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

[JWP58]

Does he sell info on bucks in his home state of UT?

 

[Idahoarcheryhunter]

Does he sell info on bucks in his home state of UT?

If someone wants to buy I'm sure he can deal.

 

[grizzly_]

Without commenting on the attributes of the proposed law, I really find it unhelpful the constant distinction of "our" enter natural resource here in relation to residents of a given state verses non-residents of that state when discussing federal land.

Obviously, I'm not talking about state-owned land... but on Federal land I frankly don't give a crap what your license plate says, we all have a say how its managed and an equal right to be there. This "information selling law" has nothing to do with a Utah resident in Wyoming, a Wyoming resident in Utah, or any other combination. The practice is either moral or its not, its either legal or its not.... lets leave the discussion there.

I have never seen a bigger jerk in my life than a Wyoming resident last week claiming he had the right to drive 40mph through the sage brush and when I politely asked him to please not drive so near our camp where we had children and dogs, he said I had no right (as a Utah resident) to come to Wyoming and tell him where he could drive. He then declared that Utahn's were "cultish", got out of his brown Tacoma to get another beer out of his cooler, and sped off through the sage brush. The misguided sub-classification by state-of-residency regarding items on federal land is unhelpful to all of us.

I fear I see that same harmful ideology creeping into this discussion.

 

[antlerradar]

WY could always use the MT approach to this problem. Montana approach, Unrestricted hunting for 11 week will ensure that there are few deer on public that people are will to pay for.

 

[MooseCaboose]

WY could always use the MT approach to this problem. Montana approach, Unrestricted hunting for 11 week will ensure that there are few deer on public that people are will to pay for.

Certainly true. You don't hear of (m)any public land mule deer outfitting operations in Montana.

 

[MooseCaboose]

Zach, 2 separate issues.

The FS already requires a permit to film for commercial use.

This would be a new state law to prohibit the sale of coordinates, maps, etc. to aid another hunter in the killing of big-game (cliff notes version). I have a copy of the bill right in front of me, but I'm not going to type it all.

Could easily conceive of selling only the coordinates and giving the photos out gratuitously.

 

[MooseCaboose]

What is "advanced photography equipment"? Is it the commercial use of the photographs that makes it illegal without permit, much like Randy needs for the TV program?

Did I miss it, or is there an actual link to the bill?

General questions to the collective, Buzz just happened to post the link.

This bill draft doesn't make any mention of advanced photo equipment. I'm not entirely clear where the author got that.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Certainly true. You don't hear of (m)any public land mule deer outfitting operations in Montana.

There you go... Montana does have a logical approach to managing mule deer. Keep the bucks small and numbers down to make it less desirable for public land outfitters so they don't put too much pressure on the deer herd. Crazy like a fox!

 

[JLS]

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

You certainly raise a valid point. Don't overlook the fact that outfitters, by nature, lead to higher exploitation of the wildlife resources. That's part of the reason why states regulate them. Typically, licensed outfitters are regulated both in scope of area and number of clients by both the state, and also by the federal land agency if it's public land (which in this case it is).

This is a very important component that should not be overlooked. Outfitters provide goods, services, access, and information to hunters that will by and large increase the success rate, thereby increasing pressure on the trophy age class of animals. Thinking that this does not affect the resource is completely untrue.

 

[VikingsGuy]

You certainly raise a valid point. Don't overlook the fact that outfitters, by nature, lead to higher exploitation of the wildlife resources. That's part of the reason why states regulate them. Typically, licensed outfitters are regulated both in scope of area and number of clients by both the state, and also by the federal land agency if it's public land (which in this case it is).

This is a very important component that should not be overlooked. Outfitters provide goods, services, access, and information to hunters that will by and large increase the success rate, thereby increasing pressure on the trophy age class of animals. Thinking that this does not affect the resource is completely untrue.

I agree completely. Once profit motive enters the equation (and for the record I am pro-profit motive and pro-capitalism) it impacts any issue at hand. Outfitters will exert pressure to increase out of state licenses (as far more NR use outfitters), restrict entrance of new outfitters or competing service providers, restrict access to new technologies that might compete with their services, lengthen seasons, provide preferences for local vendors, emphasize trophy population development over general animal populations, etc. Interested parties, whether interested for profit or for their own version of public interest (peta, sierra club, RMEF, etc) will exert pressure and influence on the system. And that is fine as long as there is transparency about connections, interests and motives, and the public and legislators make informed decisions.

 

[Millsworks]

As far as I can see, this new proposal included, I like how Wyoming is managing their wildlife and have no complaint about their current game laws. Other than the nonres wilderness law , but even that law has it's plus side.

Outfitters are managed and regulated plenty too and I have no problem with outfitters making an honest living guiding hunters.
I can't see how this new law will effect anyone in a negative way except those looking to profit directly from the specific location of a specific animal by just giving coordinates and a picture with an estimated score.
Outfitting in general is an experienced outdoosman and fellow hunter offering his knowledge and necessary equipment/ transportation to put a guy or gal in a position to take a game animal.
I don't think many that call themselves an outfitter or guide are going around taking pictures of and marking GPS coordinates of trophy game and then selling that to the highest bidder.

They have more to gain offering that info during a hunt.

Very different than sending 15 people to the same draw looking for a particular animal that you have a mug shot of.

That is not hunting in my mind. This is what is being addressed here.

Will it stop all of this activity? Not, likely anymore than drug laws stop all drug abuse, but it will help, I'm sure. At least better than doing nothing.
That's what the law is about. Can't see any conspiracy here.
Hope it passes ,but I think the benefits of any good law can never be fully realized if they are working well.
I'm sure if it is needed, there will be changes or amendments done before or after the law is passed to make it work as well as possible.

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

I'll just hire 12 scouts and pay them for finding me new camping spots.

This may sweep up the dumbest of the dumb asses but I can't see it doing much else. Well-intentioned to be sure.

The more annoying issue is the Doyle-type scouting mafias found in AZ and UT that camp on animals so some guy can come in and pull the trigger.

 

[cur dog]

I don't necessarily think this a bad law. We've all seen what a circus some of these Governors tag type hunts have become. Unfortunately, it appears that sort of nonsense will still be allowed. Its just blatently obvious that it benefits a couple of outfitters in western Wyoming. Its also being supported here by a guy who has had a past issue with "Founder".
After reading it over, it seems like this bill has a rather narrow focus, and is meant to put the "screws" to a small group of people.

IMO, Wyoming has bigger issues they could tackle, that would benefit concerning the public land hunter.

 

[cur dog]

I'll just hire 12 scouts and pay them for finding me new camping spots.

This may sweep up the dumbest of the dumb asses but I can't see it doing much else. Well-intentioned to be sure.

The more annoying issue is the Doyle-type scouting mafias found in AZ and UT that camp on animals so some guy can come in and pull the trigger.

The Doyle type circus does create a great deal of nausea for me also. Is it ethical? Is it fair to the average hunter?

 

[BuzzH]

I don't necessarily think this a bad law. We've all seen what a circus some of these Governors tag type hunts have become. Unfortunately, it appears that sort of nonsense will still be allowed. Its just blatently obvious that it benefits a couple of outfitters in western Wyoming. Its also being supported here by a guy who has had a past issue with "Founder".
After reading it over, it seems like this bill has a rather narrow focus, and is meant to put the "screws" to a small group of people.

IMO, Wyoming has bigger issues they could tackle, that would benefit concerning the public land hunter.

Couple comments.

First of all, what bigger issues need tackling?

I'm thinking Wyoming is doing some things right, considering in public testimony last Tuesday, when this bill was debated by TRW, the GF Director said there were 19,000 more applicants and licenses sold this year than last. That's significant.

Also, Nesvik stated in testimony that he has had many complaints about the scouting services, and that there are currently several that are doing the same thing as "founder". In his testimony, which I happen to agree with, he said its best to stay IN FRONT of the issue now, rather than wait for it to become a bigger problem. He also said since they know most of the people doing this, they would make contact with those providing the service and explain the law, repercussions of getting caught etc. About like they did with the flying to scout, pass the law, educate, then prosecute.

There are several things that I wish we could have stayed in front of, that are now so entrenched, that its about impossible to fix. Once the Jeanie is out of the bottle, sometimes its darn tough to put back in. The smart move is to nip this right now.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Couple comments.

First of all, what bigger issues need tackling?

I am new to the western hunting game, but even with my little exposure I would say clarifying trespass law to affirmatively allow "corner crossing" would benefit many hunters and make some of the easier draw units more huntable.

Also sounds like cracking down on "squatting" on desireable camping sites and hunting areas by organized groups such as outfitters also sounds like it probably the effects many and is worth addressing.

Would be good to have penalties for knowingly false marking, gating or claim rights to public lands. With GPS technology land owners know or should know their boundaries, there is no excuse for harassing public land hunters with false allegations of trespass just because you wished they weren't near your land .

I'm thinking Wyoming is doing some things right . . .

No doubt here, lots of really good things going on in WY on the public land hunting front. The balance of lots of animals and public land, a small population and the desire to cash in on the $300 million dollars of economic benefit (10% of WY GDP) make for a great hunting resource. I haven't heard anyone say WY isn't a top hunting choice.

. . . its best to stay IN FRONT of the issue . .

Agree here too, but still suggest that language get a few tweaks if you want the full effect you are looking for. In case this isn't clear, this is called supporting your goal and WY hunting. Supporters do ask questions and suggest changes, not just opponents.

 

[WapitiBob]

Bounty Hunting is prospering in Utah, no surprise to see it make its way to WY.

 

[MooseCaboose]

Outfitters are managed and regulated plenty too and I have no problem with outfitters making an honest living guiding hunters.
I can't see how this new law will effect anyone in a negative way except those looking to profit directly from the specific location of a specific animal by just giving coordinates and a picture with an estimated score.
Outfitting in general is an experienced outdoosman and fellow hunter offering his knowledge and necessary equipment/ transportation to put a guy or gal in a position to take a game animal.
I don't think many that call themselves an outfitter or guide are going around taking pictures of and marking GPS coordinates of trophy game and then selling that to the highest bidder.

They have more to gain offering that info during a hunt.

Very different than sending 15 people to the same draw looking for a particular animal that you have a mug shot of.

That is not hunting in my mind. This is what is being addressed here.

What's the difference between paying a guy to tell you where a big buck lives vs. paying a guy to take you to where the big buck lives? That's the situation here when comparing hiring a scout vs. hiring an Outfitter.

Some government regulations? Fine, make the scouts get a license too. Why is guiding hunters an honest living vs. scouting out good bucks for people not also honest? Both require a similar skillset and effort.

I don't have a horse in this race, but it seems you are making a false distinction.

 

[MooseCaboose]

by selling the information he is essentially acting as an outfitter without the outfitter license.

Many people hire an outfitter because they know where the game is, where to camp, location of water, etc. This allows them to hunt a shorter period of time and have a better chance of success. This is exactly the information that this guy is selling. He is actually screwing the outfitter and every other public land hunter. He operates without the overhead or liability of the outfitter.
Now if he does not sell the information and I fail to harvest the needle then the needle is still out there. The needle is available to you, me, the outfitter and his clients, and every public land hunter.

This is what dreams are made of. He is selling your dreams to the highest bidder.

Now if this is one guy today it will evolve in time to be a serious problem. I support this law even if it is not perfect, and hope Montana follows Wyoming's lead.

I bolded what you said to make it clear. You acknowledge that people hire outfitters because the outfitters know where the game is and can help increase the person's chances of success in a shorter amount of time.

Aren't those the exact reasons a person would buy information from one these scouts? So how in your words, is the Outfitter also not "selling your dreams to the highest bidder?"

You mention the licensing. Instead of passing a bill that outlaws the practice, WY could just as easily creating a licensing scheme for these scouts. Would that legitimize the scouts?

I don't have a horse in this race, but it seems you are making a false distinction.

 

[JLS]

I am new to the western hunting game, but even with my little exposure I would say clarifying trespass law to affirmatively allow "corner crossing" would benefit many hunters and make some of the easier draw units more huntable.

Also sounds like cracking down on "squatting" on desireable camping sites and hunting areas by organized groups such as outfitters also sounds like it probably the effects many and is worth addressing.

Would be good to have penalties for knowingly false marking, gating or claim rights to public lands. With GPS technology land owners know or should know their boundaries, there is no excuse for harassing public land hunters with false allegations of trespass just because you wished they weren't near your land .



No doubt here, lots of really good things going on in WY on the public land hunting front. The balance of lots of animals and public land, a small population and the desire to cash in on the $300 million dollars of economic benefit (10% of WY GDP) make for a great hunting resource. I haven't heard anyone say WY isn't a top hunting choice.



Agree here too, but still suggest that language get a few tweaks if you want the full effect you are looking for. In case this isn't clear, this is called supporting your goal and WY hunting. Supporters do ask questions and suggest changes, not just opponents.

It's already illegal to post public land as private and harass hunters in most states. Also, squatting on camps is a land management agency issue that is already addressed but very difficult and time consuming to enforce . No western legislature is going to allow corner crossing without one hell of a fight from the stockgrowers and outfitters associations. The only way it will be resolved in a positive manner for sportsmen is by a court ruling, IMO.