Actually, reading the digest, using common sense, and not trying to find/work a "loophole" will keep you plenty safe.

ORIGINAL: spoonchucker

Actually, reading the digest, using common sense, and not trying to find/work a "loophole" will keep you plenty safe.

That simply is not true. Relying on the Digest and common sense could result in numerous violations of various laws. Common sense would lead one to believe that if it is legal to hunt deer and bear by posting, still hunting or driving,it would also be legal to hunt turkeys using those methods,but it isn't.And, as you pointed out the Digest does not state that it is illegal to use the methods in the fall. Since it is legal to shoot pheasants,grouse and water fowl , flushed by a dog ,common sense would indicate it should be legal to shoot turkeys flushed by dogs,but it isn't.

Common sense would indicate that if it is legal to have a loaded gun in a boat when the motor is off, it should be legal to have a loaded gun on an ATV when the motor is off. The same reasoning should apply to a car, truck or piece of farm equipment parked on private property ,but it doesn't work that way.

Common sense would dictate following the letter of the law and not leave any tangible property on SGL's.
 
Unless of course that tangible property is a trail camera.
 
Maybe.

ORIGINAL: Esox_Hunter

Common sense would be to compile a list of the regulations which you feel are too vague or unclear and either email or call the PGC and ask them specifically how they will apply the regs in question.  Document their response and carry it with you. 

It is not all that wise to seek legal advice or interpretations of the law online.  Contacting those who enforce and apply the laws in everyday life would make more sense to me.

 
RSB does enforce and apply the laws in everyday life and that is why these questions are being asked on a forum that he frequents and responds to.
 
What has arisen, however, is the fact that some of these laws are very open to interpretation and may or may not be applied based on the individual WCO.

Criminal, environmental, fish and boat, ect. laws are also very much open to interpretation.  That is nothing new.  It is also nothing new that officers in all aspects of law enforcement must exercise discretion while enforcing these laws.
 
Call PGC headquarters if you are confused about the application of a particular regulation.  That will be a more reliable answer than you will find here on the net, that is all I am saying. 
 
 

Well, call your regional office the and ask them their position on using cams on game lands.  Again, I am just saying you should call those who enforce and apply the regulations rather than make speculations on your own.  I would be willing to bet that this topic has been discussed many times over in the PGC offices and that they would be willing to share their stance with you.  If you were genuinely interested in this topic, that is the way to approach it.       

"And, as you pointed out the Digest does not state that it is illegal to use the methods in the fall.

AND as I pointed out, it doesn't state that in the Game & wildlife code which is what the PGC enforces either.

DarDys,

The law states "tangible property"> There is an Exception IN the law for stands, but not cameras. Now common sense ( and reading the law ) might tell you not to place one, and thus no worries for you. Common sense might tell another person that since there is an an exception for stands, that might hold true forv another hunting related item such as a trail cam. Since the RD stated that by policy, they allow the use of trail cams, no worries for him either.

I don't know why an exception for trail cams is not written into the law. Perhaps because it has never been an issue, so they never ecognized a need to do so. Perhaps they feel there is a potential for abuse/misuse. Like some one using it, or placing it in a manner to be used for puposes other than monitoring game. They would then have the letter of the law to fall back on. If not to cite the indidual, to at least remove the cam.

Ever set a minnow trap? Ever pull it out, and find more than 50 minnows in it? At that point, under the black & white interpretation of the law that you prefer. You are in violation of the possesion limits. Do you think any WCO would, or should cite you for it?

Once again follow the law as it's written in the digest. Use common sense. Don't push the limits of anything you're unsure of, or the tolerance of LE, and you'll be fine.

Common sense might tell another person that since there is an an exception for stands, that might hold true forv another hunting related item such as a trail cam

The key word here is MIGHT . Director says ok to use cams, WCO says written law says no. Ask 10 different PGC employees and you'll get 10 different answers. Now were does common sense come into play here ?

Drop ole Jerry a line and see what kinda answer he gives ya. pgccomments@state.pa.us

ORIGINAL: spoonchucker

"And, as you pointed out the Digest does not state that it is illegal to use the methods in the fall.

AND as I pointed out, it doesn't state that in the Game & wildlife code which is what the PGC enforces either.

DarDys,

The law states "tangible property"> There is an Exception IN the law for stands, but not cameras. Now common sense ( and reading the law ) might tell you not to place one, and thus no worries for you. Common sense might tell another person that since there is an an exception for stands, that might hold true forv another hunting related item such as a trail cam. Since the RD stated that by policy, they allow the use of trail cams, no worries for him either.

I don't know why an exception for trail cams is not written into the law. Perhaps because it has never been an issue, so they never ecognized a need to do so. Perhaps they feel there is a potential for abuse/misuse. Like some one using it, or placing it in a manner to be used for puposes other than monitoring game. They would then have the letter of the law to fall back on. If not to cite the indidual, to at least remove the cam.

Ever set a minnow trap? Ever pull it out, and find more than 50 minnows in it? At that point, under the black & white interpretation of the law that you prefer. You are in violation of the possesion limits. Do you think any WCO would, or should cite you for it?

Once again follow the law as it's written in the digest. Use common sense. Don't push the limits of anything you're unsure of, or the tolerance of LE, and you'll be fine.

 
They obviously saw a need to write in the exception for stands.  Would it not have been "common sense" during the kicking-the-idea-around phase to have asked "what the heck else would it make sense to exempt" and add that to the exception rather than be so myopic to only think of stands?
 
I fly fish.  I have no idea what a minnow trap is or how one would go about using one.

"They obviously saw a need to write in the exception for stands. Would it not have been "common sense" during the kicking-the-idea-around phase to have asked "what the heck else would it make sense to exempt" and add that to the exception rather than be so myopic to only think of stands?'

Ever consider that at the time they made the exception for stands, trail cams were not available, or not common place?

Also as I pointed out there may have been a reason that they preferred to use policy, rather than a written exception as a guide concerning the use of trail cams.

That would be true. If they really WERE concerned about it/them. For a couple of them though, their only interest is in having something to complain about, and an excuse to pick apart every word RSB posts here.

Which as you know --- is the reason those same 4-5 guys post here in the hunting section anyhow... to complain about something and put down the PGC and any employees or supporters...

If they did not do that we would not hear from them 90% on the time...

although Dars did just post about a balloon trip he recently took where they landed on some guys property..
would that be considered trespassing under the "black & white" letter of the law

""Ever consider that at the time they made the exception for stands, trail cams were not available, or not common place?""

There were plenty of common place trail cams last year in usage when they re-addressed the issue of treestands and made it only legal for them to be erected on game lands for specific time period.

Like I said they may prefer to use policy instead of law to adress their use. Here's another thought as to why. Maybe theyu're thinking "We really don't have a problem with their use, so it will be policy not to cite. BUT if we make a written exception published in the digest, their use may become too prolific. Resulting in coflicts between hunters. Such as one hunter claiming an area as his because he had his trail cam there for X number of weeks. I believe they have arleady experienced such conflict in regard to the placement of stands. Perhaps they want to avoid that issue as much as possible when it comes to trail cams.

Hit a raw nerve there Spoon-
   Set up a stand for my youngest kid once on pvt property bout a month before the bow season. Week into the season somebody set up bout 40 feet away and just a bit 'down trail' toward where they came from.. Went nuts but couldnt do much
 cept when I had ta go potty. Usta practically hafta hobble cross that property ta get there sometimes.