*Not* hunting on Wyoming Wilderness

[wytex]

So you're advocating poaching as a test case if you accidentally release. Hardly ethical in my book but to each his own. By the way it is all of our land not your land. If you want to break the law then go for it.

 

[James Riley]

What if you went into a bank with a gun and a note telling them to give all the money in the drawer and then left without the money just so you could see if you could do it without buggering them. If you don't take the money did you really rob them?
Your argument is pretty silly.

No, actually, your analogy is silly. Stupid, in fact. So stupid I won't bother to draw the distinction with a relevant difference for you.

 

[LopeHunter]

Some states such as Arizona define "taking" of game animals as the pursuit. Does no good to ask here. You can roll the dice and deal with the fall out which might include losing your ability to apply or hunt in most of America for a few years which in turn would burn most accumulated points due to not applying or as Option 2 you can stay out of the wilderness. If I drew a tag where the only way to access non-wilderness was to cross wilderness then I would be consulting with F&G and a seasoned lawyer prior to applying. There are enough people out there complaining about being victims that I have no sympathy for those who end up on the wrong side of the law because they felt things were not fair. Fair is where you see carnival rides.

 

[James Riley]

So you're advocating poaching as a test case if you accidentally release. Hardly ethical in my book but to each his own. By the way it is all of our land not your land. If you want to break the law then go for it.

Your post is so wrong on so many counts I don't know where to start.

If it is all of our land then it is, by definition, my land. Typical illogical false dichotomy and two valued orientation that would think that just because it is all our land it can't be my land.

As I told you, I don't accidentally release. You must use one of those new fangled contraptions if you accidentally release. Try putting your fingers on a string sometime. I've been using a stick bow 40 years and never accidentally released an arrow. But if I did, yes, I would fight it under these circumstances.

Rosa Parks must have been unethical in your book, as was everyone else who got stupid unethical laws changed by purposefully inviting enforcement of those stupid unethical laws. Some people just do what their told as obedient and good little brothers to big brother. If that is you, then go for it.

Finally, there is a distinction between poaching and trying to avoid prosecution for it, on the one hand, and purposefully seeking to be prosecuted in order to test the law, on the other hand.

So, pray tell, if one is NOT a citizen of the jurisdiction where the law was enacted, cannot vote there and has no other avenue of redress, how do you suggest they work to get the law changed? Maybe they could take their dollars elsewhere but that will not change the law if they are the only one to go. They could write letters to the editor. LOL!

The way to do this is to tell the warden, in advance, the time and place and have it all recorded. Tell him what you are going to do and why.

 

[James Riley]

Some states such as Arizona define "taking" of game animals as the pursuit. Does no good to ask here. You can roll the dice and deal with the fall out which might include losing your ability to apply or hunt in most of America for a few years which in turn would burn most accumulated points due to not applying or as Option 2 you can stay out of the wilderness. If I drew a tag where the only way to access non-wilderness was to cross wilderness then I would be consulting with F&G and a seasoned lawyer prior to applying. There are enough people out there complaining about being victims that I have no sympathy for those who end up on the wrong side of the law because they felt things were not fair. Fair is where you see carnival rides.

People who run test cases aren't seeking sympathy and they are the ass-opposite of victims. Indeed, the only victims are those who obey stupid, unethical laws. Plus, you find an actor who is willing to take the punishment if the test fails. I don't have points. I'm getting older and finding fewer and fewer places I want to hunt and, from what I see of "hunters" in the woods, I find myself siding with the prey more and more every year. The only thing I'm not ready to risk is my right to carry and vote. I still want to hunt but damn, it's getting to the point where even that is waning. If I really cared, I might just go up there and give it a shot. But, as I opined in a post further up, the "care" is not there. Doesn't mean I won't argue it here on the internet.

P.S. Your point about hunting = pursuit is interesting. Thanks. I wonder how that plays out with "intent". I can pursue without intending to kill (camera, etc.). And if I have not yet killed, how can the state prove intent to kill by mere pursuit alone?

 

[Flatrock]

Better yet, how about I DO go out there, fully doing what I think I have every right in the world to do? On MY land.

I'm curious how you think this would hurt non-residents or hunters in any way. Non-residents are already treated like second class citizens on their own land; land that feeds and waters and houses Wyoming's game animals. Hunters, well, they would not be affected at all. I think a test case might be in order. Hmmm. Maybe in a few years when I retire.

After reading the rest of your posts, it's obvious that under no circumstances would you be willing to even consider the validity of other people's points. When everybody else's argument is silly, stupid and not even worth acknowledging, it's obvious you're just trying to stir the pot and show how smart (actually dumb) you are and how dumb (in your eyes) everybody else is.

 

[wytex]

Poaching is poaching, but to be clear I do not support the resident guide law . That was passed by the state outfitters board and it originally stated you had to hire a professional guide. Lobbying got it changed to resident guide. Most residents I know do not support it either. Now for your release statement I too shoot a LONGBOW. My fingers have been on a string for about 35 years so no I don't have the amount of experience you but I have seen first hand premature releases with compound shooters. If you think that poaching for a test case is any different then your ethics are far different from mine so be it. What is the difference between poaching and trying to avoid prosecution for it. Let me know when you come out and I'll let the warden know. He'll find your post interesting and will probably like to meet you. Done with this BS.

 

[James Riley]

After reading the rest of your posts, it's obvious that under no circumstances would you be willing to even consider the validity of other people's points. When everybody else's argument is silly, stupid and not even worth acknowledging, it's obvious you're just trying to stir the pot and show how smart (actually dumb) you are and how dumb (in your eyes) everybody else is.

There is only ONE post that I found unworthy of a logical response, and that is the post with the analogy of bank robbery with the case in point. So, I doubt you read the rest of my posts. What I am willing to consider is any post that argues in favor of Wyoming's law and the reasons behind it. Or why a person should obey a law and not test it if they believe that law is wrong and they have no other effective recourse. If I am so dumb, then why have you not offered an argument? Is it because you cannot? I don't think anyone else is dumb. A post might be dumb, but that does not mean the person is dumb. But then everyone else has offered arguments that merited a response.

 

[James Riley]

Poaching is poaching, but to be clear I do not support the resident guide law . That was passed by the state outfitters board and it originally stated you had to hire a professional guide. Lobbying got it changed to resident guide. Most residents I know do not support it either. Now for your release statement I too shoot a LONGBOW. My fingers have been on a string for about 35 years so no I don't have the amount of experience you but I have seen first hand premature releases with compound shooters. If you think that poaching for a test case is any different then your ethics are far different from mine so be it. What is the difference between poaching and trying to avoid prosecution for it. Let me know when you come out and I'll let the warden know. He'll find your post interesting and will probably like to meet you. Done with this BS.

I never said it was not poaching. I drew a distinction between those who poach and hide it and those who poach and don't hide it. This is not SSS.

I'm not a compound shooter so that doesn't matter.

If I decided to come up and do this I would indeed contact you. And the warden. And the State AG, and the press. In advance. And tell them when and where. They can all meet me. If you don't see the difference between criminals who try to avoid prosecution and people who intentionally seek prosecution to challenge unethical laws, our ethics are indeed far different.

 

[James Riley]

As a further example of why a test case seems to be the only recourse, check out the case citation above. The guy tried to challenge the law in advance of breaking it but the court found he lacked standing because he had not yet suffered any harm. He could hunt non-wilderness, he could get a resident friend to "guide" for free, he had not yet applied for and received a tag or killed a ram. So really, the court is saying you must break the law to test it.

It's not good enough, in the court's eyes, to argue that the harm is found in the futility of applying to do something that is illegal. You must first engage in the futility.

 

[WapitiBob]

1. As I explained above, I draw on animals I don't intend to shoot to see if I can execute the motion without buggering them.
2. I don't accidentally release. But if I did, so much the better for a test case.

This will get you a ticket and deservedly so.

Stump shoot all you want but expect to be grilled if your weapon is not cased when walking freely about "our land".

 

[Flatrock]

There is only ONE post that I found unworthy of a logical response, and that is the post with the analogy of bank robbery with the case in point. So, I doubt you read the rest of my posts. What I am willing to consider is any post that argues in favor of Wyoming's law and the reasons behind it. Or why a person should obey a law and not test it if they believe that law is wrong and they have no other effective recourse. If I am so dumb, then why have you not offered an argument? Is it because you cannot? I don't think anyone else is dumb. A post might be dumb, but that does not mean the person is dumb. But then everyone else has offered arguments that merited a response.

Whatever dude. Is the law stupid? Yea it is. Is it worth making a big stink about when Wyoming offers phenomenal hunting and excellent non-resident tag allocations? Absolutely not. Wyoming is incredibly generous with their tag allocations to non-residents and there are tons and tons and tons of places to hunt outside the wilderness so complaining that Wyoming treats nonresidents like "second class citizens" is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS. Why don't you go to Oregon where they give out what, 3 or 5% of the tags to non residents? Have at'er in the wilderness though when you get a tag in 20 years.

I'm done wasting my time on you and this thread though so go ahead, you can have the last word.

 

[James Riley]

Is the law stupid? Yea it is.

Should have left it at that. Letting Wyoming off the hook because some other state (Oregon) is worse, is simply no argument.

The balance of your post brings up a good point: Why exactly is it that the states, including Oregon, own the wildlife? I'm sure it has something to do with history and the logistics of dealing with something that migrates from federal to state to private land and back. But when you think about "our" federal land providing so much food, water, shelter and home to these animals, and yet we can't hunt them, it seems BS. The feds do take over when the ESA comes into play, and with migratory birds, etc., but other than that, the states could, if they wanted to, just cut us off altogether.

If PETA types took over a state, what then? No hunting, even on federal land? If that doesn't seem possible, just remember the very reason states have the control over wildlife in the first place (history, logistics, etc.). Look at the population growth, Public Land Transfer movement, livestock vs wildlife conflicts, etc. So yeah, Oregon may suck but they are sucking with animals that are supported by MY (OUR) land, at least in substantial part. And non-residents only have a voice en mass, or not at all.

 

[noharleyyet]

Pass the salt please....

 

[Gr8bawana]

After reading the rest of your posts, it's obvious that under no circumstances would you be willing to even consider the validity of other people's points. When everybody else's argument is silly, stupid and not even worth acknowledging, it's obvious you're just trying to stir the pot and show how smart (actually dumb) you are and how dumb (in your eyes) everybody else is.

By all means go out there and pretent to poach an anmimal but make sure you do it where a warden will see you so you can prove your point. Because you obviously think you're smarter than everyone else.

 

[mplane72]

Should have left it at that. Letting Wyoming off the hook because some other state (Oregon) is worse, is simply no argument.

The balance of your post brings up a good point: Why exactly is it that the states, including Oregon, own the wildlife? I'm sure it has something to do with history and the logistics of dealing with something that migrates from federal to state to private land and back. But when you think about "our" federal land providing so much food, water, shelter and home to these animals, and yet we can't hunt them, it seems BS. The feds do take over when the ESA comes into play, and with migratory birds, etc., but other than that, the states could, if they wanted to, just cut us off altogether.

If PETA types took over a state, what then? No hunting, even on federal land? If that doesn't seem possible, just remember the very reason states have the control over wildlife in the first place (history, logistics, etc.). Look at the population growth, Public Land Transfer movement, livestock vs wildlife conflicts, etc. So yeah, Oregon may suck but they are sucking with animals that are supported by MY (OUR) land, at least in substantial part. And non-residents only have a voice en mass, or not at all.

I find your legal musing interesting and entertaining...

Do you really want to challenge the "North American Model" and state control of wildlife? Giving it to the Feds, minus ESA and migratory birds, would be far worse in my opinion.

I know the Wyoming wilderness law sucks but then I think about how we treat NR's in Iowa and then I shut up. A successful challenge to any such law would do more harm then good in my opinion.

 

[James Riley]

By all means go out there and pretent to poach an anmimal but make sure you do it where a warden will see you so you can prove your point. Because you obviously think you're smarter than everyone else.

Sorry I bit your head off, Gr8bawana. I just found the analogy too easily distinguished to bother with.

If I do this, you can be rest assured I will do it with the knowledge of the warden and the local prosecuting attorney. It's not that I think I'm smarter than anyone else. It's just that no one else has bothered to argue in support of the law. The best anyone has come up with is that a person should always obey the law or suffer the consequences. Sounds pretty un-American to me. If you have the courage of your convictions (i.e. don't hide), then you are no mere criminal by taking on the state. If you win, you are a hero. If you lose, you pay. But win or lose, you are no common criminal.

 

[James Riley]

Do you really want to challenge the "North American Model" and state control of wildlife? Giving it to the Feds, minus ESA and migratory birds, would be far worse in my opinion.

I don't know if I do or not. That is why I asked. Without some argument in support of it, I'm left to wonder. Offer me some argument. Wouldn't a State outlawing hunting, either all-together, or just for non-residents, also present a threat to the North American Model? What about federal ownership of wildlife: are you arguing that the feds would prevent hunting on federal land? Or that states and the feds would be at such odds that states would slaughter wildlife that wandered off federal land? Or that the feds would stop allowing state resident cattle and sheep on federal land? Or just that the feds don't have the expertise of local state wildlife agencies? Or what?

If it comes down to an argument that the feds would be too bureaucratic and byzantine in the licensing, I would have to say Colorado is so F'd up that I hate applying. It's a population thing, and not the State's fault. But my point is, why would the feds be any worse?

 

[mplane72]

I don't know if I do or not. That is why I asked. Without some argument in support of it, I'm left to wonder. Offer me some argument. Wouldn't a State outlawing hunting, either all-together, or just for non-residents, also present a threat to the North American Model? What about federal ownership of wildlife: are you arguing that the feds would prevent hunting on federal land? Or that states and the feds would be at such odds that states would slaughter wildlife that wandered off federal land? Or that the feds would stop allowing state resident cattle and sheep on federal land? Or just that the feds don't have the expertise of local state wildlife agencies? Or what?

If it comes down to an argument that the feds would be too bureaucratic and byzantine in the licensing, I would have to say Colorado is so F'd up that I hate applying. It's a population thing, and not the State's fault. But my point is, why would the feds be any worse?

I would think that the feds running things would look like CO on steroids....

I'm tired and my brain is fried from trying to catch up with everything after getting back from my elk trip but.... I think in the end you're challenging, or questioning, each individual States right to regulate what and where, and if your challenging that might as well throw in when, you can hunt. Why have seasons and bag limits? If you have the right to hunt elk on Wilderness areas because they're on your public land then what about private land owners? Why should we have limited entry units on public land? and the slope keeps slipping...

 

[MooseCaboose]

Depends on if this is a strict liability law or if there some subjective standard as to whether you were hunting or not. For instance, if hunting is defined as possessing a tag for the area and entering the wilderness with a weapon, then your intent to kill or not is moot.

Take trespass as an example of strict liability. It does not matter whether you "intended" to be on someone else's land. It only matters that you were there, not your underlying motivations.