Idaho F&G Proposal-Outlaw Trail Cameras

[lord grizzly]

You guys all throw the term "rights" around very loosely. Makes me wonder how many actually understand what your "rights" actually are. I'll give you a hint, they have nothing to do with game cameras

[bearpaw]

The problem is that too many hunters will advocate banning whatever they don't use or whatever is in their view not necessary. If we continue down this road soon all that will be left are the most popular activities and everyone will be wondering why we can't do anything else! 

I don't see it that way. This discussion is about technology that didn't even exist ten years ago.

It seems to me that some are advocating banning technology that doesn't yet exist, read the posts, that's one of the main complaints, they want to ban technology today based on what might exist tomorrow! In my opinion that is ludicrous, they don't really even know what they want to ban! 

[NOCK NOCK]

I guess I wont by the new fangled Hover Boots yet then. 

[Bob33]

The problem is that too many hunters will advocate banning whatever they don't use or whatever is in their view not necessary. If we continue down this road soon all that will be left are the most popular activities and everyone will be wondering why we can't do anything else! 

I don't see it that way. This discussion is about technology that didn't even exist ten years ago.

It seems to me that some are advocating banning technology that doesn't yet exist, read the posts, that's one of the main complaints, they want to ban technology today based on what might exist tomorrow! In my opinion that is ludicrous, they don't really even know what they want to ban! 

My comment was directed at the use of cellular game cameras that transmit images immediately, as in the proposed Idaho restriction. To the best of my knowledge those devices were not available until the last couple years.

"With any device capable of recording and transmitting photographic or video wirelessly to a remote device such as a computer or smart phone, used as an aid to take a big game animal during the same day of transmission or the following day."

[Wacenturion]

BB,

Okay,
Let me get this straight;
You would outlaw guns, camper trailers, ATVs, rangefinders and scopes.
Are there any other things that you would "Outlaw"?
Please let me know so that I can plan accordingly.

If you have read my posts you would see that I am not in support of "Outlawing" anything.
It is my opinion that we should perhaps consider the intelligent use and application of technology.
No one is advocating taking away you precious camera, or the enjoyment it brings you and your family.
But with the fairly recent advent of the wireless downloads and such, this is an issue which has the potential for poaching in the worst way.
I don't believe that I am the only one that sees this as an issue.

We can take it one step further and limit the use of drones with mounted cameras during hunting season as well.
It's only a matter of time till someone gets caught shooting a nice bull that they flew over and found.
They will then put on a stalk and shoot the elk/deer that was until the shot, well hidden.
This is not fair chase, and if you think it is, we are really at opposite ends of the subject.

Let's take another example; what if you see a couple guys out a day or two before rifle elk season that have suppressors on their rifle?
They tell you that they're hunting coyotes with their trusty .338s.
They're good to go, right??
Opening morning you hear a couple shots and out strolls our new friends with a couple of cold bulls.
Hell, they're two for two, opening day, gotta like that.
Good for them, they're hunters of the new generation, success to them is dead elk whatever it takes.
And next year, they might bring a friend and show him the ropes; the more the merrier.

So, you tell a game warden that things might be a bit out of sorts, but no worries, they're legal.
Oh, yeah, they have 10 cameras in the woods all with live streams and a laptop in their daypack.
That's all right to, because we don't want to spoil their fun, or CURTAIL THEIR FREEDOM.

The problem is, everyone wants to have their rights extend into other peoples rights.
I'm no different, but I am trying to look at a practical solution to a problem which I believe does exist.
I also believe that the State of Idaho believes this problem exists or it would not put the time and effort into it.

I am not saying that this happens often, but the wardens need to have the tools to convict people using unethical means of taking game.
Notice I did not say "Poaching:, because it's not if the camera/drone is legal.
It's a tough thing to legislate, I don't know the answers but we better do something.

Like Dad said, "Ya can't have curly hair and everything".

Have a nice day!!
Rob.
 

As I mentioned in an earlier such comment.....do you have any understanding of the cost and how unrealistic that statement is.  Funny how all those that have no actual experience with cellular cams have such expert opinions.

Hunters eating hunters, a traditional that just keeps on giving.

[bearpaw]

The problem is that too many hunters will advocate banning whatever they don't use or whatever is in their view not necessary. If we continue down this road soon all that will be left are the most popular activities and everyone will be wondering why we can't do anything else! 

I don't see it that way. This discussion is about technology that didn't even exist ten years ago.

It seems to me that some are advocating banning technology that doesn't yet exist, read the posts, that's one of the main complaints, they want to ban technology today based on what might exist tomorrow! In my opinion that is ludicrous, they don't really even know what they want to ban! 

My comment was directed at the use of cellular game cameras that transmit images immediately, as in the proposed Idaho restriction. To the best of my knowledge those devices were not available until the last couple years.

"With any device capable of recording and transmitting photographic or video wirelessly to a remote device such as a computer or smart phone, used as an aid to take a big game animal during the same day of transmission or the following day."

Bob I realize specifically what you were citing, but if you read through all the responses in this topic the reasoning mentioned in some comments is based on technology that isn't in use yet, they are basically saying we need to ban these cameras now because greater technology is coming. With that mentality perhaps we should have banned gunpowder centuries ago to prevent further technology from impacting hunting? If we were all using spears or bows that would be much more fair chase! 

[Wacenturion]

The problem is that too many hunters will advocate banning whatever they don't use or whatever is in their view not necessary. If we continue down this road soon all that will be left are the most popular activities and everyone will be wondering why we can't do anything else! 

I don't see it that way. This discussion is about technology that didn't even exist ten years ago.

It seems to me that some are advocating banning technology that doesn't yet exist, read the posts, that's one of the main complaints, they want to ban technology today based on what might exist tomorrow! In my opinion that is ludicrous, they don't really even know what they want to ban! 

My comment was directed at the use of cellular game cameras that transmit images immediately, as in the proposed Idaho restriction. To the best of my knowledge those devices were not available until the last couple years.

"With any device capable of recording and transmitting photographic or video wirelessly to a remote device such as a computer or smart phone, used as an aid to take a big game animal during the same day of transmission or the following day."

Ok, so I go in the woods late morning and pull SD cards out of my non cellular cam and low and behold, the buck or bull of a lifetime in on the card with pictures taken minutes before I got there.  I look around and find him later that day or the next morning and harvest him.  What  is the difference?  If that is the concern, then ban all cams, because you know that example could happen as well.   

[Bob33]

The problem is that too many hunters will advocate banning whatever they don't use or whatever is in their view not necessary. If we continue down this road soon all that will be left are the most popular activities and everyone will be wondering why we can't do anything else! 

I don't see it that way. This discussion is about technology that didn't even exist ten years ago.

It seems to me that some are advocating banning technology that doesn't yet exist, read the posts, that's one of the main complaints, they want to ban technology today based on what might exist tomorrow! In my opinion that is ludicrous, they don't really even know what they want to ban! 

My comment was directed at the use of cellular game cameras that transmit images immediately, as in the proposed Idaho restriction. To the best of my knowledge those devices were not available until the last couple years.

"With any device capable of recording and transmitting photographic or video wirelessly to a remote device such as a computer or smart phone, used as an aid to take a big game animal during the same day of transmission or the following day."

Bob I realize specifically what you were citing, but if you read through all the responses in this topic the reasoning mentioned in some comments is based on technology that isn't in use yet, they are basically saying we need to ban these cameras now because greater technology is coming. With that mentality perhaps we should have banned gunpowder centuries ago to prevent further technology from impacting hunting? If we were all using spears or bows that would be much more fair chase! 

Yes I know some want more restrictions. My perspective is that if cellular trail cameras were banned, I wouldn't consider that as the first step toward banning all hunting related equipment.

I believe there's middle ground between banning everything, and banning nothing.

Should hunters oppose all restrictions? If I oppose drones, the use of .22 handguns for elk, and shooting game from aircraft does that make me an enemy of hunters and an advocate for banning everything hunting related?

[bearpaw]

The problem is that too many hunters will advocate banning whatever they don't use or whatever is in their view not necessary. If we continue down this road soon all that will be left are the most popular activities and everyone will be wondering why we can't do anything else! 

I don't see it that way. This discussion is about technology that didn't even exist ten years ago.

It seems to me that some are advocating banning technology that doesn't yet exist, read the posts, that's one of the main complaints, they want to ban technology today based on what might exist tomorrow! In my opinion that is ludicrous, they don't really even know what they want to ban! 

My comment was directed at the use of cellular game cameras that transmit images immediately, as in the proposed Idaho restriction. To the best of my knowledge those devices were not available until the last couple years.

"With any device capable of recording and transmitting photographic or video wirelessly to a remote device such as a computer or smart phone, used as an aid to take a big game animal during the same day of transmission or the following day."

Bob I realize specifically what you were citing, but if you read through all the responses in this topic the reasoning mentioned in some comments is based on technology that isn't in use yet, they are basically saying we need to ban these cameras now because greater technology is coming. With that mentality perhaps we should have banned gunpowder centuries ago to prevent further technology from impacting hunting? If we were all using spears or bows that would be much more fair chase! 

Yes I know some want more restrictions. My perspective is that if cellular trail cameras were banned, I wouldn't consider that as the first step toward banning all hunting related equipment.

I believe there's middle ground between banning everything, and banning nothing.

Should hunters oppose all restrictions? If I oppose drones, the use of .22 handguns for elk, and shooting game from aircraft does that make me an enemy of hunters and an advocate for banning everything hunting related?

Realistically I don't know of anyone who opposes all restrictions, that analogy is a definite misrepresentation and a slap in the face of those who are opposed to banning methods that have not been proven to be harmful to hunting. I have not seen any proof of biological reasoning to outlaw these cams nor have I seen any proof that the non-hunting public considers them to be an unethical advantage. All I see are some hunters wanting to ban methods they feel are are unethical based in part on their own ideology that technology will improve in the future and potentially create problems. As others have pointed out many of these same hunters who want to ban the cams have no actual experience with them so they are actually wanting to ban them based on perception only. I am not one of those people who will climb on the ban wagon just because of some imagined potential harm, show me some facts, show me some truth. Until then there is no reason to randomly ban items and methods.

I hope you weren't trying to paint a picture or imply that I am opposed to all restrictions! If so, that's simply not true! I am supportive of restrictions based on biological data and known necessity for maintaining or improving our wildlife populations and our outdoor heritage. I am opposed to unproven unnecessary regulations!

[Bob33]

The problem is that too many hunters will advocate banning whatever they don't use or whatever is in their view not necessary. If we continue down this road soon all that will be left are the most popular activities and everyone will be wondering why we can't do anything else! 

I don't see it that way. This discussion is about technology that didn't even exist ten years ago.

It seems to me that some are advocating banning technology that doesn't yet exist, read the posts, that's one of the main complaints, they want to ban technology today based on what might exist tomorrow! In my opinion that is ludicrous, they don't really even know what they want to ban! 

My comment was directed at the use of cellular game cameras that transmit images immediately, as in the proposed Idaho restriction. To the best of my knowledge those devices were not available until the last couple years.

"With any device capable of recording and transmitting photographic or video wirelessly to a remote device such as a computer or smart phone, used as an aid to take a big game animal during the same day of transmission or the following day."

Bob I realize specifically what you were citing, but if you read through all the responses in this topic the reasoning mentioned in some comments is based on technology that isn't in use yet, they are basically saying we need to ban these cameras now because greater technology is coming. With that mentality perhaps we should have banned gunpowder centuries ago to prevent further technology from impacting hunting? If we were all using spears or bows that would be much more fair chase! 

Yes I know some want more restrictions. My perspective is that if cellular trail cameras were banned, I wouldn't consider that as the first step toward banning all hunting related equipment.

I believe there's middle ground between banning everything, and banning nothing.

Should hunters oppose all restrictions? If I oppose drones, the use of .22 handguns for elk, and shooting game from aircraft does that make me an enemy of hunters and an advocate for banning everything hunting related?

Realistically I don't know of anyone who opposes all restrictions, that analogy is a definite misrepresentation and a slap in the face of those who are opposed to banning methods that have not been proven to be harmful to hunting. I have not seen any proof of biological reasoning to outlaw these cams nor have I seen any proof that the non-hunting public considers them to be an unethical advantage. All I see are some hunters wanting to ban methods they feel are are unethical based in part on their own ideology that technology will improve in the future and potentially create problems. As others have pointed out many of these same hunters who want to ban the cams have no actual experience with them so they are actually wanting to ban them based on perception only. I am not one of those people who will climb on the ban wagon just because of some imagined potential harm, show me some facts, show me some truth. Until then there is no reason to randomly ban items and methods.

I hope you weren't trying to paint a picture or imply that I am opposed to all restrictions! If so, that's simply not true! I am supportive of restrictions based on biological data and known necessity for maintaining or improving our wildlife populations and our outdoor heritage. I am opposed to unproven unnecessary regulations!

I'm not aware of any biological data which supports a restriction of .22 handguns for elk, for example, but I would support that anyway based on my perception of ethical activity. I guess we can agree to disagree.

[luvmystang67]

This becomes a more interesting conversation I think when you consider this is all based on what we're used to.  As I'm about to make a move to the UK for a couple of years, here's the game law anomalies that I've found in at least Ireland that I wouldn't have believed.

1) Bow hunting is illegal, must have a rifle
2) Hunting with dogs, horses, etc, some degree of legal, even for deer
3) No cost licenses
4) No limits on animals and liberal seasons (generally speaking)
5) You can sell game meat to a butcher who can sell to the general public

Even if these aren't 100% true all the time, generally these ideas are supported.  I find that baffling because we live by very different predetermined rules and values over here.  I guess its just what you're used to.  If we had shot animals from planes for many years that may seem ethical.  New tech has to be evaluated with what you already deemed fair.  Drones are kind of a long shot (they relate to planes which we consider unfair) cameras aren't as big of a deal because we already had trip lines, regular cameras, scopes, etc.  Although, at first, and even a little still, I generally oppose personal property (trash) on public lands and increased surveillance by anyone, including private citizens on land that isnt theirs.  But... its so dang exciting to use them!

In any case, just food for thought.

[Wacenturion]

As far as.....

"I'm not aware of any biological data which supports a restriction of .22 handguns for elk, for example, but I would support that anyway based on my perception of ethical activity. I guess we can agree to disagree."

I'm would think that that regulation lies more in the data realm regarding firearms and realistic humane taking , rather than biological data.  So in my mind there is probably a lot of supoporting data that would at the very least say that a .22 caliber is not effective enough to allow for the taking of certain animals. JMO........

[bearpaw]

The problem is that too many hunters will advocate banning whatever they don't use or whatever is in their view not necessary. If we continue down this road soon all that will be left are the most popular activities and everyone will be wondering why we can't do anything else! 

I don't see it that way. This discussion is about technology that didn't even exist ten years ago.

It seems to me that some are advocating banning technology that doesn't yet exist, read the posts, that's one of the main complaints, they want to ban technology today based on what might exist tomorrow! In my opinion that is ludicrous, they don't really even know what they want to ban! 

My comment was directed at the use of cellular game cameras that transmit images immediately, as in the proposed Idaho restriction. To the best of my knowledge those devices were not available until the last couple years.

"With any device capable of recording and transmitting photographic or video wirelessly to a remote device such as a computer or smart phone, used as an aid to take a big game animal during the same day of transmission or the following day."

Bob I realize specifically what you were citing, but if you read through all the responses in this topic the reasoning mentioned in some comments is based on technology that isn't in use yet, they are basically saying we need to ban these cameras now because greater technology is coming. With that mentality perhaps we should have banned gunpowder centuries ago to prevent further technology from impacting hunting? If we were all using spears or bows that would be much more fair chase! 

Yes I know some want more restrictions. My perspective is that if cellular trail cameras were banned, I wouldn't consider that as the first step toward banning all hunting related equipment.

I believe there's middle ground between banning everything, and banning nothing.

Should hunters oppose all restrictions? If I oppose drones, the use of .22 handguns for elk, and shooting game from aircraft does that make me an enemy of hunters and an advocate for banning everything hunting related?

Realistically I don't know of anyone who opposes all restrictions, that analogy is a definite misrepresentation and a slap in the face of those who are opposed to banning methods that have not been proven to be harmful to hunting. I have not seen any proof of biological reasoning to outlaw these cams nor have I seen any proof that the non-hunting public considers them to be an unethical advantage. All I see are some hunters wanting to ban methods they feel are are unethical based in part on their own ideology that technology will improve in the future and potentially create problems. As others have pointed out many of these same hunters who want to ban the cams have no actual experience with them so they are actually wanting to ban them based on perception only. I am not one of those people who will climb on the ban wagon just because of some imagined potential harm, show me some facts, show me some truth. Until then there is no reason to randomly ban items and methods.

I hope you weren't trying to paint a picture or imply that I am opposed to all restrictions! If so, that's simply not true! I am supportive of restrictions based on biological data and known necessity for maintaining or improving our wildlife populations and our outdoor heritage. I am opposed to unproven unnecessary regulations!

I'm not aware of any biological data which supports a restriction of .22 handguns for elk, for example, but I would support that anyway based on my perception of ethical activity. I guess we can agree to disagree.

There is data regarding .22 energy and probably regarding accuracy, I would concur with you on that issue, but we will have to agree to disagree on the cam issue! 

[Bob33]

The problem is that too many hunters will advocate banning whatever they don't use or whatever is in their view not necessary. If we continue down this road soon all that will be left are the most popular activities and everyone will be wondering why we can't do anything else! 

I don't see it that way. This discussion is about technology that didn't even exist ten years ago.

It seems to me that some are advocating banning technology that doesn't yet exist, read the posts, that's one of the main complaints, they want to ban technology today based on what might exist tomorrow! In my opinion that is ludicrous, they don't really even know what they want to ban! 

My comment was directed at the use of cellular game cameras that transmit images immediately, as in the proposed Idaho restriction. To the best of my knowledge those devices were not available until the last couple years.

"With any device capable of recording and transmitting photographic or video wirelessly to a remote device such as a computer or smart phone, used as an aid to take a big game animal during the same day of transmission or the following day."

Bob I realize specifically what you were citing, but if you read through all the responses in this topic the reasoning mentioned in some comments is based on technology that isn't in use yet, they are basically saying we need to ban these cameras now because greater technology is coming. With that mentality perhaps we should have banned gunpowder centuries ago to prevent further technology from impacting hunting? If we were all using spears or bows that would be much more fair chase! 

Yes I know some want more restrictions. My perspective is that if cellular trail cameras were banned, I wouldn't consider that as the first step toward banning all hunting related equipment.

I believe there's middle ground between banning everything, and banning nothing.

Should hunters oppose all restrictions? If I oppose drones, the use of .22 handguns for elk, and shooting game from aircraft does that make me an enemy of hunters and an advocate for banning everything hunting related?

Realistically I don't know of anyone who opposes all restrictions, that analogy is a definite misrepresentation and a slap in the face of those who are opposed to banning methods that have not been proven to be harmful to hunting. I have not seen any proof of biological reasoning to outlaw these cams nor have I seen any proof that the non-hunting public considers them to be an unethical advantage. All I see are some hunters wanting to ban methods they feel are are unethical based in part on their own ideology that technology will improve in the future and potentially create problems. As others have pointed out many of these same hunters who want to ban the cams have no actual experience with them so they are actually wanting to ban them based on perception only. I am not one of those people who will climb on the ban wagon just because of some imagined potential harm, show me some facts, show me some truth. Until then there is no reason to randomly ban items and methods.

I hope you weren't trying to paint a picture or imply that I am opposed to all restrictions! If so, that's simply not true! I am supportive of restrictions based on biological data and known necessity for maintaining or improving our wildlife populations and our outdoor heritage. I am opposed to unproven unnecessary regulations!

I'm not aware of any biological data which supports a restriction of .22 handguns for elk, for example, but I would support that anyway based on my perception of ethical activity. I guess we can agree to disagree.

There is data regarding .22 energy and probably regarding accuracy, I would concur with you on that issue, but we will have to agree to disagree on the cam issue! 

Dale, for the record I don't necessarily support restrictions on trail cameras but I do like to hear different viewpoints on it to help form my opinion. I do believe some restrictions are good for hunting. Now if everyone would just agree with me...

[Machias]

Sigh, what a thread.

For the guys who somehow think that because I use a cellular trail camera, somehow I'm now detached from the woods, don't hunt as much as I used to, blah blah blah.  I'm probably in the woods more than most.  I'm a trapper, a houndsmen, a bowhunter, a whitewater rafter, camper etc....I'm in the woods ALL the time.  Please stop with the this technology is making us less hunters and more reliant on gadgets.  What a bunch of hooey.  It saves me time and money, that's all it does.  Oh and it's a FUN!  Also please stop oh most hunters are good guys but you know some would abuse it.  Whatever, someone somewhere is abusing something or some method, doesn't mean we need to ban the practice or item for everyone else.