Looks like the G&F is missing out on some opportunity. I'd kick up the nonrefundable application fee to $50 for residents and a $150 for non-rezi's. Having everyone upfront all fee's and requiring hunter safety card info would eliminate a few animal rights folks.
7,000 apply for Griz in WY
- Thread starter HighPlainsHunter
- Start date
WY already has a Anti Hunter Harassment Law
23-3-405. Interference with lawful taking of wildlife prohibited; penalties; damages; injunction.
Universal Citation: WY Stat ? 23-3-405 (1997 through Reg Sess)
(a) No person shall with the intent to prevent or hinder the lawful taking of any wildlife:
(i) Interfere with the lawful taking of or the process of lawfully taking any wildlife;
(ii) Engage in any activity intended to threaten or otherwise affect the behavior of any wildlife.
(b) A violation of subsection (a) of this section constitutes a low misdemeanor as punishable as provided in W.S. 23-6-202(a)(v).
(c) Any person failing to obey an order of any peace officer to immediately desist from conduct in violation of subsection (a) of this section is guilty of a high misdemeanor punishable as provided in W.S. 23-6-202(a)(ii).
(d) Any organization or association which counsels or solicits its members or others to violate subsection (a) of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00). Each subsequent violation of this subsection shall be punishable by a fine of not more than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00).
(e) In addition to penalties imposed under this section, any person who has suffered injury by reason of the conduct of any person violating this section is entitled to recover damages in a civil action. Actual damages recoverable may include, but are not limited to expenditures for licenses, travel, outfitters and guides and special equipment and supplies to the extent the expenditures are rendered futile by the person's conduct in violation of this section. If the trier of fact finds that the unlawful conduct was malicious, it may award punitive damage to the injured party.
(f) Upon petition to the district court by any affected party and upon a showing that conduct in violation of this section is threatened or has occurred and under similar circumstances would likely reoccur, the court may enjoin conduct which would be in violation of this section.
(g) This section shall:
(i) Not apply to any land lessee, permittee or any employee thereof engaged in the performance of work-related activities;
(ii) Not apply to any landowner or his agent engaged in any activity on his own private property.
(h) As used in subsection (a) of this section, "process of lawfully taking" means travel, camping and other acts preparatory to taking wildlife if occurring on lands or water upon which the affected person may legally take the wildlife.
23-3-405. Interference with lawful taking of wildlife prohibited; penalties; damages; injunction.
Universal Citation: WY Stat ? 23-3-405 (1997 through Reg Sess)
(a) No person shall with the intent to prevent or hinder the lawful taking of any wildlife:
(i) Interfere with the lawful taking of or the process of lawfully taking any wildlife;
(ii) Engage in any activity intended to threaten or otherwise affect the behavior of any wildlife.
(b) A violation of subsection (a) of this section constitutes a low misdemeanor as punishable as provided in W.S. 23-6-202(a)(v).
(c) Any person failing to obey an order of any peace officer to immediately desist from conduct in violation of subsection (a) of this section is guilty of a high misdemeanor punishable as provided in W.S. 23-6-202(a)(ii).
(d) Any organization or association which counsels or solicits its members or others to violate subsection (a) of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00). Each subsequent violation of this subsection shall be punishable by a fine of not more than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00).
(e) In addition to penalties imposed under this section, any person who has suffered injury by reason of the conduct of any person violating this section is entitled to recover damages in a civil action. Actual damages recoverable may include, but are not limited to expenditures for licenses, travel, outfitters and guides and special equipment and supplies to the extent the expenditures are rendered futile by the person's conduct in violation of this section. If the trier of fact finds that the unlawful conduct was malicious, it may award punitive damage to the injured party.
(f) Upon petition to the district court by any affected party and upon a showing that conduct in violation of this section is threatened or has occurred and under similar circumstances would likely reoccur, the court may enjoin conduct which would be in violation of this section.
(g) This section shall:
(i) Not apply to any land lessee, permittee or any employee thereof engaged in the performance of work-related activities;
(ii) Not apply to any landowner or his agent engaged in any activity on his own private property.
(h) As used in subsection (a) of this section, "process of lawfully taking" means travel, camping and other acts preparatory to taking wildlife if occurring on lands or water upon which the affected person may legally take the wildlife.
mallardsx2
Veteran member
- Jul 8, 2015
- 3,923
- 3,243
Where is this money going?
If the anti-hunting groups keep applying and paying the application fees and the draw the tags and pay the $6000 and dont kill the animals (or do for all I care) does that mean that the prices for NR deer-elk-antelope tag prices will go down since there is all of this additional revenue being brought into the state?
That is a Joke BTW...
If the anti-hunting groups keep applying and paying the application fees and the draw the tags and pay the $6000 and dont kill the animals (or do for all I care) does that mean that the prices for NR deer-elk-antelope tag prices will go down since there is all of this additional revenue being brought into the state?
That is a Joke BTW...
sheephunter
Active Member
I'm not a grizzly hunter wannabe, but there is going to be so much politics/publicity around this hunt that you couldn't give me one of these tags.
CoHiCntry
Veteran member
I tend to agree... I don’t think I’d take one of those tags if they gave it to me!
Two points;
1. If license/permit numbers are based on the success rate of the hunters then an anti-hunter getting a grizzly tag is going to cause more tags to be issued next year because this year's tags will go unfilled.
2. If it becomes popular for anti-hunters to buy tags just to interfere with the hunt then the state will eventually have to take action to ensure that the person with the tag isn't simply buying a tag as a protest action. That could cause the state to require that hunters prove that they didn't buy a tag as a protest (maybe all hunters will be required to prove that they spent time in the field) and that will simply make hunting less enjoyable for the average hunter.
So personally, while I agree that anybody can put in for a tag and I have no issue with how they intend to use it, the fact is that these protesters are violating state law in that they are interfering with the process of lawfully taking animals. And if their actions become more common then they will eventually make hunting more difficult for hunters. My greatest concern would be that these people will eventually create a broken animal management system that could, in the extreme, lead to the extinction of the grizzly.
1. If license/permit numbers are based on the success rate of the hunters then an anti-hunter getting a grizzly tag is going to cause more tags to be issued next year because this year's tags will go unfilled.
2. If it becomes popular for anti-hunters to buy tags just to interfere with the hunt then the state will eventually have to take action to ensure that the person with the tag isn't simply buying a tag as a protest action. That could cause the state to require that hunters prove that they didn't buy a tag as a protest (maybe all hunters will be required to prove that they spent time in the field) and that will simply make hunting less enjoyable for the average hunter.
So personally, while I agree that anybody can put in for a tag and I have no issue with how they intend to use it, the fact is that these protesters are violating state law in that they are interfering with the process of lawfully taking animals. And if their actions become more common then they will eventually make hunting more difficult for hunters. My greatest concern would be that these people will eventually create a broken animal management system that could, in the extreme, lead to the extinction of the grizzly.
Last edited:
I'm not aware of any statute prohibiting a person from securing a tag in order to not notch it. In no way does this interfere with me lawfully taking a grizzly bear. Drawing a tag and taking a bear are not the same thing. Otherwise, anyone who applies for a tag is interfering with the hunt of another person who applies for the same tag.
1. Grizzly tag quotas are not set on hunting success, but rather the total population. From the total population, female and male sub-quotas are applied and any known mortality counts against the quota. The only way the tag quotas would increase is if the population increases. Dan Thompson explains it in great detail at a WYGF commission meeting...google it.
2. Good luck with your item 2. Apparently you've never dealt with a State Legislative body, where a lot of them don't know chit from clay about anything to do with licenses, wildlife, tag allocations, etc. Plus, explain how you get past the constitutionality of passing legislation that discriminates against one group of people applying for and receiving a tag for a public wildlife asset? Sure, the State can choose to not issue tags to NR hunters, but they cant pass legislation to exempt those that choose not to hunt if they legally secure a license. This is a total dead end argument and totally unenforceable.
I also totally disagree that there is any violation of State Law taking place by those wanting to keep grizzly bears on the landscape applying for tags. The wildlife is held in trust for the Citizens of Wyoming...not just the citizens that hunt. Purchasing a tag is not interfering with a hunt, period.
fackelberry
Active Member
I'm not too worried about the animal rights people finding me if i draw a liscense and go hunting. As big as these areas are how would they know when and where i was going hunting to try and harass me? They all can't be on the lookout and at EVERY trailhead where they think grizzlys are at. Remember the bow season opens for elk, moose, deer, and a few others at the same. How would they know WHO has a grizzly tag? I don't think it would be that hard to get away from these people at all. Most of these people im sure have never been close to a REAL wild grizzly anyways, I would like to lead them right into a feeding mother and cubs and maybe get the chance to watch a nice mauling right there. Then maybe they will realize they arent so nice and cuddly and tame like seen on TV and in zoos. Bet it would only take about one time of that before they won't hike in anymore. Should be an interesting fall for the tag holders, good luck everyone who put in.
1. I'm not trying to argue with anybody, I simply voiced my opinion based on what others have posted. It's obvious that you haven't bothered to read the entire conversation. I have no idea how the number of tags are decided upon, I was simply referring to previous posts about tag numbers being influenced by the number of animals being harvested, if you disagree with that premise then argue with the person that posted his remark about harvest success influencing the number of tags.
2. Why are you using such insulting language? Your assumption that I've never dealt with the legal system is ignorant and rude.
In the future if you want to address my comments please use a civil attitude.
WapitiBob
Veteran member
Rammont, there was nothing in my post that was rude to you.
I asked questions and you provided no answers.
The way that misinformation is spread is because of posts like yours, claiming that quotas are set for grizzly seasons based on hunter success. I pointed out it is not and that's because I'm afforded the luxury of not being forced to guess.
Discussions on issues like this should revolve and start and stop on the facts, not conjecture or what you heard. Facts still matter.
Secondly, please provide the list of legislative sessions you've attended recently in Wyoming, bills you've introduced, bills you've testified about, State Representatives and Senators you've dealt with, etc.
You made the claim that the "State will have to eventually take action"...I provided a counter argument that, having personally dealt with issues like this for decades, your idea would be close to impossible and likely against Wyoming's state constitution.
If that's being rude...you must have some mighty thin skin.
Facts are important to issues such as these and shooting from the hip spreading information that isn't true is not the way to handle them.
Carry on...
Last edited:
If 2k of the 7k apps were anti’s, the simple odds of drawing a tag that would have been .44% ish ( 1/227) drop to .31% ish ( 1/318) if I did the math correctly. Or about a chance of a tag in 3 lifetimes moving to a chance of a tag in about 4 lifetimes, on average. Very low odds either way. Close to sheep odds for a number of areas where I live.
There is a part of me that wishes more anti’s would put in. More $ for game depts., maybe stable or lower fees, and if harvest objectives are not met and populations increase, most likely means more tags. Self correcting after a few years I suspect, especially for ungulates. Just my first impression. But I could be wrong.
There is a part of me that wishes more anti’s would put in. More $ for game depts., maybe stable or lower fees, and if harvest objectives are not met and populations increase, most likely means more tags. Self correcting after a few years I suspect, especially for ungulates. Just my first impression. But I could be wrong.
The way I look at those stats 29% of tags will go to anit's. 2000/7000. My guess is most of them (like hunters) just did the option that did not require fronting the money so the odds are probably much worse for that side of the draw.
nunt'butmuleys
Member
- Nov 29, 2016
- 77
- 0
nunt'butmuleys
Member
- Nov 29, 2016
- 77
- 0
I would pay $6000 to watch a mauling of that sorts, lol!!! Problem being I care to much about human life and would step in to help even an anti!!!
RICMIC
Veteran member
Don't expect to be thanked if you were to save their life. You would likely be sued for interfering with their "Pro-Choice" to be bear bait. I can't tell you the number of times where I stepped in (as a police officer) to stop a guy from thumping on his wife or girl-friend, but then found I had her either jumping on my back or standing up for him in court.