Gotta Ask

[McKinney_5900]

There's a couple of my hunt buddies which bend the law when we hunt together. By that, I mean that we are hunting a tightly restricted spot via permission or permit, and almost immediately, they stray beyond the legal, written limits or agreed upon and search perimeter lands once the detailed area fails to produce in 30 minutes, even less. It puts me in a spot because I am there as a 2 man team, but what do I do besides comment that "that's not a legal place to hunt" and this trend continues to get repeated when we hunt? Do you go cold shoulder and quit a guy, if they keep doing it over and over again? I am no angel but I think I will always try to stay in the specified limits of an agreement to the permission. I understand the lure of greener grass but WTF?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Rawhide]

Theres some places here a lot of people go, but it not legal to do so. Its not really enforced. I myself hunt legal what ever I am looking for. But it may just be the area needs to be opened up. I see a lot of laws that cause more harm than good. Prospecting, one man and shovel does minimal impact, not like land slides, floods, and wild fires. It all falls back to your own conscience. Most people don't get one till they are filthy rich, then they want to pay back a little. Just too many ways to be legal to get caught. There is a lot of unenforceable laws out there, and the rules just keep getting worse. Just make sure if you do cross the line, you get a first warning and no fines and such.

 

[2screwed]

I'd let them know that you value their friendship but you can't hunt that property with them anymore because they don't follow the agreement and put your permission to hunt it in jeopardy. I would think if they are a good friend they would understand the reason and straighten up. If not then you don't need to be there with them. You definitely don't want to get caught up in a guilt by association situation and lose your right to hunt the area. Just my opinion of course.

 

[jeff of pa]

Tuff call.

When given permission for a particular area I stay within the limits,
even to the point of giving the neighbor an extra 3 feet
of forbidden zone between property lines.
unless I can talk to the neighbors & get permission.



If someone else strays, it makes me uncomfortable,
But I'm not their baby sitter, so I usually just Grumble to myself about it,
and think twice next time.
Unless I Have exclusive permission, and bring them along on my own,
then I may hint.

As I've said many times, I never signed up to be a cop,
and nobody is paying me to enforce Laws
so ...
I didn't see Nutton

 

[vpnavy]

Actually, it is a pretty easy decision for me McKinney_5900. I always play by the rules - if I get permission to hunt in one area - I don't stray. Now, if I was hunting with friends that consistantly pulled that crap - I would still be their friends but would no longer hunt with them. If they asked me why - I would just be honest. I see no difference between someone asking if they can hunt in my backyard and I say sure but stay away from the corner of the yard and then I find they are hunting in the corner of the yard. But hey, that is just my opinion and we know what that is worth!

 

[badpenny]

I am no saint either but I would only stay within my permission zone, and would not follow my fellow friend. Period!

 

[Terry Soloman]

For me, it is VERY simple. I say nothing at the time, but when it comes to inviting them back – or being invited to go by that person, I politely decline and tell them why. If a “buddy” is willing to put you – and the hobby at risk by breaking or ignoring the rules, they are NOT your buddy.

 

[CoilyGirl]

If you're good enough friends I would just tell him that if he doesn't knock it off you will find friends who colors in the lines.

 

[mical66]

just by you asking the question it tells me how you feel, you know its wrong . but with that said as you can see you will get different points of view from every one. i agree with most of the others that even though they are the ones breaking the rules , if they are caught all of you will be expelled and lose the right to hunt there , and i would explain it to them that way and either they stop or you will bow out and not go with them. possibly reapply with some one else or solo .

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Casca brings up something interesting, when he says:

"Theres some places here a lot of people go, but it not legal to do so. Its not really enforced."

Now, at first blush, a multitude of people here would look at this, and immediately hop on the part about "enforced", and correctly say "that doesn't matter". Right? Whether or not anyone actually cared, or whether there's anyone there to care or enforce, would technically "not matter", right?

But here's a question: why is it then, that when we see on this forum where someone is about ready to travel to another location (a different city, or a different beach, etc...). And they inquire on a thread "is it ok to detect there?", why is it that a common answer will often-time be the following answer:

"Ask around to the persons who are there. Like if there's a club, a dealer, etc...., that they'll know the skinnny on their own area".

THAT TOO at first glance appears to be a valid answer, right? I mean, who better to know where to hunt, than the person who's hunted some place for decades? But notice that even though local hunters in a certain place just routinely detect a certain beach, or certain parks, never made it "right". Ie.: there *still* might be a law against it (given enough morphing and effort to apply various "alterations" or "cultural heritage" verbage, you can always find yourself a "no", if you ask enough questions.

Why is it then, that we all subconsciously agree to ask local hunters? Because obviously, if they've never had a problem, then one assumes that it's ok. In other words, you and I (even the most skittish) DO tend to give a lot of credence to "actual results", do we not? However, as you can see, this only means .... a lot of times .... that no one's ever gone and asked enough questions. You're never 100% gauranteed that a busy-body won't come up and gripe that you're bothering earthworms or whatever.

So my question to the OP is: What type of site are we talking about, that those fellows wandered over into? Private land? Some form of govt. land? And if so, what type? etc...... There's a million shades of grey here.

 

[2screwed]

my question to the OP is: What type of site are we talking about, that those fellows wandered over into? Private land? Some form of govt. land? And if so, what type? etc...... There's a million shades of grey here.

I don't see a million shades of grey here Tom. An agreement was made, boundaries were outlined and permission was granted. I don't know about you but I was raised to stand by my word whether it was written or given with a hand shake. I think the OP made it clear his buddies were not supposed to be in the area they went to.

we are hunting a tightly restricted spot via permission or permit, and almost immediately, they stray beyond the legal, written limits or agreed upon and search perimeter lands

 

[Frankn]

I probably go along with TOM. There are laws that are made for a reason, and there are laws that are made for no reason.
I was in a state park in MD, it is legal to use a detector in a state park except June, July& Aug. A young ranger said you can't use a detector here, so I walked him over to the rules board and pointed. He then said you can only use it along the stream. I said ok and then went to the ranger station and talked to the head ranger. He said I could hunt in the grass areas. I got his business card and went back to the grass area. The young ranger stopped back and before he could say anything I showed him his bosses card and said he gave me permission. he just turned and walked away. Frank...

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I don't see a million shades of grey here Tom. An agreement was made, boundaries were outlined and permission was granted. I don't know about you but I was raised to stand by my word whether it was written or given with a hand shake. I think the OP made it clear his buddies were not supposed to be in the area they went to.

Perhaps I should have clarified here: You're right 2screwed: It's entirely possible that even the person granting permission themselves distinctly said "but don't go over there", or something to that effect. If so, then you're right. I was thinking of it more along the lines of " .... and then they crossed over onto the county park side" or "then they crossed over into the blm land" or something to that effect.

This is where I'm not clear with the OP what is meant by the "written" limits. I mean, that could mean that the landowner spelled out his boundries (of what he owns), and wasn't addressing the areas to the side of it, either way. But you're right: perhaps he also said "and don't go over such and such line".