Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

Whats the big deal?

E

enis

New Member
I quit group hunting 3 years ago during shotgun season. Dang i miss doing that we always had alot of fun and lots of memories. Anyway the hand held radios was a great idea if we could only use them so nobody gets shot. But no our friendly DNR officers disagree. I understand if people misuse them to direct someone to the deer but to find out were everyone is at before and after the hunt. SAFETY!!!!! This subject has always torked me. I had an uncle that had open heart surgery, the hunt was over and he wasn,t back to his truck yet. We all started back into the timber to look for him. Long story short everyone was scattered out in this timber and he was tracking a buck he had hit. He had no idea we was looking for him he could of shot someone on accident cause everyone was spread out everywhere. I just think it would cut down on alot of accidents and near accidents. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif
 
6 of one and half dozen of the other on this subject. My opinion is that the majority of people would abuse the use of hand held radios.

"Yup, I'm there"

"OK, I'm on the way"

"Hey, there's a big "coyote" working his way into the area, hold off a second"

"Roger that."

If there's a big group then communication has to be in place BEFORE any pushes are done.
 
More citations they can write works to their benefit to. Am i rite or wrong? Should be able to pinpoint the abusers.
 
I just don't think that people would use radios for safety purposes alone. There is very little difference between saying "I'm going to start the push" if they were legal or saying "Yeah, let's walk out together, I'll get down early and head your way so we can walk out in daylight" if they're not legal.

Would radios cut down on accidents? Yes, I will agree with that but I still think they'd be abused more often than not.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: enis</div><div class="ubbcode-body">More citations they can write works to their benefit to. Am i rite or wrong? Should be able to pinpoint the abusers. </div></div>

Yes, more citations more benefit. Just would rather see the CO's putting effort into major poaching type cases than hitting a bunch of people for a minor radio offense.
 
Muddy you are rite they would be abused. But they could also make the fines a little stiffer on the subject. After a year of 2 fifteen year old boys with semi auto 12 gauges and an 145 inch buck between me and them, well they won that battle. I was like a freaking gray squirrel slithering around the tree that only covered about half of my body. In my eyes a fine would be worth it on that given day. THATS BS!!!!
 
Sounds to me that even with radios those two kids would have been too excited to pay any attention anyway. Common sense and good communication between group members is essential for safety.

What is the current fine on radio use? What would be an acceptable fine if it were to be stiffer?

I think also that if someone were to receive the fine and then decide to fight the case that would be one or two more days for the CO to be out of the field to try and get that ticket to stick.
 
I would think it would be fairly easy for the DNR to pinpoint who is abusing the radios and who is not. Couldn't they pick the signal up as they are flying over a group of hunters?
 
I group hunt 2nd shotgun. We have a good system down, over head photos blown way up on a half sheet of plywood. The land owner takes each person and shows them were they are to stand on the photo. Walkers don't shot deer ahead of them and all standers join the walkers as we go by or head for the trucks.

radio's would be nice, but like most others, I agree they would be abused.
CO's did have scanners in their trucks, do they still?
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 180class</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would think it would be fairly easy for the DNR to pinpoint who is abusing the radios and who is not. Couldn't they pick the signal up as they are flying over a group of hunters? </div></div>

Then they'd be having to waste time listening to conversations, with the rule as it is, you use a radio, you get a fine...nice and simple.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: enis</div><div class="ubbcode-body">More citations they can write works to their benefit to. Am i rite or wrong? Should be able to pinpoint the abusers.</div></div>

I used to think the same thing as well, but now i've realized that the DNR doesn't get much money, if any, from the tickets in which they write. The governor decides where the fine money is allocated. I don't know all of the details involved in it, but I know the percentage of money the DNR gets back is slim to none.

With that being said, I feel the same as many others on this site that radios would be used to the advantage of many. Technology, in many regards is a good thing, but too much technology incorporated into hunting can put a strain on ethics.

Bottom line is that the use of radios for 'safety' measures would open up too many loopholes to some groups who would abuse the law. With a limited amount of officers, the less loopholes the better.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1luckyguy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What about cell phones? Pretty much the same thing. </div></div>
Regulations say that you "cannot use a two-way mobile transmitter"

Don't know if cell phones are lumped into that but I bet they are if you get caught
 
What are they going to do? Bust you for talking on your cell phone? And what about sending text? A lot of people do that today.
 
Cell phones and two way radios are pretty much the same thing in my opinion. Text messaging would be better anyways its quieter. I don't hunt in big groups anymore either, only late muzzleloader hunt, but I don't see how either would help in communicating when the drive has started and the shooting begins. Maybe if you had a guy on the road in a truck, but if that is the case that don't seem right as well.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tlambert</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 180class</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would think it would be fairly easy for the DNR to pinpoint who is abusing the radios and who is not. Couldn't they pick the signal up as they are flying over a group of hunters? </div></div>

Then they'd be having to waste time listening to conversations, with the rule as it is, you use a radio, you get a fine...nice and simple. </div></div>

I understand that the DNR is understaffed and overworked, but I don't think keeping laws "nice and simple" just to save them from having to do more of their JOB is necessarily a good thing. I wish I could keep things in my line of work "nice and simple" just to make things easier on me.
 
You can use radio's while hunting deer, you just can't coordinate your hunt with them. If you say "come pick me up" you are fine. If you say " there is a buck coming your way" you are in trouble. Where I find it being a bad law is that you can't tell someone where you are at during the actual hunt. Like "Hey I am next to this tree, so don't shoot this way". That is the safety factor I would like to see changed. If you would be able to tell people where you are at during the hunt and not say there is a deer coming your way, would be the best of both. I realize that you will have people going abusing it but I come from the safe not sorry line of thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom