# Hunting Privileges



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

So I’ve been contemplating this question due to a legal and ethical situation involving some proposed legislation in Wyoming based on the actions of a Utah businessman. The state of Wyoming is opposed to the actions of this individual and legislation is currently on the table to attempt to outlaw his actions. Here is my question:

If hunting is not a protected activity by statute within a state, couldn’t the state use the hunting privilege as an angle to motivate individuals to comply with management strategies within the state? In the Wyoming case, why couldn’t the state notify the individual that his activities were deemed to be causing extra pressure on game herds and that his hunting privileges would be revoked if he continued the activity. As long as the decision was based on management objectives and not any status protected from discrimination, I don’t see why this could not happen. Currently, the revocation of hunting privileges would not stop the individual from continuing his business but it might serve as a significant deterrent. 

What do you think? Is this a plausible method for game managers to prevent unplanned, unregulated, and other threatening activities that have an effect on game animals without seeking to create legislation for every individual situation?

—————-SS


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I guess if the legislature gave the DNR the authority through legislation to do so, they probably could. But this is certainly a can of worms! 

Who is the determining body? What is the standard of proof required? Are their due process/appeal rights involved? How will they ensure this is not arbitrarily applied? Will the FNR create administrative rules setting out standards? 

This legislation promises to make some lawyers a decent amount of money.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Who are they targeting and why?


----------



## APD (Nov 16, 2008)

that's a pretty vague post about a guy that knows a guy etc. 

isn't this a bit like parenting. at some point we all say if you don't do _____, then i'll take _____ away from you. it's a last ditch effort to exert control over something that you didn't have control over to begin with. they'll just sneak whatever they want and enjoy pulling the wool over your eyes while their doing it. 

if you take away this person's right to hunt, who's to say that will end his hunting. the only difference may be the lack of a tag in the pocket and the legality of the circumstances by which they're taken.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Vanilla said:


> Who are they targeting and why?


I'm purposefully being vague regarding the details as I wanted to create a thread to discuss hunting privileges. I'm sure it would take a quick search to find the details of the situation as it's all over the web.

I just got to thinking, if the state can take away the hunting privileges of hundreds through tag cuts due to management objectives then why couldn't they take away the privileges of an individual who is doing things that they consider contrary to the management plan?

I'm not a lawyer and I'm not going to take the time to go find one and ask the question. I'm just curious how other people perceive the precariousness of the privilege to hunt. Should we pursue making it a right as some states have?

Here is the link to the legislation that I'm talking about.

http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2018/Introduced/HB0005.pdf

-----SS


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Why on earth would you think it is acceptable to threaten someone for doing something that "you" or several of "you" believe is wrong if there is no law to back it up.

If it truly is a legitimate threat to the resource it should be able to survive a transparent discussion and subsequent vote by the legislative body.

They spend plenty of time and energy on making up problems to fix. Why not another?

Besides I thought Utah was the poster child for said activity based on years of rumor.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

I don't think there is an absolute "rights". Even the big three...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...are continually being interpreted, re-interpreted, regulated, and redefined through rules covering "privileges". Privileges seem to be the pieces that make up a "Right". One can loose many privileges and still have a right. Does that make any sense?

Let me top off this thought with this: hunting is a "privilege" given to us under the right(s) of "Life", if you look at it as filling the freezer with needed food, or, "pursuit of happiness" if you see it as a sport.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

middlefork said:


> Why on earth would you think it is acceptable to threaten someone for doing something that "you" or several of "you" believe is wrong if there is no law to back it up..


Who said that they believe something is wrong? Why would that even matter in this situation? I asked a question about the states ability to deny privileges.

Take it easy and don't make so many assumptions.

We already have a thread going about this type of activity where we can discuss our individual opinions on the matter.----SS


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

SS - interesting question. 

I think that a statue could be passed, where if the game and fish found the activity of an individual or group detrimental to the overall good and health of a herd, then appropriate recourse could be taken to mitigate the individual(s) and action(s). 

My thought is this would be a slippery slope as it may take years to see the actual effect of how the actions could be determinatal to the herd and by the time results are seen, it could be too late - even if common sense says it is detrimental. In the instance you are referring to, I understand arguments from both sides and know that there would be millions and millions of tax dollars used in lawsuits based on individual cases.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

This is an issue that is going to get bigger. The dispersal of information is effecting every public resource, including wildlife. The internet and other digital tools have made finding and sharing information easy.
I have been talking about this for land management for ages. Its a problem worth talking about. 
That said, i don't think such a law will survive a lawsuit or legal appeal if ever enforced. At the end of the day I think what they are trying to regulate falls under protected speech. This is no different than publishing guidebooks or membership based websites for such information. I just don't think this law is going to make it far into maturity.
Same goes for coercing people into compliance by revoking licenses. It has the potential to happen early on but I don't see how it will survive a legal challenge. If/when the law is repealed than the agencies have no ground to deny licenses. 
Been wrong before but this seems to go too far. This issue is likely going to be dealt with at the social level, not legal.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Another thought is what matrix would be used to verify that an individual is “not complying with the management strategies of the state?”

Would the game and fish revoke the hunting rights of John Burns, John Porter, Aaron Davidson and Mike Davidson for their role in long range shooting? Is there hard data, excluding hard winters, loss of habitat, etc. that points to the long term detriment because of long range shooting? (Disclaimer, I have nothing against any of these guys and what they do. This is just a hypothetical question.) 

SS - you brought up a valid question, and please don’t think I’m attacking you or your question. It is an interesting prospective and I’d definitely be interested in understand more about the details of how this would be implemented.


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

Slipperly slope!

1) Rancher pushes for reduction of elk herd due to grazing impact. Ban him

2) Landowner sales 1/2 the ranch for cabins which decreases habitat. Ban him

3) Rancher creates high-fence elk hunting on 10K which eliminate habitat for wild elk. Ban him

Not a fan of government or bureaucrats having power over people as individuals. If it's a problem then legislative action should be considered.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Springville Shooter said:


> If hunting is not a protected activity by statute within a state, couldn't the state use the hunting privilege as an angle to motivate individuals to comply with management strategies within the state? In the Wyoming case, why couldn't the state notify the individual that his activities were deemed to be causing extra pressure on game herds and that his hunting privileges would be revoked if he continued the activity. As long as the decision was based on management objectives and not any status protected from discrimination, I don't see why this could not happen. Currently, the revocation of hunting privileges would not stop the individual from continuing his business but it might serve as a significant deterrent.
> 
> ------SS


Is not the threat of loss of hunting privileges a punishment? A punishishment for what? Unless there is a statute expressly forbidding the activity.

As it stands your statement gives a lot of authority to enforce something that appears to be very vague. Doesn't there have to be some sort of black and white data to validate a claim that the "activities were deemed to be causing extra pressure on game herds".

I happen to like looking for big game all year long. If the fact that I stop along the side of the road tends to make them nervous even hundreds of yards away , should I be threatened with a loss of hunting privileges for doing so?

So I guess my point is yes I would like to see them have to address individual problems as they come up rather than being able to use a threat to enforce very vague declaration.

As for selling the location of animals it has been rumored to have happened in the past as "finders fees". And I'm sure it will happen in the future as well.
All the feel good laws that may be passed will not prevent it.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

So they’re proposing to ban scouting services. Interesting bill. Wonder why they think this is such a detrimental thing when guiding is no big deal to them?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Vanilla said:


> So they're proposing to ban scouting services. Interesting bill. Wonder why they think this is such a detrimental thing when guiding is no big deal to them?


Knowing Wyoming it is being pushed by the outfitters to keep hunters coming to them for business instead of just paying someone for the answer of where to go.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Critter said:


> Knowing Wyoming it is being pushed by the outfitters to keep hunters coming to them for business instead of just paying someone for the answer of where to go.


This!
They want the people doing it to be licenced. Another revenue stream for the outfitters.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

I agree that we are facing a slippery slope on many fronts these days. The scenarios provided by Oscar in his post are exactly what I was thinking about when I made this post. 

In relation to the Wyoming situation, I guarantee that a huge number of residents hunters, professional guides, and government agents would absolutely love to ban the individual who inspired the legislation from ever crossing their border. I guess I just wondered if it really would be possible to be “voted off the island” so to speak. Then I got to thinking about situations where it might be appropriate to take such actions as a deterrent in cases that didn’t warrant the creation of legislation. 

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. See you all out on the slippery slopes!——-——-SS


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Critter said:


> Knowing Wyoming it is being pushed by the outfitters to keep hunters coming to them for business instead of just paying someone for the answer of where to go.


+100 
The situation has nothing to do with game management and everything to do with another way to control unlicensed guides.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> +100
> The situation has nothing to do with game management and everything to do with another way to control unlicensed guides.


Aren't these two things one and the same? Projected and historic success rates are used to create tag allotment numbers. Considering that guides and guide services dramatically impact success rates, only certain numbers of guides are licensed as a control. At this point, scout services are small enough where they probably don't have much impact but those providing such service have even admitted and advertised that their services increase success rates substantially. 
If left unregulated, what will the future impact be? What about if/when there are 100 tag holders that use the service in an area?

So I guess I totally agree with the part of your statement about controlling unlicensed guides and totally disagree with the part where you claim that it has nothing to do with game management. -----SS

Higher Success Rates = Less Opportunity.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Seems that everything is for sale in America. Sad to see, but totally acceptable by American capitalist standards, hunting is on the block. Although there are probably many good bureaucrats attempting to regulate hunting laws and rules for the protection of the animals that are involved, sadly, many laws and regulations are put in place to protect the current licensed and monied businesses operating in that field. Government is and always will be controlled, and laws and regulations passed, to protect and shield the rich and powerful businesses and business owners from competition.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Springville Shooter said:


> Aren't these two things one and the same? Projected and historic success rates are used to create tag allotment numbers. Considering that guides and guide services dramatically impact success rates, only certain numbers of guides are licensed as a control. At this point, scout services are small enough where they probably don't have much impact but those providing such service have even admitted and advertised that their services increase success rates substantially.
> If left unregulated, what will the future impact be? What about if/when there are 100 tag holders that use the service in an area?
> 
> So I guess I totally agree with the part of your statement about controlling unlicensed guides and totally disagree with the part where you claim that it has nothing to do with game management. -----SS
> ...


I think the impact will be minimal, with very few people actually using a service like that. Have you actually tried to go looking for a specific mature buck that someone has told you about?
I have and the search doesn't usually turn out very good. 
I think there's more chance of higher hunter success resulting from all the technology advances we are experiencing.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

I never have. Heck I can’t even find the bucks that I find myself.———SS


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

*the voice of reason*



Critter said:


> Knowing Wyoming it is being pushed by the outfitters to keep hunters coming to them for business instead of just paying someone for the answer of where to go.


Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner

.


----------

