Wyoming non res wilderness hunting

[CorbLand]

Ah, the Wyoming Wilderness during hunting season...

It's actually amazing in there. A giant open bar with endless #'s of georgeous women and an all you can eat buffet (Friday nights are all you can eat prime rib and crab legs). The 350+ bulls even quarter themselves while all of the resident hunters count the $ from those poor bastards that live out of state. You wouldn't believe it really.

The non resident wailing and gnashing of teeth is the soundtrack that never gets old.

Good times.

Oh this is such bullshit and you know it. Gorgeous women in Wyoming? Pffft.

 

[Moserkr]

From O’brian vs. state.

[¶16.] As a part of the game and fish scheme of enforcement, guides play an important part. Every guide is required and "shall promptly report to the department or any game warden each violation of this act or order of the commission by any person guided." W.S. 23-2-403. One of the requirements and qualifications of the professional guide is that he have knowledge of the wilderness area, of hunting practices, of big game or guiding practices, and of game and fish laws. It is to be expected that nonresidents in many if not most cases would not have that knowledge and the familiarity to carry on the sport within the wilderness areas of Wyoming in a safe and law-abiding way. The hunter is protected and violations avoided through the guide requirement. It must be recalled that the legislatively stated purposes of requiring guides are "for purposes of proper game management, protection of hunter welfare and safety, or better enforcement of the game [and] fish laws." W.S. 23-2-401(a).7 It expresses legislative intent. We do not undertake to suggest that out-of-state hunters violate game laws to a greater extent than resident hunters. There is no empirical data available in Wyoming to sustain such a suggestion.

[¶35.] I cannot find that the statute under attack, § 23-2-401, is a rational means to accomplish legitimate state ends. The ends sought are set forth in § 23-2-401(a) as proper game management, protection of hunters, and better enforcement of the game and fish laws. All of these are legitimate ends. The problem is whether a statute, which classifies on the basis of residence and requires only nonresidents to be accompanied by a guide in wilderness areas, is a rational means to accomplish these ends.


[¶40.] Schakel also questioned the provision of § 23-54 which permitted the uncompensated resident guide to guide no more than two nonresidents in any calendar year. This same provision is found in § 23-2-401(b). There is no apparent reason why, after guiding two nonresidents, the uncompensated guide becomes a threat to hunter safety and can guide no more. The provision suggests that the statute seeks objectives other than hunter safety.

[¶41.] Finally, in the absence of any evidence that nonresidents have a different effect on the game population than do residents, I fail to see how the statute rationally relates to the objective of proper game management.

My opinion:
Basically it was upheld that Wyoming residents have privileges above and beyond any other person in the Union. The court continually upheld that there was no constitutional right and that hunting was a privilege, but then confused rights and privileges throughout their decision. Further, it held that non-residents pose a safety threat, and are more likely to break fish and game laws due to them not being able to comprehend them (apparently). Limiting a resident guide to 2 non-resident hunters per season further erodes their argument of safety and stupidity. In reality it is literally a scheme to protect resident hunters from additional hunting pressures from non-residents who pay the same in taxes for access to federal public land, and place additional burdens of non-res hunters through guide fees which is a scheme by WY for additional revenue/income. Wyoming sets the limits for game management but does not treat people equally as required by the US constitution. Furthermore, to say that it is about safety and adherence to state laws would predicate that the non-resident hunter either needs a guide in the whole state, or residents need a guide within wilderness areas, since non-residents can access wilderness year round and for purposes other than hunting without the same burden as while hunting.

Jesus, any lawyer could rip that BS to shreds. Know any lawyers that want to defend a bunch of huntersbet we could line up around 1-200 (easily) non-residents to simultaneously break the law and file a class action suit. Sign me up.

 

[Slugz]

From O’brian vs. state.

[¶16.] As a part of the game and fish scheme of enforcement, guides play an important part. Every guide is required and "shall promptly report to the department or any game warden each violation of this act or order of the commission by any person guided." W.S. 23-2-403. One of the requirements and qualifications of the professional guide is that he have knowledge of the wilderness area, of hunting practices, of big game or guiding practices, and of game and fish laws. It is to be expected that nonresidents in many if not most cases would not have that knowledge and the familiarity to carry on the sport within the wilderness areas of Wyoming in a safe and law-abiding way. The hunter is protected and violations avoided through the guide requirement. It must be recalled that the legislatively stated purposes of requiring guides are "for purposes of proper game management, protection of hunter welfare and safety, or better enforcement of the game [and] fish laws." W.S. 23-2-401(a).7 It expresses legislative intent. We do not undertake to suggest that out-of-state hunters violate game laws to a greater extent than resident hunters. There is no empirical data available in Wyoming to sustain such a suggestion.

[¶35.] I cannot find that the statute under attack, § 23-2-401, is a rational means to accomplish legitimate state ends. The ends sought are set forth in § 23-2-401(a) as proper game management, protection of hunters, and better enforcement of the game and fish laws. All of these are legitimate ends. The problem is whether a statute, which classifies on the basis of residence and requires only nonresidents to be accompanied by a guide in wilderness areas, is a rational means to accomplish these ends.


[¶40.] Schakel also questioned the provision of § 23-54 which permitted the uncompensated resident guide to guide no more than two nonresidents in any calendar year. This same provision is found in § 23-2-401(b). There is no apparent reason why, after guiding two nonresidents, the uncompensated guide becomes a threat to hunter safety and can guide no more. The provision suggests that the statute seeks objectives other than hunter safety.

[¶41.] Finally, in the absence of any evidence that nonresidents have a different effect on the game population than do residents, I fail to see how the statute rationally relates to the objective of proper game management.

My opinion:
Basically it was upheld that Wyoming residents have privileges above and beyond any other person in the Union. The court continually upheld that there was no constitutional right and that hunting was a privilege, but then confused rights and privileges throughout their decision. Further, it held that non-residents pose a safety threat, and are more likely to break fish and game laws due to them not being able to comprehend them (apparently). Limiting a resident guide to 2 non-resident hunters per season further erodes their argument of safety and stupidity. In reality it is literally a scheme to protect resident hunters from additional hunting pressures from non-residents who pay the same in taxes for access to federal public land, and place additional burdens of non-res hunters through guide fees which is a scheme by WY for additional revenue/income. Wyoming sets the limits for game management but does not treat people equally as required by the US constitution. Furthermore, to say that it is about safety and adherence to state laws would predicate that the non-resident hunter either needs a guide in the whole state, or residents need a guide within wilderness areas, since non-residents can access wilderness year round and for purposes other than hunting without the same burden as while hunting.

Jesus, any lawyer could rip that BS to shreds. Know any lawyers that want to defend a bunch of huntersbet we could line up around 1-200 (easily) non-residents to simultaneously break the law and file a class action suit. Sign me up.

Yeah everyone that has read through all the court documents come to the same conclusions.
1) Big money, deep pockets
2) Long tenured good ole boy network

In the end not worth the fight because they define the game, rules and field it will be played out on. You could use that One Shot hunt as a study case. Its a shame as I know a fair amount of residents ( normal blue collar workers) that just shake their head at all the palm greasing that goes on between public officials, large landowners, non profit leadership and guides association.

I use the loop hole and have the girlfriend register and hunt with me.

 

[307]

From O’brian vs. state.

[¶16.] As a part of the game and fish scheme of enforcement, guides play an important part. Every guide is required and "shall promptly report to the department or any game warden each violation of this act or order of the commission by any person guided." W.S. 23-2-403. One of the requirements and qualifications of the professional guide is that he have knowledge of the wilderness area, of hunting practices, of big game or guiding practices, and of game and fish laws. It is to be expected that nonresidents in many if not most cases would not have that knowledge and the familiarity to carry on the sport within the wilderness areas of Wyoming in a safe and law-abiding way. The hunter is protected and violations avoided through the guide requirement. It must be recalled that the legislatively stated purposes of requiring guides are "for purposes of proper game management, protection of hunter welfare and safety, or better enforcement of the game [and] fish laws." W.S. 23-2-401(a).7 It expresses legislative intent. We do not undertake to suggest that out-of-state hunters violate game laws to a greater extent than resident hunters. There is no empirical data available in Wyoming to sustain such a suggestion.

[¶35.] I cannot find that the statute under attack, § 23-2-401, is a rational means to accomplish legitimate state ends. The ends sought are set forth in § 23-2-401(a) as proper game management, protection of hunters, and better enforcement of the game and fish laws. All of these are legitimate ends. The problem is whether a statute, which classifies on the basis of residence and requires only nonresidents to be accompanied by a guide in wilderness areas, is a rational means to accomplish these ends.


[¶40.] Schakel also questioned the provision of § 23-54 which permitted the uncompensated resident guide to guide no more than two nonresidents in any calendar year. This same provision is found in § 23-2-401(b). There is no apparent reason why, after guiding two nonresidents, the uncompensated guide becomes a threat to hunter safety and can guide no more. The provision suggests that the statute seeks objectives other than hunter safety.

[¶41.] Finally, in the absence of any evidence that nonresidents have a different effect on the game population than do residents, I fail to see how the statute rationally relates to the objective of proper game management.

My opinion:
Basically it was upheld that Wyoming residents have privileges above and beyond any other person in the Union. The court continually upheld that there was no constitutional right and that hunting was a privilege, but then confused rights and privileges throughout their decision. Further, it held that non-residents pose a safety threat, and are more likely to break fish and game laws due to them not being able to comprehend them (apparently). Limiting a resident guide to 2 non-resident hunters per season further erodes their argument of safety and stupidity. In reality it is literally a scheme to protect resident hunters from additional hunting pressures from non-residents who pay the same in taxes for access to federal public land, and place additional burdens of non-res hunters through guide fees which is a scheme by WY for additional revenue/income. Wyoming sets the limits for game management but does not treat people equally as required by the US constitution. Furthermore, to say that it is about safety and adherence to state laws would predicate that the non-resident hunter either needs a guide in the whole state, or residents need a guide within wilderness areas, since non-residents can access wilderness year round and for purposes other than hunting without the same burden as while hunting.

Jesus, any lawyer could rip that BS to shreds. Know any lawyers that want to defend a bunch of huntersbet we could line up around 1-200 (easily) non-residents to simultaneously break the law and file a class action suit. Sign me up.

All states openly discriminate against non residents and they don't even need to defend it.

 

[kentuckybowman]

Overtly: safety
Covertly: guide welfare

but they let you unsafely camp, hike, bird watch etc. so unsafe in a wilderness! they better have the national guard on standby.

 

[Moserkr]

@307 ”All states openly discriminate against non residents and they don't even need to defend it.”

You are correct. But to deny hunters access based on lack of safety and ability to follow rules is ludicrous. They are setting a standard that is unequally applied to any other situation, and restricts FEDERAL tax-payers from the land they own…. Their reasoning doesnt stand and is obvious by the non-res guide law which limits residents to 2 people a year to hunt with. That right there destroys all their arguments - they are not true guides - so the rule and safety arguement is gone. Being uncompensated, why the 2 person limit? Purely restricting access. Has nothing to do with safety or following rules. Its blatant government overreach to help out the locals and keep the CA idiots out of the wilderness (only while hunting). Plenty of people arent qualified to EVER step foot in a wilderness but Ill be damned if any American government denies me access while simultaneously taking my money…. To keep their argument alive, ALL activities in the wilderness would have to be guided for just non-residents. Also a silly argument but at least holds a standard. Ive hunted the MT backcountry on the yellowstone border and find it funny that if it were WY it would be illegal….

Too bad they stopped at the WY supreme court. Federal court would see it much differently.

 

[William Sublette]

Start a go fund Me.

Get a big enough pile of cash, you can attract a good litigator.

 

[307]

@307 ”All states openly discriminate against non residents and they don't even need to defend it.”

You are correct. But to deny hunters access based on lack of safety and ability to follow rules is ludicrous. They are setting a standard that is unequally applied to any other situation, and restricts FEDERAL tax-payers from the land they own…. Their reasoning doesnt stand and is obvious by the non-res guide law which limits residents to 2 people a year to hunt with. That right there destroys all their arguments - they are not true guides - so the rule and safety arguement is gone. Being uncompensated, why the 2 person limit? Purely restricting access. Has nothing to do with safety or following rules. Its blatant government overreach to help out the locals and keep the CA idiots out of the wilderness (only while hunting). Plenty of people arent qualified to EVER step foot in a wilderness but Ill be damned if any American government denies me access while simultaneously taking my money…. To keep their argument alive, ALL activities in the wilderness would have to be guided for just non-residents. Also a silly argument but at least holds a standard. Ive hunted the MT backcountry on the yellowstone border and find it funny that if it were WY it would be illegal….

Too bad they stopped at the WY supreme court. Federal court would see it much differently.

How about "you can't hunt wilderness without a guide because we just don't want you there?"

And I think you are wrong on the legal front. The state gets to make the rules for game.

Paging @BuzzH

 

[Moserkr]

How about "you can't hunt wilderness without a guide because we just don't want you there?"

And I think you are wrong on the legal front. The state gets to make the rules for game.

Paging @BuzzH

Well the first statement is at least consistent with the ruling lol.

The second statement is right and wrong. The state does set rules for game. No argument from me, thats true. But its not equally applied. If I cross the “imaginary” wilderness line and kill an elk 5’ into the WA, are you supporting the arguement that I am unsafe and unable to follow the basic regulations that are damn near uniform in every state that allows hunting? (We all still follow the North American model for conservation). Im playing the devils advocate here. If i were in WY like you (user name judgement) Id want to keep others out too. Im in CA (unfortunately) and theres plenty of people that shouldnt even be in a designated patrolled campground. But theres plenty of us (yours truly) with more than enough experience to go on backcountry solo hunts. Ive done it in griz country in MT when I lived there, WY aint any different. I think a qualified attorney would wipe the floors with that case as precedent. I read all kinds of laws and lawsuits so Ill dig into the actual regulations and get back to this…. Its fun for me. Anti-gov no matter conservative or (especially) liberal.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

My takeaway from the WY wilderness rule is that WY resident hunters and outfitters can agree on one thing……. They both want to stick it to DIY non-resident hunters.

WY resident hunter: “It would be cool if I didn’t have to compete with non-residents in certain areas.”
WY outfitters: “It would be cool if I didn’t have to compete with DIY hunters in certain areas.”
Wilderness rule= Perfect match

And before all the WY folks chime in, I understand there are lots of great hunting areas outside the wilderness areas.

 

[307]

Professional attorneys have tried and failed, but knock yourself out. It's a well worn path you are on and the others have all failed but maybe you will be THE ONE legal genius that brings the whole house down.

Regardless of outcome, we definitely need more Californians showing us how we're all wrong.

 

[Fatcamp]

I just hate the thought that Wilderness Study Areas lose advocates due to nonresident hunters not wanting to see more areas they can't hunt. Now mind you, the only evidence I have of this is my own gut feeling when I see them on a map, absolutely no proof.

 

[Moserkr]

Professional attorneys have tried and failed, but knock yourself out. It's a well worn path you are on and the others have all failed but maybe you will be THE ONE legal genius that brings the whole house down.

Regardless of outcome, we definitely need more Californians showing us how we're all wrong.

Save me some time and send me any more cases that have you have seen. Id love a crack at it. No one hates CA more than me… i live here. Right is right and wrong is wrong no matter what state you’re from…. Im no genius, but i do know what and who.

 

[LostArra]

we definitely need more Californians showing us how we're all wrong.

Don't worry
They're coming

 

[HookUp]

If you wanted to be a PIA disclose the credentials of all the wilderness guides and if the outfitter cant prove the employee has experience of multiple years in the wilderness he is guiding file a complaint against the outfitter to the state for being in violation of Wyoming state law.

 

[BuzzH]

Even if the wilderness guide law was struck down in court, which it wouldn't be more than one way to skin a cat. Make every wilderness their own area, resident only tags for those areas and require a contract between a non resident and an outfitter as a pre requisite for nr applications.

The state decides ALL things related to hunting seasons and with the Reid bill that passed after the uso lawsuit, states can discriminate against nr hunters in any way they choose.

Any lawsuit is dead in the water...

 

[Dos Perros]

Just do what you want. If you want to hunt the wilderness, hunt it. Live by your own (thoughtfully considered) moral code.

 

[Rokbar]

Just do away with wilderness area's. Problem solved!

 

[BuzzH]

Just do away with wilderness area's. Problem solved!

Good one...you ever tried repealing an act of Congress? Good luck with that.

 

[Rokbar]

Good one...you ever tried repealing an act of Congress? Good luck with that.

You can say that again. Hard to change a wacko tree hunger's mind!