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.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

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.

John, giving some thought to your comment and Alaska, I wonder if the guide requirements for Alaska are purely protectionist in favor of the outfitters. As you know, a non resident can hunt certain species without a guide, such as moose and caribou. If I'm not mistaken, the guide/resident/close relative to a resident restrictions are limited to Grizz/Brownies, sheep and goats?

I may be rationalizing but I can see some reasoning for the guide requirement on those 3 animals, especially sheep and bears. With the grizz/brownies being dangerous for one and secondly being some of the hardest animals to judge in terms of maturity / sex. As to sheep, they can be difficult to judge in terms of legal age for the inexperienced sheep hunter. I'm not sure on the goat restrictions other than they are often found in difficult and potentially dangerous areas where local terrain knowledge may be of benefit as to safety.

Elk or Mule deer in a wilderness area of Wyoming typically do not pose the same danger issues, either in terms of terrain (for the most part as I've done enough mountain hunting to know there are some potentially hazardous areas there as well) or of the nature of the animal itself. Also, a mature or legal antlered animal is easier for someone without local knowledge to determine (as in restrictions of 4 points on one side, etc.).

Sorry. Not meaning to argue. Just discussing intricacies of the topic.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

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.

John, giving some thought to your comment and Alaska, I wonder if the guide requirements for Alaska are purely protectionist in favor of the outfitters. As you know, a non resident can hunt certain species without a guide, such as moose and caribou. If I'm not mistaken, the guide/resident/close relative to a resident restrictions are limited to Grizz/Brownies, sheep and goats?

I may be rationalizing but I can see some reasoning for the guide requirement on those 3 animals, especially sheep and bears. With the grizz/brownies being dangerous for one and secondly being some of the hardest animals to judge in terms of maturity / sex. As to sheep, they can be difficult to judge in terms of legal age for the inexperienced sheep hunter. I'm not sure on the goat restrictions other than they are often found in difficult and potentially dangerous areas where local terrain knowledge may be of benefit as to safety.

Elk or Mule deer in a wilderness area of Wyoming typically do not pose the same danger issues, either in terms of terrain (for the most part as I've done enough mountain hunting to know there are some potentially hazardous areas there as well) or of the nature of the animal itself. Also, a mature or legal antlered animal is easier for someone without local knowledge to determine (as in restrictions of 4 points on one side, etc.).

Sorry. Not meaning to argue. Just discussing intricacies of the topic.

It could be to promote the welfare of guides but it could also be there to prevent excessive take. Shooting a sheep on your own is not difficult in AK, at least not when I lived there. Hell, you could often hunt them without even doing an air charter. I think a lot of the areas I used to hunt over the counter are probably draw now; I don't know.

As for the dangerous quotient, the most frightening night of my life was a DIY caribou hunt on the Peninsula after Thanksgiving. We had below zero temps (no problem; I slept in a tent in the army all the time in below zero temps) but then a Chinook wind came up and nearly shredded our tent. I was up all night praying; I thought if this tent rips apart, everything is going to be wet, then when it drops back down in temp, we are going to have a challenge. I don't think you can rationally say guides are required for safety reasons; if that was the case, then mountain climbers would be required to hire them. More folks die on McKinley than are killed by bears.

Alaska has some very restrictive rules. Wound an animal, for example, and you punch your tag. How many residents who do that really punch their tag? Hunt with a guide, and you follow the rules, because in my experience they follow the letter of the law. Perhaps that is one reason. In the case of elk in a wilderness area, you might have a dream of backpacking way in, shooting an elk, and making some meat runs, but it isn't very realistic. But if meat recovery was a concern in wilderness areas, then everyone would have to hire a guide or at least use horses.

Who knows? I don't. The guide rules seem to have no logic whatsoever. But I do know simply saying Federal land belongs to all of us and therefore states cannot set their own rules doesn't make any sense either.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

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.

John, giving some thought to your comment and Alaska, I wonder if the guide requirements for Alaska are purely protectionist in favor of the outfitters. As you know, a non resident can hunt certain species without a guide, such as moose and caribou. If I'm not mistaken, the guide/resident/close relative to a resident restrictions are limited to Grizz/Brownies, sheep and goats?

I may be rationalizing but I can see some reasoning for the guide requirement on those 3 animals, especially sheep and bears. With the grizz/brownies being dangerous for one and secondly being some of the hardest animals to judge in terms of maturity / sex. As to sheep, they can be difficult to judge in terms of legal age for the inexperienced sheep hunter. I'm not sure on the goat restrictions other than they are often found in difficult and potentially dangerous areas where local terrain knowledge may be of benefit as to safety.

Elk or Mule deer in a wilderness area of Wyoming typically do not pose the same danger issues, either in terms of terrain (for the most part as I've done enough mountain hunting to know there are some potentially hazardous areas there as well) or of the nature of the animal itself. Also, a mature or legal antlered animal is easier for someone without local knowledge to determine (as in restrictions of 4 points on one side, etc.).

Sorry. Not meaning to argue. Just discussing intricacies of the topic.

It could be to promote the welfare of guides but it could also be there to prevent excessive take. Shooting a sheep on your own is not difficult in AK, at least not when I lived there. Hell, you could often hunt them without even doing an air charter. I think a lot of the areas I used to hunt over the counter are probably draw now; I don't know.

As for the dangerous quotient, the most frightening night of my life was a DIY caribou hunt on the Peninsula after Thanksgiving. We had below zero temps (no problem; I slept in a tent in the army all the time in below zero temps) but then a Chinook wind came up and nearly shredded our tent. I was up all night praying; I thought if this tent rips apart, everything is going to be wet, then when it drops back down in temp, we are going to have a challenge. I don't think you can rationally say guides are required for safety reasons; if that was the case, then mountain climbers would be required to hire them. More folks die on McKinley than are killed by bears.

Alaska has some very restrictive rules. Wound an animal, for example, and you punch your tag. How many residents who do that really punch their tag? Hunt with a guide, and you follow the rules, because in my experience they follow the letter of the law. Perhaps that is one reason. In the case of elk in a wilderness area, you might have a dream of backpacking way in, shooting an elk, and making some meat runs, but it isn't very realistic. But if meat recovery was a concern in wilderness areas, then everyone would have to hire a guide or at least use horses.

Who knows? I don't. The guide rules seem to have no logic whatsoever. But I do know simply saying Federal land belongs to all of us and therefore states cannot set their own rules doesn't make any sense either.

I hear you on a lot of that. Did a backpack elk hunt into the San Juans around Silverton about 10 year ago. My buddy and I both took bulls out of the same herd about 5 mins apart. Then the work started in earnest. Processing two bulls right at tree line just about wore us out. Each took a full load down and were spent. Hired horses the next day to retrieve the rest. Even then, it was an ass kicker!!

On the dangerous / bear part, I was really speaking more along the lines of what happens in the event you wound one and have to pull him out of the brush. I wonder if many DIY types without a lot of DG experience would be up for that. I would suspect events like that would result in a few unrecovered bears, leaving them to either die a slow painful death or wander around wounded and pissed. I think your example of requiring a guide for following the rules upon drawing blood are a good point, especially in a remote area where temptation to not do the right thing due to probability of not getting caught might affect those with less than stellar character.

I still think there is a difference between sheep / grizz in Alaska and antlered game (elk / mulie) in Wyoming in regards to wilderness areas. If nothing else, going back to my earlier comment, it's easier to judge an antlered animal for proper sex, legalities than a bear or sheep, considering hunters who are no experts in hunting either category. For example, first timer on a Brown Bear / Grizz hunt. Sees his first bear in the wild. How does he judge sex? Size? First timer hunting elk. Sees a spike bull. Knows it's a male (obviously) but also see's he doesn't have 4 points on one side. Guide could help that decision greatly with the bear, not required for the elk.

So if the State is really concerned about proper following of game laws and requiring a guide if non-resident, they should apply to all lands, not just Federal, as in the case of Wyoming.

quote:

Was a common complaint in Alaska that non-residents were shooting all the sheep when I lived there

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?