Posted on 11/25/2002 3:28:03 PM PST by rs79bm
In September, during the early bear hunting season, according to information from the Department of Environmental Conservation, William Terry Jr., who lives near Redford NY, shot a bear that was coming to a bait pile. His photo hunter-type camera device that was facing the bait took Terry’s picture, along with the bear and bait pile.
Terry took the roll of film to the Wal-Mart 1Hour Photo processing center at Consumer Square, Plattsburgh. A Wal-Mart employee, also called an associate, saw the photo of Terry with the bear and bait pile as the photos were being developed and called the DEC. He also made extra copies of Terry’s photos and gave them to DEC.
The two DEC conservation officers assigned to the case then contacted the Clinton County District Attorney’s office and were given the go-ahead to proceed with the investigation.
Armed with prints of the bear and bait scene given them by the Wal-Mart employee, the two CO’s went to Terry’s house and read him his rights, after which, according to their statement, Terry confessed to the crime. The term "crime" is used here because under Conservation Law Section 110107.1, shooting a deer or bear with the use of bait fits the "taking wildlife, except as prescribed by law" misdemeanor.
Misdemeanors differ from violations, like traffic tickets, in severity. A misdemeanor also stays on the person’s record and could re-surface in a background check, as, for example, a firearms purchase under the Brady Bill.
I was asked to cover this case by Press-Republican Managing Editor Bob Grady, probably because of the hunting backdrop; however, the implications of the actions described earlier go far beyond a typical "Outdoors" article.
After doing extensive research on this case, I re-affirmed what I already knew: I am certainly not a lawyer, have little background with the judicial system and in no way want to pass judgment on a pending case (Terry has hired Livingston Hatch as his council). On the most basic level, DEC was presented with what it perceived to be a crime, got legal support, and moved forth. It is now up to a judge or jury to decide who is right.
But it really isn’t that simple. If you look at the overall "picture," as I tried to do, you begin to realize the complexities of navigating through the legal forest. With each path I followed, the trail led back to that 1Hour Wal-Mart photo shop, and each step of the way raised more questions than answers.
For one, that Wal-Mart associate who originally called DEC must have been somewhat aware an illegal act had been committed. But, can a photo be relied on to provide concrete evidence? Photos are snapshots of a moment in time, not videos of a complete event with a storyline. What appears to be in a still photo may not actually be reality, and who is to decide that? A one-hour photo-shop employee? Then again, is it the employee’s moral responsibility to call the authorities in such an instance, or it this an invasion of privacy? And finally, what should a consumer expect in the way of confidentiality when he or she takes a role of film in to be developed?
Another question involves the duplication of a photo. Does a photo-shop worker have a right to copy someone’s personal photos, photos that may someday be used against that consumer? There may be no clear answers. For example, On January 29, 2001, a one-hour photo employee in San Jose, California, working for Long’s Drug Store, noticed some of the photos she was developing showed caches of automatic weapons and bombs. She contacted the police who arrested a man who had evidently planned to commit a reign of carnage on nearby Anza College. According to the account on the webSPIRS5 records, the Santa Clara County Deputy DA is quoted as saying," If he (the defendant) had been successful, this would have overshadowed anything that Timothy McVeigh did." In this instance, the employee’s actions seem justified, but where do we draw the line?
There were still more questions I asked, two being: "Did the Wal-Mart associate go through his supervisor first, and what exactly is Wal-Mart’s one-hour photo policy?"
Cynthia Illick, Wal-Mart Spokesperson at the company’s central office in Bentonville, Arkansas, told me in a telephone interview, "In this case (the Terry incident), we did find our policy of insuring a customer’s confidentiality to be violated." "But," she continued, "the associate meant well." She also added, "Wal-Mart is taking steps to clarify its policy to insure it doesn’t happen again." According to Illick, memos are being sent to all Wal-Mart one-hour photo processing centers as a result of this incident.
Will this stop Wal-Mart (or other photo processing centers if they too have similar policies) from closely examining and even copying someone’s personal photos? Who knows?
Ironically, there was a movie out recently that dealt with the same theme. In "One Hour Photo," Robin Williams stars as a lonely photo developer who increasingly becomes obsessed with a family, whose photos he has been developing and copying over the years. They hang on a wall in his house, a pictorial essay of what he believes to be an ideal family’s life. Then, another woman brings in a roll of film to be developed. On it are vacation pictures that show her and the family’s husband blatantly having an affair. This infuriates William’s character.
I won’t ruin the ending for anyone who hasn’t seen the movie and wants to get the video when it is released, but the scenario is not as far fetched as it first sounds. Granted, that movie is fiction, but it does "focus" on a key point that should now be a reality for anyone getting his or her film developed: if you drop off your roll of film, there is a good chance someone else will see your photos, whether for quality control or other reasons. Most of us probably never think of that; we believe the machine does it all.
Probably the only sure way to make certain no one ever sees your photos without your permission is to develop them yourself, use a Polaroid-type camera or go digital.
The question of whether or not the man could be arrested based on a photograph is for the courts to decide.
Shooting them in the head at the slaugher house ain't sportin' either
I eat kosher meat. It's isn't slaughtered the same way.
I'm trying to follow your reasoning...but it appears you have contradicted yourself to make your point.
And I'm not sure what it is.
No slam meant...just clarify please, thanks...FP
Here in Texas we'uns hunt out of camo'd deerbilnds setup near automatic corn-feeders. The critters get used to eating the corn and even get to know that when the feeder clicks on that it's time to eat. So when they come in to eat we picks out the big 'uns and bush-wack 'em.
Not much different than turkey hunting, or duck hunting for that matter, except for the bait. Duck hunters use the lure safety in numbers while the turkey, and some deer hunters use the lure of sex or the associated territorial behavior. I personally don't approve of using Pavlovian conditioning, that is baiting, to get the animals into range, at least that involving food. Of course its still better than forcing the animal up a chute and shooting it in the head with a .22, which is how McDonalds and Lowery's get their meat.
As opposed to when it's looking for sex? Those are pretty much the only two things deer, the bucks at least, do. Not much different than some people one could name when you think about it.
That would be more mercifull than what often happens, you break their wing and then they get grabbed a big old dog, the dog drags them to the hunter who then wrings their neck. Either way they still taste the same.
Nah, then it will be war. However I suspect we'll be to busy with the Jehadists to bother trying to conquer Bambi.
Actually it's not poaching, that's taking game out of season or on lands that you do not have permission to be on. What he did is baiting, and for some types of game, in some states, it is illegal. Of course there is sometimes fine line between baiting and providing suitable habitat and food source for game animals. This guy was apparently way over the line.
Looks to me like they turned in a Bear hunter...
Remind me not to say "Niagara Falls".............. oops.
What no Kentucky fried rat? How much different can they be than tree rats, depending of course on what they've been eating. Tree rats that have been eating corn are pretty tasty, those that have been eating acorns somewhat less so. Bunny, another fairly close relative, is better though.
The special forces and military survival instructors take great pride in eating rat, and snake, and...anything that doesn't try to eat them first, and some things that do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.