The value is beyond the proverbial cent the alleged Taxpayer actually pays for our federal lands...
Though read for yourself, Buzz...
This - is the crux of the debate.
Last edited:
FOIA - $150 WY NR Wilderness Rule Fine amount; WY 23-2-401(a)
- Thread starter 232401a
- Start date
The value is beyond the proverbial cent the alleged Taxpayer actually pays for our federal lands...
Though read for yourself, Buzz...
brocksw
Well-known member
So eloquently stated, Buzz. You were right all along. Shouldn't have doubted you.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Correct, so why drag the piddly assed amount we spend as tax payers into the argument regarding wilderness management? I'd be shocked if it's even 3 cents.
It's a non-starter, not to mention there are ways to legally work around it.
It's a tired topic, at least come up with something more original.
If the wilderness guide law is that important to you, get off your butt and start doing something about it instead if whining. Raise some money, hire a lobbyist, and get after it.
I have bigger fish to fry.
Last edited:
Fry away, no one's twisting your arm, Buzz.
Facts are it doesn't go away because it continues to be an issue. You promote BHA to submit comments, resident and non resident. You were involved in commenting within Montana activity of our grand MOGA... There's continuous concern over WYOGA. Cheers.
Preach a good game, less it's in your neck of the woods.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Bitch away, it's your only move apparently.
Action takes effort, which seems in short supply for you.
I've never seen you be part of the solution for anything, including the topic at hand. Why is that?
Carry on.
brocksw
Well-known member
It's okay, Buzz.
Don't cry Buzz... I'm actively bitching, as most MOGA shared of you non residents bitching about them.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Oh I've done a lot more in Montana than bitch...if only obviously.Don't cry Buzz... I'm actively bitching, as most MOGA shared of you non residents bitching about them.
brocksw
Well-known member
I'll drink a shiner bock for ya. Cheers.
Applies to pretty much all of us, Buzz. You and me included. Thanks for hearing me out.
Ahh, you added more to your original post. Actually Buzz, instead of your whine, I've been actively involved in a few states of interest, specifically MT.
Amazing, I've posted responses to / from politicians here and elsewhere. I've been present at our capital, state and federal, for more issues than merely conservation.
Heck, I would say I've gained my base for this action from Hunt Talk. I'd attribute this in some part to you though your hostility and demeaning attitude towards varied opinions is credited for some finding it more challenging to focus on the issue.
You are a great bulldog for BHA. That's certain. Piss poor in other areas that your knowledge, if managed more effectively, would be an even better recruiting tool. Instead - well heck, you're a quality bulldog.
I've valued learning from many here, and you. Cheers.
BuzzH
Well-known member
If you and your pal sytes want to get serious about making a run at changing the guide law I suggest you fund raise about $40k, commit 3 years, and you have a legit shot.
If not, you're just whining to hear yourself whine...and that's a fact.
Letthemgrow
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2017
- Messages
- 416
Please expand on that idea.
It's interesting, Wyoming recently declared it a "Right to hunt" vs original SCOTUS ruling that had to evaluate whether a right existed.
At that time that "Right" did not exist.
"Since elk hunting is a sport and not a fundamental right, we then need only apply the less rigorous test applied to an ordinary right, and we need only examine to determine if there is a rational relationship between the classification made by the statute or statutes being viewed and a legitimate state objective. The statutory classification we are here viewing is that nonresidents, in addition to having a Wyoming nonresident hunting license, must, when hunting big and/or trophy game animals4 on any designated wilderness area in Wyoming as defined by federal law, be accompanied by a licensed professional or resident guide. W.S. 23-2-401, supra note 1. No such requirement is placed on resident hunters. The question is then whether there is a rational relationship between that classification between nonresidents and residents and a legitimate legislative state objective."
I'd imagine this could be a kink in WYOGA's armor though that's a long ways out. Starts somewhere.
At that time that "Right" did not exist.
"Since elk hunting is a sport and not a fundamental right, we then need only apply the less rigorous test applied to an ordinary right, and we need only examine to determine if there is a rational relationship between the classification made by the statute or statutes being viewed and a legitimate state objective. The statutory classification we are here viewing is that nonresidents, in addition to having a Wyoming nonresident hunting license, must, when hunting big and/or trophy game animals4 on any designated wilderness area in Wyoming as defined by federal law, be accompanied by a licensed professional or resident guide. W.S. 23-2-401, supra note 1. No such requirement is placed on resident hunters. The question is then whether there is a rational relationship between that classification between nonresidents and residents and a legitimate legislative state objective."
I'd imagine this could be a kink in WYOGA's armor though that's a long ways out. Starts somewhere.
rtraverdavis
Well-known member
Threads like this are a good reminder that I need to worry less about what Wyoming does or doesn’t do, and instead worry a bunch more about improving habitat and access in my own backyard.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Nope, Harry Reids bill makes this argument moot.It's interesting, Wyoming recently declared it a "Right to hunt" vs original SCOTUS ruling that had to evaluate whether a right existed.
At that time that "Right" did not exist.
"Since elk hunting is a sport and not a fundamental right, we then need only apply the less rigorous test applied to an ordinary right, and we need only examine to determine if there is a rational relationship between the classification made by the statute or statutes being viewed and a legitimate state objective. The statutory classification we are here viewing is that nonresidents, in addition to having a Wyoming nonresident hunting license, must, when hunting big and/or trophy game animals4 on any designated wilderness area in Wyoming as defined by federal law, be accompanied by a licensed professional or resident guide. W.S. 23-2-401, supra note 1. No such requirement is placed on resident hunters. The question is then whether there is a rational relationship between that classification between nonresidents and residents and a legitimate legislative state objective."
I'd imagine this could be a kink in WYOGA's armor though that's a long ways out. Starts somewhere.
States have the right to discriminate against NRs any way they see fit by limiting tag numbers, where their tags are valid, price, etc etc.
You are not winning this in court on anything to do with constitutional arguments, perceived rights, etc.
Only path forward is repealing the state statute, period.
WapitiBob
Well-known member
Non resident don't have a "right" to hunt in WY.
“It’s a tradition that’s rooted in a system where folks profit off the allocation of those [big-game] tags,” says Tim Brass, the state policy and field operations director for Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, which hasn’t taken a position on the guiding law.
“Embedded traditions are hard to change. The safety aspect doesn’t hold water at all. Hunters hunt safely in the wilderness in every other state.”
www.outdoorlife.com
A read about Non Resident hunting can be found here. It chronologically walks along the many cases and decisions. Also reviews Reid's setting and how it does and doesn't apply w/in a few cases, beyond the broad brush stroke. If interest and time are present, an enjoyable read. (PDF attached)
“Embedded traditions are hard to change. The safety aspect doesn’t hold water at all. Hunters hunt safely in the wilderness in every other state.”
Wyoming Has a Wilderness Problem
Nonresident hunters are required to hire a guide to access Wyoming's wilderness. Courts say it's legal. But is it equitable?
www.outdoorlife.com
A read about Non Resident hunting can be found here. It chronologically walks along the many cases and decisions. Also reviews Reid's setting and how it does and doesn't apply w/in a few cases, beyond the broad brush stroke. If interest and time are present, an enjoyable read. (PDF attached)
Scott85
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2018
- Messages
- 2,692
I think the Payments in Lieu of Taxes of all wilderness land in WY is more than 3 cents.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Per taxpayer? Not hardly.
brocksw
Well-known member
Regardless, it's a reductionist argument. Buzz wouldn't be making this argument if Gianforte or Worsech were doing this to MT, he'd be berating them like he does for everything else they do.
Being a tax payer isn't just about how many of your "Pennies" are going to what. That's a ridiculous notion given how unbalanced and effed up our tax code is and how easily one with money can influence our political decisions. It doesn't even really matter how much the Forest service PILT payments are supplementing or supporting the local community. Although, as you can see from Sytes post above, Buzz can make the economic arguement if he wants. It's just not convenient for him when it's his own state and it would introduce more competition for him.
This is a cumulative thing, a participation thing, a representation thing. That's how government is supposed to work. Especially when it's federal land, equally owned by all.
There's no statistical evidence that supports the Wy Wilderness law as being effective for keeping NR's "safer". It's a protectionist law for the outfitter industry, that's it. Period. That's why the politics here are such a shit show. Because as we all know, the MOGA/WYOGAs of the world like welfare and free handouts, just not when someone else gets them. They won't admit it, and they'll make fun of the "libtards" for being the party of handouts and free stuff, but this is how they conduct their business at home.
Buzz is in the wrong with his stance here and that's ok. I understand his perspective and forgive him for it. But this law is nonsense and everyone knows it.
Last edited:
