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

huronmtns said:
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.
Click to expand...

My thought as well. Similarly, Arkansas charges very little for NR duck hunting and needs to, at least, double the fee. They could use those funds to improve habitat and/or increase public hunting access. Management of resources is the whole purpose of state game and fish managers.
 
Just another dumb Wyoming law that caters to outfitters. I'm sure the outfitters of the Greys range hate Founder sending people into "their" area.
 
huronmtns said:
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.
Click to expand...

In Wyoming outfitter's license fees go to an outfitter board, which spends most of it on investigators looking for pirate outfitters. Zero money goes back to wildlife or wildlife management.
 
Becoming a guide in a state like Wyoming is costly and by no means a quick easy process. This is a highly regulated industry in the state also, which will always limit the number of guides in any given area of public land and by process ,over all. Guides can only afford to hire so many people , so that limits the number of guys working for them that may scout.

All this will reduce the number of people that can legally scout out game for profit quickly.

Enforcement will be tough in many instances. But if they want to sell the info, they will need to advertise and that will cause them trouble. It will be alot of hassle for guys to do this in the future, legally and not legally.
Always a way around a law or obstacle, but it is usually the long way. People will have to at least stop and weigh that out before they try it.
I don't like the idea that anyone does this at all and Outfitters that would sell info like we are talking about to any one that pays enouph for it should be ashamed of their selves too. But that isn't likely going to be comon when they can use that info to help a client take the animal and hence profit more from the information.
Few if any law will ever be perfect and none can stop all from wrong doing. So all any can do is try to pick the lesser of the evil and hope for the best.

It is a big step in the right direction in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
It seems to me, one guy has really gotten under the skin of a few people. How many giant bucks can one man find and pattern in a season. Is this really that big of an issue? Seems to me some powerful people have an ax to grind.

Lets introduce some worth while legislation, that benefits all hunters in Wyoming. How about better rules about outfitter harassment of public land hunters?
 
Thanks for the update on this Buzz. Great work, and I agree with it 100%.
Not really sure why hunters wouldn't support this to the fullest.
 
JWP58 said:
They probably do, but due to the wilderness area rule can't get past their WY hate.
Click to expand...

My advise for those who hate Wyoming due to the wilderness guide law is to not spend a single dime here. Problem with that is there are thousands out there standing in line to come here and spend a lot more!
 
Last edited:
I am in favor of reducing the ability of money to monopolize outdoor opportunities and I am in favor of fair chase and ethical hunting. As such I am in favor of a law that successfully prohibits commercial advance scouting. I prefer this sport to remain "hunting" and not just turn into "shooting" with live targets. But that is not to say I am enamored with this particular approach to the problem.

I am sure each person whose post suggested non-support has their own reason and I cannot, and will not, speak for them. I do though have concern in any discussion when we can't understand that others have a different view. It doesn't mean we have to share their view, but to suggest their view is unthinkable just shows we haven't thought about the issue in a well rounded manner.

One post questions why any hunter wouldn't full support the bill, another suggests that it is just petty jealousy and a third goes with the "love it or leave" it approach.

I offer several logical reasons someone might disagree to round this discussion out. I am not advocating any particular one, but offer in support of the notion that there is not just one "true hunter" answer to this (or possibly any) question.

- Some might read the bill and realize that as written it has possible enforce-ability problems, but they would support a tighter draft.

- Some might view the bill as insufficient given the large "licensed outfitter" loophole, but would support it without this exception.

- Some might view this as giving even more control and money to the existing outfitters who are not always the friend of the fair chase public land hunters, while doing little for the animals and other hunters.

- Some might generally object to the continued scope-creep of our governmental licensing/regulation systems that seem to find no activity too minor to not fully regulate, even if they don't like $$-based pre-scouting.

- Some might view this as a personal beef that has turned political.

- Some might be tiring of the resident/non-resident chasm in costs and regulations that seems to be growing every year - hurting all of us in the long run.

On the surface any of these are logical and reasonable views. They may not be my preference, and I may view some as flawed or wrong, but to hear another person voice one does not surprise me or cause me to label them stupid, ill-willed, jealous, petty or clueless.
 
Last edited:
Seems bizarre an effective, trusted marketplace emerged for GPS locations of trophy bucks on public land. What are the odds no one but one person selling the GPS information has an idea of where to be opening day? Don't other hunters scout and buddies on hikes see bucks? What if an archery hunter sticks the buck before my rifle season opens? Obviously someone was able to monetize the information but my gut feel is I am missing something on how a person builds trust to get paid money to share a GPS location that may be bogus and certainly might be known to several other hunters that also scout pre-season.

How many WY deer locations were sold in 2016? Do bucks really stay in one place as hunting season begins? How satisfied were the buyer of the info? Did any buyers actually harvest the deer in their hitman trophy buck GPS portfolio? Has the harvest rate gone up dramatically for the unit?

I can see value to hunters if someone marks up a map with information about water, food, shelter and migration paths that is relevant for the season I am hunting.
 
JM77 said:
My advise for those who hate Wyoming due to the wilderness law is to not spend a single dime here. Problem with that is there are thousands out there standing in line to come here a spend a lot more!
Click to expand...

Wow!
 
I for one think this is a good law. It shouldn't be an issue but we as hunters can't seem to police ourselves very well. Most of the time I am ashamed to be a Utahan because of what my fellow statesmen do. I can't believe "Founder" was selling out bucks (and more importantly spots) for a few hundred dollars. If a canyon produces a big buck once it will probably do it again. I have a few good spots that always seem to produce throughout the west and there is no way I would sell them even for $10,000. If you need the money that bad you probably shouldn't be hunting out of state in the first place.

One more thought. "Founder" gets a region G tag every year because he is well connected and gets guys to share points with him. I personally wouldn't mind point sharing going away in Wyoming (similar to Colorado).
 
This may or may not be a good bill. I'm not sure and won't comment.

I want to add to the conversation. As is often the case with bills like this, it has been developed by a committee that is chaired by a legislator that is also an Outfitter. So there is undeniably some self-interest at play.

Is this unethical or is this just those with the most political clout using government to eliminate the competition?

I don't know the answer, but it's worth considering.

http://legisweb.state.wy.us/LegislatorSummary/LegDetail.aspx?LegID=2013
 
VikingsGuy said:
I am in favor of reducing the ability of money to monopolize outdoor opportunities and I am in favor of fair chase and ethical hunting. As such I am in favor of a law that successfully prohibits commercial advance scouting. I prefer this sport to remain "hunting" and not just turn into "shooting" with live targets. But that is not to say I am enamored with this particular approach to the problem.

I am sure each person whose post suggested non-support has their own reason and I cannot, and will not, speak for them. I do though have concern in any discussion when we can't understand that others have a different view. It doesn't mean we have to share their view, but to suggest their view is unthinkable just shows we haven't thought about the issue in a well rounded manner.

One post questions why any hunter wouldn't full support the bill, another suggests that it is just petty jealousy and a third goes with the "love it or leave" it approach.

I offer several logical reasons someone might disagree to round this discussion out. I am not advocating any particular one, but offer in support of the notion that there is not just one "true hunter" answer to this (or possibly any) question.

- Some might read the bill and realize that as written it has possible enforce-ability problems, but they would support a tighter draft.

- Some might view the bill as insufficient given the large "licensed outfitter" loophole, but would support it without this exception.

- Some might view this as giving even more control and money to the existing outfitters who are not always the friend of the fair chase public land hunters, while doing little for the animals and other hunters.

- Some might generally object to the continued scope-creep of our governmental licensing/regulation systems that seem to find no activity too minor to not fully regulate, even if they don't like $$-based pre-scouting.

- Some might view this as a personal beef that has turned political.

- Some might be tiring of the resident/non-resident chasm in costs and regulations that seems to be growing every year - hurting all of us in the long run.

On the surface any of these are logical and reasonable views. They may not be my preference, and I may view some as flawed or wrong, but to hear another person voice one does not surprise me or cause me to label them stupid, ill-willed, jealous, petty or clueless.
Click to expand...

I agree that everyone should be able to voice their opinions without be belittled and I hope you continue to do so. I think where this discussion went sideways is due to people speculating about issues or problems without offering opinions on how to make the language stronger or address any of the "logical reasons why someone may disagree" that you posted above. That would at least give the folks that are familiar with the bill to speak to specific questions. Just stating that it has enforce-ability problems, licensed outfitter loophole,.....without providing solutions tends to not be that productive in some cases.
 
I agree specifics are helpful. Unfortunately most energy gets wasted addressing the poor behavior of some. The outfitter exemption was specifically discussed on page two and it was suggested it would be "better" without. FWIW also PM'd some alternate language to BuzzH.
 
CM22 said:
One more thought. "Founder" gets a region G tag every year because he is well connected and gets guys to share points with him. I personally wouldn't mind point sharing going away in Wyoming (similar to Colorado).
Click to expand...

I too think this is a bigger issue. I've seen multiple threads on different forums of guys shopping for party applicants for point sharing.

And for those wondering who "founder" is, my best guess is the user name as such on another forum. Took me literally 2mins on google..

http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/DCForumID6/26776.html
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Utard looking for Out-of-State Connections
Replies
4
Views
1K
Trial153
Trial153
wyoelkfan15
Trophy Hunt
Replies
18
Views
2K
TheBenHoyle
TheBenHoyle
JM77
Aircraft/Drone regulation passes in Wyoming
2
Replies
24
Views
5K
Flynarrow
F
F
How my Colorado Mule Deer dream turned into the one that got away
Replies
3
Views
1K
Northwoods Labs
Northwoods Labs
P
Hunter Landowner Relations
2
Replies
28
Views
7K
bwcatripper
B
Gastro Gnome - Eat Better Wherever

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,577
Messages
2,025,602
Members
36,237
Latest member
SCOOTER848

Share this page

Back
Top