*Not* hunting on Wyoming Wilderness

[James Riley]

Does Wyoming consider it illegal for a non-resident to wander around Federal Wilderness Areas with a rifle or bow, without a guide, during hunting season, without a license, if the non-resident is *not* hunting?

 

[rlmmatt]

If you weren't hunting their would be a reason to have a bow
I think that would be hard to argue in court and explain that you weren't poaching

 

[James Riley]

I always carry a rifle or bow when I'm afield. I like to shoot. I also carry a pistol in the field and everywhere else I go.

 

[schmalts]

Interesting question. Being the whole law is totally blatant BS anyway, I don't know why you would be denied the right to bear arms and protect yourself if thats what you want to do.

 

[Goatshoes]

I would say if you look or act like you are breaking the law then a warden is justified in writing you the ticket and letting you explain yourself to the judge. While I'm sure your intentions are good, it sounds like a flimsy excuse to avoid a citation.

 

[James Riley]

I think the burden of proof is upon the warden. I should not have to explain myself to anyone.

I was just wondering if anyone knew the elements of the crime. I suppose I could look it up but I'm lazy. In unrelated circumstances, I've drawn on bulls with no intention of releasing; just trying to see if I could execute the motion without spooking them. Is that hunting? Hmmm.

 

[Dan O]

I think the burden of proof is upon the warden. I should not have to explain myself to anyone.

I was just wondering if anyone knew the elements of the crime. I suppose I could look it up but I'm lazy. In unrelated circumstances, I've drawn on bulls with no intention of releasing; just trying to see if I could execute the motion without spooking them. Is that hunting? Hmmm

If a Warden observed you in the field draw on a game animal he would have a good case that you were hunting. First you have a weapon(bow). Second you show intent by drawing on the animal. Just because you did not release the arrow is no defense. Your actions show ability and intent. I believe a jury would find you guilty of hunting.

Dan

 

[James Riley]

I think the burden of proof is upon the warden. I should not have to explain myself to anyone.

I was just wondering if anyone knew the elements of the crime. I suppose I could look it up but I'm lazy. In unrelated circumstances, I've drawn on bulls with no intention of releasing; just trying to see if I could execute the motion without spooking them. Is that hunting? Hmmm

If a Warden observed you in the field draw on a game animal he would have a good case that you were hunting. First you have a weapon(bow). Second you show intent by drawing on the animal. Just because you did not release the arrow is no defense. Your actions show ability and intent. I believe a jury would find you guilty of hunting.

Dan

I think the elements of the crime would help us decide. If I did not release, that would indeed be a defense, depending on how you define hunting. The best the warden could do would be to ask why I did not release. My reply: "I'm not hunting." If he could point to an element defining hunting as something short of the intent to kill, then you'd be right. But that would open up hunting to include photography, practice stalking, etc.

 

[Flatrock]

How about you just don't go out there, fully looking like you're hunting and breaking the law. That doesn't do non residents or hunters for that matter any good in any way.

 

[James Riley]

How about you just don't go out there, fully looking like you're hunting and breaking the law. That doesn't do non residents or hunters for that matter any good in any way.

Better yet, how about I DO go out there, fully doing what I think I have every right in the world to do? On MY land.

I'm curious how you think this would hurt non-residents or hunters in any way. Non-residents are already treated like second class citizens on their own land; land that feeds and waters and houses Wyoming's game animals. Hunters, well, they would not be affected at all. I think a test case might be in order. Hmmm. Maybe in a few years when I retire.

 

[MTGomer]

The law is stupid. And one i only don't break because I don't want the punishment, not because I think it's morally wrong.

I think Idaho used to prohibit carrying handguns during bow or some damn thing didn't they?

I swear i remember my dads partner being cited for it.

 

[sbhooper]

The law is pure crap, but you will have a hard time convincing a warden (or a court) that you are roaming around with a rifle, bow etc., during hunting season and not hunting. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor and do not poke the bear, so to say.

 

[James Riley]

I'd be willing to pay a fine, do some jail time and even lose the ability to hunt in Wyoming; what I would NOT be willing to do is lose my ability to hunt outside of Wyoming or possess weapons or vote. Wonder if it's a felony and what the penalties are. Stupid laws need to be challenged. If you are a non-resident you don't have much of a voice to challenge them.

Off topic, but it would be interesting to watch the State of Idaho argue the Second Amendment doesn't apply as a defense/right to carry on open and unclaimed lands. Archery season trumps the 2nd?

Oh well, as I said in the diesel fuel thread, I deal with stupid S all the time. I guess there are more important battles to pick. Some folks count on that and their laws stand.

 

[Alabama]

Hunting includes pursuing, shooting, killing, capturing and trapping wild animals, wild fowl, wild birds, and all lesser acts, such as disturbing, harrying or worrying, or placing, setting, drawing, or using any device used to take wild animals, wild fowl, wild birds, whether they result in taking or not, and includes every act of assistance to any person in taking or attempting to take wild animals, wild fowl, or wild birds.

You do this and you WILL be found guilty. It's just a form of outfitter welfare and needs to be challenged. Though I'm not sure if this is the best way to go about it.

 

[Whiptail]

If you weren't hunting their would be a reason to have a bow
I think that would be hard to argue in court and explain that you weren't poaching

Is it legal to shoot targets during hunting season on a wilderness area?

 

[wytex]

Why would you draw on any animal you did not intend to shoot? That is the problem I see. What happens if you " accidentally " release an arrow at that animal. I practice my draw on animals I have a tag for. We stump shoot all the time in the forest. http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/415/1128/524769/ It has been challenged.

 

[noharleyyet]

Riley; thread is tepid hayduke. ; )

 

[James Riley]

Why would you draw on any animal you did not intend to shoot? That is the problem I see. What happens if you " accidentally " release an arrow at that animal. I practice my draw on animals I have a tag for. We stump shoot all the time in the forest. http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/415/1128/524769/ It has been challenged.

1. As I explained above, I draw on animals I don't intend to shoot to see if I can execute the motion without buggering them.
2. I don't accidentally release. But if I did, so much the better for a test case.
3. *If* that case you cited is the same one I read, they never got to the merits. Typical chicken-shit judicial abdication by finding no standing. That is why a test case would have to be brought: You get in the court's candy-ass face and force them to make a decision whether they like or not. Then, if you don't like the decision, you appeal and hopefully they get spanked by a higher court that sees this stupid law for what it is.

 

[James Riley]

Riley; thread is tepid hayduke. ; )

He was younger and had bigger balls than I do. :W:

 

[Gr8bawana]

1. As I explained above, I draw on animals I don't intend to shoot to see if I can execute the motion without buggering them.
2. I don't accidentally release. But if I did, so much the better for a test case.
3. *If* that case you cited is the same one I read, they never got to the merits. Typical chicken-shit judicial abdication by finding no standing. That is why a test case would have to be brought: You get in the court's candy-ass face and force them to make a decision whether they like or not. Then, if you don't like the decision, you appeal and hopefully they get spanked by a higher court that sees this stupid law for what it is.

What if you went into a bank with a gun and a note telling them to give all the money in the drawer and then left without the money just so you could see if you could do it without buggering them. If you don't take the money did you really rob them?
Your argument is pretty silly.