Wyoming shed hunting update

[3325]

The latest as of Feb. 7, 2023:

Bill Would Require Conservation Stamp To Hunt Wyoming Shed Antlers

Describing looking for shed antlers as adult Easter egg hunts, a Montana man said bills before the Wyoming Legislature could ruin his familys yearly shed hunting trips to Jackson.

cowboystatedaily.com

https://www.wyoleg.gov/Legislation/2023/HB0123

https://www.wyoleg.gov/Legislation/2023/HB0276

Key language: “For the purpose of this act, all wildlife in Wyoming is the property of the state, including shed antlers or horns located on public lands.”

 

[Trackerbacker]

Key language: “For the purpose of this act, all wildlife in Wyoming is the property of the state, including shed antlers or horns located on public lands.”

ill finish the quote for you:
"It is the purpose of this act and the policy of the state to provide an adequate and flexible system for control, propagation, management, protection and regulation of all Wyoming wildlife. There shall be no private ownership of live animals classified in this act as big or trophy game animals or of any wolf or wolf hybrid."

 

[3325]

ill finish the quote for you:

I read the whole thing. But I focused on a particular part as key because there’s been disagreement on a related thread about whether or not Wyoming can regulate antlers on public land as wildlife.

The state is declaring that it can.

 

[Trackerbacker]

I read the whole thing. But I focused on a particular part as key because there’s been disagreement on a related thread about whether or not Wyoming can regulate antlers on public land as wildlife.

The state is declaring that it can.

if (in this case) an elk is the states property, as many residents of states proclaim, than the derivatives of such are as well.

in this case, seems both residents and the state agree that the state owns nomadic herds of animals.

 

[String&stick]

It would be interesting to see the states ownership of shed antlers challenged in court.

Does the state retain ownership of elk hair when it is shed? Do they own elk droppings? Do they maintain ownership of cow elk skulls, or rib bones?

Also why specify ownership on public ground? Are we privatizing shed antlers on private ground and saying the state doesn't own those antlers??? Seems like it could open the door to state that animals on private ground aren't own by the state.

If they want to do it just do it! Say the state owns shed antlers and horns and then say NR have to wait 3 days. Doesn't matter if it's private land or public.

 

[dirtytough]

It would be interesting to see the states ownership of shed antlers challenged in court.

Does the state retain ownership of elk hair when it is shed? Do they own elk droppings? Do they maintain ownership of cow elk skulls, or rib bones?

Also why specify ownership on public ground? Are we privatizing shed antlers on private ground and saying the state doesn't own those antlers??? Seems like it could open the door to state that animals on private ground aren't own by the state.

Definitely an interesting twist specifying public. It seems like they either own sheds or don't. Just like live wildlife. Residents own the wildlife whether on public or private. If they don't own the sheds on private, then why would they own them if they are on federal ground? Pretty sure the feds own the minerals on federal ground, not the state.

Wyoming is definitely great at making the delta bigger and bigger between resident/non resident benefits. Almost like they are doing it on purpose to entice people to move there.

 

[5MilesBack]

I would consider elk sheds to be similar to pine cones. While they are attached they belong to the agency or entity that controls or manages what they're attached to. But once they're dropped........they should be open game. This goes back to enforcing the wildlife harassment laws we already have on the books, rather than creating new laws and assumed control (and income) to suit their whims. They're basically saying its OK to harass the wildlife while collecting sheds on private property, and OK to harass the wildlife on public property as long as you don't bend over to pick up a shed.

 

[3325]

I doubt Wyoming is declaring it owns only the sheds found on public land. That doesn't seem to be the intent of this bill. The state seems to be clarifying that sheds are state property even when found on public land, not only if. Wyoming appears to be choosing not to establish a season or require a permit for shed hunting on private lands but I suspect the state could make that stick if it ever sees the need, because it does have seasons and licenses for other wildlife harvests on private lands.

I believe that’s the intent of the bill, because Wyoming knows the counter argument will be that picking up sheds on public land is like any other use of public land and not a wildlife harvest. The state's claim is that shed hunting is indeed a wildlife harvest and not in the same category as picking up pine cones, or, as the complainer from Montana said, "An adult Easter egg hunt."

 

[Lawnboi]

It’s all about money. Government dosnt really give two shits about anything else, especially “your” or wildlife.

All about money for “conservation”, my ass! I work for government, it’s all just an item on a budget.

 

[5MilesBack]

I believe that’s the intent of the bill, because Wyoming knows the counter argument will be that picking up sheds on public land is like any other use of public land and not a wildlife harvest. The state's claim is that shed hunting is indeed a wildlife harvest and not in the same category as picking up pine cones, or, as the complainer from Montana said, "An adult Easter egg hunt."

Right. They are declaring that sheds are now considered wildlife......even though they never have been historically, nor logically should they have been. But this is the only way they can gain control over people picking up sheds, because if they aren't declared wildlife then they don't have control over that. So the FS could also now declare pine cones to be trees and issue permits to collect pine cones. It's always about the money......and control.

 

[3325]

Right. They are declaring that sheds are now considered wildlife...

Agree.

...even though they never have been historically,

Disagree. Again, in Wyoming you have never been able to legally take the antlers from a roadkilled buck or bull, even if the animal died on public land. So there was already a precedent. Perhaps your state is different.

nor logically should they have been.

Disagree. Because sheds are a resource that people make money off of. Just like fur.

It's always about the money......and control.

Agree partially. The state getting money is never not a part of what's goes on. It is always about money to an extent. But I believe saying it's only about money is too narrow focused. There are other concerns. Overcrowding is one.

People are putting forth some good counter arguments, mostly based on public land use, and I respect that. But I feel this should not be considered a public land use issue and is certainly is not comparable to an adult Easter egg hunt.

Incidentally, I don't hunt sheds, so in a practical way I don't even have a dog in the fight. If you do hunt sheds, I'm not your competition. But I support Wyoming's right to collect money and exercise control over wildlife resources. I almost always default to state's rights to the greatest extent possible and at the end of the day I believe this is a state's rights issue.

 

[5MilesBack]

Disagree. Again, in Wyoming you have never been able to legally take the antlers from a roadkilled buck or bull, even if the animal died on public land. So there was already a precedent. Perhaps your state is different.

Those aren't sheds.......they're still attached to the animal/carcass. That's different.

I don't hunt sheds either. I've found maybe three sheds while hunting in my lifetime.

Regardless what their bottom line reasons are, they want to control it, but didn't have the control or oversight over it. So what do they do? They declare that they do have oversight and control over it, and now they do. That's what all governments do (fed, state, and local).....they continue to take more and more control over "the people".

IF......sheds were actually "wildlife", then this WOULD apply to private lands as well.......just like poaching of wildlife already does apply to private as well. It's these little things that show where their logic breaks down and exposes it all for what it is.

 

[long hunter]

Perhaps if your hunting sheds and get run over by some woke ATV rider or a bicycle the states worried you might sue them.

 

[Lawnboi]

@3325
So what your saying is you like that the state is taking something that hasn’t previously been taxed, and taxing it.

I’m all on board if we shut shed hunting down if that’s what the herd requires because people lack control. But I’m not for charging people just because we now can for anything and everything.

 

[3325]

@3325
So what your saying is you like that the state is taking something that hasn’t previously been taxed, and taxing it.

Wyoming does not have a state income tax like Wisconsin. So I truly don’t have a problem with requiring a conservation stamp to hunt sheds, especially since most residents who hunt sheds will already have one for general hunting. I already buy the conservation stamp for hunting and I don’t hunt sheds.

So to be clear, I don’t have a problem with Wyoming “taxing” nonresidents to take a Wyoming resource either.

 

[Lawnboi]

I truly don’t have a problem with requiring a conservation stamp to hunt sheds, especially since most residents who hunt sheds will already have one for general hunting. I already buy the conservation stamp for hunting and I don’t hunt sheds. So to be clear, I don’t have a problem with Wyoming “taxing” nonresidents to take a Wyoming resource.

I’m not necessarily against the conservation stamp either. I just know how government spending works.

More fees from the government is the last thing anyone needs.

 

[3325]

Those aren't sheds.......they're still attached to the animal/carcass. That's different.

They are still antlers, so I believe it's substantially the same.

But your viewpoint is an argument that could be made in court by a group that wanted to bring a case.

 

[5MilesBack]

But your viewpoint is an argument that could be made in court by a group that wanted to bring a case.

And this is most likely why they didn't include private property. It would be much more likely for landowners to sue against this requirement. But this also raises another question. Did the state legislature legislate "sheds" as "wildlife".......or did the game and fish do that on their own. I would expect that the legislature would have to do that, otherwise agencies could just declare whatever they want.

 

[3325]

Did the state legislature legislate "sheds" as "wildlife".......or did the game and fish do that on their own.

House Bill 276. It isn't law yet, but I suspect it stands a good chance.

 

[5MilesBack]

House Bill 276. It isn't law yet, but I suspect it stands a good chance.

If they legislate that, then sheds will be declared wildlife statewide, not just on public. Where they are can't determine their status.