Nonresident Exclusions

[Laramie]

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

Yes, I have heard of several cases. Game wardens do enforce this law.

 

[307]

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).

Would this idea not also allow private landowners to "own" the wildlife on their property, and thus be allowed to do whatever they might see fit with said wildlife?

 

[BigBird69]

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.

I can't use the wilderness the same as a resident to hunt, residents aren't required to use a guide. I have the added burden of paying an outfitter. I agree with what you said about camping, bird watching etc..

 

[mlgc20]

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.

Agreed with the rest of your post. Not sure I follow this though. Are you talking about the cost of hunting if hypothetically, the state or the feds sold a bunch of currently available public land to private parties? If so, I think we do know what would happen. The cost of hunting in those areas would go up significantly.

Let's say the state of Wyoming decides to sell 1,000 square miles of state owned land to private entities. What percentage of that 1,000 square miles is even going to be available for hunting? The land that the Audubon Society or Bill Gates buys will not be allowing hunting. So, those lands that were once available to hunt and now taken out of the hunting pool. Right now, I can go hunt those state lands for $700ish. I guarantee if those square miles go away, the costs are going up and the opportunities are going down. Even the cost of private hunts would go up. Yes, there would now be a greater supply of private hunting land (where allowed). But, the demand that would coincide with losing 1,000 square miles of public land, would more than offset that IMO.

Not trying to start an argument. Just trying to have an honest conversation.

 

[street]

How are the boundaries of wilderness area defined and what is the actual definition of wilderness area?

 

[idahohikker]

The real frustration here is by people who want to live in a state with crappy hunting and hunt elsewhere. That’s not how it works. Move to a state with good hunting if that’s what you value. This will become more and more of an issue as more guys back east seek to go west and essentially every western state has tag quotas in place.

 

[2rocky]

Yep the Wilderness rule sucks. I feel sorry for people who are unable to make friends with people who live in Wyoming. Guess that comes from the whole "I'd Rather hunt alone" mindset I get 'round here.

There is a way around it for the NR that wants to hunt WY wilderness. It just requires some work.

 

[BuzzH]

I can't use the wilderness the same as a resident to hunt, residents aren't required to use a guide. I have the added burden of paying an outfitter. I agree with what you said about camping, bird watching etc..

You aren't required, as a NR, to pay an outfitter to hunt big and trophy and big game legally in Wyoming. Read the law.

You can hunt game birds, turkeys, predators, bison, and furbearers without a guide as well.

You also have the option of becoming a resident, if you fail to understand how the law works.

Those are facts.

 

[BigBird69]

You aren't required, as a NR, to pay an outfitter to hunt big and trophy and big game legally in Wyoming. Read the law.

You can hunt game birds, turkeys, predators, bison, and furbearers without a guide as well.

You also have the option of becoming a resident, if you fail to understand how the law works.

Those are facts.

Ok instead of saying I'm required to pay an outfitter I should have said I'm required to have a babysitter. The point being that the same rules don't apply to residents. And that is the frustrating part.

 

[Jethro]

We all agree the law sucks. I've hunted WY wilderness a few times with a resident friend. But there is so much excellent opportunity in WY outside the wilderness. Hunt what you can, stop complaining about what you can't. Life's too short. Although I admire a guy that stands by his principles and boycotts because of the law. 1 less guy in the draw.

 

[Laramie]

I wish everyone was mad at Wyoming for that law so point creep would slow down a bit.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

Would this idea not also allow private landowners to "own" the wildlife on their property, and thus be allowed to do whatever they might see fit with said wildlife?

Whoever owns the habitat has the best ownership claim to the wildlife that inhabits it and should be free to manage those animals as he sees fit. If a landowner wants wildlife on his property, it's up to him to figure out how to achieve that...either contain them or attract them. If a landowner wants to use every square inch to grow crops or raise livestock or develop housing and wants to keep wildlife out, it's up to him to keep them away. Practically speaking, containing wildlife would be physically difficult and prohibitively expensive for most individual landowners, although high fence ranches do exist in some places (not sure I consider animals within a high fence true "wildlife" even though they might be of the same species as free ranging animals). Individual landowners with adjoining properties could band together and agree to common wildlife management objectives, which would essentially be a micro version of what is currently done at the state level. Bad actors could be fenced off or bought out. The larger the natural range of an individual animal/species, the trickier the issue becomes (e.g., migratory ducks), and it may be that the best management strategy is to delegate authority to the state or federal level. But for many terrestrial species, wildlife management is possible at a much smaller scale than statewide, probably down to individual landowners in many cases.

 

[BuzzH]

Ok instead of saying I'm required to pay an outfitter I should have said I'm required to have a babysitter. The point being that the same rules don't apply to residents. And that is the frustrating part.

Don't need a babysitter either...well, the way you're crying about this law like a spoiled child, maybe you do.

A NR friend of mine shot this deer, and a black bear the next day in a wilderness area on a hunt we did in Wyoming a few years back. Doubt he thought he was being baby sat, and he didn't pay for an outfitter either.

 

[BuzzH]

Whoever owns the habitat has the best ownership claim to the wildlife that inhabits it and should be free to manage those animals as he sees fit. If a landowner wants wildlife on his property, it's up to him to figure out how to achieve that...either contain them or attract them. If a landowner wants to use every square inch to grow crops or raise livestock or develop housing and wants to keep wildlife out, it's up to him to keep them away. Practically speaking, containing wildlife would be physically difficult and prohibitively expensive for most individual landowners, although high fence ranches do exist in some places (not sure I consider animals within a high fence true "wildlife" even though they might be of the same species as free ranging animals). Individual landowners with adjoining properties could band together and agree to common wildlife management objectives, which would essentially be a micro version of what is currently done at the state level. Bad actors could be fenced off or bought out. The larger the natural range of an individual animal/species, the trickier the issue becomes (e.g., migratory ducks), and it may be that the best management strategy is to delegate authority to the state or federal level. But for many terrestrial species, wildlife management is possible at a much smaller scale than statewide, probably down to individual landowners in many cases.

Good luck with that...isn't going to happen.

Funny stuff.

 

[BeastOfTheTrees]

I feel comfortable assuming, if you lived in WY (for example)
You’d be psyched about the NR Wilderness deal.

I live in Colorado, and I’d give my left nut for the same rule.

Woah, easy now.... let’s not get any ideas lol

 

[Mighty Mouse]

Agreed with the rest of your post. Not sure I follow this though. Are you talking about the cost of hunting if hypothetically, the state or the feds sold a bunch of currently available public land to private parties? If so, I think we do know what would happen. The cost of hunting in those areas would go up significantly.

Let's say the state of Wyoming decides to sell 1,000 square miles of state owned land to private entities. What percentage of that 1,000 square miles is even going to be available for hunting? The land that the Audubon Society or Bill Gates buys will not be allowing hunting. So, those lands that were once available to hunt and now taken out of the hunting pool. Right now, I can go hunt those state lands for $700ish. I guarantee if those square miles go away, the costs are going up and the opportunities are going down. Even the cost of private hunts would go up. Yes, there would now be a greater supply of private hunting land (where allowed). But, the demand that would coincide with losing 1,000 square miles of public land, would more than offset that IMO.

Not trying to start an argument. Just trying to have an honest conversation.

What you're describing is a possible outcome of a hypothetical sale of public lands. Also possible is that groups of hunters (e.g., SCI, RMEF, BHA) could pool their money and buy property for hunting purposes. Enterprising individuals/companies could buy property and try to make a profit managing the wildlife and selling hunting rights. Another possibility is that the federal or state agency making the sale could add a rider to the property deed with some mechanism for guaranteeing hunting access.

The feds own a massive amount of western land (61% of AK and 46% of the combined area of AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NV, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY), and I don't think we can accurately predict what hunting costs would look like if significant portions of those lands were privatized. I value my principles more than hunting opportunities and would support privatization of state/federal land even if I thought hunting would become more scarce/costly for me. No one owes me hunting opportunities, and I have no legitimate claim to use the resources of others for my benefit (directly or indirectly via state/federal agencies).

 

[Mighty Mouse]

How are the boundaries of wilderness area defined and what is the actual definition of wilderness area?

Below is the definition from the original legislation that created wilderness areas. I haven't read up on the history of how individual areas were selected and their boundaries drawn.

"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."​

 

[idahohikker]

What you're describing is a possible outcome of a hypothetical sale of public lands. Also possible is that groups of hunters (e.g., SCI, RMEF, BHA) could pool their money and buy property for hunting purposes. Enterprising individuals/companies could buy property and try to make a profit managing the wildlife and selling hunting rights. Another possibility is that the federal or state agency making the sale could add a rider to the property deed with some mechanism for guaranteeing hunting access.

The feds own a massive amount of western land (61% of AK and 46% of the combined area of AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NV, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY), and I don't think we can accurately predict what hunting costs would look like if significant portions of those lands were privatized. I value my principles more than hunting opportunities and would support privatization of state/federal land even if I thought hunting would become more scarce/costly for me. No one owes me hunting opportunities, and I have no legitimate claim to use the resources of others for my benefit (directly or indirectly via state/federal agencies).

Man, this argument is going nowhere.

 

[mlgc20]

What you're describing is a possible outcome of a hypothetical sale of public lands. Also possible is that groups of hunters (e.g., SCI, RMEF, BHA) could pool their money and buy property for hunting purposes. Enterprising individuals/companies could buy property and try to make a profit managing the wildlife and selling hunting rights. Another possibility is that the federal or state agency making the sale could add a rider to the property deed with some mechanism for guaranteeing hunting access.

The feds own a massive amount of western land (61% of AK and 46% of the combined area of AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NV, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY), and I don't think we can accurately predict what hunting costs would look like if significant portions of those lands were privatized. I value my principles more than hunting opportunities and would support privatization of state/federal land even if I thought hunting would become more scarce/costly for me. No one owes me hunting opportunities, and I have no legitimate claim to use the resources of others for my benefit (directly or indirectly via state/federal agencies).

You‘re basically talking about managing the land in western states the way land is managed here in Texas. Essentially no public land. I love my state. But, hunting here sucks and is very expensive. This is absolutely not the model we need for hunting in the western states.

 

[GregB]

What you're describing is a possible outcome of a hypothetical sale of public lands. Also possible is that groups of hunters (e.g., SCI, RMEF, BHA) could pool their money and buy property for hunting purposes. Enterprising individuals/companies could buy property and try to make a profit managing the wildlife and selling hunting rights. Another possibility is that the federal or state agency making the sale could add a rider to the property deed with some mechanism for guaranteeing hunting access.

The feds own a massive amount of western land (61% of AK and 46% of the combined area of AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NV, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY), and I don't think we can accurately predict what hunting costs would look like if significant portions of those lands were privatized. I value my principles more than hunting opportunities and would support privatization of state/federal land even if I thought hunting would become more scarce/costly for me. No one owes me hunting opportunities, and I have no legitimate claim to use the resources of others for my benefit (directly or indirectly via state/federal agencies).

What would happen is it would end up like everything to the east. Virtually no public land, paying through the nose to lease a small piece of ground to hunt. Which is why people from there flood the west every year to hunt, that and you tube.

No one owes me hunting opportunities, and I have no legitimate claim to use the resources of others for my benefit (directly or indirectly via state/federal agencies).

If no one owes you hunting opportunities why are you so bent about the WY wilderness law.