NJ Fined because of physical location

[justalayman]

Yes I agree! The common way to hunt turkey is to use a locator call. A locator is normally used just before sunrise. Its dark out! A locator call makes a male turkey gobble from the roost. Turkeys are known to roost near food sources. So a hunter locates a gobbler in the dark, sets up and tries to call the Tom into range. How is a hunter supposed to know that someone else baited the area? That he is hunting within 300' of bait? The hunter shoots, a game warden is close, comes and finds bait and the hunter is fined. You are violating the Regulation by your location.

Ok, same scenario but you’re in a tree stand. You shoot. The warden shows up and points to the feed stand 200 feet away that you didn’t see because it was dark and writes you a citation

What’s the difference?

The argument about it being difficult to ensure you are at least 300 feet away from a feed stand has nothing to do with the issue you have been arguing which is the regulation conflicts with the law, which it clearly does not

 

[chlsbrns]

Should or must. Unless it’s must (and you need to provide proof of that), should is not must.

Administrative rule means each agency statement of general applicability and continuing effect that implements or interprets law

 

[justalayman]

Administrative rule means each agency statement of general applicability and continuing effect that implements or interprets law

Since you are going to start posting such disconnected writings I think I’ll end my input now.

You can argue all day long and you’ll still be wrong. While you don’t need to take the advice of a layman, you have had an actual lawyer also tell you you are wrong. Do you really belive you know more about the law than a guy that’s been practicIng law for a considerable amount of time?

After reviewing the thread I see at least two attorneys who disagree with you. So, you have at least two attorneys here and every official or attorney you talked to at the state who all say the same thing

How arrogant must a person be to still believe they are correct when faced with all of the people saying you are wrong?

 

[chlsbrns]

Ok, same scenario but you’re in a tree stand. You shoot. The warden shows up and points to the feed stand 200 feet away that you didn’t see because it was dark and writes you a citation

What’s the difference?

The argument about it being difficult to ensure you are at least 300 feet away from a feed stand has nothing to do with the issue you have been arguing which is the regulation conflicts with the law, which it clearly does not

I don't know anyone who hunt turkey from a tree stand and never heard about anyone hunting turkey from a tree stand.

Now I will give an absurd example.

Someone baits 100' from a blacktop road. Every hunter who has a weapon in their vehicle or walks that road past where the bait is with a weapon is violating the Regulation.

Someone baits 100' from a blacktop road. Every hunter who has a weapon in their vehicle or walks that road past where the bait is not violating the law.

The Regulation as written makes violators based on location.

 

[chlsbrns]

Since you are going to start posting such disconnected writings I think I’ll end my input now.

You can argue all day long and you’ll still be wrong. While you don’t need to take the advice of a layman, you have had an actual lawyer also tell you you are wrong. Do you really belive you know more about the law than a guy that’s been practicIng law for a considerable amount of time?

After reviewing the thread I see at least two attorneys who disagree with you. So, you have at least two attorneys here and every official or attorney you talked to at the state who all say the same thing

How arrogant must a person be to still believe they are correct when faced with all of the people saying you are wrong?

It's obvious from the Administrative Procedure Acts definition of an administrative rule that I am correct. The rule aka regulation in question does not implement any law. The only law there is to interpret clearly states possessing a weapon from a tree or structure within 300' of bait. Do you think that somehow they interpret that as possessing a weapon while on the ground and within 300' of bait?

 

[justalayman]

It's obvious from the Administrative Procedure Acts definition of an administrative rule that I am correct. The rule aka regulation in question does not implement any law. The only law there is to interpret clearly states possessing a weapon from a tree or structure within 300' of bait. Do you think that somehow they interpret that as possessing a weapon while on the ground and within 300' of bait?

Ya, you keep thinking that.

I don't know anyone who hunt turkey from a tree stand and never heard about anyone hunting turkey from a tree stand.

yet the state felt the need to enact a law addressing exactly that.

Now I will give an absurd example.

Someone baits 100' from a blacktop road. Every hunter who has a weapon in their vehicle or walks that road past where the bait is with a weapon is violating the Regulation.

Not absurd at all if your example was correct (and I’ve read statutes that are as absurd as you thought this one is) This shows how you misinterpret what you read.

The regulation as you posted it:

12. A person hunting turkeys shall not have in possession or control, a firearm or other weapon within 300 feet of a baited area during the turkey hunting seasons.

A person driving down the road is obviously not hunting turkey. They are driving. How do you hunt while you’re driving?

As to the guy walking: it depends what he is actuslly doing. He may be in violation of the reg if he is actually hunting. If he is traveling to where he intends to hunt, he isn’t in violation of the reg. Because (wait for it)...

He isn’t hunting.

 

[justalayman]

As,to hunting turkey from a tree stand

There Is a plethora of links on a google search discussing the practice. It is apparently not as uncommon as you believe it to be.

 

[cbg]

I'm betting that in elementary school, the OP did not get his best marks in Reading Comprehension.

 

[chlsbrns]

If there was a State Statute/Law that said that you have to wear fluorescent orange while hunting game birds would it be ok to have a Regulation that allows turkey hunters to hunt turkey without wearing fluorescent orange? A turkey is defined as a game bird.

That would mean that the regulation is saying that it is ok to ignore aka violate the law correct?

It would in a way be like the having a weapon within 300' of bait regulation that is supposed to be based on a law but isn't. The Regulation would be contrary to the law correct?

 

[justalayman]

If there was a State Statute/Law that said that you have to wear fluorescent orange while hunting game birds would it be ok to have a Regulation that allows turkey hunters to hunt turkey without wearing fluorescent orange? A turkey is defined as a game bird.

That would mean that the regulation is saying that it is ok to ignore aka violate the law correct?

It would in a way be like the having a weapon within 300' of bait regulation that is supposed to be based on a law but isn't.

Of course you could and you could be cited for violating the state law if you don’t wear one.

No, it isnt saying it is ok to ignore the law. The law requires you wear one regardless what the regulation says.

You keep trying to make this into something it isn’t. The state law and the state reg are independent of each other and are not in conflict with each other

In your real situation, the law says you can’t hunt from a stand within 300 feet of a bait station. That’s all it says. It does not say you can hunt from the ground within 300 feet of a bait station. Since laws are generally restrictive, if no other law or regulation addressed the issue you could hunt turkey from the ground within 300 feet of a bait station


But the reg prohibits it so you can’t do it on the ground either.

The regulation says you can’t hunt turkey at all within 300 feet of a bait station.

If you hunt within 300 feet of a bait station from a stand you can be cited with a violation of either the state law or the reg.

If you aren’t in stand but you are hunting within 300 feet of a bait station you can be cited with violating the reg but not the state law

 

[chlsbrns]

Of course you could and you could be cited for violating the state law if you don’t wear one.

No, it isnt saying it is ok to ignore the law. The law requires you wear one regardless what the regulation says.

You keep trying to make this into something it isn’t. The state law and the state reg are independent of each other and are not in conflict with each other

In your real situation, the law says you can’t hunt from a stand within 300 feet of a bait station. That’s all it says. It does not say you can hunt from the ground within 300 feet of a bait station. Since laws are generally restrictive, if no other law or regulation addressed the issue you could hunt turkey from the ground within 300 feet of a bait station


But the reg prohibits it so you can’t do it on the ground either.

The regulation says you can’t hunt turkey at all within 300 feet of a bait station.

If you hunt within 300 feet of a bait station from a stand you can be cited with a violation of either the state law or the reg.

If you aren’t in stand but you are hunting within 300 feet of a bait station you can be cited with violating the reg but not the state law

Ok so the Statute as written applies to game animals and Game Birds. The Statute doesn't mean or imply that possessing a weapon within 300' of bait when hunting from the ground is legal?

 

[justalayman]

Ok so the Statute as written applies to game animals and Game Birds. The Statute doesn't mean or imply that possessing a weapon within 300' of bait when hunting from the ground is legal?

Hey, I think you’re starting to understand

It addresses what it addresses and nothing more.

 

[chlsbrns]

Hey, I think you’re starting to understand

It addresses what it addresses and nothing more.

What's confusing is the laws and regs of other game animals. Take for example bear hunting. They have a Statute that forbids feeding bears but the States faq about bears says its ok to bait bears if hunting from the ground and refers to the Statute that I posted in my OP.

 

[chlsbrns]

The other confusing thing is that they are required to cite that statute that gives them the authority to make the Regulation. The bear regulation cites the Statute in my OP. The turkey regulation does not cite a statute.

 

[chlsbrns]

The whole fish game dept is a mess! The Statute specifically states that the statutes set fine amounts for violations and that the game counsel who makes regulations can not set the fine amounts. A statute will State a $20 fine but the Regulation will State a $40 fine for the same violation.

NJ and all but I think two States are in the Interstate Wildlife Violator Compact . Two violations in 5 years and you lose your privilege to hunt in every State in the compact for five years. I do not want to be fined or lose hunting privileges for having my gun within 300' of bait that I do not know is there! Regulations are required to be "reasonable" and I do not see how the Regulation is reasonable!

The wearing hunter fluorescent orange thing... the Statute says that hunter orange is required when hunting game birds the regulations says it isn't required. The Regulation is basically saying that it is ok to violate the law.