You better have one good creative Atty, this general issue has been litigated a bunch, including to the SCOTUS, NR's lose. I suspect it will take a federal law basically saying no state can pass a law/rule etc. denying access to nonresidents on Federal lands access otherwise granted to residents. Or some such verbiage to change WY/AK etc. Then the states can play the reduce quotas game, what a mess...
Penalty for hunting in wilderness as a non resedent?
- Thread starter kstitz
- Start date
jjenness
Very Active Member
Stevevan I agree my description was a little off base but I thought that there was some parallels in the two scenarios, which helped me bring up the voting aspect by the WY residents. I see you wrote that you don't think the residents should vote on this, but then a little while later you say that you hope the law makers realize what's happening and that they fix it. This confuses me a little, in order for the law makers to fix this they would need to draft a bill and have it voted on by the people of WY. If they just made it law without the voices of the residents being able to express their opinion they would have a WY revolution on their hands, within the hunting community.
NDHunter
Veteran member
I think taking this to court is a big mistake. Do we really want to run up some huge lawyer fees for the G&F? Then the G&F will report a budget deficit. Residents will be pissed and want to raise NR fees. Or maybe they'll say to raise the price of resident tags by 10-20% and cut the NR tag quotas in half.
I agree the rule sucks and it is totally for the benefit of the outfitters. With that said, if it's that big of a deal for some guys, don't apply for a tag. MT and CO have plenty of tags, public land and elk.
I agree the rule sucks and it is totally for the benefit of the outfitters. With that said, if it's that big of a deal for some guys, don't apply for a tag. MT and CO have plenty of tags, public land and elk.
Againstthewind
Very Active Member
https://legisweb.state.wy.us/2001/introduced/hb0171.htm
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/99sessin/hbills/hb0102.htm
Repealing this act has been brought to the Wyoming House before and they didn't pass.
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/99sessin/hbills/hb0102.htm
Repealing this act has been brought to the Wyoming House before and they didn't pass.
I agree with this 100%. It's kind of like telling a tv station that you don't like some of their programing so they need to change if for YOU.
You are always free to go somewhere else.
Anyone recall Harry Reid's bill? S339 was added as an amendment to HR1268 which reaffirmed the right of states to manage their fish and wildlife programs. It was signed into law back in 2005. Long story short it gives States the right to manage wildlife as they see fit. If you wanna spend some cash litigating the State of Wyoming over their wilderness law, plan on having your lawsuit tossed out. You can thank George Taulman who back in 2004 litigated against the state of Arizona over non resident hunting licenses and won. Thankfully Congress and President Bush said get that schnit out of here...
stevevan
Active Member
Not a good example. I don't have any ownership in the TV station. I do have ownership in The wilderness areas of Wyoming.
stevevan
Active Member
Would everyone have the same opinion if the State of Wyoming passed a new law or amended the present one to read that non-residents could not hunt on any federal lands in Wyoming without the services of an outfitter. That would be all National Forests, all Blm lands whether wilderness or not. Some on the forum are saying Wyoming has the right to restrict access to hunters in federally owned wilderness under the rational its a game management issue. So, to open a can of worms they, State of Wyoming or any state for that matter, could decide to apply the same rational to ALL National Forest and BLM lands within the state. Would your opinion remain the same?
shootbrownelk
Veteran member
Hey kstitz, don't paint all us Wyoming residents with the same brush. I agree the wilderness law sucks. And I'd vote to remove it if I ever got the chance to. It really pisses me off that the Outfitter's Ass. gets special treatment and favors from the Wyoming legislature and the Wyoming G&F dept.
gonhunting247
Veteran member
- Jan 21, 2014
- 1,216
- 797
If you read closely I think a lot of folks on here don't necessarily agree with the law, me included. I don't agree with private landlocked BLM either. Would I love to hunt the wilderness,YES! Would I agree with a change for the worse as you stated NO, but as it is now, no state has to allow any non-resident hunting if I understand correctly. .
As I posted earlier, I think the reason behind the restriction is silly, but all states restrict non-resident hunters in some way or the other. They also watch out for their constituents, including the outfitting industry, in one way or the other.(I'm not saying that's right or wrong, it's just a fact.) If it is something you feel that strongly about the only way I see to deal with it is to either not hunt in WY (money talks) or find a way to get backing to change the law (at least write to the WY commission). I get frustrated with it sometimes, but as I stated before, I see WY as a very non-resident friendly hunting state for the most part(deer,elk,antelope) and I appreciate the opportunities I get there.
If the law changed I sure wouldn't be disappointed
I guess on this issue though, it's been this way the whole time since I started putting in 12 years ago, so I feel I Knew what I was getting in to when I started and excepted the conditions then. When the price for points went from $7.50 to $75 and $100 that got to me, but that's a whole different subject!
As I posted earlier, I think the reason behind the restriction is silly, but all states restrict non-resident hunters in some way or the other. They also watch out for their constituents, including the outfitting industry, in one way or the other.(I'm not saying that's right or wrong, it's just a fact.) If it is something you feel that strongly about the only way I see to deal with it is to either not hunt in WY (money talks) or find a way to get backing to change the law (at least write to the WY commission). I get frustrated with it sometimes, but as I stated before, I see WY as a very non-resident friendly hunting state for the most part(deer,elk,antelope) and I appreciate the opportunities I get there.
If the law changed I sure wouldn't be disappointed
I guess on this issue though, it's been this way the whole time since I started putting in 12 years ago, so I feel I Knew what I was getting in to when I started and excepted the conditions then. When the price for points went from $7.50 to $75 and $100 that got to me, but that's a whole different subject!
Last edited:
If you read the post that is why I said "not everyone". I have met many residents who think the law is bs. The problem is the legislator vtes on it not the people & I do not see the overwhelming majority of resident taking up a movement to overturn it.
The only way it could possible get overturned is in federal court, in which the attorneys would have to debunk the false narritive that it is done for game managment reasons.
I agree we all have a choice of where we want to hunt. Would you have the same attitude if all the western states adopted the same law?
stevevan
Active Member
I'm going to get off my soap box, but the worst case scenario does exist and this law could send us down a slippery slope as it's existence and continuance to remain on the books sets precedent. The number of outfitters in the wilderness areas are a small portion of all the licensed outfitters in the state that are authorized to hunt on federal lands. If that small portion can get a law in effect for their benefit in the wilderness, is there a possibility of the remaining majority thinking "Hey that's a great deal for them, why not us too". Just a thought that hopefully would never occur but history has many examples of situations where folks thought that will never happen before it was too late. Thank goodness our forefathers had the foresight to write the second amendment or our right to protect ourselves would be long gone. That being said we have to remain ever vigilante as that freedom(RIGHT) and others seems to come under constant attack. As far as the state outlawing nonresident hunting all together. NOT A CHANCE!!! We the nonresident hunters are their sugar daddies who contribute a significant about of $ to their budget. To eliminate us would be their kiss of death. Just some thought for you young guys. I've already killed my bighorn and big bulls in those Wyoming wilderness areas. I just hope you have the same opportunity.
When you become a resident of Wyoming you can have a say in their laws. Until then you must obey those laws. or like I said before you are free to go hunting in some other state. But if those states have laws you don't like, are you going to want them changed for you too?
libidilatimmy
Veteran member
This is the passage in the statute that follows the NR wilderness requirement which allows the GF to make that a rule whenever they see fit.
".....The commission may also specify other areas of the state, or specific big or trophy game species, for which a licensed professional or resident guide is required for nonresidents......"
The way it is, as I understand it anyway, is that these professional organizational boards were created in order to protect both public interest and the industry that these boards preside over. The boards are overseen by the legislature and a branch of the government associated with the industry, if one exists. Every single one of these boards has statute that they basically "collectively bargained", for lack of a better term, which the boards drafted as their by-laws and there are "discriminatory" language in every one of these statues all in the name of public safety. Most of these rules are based on licensure within the state in order to practice in a certain field, so they're not exactly the same as what's being discussed here, but most of them started out with language that a stipulation for obtaining a license as being a resident which has since been repealed. I'd think that there are continuous discussions on the issue at hand and it's validity from multiple angles, but it'd be a tall order to convince either the GF Commission or Legislators to bring forward sweeping changes to hunting which appear on the surface to do nothing for resident sportsman. Again, this is why I think the best course of action would be to fight the issue with a chisel and not a sledgehammer, as that will go nowhere.
".....The commission may also specify other areas of the state, or specific big or trophy game species, for which a licensed professional or resident guide is required for nonresidents......"
The way it is, as I understand it anyway, is that these professional organizational boards were created in order to protect both public interest and the industry that these boards preside over. The boards are overseen by the legislature and a branch of the government associated with the industry, if one exists. Every single one of these boards has statute that they basically "collectively bargained", for lack of a better term, which the boards drafted as their by-laws and there are "discriminatory" language in every one of these statues all in the name of public safety. Most of these rules are based on licensure within the state in order to practice in a certain field, so they're not exactly the same as what's being discussed here, but most of them started out with language that a stipulation for obtaining a license as being a resident which has since been repealed. I'd think that there are continuous discussions on the issue at hand and it's validity from multiple angles, but it'd be a tall order to convince either the GF Commission or Legislators to bring forward sweeping changes to hunting which appear on the surface to do nothing for resident sportsman. Again, this is why I think the best course of action would be to fight the issue with a chisel and not a sledgehammer, as that will go nowhere.
Last edited:
If Colorado would try to enact this law I would fight it. It would not be in my but for the same reasons I oppose the WY law I would appose it in Colorado.
If we could get a majority of NR to boycott purchasing licenses in WY for a year or two do you think the outfitters & the legislature would have a different view on this law?
stevevan
Active Member
2rocky
Active Member
- Sep 10, 2012
- 290
- 0
Can't you folks see the REAL reason for this law?
It is to recruit people to move to Wyoming and become residents.....;-D
Hey they gave women the right to vote before the rest of the country in 1869. They know how to attract residents....
Just thought we could lighten the mood a bit!
It is to recruit people to move to Wyoming and become residents.....;-D
Hey they gave women the right to vote before the rest of the country in 1869. They know how to attract residents....
Just thought we could lighten the mood a bit!
Hilltop
Veteran member
While I understand your frustration, it isn't going to change. Your same message can be seen on forums from 10 years ago. The US government leaves wildlife management up to the states and we shouldn't want that changed as hunters. We don't want the Feds making management decisions with our wildlife and hunting. The only plausible way to get this rule changed is to try to get the Wilderness act of 1964 changed so that no commercial activity can take place inside wilderness areas. If outfitters can't operate inside wilderness areas, Wyoming Game and Fish would possibly be easier to convince that their respective law needed changed.
stevevan
Active Member
Wow, we're not talking about the feds managing non migratory wildlife in states. The issue is legal access and choice. Question remains, Why should one group (outfitted hunters) be given consideration over another group (DIY) hunters. I do not believe this issue has really been litigated up to this point. The various examples given in previous posts have to do with License allocations which is a no brainer as far as license allocation comes under a states right to regulate its wildlife. I believe the License allocation was the most recent challenge when a lawsuit was brought to court under " The Interstate Commerce Law". I contend this is different. I can get a license the same as anybody else. The difference comes into play when I'm told or regulated that the only way I can use that license is to utilize and pay an outfitter even though I may have a license in my possession to hunt that area. So, I can't legally hunt that area without a licensed guide but someone who is willing to pay an outfitter his dues can, even though we both have the same license issued(sold) to us by the state. Correct me if I'm wrong. Top that off with the reality that this all occurs on FEDERAL lands, not state lands and it ONLY applies if I(we) want to hunt. Otherwise the state has no problem with the nonresident participating in any other activity anytime, including during the hunting season. All I believe is that the state sold you a Lic. You should have the ability to make a choice as to whether you want the services of an outfitter or you feel you can do it yourself. Let's face it, not everyone has the $ to fork over for a guided hunt thus eliminating those who can't afford to shell out bucks. Sounds like Europe where only the wealthy can hunt. Safety, give me a break. Who has a better chance to defend themselves in Grizzly country. Hunter with a firearm, fisherman with a flyrod or a photographer with their zoom lens! The bigger issue is we as hunters, whether resident or nonresident have to stick together and support each other. We're becoming a minority with a decline in our ranks. Hunting is not a right, just a privilege which can be taken away. We all know there are plenty of people in groups who have an agenda with that purpose in mind. Myself, I think it's wise to support all my fellow hunters, whether they live in my state or not, and work towards removing any barriers that would prevent a fellow hunter from enjoying his passion. Not supporting an issue that prevents an opportunity is a good example. I'll guarantee you that if it's left up to an uninformed/proproganda influenced populace to vote if hunting shall remain, we hunters will be sh*t outa luck. We experienced that first hand in Michigan with the voters(?) over the wolf issue and listing the poor little dove as a gamebird. Let's stick together and we may have chance.