Shooting form one unit to the next?

[Bob D.]

Wow. Try using a little common sense people. Instead of being so literal. This isn't that complicated.

 

[Bookhead]

Wow. Try using a little common sense people. Instead of being so literal. This isn't that complicated.

law is actually a literal thing

 

[Bob D.]

Only Donald Trump would get prosecuted for something like this.

 

[elks96]

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.

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]

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

 

[nfh]

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

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.

 

[wytex]

but, but....

Not surprised at all ClearCreek.

 

[Katoom]

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

 

[Bookhead]

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

View attachment 147633

I'll take clear creeks response over the one the assistant emailed to you lol

 

[Katoom]

I'll take clear creeks response over the one the assistant emailed to you lol

LOL, agreed but I give up.

 

[mulecreek]

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.

 

[Bookhead]

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

 

[Bob D.]

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

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.

 

[nfh]

Shooting across a creek? Wow, that one is broken daily during hunting season.

 

[Vanilla]

Shooting across a creek? Wow, that one is broken daily during hunting season.

I think we’d all be very surprised the wildlife laws that are broken almost as a matter of standard operating procedure for many people.

 

[Bob D.]

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?

 

[nfh]

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?

Exactly. How does this work for moose? This one has me scratching my head.

 

[nripepi]

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...

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.

 

[jm77]

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.

 

[Servehim]

The critter to be harvested lived in the unit that you had a valid tag for, hence game management objectives were fulfilled. Full Stop !

 

[nripepi]

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.

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.

 

[nfh]

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.

 

[elks96]

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.

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]

Clear as mud now, lol.
Actually sounds like most GWs would be the same, I think.

Thanks for taking the time nfh.

 

[nfh]

Clear as mud now, lol.
Actually sounds like most GWs would be the same, I think.

Thanks for taking the time nfh.

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

 

[jm77]

If G&F enforce the "body of water ' thing, it needs to be more specific.

 

[nfh]

If G&F enforce the "body of water ' thing, it needs to be more specific.

Agree.

From what I was told on the phone you can't shoot across buffalo bill reservoir , upper/ lower sunshine as an example for around here. The words was a big main reservoir.

So I just assume a large body of water people are boating

 

[nripepi]

Can you shoot across a corner like corner hopping? Be hard to prove.

 

[IDbullz]

Can you shoot across a corner like corner hopping? Be hard to prove.

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.

 

[eyeman]

I think my form would be prone.

 

[nripepi]

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.

It was tounge in cheek but I do agree with you, can't shoot your bullet across a corner.

 

[grosventrehunter]

If shooting across a creek is illegal then most here are guilty. That's pretty stupid.....

 

[Katoom]

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

 

[nfh]

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

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.

 

[elkantlers]

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

Worked out pretty good for that lady from Texas who shot the Bighorn sheep in a closed unit.

 

[nfh]

Worked out pretty good for that lady from Texas who shot the Bighorn sheep in a closed unit.

got a link to the story?

 

[jm77]

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

Let's actually see what they sent you.

 

[coloradoman]

So can I ask a question?
Can you shoot from one area to the other
Legally?
Holy ****!!!

 

[Katoom]

Let's actually see what they sent you.

you don’t believe me?

 

[Katoom]

you don’t believe me?

Jm77 I’ll let you off the hook, but I don’t make stuff up.

 

[jm77]

I read that as "it's up the warden"...

 

[Katoom]

I read that as "it's up the warden"...

It’s always up to the warden whether a ticket gets issued, but we got an answer. what more could one of these threads possibly accomplish other than to start over from the top!

 

[Katoom]

 

[Bookhead]

View attachment 147888

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.

 

[willfrye027]

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?

 

[jm77]

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.

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]

It’s always up to the warden whether a ticket gets issued, but we got an answer. what more could one of these threads possibly accomplish other than to start over from the top!

There's still no real answer. Not until they fix some regulation.

 

[nripepi]

There's still no real answer. Not until they fix some regulation.

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.

 

[Bookhead]

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.

I do agree people shouldn't have to piece together the regulations though, needs to be made clear and easy to read for everyone.

 

[elkantlers]

got a link to the story?

A little misinformation goes a long way.

Utah's DWR takes blame for bighorn sheep killed 'illegally' on Nebo

Robyn Waldrip has a passion for shooting very large wild animals. The Texas bodybuilder pays a

archive.sltrib.com

 

[BuzzH]

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.

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.

 

[Soccerdude]

Question/scenario.

I have 2 cow elk tags in neighboring areas. The herd ends up in x and I shoot from y. Legal?

 

[Katoom]

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.

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.

 

[jm77]

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.

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.

 

[BuzzH]

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.

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.

 

[wildfin]

What unit does the possession start in , yours or the other one

 

[jm77]

Question/scenario.

I have 2 cow elk tags in neighboring areas. The herd ends up in x and I shoot from y. Legal?

Legal.
This is going to give @ClearCreek and his warden buddies quite the headache!
Maybe time to call the Wildlife Law Enforcement Supervisor.

 

[Vanilla]

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.

 

[jm77]

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.

We need to keep this going. It's a laugh a minute on MM day!

 

[West River]

I am truly surprised no nonresidents have mentioned shooting from within the wilderness boundary to an animal that is not or vice versa.

 

[Vanilla]

We need to keep this going. It's a laugh a minute on MM day!

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!

 

[Katoom]

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]

Which email from the "experts" should I carry in my pocket?

 

[Vanilla]

How about you just don’t break the law? Then you won’t need any emails.

 

[Katoom]

Which email from the "experts" should I carry in my pocket?

You know you can just ask them yourself. It’s a local call.

 

[Katoom]

Which email from the "experts" should I carry in my pocket?

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]

How about you just don’t break the law? Then you won’t need any emails.

According to one email, I wouldn't be breaking any law.

 

[Vanilla]

According to one email, I wouldn't be breaking any law.

Go for it then!

 

[BuzzH]

Go for it then!

Stay in Utah!

 

[Vanilla]

I will, but I am happy to interpret simple statutes and definitions for you any time, gratis!

You’re welcome.

 

[Katoom]

According to one email, I wouldn't be breaking any law.

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.

 

[nripepi]

I am truly surprised no nonresidents have mentioned shooting from within the wilderness boundary to an animal that is not or vice versa.

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.

 

[nripepi]

According to one email, I wouldn't be breaking any law.

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.

 

[BuzzH]

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.

I only see one email, I have no idea what you're talking about with the second email.

 

[Katoom]

I only see one email, I have no idea what you're talking about with the second email.

 

[BuzzH]

My computer is busted, I still don't see anything...that sucks.

 

[Katoom]

My computer is busted, I still don't see anything...that sucks.

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.

 

[BuzzH]

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.

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.

 

[BuzzH]

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.

I would suggest you're pretty well full of crap, but hey, feel free to "think" what you want.

 

[Katoom]

I would suggest you're pretty well full of crap, but hey, feel free to "think" what you want.

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.

 

[BuzzH]

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.

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?

 

[Katoom]

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,

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 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.

 

[Katoom]

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?

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.

 

[BuzzH]

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.

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.

 

[jm77]

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.

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.

 

[BuzzH]

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.

Wow, with a record like that you must carry an oxford dictionary along with your regulations.

Congratulations!

 

[Katoom]

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.

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]

Wow, with a record like that you must carry an oxford dictionary along with your regulations.

Congratulations!

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

How about you?

I was answering your question to me Buzz. This is getting so childish.

 

[BuzzH]

Where is your email saying it is? Thats it, real simple.

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.

 

[Katoom]

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.

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.

 

[nripepi]

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.

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.

 

[BuzzH]

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.

Wouldn't have to if it was simply put in regulation...it's why even the GF sent conflicting information, if only obviously.

 

[LivingTheDream]

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.

 

[nfh]

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.

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

 

[LivingTheDream]

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

Agreed and that was my point, the definition/regulations and common sense are two different things.

 

[jm77]

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.

Show me in statute or regulation where it's illegal to shoot across water. I can't find it.

 

[Bookhead]

Show me in statute or regulation where it's illegal to shoot across water. I can't find it.

Well yea how would you duck hunt lol

 

[jm77]

Well yea how would you duck hunt lol

You can't, and I'm serious when I say I can't find anything in the regs that says you can't shoot over water. So that makes those G&F responses even more questionable.

 

[nripepi]

Show me in statute or regulation where it's illegal to shoot across water. I can't find it.

When did I say it was illegal? It is just in the first email so you would be going against part of that email.

 

[BuzzH]

When did I say it was illegal? It is just in the first email so you would be going against part of that email.

So in other words, the GF is full of crap?

You don't believe the email they sent?