Nonresident Exclusions

[OXN939]

Maybe three years ago, I was in SD hunting pheasants and saw some great opportunity for waterfowl hunting but I couldn't buy a license for a federally regulated migratory bird and I think ND had some serious restrictions on the number of NRs for waterfowl hunting.

Totally agreed with this- states should proactively keep the public from trashing outdoor resources by overcrowding them. However, in the case of Wyoming, this is already being done with the limited number of tags issued for each region/ unit. If anything, allowing access to wilderness areas would spread people out more by opening up a greater area to the same number of hunters. Also, considering that the majority of nonresidents aren't able to bring pack animals for a hunt like this, the guys who have had their eyes on honey holes all summer long probably don't have a ton to worry about beyond what's accessible by foot... which is really not much of a concession.

I remember one time I was doing a hunt out west right after getting back from a pretty tough pump overseas, really awesome experience to relax and clear the mind. We heard some dudes at a gas station griping pretty loudly about how annoying dealing with nonresidents had been all season, and joking about how pitiful NRs are as hunters. I remember thinking "Damn. Wish I had been dealing with that for the past few months."

 

[Mighty Mouse]

Each WY resident can sign off for 2 NR hunters a year or you can pay for an outfitted hunt.

You aren't excluded from anything.

Each WY resident can accompany up to 2 NR hunters per year and thereby satisfy the wilderness area regulation. It's not just a matter of "signing off."

Wyoming Statute 23-2-401, Paragraph (a): "No nonresident shall hunt big or trophy game animals on any designated wilderness area, as defined by federal or state law, in this state unless accompanied by a licensed professional guide or a resident guide. There shall be at least one (1) licensed professional guide or resident guide accompanying each two (2) nonresident hunters."
https://law.justia.com/codes/wyoming/2018/title-23/chapter-2/article-4/section-23-2-401/

 

[wind gypsy]

Maybe three years ago, I was in SD hunting pheasants and saw some great opportunity for waterfowl hunting but I couldn't buy a license for a federally regulated migratory bird and I think ND had some serious restrictions on the number of NRs for waterfowl hunting.

I respect that as I've seen so many great hunting and fishing spots destroyed by over harvest or the habitat damaged by just too many people.

The Kenai River was probably the greatest King Salmon fishery of the world. Don't bother going there now as it's not 10% of what it once was.

SD has a lottery for NR waterfowl licenses (smart), ND is open to all who want to have at it.

 

[BuzzH]

Each WY resident can accompany up to 2 NR hunters per year and thereby satisfy the wilderness area regulation. It's not just a matter of "signing off."

Wyoming Statute 23-2-401, Paragraph (a): "No nonresident shall hunt big or trophy game animals on any designated wilderness area, as defined by federal or state law, in this state unless accompanied by a licensed professional guide or a resident guide. There shall be at least one (1) licensed professional guide or resident guide accompanying each two (2) nonresident hunters."
https://law.justia.com/codes/wyoming/2018/title-23/chapter-2/article-4/section-23-2-401/

Yeah, exactly what I said...I've done it for NR friends a bunch of times and yes, its very easy to do. Takes about 2 minutes to obtain a Resident Guide license, that is if you write slowly.

But, you have to have friends in Wyoming...which would be the hard part for you to figure out judging by the way you post.

Probably best you stick to hunting in Oklahoma.

 

[BuzzH]

I didn't say I've never heard an argument; I said I've never heard a good argument. "Because some bureaucrats in Washington DC said so" isn't a good argument. I realize that, for practical purposes, it's the only argument required and that this whole thread will have no more effect than pissing into the ocean, but appealing to a poor "argument" made by an authority figure is still a poor argument.


Yet another example of accepting without question that the state rightly owns all wildlife within its borders.

If WY were willing to purchase from the feds the wilderness areas within its borders and refuse federal funding to manage those lands, a non-resident would have no basis for complaint. But as it is, WY consumes taxpayer resources derived from citizens all across the US then charges some of those taxpayers a much higher fee to hunt on certain lands that all federal taxpayers helped fund.

There was plenty of discussion/questions when Wyoming passed the legislation to not allow NR to hunt big and trophy game in Wilderness areas. Why do you think that Residents can sign off for 2 of their friends/family a year to hunt with them in designated wilderness? Just happened that way by chance?

You're also wrong, we don't charge a NR for a higher priced big game or trophy game tag to hunt in Wilderness...its the same price for all NR's whether you hunt in designated wilderness, on National Forest, BLM, State, or Private land. The price is exactly the same for the license, since like I've said several times now, wildlife and land ownership are mutually exclusive.

You're making an invalid claim that you "feel" wildlife and where it resides are somehow tied together...not under the North American Model. Federal LAND ownership is the concern of all 350 million of us United States Citizens. That's what our taxes pay for, the management of the land. The wildlife is held in trust for the CITIZENS of the STATE it resides in, and rightfully, under the law, for the benefit of the State's Citizens. If you don't like that, good luck changing the U.S. Constitution since wildlife management (with a couple/few exceptions) is not a right reserved by the Federal Government. Its how our constitution is framed, and again, for very good reasons.

You can continue to whine, complain, stomp your feet, and hold your breath for an encore...but you're just flat wrong and your argument holds no water.

Good luck with that...

 

[Mighty Mouse]

Yeah, exactly what I said

"Sign off" and "accompany" aren't synonymous. Perhaps you meant them to be, but the strict definitions of those terms are not exactly the same.

Probably best you stick to hunting in Oklahoma.

I'll stick to hunting here and a few other states that are a bit friendlier than WY toward non-residents. And if my state tries to place unreasonable burdens on NR's, I'll oppose them here just like I do elsewhere.

 

[Whiskey_Fish]

If WY were willing to purchase from the feds the wilderness areas within its borders and refuse federal funding to manage those lands, a non-resident would have no basis for complaint. But as it is, WY consumes taxpayer resources derived from citizens all across the US then charges some of those taxpayers a much higher fee to hunt on certain lands that all federal taxpayers helped fund.

This feels a lot like the mountain biking argument. And the "all forest roads should be open to 4WD" argument. So... If that's the way you want to go...

Also, feel free to come fish, or backpack, or hunt elk with a DSLR. Then you can get your money's worth out of those lands too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BuzzH]

"Sign off" and "accompany" aren't synonymous. Perhaps you meant them to be, but the strict definitions of those terms are not exactly the same.


I'll stick to hunting here and a few other states that are a bit friendlier than WY toward non-residents. And if my state tries to place unreasonable burdens on NR's, I'll oppose them here just like I do elsewhere.

Yep, and as a Resident of Oklahoma, you have the express right to manage the wildlife found there as you see fit. I have no complaints how Residents there decide to allow or not allow me to hunt there.

If you think Wyoming is unfriendly toward NR hunters, because you "can't" hunt wilderness...you'll be really disappointed with most every other Western State.

There's awesome hunting outside designated wilderness in Wyoming...but hey, shoot yourself in the foot all you want. The thousands of other applicants will take your tag...and greedily.

Me with a bull a NR buddy shot about 150 air miles from the nearest Wilderness area in Wyoming:

I've shot some in the same area too:

 

[Mighty Mouse]

If you think Wyoming is unfriendly toward NR hunters, because you "can't" hunt wilderness...you'll be really disappointed with most every other Western State.

Which other state(s) require non-residents to be accompanied by a guide when hunting wilderness areas?

 

[BuzzH]

Which other state(s) require non-residents to be accompanied by a guide when hunting wilderness areas?

Which other states limit NR's to 10% or less of their available licenses? Oh, just about every other Western State you apply for...MT, UT, AZ, NM, NV, OR, WA. Not Wyoming...NR's receive 16-25% of all available moose, sheep, goat, bison, elk, deer, and pronghorn tags. All leftover tags that Residents don't draw are available to NR hunters, which results in over 50% of pronghorn tags going to NR's.

Some states don't even allow NR's to apply for certain species (North Dakota moose for one example). You have essentially nothing to bitch about as a NR hunter in Wyoming.

I have no complaints, no state is required to give me, as a NR hunter, a single tag for any species. I take the opportunities they're gracious enough to provide me and simply say, "thank you".

 

[sndmn11]

Hello, Wyoming resident. What a shame it would be if you (or a WY resident, if you aren't) wanted to do something in another state, but couldn't, simply due to the fact of your residency. Surely you can see the problem.

I don't, what is the problem? Every state has the freedom to regulate the game within its boundaries however it seems fit. That sounds like a solution for the unique needs of each state, rather than a blanket policy that fits nobody. If it is important enough to you, then become a resident of wherever you wish. Until you do, it stands to reason that you have other priorities.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

There was plenty of discussion/questions when Wyoming passed the legislation to not allow NR to hunt big and trophy game in Wilderness areas. Why do you think that Residents can sign off for 2 of their friends/family a year to hunt with them in designated wilderness? Just happened that way by chance?

I would assume that the resident guide clause was a bone thrown to people who generally opposed the proposed law and didn't want to see their family/friends priced out of hunting wilderness areas. If you have any links to share, I'd be interested to read about the history of the WY law.

You're also wrong, we don't charge a NR for a higher priced big game or trophy game tag to hunt in Wilderness...its the same price for all NR's whether you hunt in designated wilderness, on National Forest, BLM, State, or Private land. The price is exactly the same for the license,

I didn't intend to imply that NR's are charged a higher tag fee for wilderness areas vs. other areas (which I realize I didn't make clear in my first post). I was referring to the cost differential between resident and NR tags ($692 vs $57 [12x] for non-specific elk tag, $288 vs $43 [7x] for cow/calf tag) and making the point that wilderness area restrictions on top of a much higher tag fee seem like adding insult to injury for NR hunters.

like I've said several times now, wildlife and land ownership are mutually exclusive.

I assume you're not claiming that it's literally impossible for a single entity to own both a piece of land and the wildlife living on it (since state-owned land and private nature reserves demonstrate that ownership of both is possible) and that you're just pointing out that current statutory arrangements often assign states ownership of the wildlife residing on federal land. I'm aware of the current statutory arrangement, and as I've alluded to previously, the state-federal dichotomy is at the root of the resentment many NR's feel toward states that prevent NR's from fully utilizing federal lands paid for by NR's. On state-owned land fully funded by residents, I see no basis for a NR to complain about hunting access.

You're making an invalid claim that you "feel" wildlife and where it resides are somehow tied together

The physical laws of the world tie wildlife and land together, not my feelings. Wildlife needs habitat first and foremost and is inextricably tied to the land it resides on.

not under the North American Model. Federal LAND ownership is the concern of all 350 million of us United States Citizens. That's what our taxes pay for, the management of the land. The wildlife is held in trust for the CITIZENS of the STATE it resides in, and rightfully, under the law, for the benefit of the State's Citizens. If you don't like that, good luck changing the U.S. Constitution since wildlife management (with a couple/few exceptions) is not a right reserved by the Federal Government. Its how our constitution is framed, and again, for very good reasons.

Again, the "federal land ownership-state wildlife ownership" dichotomy is the root cause of much of the discord between resident and NR hunters. Just because something is doesn't mean it ought to be.

The US Constitution has been contorted, circumvented, and generally abused to suit politicians' whims since shortly after the ink dried on the original copy. Much of what the federal government does today has no constitutional basis whatsoever (e.g., the existence of national forests and wilderness areas).

You can continue to whine, complain, stomp your feet, and hold your breath for an encore...but you're just flat wrong and your argument holds no water.

Good luck with that...

Thanks, but no luck is needed. I admitted earlier that this conversation amounts to pissing in the ocean. I gave my response to the OP's question and subsequently challenged some folks to reconsider whether or not how things are arranged now is the best way. You and I clearly disagree on this topic and that's fine.

 

[ozyclint]

don't forget that province in Canada- BC (Bring Cash)

 

[slick]

[mention]Mighty Mouse [/mention]

I’m a firm believer in the foundation of the North American Model of Conservation stating that the animals are entrusted to the state in which they reside regardless of the ownership of land they are presently on, and they are not under ownership of the said landowner..

What in your opinion would you change?

I guess I’m having a hard time digesting your statements. If it isn’t this way, then what way would you have it?

As a federal taxpayer you support elk, mountain goats and bighorn sheep in South Dakota primarily on Federal land that you will never have the chance to hunt, you support elk, moose, and bighorn sheep in North Dakota on federal lands you won’t ever hunt, you so on and so forth for... you are unable to hunt pheasants in both Dakotas on certain dates because you are a non resident, same goes for waterfowl, as Buzz mentioned above you are restricted to a certain allocation of the % of tags due to being a NR. WYGF doesn’t regulate federal land, they regulate hunting. I’m sure there are many examples of areas where you have weapon restrictions, date restrictions, harvest restrictions, this is just another one.

I would more readily understand and accept a “I just don’t like it”, but I don’t think the system is broken.

 

[Jardo]

The problem for me is the guides getting a huge windfall at the expense of the NR hunters. This is true in WY, AK, and NM. I hate it when government picks winners and losers.

Anyone who disagrees with me is racist, sexist, and definitely misogynistic.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Kevin Dill]

I believe in reciprocity.

Alaska requires me to have a guide if I wish to hunt grizzly bear....one of the most desirable species available. So on my farm here in Ohio, I require all Alaskans who knock on my door to have a guide if they wish to hunt whitetail deer....the most desirable species available. I have yet to turn away a single Alaskan. My guiding price is fairly reasonable (free) and all meals are provided as long as your waist line is within 8 inches of your inseam. Hey, I have to have some sort of arbitrary technicality in my reg book....

 

[LostArra]

There are plenty of Wyoming elk in areas outside the wilderness areas. It's a big state. The guide rule is not a roadblock to someone simply wanting to kill an elk.

 

[BuzzH]

I would assume that the resident guide clause was a bone thrown to people who generally opposed the proposed law and didn't want to see their family/friends priced out of hunting wilderness areas. If you have any links to share, I'd be interested to read about the history of the WY law.

I don't believe "the people" of Wyoming opposed the law as the folks they elected through the democratic process to represent them, passed the legislation. The process allows citizen involvement to make suggestions, provide amendments, etc. to legislation.

I didn't intend to imply that NR's are charged a higher tag fee for wilderness areas vs. other areas (which I realize I didn't make clear in my first post). I was referring to the cost differential between resident and NR tags ($692 vs $57 [12x] for non-specific elk tag, $288 vs $43 [7x] for cow/calf tag) and making the point that wilderness area restrictions on top of a much higher tag fee seem like adding insult to injury for NR hunters.

You have nothing to complain about here, the current law, and mountains of case law has upheld the States right to differentiate and charge different fees for NR hunting licenses. Baldwin V Montana FG commission a an example: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/436/371/ Similar challenges have been made in Wyoming as well...also found in favor of the State's right to charge higher fees to NR's.

I assume you're not claiming that it's literally impossible for a single entity to own both a piece of land and the wildlife living on it (since state-owned land and private nature reserves demonstrate that ownership of both is possible) and that you're just pointing out that current statutory arrangements often assign states ownership of the wildlife residing on federal land. I'm aware of the current statutory arrangement, and as I've alluded to previously, the state-federal dichotomy is at the root of the resentment many NR's feel toward states that prevent NR's from fully utilizing federal lands paid for by NR's. On state-owned land fully funded by residents, I see no basis for a NR to complain about hunting access.

Depends on the State. In Wyoming, the State we're talking about, the answer is yes, its impossible and against the law (with the exception of 2 grandfathered game farms before Wyoming passed legislation to stop it) for a landowner to "own" wildlife. The only way any individual is allowed to "own" wildlife is when its killed and tagged with a state issued hunting license.

The physical laws of the world tie wildlife and land together, not my feelings. Wildlife needs habitat first and foremost and is inextricably tied to the land it resides on.

Absolutely right, but again, the issue of WHERE wildlife chooses to live in Wyoming, in no way gives the owner of the land where that wildlife lives, any legal or even implied ownership of that wildlife. Its still regulated, controlled, and owned/held in trust for the citizens of Wyoming...period.

Again, the "federal land ownership-state wildlife ownership" dichotomy is the root cause of much of the discord between resident and NR hunters. Just because something is doesn't mean it ought to be.

Going to have to disagree with you here. The 10th Amendment applies and wildlife management is a States Right under that amendment. Most every State and its citizens would agree that wildlife should be managed by the State it resides in, and for the benefit of the States Citizens. The discord you have is a personal problem...get over it or die with it, you choose.

The US Constitution has been contorted, circumvented, and generally abused to suit politicians' whims since shortly after the ink dried on the original copy. Much of what the federal government does today has no constitutional basis whatsoever (e.g., the existence of national forests and wilderness areas).

The Federal Government absolutely has the right to designate lands as National Forests and also designate wilderness areas. Again, the way our Representative Republic works, is that we give the right to our duly elected officials to pass legislation like the 1964 Wilderness Act, NFMA, ESA, etc. If you don't think that its constitutional to do so, then challenge it in court and see what happens. Again, good luck with that....its been tried.

Thanks, but no luck is needed. I admitted earlier that this conversation amounts to pissing in the ocean. I gave my response to the OP's question and subsequently challenged some folks to reconsider whether or not how things are arranged now is the best way. You and I clearly disagree on this topic and that's fine.

There's nothing to reconsider as your entire argument is sour grapes that you feel you're somehow (and wrongfully) entitled to have an opinion on how Wyoming and all 49 other states chooses to manage our wildlife. You're free to whine....but that's about it. The law favors the right for the States to manage wildlife...and that didn't happen by chance, in a vacuum, or without a lot of thought and good reason.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

@BuzzH @slick and others who have touted the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation: how do you reconcile the following tenet of the model with the undemocratic reality that WY's wilderness area guide requirement amounts to 600 thousand people making policy for 329 million other people, policy that impedes the ability of those millions to utilize lands that they all help fund?

"The democracy of hunting. In keeping with democratic principles, government allocates access to wildlife without regard for wealth, prestige, or land ownership." (Source)

 

[KurtR]

Maybe three years ago, I was in SD hunting pheasants and saw some great opportunity for waterfowl hunting but I couldn't buy a license for a federally regulated migratory bird and I think ND had some serious restrictions on the number of NRs for waterfowl hunting.

I respect that as I've seen so many great hunting and fishing spots destroyed by over harvest or the habitat damaged by just too many people.

The Kenai River was probably the greatest King Salmon fishery of the world. Don't bother going there now as it's not 10% of what it once was.

One of the best things we have done as a state. Pheasant hunting is big enough so its nice to be able to go out and set up in a field and not worry about every other bozo in the country trying to do it also.