Home › Forums › Campfire Forum › Nonresidents and Wilderness
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
I’m in the initial stages of planning an archery elk hunt. A working man’s hunt….backpack/spike camp on public land with no outfitters. Primarily looking at Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana as those are the states I’m most familiar with.
Until I started checking regulations, I had forgotten about Wyoming’s law that requires a nonresident hunting in a designated wilderness area to have a resident “guide” accompany them. I think Alaska has a similar requirement, but probably a little different situation. It stinks to have potentially prime public land unavailable for me to hunt, simply because of my state of residence. Is it just to keep money in the pockets of a few local outfitters? If I’m willing to walk in on my own, I can’t. But someone with more money to pay can shell it out, ride in on a horse, and hunt. Is this democratic access to public land?
Why, as a nonresident, can I backpack, camp, and fish these lands without a guide but not hunt them? I know I can just go elsewhere, which is what I’ll have to do if I want to hunt a designated wilderness.
Thoughts? I’m sure some of you Rocky Mtn residents have hashed this out many times before before, pro or con. Just curious about viewpoints on either side of the issue.
-
It’s been a while and you’ll get far better than my aged memory, but when I lived in MT, I’d hear about such stuff.
Seems that hunters would constantly get themselves into a “fix” up in the wilderness, being fall, get snowed in not watching the weather and have sense to vamoose and cost the state tons of money to try to rescue or send out search parties to find partially eaten corpses.
I know there were many times we all gave up a hunt to look for a nimrod out lost somewhere and F&G would come into camp and ask if we’d lend a hand… Find a trail of discarded clothing, guns, etc… Can get righteous out back in the Wilderness if you’re not from there and sometimes, even when you should know better as a Resident.
Old hands would tell me when I got chains for all 4 wheels…when you can’t go, chain up only TWO wheels…then when you can’t go, back down, turn around, chain up the other 2 wheels to get OUT—then go hunting! Amazing how many people would just 4wheel w/ chains as far as they could go, then be stuck and have to walk out…leaving a vehicle to weather the amazing snow/winter up there till a Chinook came along and they might get it out!
Other’n that, I’m sure your angst about outfitter pull has a bit to do with it… hunting is big biz in Western states… I know I’ll never afford to go back to MT to hunt… but I have some great memories being there…
I’m sure others will have more up to date infor for you!
-
Doc Nock wrote:
Seems that hunters would constantly get themselves into a “fix” up in the wilderness, being fall, get snowed in not watching the weather and have sense to vamoose and cost the state tons of money to try to rescue or send out search parties to find partially eaten corpses.
I know there were many times we all gave up a hunt to look for a nimrod out lost somewhere and F&G would come into camp and ask if we’d lend a hand… Find a trail of discarded clothing, guns, etc… Can get righteous out back in the Wilderness if you’re not from there and sometimes, even when you should know better as a Resident.
True, but Wyoming residency certainly doesn’t ensure backcountry skills or experience. I think some states (Co?) tack on an extra search and rescue fee to hunting licenses? Its just interesting to discuss. Thanks for the response.
-
This is economic protectionism, pure and simple. It’s solely intended to create and reserve opportunities for guides to earn a living.
The Alaska requirement applies only to three specific species, not geographic areas. A case can be made that this is consistent with the state’s role as manager of those species. No such case can be made for Wyoming’s requirement with a straight face when the requirement only applies to wilderness areas.
The problem with challenging it under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution is that Wyoming can probably trot out an argument that will satisfy a federal judge. More on that later.
I say all this as a lifelong SOLO backcountry enthusiast in all seasons and a former SAR dog handler who has looked for overdue hunters in the backcountry in Alaska and Washington.
-
It’s true – in Wyoming, nonresidents are required to have a guide when hunting in Wilderness (not true in MT, ID, UT, or anywhere else in the West that I know of). Keep in mind that this only applies to designated, capital “W” Wilderness within the state, not “wilderness” in general (which still leaves lots of backcountry that the nonresident can hunt in without having to follow this requirement).
And I agree. Since I look into WY from my back porch, incl. designated Wilderness, I have a had this conversation with a number of friends over the years. Yes, I do think it’s undemocratic, because Wilderness is a federal designation, that applies on federal lands, not a state-level designation. As such, it is land that belongs to all of us as US citizens and should be accessible to all of us equally (after having paid significantly more money for nonresident license/tags…). Therefore, for the state to enact a discriminatory requirement on land that is not actually owned by the state strikes me as suspect, and I’ve been just waiting (as have a number of people I know) for someone to seriously challenge it in court. I truly don’t think it would (or should) stand up to scrutiny.
And I think you make a really good point about how no other travelers in Wilderness within WY have to comply with such requirements. If it were a matter of there being a high number of hunters getting lost, in trouble, etc, then why does the regulation only apply to Wilderness areas? Certainly, there are LOTS of other wild places within the state where the very same could happen, and that have no such requirement.
-
eidsvolling –
I think you and I were posting at the same time. Given your background, I appreciate your input on this, and agree.
-
That’s my interpretation too, eidsvolling. Thanks for your experienced viewpoint.
Smithhammer wrote: Yes, I do think it’s undemocratic, because Wilderness is a federal designation, that applies on federal lands, not a state-level designation. As such, it is land that belongs to all of us as US citizens and should be accessible to all of us equally (after having paid significantly more money for nonresident license/tags…). Therefore, for the state to enact a discriminatory requirement on land that is not actually owned by the state strikes me as suspect,
Exactly.
-
This is a great topic for discussion! My fear is, how many states will join this trend in the future if this is not challenged now? I spend a lot of time in the Boundary Waters, a Wilderness area, and I cringe to think of a day where I was unable to venture out on my own just because somebody thinks I should pay someone else to do so! I am very curious as to why hunters are singled out in this respect? I’m sure reasons have been given but, what are they?
-
dfudala wrote: I am very curious as to why hunters are singled out in this respect? I’m sure reasons have been given but, what are they?
-
+1 Smith. Unfortunately it all boils down to the Benjamins.
-
Ya. Shoulda seen that one!
-
If you’re an adamant believer in the NA Model, rules like this put little dents in it. There’s still plenty of backcountry places to hunt in Wy, and any number of designated wilderness available in other states, but it’s the principle of the law that I don’t like.
-
This is a complex problem. Montana used to have a non-resident guide requirement, but out of state hunters challenged it in court and won. That is why no such law exists in Montana now. In Alaska, non-residents are required to have a guide to hunt sheep, brown bear, or goats. This means that if I move back to Montana I can’t hunt those species, even though I WAS a guide in Alaska. On the other hand, I can honestly tell you that 90% of the hunters I guided on the Alaska Peninsula would have had trouble staying alive on their own, let alone killing a bear. All this said, I believe in the North American Model, which holds that wildlife should be managed democratically. In Alaska’s case, the regulation is purely due to the economic value of those hunts and the lobbying strength of the guide industry. Don
-
I hope to one day make it out west to hunt elk and mulies, and I honestly hope it never comes to mandatory guided hunts for non-residents. I can understand the need for some folks to use a guide, and if I could afford to hunt sheep or bears in Alaska, I would follow the law and hire a guide.
The allure of hunting the west to me is adventure and part of that is the planning process. I understand that some folks don’t have or make time to scout/plan and that some folks just don’t want to plan a hunt and have everything done for them. I feel like this law definitely puts a dent in the idea that public lands are held in public trust.
-
I can actually understand a species-specific mgmt. plan, as Alaska had done it, more than a land designation-specific requirement, as has taken place in Wyoming.
In the case of grizzly, Dall sheep and goats in AK, I think that they all represent pursuits in which the uninitiated non-resident could get into serious trouble very easily, as a result of either the terrain they inhabit, or the nature of the species itself.
Also, I think that there is a much more substantial case to be made for species-specific requirements (as opposed to federal land designation requirements by a state agency that doesn’t manage those lands), since the state is responsible for wildlife mgmt, in cases where those species are not federally protected.
But in the case of Wyoming’s “Wilderness-specific” requirement, neither of those factors are at play. If Wyoming stated that grizzly hunts within the state (assuming the species was de-listed in the lower forty-eight) required a guide, for example, I wouldn’t see an issue with that. But what has happened in Wyoming is the result of a powerful outfitter lobby. And I suspect, a little bit of a “tit for tat” with the feds designating Wilderness that precludes motorized travel in some highly prized hunting areas in which commercial outfitters would love to have motorized access.
-
All good points, which added to the cost of an out of state license, keeps my enthusiasm for hunting all these critters tamped down.
It’s not that I can’t afford to pay the license fee, it’s the principal of it. A local gets to buy an elk license for $35.00 and an out of stater pays $600 for the same thing. It’s wrong.
-
Steve Graf wrote:
It’s not that I can’t afford to pay the license fee, it’s the principal of it. A local gets to buy an elk license for $35.00 and an out of stater pays $600 for the same thing. It’s wrong.
Steve,
I can see how the discrepancy between resident and non-resident license/tag fees might feel unfair (I usually hunt in at least 2 or 3 states every year), especially for highly popular species like elk, but the reality is that especially in ‘destination’ hunting states, the additional revenue from non-resident fees are an essential (and significant) source of income for state fish & game agencies. In Idaho, for example, IDFG conservation officers are pretty mcuh entirely funded by license fees.
Funding for fish and game agencies is tricky – personally, I want them to have as much autonomy from the political process as possible, which means independent sources of funding that politicians can’t play their usual games with. Direct funding from licenses is one way to (somewhat) achieve that.
On the other hand, some states have slanted things so much toward their high-revenue, non-resident tags, that residents are seeing reduced opportunities available within their own state, and I don’t think that’s a good way to go, either.
It’s really complicated…
-
You want complicated, I got yer complicated right here. Here’s the decision in a leading case involving Wyoming’s fees and guide requirement, which I recall from when it was decided. Note that it did NOT decide the validity of the guide requirement, because the plaintiff/lawyer hadn’t paid enough attention to the murky waters of “standing” when starting the case:
-
Even as a believer in the North American model, I have to politely disagree with Steve. For the last 45 years, I have been a resident of either Montana or Alaska. Montana constantly ranks in the bottom five states in median annual income, and life in Alaska is tough (no matter what the “reality” TV shows would have you believe.) We are the people keeping these states running 12 months a year, even though thousands of people from wealthier areas would love to come reap our bounty during a week or two of hunting season. If the pie isn’t big enough to give everyone a piece… I’m just saying. As I first stated, it’s a complicated problem. Don
-
donthomas wrote: Even as a believer in the North American model, I have to politely disagree with Steve. For the last 45 years, I have been a resident of either Montana or Alaska. Montana constantly ranks in the bottom five states in median annual income, and life in Alaska is tough (no matter what the “reality” TV shows would have you believe.) We are the people keeping these states running 12 months a year, even though thousands of people from wealthier areas would love to come reap our bounty during a week or two of hunting season. If the pie isn’t big enough to give everyone a piece… I’m just saying. As I first stated, it’s a complicated problem. Don
Ah yes, but hunting fees aren’t the only way states with low populations get help. States like Montana and Alaska are right there at the very top for collecting taxes. What I mean is that for every dollar an Alaskan pays in federal taxes, they get $1.84 back. Montanta gets $1.47.
Where else can you build a bridge to nowhere? Or how about the worlds largest grain storage facility in a state that produces no grain?
http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-spending-received-dollar-taxes-paid-state-2005
It’s a common revenue model I know. Florida has high taxes on things Snow Bird tourists buy and thus doesn’t need a state income tax. Use what you have I guess. It makes sense financially, that doesn’t make it right.
-
No argument from me, Steve. I’ve always acknowledged that Alaska is the biggest welfare state in the country. And while the statistics you cite are accurate, they don’t change the fact that Montana is one of the county’s poorest states. Here (I’m in Montana now for the winter) wealthy out of state interests are using their economic power to tie up tremendous amounts of prime hunting property for their own use (including locking all of us out of public land that we the citizens actually own.) Residents of these backwater states are getting trampled by outside wealth, and that isn’t right either. A differential between resident and non-resident license structure is about all we have left. As I said, it’s a complicated problem. Don
-
Anonymous
October 17, 2014 at 4:31 pmPost count: 124tailfeather,
PM sent re: possible wilderness area on your list of states that you might want to consider.
-
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.