# trail cam nr 5 points lake



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

if anyone has a trail cam in the high uintas wilderness near five points lake, the usfs is going to take it down. if its yours, better get it quick or its gone.


----------



## tallbuck (Apr 30, 2009)

How come they would take it down? Just wondering their reason.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The forest service and BLM have been picking up trail cameras for years now along with other gear that they find that has been left unattended. It usually happens when they find them.


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

Well technically anything left in the forest is considered "abandoned property". I believe the forest service has the right to remove anything they find.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Thank goodness! Get that crap out of the woods. They should auction off all the items that they remove and the USFS personnel should get a bonus. That would motivate them to be more vigilant in finding and removing unattended property. Also, it would be nice if they would ticket those who they were able to identify. -----SS


----------



## Fishracer (Mar 2, 2009)

springville shooter said:


> thank goodness! Get that crap out of the woods. They should auction off all the items that they remove and the usfs personnel should get a bonus. That would motivate them to be more vigilant in finding and removing unattended property. --------ss


yes sir!


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I would actually prefer for them to enforce the camping rules more than picking up the cameras. But if you leave a camera or a tree stand hanging on a tree don't expect for it to be there when you come back to check it. I also think that there should be some kind of regrestration on this stuff so that they can track the owners.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Critter said:


> I also think that there should be some kind of regrestration on this stuff so that they can track the owners.


I agree.

Include blinds in this discussion. I hate running into pop-up blinds that have been left in the woods. Bunch of damned litter bugs....


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

Don't leave your truck unattended while hunting the USFS may take that too, or your tent, or your trailer, lawn chair etc. etc. 

I agree if there is a problem then just ban them completely or make a time limit and have them registered.


----------



## Groganite (Nov 14, 2012)

This tree stand will automatically self destruct in 5-4-3-2-:flame:


----------



## elkaddict11 (Jun 16, 2014)

I can understand why USFS doesn't want you to leave your tree stands and blinds in the mountains. But out of curiousity why don't they want you to leave trail cameras? Is it just for extended amounts of time? Or they don't want them in their trees period?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Trash is trash whether it is a beer can or a $200 camera even if you plan on coming back to pick it up.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

There are laws that regulate time limits in which it is deemed appropriate to leave your items unattended on public land. You should know these laws and follow them for utimate satisfaction in your public land experience as well as the experience of others. 

Hint...if you put your camera in a remote, hidden place, no one will likely find it or care and you will get more pictures of game than trail hikers....assuming this is the goal?----------SS


----------



## elkaddict11 (Jun 16, 2014)

Springville Shooter said:


> There are laws that regulate time limits in which it is deemed appropriate to leave your items unattended on public land. You should know these laws and follow them for utimate satisfaction in your public land experience as well as the experience of others.
> 
> Hint...if you put your camera in a remote, hidden place, no one will likely find it or care and you will get more pictures of game than trail hikers....assuming this is the goal?----------SS


Nope, no goal. I just like to be informed. I'd hate to lose a camera because of my lack of knowledge. Thanks for the info!


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

Springville Shooter said:


> There are laws that regulate time limits in which it is deemed appropriate to leave your items unattended on public land. You should know these laws and follow them for utimate satisfaction in your public land experience as well as the experience of others.
> 
> Hint...if you put your camera in a remote, hidden place, no one will likely find it or care and you will get more pictures of game than trail hikers....assuming this is the goal?----------SS


So has anyone looked up the laws on this, I know in the Dixie I see signs of 16 day camping limit, but I don't see those enforced, I think you have to move a certain distance after 16 days to start the period over again.


----------



## Elkaholic2 (Feb 24, 2013)

So your telling me I can hook up that $33,000 34' trailer this year left unattended?:grin:


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Elkaholic2 said:


> So your telling me I can hook up that $33,000 34' trailer this year left unattended?:grin:


Nope, the authorities have to do it. Hence the reason I have never bothered any trail cams as much as I'd like to. Something about messing with someone elses property trumps my desire to bash idiotically placed cameras. Dammed morals....who needs em?--------SS


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

:deadhorse::frusty::boink::violin::tape2:


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

KLBZ, 
You're missing the broken record icon.---SS


----------



## 343 Bull (Oct 20, 2013)

Wow, all you guys who seem to feel like your the behavior police. Relax, if it isn't hurting you don't stress about it. Camera's on a tree don't hurt you in any way. All you self righteous idiots who keep complaining about what someone else does or doesn't do quit complaining.


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

343 Bull said:


> Wow, all you guys who seem to feel like your the behavior police. Relax, if it isn't hurting you don't stress about it. Camera's on a tree don't hurt you in any way. All you self righteous idiots who keep complaining about what someone else does or doesn't do quit complaining.


Yeah, if it does affect you, don't worry about it. So what if you see someone littering in the forest, its their business. If they light fireworks and burn down the mountain, again, their business. What someone else does is not my business, especially on "my" public land. Am I right? No. It is my business, tree cams aren't the same as littering or fireworks but the mentality of "relax, if it isn't hurting you, don't stress about it" is a pretty broad brush. Where does a guy draw the line?

That being said, the Forest Service has a job to do, if they find and remove cameras, its their job. Its not my job to take them. If I'm too concerned about a camera I should contact the FS.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I'd say that line is exactly where he put it. He said "If it doesn't effect you, don't worry about it." 

Throwing trash in the forest or burning down the mountain would effect you. So as you aptly stated yourself, they are not the same, and you should worry about those things. Maybe trailcams do effect you? And if they do, worry about them. But I think his advise, although not stated in the nicest way, is good for all of us. 

My junior high basketball coach used to always say to me..."Don't let the little things in life bother you." Burning down a mountain? Not a little thing. I'd let that bother me. Someone setting up a trail cam? Definitely a little thing to me. I've never used trail cams, but they don't bother me. To each their own, I guess. If the forest service has rules and they are enforcing them, that doesn't bother me either.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

pop up tent blinds left for months in forest do affect me.



Trail cams might not -- but that idiot scouting for his late season rifle hunt checking his cameras (one on every water hole on the mountain) during the archery hunt? Yes. That affects me.

But the drones -- they're OK.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

nothing like heading up to the mountains to get away and enjoy nature and being recorded.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Kingfisher, what's your feelings about trail cameras?


----------



## c3hammer (Nov 1, 2009)

are you guys kidding me? some pos from the forest service sees your trailcam and decides he'll take it down as abandoned property. no wonder so many of us have such a hatred for government dog poop and those who support them. yes, that's what you are dog s*&#t


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Why, thank you, c3!


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

c3hammer said:


> are you guys kidding me? some pos from the forest service sees your trailcam and decides he'll take it down as abandoned property. no wonder so many of us have such a hatred for government dog poop and those who support them. yes, that's what you are dog s*&#t


Wow, forest service POS huh? Why don't you get off your keyboard and drag your *** out to the woods and provide service for our forests and wildlife.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

I have never used a trail camera and don't have any use for one. I don't use fish finders either. I have never had a problem finding animals or fish. The animals that are photographed are fun to look at, but there is no guarantee that same animal will be there when hunting season rolls around. The fish finders show a bunch of fish, but that doesn't mean you are going to catch them. I know guys that spend more time and effort dicking around with all these toys than they do actually hunting or fishing. Too many gadgets out there for me. I like to keep it simple and have the old fashioned experience in the outdoors. I certainly would never take or destroy any persons property though........


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

I really don't have much use for them, I have a couple and used them in the past on a couple of hunts and they were more bother than they were worth. But they don't bother me, when hunting or hiking and I come across them I just smile and wave at them. I see thousands of trees without any camera so when I see a green or brown box tied to a tree once in a while It doesn't bother me, now beer and pop cans and other food package items I run in to does bother me and they sometimes take up too much room in my pack as I pick them up.

I see a tent or camp site or a camera or tree stand or blind I figure it is temporary and they will be removed at some point so they don't bother me, it is garbage that is left or destroying the environment such as graffiti or chopping live trees or leaving big fire rings that bother me.


----------



## 30-06-hunter (Sep 22, 2013)

c3hammer said:


> are you guys kidding me? some pos from the forest service sees your trailcam and decides he'll take it down as abandoned property. no wonder so many of us have such a hatred for government dog poop and those who support them. yes, that's what you are dog s*&#t


White trash looks and smells worse than poop.... In other words, I'll take the laws and regulations any day over dealing with trashy people like yourself.


----------



## reb8600 (Sep 8, 2007)

Which agency was it that put out trail cams for the Wolverine recently. Guess it wouldnt have matter if someone found and took them either. I am sure they were out for a long time.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

reb8600 said:


> Which agency was it that put out trail cams for the Wolverine recently. Guess it wouldnt have matter if someone found and took them either. I am sure they were out for a long time.


They were Wildlife Biologists, as to who they work for I am unsure but many articles reference them as state biologists. Articles are a little fuzzy, but noted that their were 4 camera's in the area. They were keeping track and using them for the purpose of science.

This will only open up a can of "why can state officials" and "why can't I do what they can do".


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

^^^I thought scouting and hunting WAS science. Well, damned it all to Pittsburgh! I was wrong!!!!


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Bam.....bam.....kick.....punch.....Take that horse!------SS


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

I've recently (last year) started using a trail camera during pre-season scouting. More or less just to see what's been moving around in the area. It's gone prior to the start of any hunting season and far enough into the woods that happening across it would be a matter of pure chance.

I live 3+ hours from the mountains I hunt in so the camera helps me to canvas the area for critters. That and some of the pics are pretty cool.

I do this knowing full well that it can be vandalized, stolen, or confiscated. It's my crap and it's my risk. It really is not bothering anyone though.


----------



## c3hammer (Nov 1, 2009)

30-06-hunter said:


> ...I'll take the laws and regulations any day over dealing with trashy people like yourself.


They're not doing any thing illegal by putting up a trail cam. It surely isn't being trashy. What kind of an a hole are you for supporting pulling trail cams for the hey of it?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

It isn't illegal putting a camera up, but it is illegal leaving it there for a few weeks.


----------



## Truelife (Feb 6, 2009)

I have one piece of crap trail cam that I bought on ebay years ago. I used it once or twice a year to get a new hunter excited about what's in the woods that they aren't seeing. It's a good jump starter to help kids get motivated about real scouting work without the camera.

I also take the camera on most week long scouting trips. It's pretty fun to leave it right in the middle of camp and show the boys what happens when they leave food everywhere.

Overall it's kind of like being married. I can promise you that every other hunter in the woods does something that this guy, or that guy doesn't like. The list could go on for days. In order to keep it working we all just have to find a way to get along.


----------



## tallbuck (Apr 30, 2009)

This is exactly why I started labeling my Trail cams " property of the DWR".  I think it is kinda lame for them to take them down when they find them. I know that if a car is abandoned on the interstate they dont tow it ASAP, but mark it and give the driver 24 hours... At least they could leave a note if found that it will be taken down if not removed or something to that effect...


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Removal of the trail cams is part of the conspiracy to allow wolves to establish in Utah. If we start getting all kinds of trail cam pics and video of wolves, they Utah can't say we don't have any. So removing the cameras ensures that the proof of wolves is avoided. Sheesh. Why Goob wasn't all over that earlier is beyond me. 

And we should be aware of the conspiracy of all the government agencies combining together to bring wolves to Utah so then the government can take away our guns and read facebook posts, as Obama baptizes your kids to be some other religious socialist. It's all connected. Something the mainstream media just won't tell you!


----------



## tallbuck (Apr 30, 2009)

GaryFish said:


> Removal of the trail cams is part of the conspiracy to allow wolves to establish in Utah. If we start getting all kinds of trail cam pics and video of wolves, they Utah can't say we don't have any. So removing the cameras ensures that the proof of wolves is avoided. Sheesh. Why Goob wasn't all over that earlier is beyond me.


I was thinking the same thing! Where is and why is WYOGOOB not all over this subject!

:grin::grin::grin:*OOO*


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Critter said:


> It isn't illegal putting a camera up, but it is illegal leaving it there for a few weeks.


For hell's sake, lets rehash this. Why not... Show where in Utah there is a law, code, referendum, statute, resolution, ordinance, fatah, hieroglyph, executive order or edict that says leaving a trail camera on a tree for a couple of weeks or even months is "illegal". Even the definition some of you use concerning "abandoned property" has absolutely NOTHING to do with trail cameras (there are rules and laws on trailers). Do that and I'll run up there and remove every single damned one of mine and never put one up again! Can't be done. Its about intent. So, its not illegal and its not abandoned property if you INTEND on retrieving it at any point in the future.

Now, sharpen your tinfoil hats because Gary's conspiracy theory on wolves almost makes too much sense! Removing the camera talked about in the OP might just be about the woofs. After all, someone should have posted a trail cam picture of a wolf from an "ILLEGALLY" left trail camera by now!

PS. I have never removed anyone else's property from the mountain but their magical beer cans or water bottles that get to heavy for them to carry back to camp. But last year, during a quick snowmobile ride, we found a trail camera that had been left and the batteries were corroding inside of it so I removed it and brought it home. If you're missing one from anywhere near Panguitch Lake, let me know, I'm happy to return it to you.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

tallbuck said:


> I was thinking the same thing! Where is and why is WYOGOOB not all over this subject!
> 
> :grin::grin::grin:*OOO*


He's just bitter because I got top of page with it before he could. Just watch. He'll hold out until he can nail the top of the next page. You'll see.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

klbzdad said:


> For hell's sake, lets rehash this. Why not... Show where in Utah there is a law, code, referendum, statute, resolution, ordinance, fatah, hieroglyph, executive order or edict that says leaving a trail camera on a tree for a couple of weeks or even months is "illegal"...


Forest Service land, Forest Service rules!

I guess than by your understanding, no federal law, rule, code, referendum, statue, ordinance, fatah, hieroglyph, executive order or edict is valid unless it is defined by Utah law. Would that include the Federal Enabling Act that allowed Utah to become a state in the first place??
I hope you're right, cause then we could revert back to a territory and we could close down this asinine Utah Government we have and maybe start over.


----------



## 30-06-hunter (Sep 22, 2013)

c3hammer said:


> They're not doing any thing illegal by putting up a trail cam. It surely isn't being trashy. What kind of an a hole are you for supporting pulling trail cams for the hey of it?


I have no issue with the cameras, it's your trashy and "laws are beneath me" attitude I take issue with, have a great day!


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

BPturkeys said:


> Forest Service land, Forest Service rules!
> 
> I guess than by your understanding, no federal law, rule, code, referendum, statue, ordinance, fatah, hieroglyph, executive order or edict is valid unless it is defined by Utah law. Would that include the Federal Enabling Act that allowed Utah to become a state in the first place??
> I hope you're right, cause then we could revert back to a territory and we could close down this asinine Utah Government we have and maybe start over.


Sorry. Forgot to include the word FEDERAL but rather assumed my statement was a blanket statement of anything that suggests it is "illegal" to leave a trail camera on a tree on any public land for any particular period of time. So please show in the Forrest Service Rules where it is "illegal" to leave a camera on a tree for a couple weeks or more. I'd appreciate it. In the mean while, for something to be "illegal" there are four elements required and not a single one of them exist concerning a trail camera.

If you or anyone else wants to push for a restriction on them and get it put in effect, I'll obey that restriction. Till then, my cameras are on trees on almost all public land for over seven months of the year!!!!! And if you find one, my cell number is on the side of them in red and the camera number is in silver on the top. Call me with that camera number and I'll email you all the trail camera pictures you can handle!


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

If you guys search trail cams on this forum, it has been talked about. Years ago.

This article sites the law, but can't find the law on my dumb *** smart phone right now.

http://www.buckmasters.com/utah-archery-elk-and-deer-hunts-are-not-far-away.aspx


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Brian Johnson: I do. I think, I think and I’m probably wrong because I was born wrong, but I believe that those are actually considered abandoned property, statute-wise. So when you leave a trail camera you do it at your own peril. And I’ve got ten sitting on the southwest desert as we speak with my name and number on it and I’ve had several people just call. It’s a problem. I’m not saying it’s not but I think we’ve got statute problems here verses wildlife problems.
Kevin Bunnell: Micah I see you up there nodding your head. Do you want to come explain from a statute standpoint what we’re up against?
Micah Evans: My understanding of the law is, is that you can go out a put, you take your car out and you dump it out there on forest property, okay, after a certain time it becomes abandoned property. Okay? So if you go and you put a trail camera up and you put it up on a tree somewhere, after a certain time it becomes abandoned property. The only time where that doesn’t effect is whether or not it’s on your private property and then different rules apply. So trying to say okay hey it’s against the law and you can lose your hunting privileges to take a trail camera is not really going to be something that is going to A: be very unenforceable, and two: I don’t think you have the ability to do that with the statutes as it has with abandoned property. Does that answer your questions? Okay.



That is also an excerpt from last fall's RAC.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

what about 36CFRII 261.10 A (or E)?

Could cameras be included in "communications equipment"?
are cameras "personal property"?


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

In regards to the RAC and the article: There is no rule. Ted or some other rep even later said it was his bad and that there wasn't a rule or law prohibiting the cameras. Each forest can implement restrictions but they have to be approved if not done under an emergency order. The public would have input on any future restrictions of trail cameras on federal and even state lands. The DWR cannot take action in this regard and would have to prove that the cameras harass or have a diverse effect on wildlife to have them banned or restricted thus the attempt failed.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/261.10

The CFR, these are occupancy rules. SS A and communication equipment means relay towers, cell towers, television station towers or other permanent structures used for communications. There is a long process in doing this. Built a radio station in Moab and went through this arduous process to put up a tower. This CFR is cited in that paperwork.

Abandoned Property:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/abandoned+property


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

RandomElk16 said:


> Brian Johnson: I do. I think, I think and I'm probably wrong because I was born wrong, but I believe that those are actually considered abandoned property, statute-wise. So when you leave a trail camera you do it at your own peril. And I've got ten sitting on the southwest desert as we speak with my name and number on it and I've had several people just call. It's a problem. I'm not saying it's not but I think we've got statute problems here verses wildlife problems.
> Kevin Bunnell: Micah I see you up there nodding your head. Do you want to come explain from a statute standpoint what we're up against?
> Micah Evans: My understanding of the law is, is that you can go out a put, you take your car out and you dump it out there on forest property, okay, after a certain time it becomes abandoned property. Okay? So if you go and you put a trail camera up and you put it up on a tree somewhere, after a certain time it becomes abandoned property. The only time where that doesn't effect is whether or not it's on your private property and then different rules apply. So trying to say okay hey it's against the law and you can lose your hunting privileges to take a trail camera is not really going to be something that is going to A: be very unenforceable, and two: I don't think you have the ability to do that with the statutes as it has with abandoned property. Does that answer your questions? Okay.
> 
> That is also an excerpt from last fall's RAC.


Read Post #52

I posted extensive information on this in other threads. Almost all of my posts have been deleted including some responses to my posts by other members. Weird....


----------



## c3hammer (Nov 1, 2009)

30-06-hunter said:


> I have no issue with the cameras, it's your trashy and "laws are beneath me" attitude I take issue with, have a great day!


Come on 06, where have I ever suggested that laws are beneath me? There is no law against putting up and leaving up trail cams on the national forest here in Utah. Just because some libnut kook who works for the forest service doesn't like them doesn't make it illegal. I take issue with anyone who takes them down, smashes them, steals them or supports those who do. To me it doesn't matter who it is, they are a pos and beneath me.

Like klbzdad has pointed out, if you don't like them personally, great, go get a law passed to outlaw them. I personally think it's nonsense, but like in Montana where they are banned during the season I don't use them. Neither do I put out salt or attractants in Wyoming where it's against the law. Here in Utah I can do all the above perfectly legally.

If you find that trashy and beneath you, that's fair, go get it outlawed, but to say I believe laws are beneath me is going too far


----------



## 30-06-hunter (Sep 22, 2013)

c3hammer said:


> are you guys kidding me? some pos from the forest service sees your trailcam and decides he'll take it down as abandoned property. no wonder so many of us have such a hatred for government dog poop and those who support them. yes, that's what you are dog s*&#t


Do I need to remind you of your own post above? You pretty much said that government and anyone who supports them are dog crap, meaning beneath you.



c3hammer said:


> Come on 06, where have I ever suggested that laws are beneath me? There is no law against putting up and leaving up trail cams on the national forest here in Utah. Just because some libnut kook who works for the forest service doesn't like them doesn't make it illegal. I take issue with anyone who takes them down, smashes them, steals them or supports those who do. To me it doesn't matter who it is, they are a pos and beneath me.
> 
> Like klbzdad has pointed out, if you don't like them personally, great, go get a law passed to outlaw them. I personally think it's nonsense, but like in Montana where they are banned during the season I don't use them. Neither do I put out salt or attractants in Wyoming where it's against the law. Here in Utah I can do all the above perfectly legally.
> 
> If you find that trashy and beneath you, that's fair, go get it outlawed, but to say I believe laws are beneath me is going too far


In case you missed it, I don't have a problem with a camera, just with people like yourself who have trashy attitudes. But that's okay though, we will never cross paths on a social or any other level.

And although I may not agree with some things our government does, I spent 5 years putting on a uniform in order to protect YOUR RIGHT to sit at home and bitch and moan about anything you feel isn't going your way. So when someone says, "no wonder so many of us have such a hatred for government dog poop and those who support them. yes, that's what you are dog s*&#t", I call them trash. So next time you might want to think a bit before you allow that crap to spew out.


----------



## c3hammer (Nov 1, 2009)

30-06-hunter said:


> Do I need to remind you of your own post above? You pretty much said that government and anyone who supports them are dog crap, meaning beneath you...


That's words you made up, not mine. I specifically said "some pos from the forest service sees your trailcam and decides he'll take it down as abandoned property".

My respect for law enforcement and support for some bureaucrat in the forest service who takes it on his own prerogative to remove someone's trail cam(s) are on opposite ends of the spectrum. If you don't see the difference, my condolences to you.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

I agree with c3hammer. Go back and read the post. He is referring to "government dog poop" as stupid acts such as pulling down a trail camera and those who support those acts as "POS". In no way did he call into question your service. We all appreciate it and thank you. But don't use it as a "trump" card when you get offended.


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

I sure enjoy seeing the pics and was actually reviewing my pics from last years LE archery elk hunt. SWBUCKMASTERS bear hunt thread was really cool with all the trail cam pics that he shared with us and his daughters. Real shame if some azzhat stole his cams during the hunt. I really don't see why guys give a crap about trail cams. I love how all sorts of reasonings are made to justify stealing someone's gear.

You think in today's world your not on camera every day you travel in your car, at work and basically almost every retail store you step in? Not sure what your doing in the woods to be worried about someone getting a pic of it......


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I honestly dont think the forest service is taking cameras. My bet is its some waste of a hunter or meth head taking them. 

It always seems the majority of the cameras that go missing every year are near strawberry or on the wasatch unit.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Thanks gdog
My bear hunt wouldnt have been any fun without the cameras. I dont get why people have such a hard time with them. The most ill do if I see someones cam is walk in front of it with a monkey suit


----------



## sheepherdersam (Feb 21, 2011)

What about trappers leaving traps out? USFS and BLM should leave things alone, it's public land. Oh, wait a minute, some camera might get pic's of a wolf or some other sacred critter that they feel needs protection!


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

sheepherdersam said:


> What about trappers leaving traps out?


Traps have regulations that trappers must follow. They have to have a trapping registration number attached to the trap, which identifies the trapper. They also must be checked at least every 48 hours (with a few exceptions).


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

sheepherdersam said:


> USFS and BLM should leave things alone, it's public land.


say....there's an idea!

errr......maybe not. I can't imagine how out of control things would be without some kind of governing agency managing our public resources. I don't necessarily agree with the USFS and BLM on many things, but I'm glad they are in place. It could be a helluva lot worse -- the State could be managing those lands!! (OMG!! what a mess that would be!)


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

You really can't associate traps or even attended cameras on federal land with those that leave a camera for mulipul weeks before checking them. Even swbuckmaster was checking his at least once a week I believe. Traps have to be checked every 48 hours if I remember right and if you are caught leaving them without checking them in the correct time frame you are subject to having them picked up and having to pay a fine. 

But in my book swbuckmaster's cameras were on a bait pile that had his name registered with the DOW, and traps have to have your name and regrestration number on them to be legal I believe but I may be wrong. So those two situations are different than a person the just puts out a camera on a tree and checks it once a month if even that. 

I actually don't have a problem with them either and have left one out for 4 months during the winter but I don't understand those who complain when they return to one that they have left for a month and is now missing. Mine also have my name and phone number attached to a brass tag that I have riveted to them


----------



## Truelife (Feb 6, 2009)

There has been a lot of reference in this thread to how often a person checks the camera if they use one. 

I'm a bit interested to know what difference it makes. If a person hangs a camera for two months and checks it every week is that different than if they hang the camera and never check it other than when they take it down?

I am not one of them, but some might be wealthy enough to purchase the type of camera that can be checked remotely without visiting the site. Does this make it better because they aren't tromping in to check a camera all the time, or worse because they left their $600 "trash" hanging in a tree??

OR is it really just a matter of someone saying WELL I DON'T USE CAMERAS SO I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU NEED TO


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

Critter said:


> But in my book swbuckmaster's cameras were on a bait pile that had his name registered with the DOW..... So those two situations are different than a person the just puts out a camera on a tree and checks it once a month if even that.
> 
> I actually don't have a problem with them either and have left one out for 4 months during the winter but I don't understand those who complain when they return to one that they have left for a month and is now missing.


How does a camera checked more often then another effect you? How does the person stealing a camera know exactly how often it's checked...and when exactly the "right" time it's ok to steal it? What a joke.....


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I had two cameras out and I was checking one on odd days and the other on even days. I was busy! I also fail to see any difference if someone was checking theirs once a week or once a month. No one knows how often you check your cameras.

This was the really first time ive ever used cameras. I can see how they can be fun. I can see how they can make someone mad when they get to a spot they want to hunt and they see a camera. I would probably still get mad if I saw one on a seep I wanted to hunt but its public land and im not going to destroy someones camera.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

gdog said:


> How does a camera checked more often then another effect you? How does the person stealing a camera know exactly how often it's checked...and when exactly the "right" time it's ok to steal it? What a joke.....


It doesn't, and how do you know if it has been stolen or picked up by the land agency? That is where I would like to see a requirement for them to be registered like a bear bait so that whoever comes up on one would know who's it is and when it was checked last. But then in a perfect world I would have a lot more money and not playing around on the computer.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I think if you make a requirement like that it would suck and cause more problems. People would start claiming their spots like they claim tent spots and bear spots. Its actually kind of hard getting a good bear bait location because all the good spots that meet the requirements are taken on the first day.

I can see the cluster now going down to the dwrs board to see what water hole is legal to use. 

We dont need anymore stupid regulations then we already have. We dont need any more ways for the government to leach more money out of are pockets.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Everyone's definition of litter is different. When I see a tree growing around a trail cam security cage that has been bolted there for years, it looks abandoned. They may use the pics, but that cam is staying there. So if I park a car in the woods but use it to go camp in once in awhile it isn't abandoned? Is it the size of the vehicle that changes it? The fluids? What is it? 

Everyone is using their own definitions here to justify their side. Its all interpretation. 

Flying camera-bad. Camera bolted to tree-good.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

I wonder if this was abandoned?
Top of page too! ha ha


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

RandomElk16 said:


> Everyone's definition of litter is different. When I see a tree growing around a trail cam security cage that has been bolted there for years, it looks abandoned. They may use the pics, but that cam is staying there. So if I park a car in the woods but use it to go camp in once in awhile it isn't abandoned? Is it the size of the vehicle that changes it? The fluids? What is it?
> 
> Everyone is using their own definitions here to justify their side. Its all interpretation.
> 
> Flying camera-bad. Camera bolted to tree-good.


I know a old truck that is still "parked" on the manti unit. It isn't hurting anyone and the tree is growing around it.


----------



## Kevinitis (Jul 18, 2013)

You can leave a camera for as long as you can leave a tent, or camper, or cooler or whatever. Then after 14-16 days any of those items are considered abandoned property. So its not illegal to put up a camera, only to leave it there for more than the aloud period of time without moving it. And it's not just "some" FS bureaucrat walking around taking cameras, the FS has federal law enforcement officers who do that. They document the date found, then check back after 14-16 days to see if its still there. If it is, they confiscate it, and if it has a name tag and phone number they will call you and give you a ticket. If it does not have id tags on it, then you are welcome to come identify your property and receive a ticket, just like any other abandoned property. Its the same laws that allow the FS to ticket people who camp in the same spot for more than 14 days. If they didn't enforce those rules then people would be "camping" (squatting) up on the forest all year in your favorite camping spot. The National Forests are everyones property, but that does not mean you can go do anything you want whenever you want.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

It sounds like a lot of guys are putting trail cameras in heavy human use areas. If I had cameras to set out I wouldn't even worry about anybody finding them, including the Forest Service. But again I don't hunt 50 yards off of the road either.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Kevinitis said:


> You can leave a camera for as long as you can leave a tent, or camper, or cooler or whatever. Then after 14-16 days any of those items are considered abandoned property. So its not illegal to put up a camera, only to leave it there for more than the aloud period of time without moving it. And it's not just "some" FS bureaucrat walking around taking cameras, the FS has federal law enforcement officers who do that. They document the date found, then check back after 14-16 days to see if its still there. If it is, they confiscate it, and if it has a name tag and phone number they will call you and give you a ticket. If it does not have id tags on it, then you are welcome to come identify your property and receive a ticket, just like any other abandoned property. Its the same laws that allow the FS to ticket people who camp in the same spot for more than 14 days. If they didn't enforce those rules then people would be "camping" (squatting) up on the forest all year in your favorite camping spot. The National Forests are everyones property, but that does not mean you can go do anything you want whenever you want.


Uhmmmm.....wrong. The 14-16 day rule for camping is enforced by the FS Recreation Supers and is NOT applied to a trail camera. I would like the name and contact information for a single FS Law Enforcement officer who is tasked or does this on their own. I'm still waiting for those who think they know to post the actual rule that supports the abandoned property argument.

Because there is no law or statute or rule or regulation either federal, state, or local concerning trail cameras, there is no argument that its okay for anyone to take any trail camera off a tree. And RandomElk, its not interpretation, its INTENT. But I digress...


----------



## 30-06-hunter (Sep 22, 2013)

Fowlmouth said:


> It sounds like a lot of guys are putting trail cameras in heavy human use areas. If I had cameras to set out I wouldn't even worry about anybody finding them, including the Forest Service. But again I don't hunt 50 yards off of the road either.


We hunt about 3 miles from the nearest road and the trail climbs about 800 vertical feet in just the first half mile with no motorized access allowed, most "hunters" wouldn't even make it up the first climb, much less be able to pack an animal out. We are usually some of the few who are not on horses and we love it up there because of the more difficult access that results in less pressure. So I know where you are coming from.


----------



## riptheirlips (Jun 30, 2008)

30-06-hunter said:


> , I spent 5 years putting on a uniform in order to protect YOUR RIGHT to sit at home and bitch and moan about anything you feel isn't going your way.
> 
> Your service is appreciated but just because you spent 5 years in service does not make you an expert on all matters. Many on here have served but do not use service to justify being correct all the time. In five years service you would have learned to respect others opinions.
> Thanks again for your service and enjoy the freedom we do have.
> ...


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

I really enjoy putting up my trail cameras and maintaining them over the summer & fall. I get a considerable amount of enjoyment looking at the pictures throughout the year (in fact, I have some favorites from years past that I go back and look at regularly). 
I run my cameras on private property so I can't say that I've experienced the public land fiasco, but I've still had people mess with them on a handful of occasions. It is irritating (and quite honestly I have felt violated each time), however I fully understand and assume the risk in strapping a camera to a tree and walking away so that's why I don't buy the expensive ones.
I wish more people would live by the golden rule and treat other people the way they would like to be treated... and that includes other's possessions.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I love seeing the pictures folks post that they have gotten on their trail cams. Its pretty cool.

At the same time, derekp1999 mentioned he feels violated when someone messes with his trail cameras. I can respect that. But also consider that unknowingly having your picture taken by some stranger when you are out on a trail (even though public lands) can leave the same feeling. I don't know anyone that likes the feeling that "big brother" is watching. Or that little brother is watching either for that matter. So it does run both ways.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

GaryFish said:


> But also consider that unknowingly having your picture taken by some stranger when you are out on a trail (even though public lands) can leave the same feeling.


Good point, I'm sure I would feel that way as well so I can respect that.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

GaryFish,

Yup. On very rare instances, I have suddenly gone from critters to Cooters while looking through photos from my camera. To counter people messing with them, I have one or two closer to trailheads or access points that are super obvious and one can't help but look up at them and smile or grimace. Even the animals easily identify those cameras. 

On a side note, beside the one camera I've ever had stolen the only human who has ever messed with my cameras turned out to be Troy Knapp (mountain man burglar asshat). Caught him trying to stack garbage up against one after unsuccessfully using a hatchet on the cable to remove it. That camera was about 150 yards from one of his camps and I had no clue until someone else in the area stumbled on the camp while hunting and reported it.


----------



## Kevinitis (Jul 18, 2013)

klbzdad said:


> Uhmmmm.....wrong. The 14-16 day rule for camping is enforced by the FS Recreation Supers and is NOT applied to a trail camera. I would like the name and contact information for a single FS Law Enforcement officer who is tasked or does this on their own. I'm still waiting for those who think they know to post the actual rule that supports the abandoned property argument.
> 
> Because there is no law or statute or rule or regulation either federal, state, or local concerning trail cameras, there is no argument that its okay for anyone to take any trail camera off a tree. And RandomElk, its not interpretation, its INTENT. But I digress...


Tell it to the judge when you fight your citation, but I doubt he will agree with you. If you want to talk with a law enforcement officer about it you can call any of them at any National Forest in the state. And no they are not just FS Rec Supers, they are federal LEO officers. The law is 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Sec. 261.10 Occupancy and use, subpart e.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

I have three things to add to this thread:

I have a trail camera.
I have been to 5 Points Lake.
Thanks to those that spelled "Uintas" as in High Uintas correctly.

Hey, check this out:
http://utahwildlife.net/forum/29-other-kinds-animals/36764-wolves-trail-cam-18.html

.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

can someone explain to me where the Low Uintas are?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

PBH said:


> can someone explain to me where the Low Uintas are?


Indian res......


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here's my thoughts.

Why is everyone worried about trailcams?---Someone WILL be back to get them..:!:..

Treestands ?
How about the OLD wood ones that were constructed back in the 60's and 70's..??
I know were there are dozens of these still standing....
They've been there FOR 40 YEARS...:!:....:!:.....:!:
why is'nt the FS and BLM concerned about these????--These are ACTUALY dangerous..:!:...


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

goofy elk said:


> Here's my thoughts.
> 
> Why is everyone worried about trailcams?---Someone WILL be back to get them..:!:..
> 
> ...


Have you taken the time to pull one or two?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Have you taken the time to pull one or two?


YES I HAVE..:!:...

Used one once for firewood during a hailstorm...:grin:...


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

haha. We used one for firewood last year as well.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Kevinitis said:


> Tell it to the judge when you fight your citation, but I doubt he will agree with you. If you want to talk with a law enforcement officer about it you can call any of them at any National Forest in the state. And no they are not just FS Rec Supers, they are federal LEO officers. The law is 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Sec. 261.10 Occupancy and use, subpart e.


I won't have to say a thing to a judge because there isn't one single federal or state le that can enforce a "unicorn" law. You cannot cite someone for doing something you just don't like or is annoying to you or I'd be writing tickets daily to people for "Being Stupid" and "Theft of Shared Air".

Rec Supers are NOT law enforcement, in fact, there are maybe 20 FS law enforcement officers in Utah. I'd like to know which one you talked to so I can get it first hand from him/her. I talked to ours weekly and sometimes daily and they all resoundingly say that even IF there were a law concerning trail cameras, it would be so far down the list of priorities for them, they would never bother with it because they themselves use trail cameras and they don't fall under the Occupancy and Use CFR either. Just so I'm clear, here's the entire law with the one you cited in blue:

36 CFR 261.10 - OCCUPANCY AND USE

§ 261.10 Occupancy and use.
The following are prohibited:
(a) Constructing, placing, or maintaining any kind of road, trail, structure, fence, enclosure, communication equipment, significant surface disturbance, or other improvement on National Forest System lands or facilities without a special-use authorization, contract, or approved operating plan when such authorization is required.

(b) Construction, reconstructing, improving, maintaining, occupying or using a residence on National Forest System lands unless authorized by a special-use authorization or approved operating plan when such authorization is required.

(c) Selling or offering for sale any merchandise or conducting any kind of work activity or service unless authorized by Federal law, regulation, or special-use authorization.

(d) Discharging a firearm or any other implement capable of taking human life, causing injury, or damaging property as follows:
(1) In or within 150 yards of a residence, building, campsite, developed recreation site or occupied area, or
(2) Across or on a National Forest System road or a body of water adjacent thereto, or in any manner or place whereby any person or property is exposed to injury or damage as a result in such discharge.
(3) Into or within any cave.

*(e) Abandoning any personal property.*

(f) Placing a vehicle or other object in such a manner that it is an impediment or hazard to the safety or convenience of any person.

(g) Commercial distribution of printed material without a special use authorization.

(h) When commercially distributing printed material, delaying, halting, or preventing administrative use of an area by the Forest Service or other scheduled or existing uses or activities on National Forest System lands; misrepresenting the purposes or affiliations of those selling or distributing the material; or misrepresenting the availability of the material without cost.

(i) Operating or using in or near a campsite, developed recreation site, or over an adjacent body of water without a permit, any device which produces noise, such as a radio, television, musical instrument, motor or engine in such a manner and at such a time so as to unreasonably disturb any person.

(j) Operating or using a public address system, whether fixed, portable or vehicle mounted, in or near a campsite or developed recreation site or over an adjacent body of water without a special-use authorization.

(k) Use or occupancy of National Forest System land or facilities without special-use authorization when such authorization is required.

(l) Violating any term or condition of a special-use authorization, contract or approved operating plan.

(m) Failing to stop a vehicle when directed to do so by a Forest Officer.

 Failing to pay any special use fee or other charges as required.

(o) Discharging or igniting a firecracker, rocket or other firework, or explosive into or within any cave.

(p) Use or occupancy of National Forest System lands or facilities without an approved operating plan when such authorization is required.

[42 FR 2957, Jan. 14, 1977, as amended at 46 FR 33520, June 30, 1981; 49 FR 25450, June 21, 1984; 53 FR 16550, May 10, 1988; 59 FR 31152, June 17, 1994; 60 FR 45295, Aug. 30, 1995; 66 FR 3218, Jan. 12, 2001; 69 FR 41965, July 13, 2004; 73 FR 65999, Nov. 6, 2008]

NOW, here's the legal definition of "ABANDONED PROPERTY"

*abandoned property n. property left behind (often by a tenant) intentionally and permanently when it appears that the former owner (or tenant) does not intend to come back, pick it up, or use it.* Examples may include possessions left in a house after the tenant has moved out or autos left beside a road for a long period of time, to patent rights of an inventor who does not apply for a patent and lets others use his invention without protest. One may have abandoned the property of contract rights by not doing what is required by the contract. However, an easement and other land rights are not abandoned property just because of non-use.

So, again, what is the legal standing for suggesting that trail cameras in a tree are "illegal" on public land and where do we find that law?


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Remember that the only trail cams that bug people are the ones that they see. Hint, hint.------SS


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

^^^^ bingo!!!!!!


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

boy howdy... being a nice guy (having been contacted by the usfs regarding a trail cam nr five points lake) deciding to give someone a fair shot at retrieval before the usfs takes it down.... sure has ruffled some feathers. maybe we can all just get along and acknowledge our differences are much smaller than what we all have in common and enjoy. i have one trail cam... me and the boyz have a lot of fun just seeing what passes by. got some good pics, never let it stay up more than a week unless its at my property. i consider it similar to a trap - check often. move often. make it unseen to all. try to be a good considerate neighbor.


----------



## richardjb (Apr 1, 2008)

If the FS was worried about abandoned property, they would of moved a logging skidder that has been abandoned less than 500 yards from Long Park Res on the North Slope. I told them about it, it's been sitting there for at least 6 years, really unsure, trees are growing up around it.


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

FWIW.....

Hello,

In response to your request the following enforcement would/could apply depending on many factors;

36 CFR 261.10(e) Abandoning any personnel property
36 CFR 261.16(f) Failing to remove all camping equipment or personnel property when vacating the area or site

No specific regulations pertain to trail cameras, mostly because it has not been an issue.
Anything left unattended could be considered abandoned property, again depending on factors and so forth.
I have not heard of employees taking these down, but it is possible, law enforcement has depending on where and for what purpose they were used for.

Martin Budzynski









* Patrol Captain*
U.S. Forest Service, Law Enforcement & Investigations

Uinta-Wasatch-Cache Forest Supervisor's Office
857 West South Jordan Parkway
South Jordan, UT 84095
Office: (801) 999-2116, Fax: (801) 253-8138, Cell: (435) 671-1694 
Email: [email protected]

-----Original Message-----

Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 12:07 PM
To: FS-uwc info
Subject: WWW Mail: Trail Cameraon use on National Forset land

What are the specific regulations regarding trail camera use on NFL in the state of UT? Is there a specific duration of use allowable in a specific location and are NF rangers/employees actually tracking, taking camera's down? What specific code's outline this enforcement?

Is there someone specific I should be addressing these questions to?

Thank you!


----------



## Rattler (Jul 13, 2014)

So they are ok with them as long as they don't cause a problem? If people start making it an issue: theft, vandalism, complaints, etc., then it could cause laws to ban them. I like SS's statement, the only trail cams that bug people are the ones they see.


----------

