*Not* hunting on Wyoming Wilderness

[James Riley]

I would think that the feds running things would look like CO on steroids....

I'm tired and my brain is fried from trying to catch up with everything after getting back from my elk trip but.... I think in the end you're challenging, or questioning, each individual States right to regulate what and where, and if your challenging that might as well throw in when, you can hunt. Why have seasons and bag limits? If you have the right to hunt elk on Wilderness areas because they're on your public land then what about private land owners? Why should we have limited entry units on public land? and the slope keeps slipping...

Regarding what, where, when, and seasons and bag limits, I'd say they would all still be fine, just the way they are, so long they applied equally to all Americans when it came to federal lands. I suppose the State could continue to differentiate between residents and non-residents on state and private land. But as it is right now, it seems the only reason the state gets to distinguish between residents and non-residents on federal land is because the state owns the wildlife. But then, the federal land is feeding, watering and housing that state wildlife so you'd think there would be some reciprocity.

I'm not sure what your question is, "what about private land owners."

As to limited entry units on public land, it remains the same, so long as it remains the same for everyone.

As to locals picking up a larger share of the wildlife management budget, I'd say we have to count all the federal "in lieu of tax" payments and other benefits that state wildlife gets merely by the presence of federal land and fiscal subsidy. Don't western states get more from the feds than they pay in? Not sure.

 

[James Riley]

Depends on if this is a strict liability law or if there some subjective standard as to whether you were hunting or not. For instance, if hunting is defined as possessing a tag for the area and entering the wilderness with a weapon, then your intent to kill or not is moot.

Take trespass as an example of strict liability. It does not matter whether you "intended" to be on someone else's land. It only matters that you were there, not your underlying motivations.

Yes. These are the questions I was asking at the beginning. I wasn't getting anywhere so I started looking up the case law and read through the statute. Didn't get much. Because I'm lazy, I was hoping some Wyoming Attorney or game warden or other knowledgeable person would tell us the elements, standard, scope, etc. It just says "hunt" or "hunting" (can't remember) and does not define what hunting is. Someone else said you can indeed pass through with a rifle or bow and a license so long as you aren't hunting. If that is true, then it seems like intent would have to come into play unless you killed something. Without the kill, though, intent is hard to prove for reasons I've argued above.

 

[fowladdict]

Why waste time cogitating here? Why not just call up the local warden and ask the question? Let us all know what he/she says.

 

[James Riley]

Why waste time cogitating here? Why not just call up the local warden and ask the question? Let us all know what he/she says.

This is more fun.

 

[fowladdict]

This is more fun.

I'll admit...I'm amused.

 

[schmalts]

Carrying a weapon for protection and drawing on them "for practice" is two very different things.

 

[James Riley]

Carrying a weapon for protection and drawing on them "for practice" is two very different things.

Yes, they are. But is the latter "hunting" if you don't release and have no intention of releasing? There are times where a cop can stop what he reasonably thinks is a crime in progress but, as a general principle, cops are reactionary (Minority Report). Especially when there is no threat to (human) life or limb.

 

[ccc23454]

To me if it was ever truly challenged it would be beat. A outfitter can be be a nonresident who owns a guide business that operates on wilderness lands but technically he can't hunt by himself, one of his guides(employees) who could also be non-residents would have to take him...this law is just Stupid! Those are federal lands where states have been granted the right to administer game laws for recreation purposes, land use (or restriction) is not not a game law. To prove point within national forest where wilderness areas are, wyoming game and fish don't close roads or trails theNational Forest Service does! This is just the state buddy network lining pockets between outfitters and legislature!

C

 

[James Riley]

This is just the state buddy network lining pockets between outfitters and legislature!

I grew up just south of the border and lived in Eden and Rock Bottom (I mean Springs), for a while, but I've hiked over much of it and I have a friend who practices law up there. I was around when Ed Cantrell shot that dude in the back of a cop car. There is definitely a lot of boom-bust and "know who" in that country. I've always got a Johnson County War vibe from Wyoming, like it never went away; just changed the names and added a few professions. I'm sure a lot of that goes on in other states but Wyoming seems to wear it like a badge of honor.

Beautiful land, though. Gizz, wolves, the whole package.

 

[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 WILL be cited if you do this. If you go into the wilderness without a tag for the unit, they will have you for not only hunting wilderness without a guide but also hunting without a license. Even if you won the wilderness aspect of the case, you would probably still lose your hunting privileges in WY and the other 44 states of interstate wildlife violator compact. Losing your right to vote and carry is very doubtful. If you had a tag for said unit and entered the wilderness then you would be challenging only the NR without a guide law. Would you win? Also doubtful with the outfitter dollars pitted against you. They would bring the high dollar lawyers and you would have just you, unless you have some deep pockets.

Are you going to also hunt grizzly/brown bear, dall sheep, and Mt. goats in AK without a guide? They let you hunt black bear, muskox, wolf, moose, deer, elk, bison, etc without a guide.

 

[emrah1028]

To the OP, a few things:

1. Just look up what wyoming defines as "hunting". I bet it includes pursuing like it does here in MN.

2. You are not Rosa Parks.

3. You are no different than liberal loonies/protestors/looters who riot and cause mayhem even after an "unjust" incident has gone through the court system. Instead of trying to change something legislatively (like our society is supposed to do), you don't like that the results didn't go your way, so you decide to become a criminal.

There are so many more points, but I'm done on the potty and can't type fast enough on my phone.

Emrah

 

[James Riley]

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 WILL be cited if you do this. If you go into the wilderness without a tag for the unit, they will have you for not only hunting wilderness without a guide but also hunting without a license. Even if you won the wilderness aspect of the case, you would probably still lose your hunting privileges in WY and the other 44 states of interstate wildlife violator compact. Losing your right to vote and carry is very doubtful. If you had a tag for said unit and entered the wilderness then you would be challenging only the NR without a guide law. Would you win? Also doubtful with the outfitter dollars pitted against you. They would bring the high dollar lawyers and you would have just you, unless you have some deep pockets.

Are you going to also hunt grizzly/brown bear, dall sheep, and Mt. goats in AK without a guide? They let you hunt black bear, muskox, wolf, moose, deer, elk, bison, etc without a guide.

In English and in the law it is important to pay attention to the use of “and” and “or”. So, breaking down your post, we have this:

“Hunting includes pursuing . . . and all lesser acts, such as disturbing, , . . . or using any device used to take . . . animals, whether they result in taking or not, . . ..”

So, while I don't know if that is Wyoming's definition or not, I would say that using a camera to photograph elk would constitute “hunting”. As would stump shooting in the wilderness.

If I did it, I would have the tag and test only the guide law.

As to Alaska, it depends: Is the guide requirement for ALL Americans on federal land, or just non-residents? If the latter, then yes, test that too.

 

[James Riley]

To the OP, a few things:

1. Just look up what wyoming defines as "hunting". I bet it includes pursuing like it does here in MN.

2. You are not Rosa Parks.

3. You are no different than liberal loonies/protestors/looters who riot and cause mayhem even after an "unjust" incident has gone through the court system. Instead of trying to change something legislatively (like our society is supposed to do), you don't like that the results didn't go your way, so you decide to become a criminal.

There are so many more points, but I'm done on the potty and can't type fast enough on my phone.

Emrah

1. I was hoping you'd do that for me. If you don't know what hunting is, then I'll move on to the next post.

2. An analogy, by definition, is not the thing itself. It is no argument to simply point that out. Rather, it is incumbent upon those who wish to defeat it to draw a distinction with a relevant difference. You failed to do so, thus I'll move on to the next post.

3. Let me show you how to draw a distinction with a relevant difference: You failed to show where the subject law has gone through the courts system, on the merits. Or how a non-resident can change something legislatively.

4. If you have so many more points, you might keep them to yourself if they will be so easy to destroy as those above.

P.S. I'm curious as to why you tried to analogize me to liberal loonies. Don't you think, in this case, I'd be more akin to the conservative loonies, like the Bundy outfit?

 

[Gellar]

I carry concealed when I am in the forest not hunting as well, but I don't draw and point at animals. I was taught to only aim at things you are going to safely shoot. If a LEO sees you draw on an animal or carrying a hunting weapon during hunting season they are going to ask you questions. If you do not have a hunting license and they see you doing these acts they are going to have a whole slew of other questions. It would not be hard for the LEO to testify that he saw you come to full draw on a game animal and you had the intent to harvest said animal, that is why most people come to full draw. You may be able to prove in court that you had no intentions of harvesting the animal, but why would you want to draw extra attention to yourself in the field and have to waste a day or several days in court?

 

[emrah1028]

1. I was hoping you'd do that for me. If you don't know what hunting is, then I'll move on to the next post.

2. An analogy, by definition, is not the thing itself. It is no argument to simply point that out. Rather, it is incumbent upon those who wish to defeat it to draw a distinction with a relevant difference. You failed to do so, thus I'll move on to the next post.

3. Let me show you how to draw a distinction with a relevant difference: You failed to show where the subject law has gone through the courts system, on the merits. Or how a non-resident can change something legislatively.

4. If you have so many more points, you might keep them to yourself if they will be so easy to destroy as those above.

P.S. I'm curious as to why you tried to analogize me to liberal loonies. Don't you think, in this case, I'd be more akin to the conservative loonies, like the Bundy outfit?

Guess I'm just trying to figure out your motives here. Like what are you trying to prove? And to whom? What is the end goal of all of this?

Emrah

 

[James Riley]

. . . but why would you want to draw extra attention to yourself in the field and have to waste a day or several days in court?

To test a law I don't agree with.

I think, however, that if I really want to test it, I would go ahead and kill the animal. At first we were discussing the somewhat academic issue of simply carrying in Wilderness with no intent to hunt. But some folks said you can indeed carry in Wilderness so long as you are not hunting. Then we got into the definition of hunting and whether or not that required an intent to kill, and then going to full draw, and etc.

But the real challenge to the law is this: If you are otherwise in complete compliance with all laws, have a tag, it's in season, etc. but the sole "wrong" you are committing is that you are an un-guided, non-resident American citizen hunting on federal Wilderness land.

 

[James Riley]

Guess I'm just trying to figure out your motives here. Like what are you trying to prove? And to whom? What is the end goal of all of this?

Emrah

To be able to hunt on federal Wilderness land without a guide, just like a resident of Wyoming.

 

[mplane72]

As I said we're tough on NR's here in Iowa. NR Land owners have no guaranteed tag and have to go through the draw just like everyone else. Long read but it seems to parallel your argument to being able to hunt your land in Wyoming as a NR.

https://www.calt.iastate.edu/system...nresident Landowners - Iowa Supreme Court.pdf

Congress passed the
Reaffirmation of State Regulation of Resident
and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of
2005.
3
In this Act, the Congress declared that it
was in the
public interest:
“...
for each State to continue to regulate
the taking for any purpose of fish and
wildlife within its boundaries, including
by means of laws or regulations that
differentiate between residents and
nonresidents of such State with respect
to t
he availability of licenses or permits
for taking of particular species of fish or
wildlife, the kind and numbers of fish
and wildlife that may be taken, or the
fees charged in connection with issuance
of licenses or permits for hunting or
fishing.
”
4
In
passing this Act, the Congress
foreclosed
challenges to hunting regulations and laws based
upon dormant commerce clause grounds.

 

[James Riley]

As I said we're tough on NR's here in Iowa. NR Land owners have no guaranteed tag and have to go through the draw just like everyone else. Long read but it seems to parallel your argument to being able to hunt your land in Wyoming as a NR.

https://www.calt.iastate.edu/system...nresident Landowners - Iowa Supreme Court.pdf

Congress passed the
Reaffirmation of State Regulation of Resident
and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of
2005.
3
In this Act, the Congress declared that it
was in the
public interest:
“...
for each State to continue to regulate
the taking for any purpose of fish and
wildlife within its boundaries, including
by means of laws or regulations that
differentiate between residents and
nonresidents of such State with respect
to t
he availability of licenses or permits
for taking of particular species of fish or
wildlife, the kind and numbers of fish
and wildlife that may be taken, or the
fees charged in connection with issuance
of licenses or permits for hunting or
fishing.
”
4
In
passing this Act, the Congress
foreclosed
challenges to hunting regulations and laws based
upon dormant commerce clause grounds.

Interesting, thanks. I would argue a couple of things:

The language: ". . . with respect to the availability of licenses or permits for taking of particular species of fish or wildlife, the kind and numbers of fish and wildlife that may be taken, or the fees charged . . ." does not include the areas within which they may hunt.

I may lose on that because the language is an addition by specification/example and does not exclude regulation of location.

On the other hand, Congress cannot trump the "equal protection" rights provided by the U.S. Constitution, nor can Congress foreclose "challenges to hunting regulations and laws based upon dormant commerce clause grounds." It is emphatically the province of the court to say what the law is. Congress can't go around telling people the Constitution does not apply.

As to Iowa, I'm not sure what you are saying but I like the words "just like everyone else."

 

[brownbear932008]

I personally would love to see these silly guide laws be challenged. They are a joke pushed by outfitters for financial gain. It would open so many doors in AK. I will not hire a guide to hunt these animals in AK. Or WY. Myself. Half the time the guides are less experienced than the Hunter and I don't need or want them toting me around pointing out game to shoot. That's not hunting in my book. Challenge away I say..... only way it's gonna change. I have some dough for legal fees.