Alaska Wildlife Troopers used cellular trail cameras to catch a bear hunter after a bait site was allegedly set up before the season opened, according to a report from the bodycam footage YouTube channel Arrest Cam Fish and Wildlife.
The case began on April 6, 2025, when troopers received a report that a cellular camera had photographed someone placing bear bait on a local trail nine days before baiting season was allowed to begin, the channel’s host reported. The reporting party could see an ATV, along with a barrel commonly used to bait bears.
The next day, two Alaska Wildlife Troopers went to the location and found several kinds of bait, including dog food, cut-up apples, honey, and other items. According to the host, the troopers searched the area but could not find any bear bait permits posted nearby.
That detail became important later, because the case was not only about bait being placed too early. It was also about whether the bait station was properly marked and permitted in the field.
Cameras Were Placed Near The Bait Site
After the first inspection, troopers set up their own cellular trail camera and left the area, the Arrest Cam Fish and Wildlife host reported.
On April 15, troopers returned to check the site. The camera had captured a white male tending to the bait site before spotting the camera and walking toward it, according to the report.
The following day, a second camera was placed to get a better image of the ATV operator. Two days later, after another call from the reporting party, a trooper made contact with the suspect.
The footage then shifts into a tense conversation between the trooper and the man suspected of placing the bait. The trooper told him early in the exchange that the “barrel’s been out there way too early.”
The suspect pushed back, saying he believed the site had been registered and that he needed the trooper to explain what had been done wrong. The trooper responded that the bait had been out early and asked for the man’s registration.
When the man said he did not have to provide identification, the trooper told him he did, because the trooper suspected criminal activity.
“Baiting early is a misdemeanor violation,” the trooper said in the footage.
The Suspect Denied Putting Bait Out
The man repeatedly denied placing bait at the site before the season opened. He told the trooper that he had registered the site on April 4 and went up on April 5 to put the barrel out.
According to the suspect, the barrel could be placed before the season, but he claimed no bait was put inside it at that time.
“The barrel can go out, but the bait couldn’t go out,” the trooper replied.
The suspect then said he later returned to the site and noticed bait in the barrel, along with a camera on a tree. He claimed he got sidetracked and left without posting the paperwork.
That explanation did not satisfy the trooper.
The trooper said he had been to the location several times and had not seen the registration posted. He also pressed the man on who would have put bait inside his barrel if he had not done it.
“Some bait fairy comes out there and puts bait in?” the trooper asked.
It was one of the sharper moments in the footage, and it shows why wildlife cases can turn into more than simple paperwork issues. Once bait, cameras, permits, and hunting dates are involved, a person’s timeline has to match what officers have already documented. In this case, the cameras gave the trooper a quiet witness that did not argue, forget, or change its story.
Trail Camera Images Changed The Conversation
The trooper eventually told the man that he had images showing him going up the trail with the barrel and bait items.
“That’s you with your barrel on the sixth heading up the trail with the dog food and the same stuff that was out there,” the trooper said.
The suspect appeared to keep disputing parts of the evidence, saying the bag was different, but the conversation started to shift after that. The trooper made clear he had received a tip, investigated it, and found bait out early.
The man then admitted the bait had been put out early.
“The bait went out early. Big deal, right?” the suspect said.
The trooper responded that it was, in fact, a big deal, since officers had placed cameras and investigated the site. Still, he also said he was not planning to arrest the man or seize the equipment at that point.
The trooper explained that if the lies had continued, he might have considered seizing items used in the violation. He also told the man that he was trying to keep the case to one person and not turn it into something larger.
“It’s not the crime of the century,” the trooper said, while still comparing baiting early to fishing without a license.
That line sums up the strange balance in the encounter. The trooper was not treating it like a violent crime, but he also was not brushing it aside. Wildlife rules exist for a reason, and baiting before the season opens can give hunters an unfair advantage while creating problems for other people using the area.
Missing Permits And Damaged Camera Cables
The conversation then moved to the missing permit display. The trooper said the bait station was not labeled in a way he could find, and the suspect eventually agreed that the sign had not been posted.
The suspect argued that the rules only required the registration to be in the general area, not necessarily placed on a specific tree. The trooper pushed back, saying an officer should not have to search around every tree to locate the paperwork.
At first, the man also denied touching the trooper’s camera. When asked if the camera was still in one piece, he said it had not been touched.
But later, after the trooper said he was looking at citations rather than an arrest or equipment seizure, the man admitted more.
“I got to be truthful with you,” he said in the footage.
The suspect then told the trooper that he and another person had gone up to the site, cut the cable on a camera with a grinder, removed the SD card, and left the camera and cable near the base of the tree. He also admitted taking the SD card from another camera farther up the hill.
The trooper reminded him that the cameras were cellular, meaning they had already been sending images before being disabled.
That part is almost darkly ironic. The suspect apparently believed taking the SD cards would remove evidence, but cellular cameras had already sent the images out. In a modern wildlife investigation, the evidence may be gone from the camera in the woods, yet already sitting somewhere else.
The Hunter Claimed He Feared Harassment
The suspect gave more background during the exchange, saying he had hunted the area for many years and believed his bait site had been harassed in the past.
He mentioned a black Dodge truck with “Hunt 907” or “907 Hunt” on it and said he thought the cameras might belong to people who had bothered hunters before. He also said he had left a note asking whoever owned the camera to remove it if it was watching his barrel.
The trooper listened but told him that if people were interfering with a bait site, the right move was to call troopers, not handle it himself.
The trooper explained that wildlife officers can legally place cameras and even work undercover if needed. He said hunters sometimes make things worse when they respond on their own, such as by messing with traps or other gear.
“We’re out here to help,” the trooper said.
That exchange adds a useful layer to the story. It suggests the suspect may have believed he was protecting his own site, but the trooper’s point was that frustration does not give someone permission to cut camera cables, remove cards, or break hunting rules.
The Case Ended With Fines
Near the end of the contact, the trooper told the man he planned to issue two citations: one for baiting early and another for failing to post the permit at the bait site.
The trooper said the charges would require a mandatory court appearance, but he planned to recommend a monetary fine rather than loss of hunting privileges or seizure of equipment.
The conversation ended on a calmer note. The suspect thanked the trooper for not bringing a TV crew, and the trooper replied that no TV crew was coming.
“I like to work in the shadows,” the trooper said.
According to the Arrest Cam Fish and Wildlife host, the suspect ultimately received two criminal charges, one for failing to display permits at a bear bait site and another for baiting a site without proper permitting. Both charges were later amended by the court to non-criminal violations.
The host reported that the man entered a guilty plea, was found guilty of both violations, and was ordered to pay $690.10 in costs and fines, which he later paid.
In the end, the case was not about a bear being taken illegally or a major poaching operation. It was about timing, permits, bait, and a hunter whose story slowly changed once the cameras showed what had happened.
And that is what makes the footage stand out. Wildlife enforcement often happens far from roads, crowds, and witnesses, but in this case, the woods were not as empty as the suspect may have thought. Hidden cameras, a tip from another person, and a patient investigation were enough to turn a quiet bait site into a court case.
Ed spent his childhood in the backwoods of Maine, where harsh winters taught him the value of survival skills. With a background in bushcraft and off-grid living, Ed has honed his expertise in fire-making, hunting, and wild foraging. He writes from personal experience, sharing practical tips and hands-on techniques to thrive in any outdoor environment. Whether it’s primitive camping or full-scale survival, Ed’s advice is grounded in real-life challenges.
