Should trail cameras be outlawed?

[Bob33]

As technology advances, the question of what constitutes ethical and unethical hunting will become more and more complicated.

It is a matter that every hunter should take seriously. If nothing else, in Washington 97 percent of the population does not hunt and many of them vote. They often form opinions about hunting from slanted, distorted, and incomplete snippets of information.

It is not in the best interests of hunting to ban everything that anyone considers unethical. Nor it is in the best interests of hunters to take the position “everyone gets to decide what is ethical for himself, and to heck with what anyone else thinks.” This “don’t impose your morals/ethics on me” attitude will ultimately harm hunting. It already has.

The concept of fair chase is a principal that is the basis for many of our current regulations. It is illegal to use artificial light. It is illegal to hunt waterfowl over bait. It is illegal to hunt upland birds with shotguns capable of holding more than three rounds.

Certain hunting situations are not necessarily designed to be fair chase, such as depredation hunts. However, the vast majority are and should adhere to some common guiding principles.

I personally believe that anything that artificially alters wildlife behavior solely for the sake of improved or increased hunter harvest is on the slippery slope of unethical hunting. Baiting falls into that category. How about baiting bear or cougars? A case could be made that the intent is not simply to increase bear or cougar harvest, but to also reduce deer and elk predation. A good case of conflicting goals, so it can be debated with some pros and cons.

If game cameras are OK, how about remote control drones with video cameras? Why not?

How about live satellite feeds beamed over Google Earth, where you can scout from home on your computer, mark the location, plug it into your GPS, and go shoot the animal? Why not?

Is there no line anywhere?

I welcome debate on these topics and encourage everyone to refrain from snide, demeaning, and derogatory comments.

[turkeyfeather]

I don't think it's something any of us can decide. What is right and what is wrong? I have my beliefs and opinions as everyone else does. I let the line be drawn at what the hunting community as a whole has deemed acceptable. I am not just talking about in Washington or even the Northwest. I mean the whole country. There is a lot of research done by a lot of companies on a lot of products. Some products never make it to market, some do and fail, and some are very successful. Why, cause those who know approve of and use them. And those are the people who have the greatest vested interest in the sustainability of our sport otherwise they are out of a job or business. Does that mean that I like or will use anything available? No, I have my own standards as we all do, but if it's generally accepted by the community as a whole then I have no right to tell them it's not and they can't use it. It all comes down to "me worrying about me". I can't help what everyone else does. And in the end most that use all the gizmo's and gadgets they can will get bored hunting that way and likely regress. Thus completing the circle.

[300rum]

There is no such thing as "ethical" or "moral" hunting, it exists only in your mind and believing what someone else told you to believe.  It is all killing when you get down to it.  The two words began to be associated with hunting when people went from hunting for food to hunting for enjoyment/sport.  It gained further traction when Boone and Crockett and others (hunting magazines) who "felt" something might be wrong so they called it "unethical" and "amoral" and then had laws passed against such activities.  Ethical/unethical or moral/amoral, then gets passed down in magazines, hunters ed, and such and is just someone's view of what should or shouldn't take place.   

What it is about are rules, laws.  What the government (by our laws who owns the game) tells you is o.k. to do versus what is right to do.  To some hunting is unethical and amoral in any form but the law says it is o.k as long as you follow the "rules".  To Boone and Crockett, a deer killed swimming across a river is unethical and amoral, to someone who is hungry, it is food.

Morality and unethical sure get thrown around a lot in the hunting world, we have been duped into believing that it exists.   

[kirkl]

  good post

[pianoman9701]

There is no such thing as "ethical" or "moral" hunting, it exists only in your mind and believing what someone else told you to believe.  It is all killing when you get down to it.  The two words began to be associated with hunting when people went from hunting for food to hunting for enjoyment/sport.  It gained further traction when Boone and Crockett and others (hunting magazines) who "felt" something might be wrong so they called it "unethical" and "amoral" and then had laws passed against such activities.  Ethical/unethical or moral/amoral, then gets passed down in magazines, hunters ed, and such and is just someone's view of what should or shouldn't take place.   

What it is about are rules, laws.  What the government (by our laws who owns the game) tells you is o.k. to do versus what is right to do.  To some hunting is unethical and amoral in any form but the law says it is o.k as long as you follow the "rules".  To Boone and Crockett, a deer killed swimming across a river is unethical and amoral, to someone who is hungry, it is food.

Morality and unethical sure get thrown around a lot in the hunting world, we have been duped into believing that it exists.   

I must respectfully disagree. It's about more than laws. It's also about doing the right thing. It's perfectly legal to see an elk at 200 yards and point an arrow into the air and try to hit it. It's completely unethical to do so, however.

The ethics of using trail cams are definitely person to person judgment call; some say ethical and some don't. But the example I gave above is clearly unethical hunting behavior. 300RUM, I doubt seriously that you hunt without ethics. I think your statement is probably not representative of your true attitude for hunting. I may be wrong.

[Bob33]

"There is no such thing as"ethical" or "moral" hunting,."

There is to many of the 97% of our population who don't hunt, and to quite a few who do.

[rasbo]

no ban,but maybe ban them that complain about them being taken

[_TONY_]

Personally I find it funny that I simply wanted to see other peoples opinions on this subject and that irritates some people.

I was just curious how people felt and that's why I asked the question.

Those that have a problem with me wondering or consider me a troll for asking may want to take a trail camera picture of themselves staring into the camera and then ask the guy in the picture.................Is this the kind of person that I aspire to be?

If the answer is yes then perhaps they should set their goals a little higher.

2many is no troll... He's mutual friends with some of my friends and is spoken highly of.

I still need to pick your brain on that out of state hunt

[huntnnw]

There is no such thing as "ethical" or "moral" hunting, it exists only in your mind and believing what someone else told you to believe.  It is all killing when you get down to it.  The two words began to be associated with hunting when people went from hunting for food to hunting for enjoyment/sport.  It gained further traction when Boone and Crockett and others (hunting magazines) who "felt" something might be wrong so they called it "unethical" and "amoral" and then had laws passed against such activities.  Ethical/unethical or moral/amoral, then gets passed down in magazines, hunters ed, and such and is just someone's view of what should or shouldn't take place.   

What it is about are rules, laws.  What the government (by our laws who owns the game) tells you is o.k. to do versus what is right to do.  To some hunting is unethical and amoral in any form but the law says it is o.k as long as you follow the "rules".  To Boone and Crockett, a deer killed swimming across a river is unethical and amoral, to someone who is hungry, it is food.

Morality and unethical sure get thrown around a lot in the hunting world, we have been duped into believing that it exists.   

 :yeah:A select few on here should read this

[biggfish]

There is no such thing as "ethical" or "moral" hunting, it exists only in your mind and believing what someone else told you to believe.  It is all killing when you get down to it.  The two words began to be associated with hunting when people went from hunting for food to hunting for enjoyment/sport.  It gained further traction when Boone and Crockett and others (hunting magazines) who "felt" something might be wrong so they called it "unethical" and "amoral" and then had laws passed against such activities.  Ethical/unethical or moral/amoral, then gets passed down in magazines, hunters ed, and such and is just someone's view of what should or shouldn't take place.   

What it is about are rules, laws.  What the government (by our laws who owns the game) tells you is o.k. to do versus what is right to do.  To some hunting is unethical and amoral in any form but the law says it is o.k as long as you follow the "rules".  To Boone and Crockett, a deer killed swimming across a river is unethical and amoral, to someone who is hungry, it is food.

Morality and unethical sure get thrown around a lot in the hunting world, we have been duped into believing that it exists.   

I must respectfully disagree. It's about more than laws. It's also about doing the right thing. It's perfectly legal to see an elk at 200 yards and point an arrow into the air and try to hit it. It's completely unethical to do so, however.

The ethics of using trail cams are definitely person to person judgment call; some say ethical and some don't. But the example I gave above is clearly unethical hunting behavior. 300RUM, I doubt seriously that you hunt without ethics. I think your statement is probably not representative of your true attitude for hunting. I may be wrong.

Let start by saying I'm not trying to blast you on this piano man, but morals and ethics are not universal.  And even your own ethical code is on a sliding scale in the right situation even legal obligation might be thrown out the window.  Some may find legal methods to be unethical as lots of us believe some illegal equipment is more ethical i.e. expandable broadheads.  Basically everyone has an obligation to the law and as long as that is fulfilled you're fine, doesn't mean someone is not a jerk for doing something stupid or reckless that falls within the law.

[winshooter88]

First off I know this is a thread about trail cameras ok, but baiting or attracting seems to be a big part of trail cameras, so you guys should know that there is a whole lot of conversation going on in the WDFW the last few months about if baiting for deer and elk should remain legal in this state. This is the start of the new planning package for hunting in the state so this will come up very soon. There are several people on a certain committee that believe baiting is not ethical.

[Jellymon]

So killing the animals is ethical but feeding them isn't?

[winshooter88]

Well feeding bears and birds isn't if you're going to kill them, so 

[huntnnw]

It will not stop some..Tell you right now if I owned a bunch of private property they can kma.

[300rum]

I know it is a new thought in our world but let me try to explain it.

I once shot a deer at 300 yards, one shot kill.  I didn't like it at all.  In fact I was real disappointed in myself.  It didn't feel good to make that far of a shot, in fact I know that I could have gotten closer, much closer.  It just didn't do anything for me.  Now, I could say that shooting game at long distance is unethical or amoral.  I do get that "feeling" that it just isn't the way that it should be done, but, that would be wrong to call it unethical.

Using your 200 yard bow shot on an animal, you could replace it with a 1000 yard rifle shot.  What about a 100 yard bow shot?  For me, bow hunting is about how close I can get, not how far I can shoot.  But, once again, a long shot with a bow isn't unethical, although it may be stupid. 

We are juggling knives when we go around saying something is amoral and unethical, saying it easily and then believing it.  Against the law, yes or no, that is mostly straight forward.  Run a pole on here if a 20 yard bow shot is amoral, then go to Pike's Place Market and ask 100 people if it is.....     

There is no such thing as "ethical" or "moral" hunting, it exists only in your mind and believing what someone else told you to believe.  It is all killing when you get down to it.  The two words began to be associated with hunting when people went from hunting for food to hunting for enjoyment/sport.  It gained further traction when Boone and Crockett and others (hunting magazines) who "felt" something might be wrong so they called it "unethical" and "amoral" and then had laws passed against such activities.  Ethical/unethical or moral/amoral, then gets passed down in magazines, hunters ed, and such and is just someone's view of what should or shouldn't take place.   

What it is about are rules, laws.  What the government (by our laws who owns the game) tells you is o.k. to do versus what is right to do.  To some hunting is unethical and amoral in any form but the law says it is o.k as long as you follow the "rules".  To Boone and Crockett, a deer killed swimming across a river is unethical and amoral, to someone who is hungry, it is food.

Morality and unethical sure get thrown around a lot in the hunting world, we have been duped into believing that it exists.   

I must respectfully disagree. It's about more than laws. It's also about doing the right thing. It's perfectly legal to see an elk at 200 yards and point an arrow into the air and try to hit it. It's completely unethical to do so, however.

The ethics of using trail cams are definitely person to person judgment call; some say ethical and some don't. But the example I gave above is clearly unethical hunting behavior. 300RUM, I doubt seriously that you hunt without ethics. I think your statement is probably not representative of your true attitude for hunting. I may be wrong.