Caribou Gear

Drone Game Recovery

3855WIN

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2014
Messages
2,518
Location
Mississippi
The two game wardens were involved in the sting operation against Wingenroth, which took place at the Welsh Mountain Nature Preserve in Lancaster County on Dec. 6. Wingenroth responded to the warden’s request for help recovering a deer and flew the area with his drone; when he shined one of the drone’s lights on a live whitetail, the second officer arrived to seize Wingenroth’s drone and issue the four citations against him.
 
Having been personally harassed by more than 3 overzealous PA game wardens in my life, I hope the game wardens lose the case.

Having said that, I am not in favor of drone recovery for deer, at all.
 
“Both the arresting officer and the undercover officer — both a game warden for over 30 years each — testified that it is illegal to recover downed game at night without a weapon,” Siddons writes."
Here I would probably catch more crap for having a weapon with me at night while recovering a deer.
 
Game Wardens should be charged as well, since they hired someone to find deer with a drone.
While I would generally agree, I don't imagine it's much different than setting up a drug deal to catch a dealer.
 
That whole thing seems sketchy and quite a bit like entrapment. I hope the appeal goes in the guys favor. They called him for help, he isn’t out there poaching. Game Wardens have better things to do than make cases on sketchy conflicts in rules.
It’s very sketchy,that’s how the wardens operate around here.
 
As per a different article, the defendant had been told by the wardens previously that it was illegal. The defendant's lawyer thought he could beat it in court so he ramped up his activities and advertising as bait to get it in a courtroom. He got his wish, was found guilty, and now is on appeal.
 
Last edited:
If a search and rescue drone shines a light on a game animal while searching for a lost human is that a crime? Everything to do w drones and hunting is a seriously slippery slope. In this case the drone guy knew the law, broke it as a test case. I hope they take away his future access to drones if there is a legal way to do so.
 
Screw it, I’m basically OK with any and all methods of keeping drones out of the woods. If it means a poorly hit deer becomes coyote food, so be it. Lest it also become just another excuse for poor shooting ethics, i.e., “we’ll just find it later with the drone”

Drones are one of the single most annoying inventions and intrusions to quality of life and are increasingly dangerous and soon if not already, a national security crisis. I hate them flying low over my yard (and my 2 daughters), I see people chasing hawks and vultures with them, pretty soon they will be dropping amazon crap and grub hub and worse on our heads, and if you are paying attention to Ukraine, very violent things they can cheaply do will be spreading globally. Drones are not constitutionally protected, I’d support a total ban.
 
Seems 100% illegal as written. Almost text book example of entrapment. I wonder if there was any undercover work prior too to establish predisposition.
 
As per a different article, the defendant had been told by the wardens previously that it was illegal. The defendant's lawyer thought he could beat it in court so he ramped up his activities and advertising as bait to get it in a courtroom. He got his wish, was found guilty, and now is on appeal.
I wondered how they knew to call that specific guy.
 
Next time someone drones me when I'm fishing in my boat in the middle of a lake I'm blasting it with TSS.
Fine me. The satisfaction will be worth it.
I wonder, do you suppose if it’s a FW&P drone would you be charged with assaulting an officer of the law?
 
Has to be more to this case, IMO.

An UC operation typically requires ranking authorization to the extent of chief council review.

Then County/State DA agrees to the criminal case...

THEN and here's the big THEN, a jury of his peers found him guilty...

Maybe this is all there is to the case though a DA believed it was a win and the Defendants attorney was lacking and a jury also found him guilty...
 
Has to be more to this case, IMO.

An UC operation typically requires ranking authorization to the extent of chief council review.

Then County/State DA agrees to the criminal case...

THEN and here's the big THEN, a jury of his peers found him guilty...

Maybe this is all there is to the case though a DA believed it was a win and the Defendants attorney was lacking and a jury also found him guilty...
Was there a jury?
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,145
Messages
1,948,660
Members
35,048
Latest member
Elkslayer38
Back
Top