Looks like Wyoming is gonna pass a new law for real sportsman

[BuzzH]

No, and that is not my point. My point is that well intentioned legislation can often have minor drafting errors or ambiguities that leads to outcomes broader or different from what the proponents intended. Simple placement of commas can make or break laws, and in fact do (see numerous cases and articles about the "oxford comma" by way of example).

For example, the Feb bill that failed had this definition, "providing to a hunter specified geographic locations defined by a universal coordinate system for the purpose of
locating any specific previously scouted big or trophy game animals." It all hinges on the word "specific". If that word gets dropped in committee, on purpose or in error (both happen), or if a court takes a broad view of an otherwise straight forward word, "specific" (which also happens), this could creep into activities you are not intending.

This observation is not for or against this bill you support, just a general concern I have as we continue to regulate almost every conceivable human activity.

That's good advice...I'll keep that in mind the next 100 times I look at and negotiate contract language, legislation, regulations, etc., just like I did for the last 100.

The legislation in question is solid, and I'll be present to see what, if any, amendments are made to muck it up.

BTW, the GF, LSO, and a bunch of us dumb Wyoming sportsmen looked at this legislation closely...nothing for you to worry about.

 

[VikingsGuy]

That's good advice...I'll keep that in mind the next 100 times I look at and negotiate contract language, legislation, regulations, etc., just like I did for the last 100.

The legislation in question is solid, and I'll be present to see what, if any, amendments are made to muck it up.

BTW, the GF, LSO, and a bunch of us dumb Wyoming sportsmen looked at this legislation closely...nothing for you to worry about.

What is your problem? I raised a simple point.

 

[BuzzH]

What is your problem? I raised a simple point.

Nothing, thought it was pretty clear here regarding how the bill was written:

The bill was advanced by the TRW interim committee Tuesday in Lander, I was there along with JM77. LSO made sure the language was correct and TRW will submit the legislation at the upcoming session.

I can assure you, that JM77 and myself spend just slightly more than a chitload of time making sure that the GF, LSO, and the Legislature get the language right. In fact, both of us have written regulation, written parts of GF legislation, etc. I also do the same for my paying gig.

OnX maps has nothing to worry about.

The only people this will impact are those that "Advertise or provide to a hunter for renumeration the location information of any previously scouted big or trophy game animal for the purpose of aiding the hunter in the taking of the big or trophy game animal."

"Location information means: The specific geographic location of the animal defined by a universal coordinate system or any maps, drawings, illustrations or other documents which show the location of the animal."

The section also does not apply Government Agencies, their employees, contractors or designees performing any lawful duties and also outfitters or professional guides in accordance with W.S. 23-2-40-6 through 23-2-418.

Where's the wording wrong or the ambiguity in that language? How would you propose to tighten it up? What potential problems do you see?

I've seen final versions of legislation, that became law, that weren't even close to this solid.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Never disagreed with the goal, and said flat out I hadn't seen the language, just made a general passing comment. A simple, "This looks pretty good now and we will be watching carefully" would have been fine. Ignoring my comments that are apparently beneath you would also be OK. Instead, your tone on this and other posts simply falls short of the HuntTalk rules around respectful tone, not sure why you take that approach here and on other forums. To each their own I guess.

 

[BuzzH]

A simple question asking if we found any potential problems with the legislation would have been fine too....

 

[el unit]

The Doyle Moss Ethics Adjustment Act

Funny. That's the first name I thought of when I read this thread.

 

[Millsworks]

It does sound like this one will be a game changer for years to come and all I can add is it's long over due legislation.
Thanks to those helping to push this through and helping to keep hunting as sportsman like as we can for the future.

 

[MN Public Hunter]

Personally this is a joke, outfitters do this for a living, how can they continue to operate if a law is passed for this? So...let's allow outfitters to do this, but for joe public it's against the law?

 

[BuzzH]

Personally this is a joke, outfitters do this for a living, how can they continue to operate if a law is passed for this? So...let's allow outfitters to do this, but for joe public it's against the law?

Real easy..."This section shall not apply to any: (i) Governmental agency, their employees, contractors or designees performing lawful duties;

(ii) Outfitting or professional guide services provided in accordance with W.S. 23-2-406 through 23-2-418.

If Joe public wants to sell information, get an outfitters license and stay legal...

Lots of people spouting off before they know what the legislation says.

 

[Oak]

Muley Fanatic Foundation posted the bill on their Facebook page, for anyone who doesn't want to speculate about what might be in it.

 

[BuzzH]

Try this. stole it from Jeff:

 

[VikingsGuy]

So, if Joe Blow goes out and tracks a trophy buck and charges a hunter $500 for last known location it is a criminal act - and it is being made criminal because many of us view this as unethical, unfair and unsportsman-like. But if Joe Blow offers to act under the direction of a licensed outfitter who pays him $300 for the "service" and who passes on the costs to his customers, how is this more fair, more ethical or more sportsman-like? Or if Joe Blow jumps through some applications hoops and becomes a licensed guide or outfitter and does the same thing how is that more fair, more ethical or more sportsman-like? What am I missing?

Seems like the outfitter/guide exception swallows much of the rule. This feels more like "chrony capitalism" than wildlife management.

 

[BuzzH]

So, if Joe Blow goes out and tracks a trophy buck and charges a hunter $500 for last known location it is a criminal act - and it is being made criminal because many of us view this as unethical, unfair and unsportsman-like. But if Joe Blow offers to act under the direction of a licensed outfitter who pays him $300 for the "service" and passes on the costs to his customers, how is this more fair. more ethical or more sportsman-like? Or if Joe Blow jumps through some applications hoops and becomes a licensed guide or outfitter and does the same thing how is that more fair, more ethical or more sportsman-like? What am I missing?

Seems like the outfitter/guide exception swallows much of the rule. This feels more like "chrony capitalism" than wildlife management.

You're missing nothing, except the whole point...carry on.

Ethics and fair chase hunting still means something to people in Wyoming...and the fact that we don't need yet ANOTHER form of pressure to be put on a very limited wildlife resource by a for profit enterprise, than the ones that already exist.

The same reason that we banned the use of aircraft and drones for scouting. The same reason why we don't hunt mule deer bucks in the rut. The same reason why we don't allow people to snare and trap deer. The same reason why we don't let people use dynamite to catch fish. The same reason we don't allow party hunting. The same reason we don't let people shoot 5 buck mule deer a year.

Get the point now?

Continue to be as obtuse as you want.

The State of Wyoming, along with both the R and NR hunters have worked extremely hard to have the wildlife we do. The GF has busted their ass too to make sound management decisions to ensure the needs of our wildlife, our Residents, and the hunting public.

If the Citizens here don't want some dude from Utah pimping our wildlife via a scouting service...that's our business. Frankly, I don't care what it feels like to you...at all.

The Legislators on the TRW Committee agreed, the needs of our wildlife come first. We don't let joe blow just waltz in to Wyoming and use our coal resources, our timber resources, our grazing without being permitted to do so. Why in the hell should we allow Joe Blow to pillage our wildlife without a permit?

Savvy?

This legislation is needed RIGHT now or this will get out of hand.

 

[VikingsGuy]

The same reason that we banned the use of aircraft and drones for scouting. The same reason why we don't hunt mule deer bucks in the rut. The same reason why we don't allow people to snare and trap deer. The same reason why we don't let people use dynamite to catch fish. The same reason we don't allow party hunting. The same reason we don't let people shoot 5 buck mule deer a year.

Are outfitters and guides excused to use drones or aircraft? Are they excused from no mule deer hunt in the rut? Are they allow to snare and trap deer? Are they allowed to use dynamite to catch fish? Can their customers party hunt? Can their customers shoot 5 bucks a year? If so then I stand corrected. If not, it is you who is missing the point.

You are correct however, WY can set what ever rules it wants, but that doesn't make them effective.

And for the third or fourth time I restate that I agree with the underlying goal, just asking questions about how/if it will work. But you prefer bully and bluster over discussion, and that is your right. As it is my right to continue to ask simple questions no matter how rude you choose to be in return, and to draw reasonable conclusions from the information at hand. And right now my conclusion is that this is good business for the outfitters, guides and licensing agent and of somewhat less value to the animals and those who care about ethical hunting. Drop the outfitter/guide exception and then we are talking.

 

[BuzzH]

I'll give you the benefit, that you're just a bit slow...

If someone wants to use our coal resources...they need to be permitted to do it.

If someone wants to use our state lands to graze or farm...they need to be permitted.

If someone wants to use our timber resources...they need to be permitted.

How do you justify someone utilizing our wildlife resources, via a scouting service in a for profit venture, without a permit?

In particular when an outfitter or guide has to be permitted to do so?

If a scouting service wants to continue operating...get an outfitters license, easy solution.

Right now, there are a handful that are operating without a permit...this law will force them to either stop, risk a 10K fine and/or a year in prison, or get a permit to legally profit from our wildlife.

How is that kind of legislation wrong?

Good god...I would have never imagined something so friggin' simple and straight forward would baffle someone.

 

[MN Public Hunter]

Real easy..."This section shall not apply to any: (i) Governmental agency, their employees, contractors or designees performing lawful duties;

(ii) Outfitting or professional guide services provided in accordance with W.S. 23-2-406 through 23-2-418.

If Joe public wants to sell information, get an outfitters license and stay legal...

Lots of people spouting off before they know what the legislation says.

I don't GAF what it say because as I pointed out this is a favor to outfitters and/or dollars to the state to say it's OK if you are an outfitter, but if not, you can't do it. Am I missing something here, enlighten me please. So it's OK if a WY person does what they want, but not someone from out of state unless they pay the man? Where does that make sense? Buzz, I personally don't give a crap, but this is just more non sense and for you to defend it is hilarious.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Ohhh, I thought this was about fairness, sportsmanship and hunting ethics. If the early posts had suggested it is just about cleaning up a handful (your words not mine) of unlicensed guides exploiting a loophole I wouldn't have even read any further.

As for your question of, is such administrative "legislation wrong"? The simple answer is of course it is not. A more complete answer is that many Americans, particularly in the mid-west and mountain west do prefer a limited government, and believe that the many areas of the economy you referenced are probably over-regulated and that results in higher costs, less respect for property rights and less freedom. To the particular question at hand - I don't care if/how WY licenses its guides -- I do care about fair and ethical hunting but as you have so clearly pointed out, that is not what this is about.

By the way, do you feel better or smarter by lacing the majority of your posts with comments like "you're just a bit slow"? It is not flattering of you and does nothing to add support to your opinions. Since you sincerely seem to care about legislative outcomes, it's good to remember that for every "slow person" like me who continues to respond in the face of your childish insults, a hundred other voters will silently view your behavior with distaste - and over time this will cost you and OUR cause votes. Hunters and outdoorsman are a vanishing population, no need to be a jerk to the few who are left.

 

[Huntin_GI]

Buzz,

The bill sounds great in intent and with that being said, I would think these fellars who are currently free lancing will end up "employed" by a guide to do exactly what they are already doing. Will this slow the pressure on wildlife? I doubt it.

But slinging insults does little to assist in advancing your teams plans and ideas.

 

[1_pointer]

Seems somewhat analogous to what Utah implemented after the Spider Bull was shot. Lots of paid spotters looking for that bull. Now, to get paid to be a spotter you have to be a licensed/registered guide. This seems much the same in WY. I do think it's a good enough move, but I'm not sure it will really change things all that much unless the hurdles to becoming a guide/outfitter in WY are higher than I imagine they are. I also agree that anyone profiting from state owned resource should be licensed/permitted in order to do so.

 

[huronmtns]

Not knowing for sure because I don't know where the Guide License money is allocated ... but I think the real point of this legislation is to generate funding to help support wildlife and conservation (Guide License Fee $$) vs no benefit to wildlife or conservation (No Guide License Fee $$) Perhaps that detail needs to be brought up in this thread. It may just solve this debate.