WYBHA discussion...

[BuzzH]

The discussion on technology last night that Wyoming Backcountry Hunters and Anglers hosted in Cheyenne, was a success.

There were over 40 people in attendance, including WYGF Director of Wildlife Brian Nesvik. A nice surprise, and addition to those in attendance, was WYGF Director Scott Talbott.

There was a good discussion by Brian Nesvik about all the new technology they're seeing in the field, getting complaints about, etc. The discussion also involved how regulations are made at the Legislative as well as Commission level.

WYBHA is leading the effort to ban drones for any scouting, hunting, etc.

A bill (HB0030) to ban drones has already been prefiled for this upcoming session:

http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2014/Introduced/HB0030.pdf

There was also a discussion involving the game and fish budget problems. I gave a quick talk regarding the two bills that were introduced by the TRW Committee. There were many in attendance that didnt realize that GF Department employees were the ONLY State employees that do not get their health insurance paid from general fund money (SF0045 deals with that).

HB0031: http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2014/Introduced/HB0031.pdf

SF0045: http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2014/Introduced/SF0045.pdf

There was lots of discussion on the budget and Director Talbott fielded several questions regarding the budget and the cuts that were made as well as the impacted/cut programs. He explained how and why the cuts were made. He also made it clear, that without additional funding, the Programs that were cut, would not be brought back. For some clarity, the Department has cut $8,000,000 from their budget. That kind of money impacts programs, period.

Also, if some relief is not found via the 2 funding bills, additional programs may be cut in the future.

Very positive meeting and some great discussions.

 

[nfh]

WYBHA is leading the effort to ban drones for any scouting, hunting, etc.

A bill (HB0030) to ban drones has already been prefiled for this upcoming session:








I hope it passes. Drones isn't hunting, its just killin.. kinda like john porter shooting animals at 1300 yards.

 

[TOPGUN]

LAST EDITED ON Jan-17-14 AT 10:35AM (MST)[p]BuzzH---Thanks for the update on things concerning all of us sportspersons and for being so actively involved for the benefit of all of us!!! Can you give us an overall feeling as to how these three bills will be looked at when they go before committees what with the way things went in the last session? The addition of drones to the one bill looks like a no brainer. The straight 10% across the board fee increases will probably not sit well with a lot of folks, but at least it should catch the G&F up with the inflation rate until some kind of alternate funding can be accomplished, unless something better is proposed. I also personally feel the other bill to take money from the GF for grizzly management and the employee's health benefits is a no brainer. Seeing as how it seems many Legislators nowadays are operating without a brain, maybe at least two of the three will receive approval, LOL!!!


nfh---I liked that last little diddy of yours referencing John Porter. That's another thing that has come about the last few years and unfortunately I don't think there is any way to stop or even slow it down!

 

[BuzzH]

Topgun,

I would think the drone bill is a sure winner. The beauty of keeping ahead of the curve on technology is that you dont have to put the cat back in the bag. There isnt going to be as much resistance to banning drones since the technology is just developing. If this bill doesnt pass, we'll be at the commission seeking a regulation change to ban them.

The health insurance general fund bill, has some legs. I believe it will be the most likely of the 2 fee bills to pass. When we met with Gov. Mead, he said he would support the health coverage bill, but would not commit to a funding level if it passes. That bill is going to be amended, to take out the grizzly bear funding portion. Mainly because theres no reason to ask for appropriated funds if GB's are delisted (fingers crossed). I think thats a positive for the bill, and also more likely to receive full appropriation if passed.

The license fee increase bill will meet some serious resistance. I believe it can pass the Senate Committee...but its going to be a struggle in the House TRW committee from what we're hearing. I know that jm77 is working on the House side trying to reach some of the TRW House Committee. Its going to be some tough sledding I believe, considering every fee increase bill was killed last year.

Then, once they clear committee...who knows from there.

I hear rumors that there are going to be a handful of "bad bills" out there too.

Stay tuned.

 

[mightyhunter]

Thanks for the information Buzz H. I shake my head when I think that drones might be used by hunters. However, I will heed the recent advice of Topgun and not shoot the drones from the sky when they pass over my head. No more taking the law into my own hands.

It is my understanding that there will be a ballot initiative for legalizing marijuana in Wyoming this year. If by some strange reason it should pass, the Game and Fish should ask for a percentage of the tax that the state will collect on pot sales.

I will stay tuned for more updates on the bills being considered by the legislature and the governor.

mh

 

[TOPGUN]

MH---That was funny as he**! As soon as I read your comment, I could just picture one of those friggin drones going by and you blasting away, LOL! Just think that you got that good advice from me absolutely free of charge too!!! Have a good one!

 

[jm77]

Buzz
I'm curious as to the thinking that "drone" would need to be including in statute. Seems that "aircraft" would cover that. Did Brian touch on that?

Also, something I noticed in the statute is spotting (scouting) from an aircraft seems to be prohibited without time limit, while in Chapter 44 of the G&F regulations allows flying up to 24hrs before hunting. I think Regulation can be more strict than statute, but not less. From my own experience on the Snowys this past fall, I can tell you it is a little unnerving when you're in the mountains, on foot scouting and someone flies over you multiple times, on different days, with an ultra-light looking for game.

 

[BuzzH]

jm77,

WYBHA did not have anything to do with the bill in question. It was prefiled via a request from a Constituent of Watts'.

WYBHA will support the legislation as it would specifically include drones.

You are right, regulation can be more strict and we will address the commission in January regarding drone Regulations.

No matter how strict you make the flying rules, its always going to be tough to enforce.

I hunted unlimited sheep in Montana a few times and witnessed flying the 2-3 days prior to the season each time. Lots of violations as they were clearly below the ceiling required over Wilderness Areas. I also know there were providing information to their "ground support".

It cost me a great ram one year, a ram you dont often lay eyes on in an unlimited area. An airplane flew over them 3 times, the rams hit the timber, and I never saw them again all season.

All you can do is try to keep the honest guys honest I guess.

 

[mightyhunter]

I have seen some strange things with airplanes flying over the backcountry during hunting seasons. My concern, how do you know if they are engaging in illegal activity or if they are just carrying USFWS or Game and Fish personnel doing grizzly, wolf, sheep or elk counts. The planes are usually private planes with few markings. There is a particular yellow plane that I see all Summer and Fall in various drainages. During archery elk and sheep season on the North Fork of the Shoshone this plane was flying real low and essentially dive bombing all the draws and drainages. As part of a bill, should the planes engaged in lawful activity need to have markings showing that they are affiliated with a government agency that can be seen from the ground.

just sayin...

 

[BuzzH]

While not out of the question, I dont think most GF agencies in the lower 48 fly much to patrol. Their game counts are usually dont post hunting season as well.

Also, as far as I know, all planes have numbers to identify them. Getting those numbers without glass can be pretty challenging.

I dont know about Wyoming, but I dont believe the GF actually owns any planes. I'm sure they're likely contract pilots and planes as well. I could be wrong about that, dont really know for sure.

Lots of outfitters fly their areas, and thats all I'm going to say.

 

[jm77]

LAST EDITED ON Jan-20-14 AT 11:30AM (MST)[p]>While not out of the question,
>I dont think most GF
>agencies in the lower 48
>fly much to patrol. Their
>game counts are usually dont
>post hunting season as well.
>
>
>Also, as far as I know,
>all planes have numbers to
>identify them. Getting those numbers
>without glass can be pretty
>challenging.
>
>I dont know about Wyoming, but
>I dont believe the GF
>actually owns any planes. I'm
>sure they're likely contract pilots
>and planes as well. I
>could be wrong about that,
>dont really know for sure.
>
>
>Lots of outfitters fly their areas,
>and thats all I'm going
>to say.


As far as I know the Wy G&F hires out planes and helicopters for classifying game. Around central Wy I have seen them classifying deer during late elk season and they get some grief about it. They fly low enough that any nearby elk are spooked.

I am sure anything bigger than an ultralight has to have numbers.

 

[Triple_BB]

Interesting discussion about banning flying in planes given the laws that are already on the books. The thing is, its an almost impossible law to enforce. If you don't want to get caught in a plane, give the pilot a GPS and have them mark locations. End of story unless yer part of a sting operation.

Didn't they implement the law about not flying 24 hours before hunting not too many years ago? I remember some folks wanting to ban flying all together and the 24 hour rule was the compromise. Given that many of our legislators are ranchers and probably plane owners as well having neighbors and/or friends with planes, I'd be surprised to see additional legislation passed in this area. And certainly not in a budget year...

 

[jm77]

LAST EDITED ON Jan-20-14 AT 04:17PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-20-14 AT 04:16?PM (MST)

>Interesting discussion about banning flying in
>planes given the laws that
>are already on the books.
> The thing is, its
>an almost impossible law to
>enforce. If you don't
>want to get caught in
>a plane, give the pilot
>a GPS and have them
>mark locations. End of
>story unless yer part of
>a sting operation.
>
>Didn't they implement the law about
>not flying 24 hours before
>hunting not too many years
>ago? I remember some
>folks wanting to ban flying
>all together and the 24
>hour rule was the compromise.
> Given that many of
>our legislators are ranchers and
>probably plane owners as well
>having neighbors and/or friends with
>planes, I'd be surprised to
>see additional legislation passed in
>this area. And certainly
>not in a budget year...
>

Check this out, it is the bill to add 'drones' to the current statute. Read it and tell me if it is illegal to scout from an aircraft. Other than the red wording it is the current law.
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2014/Introduced/HB0030.pdf

And Triple you are right. A few years back the Wy G&F Commission put in regulation that using an aircraft to spot wildlife was not allowed "with-in 24 hours" of hunting (predators excluded), unless a commercial flight.

Maybe someone could tell me how G&f regulation can override statute? 23-3-306 clearly states use of aircraft is not allowed for scouting wildlife.

 

[TOPGUN]

LAST EDITED ON Jan-20-14 AT 04:23PM (MST)[p]jm77---I don't know how things work in Wyoming, but generally in most jurisdictions a regulation can't override a statute. Normally a law or statute is passed and then a regulation can be promulgated under that law/statute by the Department with rules that have to be adhered to using that law/statute, which normally has penalties attached to it.

 

[Triple_BB]

Clearly states? The way I read that statute, its absolutely not illegal. If the authors of the original bill wanted scouting from a plane to be illegal, they would've included the word, "scouting" in with harass, pursue, hunt, etc. They didn't. I'd think if the G&F pursued a conviction, the Court would likely consider the statute to be vague in its interpretation and the case would be tossed.

 

[jm77]

>Clearly states? The way I
>read that statute, its absolutely
>not illegal. If the
>authors of the original bill
>wanted scouting from a plane
>to be illegal, they would've
>included the word, "scouting" in
>with harass, pursue, hunt, etc.
> They didn't. I'd
>think if the G&F pursued
>a conviction, the Court would
>likely consider the statute to
>be vague in its interpretation
>and the case would be
>tossed.

Keep reading Triple: "No person shall use any aircraft to aid in the taking of any Wyoming wildlife,except predatory animals, whether by spotting or locating the wildlife, communicating with any person attempting to take the wildlife, or by providing other aid to any person taking the wildlife."

Spotting or locating!!! Sounds to me like they knew exactly what they were making illegal.

 

[jm77]

>LAST EDITED ON Jan-20-14
>AT 04:23?PM (MST)
>
>jm77---I don't know how things work
>in Wyoming, but generally in
>most jurisdictions a regulation can't
>override a statute. Normally
>a law or statute is
>passed and then a regulation
>can be promulgated under that
>law/statute by the Department with
>rules that have to be
>adhered to using that law/statute,
>which normally has penalties attached
>to it.


Same here in Wyoming, Mike, I just can't figure out what the G&F were trying to accomplish by giving 24 hrs when it's sounds to me like it's flat illegal!

 

[TOPGUN]

LAST EDITED ON Jan-20-14 AT 09:19PM (MST)[p]>>Clearly states? The way I
>>read that statute, its absolutely
>>not illegal. If the
>>authors of the original bill
>>wanted scouting from a plane
>>to be illegal, they would've
>>included the word, "scouting" in
>>with harass, pursue, hunt, etc.
>> They didn't. I'd
>>think if the G&F pursued
>>a conviction, the Court would
>>likely consider the statute to
>>be vague in its interpretation
>>and the case would be
>>tossed.
>
>Keep reading Triple: "No person shall
>use any aircraft to aid
>in the taking of any
>Wyoming wildlife,except predatory animals, whether
>by spotting or locating the
>wildlife, communicating with any person
>attempting to take the wildlife,
>or by providing other aid
>to any person taking the
>wildlife."
>
>Spotting or locating!!! Sounds to me
>like they knew exactly what
>they were making illegal.


***jm77---I agree with you 100% that the wording you quoted means no flying at all at any time to find game and then hunt it or help anyone else to hunt it. Why they would come up with the 24 hour deal is pretty bogus if this quoted statute is already on the books!!!

 

[Triple_BB]

If the statute outlaws scouting as you perceive, surely you'd have read about someone being charged? Is it possible the G&F as well as most district attorney's have some problems with the wording you're seeing. Why else would they change it to 24 hours. Give NC DA's office a ring and see what they say...

 

[jm77]

>If the statute outlaws scouting as
>you perceive, surely you'd have
>read about someone being charged?
> Is it possible the
>G&F as well as most
>district attorney's have some problems
>with the wording you're seeing.
> Why else would they
>change it to 24 hours.
> Give NC DA's office
>a ring and see what
>they say...


"...to aid in taking...whether by spotting or locating...".

The word scout or scouting, by definition, may not make good law. However we all know when we 'scout', we spot and locate animals. Don't understand your hang up with that Triple.

Either way, I am going to look into it and find out the reasoning for the regulation. I believe the G&F is trying to read some kind of intent into the wording, and trust me there has been lots of mistakes made both in statute and regulations. I've been involved with enough legal matters to know the courts take the law literally. The statute is very clear to me...

 

[TOPGUN]

The problem with having or not having that 24 hour rule really doesn't mean much IMHO because it's dang near impossible to enforce as mentioned earlier in this thread. I've seen a plane out making low level flights on a 100,000 acre ranch near where I hunt (I believe 3BB knows who he is)during hunting season and I know who owns and flies it and he has his own "international" landing strip, LOL! I know all he would have to do is say he was using it to check his hundreds of head of cattle and that would be the end of it. Besides that he's a County Commissioner to boot and I doubt the GW I know would cite him for it even if a pretty good case could be made. The G&F has to stay in a pretty good relationship with the ranchers and it's my opinion that's why the Carter case in TenSleep took so long to develop and be prosecuted for allowing NRs to use their nontransferrable landowner tags. I heard through the grapevine while out there that they were doing stuff illegally and it turned out that was probably the reason they subdivided the ranch into 160s under different names so they could get more landowner tags. IMHO that is another can of worms when low acreage amounts like that allows you to qualify for tags that then minimize the tags going to non landowners.

 

[jm77]

"The problem with having or not having that 24 hour rule really doesn't mean much IMHO because it's dang near impossible to enforce as mentioned earlier in this thread."

Agreed, very difficult to enforce, so should there be no law at all?

 

[BuzzH]

I believe the reason the 24 hour clause was added in the regulations, is for situations where hunters are accessing hunting areas with small aircraft.

While the plane is not being used to scout, but rather transport, the hunters and pilots are not flying with blindfolds on.

It would be a way to allow hunters to be transported to landlocked public or designated remote airstrips without being in violation of the law.

It would also curb an advantage (waiting 24 hours) the hunters gain from locating game enroute to their drop-off points.

I think the law/regulations need to be clarified.

 

[TOPGUN]

BuzzH---I believe that is probably why it is in their after reading your post. Isn't that the exact situation that Randy and his boy did on that one elk hunt they filmed for a recent show when they helicoptered into that landlocked BLM property in MT? I believe I remember him saying right on film after they landed that they had plenty of time to to get to where they were going to set up camp, do some scouting, etc. before the 24 hours expired when they were in the air, so Montana must have the same type rule as WY, AK, etc.

 

[jm77]

>I believe the reason the 24
>hour clause was added in
>the regulations, is for situations
>where hunters are accessing hunting
>areas with small aircraft.
>
>While the plane is not being
>used to scout, but rather
>transport, the hunters and pilots
>are not flying with blindfolds
>on.
>
>It would be a way to
>allow hunters to be transported
>to landlocked public or designated
>remote airstrips without being in
>violation of the law.
>
>It would also curb an advantage
>(waiting 24 hours) the hunters
>gain from locating game enroute
>to their drop-off points.
>
>I think the law/regulations need to
>be clarified.


Buzz you may be right!!

I made a call today and think what was agreed on is that if the statute was intended to mean other than what it actually says, it is poorly written. Your idea wasn't discussed, so the official I talked to didn't think of it.

My contact is going to talk to the G&F person who was involved with the 24hr rule and let me know the thinking at the time.

Just remember, if we try to guess the intent of a law, it is a poorly written one.