MeatEater Opinion: The West’s Worst Hunting Law

Brody Henderson
May 10, 2019

A few years back, shortly after our family moved into a new home, I killed a cow elk in the federally designated wilderness area just a mile from my back door. It wasn’t until after I had notched my tag, quartered the elk and packed the meat down the mountain that I realized how lucky I was to live next to 44,000 acres of wilderness where I can hike, camp, fly fish for trout, and hunt dusky grouse, snowshoe hare, black bear, deer and elk.

I’m not the only one who can hunt those elk. After all, federal wilderness is public land, accessible for everyone to enjoy. That Colorado wilderness area can be hunted by anyone who is willing to buy a license and hike or ride in on horses. The same holds true in the 43 other states that contain wilderness areas, Wyoming being the one glaring exception.

There are over 110 million acres of federally designated wilderness in the United States that outdoor recreationists of all types, including big game hunters, are free to explore on their own. The only caveat is that motorized and mechanical travel is prohibited in wilderness areas while foot, horse and non-motorized boat travel is legal. These travel restrictions preserve the natural integrity and beauty of these truly wild places and, because they are managed for minimal human impact, wilderness areas provide clean air and water, important fish and wildlife habitat and outstanding fishing and hunting opportunities.

This has been the case since the Wilderness Society‘s Howard Zahniser wrote the Wilderness Act in 1964. Zahniser wrote the language of the law, but the idea that intact landscapes needed protection wasn’t a new one. Decades earlier, American conservation pioneers like Bob Marshall and Aldo Leopold, both of whom now have wilderness areas named after them, recognized the value of these places. When President Lyndon Johnson signed the act into law, the National Wilderness Preservation System officially ensured that all Americans would be granted access to publicly-owned expanses of wild lands unmarred by roads or development.

In Wyoming, that’s not the case for non-resident big game hunters. Wyoming is home to 14 federal wilderness areas totaling over 3 million acres of public lands, and for do-it-yourself, non-resident big game hunters, those 3 million acres of public land are off limits.

That’s right: Wyoming law prevents out of state big game hunters from accessing the same wilderness areas where day hikers, bird watchers, fly fishermen, mountain climbers and bird hunters can roam freely.

Wyoming statute says, “Nonresidents must have a licensed guide or resident companion to hunt big [deer, elk, moose, sheep, mountain goats] or trophy game [black bears, cougars, wolves] in federally designated wilderness areas. The resident companion will need to get a free non-commercial guide license from a Game and Fish office. The law does not prohibit nonresidents from hiking, fishing or hunting game birds, small game, or coyotes in wilderness areas.”

The foundation of this statute was laid long before any federally designated wilderness areas existed in Wyoming. In 1957, the state passed a law preventing non-residents from hunting high-profile big game animals like mule deer, elk, bear and bighorn sheep on federal and state lands without a guide. No such restrictions existed for hunting small game, coyotes or pronghorn antelope.

The law remained in place until 1973, when the Schakel v. State of Wyoming case found it was discriminatory to prevent non-resident hunters from accessing public lands administered by the federal government.

The court also determined the safety of non-resident hunters was not a legitimate basis for enforcing the law, stating, “An examination of the statute demonstrates that it can have little if any relationship to such objective. The dangers to a hunter of antelope would seem as great as to a hunter of deer. We can see no manner in which it would be any less dangerous for an antelope hunter than a deer hunter in the same area at the same time.”

The law was considered void, yet Wyoming’s wilderness area access restrictions remained in place for non-resident big game hunters even as the Wilderness Act was gaining steam throughout the country.

In order to get a better understanding of why, I asked a Wyoming Fish and Game public access coordinator. The answer I got seemed intentionally vague, but it boiled down to being in the best interests of hunters who might otherwise get themselves into trouble in a remote wilderness area and ultimately need to be extracted, hopefully alive, by a search and rescue team. In simpler terms, non-resident hunters pose a safety risk to themselves and others in wilderness areas in the state of Wyoming.

If all of this this smells like bullshit to you, you’re not alone. The fact that a mountain climber is free to fall her death 13,000 feet up in the Bridger Wilderness Area in the Wind River Range and there’s no concern over a fly fishermen breaking his ankle in small, remote mountain creek 10 miles from the nearest help in the Gros Ventre Wilderness suggests that big game hunters are being singled out for reasons other than safety.

There is simply no hard evidence that supports the idea that big game hunters are at greater risk than any other wilderness area user group.

In fact, a Minnesota big game hunter challenged the law in a 1985 Wyoming Supreme Court case after he was charged for hunting without a guide in a Wyoming wilderness area.

“Keiran W. O’Brien (appellant) was convicted, and fined $100 by a justice of the peace for Park County, on January 18, 1984, of hunting in a federal wilderness area unaccompanied by a licensed professional guide or resident guide, in violation of W.S. 23-2-401(a) and (b).1 ”

In order to make a decision, Wyoming’s Supreme Court was required to answer the following three questions:

“Does Wyoming Statute Section 23-2-401(a), requiring non-resident big game hunters who hunt in federal wilderness areas to employ guides violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution?” The Equal Protection Clause forbids states from preventing the basic rights of United States citizens.
“Does Wyoming Statute Section 23-3-401(a) violate the Privileges and Immunities Clauses of the United States Constitution?” The Immunities Clause states, “The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.”
“Does Wyoming Statute Section 23-2-401(a) violate the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution because it conflicts with the purposes of the National Wilderness Preservation System Act and federal regulations thereunder?” The Supremacy Clause mandates that states are bound by and subordinate to the Constitution and federal law.
O’Brien lost his argument that the law is unconstitutional.

The court ruled that, “Perhaps there are some non-resident hunters who are fully capable of looking out for themselves in particular areas and pose no problem to enforcement, but it is reasonable to conclude and more likely that they should have help.”

It also agreed with an earlier district court decision that stated, “Hunting is a recreational sport and not a fundamental right. In such cases the Privileges and Immunities Clause did not come into play, and there was no constitutional violation in that regard.”

Still, it’s a long, commonly accepted, badly kept secret that the law is not designed to ensure the safety of non-resident big game hunters, but in fact exists to line the pockets of Wyoming’s outfitters and guides. It’s no coincidence that the big game and trophy animals an out-of-state hunter is most likely to pursue in a Wyoming wilderness area are big ticket hunts for outfitters. Meanwhile, there is no guiding market for the dusky grouse that live in wilderness areas right alongside elk, mule deer, bighorn sheep, black bears and mountain lions.

The fact is, Wyoming’s wilderness areas are no more dangerous or remote than those in Colorado or Montana, where non-residents are able to legally hunt big game without a guide. Is it true that some hunters don’t have the necessary knowledge, skills and experience needed for a safe, do-it-yourself wilderness hunt?

Sure, but most of the hunters I know have been doing just fine on their own in wilderness areas from Arizona to Alaska. And the roads that run through the national forest, BLM and state lands where non-residents are legally able to hunt big game without a guide in Wyoming don’t necessarily equate to a safer hunting experience. On the contrary, they allow some hunters who aren’t prepared for a backcountry hunt in dangerous terrain easier access to remote areas where they have no business being in the first place.

Perhaps even more importantly, the actual intent of the law seems very clear. Denying access to a specific group of users unless they pay for the experience while allowing free reign to every one else seems like, if not a direct violation of the Constitution of the United States, at the very least a case of blatant pandering to a special interest that stands to benefit financially from the regulation.

Interestingly, there are those who believe Wyoming’s 2012 constitutional amendment that guarantees the right to hunt, trap and fish might be a path towards challenging the 1985 determination that hunting was not a fundamental right and the decision to maintain non-resident hunter wilderness area restrictions. The theory merits a closer look, but a legal battle would be complicated with no guarantee of the statute being overturned.

It is important to note that Wyoming is an extremely hunter-friendly state with some great public land opportunities. I’ve hunted big game there multiple times as a non-resident and I’ll continue to do so in the future.

I just wish I was able to legally hunt the state’s 3 million acres of wilderness without being forced to pay for a guide or acquire the help of a resident. It’s land that I own, along with every other American citizen.

I’ve got nothing against Wyoming’s outfitters. I was a guide myself for many years and I know the value they provide to many hunters, but I’d like the freedom to experience those places and those hunts on my own, just like I can everywhere else.

http://themeateater.com/conser...11&mc_eid=b67aa1fbd6

How does Meateater feel about the Alaska law that prohibits non-residents from hunting without a guide for sheep, goat and brown bear?

I thought that law was because of the grizzly bear. They seem to come running when they hear a gun shot. It's hard to look for a grizzly bear when you're field dressing an elk. Every few years you hear about hunters getting into trouble with grizzly as it's trying to claim the elk.

I completely agree with the well written article.
It is an unnecessary restriction targeting hunters only for the sole purpose of propping up the guiding industry.
When hikers, mountain climbers, small game hunters and fisherman can utilize a resource but only big game hunters have to hire the services of a guide to use the very same lands then the singling out of hunters is obvious.
In Colorado the craze to climb 14'ers (peaks over 14,000' in elevation Colorado has 54 of them) causes search and rescue departments all across the state to extract climbers and bodies of climbers by the dozens each year, Capitol Peak and the Crestones claim the most deaths and the most rescues yet very few people picked up by search and rescue are hunters. The last I remember a Goat hunter fell to his death in the Maroon Bells/Pyramid Peak area 3 years ago and required a body extraction. Wyoming can't be that dissimilar to Colorado so citing some "special danger" that hunters may put themselves in is not factual.
Would be great if a hunters advocacy group like SCI or RMEF would take up this cause, however it would step on the toes of the good old boy outfitters.

Bob- bears are not the reason for the law. The law is simply there to make non-res hunters use a guide in those areas.

It is good article about a poor law.

Snellstrom----I know a lot of backpackers/climbers buy the $3 Corsar card. Short for Colorado Outdoor Recreation Search and Rescue. It's the same fund we pay 25 cents per license. It allows the sheriff's office to bill for search & rescue.

Pretty if you don't have it the Sheriff's office could/can bill you for the search & rescue.

Pretty sure if you have a hunting/fishing license, snowmobile or atv registration you're in the CORSAR coverage.

quote:

Originally posted by MC:
Bob- bears are not the reason for the law. The law is simply there to make non-res hunters use a guide in those areas.

It is good article about a poor law.

We have a winner! ^^^^^^^

MC: I was just pointing out that WY was not the only state that was ripping off the non-resident under the guise of hunter safety. Alaska does it also.

I grew up in Wyoming, I am a Wyoming native and I wish I lived in Wyoming right now.

Saying that I like the law. It isn't any different than the Alaska law requiring a guide to hunt sheep, goat and brown bear in Alaska.

Or the states do not allow non-residents to apply for all species.

The wildlife belongs to the state, not the federal government. It is part of states rights.

Not only does it protect the outfitter industry in Wyoming, similar to the 5% rule here in New Mexico with outfitter set asides or in Nevada, it gives residents an expanded hunting opportunity with zero to limited access by non-residents.

If I was still a Wyoming resident, even as a non-outfitter I see no reason not to support it. It does nothing but help me by limiting access.


Many state restrict non-resident hunting opportunity. I think this chaffs the ass of people outside the states more than any other law because it is written to prevent non-residents from hunting in Wilderness areas
.


The design of the law is the problem, not the fact that the law exist.

Interesting piece. I’ll check with Joe Picket and get the real skinny.



BH63

quote:

“Does Wyoming Statute Section 23-3-401(a) violate the Privileges and Immunities Clauses of the United States Constitution?” The Immunities Clause states, “The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.”

if this were upheld every state would have constitutional carry like Wyoming and Idaho has.
clearly not the case.

quote:

Originally posted by Colorado Bob:
I thought that law was because of the grizzly bear. They seem to come running when they hear a gun shot. It's hard to look for a grizzly bear when you're field dressing an elk. Every few years you hear about hunters getting into trouble with grizzly as it's trying to claim the elk.

So you don’t think grizzlies might attack residents? How do they know the difference between residents and nonresident?

The wildlife belongs to the state, not the federal government. It is part of states rights

If I was still a Wyoming resident, even as a non-outfitter I see no reason not to support it. It does nothing but help me by limiting access.


Many state restrict non-resident hunting opportunity. I think this chaffs the ass of people outside the states more than any other law because it is written to prevent non-residents from hunting in Wilderness areas
.


The design of the law is the problem, not the fact that the law exist.[/QUOTE



You forget- THE LAND IN QUESTION IS FEDERALLY OWNED AND NOT STATE OWNED! Why should non residents NOT be allowed to hunt on without a guide on FEDERAL wilderness area? The state’s DONT OWN IT!

Because wildlife is property of the state, this is unrefuted federal law.

I don't understand why people don't get this.

No one is keeping you out of the wilderness area, you just can't legally hunt. But you are welcome to hike the Continental Divide trail through wilderness areas on your own.

True the game is owned by the state and that's the loophole they used to get by with this law for so long. But the reason it was put into place was because Wyoming's guide association was able to put enough pressure on lawmakers to get it passed, nothing more.

As a Wyoming native and landowner but not presently a citizen I would love to hunt in the federal wilderness areas there, but I can't without a guide even though I'm quite familiar with some of the areas.

Actually I'm surprised some individual or group hasn't challenged this silly biased law. Hopefully someone does. I will certainly support it.

Don't believe all this propaganda.

wilderness area's cannot be accessed except on foot or horseback.

Many many people can't walk it, and can't ride a horse. THAT ELIMENATES all access for those folks.

Enjoy it while you can!

George

What has that to do with the original post?

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:

quote:

Originally posted by Colorado Bob:
I thought that law was because of the grizzly bear. They seem to come running when they hear a gun shot. It's hard to look for a grizzly bear when you're field dressing an elk. Every few years you hear about hunters getting into trouble with grizzly as it's trying to claim the elk.

So you don’t think grizzlies might attack residents? How do they know the difference between residents and nonresident?

You beat me to it!

quote:

Originally posted by BuffHunter63:
Interesting piece. I’ll check with Joe Picket and get the real skinny.



BH63

Aha, another C.J. Box reader, eh? I've read all of his books, including the non-Pickett ones. Just finished the newest, Wolf Pack, last week.


As for WY's law, I'm sort of ambivalent about it. As others have said, nearly every western state has limits for NRs of one kind or another. This one is just in a different niche.

Lots of other land in Wyo and lots of other states to hunt. My $$$ and I will hunt elsewhere. There probably isn't anyone here who doesn't reside in a state that has game laws we disagree with.

quote:

You forget- THE LAND IN QUESTION IS FEDERALLY OWNED AND NOT STATE OWNED! Why should non residents NOT be allowed to hunt on without a guide on FEDERAL wilderness area? The state’s DONT OWN IT!

I own land in CO; with your logic, since I own it I could set my own hunting rules.

quote:

Originally posted by BuffHunter63:
Interesting piece. I’ll check with Joe Picket and get the real skinny.



BH63

Not everyone will "get" that reference..
I myself am a big CJ Box and Joe Pickett fan.

quote:

Originally posted by bobmn:
MC: I was just pointing out that WY was not the only state that was ripping off the non-resident under the guise of hunter safety. Alaska does it also.

All these guide requirements are just hunting guide/outfitter/resort/camp owners protection acts.

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:

quote:

Originally posted by Colorado Bob:
I thought that law was because of the grizzly bear. They seem to come running when they hear a gun shot. It's hard to look for a grizzly bear when you're field dressing an elk. Every few years you hear about hunters getting into trouble with grizzly as it's trying to claim the elk.

So you don’t think grizzlies might attack residents? How do they know the difference between residents and nonresident?

Well the residents don`t have guides!!!

I think the states rights angle is a little pandering, but I will allow it.

Let guides have their monopolization, you aren't going there anyway. Most of the people who hunt out of state and get more than a mile off a road need a guide anyway. It is a non-issue. There are a few folks who like to brutalize themselves, but we are an aging and vanishing breed. Wilderness areas are not overrun with people anyway and as long as the no machines rules is in effect I say let it be. Like Alaska's rule for needing a guide; it's not the rule that limits the vast majority of prospective hunters, it is the wilderness itself. I think actually if the regulation were changed there would be very little amount of change in the hunting pressure on wilderness areas, maybe the first mile of wilderness.

But should we encourage rules that discourage trying to do difficult things. It seems the folks who are the loudest about the "nanny state" are the same people who think their citizens need a nanny.

quote:

Let guides have their monopolization, you aren't going there anyway. Most of the people who hunt out of state and get more than a mile off a road need a guide anyway. It is a non-issue. There are a few folks who like to brutalize themselves, but we are an aging and vanishing breed

Slim I agree with some of what you say but you are painting with a very broad brush.
Could be that hunters you know or hunt with fit this profile of needing a nanny guide but I run in a different crowd and I also know my kids will probably push further and harder than I did.
My boys not only hunt but my eldest son completed climbing all the 14'ers in the lower 48 three years ago (no guide DIY only) and has gone out of the country to climb peaks nearing 22,000' in elevation.
The sense of adventure and exploration and self reliance is not dead.

Snellstrom, you will notice I used the "we" pronoun in those willing to brutalize themselves. If you have read my posts I feel obligated to stand up for individual rights over even the "States" rights.

If you read my last "paragraph" I was pointing out the hypocrisy that most people who try to shame others with the "nanny state" are the ones who what to impose their "nanny" on others.

The hunters I hunt with often wish we had not, "let's just go over one more ridge," or "Oh that doesn't look that far, let's go get'm". The stories are always entertaining when we finally get back.

Just saying let Wyo have their thing. A few of us are potentially impacted but oh well there are lots of places to punish ourselves. I took my son on his first elk hunt last year in Wyo, he had fun until it sucked, but so did I. We are hopefully going to Colorado this year. I promised him it would be "fun" this year, I have no doubt it will.

quote:

Originally posted by slim buttes:
Snellstrom, you will notice I used the "we" pronoun in those willing to brutalize themselves. If you have read my posts I feel obligated to stand up for individual rights over even the "States" rights.

If you read my last "paragraph" I was pointing out the hypocrisy that most people who try to shame others with the "nanny state" are the ones who what to impose their "nanny" on others.

The hunters I hunt with often wish we had not, "let's just go over one more ridge," or "Oh that doesn't look that far, let's go get'm". The stories are always entertaining when we finally get back.

Just saying let Wyo have their thing. A few of us are potentially impacted but oh well there are lots of places to punish ourselves. I took my son on his first elk hunt last year in Wyo, he had fun until it sucked, but so did I. We are hopefully going to Colorado this year. I promised him it would be "fun" this year, I have no doubt it will.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

You forget- THE LAND IN QUESTION IS FEDERALLY OWNED AND NOT STATE OWNED! Why should non residents NOT be allowed to hunt on without a guide on FEDERAL wilderness area? The state’s DONT OWN IT!

I own land in CO; with your logic, since I own it I could set my own hunting rules.

Surely you realize the difference between private and public land??

quote:

Originally posted by Snellstrom:

quote:

Let guides have their monopolization, you aren't going there anyway. Most of the people who hunt out of state and get more than a mile off a road need a guide anyway. It is a non-issue. There are a few folks who like to brutalize themselves, but we are an aging and vanishing breed

Slim I agree with some of what you say but you are painting with a very broad brush.
Could be that hunters you know or hunt with fit this profile of needing a nanny guide but I run in a different crowd and I also know my kids will probably push further and harder than I did.
My boys not only hunt but my eldest son completed climbing all the 14'ers in the lower 48 three years ago (no guide DIY only) and has gone out of the country to climb peaks nearing 22,000' in elevation.
The sense of adventure and exploration and self reliance is not dead.

+1

I don't want or need a guide for most hunting. Only if there is some particular advantage would I consider one. I hunt by horse or hiking in a wilderness area every year where I live now. Nothing to be particularly concerned about just because there's no roads and few people. I'm not afraid of the dark or boogeyman either.....

quote:

I don't want or need a guide for most hunting. Only if there is some particular advantage would I consider one. I hunt by horse or hiking in a wilderness area every year where I live now. Nothing to be particularly concerned about just because there's no roads and few people. I'm not afraid of the dark or boogeyman either.....

+2

I have traveled in wilderness areas all my life without a guide. Some hunting, fishing, camping, climbing ect ect.

I haven't hunted the Wyoming wilderness areas but I hike/camped, fished and climbed in them.

Why would I need a guide to hunt them safely.

These guide requirements are just for a money transfer.

Would I hire someone to assist yes if the price and benefits were justifiable. Nothing like local information to help.

I did that for one Wyoming elk hunt the price was reasonable gave access to property I didn't have and could not get ect.

Then the biggest they loaded the elk on a horse and hauled it out.

People hire guides because they have to (the Law) they don't have the skills, time, knowledge of the area.

I only disagree with being forced to.

I have hunted WY numerous times with outfitters and DIY. There is absolutely no doubt about the intention of the Wilderness non-resident law, it is to drive non-residents to outfitters. I now and have for a long time viewed WYOGA as with most organizations self-serving but more like a cartel. As for non-residents the indisputable fact is we/they pay the bills and to be manipulated on Federal land is wrong. I totally agree with the original posters well laid out view. You can spin it any way you wish, compare to other states by tags, etc. which isn't the same. This is about after you get the tag or where you apply for tag. I would like to see this challenged in court again.
P.S. This is like we make CRP payments to farmers to let land stay idle for habitat and then they turn around and lease to an outfitter and you are not allowed to hunt and it's taxpayer money.

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

You forget- THE LAND IN QUESTION IS FEDERALLY OWNED AND NOT STATE OWNED! Why should non residents NOT be allowed to hunt on without a guide on FEDERAL wilderness area? The state’s DONT OWN IT!

I own land in CO; with your logic, since I own it I could set my own hunting rules.

Surely you realize the difference between private and public land??

There is no difference; game animals are state property, not federal or private property. You might wish it were different, but that isn't going to change it.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

You forget- THE LAND IN QUESTION IS FEDERALLY OWNED AND NOT STATE OWNED! Why should non residents NOT be allowed to hunt on without a guide on FEDERAL wilderness area? The state’s DONT OWN IT!

I own land in CO; with your logic, since I own it I could set my own hunting rules.

Surely you realize the difference between private and public land??

There is no difference; game animals are state property, not federal or private property. You might wish it were different, but that isn't going to change it.

John, you can set your own hunting rules regarding access to your private lands for hunting purposes. The discussion isn't about whether or not the state has regulatory authority over the game animals and hunting seasons, manner of take, etc., but rather about who can access the lands for the purpose of hunting.

With your private lands, you can allow or deny access, or charge a trespass fee. Once access is granted, the hunters have to follow game laws.

This WY law is not about game laws as much as it is about restricting access to federal lands, lands which the state does not own. All for the purpose of protecting a class of commerce. The state should be allowed to dictate the game laws to be followed on Federal lands, but not who can access those Federal lands, or the requirements under which Federal land access is granted. Just as the state dictates game laws to be followed on your private lands, but not who has access to your lands.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

You forget- THE LAND IN QUESTION IS FEDERALLY OWNED AND NOT STATE OWNED! Why should non residents NOT be allowed to hunt on without a guide on FEDERAL wilderness area? The state’s DONT OWN IT!

I own land in CO; with your logic, since I own it I could set my own hunting rules.

Surely you realize the difference between private and public land??

There is no difference; game animals are state property, not federal or private property. You might wish it were different, but that isn't going to change it.

John, you can set your own hunting rules regarding access to your private lands for hunting purposes. The discussion isn't about whether or not the state has regulatory authority over the game animals and hunting seasons, manner of take, etc., but rather about who can access the lands for the purpose of hunting.

With your private lands, you can allow or deny access, or charge a trespass fee. Once access is granted, the hunters have to follow game laws.

This WY law is not about game laws as much as it is about restricting access to federal lands, lands which the state does not own. All for the purpose of protecting a class of commerce. The state should be allowed to dictate the game laws to be followed on Federal lands, but not who can access those Federal lands, or the requirements under which Federal land access is granted. Just as the state dictates game laws to be followed on your private lands, but not who has access to your lands.

I see your point, but states do control the laws used for hunting. For example, if I own land in Alaska that has brown bears on it, I am not entitled to hunt them without a guide.

I do agree that the logic doesn't make sense in that you can do anything you want in a wilderness except hunt. My post was more directed at the claim that federal lands belong to us all and therefore states have no control. Seems to come up time and again.

Personally, I think the Wyoming law is bullshit, just as I think the AK guide/2nd degree of kindred law is bullshit. I am an Alaska resident and it drives me up a wall that grizzly, sheep, and goats require a guide/close relative for nonresidents.

The only thing I think that makes the WY law a little less terrible is that any resident can sponsor any nonresident in the wilderness area, not just family like in Alaska.

Easily the worst law/practice I have seen is the preference point farce.....

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

You forget- THE LAND IN QUESTION IS FEDERALLY OWNED AND NOT STATE OWNED! Why should non residents NOT be allowed to hunt on without a guide on FEDERAL wilderness area? The state’s DONT OWN IT!

I own land in CO; with your logic, since I own it I could set my own hunting rules.

Surely you realize the difference between private and public land??

There is no difference; game animals are state property, not federal or private property. You might wish it were different, but that isn't going to change it.

John, you can set your own hunting rules regarding access to your private lands for hunting purposes. The discussion isn't about whether or not the state has regulatory authority over the game animals and hunting seasons, manner of take, etc., but rather about who can access the lands for the purpose of hunting.

With your private lands, you can allow or deny access, or charge a trespass fee. Once access is granted, the hunters have to follow game laws.

This WY law is not about game laws as much as it is about restricting access to federal lands, lands which the state does not own. All for the purpose of protecting a class of commerce. The state should be allowed to dictate the game laws to be followed on Federal lands, but not who can access those Federal lands, or the requirements under which Federal land access is granted. Just as the state dictates game laws to be followed on your private lands, but not who has access to your lands.

I see your point, but states do control the laws used for hunting. For example, if I own land in Alaska that has brown bears on it, I am not entitled to hunt them without a guide.

I do agree that the logic doesn't make sense in that you can do anything you want in a wilderness except hunt. My post was more directed at the claim that federal lands belong to us all and therefore states have no control. Seems to come up time and again.

You answered your own question. Wyoming doesn't require a guide to hunt state or private land for any species. Only if a non resident is on federal land (that the state doesn't own) is a guide required.

The law makes no sense other than to feed the guide business which is who originally pushed for it, not the state government. If the state wanted to have a guide requirement for nonresidents they would have made it consistent and had it cover all lands.

quote:

Originally posted by Cougarz:

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

You forget- THE LAND IN QUESTION IS FEDERALLY OWNED AND NOT STATE OWNED! Why should non residents NOT be allowed to hunt on without a guide on FEDERAL wilderness area? The state’s DONT OWN IT!

I own land in CO; with your logic, since I own it I could set my own hunting rules.

Surely you realize the difference between private and public land??

There is no difference; game animals are state property, not federal or private property. You might wish it were different, but that isn't going to change it.

John, you can set your own hunting rules regarding access to your private lands for hunting purposes. The discussion isn't about whether or not the state has regulatory authority over the game animals and hunting seasons, manner of take, etc., but rather about who can access the lands for the purpose of hunting.

With your private lands, you can allow or deny access, or charge a trespass fee. Once access is granted, the hunters have to follow game laws.

This WY law is not about game laws as much as it is about restricting access to federal lands, lands which the state does not own. All for the purpose of protecting a class of commerce. The state should be allowed to dictate the game laws to be followed on Federal lands, but not who can access those Federal lands, or the requirements under which Federal land access is granted. Just as the state dictates game laws to be followed on your private lands, but not who has access to your lands.

I see your point, but states do control the laws used for hunting. For example, if I own land in Alaska that has brown bears on it, I am not entitled to hunt them without a guide.

I do agree that the logic doesn't make sense in that you can do anything you want in a wilderness except hunt. My post was more directed at the claim that federal lands belong to us all and therefore states have no control. Seems to come up time and again.

You answered your own question. Wyoming doesn't require a guide to hunt state or private land for any species. Only if a non resident is on federal land (that the state doesn't own) is a guide required.

The law makes no sense other than to feed the guide business which is who originally pushed for it, not the state government. If the state wanted to have a guide requirement for nonresidents they would have made it consistent and had it cover all lands.

What question did I pose?