Shooting form one unit to the next?

Wow. Try using a little common sense people. Instead of being so literal. This isn't that complicated.
 
nripepi said:
So can they shoot from Colorado or from Mars?

I am not trying to be cantankerous here. Had this exact issue in Colorado (I know it is not Wyoming and is not relative to the discussion) with a 190-inch buck and called their Game and Fish (multiple offices) and Game Wardens to try and get an answer and was told I could not take the shot. I tried to wade a river but couldn't make it in November...ended up renting a raft after hiking in and out 10 miles per day trying to get him.....would have been much easier to shoot right across the canyon from someone elses unit.
Click to expand...
HAHA. So you are but hurt you couldn't kill a buck in Colorado and now you want WY to be exactly like CO?

As for you list of fake scenarios in 100 vs 25. They are all pretty much BS for one reason of another. For Example the boundary for that area is a public road that is in fact maintained. Shooting across it would be illegal. Sure I would be bummed if someone shot a buck from under me, but that does not mean they broke the law.

Hell lest say you are hunting a unit boundary that is a small stream. Like 2 foot wide. You are walking up the cow trail in the bottom and a huge pile of dead fall blocks your side of the unit and you step across the 2 foot creek as a bull walks out 20 yards away on the right side. Do you really think that would be and should be a violation of the law?

Also lets take this issue one step further. Does a private land only tag in Colorado require the shooter to be on the private land? According the game warden at the time in Moffat County. NO only the animals have to be on private despite the tag being private land only. So even in Colorado the law is not nearly as clear as you want it to be...
 
ClearCreek said:
Well, for what it is worth, I had breakfast with two retired Wyoming Game and Fish Wardens this morning.

Both indicated the act being discussed in this thread is illegal in Wyoming and you could be cited for "Hunting in the wrong hunt area".

ClearCreek
Click to expand...

Which makes sense, in their field they see as why you're in the other area. even though you state what your doing. Investigators' look at the whole picture.
 
Well well well…. got a response from WYFG. Enough to make everyone on both sides at least a little unhappy. I think this should be the last post on this thread. Founder can you lock this? LOL

D87B5311-5D2F-437A-A22E-8AA0DF3DC3CE.jpeg
 
If the situation presented itself I would not think twice about taking the shot from a different unit. I am very confident I would be walking away with that animal and no tickets. A screenshot of the response from WGF could be of some assistance but I can’t imagine even needing that.
 
They could write a ticket for hunting in the wrong area which would hold up in court because of their definition of "take" which is defined in the regulations
 
Bookhead said:
They could write a ticket for hunting in the wrong area which would hold up in court because of their definition of "take" which is defined in the regulations
Click to expand...
But why would they bother when a hunter takes a legal animal in the area in which his tag was valid? It makes no sense. I'm sure they have actual poaching and real criminal activity to keep them busy.
 
I doubt it's actually illegal to shoot across a creek. What size creek are we talking about? And why would it be illegal? A body of water, sure. Like a large lake, for safety reasons. But a small creek in the middle of nowhere?
 
Bob D. said:
I doubt it's actually illegal to shoot across a creek. What size creek are we talking about? And why would it be illegal? A body of water, sure. Like a large lake, for safety reasons. But a small creek in the middle of nowhere?
Click to expand...

Exactly. How does this work for moose? This one has me scratching my head.
 
elks96 said:
HAHA. So you are but hurt you couldn't kill a buck in Colorado and now you want WY to be exactly like CO?

As for you list of fake scenarios in 100 vs 25. They are all pretty much BS for one reason of another. For Example the boundary for that area is a public road that is in fact maintained. Shooting across it would be illegal. Sure I would be bummed if someone shot a buck from under me, but that does not mean they broke the law.

Hell lest say you are hunting a unit boundary that is a small stream. Like 2 foot wide. You are walking up the cow trail in the bottom and a huge pile of dead fall blocks your side of the unit and you step across the 2 foot creek as a bull walks out 20 yards away on the right side. Do you really think that would be and should be a violation of the law?

Also lets take this issue one step further. Does a private land only tag in Colorado require the shooter to be on the private land? According the game warden at the time in Moffat County. NO only the animals have to be on private despite the tag being private land only. So even in Colorado the law is not nearly as clear as you want it to be...
Click to expand...
Not exactly, went around and got on the buck and a bull to boot. It made me start to think about what made sense and I read the rules and looked into it. Hunted the border of 2B/2C and 2B/Jic in New Mexico, canyons in Arizona for elk and sitting on the border of 25 and 100 in Wyoming on the Sweetwater (it is the border for 50 miles since you didnnt know that) where this situation is real....sat there wondering if I could hold off shooting if he was on the wrong side when he stepped out on the right side. Maybe in your scenario with the brush pile it is not a big deal but shooting 1000 yards across a canyon is real and I personally don't think it should be legal, it is a game changer for long range shooting which we should attempt to curtail a bit and make the hunter hunt across the river.
 
It would be up to G&F to clarify this in regulation, but these different answers don't surprise. What does surprise me is anyone claiming one way or the other it's 100%! What's in regulation, or should I say what the regulation lacks is any clear wording and no sure answer.

@mulecreek has it right; put a copy of that WGF response in your pocket while out hunting and @ClearCreek needs to take it to his next breakfast with the two wardens. :ROFLMAO:
 
jm77 said:
It would be up to G&F to clarify this in regulation, but these different answers don't surprise. What does surprise me is anyone claiming one way or the other it's 100%! What's in regulation, or should I say what the regulation lacks is any clear wording and no sure answer.

@mulecreek has it right; put a copy of that WGF response in your pocket while out hunting and @ClearCreek needs to take it to his next breakfast with the two wardens. :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Just don't shoot across a creek or a road and you will be just fine with that piece of paper :)

Seriously, that statement only allows you to shoot across a boundary that is a ridge which is not nearly as applicable as shooting across a stream.
 
Ok just for fun i talked to a supervisor at the cody office.

for starters shooting across creeks they are fine with. Its impossible for most situations to avoid this. The large amount of creeks and shooting across for hunting big game is not a issue for them.

then i asked about areas. My example was i have a tag for area x but i am shooting from area Y. They have no issue. In the cody area cause they understand the terrain and would not write anyone up. the issue would be shooting from your legal area and shooting at animals into area you cant. In the cody region they understand some trails weave in and out of your legal hunting area. They know some hunters to sit on the high ridge point and shoot into their legal area. I was asked more specifically where I would be hunting for a better example. I am not going to post the drainage and area i used for example but its the same answer i got for the above



From what i can see its just best to talk to local office or warden.
 
nripepi said:
Not exactly, went around and got on the buck and a bull to boot. It made me start to think about what made sense and I read the rules and looked into it. Hunted the border of 2B/2C and 2B/Jic in New Mexico, canyons in Arizona for elk and sitting on the border of 25 and 100 in Wyoming on the Sweetwater (it is the border for 50 miles since you didnnt know that) where this situation is real....sat there wondering if I could hold off shooting if he was on the wrong side when he stepped out on the right side. Maybe in your scenario with the brush pile it is not a big deal but shooting 1000 yards across a canyon is real and I personally don't think it should be legal, it is a game changer for long range shooting which we should attempt to curtail a bit and make the hunter hunt across the river.
Click to expand...
Umm you are in correct. The 100/25 border is only about 14 miles of river with the majority of the boundary being a public road. In those 14 miles on the river over 10 miles are private land or would involve shooting over private land which would be a violation of the law.

It seems your argument is more about shooting long distances and not about the actual unit boundary. But again we have the answer. there is no law preventing a person from shooting from one unit into the other other than the laws that prevent the shooting over a public road, or a body of water, etc. Which are not laws about legal take but laws about public safety.

Again CO and WY are 2 very different states with different laws. For example in Colorado you are not allowed to carry a gun over .224 during the regular rifle seasons unless you have a valid big game license. Why that matters again goes back to the idea that in WY you can hunt coyotes year round with any caliber, thus making no unit "closed" to hunting etc.

Either way, we likely agree on the long range hunting.
 
wytex said:
Clear as mud now, lol.
Actually sounds like most GWs would be the same, I think.

Thanks for taking the time nfh.
Click to expand...

I don't think I would call someone in the office or email someone that doesn't understand the regs.

As the oringal question in this post I personally wouldn't do it before I got a clear answer.

The creek issue bugged me. That's what drove me to call and talk someone that knows something
 
IDbullz said:
That one is Illegal. 23-3-305.
(d) No person knowingly shall fire any rifle from the enclosed lands of one person onto or across the enclosed lands of another without the permission of both persons.
Click to expand...
It was tounge in cheek but I do agree with you, can't shoot your bullet across a corner. :)
 
OK everyone…. I hope THIS settles it. WYGF got back to me AGAIN. This time they were much more careful in their response. The debate should be closed…

“Wrong information was provided to you earlier. Hopefully this will help clear things up for you, and give you a more detailed explanation.

The violation for hunting in the wrong area is Violation code 205. The statute 23-3-402 says only "Violation of commission order prohibited"- "any person who violates a lawful order of the commission is guilty of a low misdemeanor punishable as provided in W.s. 23-6-202 (a)(v).

So you need to reference commission regulations for the definition of hunting in the wrong area.

-Hunt area is defined in Commision Regulations Ch. 2 as " the area within a defined geographic boundary where a license shall be valid".

"Hunt" is not specifically defined in commission regulations because it falls under the definition of "Take" which says " hunt, pursue, catch, capture, shoot, fish, seine, trap, kill or possess or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, shoot, fish, seine, trap, kill or possess".

In violations that use the word "hunt" instead of "take", you need to use an accepted definition of the word- Oxford English Dictionary defines "hunt" as a transitive verb. meaning to pursue (wild animals or game) for the purpose of catching or killing, or as a noun meaning the act of chasing wild animals for the purpose of catching or killing.

So if someone is asking whether or not they can shoot an animal from one hunt area to another, the answer is "NO" based on the definitions that they would be chasing, pursuing or killing an animal from an area outside the defined geographic boundary where a license shall be valid.

The same can be applied to situations where an animal is shot in the valid area, and runs across the hunt area boundary where it needs to be removed "possessed" from the field, or if an animal is in the wrong area, but the hunter is within his correct boundary etc.

There is certainly officer discretion involved in any of these situations, but for a hunt to be completely legal by definition, it needs to have all involved parties (hunter and animal) start and end within the hunt area that the license is valid for.

Hope that helps and sorry again for initially providing the wrong answer.

-WGFD
 
Katoom said:
OK everyone…. I hope THIS settles it. WYGF got back to me AGAIN. This time they were much more careful in their response. The debate should be closed…

“Wrong information was provided to you earlier. Hopefully this will help clear things up for you, and give you a more detailed explanation.

The violation for hunting in the wrong area is Violation code 205. The statute 23-3-402 says only "Violation of commission order prohibited"- "any person who violates a lawful order of the commission is guilty of a low misdemeanor punishable as provided in W.s. 23-6-202 (a)(v).

So you need to reference commission regulations for the definition of hunting in the wrong area.

-Hunt area is defined in Commision Regulations Ch. 2 as " the area within a defined geographic boundary where a license shall be valid".

"Hunt" is not specifically defined in commission regulations because it falls under the definition of "Take" which says " hunt, pursue, catch, capture, shoot, fish, seine, trap, kill or possess or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, shoot, fish, seine, trap, kill or possess".

In violations that use the word "hunt" instead of "take", you need to use an accepted definition of the word- Oxford English Dictionary defines "hunt" as a transitive verb. meaning to pursue (wild animals or game) for the purpose of catching or killing, or as a noun meaning the act of chasing wild animals for the purpose of catching or killing.

So if someone is asking whether or not they can shoot an animal from one hunt area to another, the answer is "NO" based on the definitions that they would be chasing, pursuing or killing an animal from an area outside the defined geographic boundary where a license shall be valid.

The same can be applied to situations where an animal is shot in the valid area, and runs across the hunt area boundary where it needs to be removed "possessed" from the field, or if an animal is in the wrong area, but the hunter is within his correct boundary etc.

There is certainly officer discretion involved in any of these situations, but for a hunt to be completely legal by definition, it needs to have all involved parties (hunter and animal) start and end within the hunt area that the license is valid for.

Hope that helps and sorry again for initially providing the wrong answer.

-WGFD
Click to expand...


I dont think the debate is closed. LOL!!! Seems its all who you ask. I got a a complete different answer and as i said before i had to use 2 local areas as an example using a trail name and drainage for them to answer the question so that game and fish employee could put themselves into my question.

But really doesnt apply to me. i dont even shoot from one area to another so my concern is zero on this topic.

Turned out to be a great topic.
 
Katoom said:
OK everyone…. I hope THIS settles it. WYGF got back to me AGAIN. This time they were much more careful in their response. The debate should be closed…

“Wrong information was provided to you earlier. Hopefully this will help clear things up for you, and give you a more detailed explanation.

The violation for hunting in the wrong area is Violation code 205. The statute 23-3-402 says only "Violation of commission order prohibited"- "any person who violates a lawful order of the commission is guilty of a low misdemeanor punishable as provided in W.s. 23-6-202 (a)(v).

So you need to reference commission regulations for the definition of hunting in the wrong area.

-Hunt area is defined in Commision Regulations Ch. 2 as " the area within a defined geographic boundary where a license shall be valid".

"Hunt" is not specifically defined in commission regulations because it falls under the definition of "Take" which says " hunt, pursue, catch, capture, shoot, fish, seine, trap, kill or possess or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, shoot, fish, seine, trap, kill or possess".

In violations that use the word "hunt" instead of "take", you need to use an accepted definition of the word- Oxford English Dictionary defines "hunt" as a transitive verb. meaning to pursue (wild animals or game) for the purpose of catching or killing, or as a noun meaning the act of chasing wild animals for the purpose of catching or killing.

So if someone is asking whether or not they can shoot an animal from one hunt area to another, the answer is "NO" based on the definitions that they would be chasing, pursuing or killing an animal from an area outside the defined geographic boundary where a license shall be valid.

The same can be applied to situations where an animal is shot in the valid area, and runs across the hunt area boundary where it needs to be removed "possessed" from the field, or if an animal is in the wrong area, but the hunter is within his correct boundary etc.

There is certainly officer discretion involved in any of these situations, but for a hunt to be completely legal by definition, it needs to have all involved parties (hunter and animal) start and end within the hunt area that the license is valid for.

Hope that helps and sorry again for initially providing the wrong answer.

-WGFD
Click to expand...
Let's actually see what they sent you.
 
Hmm. How about glassing from one unit into another? Then hiking over to kill an animal you glassed up? Would this fall under “pursuing” and therefore hunting?
 
Bookhead said:
What they sent you is pretty much exactly what I figured they could write you a ticket for pretty easy to read the definitions and see where it would break the law. But if somone wants to push their luck that's their decision.
Click to expand...
That's honestly what you got out of that second response? "Pretty easy to read the definitions and see where it would break the law"? The real answer is "we need to rework the regulation".

That would be the easiest ticket to beat if it ever got written and that's from someone who really doesn't think a hunter should be able to shoot from one area to where their license is good.
 
jm77 said:
There's still no real answer. Not until they fix some regulation.
Click to expand...
They said you can not shoot from the wrong unit to the unit with your tag in their response! It was clear as day in what they wrote. I agree it could be clearer in the regulations but it is easy to do 1+1=2 on the the definition and law.
 
nripepi said:
They said you can not shoot from the wrong unit to the unit with your tag in their response! It was clear as day in what they wrote. I agree it could be clearer in the regulations but it is easy to do 1+1=2 on the the definition and law.
Click to expand...
I do agree people shouldn't have to piece together the regulations though, needs to be made clear and easy to read for everyone.
 
nripepi said:
They said you can not shoot from the wrong unit to the unit with your tag in their response! It was clear as day in what they wrote. I agree it could be clearer in the regulations but it is easy to do 1+1=2 on the the definition and law.
Click to expand...
They're grossly interpreting vague regulations, which is absolutely NOT their jobs.

Their job is to enforce clear statute, which this one clearly is not.

Courts and judges interprete law, not some dude scratching vague tickets.

It's crazy to me 6th grade civics was this much of a struggle for some.
 
BuzzH said:
They're grossly interpreting vague regulations, which is absolutely NOT their jobs.

Their job is to enforce clear statute, which this one clearly is not.

Courts and judges interprete law, not some dude scratching vague tickets.

It's crazy to me 6th grade civics was this much of a struggle for some.
Click to expand...
The State passes laws, and then enables the jurisdictional agency to write and enforce the regulations/code pursuant to the law. Courts often give great deference to the enforcement of those regulations so long as they are consistent with the mandate given to the agency and do not elsewhere violate your rights or conflict with a seperate law. Your opinion of the issue notwitstanding, and whether it is stupid, unenforceable, idiotic, or whatever, doesn’t carry the same weight here. the agency has asserted that this act contravenes both the law and the regulation. And yes, a judge/jury would decide if you were validly charged and /or guilty, if charged with something by that agency. what you choose to do with that information is up to you.
 
Katoom said:
The State passes laws, and then enables the jurisdictional agency to write and enforce the regulations/code pursuant to the law. Courts often give great deference to the enforcement of those regulations so long as they are consistent with the mandate given to the agency and do not elsewhere violate your rights or conflict with a seperate law. Your opinion of the issue notwitstanding, and whether it is stupid, unenforceable, idiotic, or whatever, doesn’t carry the same weight here. the agency has asserted that this act contravenes both the law and the regulation. And yes, a judge/jury would decide if you were validly charged and /or guilty, if charged with something by that agency. what you choose to do with that information is up to you.
Click to expand...
Not sure why you're on such a high horse on this issue, but consider yourself in a predicament where, just like this issue, regulation doesn't have a clear definitive path and you get a citation. Your ramblings on this thread lead one to believe your ok with things like this being left up to individuals, definitions off the internet and the like. The fact you got two different answers to start with throws up all kinds of warning flags. The second response and it's suppositions speaks very poorly on how the Department handled the question. The scenario wasn't considered in the regulations and no amount of legal jargon is going to change that.

Time for the Dept to make a few regulation changes and get it straight.
 
Katoom said:
The State passes laws, and then enables the jurisdictional agency to write and enforce the regulations/code pursuant to the law. Courts often give great deference to the enforcement of those regulations so long as they are consistent with the mandate given to the agency and do not elsewhere violate your rights or conflict with a seperate law. Your opinion of the issue notwitstanding, and whether it is stupid, unenforceable, idiotic, or whatever, doesn’t carry the same weight here. the agency has asserted that this act contravenes both the law and the regulation. And yes, a judge/jury would decide if you were validly charged and /or guilty, if charged with something by that agency. what you choose to do with that information is up to you.
Click to expand...
I don't give a chit what the agency contravenes...they don't interpret law and they are not a judge or jury.

The reason so many GF tickets are tossed is exactly because of the vagueness and unclear regulations and statute.

FFS, the laws on trespass to hunt were so poorly written the WY AG wrote an opinion that corner crossing couldn't be prosecuted or even cited as trespass to hunt.
 
The two different responses from G&F show what happens when someone who has no business answering legal questions answers a legal question versus when they consult legal prior to answering.

I said long ago this was illegal, and for the reasons the more detailed and legally sound answer was given. Whether an officer is going to cite you is up to that officer, just like when you pass a cop going 8 over the speed limit. Can they cite you? Absolutely. Will they? That depends on their mood, probably.

But there is not ambiguity here. The answer is clear in the defintions. It was a very good question posed, but those trying to make it out as confusing are grasping at straws.
 
Vanilla said:
The two different responses from G&F show what happens when someone who has no business answering legal questions answers a legal question versus when they consult legal prior to answering.

I said long ago this was illegal, and for the reasons the more detailed and legally sound answer was given. Whether an officer is going to cite you is up to that officer, just like when you pass a cop going 8 over the speed limit. Can they cite you? Absolutely. Will they? That depends on their mood, probably.

But there is not ambiguity here. The answer is clear in the defintions. It was a very good question posed, but those trying to make it out as confusing are grasping at straws.
Click to expand...
We need to keep this going. It's a laugh a minute on MM day! :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
 
jm77 said:
We need to keep this going. It's a laugh a minute on MM day! :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

Laugh away. Who told you exactly why it was not legal before Wyoming legal told you the same thing?

I honestly am flabbergasted this is a hill you're trying to die on, but go ahead!
 
JM77 and Buzz, I’ve looked over what been written here by me and don’t see much that should be too upsetting, aside from a meme in jest and not changing my opinion on the legality of the OP. My original reasoning justifying my opinion was sound. More sound than yours in this case, but next time perhaps and most likeky that will change. I am not trying to seem on a high horse, but it was an interesting question that also took on a life of its own. A couple things are clear, I and several others opined it was illegal and were laugh emoji bombed or (at least a bit) more personally challenged. It was suggested to get an “official answer” which I and some others tried. The end result is that WGFD confirmed the reasoning of those who originally said “no” and instead of saying, “huh, we were wrong” we get more attacks and laugh emojis and the arguement shifts to “well, lets see them enforce it”. I understand nobody likes being wrong but at least where it stands from last WGFD email, its pretty cut and dry here who is. Buzz especially, I did not take you for one to say “screw WGFD”, the law (as conveyed by them) and then as much as advocating breaking a game law. Not saying you would do it, but the response to being TOLD, not by me, but by them, that its illegal and you saying “pish posh” is not a good look. I would hope nobody intentionally violates a hunting rule they have received confirmation from WGFD of, its a bad look even to imply you would or others should. Game warden discretion is best reserved for honest mistakes, not provocations, unless you feel its an unjust law and WANT to be the test case. Crap, there I went, off on my high horse again.
 
BuzzH said:
Which email from the "experts" should I carry in my pocket?
Click to expand...
OK… it is making me curious since you do seem pretty invested in this issue, as I have been accused of. So I’ll just ask… of the myriad animals you have shot, photographed and posted images of, were any shot from an adjacent unit to your listed licence?
 
BuzzH said:
According to one email, I wouldn't be breaking any law.
Click to expand...
So that’s a yes then? And you don’t get to choose emails. The department said #1 was a mistake. And #2, the superceding response, said its illegal. So which animals, if any were shot by you from an adjacent unit? and would you do it again today? Suddenly perhaps we are getting somewhere with this thread.
 
West River said:
I am truly surprised no nonresidents have mentioned shooting from within the wilderness boundary to an animal that is not or vice versa.
Click to expand...
You missed it, I already mentioned it and I was actually serious. I found a place where I could shoot from a ridge on the border of a wilderness where I could shoot non-wilderness to non-wilderness but my bullet would cross through through the wilderness, typical 400 yard shot.
 
BuzzH said:
According to one email, I wouldn't be breaking any law.
Click to expand...
You most likely would as the e-mail says you can't shoot across water or a road, would have to be a border with a ridge where this situation wouldn't be nearly as lucrative as shooting across a canyon and river.
 
Katoom said:
So that’s a yes then? And you don’t get to choose emails. The department said #1 was a mistake. And #2, the superceding response, said its illegal. So which animals, if any were shot by you from an adjacent unit? and would you do it again today? Suddenly perhaps we are getting somewhere with this thread.
Click to expand...
I only see one email, I have no idea what you're talking about with the second email.
 
BuzzH said:
My computer is busted, I still don't see anything...that sucks.
Click to expand...
Cute. That should hold up.

I think you have revealed enough for us to fill in the blanks. If you are not willing to say you have not killed an animal illegally in the past by shooting from one unit into another, then I suggest you have given the MM community the right (until you set the record straight) to assume you have. This would be pretty big news that a simple off-season rhetorical question has outed Buzz H. as taking and possessing game in violation of Wyoming game laws. I mean… WOW. I sincerely hope you have not taken game by shooting from one unit into another. It would be a blow to a very well known individual’s standing in the hunting/conservation community to have that hanging over ones head. Thank god I, #1 am not as high profile as you are or purport to be in the public sphere and #2 unlike you I can state for all to see that I have never hunted game out of unit on an invalid licence by shooting from a different unit than where I am allowed.
 
nripepi said:
You most likely would as the e-mail says you can't shoot across water or a road, would have to be a border with a ridge where this situation wouldn't be nearly as lucrative as shooting across a canyon and river.
Click to expand...
Now nobody can shoot across "water" or a "road"...is there anywhere left to "legally" take a shot?

Getting pretty tight on places a hunter can shoot at a game animal these days.

Yes, I've shot across two tracks and water, numerous times. In fact killed two elk this year in about 45 seconds, shooting over a two-track road on State Land.

Was it illegal?

Numerous times, while actively "hunting" or attempting to "take" a game animal, I've set up my spotting scope, binoculars, to glass into my hunting unit from an adjacent unit. I've had the tag for my area in my pocket, hunters orange on, and a rifle in the vehicle. Clearly "hunting".

By definition, that is attempting to "take" or "hunt".

Was that illegal?

I've also shot across streams, types shot across include: perennial, intermittent and ephemeral streams on multiple occasions.

Was that legal?

Shot a pronghorn with a bow across a stock pond one time as well.

Was that legal?

Bottom line, the law is vague, as a best case. It needs to be tightened up.
 
Katoom said:
Cute. That should hold up.

I think you have revealed enough for us to fill in the blanks. If you are not willing to say you have not killed an animal illegally in the past by shooting from one unit into another, then I suggest you have given the MM community the right (until you set the record straight) to assume you have. This would be pretty big news that a simple off-season rhetorical question has outed Buzz H. as taking and possessing game in violation of Wyoming game laws. I mean… WOW. I sincerely hope you have not taken game by shooting from one unit into another. It would be a blow to a very well known individual’s standing in the hunting/conservation community to have that hanging over ones head. Thank god I, #1 am not as high profile as you are or purport to be in the public sphere and #2 unlike you I can state for all to see that I have never hunted game out of unit on an invalid licence by shooting from a different unit than where I am allowed.
Click to expand...
I would suggest you're pretty well full of crap, but hey, feel free to "think" what you want.
 
BuzzH said:
I would suggest you're pretty well full of crap, but hey, feel free to "think" what you want.
Click to expand...
Maybe I am, but I asked the question of WGFD and got an answer and then nothing but abuse from you and JM77. So I’m dishing it back and you don’t like it. Fine. Yes, based on some of the examples you cited of “hunting” out of unit, based on the WGFD email, that would be a violation, arguably, but without a shot yeah thats a stretch. But with a shot… yeah. Enforced? Who knows. Upheld, nobody knows. I’ve takenno position on the streams, roads issue, vague is probably an understatement regarding some scenarios. I suggest you ask WGFD if have confusion about what is or is not legal. I hope you don’t want to break the laws any more than anyone else who is trying to hunt legally and ethically.
 
Katoom said:
Maybe I am, but I asked the question of WGFD and got an answer and then nothing but abuse from you and JM77. So I’m dishing it back and you don’t like it. Fine. Yes, based on some of the examples you cited of “hunting” out of unit, based on the WGFD email, that would be a violation. Enforced? Who knows. Upheld, nobody knows. I’ve takenno position on the streams, roads issue, vague is probably an understatement regarding some scenarios. I suggest you ask WGFD if have confusion about what is or is not legal. I hope you don’t want to break the laws any more than anyone else who is trying to hunt legally and ethically.
Click to expand...
I know the law and how it works, you seem to struggle with it.

The email you received is a BS answer, in particular the part about referring to a definition outside the regulation.

That's a sure "winner" for the State in making their "case". Lawyers salivate over that kind of thing.

Laffin'.

I've hunted, fished, and trapped for over 4 decades and have zero violations.

How about you?
 
BuzzH said:
I know the law and how it works, you seem to struggle with it.

The email you received is a BS answer, in particular the part about referring to a definition outside the regulation.

That's a sure "winner" for the State in making their "case". Lawyers salivate over that kind of thing.

Laffin'.the way,
BuzzH said:
I know the law and how it works, you seem to struggle with it.

The email you received is a BS answer, in particular the part about referring to a definition outside the regulation.

That's a sure "winner" for the State in making their "case". Lawyers salivate over that kind of thing.

Laffin'.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I am relived that you won’t be cited for your two-track shooting. shoot away.

Not sure exactly what you mean about law and my ignorance of it regarding definitions but pretty much everywhere, if terms are not specifically defined in the reg, a plain language meaning is utilized. If its gets that far in court, you could argue your case using one definition or another but it won’t just be because YOU say so, and you know it could go either way, for or against you. I really am trying to not just bluster my way through every post like you constantly seem to want to for reasons I really don’t comprehend except ego getting the best of you.
 
BuzzH said:
I know the law and how it works, you seem to struggle with it.

The email you received is a BS answer, in particular the part about referring to a definition outside the regulation.

That's a sure "winner" for the State in making their "case". Lawyers salivate over that kind of thing.

Laffin'.

I've hunted, fished, and trapped for over 4 decades and have zero violations.

How about you?
Click to expand...
Not a single fish or game violation in 36 years if hunting. I got a ticket for not having a lifejacket on a small boat while fishing once (the week they changed a law to include any motorized boats (incl my trolling motor) even those under 12’
I got a speeding ticket in PA on way west once, and speeding ticket in WY once. Nobody is perfect.
 
Katoom said:
I am relived that you won’t be cited for your two-track shooting. shoot away.

Not sure exactly what you mean about law and my ignorance of it regarding definitions but pretty much everywhere, if terms are not specifically defined in the reg, a plain language meaning is utilized. If its gets that far in court, you could argue your case using one definition or another but it won’t just be because YOU say so, and you know it could go either way, for or against you. I really am trying to not just bluster my way through every post like you constantly seem to want to for reasons I really don’t comprehend except ego getting the best of you.
Click to expand...
It's amazing how little you think about these topics.

Like I said, it's because of these BS vague definitions, laws, and regulations that so many citations and game violation cases end up getting tossed.

You read about them over and over and over again.

Sad, but if an agency is lazy about drafting regulations, that's their problem. This specific example is a classic case of lazy regulations.
 
Katoom said:
Not a single fish or game violation in 36 years if hunting. I got a ticket for not having a lifejacket on a small boat while fishing once (the week they changed a law to include any motorized boats (incl my trolling motor) even those under 12’
I got a speeding ticket in PA on way west once, and speeding ticket in WY once. Nobody is perfect.
Click to expand...
What's your hang up with this? Are you afraid someone might do it? Are you going to lose sleep knowing your argument stinks based on two different explanations and your clear lack of understanding regulation? If someone gets the ok from a local warden (officer discretion remember) will you throw your sucker in the dirt?

I hope not.
 
Katoom said:
Not a single fish or game violation in 36 years if hunting. I got a ticket for not having a lifejacket on a small boat while fishing once (the week they changed a law to include any motorized boats (incl my trolling motor) even those under 12’
I got a speeding ticket in PA on way west once, and speeding ticket in WY once. Nobody is perfect.
Click to expand...
Wow, with a record like that you must carry an oxford dictionary along with your regulations.

Congratulations!
 
jm77 said:
What's your hang up with this? Are you afraid someone might do it? Are you going to lose sleep knowing your argument stinks based on two different explanations and your clear lack of understanding regulation? If someone gets the ok from a local warden (officer discretion remember) will you throw your sucker in the dirt?

I hope not.
Click to expand...
Agree with vague. Agree with discretion. Agree with probably win in court (but not guaranteed). My one and only hangup is that neither of you will simply say that based on WGFD email (if that IS their official position, the OP act is said to be illegal. Geez, I actually gotban answer for the OP from the relevent agency. YOUR relevent agency. So yes, my stubbornness is borne from exasperation that you fighting something that I didnt even write. We are ALL being stubborn but why are you so hung up on declaring its LEGAL. Where is your email saying it is? Thats it, real simple.
 
Katoom said:
Where is your email saying it is? Thats it, real simple.
Click to expand...
You posted it earlier.

That's THE problem, if the law was as "clear" as you and the GF claim it is, why conflicting emails?

Why a round about, get out your oxford dictionary, 400 word explanation on a regulation that doesn't exist?

If it was clear in regulation, they could cite it with one sentence as well as the regulation.

Something to the effect: "it shall be illegal to shoot or take a big or trophy big game animal outside the legal description of the unit the hunters tag is valid for."

No need for round about legal theory, oxford dictionary, 6 phone calls, discretion, emails, and 400 word essays.
 
BuzzH said:
You posted it earlier.

That's THE problem, if the law was as "clear" as you and the GF claim it is, why conflicting emails?

Why a round about, get out your oxford dictionary, 400 word explanation on a regulation that doesn't exist?

If it was clear in regulation, they could cite it with one sentence as well as the regulation.

Something to the effect: "it shall be illegal to shoot or take a big or trophy big game animal outside the legal description of the unit the hunters tag is valid for."

No need for round about legal theory, oxford dictionary, 6 phone calls, discretion, emails, and 400 word essays.
Click to expand...
At this point, I am not claiming anything, just carrying on knowing that WGFD told me its illegal. They addressed their earlier mistaken email and apologized. So thats all, I never have and don’t intend to even need this informatin personally. I agree with everything else in your post here. Good spot to leave it I say.
 
Katoom said:
At this point, I am not claiming anything, just carrying on knowing that WGFD told me its illegal. They addressed their earlier mistaken email and apologized. So thats all, I never have and don’t intend to even need this informatin personally. I agree with everything else in your post here. Good spot to leave it I say.
Click to expand...
Good luck with them leaving it as it is illegal! Heck one of them started arguing the exact opposite side at the beginning. I am curious if either of then have ever been wrong before or ever admitted they were wrong? This should be illegal and in fact it is illegal but they just want to argue with someone, couldn't imagine wanting to argue everything to the end like this.
 
nripepi said:
Good luck with them leaving it as it is illegal! Heck one of them started arguing the exact opposite side at the beginning. I am curious if either of then have ever been wrong before or ever admitted they were wrong? This should be illegal and in fact it is illegal but they just want to argue with someone, couldn't imagine wanting to argue everything to the end like this.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't have to if it was simply put in regulation...it's why even the GF sent conflicting information, if only obviously.
 
It is always going to be at the game wardens discretion and you will never get clear guidance because the regulations are not built for every scenario. The reason being it is such a slippery slope.

Example, I am driving down the road to my unit, I see a buck in another hunt area and pull over and glass it. If I have a gun and permit am I hunting that buck? By one definition you could argue yes, but common sense says no. Another example, If I'm in my unit and shoot a deer in my unit, and cripple it and it goes into the next unit and I finish it off, did a break the law, if the Warden only saw the 2nd shot you probably have some explaining to do. Common sense says you are fine. As was mentioned earlier the regulations were not written for every possible scenario out there.

So based on that, it is probably legal, but you better be polite and have your story straight if you talk to warden. Me personally, I am not sure it is worth the headache.
 
LivingTheDream said:
It is always going to be at the game wardens discretion and you will never get clear guidance because the regulations are not built for every scenario. The reason being it is such a slippery slope.

Example, I am driving down the road to my unit, I see a buck in another hunt area and pull over and glass it. If I have a gun and permit am I hunting that buck? By one definition you could argue yes, but common sense says no. Another example, If I'm in my unit and shoot a deer in my unit, and cripple it and it goes into the next unit and I finish it off, did a break the law, if the Warden only saw the 2nd shot you probably have some explaining to do. Common sense says you are fine. As was mentioned earlier the regulations were not written for every possible scenario out there.

So based on that, it is probably legal, but you better be polite and have your story straight if you talk to warden. Me personally, I am not sure it is worth the headache.
Click to expand...

Dont we all stop on the way to our hunting to watch animals? Putting a gun out the window is showing a sign of your true intentions

2nd- wounding a animal and running off into another unit a game warden would at least follow the blood trail and footprints. seen this scenario a few times on that warden show
 
nfh said:
Dont we all stop on the way to our hunting to watch animals? Putting a gun out the window is showing a sign of your true intentions

2nd- wounding a animal and running off into another unit a game warden would at least follow the blood trail and footprints. seen this scenario a few times on that warden show
Click to expand...

Agreed and that was my point, the definition/regulations and common sense are two different things.
 
nripepi said:
You most likely would as the e-mail says you can't shoot across water or a road, would have to be a border with a ridge where this situation wouldn't be nearly as lucrative as shooting across a canyon and river.
Click to expand...
Show me in statute or regulation where it's illegal to shoot across water. I can't find it.
 

Similar threads

H
newbie to unit 21
Replies
6
Views
550
hotairgypsy
H
Gut shot
Circling back
Replies
12
Views
1k
JBunn
J
B
CO Unit 67 2nd Rifle Mule Deer - take trailer?
Replies
15
Views
1k
Trophchse
T

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Utah Bull Elk Hunting
IMG_0170.jpeg
9669DDF0-A5E2-437F-8DF6-9EF68D217EA3.jpeg
Deer 5 (3).jpg
20141206_184538.jpg
_0032d.jpg
CBEF3776-9BB7-44E3-9380-01E9CD6482E2.jpeg
20240815_112125.jpg
Buck.jpg
20200223_165616.jpg
VideoCapture_20211113-091616.jpg
IMG_4091.jpeg

Wyoming Hunting Guides & Outfitters

Badger Creek Outfitters

Offering elk, deer and pronghorn hunts on several privately owned ranches.

Urge 2 Hunt

We focus on trophy elk, mule deer, antelope and moose hunts and take B&C bucks most years.

J & J Outfitters

Offering quality fair-chase hunts for trophy mule deer, elk, and moose in Wyoming.


Yellowstone Horse Rentals - Western Wyoming Horses
Back
Top Bottom