Wyoming Nonresident Proposed Changes

[Pacific_Fork]

Oh, and I guess I'm not busy?

What I grow tired of is the excuses that people make for NOT getting involved. Throwing some money and support at organizations is great, I do that as well. Its much appreciated, but I find it troubling that on important issues that impact hunters and fisherman, hardly anyone ever shows up. If even 10% of the people that purchased a tag or fishing license spoke up, wrote a letter, made a phone call...good grief, we could accomplish things.

The reason I take the time to do these things is not because I'm comfortable doing it, its not because its convenient for me to do it, and its not like I really have the time. I make the time because those guys that came before me, they did the same thing. They sacrificed time away from their families, their other hobbies, their vacations, etc. so that I get to enjoy what we have now. The least I can do is spend some vacation time and a few hours a week advocating for what they fought for.

I don't believe for one second that all of us don't have some spare time to advocate for wildlife, public lands, habitat, etc. It doesn't have to be in Wyoming, It doesn't have to be every issue....there are a mountain of issues that need to be dealt with by locals with knowledge in just about every State.

I will agree that its a challenge to get all the information out there, but I think places like these bulletin boards are a great way to get information out and issues on the table.

I also believe at no time in history is there better information sharing and its never been easier to get involved. Yet, a vast majority still don't take the time to inform themselves or get involved.

That's not being condescending, that's just being factual.

Exactly!! Well said, that sorry dude was making excuses. Many hunters deserve more criticism than you’re dishing out anyways. We have to have the most ignorant, lazy, and uneducated group out of any other “industry”. Then guys make excuses that they are too busy to get involved and educate themselves all the while spreading misinformation to their buddies about this or that. Everyone needs to hold their opinions until they have the facts right. Highly doubt this bill passes.

 

[87TT]

If they decide to not allow a single NR tag to be issued, there isn't jack shit you can do about it.

If WY did do this, which they won't, there are things that can be done. Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the US Constitution states that Congress has authority of the 640 million acres of federal land. It would take some lobbying and votes, but I'm sure that there would be repercussions. Again, NRs like myself appreciate the hunting opportunities in your state(s). As much as NRs should appreciate the opportunities, residents should realize the economic advantages of NRs. ...the G&F depts do, obviously.
[/QUOTE]
The folks in DC can't even agree on much of anything let alone worry about some butt hurt NR hunters.

 

[gburk]

Thanks Buzz I had been looking for this too. But what Title is that Chapter 44 under? I only see 6 chapters under title 23 (fish and game) on wyoleg.gov

Just found it, looks to be a regulation, not a statute: https://wgfd.wyo.gov/Regulations/Regulation-PDFs/REGULATIONS_CH44

Which to me indicates it could very well be upended by passage of law such as the topic of this thread - no? I see several arguments being made, on this site and others, that the total # of NR full price elk tags is somehow a given, and that this proposal would fit in alongside that allocation, but I would question that.

Can you point me to the statute that calls out the 7,250 Elk tags? I’m not turning it up. Thanks.

Chapter 44:




Section 1. Authority. This regulation is promulgated by authority of Wyoming Statutes § 6-7-101, § 9-4-217(h), § 20-6-112, § 23-1-107, § 23-1-302, § 23-1-702, § 23-1-703, § 23-1-704, § 23-1-705, § 23-2-101, § 23-2-102, § 23-2-107, § 23-2-109, § 23-2-201, § 23-2-207, § 23-2-301, § 23-2-306, § 23-2-307, § 23-2-401 and § 23-3-403, § 23-6-301 through § 23-6-303.

(iv) Elk. A total license limit of seven thousand two hundred-fifty (7,250) nonresident elk licenses shall be made available to nonresident applicants in the initial drawing each year.

 

[JM77]

I can't find a single discrepancy in anything Buzz has said, including that this bill, in it's current form, is DOA in the Wyoming Senate. There is no doubt, compared to other western states, Wyoming has treated NR hunters the best by far. If things change in the future, everyone and anyone has the choice to try other states if they haven't already.

Nonresident hunters are a part of game management in Wyoming and will continue to be in the future. What some of the comments in this thread say can be at most ridiculous and at least misinformed. Wyoming can manage it's game as it sees fit, 90/10 allocations would not require significant resident fee hikes and outfitter set-asides will never happen.

 

[BuzzH]

Thanks Buzz I had been looking for this too. But what Title is that Chapter 44 under? I only see 6 chapters under title 23 (fish and game) on wyoleg.gov

Just found it, looks to be a regulation, not a statute: https://wgfd.wyo.gov/Regulations/Regulation-PDFs/REGULATIONS_CH44

Which to me indicates it could very well be upended by passage of law such as the topic of this thread - no? I see several arguments being made, on this site and others, that the total # of NR full price elk tags is somehow a given, and that this proposal would fit in alongside that allocation, but I would question that.

It is regulation but the authority is granted to the commission via statute...clear as mud?

 

[KHNC]

Instead of pulling numbers out of your...wherever it is you pull numbers from.

In 2018, Resident elk hunter success was 42.9% with 19,020 elk taken...

Like I said, not all elk hunters are created equally and WY has some of the best.

I saw 25,000 total elk harvested in 2018. I just estimated how many were NR harvested. Regardless of how good wyoming hunters are, they arent going to be able to kill enough elk and deer to control the population across the state. Especially without NR funding to support the herds. I am sure you know this already but are just choosing to be a smart ass.

 

[KHNC]

Not to mention that season dates would / could probably be much wider and longer in order to reach the management goals.

Ya I'm sure residents of Wyoming would be crying, wondering how they are going to fill 10 elk, 10 deer and 10 antelope tags in a 4 month season.

Why isnt the success rate higher than it is for residents now then? I read only 12% of the entire state even buys a big game license as it is. But, its ludicrous to even suggest than wyoming would go to 100% resident only hunting just because "they feel like it".

 

[Lowndes]

If WY did do this, which they won't, there are things that can be done. Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the US Constitution states that Congress has authority of the 640 million acres of federal land. It would take some lobbying and votes, but I'm sure that there would be repercussions. Again, NRs like myself appreciate the hunting opportunities in your state(s). As much as NRs should appreciate the opportunities, residents should realize the economic advantages of NRs. ...the G&F depts do, obviously.

Nope, as a NR you still have NO authority over how WY manages their game. For the 100th time...land ownership and wildlife ownership ARE mutually exclusive of one another.

I've already given examples where NR's are not offered a single NR tag. North Dakota moose, South Dakota Mountain Goat, Rocky Mountain Bighorn sheep in Nevada....to name a few.

What "repercussions" are happening to Nevada, South Dakota and North Dakota?
[/QUOTE]

Out of curiosity what are people going to do if federal lands no longer allow for hunting out West? As a resident of Wyoming with a population of around 500K people your state has virtually no say whether hunting is permitted or not permitted on federal lands. You are quite dependent on folks from places like New York, California, Illinois, Texas, Florida and other places to grant you that right. The states you mentioned I think have a lot fewer people trying to hunt there so they don't really care or the game population just cannot support much hunting and folks recognize that.

The arguments on a thread like this and a few other are incredibly frustrating mainly because it just sounds like folks who should be on the same side of an issue are going to fight amongst themselves until the rights we have now and take for granted are taken away (and once it is gone it is a hell of a lot harder to get back). It doesn't sound like anybody here doesn't understand who manages the game. It also sounds like many here think hunting public land is an entitlement.

I personally have no problem with tags favoring residents (and greatly so). I have no problem with a 90/10 split or whatever they decide to do. I have no problem with no nonresident opportunities if the state of the herd doesn't allow for it. I have no problem paying way more for tags than current residents. I look at this as a way to support conservation in those states and am happy to contribute. I don't need to hunt Wyoming every year as a nonresident. I have New Mexico, Colorado, Idaho and Montana that I can rotate through as well. I'd imagine if I lived in Wyoming or one of these other states I would want the opportunity to hunt that state every year.

What I do have a problem with is the disdain for folks who don't live in the same state but still are Americans and own the land you are hunting just as much as you or any resident of the state that federal land lies in. People who want our federal lands to remain open to activities like hunting and fishing are your only allies in keeping that possible. Alienating everybody who has a common interest other than the current resident of your state seems foolish.

 

[MtnOyster]

I wanna make sure I say this politically correct.......SCREW WYOMING......

 

[Schism]

Why isnt the success rate higher than it is for residents now then? I read only 12% of the entire state even buys a big game license as it is. But, its ludicrous to even suggest than wyoming would go to 100% resident only hunting just because "they feel like it".

Admit you are in over your head and stop digging your hole deeper. Wyoming doesn't give a rip (and shouldn't) about what someone from NC thinks about their ability to manage game anymore than someone from NC cares about what someone from WY thinks about NC. Hunting in any state, especially one that isn't your state of residence, is a privilege.

The laws and court precedence is pretty clear on game management. Each state has the ability to manage its game as it sees fit.

After reading some of the posts on this site and others, I wouldn't blame Wyoming for limiting NR opportunity out of spite. Seems there are some rather entitled hunters among us who need a reality check.

 

[mj23polaris]

Non-resident Quota Elk (current 16% > new 10%)
Non-resident Quota Deer/Antelope (current ~20% > new 10%)

How does this compare to other states?

Arizona 10%?

Nevada? Isn't it like 6%?

Utah 10%?

The new numbers seem to be the norm. Think Colorado is like 35% or something unless it takes a certain amount of points?

I just skimmed through gohunt to grab those numbers.

As a resident of Wyoming with plans and hopes to hunt other states I don't see the issue. If less NR hunters means better herd numbers I'm all for it.

I've seen the difference in quality of deer between our limited quota unit and a general unit/area and it's a big difference. So if less tags in our easy to draw NR regions means a better quality hunt for everyone I'm all for it.


Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[Lowndes]

Admit you are in over your head and stop digging your hole deeper. Wyoming doesn't give a rip (and shouldn't) about what someone from NC thinks about their ability to manage game anymore than someone from NC cares about what someone from WY thinks about NC. Hunting in any state, especially one that isn't your state of residence, is a privilege.

The laws and court precedence is pretty clear on game management. Each state has the ability to manage its game as it sees fit.

After reading some of the posts on this site and others, I wouldn't blame Wyoming for limiting NR opportunity out of spite. Seems there are some rather entitled hunters among us who need a reality check.

Heck if I based my viewpoint on public land hunting based on this thread I wouldn't mind if the federal government shut down hunting on public lands out of spite. Heck I can afford to hunt private land in my state and virtually anywhere I want to hunt. And at the end of the day it is all about "me" isn't it?

 

[gburk]

yes understood, but if statute suddenly says "90% of big game tags need to go to residents" would the commission not feel compelled to change that allocation, under the same authority, in order to comply with the law.

It is regulation but the authority is granted to the commission via statute...clear as mud?

 

[isItFallYet]

Here's a good read.

https://www.cfc.umt.edu/bolle/files/Fish%20WildlifeMgmtonFederal%20Lands_Powerpoint_August2017.pdf

There have only been two reasons that I can think of where I've ever supported federal ruling over state; 2nd Amendment Rights and the need, if necessary, to hunt my nation's animals. I could care less about things like gay marriage or marijuana use. Like what has been stated previously, WY likely won't stop NR hunting. But if they do, there are more than the state's population of NR hunters that would lobby to change wildlife management laws.

 

[3forks]

Colorado is discussing changes, too...

Apparently it’s being considered to reduce the amount of non-resident tags at a rate commensurate with the amount of depredation by our new wolf packs (and those that may be introduced).

The rationale is that the wolves were here first, and now reappearing, so the state has to account for their needs. Once the wolves and resident hunters are accounted for, non-residents can apply for the remaining tags.

*I am joking about this.

 

[Trunscav]

Really hope this law doesn’t pass

 

[coloyooper]

I understand most of your logic, except the need for the statement above. As long as there are federal lands within a state, there should be federal opportunity to access it. I'm sure Teddy Roosevelt and Aldo Leopold would agree.

You have every opportunity on earth to go access those federal lands. Nobody is stopping you from visiting them.

 

[isItFallYet]

You have every opportunity on earth to go access those federal lands. Nobody is stopping you from visiting them.

Catch yourself up on my posts. By accessing, I mean hunting, and I shouldn't have to explain. This is NOT an accessing public lands forum, this is a hunting forum.

 

[SummitsCalling]

Coffee is burnt...time to wake up, its codified in Federal Law:

S. 339

To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and
fishing activities.


_______________________________________________________________________


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 9, 2005

Mr. Reid (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska,
Mr. Ensign, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Salazar,
Mr. Craig, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Kyl) introduced the
following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on
the Judiciary

April 21, 2005

Reported by Mr. Specter, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

A BILL



To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and
fishing activities.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Reaffirmation of State Regulation of
Resident and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF POLICY AND CONSTRUCTION OF CONGRESSIONAL
SILENCE.

(a) In General.--It is the policy of Congress that it is in the
public interest for each State to continue to regulate the taking for
any purpose of fish and wildlife within its boundaries, including by
means of laws or regulations that differentiate between residents and
nonresidents of such State with respect to the availability of licenses
or permits for taking of particular species of fish or wildlife, the
kind and numbers of fish and wildlife that may be taken, or the fees
charged in connection with issuance of licenses or permits for hunting
or fishing.
(b) Construction of Congressional Silence.--Silence on the part of
Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier under clause 3 of
Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution (commonly referred to as the
``commerce clause'') to the regulation of hunting or fishing by a State
or Indian tribe.

SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed--
(1) to limit the applicability or effect of any Federal law
related to the protection or management of fish or wildlife or
to the regulation of commerce;
(2) to limit the authority of the United States to prohibit
hunting or fishing on any portion of the lands owned by the
United States; or
(3) to abrogate, abridge, affect, modify, supersede or
alter any treaty-reserved right or other right of any Indian
tribe as recognized by any other means, including, but not
limited to, agreements with the United States, Executive
Orders, statutes, and judicial decrees, and by Federal law.

SEC. 4. STATE DEFINED.

For purposes of this Act, the term ``State'' includes the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands.




Calendar No. 85

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 339

I'm well aware of states rights with regards to federal laws, andnlaws can be changed. You seem to miss the importance as others have stated. Without more people who support hunting, there are less voices on the national stage. How about the common Joe in Indiana who hunts in WY or ID? How about the people from MD, FL, IL, or MN? All of those voices are needed as sportsman when it comes to protecting hunting rights. Short mindedness of me me me...I need a 4th sheep tag, screw NR doesn't help anyone but yourself.If we don't get more involved, and keep access to affordable hunting those Joe schmoes won't give a damn when certain politians come for "your"rights as a R. WY has no power nationally and is mostly forgotten by the majority of people in this country.

 

[BuzzH]

I saw 25,000 total elk harvested in 2018. I just estimated how many were NR harvested. Regardless of how good wyoming hunters are, they arent going to be able to kill enough elk and deer to control the population across the state. Especially without NR funding to support the herds. I am sure you know this already but are just choosing to be a smart ass.

Look, if your version of being a "smart ass" is providing the factual numbers, then go start your own thread over in fantasyland. I deal in reality and truth, not make believe, pretend, and lies.

The very first page of the harvest report breaks down elk harvest by bull, spike, cow calf for both NR and R hunters as well as the number of days spent and the success rates. Not sure why that would be difficult or confusing. Even more confusing is why you would intentionally misrepresent your facts, just to prove a point that you were wrong about from the get-go.

Also, if you don't believe that by issuing additional tags, Resident elk hunters couldn't kill another 9Kish elk to make up the difference in total harvest...I'd think again.