Wilderness Hunting Reciprocity. Good idea?

[Jethro]

Honest answer from a nonresident. No.

Do you really think enough WY residents would be affected being shut out of other states wilderness to make them rethink their own rule? Not a chance. It would be petty and small time.

For the average non resident the downside far outweighs the up. There would be repercussions and that would be in number of tags available. More specifically DIY tags. Wilderness is not worth that gamble.

Many complaining on these constant threads have no idea what the wilderness is like. Hell, the last bitch session was started by a nonresident that couldn’t even hike his ass into the national forest, but now needs an act of congress to overturn the wilderness rule. Just bitching for the sake of bitching.

 

[ThorM465]

No, powers not given to the federal government are left to the state, per the IS constitution. Wildlife is “owned” by the state no matter what land it stands on. The wildlife is held in public trust for the benefit of the residents.

With what you said you open the door for private landowners to control the wildlife on their land.

Ownership of wildlife is an arbitrary determination that could easily be changed with simple legislation. I'm all for state's rights over federal, but the idea that the fed doesn't have jurisdiction over the regulation of federal land is absurd.

Does a land owner not have the right to control fish in lakes and ponds solely owned by the landowner? Should the landowner not have the right to high fence their property and thus control whatever wildlife isn't expected to leave their property?

 

[bayoublaster7527]

As stated, you don’t address NR restrictions by creating more NR restrictions. Doubt it would move the needle anyways, I think WY residents largely don’t travel to other states in order to hunt wilderness, too many opportunities in WY. IMO effort and resources would be better expended supporting wildlife, habitat, and fighting anti-hunting campaigns in states like Colorado, Washington, and Oregon.

 

[Braaap]

I vote yes as a resident of WY. Therefore, when this happens, all of you wont be whining about WY, you wont be able to hunt in any western state as a NR with wilderness. And, as a NR of those states, I surely wont be crying about not being able to hunt certain spots. . WY wilderness accounts for 5% of our public land, if you cant find elk outside of it, i can guarantee you wont inside it. Not uncommon to ride 20+ miles and not see elk in some areas. . . As someone who guided in the wilderness and hunts both every year, grass isnt always greener. I killed my big bull this year, well outside any wilderness line, and my buck was outside as well. . CRAZY right, any of you could have been hunting there.

NR wouldn’t be barred from wilderness in other states if their state of residence allows NR hunters to hunt wilderness. This isn’t a complete rejection of NR hunting wilderness across the west. It’s reciprocity from one state to another based on similar rules about who can and can’t hunt wilderness.

I agree with you about the grass not being greener in wilderness. My group hunted WY elk this season outside of any wilderness area and it was extremely good hunting.

 

[HingleMcCringleberry]

And the max tags for residents is 87 for that unit. NV is 90/10 resident non resident per the commission rules. We don’t have nearly the number of elk WY does so using the low number of tags without the proper context is unfair.

Is 90/10 fair in WY? Are you hoping for that change?

No i was making a point to show how idiotic this discussion is.

Wyoming should manage its animals as it sees fit and so should NV. That's the point.

 

[3325]

I don’t believe Wyoming’s NR requirement is necessary or useful. But I’ll play devil’s advocate for the sake of the argument

Some of you are going on and on about “your” public lands. Yeah, so? It’s Wyoming’s wildlife on “your” public lands. So go use your public lands and recreate to your heart’s content. Nobody’s locked you out. Just don’t take any of Wyoming’s wildlife when you do.

So that’s a little bit of a snarky response, but hopefully it illustrates a point. The goal of a hunter is (usually) wildlife harvest and wildlife belongs to the state, not John Q. Public. I really don’t mind if Wyoming law gets changed, but I think hanging your hat on the public lands argument isn’t as logical as it seems at first glance.

 

[taskswap]

It seems like a slippery slope. Where you do you stop after doing this except for every Western state to more or less compete to apply every potentially negative rule to every other state's residents? Iron-sights only if you're from states that only allow iron sights? Season reduced from 7->5 days for folks from states with shorter seasons? It would be a hot mess.

 

[LostWapiti]

Why can’t people be honest? This isn’t about outfitter welfare and you don’t really care about the residents of states where you chose to go on vacation.

The poll should really be the following:

When did I become less of a man and decided to get online to cry about stuff I will spend no effort changing?

1) I was born a ******

2) school, where maybe I didn’t get bullied but I didn’t fit in

3) once I got married I needed a place to vent

4) I’m naive and think I’m a man still so I don’t understand the question

I don't even hunt Wyoming I have no skin in the game. Once again just created the poll because I have heard the idea thrown around and wanted data to see where people stood on it.

To claim I don't care about my fellow Americans, their hunt quality(in their own state or elsewhere), and the funding for their wildlife conservation is absurd. I see us all as American and want to see that we all have equitable* opportunity at quality places to hunt and fish with abundant wildlife.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Folks should spend more time hunting and fishing and less time acting like jerks on the interwebz to folks they don’t even know.

 

[wytx]

"Should the landowner not have the right to high fence their property and thus control whatever wildlife isn't expected to leave their property?"

Nope, not in Wyoming.

 

[roadrunner]

I am not a lawyer, I do not think non-residents would have standing in a lawsuit to overturn this.

I would like to hear from a lawyer on this.

Unless there is case law already out there, the lawyer would merely cite their opinion, just like everyone else...

 

[terrytheluddite]

"Should the landowner not have the right to high fence their property and thus control whatever wildlife isn't expected to leave their property?"

Nope, not in Wyoming.

Wildlife that is fenced into a property isn't wildlife. That's called livestock.

 

[roadrunner]

Is No, powers not given to the federal government are left to the state, per the US constitution. Wildlife is “owned” by the state no matter what land it stands on. The wildlife is held in public trust for the benefit of the residents.

Until tribal treaty "rights" come into play, then the states share is 0% and federal is 100%...

The Cheyennesoiuxshoshonecrow can eradicate WY's so called rights without batting an eye.

 

[dfhutton]

The WY law is news to me. Sounds like outfitters got into the pockets of the legislature. Even so, I'm not a fan of more laws, it's not the government's job to take care of us.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Until tribal treaty "rights" come into play, then the states share is 0% and federal is 100%...

The Cheyennesoiuxshoshonecrow can eradicate WY's so called rights without batting an eye.

They can’t eradicate WY rights, but they can certainly leverage things.

 

[3325]

Sounds like outfitters got into the pockets of the legislature.

Early on, probably. I think the Wilderness Act dates to 1964. I don’t know when the NR requirement came into being. But I wouldn’t be surprised to find out it was about the same time.

 

[3325]

Until tribal treaty "rights" come into play, then the states share is 0% and federal is 100%...

The Cheyennesoiuxshoshonecrow can eradicate WY's so called rights without batting an eye.

If they coulda, they done woulda.

 

[Sizthediz]

If you don't agree with how another state runs their "house " don't spend your money there. Go where you're welcome

 

[ThorM465]

If you don't agree with how another state runs their "house " don't spend your money there. Go where you're welcome

I don't care how another state runs their house. I care about how they run mine. Mine being federal land and the game that reside there.

 

[HingleMcCringleberry]

I don't care how another state runs their house. I care about how they run mine. Mine being federal land and the game that reside there.

For the 15th time. The game that resides there is Wyoming's.

At this point you're trolling. Nobody can be this obtuse