Nonresident Exclusions

[wind gypsy]

Again, i really dislike the WY wilderness rule but acting like it's "wrong" or "rights of NR are being violated" reeks of misplaced entitlement. Some quick numbers based upon USFS budget, total federal tax revenue (pretending we balance a budget), percentage of USFS in WY, and % of USFS that is wilderness.

Basically, if you pay $50k in Federal taxes, $3.75 would be allocated to the portion of all USFS lands in WY, of which, 30% is designated wilderness. If an acre of wilderness costed the same to manage as an acre outside of wilderness, that's $1.11 of your $50k that goes towards WY wilderness. $3.75 or $1.11 buys you the opportunity to recreate the same as anyone else on those acreage with the exception of the opportunity to harvest the animals held in trust by the state for it's residents.

Fed tax rev	$ 3,460,000,000,000.00
USFS budget	$ 4,770,000,000.00
% in USFS	0.138%​
AC WY USFS	10,500,000.00
AC tot USFS	193,000,000.00
% tot USFS in WY	5%​
Total Wilderness in WY	3,111,975.00
WY Wilderness % of USFS	30%​
Fed Tax Contribution	$ 50,000.00
Amount to WY USFS	$ 3.75
Amount for WY Wilderness	$ 1.11

 

[wind gypsy]

@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)

Residency doesn't = "wealth, prestige, and land ownership"

 

[Mighty Mouse]

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?

For federal lands, either:
A) eliminate regulations based on state of residency that impede the ability of non-residents to hunt on federal lands
B) sell federal lands to the states then let the states manage hunting on those lands however they please

I would prefer option B because I believe that devolving decisions to the lowest possible level typically yields the best outcomes.

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

Using taxpayer resources derived from non-residents to fund federal land purchase/management then discriminating against those NR's when they want to hunt that land is my core objection to the current system. I object to being forced to pay for someone else's pet cause.

PS: Friendly tip, I don't think the [mention][/mention] HTML tags work in this forum. At least I didn't get a notification when you tried to tag me earlier. "@" followed by the user name appears to work.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

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.

Not the question I asked, but yes I'm aware that many states (maybe all) allocate a higher percentage of tags to residents than non-residents. That's a factor I consider when selecting states in which to pursue hunting, as is land access. WY chooses to make it much more difficult for NR's to hunt 10% of its public land (data sources below), not an insignificant chunk but there's still plenty of land available. However, that 10% is the exact type of land (i.e., vehicles prohibited) that I prefer for hunting, so I choose to go elsewhere.

Total WY public land: https://wgfd.wyo.gov/Public-Access/Access-Summary
WY wilderness areas: https://www.thearmchairexplorer.com/wyoming/national-wilderness-areas

 

[mlgc20]

Nobody hates the Wyoming Wilderness more than me. But, I absolutely don't want the federal government any more involved in hunting regulations than they already are. The system isnt perfect. But, it would be completely destroyed if someone got a law passed having the feds govern all hunting on federal lands.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

Residency doesn't = "wealth, prestige, and land ownership"

True, residency isn't a synonym for "wealth, prestige, and land ownership." But take the logic a couple steps further and you arrive at wildlife access allocation that does give regard to residency: tag fees (and guide fees in the case of WY wilderness areas) impose a de facto wealth requirement on hunters > that requirement is much higher for residents than non-residents > access to wildlife is not allocated completely "without regard for" residency.

The document I linked to previously specifically mentions high fees as a "threat" to the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. From page 13:

"These threats include (1) inappropriate
claims of ownership of wildlife; (2) unregulated commercial sale of live wildlife; (3) prohibitions or unreasonable restrictions on access to and use of wildlife [emphasis added]; (4) and a value system endorsing an animal-rights doctrine and consequently antithetical to the premise of public ownership of wildlife (Organ and Mahoney 2007, Organ and Batcheller 2009).
...
A central premise of the Public Trust Doctrine is access to wildlife, yet there is growing evidence that the public has a more difficult time finding places to hunt or trap on private land, and even in gaining easy access to public lands (Responsive Management/National Shooting Sports Foundation 2008). In some instances, high fees are charged to gain access to private lands, or to use convenient private points of access to public lands. Many public wildlife agencies charge high fees for limited permits to hunt certain big game species. However, a large number of people cannot afford to pay high user fees (Duda et al. 1998). They may stop hunting if they are unable to find a place to hunt, cannot afford the fees, or are discouraged by crowding on public lands (Responsive Management and National Shooting Sports Foundation 2008)."

 

[BuzzH]

@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)

Its not my fault you fail to comprehend the written English Language and the case law, existing law, and US Constitution.

The NAM is just that, A MODEL, its not law, statute, or regulation...a model. Also, it isn't about impeding federal land, it pertains 100% to wildlife. You need to accept the fact, that you're talking about 2 mutually exclusive things here...federal lands VS. State owned/controlled wildlife. Until you make, and accept that distinction, you're going to continue to be frustrated, argumentative and flat wrong.

The way that 570K people in Wyoming make policy is not for the utilization of the federal land holdings found here, for the 3rd or 4th time now. You are not discriminated against in any way to use the land, you are discriminated against in regard to using Wyoming's wildlife resources. You can use the wilderness all you want in Wyoming and elsewhere, but if you want to utilize the States wildlife resources, that falls under the jurisdiction of the State. The State absolutely has the legal authority to require you to have a more expensive license, a guide for some species, requiring a guide in designated wilderness, or to reserve the use of ALL wildlife resources to only residents. What we cant, and don't do, is keep you from using federal lands. Its your choice to not hunt the States wildlife, you're given ample opportunity. You're also free to use the Federal lands here too, including wilderness areas.

Its that simple. The 570K people in Wyoming are not making policy for 330 million in regard to use of wilderness, that's just a fact.

 

[wind gypsy]

For federal lands, either:
A) eliminate regulations based on state of residency that impede the ability of non-residents to hunt on federal lands
B) sell federal lands to the states then let the states manage hunting on those lands however they please

I would prefer option B because I believe that devolving decisions to the lowest possible level typically yields the best outcomes.

In the case of option B, what makes you think WY wouldn't maintain the same outfitter rules for all wilderness converted for state land? Why would they all of a sudden remove benefits for resident hunters/businesses (outfitters)? That's IF the land doesn't get sold by state to private and then you could pay even more if you want to hunt it if there were a path to hunt it at all.. Ever looked at the price difference between guided ranch hunts and guided wilderness hunts in MT and WY?

I see the WY wilderness rule as a way to offer residents/outfitters additional opportunity and still maintain opportunity for NR. I much prefer the current situation to them balancing these competing interests with different means like reducing NR tag #s or making 2/3 of their NR tags outfitter only like NM.

 

[idahohikker]

The state manages wildlife. If you want to hunt in a state, live there or you’re at the mercy of rules related to nonresidents. It’s Federal land arguments are not persuasive at all.

 

[Where's Bruce?]

It's the "guise" of protecting people from their own foolishness...follow the money to get to the truth. I've done a lot of "foolish" things in my life...my life was endangered the entire time. I know because I never felt more alive. I logged over 300,000 miles on motorcycle tours and only wore a helmet in Nevada because that was the only state that required one. Flew through the entire state of Utah at 110mph hands free! Just locked the throttle and leaned back...only touched the handle bars for bumps in the road. Youth is a wonderful thing...I do not believe anyone should protect you from yourself.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

You need to accept the fact, that you're talking about 2 mutually exclusive things here...federal lands VS. State owned/controlled wildlife. Until you make, and accept that distinction, you're going to continue to be frustrated, argumentative and flat wrong.

I'm quite clear on the facts of the current arrangement as they stand (as evidenced by my multiple references to the federal land ownership-state wildlife ownership "dichotomy"). I'm making the case that this arrangement is not ideal and causes understandable discord between resident and non-resident hunters and proposing theoretical changes to the system. If you're unwilling to engage in a discussion of abstract ideas and want to just keep repeating concrete legal facts, then stop reading here because there's no reason for the two of us to continue conversing. Go in peace, I wish you good health and good hunting.

I think the root cause of our disagreement is our differing views on the relationship between land and wildlife. You seem to believe that the two can be easily delineated and ownership/management assigned to two different entities without creating any conflict. I view the two as inextricably linked because habitat (land) is the primary necessity for wildlife, and what's done with the land inevitably affects the wildlife thereon. The legislation that defined wilderness areas specifically mentions preservation of wildlife as a goal (which greatly influences how that particular type of land is managed):

"A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value."​

We also seem to have different definitions of what constitutes land "use." To you, hunting appears to not qualify as "use," to me it does. Even if hunting (and all the activities typically accompanying hunting such as hiking, camping, horseback riding) could be construed as not "using" the land, other ways in which the land is used (e.g., mining, livestock grazing, timber harvesting) or not used affects wildlife populations and hunting opportunities, and those effects influence decisions regarding what land uses are permitted or prohibited (wilderness areas being a particular example).

 

[BigBird69]

What you're confused about is land ownership and wildlife ownership are mutually exclusive. Your federal tax dollars are of no significance in regard to Wyoming's authority, and legal right, to discriminate against you as a NR any way they see fit

Despite what the law says I don't think land ownership and wildlife ownership are mutually exclusive. Without the land there would be no wildlife. The problem I have is that residents are getting more of a benefit from federal land that is owned by every citizen while nonresidents are being discriminated against.

 

[idahohikker]

Despite what the law says I don't think land ownership and wildlife ownership are mutually exclusive. Without the land there would be no wildlife. The problem I have is that residents are getting more of a benefit from federal land that is owned by every citizen while nonresidents are being discriminated against.

Nonresidents can be discriminated against in the sale of hunting licenses and tags. It's very well settled law. Get used to it and you'll stop beating your head against a wall. Maybe with a cool million in your pocket for attorney fees and lobbying you could have a small chance of changing that.

 

[BigBird69]

Nonresidents can be discriminated against in the sale of hunting licenses and tags. It's very well settled law. Get used to it and you'll stop beating your head against a wall. Maybe with a cool million in your pocket for attorney fees and lobbying you could have a small chance of changing that.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Just because the law is "settled" doesn't mean it can't, won't or shouldn't change in the future.

 

[idahohikker]

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Just because the law is "settled" doesn't mean it can't, won't, or shouldn't change in the future.

True, there's a small chance it could change. However, if you spend a lot of time reviewing constitutional law, I think you'll see that once a decision like this has been nailed down in precedent, it would be very unlikely to change. One million is real conservative.

 

[BigBird69]

True, there's a small chance it could change. However, if you spend a lot of time reviewing constitutional law, I think you'll see that once a decision like this has been nailed down in precedent, it would be very unlikely to change. One million is real conservative.

Hahaha yeah I'm not holding my breath. I do think that states should have absolute control over state lands. I just think there should be a better compromise on federal land.

 

[BuzzH]

Despite what the law says I don't think land ownership and wildlife ownership are mutually exclusive. Without the land there would be no wildlife. The problem I have is that residents are getting more of a benefit from federal land that is owned by every citizen while nonresidents are being discriminated against.

No, Residents aren't getting more benefit. As a NR to Wyoming, you can use the wilderness here just the same as a Resident...its already been explained. That includes hunting, fishing, camping, bird watching, yada yada.

 

[Peaks&Creeks]

Has anyone here ever been busted for “accidentally” stepping foot inside a WY wilderness during hunting season? Or know anyone? I feel like this would be such a hard thing to catch as game wardens and FS officers are already stretched thin during seasons. Asking for a friend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mighty Mouse]

In the case of option B, what makes you think WY wouldn't maintain the same outfitter rules for all wilderness converted for state land? Why would they all of a sudden remove benefits for resident hunters/businesses (outfitters)?

I tend to agree with you that WY would probably keep the NR guide requirement intact, at least until/unless they concluded that the requirement is counterproductive to managing the land as effectively as possible. Whether WY maintained or scrapped its guide requirement, at least NR taxpayers would no longer have to foot the bill for a chunk of land they're impeded from fully utilizing.

That's IF the land doesn't get sold by state to private and then you could pay even more if you want to hunt it if there were a path to hunt it at all.. Ever looked at the price difference between guided ranch hunts and guided wilderness hunts in MT and WY?

Nope, I'm not interested in either of those two types of hunting, but I don't doubt your implication that a guided ranch hunt would be more expensive. Who can say what hunt costs would look like if some public land were converted to private? I'd guess that the average cost of a private hunt would come down from its current level since there would be a greater supply of private land and that the price range would grow (up and down, depending on the style of hunt and trophy quality) with the market price of some options possibly being cheaper than the current state-determined one or two prices per species for the entire state.

I see the WY wilderness rule as a way to offer residents/outfitters additional opportunity and still maintain opportunity for NR. I much prefer the current situation to them balancing these competing interests with different means like reducing NR tag #s or making 2/3 of their NR tags outfitter only like NM.

And I see the rule as a way to drum up business for WY guides at the expense of NR's while posing as a public safety regulation. WY contains 5,500 sq mi of state-owned land and 4,900 sq mi of federal wilderness area. How about eliminating the NR guide requirement for wilderness areas and applying it to WY's state land instead? That would keep the amount of land subject to the requirement roughly constant and lessen the barrier for NR's wanting to hunt wilderness areas.

 

[idahohikker]

Has anyone here ever been busted for “accidentally” stepping foot inside a WY wilderness during hunting season? Or know anyone? I feel like this would be such a hard thing to catch as game wardens and FS officers are already stretched thin during seasons. Asking for a friend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The answer is yes.