"BTW - any of you guys fish the Salmon River? got a place up there and get up every other week year round to fish and hunt."

No, but wouldnt mind something like that one of these days. Seems like would be a really good time. I fish a good bit, mostly for flathead catfish... Some for musky too. I like the big mean stuff.

While anti-hunters may pose a viable threat to the future of hunting in urban areas they have been relatively ineffective in stopping hunting nationwide. In PA, their only major success was stopping live pigeon shoots which really have little to do with hunting. They were also successful in supporting the herd reduction plan in PA, ,but since the plan was proposed by the PGC, if their support of the PGC was anti-hunting then the PGC plan was also anti-hunting.

ORIGINAL: RSB

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

 
Let's take a look at commonsense.
 
My take on the common sense of the trail cam situation as defined by you -- they are illegal, so commonsense tells me not to use one on SLG and I won't face the possibility of being cited for doing so, irrespective of the outcome.
 
Your view of commonsense. they are illegal to use, but go ahead and use one and bet on whether the WCO will decide that day whether to enforce the letter of the law or the policy and if they decide that day to go with the letter of the law, take your chances in court.
 
Now which approach would be commonsense and which one is nonsense?
 

ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout

Since I would be getting cited by my local WCO or deputy I would do what they tell me they want me to do...

so common sense tells me to do what the local WCO tells me I can and can not do...

I don't know any WCO that basically changes his opinions from day to day... IF you do you should report them...

I could possibly see one changing his position considering how the person they are talking to reacts but again common sense tells me if they (hunter) are acting rude then they may be asking for trouble and a possible more strict interpretation of the law...

I had a guy this week-end "beetching" because the local PGC WCO "busted" him for a fishing violation... wanted to know if he could do that... it was funny how it was all the WCO's fault and not his

my first reaction was to laugh and tell him.. "He did, didn't he? ... and yes they can do it"..

Once again Doc, you show your extreme short sightedness.  Most hunters have NO interaction with a WCO (I have talked to a grand total of two in 40 years of hunting and one of those was in the parking lot of a Sheetz), let alone a relationship like you do.  Chances are the only time they would have an interaction would be if the letter of the law were followed and they got cited.  In other words, commonsense means stay within the letter and you will be fine.  Nonsense says take your chances.

As for an LEO not changing their mind on policy or discretionary items, again, short sightedness on your part.  Ever hear of a LEO writing a speeding ticket one day, but on another day it becomes only a warning, even though the speed was the same?  (For the record, I have never been cited for anything, game code or otherwise except for a single parking ticket in 1987, nor have I ever even been pulled over.  Now perhaps you understand why I don't appreciate being termed a thug, goon, or presumed guilty until proven innocent by WCo's such as RSB.)  Several members of the bass clubs I used to be associated with were state troopers and six, count them six, of my wife's relatives are/were as well.  The speed above the limit that got a ticket often depended on how they slept the night before.

And what happens when your local WCO is on vacation and someone from another district fills in, who has a different take on policy, is who decides that it was a violation of the letter of the law and writes the citation?  Don't think that happens, ask those that regularly boated/fished Raystown who were in tune with the local WCO's policy stances, but got to pay some hefty fines when the Canoe Creek WCO was covering for vacation.  You see there was a lot of night fishing on Raystown and although it is against the letter of the law, it was the policy of the local WCO to allow anglers to cover half of their rear white light with electrical tape so that it did not blind the person fishing from the back of the boat.  Canoe Creek closes at dusk, so there was little or no night fishing.  When the Canoe Creek WCO subbed for the Raystown one, he cited everyone that adhered to the Raystown WCO's rear light policy because as the law was written and as he enforced it on "his" lake, it was a violation.

That's the problem with policy vs. the law.  Policy is open for interpretation, the law, unless it is written poorly is not.  In this case the law could be very clear -- either trail cams are permitted on SGL's or they are not permitted.

Just because your cited for something doesn't mean your guilty of it.
That's why we have a justice system.
Mike

What if you are going back to your car after a morning hunt, hit the road and then shoot at a deer walking across the field you just came thru on your way to the car? Always wanted to know that one. Oh, I better not ask, don't want a smart **** answer to a question.Just..never mind....Forget I brought it up.....WF

You are not allowed to stop your vehicle -- get out and shoot without traveling 25 yards... other than that there is no "set" distance from a road/vehicle... I can sit 10 feet from my "parked" truck and hunt legally...

In WF's example he would be doing nothing illegal as long as he was not ON THE ROAD or shooting across the road into the field...

ORIGINAL: DarDys

ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout

Since I would be getting cited by my local WCO or deputy I would do what they tell me they want me to do...

so common sense tells me to do what the local WCO tells me I can and can not do...

I don't know any WCO that basically changes his opinions from day to day... IF you do you should report them...

I could possibly see one changing his position considering how the person they are talking to reacts but again common sense tells me if they (hunter) are acting rude then they may be asking for trouble and a possible more strict interpretation of the law...

I had a guy this week-end "beetching" because the local PGC WCO "busted" him for a fishing violation... wanted to know if he could do that... it was funny how it was all the WCO's fault and not his

my first reaction was to laugh and tell him.. "He did, didn't he? ... and yes they can do it"..

Once again Doc, you show your extreme short sightedness.  Most hunters have NO interaction with a WCO (I have talked to a grand total of two in 40 years of hunting and one of those was in the parking lot of a Sheetz), let alone a relationship like you do.  Chances are the only time they would have an interaction would be if the letter of the law were followed and they got cited.  In other words, commonsense means stay within the letter and you will be fine.  Nonsense says take your chances.

As for an LEO not changing their mind on policy or discretionary items, again, short sightedness on your part.  Ever hear of a LEO writing a speeding ticket one day, but on another day it becomes only a warning, even though the speed was the same?  (For the record, I have never been cited for anything, game code or otherwise except for a single parking ticket in 1987, nor have I ever even been pulled over.  Now perhaps you understand why I don't appreciate being termed a thug, goon, or presumed guilty until proven innocent by WCo's such as RSB.)  Several members of the bass clubs I used to be associated with were state troopers and six, count them six, of my wife's relatives are/were as well.  The speed above the limit that got a ticket often depended on how they slept the night before.

And what happens when your local WCO is on vacation and someone from another district fills in, who has a different take on policy, is who decides that it was a violation of the letter of the law and writes the citation?  Don't think that happens, ask those that regularly boated/fished Raystown who were in tune with the local WCO's policy stances, but got to pay some hefty fines when the Canoe Creek WCO was covering for vacation.  You see there was a lot of night fishing on Raystown and although it is against the letter of the law, it was the policy of the local WCO to allow anglers to cover half of their rear white light with electrical tape so that it did not blind the person fishing from the back of the boat.  Canoe Creek closes at dusk, so there was little or no night fishing.  When the Canoe Creek WCO subbed for the Raystown one, he cited everyone that adhered to the Raystown WCO's rear light policy because as the law was written and as he enforced it on "his" lake, it was a violation.

That's the problem with policy vs. the law.  Policy is open for interpretation, the law, unless it is written poorly is not.  In this case the law could be very clear -- either trail cams are permitted on SGL's or they are not permitted.

 
In the case of trail cameras, since they meet the description of tangible property, the law is already very clear. It is unlawful to leave tangible property on game lands.
 
I have never heard of anyone being cited for leaving a trail camera on game lands, and probably never will, but the law is still very clear on them being illegal.
 
You are correct though that sometimes one person will get a warning for something someone else will get cited for. A lot of times the person being investigated makes that decision for the officer though.
 
I frequently have situations where I am initially undecided on whether to warn or cite. In those cases my policy is to always lean toward compassion and the warning unless the person proves to me, through their comments, that they knew they were in violation and only violated because they expected to just get a warning. Warnings are for minor infractions where the person made a mistake, not for intentional or major violations. The other thing that makes it easy for me to make the decision toward a citation instead of a warning is when they display an attitude that I was wrong or being a jerk for even stopping or questioning them. If they fail the attitude test before I have made my decision on a warning or citation then they are just making my decision a lot easier. After over 34 years of wildlife enforcement I have gotten pretty good at reading a person’s attitude, sometimes I can even do it from just their body language before they even say a word.    
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: deerfly

But the question remains, is walking 25 yds. from your vehicle sufficient to prevent a citation for road hunting?

 
The answer to your question depends on some other factors.
 
It is always illegal to use a motor vehicle for the intended purpose of locating and attempting to harvest game. An example of that would be the person the Officer has been following or observed on several roads driving slowly watching out the window. Perhaps pulling over to the wrong side of the road and driving along where they look down over an embankment or stopping to stick a gun out the window to scope game. Then when they finally see legal game even if they get out and walk 25 yards off the road they might still be cited if the WCO feels comfortable with the amount of evidence and/or testimony they can present to the court.
 
If a person is just traveling from one spot to another though, perhaps on their way home or to another hunting spot and they sight game they can legally park, walk 25 yards off of the roadway and legally take or attempt to take the game.
 
There are a couple of good court opinions that pretty well set down what the courts will view as road hunting and the WCOs will pretty much be guided by those court opinions on when to cite a person for using a motor vehicle to hunt. Of course anytime a person shoots from the vehicle or the roadway after alighting from a motor vehicle it is a clear violation.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

Thanks for the answer.I have wondered what the time period for "alighting from the vehicle" was. Years back, it was probably all day in my area but WCO relations seems to have gotten much better in the last 10 years or so. I have no problem giving anyone credit for doing a good job.....WF

ORIGINAL: Outdoor Adventures

ORIGINAL: RSB

ORIGINAL: deerfly

But the question remains, is walking 25 yds. from your vehicle sufficient to prevent a citation for road hunting?

The answer to your question depends on some other factors.
 
It is always illegal to use a motor vehicle for the intended purpose of locating and attempting to harvest game. An example of that would be the person the Officer has been following or observed on several roads driving slowly watching out the window. Perhaps pulling over to the wrong side of the road and driving along where they look down over an embankment or stopping to stick a gun out the window to scope game. Then when they finally see legal game even if they get out and walk 25 yards off the road they might still be cited if the WCO feels comfortable with the amount of evidence and/or testimony they can present to the court.
 
If a person is just traveling from one spot to another though, perhaps on their way home or to another hunting spot and they sight game they can legally park, walk 25 yards off of the roadway and legally take or attempt to take the game.
 
There are a couple of good court opinions that pretty well set down what the courts will view as road hunting and the WCOs will pretty much be guided by those court opinions on when to cite a person for using a motor vehicle to hunt. Of course anytime a person shoots from the vehicle or the roadway after alighting from a motor vehicle it is a clear violation.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

Understood but you failed to mention the use of a vehicle as a blind for those with disabilities. How far must a person then pull off the road to discharge their firearm ? Is the berm of the road far enough ? What is the set distance ?

 
There is no set distance off of the road for someone with a permit to use a motor vehicle as a blind. As long as they are safely off the traveled portion of the roadway as defined in the vehicle code they would be legal to hunt. But, most people don’t understand the limitations of what the permit entitles the holder to do and I suspect that is what leads to your question.
 
The permit allows the holder to drive out to the location they are going to hunt, park their vehicle and then once they are parked and the engine is shut off they can load their firearm and sit in the vehicle and wait for legal game to arrive for them to shoot. The permit does not allow them to ride along the road looking for game and then attempt to take that game. Basically if they sight game from their moving vehicle they would be in violation of the law if they stop and attempt to take that game.
 
The permit is intended for people who either can’t stand up out of a vehicle or if they can they are using their arms for support and thus couldn’t hold a firearm, people on oxygen that have to be hooked up to canisters in the vehicle or similar types of conditions that would basically prevent them from being able to hunt if they couldn’t sit in their vehicle when they were shooting. As far as their being able to hunt though they still have to find a place to park their vehicle and just sit and wait for game to appear. They have no more legal right to ride around looking for game than any other hunter.
 
A person who doesn’t qualify for the disabled person permit, including a perfectly healthy person could go out park their vehicle, get a chair out, sit it on the berm of the road and sit there and legally hunt as long as they aren’t violating another laws such as a safety zone, shooting at game on the road or across the road.
 
Basically the permit is more restrictive that not having one for anyone who can get out of the vehicle to shot. If a person without the permit is traveling from one hunting spot to another and sights game they can park, walk 25 yards off the road and attempt to take that game. But, a person with the permit is basically only qualified for the permit if they can’t walk that far off the road without some form of aid, support or other prevention, so since the law still applies to them in regard to being 25 yards off the roadway after alighting from a motor vehicle or using a motor vehicle to hunt (as it relates to locating game from a moving vehicle) they could and very likely would be cited if they shot at game they located from the vehicle while driving along the road. If they did locate the game from the vehicle and then went the 25 yards off the road to attempt to legally take it they might have their permit revoked unless they can show additional cause as why they qualified for the permit in the first place.
 
 I have had permits recalled on people who obviously didn’t really qualify for the permit after I had discovered them well back in the woods doing out things. If they can walk well back in the woods to fish, play softball and run around the bases, or ride a bicycle for miles I don’t think they are meeting the legal requirements intended for the permit.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn 

ORIGINAL: Outdoor Adventures

I have had permits recalled on people who obviously didn’t really qualify for the permit after I had discovered them well back in the woods doing out things. If they can walk well back in the woods to fish, play softball and run around the bases, or ride a bicycle for miles I don’t think they are meeting the legal requirements intended for the permit.

Very interesting comment.

To my understanding a person must have a condition that qualifies them for a permit. Limb amputation is pretty much visible but one with respiratory problems is not.Lets use the qualification for say lung disease. A person must fall between certain numbers on a spirometer and paperwork must be summited to the PGC from ones doctor.

Now a person is setting in their vehicle or back in the woods and not hooked up to oxygen but never less still has a condition that they have qualified for.What gives A WCO the right to determine if one is qualified or not? Hasn't a qualified doctor already made that decision? Why would a permit even be questioned ? Does the PGC have a licensed pulmonologist to determine if one has a serious health condition and falls under the specific parameters for lung disease ?

Also can a person with a permit to use a vehicle as a blind have another licensed hunter(for assistance if needed) in the vehicle with them also? Is that licensed person permitted to shoot from the vehicle, or have a loaded firearm in the vehicle same as the one who holds the permit?

Using an ATV I believe is legal on designated trails in some of the game lands for those who hold a disability permit. Is one permitted to carry a needed passenger for assistance and can the licensed assistant carry a weapon and hunt as well?

 
Yes a Doctor has to fill out paper work on the extent of the physical condition that should qualify the disabled person. But, some Doctors will sign anything there patient wants without even looking at the qualifying limitations or reading that it has to be a permanent condition. I have seen people that have fully recovered from a temporary condition that would have perhaps qualified them had it been a permanent condition that successfully got a permit after their Doctor signed the form. It appears many Doctors don’t take the time to read the form and just sign where their patient wants.
 
We don’t ask for many reviews but when there is someone with a permit who obviously doesn’t qualify there is a legal process where they will have to provide additional evidence of their qualifying limitations or the permit may be recalled.
 
The following are the physical conditions that mean the requirements. Surely you can see where a person could find a Doctor that would sign the form even when they don’t always meet those limitations.
 
Sec. 2923. Disabled person permits.
 
(a)   Use of vehicle as a blind.—
 
(1)     Unless further restricted by commission regulation, a lifetime permit to hunt from a stationary vehicle may be issued to a person with permanent disabilities who qualified for a hunting license pursuant to Chapter 27 (relating to hunting and furtaking licenses) or who possesses a Junior Resident license under section 2705(2) (relating to classes of licenses) and who meets any of the following requirements:
 
(i)                 Has a permanent or irreversible physical disability, and is unable to ambulate and requires a wheelchair, walker, one leg brace or external prosthesis above the knee, two leg braces or external prostheses below the knees, two crutches or two canes for mobility.
 
(ii) Suffers significantly from lung disease, to the extent that forced expiratory volume for one second when measured by spirometry is less than one liter or the arterial oxygen tension (po) is less than 60 millimeters of mercury on room air at rest. This subparagraph would also apply to someone who is oxygen dependent 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
 
(iii) Suffers significantly from cardiovascular disease, to the extent that functional limitations are classified in severity as class 3 or 4, according to the current standards accepted by the American Heart Association and where ordinary physical activity results in fatigue, palpitation, dyspnea or anginal pain.
 
(iv) Has a disability or combination of disabilities creating a minimum impairment of function of or equivalent to no less than 90% loss of function in one leg or no more than 10% maximal functional use in one leg regardless of the functional level of the other leg.
 
(2) Unless further restricted by commission regulation, a permit to hunt from a stationary vehicle may be issued to a person who qualified for a hunting license pursuant to Chapter 27 and presents an affidavit and doctor's certificate stating the applicant has a temporary disability that restricts mobility or ambulation of any distance due to illness or injury and operative procedures and who either has a leg, hip or back, or any part thereof, casted by a licensed physician due to a fracture or has leg, hip or back surgery. This permit is only valid for the license year in which issued.
 
(3) Permittees shall carry the permit upon their person while hunting. Any person named on this permit may hunt while using an automobile or other vehicle as a blind. The permittee shall not use the vehicle to flush or locate game. The vehicle may be used only as a blind or platform from which to shoot. The firearm shall be unloaded at all times while the vehicle is in motion.
 
Yes, a person can take someone with them to assist them but the other person cannot have loaded firearm in a motor vehicle unless they also have a permit.
 
Some disabled persons can also get a permit to use an ATV on a few designated areas of the game lands. There are limitations and restrictions on what they can do but they too can have one person with them on the machine to help them. Again the other person cannot have a loaded firearm on the ATV but the person can hunt and put on drives or assist the person in other ways while they are otherwise legally hunting.
 
It is the objective of the Game Commission and the WCOs to keep everyone, including those with limitations in the hunting fraternity as long as they are physically able to do it safely. But, we also have an obligation to make sure people aren’t just abusing the legal system with a permit for which they really aren’t qualified.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

Bings you are so right...

I knew MANY that had crossbow permits that had NOTHING wrong with them .. they just wanted to use a crossbow and the doctor signed the paper work.... it was really out of control at the end...

ORIGINAL: Outdoor Adventures

Yes, a person can take someone with them to assist them but the other person cannot have loaded firearm in a motor vehicle unless they also have a permit.

Some disabled persons can also get a permit to use an ATV on a few designated areas of the game lands. There are limitations and restrictions on what they can do but they too can have one person with them on the machine to help them. Again the other person cannot have a loaded firearm on the ATV but the person can hunt and put on drives or assist the person in other ways while they are otherwise legally hunting.

It is the objective of the Game Commission and the WCOs to keep everyone, including those with limitations in the hunting fraternity as long as they are physically able to do it safely. But, we also have an obligation to make sure people aren’t just abusing the legal system with a permit for which they really aren’t qualified.

R.S. Bodenhorn

Thanks for the through reply. When a disabled hunter holds a towing vehicle placard (ATV permit) I understand they can travel designated routes only 2 weeks prior to archery season at the earliest and can not use their ATV for any scouting prior to that time. Is this correct? Also once the person who holds the permit gets off the ATV they can only travel 100 yards from the ATV rather their disabilty allows to or not. Is this correct? I undestand that some abuse the permits and I like to learn as much as possible about the use of them.

 
If you go to this link and scroll down to section 135.48 and read to the bottom of the page you will see all of the regulations that apply concerning a qualified person using a qualified ATV on game lands during some periods for hunting.
 
It is the ATV that is permitted to be taken 100 yards off the trail provided they can’t cross streams, etc as provided in the regulations. This again is intended for hunters that can’t walk and need to use the ATV to get into the woods.
 
I have one of these trails in my district and have experienced no problems from the disabled hunters using it. It is a great opportunity for hunters that otherwise wouldn’t be able to get more than off the berm of the road to hunt.
 
[color=#800080 size=3]http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/058/chapter135/subchapCtoc.html
 
R.S. Bodenhorn   

I believe SGL#44 has a trail for ATV use, here's a buck that was harvested off it last year by a neighbor, you can even see the wheel to his ATV in the picture