No non-resident hunting on Wyoming wilderness unless you have a Guide - when are you all going to fight this?

[Deleted member 20812]

I'm kind of shocked and taken back that many of the out of state respondents here are in favor of the Wy Game and Fish and the Outfitters Association keeping you OFF the wilderness.

Go back and read more carefully. Pretty sure the majority of us think the law is BS, but fully recognize the states right to implement it.

 

[Jape]

I agree it's not the most "fun" reg out there, especially as a NR, but this has been litigated so much and just seems so circular at this point.

 

[WyLionHunter]

I agree it's not the most "fun" reg out there, especially as a NR, but this has been litigated so much and just seems so circular at this point.

MTnhunter, could you show me where this has been litigated to the end? several here have alluded to that....I've seen no proof that state of Wyoming has been fully vetted (and ok'd) out of this debacle

JLS, with over 6,000 posts on the internet (at least on this site alone - dudes like you usually hit 5-6 sites like this, so you might have 100,000+ posts), you obvious have the swag and bandwidth cred to set the G & F and Outfitters straight. Use your powers, Bro!

 

[dcopas78]

The childish part is actually being offended by language.

Whatever floats your boat dude

 

[tzone]

Whatever floats your boat dude

Usually it's water.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

JLS, with over 6,000 posts on the internet (at least on this site alone - dudes like you usually hit 5-6 sites like this, so you might have 100,000+ posts), you obvious have the swag and bandwidth cred to set the G & F and Outfitters straight. Use your powers, Bro!

Nope, this is the only website. What you see is what you get. For this issue, I have no bandwidth whatsoever. Residents of WY are the only ones IMO who will potentially get this law changed. Use your powers Bruh.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

MTnhunter, could you show me where this has been litigated to the end?

O'Brien v. State

O'Brien v. State - 1986 WY 8, 711 P.2d 1144

law.justia.com

 

[dcopas78]

Usually it's water.

Funny, I woulda thought hot air in your case

 

[Jape]

O'Brien v. State

O'Brien v. State - 1986 WY 8, 711 P.2d 1144

law.justia.com

JLS beat me to it, and the whole concept of animals being held in trust by the various states has been litigated extensively for the past 250 years. Jump on google, use a little savvy, and you will find it (hint: Public Trust Doctrine).

Here is a good podcast episode to listen to. It will cause you to think and maybe direct your ire in the right direction.

Hunt Talk Radio: EP056: Wyoming Hunter's Gem of West

In this Episode (056) of Leupold’s Hunt Talk Radio, Randy shares the mic with two of the best hunters you never met, Buzz Hettick and Jeff Muratore, both Wyoming residents and public land activists who have an amazing mix of insight to hunting strategies, public lands, and hunting advocacy...

hunttalk.libsyn.com

 

[WyLionHunter]

I'm aware of that appeal case, but it's not the end-all for this subject. It's the end for the accused, who decided not to take it further.

I guess the most logical approach would be to "bait" the situation with a heavily backed non resident to get "caught" and ticketed and take the case all of the way.

The guise, or ruse of these Outfitters is that they're looking out for your 'safety' and want to be there with you, hold your hand and/or kiss your boo boo. Certainly it's not about the $, they are just concerned and worried about you

Again, for you non res. folks who do hunt Wyoming but don't care about the Wilderness rules, what if they start taking away your forest service, BLM, etc. rights away from you? Again, they are only looking out for your safety. The Outfitters are lobbying for just that.

But oh, the "regal, noble outfitter" of your myth and dreams. They wouldn't do that, would they? Hmm, they're nothing more than a money grubbing blight on the land.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

But oh, the "regal, noble outfitter" of your myth and dreams.

Huh?

Carry on.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

I guess the most logical approach would be to "bait" the situation with a heavily backed non resident to get "caught" and ticketed and take the case all of the way.

Better use your super powers on this one, Bruh.

 

[WyLionHunter]

JLS, I sincerely apologize about pointing out and making fun of your 6,000 posts. Now you're up to 6,710 !!! Are you going to shoot for the magical 6,711? Wow, I've only got 0.001432 of posts compared to you. Maybe if you'd get off the computer, actually go hunting, grow up and then maybe comeback here with some experience under your belt, you could be taken more seriously

 

[rwc101]

We're going for a double ban thread here boys.

 

[Jape]

I'm aware of that appeal case, but it's not the end-all for this subject. It's the end for the accused, who decided not to take it further.

I guess the most logical approach would be to "bait" the situation with a heavily backed non resident to get "caught" and ticketed and take the case all of the way.

Sure, he could appeal the Tenth Circuit, who would likely reject his appeal or dismiss it out-of-hand. Then he could appeal to SCOTUS who would do the same. $250,000 in appeals later and we would have the same precedence we have now.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

I'm aware of that appeal case, but it's not the end-all for this subject. It's the end for the accused, who decided not to take it further.

I guess the most logical approach would be to "bait" the situation with a heavily backed non resident to get "caught" and ticketed and take the case all of the way.

The guise, or ruse of these Outfitters is that they're looking at for your 'safety' and want to be there with you, hold your hand and/or kiss your boo boo. Certainly it's not about the $

Again, for you non res. folks who do hunt Wyoming but don't care about the Wilderness rules, what if they start taking away your forest service, BLM, etc. rights away from you? Again, they are only looking out for your safety. The Outfitters are lobbying for just that.

But oh, the "regal, noble outfitter" of your myth and dreams. They wouldn't do that, would they? Hmm, they're nothing more than a money grubbing blight on the land.

A test case like you're alluding to would go no where, it would fly in the face of how every western state manages their fish and game. There is nothing legally wrong with the rule, it's just BS.

If WY further restricted use, that would be their prerogative, they would be well within their rights to eliminate NR hunting all together or make all NR go guided like all Canadian provinces.

The thing you have to consider is this can only go so far, because demand would greatly outstrip the number of guides, and the price point people would be willing to pay for an average pronghorn, muley, or elk on a guided public land hunt would be so low it wouldn't be economic for outfitters. People just wouldn't hunt WY license sales would crash the state would lose a ton of money.

It is all about the money, but their is nothing wrong with that legally speaking. Alaska has/had similar rules and those were questionable because they required an Alaskan resident who didn't live in a specific unit to go guided, but was a USFWS rule imposed on the state not a state rule.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

JLS, I sincerely apologize about pointing out and making fun of your 6,000 posts. Now you're up to 6,710 !!! Are you going to shoot for the magical 6,711? Wow, I've only got 0.001432 of posts compared to you. Maybe if you'd get off the computer, actually go hunting, grow up and then maybe comeback here with some experience under your belt, you could be taken more seriously

You’re correct. I really should grow up and get more experience hunting and learning about wildlife management and regulation.

 

[VikingsGuy]

the whole concept of animals being held in trust by the various states has been litigated extensively for the past 250 years. Jump on google, use a little savvy, and you will find it (hint: Public Trust Doctrine).

I have no real worries over this, but just so we are all on the same page: While this is currently the law of the land, it is NOT because it is cast in legal stone, but rather because congress has chosen to remain silent. If congress chose to they could easily reverse this outcome on federal lands (and probably state ones too through a little funding leverage). If you don't think the feds can weigh in on hunting issues, please see, Waterfowl.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

I have no real worries over this, but just so we are all on the same page: While this is currently the law of the land, it is NOT because it is cast in legal stone, but rather because congress has chosen to remain silent. If congress chose to they could easily reverse this outcome on federal lands (and probably state ones too through a little funding leverage). If you don't think the feds can weigh in on hunting issues, please see, Waterfowl.

The feds could eliminate the whole issue by making it unlawful to outfit and guide on public land, but they won’t.

And yes on the Congressional aspect. See the lawsuits by USO about 11 years ago.

 

[Jape]

I have no real worries over this, but just so we are all on the same page: While this is currently the law of the land, it is NOT because it is cast in legal stone, but rather because congress has chosen to remain silent. If congress chose to they could easily reverse this outcome on federal lands (and probably state ones too through a little funding leverage). If you don't think the feds can weigh in on hunting issues, please see, Waterfowl.

Yeah, it's a good distinction you make. Legislative action can always "trump" that precedence, assuming it is not found unconstitutional by the courts. It would be pretty interesting to see if that ever happened and how Wyoming G&F would respond with their management plan.