Jump to content


Game Camera

  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Yateswell


    Big Shooter

  • Gold Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,712 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Duarte, CA

Posted 06 January 2012 - 11:08 PM

Saw this on calgun, thought I re-post here and hopefully someone will shed some lights.http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=7798359#post7798359

#2 ShooterJohn



  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern, CA
  • Interests:Hunting, shooting sports and fishing.

Posted 07 January 2012 - 09:29 AM

That's a real stretch of the law quote there. I am a stickler for details and would demand he quote the exact section of the law he was making his determination on. If he couldn't I'd say we're done here as soon as you give me your name and badge number. It is public property and he wasn't causing any lasting detriment to the forest.

#3 mtn dog

mtn dog

    Big Shooter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,714 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Camino, CA
  • Interests:Predator hunting.
    Other interests:
    My family, writing, photography, 2nd Amendment.
    Looking forward to meeting as many of you as possible.

Posted 07 January 2012 - 10:38 AM

The full Federal list of prohibitions can be browed from this web page:http://ecfr.gpoacces...-....19&idno=36Based on the CalGuns thread discussion, I would question the authority of the Feds to act on behalf of the wildlife. Isn't wildlife regarded as property of the STATE (even on Federal land within California) and, therefore protected according to the laws of the California Dept of Fish and Game? Also, in that thread, some have mentioned securing their trail cams with cables and lag bolts. THAT might fall under 'injuring' or 'defacing' trees prohibition. There is also a prohibition on 'abandoning personal property' and I could see that stretched to cover this even though that is clearly not the intent of the law. This will make an interesting bit of case law when someone sues the Fed for overreaching their authority. I wonder what would happen if a hunter actually tried to get a special permit or authorization. :roflmao3[1]: They would probably require you to conduct an environmental impact study and specify exactly which tree in the forest you intend to attach the trail cam to. B) The only concern I share with those Federales is their concern for the methods used by cartels growing dope in the backcountry.

#4 Tuolumne85


    Varmint Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 199 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tuolumne/ rancho Cordova

Posted 07 January 2012 - 08:23 PM

I wish the forest cops would be more useful and try to find out who keeps dumping trash and stop harassing people about wood tags and then checking their firearms. I have also been pulled over for wearing camo in December.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users