How to end NR Wyoming wilderness ban?

wyogoat

WKR
Joined
Jul 28, 2014
Messages
742
Location
Wyoming
This is my thought as well if we could raise enough awareness, and bring people to see how corrupt this is for the state of Wyoming to do we might would have a chance, but the problem is the vast majority of people who use guides to go on guided hunts Are fat, cat rich guys who don’t care or pay attention to things enough in the outdoor world to really know they are there for a 10 second picture most of the time to brag to everyone how bad ass they are from their guided hunt obviously not saying everyone who does the guided hunt is like this, but I believe this is a vast majority, and therefore we will have a hard time rallying the troops behind this idea
Yes…so corrupt to limit the activities one can do on 5 percent of the states public land. This should really rally people to the cause. If this is corruption let’s triage it with the corruption that blatantly occurs outside of this minor inconvenience…I’m guessing it would be pretty far down the list on what states are doing that can be classified as “corrupt.”
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2013
Messages
3,533
Location
Somewhere between here and there
There’s no doubt it’s a stupid law and one that both provides outfitters guarantees while providing residents a place off limits to NR. Corrupt? Hmm, given all the other opportunities WY offers I think that’s a little much.

I’m going to hunt the wilderness with a WY NR friend next year. Go meet some people if the wilderness areas are that crucial.
 
Joined
May 13, 2015
Messages
3,931
I doubt it. Corner crossing was a pretty gray area interpretation of trespassing statute. This is a law that has been upheld in the appellate courts. Big difference.
I've got to completely disagree. There was no grey area in the corner crossing case, as planes fly over private daily = no harm, necessary, legal. This case is also clear as indicated in the court dissent that was posted, but the violations are broader than that court dissent IMNSHO. But hey, you're entitled to your opinion. But time will tell.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2021
Messages
1,356
Location
Eastern Oregon
None of those guys in the WY corner crossing case have 8000 messages on Rokslide.

Some people bitch and moan and others take action.

Who’s going to BOG this year? I’ll buy the first beer. <Rokslide Randy googles what is BOG>

🤣
Oh snap, another post count insult! This was fun last time.

4,626 days since @Lawnboi joined on Mar 2, 2012. 8,309 posts....math....1.79 posts per day.

161 days since @FAAFO joined on May 23, 2024. More math....2.18 posts per day.

🤔
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2013
Messages
3,533
Location
Somewhere between here and there
I've got to completely disagree. There was no grey area in the corner crossing case, as planes fly over private daily = no harm, necessary, legal. This case is also clear as indicated in the court dissent that was posted, but the violations are broader than that court dissent IMNSHO. But hey, you're entitled to your opinion. But time will tell.
Actually there was gray area, and it was how much airspace, if any, is protected by private property boundaries.

It’s still a gray area as it has not been reviewed by the USSC and the another judicial circuit is not necessarily bound by this decision, nor would it prevent a state from attempting to define corner crossing as a form of trespass that would require further challenge.

The WY outfitter state is very cut and dried as to what it defines. Could the USSC find it unconstitutional? Sure it could. Personally, I highly doubt it but you are correct in that it’s only my opinion and I didn’t stay at Holiday In Express.
 

Flyjunky

WKR
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
1,429
you said it was "outfitter welfare", it is, same as some other states provide
It is if you want to hunt wilderness….what this thread is about.

Give me the rationale behind it if it’s not anything other than a money grab.
 

FAAFO

WKR
Joined
May 24, 2024
Messages
442
I've got to completely disagree. There was no grey area in the corner crossing case, as planes fly over private daily = no harm, necessary, legal. This case is also clear as indicated in the court dissent that was posted, but the violations are broader than that court dissent IMNSHO. But hey, you're entitled to your opinion. But time will tell.
Apples to oranges. Planes have to fly over 500’ above private land.

If the corner isn’t surveyed how do you know you’re not stepping on somones land? Your GPS isn’t THAT accurate.

Very gray.
 

tdhanses

WKR
Joined
Sep 26, 2018
Messages
5,903
There’s no law against nonresidents visiting wilderness areas. Go there as often as you want. The state does own the wildlife so if you just can’t hunt anywhere you want.
It is an interesting point, yes the state owns the wildlife, that’s not anything anyone is questioning and they state issues tags directly to NR, so wildlife ownership and tags aren’t even the issue. It’s not allowing a citizen to then hunt on federal land after giving them the right to take an animal that is in question.

Not sure anyone has really brought it up that the state directly gave out the tag for a certain area, they didn’t require the nonresident to buy it directly from an outfitter and then restrict them to hunt the outfitters permitted area.
 
Joined
May 13, 2015
Messages
3,931
Apples to oranges. Planes have to fly over 500’ above private land.

If the corner isn’t surveyed how do you know you’re not stepping on somones land? Your GPS isn’t THAT accurate.

Very gray.
The Latin term that our legal system utilizes for land ownership translates to (roughly) ownership from heaven to hell. Meaning all the way down and all the way up. If the corner crossing case went the other way, it would be back in court for air travel. That case could only be ruled one way based on modern society. So no, not grey at all. But you're entit lo ed to think it is.
 

FAAFO

WKR
Joined
May 24, 2024
Messages
442
The Latin term that our legal system utilizes for land ownership translates to (roughly) ownership from heaven to hell. Meaning all the way down and all the way up. If the corner crossing case went the other way, it would be back in court for air travel. That case could only be ruled one way based on modern society. So no, not grey at all. But you're entit lo ed to think it is.
What’s the Latin term for trespassing because your GPS is off? Or the corner wasn’t surveyed correctly?

How do planes get permission to fly over all that private land 😂😂😂
 

tdhanses

WKR
Joined
Sep 26, 2018
Messages
5,903
There is an entire Newberg podcast on understanding why Wyoming can do whatever they want. Non-residents are not stakeholders of the states wildlife trust.

The North American model never had anything to do with non-resident hunting. That was not the intent. It has everything to do with protecting wildlife as a trust for residents of that state.
Yeah but then WY should make the wilderness areas specific units to draw and not allow a general tag to be used there. Make the tags go directly through outfitters, then they would actually be doing what you say but when the state sell the NR a valid tag that covers a wide swath of land they have provide the NR the right to hunt that species. Wilderness doesn’t even apply to drawing the tag, it’s after the fact once the NR has the right to hunt the animal.
 
Top