# Integrity??



## Ecpk91 (Jun 13, 2018)

I know this is a touchy subject and there will be some quoting the laws regarding property is abandoned after so long... this may be a law but it just gives you justification to take what is not yours, if you need justifications for doing that then it says a lot about your integrity ad the title of my topic.

Integrity is defined as "The quality of being honest and having strong moral principles." 

I think it is so sad that there are people who take things that do not rightfully belong to them. I have a friend who had 3 of four trail camera sim cards taken. How desperate and without honor some people are. Why can't we simply have respect for other people and the hobbies they have? Is it to much to ask that we act with honor and integrity and leave things as they are? 

Are we to poor in honor and desperate for the "ultimate spot" that when we find someone's camera we simply can't leave it alone? We can't have mutual respect for one another? I'm sure there will be comments about " that is the risk you take leaving things on the mountain" or the quoting of abandoned property. When we justify our actions we compromise our integrity and if you have to justify something to feel better about your poor ethics that says a lot about yourself.

throughout my hunting life I could have collected so many trail cameras I have come across, would it be legal to take them? yes according to the law, but just because it is legal doesn't mean it is right, instead I have left notes asking that the owner call me, they have and I have developed a mutual respect and friendship with new people. I feel sorry for those who can't seem to see past the end of their nose and find a better way. 

What I am asking is that we try to live with a little more respect and integrity. Is that to much to ask for?


----------



## RemingtonCountry (Feb 17, 2016)

It's getting ridiculous out there, so much so that I hardly put any trail cameras out. I've had 5 stolen, so I bear-boxed and locked every one I had. 

The last one that was stolen was in a locked bear box. These guys went to the extreme level of actually bringing a chainsaw in, cutting down the tree, and cutting the portion of the tree out that my camera was on. After that, I decided i'd waste my money somewhere else.


----------



## Baron83 (May 24, 2016)

Ran into a guy on the bow hunt who told me he checks any camera that isn't locked that was disappointing to hear to say the least.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

RemingtonCountry said:


> The last one that was stolen was in a locked bear box. These guys went to the extreme level of actually bringing a chainsaw in, cutting down the tree, and cutting the portion of the tree out that my camera was on. After that, I decided i'd waste my money somewhere else.


There is no reason the "camera" portion of a trailcam needs to be in that big bulky box hanging on a tree.

I had the idea a while ago that the tiny camera could be attached to a 6-10ft thin ribbon cable and thereby attached to much smaller trees and bushes, or on branches... and the box placed out of sight... or even buried.

IMO, someone will do this soon to counteract the theft issues.

-DallanC


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

You will find that no matter what you do with your trail-cam that if a person wants it he is going to take it. With all the new battery operated cut off saws and sawsalls out there nothing is safe.

You will also find that those that will leave them alone will leave them along. Then there are those that will mess with them and then the ones that will just take them. 

It is a lot like those that ride ATV's. You have the ones that follow the rules and then you have the others that won't.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

And treestands and blinds!


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

To plays the devil's advocate here does someone possess this 'integrity' you speak of if they use trail cameras on public land to give them an unfair advantage over someone less affluent? Just food for thought. Nevada has determined that trail cameras are illegal and putting them on public land would break the law and show a complete lack of 'integrity'


Maybe these Robin Hoods' of the forest are actually out leveling the playing field and donating the proceeds to charity? HA!

I don't touch peoples stuff in the woods or otherwise but sometimes things are not so black and white as we like to make them.


----------



## Raptorman (Aug 18, 2009)

I think it is black and white, *don't touch out people's stuff*. It is legal here in Utah, so whether it is legal in another state makes no difference. Some states do not allow scopes on muzzleloaders, that doesn't mean I lack integrity if I use a scope in Utah.

I know you are just playing devil's advocate, but if that is someones argument for taking other people's stuff, they are way off base.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Airborne said:


> . Nevada has determined that trail cameras are illegal and putting them on public land would break the law and show a complete lack of 'integrity'


You need to check the law out. From what I have read of it they are not allowed between August 1 and ending December 31 of each year.

You can have them out January 1 through July 31.


----------



## Ecpk91 (Jun 13, 2018)

(Airborne)To plays the devil's advocate here does someone possess this 'integrity' you speak of if they use trail cameras on public land to give them an unfair advantage over someone less affluent? Just food for thought. Nevada has determined that trail cameras are illegal and putting them on public land would break the law and show a complete lack of 'integrity'


Maybe these Robin Hoods' of the forest are actually out leveling the playing field and donating the proceeds to charity? HA!

I don't touch peoples stuff in the woods or otherwise but sometimes things are not so black and white as we like to make them.

I am not quite sure how my camera gives me an unfair advantage, I still have to be in the right place at the right time and place a clean kill shot. All the camera does is show animals go through a certain place. Just because they show on my camera one day does not mean they are there the next or even months down the road when the hunt actually starts. I disagree and think you miss the point. If it isn't yours leave it be.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

I know the season dates Critter--didn't think I needed to be pedantic on a hunting forum to get the point across.

I don't think not doing something demonstrates integrity. If I walk by a trial cam in the woods and ignore it I am not demonstrating integrity

So here is a moral conundrum for ya. Let's say you are hunting in Nevada, saw an illegally placed trail cam the month before and reported it. LE has better things to do so it is still up a month later. Are you demonstrating 'integrity' by leaving it alone or are you expressing integrity by confiscating/destroying something that is illegal? On this side of the imaginary line you lack integrity but on the other side you demonstrate it? Interesting to think about


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Pack It In --> Pack It Out.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Airborne said:


> I know the season dates Critter--didn't think I needed to be pedantic on a hunting forum to get the point across.
> 
> I don't think not doing something demonstrates integrity. If I walk by a trial cam in the woods and ignore it I am not demonstrating integrity
> 
> So here is a moral conundrum for ya. Let's say you are hunting in Nevada, saw an illegally placed trail cam the month before and reported it. LE has better things to do so it is still up a month later. Are you demonstrating 'integrity' by leaving it alone or are you expressing integrity by confiscating/destroying something that is illegal? On this side of the imaginary line you lack integrity but on the other side you demonstrate it? Interesting to think about


Restricted is a lot different than illegal.

If I had found one and reported it and it was still there a month later I would just report it again. It isn't up to us as hunters to destroy private property even if it shouldn't be there.

Lets say that you come upon a trailer where someone is homesteading on National Forest or BLM land and you report it, then you come back 2 months later and it is still there.  Do you burn it down?


----------



## Ecpk91 (Jun 13, 2018)

Airborne said:


> I know the season dates Critter--didn't think I needed to be pedantic on a hunting forum to get the point across.
> 
> I don't think not doing something demonstrates integrity. If I walk by a trial cam in the woods and ignore it I am not demonstrating integrity
> 
> So here is a moral conundrum for ya. Let's say you are hunting in Nevada, saw an illegally placed trail cam the month before and reported it. LE has better things to do so it is still up a month later. Are you demonstrating 'integrity' by leaving it alone or are you expressing integrity by confiscating/destroying something that is illegal? On this side of the imaginary line you lack integrity but on the other side you demonstrate it? Interesting to think about


If you don't do anything walking by my camera you chose not to act, that isn't the point. The point is and who I am speaking to is the one who pauses, looks at another's property and has a decision they are considering, Do I take what isn't mine? or do I leave it and hold to my moral standards (integrity) and report it if its illegal or leave it be?


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Critter said:


> Restricted is a lot different than illegal.
> 
> Lets say that you come upon a trailer where someone is homesteading on National Forest or BLM land and you report it, then you come back 2 months later and it is still there. Do you burn it down?


False Equivalence Fallacy, plus do ya want to start a forest fire?! :grin:

My point in posting here is more entertainment based and to maybe get people out of their simple black and white world

To the OP-->do you really think that an aggrandizing post about 'integrity' on the 17th most popular Utah hunting forum is going to do a dang thing to stop trail camera thieves? Seriously?

Hey everybody--don't steal that car as you want next to it--show some integrity! Also don't murder anyone--My job here done!


----------



## neverdrawn (Jan 3, 2009)

Airborne said:


> False Equivalence Fallacy, plus do ya want to start a forest fire?! :grin:
> 
> My point in posting here is more entertainment based and to maybe get people out of their simple black and white world
> 
> ...


17th? What are the 16 in front of it? Now I feel I'm really missing out. I'm guessing this one will still be my favorite!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I always thought that the guy who left things he considered valuable out in public where others would find them as a damned fool. If you put out cameras in places others frequent expect to have them taken...

...have you guys ever driven up into the hills or into the outdoors and seen the number of signs shot up or the number of illegal trails made by ATVs? Don’t you think that the same people who do these types of things are going to have any qualms about taking or destroying your trail cams?

Good grief we are talking about the hunting community and a group who often finds ways to circumvent or justify breaking the law...how many people have you heard talk about using grandma or grandpa’s tag on their meat buck? Or, how many party hunt? 

My solution would be to make the **** things illegal from April to November!


----------



## sheepassassin (Mar 23, 2018)

Long lag bolts, washers, lock boxes and quality locks is the only way I’ll leave one out, and even then if someone wants it bad enough, they can have it at that point. I’ve had cameras and treestands taken. I even had a guy with really big balls smash my cam with a rock (pics were very evident in what happened), then proceed to put his on the same tree, right above mine. As you can imagine, I got more than even with him at some point and now neither of us are willing to leave anything of value in that canyon anymore. Feel bad for the unsuspecting victims that could possibly get caught in that feud by accident. Unless you intentionally ruin my deal to try and benefit yourself or you act more entitled to be on that public land than anyone else, I won’t touch your stuff. But start trying to sabotage my efforts, a missing camera is the best you can hope for.

I’ve checked other cams I’ve found in an area that wasn’t locked. But I always put the cards back in and turn the cameras back on and leave them how I find them. I don’t see an issue with that, I’d be fine with others doing the same to mine if I chose to leave them unlocked. I also have no issues with people using my treestands if they beat me to them for the day. I have left them on public land, anyone who finds them, can sit them. I wouldn’t even ask a guy to leave if I found him in one. First come first serve. But I rarely find someone with the same attitude. Multiple times I have had the “owners” show up, irate that I was in “their spot” and how dare I do such a thing. Again that goes back to the entitlement issue with me. You think you have more right to a place than I do just because your stand is there, I’ve got news for you...


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

sheepassassin said:


> Long lag bolts, washers, lock boxes and quality locks is the only way I'll leave one out, and even then if someone wants it bad enough, they can have it at that point. I've had cameras and treestands taken. I even had a guy with really big balls smash my cam with a rock (pics were very evident in what happened), then proceed to put his on the same tree, right above mine. As you can imagine, I got more than even with him at some point and now neither of us are willing to leave anything of value in that canyon anymore. Feel bad for the unsuspecting victims that could possibly get caught in that feud by accident. Unless you intentionally ruin my deal to try and benefit yourself or you act more entitled to be on that public land than anyone else, I won't touch your stuff. But start trying to sabotage my efforts, a missing camera is the best you can hope for.
> 
> I've checked other cams I've found in an area that wasn't locked. But I always put the cards back in and turn the cameras back on and leave them how I find them. I don't see an issue with that, I'd be fine with others doing the same to mine if I chose to leave them unlocked. I also have no issues with people using my treestands if they beat me to them for the day. I have left them on public land, anyone who finds them, can sit them. I wouldn't even ask a guy to leave if I found him in one. First come first serve. But I rarely find someone with the same attitude. Multiple times I have had the "owners" show up, irate that I was in "their spot" and how dare I do such a thing. Again that goes back to the entitlement issue with me. You think you have more right to a place than I do just because your stand is there, I've got news for you...


And the problem is that most if not all people who place camera's or tree stands have the attitude that they have reserved the mountain.
Competion is fierce for those coveted secret water holes, wallows or trail intersections.
Nice to see you are reasonable but really who wants to have the conversation at 4:00 AM?
They don't ruin my hunt but I could live without them. Just one more irritant while out hunting.


----------



## Aznative (May 25, 2018)

I personally have 4 that are out right now. I however have them in the security boxes lagged in and locked with cables so the card cant be accessed. However I do so knowing I cant throw a fit if its cut down and stolen as we all know there are jerks out there. I never put them up by water though as that is where everyone goes. I find pinch points, fingers etc. As for making them illegal and banning them? Come on.... it can be a hobby to just check game out. Not once have I killed the same animal I found on camera. Its helped me see if the area is decent but thats about it.


----------



## Ecpk91 (Jun 13, 2018)

Airborne said:


> False Equivalence Fallacy, plus do ya want to start a forest fire?! :grin:
> 
> My point in posting here is more entertainment based and to maybe get people out of their simple black and white world
> 
> ...


I didn't think there was anything "aggrandizing" (means to increase the reputation of someone beyond what is justified by the facts) Whose reputation am I increasing? or am i encouraging others to increase theirs? Or are you just a pessimist and don't believe people can change? how do you know asking people to respect others property won't make a difference? Do you know anything about my "black and white" world? Or perhaps its your black and white world thinking that makes the world like it is? Of course I am just posting for entertainment sake.


----------



## sheepassassin (Mar 23, 2018)

Aznative said:


> I personally have 4 that are out right now. I however have them in the security boxes lagged in and locked with cables so the card cant be accessed. However I do so knowing I cant throw a fit if its cut down and stolen as we all know there are jerks out there. I never put them up by water though as that is where everyone goes. I find pinch points, fingers etc. As for making them illegal and banning them? Come on.... it can be a hobby to just check game out. Not once have I killed the same animal I found on camera. Its helped me see if the area is decent but thats about it.


many of the elk and several bucks ive killed have been because of cameras. i either used them to find an area i wanted to focus my efforts on or i used them to know what time i needed to be in my stand. i killed a spike 2 years ago based off a cams info. i wasnt planning even on hunting that area, had not checked the cam all summer. i put one in this spot to scout for bulls on my dads LE hunt. 3rd day of the archery hunt, mid day i decided to go see what had been in there. as i got to the back end of the photos, i noticed that a single spike had started coming in, every day, between 4:30 and 5:15, for the last 4 nights. there had not been a spike in there previous to that in over 6 weeks. with nothing better on the agenda for that evening, i climbed into a stand that was there (not mine, had been in there for years) at 4:10. at 4:35 that same spike walked in and i killed him.

they can be very useful, but at the same time, it wouldnt break my heart if they outlawed them completely. i think a lot of guys would be completely screwed if they didnt rely on their cams 100% to give them all their scouting info.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

sheepassassin said:


> ... had not checked the cam all summer. ... i climbed into a stand that was there (not mine, had been in there for years) ...


this is the part that I don't like about cameras, blinds, and stands. They become permanent fixtures. This should be corrected by us.

Cameras should be no different than traps. Check them every 24 hours, or remove them. Same with blinds and tree stands. If you won't be using it within 24 hours, pack that **** out.

Pack it in --> Pack it out


----------



## sheepassassin (Mar 23, 2018)

PBH said:


> this is the part that I don't like about cameras, blinds, and stands. They become permanent fixtures. This should be corrected by us.
> 
> Cameras should be no different than traps. Check them every 24 hours, or remove them. Same with blinds and tree stands. If you won't be using it within 24 hours, pack that **** out.
> 
> Pack it in --> Pack it out


we already have enough stupid laws that arent enforced, lets create some more!

stands left out dont bother me, ill use them when convenient, and i hope others do as well. cant be mad about people using stuff thats been left there for an extended period of time. checking trail cams and checking traps are two very different subjects. one involves the ethical treatment of game animals, the other is simply an annoyance or inconvenience to others. 24 hours isnt reasonable, in anyones book. every 14 days maybe, but not every day.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

sheep -- I didn't say anything about making more laws, and I didn't say that the reasons have to do with ethical treatment of animals. I just said we should check them / use them every 24 hours, or pack it out.


Constructing a permanent blind or tree stand is bad.
Leaving your temporary blind or tree stand for extended periods of time not being used, is also bad.
I hate finding cameras that are permanent.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

sheepassassin said:


> w... cant be mad about people using stuff thats been left there for an extended period of time....


Nope. But I can be mad about people leaving stuff for an extended period of time. That's called "abandoned".
Where is the integrity in that??


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

PBH said:


> Nope. But I can be mad about people leaving stuff for an extended period of time. That's called "abandoned".
> Where is the integrity in that??


OR you could be OK about people leaving stuff for an extended period of time as long as it doesn't impact you or your hunt!


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I don't like it when anyone leaves equipment in the field. It doesn't matter if they plan on returning to use it or not. If it is in the field and no one is around it is abandoned in my book. And don't start saying things like what about ATV's, or other vehicles. It should be a pretty much known fact that the owners will be back for them at the end of the day. But when they leave tree stands and cameras for weeks at a time is a lot different than a vehicle. 

I actually think that there needs to be a law that if you plan on leaving something overnight that it should be registered, just like our ATV's. That way if there is a question you can take the registration number and actually find out just who owns it.


----------



## sheepassassin (Mar 23, 2018)

PBH said:


> Constructing a permanent blind or tree stand is bad.
> Leaving your temporary blind or tree stand for extended periods of time not being used, is also bad.
> I hate finding cameras that are permanent.


whats wrong with permanent treestands?! i love when i find one!! they are much more roomy than the crappy metal little ones. you can lay down and take a mid day nap!


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Most of the permanent tree stands that I have seen are not in good enough shape to even think about getting up on, and I have done some pretty stupid stuff in my life.

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## stripey22 (Oct 12, 2009)

Critter said:


> Most of the permanent tree stands that I have seen are not in good enough shape to even think about getting up on, and I have done some pretty stupid stuff in my life.
> 
> Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


True True

I have seen some permanent stands in some really awesome spots and wished they were still trustworthy. Unlike like you Critter, I did consider climbing up in there...glad I didn't


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

elkfromabove said:


> PBH said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. But I can be mad about people leaving stuff for an extended period of time. That's called "abandoned".
> ...


Define impact? It's different for each of us. Discovering an amazing place only to have 3-4 game cameras pointed at me definitely impacts my experience. I don't have a right to privacy on public lands but I think semi-permanent to permanent equipment crosses a line for me.

I'd consider supporting a regulation from DWR or USFS/BLM that either requires registration plus decal and/or a time limit. I'd want to see the details but overall I think it's about time. No different than trailers/RV regulations that stipulate how long you can "camp" in one spot on public land.

I'd be more interested in PBH's idea of creating a community ethic first but that takes a "consensus" amongst fellow Utah hunters. I don't see that happening with this issue though.

But I'm not currently in a place to advocate such a regulation beyond this forum at the moment. Until then it's fair to ask people not to steal private property. Seems like we are all preaching to the choir on that one.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

backcountry said:


> Define impact? It's different for each of us. Discovering an amazing place only to have 3-4 game cameras pointed at me definitely impacts my experience. I don't have a right to privacy on public lands but I think semi-permanent to permanent equipment crosses a line for me.
> 
> I'd consider supporting a regulation from DWR or USFS/BLM that either requires registration plus decal and/or a time limit. I'd want to see the details but overall I think it's about time. No different than trailers/RV regulations that stipulate how long you can "camp" in one spot on public land.
> 
> ...


Yes, you're right! The impact is different for each of us, but in most cases, the impact is not the items themselves, but our own reaction to those items, which is something we can control. That's why I put the "OR" in front.

I also have some amazing places I love to hunt that remain amazing places whether there are cameras, blinds, or treestands or not. Those things only impact my hunt if those items (or any others) disturb the animals or change their patterns or if the owners claim the area is theirs and/or try to keep me from hunting there or if other recreationists disturb the area with noise, garbage, urine, feces, camps, campfires, etc. It's like the "overcrowding" issue we dealt with several years ago. No one could define what it was nor could they determine how it made a difference.

And it IS different than the camping regulations because of the impacts that the campers have on the wildlife, ground, vegetation, water and air that cameras, blinds and treestands don't have.

I suspect we could regulate those things all we want to, but I don't see it making any difference to my hunt because I consider myself in competition with wild game animals, not other hunters.


----------



## sheepassassin (Mar 23, 2018)

backcountry said:


> Define impact? It's different for each of us. Discovering an amazing place only to have 3-4 game cameras pointed at me definitely impacts my experience. I don't have a right to privacy on public lands but I think semi-permanent to permanent equipment crosses a line for me.


We live in a time when we are photographed, videoed or recorded almost every minute of our lives at work, school, the gas station, bank, mall, streets and door steps. Satellites in space are taking pictures and documenting everything on a daily basis. You have a recording/listening device in your pocket that can be government accessed and used for anything they feel necessary, yet it's the privately owned cameras strapped to trees on public lands that their only purpose in life is to document wildlife in a area, and that's the one you are annoyed by? That's the least offensive one in my mind.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

Wow, reading this thread makes me glad I can't afford trail camera's to begin with. It seems all this time I've been oblivious to an ongoing battle in the mountains. 



From this thread, I gather that some people will:

- steal/break cameras because they feel self righteous in doing so.
- because they want to sabotage or push another hunter out of an area they covet.
- because their genuinely dishonest. 
- use your trail cams without you knowing it.


What a mess. The thing is, with more tags being sold every year, and the states population increasing at a rate which I assume is exponential, this is only going to get worse. A lot worse.


I get up in the mountains to get away from people, and this is no fun for anyone.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

elkfromabove said:


> [q
> Yes, you're right! The impact is different for each of us, but in most cases, the impact is not the items themselves, but our own reaction to those items, which is something we can control. That's why I put the "OR" in front.
> 
> I also have some amazing places I love to hunt that remain amazing places whether there are cameras, blinds, or treestands or not. Those things only impact my hunt if those items (or any others) disturb the animals or change their patterns or if the owners claim the area is theirs and/or try to keep me from hunting there or if other recreationists disturb the area with noise, garbage, urine, feces, camps, campfires, etc. It's like the "overcrowding" issue we dealt with several years ago. No one could define what it was nor could they determine how it made a difference.
> ...


And that would be an example of how our values and preferences around hunting differ, which is expected. If it doesn't impact you, that is fine.

But the cameras do impact me and others. Making it about "reaction" ignores fundamental differences on why and how we hunt. And it's those questions that lead to developing ethics and regulations, or not. But the cameras definitely impede on the values and experiences I seek on public land and they do so beyond simple reactions, which are pretty minimal and often humorous (I've often debated returning with a cardboard cutout of ______ to put in front of camera.)

And it's not about competition with fellow hunters. It's about recognizing when and how our choices affect each other in the field. Hence the comparison to RVs. Semi-permanently placing gear on public land without occupancy/daily use does affect others in places with "limited" options. To me it's the opposite of competition; it's trying to foster a mutually beneficial coexistence with minor compromises along the way.

It's the same issue with drones. We could just critique much of the public's "reaction" or we could talk about how their presence noticeably affects experience. Technology developments are a big area in which different users are affecting each other.

I definitely struggle with cameras, tree stands, blinds, and feeders semi-permanently left on public land. It's in direct conflict with my personal values. And I am willing to support the DWR and/or USFS/BLM in creating regulations. If it doesn't happen, so be it. As of now I either accommodate such use or move on to a different spot. That and I'll let fellow hunters understand how it influences my hunt in core ways.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

sheepassassin said:


> We live in a time when we are photographed, videoed or recorded almost every minute of our lives at work, school, the gas station, bank, mall, streets and door steps. Satellites in space are taking pictures and documenting everything on a daily basis. You have a recording/listening device in your pocket that can be government accessed and used for anything they feel necessary, yet it's the privately owned cameras strapped to trees on public lands that their only purpose in life is to document wildlife in a area, and that's the one you are annoyed by? That's the least offensive one in my mind.


It's not an either/or in dealing with all of those.

We all live with those realities daily. Some of us hunt deep in the forest to get away from most of those trappings. And I never said I was annoyed. Running into these cameras when I'm 4-5 miles into a backpack hunt doesn't elicit anything close to the anger or irritation that define annoyance. It does diminish my sense of place, isolation and escape from the day-to-day.

The "whataboutism" approach ignores the fact that this issue is something that directly impacts our community and it's something we are in control of. It doesn't lead to us understanding our differences. I have almost zero control over the other issues. I'm not currently calling, emailing or contacting agencies to create such policy. But having dealt with these cameras for almost 20 years, well beyond my hunting years, I am leaning towards that need. As has been pointed out here, these things are often permanent or abandoned which just goes too far IMHO.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

backcountry said:


> And that would be an example of how our values and preferences around hunting differ, which is expected. If it doesn't impact you, that is fine.
> 
> But the cameras do impact me and others. Making it about "reaction" ignores fundamental differences on why and how we hunt. And it's those questions that lead to developing ethics and regulations, or not. But the cameras definitely impede on the values and experiences I seek on public land and they do so beyond simple reactions, which are pretty minimal and often humorous (I've often debated returning with a cardboard cutout of ______ to put in front of camera.)
> 
> ...


Thanks!


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

Just leave this here


----------



## CaverSpencer (Oct 13, 2015)

The laws for forest service land actually state that you are not to disturb it and must report the abandoned property to the forest service. They then try and contact the owner, if there is no way to identify the owner they then post a notice near the abandoned property and come back after 72 hours. It is not until that point that they remove the property. 


At no point is a hiker, hunter, vegan, mushroom picker, tree hugger, or anyone other than a forest service agent legally able to take the property. 

so if you find something you think is abandoned and don't like it then report it. But for the love of Pete, if its not yours don't touch it!


----------



## CaverSpencer (Oct 13, 2015)

The laws for forest service land actually state that you are not to disturb it and must report the abandoned property to the forest service. They then try and contact the owner, if there is no way to identify the owner they then post a notice near the abandoned property and come back after 72 hours. It is not until that point that they remove the property.

At no point is a hiker, hunter, vegan, mushroom picker, tree hugger, or anyone other than a forest service agent legally able to take the property.

so if you find something you think is abandoned and don't like it then report it. But for the love of Pete, if its not yours don't touch it!



Ecpk91 said:


> I know this is a touchy subject and there will be some quoting the laws regarding property is abandoned after so long... this may be a law but it just gives you justification to take what is not yours, if you need justifications for doing that then it says a lot about your integrity ad the title of my topic.
> 
> Integrity is defined as "The quality of being honest and having strong moral principles."
> 
> ...


----------



## CaverSpencer (Oct 13, 2015)

What's "unfair" about using a camera? It's no different that it being "unfair" if someone has time to hike an area everyday or owns property. Life isn't fair in most cases, but anyone can buy a put up a camera, not seeing how you think that is unfair?



Airborne said:


> To plays the devil's advocate here does someone possess this 'integrity' you speak of if they use trail cameras on public land to give them an unfair advantage over someone less affluent? Just food for thought. Nevada has determined that trail cameras are illegal and putting them on public land would break the law and show a complete lack of 'integrity'
> 
> Maybe these Robin Hoods' of the forest are actually out leveling the playing field and donating the proceeds to charity? HA!
> 
> I don't touch peoples stuff in the woods or otherwise but sometimes things are not so black and white as we like to make them.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

CaverSpencer said:


> What's "unfair" about using a *DRONE*? It's no different that it being "unfair" if someone has time to hike an area everyday or owns property. Life isn't fair in most cases, but anyone can buy and fly a *DRONE*, not seeing how you think that is unfair?


See what I did there--do you agree with your new statement above?

We all draw lines in the sand don't we


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Why is it that we always end up arguing over what is legal and what is right?

We wouldn't need all the stupid laws that exist in the books if people just abide by what is right. One of the reasons I have lost faith in my fellow man, and am pleasantly surprised when I find one with integrity, is that somewhere along the way we lost sight of what is right over what is legal.

I remember my grandfather making me put back stuff I found while out hunting back where I found it. First of all it was not mine, second it had an owner and he might come looking for it and third it was not mine.

The decay of our society is in part to blame on our amazing ability to justify (to ourselves mainly) all of our wrongful acts just outside the boundaries of legality. Then we get pissed if anyone points them out and we accuse them of judging us. Whatever helps us sleep at night right? Rant rant rant rant. Sorry guys.
Leave **** that isn't yours alone. Period!


----------



## Aznative (May 25, 2018)

I think MadHunter summed alot of it up right there. Im guilty using cameras. I guess being new to Utah ive been going every weekend checking them then taking them down and moving them to different spots as im just trying to learn the lay of the land. At the same time yes I can do that by looking for tracks and sign like we did before cameras but I find it kinda cool to pull the card like its Christmas and see what I got. Usually coal but idk never thought they angered anyone till reading this. But I also have a mindset that I could be gambling and lose 100 bucks by someone destroying it. If it happens well that was a gamble I was willing to take. We will never stop people who want to destruct something. Usually its someone who feels we are cheating with cameras or we found someones honey hole. Either way I see both points but thats the sad part. Im the type of guy to take a breath and see both sides but some here just go crazy on others if they dont agree with them. Life is good when we are all in the woods. Be safe everyone and lets get back to some good topics. Remember there are tons of people out there trying to take our rights of hunting and firearms away so we need to be somewhat cordial to another to keep our way of life moving.


----------

