I could care less about my picture being taken on public ground in normal circumstances, the issue for me would be altercations of individuals who assume “ownership” of a spot and use it to keep tabs etc. and potentially do harm to my setups or myself. That’s a big reason I do not setup permanent stands on public, but not everyone has that luxury. There was a case in upper Michigan that this happened and a guy actually used a trail cam to keep tabs and eventually cut tree stand straps causing harm to a guy (falling from the stand) who was in “his” spot. I use trail cameras on public every now and again, they help me target certain animals if I desire to do so. I wouldn’t say they are vital to my hunting but banning them seems a little excessive to me. The comment above about “cleaning up the woods” and “leaving the woods better than you left it” shouldn’t only apply to physical items left in the woods, sometimes people should leave others stuff alone that isn't theirs.
Kansas Fish and Game Bans Trail Cameras
Kansas Fish and Game Commission Bans Trail Cameras on Public Land-
On March 9, the Kansas Department of Park & Wildlife (KDPW) Fish and Game Commission voted to prohibit the use of all trail cameras (cellular and conventional) on public lands in the state. The ban, which drew unanimous support from the seven-member commission, will apply year-round on all public lands owned and managed by the state, and it will go into effect before for the upcoming fall hunting seasons.
Read rest of article here:
Kansas Fish and Game Commission Bans Trail Cameras on Public Land (msn.com)
On March 9, the Kansas Department of Park & Wildlife (KDPW) Fish and Game Commission voted to prohibit the use of all trail cameras (cellular and conventional) on public lands in the state. The ban, which drew unanimous support from the seven-member commission, will apply year-round on all public lands owned and managed by the state, and it will go into effect before for the upcoming fall hunting seasons.
Read rest of article here:
Kansas Fish and Game Commission Bans Trail Cameras on Public Land (msn.com)
21 - 37 of 37 Posts
Boy did this get sideways in a hurry. The ODNR is all about killing deer, doubt we have much to worry about. And for what it's worth, there's no expectation of privacy in public. We are on cameras almost everywhere we go.
Just because someone operates under the guise of doing good deeds for the many, does not mean they aren’t just crooks…….just look at our government.Theft?
Never mind....the world has clearly gone beyond my understanding as to true importance.
Nobody should place anything “permanent” on public land. I have seen tree stands left up on public land, and they had the gall to trim all the trees to make shooting lanes around it. Not good.
Great news, hope they do the same here in OH. Less human trash in the woods the better.
This is the crux of it all. Don't leave anything in the woods. The point everyone is making that we shouldn't expect privacy in public spaces is fine, I might not like it but I accept it. But leaving anything in the woods after you leave is the part that is unacceptable, you are littering. You don't leave your tent there all season to go camping, why would you leave anything else? I have pulled way more garbage from the places I hunt that isn't mine. We all have the responsibility to keep what little public land as pristine as possible.Great news, hope they do the same here in OH. Less human trash in the woods the better.
I once found a box-set conibear set next to a parking area on a WIHA in KS....it was as legal as a fella setting a trail camera on his own KS land which he had entered into the WIHA program.
I neither destroyed nor stole that trap even tho a young pup would have been dead going after the hunk of bacon inside...one has to be alert and also be a bit understanding of rights even in tough situations that may not make the most sense re worst case.
Neither would I destroy or pocket a stand, trap, stupid snare or trail camera that simply offended my feeling of what Public means....and Public, carries many definitions and contributing factors ie WIHAs or the NFs with private operations or in-fills.
Simply too much stuff I do not know to let my being offended or worried raise more issues to complicate a complicated world.
Not too long ago, someone here put forth the idea of a wiha-type program finding root in Ohio....while the land ownership, etc. would find that idea unworkable, imo.......I now wonder should the program be tried....would Public protection deputies take unwise actions, should a certain level of Public access fail to reach the lofty height of pristine they would wish.
Trashing a trail camera or other hunter aid of the moment, be the devices really silly or even if I do not agree with them.... is hardly the same as picking up litter.
Good grief....we are sinking away from Commonsense in this country.
I neither destroyed nor stole that trap even tho a young pup would have been dead going after the hunk of bacon inside...one has to be alert and also be a bit understanding of rights even in tough situations that may not make the most sense re worst case.
Neither would I destroy or pocket a stand, trap, stupid snare or trail camera that simply offended my feeling of what Public means....and Public, carries many definitions and contributing factors ie WIHAs or the NFs with private operations or in-fills.
Simply too much stuff I do not know to let my being offended or worried raise more issues to complicate a complicated world.
Not too long ago, someone here put forth the idea of a wiha-type program finding root in Ohio....while the land ownership, etc. would find that idea unworkable, imo.......I now wonder should the program be tried....would Public protection deputies take unwise actions, should a certain level of Public access fail to reach the lofty height of pristine they would wish.
Trashing a trail camera or other hunter aid of the moment, be the devices really silly or even if I do not agree with them.... is hardly the same as picking up litter.
Good grief....we are sinking away from Commonsense in this country.
I find treestands and cameras on public land fairly regular, before, during and after season. I don't mess with em,for the simple fact that they're not mine.
Cleaned up thread and R. Toker just got a vacation. Let's try to keep things on track.
State appointed/selected commission board members will be the decline of our hunting heritage. It is why I gave up on public lands.
The logic eludes me on both points....I must be missing something. 🤔State appointed/selected commission board members will be the decline of our hunting heritage. It is why I gave up on public lands.
I got banned!! Now I’m back but not after this post., you all enjoy the race to the bottom. 20 years I’ve been here. Today is my last. Way to go Steve!!!’
Premium Member being forced out!!!!
And I don’t wanna be auto charged anymore!! So delete me and my auto pay Steve!!! I’ll go the way of TF and the others you have run off. Enjoy running the most anti killing hunting website in America!!!!
Yes, you are missing something. Most state Governors pick/appoint state wildlife commissioners or board members who then are responsible for governing/oversight of the wildlife agency - to include policy making. So, in many cases an appointed individual can have no "wildlife" background and/or just may have the Govenor's agenda at heart - which could be gun control related and/or the demise of hunting. There are some controls as no more than 4 can be from a single political party. Kansas has 7 commissioners. Ohio has an 8-member council that does pretty much the same however, their council has a good "wildlife" and business background. Kansas does not. I'll let you figure the logic on the second point.The logic eludes me on both points....I must be missing something. 🤔
Ah, ok.Yes, you are missing something. Most state Governors pick/appoint state wildlife commissioners or board members who then are responsible for governing/oversight of the wildlife agency - to include policy making. So, in many cases an appointed individual can have no "wildlife" background and/or just may have the Govenor's agenda at heart - which could be gun control related and/or the demise of hunting. There are some controls as no more than 4 can be from a single political party. Kansas has 7 commissioners. Ohio has an 8-member council that does pretty much the same however, their council has a good "wildlife" and business background. Kansas does not. I'll let you figure the logic on the second point.
Based upon Ohio, I am not convinced a "wildlife background" is a guarantee of anything in that position but it would indeed seem to be a reasonable requirement, despite the position being a political appointment.
Believing that particular reality will lead to a decline in a hunting heritage tho.....can't quite see it. A lot of other factors have input to a decline in many segments of hunting today.
Bad board members would be down the black hat list, imo.....however, I know nothing of the KS board.
What I have seen when hunting in KS, pre-drought, has been positive....their WIHA program fits KS well and appears well run and monitored.
"Giving up on Public lands" was really the confusing assertion.....and remains so.
However, I'm sure you feel you have your reasons.
21 - 37 of 37 Posts
Ohio Sportsman - Your Ohio Hunting and Fishing Resource
A forum community dedicated to hunting and fishing enthusiasts in the Ohio area. Come join the discussion about safety, gear, tackle, tips, tricks, optics, hunting, gunsmithing, reviews, reports, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Deehntr56
16 Replies
Rob Cunningham
9 Replies
CARPN-JAKE
9 Replies
