Not going to Wyoming this year

[BuzzH]

krshunter,

Sorry, but I dont feel bad about your buddy getting a ticket. It sounds to me like the rules were pretty darn clear in the HMA in question. Why should he feel he is entitled to circumvent the rules of the HMA? Maybe he should have looked into some instructions on how to carry a game cart in the back of the truck or how to bone and use a backpack to retrieve animals. I dont agree with a landowner allowing special privileges to certain people when enrolled in an HMA. They can set the rules they want for their ranch, when those rules are in place, they should apply to everyone...period.

The warden also did the right thing...they guy was in violation of the rules of the HMA, and by the way...your buddy SIGNED HIS PERMISSION SLIP STATING HE WOULD ABIDE BY ALL RULES OF THE HMA.

If the landowner wants to run things differently than, he should just get out of the program all together.

I do agree with you that better information could be made available regarding HMA's. But, its not as easy as it sounds. The G&F typically doesnt know for sure until well after the draw deadlines which ranches will re-enroll and how much $$$ they have to spend for access. Another thing any person can do before they apply for a permit in any area is request a copy of last years Hunter Access areas. Also, the information is available on-line. Another item worth noting is that the application booklet is CRYSTAL clear in stating the area we're talking about has difficult public access. If you ignore all these simple things..., but I cant feel sorry for you. Research is a critical part of all big-game hunting. With minimal effort most of the items you brought up can be avoided.

I contend that the HMA's your talking about are very well managed. You should only be able to have a permission slip for one or the other. That gives everyone with a tag in that area the opportunity to hunt somewhere for at least 2 weeks (half the season).

If you cant find an antelope to shoot in two weeks...you dont deserve one. If things change in YOUR schedule...well...toughshitski...plan better next year.

 

[Tom]

I think the HMA program in Wyoming is great stuff! I don't know the problem with access you're bringing up, if there is one. The ones I've read about and gone to say how many permits are available, when to start getting them, etc. They have phone numbers to call all over the place on the web page and the printed material?

That ATV issue, if true, that's a mistake or maybe multiple mistakes. Good luck on your hunts!

 

[krshunter]

Buzz,

After being in the meetings one thing I can tell you is that the land owners have the ultimate say so in how their land is accessed no matter what the HMA rules say, and, the G&F has knowledged that during the meetings. They set those rules to try to make it an even playing field for everyone and I do agree that everyone should be held to the same set of rules. However, there are areas to some of these lands that the land owner don't mind giving vehicular access to if approached whether it be you, me or anyone else in the area. They would all be given the same yes answer provided they asked first. Whether it's fair or not has to be taken up with the land owners. But they have told G&F time and time again that it is their land and if they chose to allow someone retreival access they can and will. G&F has set up the HMA rules but has absolutely zero jurisdiction over private land.

I will have to disagree with you on the ranch re-enrollment. The meetings this spring were for just that. These weren't public meetings. They met individually with all of the potential ranches interested in the HMA's. They knew months ago (March actually, and I attended two) exactly who was going to be participating again and just what their concerns were from last year. They also decided at that time how they were going to divide up the dates for access and whether or not individual ranches were going to block out any time for guides.

As of this moment, I have a tag for one of the areas and as I go online or look in the booklet for an HMA permit and information the only thing available is the number that will be given out and the overall dates of the hunt. There is no information available giving specific dates to anyone for two different hunting blocks. Some people will assume that a HMA permit will allow them to hunt for the whole season as specified in the booklets. Should a person be able to get a goat in two weeks? I believe you should get one in a weekend, but things happen.

Again, I didn't complain personally about not being able to hunt the entire area or only able to hunt for two weeks. I plan accordingly and have hunted the HMA's enough to understand them. I also didn't say that it wasn't good management to split them up like that. The HMA's are indeed too small an area to allow all of the licenses on them. What I've been saying and maybe I just haven't gotten it across right is that all of the date and participation information has been known for months ahead of the draw. It would be nice to see it all furnished up front so people knew exactly what they were in for and not just that it is difficult access and requires a permit.

Anyway, I think overall it's a great program otherwise we wouldn't have access to any of the areas surrounding laramie. Just a few bugs to work out still in my mind. Bout all I have to say. Not much point in arguing over opinion.

 

[Oak]

G&F has set up the HMA rules but has absolutely zero jurisdiction over private land.

That's not true. The G&F has jurisdiction over any land where people are hunting state wildlife with state-issued tags. In the case of HMA's, I'm sure that the contract signed by the landowner has the rules spelled out, just like they are on the permission slips we sign to gain access. The G&F has the right to enforce the rules agreed to by the landowners. If they start letting people bend the rules it will create enforcement headaches down the road.

 

[BuzzH]

krshunter, Not to argue further, but I do have a question...

In your last post you said, "After being in the meetings one thing I can tell you is that the land owners have the ultimate say so in how their land is accessed no matter what the HMA rules say, and, the G&F has knowledged that during the meetings."

But in a previous post you said, "For instance, at this springs meeting at one of the ranches the topic of ATV game retreival was brought up. The ranch we were on was dead set against it because no matter how hard they try to patrol the area people always find a way to get away with things and if ATV's are in possession you can bet some of them will be used to hunt from. This season now ATV retreival is allowed according to game and fish and against the ranches wishes."

Arent those two statements in contradiction of each other?

If ranchers have the ultimate say on how their ranches are accessed, why are they now claiming they have to allow ATV retrieval?

Something isnt adding up.

 

[krshunter]

Buzz,

Yes it does sound like a contradiction. I guess what I was getting at is the fact that they argued against allowing ATV's on the property but the G&F put it in the rules anyway. Now because its part of the HMA rules this year many people will have them with them. Individuals don't have any idea that the land owner(s) doesn't want an ATV on the property though. The land owner has to deal with that now because it's part of the "rules".

Oak,

No the G&F does not have jurisdiction over the land. They are to enforce the rules spelled out in the hunting regulations and/or HMA rules. On public lands they can enforce BLM guidelines for on or off road use of vehicles because they aer both government agencies. But on private lands (and I don't disagree that letting one person bend the rules can and will cause headaches), if a rancher chooses to use his ATV's or truck or allow someone else to use a vehicle to retreive game, that is his right and the G&F can not overstep that authority. Is it wrong? Yeah, I believe so. But in the case of the gentleman we met that got the ticket, he didn't go asking to drive out in the field. He knew the rancher and asked if they could provide him some help retreiving the animal. They were busy patroling the hunt area and gave him permission to use his vehicle to get to it. I work in and a lands field and directly with a land attorney weekly and can assure you that G&F cannot go above the land owner when it comes to these things.

Some of the problems start when a person gets that permission once and then thinks they don't have to ask for it anymore or someone else see's them out there and thinks it's ok for them too. I think that G&F should pay a little more attention to the land owners requests in these meetings and then that all of the land owners involved should follow all of the rules exactly as the rules say.

 

[Oak]

krshunter,
You are contradicting yourself all over the place. You said in the first sentence, "the G&F does not have jurisdiction over the land" and in the very next sentence, "They are to enforce the rules spelled out in the hunting regulations and/or HMA rules." If that's not "jurisdiction", what is?

I don't know all the details of how the HMA agreements work, but I assume the state and landowners have a lease agreement, with rules that both agree to. I know you mentioned the ATV issue in which the landowner didn't agree with the ATV restrictions, but the fact is the land is in the program and the landowner ultimately signed his name. That's an agreement. The G&F must have ultimate enforcement power on the HMA's for the exact reason you stated: "Some of the problems start when a person...see's them out there and thinks it's ok for them too." That's exactly why the G&F strictly enforces the rules. If the landowner give permission for one guy to drive out and pick up his elk, it's great for the guy that killed the elk. But what about all the other hunters using the HMA? The rules stated no off road vehicle use, but now some jackass is driving out to pick up his elk and ruining the hunting experience for others. The rules need to be strictly enforced, and if the landowner doesn't agree with that then he shouldn't sign the paper and take the money.

Buzz,

Yes it does sound like a contradiction. I guess what I was getting at is the fact that they argued against allowing ATV's on the property but the G&F put it in the rules anyway. Now because its part of the HMA rules this year many people will have them with them. Individuals don't have any idea that the land owner(s) doesn't want an ATV on the property though. The land owner has to deal with that now because it's part of the "rules".

Oak,

No the G&F does not have jurisdiction over the land. They are to enforce the rules spelled out in the hunting regulations and/or HMA rules. On public lands they can enforce BLM guidelines for on or off road use of vehicles because they aer both government agencies. But on private lands (and I don't disagree that letting one person bend the rules can and will cause headaches), if a rancher chooses to use his ATV's or truck or allow someone else to use a vehicle to retreive game, that is his right and the G&F can not overstep that authority. Is it wrong? Yeah, I believe so. But in the case of the gentleman we met that got the ticket, he didn't go asking to drive out in the field. He knew the rancher and asked if they could provide him some help retreiving the animal. They were busy patroling the hunt area and gave him permission to use his vehicle to get to it. I work in and a lands field and directly with a land attorney weekly and can assure you that G&F cannot go above the land owner when it comes to these things.

Some of the problems start when a person gets that permission once and then thinks they don't have to ask for it anymore or someone else see's them out there and thinks it's ok for them too. I think that G&F should pay a little more attention to the land owners requests in these meetings and then that all of the land owners involved should follow all of the rules exactly as the rules say.

 

[krshunter]

Oak,

No I'm not contradicting myself. Simply stating that yes, the wardens jobs are to enforce the rules and regulations and in a lot of cases such as public lands, that does give them the right to enforce on/off road rules. The same also goes for the HMA's. There are rules set forth that they are to enforce including whatever is said about vehicle access. That is the fact and as you pointed out "if it isn't jurisdiction, what is it?" After that however I continued by explaining the access portion and I'll give it one more go. When a land owner tells G&F they gave an individual specific permission to retreive game, the G&F cannot do anything about that, let alone give a ticket for it. I do believe they should enforce the rules, but when specifically told as in this case and, whether you or I like it, they had no right to continue to issue the ticket. Bad judgement on the land owners side? Perhaps. I'm not arguing that it's fair or not fair. It wasn't my animal, it wasn't my hunting partner, it was just an incident and I was just sharing some details on it, and from experience and knowledge, exactly who has the final say so on someone being on the land in a vehicle. It's just the facts of the incident. One of the things that could be cleaned up between land owners and G&F.

The gentleman ticketed is certainly not a "jackass" from what I've gathered. He's a good friend to several ranchers in the area and a very ethical hunter from what I'm told. I know him because I was introduced to him on the ranch one day. He took advantage of the fact that he was given permission to retreive and animal. I can bet that the good majority of hunters out there would have done the same thing. Does that make them jackasses? I doubt it. Some of them do it anyway without the permission. There's the jackasses.

We were given permission prior to season opening to use my vehicle to retreive my game at any time. We chose not too. We hauled two antelope out last a little more than a mile. I don't like using my vehicle, because it gives others the impression they can do so also, it's not good on the vegetation and I'm not a lazy hunter. If I can walk several miles from the road in pursuit of an animal then I should be prepared to get it back to my vehicle.

I don't know for sure how the final agreements worked out. I am assuming that the majority of the ranches involved were in favor of ATV use otherwise it wouldn't be in the regs. I just know at the meetings I attended the ranchers spoke out adamantly against the ATV use. You and Buzz are right though, in the end everyone on both sides should adhere to the rules signed and set forth. In a perfect world maybe.

Now, if you guys would like to continue this, read this first. And again, the G&F enforces the rules, BUT, a land owner can do differently, right wrong or indifferent.

This is copied straight out of the the Wyoming Game and Fish Hunting Regulations, Chapter 23, Section 7, Subsection b & d.

(b) Travel by motor vehicle on lands and waters enrolled in the Department’s Private Lands/Public Wildlife Access Program is prohibited except as otherwise designated by Department sign. Department signs shall advise if specific designated or established roads are open to travel to motor vehicles. Department signs shall serve as official regulations of the Commission and the signs may be used to advise of additional restrictions on motor vehicle travel activities. The landowner or person in charge of the property may grant permission for motor vehicle travel contrary to Department signs.

(d) Contrary to this regulation, the landowner or person in charge of the property may grant permission for any use of his lands enrolled in the Department’s Private Lands/Public Wildlife Walk-in Area Program and the Department’s Hunter Management Area Program.

If that doesn't say it clearly, I don't know what does. Maybe the game and fish should look at their own regs.

 

[BuzzH]

What I find disturbing about the whole deal is that its a persons flat laziness that is causing these problems. Now, because some jackass couldnt pack his elk, a landowner is potentially going to pull his land out of the program. A warden was forced to make decision. The landowner and the hunter both showed piss poor judgement.

For Christ sake, if the HMA rules say you cant drive off designated routes...stay on the freaking roads and pack your game out. Dont ask for special privileges...just adhere to the rules. Pretty simple and problem solved.

Lazy bastards create nothing but problems.

If the guy in question would have just hauled out his elk this whole thing would have been avoided.

The few always screw it up for the many, time after time after time.

All I can say is dont bitch when these ranches get shut down...and thank the few that think they dont have to follow the rules.

 

[Oak]

If the regs you posted are correct, it doesn't seem like the guy getting the ticket had anything to worry about. It surely wouldn't stand up in court.

That said, I think it's a piss poor program that allows the landowners to give special priviledges to those they select. Make the rules when the agreement is signed and stick to them. The current system is unfair to others hunting the property and the wardens responsible for enforcing the laws.

 

[krshunter]

I called the land owner tonight and the guy that got the ticket indeed did not have anything to worry about. It went to court and was dismissed because of the sections of the regs I shared with you. The warden wasn't familiar with that section of the regulations. I don't really think he was put in an unfair position. If he was familiar with his own employers regulations there would have been no decision to make. One of the things that is handled poorly.

I can't fault the guy that got his animal out though because he didn't ask for permission to do that. He asked the land owner for help and was told to go retreive it with his vehicle which is clearly allowed. However it is poor practice in my mind to hunt elk alone. Very few people can handle and elk on their own for very long.

But that isn't what is going to have these areas shut down. It's the guys that go out there without permission or use their vehicles to hunt from off road. Anyway, I'm tired of taking heat for something I didn't directly take part in. I still contend that while the concept is a very good one and I for one am grateful for the priveldge to hunt in these areas, there are some management issues that need to be cleaned up. Thanks for the stimulating conversation guys.

 

[Tom]

I think you're right krshunter, that reg. has that exception. You learn something every day, thanks.

http://gf.state.wy.us/admin/regulations/chapter23/ch23camp.htm

I don't like that rule, it should be cleaned up to be more fair and prevent kaos. It seems like it would lead to kaos. A neighbor kid of the landowner could make it their part time job with that clause, it seems like. They get permission to retrieve game, charge the hunter for retrieval and then what do you have? I hope it doesn't lead to problems, having that clause.

What's the definition for a public access road? I met some guys last year that had their animals confiscated and had to pay some fines too, because they accessed the public land through a public access road, that apparently was not. They were going to get a lawyer, but I don't know how it turned out. A private road does not have to be posted, right? How do you know if a road it public or not, anybody?

 

[BuzzH]

krshunter,

None of it was directed at you...no reason to take the heat for some other boneheads dumb move.

I learned quite a bit about the way these HMA's are run in this thread.

I still agree with Oak that the best way to deal with any problems is to remove all doubt. Let the landowners decide how many hunters they want, when they want them there, and what kind of access they'll allow...then force them to stick to the agreement. ANYBODY found breaking those rules would be in clear violation and given a ticket, no questions asked. The way it is now, its impossible for hunters to police their own when different rules apply to different people. Its also a waste of a wardens time to check out complaints of people violating the rules when they may or may not be in violation.

Things need to be tightened up for sure.

Tom, county court houses will be able to tell you what roads are public and what roads are private.