Trail Cams guarding a cache,... Yes or no?

[graciesaver]

I am wondering how cachers feel about hidden trail cams on caches??

[+Malemotives]

For what purpose?

[knowschad]

For what purpose?

 

"Trail Cams guarding a cache,... Yes or no?"

[Pup Patrol]

I am wondering how cachers feel about hidden trail cams on caches??

 

I personally feel that it is a creepy idea.

 

The placement of such a thing should be clearly stated on the cache page, and it should be the very first thing posted. That way, people would be able to choose to ignore the cache or search for it.

 

A cache isn't that important enough to spy on people, is it?

 

B.

[knowschad]

I'm assuming that this is about muggled caches. The subject has come up in the past, and nobody has yet to answer the question of what will you do with the information, should you catch the muggler?

[+narcissa]

Is it your property? What are you watching for?

[+chasclifton]

I use trail cameras to study local wildlife, from rodent-size up to elk, and I have, now and then, thought of putting one pointed toward one of my forest caches, just for fun. But I have not done so for two reasons:

 

1. Cachers, looking around intently, might spot the camera, think that it was the cache, and try to take it apart.

 

2. And if they did not think it was the container, they might well be upset at being "spied upon," and that would take some of the fun out of caching.

[+jwmoe1973]

Yeah, NO. And if you absolutely must, do as Pup Patrol said. Clearly list it as the very first thing on your cache page. Better yet, don't do it at all. People don't like cameras secretly taking pictures of them. Seems a bit unethical to me. Just my opinion though.

 

Several have asked, and you still haven't answered... What's the purpose, what are you watching for?

 

If you're thinking about a creative cache idea that incorporates a trail cam, then you might have a winning idea (as long as folks know what to expect).

 

If knowschad is right and this is about muggled caches, there are other possible solutions. (read some of the recent PMO threads to make up your own mind).

[+cerberus1]

Whenever I go to a park or forest that has trail cams, there's a notice somewhere warning you of their existance.

I believe there's a legal reason for them to do that.

 

If you intend to place a camera taking pictures of others and the property the cache is on isn't yours, it may be a good idea to ask the owner first.

When I sue, they'd be included in my suit. Chances are good you'd now be sued by them too.

If I spot it and my kids are with me, you're gonna be missing a camera for being a perv.

[+uxorious]

Whenever I go to a park or forest that has trail cams, there's a notice somewhere warning you of their existance.

I believe there's a legal reason for them to do that.

 

If you intend to place a camera taking pictures of others and the property the cache is on isn't yours, it may be a good idea to ask the owner first.

When I sue, they'd be included in my suit. Chances are good you'd now be sued by them too.

If I spot it and my kids are with me, you're gonna be missing a camera for being a perv.

 

Good luck trying to sue. Until and unless we change the laws, anywhere you are that you have no right to expect privacy someone can take your picture and there is nothing (legal ) you can do about it.

 

If states have had to pass laws on perverts taking "upskirt" pictures, because the courts don't think women have the right to privacy under their dresses, what chance do you have to argue you have a right to privacy walking in a woodland trail?

 

I really think the laws on cameras should be changed, but with a camera somewhere, taking your picture 24/7 when you are outside of your house it's not gonna happen soon.

 

On topic, if you want to put a trail cam out, please let those that seek the cache know so we can skip it.

Edited June 14, 2015 by uxorious

[+cerberus1]

Whenever I go to a park or forest that has trail cams, there's a notice somewhere warning you of their existance.

I believe there's a legal reason for them to do that.

 

If you intend to place a camera taking pictures of others and the property the cache is on isn't yours, it may be a good idea to ask the owner first.

When I sue, they'd be included in my suit. Chances are good you'd now be sued by them too.

If I spot it and my kids are with me, you're gonna be missing a camera for being a perv.

 

Good luck trying to sue. Until and unless we change the laws, anywhere you are that you have no right to expect privacy someone can take your picture and there is nothing (legal ) you can do about it.

 

If states have had to pass laws on perverts taking "upskirt" pictures, because the courts don't think women have the right to privacy under their dresses, what chance do you have to argue you have a right to privacy walking in a woodland trail?

 

I really think the laws on cameras should be changed, but with a camera somewhere, taking your picture 24/7 when you are outside of your house it's not gonna happen soon.

You don't have to win a suit to get the point across.

After a 2nd mortgage to fight it in court, I'd think many would realize it wasn't a good idea.

[+uxorious]

Whenever I go to a park or forest that has trail cams, there's a notice somewhere warning you of their existance.

I believe there's a legal reason for them to do that.

 

If you intend to place a camera taking pictures of others and the property the cache is on isn't yours, it may be a good idea to ask the owner first.

When I sue, they'd be included in my suit. Chances are good you'd now be sued by them too.

If I spot it and my kids are with me, you're gonna be missing a camera for being a perv.

 

Good luck trying to sue. Until and unless we change the laws, anywhere you are that you have no right to expect privacy someone can take your picture and there is nothing (legal ) you can do about it.

 

If states have had to pass laws on perverts taking "upskirt" pictures, because the courts don't think women have the right to privacy under their dresses, what chance do you have to argue you have a right to privacy walking in a woodland trail?

 

I really think the laws on cameras should be changed, but with a camera somewhere, taking your picture 24/7 when you are outside of your house it's not gonna happen soon.

You don't have to win a suit to get the point across.

After a 2nd mortgage to fight it in court, I'd think many would realize it wasn't a good idea.

 

Because it has already been through the courts, unless you come up with something new, it would cost you more than the person you are trying to sue.

Not that I don't agree you should be able to stop someone from filming you when you don't want to be filmed.

The courts are not where we will win this, it would be through the legislators. (and that's not too likely, unfortunately.)

[Luckless]

Well just slightly off topic, occasionally in the woods I have to go to the bathroom and being in the woods there is no bathroom so I have to go primitive.

On occasion I'll wonder if there are trail cams around (especially the one time when there was string stretched out like it might have been attached to something so that the string would act as a trip wire). Those would be some interesting pictures.

[+LaughterOnWater]

If the trail cam is in a public place and you're attempting to photograph or video animals and there is almost no likelihood that you'll photograph people, probably have to get written permission from the public land manager. If you're attempting to photograph people on public lands, you may have to get written permission from the public land manager, and more. They're going to want to see your thesis premise from a local university and talk with your major professor. Your major professor is going to require you to go through a month-long certification on subject surveillance ethics and legal requirements. In some circumstances, you might have to get permission from each person you photograph, probably before-hand. Unless you have a very good reason and about three or four years to push it through the land-management and university systems, you may be facing some tough legal and ethical issues.

 

Chris

[knowschad]

Seriously? You can't walk down the street or enter most stores these days without being on camera. Your car is constantly being video taped as you drive down the freeway, and even city streets.

 

However...

 

Maine has game camera laws if placed on private land that isn't your own: http://www.georgesmithmaine.com/articles/georges-outdoor-news/september/2013/new-trail-camera-law-angers-hunters

 

and http://georgesoutdoornews.bangordailynews.com/2013/09/23/maine-woods/new-trail-camera-law-angers-hunters/

 

And Montana has some laws specific to trail/game cameras: http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/big-buck-zone/2010/04/outlawing-trail-cameras-coming-your-state-soon

 

And it looks as though there may be some other laws in other areas. Best to check with the land owner or other authority, apparently.

[+AustinMN]

If the trail cam is in a public place and you're attempting to photograph or video animals and there is almost no likelihood that you'll photograph people, probably have to get written permission from the public land manager. If you're attempting to photograph people on public lands, you may have to get written permission from the public land manager, and more. They're going to want to see your thesis premise from a local university and talk with your major professor. Your major professor is going to require you to go through a month-long certification on subject surveillance ethics and legal requirements. In some circumstances, you might have to get permission from each person you photograph, probably before-hand. Unless you have a very good reason and about three or four years to push it through the land-management and university systems, you may be facing some tough legal and ethical issues.

 

Chris

 

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but I do work for lawyers and I am a photographer who has to know is legal rights and limits.

 

In the United States, photography is considered a fundamental right. It is treated the same as free speech and freedom of the press, and the Supreme Court has always drawn from that first amendment to justify it's decisions.

 

There might be an issue with leaving a camera in place, but that is about the camera itself, not the the photographs. The law in the United States, both written and case law, is very clear. If you are in a public place, you can photograph almost anything you see as long as you don't need specialized equipment. There are only two exceptions:

 

* Military facilities (and then, they generally have to be posted and/or patrolled).

* Whenever a person has a "presumption of privacy" (US Supreme Court's wording).

 

I have only seen two examples of a "presumption of privacy" that are widely agreed upon. The first is inside a public restroom, and the second is when entering your PIN at an ATM. Virtually anything else is fair game. There is even a case where the Supreme Court determined that a celebrity did not have a "presumption of privacy" in her own bathroom if she left the blinds open. (I personally feel that one went too far, but I am not the Supreme Court.) There is no way on earth they would go along with a "presumption of privacy" argument for someone on trail (or off the trail) in a public park.

 

The subject of "specialized equipment" has cbeen hashed out in detail as well, and "specialized equipment" comes down to super-telephoto lenses, light amplifying scopes, and infrared cameras. Notice that trail cameras are not on the list.

 

Now if we were talking about recording people's voices, your statements would be just as wrong, but for the opposite reason. The courts have for a long time gone in the opposite direction with recording speech. Not only is it an ethics issue, but generally requires a court order. The courts do not easily give out those court orders, even to law enforcement agencies.

 

Austin

Edited June 15, 2015 by AustinMN

[+narcissa]

Regardless of the various legal issues that may or may not apply, placing trail cams without explicit permission from the landowner or the land manager seems like an obvious way to cause problems.

[+LaughterOnWater]

Seriously? You can't walk down the street or enter most stores these days without being on camera. Your car is constantly being video taped as you drive down the freeway, and even city streets.

 

However...

 

Maine has game camera laws if placed on private land that isn't your own: http://www.georgesmi...-angers-hunters

 

and http://georgesoutdoo...angers-hunters/

 

And Montana has some laws specific to trail/game cameras: http://www.outdoorli...your-state-soon

 

And it looks as though there may be some other laws in other areas. Best to check with the land owner or other authority, apparently.

All true. If you own the property where the camera is placed, in some states you may be required to place a sign saying something along the lines of "Notice: Continual Camera Surveillance In Progress" If I bring a camera with me to your store front and photograph of record something in progress while I'm there, my action is obvious. If something foul is in progress, today, more than a few people will whip out their smart phones and post it on facebook before you can blink an eye.

 

However, if I were to put my own camouflaged, well-concealed secret surveillance camera up on your store front or in your store, and not tell you or the public about it, that would be a trespass issue. Likewise, if you installed a private camouflaged surveillance camera on public lands without permission, I'm pretty sure it's a trespass issue, and depending on the state, could be a criminal misdemeanor. Notice that in states where they say you're not allowed to place private hidden surveillance cameras in certain places, it's always places where you expect to find people. Well, we expect to find people at geocache, so maybe it really is a "terrible idea" unless you can pass the ethical requirements for a university study and get all your ducks in a row.

 

https://www.rcfp.org...camera-statutes

[+AustinMN]

Seriously? You can't walk down the street or enter most stores these days without being on camera. Your car is constantly being video taped as you drive down the freeway, and even city streets.

 

However...

 

Maine has game camera laws if placed on private land that isn't your own: http://www.georgesmi...-angers-hunters

 

and http://georgesoutdoo...angers-hunters/

 

And Montana has some laws specific to trail/game cameras: http://www.outdoorli...your-state-soon

 

And it looks as though there may be some other laws in other areas. Best to check with the land owner or other authority, apparently.

All true. If you own the property where the camera is placed, in some states you may be required to place a sign saying something along the lines of "Notice: Continual Camera Surveillance In Progress" If I bring a camera with me to your store front and photograph of record something in progress while I'm there, my action is obvious. If something foul is in progress, today, more than a few people will whip out their smart phones and post it on facebook before you can blink an eye.

 

However, if I were to put my own camouflaged, well-concealed secret surveillance camera up on your store front or in your store, and not tell you or the public about it, that would be a trespass issue. Likewise, if you installed a private camouflaged surveillance camera on public lands without permission, I'm pretty sure it's a trespass issue, and depending on the state, could be a criminal misdemeanor. Notice that in states where they say you're not allowed to place private hidden surveillance cameras in certain places, it's always places where you expect to find people. Well, we expect to find people at geocache, so maybe it really is a "terrible idea" unless you can pass the ethical requirements for a university study and get all your ducks in a row.

 

https://www.rcfp.org...camera-statutes

 

I realize LOW is not reading my posts, but for everyone else's sake I'd like to point out that his link deals with recording conversations. There are a couple paragraphs at the end about laws forbidding cameras in private places without the consent of those who are there. No law forbidding cameras (that do not record sound) in public places would ever stand court muster.

 

Austin

[+Harry Dolphin]

I use trail cameras to study local wildlife, from rodent-size up to elk, and I have, now and then, thought of putting one pointed toward one of my forest caches, just for fun. But I have not done so for two reasons:

 

1. Cachers, looking around intently, might spot the camera, think that it was the cache, and try to take it apart.

 

2. And if they did not think it was the container, they might well be upset at being "spied upon," and that would take some of the fun out of caching.

 

Okay. I admit to trying to take apart two game cameras. Looked like a fancy container. Wonder what the camera owners thought?

[+The A-Team]

Okay. I admit to trying to take apart two game cameras. Looked like a fancy container. Wonder what the camera owners thought?

"What the heck was that dolphin trying to do to my camera? ...and what the heck is a dolphin doing in the woods?!?!"

 

Seriously, installing a game camera to watch a cache - even if notice is given - is a good way to creep out cachers. If the intention is simply to capture fun pictures of visiting cachers, do what's been done for years: put a camera in the cache and leave it up to the finders to decide* if they want their picture taken.

 

*Yeah, yeah, I know, cachers could choose to not go look for the game-camera cache, but a cache with the camera inside would be accepted and visited by more cachers.

[+AustinMN]

Okay. I admit to trying to take apart two game cameras. Looked like a fancy container. Wonder what the camera owners thought?

"What the heck was that dolphin trying to do to my camera? ...and what the heck is a dolphin doing in the woods?!?!"

 

Seriously, installing a game camera to watch a cache - even if notice is given - is a good way to creep out cachers. If the intention is simply to capture fun pictures of visiting cachers, do what's been done for years: put a camera in the cache and leave it up to the finders to decide* if they want their picture taken. to take the camera as SWAG.

 

There. Fixed it for you.

[+narcissa]

I changed my mind, this is a great idea. Everyone should have at least three shiny cameras protecting their cache.

[+SwineFlew]

As long its on your property, you can...if not...have fun with it in court.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I changed my mind, this is a great idea. Everyone should have at least three shiny cameras protecting their cache.

 

I'm going to have to print up a *lot* of counter agenda cards if I'm going to trade up, trade even for a Nikon D7100.

[+ras_oscar]

If you set up a trail cam and post its presence online you will most likely be short one game camera. Self solving problem.

[+cerberus1]

If you set up a trail cam and post its presence online you will most likely be short one game camera. Self solving problem.

Agreed. Similar to mentioning ammo cans.

[+AustinMN]

As long its on your property, you can...if not...have fun with it in court.

 

I'd love to know how you came to this conclusion.

[+Maebius]

I agree with the prior comments about "is it your land?" "Is it private?" "Why are you installing one?"

but the initial question leads to such because there are a lot of missing details here.

 

I can suddenly imagine a sort of "GameCam Cache" vaguely like the virtual/Webcam caches, where a photo is part of the Experience.

Assuming the trail cam is legal, and CO owned on permitted land, and all that legal mumbo-jumbo aside, I think it's be fun to go Cache hunting with the Knowledge that there is an opportunity to Photo-bomb it.

With mindfulness and prior knowledge of such a thing, I know my crew and friends would probably intentionally wear a funny hat or such, and pose with the Cache logbook or something. The potential for FUN is here.

 

But yeah, like you all said, there's more info needed. "Random" trail-cam on "random" woodland, with "randomly" placed Cache? maybe needs re-thinking.

(random in quotes, intentionally, because not really random)

[graciesaver]

Thanks guys for all the response, I was asking because there are several in my area guarding caches and I don't like it, I mean what are they going to do with the pictures?? But thank you all I got the answers I needed!!

[+AustinMN]

Thanks guys for all the response, I was asking because there are several in my area guarding caches and I don't like it, I mean what are they going to do with the pictures?? But thank you all I got the answers I needed!!

 

In a typical city in the United States, you appear on someone's surveilance camera 50-150 times a day. What do they do with those photos?

Edited June 17, 2015 by AustinMN

[+narcissa]

Thanks guys for all the response, I was asking because there are several in my area guarding caches and I don't like it, I mean what are they going to do with the pictures?? But thank you all I got the answers I needed!!

 

I recommend a slingshot. If you take them out with an air rifle, someone will get upset about guns.

[knowschad]

Thanks guys for all the response, I was asking because there are several in my area guarding caches and I don't like it, I mean what are they going to do with the pictures?? But thank you all I got the answers I needed!!

Do you know for a fact that they are there to guard the caches, and not to photograph game?

[+Yno]

As I read this thread I kept thinking about all the 'naked caching' threads. Just sayin.

[jholly]

As I read this thread I kept thinking about all the 'naked caching' threads. Just sayin.

And if your trail cam catches a picture of some one running naked through the woods you might truly wish you never saw that picture.

[knowschad]

As I read this thread I kept thinking about all the 'naked caching' threads. Just sayin.

And if your trail cam catches a picture of some one running naked through the woods you might truly wish you never saw that picture.

True. Real life is not Penthouse magazine.

[graciesaver]

Now I am thinking about the pictures they could be seeing, maybe I was better off keep this Question to my self. I think I will just try to get images out of my head and drop this whole thing. I am thankful for all responses though. You guys are great.

[+ByronForestPreserve]

I had a cache cam once, but not specifically to watch the cache. I placed a cache at a new picnic shelter, and our landscaping equipment was vandalized (and the cache was muggled). Maintenance put up a camera waaaaay up in the ceiling, and the problems stopped. I never looked at any photos, of cachers or anyone else, though. I did not put a notice on the cache page...AFAIK, they would have only looked at photos if there had been other problems with the equipment. Possibly if those cameras are on park property, they are for similar issues or are just plain trail cams.

[+paleolith]

Aside from all the issues already raised ... the purpose I would have, if I did it, would be to determine what's going wrong with caches. Not to catch anyone, but just for information to improve the hides. Lots of caches go missing even though they seem very well hidden. Two of mine have gone missing from places I didn't think anyone but a geocacher had stepped in years, and another in a similar place was signed by a muggle. Of course, I found these places more because I like exploring than because I was looking for hiding spots, so I shouldn't be surprised that some others like exploring too.

 

In general ... was it kids who didn't understand? Newbie cachers who didn't understand? Just random adults who didn't bother to read the card? Maintenance crews who don't stop to read? Is the cache actually still there but obscured in some way? (I help to maintain one which kept going missing ... until someone found three versions of it.) I suspect the great majority of cache disappearances are non-malicious, but we seldom have information as to what really happened.

 

Would it be worth the trouble? That's another question entirely ...

 

Edward

[+LaughterOnWater]

An alternative more legal method would be to have an off-grid website as part of a multicache (not connected to the internet, but set so you can connect via wifi from your phone or tablet to the local-only website.) Allow people to use their phones to log in to a website, and upload their selfies to the local web server. It could be a digital guest book, but not required. Since people are using their own phones, consent is automatic.

 

On periodic maintenance runs, the CO could moderate which selfies or other images were not too rude to make viewable by other cachers looking at the website.

 

The only problems are getting permission, power to a remote webserver, and keeping it from getting vandalized...

 

Chris

Edited June 19, 2015 by LaughterOnWater

[+narcissa]

An alternative more legal method would be to have an off-grid website as part of a multicache (not connected to the internet, but set so you can connect via wifi from your phone or tablet to the local-only website.) Allow people to use their phones to log in to a website, and upload their selfies to the local web server. It could be a digital guest book, but not required. Since people are using their own phones, consent is automatic.

 

On periodic maintenance runs, the CO could moderate which selfies or other images were not too rude to make viewable by other cachers looking at the website.

 

The only problems are getting permission, power to a remote webserver, and keeping it from getting vandalized...

 

Chris

 

Has anyone directed you to the guidelines?

[graciesaver]

An alternative more legal method would be to have an off-grid website as part of a multicache (not connected to the internet, but set so you can connect via wifi from your phone or tablet to the local-only website.) Allow people to use their phones to log in to a website, and upload their selfies to the local web server. It could be a digital guest book, but not required. Since people are using their own phones, consent is automatic.

 

On periodic maintenance runs, the CO could moderate which selfies or other images were not too rude to make viewable by other cachers looking at the website.

 

The only problems are getting permission, power to a remote webserver, and keeping it from getting vandalized...

 

Chris

 

Has anyone directed you to the guidelines?

[+AustinMN]

An alternative more legal method would be to have an off-grid website as part of a multicache (not connected to the internet, but set so you can connect via wifi from your phone or tablet to the local-only website.) Allow people to use their phones to log in to a website, and upload their selfies to the local web server. It could be a digital guest book, but not required. Since people are using their own phones, consent is automatic.

 

On periodic maintenance runs, the CO could moderate which selfies or other images were not too rude to make viewable by other cachers looking at the website.

 

The only problems are getting permission, power to a remote webserver, and keeping it from getting vandalized...

 

Chris

 

Already demonstrated there are no legal issues...

[knowschad]

An alternative more legal method would be to have an off-grid website as part of a multicache (not connected to the internet, but set so you can connect via wifi from your phone or tablet to the local-only website.) Allow people to use their phones to log in to a website, and upload their selfies to the local web server. It could be a digital guest book, but not required. Since people are using their own phones, consent is automatic.

 

On periodic maintenance runs, the CO could moderate which selfies or other images were not too rude to make viewable by other cachers looking at the website.

 

The only problems are getting permission, power to a remote webserver, and keeping it from getting vandalized...

 

Chris

 

Already demonstrated there are no legal issues...

 

What about in Maine? Did you see the links I posted above? Possibly Utah as well, and other states are considering regulation of trail cams.

[+AustinMN]

An alternative more legal method would be to have an off-grid website as part of a multicache (not connected to the internet, but set so you can connect via wifi from your phone or tablet to the local-only website.) Allow people to use their phones to log in to a website, and upload their selfies to the local web server. It could be a digital guest book, but not required. Since people are using their own phones, consent is automatic.

 

On periodic maintenance runs, the CO could moderate which selfies or other images were not too rude to make viewable by other cachers looking at the website.

 

The only problems are getting permission, power to a remote webserver, and keeping it from getting vandalized...

 

Chris

 

Already demonstrated there are no legal issues...

 

What about in Maine? Did you see the links I posted above? Possibly Utah as well, and other states are considering regulation of trail cams.

 

A legal argument could possibly be made for leaving property in place (such as Minnesota's WMA rules about leaving personal property overnight). In those cases, the fact that it is a camera would not be relevant. For the photography itself, such a law would be completely unconstitutional. Remember that the US Supreme Court decided that photographing someone in their own bathroom was constitutionally protected as long as the photographer was on public property.

 

The Montana law would not pass muster in Federal court. The Maine law only strengthens a right that private land owners already have, and does not impact public property at all.

 

Disclaimer: We are both in the US - laws in other countries vary.

Edited June 19, 2015 by AustinMN

[knowschad]

A legal argument could possibly be made for leaving property in place (such as Minnesota's WMA rules about leaving personal property overnight). In those cases, the fact that it is a camera would not be relevant.

True. In that case, the same argument could (and would) be used against leaving a geocache in a Minnesota WMA.

 

As one who has worked as a press photographer for several of his younger years, I concur with what you say about the expectations of privacy and photographing in public.

[+bflentje]

A legal argument could possibly be made for leaving property in place (such as Minnesota's WMA rules about leaving personal property overnight). In those cases, the fact that it is a camera would not be relevant.

True. In that case, the same argument could (and would) be used against leaving a geocache in a Minnesota WMA.

 

As one who has worked as a press photographer for several of his younger years, I concur with what you say about the expectations of privacy and photographing in public.

 

Leaving personal property in a park was one of the several misdemeanors Dakota County was considering in that infamous coffin incident.

[+AustinMN]

A legal argument could possibly be made for leaving property in place (such as Minnesota's WMA rules about leaving personal property overnight). In those cases, the fact that it is a camera would not be relevant.

True. In that case, the same argument could (and would) be used against leaving a geocache in a Minnesota WMA.

 

As one who has worked as a press photographer for several of his younger years, I concur with what you say about the expectations of privacy and photographing in public.

 

That MN law has been used to ban geocaches in WMA's (and SNAs). The MNGCA tried to negotiate with the DNR, and what they got was existing geocaches in Minnesota WMA's are grandfathered. (They also got what I consider great support for State Forests and active participation for State Parks that should be a model for other states to follow.) Reviewers will automatically reject new caches in MN WMAs. If one is archived, it cannot be replaced.

 

Austin

[+chasclifton]

I too have worked as a newspaper and magazine photographer, and what earlier posters said is true: There is no law against photographing people doing whatever in public.

 

Nor is any permission required to place game cameras on national forest or Bureau of Land Management-administered property. I am sure that the National Park Service has more rules, though, given their preservationist focus.

 

True story: A friend of mine is an Army Junior ROTC instructor at a high school not far from where I live. He is big on teaching orienteering and other outdoor skills, including sponsoring a winter ski-orienteering team.

 

Last winter he took his team to a state-wide meet at a Nordic ski center in north-central Colorado. The orienteering course was partly on the resort and partly on adjacent national forst land.

 

His team was late coming in. He was getting worried. Then they arrived all wanting to tell the funny story at once.

 

One of the boys had been caught with an urgent need. He skied off-trail and assumed a squatting position, clasping a tree trunk for balance in the snow. Then he looked over and saw that a trail camera was pointed right at him. Everyone was joking about the reaction of the camera's owner when he or she started examining the photo.