No non-resident hunting on Wyoming wilderness unless you have a Guide - when are you all going to fight this?

[Irrelevant]

What was that thread a while back that I think Buzz started about trophy animals? All I remember are pages of giant deer from Buzz. And the same with giant bulls from Greenhorn. Maybe we need to resurrect that one?

found it! https://www.hunttalk.com/threads/big-ones-otc-pic-heavy.287468/#post-2789468

 

[VikingsGuy]

That’s outside of my pay grade. Any stats geeks?

30-300 is typical sample size when random sampling surveys for small/medium populations. But this is not random as users choose or not to reply - so not really precise guidance in your situation. But last I looked, it was north 150 responses and 95-5 is unlikely to be reverse no matter how long you leave it up.

 

[Jape]

When the 8th Circuit decided Minnesota ex rel. Hatch v. Hoeven, 456 F.3d 826, the court glossed over North Dakota's constitutional amendment about hunting and fishing, which is admittedly vague. I'm not aware of a more recent challenge to a state's discriminatory restrictions and pricing on non-resident hunting, but it would be interesting how the courts would rule on a privileges and immunities challenge in a state that more explicitly created a state-constitutional right to hunt and fish for only its residents.

Although not terribly "recent" as caselaw goes, this Montana case covered the P&I clause quite extensively.

Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm'n of Montana, 436 U.S. 371 (1978)

Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm'n of Montana: The Privileges and Immunities Clause requires only that a state treat all resident and non-resident citizens equally with respect to privileges and immunities that relate to the vitality of the nation as a single entity. Recreational hunting does not...

supreme.justia.com

 

[MTGomer]

You show strong vigor for being here almost 48 hours.

 

[VAspeedgoat]

I think his name may be Freddy.

 

[dirtclod Az.]

"Wish he would shut down his post"... You know, it's said that on these internet forums, regardless of the topic, 10% of the users actually participate in the actual topic, the 90% constantly hammer their keyboards and lay down 1,000's of posts...yet do not participate. These types are the ones who run crying to the moderator, try to get threads deleted, members banned. The 10 percenters usually get disenchanted with it all and fade away...the 90% bunch then take over and pretty much run the joint

What percentile group do you fit in with, dirtclod Az?

I have a few posts under my belt. A few more than 14...

 

[WyLionHunter]

you have 1,275 posts....all since 1/24/18. Being a prolific internet poster really (in the real world) doesn't mean squat. But I will give you props for having that good ole' perceived 'net cred

 

[dirtclod Az.]

I think his name may be Freddy.

It sure sounds like Freddy's Horsehockey.Maybe I should complain to Moderator.Ha!,Ha!
He sure wants to fight.I'M going to take a break, and take a "WyLion" and wipe my "Hunter"

 

[WyLionHunter]

It sure sounds like Freddy's Horsehockey.Maybe I should complain to Moderator.Ha!,Ha!
He sure wants to fight.I'M going to take a break, and take a "WyLion" and wipe my "Hunter"

Make sure you use the restroom marked "90%"

 

[Jape]

Make sure you use the restroom marked "90%"

@WyLionHunter have you noticed just about everyone agrees with the actual substance of the NR/wilderness issue but disagrees with how you are going about that? Just cool the jets and consider that maybe, just maybe, there are a lot of contributors on this forum with a tremendous amount of experience/insight that may have a different perspective you had not considered.

 

[BluegrassBilly]

Although not terribly "recent" as caselaw goes, this Montana case covered the P&I clause quite extensively.

Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm'n of Montana, 436 U.S. 371 (1978)

Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm'n of Montana: The Privileges and Immunities Clause requires only that a state treat all resident and non-resident citizens equally with respect to privileges and immunities that relate to the vitality of the nation as a single entity. Recreational hunting does not...

supreme.justia.com

The holding in Baldwin was dependent upon its finding that there is no fundamental right to hunt and fish in other states. However, the recently adopted amendments to several state constitutions create a right that didn't previously exist. My thought is that those changes could change the analysis under the P&I clause. I'm also not aware of any other state constitutional rights that are extended to residents but not non-residents - that's exactly what the P&I clause was designed to prevent.

 

[Jape]

The holding in Baldwin was dependent upon its finding that there is no fundamental right to hunt and fish in other states. However, the recently adopted amendments to several state constitutions create a right that didn't previously exist. My thought is that those changes could change the analysis under the P&I clause. I'm also not aware of any other state constitutional rights that are extended to residents but not non-residents - that's exactly what the P&I clause was designed to prevent.

In part, but would that ultimately change the outcome? The P&I clause only applies to "privileges" that are basic to the maintenance and wellbeing of the nation as a whole. While hunting elk is basic to my maintenance and wellbeing per SCOTUS it is not on the same level as the right to speak, access to courts, trade, etc... Let's say those amendment are held unconstitutional. That doesn't mean it would create a right as a NR to hunt. It would just mean nobody has that right, at least not so the P&I clause could be applied.

While I think that could be a novel argument, the precedence surrounding these lawsuits (stare decisis), as well as the public trust doctrine, convinces me it would be a lesson in futility.

 

[PrairieHunter]

If you apply before August 1, you have all the access to public land that you want.

Locking NR hunters out of natl forest, BLM, state, walk in, refuges, etc.. is a big deal IMO. Much bigger deal that licking NR's out of wilderness in Wyoming.

This is just the beginning. Some states seem to value NR hunters more than others. Wyoming's deal is more about outfitters than screwing NR hunters. South Dakota is purely to screw NR hunters as there are not that many outfitters in SD operating on walk in land, refuges, etc.. Will be interesting to see if other states follow suit.

 

[warmer]

Locking NR hunters out of natl forest, BLM, state, walk in, refuges, etc.. is a big deal IMO. Much bigger deal that licking NR's out of wilderness in Wyoming.

This is just the beginning. Some states seem to value NR hunters more than others. Wyoming's deal is more about outfitters than screwing NR hunters. South Dakota is purely to screw NR hunters as there are not that many outfitters in SD operating on walk in land, refuges, etc.. Will be interesting to see if other states follow suit.

In SD it is illegal to guide/outfit on public land.

 

[PrairieHunter]

In SD it is illegal to guide/outfit on public land.

So the rule changes were 100% about screwing NR hunters. That's a big difference compared to what Wyoming has done.

I am actually surprised that more folks on here are not upset about NR hunters losing access to an enormous amount of public land in SD. Guess not many archery hunters who go to SD regularly.

I can't imagine the outrage if Montana, Colorado, or Wyoming decided not to allow NR hunters to archery hunt in Sept on public land.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

So the rule changes were 100% about screwing NR hunters. That's a big difference compared to what Wyoming has done.

I am actually surprised that more folks on here are not upset about NR hunters losing access to an enormous amount of public land in SD. Guess not many archery hunters who go to SD regularly.

I can't imagine the outrage if Montana, Colorado, or Wyoming decided not to allow NR hunters to archery hunt in Sept on public land.

As others have said above, states are well within their rights to issue tags as they see fit. Many states choose not to give out any tags to NR, CA only gives out 1 NR elk tag on the other end of the spectrum there are states that put residents and non-residents on equal footing.

I think the main reason you don't see a huge outcry about South Dakota is the limited number of tags issued for people hunting public land to begin with, similar to Montana and Utah limiting what units NR can apply for sheep in.

I'm actually kinda surprised you are chiming in on this issue, given your previous statements about how CO mistreats it's residents by allowing so many NR hunters. You've used the term screwed here on both ends of the spectrum, what's equitable in your mind?

 

[Irrelevant]

As others have said above, states are well within their rights to issue tags as they see fit. Many states choose not to give out any tags to NR, CA only gives out 1 NR elk tag on the other end of the spectrum there are states that put residents and non-residents on equal footing.

I think the main reason you don't see a huge outcry about South Dakota is the limited number of tags issued for people hunting public land to begin with, similar to Montana and Utah limiting what units NR can apply for sheep in.

I'm actually kinda surprised you are chiming in on this issue, given your previous statements about how CO mistreats it's residents by allowing so many NR hunters. You've used the term screwed here on both ends of the spectrum, what's equitable in your mind?

Was that meant to be at me?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Was that meant to be at me?

lol, most definitely not

 

[justinch]

30-300 is typical sample size when random sampling surveys for small/medium populations. But this is not random as users choose or not to reply - so not really precise guidance in your situation. But last I looked, it was north 150 responses and 95-5 is unlikely to be reverse no matter how long you leave it up.

I resemble that remark

Technically, you'd want to use a sample size calculator. How many members do we have?

 

[Gr8bawana]

@WyLionHunter have you noticed just about everyone agrees with the actual substance of the NR/wilderness issue but disagrees with how you are going about that? Just cool the jets and consider that maybe, just maybe, there are a lot of contributors on this forum with a tremendous amount of experience/insight that may have a different perspective you had not considered.

I don't think he has any intentions of actually being part of this forum. He's just trolling us.