"I believe there should be a qualification to hunt wilderness no matter who you are if the goal is in fact to limit search and rescue. "

I believe what we all need is less government, not more. As I mentioned 49 of the 50 states don't think we need an outfitter to guarantee our safety in the mountains. That law is 100% all about an entitlement program. Free money. No more, no less.

There are wilderness areas all over the place. I drive right up to them and go hunt. To think I'd have to pass a seperate test in every statejust to set foot in them is a joke.

Everybody knows it.

Any WY outfitters reading posts on here are laughing at anyone who debates on search & rescue fees in the mountains. They know it only deflects attention from the truth.

You keep neglecting to mention Alaska's law that requires all non-residents to hire an outfitter to hunt brown bears, dall sheep, or mountain goats whether you're in a wilderness area or not. The only way around it is if you go with a resident of Alaska who is within the second degree of kindred (e.g. son, father, grandparent).

Wyoming is not the only state that has laws to keep non-residents safe in the mountains.

As for my previous statement that , you took it out of context. That was merely a way of stating that WY's law is keeping non-residents without wilderness savy from getting themselves in over their heads.

It cannot be denied that WY and AK outfitters benefit from the laws requiring non-residents to hire quides, and I'm sure the outfitter associations had played some role in getting the bills passed. After all, why wouldn't they? But I highly doubt that the laws were passed for the sole purpose of making the outfitting business more lucrative, as you keep claiming. As I said before, I think WY's law should be revised. But I do not think it should be completely eliminated.

But that's just my opinion. You're obviousy dead-set against many of WY G&F's policies. And you're entitled to that opinion.

That is right about those 3 species in Alaska. Although I don't completely agree with their laws, those are species extremely few of us average joe hunters are going to hunt up there. I can understand the management of those, particularly the brown bear & dall sheep, might need some special measures. However, Alaska is like another country. Access is not easy or cheap for the vast majority of us in the other 49.

That being said, there are tons of other critters we can all just go hunt without wilderness/guide restriction, like moose. That is the only thing I'd go there for. I wouldn't need a guide for that, but it's still quite expensive. Been researching that.

Answer me this. If the WY guide restrictions were indeed intended to keep nonresidents safe, then why aren't they required for nonresidents who want to go hiking, small game hunting, fishing, camping, backpacking???

Answer the question. Don't run.

Don't be so gullible.

Somewhere there is an outfitter laughing at your post.

I believe I've already answered this question once, but I'll say it again. How many people do you know who backback wilderness areas in the fall? None that I know of, because they try their best to avoid foul weather. Accessing wilderness areas in the fall and the summer are two entirely different things. As I said before, no one goes into the wilderness areas to hunt small game. That is simply ridiculous. Same thing with fishing. By the time foul weather begins making its presence know, no one bothers going into the wilderenss (except for hunters). The roads leading up to the wilderness are not even plowed, so some wilderness areas are not even accessable without the use of snowmachines after severe snow storms.

Have you ever figured the price to access remote hunting areas in Alaska? I have- I went along on a Dall Sheep hunt a few years ago in the Tok wilderness. The bush pilot fee was $300 per person to fly into and out of the wilderness. If you have the money to pay for non-resident tags, then you have the money to pay for bush pilot fees. Even residents pay the bush pilot fees. Round trip plane tickets to Anchorage from DIA were about $400 since I booked in advance. That's not that much more than paying for gas or plane tickets from the other side of the states to WY. There are several mountain ranges that can be accesed by foot in AK to hunt sheep as well. And I'd call myself an average Joe. I'm a middle class white-caucasian male. Pretty run of the mill. And I plan on going up again- several times.

How many hunters do you think would go after Dall sheep and Mtn. goats if AK's law wasn't in place?

Moose live in entirely different areas during the hunting season. When is the last time you heard of someone clinging the side of a cliff or scaling a near-verticle mountain to shoot a moose? The moose are down in lower elevations in entirely different terrain. Same with caribou. Comparing hunting flat land to hunting rugged mountains is like comparing apples to oranges.

Knowing that you have experience huting wilderness areas, you are the type of person that should desire WY and Ak's policies to change. And I support such a change to make an exception for people who have wilderness savy. But what about many of the other non-resident hunters who have no experience with large mountain ranges, let alone wilderness areas? I still stand behind WY and AK's statutes.

How many people go in the wilderness in the fall/winter is completely irrelevent. There are ALWAYS some.

Are highway speed limits not in effect when there's nobodyon the road?

Horribleexcuse.

Somewhere that outfitter is still laughing.

As far as Alaska, for one you are forgetting the biggest expense of all...........meat handling & shipping! And round trip airfare from Chicago with gear is high. I drive to all my lower 49 hunts because of the gear. Besides I already mentioned I did not support the AK law either.

I do like this debate. I can think of other sites where the thread would of broken down into personal attacks by now. All are to be commended.

I understand the governments unrelenting desire to protect us from ourselves. I don't agree with most of it but it is there for us to deal with.

As a free man should I not be allowed to take the decision of putting my own lifein jeopardy as long as I do not require the services of the government or hold them liable in any way?

Look at the resources currently being used on the three men lost on Mt. Hood.

If we are going to play in dangerous places should it be the governments responsibility to bail us out when we get in trouble?

Anyway, I am confident in my skills and preparedness in the field BUT when I go play in someone else's backyard I want to be with someone that knows the area very well.

I truly don't know what is right and what is wrong here. I am not sure it is a black and white issue.

If I go into a situation with my eyes open knowing full well what the risk are and choose to take the risk anyway and then get in trouble I am not going to be thinking "oh well I accept my plight for the decision I made"you can bet I'm thinking "I hope that search and rescue team is on their way."