How to end NR Wyoming wilderness ban?

[bergie]

Listening to a podcast toady and they brought up the idea of states offering reciprocity in reference to hunting laws. The example that caught my attention was the Wyoming ban on non resident hunters to be on federally designated wilderness, alone. What neighboring states like Montana and Idaho could do to combat this is pass a mandate that basically says 'non residents from another state are subjected to the same mandates that exist in their home state'. By doing this, Montana residents could hunt Idaho wilderness and vice versa, but since Wyoming does not allow folks from other states to hunt 'their'(our?) wilderness, they would not be allowed to hunt the wilderness areas in either Montana or Idaho.

To state the obvious; if Wyoming residents wanted to continue to enjoy the same benefit of hunting wilderness in other states, they could go to their own game commission to get the ban overturned in Wyoming. Thus creating a situation where they control their own access to wilderness areas in other states.

Full disclosure, I have never hunted Wyoming, but will some day and I damn sure wouldn't hire a guide to hunt so as it stands now hunting the wilderness there is out of the question.

My opinion is obviously self serving, but for the life of me I can't poke a hole in this, so I am interested in the discussion.

 

[wapitibob]

It's been discussed at length, the outcome is always the same.

 

[steelheadmike]

The whole reciprocity thing seems like a good idea but has little teeth. I'm not sure it would do much.

The path is probably the same as what the said podcast suggested. Somebody with access to a pile of legal fee money will need to be convicted of an offense and take it up with an appeals court, a la the corner crossing case. Nobody within the state of Wyoming will want to change the law. IMO, this case has less legal hurdles than the corner crossing case.

 

[bergie]

It's been discussed at length, the outcome is always the same.

All western states have discussed this at length? I have never seen it brought up in my state and I feel like I do a pretty good job staying up on all the proposals and commenting on all that I have an opinion on.

Please share a link where it has been brought up and shot down in your state.

 

[Ceo]

I’ve never understood the ban. My mom lived in WY, We have a have family there and we have a home there. I am a non resident but have been hiking and camping in the Wilderness area during the summers for the past 27 years. That being said, I can’t hunt there. Makes no sense

 

[TaperPin]

Lawmakers aren’t going to go against what is a popular law with residents and the outfitters association, regardless of what other states do. Just as important, Wyoming has a good understanding of the economic impact of out of state hunters (and all visitors), and a good argument could be made doing away with outfitter requirement doesn’t make financial sense.

I highly recommend Colorado. Our hunting really isn’t good anyway.

 

[Tod osier]

Listening to a podcast toady and they brought up the idea of states offering reciprocity in reference to hunting laws. The example that caught my attention was the Wyoming ban on non resident hunters to be on federally designated wilderness, alone. What neighboring states like Montana and Idaho could do to combat this is pass a mandate that basically says 'non residents from another state are subjected to the same mandates that exist in their home state'. By doing this, Montana residents could hunt Idaho wilderness and vice versa, but since Wyoming does not allow folks from other states to hunt 'their'(our?) wilderness, they would not be allowed to hunt the wilderness areas in either Montana or Idaho.

To state the obvious; if Wyoming residents wanted to continue to enjoy the same benefit of hunting wilderness in other states, they could go to their own game commission to get the ban overturned in Wyoming. Thus creating a situation where they control their own access to wilderness areas in other states.

Full disclosure, I have never hunted Wyoming, but will some day and I damn sure wouldn't hire a guide to hunt so as it stands now hunting the wilderness there is out of the question.

My opinion is obviously self serving, but for the life of me I can't poke a hole in this, so I am interested in the discussion.

Very good law, I support it staying the same.

 

[bozeman]

I've always wandered, how is this enforced in WY?

 

[Bachto]

Very good law, I support it staying the same.

Explain why?

 

[Dos Perros]

I've always wandered, how is this enforced in WY?

It's not.

 

[Tod osier]

Explain why?

Because it will benefit me when I'm a resident!!!!

 

[bergie]

The whole reciprocity thing seems like a good idea but has little teeth. I'm not sure it would do much.

The path is probably the same as what the said podcast suggested. Somebody with access to a pile of legal fee money will need to be convicted of an offense and take it up with an appeals court, a la the corner crossing case. Nobody within the state of Wyoming will want to change the law. IMO, this case has less legal hurdles than the corner crossing case.

I agree, but for this discussion I was looking directly at the reciprocity, a legal battle is simply less fun to talk about as it takes so long to come to (only hopefully) a concrete conclusion.

Lawmakers aren’t going to go against what is a popular law with residents and the outfitters association, regardless of what other states do. Just as important, Wyoming has a good understanding of the economic impact of out of state hunters (and all visitors), and a good argument could be made doing away with outfitter requirement doesn’t make financial sense.

Now this is exactly what I was thinking. Is the ban in place because it is popular, or is it for financial reasons.

If it is popular, then I would like to know just how many WY residents would still support it once they were unable to hunt wilderness in other states. If its purely financial, then this obviously does nothing to change it.

 

[tdhanses]

Listening to a podcast toady and they brought up the idea of states offering reciprocity in reference to hunting laws. The example that caught my attention was the Wyoming ban on non resident hunters to be on federally designated wilderness, alone. What neighboring states like Montana and Idaho could do to combat this is pass a mandate that basically says 'non residents from another state are subjected to the same mandates that exist in their home state'. By doing this, Montana residents could hunt Idaho wilderness and vice versa, but since Wyoming does not allow folks from other states to hunt 'their'(our?) wilderness, they would not be allowed to hunt the wilderness areas in either Montana or Idaho.

To state the obvious; if Wyoming residents wanted to continue to enjoy the same benefit of hunting wilderness in other states, they could go to their own game commission to get the ban overturned in Wyoming. Thus creating a situation where they control their own access to wilderness areas in other states.

Full disclosure, I have never hunted Wyoming, but will some day and I damn sure wouldn't hire a guide to hunt so as it stands now hunting the wilderness there is out of the question.

My opinion is obviously self serving, but for the life of me I can't poke a hole in this, so I am interested in the discussion.

I bet most WY residents only hunt WY, have you looked at the opportunity for tags across the board they get.

There used to be a resident that talked about buying up all the tags he could get and throwing them away so NR wouldn’t get them.

I don’t think WY residents would be too worried about a mandate.

 

[Sccritterkiller]

It's outfitter welfare full stop...you can go camp in wilderness right now with a gun in WY and it not against the law..so don't give this saftey BS. Its like corner crossing...never paid much attention to it or let dictate my hunt.

 

[robby denning]

It's not.

I land here too. living near the border of two of their wildernesses, I know many (I dunno, 15-20 guys) who've ignored the law and hunted the wilderness with no issues. Heard of one guy 15 years ago or so that was warned.

Besides that warning, the only repercussion anyone else had was a keyed truck at the trailhead.

 

[Tod osier]

Listening to a podcast toady and they brought up the idea of states offering reciprocity in reference to hunting laws. The example that caught my attention was the Wyoming ban on non resident hunters to be on federally designated wilderness, alone. What neighboring states like Montana and Idaho could do to combat this is pass a mandate that basically says 'non residents from another state are subjected to the same mandates that exist in their home state'. By doing this, Montana residents could hunt Idaho wilderness and vice versa, but since Wyoming does not allow folks from other states to hunt 'their'(our?) wilderness, they would not be allowed to hunt the wilderness areas in either Montana or Idaho.

To state the obvious; if Wyoming residents wanted to continue to enjoy the same benefit of hunting wilderness in other states, they could go to their own game commission to get the ban overturned in Wyoming. Thus creating a situation where they control their own access to wilderness areas in other states.

Full disclosure, I have never hunted Wyoming, but will some day and I damn sure wouldn't hire a guide to hunt so as it stands now hunting the wilderness there is out of the question.

My opinion is obviously self serving, but for the life of me I can't poke a hole in this, so I am interested in the discussion.

In all seriousness, I've hunted wyoming as a nonresident and in the units I hunted I had no want or need to hunt wilderness. There is a lot of land outside of wilderness, so don't let things get too in a bunch until you see for yourself. I would keep wilderness in mind when picking units, but wouldn't be concerned after that. For many units, you are going to struggle to get an elk out of wilderness on your back, for something like antelope, they are nearly never in wilderness.

 

[kpk]

Now this is exactly what I was thinking. Is the ban in place because it is popular, or is it for financial reasons.

It's popular because of financial reasons. It's hunting outfitter welfare.

Pretty certain you can go hiking, climbing, biking, horseback riding, and whatever else you want in wilderness without a guide.

 

[Jethro]

Other than the WY wilderness rule, what else would this reciprocity apply too? Can’t just mish mosh game regulations across state lines. The tag price reciprocity that’s brought up often is ridiculous. Don’t need tag quotas broken down any further than simply Res/NR.

So what else? Or just another opportunity to start a Wy wilderness rule beat the dead horse rant.

 

[Loo.wii]

I land here too. living near the border of two of their wildernesses, I know many (I dunno, 15-20 guys) who've ignored the law and hunted the wilderness with no issues. Heard of one guy 15 years ago or so that was warned.

Besides that warning, the only repercussion anyone else had was a keyed truck at the trailhead.

You know. My rule is the one police you shouldnt FAFO with is wildlife police. I would rather not have my truck
Guns
And all my gear seized.

 

[robby denning]

You know. My rule is the one police you shouldnt FAFO with is wildlife police. I would rather not have my truck
Guns
And all my gear seized.

and exactly why I don't violate their law, but still feel like it's only keeping honest people out.