NR in WY Wilderness Areas

M

Muleys24Seven

Active Member
Messages
155
Anybody know of a nonresident that has been caught and sited for hunting in a WY Wilderness area? What was the penalty? I hunt by the book and always respect the laws (even though I think this is the most bogus hunting regulation this is)...just curious what the consequences would be?
 
"BOGUS" IS THE REAL BOTTOM LINE ON THIS LAW. A NON RESIDENT CAN GO INTO A WILDERNESS UNITS AN DO MOST ANYTHING THEY WANT....BUT HUNT BIG GAME......THIS WRECKS OF THE OUTFITTER SMELL. WYOMING IS THE ONLY STATE IN WHICH THE OUTFITTER WILL NOT GET MY BUSINESS. IF WE BOYCOTT THE OUTFITTER IN WYOMING THE FISH & GAME PEOPLE MIGHT MAKE A CHANGE. YOUR THOUGHTS......YD.
 
That law is nothing more than one group scratching anothers back. Other states should likewise restrict any WY resident with the same bogus mentality. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.
4abc76ff29b26fc1.jpg
 
A friend of mine was sited several years ago, elk hunting. I think the ticket was something like $150. He told the warden that he would gladly pay the $150 to hunt the wilderness. He was told by the warden. "That wouldn't be a very good idea." I'm guessing the penalties get stiffer for repeat offenses. He packed up his camp, and hasn't been back to Wyoming since. Dumb law!

Don P
 
>That law is nothing more than
>one group scratching anothers back.
> Other states should likewise
>restrict any WY resident with
>the same bogus mentality.
>What's good for the goose
>should be good for the
>gander.
>
4abc76ff29b26fc1.jpg



Ya I remember when they had all of us wyoming residents vote on that law. Damn us. Make sure we get what we deserve


"blaming guns for violence is like blaming spoons for Rosie O'donnell being fat."
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-28-10 AT 06:47AM (MST)[p]Anyone that could vote on that law to pass is as corrupt as the law itself and lacking any ethics and decency. I agree, boycott the outfitters and/or the state. When you receive mailings from the outfitters just write "return to sender" across the face with your comments on the back and send it back. The sad deal is some outfitters don't support it so they get lumped in with the greedy, selfish and corrupt jerks. I have talked with guys that hunt the wilderness regardless and claim to know wardens that will not enforce it. Any law as corrupt as this should never be obeyed or enforced in most people's opinion, mine included.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-28-10 AT 07:10AM (MST)[p] WELL .....I HAVE NOT SENT ANY OUTFITTERS BROCHURES/MAGAZINES BACK TO SENDER YET.....BUT THEY DO GO STRAIGHT TO THE TRASH. (JUST GOT SnS YESTERDAY= TO THE TRASH)........I WILL DIY OR HUNT ANOTHER STATE............YD.
 
It just a form of Welfare for the POOR outfitter who can't compete with the real world.


"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-28-10 AT 08:34AM (MST)[p]I'm a Wyoming resident and I dont like the law either.

That said, I hope all the people responding on this thread take a good hard look at whats happening in your own states regarding outfitter subsidies, outfitter advantages, etc. before you go on a bashing of Wyoming Resident hunters.

Take a look at Colorado and Utah, they have programs in place that allow outfitters to hunt extended season on their ranching for wildlife programs. Sure, they throw the public a couple tags, but the bulk of the benefit from those programs is going to the paying clients and the outfitters. For all but the extremely lucky in the draw or a paying client, those places are off limits to a vast, vast majority of hunters.

How about Montana? Theres a real beauty there too. The outfitters have the Outfitter sponsored elk and deer licenses that can only be obtained through an outfitter. Theres no cap on the number of licenses they can sell, yet the DIY NR hunters fight 60% draw odds for the deer/elk combo or about 30% odds for the deer only tags.

New Mexico? Same thing, a majority of available permits have to be applied for through an outfitter.

Alaska? Yep, you guessed it, guide requirements for sheep, goat, and brown/grizzly bears.

The problem is, all you guys that are whining and complaining have led the complacent life. YOU have let the outfitters take control of wildlife in the West and elsewhere. Thats sad considering that a few hundred outfitters in each of the states I mentioned are better organized and lobby the Game and Fish commissions to give themselves all the advantage. The political clout of the DIY hunter would be huge if we were remotely orgazined. Instead, we've all let the outfitting industry take control of OUR PUBLIC WILDLIFE.

Instead of whining...take back control of whats rightfully yours, get involved and end the subsidies and unfair programs that the outfitters in the West seem so entitled to.
 
HEY BUZZH......A LOT OF FELLAS BOTH RES. & NON RES. DONT LIKE THIS LAW FOR GOOD REASONS. THIS IS NOT POINTED AT THE WYOMING RESIDENT (WHERE DID THAT IDEA COME FROM) ??? THIS BOARD IS FOR STATING ONES OPINION.....YOU MAY CALL IT WHINING .....ITS NOT. MOST LIKELY THIS TOPIC WILL BE DISCUSSED A BUNCH.....YD.
 
The law is unconstitutional and clearly designed to benefit outfitters. You can go fishing or small game hunting as deep into the FEDERAL wilderness area as you want without penalty. But you cannot go into that same wilderness area without a guide (or licensed resident) if you are hunting big game. Thus, residents are able to lock nonresidents out of thousands and thousands of prime FEDERALLY OWNED land--stinks. I know a lot of residents and government employees do not agree with it. In fact I spoke to a warden several years ago who told me he thought it was ridiculous. But, all that being said, it is what it is.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-28-10 AT 10:40AM (MST)[p]Yukondall,

Perhaps you missed the post above by 1911:

"Other states should likewise restrict any WY resident with the same bogus mentality. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander."

Look, I dont like the law either, and was in place by the time I moved to Wyoming 10 years ago. It just isnt a good law, neither are any of the other BS programs in other Western States that allow outfitters to control the states wildlife and who gets access to it.

The Wyoming guide requirement for wilderness areas is a welfare program to outfitters...exactly the same as whats going on in Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Montana, Alaska, etc.

They all have programs in place to ensure that outfitters are guaranteed business either through out-right guide requirements or through control of the States tags.

Many states also give landowners permits that are transferable as well, another bad program IMO, mainly because they are transferable and also because the tags allow access to entire hunting units.

IMO, all this crap needs to stop. The sportsmen of all the western states are giving away the resource so that the few can profit/benefit from it at the detrement to themselves and DIY nonresidents.

The reason that this has happened is largely because of the complacency and lack of organization by the resident hunters and DIY Nonresidents who make up a vast majority of hunters/fishermen in all states.


We're being run over by a special interest group. Outfitters care about DIY hunting opportunities about as much as PETA does...not much, if at all.

Look, I'd be collecting signatures, attending meetings, writing letters, whatever it took to do away with the WY guide law. I'd also do the same in ALL states that have landowner and outfitter give-away programs.

I'm on your side, just pointing out that whats happening in Wyoming is not unique in any way, shape, or form.
 
Buzz said, "I'm on your side, just pointing out that whats happening in Wyoming is not unique in any way, shape, or form."

Glad to see that you sympathize with us in this issue Buzz but, confusingly, your closing statement puts us right back at square one.

Where is it that, in what other state, when i have a mule deer tag in my pocket for a particular LE zone or unit, i can only hunt part of the Public Owned Grounds in that unit exclusively because i'm a non-resident that doesn't have a guide,..escort?

Yeah, Sure, all states have their issues in getting tags for non-residents but you're saying Wyoming is not "unique in any way, shape or form" yet it impacts me personally the most because of where and how i would have liked to hunt. I have to disagree with your statement!

Joey
 
YD i have elected to become comms of getting diy hunts in the wilderness and drop the out of state tag prices all over the west.i think it's a bunch of bulls%%#%^ that NR have to pay so much for tags than R tags.it's all federal land and i paid my share of taxes just like the rest of you.we should only (NR) pay maybe 100.00 more than R .go getem YD
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-28-10 AT 11:37AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-28-10 AT 11:35?AM (MST)

Joey,

If you cant see that the outfitters have taken opportunities from DIY guys in the other states I mentioned...well, thats just not my problem.

Its a fact they do, and whether its a guide law in a wilderness area, guaranteed tags for their clients, or requirements for guides for certain species...its all largely the exact same thing.

Just because your personal ox is getting gored more in Wyoming, doesnt mean that mine isnt getting equally gored in other states.

I dont even have the option for even applying for a ranching for wildlife area in Colorado. That law excludes me from large portions of hunting districts there.

I am forced to hire an outfitter in Alaska for grizzlies, goats, and sheep...I'm excluded from all public lands there if I want to hunt those species on my own.

I really fail to see how Wyomings law is any more prohibitive to a NR than many of the states I've mentioned.

I am on your side, but my point is, before all NR hunters start railing on Wyoming for its prohibitive laws, maybe some need to look in the mirror and see what prohibitive laws your state has.

The problems all arise from the commercialization of the various states wildlife...almost exclusively at the hands of outfitters and landowners. We collectively are all to blame for allowing special interests to control our wildlife and to commercialize it for the minority.

For the record, Wyomings law is not unconstitutional, it is not prohibiting you access to any public lands, just limits your ability to pursue Wyomings state owned big-game in them. Again, I'm not defending the law, its just that the law is not unconstitutional and is legal.
 
BUZZH

ARE YOU REFERING TO THE CMWU TAGS IN UTAH? THESE HUNTS ARE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT IS OWNED BY SOMEONE NOT THE FED. OR STATE GOV. I DONT SEE HOW YOU CAN COMPARE THIS TO NON- RES HAVING TO HIRE A GUIDE TO HUNT ON PUBLIC LAND!JUST TALKING ABOUT UTAH CWMU
AND I ALSO THINK THAT NON-RES SHOULD BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR THESE HUNTS.
 
Buzz makes a strong argument and I have to agree.

The sad thing is - the common diy guys out number guides/outfitters by a huge margin. We could easily put together the required influence to get some of these unfair laws reversed.

I should also mention, I am not anti-guide/outfitter/landowner. It is simply my opinion that as Buzz points out...the system is unfairly and disproportionally favoring them over the regular ol' diy hunter.

In the long run I don't see reversing some of these laws having a huge impact on their business. Take NM for example. I apply in NM every year and will never get in the guide draw. Most guys that get in the guide draw would hire a guide anyway. Maybe I underestimate the impact these changes would have on their industry?
 
Buzz, You say Wy is, "Wyoming is not unique in any way, shape, or form."

I say it is!! We'll have to agree to disagree.

"If you cant see that the outfitters have taken opportunities from DIY guys..."

I've been at this game, out of state DIY trips since 76-77. IMO, Wy is, by far, the most blatent example of Extreme outfitter juice and no amount of condescending remarks you may make are going to improve your reasoning.

BTW, how do residents react when some of their "state owned Wildlife" decides it doesn't care to be "state owned" and crosses into other states, as they can and do? Justify the "law" all you want but it's blatant discrimination.

Joey
 
Joey,

Continue to ignore the same problems in the other states all you want, you wont change my mind that other states are doing the exact same thing.

Lets compare AK sheep hunting with WY sheep hunting. There are areas you can apply and hunt on your own in Wyoming, without a guide. You cant do that in Alaska for sheep. There is not a single sheep tag I can apply for in AK and hunt on my own. How do you get more prohibitive than that?

Its intuitively obvious, even to a casual observer, that AK laws regarding sheep, goat, and grizzlies is much more prohibitive to NR's than WY's wilderness guide law. Wyoming isnt saying you MUST HAVE A GUIDE TO HUNT MULE DEER, but that is exactly what AK is telling NR's with 3 species.

Speaking of "fairness" and "prohibitive" show me any other state in the West that guarantees NR hunters 25% (or more) of all available permits for elk, deer, antelope, sheep, moose, and goat. Wyoming does...how about the state you live in???

Many states dont even allow NR to apply AT ALL for some species, most states cap NR licenses at "up to 5-10%", Montana, and Arizona for example.

For the record, I'm not being condescending at all...since when have facts become condescending?

Every state in the West puts very prohibitive restrictions on hunting in their states at the detrement to the average guy.

I didnt make the rules, and I am not in favor of any program that completely takes NR DIY hunters out of the equation. Its not fair to ignore and prohibit DIY hunting completely. If you want to jump somebodies a$$ about the WY guide law...send an email to the WYGOA, all guides and outfitters in Wyoming (many of whom dont even reside in Wyoming)...they're the ones that forced the legislation and got it passed.
 
Joey,

Check into this legislation...s. 339 absolutely gives THE STATES the right to discriminate against NR's.

That said, its still up to the STATES to decide how far they want to take such legislation. In other words, I dont have to support unfair guide laws or the way NR tags are distributed or through what channels in the State I reside in. Thats why I dont support and never will support the WY wilderness guide law.

Believe what you want, but I really am 100% against all the outfitter and landowner give-aways when it comes to ANY states fish and wildlife. I wish that WY didnt keep you from pursuing mule deer in wilderness areas...and I wish I could apply for and receive a NR tag to hunt white sheep in AK on my own.

The thing I realize, that you dont, however, is that it is 100% legal under federal regulation for AK to force me to hire a guide for sheep and for Wyoming to exclude you from pursuing big-game in wilderness areas.

What I also realize, that maybe you dont, is that you dont jump in the middle of Resident hunters of Wyoming because you cant hunt wilderness areas. They had nothing to do with lobbying for and getting the legislation passed in this case. I will say that the residents should have gotten more involved and tried to stop it at the time. The complancency of all the western states resident hunters has led to the current problem of outfitters and landowners having way, way, way too much control of the states wildlife. Its also not like this kind of state legislation cant be changed if enough Residents unite for the betterment of NR's hunting experiences. We're all NR's somewhere, and we're all discriminated against in other states. My personal line in the sand is drawn with landowner and outfitters controlling how, when, and where NR hunters are allowed to pursue game. That should be something that is determined by the respective states citizens and resident hunters. Not by some absantee landowner or outfitters.

Heres the legislation:



S.339

Motivation for legislation:

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently concluded that a state recreational hunting regulation substantially affects interstate commerce such that the dormant Commerce Clause applies and ruled that state laws that distinguish between state residents and non-residents for the purpose of affording hunting and related privileges are constitutionally suspect. Although the Ninth Circuit found the purposes of such regulation to be sound, the Court questioned the validity of tag limits for non-resident hunters. The Ninth Circuit ruling has spawned litigation in other states, and several pending lawsuits threaten each state?s wildlife regulatory authority.

What the Bill Would Do:

The bill creates an exemption to the dormant Commerce Clause in order to give each state the right to regulate access to hunting and fishing. This is done by a renunciation of federal interest in regulating hunting and fishing.

The reasons for creating this exception include the following:

Allowing states to distinguish and/or discriminate between residents and non-residents ensures the protection of state wildlife and protects resident hunting and fishing opportunities.

Protecting the public interest of individual states? conservation efforts. Sportsmen and local organizations are extremely active in the conservation of fish and game. They support wildlife conservation through taxes, fees, and locally led non-profit conservation efforts.

Respecting the traditional authority of individual states. The regulation of wildlife has traditionally been within a state?s purview. It is in the best interest of the state and federal governments to ensure that states retain the authority to regulate wildlife.
 
I DONT MUCH CARE WHAT SMOKE SCREENS THE OUTFITTERS OR BUZZ THROWS UP......THE TOPIC HERE IS WYOMING WILDERNESS & NON RESIDENTS. WYOMING IS BY FAR THE WORST CASE OF OUR ROCKY MT. STATES & A STATE I HUNTED A LOT IN THE PAST. THIS ARGUMENT NORMALLY STARTS WITH WYOMING BECAUSE IT IS THE BIGGEST RIP OF THE NON RESIDENT GOING ON ANYWHERE.................YD.
 
Buzz, You said that your message was not condescending in any way so i'll spin it on you. If you don't think that we have gone over and over on this very issue many times in these pages, i don't know how i can help you... and that's just not m,y problem.

The concensus has always been, that the system though it may be lawful, is unjust. Personally, i don't hunt Alaska. Even though it is part of the good ol USA, things that happen up there and the way they do it doesn't concern me or a bunch of other "regular Joe's" who hunt at the least reasonable cost, DIY trips, near every year, and have done so going way back.

The premise of this thread; The way Wy "does it" is unfair. I agree. If you don't, you're entitled!

Joey
 
Of course the system is unjust, thats why I DONT SUPPORT THE WY WILDERNESS GUIDE LAW.

But it is legal, and whining about it will change nothing, whether the least unfair or most unfair.

The ONLY reason you think WY's law is more unfair is because its a state YOU hunt as a NR (your ox is getting gored).

Well, I apply for and hunt in AZ, NV, NM, WY, CO, MT, ID, UT and Alaska.

So, I think states like AK where I cant do an affordable NR hunt for white sheep is the most unfair (my ox is getting gored).

Who's state is the most unfair?

Depends on who you talk to I guess.

I just hope that we all realize that its not the resident hunters that have forced this kind of "unjust", "unfair" whatever you want to call it, legislation that discriminates agains NR's.

Its largely all on outfitters.
 
Buzz, you really must like to see your own print huh? I read your stuff, i just don't have to like it or agree with it.

You say, "The ONLY reason you think WY's law is more unfair is because its a state YOU hunt as a NR (your ox is getting gored)."

Wrong again!! I've been outa State to Colo about a dozen times in the last 30+ years, Nev. a bunch, Oregon, and only to Wy about 6 or 7 trips. Beside that, it's not just "me", it's lots of us and you just don't seem to see that. Tell you what, being you're all for us guys that think it's unjust, fix it for us please! Thanks!!! :)
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-28-10 AT 04:33PM (MST)[p]Sageadvice,

If I could change it, I would...right along with all the other outfitter welfare programs out there in CO, UT, NM, MT, AK, etc.

HK,

Just find a resident in Wyoming that will sign off as your "guide"...100% legal and 100% free.

I usually sign off for a friend or two a year. Nothing makes me happier than knowing the WYGOA isnt getting their way every time I sign off for a friend.
 
Wyoming's wilderness law sucks for sure.with exception to that law, most the western states could learn a few things from Wyoming on how to treat a NR!
 
The land is private.....but the game belongs (founding of the country) to the PUBLIC. Buzz is right....all except the part where he seemed to thing we're made at Wyo. hunters as a group. The outfitters and the legislature.....yes.

It IS true...we could change the way things are done if we would throw out ALL the special money-making tags and groups. The deer/elk/et al. should belong to "we the people".

Yes, I cry at the Star Spangled Banner, too.......doesn't mean what I said isn't true. There are MANY more of us than there are outfitters. We need to care and do something.


Within the shadows, go quietly.
 
Buzz, You had it right the first time...before your edit!!

But i guess it didn't sit well so you needed to change it, because of a greater or lesser degree, the injustices by outfitters org's in other states. Again, what you fail to comprehend here, is you are telling us over and over,.. that what we already know... which in no way is the topic, Wyoming wilderness laws, the reason of this particular thread.

Dog, from below post; Great point! I still believe that along with Nev., Wy is a fantastic place to vacation and hunt. Most awesome people!!

Joey
 
Hey Buzz. You can make a difference today that will benefit several members here. Will you sign off for any member that asks so that we can beat the system and hunt the wilderness?
JR
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-28-10 AT 08:19PM (MST)[p]Residents can only sign off for 2 NR's a year per the law.

I play it by the book and residents cant charge a penny for it, nor would I want to. I'd then be no better than the crooks that are requiring NR's to have a guide. Would defeat the purpose and the spirit of the free resident guide license.

I've helped out a bunch of NR friends...one took a pretty darn nice mule deer...191 and change to be exact and right in the middle of a wilderness area. A couple others shot some decent bull elk in wilderness areas as well.

Theres legal ways around the law...you just need to be a bit creative and get to know a Wyoming resident.

I still think Wyoming is pretty darn generous to NR hunters.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-28-10 AT 09:21PM (MST)[p]We were hunting 61 in the wilderness a few years ago and ran into some guys who gave hints of being nonresidents. We let the wardens know when we were checkd after that. Don't know if they ever caught up with them. Poachers all the same in my book. Glad to see everyone bashing the Wyoming Outfitters Assoc. I was living in Cheyenne in the early 90's when this law passed and remember all the attention the bill was generating. You folks probably need to throw out a big thank you to Wyoming's republican controlled house and senate. They were the ones who actually created the bill and pushed for its passage to become law. For you guys who pay dues to the SFW, you ought to be asking them to lobby for a change in the law. SFW claims to be a sportsmans group and they claim sigficant political clout in the State. Shouldn't be a problem for them to get someone in the legislature to sponser a bill to change the current law. bee-atch'n obviously ain't geting you guys anywhere. Why not start calling yer peeps at SFW and ask them to do something for yer dollars???
 
>I was living
>in Cheyenne in the early
>90's when this law passed
>and remember all the attention
>the bill was generating.
>You folks probably need to
>throw out a big thank
>you to Wyoming's republican controlled
>house and senate. They
>were the ones who actually
>created the bill and pushed
>for its passage to become
>law.

That's funny, the current law was passed two decades earlier: W.S. 23-2-401(a)(1977[b/])
 
What's ironic is that I bet everyone of those outfitters are republican hypocrites just like a lot of farmers that complain about government handouts when it applies to others but they are the first ones with their hands out. Disgusting. I am all for true conservatism. Sorry for making this political but it's true.

I think YukonDall is right, I should not support Wyoming. It just sucks because I have been saving up points for 4 years.

JR
 
Buzz, good posts...reading through the threads, I was going to respond, but you had already made the points I was going to make. (especially about Alaska).

Most of the western Wyo wilderness units are grizzly heaven now anyway. Last trip up the South Fork (Shoshone R.) a couple of years ago, we saw 9 grizzlies on one week-long trip. Way too many for one area. And that's just what we saw. Not trying to scare non-residents away from wanting to hunt Western Wyo wilderness areas, but the bears are starting to get out of control. You really do need to take special precautions.

I do agree by the way, that our wilderness laws are bogus. But we're seeing more & more Cody area hunters coming over to the Bighorns every year to avoid the wilderness griz.

Not to add fuel to the fire, but there is pretty serious talk of adding another 32,000 acres in the Rock Creek area to the Cloud Peak Wilderness (Bighorns). Wyoming Representative Lummis seems to be backing this. The Rock Creek area lies just west of the Bud Love wintering grounds (State Land) & just north of Buffalo. It's decent elk hunting (at times) with good access, but the wilderness law, if passed, would affect the non-resident hunters there. The wilderness designation will require an act of Congress in D.C. to pass, so there's the chance for you guys to voice your opinion on a national level. I am a resident that lives near to the proposed wilderness area, and a wilderness designation would actually be personally good for me. But I do agree with Buzz that it's a bogus law.
 
I wouldnt expect SFW to sponsor any such legislation. They pushed, just a few years ago, for transferable landowner tags as well as outfitter set asides in Wyoming.

Yeah, they'll be your huckleberry...
 
HUNTING WITH BEARS IS NOT A PROBLEM.....AS NR HUNTERS WE DONT GET TO SEE THE BIG BEARS LIKE THE RESIDENTS DO....WHEN I DO SEE A GRIZZ ITS PRETTY COOL. BESIDES.....WE CARRY GUNS TOO....YD.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-29-10 AT 06:06AM (MST)[p]>What's ironic is that I bet
>everyone of those outfitters are
>republican hypocrites just like a
>lot of farmers that complain
>about government handouts when it
>applies to others but they
>are the first ones with
>their hands out. Disgusting. I
>am all for true conservatism.
>Sorry for making this political
>but it's true.
>
>I think YukonDall is right, I
>should not support Wyoming. It
>just sucks because I have
>been saving up points for
>4 years.
>JR


.
 
The wilderness law is bogus as you say, but being a resident there Im thankful its there, Nonresidents put too much pressure on trophy game, they kill more animals as a percentage, and have all but ruined places like the salt river range. There is too much technology- 1000 yd rifles, web cams, light weight equipment, information and obsession, In many places there is too many hunters and not enough wild country and big game, something has to give.
 
>The wilderness law is bogus as
>you say, but being
>a resident there Im thankful
>its there, Nonresidents put too
>much pressure on trophy game,
>they kill more animals as
>a percentage, and have all
>but ruined places like the
>salt river range. There
>is too much technology- 1000
>yd rifles, web cams, light
>weight equipment, information and obsession,
>In many places there is
>too many hunters and not
>enough wild country and big
>game, something has to give.
>

All I got out of this post was, NR are more succesful in the field. SWEET
 
Ya something does have to give piper..a cap on resident tags perhaps? are you sure the NR's have ruined the Salt River/Greys River deer hunting?
 
Since the non-residents are more successful, I guess it would be more efficient to reduce the non-resident quotas!! :)
 
BuzzH and gb22

You ought to leave Utah out of your comparisons. No matter how you try to twist it, the CWMU program is on private land. Outside of a few small pieces of public land surrounded by private, there is nowhere in Utah that non residents or residents are prohibited from hunting, whle outfitter and guides can hunt the smae piece of public land. Sorry, there is no law like that in Utah. All public land open to outfiters and guides in Utah is open to residents and nonresidents. Wyoming, just like Utah doesn't allow outfitters, residents, or nonresidents to hunt private land without the private landowners permission.

Also, gb22....wildlife is not mentioned in the US Constitution and therefore, by the 10th Amendment falls under the jurisdaiction of the state. Thus agencies like the US Fish & Wildlife Service are actually unconstitutional. However, the Constitution does specifically mention the protection of private property, thus without the landowners permission you have no right to enter his property, regardless if there is wildlife there or not.

All that beign said, I dont like the law in Wyoming. There is no reason to shut nonresdents out of hunting the wilderness, except for boosting the outfitter guide business, and reducing hunting competition for Wyoming residents.
 
It's all really a moot point as long as the damn wolves AND bears are as thick as they are in the WY wildernesss. Bears are probably worse than the wolves. I had a great hunt as a nonresident with a guide but the grizzly ate one of our elk before we found it. He even tracked us one night! Found our elk the next day and he was guarding the buried kill! After that I can kinda, kinda see some regulation I guess. I agree with what people are saying for the most part about only hunters get the shaft but............
They need to get rid of some predators and then I'll go back to WY to spend my dollar.......til then I'm staying out of crazy places where I'm being hunted by a damn big bear.
flyingbrass
cold dead hands
NRA Life Member
 
I agree with Rackster also. Not entirely fair to lump Utah CWMU and CO RFW in with these other BS laws.

Not to get too far off the topic. But - Flyingbrass raises an interesting question. When are we going to get a Grizzly hunt in the lower 48?
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-29-10 AT 07:35PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-29-10 AT 07:31?PM (MST)

It is fair to lump those types of programs in.

Its not about the access to the land...its about a law designed to give a subsidy, in the case of all of them, that would be the STATE OWNED WILDLIFE. Some wildlife lives on public, some on private...but in all cases the wildlife is still a public asset.

Programs like those in Utah and Colorado, effectively make the STATE OWNED GAME off limits to all but outfitters and some residents who get lucky in the draw.

Using the same logic, Wyomings law is doing nothing differently. You can use the wilderness all you want...you just cant hunt the STATE OWNED WILDLIFE there. You still have full on access to the land though.

Its the same end result, taking access to the animals away from a vast majority...its not a land access issue.

Just two different ways to subsidize the outfitting industry via a public resource (wildlife). Thats all it boils down to.

Rackster, the US Fish and Wildlife service is not unconstitutional...you need to get up to speed on Federal Land and Wildlife Management laws. I wouldnt trust the Freemen for your source of constitutional law.
 
I am with you on state owned wildlife and I am (generally speaking) not in support of subsidizing land owners or outfitters.

The difference is these programs are applicable to private land only. If these programs were not in place, the general public would have no access to those state owned animals that reside on the private land enrolled these programs.

Imagine RFW did not exist, those properties would still be under control of landowners and outfitters. The only difference is the general public would not have permits avaialbe to them to hunt those properties.

I am not saying RFW is perfect, but it is a net positive for the average diy guy.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-29-10 AT 08:26PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-29-10 AT 08:23?PM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Jan-29-10 AT 08:22?PM (MST)

No matter how you slice it, it still largely favors and subsidizes only outfitters.

Sure, they throw the DIY guy a bone...but you have to ask how much you're paying for that bone? I dont really know what the ratios are...but I'd be surprised if the DIYers get 20% of all cwmu permits. I do know that the average DIYer doesnt get 1 permit for every 1 cwmu permit. Thats a compromise and "fair"...not heres a couple tags for you DIY bums...Now, give me my 20. Utah residents are literally giving away THEIR wildlife to outfitters. Sad really.

I dont think its worth it. Its a subsidy, no different than Wyomings law. I'd rather that the cwmu's operate under the same state regulations that everyone else has to follow. But, that doesnt happen...they get to hunt later, hunt earlier, choose their weapon...all kinds of good deals for them to maximize their personal profits off the back of the Publics Wildlife.

Not that great of a deal, over-all, IMO. I'd rather they not have all the additional advantage, and tags. Outfitters and their hunters should have to compete in a drawing with EVERYONE else and hunt within the same regulations as EVERYONE else as well. Thats fair.

If you want to get technical...I could argue that all NR DIYers have "the bone" of getting to know a Wyoming resident hunter and can get them to sign off for them to hunt the wilderness for big-game at no charge.

Yeah...thats a good deal for the lucky few who happen to be friends with a Wyoming Resident hunter...but isnt worth $hit for a vast majority.

Same with the cwmu program, sure for the lucky few that get to draw the very few available tags its great...but for most its not worth $hit.

In the case of Colorada the NR DIYer doesnt even have the right to apply for a RFW tag.

All are prohibitive laws founded soley for the purpose of subsidizing a single industry, both accomplish the same end run...and thats severely limiting access to PUBLIC WILDLIFE. Has nothing to do with land ownership.
 
I'm frustrated by the WY wilderness law myself. But I have to agree with Buzz. And he didn't even mention Oregon, my ox.

Oregon gives 5% of deer/elk tags to NRs and 3% of the antelope tags...Plus 1/2 of the deer/elk tags go to the outfitter draw. Oregon's best hunts give one NR elk/deer tag to a NR every other year.

IMO WY is very fair with tag numbers and their new PP system is the second best IMO.

The point made and missed is if we united, we could change these laws. I'm not goin to organize a new "Out-of-State Lobby group" But someone should. Just ask for 10% of everyone's refunds and you'd have enough clout to get laws changed. Currently lawmakers heavily favor the resident because that is their constitutients.
 
I don't see why sageadvice is so worried about wilderness areas. That boy would have a tough time packing his 400 lbs to the trailhead from the truck.
 
As a NR who plans on hunting WY in the future and would like access the Wilderness areas maybe you guys can help educate me.

What do I need to do to satisfy the minimum requirements of the law? Are there outfitters who will sign me up under their license, take some of my money, and leave me alone to hunt? Or do I actually need to have an outfitter with me to hold my hand while I hunt?

Even though I disagree with the current law, I will abide by it.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-30-10 AT 01:17AM (MST)[p]wybhtn,

Take the cheap shots where you can get them, huh Bubba??

Yeah, i'm a big ol boy these days, always have been bigger than most. I was 240 lbs when starting Middle linebacker for U of Arizona, jogged my 8 mile loop, played a couple sets of tennis or racketball, and shot hoops in the gym most every day. I didn't stay in shape so much for atheletics though they were a big part of my life, i did to hunt blacktail and muleys on pack in, walk in, kill and put the buck on your back and walk out, do it yourself hunts all over these western states! I don't care to brag but lets just say i did a lot of these long range hunts and did pretty good!! Just cause the Drs tell me i cant hunt that way much longer, doesn't mean that i don't want to see others be able to take the hunts that i once was able to do without breaking a sweat.

Here i am after packing a high mountain buck out my 31"+ on my back in one piece, nothing to it!
2722my_31+_1984.jpg



After shooting this buck, a guide with his clients and a couple others came around the mountain on horseback and firstly, wanted to know how the hell i got up in the country i was in. "I walked here" i said. He tipped his hat and offered to take this exact picture.
3063my_8x6_ruby_mts,nevada.jpg



This is the last high country Wy, "H" buck that i took in '05. My bud here holding him can still hunt hard with the best of them. I was down to about 350 for this trip. We camped at 10,000 ft and hunted up from there. I can't go like hell like i did for many, many years but i still can go!!
4717pope_with_my_buck.jpg


So Basically, wybhtn, i earned my keep and paid my dues...screw you!! :)

Joey
 
rradams, a few years ago I called numerous outfitters to see if they would(or could) sign off which would allow me to hunt a wilderness area. I was thinking a few hundred dollars would be a fair trade. The answer was no and the only way would be to pay for a guided hunt.

What about the resident sign-off. I thought that the resident had to accompany the NR on the hunt? Or is it as simple having a resident just sign a piece of paper?
 
Nice reply Sage.

Not sure why folks continue to take those shots? I think it's related to the "safety" of the process and the internet. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have said that in your presence!

Jazz
 
The operative word in the statute is "accompanied".....Don't shoot the messenger & don't ask me how G&F would define the word "accompanied". I would assume there would be a little discretion by the warden if the "guide" wasn't side by side with the hunter, but I doubt being in a another town would cut it.


ARTICLE 4 - GUIDES AND OUTFITTERS
23-2-401. Guides required; exceptions; issuance of resident guide license.

(a) No nonresident shall hunt big or trophy game animals on any designated wilderness area, as defined by federal or state law, in this state unless accompanied by a licensed professional guide or a resident guide. There shall be at least one (1) licensed professional guide or resident guide accompanying each two (2) nonresident hunters.
 
Thanks Teepee. Unfortunately, that seems pretty straight forward. I guess I will need to target the non-wilderness areas.
 
YOU CAN ALWAYS DO A DROP CAMP IN THE WA.....THE OUTFITTER JUST CAME IN AND CHECKED ON US EVERY 2-3 DAYS, BROUGHT IN SUPPLIES ECT.......NO LOCALS SEEMED TO CARE.....GREAT HUNT.....AS WE WERE IN THE HANDS OF AN OUTFITTER............YD.
 
I have a bit different take on this law than most of you, even though I too am opposed to it.

I believe this law is unconstitutional, but has never been challenged. I believe it is a violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause, and like the healthcare bill requires the purchase of services in order to partake of an activity. Unlike the Healthcare bill, partaking of these services is not mandatory or to the government, but mandatory nonetheless for that specific activity, while other activities are not mendated to have this same service supplied.

I think that someone should get themselves arrested and then challenge the law on this basis, and I think it would be interesting to see how it turned out.
 
$1000 BUCKS AHEAD & EVERYTHING WAS PROVIDED INCLUDING FIREWOOD, BUT NOT FOOD. WE HAD MULTIPLE OFFERS FROM OUTFITTERS, SO I KNOW NOT ALL LICENSED OUTFITTERS ARE ON THE SAME PAGE. THAT IS A SIGN OF OUR CURRENT ECONOMIC TIMES......YD.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-30-10 AT 05:09PM (MST)[p]>I have a bit different take
>on this law than most
>of you, even though I
>too am opposed to it.
>
>
>I believe this law is unconstitutional,
>but has never been challenged.
> I believe it is
>a violation of the Interstate
>Commerce Clause, and like the
>healthcare bill requires the purchase
>of services in order to
>partake of an activity.
>Unlike the Healthcare bill, partaking
>of these services is not
>mandatory or to the government,
>but mandatory nonetheless for that
>specific activity, while other activities
>are not mendated to have
>this same service supplied.
>
>I think that someone should get
>themselves arrested and then challenge
>the law on this
>basis, and I think it
>would be interesting to see
>how it turned out.

Non-starter, IMO.

The recent passage of the law by Congress, which was co-sponsored by Harry Reid of NV, gave full control of the state's wildlife to the state and removed any considerations of the ICA from the picture. It resulted from the lawsuit between USO & the State of Arizona, and thus erased the decision by the 9th Circuit Court. IF the law prevented ACCESS to the WA, it might be a case. But it doesn't; it simply bans hunting without a guide, i.e. a control of the take of the state's wildlife.

Second, as stated, it is NOT manadatory. Thus, if a guy doesn't want to hire an outfitter, he can simply pass on hunting in a WA. It is the same with mandatory car insurance; don't want to buy it, then don't drive a car on public roadways. Same goes for other mandatory necessities that leave an individual a choice -- driver and hunting licenses, etc. The current form of the healthcare debacle leaves no such choice; one either buys it or pays the fine.

Lastly, for rradams:

Be very careful on the drop-camp suggestion because it does NOT meet the requirement of the law. A guide MUST BE present while you're hunting.


TONY MANDILE
48e63dfa482a34a9.jpg

How To Hunt Coues Deer
 
The way around this law is to have horses and pack horses enough to take your Wyoming buddy with you, You have to know that they would like to hunt in the wilderness area too(I mean who doesn't like to hunt in the high and lonesome). Most of the time it's about having what it takes to hunt back in there and if you have the ways and mean to do so I think you can find a MM wyo. friend to go with ya,BUT if you decide to head back in without a wyo, resident or guide.
Just remember to jack a few Wyo license plates to put on your truck and trailer you park at the trailhead. I was told they check the trailheads for out state licenses plates and then go in from there.

I got remember to not tell any-one in the wilderness area where I'm from so they don't turn me in. LOL
So don't stop by for coffee. LMAO

I'm a big fan of the Backcountry Horseman so Maybe I'm not hunting but just passing thru to the other side,(made my kill just outside of the wilderness area then had to pass back thru it) Might have to start parking trucks and trailers on both side of Mountain. SEE WORDING DOWN BELOW.


"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
 
WELL.....AFTER CHECKING MAPS & TALKING TO ONE OF MY HUNTIN PARDS I GUESS I WAS WRONG. WE WERE CAMPED CLOSE TO TO WILDERNESS, BUT WAY SHORT OF THE BOUNDRY LINE....(CREEK).....MY BAD.....YD.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-31-10 AT 11:09AM (MST)[p]When I was a nonresident I hated the law, now Im a resident I like it, guess Im selfish. It is a screwed up law but so is Oregons nonresident Quota, Arizona and Idahos aren't that great either, not to mention a few other states. I think there is some merit to doing away with it, but as a trade off the state should cap nonresidents at 10% of the total quota for bucks and bulls, and in the general hunt areas the quota should be cut. The nonresident pressure being reduced and spread out, would be a win win for both wildlife and the actual hunters.
 
Wyoming should drop the law,but make NR pay a large fee to the SEARCH AND RESCUE.
 
BuzzH

Not that this really matters, but since you through some junk. I thought I'd reply back. Agencies like the US fish & Wildlife Service, BLM, Forest Service are unconstitutional. Read the constitution. It does not matter what federal wildlife management laws are inplace now......they are sitll unconstitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the federal government the authority to take control of wildlife or land for that matter. However the States do have the authority by the Constitution on both accounts. Actuallly in my previous post I was argueing that Wyoming has the right to make any wildlife law they want, even if I may not like it.

As far a as knowing wildlife management and wildlife laws....you show your ignorance throwing shots like that at someone you have no knowledge about.
 
I will tell you, when I was a wyoming resident Iloved the law. When I moved to colorado and wanted to go back and hunt where i had my whole I couldn't, that sucked but I will tell you what is worse: Try packing into the wilderness of colorado and not have a wreck with some gunsell that has no business packing and causes everyone to have a wreck!! You ever met someone on a backcountry trail with a pack of barking dogs and their horses not teathered together well head to colorados backcountry and you soon will cause they let anybody go. Im not so in favor of keeping all nr's out but atleast require some common sense and courtesy class.!!
 
Rackster,

You're incorrect.

There is extensive case law and supreme court ruling on the authority of the USFWS, NPS, USFS, etc.

All were established via executive orders, acts of congress, etc. Which are fully legal under the constitution. The constitution certainly grants those powers to congress and the various Presidents.

There is long history of Federal land Management and Natural Resource Policy...with too many acts to list here. But, specific to wildlife acts such as the migritory bird act, ESA, etc. have further provided case law regarding the authority of certain fish and wildlife to be under federal control.

Those acts, along with a host of others have held up in court cases for a very long time.

Irregardless of all that, Wyomings wilderness guide law is clearly not unconstitional as it does not pertain to anything regarding federal lands. It deals entirely with the states right, granted by federal authority, to manage all game animals within the states borders (excepting of course, migratory waterfowl, Endangered Species, and anadromous fish, which all are legally controlled by the USFWS).

I've been round and round with folks over your arguement...it doesnt hold water...and doesnt hold up in court either.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-01-10 AT 01:01PM (MST)[p]BuzzH

Your comment is interesting. I never said what Wyoming did was unconstitutional. My point has actually been the contrary. Your right, Wyoming can constitutionally do what it wants with its wildlife and hunting laws, including requiring non-residents to have a guide to hunt in Wilderness areas.
I totally agree, I may not like the law, but Wyoming does have the authority to do it.

Maybe you are confusing the US Fish & Wildlife Service, with the State Fish & Game. In my repsonses above I have been referring to the US Fish & Wildlife Service, which is a federal agency. It was a little off topic from this thread, which may have helped confuse you on what I was saying. As I said, I totally agree that the State (Wyoming Fish & Game) has the constitutional authority to manage wildlife within its State boundaries. However, the constitution does not grant authority to the Federal government (US Fish & Wildlife) to manage wildlife.......that right is left to the states. I know, I know, you can quote me case law on that point, but it still doesn't change the Constitution....the 10th Amendment makes it clear.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-01-10 AT 01:59PM (MST)[p]Rackster,

No confusion, there is no question that the USFWS is and has operated fully within constitutional constraints since its inception.

The ESA, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, etc. have held up in court as constitutional under the commerce clause...Article I sec(8). Lots of case history and a simple google search will address it.

The various Federal Agencies operate under mandate of federal authority granted by executive order and to congress, also constitutionally sound. The agencies were not created illegally or against the constitution.

If what you are claiming is, in fact true...that federal agencies are unconstitutional, then why have the courts upheld the constitutionality of Federal Agencies for nearly 100 years? Why has the Government funded and supported the various agencies if they were in fact a violation of our most important document?

The trouble you're having is a narrow interpretation of one small part of a complex document that is our living and working constitution. Like I said before, you shouldnt trust those living in bunkers, wearing tin-foil hats and hiding from the black helicopters as your source of constitutional law.

Do a google search...its all at your fingertips.
 
Buzz

Yes, Yes, Yes that is all true.....the courts have held them up. But that does not mean that they are constitutional. Until two weeks ago, the courts also held up a law that violated free speach. Now 60 years later, the Supreme Court ruled against the law.

Case law is not always correct.....unfortunately judges are subject to their own biases.


Contrary to popular oppinion, and contrary to what you are eluding to, it is not a living and working document. It was not intended to be changed at a whim, depending on the current popular opinion.

Interesting you resort to personal attacks, a liberal tactic. Keep it up......It makes me laugh. Read the constitution...as you said it is at your fingertips.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-01-10 AT 05:21PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Feb-01-10 AT 05:18?PM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Feb-01-10 AT 05:15?PM (MST)

rackmaster,

Wrong again...but thats not surprising.

The Supreme Court, like it or not, is the tool that is routinely used to determine constitutionality of any law, regulation, etc. Their final rulings on all things related to the United States and her laws, regulations, and constitution is at the hands of the Supreme Court. Case law is a part of that, and if the court would have found anything unconstitutional regarding the development and implementation of Federal Land, Water, and Wildlife agencies they would have been forced, by law, to rule against their constitutionality. But, that hasnt happened...and thats not by chance or luck or that it hasnt been heard.

I have read the constitution, many times. I find nothing to support your claim that any executive order, act, law, or regulation regarding federal public lands management or wildlife managent agencies as being in violation of the US Constitution.

If you can show me where to find anything, in case law or anywhere else, supporting your claim, I'll gladly bow to your wisdom on your (wrong-headed) interpretation of the 10th.

What interpretation has you believing that the 10th is more important than those found in Article I sec 8? Are there other parts of the Constitution you find unnecessary?

The genius of the constitution is that it can be amended and changed...thats its not set in stone. Thats called Freedom my friend...and I wouldnt want to live under rules "set in stone". They have places like that, where "subjects" live under unbending, unchanging rules...but I'm partial to none of them.

By the way, its not easy to "change" the constitution on a "whim"...but again the beauty of the document is that it can evolve and allow changes over time for things that the fouding fathers never could have forseen.

Obviously smarter men than you or I had that figured out a long time ago...
 
>What do you mean by 'large
>fee'?
>
>Wyoming residents never get lost in
>their own state?

That is true we never get lost in are own state,we always know we are in Wyoming.My thought was to have the NR'S pay so they will take off the ? (Do you want to donate to the Search And Rescue)every time you buy a tag over the counter.
 
>>What do you mean by 'large
>>fee'?
>>
>>Wyoming residents never get lost in
>>their own state?
>
>That is true we never get
>lost in are own state,we
>always know we are in
>Wyoming.My thought was to have
>the NR'S pay so they
>will take off the ?
>(Do you want to donate
>to the Search And Rescue)every
>time you buy a tag
>over the counter.

I would happily pay a search and rescue fee as a trade off for hunting wilderness. I already pay a S&R fee on licenses I purchase as a resident in CO. But - it would not be fair to charge a S&R fee for non-res only.

Its a moot point - I think we can all agree this is not about non residents getting lost in the wilderness.
 
Safety is not a moot point.This is about non residents wanting access to Wyomings Wilderness and the people of Wyoming trusting that non residents take care of the land and play by the rules.Im asking for insurance money so when the non residents get ate by the grizzly or wolf we can pick up the pieces.LMAO
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-02-10 AT 07:57AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Feb-02-10 AT 07:55?AM (MST)

Buzz,

Your first paragraph, I agree that the Supreme Court is the tool that is routinely used to determine constitutionality of any law or regulation. Thus, the ruling they handed down 2 weeks ago to throw out a law that has been on the books and in place for over 60 years.

Your interpretation of Article 1, Section 8 is interesting. Show me in that Section, or any other Article or Section in the Constitution for that matter, where it gives the government the power to do such things as manage wildlife. You cant, it doesn't exist. If you have read the constitution many times, you may not fully understand it.

The constitution was written to limit government control, to limit its power and authority. Your interpretations thus far seem to show your understanding that it was to limit individual rights, and that the powers and authority of government supersedes all. That interpretation is just not in the constitution.

Yes the constitution can be amended and changed, and it is not easy to do so. Our Founding Fathers made it that way, because they new if it was easy to change, it would be changed on a whim. Unfortunately, there is a mentality out there that assumes it can be, and it seemed that you were arguing that point earlier. Yes, the Founding Fathers did leave the avenue there to ammend it as things come up that they never would have foreseen. However, remember the constitution exists for the sole purpose for a group of people to be governed by the people, not by an over reaching government. In other words, if the constitution needs to be amended, the amendment should be founded on the protection of individual rights, and limited governement power. Thats why the 10th amendment gives the states the power over anything not specifically mentioned in the constitution. Also, it was not the intent of our Founding Fathers for the Constitution to be an evolving document......that makes it appear that you think it can be changed on a whim. But as you and I have both said, it is difficult to amend.....and should be....thus not as evolving as you make it sound. It has been amended only 17 times since the Bill of Rights were added shortly after its ratification by the States, more than 200 years ago. Not a very good track record for ammending, or evolving, and I am thankful for that.

We can debate this back and forth for a long time. Even our Founding Fathers debated how much power the governement should have back and forth in the Constitutional Convention. If you read about that you gain an understanding of the fear our Founding Fathers had of giving government too much control. They had lived under tyranny for too long and wanted no part of it. There are many books written on the Constitutional Convention....one of the best is "Fifty Five Men, The Story of the Constitution" by Fred Rodell. This book is a collection of James Madisons notes during the Convention.

I agree that our Founding Fathers were much more brilliant men than either you or I. For that I am thankful for as well.

This debate probably belongs under the Political Forum.
 
Rackster,

No problem explaining to you how Article I sec. 8 applies to fish, wildlife, and land management.

Under the article it states: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

If you read any of the treaties with the Indian Tribes, there is direct mention of the tribes rights to fish, game...hell even berry picking.

The Courts have ruled that since the US Government entered into treaties with various tribes, that to ensure them their stake in the FISH, GAME, etc. that the Federal Government is assuming control of fish and game to meet the legal obligations of the treaties. The US Supreme Court, along with most all courts, have ruled routinely that the various treaties are considered "high law".

The same with wildlife where the US has made agreements with and/or between states, and also with Canada and Mexico...enter the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Endangered Species Act, and also regulations regarding anadromous fish. The US Government has never given any state the right to solely manage anadromous fish and migratory waterfowl...or endangered species...or any other wildlife for that matter. It would be unpractical for each state to be saddled with the associated costs of managing say migratory waterfowl, as many of those birds migrate "through" most states. Same with Endangered Species, it would put an undue financial burden on the States where ES exists if the Federal Government gave control to the states. No state would want to be placed under that burden.

If the US Government enters into agreements between states, as well as with foreign nations, there has to be a regulatory body present to address those issues. That regulatory body would be the USFWS. Further, for enforcement of wildlife issues, as described under the Lacey Act, there has to be an enforcement agency...hello USFWS again.

Land Management is no different, agencies had to be set up to deal with the Public Domain, largely because of commerce.

The Supreme court has upheld these agencies and their constitutionality based on Article I.

The great thing is, that the US Government has largely stayed out of most game management and given that authority to the States. But again, in various court rulings it has been determined that the US Government has "given" those rights to the states, implying that they have never fully ceded control of any wildlife to any State or Country.
 
Buzz,

Your wisdom is truly astounding!!! But you still have not tied it back to the constitution. Again, there is nowhere in the Constitution that says the federal government has authority over wildlife.....you can't find it, because it is not there. As you said, it is the treaty that brings in Fish & Wildlife, not the constitution. It is the courts interpretation of the "treaty" that says the federal government will "ASSUME" fish and game. This an interpretation of the treaty, not Articlt 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Also, because a court rules one way, does not mean it is a correct interpretation. The are many court rulings that I diagree with, but I have to abide by it, because they ruled as upholding that law.

Heck, our current Preesident in his State of the Union Address threatened and tryed to intimidate the Supreme Court for their recent ruling. The President even, told Congress in this same speach to pass legislation that will counter the Supreme Courts ruling.

AS for State not being able to handle the financial burden of wildlife management? Is the federal government financially stable? Is there no National Debt? Does the federal governemnt operate within a balanced budget? They are no more able to handle the financial burden than the States. Also, to say the federal governemnt can manage wildlife better than the states is the pot calling the kettle black.

ESA, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act are regulatory Acts that are questionable as well. Article 2 Section2 states that the President be Commander in Chief of the army and navy of the United States......and shall have the power, by and with the consent of the Senate to make Treaties. Treaties with foreign nations are for the protection and security of the nations. This does not give the governemtnt powere to enter into a treaty about migratory birds. You may try to qualify it under Article 1 Section 8, but again that interpertation is inaccurate, regardless of any court ruling. Agian, following our current Presidents example we can disagree with the courts.

AS for ESA, it fits in with what I have said before.....also, look at the several states that are now standing up and are starting to question and challenge the constitutionality of this ACT. Wyoming and Utah for instance are challenging ESA and the federal government regulating control of wolves.

I agree, I am glad the Federal Government has left as much wildlife management as they have to the States......that is where it rightfullly belongs.
 
Rackster,

There isnt a place in the constitution that says anything specific to interstate highways, computers, what exactly "free speech" entails, etc. etc. etc.

But, it doesnt mean that any are unconstitutional.

Like we've both said before, thats what the Supreme Court has to rule on and why the Court itself exists.

Whether you want to believe it or not, the reason that the various agencies have not been found unconstitutional is largley because of commerce. Most any first year Natural Resource Policy student learns about these things.

Until such time that the Supreme Court rules that the USFS, USFWS, etc. are in fact unconstitutional its implied that they are. Court rulings only further strengthen the implication of same. With most agencies being around for the last 100 years...I'd say the chances of the Supreme Court ruling that Federal Agencies are unconstitutional are hovering roughly somewhere between slim and none.

As to the ESA its still a much better deal for the individual states to keep federal control of ES with the Federal Government. Regulations regarding ES cannot change from state to state...same with anadromous fish, and same with migratory waterfowl.

Wyoming will have ZERO chance of winning any lawsuit regarding the constitutionality of the ESA. They are arguing over their "plan"...or lack-there-of...as it applies to the EA and EIS. Wyoming can not dodge its obligation to fulfill the requirements they agreed to in the EIS.
 
I love the Post that the Wyoming residents never get lost. LOL
I guess it only their trucks that get lost.
I guess NR only get lost during hunting season and not during fishing, or hiking or bird watching or camping just during hunting season. Now that is funny.
It a SH!T LAW period. YOu can argue all you want but it still a law that proctects one industry the outfitter.



"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
 
I AGREE WITH GATOR, & THE LAW MAKES WYOMING OUTFITTERS LOOK LIKE A BUNCH $$$ HUNGRY CROOKS. BUZZ....YOUR SMOKE SCREEN BS HAS LOST ITS APPEAL. THIS IS A BS DEAL......PLAIN & SIMPLE. PUT LIPSTICK ON IT IF YOU WANT.....ITS STILL A PIG.....YD.
 
For those of you arguing that the recent bill introduced by Harry Reid of Nevada fixed the flaw with Wyoming's law, I respectfully disagree. If a law is constitutionally defective, passing a bill does not change that unless the law in question is amended to comply with the constitution.

For those saying that the courts have previously upheld the law. That's not true either. The court's never reached the issue re: constitutionality of the law because they were able to dispose of the cases on other grounds such as standing. Article III courts will always punt on procedural issues if they can.

The bottom line is the law stinks. I think states should hold nonresidents to the same laws their state requires. Thus, for example, if a Wyoming nonresident wants to hunt wilderness in Colorado, Arizona, etc. he should be prohibited unless he hires a guide. In contrast, if a Utah resident wants to hunt in Arizona wilderness, come on down.
 
Buzz never said(not once)that he supported the law.No smoke screens,lipstick,or otherwise.Maybe you guys should actually read the posts.Many of us Wyo res do not support the law.That being said,it doesn't affect us enough to where we feel the need to get it changed.If I have a nr buddy that wants to hunt wilderness,I'll take him.You guys want it changed,then go through the channels to do so.We'll probably support you in your effort.But YOU need to get it started.NOT US.
 
Bingo, Non-typical. And while they're at it, drop the guide requirement in Alaska to hunt goat/sheep/griz-brown bear. After all the AK residents aren't required to hire them. I'm sure that the outfitters pushed that law through too.
 
Sawtooth,

I will respectfully disagree with you...the Reid Bill absolutely gives all states the right to discriminate against NR hunters.

Thats exactly what WY's wilderness guide law does. It isnt keeping you out of the wilderness and using your public lands. It is keeping you from hunting the STATES BIG-GAME animals there. Really, it doesnt even do that, as you can have a Resident friend hunt with you for free in a Wilderness.

There is a major difference between the states discriminating against NR's in regard to its big-game compared to the states stomping on your constitutional rights.

There simply isnt anything unconstitutional about WY requiring a NR hunter to have a guide to pursue big-game in a Wilderness area...nothing.

Its no different than a state limiting or "capping" how many tags NR's receive each year...or that NR's must pay more for a big-game license.

Its all legal...and the Reid Bill further strengthens the states right to discriminate against NR hunters.

As I've stated a bunch of times, I dont like the Guide law in Wyoming, I dont like the Guide requirements in Alaska, etc. etc. I dont like ANY program that subsidizes outfitters in any state via the states Public Resources.

I'm not arguing that the laws stink, that they are outfitter welfare programs, or that they shouldnt be reversed...I totally agree, I'm only arguing that they are legal and not unconstitutional.

There are avenues to take to reverse these issues...via unconstitutionality is going to get you nowhere fast.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-03-10 AT 12:15PM (MST)[p]Guys, Buzz did say from the get go that he didn't like the law but he sure has been doing a lot of defending of it's legality. I think most of us are aware of that but seems that some here think we can't read.

I believe that many others out there also don't like or agree with this "law" but are sitting on their hands.

So Buzz, in all your wisdom concerning this law, respectfully, if a successful campaign to overturn this law could be done, in your opinion, what would be the correct plan of attack to do so? Thanks!

Joey
 
Buzz

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I am familiar with the your argument relative to the constitutionality of the Reid Bill. I disagee. The shifting sands of constitutional jurisprudence make it difficult to say with 100% certainty whether something is constitutional or not. Don't forget that in 1857 the Supreme Court ruled that slaves were not protected by the constitution and could never be citizens. Things change. In any event, don't forget that we are talking about federal land in Wyoming. Under Kleppe v. New Mexico, the federal gov. had authority to regulate federal land, including the animals on that land. Thus, what my have been given through Reid, can be taken away if the abuses continue!
 
Sageadvice,

No question to work through the Wyoming Legislature...its a state law.

Montana is currently trying to get a ballot initiative on ending outfitter sponsored licenses. They're gathering signatures and I suspect the voters of MT will be voting on it come November. MT also passed a law via the initiative process to end game farming some years ago.

Sawtooth,

The Wyoming Guide Law was passed way, way, way before the Reid bill. The law was challenged and the courts upheld it, also long before the Reid Bill.

The Reid Bill just makes it even more unlikely that it will ever be overturned based on the commerce clause (constitutionality). THe Reid Bill was prompted by the USO lawsuit against AZ, which basically stated that AZ was "discriminating" against NR's based on Commerce.

I do agree with you that nothing is set in stone on any law, regulation, or with the Constitution.
 
Buzz

It sounds like you and I both dislike the law so I don't want to beat a dead horse. But I have to tell you that the no case that I am aware of has ever held the Wyoming law to be constitional. I remember researching the issue and reading the Wyoming cases when the the Arizona/USO fight was going on here in Arizona. Your right that the parties challenging the law lost, but they lost for other reasons. Courts will always look for a reason to avoid having to rule on constitutional issues. In order to get to the issue of constitutionality a plaintiff must establish that he or she really has a dog in the fight (standing, ripeness, case and controversy, etc.). As I recall, in the Schutz case, the court ruled that since the plaintiff had not been cited for breaking the wilderness law, he had no standing to challenge it. So its true Shutz lost, but it wasn't because the court held the statute was constitutional.
 

Similar threads

C
$150 NR tickets for violating Wyoming Wilderness rule (12 tickets in 10 years)
2
Replies
162
Views
5k
jm77
jm77
LIK2HNT
Resident helping NR hunt wilderness
Replies
51
Views
2k
BuzzH
BuzzH
highsierra
The most underrated deer hunt in CA?
Replies
42
Views
2k
Skykarp
Skykarp

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

107097.jpeg
PXL_20211207_173339589~2.jpg
Screenshot_20200906-102843_Gallery.jpg
IMG_3255.jpeg
IMG_0205.JPG
C8B56A23-E521-4121-BA7B-702C37A1C7A1.jpeg
Elk 4.jpg
A5EB0560-BDD6-430C-B022-D46E2885AD8C.jpeg
image.jpeg
ABD086C5-4D34-41F7-AAEA-12E28C546772.jpeg
IMG_5551.jpeg
2219501A-0F8A-42A0-B2D6-C5C66019DAF5.png
Back
Top Bottom