Penalty for hunting in wilderness as a non resedent?

[Hilltop]

Funny how things change your attitude when it directly effects you. Not criticizing you personally it is just human nature.

I bet if all states implemented this same law it would get challenged in federal court very quickly. Likewise if they implemented the same law on the residents it would likely cause an upraor.

It is a clear case of discrimination in my eyes. Federal lands should have the same access rules for all!

kstitz,

Again not in favor or against... Please keep in mind that Wyoming is not limiting your access to this land but rather saying you can't hunt big game there. The access rules are the same for all- the big game laws are the difference. Many western states are currently doing even more than Wyoming. Nebraska is one that comes to mind where non-residents can't hunt elk in the entire state. I personally feel there isn't a valid reason to keep me from hunting wilderness. However my neighbor would likely not have the skills necessary to navigate the local CRP field next to our house. A blanket rule is often unfair but I don't have a solution that satisfies all- not sure anyone does.

 

[Tim McCoy]

If I recall correctly, the states are given the authority to regulate hunting within their borders, on private and federal land, subject to some broad federal regulations, ESA etc. So the first question is will a state even allow NR hunting? They are not required to so far as I know. Some currently only allow NR's to hunt selected species, AK has WY like rules for certain species etc.

Two points I beleive we should seperate. First, I do not think we should be seeking advice on how to skirt state laws, especially on an open forum. Bad form, at best, in my view. Secondly, I would support a sportamans funded effort to insure access to Federal lands by working within the system.

That said, WY, as well as any other state can defacto shut lands down to NR access with NR tag allocations, closing NR access to certain species... So as distasteful as I find both the WY wilderness rules and very low NR tag allocations in a variety of states, there is little that can be done by NR's. A federal law would be the best remedy I suspect, but I am not sure I want any more federal meddling with wildlife, it is a double edged sword. That of course assumes my understanding of state and federal law is correct. It may be in error.

 

[Gr8bawana]

kstitz,

Again not in favor or against... Please keep in mind that Wyoming is not limiting your access to this land but rather saying you can't hunt big game there. The access rules are the same for all- the big game laws are the difference. Many western states are currently doing even more than Wyoming. Nebraska is one that comes to mind where non-residents can't hunt elk in the entire state. I personally feel there isn't a valid reason to keep me from hunting wilderness. However my neighbor would likely not have the skills necessary to navigate the local CRP field next to our house. A blanket rule is often unfair but I don't have a solution that satisfies all- not sure anyone does.

This is because people don't hire guides and outfitters to hunt small game. So this one does have the old "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" feel to it.
To the guide who says wilderness areas would be overrun by hunters I say bull****! I have found that once you get a mile or so away from a road you have weeded out 90% of hunters. Most aren't willing to work that hard.

 

[kstitz]

Are there any attorneys here that could add some clarity?

 

[libidilatimmy]

Are there any attorneys here that could add some clarity?

I'm not an attorney, but I'm curious just what kind of clarity it is that you seek? There's a law on the books, right, wrong, or indifferent, and, if someone breaks it, there will be consequences.

 

[go_deep]

I don't like driving the speed limit, but I do because that's the law. Don't like the law don't go to Wyoming or introduce a bill to disband it.

 

[laxwyo]

Let's make a federal law that says you cannot pay someone to take you hunting or allowing you to hunt their property. Time to get money out of hunting

 

[In God We Trust]

If there is a law it is best to try to change it instead of just breaking the law. As far as anyone here trying to see the other side of the coin, that is biased bull crap. It is federal land paid for by everyone so a state shouldn't pick winners and losers on Federal land. If they want to limit access to state land then so be it but to do so on federal land is illegal. I would like to see a hunting organization challenge this in court. You see if some hunters support this you are showing anti hunting groups a blueprint in other states that are not so hunter friendly a way to limit hunting on public lands. Residents and non resident hunters should band together on issues like this instead of looking the other way if it benefits you. It is time we look at what is the best thing for hunting as a whole instead of what benefits each group in each state.

 

[Tim McCoy]

If there is a law it is best to try to change it instead of just breaking the law. As far as anyone here trying to see the other side of the coin, that is biased bull crap. It is federal land paid for by everyone so a state shouldn't pick winners and losers on Federal land. If they want to limit access to state land then so be it but to do so on federal land is illegal. I would like to see a hunting organization challenge this in court.

As the law currently stands, it is perfectly legal to do what WY has done. That is very different than saying this is the right way to manage the resource on Federal lands. I don't recall the details, but it seems there was a dust up along these lines in NM 15-20 years ago? Someone may recall, but so far as I know, the NR issue is settled law, states can pretty much do as they please. If it is settled law, a court challenge would need to be very carefully crafted to raise new issues or it would likely fail. Good luck getting WY to budge.

The best recent example of a sportsmans group getting laws changed against the wishes of commercial interests I can recall is the CCA, Coastal Conservation Association, efforts in our coastal areas. There may be a model there someone with enough interest, energy and money could adapt to the NR hunting issue and not just in WY.

 

[Fink]

Are there any attorneys here that could add some clarity?

Clarity on whether or not the state has the right to set rules for hunting in their state? The state seems to have the right to set non resident quotas, and I don't think anyone sees any harm in that. Would you consider there to be a difference in the two?

It's clearly the most bogus law in any state, that I've ever heard of, and is obviously nothing but pandering to the guides and outfitters.... But, it is a law. And good luck trying to get it over turned.

 

[mntnguide]

Is it a law that should be changed. .Yes. .will it be changed. .probably not. that said, by openly saying u would break a game and fish law and illegally harvest an animal, how are you different from a poacher? u might hate the law and it is stupid, but breaking it is nothing less than being just like the poachers all hunters should despise. u won't legally have a tag for an animal you harvest. .that's poaching plain a and simple. might not seem like it under the circumstance, but there is plenty of national forest in WY to be hunted instead of breaking a law

 

[libidilatimmy]

I don't like the law myself and think it's outdated with the navigation technology we have today, but at the same time I also see the need for it from a safety point of view to the extent that not everyone that has a license in their pocket has the same skill set when it comes to survival skills and knowledge of the terrain. I've been kicking this issue around in my head for quite some time, and think that an avenue that should be discussed would be for individual endorsements that allows a NR hunter access to wilderness areas on an individual basis if they can demonstrate that they are competent to keep themselves, and others, out of harms way. My thought process behind this comes from the standpoint that all wilderness areas are NOT created equal. From my experience, the wilderness areas in the southern part of the state (Huston Park, Savage Run, etc.) are pretty tame in comparison to the ones in northwestern portion of the state (Fitzpatrick, Washakie, Teton, etc.) as far as remoteness, density of dangerous predators, and terrain are concerned. I'm just kind of thinking out loud trying to come up with something the WYOGA might consider as an alternative to the current law as it stands.

 

[Fink]

I don't like the law myself and think it's outdated with the navigation technology we have today, but at the same time I also see the need for it from a safety point of view to the extent that not everyone that has a license in their pocket has the same skill set when it comes to survival skills and knowledge of the terrain. I've been kicking this issue around in my head for quite some time, and think that an avenue that should be discussed would be for individual endorsements that allows a NR hunter access to wilderness areas on an individual basis if they can demonstrate that they are competent to keep themselves, and others, out of harms way. My thought process behind this comes from the standpoint that all wilderness areas are NOT created equal. From my experience, the wilderness areas in the southern part of the state (Huston Park, Savage Run, etc.) are pretty tame in comparison to the ones in northwestern portion of the state (Fitzpatrick, Washakie, Teton, etc.) as far as remoteness, density of dangerous predators, and terrain are concerned. I'm just kind of thinking out loud trying to come up with something the WYOGA might consider as an alternative to the current law as it stands.

I think in order to discuss this, we have to be completely honest with ourselves, and admit that the wilderness rule has nothing to do with safety. If it did, you wouldn't be allowed to hike, fish, etc., without a guide. It really is nothing more than pandering to the guides and outfitters of the state

 

[Stig87]

Seems like the consensus among everybody is that the law is bogus, and I definitely agree. It was a law put in place for the outfitters. This is the same situation with some of the bills in front of the Legislature right now. For instance HB149 is asking for the split between regular and special licenses be changed from 60% regular, 40% special to 40% regular 60% special. Who's behind this one, you can bet that it's the outfitters. There doesn't seem to be as much of an uproar over this as there was over the change in allocation of non-resident trophy game licenses, but hey the outfitters are the people who got that bill rejected.

 

[Againstthewind]

I don't like the law myself and think it's outdated with the navigation technology we have today, but at the same time I also see the need for it from a safety point of view to the extent that not everyone that has a license in their pocket has the same skill set when it comes to survival skills and knowledge of the terrain. I've been kicking this issue around in my head for quite some time, and think that an avenue that should be discussed would be for individual endorsements that allows a NR hunter access to wilderness areas on an individual basis if they can demonstrate that they are competent to keep themselves, and others, out of harms way. My thought process behind this comes from the standpoint that all wilderness areas are NOT created equal. From my experience, the wilderness areas in the southern part of the state (Huston Park, Savage Run, etc.) are pretty tame in comparison to the ones in northwestern portion of the state (Fitzpatrick, Washakie, Teton, etc.) as far as remoteness, density of dangerous predators, and terrain are concerned. I'm just kind of thinking out loud trying to come up with something the WYOGA might consider as an alternative to the current law as it stands.

I actually really like your idea. I think it to be fair it might even extend to residents for hiking, fishing, everything. Not all residents are competent either. I wouldn't consider myself a competent person, but I do enjoy the wilderness. It could be kindof a wilderness safety/leave no trace/hunting permit kindof like the refuge permits, feedground permits, etc. except you have to demonstrate some skill or go with a guide. The wilderness can be really humbling and no offense to the very accomplished hunters/woodsman on here that are non-residents, some people don't realize that they can be dark and scary places like the woods in Grimms fairy tales. I thought I was used to the Washakie Wilderness until I made a trip to the Bob and it was scary.

 

[CoHiCntry]

I think in order to discuss this, we have to be completely honest with ourselves, and admit that the wilderness rule has nothing to do with safety. If it did, you wouldn't be allowed to hike, fish, etc., without a guide. It really is nothing more than pandering to the guides and outfitters of the state

^^^^ Exactly! I'm not sure how anyone could buy into that it's for your own safety. Gimme a break... We have guy's die almost yearly climbing 14er's, we still don't require a guide. People die every year on the ski slopes too. It's unfortunate that people get hurt and or die in the mountains but that's the risk we all take. So, to say it's for our own safety to me, is ridiculous!

 

[libidilatimmy]

I think in order to discuss this, we have to be completely honest with ourselves, and admit that the wilderness rule has nothing to do with safety. If it did, you wouldn't be allowed to hike, fish, etc., without a guide. It really is nothing more than pandering to the guides and outfitters of the state

Thinking that safety has nothing to do with the law is a bit naive. It was a big portion of the law when first accepted and probably the sole reason it was passed in the first place. If a change to the law is to be pursued, the major argument that is going to be brought up is the safety factor. Now, did the outfitters have a lot to gain by the laws passage, you bet they did. Have the safety concerns been lessened over time with new technology, sure they have. In my mind, the reason that safety plays a role here is due to the time of year when we're pursuing game animals. I've never once seen anyone, resident or non-resident, on a hiking excursion 15-20 miles in the wilderness in late October when you can get feet of snow unexpectedly.

 

[CoHiCntry]

Thinking that safety has nothing to do with the law is a bit naive. It was a big portion of the law when first accepted and probably the sole reason it was passed in the first place. If a change to the law is to be pursued, the major argument that is going to be brought up is the safety factor. Now, did the outfitters have a lot to gain by the laws passage, you bet they did. Have the safety concerns been lessened over time with new technology, sure they have. In my mind, the reason that safety plays a role here is due to the time of year when we're pursuing game animals. I've never once seen anyone, resident or non-resident, on a hiking excursion 15-20 miles in the wilderness in late October when you can get feet of snow unexpectedly.

There's no doubt they pull the "safety" card but we all no that doesn't make any sense.

 

[libidilatimmy]

^^^^ Exactly! I'm not sure how anyone could buy into that it's for your own safety. Gimme a break...

I'm not saying that you, Fink, or anyone else on this forum wouldn't do just fine. The people on this forum are a very small percentage of hunters and it's the uninformed masses that I'm speaking of.

 

[libidilatimmy]

http://wyohomelandsecurity.state.wy.us/sar/statistics.htm

Here's a link to the State SAR statistics. There's a direct correlation between the counties with the highest number of calls being related to mountainous areas, the activities the individuals were engaged in, and the time of year with the highest density of calls, including both R and NR recreation.