The last time I busted my ass walking in several miles to hunt the Forest "non-motorized trail", we were greeted two days in a row in there by one of @BuzzH compadres in his full size truck.
So much for wildlife disturbance.
I support this obviously, but the bill was greatly watered down by the amendment which gives the landowner a mulligan by requiring prior notice by an LEO that signage is improper. We as sportsman don't get that luxury. If you violate statute or regulation there is no "get out of jail free card"...
Even in Montana, if a hunter kills an elk in archery, they are done. If not, they can grab a rifle later, correct? Same as Wyoming. Your argument is wrong.
That's not correct. Wyoming has both general and LQ areas. Same numbers of hunters every year unless quotas are raised or more residents buy general. We are not a "choose your weapon state. The tag is good for both seasons, except 5 areas that are type 1 or 9 with no carryover.
It's a foolish...
How ridiculous. Wyoming has better elk hunting than most and crossbows in archery haven't made any difference. You kill in archery, you're done. If not you grab a rifle and hunt. How does that change anything?
Then have that 10 yr old pack the crossbow in the field and see how that goes.
It works in Wyoming because if a hunter fills during special archery, they aren't in the field hunting during rifle season. Look back into harvest surveys past 10 years and you will see no appreciable difference in...
Initially when Buzz and I discussed this bill at the beginning of the session, we thought such a ridiculous piece of crap of a bill would get filed in a drawer and die a slow death.
Apparently the Wyoming House had other plans. Now we won't be taking anything for granted!
Given our local area has a somewhat static prevalence rate from mainly hunter killed bucks of around 30%, increasing harvest on mature bucks means roughly 7 out of 10 bucks killed is disease free. In the end, IF it really lowers prevalence rates, we still have CWD on the landscape. Until game...
I am interested to see where the definition of "unoccupied " lands falls. SCOTUS sent that back to the state to resolve.
Also, I'm curious if the Arapaho treaty did not include hunting terminology, what happens with that.