you are getting only one side of the story and basing your opinions on that

It not my opinion it's fact. 90%, ya right and acording to the annual sumary report only 6 complaints were filed. Then there are the ones that get a "get of of jail free" card no matter if they violate game codes or not.

I try to obey the law to the best of my knowage. That's why I ask questions. I'm no better than anyone else and don't kiss ***. There is a solution to your depression, DONT READ MY POST !!

ORIGINAL: RSB

ORIGINAL: Outdoor Adventures

Very well put DarDys. I am also waiting for a yes or no answer,plain and simple.Could it be the ones that make up or enforce these laws don't know ?

Most of us have always allowed hunters some leeway on some things though, But now that it has been brought to the forefront and some people are demanding a yes or no answer. The legal answer is already very clear. It is illegal to leave a trail camera on game lands.   
 
§ 135.41. State game lands.
a)      Restrictions limited. The following exceptions to §  135.2 (relating to unlawful actions) pertain to lands and waters designated as State game lands:
 
(c)   Additional prohibitions. In addition to the prohibitions contained in the act pertaining to State game lands and §  135.2, except with the written permission of the Director, it is unlawful to:
 
(11)    Construct, place, maintain, occupy, use, leave or abandon any structures or other tangible property, except that portable hunting blinds or stands may be used subject to the following restrictions:
 
 
Tangible property in law is, literally, anything which can be touched, and includes both real property and personal property (or moveable property), and stands in distinction to intangible property.
In [color=#0000ff size=3]English law and some [color=#0000ff size=3]Commonwealth legal systems, items of tangible property are referred to as choses in possession (or a chose in possession in the singular).
However, some property, despite being physical in nature, is classified in many legal systems as intangible property rather than tangible property because the rights associated with the physical item are of far greater significance than the physical properties. Principally, these are documentary intangibles. For example, a [color=#0000ff size=3]promissory note is a piece of paper that can be touched, but the real significance is not the physical paper, but the legal rights which the paper confers, and hence the promissory note is defined by the legal debt rather than the physical attributes.
Source for definition:  [color=#800080 size=3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangible_property
 
Therefore based on the law and definition of Tangible Property and since you insist on a yes or no answer the law really is and always was already clear. You CAN NOT legally leave tangible property on game lands.
 
There is everyone happier now?
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

 
Thank you for the answer, not so much for the condesending attitude.
 
People are asking because they want to know.  They do not work with the law everyday and would just like a simple, straight forward answer that they can understand without interpretation or needing to call someone to have it interpretted for them.
 
Why did you find it necessary to cop an attitude rather than just answer a question?

Now here is a question.

If one hunts on SGL and helps police the areas by picking up litter which many do, there should be no charges for taking game cameras as they are condidered litter, yes?

Seems the PGC came out with a response and somewhat cleared up the theft rumor.

Although it seems RSB was wrong the PGC does allow game cams on gamelands and are not illegal.



In response to a previous thread, I would like to provide the following facts:

On 6/15 our two Food and Cover Corps crew members observed two trail cameras placed in the area of a herbaceous opening on State Game Lands 26 – one mounted on fencing that was erected to protect a food-producing tree and the other mounted on a live cherry tree. A screw, protruding from the tree, held the second camera in position. They handled the camera to the extent that they could determine the degree of damage to the tree. They determined that the screw was imbedded into the tree (see photo) but the damage was minor, and left the camera in place. On 6/16 they reported this matter to the Southcentral Region Law Enforcement Supervisor.

The employees undoubtedly knew the camera was taking pictures of them and did not attempt to hide the fact they were checking the camera setup, and how one could make the irresponsible allegations of attempted theft based on the images from this camera is baffling. Had our employees wanted to remove this camera from the tree (and they clearly have the authority to inspect and alleviate damage to PGC property) they would have done so in a matter of seconds with a bolt cutter that is standard equipment on Food & Cover crew trucks. They determined that the level of damage they observed did not warrant accidentally damaging the camera during the removal process.

The PGC permits the use of trail cams on game lands as a hunting/scouting tool, but their use may not result in damage to vegetation or property, or impede our ability to perform maintenance and management activities.

While the Commission, as a Commonwealth agency, is often subject to similar type accusations, it should be noted that our individual employees possess the same rights and protections as all citizens, including the right to make a personal decision to seek legal redress if the individuals feel they have been wronged. The Commission respects the personal decisions made by our hardworking, dedicated employees.

Rob Criswell, Director
Southcentral Region
Pennsylvania Game Commission

NO! He was asked if it was illegal according to "the letter of the law". The PGC might very well ( as a matter of policy ) permit it. But as the law/regulation is written, it is still technically illegal.

Yinz didn't ask him what the policy was. You asked what the law/regulation stated.

Alright,

Is it legal for you to miss a shot, and have your round hit a tree? Then is it legal to fire 10-15 rounds into a tree? Both by the letter of the law might cause damage to the tree

It's illegal to toss your candy wrapper on the ground. Will you be cited if you fail to find, and recover a shot arrow. Both by the letter of the law could be condered littering and illegal.

It is illegal to leave tangible property ( trail cams ARE tangible property ) unattended on PGC gamelands. The PGC as a matter of policy excempts them in their enforcement.

Once again. RSB was asked ( pressed to respond on ) what the regulation ( letter of the law ) was. Not what the policy was. Largely because a few hear feel compelled to pick apart everything he writes, or the PGC does. I don't know why he bothers to answer any of the questions asked by certain posters here. As it's obvious they already have it in their mind not to acceopt the answer.

Then once again, you should go to the people that WRITE the laws for the answer.

Spoon, in this instance i am in no way trying to demonize rsb for answering the question. Here is what i am saying...

A couple of days ago these were rsb's reponses..

"There is currently no set policy concerning cameras on game lands and we know a lot of people do use them on game lands."

"But, to answer the question concerning cameras on game lands. At the present time there is no regulation that specifically prohibits or allows them. In theory though any agent of the landowner can remove anything not natural they find on the game lands unless there is a policy that allows there use, such as the time period in which tree stands can be left on the game lands. Perhaps there will be a policy and perhaps even a regulation on the use of trail cameras on game lands in the future."

And today it went to this which kinda goes along with or kinda contracdicts the pgc issued satement depending on how you look at it!:

"No, it is clearly illegal to leave tangible property on game lands, according to the law.

I did not say anyone would be charged for doing so but the law certainly allows that they could be, though I doubt a Court would convict them and make them pay a fine for it."

Now seeing as It at least appears he didnt know, at the very least initially... The person who posted about his cams didnt know. And not one other user here knew...

I think its time a policy was set to address it specifically, and not just a pat on the head and "permission" given as long as they so decide unofficially.

Also as to your parellell, These cams are very popular and are put out DELIBERATELY and with purpose, and i dont believe can be compared in any way at all to accidentally shooting a tree when shooting at a deer, which is obviously unintentional and 100% unavoidable if hunting is to be done at all.

It would be very easy to address this in a clear concise manner for future. I think it would be better for all involved. If its not legal by the letter of the law as rsb is stating now, it should be enforced.. and not....well its illegal...but..oh what the hey...we'll let you guys for now semiofficially. lol.

.and if they want to allow it as they probably should....change the regulation.

Whenever policy and the written law are different there can and will be problems.

Unclear laws and those written in such a way that they are open to interpetation is the primary reason we have so many lawyers in this nation. Surely we don't want to deprive all our countries attorneys the opportunity to eak out a living do we?

ORIGINAL: spoonchucker

Alright,

Is it legal for you to miss a shot, and have your round hit a tree? Then is it legal to fire 10-15 rounds into a tree? Both by the letter of the law might cause damage to the tree

It's illegal to toss your candy wrapper on the ground. Will you be cited if you fail to find, and recover a shot arrow. Both by the letter of the law could be condered littering and illegal.

It is illegal to leave tangible property ( trail cams ARE tangible property ) unattended on PGC gamelands. The PGC as a matter of policy excempts them in their enforcement.

Once again. RSB was asked ( pressed to respond on ) what the regulation ( letter of the law ) was. Not what the policy was. Largely because a few hear feel compelled to pick apart everything he writes, or the PGC does. I don't know why he bothers to answer any of the questions asked by certain posters here. As it's obvious they already have it in their mind not to acceopt the answer.

A missed shot hitting a tree is just that and not illegal.
10-15 rounds pumped into a tree is random shooting and quite illegal..


If you can't find the candy wrapper or arrow you have no proof that littering even occuered.


I totally accepted his first answer that they were illegal.
But a higher up tells me they are legal.

They also have the discretion to only give a warning not all violations are turned into citations.

ORIGINAL: DarDys

"Being a law enforcement officer requires a certain level of commonsense and from some of the posts on this subject it is very clear that some of you simply don’t have what it takes to use that required level of commonsense.
 R.S. Bodenhorn"

Once again, you cop an attitude.  Why?

There is obviously an issue here.  You say that by the letter of the law, they are not permitted.  Agreed from the evidence that you posted.  However, according to someone a wee bit higher in the organization, they are legal.  Which is it then?  The law or the policy?

Policy and the law should not be different.  (Sorry Spoon, legislating from the bench is just a bad idea.)  By them being different, it leaves this issue open for interpretation -- the hunter's interpretation, the WCO's interpretation (which could be different based on WCO), the Director's interpretation, and the Magistrate's interpretation (which, again, could be different based on the Magistrate).  In other words, guess which it is today and hope you are not wrong. 

Commonsense has nothing to do with it. 

In fact, if commonsense were involved, the policy and the law would be identical, thereby removing any doubt.

If any of us lack a level of anything required to be a WCO it is that of a condesending attitude toward our customers (employers, really), a distain for doing an important portion of our job (answering questions put forth by the hunting public), and a level of arrogance that is unwarrented.  At least if we use your responses as a measure of what is needed ot be a WCO. 

Commonsense should tell you that.

 
I don’t have an attitude with anyone who isn’t already using and displaying his or her own negative attitude. But, I’ve been downtown and all the way around the block enough times to know an attitude when it comes my way. I’ve also been doing my job long enough to know how to do it. When someone who has never done the job at all starts trying to tell me how I, or any other Officer, should be doing their job I will make one attempt to give them the facts as to why it is done the way it was. If they still want to argue about the way it should be done they generally aren’t going to see me sending anything positive their direction at least as long as they continue projecting their negative attitude in the discussion.
 
This is one of those cases where the longer people push at the topic the more likely hunters are to see more restriction they aren’t going to like. People now just need to leave it alone and let the issue settle down or it is only going to get worse for hunters using cameras on game lands instead of better.
 
As far as my commonsense comments go, if that shoe fits wear it, if it doesn’t then leave it alone because it wasn’t yours to wear in the first place.
 
If you see that as an attitude then maybe you need to look a lot deeper toward your own attitude and just what direction it really points.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

  Marty,

In the past when I had some issues with WCO s I called the regional office & their response was "those guys don't know what they are talking about". "Fight it & you will win". When I'd show up in front ov the J.P. & tell him to just make a phone call to the Regional office the WCO s would say "those people working there don't know anything"

 Never lost a case yet

 The Bobwhites sound great out back this yr. First time I've herd 'em in over 10 yrs. when I  use to raised some.

crappy

Where did anyone say the cameras were legal? The fact is no one said that trail cameras are legal because they aren’t. Director Criswell said they are permitted, not that they are legal.

The lawyers could sure have fun with that one.

"I swear, Pgc could muff up an anvil with a rubber mallet."
 
True dat!