Idaho F&G Proposal-Outlaw Trail Cameras

[hunter399]

No one trying to ban trail cams,the problem is getting a real time pic within 10 seconds of animals being there.everybody has there own opinion of fair chase ,But I'm sure this issue will come up here in washington with wdfw .With other states getting on board to address it .For example, consider a hypothetical hunting scenario during firearm season, with a wireless camera set over a food plot. To use real-time data, lets say a photo or video of a buck on that food plot right now, and then stalk over and shoot that buck because I knew he was there right now – that would be an over-reach of technology and crossing of the fair-chase line, in my opinion.


 
Idaho is not the first state to start the ban of these

http://www.grandviewoutdoors.com/grand-view-outdoors/new-hampshire-proposes-ban-on-cellular-game-cameras-smart-rifles/

Also these are the some of the smart rifles these talking about .

[lord grizzly]

The biggest thing that concerns me is the anxiety of hunters to oppose other hunters due to perceived advantages that may not actually exist! It has come to the point that hunters turn on each other on an ever frequent basis because they think another hunter may have an advantage. I think any restriction should be very carefully considered, once something is gone you almost never ever get it back, hunters should be far more considerate of other hunters preferred methods! Unless it's proven that a method is detrimental to our wildlife or hunting, I don't think we should keep adding restrictions, before long the rules pamphlet will be 2 inches thick, nobody will be able to do everything right! 

Compare a pamphlet from 40 years ago to one today! 

I don't believe the proposal or those who support it have anything to do with perception of one hunter having an advantage over another. I make pretty good money and I could buy any camera on the market. The root of both the proposal and my support at least is fair chase and our game department staying ahead of technology. I'm not sure why that's hard to understand, they have to evolve with the tech. I can't think of a better example than drones. If the game departments just said " oh well what ever you want to do with that thing" you bet your ass guys would be packing drones into the woods and buzzing elk here's.

Today, no these cameras make little difference I will conceade that. 2 years ? 1 year? What do they look like? When you hear of team mossback putting 100 cameras up with one guy live steaming from a lap top to 20 guides with head pieces on while they run down the next governors tag bull you guys gunna be all " wow what a great example of Boone and Crockett trophy taking!!" ? Probably not. It's ok to restrict tech in fair chase and it's unquestionable that it's advancement moves faster than hunting regs.

I'm not questioning drones, I'm questioning the need to outlaw trailcams, hounds, baiting bear or baiting deer, and a host of other issues that certain people would like to outlaw because they don't do it! 

Did you even read my post?

[bearpaw]

The biggest thing that concerns me is the anxiety of hunters to oppose other hunters due to perceived advantages that may not actually exist! It has come to the point that hunters turn on each other on an ever frequent basis because they think another hunter may have an advantage. I think any restriction should be very carefully considered, once something is gone you almost never ever get it back, hunters should be far more considerate of other hunters preferred methods! Unless it's proven that a method is detrimental to our wildlife or hunting, I don't think we should keep adding restrictions, before long the rules pamphlet will be 2 inches thick, nobody will be able to do everything right! 

Compare a pamphlet from 40 years ago to one today! 

I don't believe the proposal or those who support it have anything to do with perception of one hunter having an advantage over another. I make pretty good money and I could buy any camera on the market. The root of both the proposal and my support at least is fair chase and our game department staying ahead of technology. I'm not sure why that's hard to understand, they have to evolve with the tech. I can't think of a better example than drones. If the game departments just said " oh well what ever you want to do with that thing" you bet your ass guys would be packing drones into the woods and buzzing elk here's.

Today, no these cameras make little difference I will conceade that. 2 years ? 1 year? What do they look like? When you hear of team mossback putting 100 cameras up with one guy live steaming from a lap top to 20 guides with head pieces on while they run down the next governors tag bull you guys gunna be all " wow what a great example of Boone and Crockett trophy taking!!" ? Probably not. It's ok to restrict tech in fair chase and it's unquestionable that it's advancement moves faster than hunting regs.

Most state fish and wildlife agencies are not staying ahead, or even keeping in line with technology. The trend seems to be that some new piece of technology comes out, some hunters do some unethical, or activity with that piece of equipment which doesn't look good to the public, then the agency moves in and outlaws it.

I can kind of see why an agency doesn't "jump the gun" and outlaw things immediately because hey nobody's abused the technology, but as soon as someone does something, then the agency looks to be behind the times.

I'm glad laws aren't always made in anticipation of someone abusing something. That rules booklet would soon be 4" instead of how thick it is now. 

[hunter399]

The biggest thing that concerns me is the anxiety of hunters to oppose other hunters due to perceived advantages that may not actually exist! It has come to the point that hunters turn on each other on an ever frequent basis because they think another hunter may have an advantage. I think any restriction should be very carefully considered, once something is gone you almost never ever get it back, hunters should be far more considerate of other hunters preferred methods! Unless it's proven that a method is detrimental to our wildlife or hunting, I don't think we should keep adding restrictions, before long the rules pamphlet will be 2 inches thick, nobody will be able to do everything right! 

Compare a pamphlet from 40 years ago to one today! 

I don't believe the proposal or those who support it have anything to do with perception of one hunter having an advantage over another. I make pretty good money and I could buy any camera on the market. The root of both the proposal and my support at least is fair chase and our game department staying ahead of technology. I'm not sure why that's hard to understand, they have to evolve with the tech. I can't think of a better example than drones. If the game departments just said " oh well what ever you want to do with that thing" you bet your ass guys would be packing drones into the woods and buzzing elk here's.

Today, no these cameras make little difference I will conceade that. 2 years ? 1 year? What do they look like? When you hear of team mossback putting 100 cameras up with one guy live steaming from a lap top to 20 guides with head pieces on while they run down the next governors tag bull you guys gunna be all " wow what a great example of Boone and Crockett trophy taking!!" ? Probably not. It's ok to restrict tech in fair chase and it's unquestionable that it's advancement moves faster than hunting regs.

Most state fish and wildlife agencies are not staying ahead, or even keeping in line with technology. The trend seems to be that some new piece of technology comes out, some hunters do some unethical, or activity with that piece of equipment which doesn't look good to the public, then the agency moves in and outlaws it.

I can kind of see why an agency doesn't "jump the gun" and outlaw things immediately because hey nobody's abused the technology, but as soon as someone does something, then the agency looks to be behind the times.

I'm glad laws aren't always made in anticipation of someone abusing something. That rules booklet would soon be 4" instead of how thick it is now. 

It's funny how people worry about how thick the rule reg book is , and not about management.With more hunters ,you will get more idiots,thinker reg book comes with that.

[bearpaw]

The biggest thing that concerns me is the anxiety of hunters to oppose other hunters due to perceived advantages that may not actually exist! It has come to the point that hunters turn on each other on an ever frequent basis because they think another hunter may have an advantage. I think any restriction should be very carefully considered, once something is gone you almost never ever get it back, hunters should be far more considerate of other hunters preferred methods! Unless it's proven that a method is detrimental to our wildlife or hunting, I don't think we should keep adding restrictions, before long the rules pamphlet will be 2 inches thick, nobody will be able to do everything right! 

Compare a pamphlet from 40 years ago to one today! 

I don't believe the proposal or those who support it have anything to do with perception of one hunter having an advantage over another. I make pretty good money and I could buy any camera on the market. The root of both the proposal and my support at least is fair chase and our game department staying ahead of technology. I'm not sure why that's hard to understand, they have to evolve with the tech. I can't think of a better example than drones. If the game departments just said " oh well what ever you want to do with that thing" you bet your ass guys would be packing drones into the woods and buzzing elk here's.

Today, no these cameras make little difference I will conceade that. 2 years ? 1 year? What do they look like? When you hear of team mossback putting 100 cameras up with one guy live steaming from a lap top to 20 guides with head pieces on while they run down the next governors tag bull you guys gunna be all " wow what a great example of Boone and Crockett trophy taking!!" ? Probably not. It's ok to restrict tech in fair chase and it's unquestionable that it's advancement moves faster than hunting regs.

Most state fish and wildlife agencies are not staying ahead, or even keeping in line with technology. The trend seems to be that some new piece of technology comes out, some hunters do some unethical, or activity with that piece of equipment which doesn't look good to the public, then the agency moves in and outlaws it.

I can kind of see why an agency doesn't "jump the gun" and outlaw things immediately because hey nobody's abused the technology, but as soon as someone does something, then the agency looks to be behind the times.

I'm glad laws aren't always made in anticipation of someone abusing something. That rules booklet would soon be 4" instead of how thick it is now. 

It's funny how people worry about how thick the rule reg book is , and not about management.With more hunters ,you will get more idiots,thinker reg book comes with that.

I don't think hunter numbers are an issue, there are fewer hunters today than even 20 years ago. Maybe we are chasing hunters away from the sport with all the technicalities?

[lord grizzly]

Yeah it's way better to be reactive than pro active. That way we can be 5 years behind a problem and all bitch on line about how the game department has there heads up there asses and embattled user groups can then scream about there "rights" being taken away. You know every once in a while they might just have some foresight on an upcoming problem. For example how technology will affect fair chase hunting. But I'm sure you just dropped a bunch of money on cameras so that's more important

[bearpaw]

Yeah it's way better to be reactive than pro active. That way we can be 5 years behind a problem and all bitch on line about how the game department has there heads up there asses and embattled user groups can then scream about there "rights" being taken away. You know every once in a while they might just have some foresight on an upcoming problem. For example how technology will affect fair chase hunting. But I'm sure you just dropped a bunch of money on cameras so that's more important

Actually I did buy 6 cameras from one of those deals at Midway that another member posted here on the forum a few weeks back. I don't have any of the cams that send a photo to my phone, too many areas we hunt don't have cell coverage. But it seems that would be interesting to try. Personally I think smokeless powder and optics result in more advanced hunting success than anything else, if you really want to make it fair chase outlaw optics, so we have no scopes, no binos, no spotters, no rangefinders, and take us back to muzzleloaders, that will make it more fair chase. Wait, muzzies might have an advantage over bows, better outlaw the muzzies too. While we are at it, man used to use spears, those bows give the hunter an advantage, to be more fair chase lets get rid of everything but spears or herding the animals over a cliff. Oh wait, herding over the cliiff could result in exceeding the bag limit! (an attempt at humor)

It's not a huge deal to me if they outlaw cameras, it's the principal of making laws without needing to make laws that I am mostly opposed to!

Yes, when making new laws I think it's better to be reactive than proactive. Why have laws we don't need? I still haven't seen any evidence that trail cameras are impacting game numbers or hunting opportunities. 

[Machias]

Actually the proposal I read was prohibiting ALL trail cameras, not just wireless.  The same BS rules as Montana.

[lord grizzly]

Man I'm glad you guys live in Washington. Sounds like you all deserve the game department you have. If Idaho sends this topic out in there surveys I will make sure my support is well stated. Good luck over there boys

[bigtex]

Yeah it's way better to be reactive than pro active. That way we can be 5 years behind a problem and all bitch on line about how the game department has there heads up there asses and embattled user groups can then scream about there "rights" being taken away. You know every once in a while they might just have some foresight on an upcoming problem. For example how technology will affect fair chase hunting. But I'm sure you just dropped a bunch of money on cameras so that's more important

Actually I did buy 6 cameras from one of those deals at Midway that another member posted here on the forum a few weeks back. I don't have any of the cams that send a photo to my phone, too many areas we hunt don't have cell coverage. But it seems that would be interesting to try. Personally I think smokeless powder and optics result in more advanced hunting success than anything else, if you really want to make it fair chase outlaw optics, so we have no scopes, no binos, no spotters, no rangefinders, and take us back to muzzleloaders, that will make it more fair chase. Wait, muzzies might have an advantage over bows, better outlaw the muzzies too. While we are at it, man used to use spears, those bows give the hunter an advantage, to be more fair chase lets get rid of everything but spears or herding the animals over a cliff. Oh wait, herding over the cliiff could result in exceeding the bag limit! (an attempt at humor)

It used to be in WA that muzzleloader and archery hunting was viewed by most hunters and the commission as the 'primitive' method and why some of the technologies that were legal in other states weren't legal here. Things like illuminated nocks, sabats, mechanical broadheads, heck even crossbows, were things that in the 'old' mindset probably wouldn't have been legalized in this state. Quite honestly, I never thought I'd see crossbows made legal in WA.

I think hunters and the commission have changed their views on archery and muzzleloader hunting away from that 'primitive' mindset, which has led to the legalization of these methods. Maybe I'm just an old guy who use to like things they were they were before... 

[bearpaw]

Actually the proposal I read was prohibiting ALL trail cameras, not just wireless.  The same BS rules as Montana.

Machias you are a perfect example, you had some of those unfair techy trail cams, you used the photos to target specific bear, how unfair of you! As a result of the obscene harvest numbers at your bait site(s) Idaho may have to shorten the bear season and other hunters will be impacted by your unfair practices!

How many bear did you and your friends harvest as a result of those cameras? 10, 20, or was it more?

[bearpaw]

Man I'm glad you guys live in Washington. Sounds like you all deserve the game department you have. If Idaho sends this topic out in there surveys I will make sure my support is well stated. Good luck over there boys

Didn't realize you were in Idaho, I'm surprised.
I probably spend more time in Idaho than Washington, it's been that way for 20 years, I will be lobbying to keep trail cams. 

[lord grizzly]

It's interesting to hear a guide that doesn't understand the implications of emerging technologies on fair chase hunting. maybe lead one to think said guide is blinded by careing more about his bottom line than the integrity of fair chase. If I were the type to use a guide I imagine that would weigh on n my decision of who I'd use. Glad I don't have that problem

[bearpaw]

It's interesting to hear a guide that doesn't understand the implications of emerging technologies on fair chase hunting. maybe lead one to think said guide is blinded by careing more about his bottom line than the integrity of fair chase. If I were the type to use a guide I imagine that would weigh on n my decision of who I'd use. Glad I don't have that problem

If I thought the use of cameras were impacting wildlife or hunter opportunity I'd probably sing a different tune. I've yet to see how cameras are making a negative impact other than upsetting a few hunters who don't agree with them. I'm sure there are some people who appreciate my unobtrusive views and hopefully that outweighs the ones who want more control that don't like my conservative views? Hard to know for sure i guess?   

Maybe it's the wrong way to look at it, but I sort of view this camera issue the same way I view purest flyfishers who want other types of fishing made illegal! 

[Machias]

I'm probably a bad example, so far Zero bears harvested at our bait sites.  😀