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.
