I have heard of people in recent years that wanted to test the law in court. They told the F&G they would be hunting in a wilderness area and where to find them and no one showed up. I have also heard that the F& G won't push it and are relatively sure they will lose the battle. May be all rumor as I do not know the source is valid but it has a ring of truth to it. Either that or I just wish it was true.

It has always seemed to me the outfitters cut off the hand that fed them, the non-residents..

I quit booking hunts in Wyoming for that reason, take a deposit, wait a year and see if your client drew, then send him his money back because he didn't draw...A few drew, but it just was not worth my book keepting to mess with such states that have drawings...

It puts a hardship on eveyone involved...

I don't like the wilderness restriction, but those places are not Disneyland and not everybody is prepared to go there and survive the weather and their own mistakes. There are expenses involved in finding and rescuing tenderfoots.

Having said that, I personally feel that the major consideration is protecting outfitters' livelihoods.

Tom

I am unalterably opposed to all of the Outfitter welfare programs that have been enacted by the states. If Outfitters are entrepreneurial and offer value to clients, they will secure bookings and will be successful. It is has been clearly demonstrated that subsidized businesses lose competitiveness and do not deliver value over time. Legislating access restrictions to public land and game are pathetic subsidies for an industry that does not need or deserve it. Without these subsidies, the good Outfitters will still be successful and the bad ones will go away as they should.

TomP, I believe that you will find that most search and rescue operations that are conducted on the National Forests take place outside of designated Wilderness areas. Generally speaking, many of the western Wilderness areas in the lower 48 states have prominent topographic features (rocks, ice, Scenic Rivers, etc) that can be used as navigational aids. On the other hand, lower elevation multiple use areas that receive 30-45� of annual precipitation, that have broken topography and closed canopies can challenge the most seasoned woodsman�s sense of direction. CP.

[ 04-13-2003, 23:33: Message edited by: CP ]

I have to agree that there are two many hunters out there that "think" they are capable of survivall in a wilderness area, but in fact are not...I have seen balmy weather one day and 10 feet of snow the next...Ridden 14 miles in a blizzard with a pack string..I never want to do that again as long as I live..I had one eye frozen shut as the wind was blowing 40 miles per hour and the temp was 20 to 30 below zero, the horses manes were icecicles and clinking like chimes and I nearly lost 3 fingers and one ear....It was fairly nice when we left camp that day...My friend and guide fortunatly knew the trail system and somehow kept us on it..

I believe in the guide concept in wilderness areas unless you were raised in some of that country and trained to deal with it from birth then you have no business there in the winter.

Ray,

I agree with your opinion that there are a lot who shouldn't go alone. I saw plenty of examples in my five years in Alaska. I just want the right to make my own decisions (and mistakes); don't you? I think it's called "the survival of the fittest."

You don't strike me as the type who likes being told what you can and cannot do, especially by the government.

I have to agree that there are two many hunters out there that "think" they are capable of survivall in a wilderness area, but in fact are not...I have seen balmy weather one day and 10 feet of snow the next...Ridden 14 miles in a blizzard with a pack string..I never want to do that again as long as I live..I had one eye frozen shut as the wind was blowing 40 miles per hour and the temp was 20 to 30 below zero, the horses manes were icecicles and clinking like chimes and I nearly lost 3 fingers and one ear....It was fairly nice when we left camp that day...My friend and guide fortunatly knew the trail system and somehow kept us on it..

I believe in the guide concept in wilderness areas unless you were raised in some of that country and trained to deal with it from birth then you have no business there in the winter without a guide..Of course this does not apply to some, but it sure does to many.

The nonresident wilderness area situation is mostly just a pacifier for outfitters. You have to understand that the wyoming fish and game at one time was made up of a commission that consisted of nothing but Ranchers and a select few lawyers who's families owned big ranches. The current game and fish department still has ties to these old commissions. Now consider that the majority of your large land owners in wyoming,also have outfitters and guides licenses,it doesn't take much to understand why they pushed for outfitter only areas. What you see today is a fraction of what was on the table. The outfitters wanted alot more then just wilderness areas to be restricted,but they couldn't get the state to back them on restricting nonresidents on regular national forest.

The problem in wyoming,is you have most of your state reps. and congressmen being from somewhere else and having been transplanted into wyoming during the first wave in the 1970's. These assholes were mostly trust fund babies and other types who made their money the old fashioned way,they inherited it. The first thing they do is get into office and back a bunch of bullshit bills that benefit all their rich nonresident buddies,like set aside tags. Rep. Bruce Burns,who was sited earlier in this thread,is a prime example of how these type of laws get passed. This asshole lives in my home town,transplanted during the 1970's,he's never worked a day in his life and is really worthless. However the guy puts on a free fourth of july fireworks show,that rivals some of shit you'd see at disneyland and your bay city's. Needless to say all the local idiots vote for his ass,not because of his ability,but because of the fireworks show. The end result is the asshole gets into office and immediately backs legislation designed to keep the average working class nonresident and resident from being able to secure a tag.

as to the survival aspect of hunting in wilderness areas. The wilderness area in my area,see's more traffic then regular national forest lands. This wilderness is mostly void of tree's,since the elevation is so high. if you did get lost all you'd have to do is wait till dark,so you could see the lights from local cities and walk towards them.

I agree that most people get lost outside of wilderness areas. In the last 20 years,my areas averaged one person a year lost during hunting season,none of them have been in wilderness areas.

Sure most nonresidents fund search and rescue and walk in areas. The reason for this is,residents are tired of funding search and rescue,when these programs are attached to the sheriffs department in most cases and residents already fund them through taxes. With walk in areas,I don't fund these programs,because you shouldn't have to pay to hunt,land owners that don't allow hunting,shouldn't be reimbursed by game and fish for animal damages.Especially since these damages are paid for by hunters. Secondly the majority of these lands aren't worth a shit to begin with,that's why they aren't being leased by an outfitter,for three times more then what game and fish leases them for. Last,nonresidents should support the majority of these programs,since they're the ones using them the most.

TomP, as I recall, the numbers that I reviewed were based on annualized rescue events in the National Forests. During the winter in non-designated Wilderness areas, there are a number of snowmobile riders and backcountry skiers that always get into trouble and need assistance.

I have spent my entire life (and I am getting old) depending on the forests to sustain my employment and ability to live in the rural west. There is absolutely no question in my mind that legislated boundaries do not insure a person’s security and welfare when they are in the brush. If you use poor judgment in any large forested area, regardless of its legislated use, you can easily expose yourself to more grief than you can handle.

The Wyoming Wilderness guide requirement is a pure and simple form of welfare for an industry that does not need it. Any suggestion that the Wilderness areas in Wyoming harbor unique risks that are not routinely encountered by hunters in many other areas throughout the National Forest system, is patently absurd.

If someone prefers to hunt with an Outfitter, by damn have at it. On the other hand, there are many of us that don’t need Outfitters and should not be subjected to legislation that is solely designed to coerce us into using their services. CP.

I must say I am very surprised at Ray's response. While I will agree that many who think they are capable of taking care of themselves in a wilderness area, in fact, cannot, RESIDENCY has little bearing on this statement. Many Wyoming residents are equally incapable of operating safely in wilderness areas, but there is no law restricting their access.
This is NOT a safety issue. As has been said repeatedly, this is an outfitter welfare program. It is ridiculous, and an outrage.

The points made above about rescues in non-wilderness areas are accurate. As are the claims for snowmobilers and skiers. Remember the Rulon Jones (Olympic Wrestler) story from last year? The good 'ol boy from Afton went snowmobiling in the Greys without adequate preparation and would have died without being rescued. (The Greys is a non-wilderness area, BTW.)He lost a few toes in the ordeal. And this was not some big city kid who moved to Wyoming from the east.

Bad things can happen to anyone in this type of environment, and mother nature doesn't really care where you happen to reside.
Wyoming needs to change this law. The US is supposed to be the land of the free, and sometimes that means being free to screw up and pay the consequences as well.

Bill

Wyomings hunting laws are, for the most part, very oddly done compaired to all the other states that I've hunted. Aswell they have been raising all of the prices (for in-state, not sure on out-of-state) and I have yet to see anything come of it besides more new vehicals for the G&F to drive. Not saying they do not deserve these, but it would be nice to see it come back in an obvious way.
Good hunting.
Lion

So I can go any where i want to summer or winter as long as I am not hunting ? But the minute I pick up a fire arm to hunt I sudenly become a dim wit that can't take care of my self. That is pure bull shit

That was my first and the exact point! Seems like descrimination to me. And now with the wolf situation, the elk, moose and sheep are paying a heavey toll. But the G&F will continue to sell tags so as to keep revenues up, even if numbers are going down. Another sad part of Wy G&F is to many biologists and not enough wardens. The biologists are pro-wolf for the most part. Talk about cutting off the hand that feeds you. More wolves, less game, fewer tags, less revenue.

[ 04-20-2003, 02:57: Message edited by: Eltigre ]