[Glong]

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.

 

[bohunr]

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

 

[Glong]

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.

 

[Wingatchtochwilsit]

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.

 

[jimbridger]

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

You read it correct. Waugh!

 

[xarcher]

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.

 

[338/378wm]

I honestly do know how some of these laws get written. I would never tag a cam on my property weather that is what the law says. I would never require a friend om mine to tag his camera with his ID info on my land. I would never wright out a slip for a friend to hunt my property on Sunday. If a verbal conversation is not good anymore than I guess they can arrest me.

 

[SRA-5C+]

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.

"voted Democratic in all but one election since 1992." What else did you ask?

 

[Bigbrownie]

"voted Democratic in all but one election since 1992." What else did you ask?

Same as Pa.

 

[casey]

I think Maine requires ID on game cameras. Waugh!

yes they do.

 

[jimbridger]

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!

 

[Swamp Buck]

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.

Bingo!!! Was going to post the same thing.

 

[RyanR]

"voted Democratic in all but one election since 1992." What else did you ask?

🔧 🔨 🗜 🧰