Been following this thread and find it about normal for the 'Fire. I hate the WY NR wilderness STATE law. Hate it. I've hunted in every surrounding state's wilderness area, have fished, hiked, and backpacked in WY wilderness areas - but can't hunt there as a NR.
As much as I hate that stance, the wildlife of EVERY state is the property of the STATE, regardless of who wants to use that resource. The STATE manages the wildlife inside their borders - even on public land. The land and the animals are 2 separate entities. We can dislike, rant/rave about that all we want - it's a fact and has been litigated numerous times - and lost every time.
Comparing the WY corner crossing case to a state's wildlife access is mental masturbation at its finest. And won't change the longstanding fact of the state managing the wildlife inside its borders. Period.
The BHA argument is always entertaining. I'm wondering if any one of the posters vehemently objecting to BHA defending the 4 dudes from MO would turn down assistance from BHA defending their decision/case? I'm sure the keyboard answer will be absolutely not.........
At least until it's them in the situation.
I also find entertaining the argument that X organization is only doing Y to garner "the spotlight" , national attention, what's in their best interest, etc. I'm pretty sure every human being does that to some extent. Organizations do it - its called "strategic thinking". If you don't like it, don't contribute or participate. I'd also expect if BHA does help successfully defend this case, those that are vehemently opposed to BHA iinvolvement will be so ideologically against the BHA involvement to bring their own suit and not partake of the success until they do it the "right way". I'm guessing that won't happen either.
