WY Wilderness Rule ?

[dan.kirkpatrick]

jwp58 ,,what do you mean were not locked out???will you guide me in Wyoming in wilderness??any other Wyoming residents?? id like to,but don't want to apply in a heavy wilderness unit because of this access rule?id be happy to show you some of my Oregon spots in return?

 

[VikingsGuy]

Fair, or not, Baldwin v. Commissioner, a US Supreme Court case says a state can do whatever they want to NR hunters, in terms of pricing or allocation of opportunity.

Old thread, saw while searching for something else, peeked my interest. The SCOTUS is also clear that as it relates to federal land, the feds could choose to trump state regulation if they wished, but absent specific Federal legislation the default assumption of state rule prevails (as noted already by Randy). So, either NR hunters convince WY legislature it is in their interest to change the rules (unlikely), or they convince congress it is in the broader national interest (still unlikely, but at least in theory a national discussion might bring in some money and clout from outdoor equipment companies if they thought more hunting opportunities would mean more revenue for them.

 

[5Speedjim]

I keep reading the hunting regulations and it says "professional or resident guide when hunting in designated wilderness areas". It doesn't say licensed Wyoming professional, so why wouldn't my Maine guide license cover me?. I'm just asking what others think. its surprising what some rules actually say

 

[VikingsGuy]

I keep reading the hunting regulations and it says "professional or resident guide when hunting in designated wilderness areas". It doesn't say licensed Wyoming professional, so why wouldn't my Maine guide license cover me?. I'm just asking what others think. its surprising what some rules actually say

I am not a WY lawyer so take this with a grain of salt, but in another section the G&F regulations refer to "professional guides" as those regulated under the Outfitter and Professional Guide statute. That statute only recognizes guides as "professional guides" when licensed by WY AND while working under contract with a licensed outfitter. I didn't dig into whether a non-resident could take a contract from a licensed outfitter and become licensed by WY -- the application seemed residency agnostic but I didn't have time to dig into the rules. But either way, your Maine license doesn't get you there in my view.

 

[BuzzH]

S.339

The bill creates an exemption to the dormant Commerce Clause in order to give each state the right to regulate access to hunting and fishing. This is done by a renunciation of federal interest in regulating hunting and fishing. The reasons for creating this exception include the following:

Allowing states to distinguish and/or discriminate between residents and non-residents ensures the protection of state wildlife and protects resident hunting and fishing opportunities.

Protecting the public interest of individual states’ conservation efforts. Sportsmen and local organizations are extremely active in the conservation of fish and game. They support wildlife conservation through taxes, fees, and locally led non-profit conservation efforts.

SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF POLICY AND CONSTRUCTION OF CONGRESSIONAL
SILENCE.

(a) In General.--It is the policy of Congress that it is 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 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 in connection with issuance of licenses or permits for hunting
or fishing.




Respecting the traditional authority of individual states. The regulation of wildlife has traditionally been within a state’s purview. It is in the best interest of the state and federal governments to ensure that states retain the authority to regulate wildlife.

 

[5Speedjim]

I was just throwing it out there to see what other people said. It's amaizing what people assume the law says sometimes then you read it yourself. In one state I hunted it said you can't shoot from within 10ft of the traveled portion of the road, but didn't say you couldn't shoot across the road.

 

[Whiptail]

Created by Sen. Harry Reid, Nevada democrat, in 2005. I'm certain this will really help keep federal lands from being sold off.

S.339

The bill creates an exemption to the dormant Commerce Clause in order to give each state the right to regulate access to hunting and fishing. This is done by a renunciation of federal interest in regulating hunting and fishing. The reasons for creating this exception include the following:

Allowing states to distinguish and/or discriminate between residents and non-residents ensures the protection of state wildlife and protects resident hunting and fishing opportunities.

Protecting the public interest of individual states’ conservation efforts. Sportsmen and local organizations are extremely active in the conservation of fish and game. They support wildlife conservation through taxes, fees, and locally led non-profit conservation efforts.

SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF POLICY AND CONSTRUCTION OF CONGRESSIONAL
SILENCE.

(a) In General.--It is the policy of Congress that it is 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 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 in connection with issuance of licenses or permits for hunting
or fishing.




Respecting the traditional authority of individual states. The regulation of wildlife has traditionally been within a state’s purview. It is in the best interest of the state and federal governments to ensure that states retain the authority to regulate wildlife.

 

[VikingsGuy]

S.339

This bill introduced into the 109th congress in the senate and never made it out of committee. ex-Senator Reed or one of his backers must have been concerned the current courts would revisit Baldwin.

For now, Baldwin is law of the land, but either SCOTUS or Congress could change that with the flick of a pen. Of course, in reality, small organized groups with money on the line (read, western rangers, state governments and large land owners) almost always fair better in congress than much larger but non-organized groups of general public.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I was just throwing it out there to see what other people said. It's amaizing what people assume the law says sometimes then you read it yourself. In one state I hunted it said you can't shoot from within 10ft of the traveled portion of the road, but didn't say you couldn't shoot across the road.

Yup. I am just a bit of a legislation junky so thought I would look it up and let you know what I saw.

 

[BuzzH]

This bill introduced into the 109th congress in the senate and never made it out of committee. ex-Senator Reed or one of his backers must have been concerned the current courts would revisit Baldwin.

For now, Baldwin is law of the land, but either SCOTUS or Congress could change that with the flick of a pen. Of course, in reality, small organized groups with money on the line (read, western rangers, state governments and large land owners) almost always fair better in congress than much larger but non-organized groups of general public.

Huh, this is interesting:

Senator Reid attached the bill to a budget resolution and successfully negotiated its passage out of the Senate and on to the desk of the President where it was signed into law.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Huh, this is interesting:

Senator Reid attached the bill to a budget resolution and successfully negotiated its passage out of the Senate and on to the desk of the President where it was signed into law.

Well, so much for the congressional register.

 

[Alabama]

The only way to get it changed would be to have the neighboring states to put a reciprocal agreement in that required WY residents to have an outfitter or "friend" to hunt other wilderness areas in other states.

If you want it changed, petition your own state to put the same requirement on WY residents. That MIGHT would get the resident support we are looking for.

Believe it or not North Carolina has something similar to this. It costs $80 for an annual hunting license unless you are from one of the 4 neighboring states. Their costs are raised or lowered based on how much their NR license fees are. If you are from GA it'll cost you $100, $125 if you're from SC, $90 if you're from TN, and $110 if you're from VA.

 

[Sytes]

A friend and I planned to make a trip in WY Wilderness (Bridger Teton - where I worked several years in my younger years w/ private and federal). The refusal to allow myself, an American, to enjoy OUR public land was met with frustration. It was and it still leaves a bitter taste as a bunch of Anti - American (oooh, yep I said "Anti-American") horse dung.

While Buzz and I have a disconnect with respect to our communications within prior threads, he did note a point of merit... Montana (my state) and I would imagine all states, charge "Non Residents" significantly more $$$ than "Residents" even if a "Non Resident" only hunts OUR public land - Federal land. True, I agree.

IMO, two wrongs or 49 wrongs do not make the 50th right...

I appreciate State stewardship of OUR public lands that we all pay federal taxes to maintain. I value Federal Gov't allowing States to support budget / profit from OUR Federal lands. I believe if an American chooses to recreate on OUR public lands - s/he should be treated... equally.

Meh, my two cents.

 

[SilverDollars]

Howdy. This is just another reason why I will not send any money for any license to WY. I won't even go there for a vacation. And, their N.R. hunting fees are way over priced.

Let me see if I have this right. (1) Over priced fees fund N.R. to pay for their G&F operations, (2) and after you tax the foolish N.R., then don't let them hunt W.A. as they can in other states!!! What am I missing. WY wants your money, but not your presence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[kstitz]

Guys,

I started a similar thread on another forum a few years ago it went on for 13 pages. In my opinion there is only one way to repeal this law. We would need to organize a massive boycott of non residents applying in WY. If we could get enough people to do it the massive revenue loss would force them to change the law. The state budget and loss of non resident hunter dollars pouring into the states would get there attention real quick. With forums like this one and social media I believe this could be achieved. I would be willing to start a boycott if I can get some help from some of the other forum members.

 

[Whiptail]

Eliminating checks and balances is always the hallmark of a corrupt government. I guess democrats are also corrupt.

Huh, this is interesting:

Senator Reid attached the bill to a budget resolution and successfully negotiated its passage out of the Senate and on to the desk of the President where it was signed into law.

 

[BigHornRam]

Guys,

I started a similar thread on another forum a few years ago it went on for 13 pages. In my opinion there is only one way to repeal this law. We would need to organize a massive boycott of non residents applying in WY. If we could get enough people to do it the massive revenue loss would force them to change the law. The state budget and loss of non resident hunter dollars pouring into the states would get there attention real quick. With forums like this one and social media I believe this could be achieved. I would be willing to start a boycott if I can get some help from some of the other forum members.

I quit on Wyoming 10 years ago. I doubt you will get many non residents that stuck with them to give up on their point investment today. Bunch of states have a lot more worries than loss of non res revenue, Wyoming being one of them.

 

[chadv]

I know it makes very little difference but I quit going to WY 4 yrs ago. This includes our annual hiking/fishing trip to the Big Horns and taking the wife to Jackson and Jenny lake. There are plenty of other areas that don't feel the need to "welfare" their outfitters.

 

[Jwill]

Thanks WYOGA.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

...We would need to organize a massive boycott of non residents applying in WY. If we could get enough people to do it the massive revenue loss would force them to change the law. The state budget and loss of non resident hunter dollars pouring into the states would get there attention real quick. With forums like this one and social media I believe this could be achieved. I would be willing to start a boycott if I can get some help from some of the other forum members.

Start with the total number of non-res hunters. Subtract those that don't care about hunting wilderness. Also subtract those who want to hunt wilderness, but won't give up their chance to hunt WY in a given year for the cause. Filter by those who are organized under your singular effort. I don't know how many you're left with, but it ain't many.