- Thread Starter
- #21
LostWapiti
WKR
If Wyoming residents want the rule, this would solve it completely but outfitters would be the big losers.Wyoming should keep their rule, or just make every wilderness its own unit with no non-res quota.
If Wyoming residents want the rule, this would solve it completely but outfitters would be the big losers.Wyoming should keep their rule, or just make every wilderness its own unit with no non-res quota.
Feds only have authority to manage species listed under ESA, some authority for migratory bird and federal refugesThey don't always step in but federal authorities can regulate wildlife. It’s how wolves are federally protected in places.
For about the millionth time on these forums... you are not being prevented from accessing wilderness, go walk around as much as you want whenever you want, but the state, just like EVERY state, holds management of the animals within its borders and can therefore dictate where YOU can hunt them... also, it's been tried in courts multiple times, do a little research next time.All it would take is a lawsuit against the state from any NR entity to escalate. Wilderness areas are federal lands and belong to the countries public, not WY.
Great idea we can also include if your state has no wilderness or public land to offer nr to hunt on you can't hunt the states that offer hunting on public landCreating this poll to see peoples opinion on if legislation should be proposed to prevent residents of states that ban wilderness hunting(Wyoming) for NR from hunting wilderness in other states. This would be a way to give NR power to say that the WY rule is BS. Is this a slippery slope or a worthy issue to take up?
We aren’t. What issues in your state are Wyoming residents trying to change? I’m guessing the answer to that is none. Your glass house analogy doesn’t work in that case.Well the yes votes are stacking upand nobody has yet admitted to being a WY resident to vote no…. But I see a lot of pissed off WY residents in the comments . Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Just observations here
you sir are IronicYour time and resources would be better spent lobbying your congressmen to enact legislation to reign in the unchecked powers of the state. I'd recommend legislation such as, "the states shall not discriminate against Americans based on residency for the purposes of managing fish and game on federal lands."
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.Sure. Then Wyoming should treat non-resident hunters like NV. I just checked, the most elk tags allocated to NR hunters in a unit is 9. 9 whole tags. Sounds fair. Wyoming's max tag per unit, including general, should be 9.
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.Your time and resources would be better spent lobbying your congressmen to enact legislation to reign in the unchecked powers of the state. I'd recommend legislation such as, "the states shall not discriminate against Americans based on residency for the purposes of managing fish and game on federal lands."
If WY residents want that then they can do that. They will probably lose a pile of revenue and need to find a way to make up for that but I’m not going to ever complain about how a state chooses to allocate its tags so long as it doesn’t create some sort of outfitter welfare system or feudal lord landowner advantage.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?