a cool camp spot, should the state have the right to pass a law stopping me from sharing that information? Whether for money or not.

Does the fact that someone shares the information for money or for free change whether they should enjoy the Freedom of Speech. If ones gets paid, should their Freedom of Speech be limited.

I find this topic intriguing now that I'm involved with it and I've spent a lot of time trying to understand the laws concerning it all, but obviously I still don't know that much. I thought it would be a good topic of discussion.

What do you think? Do you know of any similar laws that exist anywhere in our country that limits what one can say about what they saw while visiting somewhere?

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
This is not a "freedom of speech" issue


323421626570513685990098870652286725493870346854n.jpg
 
Yeah sounds more like the state trying to regulate interstate commerce in favor of their own residents.
 
Just another matter where money talks. They are catering to the outfitters and guides just like they did when they passed the law that a non resident can not hunt in a wilderness area without using a licensed outfitter or going in with a local resident to hunt with.

RELH
 
With that Wilderness Rule, the state owns the game, so they can restrict where people hunt the game. I don't agree with it, but they're their deer and elk. They can't restrict people from the wilderness because they don't own that land, they can only restrict you from hunting their game there. That's why it's the way it is.
Just as a private landowner would have the right to restrict someone on a portion of their ranch.

However, does the state have the right to restrict someone from "talking" about the wildlife they see while on public, federal, land? Because they own the game, do they also own the right to allow or disallow someone from speaking about it?

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
As homer said, if you were just talking we wouldnt be having this discussion. You re profiting off the states game by selling information on said game. I'm all for a man making what he can where he can, if I could pack other hunters elk out for $ without a license I'd do it all season, the law just doesnt allow me to do it.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-14-17 AT 01:33PM (MST)[p]I agree with it not being about freedom of speech. Being a licensed guide and having to pay my fees, and insurance. Take tests and basically spend money to be able to do exactly the same thing makes this a different issue.You are, at the end of the day, making a profit not just "talking" about it.

Aside from that, in my opinion it is unethical as a true trophy hunter. The reason I say this is because if you could hunt these mountains every year, you wouldnt be doing what you're doing. Atleast that is my perception.
 
They Don't Want You Selling Coordinates to the Few Big Bastards Left without them getting their Cut!








[Font][Font color = "blue"]Ah yes we have insider trading and computer dating but I never goin for that!
Ain't no machine pickin out my Queen cause it may not have all the facts!
I've got my own taste and my own ways I'd rather not talk about
and my private life is my private life and they ain't gonna find out!


90087hankjr.jpg
 
So in your opinion, the state (or anyone) who owns game animals should dictate what anyone who sees that game animal says about that game animal?

Wouldn't that carry over to everything else that is owned, not just game animals?

BTW - packing an elk out for someone (actually conducting business on federal land) is far different than telling someone what you saw and where you saw it. IMO and the that of the FS.


>As homer said, if you were
>just talking we wouldnt be
>having this discussion. You re
>profiting off the states game
>by selling information on said
>game. I'm all for a
>man making what he can
>where he can, if I
>could pack other hunters elk
>out for $ without a
>license I'd do it all
>season, the law just doesnt
>allow me to do it.
>


Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
I look at it this way if it passes your giving the govt. more control and anytime they get more control something is being taken away from you, me and every other free citizen. The govt. doesn't deserve to know who is hunting with who and showing someone a big buck it's none of their God Damn business when it's a legal method of hunting. I'm so sick of hunters crying for more regulation on public land alot of these A55holes in washington would love to just have someone sit down and write them a check for every parcile of land possible if it benefits their silk lined pockets. Hunt away because your gonna get old and die one day.
 
So if someone makes a profit, their right to freely speak about the subject isn't the same as if they did it for free?

Everything I can find on the first amendment points to the fact that we're allowed that right whether compensated for speaking or not.

I'd like to find some examples of where compensation made the difference with the first amendment.

What about books and magazines and google earth? They all share vast amounts of information that benefits sportsmen. They have the freedom of speech and make money. Should freedom of speech be limited in my case because my information is more specific?


>LAST EDITED ON Jun-14-17
>AT 01:33?PM (MST)

>
>I agree with it not being
>about freedom of speech. Being
>a licensed guide and having
>to pay my fees, and
>insurance. Take tests and basically
>spend money to be able
>to do exactly the same
>thing makes this a different
>issue.You are, at the end
>of the day, making a
>profit not just "talking" about
>it.
>
>Aside from that, in my opinion
>it is unethical as a
>true trophy hunter. The reason
>I say this is because
>if you could hunt these
>mountains every year, you wouldnt
>be doing what you're doing.
>Atleast that is my perception.
>


Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
Why does the State want to outlaw what Founder does? If I was to write a book about deer hunting in Wyoming, mentioning specific areas (ridges, canyons, etc.) and I sold that book for a profit, would they want to outlaw that? Could they outlaw that? There are already books out there. Should they gather them up and burn them?

IMO, someone with access to top officials in Wyoming is jealous of Founder and is grasping at straws.

"only licensed outfitters". What does it take to become one? Probably no new openings available.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-14-17 AT 04:02PM (MST)[p]This is a resource issue so comparing it to what river to kayak or which nature trails are best for bird watching is apples and oranges.

The key words are "for profit" as opposed to showing somebody a hand drawn map of a specific canyon in the Greys for free. If you believe in State's rights then you have to support whatever their decision is, it is their resource. Game managers and wardens are paid by their tax dollars and as out-of-state hunters we are guests.

Washington has ZERO to do with this, this is a state issue. What is the current law pertaining to this type of service in Utah and other states Brian?
 
From what I've found, there are no laws in other states. But I also haven't dug real deep into that either.
I just struggle with this whole thing of the state believing they can dictate what I say about wildlife I see. Or anything I see. A private business can't even stop a person from speaking about what they saw on the private businesses property as they viewed it from public property.





>LAST EDITED ON Jun-14-17
>AT 04:02?PM (MST)

>
>This is a resource issue so
>comparing it to what river
>to kayak or which nature
>trails are best for bird
>watching is apples and oranges.
>
>
>The key words are "for profit"
>as opposed to showing somebody
>a hand drawn map of
>a specific canyon in the
>Greys for free. If you
>believe in State's rights then
>you have to support whatever
>their decision is, it is
>their resource. Game managers and
>wardens are paid by their
>tax dollars and as out-of-state
>hunters we are guests.
>
>Washington has ZERO to do with
>this, this is a state
>issue. What is the current
>law pertaining to this type
>of service in Utah and
>other states Brian?


Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
>Why does the State want to
>outlaw what Founder does? If
>I was to write a
>book about deer hunting in
>Wyoming, mentioning specific areas (ridges,
>canyons, etc.) and I sold
>that book for a profit,
>would they want to outlaw
>that? Could they outlaw that?
>There are already books out
>there. Should they gather them
>up and burn them?
>
>IMO, someone with access to top
>officials in Wyoming is jealous
>of Founder and is grasping
>at straws.
>
>"only licensed outfitters". What does it
>take to become one? Probably
>no new openings available.

+1

If Founder was a licensed outfitter or guide or subguide or whatever the terminology is in WY wouldn't that cover it? Would he be, or is he now, any different than the paid spotters that go out and locate trophy animals and watch them ahead of the season?
 
It's Known as More Government OVER-REACH!








[Font][Font color = "blue"]Ah yes we have insider trading and computer dating but I never goin for that!
Ain't no machine pickin out my Queen cause it may not have all the facts!
I've got my own taste and my own ways I'd rather not talk about
and my private life is my private life and they ain't gonna find out!


90087hankjr.jpg
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-14-17 AT 06:35PM (MST)[p]>So in your opinion, the state
>(or anyone) who owns game
>animals should dictate what anyone
>who sees that game animal
>says about that game animal?
>
>
>Wouldn't that carry over to everything
>else that is owned, not
>just game animals?
>
>BTW - packing an elk out
>for someone (actually conducting business
>on federal land) is far
>different than telling someone what
>you saw and where you
>saw it. IMO and the
>that of the FS.
>
>
>>As homer said, if you were
>>just talking we wouldnt be
>>having this discussion. You re
>>profiting off the states game
>>by selling information on said
>>game. I'm all for a
>>man making what he can
>>where he can, if I
>>could pack other hunters elk
>>out for $ without a
>>license I'd do it all
>>season, the law just doesnt
>>allow me to do it.
>>
>
>
>Brian Latturner
>MonsterMuleys.com
>LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
>on Facebook!


As I've said many times founder let me make $ when I can and you as well. You did conduct business on federal land, you scouted those deer on federal land, you later sold what you gained from federal land for $. I'm the biggest F the government guy you'll meet and I think you should be able to do what you're doin and I should be able to help out other hunters for a couple bucks (oops $) but we can't. I don't think the government should be able to dictate anything to us, we should be dictating to them. I dont hate the playa, I hate the game, same as you. I wish you luck!
 
>>Why does the State want to
>>outlaw what Founder does? If
>>I was to write a
>>book about deer hunting in
>>Wyoming, mentioning specific areas (ridges,
>>canyons, etc.) and I sold
>>that book for a profit,
>>would they want to outlaw
>>that? Could they outlaw that?
>>There are already books out
>>there. Should they gather them
>>up and burn them?
>>
>>IMO, someone with access to top
>>officials in Wyoming is jealous
>>of Founder and is grasping
>>at straws.
>>
>>"only licensed outfitters". What does it
>>take to become one? Probably
>>no new openings available.
>
>+1
>
>If Founder was a licensed outfitter
>or guide or subguide or
>whatever the terminology is in
>WY wouldn't that cover it?
>Would he be, or is
>he now, any different than
>the paid spotters that go
>out and locate trophy animals
>and watch them ahead of
>the season?


Pay Attention NVB!

Them Spotters here in TARDville get Paid Under the Table!









[Font][Font color = "blue"]Ah yes we have insider trading and computer dating but I never goin for that!
Ain't no machine pickin out my Queen cause it may not have all the facts!
I've got my own taste and my own ways I'd rather not talk about
and my private life is my private life and they ain't gonna find out!


90087hankjr.jpg
 
If this passes it doesn't matter if this business is registered in Utah, the courts will generally apply the law of their jurisdiction, not the laws of the jurisdiction where the entity was established.

What's the high end of this monetary value you're compensated?
 
Not Being Smart!

But..................!

I'll Help Founder out with a Business Name:

BUCKS for BUCK$







[Font][Font color = "blue"]Ah yes we have insider trading and computer dating but I never goin for that!
Ain't no machine pickin out my Queen cause it may not have all the facts!
I've got my own taste and my own ways I'd rather not talk about
and my private life is my private life and they ain't gonna find out!


90087hankjr.jpg
 
Then I Got to Thinking!

It Must Be a Government Approved name!

"""FREE GIGANTIC BUCK COORDINATES"""

Truth Be Known!

I'll Bet Somebody BAWLED!







[Font][Font color = "blue"]Ah yes we have insider trading and computer dating but I never goin for that!
Ain't no machine pickin out my Queen cause it may not have all the facts!
I've got my own taste and my own ways I'd rather not talk about
and my private life is my private life and they ain't gonna find out!


90087hankjr.jpg
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-14-17 AT 11:23PM (MST)[p]Well they are not telling you that you cannot share such information, you just cannot do it for profit. I believe that is why they use the term Hunting Consultation Services. It also appears that they are in full favor of your 1st Amendment rights as noted. So if you want to hand out that information for free, have at it.

Of course we both know that information only goes out for free to family and extremely close long time friends...and even that can be difficult to do.

I get it, there is still fair chase in play and in some cases you could give that information out to 100 guys and 2 might actually take a good buck. Wyoming, Montana, have a lot of hunting special interest money in play.

I will share this and don't take it personally. From all my time warming a stool at the Red Dog most locals complain specifically about guys from Utah. They believe that Utah hunters have killed all the big bucks in Utah so they hop over the border to take big Wyoming bucks. I can also tell first hand I have witnessed groups of 8-10 guys from Utah on ATVs with 2 way radios riding well off trail and literally group pack hunting with little to no concern about anyone else let alone laws.

If you were a guide in Wyoming how would you feel about this law? Personally I think it is a little ridiculous and I would rather see them set higher fines for poaching and higher rewards for information on poachers. But that's just me.

Let me just add...I would not be shocked if this legislation was actually pointed directly at you Brian. Think about it, this site (member since 1997) has grown to be the largest of it's kind. Makes me miss the days of Potato Whisperer, Bura Nut, Greyghost, when we answered all the questioned about everything. Now there are categorized forums but that is not how it used to be.
 
The information I gather is when I'm on federal land, but the federal government isn't who is trying to pass the law to restrict what I tell someone about the deer I see. It's the state government.

The federal government issues use permits for businesses conducting actual business with clients on federal land. Because I don't actually conduct business on federal land, I don't need a permit. If I did, I'd have been cited by now, that I can assure you. No permit is required to visit federal land and then return home and publish what you saw and where it was.


>LAST EDITED ON Jun-14-17
>AT 06:35?PM (MST)

>
>>So in your opinion, the state
>>(or anyone) who owns game
>>animals should dictate what anyone
>>who sees that game animal
>>says about that game animal?
>>
>>
>>Wouldn't that carry over to everything
>>else that is owned, not
>>just game animals?
>>
>>BTW - packing an elk out
>>for someone (actually conducting business
>>on federal land) is far
>>different than telling someone what
>>you saw and where you
>>saw it. IMO and the
>>that of the FS.
>>
>>
>>>As homer said, if you were
>>>just talking we wouldnt be
>>>having this discussion. You re
>>>profiting off the states game
>>>by selling information on said
>>>game. I'm all for a
>>>man making what he can
>>>where he can, if I
>>>could pack other hunters elk
>>>out for $ without a
>>>license I'd do it all
>>>season, the law just doesnt
>>>allow me to do it.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Brian Latturner
>>MonsterMuleys.com
>>LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
>>on Facebook!
>
>
>As I've said many times founder
>let me make $ when
>I can and you as
>well. You did conduct business
>on federal land, you scouted
>those deer on federal land,
>you later sold what you
>gained from federal land for
>$. I'm the biggest F
>the government guy you'll meet
>and I think you should
>be able to do what
>you're doin and I should
>be able to help out
>other hunters for a couple
>bucks (oops $) but we
>can't. I don't think the
>government should be able to
>dictate anything to us, we
>should be dictating to them.
>I dont hate the playa,
>I hate the game, same
>as you. I wish you
>luck!


Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
But as I've asked previously Forthewall, is "Freedom of Speech" only valid for those who speak for zero compensation? Like I've said, all that I've found, for the most part, says it doesn't matter. Freedom of Speech is a right, regardless whether you speak for a cup of coffee, a million dollars or for nothing.

But that's basically the discussion here. Does, or should, the government (state or federal) have the right to dictate what we can and can't speak about? Should they have the right to pass laws restricting what one person can tell another when it's a truthful fact about what they saw while visiting federal land, or any public land for that matter?

BTW - I don't blame the outfitters at all for trying to get some legislator to try and outlaw what I do. And it could happen, they could pass the law as currently written. But would it hold up against the 1st amendment?
While I could probably just scout for an outfitter, or do something else entirely, and forget it, I'm not sure I would. I think it's wrong if that law passed as it is and I think I might would test it and fight it out. States do pass unconstitutional laws on occasion, and they need to be checked.

I need to spend some dollars on an hour visit with an attorney that knows this stuff just to satisfy my curiosity.
Maybe I'm completely wrong in my thinking on this, but that's why I brought up the topic, to see if anyone's words lead me down a path I haven't explored yet.


>Well they are not telling you
>that you cannot share such
>information, you just cannot do
>it for profit. I believe
>that is why they use
>the term Hunting Consultation Services.
>It also appears that they
>are in full favor of
>your 1st Amendment rights as
>noted. So if you want
>to hand out that information
>for free, have at it.
>
>
>Of course we both know that
>information only goes out for
>free to family and extremely
>close long time friends...and even
>that can be difficult to
>do.
>
>I get it, there is still
>fair chase in play and
>in some cases you could
>give that information out to
>100 guys and 2 might
>actually take a good buck.
>Wyoming, Montana, have a lot
>of hunting special interest money
>in play.
>
>I will share this and don't
>take it personally. From all
>my time warming a stool
>at the Red Dog most
>locals complain specifically about guys
>from Utah. They believe that
>Utah hunters have killed all
>the big bucks in Utah
>so they hop over the
>border to take big Wyoming
>bucks. I can also tell
>first hand I have witnessed
>groups of 8-10 guys from
>Utah on ATVs with 2
>way radios riding well off
>trail and literally group pack
>hunting with little to no
>concern about anyone else let
>alone laws.
>
>If you were a guide in
>Wyoming how would you feel
>about this law? Personally I
>think it is a little
>ridiculous and I would rather
>see them set higher fines
>for poaching and higher rewards
>for information on poachers. But
>that's just me.


Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
Well if you do speak with a lawyer make sure an update us here as to what they say. I get it and like I said it still leaves the fact of "Fair Chase", your info is no guarantee and that would be the point I would emphasize with a lawyer.

As Eel mentioned, what if somebody wrote a book with Topos included? After all, you are only pointing out an "Area" it's not like the bucks are tethered to a tree.

Wish you good luck buddy!
 
Brian if you do speak to a attorney, don't just have him look at it from a possible violation of the 1st. amendment, but also from the possibility of violations of interstate commerce laws.

RELH
 
I can agree with you on your right to free speech. What I dont agree with is unpermitted business being done on public lands. I pay my fees and follow the rules so should everybody else. You MAY find loopholes but at the end of the day its wrong.

Ill ask my question again. If you could hunt in G or H every year would you be doing what you are doing?

I whole heartedly think what you are doing is unethical. That is my opinion and trying to liken it to the first amendment isnt going to change it.

Wait until one of these guys that pays you for coordinates gets hurt or lost and dies trying to get into one of these places and you get sued. That is the world we live in, i would make sure you are properly insured....
 
I brought up this example before but......

If you were from Wyoming or Utard and you always dreamed of coming to California and fishing for steelhead on the Smith river (the State record was caught in Smith River). You have a few choices: hire a guide, go completely blind DIY, know someone local you can fish with, or ask for help on the internet.

If you contacted me and I told you, buy me breakfast, I'll send you a map showing the current runs, based on my having just fished there (the river changes year to year). I'll show you access points know only to the locals.

Can they pass a law telling me I can't do that unless I have a guide license? Wwwwhhhhhaaaaattt?????

It sounds more like a bunch of immature children fighting over a sand box to me.
 
FTW it all starts as for profit and then it only gets more restricted from there why not they get to to give up one thing and later down the road they ask you to give up more then more and soon you have nothing you've given everything to them. Keep it as far away from the govt as you can and they cant do a thing the more you cave the more they control. In the end I'll follow it the way they write the law. I've never asked for profit from anyone on showing someone a big buck or bull as a matter of fact it's fun to help someone achieve the goal of getting a nice animal. And it's always nice to make a new friendship doing it. And in return maybe when you have the tag that person will be there to return the favor.
 
I get that Eel, but...if you were advertising selling maps of access points for dollars it could be construed differently. Again, you still have to catch the fish or "fair game" and as you pointed out would that books like Steinstra's book California Fishing illegal?

This is nothing more than special interest dollars at work. Unfortunately this is pitting guides against the public which is a shame.
 
>This is nothing more than special
>interest dollars at work. Unfortunately
>this is pitting guides against
>the public which is a
>shame.

You are kidding yourself if you think it is only the Outfitters that think Founders business is BS. There are plenty of everyday, public land hunters in Wyoming that are talking to their reps asking them to do something about this. Some because they are jealous of Founders track record of finding big bucks and some because they think it diminishes hunting. Heck, at least one Outfitter in Wyo thinks Founders plan is a great one, he even signed him up as a head hunter for his clients.
 
I don't do business on public land, so no permit is needed. If the forest service says I don't need a permit, should I argue with them and force them to issue me a "pretend permit"? What permit are you talking? If a permit was needed, I can assure you I would have been contacted by now.

Yes, I hunt G or H every year that I can get a tag, which is every year up until now. We'll see about this year. If I weren't scouting for myself, I might not be up there at all. I don't know though, maybe I would. ???




>I can agree with you on
>your right to free speech.
>What I dont agree with
>is unpermitted business being done
>on public lands. I pay
>my fees and follow the
>rules so should everybody else.
>You MAY find loopholes but
>at the end of the
>day its wrong.
>
>Ill ask my question again. If
>you could hunt in G
>or H every year would
>you be doing what you
>are doing?
>
>I whole heartedly think what you
>are doing is unethical. That
>is my opinion and trying
>to liken it to the
>first amendment isnt going to
>change it.
>
>Wait until one of these guys
>that pays you for coordinates
>gets hurt or lost and
>dies trying to get into
>one of these places and
>you get sued. That is
>the world we live in,
>i would make sure you
>are properly insured....


Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
I would guess you have the freedom of speech to say whatever and have somebody compensate you with income for it. The state of Wy. also has the right to regulate you as a business for doing so as well. The only difference between you and a guide is not being there to hold the clients hand. Your business should fall under the same requirements IMO.
 
The "not being there holding the clients hand" is the exact reason why what I do isn't outfitting or guiding. Not even close by U.S.F.S definition. Here are the definitions the FS has for guiding and outfitting.

Guiding?providing services or assistance (such as supervision, protection, education, training, packing, touring, subsistence, transporting people, or interpretation) for pecuniary remuneration or other gain to individuals or groups on National Forest System lands.

Outfitting?renting on or delivering to National Forest System lands for pecuniary remuneration or other gain any saddle or pack animal, vehicle, boat, camping gear, or similar supplies or equipment.

I appreciate your opinion, but let's talk law, not opinion. The FS doesn't require a permit for a single indiviual having very little impact on the land to make money from writing about the lands and what's on it. The impact of business on the land is why they require use permits. Permits are not required for everything.

It's a few of the WY legislators who want to change up definitions to call something that's not "guiding", guiding. Regardless of opinions, me telling people about deer isn't guiding, not by the WY state definition or the federal governments definition. The legislators just want to change their definition to get the results they want, me not telling someone where I saw a deer.

The point of the thread is, should a state be able to change definitions to pass laws to silence someone?




>I would guess you have the
>freedom of speech to say
>whatever and have somebody compensate
>you with income for it.
>The state of Wy. also
>has the right to regulate
>you as a business for
>doing so as well. The
>only difference between you and
>a guide is not being
>there to hold the clients
>hand. Your business should fall
>under the same requirements IMO.
>


Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
>The "not being there holding the
>clients hand" is the exact
>reason why what I do
>isn't outfitting or guiding. Not
>even close by U.S.F.S definition.
>Here are the definitions the
>FS has for guiding and
>outfitting.
>
>Guiding?providing services or assistance (such as
>supervision, protection, education, training, packing,
>touring, subsistence, transporting people, or
>interpretation) for pecuniary remuneration or
>other gain to individuals or
>groups on National Forest System
>lands.
>
>Outfitting?renting on or delivering to National
>Forest System lands for pecuniary
>remuneration or other gain any
>saddle or pack animal, vehicle,
>boat, camping gear, or similar
>supplies or equipment.
>
>I appreciate your opinion, but let's
>talk law, not opinion. The
>FS doesn't require a permit
>for a single indiviual having
>very little impact on the
>land to make money from
>writing about the lands and
>what's on it. The impact
>of business on the land
>is why they require use
>permits. Permits are not required
>for everything.
>
>It's a few of the WY
>legislators who want to change
>up definitions to call something
>that's not "guiding", guiding. Regardless
>of opinions, me telling people
>about deer isn't guiding, not
>by the WY state definition
>or the federal governments definition.
>The legislators just want to
>change their definition to get
>the results they want, me
>not telling someone where I
>saw a deer.
>
>The point of the thread is,
>should a state be able
>to change definitions to pass
>laws to silence someone?

Even if they Did!

It'd be kinda like the 2017 TARDville Shed Season Closure!

They'll NEVER be able to Enforce it!


>
>
>
>
>>I would guess you have the
>>freedom of speech to say
>>whatever and have somebody compensate
>>you with income for it.
>>The state of Wy. also
>>has the right to regulate
>>you as a business for
>>doing so as well. The
>>only difference between you and
>>a guide is not being
>>there to hold the clients
>>hand. Your business should fall
>>under the same requirements IMO.
>>
>
>
>Brian Latturner
>MonsterMuleys.com
>LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
>on Facebook!










[Font][Font color = "blue"]Ah yes we have insider trading and computer dating but I never goin for that!
Ain't no machine pickin out my Queen cause it may not have all the facts!
I've got my own taste and my own ways I'd rather not talk about
and my private life is my private life and they ain't gonna find out!


90087hankjr.jpg
 
Guiding?providing services or assistance (such as supervision, protection, education, training, packing, touring, subsistence, transporting people, or interpretation) for pecuniary remuneration or other gain to individuals or groups on National Forest System lands.

Aren't you giving assistance through education? Seems like this fits the definition the FS has laid out for guiding.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-15-17 AT 09:23PM (MST)[p]I bolded "on" for a reason. "On" forest service land. "on". Without the "on" there would be thousands of businesses that could fall into that definition. Every magazine and book would be a guide.
Every word counts, not just those we want to see.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
FTW, whether I charge the price of breakfast or 5K, it's all compensation.

Founder,I guess you can speak what ever you want. You just can't receive any compensation without the proper license or permit.

If a guy comes into town and advertises that he's going to have a seminar on "How to get rich in Real Estate", and charges people, he would need some type of business license. It's not really a free speech issue.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
 
Aren't you on NF when you are filming and scouting these bucks. Just because you go back home to share the information and collect your money doesn't mean that you are off NF and then exempt from the guiding regulations.
 
And a business license I have. To sell information (or about anything, online) one only needs a business license in the state where the business is located.

The issue here is that the FS is who regulates use of the forest and the outfitters doing business there. The FS has made it clear that I, or anyone publishing information about what they see while hiking on FS lands, don't need a use permit.
The WY state legislators and outfitters know this. So what they're trying to do is force their agenda and regulate FS use with their own law.
The agenda is to stop someone from sharing information for money in hopes that if I don't make money that I will stop talking about what I find in WY and pointing hunters towards it.
I honestly don't believe the primary goal is to just stop me from sharing my costs with others, but to stop me from sharing information period.
It don't matter to most people if someone paid me to know where a deer is or I sent them for free, the dude is still there hunting a buck that the other guy is hoping to get and they don't like that. It's not really about a few dollars changing hands (IMO). The goal is to limit competition.
Those legislators pushing this law are just trying to protect their outfitter buddies who I'm sure scratch their back. Understandable, but not right in my opinion.
If the FS feels that my presences on FS land is worthy of a use permit, then they should develop a new permit category, not bundle it with outfitter use permits in an effort to help outfitters have it all. Outfitters have never offered what I , or other scouts or consultants, offer.
I'm not anti-outfitter. I want to see most succeed and do well, I just don't think definitions of what they do be changed to help limit any competition.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
I'm up here on Lone Peak looking for goats. Just walked up on these bucks. I also just made a fraction of a cent when you viewed this webpage. Remuneration! If special interest has their way, I just broke a law and could be subject to a $10k fine.
While if there were a law, they "might not" enforce it in this case, but they'd have it at their disposal to use when and if they want to destroy someone.
Do you guys feel "guided"? How about "outfitted"?
I just told you where I saw these bucks and I made money doing it. Not a lot, but some none-the-less. If you pack in here the 3500 vertical feet and 4 miles and hunt one, will feel like you went on a guided hunt?

27256img7913.jpg


Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
>I'm up here on Lone Peak
>looking for goats. Just walked
>up on these bucks. I
>also just made a fraction
>of a cent when you
>viewed this webpage. Remuneration! If
>special interest has their way,
>I just broke a law
>and could be subject to
>a $10k fine.
>While if there were a law,
>they "might not" enforce it
>in this case, but they'd
>have it at their disposal
>to use when and if
>they want to destroy someone.
>
>Do you guys feel "guided"? How
>about "outfitted"?
>I just told you where I
>saw these bucks and I
>made money doing it. Not
>a lot, but some none-the-less.
>If you pack in here
>the 3500 vertical feet and
>4 miles and hunt one,
>will feel like you went
>on a guided hunt?
>
>
27256img7913.jpg

>
>Brian Latturner
>MonsterMuleys.com
>LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
>on Facebook!

Hey Founder!

I Want My F'N Money Back!:D








[Font][Font color = "blue"]Ah yes we have insider trading and computer dating but I never goin for that!
Ain't no machine pickin out my Queen cause it may not have all the facts!
I've got my own taste and my own ways I'd rather not talk about
and my private life is my private life and they ain't gonna find out!


90087hankjr.jpg
 
This is an excellent argument, IMO. Well put Brian. I know you're right on the mark and I hope you can get that point across

>And a business license I have.
>To sell information (or about
>anything, online) one only needs
>a business license in the
>state where the business is
>located.
>
>The issue here is that the
>FS is who regulates use
>of the forest and the
>outfitters doing business there. The
>FS has made it clear
>that I, or anyone publishing
>information about what they see
>while hiking on FS lands,
>don't need a use permit.
>
>The WY state legislators and outfitters
>know this. So what they're
>trying to do is force
>their agenda and regulate FS
>use with their own law.
>
>The agenda is to stop someone
>from sharing information for money
>in hopes that if I
>don't make money that I
>will stop talking about what
>I find in WY and
>pointing hunters towards it.
>I honestly don't believe the primary
>goal is to just stop
>me from sharing my costs
>with others, but to stop
>me from sharing information period.
>
>It don't matter to most people
>if someone paid me to
>know where a deer is
>or I sent them for
>free, the dude is still
>there hunting a buck that
>the other guy is hoping
>to get and they don't
>like that. It's not really
>about a few dollars changing
>hands (IMO). The goal is
>to limit competition.
>Those legislators pushing this law are
>just trying to protect their
>outfitter buddies who I'm sure
>scratch their back. Understandable, but
>not right in my opinion.
>
>If the FS feels that my
>presences on FS land is
>worthy of a use permit,
>then they should develop a
>new permit category, not bundle
>it with outfitter use permits
>in an effort to help
>outfitters have it all. Outfitters
>have never offered what I
>, or other scouts or
>consultants, offer.
>I'm not anti-outfitter. I want to
>see most succeed and do
>well, I just don't think
>definitions of what they do
>be changed to help limit
>any competition.
>
>Brian Latturner
>MonsterMuleys.com
>LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
>on Facebook!
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom