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.
