Post by: mburrows on December 13, 2016, 06:59:19 PM
Post by: jjhunter on December 13, 2016, 07:03:41 PM
Post by: Widgeondeke on December 13, 2016, 07:04:30 PM
Saw a few grizzlies and tons of elk.
Post by: jjhunter on December 13, 2016, 07:06:09 PM
Post by: syoungs on December 13, 2016, 07:08:43 PM
Post by: mburrows on December 13, 2016, 07:12:10 PM
If I recall it's not illegal to hunt, but you must have a resident guide. My brother played guide for a friend this year. Got a very good bull.
Saw a few grizzlies and tons of elk.
You are right, not illegal to hunt but you must be accompanied by an outfitter or resident licensed guide.
Post by: bobcat on December 13, 2016, 07:22:04 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 13, 2016, 07:22:29 PM
I hunted H wilderness in 2009 and 2010 with a resident guide. I'll be in G this year with 6 pts.unless it creeps again :bash:
Post by: Curly on December 13, 2016, 07:38:19 PM
Post by: Stickerbush on December 13, 2016, 07:59:40 PM
Post by: bigtex on December 13, 2016, 08:44:07 PM
Post by: Hot Lunch on December 13, 2016, 09:26:31 PM
Post by: actionshooter on December 13, 2016, 10:13:53 PM
Yep..... :(I hunted H wilderness in 2009 and 2010 with a resident guide. I'll be in G this year with 6 pts.unless it creeps again :bash:
Post by: mburrows on December 14, 2016, 10:13:50 AM
It's so the outfitters don't have competition from un-guided non-resident hunters. And you actually can hunt in wilderness- just not for big game. I don't like it but really don't have a problem with it. States have the right to regulate hunting any way they want. They could just as easily make it so that non-residents cannot buy a deer or elk tag unless you go through an outfitter. But instead, they are very generous with the percentage of deer and elk tags that are allocated for non-residents. Their fees are also reasonable. So I don't hold it against them too much that we can't hunt wilderness areas. Although it's obvious that it's simply outfitter welfare. I believe if you were to ask the WGFD the reasoning for the regulation, they would say it's to prevent incompetent non-resident hunters from becoming lost and/or injured in the wilderness.
I guess i can understand it but the idea of not being able to hunt federal land really chaffs me. I wonder if its ever been challenged in court, ill have to do some research.
Post by: bigtex on December 18, 2016, 09:35:52 PM
It's a state hunting law. It's no different then saying you need to wear hunter orange or need a hunting license.It's so the outfitters don't have competition from un-guided non-resident hunters. And you actually can hunt in wilderness- just not for big game. I don't like it but really don't have a problem with it. States have the right to regulate hunting any way they want. They could just as easily make it so that non-residents cannot buy a deer or elk tag unless you go through an outfitter. But instead, they are very generous with the percentage of deer and elk tags that are allocated for non-residents. Their fees are also reasonable. So I don't hold it against them too much that we can't hunt wilderness areas. Although it's obvious that it's simply outfitter welfare. I believe if you were to ask the WGFD the reasoning for the regulation, they would say it's to prevent incompetent non-resident hunters from becoming lost and/or injured in the wilderness.I guess i can understand it but the idea of not being able to hunt federal land really chaffs me. I wonder if its ever been challenged in court, ill have to do some research.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 18, 2016, 09:44:34 PM
Post by: bigtex on December 18, 2016, 10:18:26 PM
Yeah, the animals belong to the state even though the land belongs to the feds. But to a degree, because animals in national parks are under control of the feds. Or is it that the feds in areas outside of parks just cede animals to the state?Well we're talking about Wilderness Areas not National Parks so that really doesn't matter.
But to your question. It all depends on the jurisdiction of the National Park. Exclusive jurisdiction parks are 100% federal control, local and state government has no authority. In order for the feds to get exclusive jurisdiction the state has to cede it to the feds. This is typically the larger older parks. Federal law actually says the NPS should work towards eliminating exclusive jurisdiction, problem is many states and counties don't want to take it back because now they're responsible for it. In WA only Olympic and Mt. Rainier are exclusive, WDFW can obviously help but the feds are the head hanchos.
Post by: ridgefire on December 30, 2016, 06:41:54 AM
Post by: time2hunt on December 30, 2016, 08:30:04 AM
Imo it's complete joke. I wonder how much they patrol it and what the fine is.The guides patrol it real well if they see out state plate they turn it in or deal with the matter them self. I know a group that had every tire slashed on there trucks and trailer for going into the wilderness unguided.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Knocker of rocks on December 30, 2016, 09:00:36 AM
You are right, not illegal to hunt but you must be accompanied by an outfitter or resident licensed guide.
Probably better to say "registered" guide. limiting commercial access to Federal lands based solely on state residency is against the law
Post by: Mr Mykiss on December 30, 2016, 09:22:05 AM
unless it creeps again :bash:By "creeps" you mean the odds of drawing get better when you have more points right? :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Mr Mykiss on December 30, 2016, 09:26:26 AM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on December 30, 2016, 03:51:49 PM
It's so the outfitters don't have competition from un-guided non-resident hunters. And you actually can hunt in wilderness- just not for big game. I don't like it but really don't have a problem with it. States have the right to regulate hunting any way they want. They could just as easily make it so that non-residents cannot buy a deer or elk tag unless you go through an outfitter. But instead, they are very generous with the percentage of deer and elk tags that are allocated for non-residents. Their fees are also reasonable. So I don't hold it against them too much that we can't hunt wilderness areas. Although it's obvious that it's simply outfitter welfare. I believe if you were to ask the WGFD the reasoning for the regulation, they would say it's to prevent incompetent non-resident hunters from becoming lost and/or injured in the wilderness.Bob got it mostly right, however, as I used to answer that question for WGFD, the answer they give is that WYOGA (the Wyoming Outfitters and Guides Association) petitioned the Legislature to pass it and they did. It is true that WYOGA did give that safety concern as a reason, but there's not much argument it was passed to economically benefit outfitters - period. The resident guide license (a Wyoming resident can take up to two nonresidents big game hunting in wilderness areas per season, no compensation can be given) was added by the Legislature in response to constituents concerned about not being able to hunt with their friends or relatives who had moved out of state.
There was one challenge in federal court under the Commerce clause that failed. I do believe it can be repealed but would require a nonresident plaintiff to appeal in federal court on the basis of violation of the equal protection clause.
Post by: trophyhunt on December 30, 2016, 03:56:51 PM
Post by: longrange7mm on January 07, 2017, 03:58:24 AM
It's so the outfitters don't have competition from un-guided non-resident hunters. And you actually can hunt in wilderness- just not for big game. I don't like it but really don't have a problem with it. States have the right to regulate hunting any way they want. They could just as easily make it so that non-residents cannot buy a deer or elk tag unless you go through an outfitter. But instead, they are very generous with the percentage of deer and elk tags that are allocated for non-residents. Their fees are also reasonable. So I don't hold it against them too much that we can't hunt wilderness areas. Although it's obvious that it's simply outfitter welfare. I believe if you were to ask the WGFD the reasoning for the regulation, they would say it's to prevent incompetent non-resident hunters from becoming lost and/or injured in the wilderness.I guess i can understand it but the idea of not being able to hunt federal land really chaffs me. I wonder if its ever been challenged in court, ill have to do some research.
Good luck with that hope you have some $ to piss away! There are ways around it, Find a willing resident and they can take/ accompany you into the wilderness. I not only like this rule but love it. The resident guide permit is nothing more than running into the G&F office showing ID to prove residence sign an affidavit you will not except money and they print you one off. I have done this several times as a resident for buddies.
Post by: huntnphool on January 07, 2017, 06:25:32 AM
This was the issue in Montana a few years back that led to Initiative 161.
Post by: longrange7mm on January 07, 2017, 10:09:12 AM
I'd be curious to know how many Wyoming "outfitters" are actually non residents.
This was the issue in Montana a few years back that led to Initiative 161.
According to the states outfitter directing there are 303 licensed outfitters, 27 of them are non resident outfitters. There are 3 that operate in wilderness according to there description. and out of those 3, I personally know one of them and the owner lives in Cody. I did notice the majority of those 27 non resident outfitters advertise private land hunts only and a select few operate on National forest. I highly doubt there will be any changes to this law :tup:
http://outfitters.state.wy.us/
Post by: Miles on January 07, 2017, 10:13:52 AM
Imo it's complete joke. I wonder how much they patrol it and what the fine is.The guides patrol it real well if they see out state plate they turn it in or deal with the matter them self. I know a group that had every tire slashed on there trucks and trailer for going into the wilderness unguided.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's pretty dumb considering a resident military person could be stationed there and have out of state plates. I have a good friend there that is a resident with Alaska plates...
Post by: longrange7mm on January 07, 2017, 11:03:21 AM
That's pretty dumb considering a resident military person could be stationed there and have out of state plates. I have a good friend there that is a resident with Alaska plates...Imo it's complete joke. I wonder how much they patrol it and what the fine is.The guides patrol it real well if they see out state plate they turn it in or deal with the matter them self. I know a group that had every tire slashed on there trucks and trailer for going into the wilderness unguided.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I dont buy that bro, My work truck has Montana plates and Im always parked at different wilderness trail-heads with it. I have never once had an issue. Stay out of Big Horn county though them county niners are a bunch of redneck hillbilly *censored*s :chuckle:
Post by: NRA4LIFE on January 07, 2017, 12:36:40 PM
Post by: huntnphool on January 07, 2017, 02:33:44 PM
I'd be curious to know how many Wyoming "outfitters" are actually non residents.
This was the issue in Montana a few years back that led to Initiative 161.
According to the states outfitter directing there are 303 licensed outfitters, 27 of them are non resident outfitters. There are 3 that operate in wilderness according to there description. and out of those 3, I personally know one of them and the owner lives in Cody. I did notice the majority of those 27 non resident outfitters advertise private land hunts only and a select few operate on National forest. I highly doubt there will be any changes to this law :tup:
http://outfitters.state.wy.us/
I'm not suggesting there will or needs to be a change to the law, simply pointing out what happened in Montana.
Post by: NW SURVEYOR on January 07, 2017, 02:52:08 PM
Some clown(s) buys a tag, drives to Wyoming and in the face of an impending storm decides that they/he will hunt anyway.
After all, he's been planning this trip with his buddies and he knows what he's doing.
Fast forward a few days and everyones stuck 10 miles back without a clue.
Along comes a storm, no cell coverage and the State of Wyoming foots the bill to fetch Nimrod and his pals.
Guess who picks up the Search and Rescue bill?
Not our lost/stuck clown hunter.
My guess is the State forks out major coin to get these guys out.
They may try to recover the cost, but my guess is that this is rarely succesful.
Now, I am a firm believer in having the Feds retain the lands.
I do not trust the individual States to manage that kind of Real estate and resources.
That said, the ownership of the animals is beyond my pay grade.
I do think that both the State and Feds should be responsible for the "Stewardship" of the animals.
As for the Outfitter/Guide, as long as they are on the hook to pay for any Search and Rescue operation, who am I to complain.
If on the other ahnd the State bails them out, that's a different story.
Just my two cents.
Now, I
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 07, 2017, 03:00:29 PM
As for the Outfitter/Guide, as long as they are on the hook to pay for any Search and Rescue operation, who am I to complain.Nowhere in Anglo North America are the victims, their heirs or any guide service held responsible for rescue costs.
If on the other ahnd the State bails them out, that's a different story.
Also, are state residents immune from bad decision making?
Post by: NW SURVEYOR on January 07, 2017, 03:32:45 PM
It turned into a fiasco with the State spending thousands of hours looking for these clowns who got seperated and holed up in various locations.
It think they all survived and the State went after them (Or tried).
I never heard the outcome but I bet your right, the State pays.
At the same time, I think that the individuals in certain cases should beon the hook.
Now, how to be fair is a another question.
Good luck with that.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on January 08, 2017, 11:27:16 AM
Actually, they are held financially responsible in CO if they don't have any of several licenses that include a SAR surcharge.As for the Outfitter/Guide, as long as they are on the hook to pay for any Search and Rescue operation, who am I to complain.Nowhere in Anglo North America are the victims, their heirs or any guide service held responsible for rescue costs.
If on the other ahnd the State bails them out, that's a different story.
Also, are state residents immune from bad decision making?
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 08, 2017, 11:36:46 AM
Actually, they are held financially responsible in CO if they don't have any of several licenses that include a SAR surcharge.As for the Outfitter/Guide, as long as they are on the hook to pay for any Search and Rescue operation, who am I to complain.Nowhere in Anglo North America are the victims, their heirs or any guide service held responsible for rescue costs.
If on the other ahnd the State bails them out, that's a different story.
Also, are state residents immune from bad decision making?
Their website uses the terms "can" and "may".
Post by: link on January 08, 2017, 12:03:47 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 08, 2017, 12:31:16 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 08, 2017, 12:43:50 PM
Nwsurveyor, your argument in your last two posts make no sense. A non resident can do anything in the wilderness areas except hunt. So, this has nothing to do with safety, search and rescue costs, or the state of wyoming looking out for poor, ignorant, incompetent non residents.I know this is kind of a stretch, but he might have a bit of a point on the safety part. Take the Washington High Hunt for example, I've heard that a lot of the reasoning for the earlier dates from WDFW was due to better/safer weather. If the dates were later, WDFW expected to have too many hunters back in the wilderness getting caught in snow or injured in conditions where rescues were too dangerous. Maybe Wyoming had a few similar thoughts to convince a few? Though, I do agree with others this was mostly a convenient way to direct business towards influential guides/outfitters.
Post by: trophyhunt on January 08, 2017, 01:05:43 PM
Post by: JLS on January 08, 2017, 01:46:24 PM
It's a state's right to impose hunting restriction on non-residents, regardless of the land status where that takes place. It's no different than AK requiring a guide in order to hunt certain species. You can challenge these laws in court all you want, but you won't win.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 18, 2017, 05:23:00 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 19, 2017, 05:02:20 AM
Post by: 2MANY on January 20, 2017, 09:09:49 AM
I have a call into a bio to make sure I don't screw up. :)
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 27, 2017, 05:38:26 AM
Post by: Ghost Hunter on January 27, 2017, 02:46:02 PM
Anyone hunting one of the Wilderness areas outside of Yellowstone park?
Any particular one? Most are outside YP. :chuckle: :rolleyes: I'm in and my resident guide is available. ;)