Rant for the day

[Jamen]

This year I have seen so many pictures of people who are not wearing the proper clothing for the hunts they are involved in. And that proper tagging is not done. I am not a huge stickler about people who want to take a picture of an animal without a tag but the law here requires it to be tagged immediately. The blaze orange clothing is what really gets me. I have seen a lot of pictures and people posting them online either on social media or on other outdoor sites. How can you take a photo of your deer in the field and not have a thread of orange on?

This Sept I was helping my cousin with his ND elk tag. We got to a spot where I know elk to be and there were two other trucks there. No big deal there are many places to go in this area. Anyway we spotted a really nice bull who ended up scoring in the 360's. We were making a plan on how to get to him when the other hunters came out of a draw and started off towards the bull. Disappointed yes but that is hunting but what really pissed me off they didn't have one thread of orange on them. I watched them for a long time in the spotter had pictures of them also had their plate numbers from where we parked incase issues were to come about. Later I had seen a picture of the bull with the hunters in it I recognized them right away based on what they were wearing and the pictures I had through my spotter. I am not one to cause problems so I never confronted nor contacted the warden about it. it just sucks having someone not follow the rules and then so boldly and blast it everywhere. No hard feelings we got my cousin a real nice 6x6 anyways.

That is my rant for the day

Hope everyone has a Happy Thanksgiving!!

 

[HowaHunter]

Orange is not required in every state. For example, I wear orange when rifle hunting but sometimes it is taken off for pictures as I almost always shed all my clothing except a tshirt or light jacket to dress the animal. As for the tagging I believe 98.5% of people validate and attach the tag immediately. Some people don't like it in the pics. For example, When i harvest an animal I slit the skin and peel it away from the meat and stuff my tag inside the slit (usually a leg) as I always forget to carry wires, zip ties or tape. It has never been lost when doing this and satisfies the immediate tagging requirements.

Just posting this as a rebuttal as I have pictures of myself without orange nor a visible tag attached but yet the tag is on the animal and the orange is just out of the picture even though it is not required to wear in Idaho...
It really is not fair to judge people based on a few pictures. It is a different story when you personally witness laws being broken.

Congrats to your cousin on the 6x6; I am sure memories were made.

 

[Cheater]

Can't help you with the folks who aren't hunting with the required orange on, that is frustrating. With that said, a lot of folks will remove the orange for field photos and a cleaner looking picture. I don't see an issue with that, especially since the orange is usually hanging on a tree just out of frame. Also, not all states require the tag to be on the antlers, some want it attached to the largest quarter or portion of the carcass. Something to keep in mind, either way the animal should be tagged appropriately.

 

[el unit]

I partially agree with you. In my case, I take pictures with the blaze orange on, and pictures with the blaze orange off. The notched tag is normally in my pocket, or attached to a leg, as I think a license taped to an antler kinda adds an unnecessary distraction to the photo. And in MT, it states that the license must be attached to the animal BEFORE the animal leaves the kill site OR before the hunter leaves the kill site. Not before pictures are taken.
In my opinion.

 

[tjones]

This year I have seen so many pictures of people who are not wearing the proper clothing for the hunts they are involved in. And that proper tagging is not done. I am not a huge stickler about people who want to take a picture of an animal without a tag but the law here requires it to be tagged immediately. The blaze orange clothing is what really gets me. I have seen a lot of pictures and people posting them online either on social media or on other outdoor sites. How can you take a photo of your deer in the field and not have a thread of orange on?

This Sept I was helping my cousin with his ND elk tag. We got to a spot where I know elk to be and there were two other trucks there. No big deal there are many places to go in this area. Anyway we spotted a really nice bull who ended up scoring in the 360's. We were making a plan on how to get to him when the other hunters came out of a draw and started off towards the bull. Disappointed yes but that is hunting but what really pissed me off they didn't have one thread of orange on them. I watched them for a long time in the spotter had pictures of them also had their plate numbers from where we parked incase issues were to come about. Later I had seen a picture of the bull with the hunters in it I recognized them right away based on what they were wearing and the pictures I had through my spotter. I am not one to cause problems so I never confronted nor contacted the warden about it. it just sucks having someone not follow the rules and then so boldly and blast it everywhere. No hard feelings we got my cousin a real nice 6x6 anyways.

That is my rant for the day

Hope everyone has a Happy Thanksgiving!!

Just because hunters are not wearing orange in a pic does not mean they weren't wearing it while hunting. Also just because you can't see the tag in the pic does not mean the critter is not tagged.

 

[el unit]

And yes, I witnessed some DB hunting two days ago without a stitch of Blaze Orange. It pisses me off too. I really don't feel the need to confront others in the field- I leave that to the Joe Picketts...

 

[Jamen]

I should have been more clear in my first post. In ND it states all animals must be tagged immediately antlered deer at the base of the antler not the tines (seen a few tagged by the tine and I guess one got a ticket for that) and any antlerless a slit in the ear. So in most cases you would see the tag in photos here unless you had your hand covering it in the picture. I'm just wondering if you could get a ticket for not wearing orange in a picture if the warden really wanted to be a dick?

 

[Tradewind]

I usually take the blaze orange off for the pictures as I think having blaze orange in an otherwise muted brown, tan, dark surrounding takes away from the whole scene. when you glance at the pic all you see is orange.
That said i would thk abt turning the hunters in who are not wearing blaze orange. I follow all the rules, nothing makes them special

 

[MTGomer]

The color of clothes others wear afield does not phase me.

Short of poaching, what others do afield does not phase me.

'Plan your hunt, hunt your plan' You'll find a lot better time, not worrying about others, even if they are violating minor technicalities like government mandated clothing colors.

 

[Jamen]

It just left a bad taste in my mouth this fall to watch people clearly not follow the rules and then harvest a bull of a lifetime. I had all the evidence in the world to turn them in but what would prove? The animal was still shot and they may have gotten a small fine for not wearing it?

 

[Jamen]

We didn't let that incident ruin our hunt at all he ended up shooting a nice bull just a few miles away from there. My point is if someone cant even follow such a simple law in wearing a orange hat and vest in the field then maybe they shouldn't be out there.

 

[npaden]

I'm just wondering if you could get a ticket for not wearing orange in a picture if the warden really wanted to be a dick?

I've wondered about this myself. Also, is there a safety issue standing in the woods behind a dead deer or elk without orange on? I've never heard of it happening, but with some of the losers out there I would hate to see someone shoot the elk I was behind getting a picture taken!

There is no doubt the picture looks WAY better without the orange though.

With Orange:

Without Orange:

 

[Jamen]

I mean high school students can get a minor for holding a red cup or a beer can no real proof they were drinking but it has happened many times here anyways just wondering if the same would apply to the orange.

 

[MTGomer]

What is the purpose of wearing orange? Its the law.
Why is it the law? I have no idea. I can't think of any rational reason for only rifle hunters to wear orange. Can you? Its not for safety. You're the one with the gun doing the shooting. If it was for safety, it would be required of dog walkers, bird watchers, fishermen, fossil hunters and everybody else afield that time of year.

In montana, I don't have to wear it if I'm packing my bow for a high country september muley, but the guy across the basin rifle hunting goats does. He's the one with the gun, why does he need orange and not me? Illogical.

I think we should repeal laws like this. I really hope there are not people carrying deadly weapons around that feel they can't decide for themselves what color clothing to wear without a government mandate.

Edit: packing out antlers, I ALWAYS put orange over the head/antlers. Always. no matter how sure I am that nobody is around.

 

[grizzly_]

I always take orange off for pics, it just detracts too much from the photo.

As for tagging... Colorado, for example, specifically forbids a tag from being attached to an antler... "You must attach a carcass tag to animals you kill per instructions on tag. Tags must be immediately signed, dated, detached from the license and attached to the carcass of the animal — not to detached hides, horns, antlers or carried separately."

There are just far too many variables for any judgement to be made about the hunt from only one snapshot in time. Just my opinion.

 

[Gr8bawana]

Nevada where I hunt does not require orange. Our regulations also state that a "tag must be punched immediately and be attached at or before he reaches his means of transportation or camp." So I never have a tag attached to my animals in pictures.

 

[Bambistew]

Couple things...

If the animal is dead, are you still legally hunting and required to wear orange? You'd have to look up the definition of hunting by state. In some states, the definition of hunting or "take" ends once the animal is dead.

Tagging... wasn't there a case recently about a guy who killed an elk, but didn't tag it until he had taken some pictures, all while waiting for his brother to get a tractor or something. I'm pretty sure they set a precedence on the term "immediately" after it was hashed out in court. Wish I could find that thread, I think it was posted on here?

If you take the term immediately as quoted, shouldn't you notch your tag as soon as you pull the trigger and see the animal drop? If not, what is the time frame from trigger pull to notching said tag? 1 second, 10, when you get to the animal? Can you touch the animal, or walk to it before filling out your tag, snap a picture? What event takes precedence when tagging? I like to play it safe and just notch it before I leave the truck.

 

[Jamen]

IMMEDIATELY after an animal has been killed, the hunter must indicate the date of kill by cutting out the appropriate month and day from the tag provided with the license and attach it to the base of the antler on antlered deer or in a slit in the ear on antlerless deer as illustrated on the tag backing to prevent its removal. The tag, placed immediately upon the antler or slit in ear, shall remain with the antlers or head until March 31, 2017. After the antlers, head, or hide have been removed from the carcass, the carcass tag shall remain with the carcass or processed meat until consumed or until March 31, 2017. No person may re-use or attempt to re-use any tag issued. When any part of an animal is mounted, if the tag is removed from the antlers or ear, the tag must be securely fastened to the back or bottom of the mount and remain there. Tags are not transferable.

How I understand our state in the proclamation is this. Once the animal is considered dead it must be tagged. One does not know if the animal is dead until you approach it. In a lot of cases one can assume yes it is dead in its tracks but not 100% sure til you get to the animal.

 

[jhunt8]

I take my blaze off for a field photo but it is always close by and goes right back on after the photos are taken. We take our photos without the tags on and place them on right after. We always wear the proper attire and always make sure some orange is visible while taking the photos (hung up in tree etc). And the person taking the photos has orange on.

 

[Bambistew]

How I understand our state in the proclamation is this. Once the animal is considered dead it must be tagged.

Not trying to argue what what is intended by the definition, as I understand what is intended. I'm just stating that this definition would easily be challenged and likely get tossed in court if someone is given a ticket because they took a couple pictures and tagged the animal a few minutes later. A game warden issuing a ticket for such an infraction would be a class A d-bag.

The definition doesn't state the "only" action you can perform after the animal is killed is tagging. Imply and state are 2 different things. You could also argue that digging through your pack, setting your gun down, or any other action, after realizing the animal is dead is in violation of the reg correct? Or are those considered part of the immediate action of tagging? The definition doesn't state this if so.

This is why I believe many states have a definition stating before you leave the kill site. It requires an action prior to another action, vs. an action after the fact.

I write specifications complicated projects and very specific sequences of action/operation... a definition written in such a way as you quote above would likely end up costing the owner money.