According to the langauge every Ring camera and other security type cameras are "game cameras".

And of interest, animals may not be harvested on the same calendar day if the image is remotely viewed. So I guess you can pull a card and look at the images on your phone then go kill something, but can't look at cell cam images on your phone and go kill something.

No way to enforce much of the langauge fairly.....................

 

No way to enforce much of the langauge fairly.....................

And the politicians who draft and sponsor these ridiculous laws know that. It does not matter if its at the local, state or federal levels, politicians draft and sponsor this legislation to pander to their so called constituents who will give then votes. When a politicians staff uses polls to garner popular topics, politicians jump at the chance to put their name to anything that will help them on election day. All you have now is a whole bunch of NH WCO's rolling their eyes with another useless law they have to remember. Waste of time and resources.

 

A person using a game camera to assist with hunting may not harvest any animal viewed within the same calendar day of remotely viewing that animal from a game camera.

This is a great & should go without saying but probably hard to enforce, easier just to ban them during season like some other states do.

 

Why? How many people do you know have actually killed a deer on the same day specifically because they got a trail cam picture? A buddy has been running a cell cam by his stand for 2 years and all it’s told him is that we have big bucks that come through late at night then leave before daylight.

 

Below is a summary of the changes to RSA 207:1 and RSA 207:63 regarding the use of game cameras:

All game cameras placed on private property, or on state-owned or state-managed property, must be labeled with the name and contact information of their owner in a manner visible while mounted. Name and contact information shall include either name and address or name and phone number.

No game cameras may be placed on private property without permission of the property owner unless the property owner has posted signage on the property allowing the placement of such cameras. Any such signs must be of durable material with words describing the allowable activity, such as “Game Cameras Allowed,” printed in block letters no less than 2 inches in height, and include the name and contact information of the property owner.

A game camera placed on state-owned or state-managed lands, or on municipally owned property, shall be exempt from requiring landowner permission.

“Game camera” means any device capable of recording, storing, and/or transmitting photographic or video data for any purpose.

A person using a game camera to assist with hunting may not harvest any animal viewed within the same calendar day of remotely viewing that animal from a game camera.

I think Maine requires ID on game cameras. Waugh!

 

"Trail/Game Cameras Law

People using trail and game cameras may not place a camera upon another person's private land without written permission. All cameras must be labeled with the owner's name and contact information."

Maine. Waugh!

 

I guess I get the intent of "can't kill one you viewed on the same day" language, but good luck enforcing, or even detecting, that violation.

 

Most will convict themselves with internet photos

 

I'lll tell ya what it is, good, bad, or indifferent. It is keeping up the appearance of fair chase in a region that has a lot of animal rights people. The cultural boundaries of fair chase are the frontlines, the laws are just reactionary.

 

This is why I can’t get into politics.
I’d be the guy to submit a bill making it illegal for those animal rights folks to go buy their vegan organic soy lattes on the same calendar day they get a push notification of a sale at Starbucks.

 

JB, the difference, if I'm seeing the full context of both laws, is NH would require a landowner to so mark his own cameras on his own property. That's a bit overzealous IMHO, but I don't live there and have no skin in that game.

 

I don't think the land owner is required to mark on his own land but I may be wrong. Waugh!

 

Traffic cameras? LE body cameras? Ring cameras? Someone taking a video at a park on their phone? All "game cameras" under the langauge of that law...........

Here is a link from NH Game and Fish. New Laws for Tree Stands and Game Cameras Become Effective January 1

 

COMING SOON TO A THEATER NEAR YOU!!!

 

I sure hope that the language in any potential law or regulation in this state is scrutinized much more throughly than the crap NH is pulling.

 

At some point, the game agencies need to determine whether they're more interested in getting the deer killed or the means by which those goals are attained. What good does it do to put relatively useless restrictions on hunters in the name of fair chase, and then bring sharpshooters in to keep the deer herds in check? If they're going to put restrictions on them, It would be much easier to enforce if they just banned them altogether.

 

I loved hunting & fishing NH. I lived there for almost 5 years. The White Mountains National Forest was my wonderful playground & I barely scratched it's surface.

 

More stupid laws to address a problem that does not exist.

 

Yep. There are only 60,000 hunters in NH, yet they thougt it necessary to focus on "game" cameras.

 

Perception is reality. Overreliance on facts and science is burying ones head the the sand. It comes off as a rhetorical defense mechanism, like you know the war is lost, but it's a more noble death to have stats and citations.

 

If you get a picture of a deer walking by your camera, it's long gone in 5 minutes. Same calendar day. Good luck getting out there and the deer still being there. Or you not spooking it on your way in. I can't see how you can not be at that spot and then go shoot the deer after receiving a photo some time during that calendar day.

 

Just knowing your target buck is up and moving could really help harvest that buck. Say we see him on a doe during the rut from our camera. Most likely he will still be in the vicinity much of the day with her. I have spotted a buck on a doe and went home and got my bow and went and harvested that buck at 20 yds.

 

This is the classic….A solution in search of a problem.

 

I don't disagree but I think in large part the law has to do with how strongly NH views fair chase thus the restriction on hunting an animal the same day you capture photos of it on a game camera.

 

Did anyone hear of the term 'daylighting' 15 years ago? Anyone? Now every bro in the woods uses it. Hmm. If the culture is creating new terminology related to the technology, I'd say the technology has been impactful.

 

What does this daylighting refer to? I knew the term daylighting for trimming roads or field edges long before 15 years ago. If some trees grew too tall in our hedge rows we would daylight or cut back the taller trees. This was before the hedge rows were removed altogether on our farm fields. Waugh!

 

I wonder too how much enforcement of existing conditions becoming a hassle plays into stuff like this. When the law gets called out repeatedly for what is essentially two man children fighting over nonsense, it has to get old.

 

Big Brother stepping in again

 

So does a land owner have to have a camera permitted sign on every tree that needed to be marked to be compliant with marking regulations that’s my question

 

The verbage is horrible. You raise another valid point. Where does this sign have to be posted? On the back of the basketball hoop? On the mailbox? On the grill?

 

I do not use cell cams but think I may. I think it is cool how they work. Glad hunters are using them and hope they dont get banned.

 

It is NH for Pete;s sake, bluer than blue and just as whacko liberal as they come, a solution for a problem that does not exist. NH+a Dem hangout.

 

How often you been to NH? Spend a lot of time hunting it? NH isn't really any different than here. Much of the state is conservative except for the cities. Now I will say the liberal influence has slowly increased in the last 25 years (when I lived there) but that's also not really any different than here. And by God if NH doesn't have arguably the coolest state motto "Live Free or Die." Like I said it was a great place to hunt & fish and I knew some darn good people.

 

so does the owner of the private property have to tag his own cameras ? thats a bunch of manure

 

Also no tax on liquor.....Big sign on I95 this Exit liquor store.

 

Below is a summary of the changes to RSA 207:1 and RSA 207:63 regarding the use of game cameras:

All game cameras placed on private property, or on state-owned or state-managed property, must be labeled with the name and contact information of their owner in a manner visible while mounted. Name and contact information shall include either name and address or name and phone number.

No game cameras may be placed on private property without permission of the property owner unless the property owner has posted signage on the property allowing the placement of such cameras. Any such signs must be of durable material with words describing the allowable activity, such as “Game Cameras Allowed,” printed in block letters no less than 2 inches in height, and include the name and contact information of the property owner.

A game camera placed on state-owned or state-managed lands, or on municipally owned property, shall be exempt from requiring landowner permission.

“Game camera” means any device capable of recording, storing, and/or transmitting photographic or video data for any purpose.

A person using a game camera to assist with hunting may not harvest any animal viewed within the same calendar day of remotely viewing that animal from a game camera.

Wow is right. Sounds like a pretty fair law.

 

nothing fair about them dictating what can be done on private property

 

Sorry I read it wrong. I took it as protecting the private property owner.

 

Below is a summary of the changes to RSA 207:1 and RSA 207:63 regarding the use of game cameras:

All game cameras placed on private property, or on state-owned or state-managed property, must be labeled with the name and contact information of their owner in a manner visible while mounted. Name and contact information shall include either name and address or name and phone number.

No game cameras may be placed on private property without permission of the property owner unless the property owner has posted signage on the property allowing the placement of such cameras. Any such signs must be of durable material with words describing the allowable activity, such as “Game Cameras Allowed,” printed in block letters no less than 2 inches in height, and include the name and contact information of the property owner.

A game camera placed on state-owned or state-managed lands, or on municipally owned property, shall be exempt from requiring landowner permission.

“Game camera” means any device capable of recording, storing, and/or transmitting photographic or video data for any purpose.

A person using a game camera to assist with hunting may not harvest any animal viewed within the same calendar day of remotely viewing that animal from a game camera.

A little context here. New Hampshire generally allows hunting on private property unless an owner posts a sign prohibiting it. With the increased popularity and usage of game cameras and cell cameras, perhaps this became necessary to address landowner privacy. A landowner might be comfortable with having hunters, but not comfortable with recording the comings and goings of his private property.

Only reading the summary of changes can be misleading. The original bill clearly states it only applies to individuals who place a game camera on the private porperty of another. This bill is geared towards cameras that show up on unposted property without the knowledge of the landowner. And as a practical matter, the only likely person to report a camera not labeled with contact information is the landowner. He's not calling the game warden to report a violation for a camera he personally allows or owns.

 

A little context here. New Hampshire generally allows hunting on private property unless an owner posts a sign prohibiting it. With the increased popularity and usage of game cameras and cell cameras, perhaps this became necessary to address landowner privacy. A landowner might be comfortable with having hunters, but not comfortable with recording the comings and goings of his private property.

Only reading the summary of changes can be misleading. The original bill clearly states it only applies to individuals who place a game camera on the private porperty of another. This bill is geared towards cameras that show up on unposted property without the knowledge of the landowner. And as a practical matter, the only likely person to report a camera not labeled with contact information is the landowner. He's not calling the game warden to report a violation for a camera he personally allows or owns.

"A little context here. " What are you a wet blanket trying to ruin a good thread. Waugh!