How to end NR Wyoming wilderness ban?

[KHNC]

For a hunter chasing fish or birds in the wilderness, a 16-inch .223 would make an excellent defensive elk rifle during the rut, when bulls can get aggressive. Unfortunately, the mighty .223 isn't allowed for offensive use on elk.

Apparently not in Colorado for elk or deer either. Damn, legit i was planning on taking my T3X/.223 on my 4th season hunt. Glad I decided to double check on that one. 300WSM it is.

 

[wyogoat]

I disagree with your assertion here, but I'm no legal scholar. As I understand this ruling was in absence of legislation to directly address the issue? And the courts as a rule defer to the legislature's "authority" to regulate. That's why I think legislation could change this.

I didn't suggest we lobby to remove the state's ability to regulate the land. I explicitly suggested we demand that legislature require that the state not discriminate between NRs and Rs on federal lands. They would be able to regulate it, the regulations would simply have to be agnostic to state residency.

Go hunt state land and get off my federal land.

While that's true in the grand scheme of things. However, this corruption is high on the list in the context of a western game hunting forum.

Then I applaud you for your solution on lobbying for a change in that. I’m willing to bet that it isn’t considered “corrupt” enough for anyone at a federal level to get involved with. I don’t recall it being addressed in any of the presidential debates this year…

 

[realunlucky]

I didn't suggest we lobby to remove the state's ability to regulate the land. I explicitly suggested we demand that legislature require that the state not discriminate between NRs and Rs on federal lands. They would be able to regulate it, the regulations would simply have to be agnostic to state residency.
/QUOTE]

You'll find this idea has also been challenged in court. I'll try and link it up. I forget it's something like USO vs Arizona or something

Edited case was Montoya vs Shroute. While Montoya was awarded judgment, and the ruling altered how Arizona awards non-resident tags, it also influences how other western states have worded thier non-resident tag policies. Be interesting to see a similar interstate commerce case argument two decades after this ruling.

 

[307]

That revenue would just replace the fed provided but look at other cash flush states for comparison to see what it would really be like. WY really could expand its taxes, add 4% more to sales taxes, instate a 6% income tax and bump property taxes, that would do much more then removing regulations but in reality they way the country is headed WY will probably see even more regulations on it’s main economic driver for the state.

Do WY residents own the main investments in the energy companies or are these companies owned by outside investors? Mining, oil, gas and coal investments seem to usually be by large corporations not residents of states.

Does WY pay every resident an annual payment like AK does from it’s oil?

Wyoming's taxation strategy has always been to fund the state through extraction industries and keep the tax burden for its residents as low as it could. Thus, oil, gas, mining, etc foot the bill for the vast majority of state funding. When extraction industries are hot, the money flows like crazy, to nearly everybody and to the state as well.

 

[wytx]

Court has ruled in states favor to discriminate against NRs for game hunting and we have a federal law that does the same.

 

[wyogoat]

Is this the point where we just turn this into a meme thread and all get along?

 

[StupidLightweight]

The odds are better that Joe Biden will dissolve the ATF and all gun control laws while smoking crack with his son on a yacht with Kim Jong Un in the South China Sea than even 10 percent of NR hunters passing on the chance to hunt elk in Wyoming.

 

[Bubblehide]

Court has ruled in states favor to discriminate against NRs for game hunting and we have a federal law that does the same.

And court rulings get overturned pretty regularly.

 

[wyogoat]

And court rulings get overturned pretty regularly.

On things like this that mean nothing to 99.9% of the American public?

 

[tdhanses]

On things like this that mean nothing to 99.9% of the American public?

I wouldn’t be shocked, there are many things most people don’t care about that change, truthfully those are the things most easily changed because you won’t have large scale outrage.

The precedent is what would matter and how it could be applied to other groups.

I think AK and WY are completely different scenarios as well.

 

[Poser]

 

[wyogoat]

I wouldn’t be shocked, there are many things most people don’t care about that change, truthfully those are the things most easily changed because you won’t have large scale outrage.

The precedent is what would matter and how it could be applied to other groups.

I think AK and WY are completely different scenarios as well.

I say go for it and good luck in your endeavor. I totally support you using the legal system to get it changed. I just don’t think it will. It affects too few people on a single digit percentage portion of land. I’m not seeing a court being sympathetic to the cause when access is granted for so many other things on the same land. Maybe I’m wrong.

 

[Flyjunky]

I’m not seeing a court being sympathetic to the cause when access is granted for so many other things on the same land.

Isn’t that the crux though? Every other activity is allowed to NR’s, except big game hunting. To me, I see a court seeing it 180° opposite.

 

[johnnycake]

not true, many NR hunt DIY without a guide up here, NOK. Which is pretty generous. You know what’s BS? I can’t represent my family in court because of a BS law degree. That degree is welfare for attorneys!

is that a better anology for you?

Let’s end this dance and someone finish it with the *you’re reply

Logic isn't for everybody. Keep trying, bud.

 

[Dos Perros]

Really the question is: if you have $150, why wouldn't you just hunt the wilderness?

 

[wyogoat]

Really the question is: if you have $150, why wouldn't you just hunt the wilderness?

Is it worth having a game conviction on your record? Regardless of the low fine?
That makes us just like the people we flame then, right?
It’s cheaper to make a friend in Wyoming! I joke that’s one reason I’m single, to leave the door open to marry into a Dall Sheep opportunity that needs no guide…regardless of how ugly he is.

 

[tdhanses]

Is it worth having a game conviction on your record? Regardless of the low fine?
That makes us just like the people we flame then, right?
It’s cheaper to make a friend in Wyoming! I joke that’s one reason I’m single, to leave the door open to marry into a Dall Sheep opportunity that needs no guide…regardless of how ugly he is.

Is it even a game conviction, you have a valid tag? Just missing the babysitter.

 

[wyogoat]

Not sure how the trespassing to harvest game thing would read…

 

[StupidLightweight]

Is it even a game conviction, you have a valid tag? Just missing the babysitter.

This is a great point. When I asked a game warden about this a few years ago, he didn't explain what the citation would be, and I never asked. Even though his area contains wilderness, I think he said he'd never ticketed anyone for violating this law.

 

[tdhanses]

Not sure how the trespassing to harvest game thing would read…

How is it trespassing? Federal government allowes all citizens full access or no one access, they don’t stipulate residency to access the lands and last I checked states have no authority over the federal lands access, just the right to hunt and who gets a tag.

So if you leave your tag across the line it’s not trespassing but as soon as you have a valid license to kill it’s trespassing? Or is it trespassing only if your successful and put your tag on an animal?

Probably why it’s a slap on the wrist and you get to keep the animal.