What you are failing to realize is that it takes probably twice as many points to draw the plain Jane non wilderness units because all the nonresident hunters are applying for them. I have been fortunate to have hunted some really good land where I live and drawn some really good tags in other states and once you have experienced that then marginal units just don’t offer the same experience. That’s what most of us wants. To hunt the best land we can year after year without breaking the bank.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I like the fact that you see what you consider an injustice and your desire to change same. But to save you some trouble, there is really only 2 ways that you can make that happen.
1. You would have to argue in court that there is some reason that you are being unfairly treated as a NR hunter constitutionally. That's already been tried ad nauseum and in every case the higher courts have ruled in favor of the states right to discriminate against NR hunters any way they want. Lots of case law, including the Baldwin case, Shultz case, and a laundry list of other cases.
You should also be aware of s. 339 that passed in an appropriations package a number of years ago in response to the USO lawsuit under the dormant commerce clause. Pay attention to sec. 2 of that bill...it reaffirms the rights of the state to discriminate against NR hunters any way they see fit.
It would seem highly unlikely, if not downright impossible based on this bill as well as past case law, that you are going to have any luck pursuing this avenue in relief of your grievance.
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.
2. Your next option and the only viable option you have in my opinion is to change the current Wyoming Statute regarding the wilderness guide law. This would require a major lift by the people of Wyoming, since as a current NR, you have very little sway in local politics. You would be fighting a very conservative legislature that favors business over the needs of NR hunters, which IMO, is a contradictory example of "conservative" and "republican values". Seems that the Republican/conservatives rail away about keeping government out of business, free markets, and hate welfare...but then pass legislation like this that does 100% the opposite of their "core values". Seems hypocrisy isn't limited to one side of the aisle...but be that as it may, they did pass the law. You will also find that a good portion of Resident hunters here support the bill because it gives them a perceived place to escape from the throngs of NR hunters. I don't buy into that either, mainly because very few of the most vocal residents, don't even hunt designated wilderness for a variety of reasons. But even though most residents spend very little time in Wilderness, they just like the idea of limiting NR hunters.
Bottom line, is that even though I happen to agree with you on the basic premise that this is one of, if not the most egregious examples of NR's being discriminated against when it comes to public land and wildlife, there are just very few options to over-turn it. The WOGA has its hooks in the legislature, although things have changed in the past 10 years. They don't have the influence they did in the past, mainly due to the information age. Word travels fast these days and people are waking up...and showing up, wayyyy more than in the past.
The only way forward, the way I see it, is for the law to change and that will only happen at the hands of the Wyoming Residents.
