Court Opinion

ID: 9597308
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:57:41.582107+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:54:26.543665
License: Public Domain

CARDINE, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent.
I would hold that § 23-2-401, W.S.1977, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is unconstitutional. It has no rational relationship to the objectives it seeks to promote. This result is consistent with our holding in Schakel v. State, Wyo., 513 P.2d 412 (1973).
The majority opinion reaches a result different from Schakel (which held the predecessor of § 23-2-401 — § 23-54 — unconstitutional) because of the amendment of the statute and because of the holding in Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana, 436 U.S. 371, 98 S.Ct. 1852, 56 L.Ed.2d 354 (1978). Baldwin merely makes clear that only a low level of constitutional scrutiny need be applied because hunting is not a fundamental right; Baldwin does not alter our scrutiny of this statute from that applied in Schakel. Schakel spoke of a “reasonable and appropriate” means, which is a low level of scrutiny. It is the same requirement applied in the majority opinion.
I cannot find that the statute under attack, § 23-2-401, is a rational means to accomplish legitimate state ends. The ends sought are set forth in § 23-2-401(a) as proper game management, protection of hunters, and better enforcement of the game and fish laws. All of these are legitimate ends. The problem is whether a statute, which classifies on the basis of residence and requires only nonresidents to be accompanied by a guide in wilderness areas, is a rational means to accomplish these ends.
I inquire first whether the statute is rationally related to the objective of enforcing the game laws. It is true that guides must know the game laws and report violations. It is also likely that nonresident hunters do not have the same knowledge and are less likely to hunt in a safe and law-abiding manner without guides. The question, however, is whether the classification, which does not require a resident to have a guide, is rationally related to the objective. The court’s opinion states that it is not suggested “that out-of-state hunters violate game laws to any greater extent than resident hunters.” If nonresidents are no more likely to violate game laws than residents, a statute which classifies by residency has no rational relationship to the objective of enforcing game laws.
The next inquiry is whether the statute is rationally related to the goal of promoting hunter safety. Unlike the statute attacked in Schakel v. State, supra, this amended statute requires that a nonresident have a guide when hunting any big game animal in wilderness areas.
I cannot reconcile Schakel with the majority opinion. Schakel attacked the statute in question, § 23-54, W.S.1957 quoted on pages 7-8 of the opinion, as having little if any relationship to promoting hunter safety. One reason for the attack was that nonresident antelope hunters were not required to have a guide. The statute in this case does not require nonresident small game hunters or fisherman to have a guide. It would seem that nonresident small game hunters and fishermen are as likely to lose their way in a wilderness area as are big game hunters. And, if the potential problem is the handling of firearms, there is nothing to suggest that nonresidents are any more likely to mishandle their firearms than are residents.
Schakel also held that § 23-54 had little to do with safety because it provided that a resident, without qualifications, could guide up to two nonresident hunters if he did so without compensation and after filing an affidavit with the Game and Fish Commission. A very similar provision is now *1155found in § 23-2-401(b), W.S.1977. Schakel stated that this provision was “impossible to reconcile with the theory of safety unless one indulges in the violent presumption that mere residence in this State makes a competent, knowing guide * * If an affidavit will suffice to qualify a guide, why cannot a nonresident supply the Game and Fish Commission with the same information as a resident and qualify? The reason he cannot can only be understood by indulging in “the violent presumption” referred to in Schakel.
Schakel also questioned the provision of § 23-54 which permitted the uncompensated resident guide to guide no more than two nonresidents in any calendar year. This same provision is found in § 23-2-401(b). There is no apparent reason why, after guiding two nonresidents, the uncompensated guide becomes a threat to hunter safety and can guide no more. The provision suggests that the statute seeks objectives other than hunter safety.
Finally, in the absence of any evidence that nonresidents have a different effect on the game population than do residents, I fail to see how the statute rationally relates to the objective of proper game management.
I believe that even with the lowest level of scrutiny this statute should be held unconstitutional.