Penalty for hunting in wilderness as a non resedent?

[stevevan]

Yes, I tend to agree with Apparition. The thought or mind set by some seems to be that these wilderness areas are extremely remote and only the most skilled or well equipped people can safely negotiate and return. This may be true to some extent. However, there are portions of some wilderness areas that are entirely accessible for a day excursion where the only requirement for equipment is a good pair of hiking boots. Many of the BLM wilderness study areas are just that. An example of this absurdity was a BLM wilderness study area near where I lived in Wyoming. I could drive my pick-up right to the boundary, park and access some very good deer and elk hunting. If a nonresident with out of state license plates on his truck parked next to me with a hunting license in his pocket and followed in my boot tracks he became a criminal. All on land administered by federal funds which we all pay no matter where in the USA we reside. Absolutely absurd. Personally I think that the states right to govern the wildlife is a bit stretched when it also is allowed to restrict access to federal lands for any legal purpose. And yes, I even shared this view during the time I was a Wyoming resident. In this day and age when we are sooo sensitive and cautious of any, or even the appearance of discrimination this law is pretty visible as a form of discrimination to we as hunters, in this case nonresident hunters who just want to enjoy a legal activity on land that they help pay for its administration. The law is so arbritary and capricious I really can't understand how it stays on the books. Oh, and as a side note. The thought that non residents are not well equipped or don't possess the same skills as a resident (any resident of Wyo.) is a poor argument. In my experience just about all the nonresidents I came in contact with, who would take the time and money needed to do an out of state hunt were very passionate about their chosen past time and had some of the best equipment and learned all they could before they would attempt such a trip. Look at the fellas on this forum as good examples.

 

[libidilatimmy]

Let me reiterate the fact that I agree with most everything that you guy's have said and don't consider myself better than anyone else because I'm from one state or another. This forum is full of good, experienced people, which is why I'm playing devil's advocate. What I am trying to do is get conversation flowing for ways to chip away at the law because you'll never get it totally repealed in the first try.

 

[Apparition]

I think a bunch of non residents could circumnavigate every wilderness in WY naked and without a weapon, gps, compass or map, come out fatter and in better shape than before they started, and it wouldnt make a lick of difference, why? Because they cant VOTE! Face it, unless the non residents get the residents on board with eliminating this absurd law, this law has as much chance of getting over turned as Rosie O'Donnell turning down a cheese cake.

 

[clacklin009]

No..Wilderness is designated...The biggest difference is.. Wilderness is an area where nothing mechanized can be used.. No chainsaw, no bike, nothing that has a mechanical gear technically...all wood must be cut by whip saw and ax..etc. Any area that is designated "wilderness" will be goverened by Forest Service, where as BLM is entirely different.

I wasn't liking the law either however, the law is starting to make sense! It sounds like I will have to kill the elk with my pocket knife..the resident is there to help me wrastle it to the ground..this does make hunting a little more dangerous....do you have to fish with a stick and string!

I'm thinking about having my local legislator propose a law to make NR have to drive through the state with a resident or use a taxi service. What do you guys think? Of course it is a safety concern.

Just having fun. But I'm one that feels the states should be able to control game and I've never had a problem with the limits on NR tags or anything of the such. In this case I feel the original question is about if the law is constitutional, and not if the local legislators will change the law. If a law is unconstitutional it will be overturned if the lawsuit is handled correctly. I'm not in favor of a lawsuit. Just wanted to see if my understanding of the question is on point.

 

[alaska2go]

What i can pack into the alaska wilderness 60 miles or get dropped of by plane 150 miles from the nearest town but i can't hunt wyoming wilderness without a guide ?? A land that has more grizzly bears than any where else on the north american continent, combined no less... Thats absurd

 

[mntnguide]

What i can pack into the alaska wilderness 60 miles or get dropped of by plane 150 miles from the nearest town but i can't hunt wyoming wilderness without a guide ?? A land that has more grizzly bears than any where else on the north american continent, combined no less... Thats absurd

And I..able to hunt the elusive WY wilderness as a Resident...cant go up to Alaska and hunt sheep, goat or grizzlies without a guide..Same story, different state.

 

[shootbrownelk]

PS...Finding and taking nonresidents into the wilderness area and getting them bulls they would never have found on their own or saving them thousands of dollars in guiding fees is a great way to get a swap hunt with people from other states. Just saying..... hint hint...whitetail guys!!

Good Idea Wiley. I've taken Non-Resident friends hunting in wilderness areas in the past. I had to get that bullshit temporary "Guide license" at a G&F office. And I was told by a warden that happened to be there, that if any money changes hands you are setting yourself up for a "Guiding without a license" ticket & fine. Not only me, but all the Non-residents I took out as well would be fined for hiring an "Unlicensed Outfitter". Funny how dead serious he was when he said it. The stern look was priceless!
He was just doing his job....watching out for the outfitter's best interests. That was 20 years ago, and I haven't forgotten it.

 

[RICMIC]

We have a great discussion going here. I hunt in wilderness areas in Colorado (look at a map, they have a bunch of them), but have used an outfitter in Wyoming. I would love to be able to access some of that area on my own, but have found some others spots where I legally can. I don't like many of the individual states rules, but it could be far worse if the Feds ever get complete control over our wildlife. We are locked out of many of the National Parks for hunting and snowmobiling. A Washington D.C. vote could do the same to all wilderness areas. (Yeah, I know that you can't snowmobile there either...rats.)

 

[Gr8bawana]

We have a great discussion going here. I hunt in wilderness areas in Colorado (look at a map, they have a bunch of them), but have used an outfitter in Wyoming. I would love to be able to access some of that area on my own, but have found some others spots where I legally can. I don't like many of the individual states rules, but it could be far worse if the Feds ever get complete control over our wildlife. We are locked out of many of the National Parks for hunting and snowmobiling. A Washington D.C. vote could do the same to all wilderness areas. (Yeah, I know that you can't snowmobile there either...rats.)

Somehow I don't have a problem with not being able to hunt in national parks. There should be some places that are off limits to hunting.

 

[kstitz]

My intention for the original post was to get other people on this forums opinion on the subject. Every big game hunter that I know and talk to thinks the law is just rediculous, including the a resident that I talked to last year and a Wy game warden. I think there are other laws effecting big game hunters that are unfare. For instance, if you hunt only on federal lands I believe the tag price should be the same in that particular state reguardless if your are a resedent or not. Likewise, the number of tags given for federal lands should be the same for residents as non residents.

I do agree with the states are the best equiped to manage the game in there states. However, this law has nothing to do with game managment. It is political plan & simple! When I hunted the wilderness with a resident we camped on the national forest about a mile from the wilderness boundry, we saw one person in the wilderness in 5 days of hunting. We did however see dozens of "hunters" riding there atvs on the national forest trails. Likewise Colorado does not have this law and I have seen very very few people willing to pack in or even get more than a mile or 2 off of the road.

I am a DIY hunter I do not want a guide I do not need a guide. If I hire a guide in my opinion I am now just a shooter because the guide is doing the hunting.

I am no attorney but if this law is not unconstitutional it is certainly descriminatory.

 

[WapitiBob]

And they are within their right under the law to discriminate. Hence, the difference in NR tag quotas and pricing.

 

[kstitz]

And they are within their right under the law to discriminate. Hence, the difference in NR tag quotas and pricing.

Maybe. But WY does take it a step further by giving you the same general tag as a resident, but restricting you from hunting on federal lands. I think it all comes down to the federal land restriction. If it was state lands that would be a different story.

 

[bdan68]

I don't like this law but to take it to the extreme, Wyoming COULD decide to not give any deer or elk tags to non-residents. Or limit non-resident tags to 5%, like Oregon does.

 

[ssliger]

http://m.trib.com/news/state-and-regional/state-wins-schutz-case/article_921e3b0e-4695-5cda-bb3a-f105fc70bcc7.html?mobile_touch=true

It's been litigated before and it will be litigated again. I agree the rule is stupid. What concerns me more though is the entitlement of people today. It sucks that a non resident cannot hunt within a wilderness area with out an outfitter or resident guide. But for people to think just cause you pay taxes, you deserve to. That's a bunch of chit. I learned a lesson from my dad when I was a kid. Life isn't fair. If you want the rule changed, file a lawsuit and try to change it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tim McCoy]

Did a quick search for the NM issue I recalled. Turns out it was called Terk vs NM. Looking at that, found this. It is a late 70's US Supreme Court decision. In Baldwin v. Montana, in which it found that the Privileges and Immunities Clause does not apply to wildlife management and that states could legally discriminate against out-of-state hunters through higher fees and reduced quotas.

Going to make any suit a long and hard road unless one could find a very different angle. But I'm not an Atty.

 

[RICMIC]

Per the hunting in national parks...There are plenty of NPs that you can hunt in; Teton in Wyoming, and Voyageur's in Minnesota for instance. It depends how the park was set up. Rocky Mt. park in Colorado had an elk population problem, and ended up paying to have some shot rather that making some $ off of hunters. We do have lots of areas off limits to hunters; San Fancisco, New York City, Washington D.C., etc.

 

[kstitz]

http://m.trib.com/news/state-and-regional/state-wins-schutz-case/article_921e3b0e-4695-5cda-bb3a-f105fc70bcc7.html?mobile_touch=true

It's been litigated before and it will be litigated again. I agree the rule is stupid. What concerns me more though is the entitlement of people today. It sucks that a non resident cannot hunt within a wilderness area with out an outfitter or resident guide. But for people to think just cause you pay taxes, you deserve to. That's a bunch of chit. I learned a lesson from my dad when I was a kid. Life isn't fair. If you want the rule changed, file a lawsuit and try to change it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sslinger, I would hardly call it entitlement when I pay 20 times more, almost $1,100.00, for the same tag as a resident and I have no problem with the cost of the tag. Just like every other state in the lower 48, that should entitle me to have the same access to federal lands. I will bet if they applied this same law to residents you would have a different attitude.

Also, my company payed Wy sales tax on about $5ook in the last 1 1/2 years. I by no means think that this entitles me to anything no, but I certainly do not have a entitalist mentallity.

 

[kstitz]

Forgot to mention, the guy I hunted with in 2013 thought it was a great law to until he moved to Oregon.

 

[tim]

the easiest way to deal with it, is not hunt there. It is not like you wont' get a bull because you are not in a wilderness area in Wyoming.

 

[ssliger]

sslinger, I would hardly call it entitlement when I pay 20 times more, almost $1,100.00, for the same tag as a resident and I have no problem with the cost of the tag. Just like every other state in the lower 48, that should entitle me to have the same access to federal lands. I will bet if they applied this same law to residents you would have a different attitude.

Also, my company payed Wy sales tax on about $5ook in the last 1 1/2 years. I by no means think that this entitles me to anything no, but I certainly do not have a entitalist mentallity.

I did not mean to offend you. There are a lot of threads going around lately where a lot of people feel they deserve things. Like more tags, and more access. You are right, if the law applied to residents. We would feel different. But it doesn't. I live within an hour of 3 wilderness areas. I have spent a total of 0 days hunting them. Just cause it's a wilderness area, does not mean it's better hunting. If you want to hunt any of the wilderness areas near me, I would be happy to be the resident guide for you. I'm on this forum to help people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk