Post by: bigbucks1985 on February 13, 2012, 08:31:48 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 13, 2012, 08:36:20 PM
Post by: dreamunelk on February 13, 2012, 08:38:00 PM
Post by: Bob33 on February 13, 2012, 08:41:22 PM
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/specialuses/filming/
Post by: provider on February 13, 2012, 08:54:05 PM
Post by: CementFinisher on February 13, 2012, 09:00:11 PM
Post by: bigbucks1985 on February 13, 2012, 09:17:19 PM
Post by: jackelope on February 13, 2012, 09:27:33 PM
Quote
He then told me to relocate to a big game winter range road(closed dec 1-march 1) said i should be ok to take my truck up a certain distance as long i was just shooting.He said to take your truck up a closed road on the winter range to shoot and that would be ok since you were just shooting?
You should ask him to produce the WAC or the RCW or whatever it is verifying this so called law. Do you know how many people would be in violation of this supposed law?
Post by: Humptulips on February 13, 2012, 09:30:50 PM
Post by: provider on February 13, 2012, 09:34:14 PM
Quote
provivder you should be for all that is hunting related
Thanks for the tip Cement... I'll take that under consideration.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 13, 2012, 09:41:52 PM
I think he had an agenda, or didn't like you.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/specialuses/filming/
Bob, Larry Czonka ran afoul of the regs governing commercial filming up in Alaska years back.
http://www.libertymatters.org/newsservice/2006/faxback/2999_Forest.htm
Private photography is allowed. But if you're going to sell the images or use them to advertise a commercial venture such as guiding perhaps, I'd be checking with the local forest service rep to see if I needed a permit.
Post by: huntnnw on February 13, 2012, 09:43:24 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 13, 2012, 09:54:30 PM
Did you have it locked up?
Post by: Curly on February 14, 2012, 06:40:18 AM
I think he had an agenda, or didn't like you.
:yeah:
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 14, 2012, 06:47:17 AM
Quoteprovivder you should be for all that is hunting related
Thanks for the tip Cement... I'll take that under consideration.
I'm interested to hear why you think game cameras should be illegal in the NF. Please elaborate.
Post by: bearpaw on February 14, 2012, 06:49:28 AM
Montana is the only western state that I know of with laws on trail cam use.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on February 14, 2012, 08:18:13 AM
Quoteprovivder you should be for all that is hunting related
Thanks for the tip Cement... I'll take that under consideration.
I'm interested to hear why you think game cameras should be illegal in the NF. Please elaborate.
I was wondering the same thing. Are you talking about game cameras only on National Forrest lands or game cameras in general? Would like to hear what you have to say about this if you don't mind elaborating.
Post by: D-Rock425 on February 14, 2012, 08:45:58 AM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 14, 2012, 08:49:40 AM
Post by: lokidog on February 14, 2012, 09:06:11 AM
I think he had an agenda, or didn't like you.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/specialuses/filming/
This clearly states for commercial purposes. I wonder if all those DIY and other hunting shows get permits for filming?
Maybe bait is considered a "prop"? If that was the case then it could very well be illegal according to this paragraph.
Commercial photography is defined as the use of photographic equipment to capture still images on film, digital format, and other similar technologies found on National Forest System lands that: takes place at a location where members of the public are generally not allowed or where additional administrative costs are likely; or uses models, sets, or props that are not part of the site’s natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities (FSH 2709.11 2008-2 (CH 40)).
Seems pretty petty though.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 14, 2012, 09:10:31 AM
Had a gamie take down my game cams because he said they are not legal on nat. forest, anyone ever hear this?
I doubt that there is a blanket prohibition against trail cams per se'. What I think is being enforced is an individuals interpretation of abandoned property laws.
Sounds like an agency LEO that needed to show you this law or statute, that if they could not should be cited for theft just like any of the rest of us would be. I could be wrong,(There may be such a "law" since individual NF can have their own quirky rules) but it seems that person was imposing their own beliefs on you, and might not be suited for an DFW LEO career.
Post by: Russ McDonald on February 14, 2012, 09:16:50 AM
Post by: hillbillyhunting on February 14, 2012, 09:28:24 AM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 14, 2012, 09:45:24 AM
Had a gamie take down my game cams because he said they are not legal on nat. forest, anyone ever hear this?I doubt that there is a blanket prohibition against trail cams per se'. What I think is being enforced is an individuals interpretation of abandoned property laws.
Sounds like an agency LEO that needed to show you this law or statute, that if they could not should be cited for theft just like any of the rest of us would be.
See 261.10(e). I believe, right or wrong, that the USFS could use this law to prohibit trail cams
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev3_054750.pdf
Post by: Houndhunter on February 14, 2012, 10:12:33 AM
Post by: christopheri on February 14, 2012, 10:17:46 AM
Had a gamie take down my game cams because he said they are not legal on nat. forest, anyone ever hear this?I doubt that there is a blanket prohibition against trail cams per se'. What I think is being enforced is an individuals interpretation of abandoned property laws.
Sounds like an agency LEO that needed to show you this law or statute, that if they could not should be cited for theft just like any of the rest of us would be.
See 261.10(e). I believe, right or wrong, that the USFS could use this law to prohibit trail cams
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev3_054750.pdf
So your thinking that the Abandoning any personal property. clause might mean that you cant set a trail cam up? When Hunting I adbandon my camp every morning and sometime dont come back till way after dark. :dunno:
Ill take my chances I have three cams out in the GP now. :chuckle:
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 14, 2012, 10:36:19 AM
The USFS has acted in a similar fashion (correctly) using abandonend property laws against some rock climbers, boulderers, slack-liners and bums.
Post by: cwuwildcat on February 14, 2012, 10:37:46 AM
Post by: christopheri on February 14, 2012, 10:43:47 AM
A reasonable person would feel that your camp (and car) were not abandonend.
The USFS has acted in a similar fashion (correctly) using abandonend property laws against some rock climbers, boulderers, slack-liners and bums.
So a reasonable person would feel that I would be back for my trail cam. :chuckle: With that said if there is a law against haveing a trail cam in NF useing 261.10 (e) wouldnt hold up as an argument in a court of law. I wounder if there is something eles on the books?
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 14, 2012, 10:44:16 AM
Had a gamie take down my game cams because he said they are not legal on nat. forest, anyone ever hear this?I doubt that there is a blanket prohibition against trail cams per se'. What I think is being enforced is an individuals interpretation of abandoned property laws.
Sounds like an agency LEO that needed to show you this law or statute, that if they could not should be cited for theft just like any of the rest of us would be.
See 261.10(e). I believe, right or wrong, that the USFS could use this law to prohibit trail cams
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev3_054750.pdf
That link had some interesting crimes. Here's one for you.
"Publicly nude means nude in any place where a person may be
observed by another person. Any person is nude if the person has failed
to cover the rectal area, pubic area or genitals. A female person is
also nude if she has failed to cover both breasts below a point
immediately above the top of the areola. Each such covering must be
fully opaque. No person under the age of 10 years shall be considered
publicly nude."
So peeing in the woods seems to be a no no, as is skinny dipping at the hot springs, not to mention breast feeding if the mother's breasts aren't covered. But at least if you're under 10 you can still pee in the woods and skinny dip.
Yup these activities are definitely a threat to the national forests.
Here's another interesting rule.....
"(d) Causing public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm by making
unreasonably loud noise."
Now there isn't a definition of "unreasonably loud noise", But I'm guessing a rifle shot could be argued to be unreasonably loud and might annoy and alarm some people. Here's a loophole to outlaw hunting on NFS land or at least harass hunters.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 14, 2012, 10:53:52 AM
With that said if there is a law against haveing a trail cam in NF useing 261.10 (e) wouldnt hold up as an argument in a court of law.
I don't think either of us have a high powered enough Law Degree to say that, do you councilor?
Post by: christopheri on February 14, 2012, 10:58:37 AM
With that said if there is a law against haveing a trail cam in NF useing 261.10 (e) wouldnt hold up as an argument in a court of law.
I don't think either of us have a high powered enough Law Degree to say that, do you councilor?
Touche :chuckle:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 14, 2012, 11:04:50 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 14, 2012, 11:10:59 AM
provivder you should be for all that is hunting related, the more we choose sides and dont stick together, the more the libs will take away till there is nothing left. just saying. Its not like the camera follows animals around then shoot them for you lol.
It appears that provider isn't a hunter. I sent a PM requesting he address questions about his post and have received nothing. Any moderators on here? Maybe check into provider. Me thinks he's a plant.
Post by: Curly on February 14, 2012, 11:47:08 AM
provivder you should be for all that is hunting related, the more we choose sides and dont stick together, the more the libs will take away till there is nothing left. just saying. Its not like the camera follows animals around then shoot them for you lol.
It appears that provider isn't a hunter. I sent a PM requesting he address questions about his post and have received nothing. Any moderators on here? Maybe check into provider. Me thinks he's a plant.
I looked at his posts, he seems to be a hunter to me. I guess he just hates trailcams for some reason. :dunno:
Post by: pendoreilleadventures on February 14, 2012, 11:51:04 AM
1. Follow Washington State Fish and Wildlife Laws pertaining to Baiting(Cannot Bait Bears)
2. You must remove the bait once you're done hunting or if you remove Camera.
Same goes for Trail Cams and Treestand,Blinds, ect.
Sounds like you need to call that LEOs supervisor!!!!!! :dunno:
Post by: bearpaw on February 14, 2012, 11:56:48 AM
Had a gamie take down my game cams because he said they are not legal on nat. forest, anyone ever hear this?I doubt that there is a blanket prohibition against trail cams per se'. What I think is being enforced is an individuals interpretation of abandoned property laws.
Sounds like an agency LEO that needed to show you this law or statute, that if they could not should be cited for theft just like any of the rest of us would be.
See 261.10(e). I believe, right or wrong, that the USFS could use this law to prohibit trail cams
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev3_054750.pdf
Special Use Permits are required for organized group activities or for commercial activiites. Does not apply to individual non-commercial use.
Commercial use or activity means any use or activity on National
Forest System lands (a) where an entry or participation fee is charged,
or (b) where the primary purpose is the sale of a good or service, and
in either case, regardless of whether the use or activity is intended
to produce a profit.
Post by: bearpaw on February 14, 2012, 12:00:35 PM
I think he had an agenda, or didn't like you.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/specialuses/filming/
This clearly states for commercial purposes. I wonder if all those DIY and other hunting shows get permits for filming?
Maybe bait is considered a "prop"? If that was the case then it could very well be illegal according to this paragraph.
Commercial photography is defined as the use of photographic equipment to capture still images on film, digital format, and other similar technologies found on National Forest System lands that: takes place at a location where members of the public are generally not allowed or where additional administrative costs are likely; or uses models, sets, or props that are not part of the site’s natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities (FSH 2709.11 2008-2 (CH 40)).
Seems pretty petty though.
FYI - Outfitters, guides, tv shows, or guys making cd's to sell, must all have Special-Use permits on USFS lands.
Post by: Bob33 on February 14, 2012, 12:05:49 PM
He is a hunter. He has a difference of opinion. Thanks for the concern. End of story.provivder you should be for all that is hunting related, the more we choose sides and dont stick together, the more the libs will take away till there is nothing left. just saying. Its not like the camera follows animals around then shoot them for you lol.
It appears that provider isn't a hunter. I sent a PM requesting he address questions about his post and have received nothing. Any moderators on here? Maybe check into provider. Me thinks he's a plant.
I looked at his posts, he seems to be a hunter to me. I guess he just hates trailcams for some reason. :dunno:
Post by: lokidog on February 14, 2012, 12:27:28 PM
FYI - Outfitters, guides, tv shows, or guys making cd's to sell, must all have Special-Use permits on USFS lands.
No need to get defensive (if you were), was just wondering.... I would not have thought about needing one if I was filming my own hunt and then had people tell me I should sell the DVD. I can see in the case where something is being taken for commercial purposes, but having to have a permit for photos/video of a non-consumptive nature seems ridiculous as it is public land.
Post by: huntnnw on February 14, 2012, 11:58:53 PM
Post by: Outdoor Guardian on February 15, 2012, 06:55:45 AM
USFS can cite for state violations by using the federal venue as they have essentially incorporated our laws by reference (see 36 CFR 261.8a – State law violations occurring on Federal property……abbreviated title). Forest Service Law Enforcement Officers are also considered ex officio State Fish and Wildlife Officers and can address violations of state fish and wildlife regulations in a local venue. Generally, violations of state law are referred to our Officers.
Hope this helps. – OG
Post by: Archeryoutfitters on February 15, 2012, 07:03:10 AM
:dunno: just want to follow
Post by: Arteman on February 15, 2012, 09:27:51 AM
It is not illegal to leave trail cameras on public land (to include USFS, DFW, or DNR). Baiting for deer and elk is not illegal either.OG, can you bait Bear just for photo purposes? Last year I put out what I thought was good Deer feed in hopes of getting Deer pics, wetcob, Apple block, salt block, fresh apples, and some kind of Deer blend from the feed store. All I got was a couple doe, and a bunch of Bear. I liked getting a bunch of cool bear pics, and wondering if I could just bait them in for the photos. Maybe its already been said I can, sorry if I missed something.
USFS can cite for state violations by using the federal venue as they have essentially incorporated our laws by reference (see 36 CFR 261.8a – State law violations occurring on Federal property……abbreviated title). Forest Service Law Enforcement Officers are also considered ex officio State Fish and Wildlife Officers and can address violations of state fish and wildlife regulations in a local venue. Generally, violations of state law are referred to our Officers.
Hope this helps. – OG
Post by: bigbucks1985 on February 15, 2012, 03:00:37 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 15, 2012, 03:05:57 PM
Post by: h20hunter on February 15, 2012, 03:18:06 PM
I guess I would say that you can put all the feed out you want but when it comes time to hunt be very careful because you intent may not matter, only the intrepritation of the gamie.
Also...please keep in mind I'm not a gamie and only trying to offer some advice.
Post by: h20hunter on February 15, 2012, 03:21:10 PM
Post by: medic6 on February 15, 2012, 03:21:26 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 15, 2012, 03:32:14 PM
Regarding bait, cams, and bears. We had quiet the chat and never really got a good answer on bait and bear hunting. Other than the obvious fact that you can't bait for bears you are not in any violation for placing feed for purposes of photograpy when it comes to bears.
I would say it is illegal to attract bears with bait for any purpose
Quote
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of RCW 77.12.240, *77.36.020, 77.36.030, or any other provisions of law, it is unlawful to take, hunt, or attract black bear with the aid of bait.http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.15.245
Post by: h20hunter on February 15, 2012, 03:33:20 PM
I was baiting for blacktail, not bears.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 15, 2012, 03:38:15 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 15, 2012, 03:41:25 PM
Regarding bait, cams, and bears. We had quiet the chat and never really got a good answer on bait and bear hunting. Other than the obvious fact that you can't bait for bears you are not in any violation for placing feed for purposes of photograpy when it comes to bears.
I would say it is illegal to attract bears with bait for any purposeQuote(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of RCW 77.12.240, *77.36.020, 77.36.030, or any other provisions of law, it is unlawful to take, hunt, or attract black bear with the aid of bait.http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.15.245
You need to read further. Their definition of bait means it was put there in order to hunt bears:
Quote
(d) As used in this subsection, "bait" means a substance placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, scattered, or otherwise used for the purpose of attracting black bears to an area where one or more persons hunt or intend to hunt them.
Post by: bigbucks1985 on February 15, 2012, 03:43:36 PM
Any chance the blind you left out and failed to mention in your original post is what he has an issue with not the game cameras. :dunno:Why do you think the gamie biggest issue was the blind? He said something like you can only leave an unattended blind/tree stand out for 72 hours(i think that is what he said to me over the phone). I will be getting more info from him and i am pretty pissed that he went through all that effort of following my tracks for miles and taking my gear. :bash:
Post by: bigbucks1985 on February 15, 2012, 03:44:22 PM
Post by: h20hunter on February 15, 2012, 03:48:28 PM
Ususally I just say "what apples?". Those were brought in by the deer!
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 15, 2012, 03:48:37 PM
Regarding bait, cams, and bears. We had quiet the chat and never really got a good answer on bait and bear hunting. Other than the obvious fact that you can't bait for bears you are not in any violation for placing feed for purposes of photograpy when it comes to bears.
I would say it is illegal to attract bears with bait for any purposeQuote(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of RCW 77.12.240, *77.36.020, 77.36.030, or any other provisions of law, it is unlawful to take, hunt, or attract black bear with the aid of bait.http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.15.245
You need to read further. Their definition of bait means it was put there in order to hunt bears:Quote(d) As used in this subsection, "bait" means a substance placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, scattered, or otherwise used for the purpose of attracting black bears to an area where one or more persons hunt or intend to hunt them.
Gotcha, good job.
Post by: medic6 on February 15, 2012, 04:15:15 PM
Post by: jackelope on February 15, 2012, 08:18:11 PM
provivder you should be for all that is hunting related, the more we choose sides and dont stick together, the more the libs will take away till there is nothing left. just saying. Its not like the camera follows animals around then shoot them for you lol.
It appears that provider isn't a hunter. I sent a PM requesting he address questions about his post and have received nothing. Any moderators on here? Maybe check into provider. Me thinks he's a plant.
The guy basically says he doesn't like trail cams. That makes him a non-hunter and a plant? Come on, man...
I won't be checking into him. I think Bob33 summed it up pretty well. And I also think Provider has been a member on here a long time.
Post by: lokidog on February 15, 2012, 09:54:47 PM
I am surprised he went out of his way to find your stuff and pack it out, then call you to pick it up. Smart person would have just called and said come and remove it. Any chance he hands you a ticket as a big thank you for making him work so hard :yike:
Ticket for what? I think it has pretty well been established that it is not illegal to put trail cams out or bait in front of them. Maybe the blind I guess? I missed when the blind came into the picture as an issue.
Post by: Russ McDonald on February 17, 2012, 07:04:18 AM
Had a gamie take down my game cams because he said they are not legal on nat. forest, anyone ever hear this?What area did this take place at. I got my LEO looking into it and finding me an answer. He asked me where it happened. Drop me a pm is you want.
Post by: bigbucks1985 on February 18, 2012, 07:31:11 PM
Post by: asl20bball on February 18, 2012, 07:40:11 PM
Post by: bigbucks1985 on February 18, 2012, 07:46:44 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 18, 2012, 07:50:51 PM
It is not illegal to leave trail cameras on public land (to include USFS, DFW, or DNR). Baiting for deer and elk is not illegal either.
USFS can cite for state violations by using the federal venue as they have essentially incorporated our laws by reference (see 36 CFR 261.8a – State law violations occurring on Federal property……abbreviated title). Forest Service Law Enforcement Officers are also considered ex officio State Fish and Wildlife Officers and can address violations of state fish and wildlife regulations in a local venue. Generally, violations of state law are referred to our Officers.
Hope this helps. – OG
THANKYOU :tup:
Post by: summit creek on February 18, 2012, 10:52:58 PM
Had a gamie take down my game cams because he said they are not legal on nat. forest, anyone ever hear this?i call *censored* the warden is just being a *censored*
Post by: summit creek on February 18, 2012, 10:58:29 PM
Post by: windygorge on February 19, 2012, 08:05:09 AM
Post by: Wa hunter on February 19, 2012, 08:28:22 AM
I think he had an agenda, or didn't like you.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/specialuses/filming/
Maybe they don't want you to get wolf pictures?
It makes me think of all the "my trail cam got jacked" might be L.E.O. not just thief's
Post by: Curly on February 19, 2012, 03:38:21 PM
So i got my cam and blind back today and pretty much was given the run around about the rules of Baiting and trail cams on Nat. Forest. Just pisses me off because i had a good hunting area that took me a couple years to find and know hes says i cant scout it with my game cams. I will be meeting with his supervisor hopefully tommorow, very dissapointed in LEO right now i follow all the rules and go by the book and now i gotta find a new spot to hunt deer elk and bear.
I hope the meeting with the LEO's supervisor goes well and this guy gets straitened out. :tup:
Post by: CAMPMEAT on February 19, 2012, 04:11:24 PM
Post by: Curly on February 19, 2012, 04:17:43 PM
Post by: windygorge on February 19, 2012, 04:35:06 PM
Campmeat........... :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle::yeah: :chuckle:
Post by: huntnnw on February 19, 2012, 09:47:17 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 19, 2012, 09:49:15 PM
BS! tell his superior that you want your cam re hung and bait back or your filing a harassment suit against fish and game
Was it "fish and game" that did this, or was it the forest service? I understood it to be the forest service, but I could be wrong.
Post by: huntnnw on February 19, 2012, 10:36:26 PM
Post by: huntnnw on February 19, 2012, 10:39:54 PM
Just what ever you do, I do not want to have to pay you for the lawsuit you might decide to file :bash:. It is not right stealing all of our tax money that we give to the government :bash: :twocents:. Just FYI, we are real people who work for the government just like everybody else. In no way, shape, or form are we different then you guys. People make are job miserable talking bs when we are just trying to support are selves by having a job.
BTW, what ranger district was this incident on?
:dunno: are u defending the pile of s^%$ that did this? Its not even my deal and I am fuming hot over this..not a effing thing he did wrong, but yet we let this ignorant fool throw his ego, power trip, agenda or whatever else his issue is around on law abiding sportsmen? He needs to march that food block and cam back to where it was! or there should be a lawsuit. its harassment and theft :bash:
I am begining to think this official is a anti...harassing him a week earlier about target shooting :dunno:
Post by: huntnnw on February 19, 2012, 10:42:02 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 20, 2012, 05:16:29 AM
Just what ever you do, I do not want to have to pay you for the lawsuit you might decide to file :bash:. It is not right stealing all of our tax money that we give to the government :bash: :twocents:. Just FYI, we are real people who work for the government just like everybody else. In no way, shape, or form are we different then you guys. People make are job miserable talking bs when we are just trying to support are selves by having a job.
What are you talking about?
Any lawsuit is very unlikely to have damages awarded.
Post by: JLS on February 20, 2012, 03:21:09 PM
Just what ever you do, I do not want to have to pay you for the lawsuit you might decide to file :bash:. It is not right stealing all of our tax money that we give to the government :bash: :twocents:. Just FYI, we are real people who work for the government just like everybody else. In no way, shape, or form are we different then you guys. People make are job miserable talking bs when we are just trying to support are selves by having a job.
BTW, what ranger district was this incident on?
:dunno: are u defending the pile of s^%$ that did this? Its not even my deal and I am fuming hot over this..not a effing thing he did wrong, but yet we let this ignorant fool throw his ego, power trip, agenda or whatever else his issue is around on law abiding sportsmen? He needs to march that food block and cam back to where it was! or there should be a lawsuit. its harassment and theft :bash:
I am begining to think this official is a anti...harassing him a week earlier about target shooting :dunno:
Getting a little worked up without knowing the whole story aren't you?
Post by: huntnnw on February 20, 2012, 05:04:06 PM
Post by: JLS on February 20, 2012, 07:06:59 PM
I know more than u know about this ;)
10-4. How did the meeting with his supervisor go?
Post by: Russ McDonald on February 21, 2012, 06:45:27 AM
Post by: bigbucks1985 on February 21, 2012, 03:24:07 PM
Post by: sebek556 on February 21, 2012, 03:38:56 PM
Post by: h20hunter on February 21, 2012, 03:41:40 PM
Post by: bigbucks1985 on February 21, 2012, 08:10:57 PM
Post by: huntnnw on February 21, 2012, 08:16:03 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 21, 2012, 08:19:03 PM
I wonder if he's ever done this before?
Post by: bigbucks1985 on February 21, 2012, 08:28:59 PM
Post by: huntnnw on February 21, 2012, 08:29:47 PM
Thats the other thing Bobcat this is our tax dollars funding this clown...a law abiding citizen and hes out trudging thru snow and miles in the woods to haul out someones trail cam and food block! then calling him at work!! that he has his stuff!! wtf! Why dont you get out and bust people who are poaching game!
Post by: bobcat on February 21, 2012, 08:33:23 PM
Post by: huntnnw on February 21, 2012, 08:35:54 PM
I wouldn't want them wasting time and money on removing trail cameras even if there were a law against it! What a waste of the very limited wildlife law enforcement we do have. There are people out poaching animals on their winter range right now. Go after them!
:yeah: yup 0 harm in trail cam hanging. 1 gamie in a unit and he chooses to spend the better part of a day trudging thru the hills to retrieve a cam :yike:
Post by: bobcat on February 21, 2012, 08:38:35 PM
All I can think of is the guy must be an anti. It's just sad anti's can get hired to work for Fish & Wildlife.
Post by: huntnnw on February 21, 2012, 08:42:29 PM
Post by: WapitiChaser on February 21, 2012, 09:29:00 PM
What a crock of pellets. Gamie been watching too much Discovery Channel game warden shows. Probably thinks he's the Savior of Wildlife instead of a MANAGEMENT agent. Gotta wonder about the guys getting into the warden business these days....
The attitude that every hunter is a poacher/lawbreaker/ insert your least favorite personality type here is just bunk. :bdid:
:mgun:
Post by: Curly on February 22, 2012, 08:19:37 AM
Post by: billythekidrock on February 22, 2012, 04:11:20 PM
FYI - Outfitters, guides, tv shows, or guys making cd's to sell, must all have Special-Use permits on USFS lands.
No need to get defensive (if you were), was just wondering.... I would not have thought about needing one if I was filming my own hunt and then had people tell me I should sell the DVD. I can see in the case where something is being taken for commercial purposes, but having to have a permit for photos/video of a non-consumptive nature seems ridiculous as it is public land.
You only have to have the permit if you plan to sell a DVD of the hunt prior to the hunt. You can film for your own personal purposes without a permit and then, later, if you decide, you are still legal to sell a video. But after you market your first one, you will need a permit for anything after that. Trust me, I called about the permit and was told as long as I was not a production company I could film all the hunts I want today and sell them later.
Post by: bigbucks1985 on February 22, 2012, 04:21:33 PM
Post by: asl20bball on February 22, 2012, 08:52:29 PM
Post by: brackens on February 23, 2012, 02:27:42 PM
Post by: deerhunter_98520 on February 23, 2012, 05:04:10 PM
Post by: bigbucks1985 on February 26, 2012, 01:58:41 PM
Post by: huntnnw on February 26, 2012, 02:17:42 PM
Post by: memilanuk on February 26, 2012, 02:33:29 PM
Post by: Curly on February 26, 2012, 02:57:53 PM
Post by: huntnnw on February 26, 2012, 09:40:12 PM
Post by: bigbucks1985 on February 27, 2012, 07:17:29 PM
Post by: medic6 on February 27, 2012, 07:26:46 PM
Post by: Russ McDonald on February 28, 2012, 06:16:18 AM
You asked a honest question and by the sounds of it in the end got a honest answer. Glad everything turned out favorable for both parties. Now you need a new home for that blind....... :tup::yeah:
Post by: provider on February 28, 2012, 12:10:27 PM
Quote
First off i want to apologize to officer Erickson for this whole thread, he was fair with me and i made a mistake. I thought he had taken my trail camera and bait but yesterday when i met with him i found out he only had my blind that i left for a couple months. He thought i might have been bow hunting in 113 in the late season, which being a new bowhunter and hunter in general i did not realize the gmus and laws like i should have and hunted two days of late season in the closed gmu. So i was in the wrong and the game warden was just doing his job and was very fair with me. I just want to let you all know i am sorry for the whole deal and i am done hunting as it is a privilege and my negligence of the rules got many people involved and had negative affects on many people. Warden Erickson is a good warden just doing his job up there. Just couldn't let him get a bad rep for what was a misunderstanding that went out of proportion. This will be my last post i just had to man up and let the truth be known, i am sorry to all involved, i admit i made a mistake hopefully people may understand.
You should be ashamed.
And so should many of the others who posted on this thread. This guy shouldn't be the only one apologizing.
Post by: Curly on February 28, 2012, 05:52:19 PM
Good job apologizing though, bigbucks1985.
Post by: huntnnw on February 28, 2012, 09:36:08 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 28, 2012, 09:41:15 PM
Post by: huntnnw on February 28, 2012, 09:51:02 PM
Post by: Outdoor Guardian on February 29, 2012, 01:46:17 PM
First off i want to apologize to officer Erickson for this whole thread, he was fair with me and i made a mistake. I thought he had taken my trail camera and bait but yesterday when i met with him i found out he only had my blind that i left for a couple months. He thought i might have been bow hunting in 113 in the late season, which being a new bowhunter and hunter in general i did not realize the gmus and laws like i should have and hunted two days of late season in the closed gmu. So i was in the wrong and the game warden was just doing his job and was very fair with me. I just want to let you all know i am sorry for the whole deal and i am done hunting as it is a privilege and my negligence of the rules got many people involved and had negative affects on many people. Warden Erickson is a good warden just doing his job up there. Just couldn't let him get a bad rep for what was a misunderstanding that went out of proportion. This will be my last post i just had to man up and let the truth be known, i am sorry to all involved, i admit i made a mistake hopefully people may understand.
BigBucks - Thank you for coming forward, telling the truth, and apologizing to Officer Erickson. He is a good officer who was getting a bad rap for something he did not do. This happens all too often in our line of work. We appreciate those who admit their mistakes and take accountability for their actions. Thank you.
Although I don't think anyone else needs to apologize for the actions of one (after all, you were just responding to the "facts" as they were presented), folks should keep in mind that there are always two sides to every story..... and sometimes the story gets blown out of proportion to keep an interesting thread going (kind of like some hunting/fishing tales). We aren't perfect, and we sometimes make mistakes. But if you read allegations that one of our officers has done something wrong, please PM me and let me know so I can get the facts out there before the thread blows up. I can't possibly monitor all of the threads on here.... but I do check my PMs regularly, and try to respond within a day or two. We like to address these issues when they arise -- if our officer is in the wrong, we'll admit that and do what's right. And if our officer is getting a bad rap for something he or she didn't do, well, we want the truth to be known in those cases too, of course.
BigBucks, I hope you don't give up on hunting. Just read the regulation manual and let us know if you have any questions about any of the rules before you head out and you'll be fine. :tup: OG
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 29, 2012, 02:00:44 PM
Post by: Bob33 on February 29, 2012, 02:09:45 PM
That's disappointing, and seems to be far too common.
Post by: Russ McDonald on February 29, 2012, 03:36:06 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 29, 2012, 05:01:51 PM
There were an awful lot of members who jumped on the bandwagon of blaming a WDFW officer - calling him names, accusing him of things he did not do, threatening actions, and so forth.
That's disappointing, and seems to be far too common.
Forums are a lot like cars. People act ways in their cars like they'd never act in public normally. Forums too.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 29, 2012, 06:10:54 PM
The wildlife LEO I've come in contact with in the field have been nothing but professional, and in most cases, down right helpful. I've had assistance with boundaries, regs, even animal locations and concentrations. The wildlife LEOs of this state are not the enemy. They're they guardians of our resource. I believe we should assume the best of them and in return, will rarely be disappointed. Hopefully, this lesson will help many of us to work with them and respect what they do. I know it's a soapbox. I believe it and I'll practice it. I think most ethical and legal hunters should strive to do likewise and do.
Post by: Bob33 on February 29, 2012, 06:23:11 PM
Post by: provider on February 29, 2012, 09:30:46 PM
Quote
I'm a little confused why anyone else on the thread should be apologizing. We were told that the warden took down his cam and told him it was illegal to have one up on FS land. We were outraged that a warden would do that. I guess we should apologize about believing a fellow member's story......
Yes, you should apologize for believing this member’s story. He kept changing the particulars and there was sufficient doubt to the validity of his story and his credibility. It did not add up and some people even questioned it.
Not only was it poor judgment to just blindly accept a questionable source… but to side with him over an enforcement officer… demonstrates poor judgment too. And to then attack the LEO (and others), making false accusations like “anti”, call for his head, or worse, etc… is sad and that officer deserves an apology. This is not just aimed at you Curly, but to the many who used poor judgment. And I’m not seeking an apology… shoot, I’ve been called a lot worse, and those who count, know the truth about me.
I’ll put it this way. If I received bad information from someone, and thus jumped to false conclusions (albeit due to the wrong information I was given), and then I made false accusations towards an individual who ultimately would be proven to have done precisely the right thing?... I would absolutely apologize to the person I falsely accused, and it would be deserved.
Bigbucks did a lot of things wrong here… but at least he had the integrity to come forward and acknowledge his wrong doing. I’m also impressed with his self imposed sanctions to reassess hunting participation pending further introspection. I hope he learned a valuable lesson here and becomes a better hunter in the process? And I hope many others here learned a lesson too?
Post by: Bob33 on February 29, 2012, 10:08:04 PM
People on here were merely commenting on what was posted and I didn't see in the thread where anyone trashed the said officer.Nope, none at all. Not a single trash comment.
“i call *censored* the warden is just being a *censored*”
“I sure as hell wish we could snap their heads off at the exit hole and watch them run around like a dog sh!ttin' a peach pit.”
“are u defending the pile of s^%$ that did this? Its not even my deal and I am fuming hot over this..not a effing thing he did wrong, but yet we let this ignorant fool throw his ego, power trip, agenda or whatever else his issue is around on law abiding sportsmen?”
“it's ridiculous our tax dollars are being wasted on this type of "enforcement" when they should be out busting poachers. Unbelievable really. This guy is enforcing laws that don't even exist. “
“What a crock of pellets. Gamie been watching too much Discovery Channel game warden shows. Probably thinks he's the Savior of Wildlife instead of a MANAGEMENT agent. Gotta wonder about the guys getting into the warden business these days....”
Post by: huntnnw on February 29, 2012, 10:09:26 PM
Post by: huntnnw on February 29, 2012, 10:10:23 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 29, 2012, 10:19:42 PM
“it's ridiculous our tax dollars are being wasted on this type of "enforcement" when they should be out busting poachers. Unbelievable really. This guy is enforcing laws that don't even exist. “
I still stand by that comment and don't feel I need to apologize to anyone. Apparently the game warden was, in fact, "busting poachers" (a person hunting deer in a closed area). And as it turns out, he didn't remove the trail camera at all, and that's what we were led to believe from the story given in the beginning of this thread. That's what my statement was based on and I don't see anything wrong with it.
It's actually kind of ridiculous that we don't just let this thread die, rather than demanding apologies. :rolleyes:
(more bad judgement on my part, I guess) :sry:
Post by: Knocker of rocks on March 01, 2012, 05:35:22 AM
People on here were merely commenting on what was posted and I didn't see in the thread where anyone trashed the said officer.Nope, none at all. Not a single trash comment.
“i call *censored* the warden is just being a *censored*”
“I sure as hell wish we could snap their heads off at the exit hole and watch them run around like a dog sh!ttin' a peach pit.”
“are u defending the pile of s^%$ that did this? Its not even my deal and I am fuming hot over this..not a effing thing he did wrong, but yet we let this ignorant fool throw his ego, power trip, agenda or whatever else his issue is around on law abiding sportsmen?”
“it's ridiculous our tax dollars are being wasted on this type of "enforcement" when they should be out busting poachers. Unbelievable really. This guy is enforcing laws that don't even exist. “
“What a crock of pellets. Gamie been watching too much Discovery Channel game warden shows. Probably thinks he's the Savior of Wildlife instead of a MANAGEMENT agent. Gotta wonder about the guys getting into the warden business these days....”
:yeah:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 01, 2012, 09:17:47 AM
Yes, you should apologize for believing this member’s story. He kept changing the particulars and there was sufficient doubt to the validity of his story and his credibility. It did not add up and some people even questioned it.
I'll admit that in this case I'm chagrined I gave the OP more credit than he was due obviously. I'm usually more careful than that.
Not only was it poor judgment to just blindly accept a questionable source… but to side with him over an enforcement officer… demonstrates poor judgment too.
But that doesn't mean that an LEO's word on it's own is any more truthful than the next guy. LEO's are human and subject to the same foibles as the rest of us. They make honest mistakes. They make dumb mistakes. They lie, cheat, drink, do drugs, commit crime, and even murder, probably at the same rate as the rest of us. When it comes to LEO's or other humans in general, I'm with Ronald Reagan, especially on the internet. "Trust, but verify".