Southern Elk
Well-known member
I would bet very few people even risk it.
Wyoming regulation for US Wilderness
- Thread starter Sytes
- Start date
I would bet very few people even risk it.
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,820
True: A Wyoming resident corner hopping is different than a non-resident packing a bull elk out of Wilderness. I can tell you that if I'm not looking for a fight, I obey the law, especially someone else's law. If I'm looking for a fight, I prep.
Southern Elk
Well-known member
^Exactly.
BuzzH
Well-known member
I'll try to answer the questions regarding the Wyoming law here, to the best of what I believe.
1. First off, I think the law sucks major ass. I don't like it any better than anyone else.
2. There is a lot of misdirected outrage at who caused this problem. I would direct any NR that doesn't like the law to contact the Wyoming outfitters and Guides association. They pushed the law, they hired the lobbyist, they bought the steak dinners for the Legislature that got it passed. The average Resident hunters, in true fashion of a few decades ago, either didn't care or didn't get involved. I can assure you that this law would NOT pass today. But, to blame the average citizen, or in particular average Resident hunter is pure crap. The apathetic R of Wyoming is no different the apathetic Resident of any other State.
3. Wyoming BHA has not taken an official position on this, although it has been brought up and discussed in the context of the WPLI (Wyoming Public Lands Initiative). Again, WYBHA hasn't taken an official position, but we are discussing drawing a hard line on any NEW wilderness designation that would potentially come from the WPLI process, that we somehow exclude them from the Guide Requirement. Currently NR's can hunt all the Wilderness Study Areas without a guide now, so its a pretty thin argument that any newly established Wilderness Areas should exclude NR's. I intend to make this a major question/issue in the WPLI process and have talked in length with the WYBHA board, as well as other Wyoming wildlife/hunting organizations. There seems to be agreement that we need to address this if and/or when the WPLI process moves forward.
4. I also think there is a very "selective" outrage coming from people that live in States that discriminate against me as NR of where they live. For example, I don't see the Residents of Colorado busting their ass to make it legal for NR's to apply for Ranching for Wildlife hunts there. I also don't see them busting their ass to give NR's 25% of their sheep and goat tags, 20% of their moose permits, over 60% of their pronghorn permits. It would be nice if Montana would guarantee NR's 10% of their moose, sheep, goat, deer, elk, and pronghorn permits instead of an "up to" which results in about 4-5% of those tags going to NR's. Would be nice if Alaska Residents would quit discriminating against NR's, requiring a guide for grizzly, goat, and dall sheep.
5. As much as I like a "level" playing field, in the case of a States wildlife resources, legally, there is no requirement for any state to even issue a single tag to a NR hunter. That's been defended in court many, many times that any State can discriminate against NR's for any reason they want...through where they can apply, for what kind of tag they apply for, etc. etc. etc.
I'll be honest, that I grow tired of packing water for and listening to the constant whining and whiners who cry about this law. People expect an awful lot from people like myself and many, many others who donate a chitload of time and our own money to fight for public access, stop bad land exchanges, attend meetings, stop chit legislation, etc. etc. I'm tired of getting no support and a lot of flack from guys that don't do chit for NR's in their own state, but then bitch and complain about what we're not doing to help YOU here.
Again, I think the law is total crap, but the Sportsmen here didn't pass the law, outfitters did. It makes no sense to talk of reciprocal laws, you're blaming the wrong group. Further, trying to strong-arm Wyoming Sportsmen is not going to be met with much support here.
Finally, to change a law like this, would take more than just a bunch of Resident Hunters...it would take a paid lobbyist or two which don't work for free. Talk is cheap...action isn't.
1. First off, I think the law sucks major ass. I don't like it any better than anyone else.
2. There is a lot of misdirected outrage at who caused this problem. I would direct any NR that doesn't like the law to contact the Wyoming outfitters and Guides association. They pushed the law, they hired the lobbyist, they bought the steak dinners for the Legislature that got it passed. The average Resident hunters, in true fashion of a few decades ago, either didn't care or didn't get involved. I can assure you that this law would NOT pass today. But, to blame the average citizen, or in particular average Resident hunter is pure crap. The apathetic R of Wyoming is no different the apathetic Resident of any other State.
3. Wyoming BHA has not taken an official position on this, although it has been brought up and discussed in the context of the WPLI (Wyoming Public Lands Initiative). Again, WYBHA hasn't taken an official position, but we are discussing drawing a hard line on any NEW wilderness designation that would potentially come from the WPLI process, that we somehow exclude them from the Guide Requirement. Currently NR's can hunt all the Wilderness Study Areas without a guide now, so its a pretty thin argument that any newly established Wilderness Areas should exclude NR's. I intend to make this a major question/issue in the WPLI process and have talked in length with the WYBHA board, as well as other Wyoming wildlife/hunting organizations. There seems to be agreement that we need to address this if and/or when the WPLI process moves forward.
4. I also think there is a very "selective" outrage coming from people that live in States that discriminate against me as NR of where they live. For example, I don't see the Residents of Colorado busting their ass to make it legal for NR's to apply for Ranching for Wildlife hunts there. I also don't see them busting their ass to give NR's 25% of their sheep and goat tags, 20% of their moose permits, over 60% of their pronghorn permits. It would be nice if Montana would guarantee NR's 10% of their moose, sheep, goat, deer, elk, and pronghorn permits instead of an "up to" which results in about 4-5% of those tags going to NR's. Would be nice if Alaska Residents would quit discriminating against NR's, requiring a guide for grizzly, goat, and dall sheep.
5. As much as I like a "level" playing field, in the case of a States wildlife resources, legally, there is no requirement for any state to even issue a single tag to a NR hunter. That's been defended in court many, many times that any State can discriminate against NR's for any reason they want...through where they can apply, for what kind of tag they apply for, etc. etc. etc.
I'll be honest, that I grow tired of packing water for and listening to the constant whining and whiners who cry about this law. People expect an awful lot from people like myself and many, many others who donate a chitload of time and our own money to fight for public access, stop bad land exchanges, attend meetings, stop chit legislation, etc. etc. I'm tired of getting no support and a lot of flack from guys that don't do chit for NR's in their own state, but then bitch and complain about what we're not doing to help YOU here.
Again, I think the law is total crap, but the Sportsmen here didn't pass the law, outfitters did. It makes no sense to talk of reciprocal laws, you're blaming the wrong group. Further, trying to strong-arm Wyoming Sportsmen is not going to be met with much support here.
Finally, to change a law like this, would take more than just a bunch of Resident Hunters...it would take a paid lobbyist or two which don't work for free. Talk is cheap...action isn't.
Check out this recent thread. http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?270802-*Not*-hunting-on-Wyoming-Wilderness
Yea the law sucks but Wyoming has such fantastic opportunities for NR's so I don't believe it's worth making a huge deal about. What might the unintended consequences be of getting it changed? Hard to say but I'd hate to see the NR tag allocation get cut way down which is what I think could happen. That would make things way worse than not being able to go into the wilderness. Wouldn't have to worry about the wilderness issue when you don't have a tag.
Yea the law sucks but Wyoming has such fantastic opportunities for NR's so I don't believe it's worth making a huge deal about. What might the unintended consequences be of getting it changed? Hard to say but I'd hate to see the NR tag allocation get cut way down which is what I think could happen. That would make things way worse than not being able to go into the wilderness. Wouldn't have to worry about the wilderness issue when you don't have a tag.
MontanaWild
New member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2012
- Messages
- 297
Hey you can even get away with grazing cattle on the wilderness lands. The warden said one outfitter hasn't killed an elk in the wilderness in 10 years but is still in business.
mdunc8
Well-known member
That's not nearly as bad as what y'all got away with...
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,820
Enough said.
As to the rest of your post, I really have not heard too many non-residents complain about how Colorado favors residents. *If* I did, and *if* Colorado did *not* have a compelling interest in the distinction, then I'd back the hand of the non-residents in using their federal land in Colorado. But, as you opine here, and in other posts I've read, residents are involved in resource enhancement in ways that non-residents are not. That alone can justify lower prices and better tag access. So in that regard, you hoist yourself on your own petard. Wyoming's guide law, as you acknowledge, has no such justification.
I do agree with you on voter apathy. That is why I figured it wouldn't work. I don't see Wyoming voters getting off their ass and giving a S about non-residents in the Wilderness. And I don't see tit-for-tat changing much for reasons I've already stated. But if it could work, and if that is what it would take to motivate voters, then so be it. Apathy is not an excuse. Sometimes two wrongs make a right. It just probably wouldn't work here because not enough people would feel it. How many Wyoming residents are chomping at the bit to hunt Colorado Wilderness? Three?
sbhooper
Well-known member
This law makes as much sense to me as the corner crossing crap, but that being said, most of the wilderness is rougher than I want to hunt, anyway. I never hire a guide, so really, for me it is a non-issue. Fighting it would be more trouble than gain, I am afraid.
I will continue to hunt outside these discriminatory boundaries.
I will continue to hunt outside these discriminatory boundaries.
Buzz,
Appreciate your response. My friend and I are not fluent in the adventures you and many here share multi-state hunting wise.
If other states practice the general hunts such as elk, deer and lopes in the same fashion on federal land then I would share the same disappointment as I shared in my OP. I've no intent to be selective in my choice.
I believe all states should respect federal land as ours and not hold outfitter requirements on one person over another.
I think this fits perfectly w/in BHA's main tenants and holds a greater consideration over a single state position. I know BHA has hands filled with protecting our public lands... and well appreciated! A core reason for my membership. This, on a federal level holds a strong position, least IMO especially now understanding this is not a single state issue. However, I digress... we all pick our fights and BHA'S I'm sure is choosing it's battles wisely...
Thanks guys for the info shared. Always appreciate and value (most occasions
) your thoughts, Buzz. You do a lot for us... more than many are aware.
This sounds bigger than one hunter can take on and seems needed an organization to champion this horse chit regulation.
Appreciate your response. My friend and I are not fluent in the adventures you and many here share multi-state hunting wise.
If other states practice the general hunts such as elk, deer and lopes in the same fashion on federal land then I would share the same disappointment as I shared in my OP. I've no intent to be selective in my choice.
I believe all states should respect federal land as ours and not hold outfitter requirements on one person over another.
I think this fits perfectly w/in BHA's main tenants and holds a greater consideration over a single state position. I know BHA has hands filled with protecting our public lands... and well appreciated! A core reason for my membership. This, on a federal level holds a strong position, least IMO especially now understanding this is not a single state issue. However, I digress... we all pick our fights and BHA'S I'm sure is choosing it's battles wisely...
Thanks guys for the info shared. Always appreciate and value (most occasions
) your thoughts, Buzz. You do a lot for us... more than many are aware.This sounds bigger than one hunter can take on and seems needed an organization to champion this horse chit regulation.
Similar threads
