Should trail cameras be outlawed?

[pianoman9701]

Alrighty then. I believe the original thread is whether trails cams should be outlawed. Discuss! 

[blackveltbowhunter]

   All of us have the same MORAL compass. We all believe that hunting and killing is "ok".... or if your like me you even think its GOOD.    The pikes place reference in 300's post is an example of morality, it doesnt matter how you killed the animal, the fact that you killed it in the first place makes it wrong in their mind.

  My interpretation of 300's post was not that ethics do not exist, but rather that attempting to define an ethical standard is impossible. I agree. To one person an unpracticed shot from any range is unethical, using less than brand new BH blades is unethical, killing anything with a bow other than bowtech is unethical  ..... To another that is all legal and ethical. Perhaps they are naive, perhaps thats how they were brought up, maybe they just dont care.

  Regardless, I think as responsible hunters we should evaluate our own ethics constantly, and encourage others to do the same, but that where it should end. Its not up to me to impose my individual ethics on another. regardless of how foolish I may think they are. 

  As for trail cams I dont use them and have no desire as of now to do so. I know plenty of guys who do, I enjoy the pics and if my mind changed in the future i would like to have the option. I see no reason to ban them.

   

[turkeyfeather]

1000 yard rifle shot is only unethical if you're not proficient out to 1000 yards in the given conditions at the time of the shot. Shooting an arrow up into the air (hail Mary, if you will), hoping it will come down on the animal is completely different and is absolutely unethical. There are clearly unethical practices in almost everything we do. Hunting is no exception. I don't know how you can dispute that, but you are. 

If someone practices in the right conditions, how is a 1000 yard shot with a rifle any more ethical than a 100 yard shot with a bow. That sounds a bit hypocritical P-man.

Because I didn't say a 100-yard shot with a bow was unethical. I said a Hail Mary 200-yard shot. I know bowmen who are proficient out to 100 yards. I wouldn't take a 100-yard shot, but that doesn't make it necessarily unethical. No need to call me a hypocrite, either. I was simply making the point that most people understand that ethics exist, in direct opposition to the opinion of 300RUM who says there is no unethical behavior.

Sorry maybe the hypocrite comment was a bit uncalled for. I apologize. But I still dont see how one can say that a 200 yard shot is unethical if the shooter is confident and has practiced. You can make the exact same argument for a 1000 yard rifle shot. It's your opinion, that doesn't make it un-ethical. This is the problem everyone bases ethics on their opinions. That's fine for them, but they should not use their standards to judge everyone else.

You're completely missing the point. The point is that there are ethics and ethical decisions to be made. I was debating what 300RUM had said when he said there are no ethics. The specifics of a shot are besides the point.

I was referring to a Hail Mary shot. This is not a practiced shot. This is when you point the bow up into the air hoping that the arrow will come down where you want it to but really having not idea what'll actually happen.

Ok, but nobody at any time has suggested that they thought or would even try just pointing the bow in the air and letting an arrow go. Unless I missed something, I didnt see where anyone did or would condone a shot like that. So I'm confused as to what exactly your referring to.

Wow, again, the choice of shot makes no difference. My point was that there are ethical dilemmas. That's all. The whole point. Forget the shot.  This thread is about outlawing cameras.

I think I see your point. I was confused thinking that ypu were saying it's ok for a rifleman to take an abnormally long shot but not an archer. I think I understand now that wasnt what you were saying, just making an example. Your right though, back to the camera debate.   

[300rum]

Ironic, isn't it.     I do enjoy knocking over steel at lonnnng ranges though! 

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.

You don't feel right about shooting deer at 300 yards and your name on here is 300rum?       

[300rum]

That is a good way of explaining it blackveltbowhunter.

We have interwoven laws into "ethics" and then been taught by hunting magazine writers, the industry, hunters ed, etc. that there is a line somewhere (that we can even cross legally but not "ethically") and we call it "ethical" or "unethical" depending on whatever side you happen to be on.  Then we defend it to the "death". 

As an example.  I have heard, on this forum, where guys don't think that it is "ethical" to shoot coyotes in the spring when they are denned up with pups.  Or, that it is unethical to shoot ducks with more then 3 shells in your shotgun.  In the shotgun case, it is illegal (in this state), but is it unethical to have four, or five?  What if you are hunting snow geese and the law says you can have more then 3 rounds in your shotgun?  Is that unethical?  Or, is it just against the law in some states? 

Back to this thread.....

Is it ethical for a guy to use trail cams on his property or public property but unethical for a guide to put out dozens?  It may be different depending on what you think but it might "feel" like it is and then they use "ethics" to defend their position while holding their nose high in the air. 
 

   All of us have the same MORAL compass. We all believe that hunting and killing is "ok".... or if your like me you even think its GOOD.    The pikes place reference in 300's post is an example of morality, it doesnt matter how you killed the animal, the fact that you killed it in the first place makes it wrong in their mind.

  My interpretation of 300's post was not that ethics do not exist, but rather that attempting to define an ethical standard is impossible. I agree. To one person an unpracticed shot from any range is unethical, using less than brand new BH blades is unethical, killing anything with a bow other than bowtech is unethical  ..... To another that is all legal and ethical. Perhaps they are naive, perhaps thats how they were brought up, maybe they just dont care.

  Regardless, I think as responsible hunters we should evaluate our own ethics constantly, and encourage others to do the same, but that where it should end. Its not up to me to impose my individual ethics on another. regardless of how foolish I may think they are. 

  As for trail cams I dont use them and have no desire as of now to do so. I know plenty of guys who do, I enjoy the pics and if my mind changed in the future i would like to have the option. I see no reason to ban them.

   

[JLS]

That is a good way of explaining it blackveltbowhunter.

We have interwoven laws into "ethics" and then been taught by hunting magazine writers, the industry, hunters ed, etc. that there is a line somewhere (that we can even cross legally but not "ethically") and we call it "ethical" or "unethical" depending on whatever side you happen to be on.  Then we defend it to the "death". 

As an example.  I have heard, on this forum, where guys don't think that it is "ethical" to shoot coyotes in the spring when they are denned up with pups.  Or, that it is unethical to shoot ducks with more then 3 shells in your shotgun.  In the shotgun case, it is illegal (in this state), but is it unethical to have four, or five?  What if you are hunting snow geese and the law says you can have more then 3 rounds in your shotgun?  Is that unethical?  Or, is it just against the law in some states? 

Back to this thread.....

Is it ethical for a guy to use trail cams on his property or public property but unethical for a guide to put out dozens?  It may be different depending on what you think but it might "feel" like it is and then they use "ethics" to defend their position while holding their nose high in the air. 
 

   All of us have the same MORAL compass. We all believe that hunting and killing is "ok".... or if your like me you even think its GOOD.    The pikes place reference in 300's post is an example of morality, it doesnt matter how you killed the animal, the fact that you killed it in the first place makes it wrong in their mind.

  My interpretation of 300's post was not that ethics do not exist, but rather that attempting to define an ethical standard is impossible. I agree. To one person an unpracticed shot from any range is unethical, using less than brand new BH blades is unethical, killing anything with a bow other than bowtech is unethical  ..... To another that is all legal and ethical. Perhaps they are naive, perhaps thats how they were brought up, maybe they just dont care.

  Regardless, I think as responsible hunters we should evaluate our own ethics constantly, and encourage others to do the same, but that where it should end. Its not up to me to impose my individual ethics on another. regardless of how foolish I may think they are. 

  As for trail cams I dont use them and have no desire as of now to do so. I know plenty of guys who do, I enjoy the pics and if my mind changed in the future i would like to have the option. I see no reason to ban them.

   

You raise some good points here.  Some states allow more than three shells in a shotgun for upland birds.  I can speculate as to why this law was ever enacted (who here has killed more than one bird with a shot, and NOT on purpose?) in terms of over limits and sky busting.  Is it unethical to use more than three?  Heavens no.  I could care less.  I think it is unethical to break the law, whatever it may be.

I don't like long range "hunting".  It's a personal opinion.  But, if you can take a shot with a very high probability of making a clean kill, then I don't consider it an unethical shot.  However, don't confuse high probability with a "decent chance".

Is it unethical to shoot a cow or a calf elk?  Is it unethical to ever shoot a hen mallard?  Is it unethical to kill a trout from Lake Lenice?  I would emphatically answer "No" to all of these, others may disagree.

I think there are a few instances where the ethical choice does not jive with the legal choice.   

[magnanimous_j]

Good question. If the game animals are being accurately monitored and seasons and limits are adjusted accordingly, then there shouldn’t be a reason to ban them just because they increase success rates (and many on here doubt that they even do).

That being said, it’s another technology that makes the learning curve easier, and that is an ethical consideration. Think about how many years and skill it used to take someone to become a long range marksman, using iron sights. Now anyone with a $50 Big5 scope can make those shots on their first day. The ability to make those shots used to be earned, now it’s purchased… cheaply. This is kind of the same thing. When I fish, I think using a fish finder is kind of cheating. I mean, where is the sport in that? Where is the years of experience that used to go into knowing where the fish liked to hang out in a particular water at a particular time of day and in a particular weather? On the other hand, when I’m fishing with someone whose using a fish finder, the fish we catch aren’t any less tasty.

So no, they shouldn’t be illegal, but it’s up to each sportsman to decide where the line is for them. Would you hunt with a drone? Why not? If the population remains the same and the animal can be taken humanely? But I will say, that if the cameras start increasing success rates, the only ones who are going to get any game are the people with a whole spy network set up in the woods, because the seasons will be so short that there won’t be enough time to, you know, actually look for animals. 

[300rum]

You are right JLS.

It is my personal feeling (read about it, can't remember where, should have kept it) that the 3 shells in a shotgun came from SxS and O/U hunters, who tend to be much more snooty.  (show up at a sporting clays range with an 870 with the plug out, or better yet with a short barrel 870 with ghost rings on it!)

The explanation was that the law comes from "market hunting" but market hunting and shooting over your bag limit is illegal anyway, so what difference does it make if you use an 1100 without the plug and shoot your limit or a single shot long tom and shoot over your limit?

Similar to our arrow weight laws.  Initially Easton fought tooth and nail against the use of non aluminum (carbon) arrows.  Remember the hunters of the day (sponsored in some cases by Easton) talking down carbon arrows in the hunting magazine's?  The theory was that the arrows where too light to kill efficiently, and thus must be unethical. 

 

[Curly]

I'll thread jack for a second, so please forgive me.

It is funny that we are discussing the 3-shell in a shotgun law now.  I just had a dream last night that I was on a guided goose hunt and everybody was using 20 gauge shotguns. 

Anyway, when I went to put shells in the gun, I noticed that I could put 5 shells in the gun.  In the dream I thought, oh well, we never get checked anyway I guess I'll just use it.  Right as I said that, 3 wardens came up to the pit blind and were going to check us.  Then I woke up and I don't know what happened.

Now, I've never hunted with my plug out..........so I don't know why I was dreaming about that.  Maybe I need to go check my shotguns and make sure the plugs are in all of them. 

Sorry for the  and the dream story. 

And, to get back on topic.............trail cameras should NOT be outlawed. 

[huntnnw]

I would like to think I give the quarry I hunt a bit of a sporting chance, otherwise I might as well hunt in my little high fence.   There are very few good surprises left in this world and the anticipation of not knowing what animal I am after is one of them.   Its my choice that I also don't like baiting.

And guys who hunt whitetails seriously or along the lines as obsessed! Hunting the same giant buck year after year is the ultimate accomplishment to match his wits and piece the puzzle together is the ultimate accomplishment in the whitetail world. One of the turn offs to being serious about mule deer is they wander you may never see it again in the same area.I find not much satisfaction or accomplishment taking a mature buck that is a surprise or I got lucky. The guys taking big whitetails consistently have history with almost all of them. Where cams help guys see if these bucks are alive still. Here's an example... I've been chasing a mountain buck around 4 years this year .. I have never seen this buck ever! My cams have him on it.. If it wasn't for my cam Id never know this buck existed!  What it has done for me is to piece slowly together what he does every year I know he's alive a little more I learn.. This past April I walked the area he lives in with a GPS and marked every scrape, rub and bed I found I had no idea if he survived winter. I got pics on my cam last week of him. Would I like to scout him like I want to by glassing and watching him in the summer ? Hell yea! But I can't ! the area is pure solid timber!! There is 0 fields, clear cuts and meadows it would do more harm than good to even venture into this bucks area . This is why I love using trail cams its unlocked some areas for me to chase big bucks. I employ using old fashion scouting in conjunction with cams to help me get a particular buck. I don't use my cams on trails , funnels or ridges as I feel just my intrusion in there would do more harm. People wanna say trail cams help harvest .. I don't think so .. I killed 15 bucks before I ever had a camera and continue to kill a buck almost every year. Cams have let me hunt areas I didn't in the past cause it was nearly impossible to scout like I do by glassing and watching buck and doe behavior.

[boneaddict]

So in other words, you couldn't kill him on his turf in his "game" without the use of technology.  GPS, infared cameras etc.?  probably not even with scents, rattling or calling???

How about using your instinct, being able to read tracks, rubs, scent posts, scrapes, deer behavior?

[huntnnw]

I guess u didn't read my post very well

[bearpaw]

I've followed this and there are some interesting points one way or the other, but my answer to the question:

Should trail cameras be outlawed?

NO

I don't see the biological need to outlaw them at this time.

[huntnnw]

My cams are are used for 1 reason..inventory or a particular buck. I don't and will not use them to pattern or keep eyes in the woods on trails etc. I hit the hills when most are at home in march and April scouting bucks cores. I'm hangin 3 stands Friday off of that scouting in April. I will not return to those stands till November and wind is right

[boneaddict]

I guess u didn't read my post very well

I probably didn't.   You lost me on sentence one or two when you were saying only serious whitetail hunters(I figured that was a little contentious)..........then I skipped to the GPS and Cam which proved a point in my head.  I threw in the last sentence because I think you are actually out in the woods enough to know how to "hunt the old fashioned" way(a compliment).   Though I have judged you as a big advocate of harvesting off of bait, something I dislike but dont' disapprove of.  Ultimately, re-reading the end of your post, that surprise is what I like, and I can see that you don't, you'd rather know what was there.  By the way, I don't think of my hunting style as blind luck.