*Not* hunting on Wyoming Wilderness

[James Riley]

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.

Thanks. For me it's not so much money as it is time. I'm trying to decide when I want to retire and what I want to do with my time. It will be at least two years before I get around to it. And it will take a lot of prep. The ideal situation would be if I could work with Wyoming to somehow "revoke" my tag after I tell them what I'm going to do. That way I'll have the standing/harm, I won't challenge their ability to anticipatorily revoke (just the basis for and harm caused by it), and I wouldn't risk a conviction. I'd still probably get stuck with a bunch of Administrative appeals etc. Oh well, no one ever said it was easy. If they won't play ball then I'd have to go ahead and go over all the hurdles. Poor me, having to go hunting in Wyoming. That would actually be easier.

 

[Whiptail]

The Federal government, as the landowner, could tell the state of Wyoming that no hunting will take place in Wilderness Areas if they don't change the laws. Why not sue the Feds(National Forest Service) for failing to stand up to the states to honor their mission statement?

 

[James Riley]

The Federal government, as the landowner, could tell the state of Wyoming that no hunting will take place in Wilderness Areas if they don't change the laws. Why not sue the Feds(National Forest Service) for failing to stand up to the states to honor their mission statement?

That's a thought. Usually throw in the kitchen sink and go after everyone. See what sticks. The USFS would probably say their hands were tied by that "Reaffirmation of State Regulation of Resident and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005" that mplane72 referenced. Nevertheless, you bring up another angle to look at.

 

[tjones]

I couldn't find the you tube video for this scene, but did find the quote. This thread reminded me of it.

Bill: You have to see the Gambinis in action. I mean, these people, they love to argue. I mean, they live to argue.
Stan: My parents argue too, it doesn't make them good lawyers.
Bill: Stan, I've seen your parents argue. Trust me, they're amateurs.

Carry on.

 

[James Riley]

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.

I read that and found the following interesting:

"Given that courts have found that hunting is not a fundamental right, it is also unlikely that hunting laws discriminating against nonresidents
could be successfully challenged on Equal Protection grounds"

I would argue that the *underlying* right/privilege need not be considered; rather, the fundamental right is to be treated equally. Sitting here or there on a bus is not a fundamental right. Nor is it a fundamental privilege. Rather, equal treatment is itself the right and privilege. Or, the *reason* for discrimination can't be X (like race). In our case, can the reason for discrimination be residency? When it comes to Federal Land, I don't see how it could be. Any such distinction is arbitrary and capricious or, as others have said, simple special treatment for the outfitting industry.

Oh well, time to go do some real work for a while.

 

[James Riley]

I couldn't find the you tube video for this scene, but did find the quote. This thread reminded me of it.

Bill: You have to see the Gambinis in action. I mean, these people, they love to argue. I mean, they live to argue.
Stan: My parents argue too, it doesn't make them good lawyers.
Bill: Stan, I've seen your parents argue. Trust me, they're amateurs.

Carry on.

LOL! I used to be a professional. Now I just play one on the internet. And I slept in a Holliday Inn last night.

 

[tjones]

LOL! I used to be a professional. Now I just play one on the internet. And I slept in a Holliday Inn last night.

Really? I never would have guessed,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[MooseCaboose]

Yes, they are. But is the latter "hunting" if you don't release and have no intention of releasing?

My inclination is that this would be left to a "reasonable person" standard where if they were observing your actions, notwithstanding your unknown intentions, what reasonable conclusion would they come to as to your intent.

Given this standard, it would not be apparently obvious to a reasonable person that someone drawing his bow back on an animal had the intention to not proceed to shoot the animal.

Think about poaching cases if the standard was different. Is it in the best interest of public policy if the warden catches you pointing your gun at an animal but must wait until you actually shoot the animal or else they will not have enough evidence as to prove your intent?

 

[James Riley]

My inclination is that this would be left to a "reasonable person" standard where if they were observing your actions, notwithstanding your unknown intentions, what reasonable conclusion would they come to as to your intent.

Given this standard, it would not be apparently obvious to a reasonable person that someone drawing his bow back on an animal had the intention to not proceed to shoot the animal.

Think about poaching cases if the standard was different. Is it in the best interest of public policy if the warden catches you pointing your gun at an animal but must wait until you actually shoot the animal or else they will not have enough evidence as to prove your intent?

Good points. However, if the reasonable man sees me draw and then *not* release, would he still be reasonable to conclude I was hunting? That brings up the definition of hunting again. Which leads us to your next point: Do game wardens actually bust people for poaching who have not yet killed? I know they do if you shoot a fake deer they have set up, because they can prove intent. But if you draw a bead and don't pull the trigger, it would be a he said/she said situation, especially if they did not have it on camera. No evidence.

And even then, why would they stop you before you let go? Might as well wait and get the evidence, unless they are actually trying to save the animal. If that is their primary goal then all they have to do is show their colors and you would never draw an arrow or a bead in the first place.

On further reflection, I think we are saying the same thing. So your point about public policy is the good one: Is it better to stop the kill and save the animal? Or is it better to let the kill happen and nail the poacher? I'm not sure, but without the evidence (literally the corpus delicti in this case) it's hard to make a case; and, I would argue, it *should* be. Reasonable doubt exists without it. Even if I was thinking about releasing and decided not to for some reason, we don't want thought crimes.

 

[Gr8bawana]

Just go do it already and get yourself into court to prove your point.

 

[James Riley]

Just go do it already and get yourself into court to prove your point.

Patience, grasshopper. Didn't you read the part about retirement, etc?