Jump to content

Hunter etiqutte (meaning the kind with guns)


Vartan84
Followers 5

Recommended Posts

i make it a practice while in the woods to be very, very polite to hunters.

 

i am well aware that a LARGE part of the budget to maintain the public lands i enjoy using is paid for by the sale of hunting licenses.

 

being polite means not interfering with anyone's hunt more than i have to. if i think i hear hunters at a distance, i may whistle a few bars of a tune, which alerts them to the fact that i am there. if i see a hunter, i get out of his way as quietly and courteously as i can. i avoid areas where i know there are blinds or stands in use.

 

i try to pay attention when i'm out so that if a hunter asks me what game i've seen and where, i can hold up my end of the conversation and maybe be of help to someone who's paying the bills.

 

in the few places where i see signs of illegal hunting, i am even MORE polite. that's just smart.

 

 

i have never been cursed by a hunter.

Link to comment

The return trip was illegal, and very arrogant plus not wise.

 

Public lands. A cemetary is most certainly always public lands, and the interruption of a hunt on such would never be illegal. Not wise, yes, arrogant, only in kind with the hunter behavior.

Link to comment

I don't know how long it has been since we have seen such little debate on a topic as we have seen here. Even those LPC ant TCTC threads have a FEW people disagreeing. Even if it is tough admitting it here in a public forum I sincerely hope that the OP has learned from this and would not repeat their actions if a similar situation arises.

Link to comment

...and in fact we of course make a very hasty retreat out of there instead of doing anything heroic.

 

A VERY HASTY RETREAT?? After leaving the immediate area, you debated amongst yourselves about going back just to "spite the hunter". And sure enough, you and your female friend walked right back to the spot where this entire train wreck occurred.

 

The hunter was wrong for cursing all of you, but you were just as wrong, and quite honestly stupid, for going back to "spite the hunter", especially when you knew he had a crossbow. The last thing I would do is antagonize someone who has a weapon that could potentially kill me or my friends. That's not saying he would have shot you with it, but you never know for sure. You had the chance to show the world that you are the bigger person by respecting a rude hunter's hunting space, but instead, you chose to come down to his level. You've done nothing to improve the image of geocachers. :blink:

 

I am certain that the legal, albeit dumb, actions of these geocachers in the presence of one self-centered hunter on public lands did little to impact world perception of geocaching.

 

I would argue that these geocachers were self-centered, arrogant, and borderline confrontational. Retreating from the situation would have been the most prudent action that the geocachers could have taken, but instead, they chose escalation. Taking a bad situation and making it worse never looks good.

Link to comment

...and in fact we of course make a very hasty retreat out of there instead of doing anything heroic.

 

A VERY HASTY RETREAT?? After leaving the immediate area, you debated amongst yourselves about going back just to "spite the hunter". And sure enough, you and your female friend walked right back to the spot where this entire train wreck occurred.

 

The hunter was wrong for cursing all of you, but you were just as wrong, and quite honestly stupid, for going back to "spite the hunter", especially when you knew he had a crossbow. The last thing I would do is antagonize someone who has a weapon that could potentially kill me or my friends. That's not saying he would have shot you with it, but you never know for sure. You had the chance to show the world that you are the bigger person by respecting a rude hunter's hunting space, but instead, you chose to come down to his level. You've done nothing to improve the image of geocachers. :blink:

 

I am certain that the legal, albeit dumb, actions of these geocachers in the presence of one self-centered hunter on public lands did little to impact world perception of geocaching.

 

They don't have to impact the "world" perception of geocaching... just a few land owners and then they talk to another..... and another.... etc....

 

Look at the big picture. Geocaching is not nearly as popular as hunting... we need to all be good ambassadors of the sport/hobby/addiction.

 

I don't think the hunter was anymore right than the geocachers... but can't we all try to be the bigger man? (or woman(but not too many women like the word bigger))

 

Bruce.

 

The hunter was wrong. Unless of course the goecachers lied about the cemetary or the safe zones or the claim of public lands. Yes people should always strive to be the "bigger" person, but, that was not the question.

Link to comment

...and in fact we of course make a very hasty retreat out of there instead of doing anything heroic.

 

A VERY HASTY RETREAT?? After leaving the immediate area, you debated amongst yourselves about going back just to "spite the hunter". And sure enough, you and your female friend walked right back to the spot where this entire train wreck occurred.

 

The hunter was wrong for cursing all of you, but you were just as wrong, and quite honestly stupid, for going back to "spite the hunter", especially when you knew he had a crossbow. The last thing I would do is antagonize someone who has a weapon that could potentially kill me or my friends. That's not saying he would have shot you with it, but you never know for sure. You had the chance to show the world that you are the bigger person by respecting a rude hunter's hunting space, but instead, you chose to come down to his level. You've done nothing to improve the image of geocachers. :blink:

 

I am certain that the legal, albeit dumb, actions of these geocachers in the presence of one self-centered hunter on public lands did little to impact world perception of geocaching.

 

I would argue that these geocachers were self-centered, arrogant, and borderline confrontational. Retreating from the situation would have been the most prudent action that the geocachers could have taken, but instead, they chose escalation. Taking a bad situation and making it worse never looks good.

 

I'll tell you that I have a right to be on public land, whether you are cursing or have a gun or whatever. That doesn't make me stupid, and only imprudent because people can be volatile or insane. And what does that say about me and the other party?

Link to comment

The return trip was illegal, and very arrogant plus not wise.

 

Public lands. A cemetary is most certainly always public lands, and the interruption of a hunt on such would never be illegal. Not wise, yes, arrogant, only in kind with the hunter behavior.

 

a cemetery is actually usually private land. they are usually owned by cemetery companies that exist as free-standing entities, or else they are owned by churches. cemeteries owned by towns or other governments are public property, but often not in the same sense as park land.

 

do not confuse land that is open to the public with public land.

 

edit to add: you're also talking out your ear on the other point. in may places it is unlawful to interfere with a legal hunt, period.

 

it is no more lawful for me to willfully spoil the hunt of a licensed hunter on my neighbor's open land than it is for me to willfully spoil a hunt on state land.

Edited by flask
Link to comment

The return trip was illegal, and very arrogant plus not wise.

 

Public lands. A cemetary is most certainly always public lands, and the interruption of a hunt on such would never be illegal. Not wise, yes, arrogant, only in kind with the hunter behavior.

 

a cemetery is actually usually private land. they are usually owned by cemetery companies that exist as free-standing entities, or else they are owned by churches. cemeteries owned by towns or other governments are public property, but often not in the same sense as park land.

 

do not confuse land that is open to the public with public land.

 

Very good point. However this was reported to be in a park. Also, I would argue that a cemetary is more likely to be "open" to anyone before to a specific group like hunters. Again, the issue is access. Caching requires permission otherwise.

Edited by llano
Link to comment

The return trip was illegal, and very arrogant plus not wise.

 

Public lands. A cemetary is most certainly always public lands, and the interruption of a hunt on such would never be illegal. Not wise, yes, arrogant, only in kind with the hunter behavior.

 

a cemetery is actually usually private land. they are usually owned by cemetery companies that exist as free-standing entities, or else they are owned by churches. cemeteries owned by towns or other governments are public property, but often not in the same sense as park land.

 

do not confuse land that is open to the public with public land.

 

Very good point. However this was reported to be in a park. Also, I would argue that a cemetary is more likely to be "open" to anyone before to a specific group like hunters. Caching requires permission otherwise.

Assuming the OP knows the facts, the original message stated that "There is a small colonial cemetery in the woods of a state park". FYI.
Link to comment

The return trip was illegal, and very arrogant plus not wise.

 

Public lands. A cemetary is most certainly always public lands, and the interruption of a hunt on such would never be illegal. Not wise, yes, arrogant, only in kind with the hunter behavior.

 

a cemetery is actually usually private land. they are usually owned by cemetery companies that exist as free-standing entities, or else they are owned by churches. cemeteries owned by towns or other governments are public property, but often not in the same sense as park land.

 

do not confuse land that is open to the public with public land.

 

Very good point. However this was reported to be in a park. Also, I would argue that a cemetary is more likely to be "open" to anyone before to a specific group like hunters. Caching requires permission otherwise.

Assuming the OP knows the facts, the original message stated that "There is a small colonial cemetery in the woods of a state park". FYI.

 

READ. Understood and alluded to in previous posts.

Link to comment

...and in fact we of course make a very hasty retreat out of there instead of doing anything heroic.

 

A VERY HASTY RETREAT?? After leaving the immediate area, you debated amongst yourselves about going back just to "spite the hunter". And sure enough, you and your female friend walked right back to the spot where this entire train wreck occurred.

 

The hunter was wrong for cursing all of you, but you were just as wrong, and quite honestly stupid, for going back to "spite the hunter", especially when you knew he had a crossbow. The last thing I would do is antagonize someone who has a weapon that could potentially kill me or my friends. That's not saying he would have shot you with it, but you never know for sure. You had the chance to show the world that you are the bigger person by respecting a rude hunter's hunting space, but instead, you chose to come down to his level. You've done nothing to improve the image of geocachers. :blink:

 

I am certain that the legal, albeit dumb, actions of these geocachers in the presence of one self-centered hunter on public lands did little to impact world perception of geocaching.

 

I would argue that these geocachers were self-centered, arrogant, and borderline confrontational. Retreating from the situation would have been the most prudent action that the geocachers could have taken, but instead, they chose escalation. Taking a bad situation and making it worse never looks good.

 

I'll tell you that I have a right to be on public land, whether you are cursing or have a gun or whatever. That doesn't make me stupid, and only imprudent because people can be volatile or insane. And what does that say about me and the other party?

 

If the hunter had shot them with his crossbow, would you still insist that they WEREN'T stupid by going back to the cemetary a second time just to "spite the hunter"? Just because the hunter was being a jerk doesn't mean the geocachers needed to throw common sense out the window. Yes, they have a right to be in that cemetary, but common sense should tell you to give the guy with a loaded weapon his space. The last thing they should have done was antagonize him, because if he is "insane", he could have shot them and they would have most likely died. Your rights mean nothing if you're dead.

Link to comment

...and in fact we of course make a very hasty retreat out of there instead of doing anything heroic.

 

A VERY HASTY RETREAT?? After leaving the immediate area, you debated amongst yourselves about going back just to "spite the hunter". And sure enough, you and your female friend walked right back to the spot where this entire train wreck occurred.

 

The hunter was wrong for cursing all of you, but you were just as wrong, and quite honestly stupid, for going back to "spite the hunter", especially when you knew he had a crossbow. The last thing I would do is antagonize someone who has a weapon that could potentially kill me or my friends. That's not saying he would have shot you with it, but you never know for sure. You had the chance to show the world that you are the bigger person by respecting a rude hunter's hunting space, but instead, you chose to come down to his level. You've done nothing to improve the image of geocachers. :blink:

 

I would argue that these geocachers were self-centered, arrogant, and borderline confrontational. Retreating from the situation would have been the most prudent action that the geocachers could have taken, but instead, they chose escalation. Taking a bad situation and making it worse never looks good.

 

I'll tell you that I have a right to be on public land, whether you are cursing or have a gun or whatever. That doesn't make me stupid, and only imprudent because people can be volatile or insane. And what does that say about me and the other party?

 

If the hunter had shot them with his crossbow, would you still insist that they WEREN'T stupid by going back to the cemetary a second time just to "spite the hunter"? Just because the hunter was being a jerk doesn't mean the geocachers needed to throw common sense out the window. Yes, they have a right to be in that cemetary, but common sense should tell you to give the guy with a loaded weapon his space. The last thing they should have done was antagonize him, because if he is "insane", he could have shot them and they would have most likely died. Your rights mean nothing if you're dead.

 

Duh. Again you should read the posts. I said they were dull. I said they were stupid. I said they were arrogant and rude IN KIND with the hunter. However, they were not wrong in any legal sense as far as what is reported about the situation.

Link to comment

...and in fact we of course make a very hasty retreat out of there instead of doing anything heroic.

 

A VERY HASTY RETREAT?? After leaving the immediate area, you debated amongst yourselves about going back just to "spite the hunter". And sure enough, you and your female friend walked right back to the spot where this entire train wreck occurred.

 

The hunter was wrong for cursing all of you, but you were just as wrong, and quite honestly stupid, for going back to "spite the hunter", especially when you knew he had a crossbow. The last thing I would do is antagonize someone who has a weapon that could potentially kill me or my friends. That's not saying he would have shot you with it, but you never know for sure. You had the chance to show the world that you are the bigger person by respecting a rude hunter's hunting space, but instead, you chose to come down to his level. You've done nothing to improve the image of geocachers. :blink:

 

I would argue that these geocachers were self-centered, arrogant, and borderline confrontational. Retreating from the situation would have been the most prudent action that the geocachers could have taken, but instead, they chose escalation. Taking a bad situation and making it worse never looks good.

 

I'll tell you that I have a right to be on public land, whether you are cursing or have a gun or whatever. That doesn't make me stupid, and only imprudent because people can be volatile or insane. And what does that say about me and the other party?

 

If the hunter had shot them with his crossbow, would you still insist that they WEREN'T stupid by going back to the cemetary a second time just to "spite the hunter"? Just because the hunter was being a jerk doesn't mean the geocachers needed to throw common sense out the window. Yes, they have a right to be in that cemetary, but common sense should tell you to give the guy with a loaded weapon his space. The last thing they should have done was antagonize him, because if he is "insane", he could have shot them and they would have most likely died. Your rights mean nothing if you're dead.

 

Duh. Again you should read the posts. I said they were dull. I said they were stupid. I said they were arrogant and rude IN KIND with the hunter. However, they were not wrong in any legal sense as far as what is reported about the situation.

I don't know what the rules are in the area they were but in many places the second visit could very well have been illegal. Intentionally interfering with a hunt is illegal in some places, even on public lands. You would have to ask a local game warden what rules apply.

Link to comment

...and in fact we of course make a very hasty retreat out of there instead of doing anything heroic.

 

A VERY HASTY RETREAT?? After leaving the immediate area, you debated amongst yourselves about going back just to "spite the hunter". And sure enough, you and your female friend walked right back to the spot where this entire train wreck occurred.

 

The hunter was wrong for cursing all of you, but you were just as wrong, and quite honestly stupid, for going back to "spite the hunter", especially when you knew he had a crossbow. The last thing I would do is antagonize someone who has a weapon that could potentially kill me or my friends. That's not saying he would have shot you with it, but you never know for sure. You had the chance to show the world that you are the bigger person by respecting a rude hunter's hunting space, but instead, you chose to come down to his level. You've done nothing to improve the image of geocachers. :blink:

 

I would argue that these geocachers were self-centered, arrogant, and borderline confrontational. Retreating from the situation would have been the most prudent action that the geocachers could have taken, but instead, they chose escalation. Taking a bad situation and making it worse never looks good.

 

I'll tell you that I have a right to be on public land, whether you are cursing or have a gun or whatever. That doesn't make me stupid, and only imprudent because people can be volatile or insane. And what does that say about me and the other party?

 

If the hunter had shot them with his crossbow, would you still insist that they WEREN'T stupid by going back to the cemetary a second time just to "spite the hunter"? Just because the hunter was being a jerk doesn't mean the geocachers needed to throw common sense out the window. Yes, they have a right to be in that cemetary, but common sense should tell you to give the guy with a loaded weapon his space. The last thing they should have done was antagonize him, because if he is "insane", he could have shot them and they would have most likely died. Your rights mean nothing if you're dead.

 

Duh. Again you should read the posts. I said they were dull. I said they were stupid. I said they were arrogant and rude IN KIND with the hunter. However, they were not wrong in any legal sense as far as what is reported about the situation.

 

Most states have laws against harassing hunters. The geocachers first encounter with the hunter was a mistake, but when they left and returned a second time, it could be viewed as "intent to harass". Unless you know where this incident occurred and know for a fact that there is NO law in that state against hunter harassment, I would surmise that your assertion, "they were not wrong in any legal sense as far as what is reported about the situation.", is baseless.

Edited by rocketsteve
Link to comment

 

 

Duh. Again you should read the posts. I said they were dull. I said they were stupid. I said they were arrogant and rude IN KIND with the hunter. However, they were not wrong in any legal sense as far as what is reported about the situation.

 

you should read all the posts your self!!!!

 

its been posted many times how they went back... and that was intentionaly interfering with his hunt which is illegal

Link to comment

 

 

Duh. Again you should read the posts. I said they were dull. I said they were stupid. I said they were arrogant and rude IN KIND with the hunter. However, they were not wrong in any legal sense as far as what is reported about the situation.

 

you should read all the posts your self!!!!

 

its been posted many times how they went back... and that was intentionaly interfering with his hunt which is illegal

 

prove it

Link to comment

 

 

Duh. Again you should read the posts. I said they were dull. I said they were stupid. I said they were arrogant and rude IN KIND with the hunter. However, they were not wrong in any legal sense as far as what is reported about the situation.

 

you should read all the posts your self!!!!

 

its been posted many times how they went back... and that was intentionaly interfering with his hunt which is illegal

 

prove it

In Indiana:

Harassment of

Hunters, Trappers

It is illegal to intentionally interfere with

the legal taking of a game animal by another

person on public land, or on private land

without permission of the landowner.

http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/fw-hg_generalinfo.pdf

Notice where it says public lands?

Most states have similar laws.

Hunter was a jerk but we don't know why, possinly he has waited years to hunt that area and will never have another chance, around here public land hunts are often Lottery based, you apply but if they don't draw your name, you don't hunt. Ruining what may have been his only chance to hunt that area would upset most people.

Link to comment

Pennsylvania (and all the other states) has a similar statute:

 

Pennsylvania TITLE 34. GAME PENNSYLVANIA CONSOLIDATED STATUTES CHAPTER 23. HUNTING AND FUR TAKING SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS § 2302. Interference with lawful taking of wildlife or other activities permitted by this title prohibited

(A) GENERAL RULE.-- Except as otherwise provided in this title, it is unlawful for another person at the location where the activity is taking place to intentionally obstruct or interfere with the lawful taking of wildlife or other activities permitted by this title.

(A.1) ACTIVITIES WHICH VIOLATE SECTION.-- A person violates this section when he intentionally or knowingly:

(1) drives or disturbs wildlife for the purpose of disrupting the lawful taking of wildlife where another person is engaged in the process of lawfully taking wildlife or other permitted activities;

(2) blocks, impedes or otherwise harasses another person who is engaged in the process of lawfully taking wildlife or other permitted activities;

(3) uses natural or artificial visual, aural, olfactory or physical stimuli to affect wildlife behavior in order to hinder or prevent the lawful taking of wildlife or other permitted activities;

(4) creates or erects barriers with the intent to deny ingress or egress to areas where the lawful taking of wildlife or other permitted activities may occur;

(5) interjects himself into the line of fire;

(6) affects the condition or placement of personal or public property intended for use in the lawful taking of wildlife or other permitted activities in order to impair its usefulness or prevent its use;

(7) enters or remains upon public lands or upon private lands without permission of the owner or their agent, with intent to violate this section; or

(8) fails to obey the order of any officer whose duty it is to enforce any of the laws of this Commonwealth where such officer observes any conduct which violates this section or has reasonable grounds to believe that any person intends to engage in such conduct.

(:blink: ENFORCEMENT AND RECOVERY OF DAMAGES.-- The commission or any person who is lawfully engaged in the taking, hunting or trapping of game or wildlife who is directly affected by a violation of this section may bring an action to restrain conduct declared unlawful in this section and to recover damages.

© EXCEPTIONS.-- The conduct declared unlawful in this section does not include any activities arising from lawful activity by other land uses, including farming, mining, forestry practices, recreation or any other activities when it is evident that such activities are not intended to violate this section.

(D) PENALTIES.-- A violation of this section is a summary offense of the second degree.

Link to comment
The hunter was wrong.

I notice you keep saying this. Have you noticed that no one is arguing that point with you?

Just because the hunter was being a fidiot, doesn't excuse the behavior of others.

 

I'll tell you that I have a right to be on public land, whether you are cursing or have a gun or whatever. That doesn't make me stupid

Of course it doesn't. Simply being there doesn't make anyone an idiot.

Now, if you had returned to the scene where you already knew a heavily armed, irrational person was, repeating the exact action that set him off the first time, that would, certainly, make you an idiot. Which I believe is what the cachers did. In fact, (if memory of the video serves), they did it out of spite. What kind of goober would intentionally spite an armed, angry person, just to increase their find count?

 

However, they were not wrong in any legal sense as far as what is reported about the situation.

This is where I disagree. As many have mentioned, it is illegal to intentionally interfere with a hunter. Their first contact was unintentional, and as such, the cachers cannot be blamed for anything other than not maintaining situational awareness. No crime there. However, after they became aware of the hunter, left the immediate area, developed a plan to "spite" him, then deliberately returned, they did violate the law.

 

What part of 'He was there first' is so hard to understand? Simple courtesy called for the geocachers to discover the hunter and leave the area. Doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure that out. :blink:

Ed, can you please stop interjecting common sense? It has no place here. :laughing::laughing:

Link to comment

What part of 'He was there first' is so hard to understand? Simple courtesy called for the geocachers to discover the hunter and leave the area. Doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure that out. :blink:

 

(To this I would add)

 

What part of "he was armed with a deadly weapon and ticked off" is so hard to understand? Simple self-preservation should have kept the cachers away. :laughing:

Link to comment

Pennsylvania (and all the other states) has a similar statute:

 

Pennsylvania TITLE 34. GAME PENNSYLVANIA CONSOLIDATED STATUTES CHAPTER 23. HUNTING AND FUR TAKING SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS § 2302. Interference with lawful taking of wildlife or other activities permitted by this title prohibited

(A) GENERAL RULE.-- Except as otherwise provided in this title, it is unlawful for another person at the location where the activity is taking place to intentionally obstruct or interfere with the lawful taking of wildlife or other activities permitted by this title.

(A.1) ACTIVITIES WHICH VIOLATE SECTION.-- A person violates this section when he intentionally or knowingly:

(1) drives or disturbs wildlife for the purpose of disrupting the lawful taking of wildlife where another person is engaged in the process of lawfully taking wildlife or other permitted activities;

(2) blocks, impedes or otherwise harasses another person who is engaged in the process of lawfully taking wildlife or other permitted activities;

(3) uses natural or artificial visual, aural, olfactory or physical stimuli to affect wildlife behavior in order to hinder or prevent the lawful taking of wildlife or other permitted activities;

(4) creates or erects barriers with the intent to deny ingress or egress to areas where the lawful taking of wildlife or other permitted activities may occur;

(5) interjects himself into the line of fire;

(6) affects the condition or placement of personal or public property intended for use in the lawful taking of wildlife or other permitted activities in order to impair its usefulness or prevent its use;

(7) enters or remains upon public lands or upon private lands without permission of the owner or their agent, with intent to violate this section; or

(8) fails to obey the order of any officer whose duty it is to enforce any of the laws of this Commonwealth where such officer observes any conduct which violates this section or has reasonable grounds to believe that any person intends to engage in such conduct.

(:blink: ENFORCEMENT AND RECOVERY OF DAMAGES.-- The commission or any person who is lawfully engaged in the taking, hunting or trapping of game or wildlife who is directly affected by a violation of this section may bring an action to restrain conduct declared unlawful in this section and to recover damages.

© EXCEPTIONS.-- The conduct declared unlawful in this section does not include any activities arising from lawful activity by other land uses, including farming, mining, forestry practices, recreation or any other activities when it is evident that such activities are not intended to violate this section.

(D) PENALTIES.-- A violation of this section is a summary offense of the second degree.

 

Thanks for posting this.

I don't think the cachers/hikers were intentionally interfering with a hunt as outlined above. They were not there to stop the hunt. They were at the back of the hunter, not in his line of fire. They were not intentionally trying to scare away deer. They were simply in the vicinity of the hunter. I found a newspaper article [Jury says Vermont man didn't interfere with hunter] that sounded more like intentional interference and even that guy got acquitted.

Link to comment

Pennsylvania (and all the other states) has a similar statute:

 

Pennsylvania TITLE 34. GAME PENNSYLVANIA CONSOLIDATED STATUTES CHAPTER 23. HUNTING AND FUR TAKING SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS § 2302. Interference with lawful taking of wildlife or other activities permitted by this title prohibited

(A) GENERAL RULE.-- Except as otherwise provided in this title, it is unlawful for another person at the location where the activity is taking place to intentionally obstruct or interfere with the lawful taking of wildlife or other activities permitted by this title.

(A.1) ACTIVITIES WHICH VIOLATE SECTION.-- A person violates this section when he intentionally or knowingly:

(1) drives or disturbs wildlife for the purpose of disrupting the lawful taking of wildlife where another person is engaged in the process of lawfully taking wildlife or other permitted activities;

(2) blocks, impedes or otherwise harasses another person who is engaged in the process of lawfully taking wildlife or other permitted activities;

(3) uses natural or artificial visual, aural, olfactory or physical stimuli to affect wildlife behavior in order to hinder or prevent the lawful taking of wildlife or other permitted activities;

(4) creates or erects barriers with the intent to deny ingress or egress to areas where the lawful taking of wildlife or other permitted activities may occur;

(5) interjects himself into the line of fire;

(6) affects the condition or placement of personal or public property intended for use in the lawful taking of wildlife or other permitted activities in order to impair its usefulness or prevent its use;

(7) enters or remains upon public lands or upon private lands without permission of the owner or their agent, with intent to violate this section; or

(8) fails to obey the order of any officer whose duty it is to enforce any of the laws of this Commonwealth where such officer observes any conduct which violates this section or has reasonable grounds to believe that any person intends to engage in such conduct.

( :blink: ENFORCEMENT AND RECOVERY OF DAMAGES.-- The commission or any person who is lawfully engaged in the taking, hunting or trapping of game or wildlife who is directly affected by a violation of this section may bring an action to restrain conduct declared unlawful in this section and to recover damages.

© EXCEPTIONS.-- The conduct declared unlawful in this section does not include any activities arising from lawful activity by other land uses, including farming, mining, forestry practices, recreation or any other activities when it is evident that such activities are not intended to violate this section.

(D) PENALTIES.-- A violation of this section is a summary offense of the second degree.

 

Thanks for posting this.

I don't think the cachers/hikers were intentionally interfering with a hunt as outlined above. They were not there to stop the hunt. They were at the back of the hunter, not in his line of fire. They were not intentionally trying to scare away deer. They were simply in the vicinity of the hunter. I found a newspaper article [Jury says Vermont man didn't interfere with hunter] that sounded more like intentional interference and even that guy got acquitted.

Acquitted after a jury trial. I sense a lot of money spent in getting that acquittal, a lot of days off work, a lot of anxious hours. I agree that their actions were not interfering with a hunt in the legal sense, but that doesn't mean that they could not have been charged with it.

 

 

I have to agree with TAR: What part of 'He was there first' is so hard to understand?

Link to comment

Thanks for posting this.

I don't think the cachers/hikers were intentionally interfering with a hunt as outlined above. They were not there to stop the hunt. They were at the back of the hunter, not in his line of fire. They were not intentionally trying to scare away deer. They were simply in the vicinity of the hunter.

 

Thank you Lone R, I agree with you. You sum up the situation perfectly. We weren't in his way, we didn't stand in his line of fire, we just happened to be in the general vicinity. I apologize to you all for going back for a minute but I hope you all undestand how we felt we were being unecessarily bullied when we had a right to be there. If the cache was in his line of fire or directly next to him, of course we wouldn't have returned. We felt our interference was negligible though, we were on top of a hill and he was shooting down into a valley- could we really have scared the deer away with our mere presense way up there in relation to them? Maybe our scents could be noticed by the deer a thousand or so feet away, I don't know, but just the fact we were there would have ruined that whether he spent two more minutes at GZ or not so that is a null point.

 

Also, to those who said we had a lack of awareness to our surroundings because we didn't see him- did anyone notice how he was camo'ed into the tree and was like 40 feet above us?? How were we supposed to notice him? And for his safety shouldn't he have been wearing bright orange as well?

 

I'm frankly a little shocked that people would even toy with the idea that what we did here could possibly be seen as illegal or worthy of charges whether we would be acquited of them or not. Not that there haven't been a lot of frivolous law suits in the past, but this would be beyond the pale and just sounds like the musings of people who antagonize us for what you perceive as an anti-hunter "liberal" opinion. I don't hate hunters, just thought that one was rude the end.

Edited by Vartan84
Link to comment

 

I'm frankly a little shocked that people would even toy with the idea that what we did here could possibly be seen as illegal or worthy of charges whether we would be acquited of them or not. Not that there haven't been a lot of frivolous law suits in the past, but this would be beyond the pale and just sounds like the musings of people who antagonize us for what you perceive as an anti-hunter "liberal" opinion. I don't hate hunters, just thought that one was rude the end.

 

interesting when you post expecting everyone to be with you and you get pasted, eh?

 

your own posts kind of call you a liar about intent and courtesy.

 

being charged with interfering in a hunt isn't a lawsuit, it's a criminal trial for what is in many states a class b misdemeanor.

Link to comment
And for his safety shouldn't he have been wearing bright orange as well?
Not neccessarily. I don't know Pennsylvania hunting laws, but it is possible that blaze orange is not required for bow hunting. In any case, if he should have been, and wasn't, that is between him and the DNR and has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it would have been prudent for you to wear it. I don't have a full blaze orange outfit, but I do were a blaze orange cap and an inexpensive blaze orange vest when I'm in an area that may have hunters nearby. Its a safety thing, pure and simple.
Link to comment

Thanks for posting this.

I don't think the cachers/hikers were intentionally interfering with a hunt as outlined above. They were not there to stop the hunt. They were at the back of the hunter, not in his line of fire. They were not intentionally trying to scare away deer. They were simply in the vicinity of the hunter.

 

Thank you Lone R, I agree with you. You sum up the situation perfectly. We weren't in his way, we didn't stand in his line of fire, we just happened to be in the general vicinity. I apologize to you all for going back for a minute but I hope you all undestand how we felt we were being unecessarily bullied when we had a right to be there. If the cache was in his line of fire or directly next to him, of course we wouldn't have returned. We felt our interference was negligible though, we were on top of a hill and he was shooting down into a valley- could we really have scared the deer away with our mere presense way up there in relation to them? Maybe our scents could be noticed by the deer a thousand or so feet away, I don't know, but just the fact we were there would have ruined that whether he spent two more minutes at GZ or not so that is a null point.

 

Also, to those who said we had a lack of awareness to our surroundings because we didn't see him- did anyone notice how he was camo'ed into the tree and was like 40 feet above us?? How were we supposed to notice him? And for his safety shouldn't he have been wearing bright orange as well?

 

I'm frankly a little shocked that people would even toy with the idea that what we did here could possibly be seen as illegal or worthy of charges whether we would be acquited of them or not. Not that there haven't been a lot of frivolous law suits in the past, but this would be beyond the pale and just sounds like the musings of people who antagonize us for what you perceive as an anti-hunter "liberal" opinion. I don't hate hunters, just thought that one was rude the end.

 

You still do not understand hunting. He was not "Hunting the valley" he was hunting a 360 degree radius around him, that included the cemetery. Human have a very distinctive walk, no other animal tramps though leaves the same way, and hunted animals are extremely tuned in to any differences, any deer within earshot knew you were there long ago.

 

During deer season here, and I presume elsewhere, hunter orange is only worn during firearms season, bow hunters are heavily camouflaged as they must get much closer to the deer to have a chance of killing it, so no, he should not have had orange on.

 

You were blameless until you spotted him, at that point the correct move was to shut up and quietly leave the way you came in. It was only after you saw him and continued looking around anyway that he became pissed off enough to speak, and while he was rude, at that point he was simply responding to your rudeness in not having left yet, the original rude behavior was yours. When you decided to return to spite him it became illegal harassment of a hunter no matter how you rationalize it away.

Many times when people behave badly towards us it is because we did something to them first unintentionally, a little understanding on both sides helps.

Link to comment

Thanks for posting this.

I don't think the cachers/hikers were intentionally interfering with a hunt as outlined above. They were not there to stop the hunt. They were at the back of the hunter, not in his line of fire. They were not intentionally trying to scare away deer. They were simply in the vicinity of the hunter.

 

Thank you Lone R, I agree with you. You sum up the situation perfectly. We weren't in his way, we didn't stand in his line of fire, we just happened to be in the general vicinity. I apologize to you all for going back for a minute but I hope you all undestand how we felt we were being unecessarily bullied when we had a right to be there. If the cache was in his line of fire or directly next to him, of course we wouldn't have returned. We felt our interference was negligible though, we were on top of a hill and he was shooting down into a valley- could we really have scared the deer away with our mere presense way up there in relation to them? Maybe our scents could be noticed by the deer a thousand or so feet away, I don't know, but just the fact we were there would have ruined that whether he spent two more minutes at GZ or not so that is a null point.

 

Also, to those who said we had a lack of awareness to our surroundings because we didn't see him- did anyone notice how he was camo'ed into the tree and was like 40 feet above us?? How were we supposed to notice him? And for his safety shouldn't he have been wearing bright orange as well?

 

I'm frankly a little shocked that people would even toy with the idea that what we did here could possibly be seen as illegal or worthy of charges whether we would be acquited of them or not. Not that there haven't been a lot of frivolous law suits in the past, but this would be beyond the pale and just sounds like the musings of people who antagonize us for what you perceive as an anti-hunter "liberal" opinion. I don't hate hunters, just thought that one was rude the end.

 

You still do not understand hunting. He was not "Hunting the valley" he was hunting a 360 degree radius around him, that included the cemetery. Human have a very distinctive walk, no other animal tramps though leaves the same way, and hunted animals are extremely tuned in to any differences, any deer within earshot knew you were there long ago.

 

During deer season here, and I presume elsewhere, hunter orange is only worn during firearms season, bow hunters are heavily camouflaged as they must get much closer to the deer to have a chance of killing it, so no, he should not have had orange on.

 

You were blameless until you spotted him, at that point the correct move was to shut up and quietly leave the way you came in. It was only after you saw him and continued looking around anyway that he became pissed off enough to speak, and while he was rude, at that point he was simply responding to your rudeness in not having left yet, the original rude behavior was yours. When you decided to return to spite him it became illegal harassment of a hunter no matter how you rationalize it away.

Many times when people behave badly towards us it is because we did something to them first unintentionally, a little understanding on both sides helps.

I suspect your words are falling on def ears. All the OP wants to hear is "Good for you. That's showing him." despite the fact that his return trip was rude and self serving. Long live the ME FIRST mentality! Screw the other guy.

Link to comment

I'm frankly a little shocked that people would even toy with the idea that what we did here could possibly be seen as illegal or worthy of charges whether we would be acquitted of them or not. Not that there haven't been a lot of frivolous law suits in the past, but this would be beyond the pale and just sounds like the musings of people who antagonize us for what you perceive as an anti-hunter "liberal" opinion. I don't hate hunters, just thought that one was rude the end.

 

Hi there, I'm one of the more bleeding-heart liberal posters on these forums. I don't hunt at all- I don't really "get it". I barely fish. Was the hunter being a jerk by cursing at you? Probably. Was your reaction any better? Not really.

Link to comment

You were blameless until you spotted him, at that point the correct move was to shut up and quietly leave the way you came in. It was only after you saw him and continued looking around anyway that he became pissed off enough to speak, and while he was rude, at that point he was simply responding to your rudeness in not having left yet, the original rude behavior was yours.

 

Excuse me but as stated in the video there was screaming coming at us at a point off camera. I didn't have the camera running but we did not see anyone and suddenly curses were raining down from the tree. I then turned the camera on and it fades into show our confused looks. As you can see we got out of there initially almost immediately and the only way for us to have gotten out there quicker is if we had literally turned and ran the second we noticed him.

This is what annoys me. It seems that even though the situation is captured in the video, people are angry at us for going back very briefly to GZ and so twist the original situation in numerous different ways over the past few pages of writing to make us the ones to blame. I assure you we never saw him until he started cursing at us and then I turned on the camera. Most people here however have rightly saw that we were originally not at fault, regardless of what happened later on in the video, so please stop trying to make the hunter completely innocent vs. us "citified liberals".

Link to comment

You were blameless until you spotted him, at that point the correct move was to shut up and quietly leave the way you came in. It was only after you saw him and continued looking around anyway that he became pissed off enough to speak, and while he was rude, at that point he was simply responding to your rudeness in not having left yet, the original rude behavior was yours.

 

Excuse me but as stated in the video there was screaming coming at us at a point off camera. I didn't have the camera running but we did not see anyone and suddenly curses were raining down from the tree. I then turned the camera on and it fades into show our confused looks. As you can see we got out of there initially almost immediately and the only way for us to have gotten out there quicker is if we had literally turned and ran the second we noticed him.

This is what annoys me. It seems that even though the situation is captured in the video, people are angry at us for going back very briefly to GZ and so twist the original situation in numerous different ways over the past few pages of writing to make us the ones to blame. I assure you we never saw him until he started cursing at us and then I turned on the camera. Most people here however have rightly saw that we were originally not at fault, regardless of what happened later on in the video, so please stop trying to make the hunter completely innocent vs. us "citified liberals".

 

Well I'm with you on the legality of his behavior and yours. I cannot imagine that a park officer would make a cemetery part of a public hunting area, or access to it. If you were in an area marked "safe" then he was out of line to hunt there. Common courtesy towards property of others and respect for the place would also elminate hunting within the cemetery. If the geocache was placed there by people who do not lie, then the geocache folks would have insisted that they obtain proper permissions. I've had to move things or provide assurances about some caches I placed to the Geocaching Gods. I suspect the hunter was not only rude and ignorant, but most probably in violation of the regulations of the park. While you did nothing illegal in all likelihood, I think it wasn't prudent to go back once you left. I most probably would have just continued looking the first time very quietly and waved to him a thank you.

Link to comment
Also, to those who said we had a lack of awareness to our surroundings because we didn't see him- did anyone notice how he was camo'ed into the tree and was like 40 feet above us?? How were we supposed to notice him? And for his safety shouldn't he have been wearing bright orange as well?

The same way I noticed him? At about 2:52, you were walking into the gate for the cemetery, blabbing in a conversational tone. At that point in the video, the hunter was clearly visible, silhouetted against the skyline. Anyone practicing even a modicum of situational awareness would've seen him right away. If that same person had the slightest degree of common courtesy, they would've waved, and walked away. According to you, your group was blissfully unaware of his presence until he started yelling at you. No worries. You didn't see him. Hopefully you'll be more aware next time you go frolicking through the forest during hunting season. If so, you've learned something, and your life will be blessed for it.

 

That doesn't excuse your behavior after you became aware of him. You were confronted, rudely, as everyone in here has acknowledged. Your response was equally rude, which is what we're trying to convey. Acting rude toward a visibly hostile, well armed person, in an area where help may not reach you for an hour or better, is not very bright. Again, if you've learned something from this, then your life will be blessed by that knowledge.

 

However, if all you do is argue with folks who are trying to offer you reasonable advice, then your life may get more complicated.

 

Ball's in your court. :blink:

Link to comment
Also, to those who said we had a lack of awareness to our surroundings because we didn't see him- did anyone notice how he was camo'ed into the tree and was like 40 feet above us?? How were we supposed to notice him? And for his safety shouldn't he have been wearing bright orange as well?

The same way I noticed him? At about 2:52, you were walking into the gate for the cemetery, blabbing in a conversational tone. At that point in the video, the hunter was clearly visible, silhouetted against the skyline. Anyone practicing even a modicum of situational awareness would've seen him right away.

 

Except thanks to the way the video is edited, you are warned that something is about to happen. It is also fortunate for the viewer that it is facing right at him. I, on the other hand, was obviously busy looking down at the graves, as I had been waiting to visit that spot for years (I am not joking, I learned about this place in 3rd grade and always wanted to visit). The other two I was with similarly were looking down at the graves. Are the three of us just dense idiots? I think the fact that none of us noticed until we started getting screamed at tells you something. I mean who expects to see someone 40 feet up in a tree anyway? I wasn't exactly looking for something like that while at the same time was specifically focusing on something on the ground.

 

Also describing our talking as blabbing seems to imply you have general contempt for us, since that word doesn't have a nice connotation and what we were saying was historical in nature anyway so not useless garbage either.

Link to comment
Also, to those who said we had a lack of awareness to our surroundings because we didn't see him- did anyone notice how he was camo'ed into the tree and was like 40 feet above us?? How were we supposed to notice him? And for his safety shouldn't he have been wearing bright orange as well?

The same way I noticed him? At about 2:52, you were walking into the gate for the cemetery, blabbing in a conversational tone. At that point in the video, the hunter was clearly visible, silhouetted against the skyline. Anyone practicing even a modicum of situational awareness would've seen him right away.

 

Except thanks to the way the video is edited, you are warned that something is about to happen. It is also fortunate for the viewer that it is facing right at him. I, on the other hand, was obviously busy looking down at the graves, as I had been waiting to visit that spot for years (I am not joking, I learned about this place in 3rd grade and always wanted to visit). The other two I was with similarly were looking down at the graves. Are the three of us just dense idiots? I think the fact that none of us noticed until we started getting screamed at tells you something. I mean who expects to see someone 40 feet up in a tree anyway? I wasn't exactly looking for something like that while at the same time was specifically focusing on something on the ground.

 

Also describing our talking as blabbing seems to imply you have general contempt for us, since that word doesn't have a nice connotation and what we were saying was historical in nature anyway so not useless garbage either.

 

No one here was posting to attack or insult you, we posted to point out areas you should watch out for in the future and to advise on what we believe the best course of action would be next outing. Please don't take it as a personal attack, you all looked like you were having fun and just had a few bad moments. You state now that editing has changed the way it appears it happened, well the edited version is all we have to go from. I don't think any member of your group is an evil criminal willfully flouting the laws, just that it was an unfortunate occurrence which is now escalating needlessly. I hope your future trips turn out more to your liking and wish you all happy caching.

Link to comment

I hunt and I geocache, both in PA. Some of my geocaches are on state game lands, and I include this statement in my descriptions.

 

"State Game Lands, be aware of the hunting seasons, October thru January. Blaze orange during the hunting seasons and bright colors the rest of the year, is always a good idea. Please be considerate of the hunters, they have a limited amount of time to hunt."

 

As a geocacher I have 365 days and nights to look for goodies, hunters only have a few days to hunt, depending on the game they hunt. Courtesy is easy to give. Unfortunately you met a D**KHEAD, I"ve run across these while hunting. Welcome to the club. If he had been there for seven and a half hours and saw nothing, you probably did more to chase a deer his way, than harm his hunt.

 

You had every right to be there, although Sunday would have been a better choice. No hunting on Sundays.

My two cents.

Edited by Jedediah Smith
Link to comment

You live in PA and you willingly entered public hunting-permitted woods DURING hunting season?

 

Except there is some form of hunting permitted in PA practically all year round!

I was in a large public use park which is frequented by people around the region. Your assertion would mean that the entire state population except for hunters are "stupid" unless they steer clear of it for large chunks of the year?? What use would the park be if you can only step foot in during non-hunting periods (mind you certain animals have no closed season- so basically never go in it except for Sundays??)

The cache page in question gives no warning about hunting season like Jedidiah's do so it honestly didn't cross my mind since I am not familiar with hunting culture.

I assure you that I didn't know about the no hunting on Sundays rule but now I do. That might have played a role in my choice to go in on Saturday if I had known, but the friend was going home cross-country on Sunday so it would have been more difficult to fit in. This was a potentially once in a lifetime opportunity to cache with them because this was their first time here in PA in years and no idea when they might come again so finding one was very important to me.

 

Thanks for the kind words Cpt.Blackbeard and Jedidiah

Edited by Vartan84
Link to comment

I believe that you ran into a hunter who did not know how to properly politely ask you to leave.Shame on him.As someone who also hunts I've seen my share of the good and the bad in the woods. Just try to avoid the later.What I don't want is the aggravation of ulcers worrying about this. He was a muggle. Avoid them! Better luck next time.

Link to comment

Thanks for posting this.

I don't think the cachers/hikers were intentionally interfering with a hunt as outlined above. They were not there to stop the hunt. They were at the back of the hunter, not in his line of fire. They were not intentionally trying to scare away deer. They were simply in the vicinity of the hunter.

 

Thank you Lone R, I agree with you. You sum up the situation perfectly. We weren't in his way, we didn't stand in his line of fire, we just happened to be in the general vicinity. I apologize to you all for going back for a minute but I hope you all undestand how we felt we were being unecessarily bullied when we had a right to be there. If the cache was in his line of fire or directly next to him, of course we wouldn't have returned. We felt our interference was negligible though, we were on top of a hill and he was shooting down into a valley- could we really have scared the deer away with our mere presense way up there in relation to them? Maybe our scents could be noticed by the deer a thousand or so feet away, I don't know, but just the fact we were there would have ruined that whether he spent two more minutes at GZ or not so that is a null point.

 

Also, to those who said we had a lack of awareness to our surroundings because we didn't see him- did anyone notice how he was camo'ed into the tree and was like 40 feet above us?? How were we supposed to notice him? And for his safety shouldn't he have been wearing bright orange as well?

 

I'm frankly a little shocked that people would even toy with the idea that what we did here could possibly be seen as illegal or worthy of charges whether we would be acquited of them or not. Not that there haven't been a lot of frivolous law suits in the past, but this would be beyond the pale and just sounds like the musings of people who antagonize us for what you perceive as an anti-hunter "liberal" opinion. I don't hate hunters, just thought that one was rude the end.

 

You still do not understand hunting. He was not "Hunting the valley" he was hunting a 360 degree radius around him, that included the cemetery. Human have a very distinctive walk, no other animal tramps though leaves the same way, and hunted animals are extremely tuned in to any differences, any deer within earshot knew you were there long ago.

 

During deer season here, and I presume elsewhere, hunter orange is only worn during firearms season, bow hunters are heavily camouflaged as they must get much closer to the deer to have a chance of killing it, so no, he should not have had orange on.

 

You were blameless until you spotted him, at that point the correct move was to shut up and quietly leave the way you came in. It was only after you saw him and continued looking around anyway that he became pissed off enough to speak, and while he was rude, at that point he was simply responding to your rudeness in not having left yet, the original rude behavior was yours. When you decided to return to spite him it became illegal harassment of a hunter no matter how you rationalize it away.

Many times when people behave badly towards us it is because we did something to them first unintentionally, a little understanding on both sides helps.

I suspect your words are falling on def ears. All the OP wants to hear is "Good for you. That's showing him." despite the fact that his return trip was rude and self serving. Long live the ME FIRST mentality! Screw the other guy.

 

I'm forced to agree with you. Most postings have acknowkeged that the hunter was wrong for being rude, but when Vartan84 is made to face his own faults and responsibility in escalating this situation, he immediately changes the focus of the conversation back onto the hunter's failings, and not his own. This is a typically "ME FIRST" mentality. Any further conversation with Vartan84 and Llano would be pointless, since neither of them seem to be "tuned to receive". :)

Edited by rocketsteve
Link to comment

You entered this scenario with ignorance.

Being ignorant is not something that can be assigned blame.

Everyone is ignorant in different areas.

Ignorance is a repairable condition.

All it takes to fix is a willingness to learn.

So far, all you've shown is a willingness to argue.

Deliberate ignorance is something that can be assigned blame.

 

I pointed out that you failed to practice situational awareness.

Failing to be aware of your surroundings is not a crime.

It merely speaks to your inexperience and naivete.

Being naive is also a repairable condition.

All it takes is a willingness to learn.

So far, all you've shown is a willingness to take offense.

Deliberately choosing to be naive is something that can be assigned blame.

 

According to your video, you returned to the cache out of spite.

Spiting a heavily armed hostile person is dumb, period.

Being dumb is not a crime.

Being dumb is a repairable condition.

All it takes is a willingness to learn.

All you've shown so far is a willingness to defend stupidity.

Deliberate stupidity is something which can be assigned blame.

 

So, the ball's still in your court.

Link to comment

To me this is a moot point, as to whether the hunter had a Bow or a Rifle, the presentation of the video has more or less opened "Pandora's Box". I suppose my point to a reply is to say that given his language and your attitude. ( reflected by going back) it was an almost " we'll show him mentality" that concerns me the video angle presents a whole new cast on this form of recreation. "how to harass a hunter" The end clip where the male screams we are leaving now. You need to review what you posted on "youtube" and as well consider how it comes across to others, and it does not cast your party in a good light, regardless of legality.

Sometimes as I said before discretion is the better part of valor. To rise above the situation, move on and return at a later date would have put this recreation/sport in a better light.

In addition to hunting, I backpack and as well sea kayak, in Virginia the "wild islands" are considered to be public property unless so marked. Some of which have considerable size. The point here is that often I will either go paddling solo or with a group, however I am mindful as well of others. It would seem to me and most of the others that you from the angle of the camera, that when you saw the sign you figured a way to circumvent the posting. Appearances granted can be deceiving. Hence my comment as to the presentation. i often teach classes in techniques of navigation, wilderness skills. When private lands are unaccessible we often use the public lands, Management areas as well as parks.

In the process of all my years of doing such, we as a group or my planning has always been centered to not disturbing or interfering with hunters, or other users of the outdoors. As well I often lead groups on backpacking trips, sea kayak treks. The object is I would not pitch my camp next to someone else, or make a landing below the hide tide line as all lands below that are public on a beach adjacent to private property, with the exception of emergencies. Once my paddling group landed on an island we though had no other people on it, turned out there were two families who had planned a get-a-way weekend the island was sufficient to house both parties but knowing another island was only a half mile downstream we elected to move downstream to the other island. The object here is courtesy, promoting a positive image, inspite of the negative as he felt encroached.It may have been that he had to pay a fee for a stamp to hunt on public lands in addition to just his license. A luxury as a geocacher we do not. The cost of licenses, fees, stamps, ammunition, equipment all benefit us, as there is a tax on every piece of outdoors equipment that rolls back to purchasing public lands and as well park lands. Additionally those fees also pay to restore habitat, and although distasteful to some, hunting culls the weak from general populations. Especially since the time of settlement most natural predators were eliminated. A secondary point I will admit. Your cost to the caching that day was minimal, licenses in Virginia have increased significantly. Not knowing what the costs are in Pa. I can only assume they too have increased over time.

In using the outdoors, its a resource like any other, and as such we must consider sometimes doing the right thing is better than asserting our entitlements over others. With a gun or not. Courtesy never hurt anyone, being mindful of other interests does not cost anything either. The video puts you in a very poor light as arrogant, selfish and antagonistic. What the purport of that is or isn't it still speaks to attitudes exhibited.

As i said my points are probably moot, I can only hope that other hunters do not see the video and as the reflection coming through is one of anti-hunting and a proprietary concept that did not and does not exist. that attitude of playing games with an individual or group. Trail etiquette is a poor example, as many backpackers, hikers and hunters have co-existed for a long time. But then when you have public lands to go to ask how much of that money was paid for with hunter money or monies spent on fishing , hunting or camping equipment. Which by the way also includes binoculars and optics.

Hunting License Va.. Muzzle loader, Archery, Crossbow, General Stamp, Big Game Stamp .......$90.00

Ammunition:Rifle 25.00.. Shot and Powder...50.00 Arrows...15.each,Bolts for Crossbow 22.

1 box of ammunition , fresh powder and shot, 3 arrows, 3 bolts..............................................$142.00

Climbing Stand for hunting from tree....................................................................................$175.00

Additional Stamps, fees, licenses.............................................................................................80.00

Campground fees average 32.00 per day ...................State Park...........................................$160.00

Other gear..Four season tent................................................................................................$376.00

Sleeping Bag rated zero degrees.................................................................on sale................$135.00

Backpack, cook gear, accessories..................................................................complete pack $500.00

Specialty gear clothing boots and hunting clothes...Coat......................................................... $ 300.00

Rangefinder for evaluating distance and sighting in ................................................................$ 229.00

 

My triton GPS 400................................................................................................................$129.00

My triton GPS 500................................................................................................................ $169.00

they were on sale from 229 and 269 respectively

My Garmin Etrex Venture HC.................on sale......................................................................$149.00

GPS units are also used in hunting, fishing, sailing , sea kayaking, work as well as SAR so Cache Hunting would be a lesser included item.

The Balance:

Hunting vs GeoCache kind of one sided as to costs....take notice I did not include firearms, bows granted some do not take their monies for one interest so in fairness we can say the camping gear also gets used other places. But if you do the math, you see that the person in the stand has paid a high price for that one day.one season so the frustration of thinking you have the perfect spot, planning getting time to go, maybe driving 100 miles or more, camping. then have someone walk in and then later return and later scream through the woods, end of clip.

The video as I said spoke volumes, as to the man in outline up the tree, figure being at that one spot probably cost him 250-400 for the bow, another 125-175 for the stand, the license fee, as opposed to your walk in the woods with the GPS was it a mobile? 149.

It boils down tot he fact that going back put all of us in a dim light with hunters as I said I look at both sides.If it had been me I would have apologized for disturbing his hunt and removed myself as quietly as possible and not returned on a day when hunting was occurring. Just a thought, now that I have had my say, and seems it has fallen on a deaf ear i bid you the best of luck and pray the next time you run into the situation you will think before returning, when does rifle season come in?

Link to comment

I am a (Bow )deer hunter. As of late I often hunt on public land. While it is frustrating when someone walks past you and blows your hunt, It is public land and that comes with the territory. They have no right to tell you to leave or bother you for enjoying the same state park.

I found a cache today My first with my girl. I ran on it at 2rivers in October that got me researching this hobby with my doughter. Having trouble with 2 in my area I returned to give her a win. After we gave up she spotted it on the way out. Thrown out in the open outside the poipular hunting area. undoubtably by an irritated hunter. bothered by people wondering in to the area. it does not make it right. I replaced it to proper location.

just in case tread lightly, some people are nuts.

 

for some help in the future. prime hunting is early am and late evening. 5-9am in winter 3pm to dark aprox 5:30 if you want to be courteous maybe go in mid day. FYI some hunt all hours you cant please everyone.

Rifle is usually not allowed on public land. Nov 13-23.

Edited by rl.mahaffey
Link to comment

I am a (Bow )deer hunter. :) As of late I often hunt on public land. While it is frustrating when someone walks past you and blows your hunt, It is public land and that comes with the territory. They have no right to tell you to leave or bother you for enjoying the same state park.

I found a cache today My first with my girl. I ran on it at 2rivers in October that got me researching this hobby with my doughter. Having trouble with 2 in my area I returned to give her a win. After we gave up she spotted it on the way out. Thrown out in the open outside the poipular hunting area. undoubtably by an irritated hunter. bothered by people wondering in to the area. it does not make it right. I replaced it to proper location.

just in case tread lightly, some people are nuts.

Had the op gone in and done his thing and left I would have sided entirely with him. But that isn't what happened. The trip back to piss off the hunter even more was not only rude but stupid. Why would anyone in their right mind intentionally irritate an armed and angry person?

Link to comment

The fact that the hunter was armed keeps coming up, the implication being that one who upsets a hunter does so at some risk.

 

This is simply not the case. There are very few murderous psychopaths among the hunter population, and that's what a hunter would have to be to make his weapon a part of an argument.

 

It happens... I saw on the news this week where a Hmong hunter in a tree stand up north somewhere shot six hunters who were trying to chase him off, but there was much more to the story and, extremely rare.

 

As to courtesy, I have been in this situation with a group of geocachers. I hosted a Pirates on ? Lake (I forget the lake's name) event in TN a few years ago where we rented two pontoon boats to find 22 boat-access-only caches hidden on islands and along the shoreline of the lake. I towed my jet ski up there for cachers to use as well.

 

We're having a ball, headed for a cache on an island not 40' in diameter, with one tree in the middle and a bunch of brush at it's base.

 

Two full pontoon boats and a jet ski, maybe 25 geocachers, come roaring down the lake and put our bows on the island.

 

Everyone jumps off and heads for the one tree... the logical place for a cache.

 

We encircled the tree and started parting the brush... only to find a rather stunned and pissed-off duck hunter nestled in the bushes using them for a hunting blind!

 

There was a frozen moment in time when the women who found him and the hunter gazed at each other from 10" apart.

 

I don't know who was more surprised, he or us! One minute he's all alone, hidden on an island where his buddy dropped him off (thus no boat to be seen), waiting to waylay some passing duck for his dinner, and the next minute he's been invaded and surrounded by maniacs!

 

We explained what we were doing and asked if he minded if we signed the cache, which wasn't 6' from him and had already been found while we talked to him. He seemed to have developed a bit of a facial tick, and he appeared to be clinging rather tightly to his shotgun, but he eventually decided that we were harmless idiots and allowed us to retrieve and sign the cache.

 

The thing is... I know this with all my heart... if he had asked us to get back on our barges and off 'his' island then that is exactly what we would have done, apologizing as we left for disturbing and frightening him. I am quite certain that I can speak for every one of those cachers when I say that if he had objected in the least we would have left immediately and without attitude.

 

We all knew that we had invaded this man's space, and none of us would have done it if we had a clue that he was there. :)

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

in fairness about the "armed and angry" thing, while most hunters aren't severely unbalanced people and quick to anger, on the off-chance you've got an irritable psychopath who's been drinking all day, he's armed.

 

best not to tick off armed people just on principle.

 

it only takes one idiot with bad aim who thinks he'll just fire a warning shot across your bow to make a real difference in your life span.

 

so while i assume that most hunters i meet are normal people with normal tempers, statistically some of them have to be angry blowhards because that's just how it is with people

Link to comment

I am a (Bow )deer hunter. :) As of late I often hunt on public land. While it is frustrating when someone walks past you and blows your hunt, It is public land and that comes with the territory. They have no right to tell you to leave or bother you for enjoying the same state park.

I found a cache today My first with my girl. I ran on it at 2rivers in October that got me researching this hobby with my doughter. Having trouble with 2 in my area I returned to give her a win. After we gave up she spotted it on the way out. Thrown out in the open outside the poipular hunting area. undoubtably by an irritated hunter. bothered by people wondering in to the area. it does not make it right. I replaced it to proper location.

just in case tread lightly, some people are nuts.

Had the op gone in and done his thing and left I would have sided entirely with him. But that isn't what happened. The trip back to piss off the hunter even more was not only rude but stupid. Why would anyone in their right mind intentionally irritate an armed and angry person?

 

I didn't see it that way.

 

The hunter did not let them do their thing and leave. He bullied them out of there. The trip back wasn't to piss off the hunter, it was to find the geocache. They had walked miles and it was their first find. They really wanted to find that geocache. They had been so close. I didn't get the sense that they were determined to ruin the hunter's chance at a deer. Didn't they quietly return? Which would show they were hoping not to get the attention of the hunter. Thereby not pissing him off again. Plus, I'm not reading in their forum posts that they returned for the purpose of pissing off the hunter. Sure they were naive to think that hunters aren't cold-blooded murderers out to kill hikers who intentionally or unintentionally ruin their hunt..... I'm being facetious, but so many in this discussion seem to insinuate that it was a likely catastrophe waiting to happen. That hunters can't be trusted not to kill a hiker when angered by them. On a scale of 1 to 10 I'd say the hunter scored a 9 for rudeness and the kids scored a 5 and most of their rudeness was unintentional.

Link to comment

TAR, I addressed the fact that it was highly unlikely that a hunter would fly off the handle and kill someone interrupting his hunt in an earlier post. It still happens every day that someone gets cheesed at what someone else has done and for that split second reason goes out the window. Road rage, bar fights, heck, even schoolyard scraps can tip over the edge in a split second. Just because it is rare doesn't mean it wont happen. It may be a cliche but it isn't any less true. Most victims thought it would never happen to them.

 

Is a hunter likely to go over the edge? No

 

Does that make it any less stupid to piss off an armed man? No

 

All that aside this is the proper attitude. "We all knew that we had invaded this man's space, and none of us would have done it if we had a clue that he was there." It is called courtesy. Something that there is all too little of these days.

Link to comment

I also find it very silly that people think that because he's armed it makes it stupider. Anyone I meet (I live in Texas) could be armed. Should I walk on eggshells?

My brother carries regularly and (I think, but I'm a little sister) is highly irritable. He hasn't shot anyone yet. Which is amazing because I tease and anger him on a regular basis. He didn't even shoot me when I ran into his house with my car!!

I'll keep you posted if I come up with any intentional wounds.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 5
×
×
  • Create New...