Idaho F&G Proposal-Outlaw Trail Cameras

[DBHAWTHORNE]

simple yes or no question here for the group (see if that happens).

do you believe 24 hour real time surveillance is fair chase hunting?

Yes.... it's just as ethical as using technology that allows us to have significantly magnified vision and reach out to kill animals at large distances (which I am perfectly fine with)....I guarantee this type of technology I just described...which has been out for a long period of time.....results in much higher success rates for hunters than real time surveillance.

[lord grizzly]

a good excerpt from Boone & Crocket below. and a link

https://www.boone-crockett.org/pdf/On_Fair_Chase.pdf


Advancements in technology can also have an effect on the hunt equation and challenge our notions of fair
chase. The use of technological advancements in mechanized travel for hunting, such as by boat, airplane, or other
motorized vehicle is a good example. Their use increases our advantage while decreasing the reasonable chance of
game to escape. Transporting ourselves and our equipment to the area where we are hunting is one thing. Fair chase
requires that from this point (unless physically limited), that the final stalk is done on foot. Other technologies
have certainly made us better and more efficient marksmen relative to taking game quickly and humanely, which
are positive advancements. On the other hand, when technology becomes a substitute for basic skills in the field
(i.e., buying skill), this is where technology not only undermines the hunting experience, but also has the potential
to erode public support for hunting. It is very difficult to maintain any credible claim that hunting is rewarding because
of the challenge if the entire experience can come down to pressing a button on a highly sophisticated device.
States and provinces sometimes establish laws to limit the use of emerging technologies, but new hunting products
are constantly being developed and marketed. Advances in technology have made hunting very efficient for the
hunter, more efficient than what some game populations can bear. Even where legal, hunters must consider the ethics
of using technologies that allow them to shoot at substantially increased distances far beyond an animal’s ability
to sense danger; game scouting cameras that transmit live, real time images to the hunter; on call hunting (using
cell phones to call in a hunter when game has been located by others), and using two-way radios to guide a hunter
to game in the field.
When the challenges of hunting are eliminated, we risk losing the special nature of the hunting experience itself.
Most hunters agree that the uncertainty and the “no-guarantees” character of hunting is its most powerful attraction.
Recognizing humans are the alpha predator and that there is a need to limit our hunting advantage over wildlife
is key to using technology in an ethical manner. A fair chase hunter does not measure success by the sophistication
of the technology they employ, but by the level of restraint they use. Inevitably, each of us will have to choose
if easier is better.
“The true hunter counts his achievement in proportion to the effort involved and the fairness of
the sport.” —Saxton Pope
Some people believe that trophy hunting—selectively hunting for animals with the largest antlers, horns, or skull—
is an unacceptable motivation for hunting. This disapproval is not based on how an animal is hunted, but on the
belief that the sole purpose of the hunt is to collect a large mount for the wall, and the rest of the animal is wasted.
Despite these misperceptions by some people, if a hunter’s intent is to hunt hard and hold out for an animal that
is well into maturity, passed his breeding prime and has survived many seasons, that is a choice that should be respected.
The primary motivation for seeking a trophy is a higher degree of difficulty. An older, more mature animal
is experienced

[DBHAWTHORNE]

"On the other hand, when technology becomes a substitute for basic skills in the field
(i.e., buying skill), this is where technology not only undermines the hunting experience, but also has the potential
to erode public support for hunting. It is very difficult to maintain any credible claim that hunting is rewarding because
of the challenge if the entire experience can come down to pressing a button on a highly sophisticated device."


Yep..and the explanation I gave above describes a technology that is equivalent to buying a skill... (i.e. closing the distance)

[lord grizzly]

another good sampling form the same essay


“Some people claim we have too many hunting laws and principles like hunting ethics and fair
chase and that these are just words used to justify hunting to the wider public as if we were
doing something wrong. I disagree; and I disagree strongly. Clearly we need never apologize for
something that provides as much as hunting does for society and for the natural environment.
Having rules, laws, and personal ethics to govern and guide our hunting practices is about
respect, for the wildlife we pursue, for the landscapes in which those creatures thrive, and for
ourselves as hunters. Certainly we should also acknowledge that our society rightly expects,
and deserves, an ethical approach to the use of any public resources and especially toward any
living creature. The truth is, we are hunting today because the majority of sportsmen over the
past century have held themselves to a high ethical standard. My concern, and the concern of
many sportsmen I have talked to is this: what they were taught was unacceptable is now being
shown as acceptable to our next generation of hunters. Unfortunately, times and circumstances
are changing, moving the line between what was once unthinkable to something now less troubling.”—
Shane Mahoney, Hunt Ethics episode, Boone and Crockett Country 2012

[lord grizzly]

"On the other hand, when technology becomes a substitute for basic skills in the field
(i.e., buying skill), this is where technology not only undermines the hunting experience, but also has the potential
to erode public support for hunting. It is very difficult to maintain any credible claim that hunting is rewarding because
of the challenge if the entire experience can come down to pressing a button on a highly sophisticated device."


Yep..and the explanation I gave above describes a technology that is equivalent to buying a skill... (i.e. closing the distance)

so you would agree than that our agencies need to stay ahead of emerging tech (like remote real time surveillance) and not be playing catch up after the fact?

[boneaddict]

 Nice Essays.   
Some will get it, some wont.

[lord grizzly]

Nice Essays.   
Some will get it, some wont.

most wont

[Wacenturion]

a good excerpt from Boone & Crocket below. and a link

https://www.boone-crockett.org/pdf/On_Fair_Chase.pdf


Advancements in technology can also have an effect on the hunt equation and challenge our notions of fair
chase. The use of technological advancements in mechanized travel for hunting, such as by boat, airplane, or other
motorized vehicle is a good example. Their use increases our advantage while decreasing the reasonable chance of
game to escape. Transporting ourselves and our equipment to the area where we are hunting is one thing. Fair chase
requires that from this point (unless physically limited), that the final stalk is done on foot. Other technologies
have certainly made us better and more efficient marksmen relative to taking game quickly and humanely, which
are positive advancements. On the other hand, when technology becomes a substitute for basic skills in the field
(i.e., buying skill), this is where technology not only undermines the hunting experience, but also has the potential
to erode public support for hunting. It is very difficult to maintain any credible claim that hunting is rewarding because
of the challenge if the entire experience can come down to pressing a button on a highly sophisticated device.
States and provinces sometimes establish laws to limit the use of emerging technologies, but new hunting products
are constantly being developed and marketed. Advances in technology have made hunting very efficient for the
hunter, more efficient than what some game populations can bear. Even where legal, hunters must consider the ethics
of using technologies that allow them to shoot at substantially increased distances far beyond an animal’s ability
to sense danger; game scouting cameras that transmit live, real time images to the hunter; on call hunting (using
cell phones to call in a hunter when game has been located by others), and using two-way radios to guide a hunter
to game in the field.
When the challenges of hunting are eliminated, we risk losing the special nature of the hunting experience itself.
Most hunters agree that the uncertainty and the “no-guarantees” character of hunting is its most powerful attraction.
Recognizing humans are the alpha predator and that there is a need to limit our hunting advantage over wildlife
is key to using technology in an ethical manner. A fair chase hunter does not measure success by the sophistication
of the technology they employ, but by the level of restraint they use. Inevitably, each of us will have to choose
if easier is better.
“The true hunter counts his achievement in proportion to the effort involved and the fairness of
the sport.” —Saxton Pope
Some people believe that trophy hunting—selectively hunting for animals with the largest antlers, horns, or skull—
is an unacceptable motivation for hunting. This disapproval is not based on how an animal is hunted, but on the
belief that the sole purpose of the hunt is to collect a large mount for the wall, and the rest of the animal is wasted.
Despite these misperceptions by some people, if a hunter’s intent is to hunt hard and hold out for an animal that
is well into maturity, passed his breeding prime and has survived many seasons, that is a choice that should be respected.
The primary motivation for seeking a trophy is a higher degree of difficulty. An older, more mature animal
is experienced

As DB pointed out above, I could rationlize as one example, long range 800-1000 yard rifles fitting into this definition as well. 

[DBHAWTHORNE]

another good sampling form the same essay


“Some people claim we have too many hunting laws and principles like hunting ethics and fair
chase and that these are just words used to justify hunting to the wider public as if we were
doing something wrong. I disagree; and I disagree strongly. Clearly we need never apologize for
something that provides as much as hunting does for society and for the natural environment.
Having rules, laws, and personal ethics to govern and guide our hunting practices is about
respect, for the wildlife we pursue, for the landscapes in which those creatures thrive, and for
ourselves as hunters. Certainly we should also acknowledge that our society rightly expects,
and deserves, an ethical approach to the use of any public resources and especially toward any
living creature. The truth is, we are hunting today because the majority of sportsmen over the
past century have held themselves to a high ethical standard. My concern, and the concern of
many sportsmen I have talked to is this: what they were taught was unacceptable is now being
shown as acceptable to our next generation of hunters. Unfortunately, times and circumstances
are changing, moving the line between what was once unthinkable to something now less troubling.”—
Shane Mahoney, Hunt Ethics episode, Boone and Crockett Country 2012

The problem comes when we try to let one group "define" ethics for another group when what we are really talking about has more to do with the "aesthetics" of the hunt for one person/group vs another. The "aesthetics" of the hunt are personal to the individual. We should be looking to sustain maximize opportunity... The reality is this...real time trail cams (which I have never used..but wouldn't be opposed to) will contribute to kills fractionally if at all...The example of technology I gave greatly increases success rates.

[lord grizzly]

certainly could. difference is being able to shoot at those ranges is actually a very specialized skill. sure you can buy the stuff but unless you know how to use it and invest a lot of time and money into honing that skill your just winging lead out there. its not like the bullets are going farther than they ever have, a 270 will travel 2 miles if un obstructed and has been able to do so since its conception.

take method is a entirely different discussion and you may even be surprised that we would agree in that one. it is ok to have separate discussions about separate issues. even on the internet

[lord grizzly]

another good sampling form the same essay


“Some people claim we have too many hunting laws and principles like hunting ethics and fair
chase and that these are just words used to justify hunting to the wider public as if we were
doing something wrong. I disagree; and I disagree strongly. Clearly we need never apologize for
something that provides as much as hunting does for society and for the natural environment.
Having rules, laws, and personal ethics to govern and guide our hunting practices is about
respect, for the wildlife we pursue, for the landscapes in which those creatures thrive, and for
ourselves as hunters. Certainly we should also acknowledge that our society rightly expects,
and deserves, an ethical approach to the use of any public resources and especially toward any
living creature. The truth is, we are hunting today because the majority of sportsmen over the
past century have held themselves to a high ethical standard. My concern, and the concern of
many sportsmen I have talked to is this: what they were taught was unacceptable is now being
shown as acceptable to our next generation of hunters. Unfortunately, times and circumstances
are changing, moving the line between what was once unthinkable to something now less troubling.”—
Shane Mahoney, Hunt Ethics episode, Boone and Crockett Country 2012

The problem comes when we try to let one group "define" ethics for another group when what we are really talking about has more to do with the "aesthetics" of the hunt for one person/group vs another. The "aesthetics" of the hunt are personal to the individual. We should be looking to sustain maximize opportunity... The reality is this...real time trail cams (which I have never used..but wouldn't be opposed to) will contribute to kills fractionally if at all...The example of technology I gave greatly increases success rates.

lets fire up the drones and jump in the air planes then. its all fair chase right?

[JimmyHoffa]

a good excerpt from Boone & Crocket below. and a link

https://www.boone-crockett.org/pdf/On_Fair_Chase.pdf


Advancements in technology can also have an effect on the hunt equation and challenge our notions of fair
chase. The use of technological advancements in mechanized travel for hunting, such as by boat, airplane, or other
motorized vehicle is a good example. Their use increases our advantage while decreasing the reasonable chance of
game to escape. Transporting ourselves and our equipment to the area where we are hunting is one thing. Fair chase
requires that from this point (unless physically limited), that the final stalk is done on foot. Other technologies
have certainly made us better and more efficient marksmen relative to taking game quickly and humanely, which
are positive advancements. On the other hand, when technology becomes a substitute for basic skills in the field
(i.e., buying skill), this is where technology not only undermines the hunting experience, but also has the potential
to erode public support for hunting. It is very difficult to maintain any credible claim that hunting is rewarding because
of the challenge if the entire experience can come down to pressing a button on a highly sophisticated device.
States and provinces sometimes establish laws to limit the use of emerging technologies, but new hunting products
are constantly being developed and marketed. Advances in technology have made hunting very efficient for the
hunter, more efficient than what some game populations can bear. Even where legal, hunters must consider the ethics
of using technologies that allow them to shoot at substantially increased distances far beyond an animal’s ability
to sense danger; game scouting cameras that transmit live, real time images to the hunter; on call hunting (using
cell phones to call in a hunter when game has been located by others), and using two-way radios to guide a hunter
to game in the field.
When the challenges of hunting are eliminated, we risk losing the special nature of the hunting experience itself.
Most hunters agree that the uncertainty and the “no-guarantees” character of hunting is its most powerful attraction.
Recognizing humans are the alpha predator and that there is a need to limit our hunting advantage over wildlife
is key to using technology in an ethical manner. A fair chase hunter does not measure success by the sophistication
of the technology they employ, but by the level of restraint they use. Inevitably, each of us will have to choose
if easier is better.
“The true hunter counts his achievement in proportion to the effort involved and the fairness of
the sport.” —Saxton Pope
Some people believe that trophy hunting—selectively hunting for animals with the largest antlers, horns, or skull—
is an unacceptable motivation for hunting. This disapproval is not based on how an animal is hunted, but on the
belief that the sole purpose of the hunt is to collect a large mount for the wall, and the rest of the animal is wasted.
Despite these misperceptions by some people, if a hunter’s intent is to hunt hard and hold out for an animal that
is well into maturity, passed his breeding prime and has survived many seasons, that is a choice that should be respected.
The primary motivation for seeking a trophy is a higher degree of difficulty. An older, more mature animal
is experienced

As DB pointed out above, I could rationlize as one example, long range 800-1000 yard rifles fitting into this definition as well.

I think the 800-1000+ shooters are still so small in number that they don't account for much--kind of like the expensive-texting cams.  I would guess that the range that has really opened up a lot of game to people is that area between 400-600 yds; and that was mostly as a result of rangefinders.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

"On the other hand, when technology becomes a substitute for basic skills in the field
(i.e., buying skill), this is where technology not only undermines the hunting experience, but also has the potential
to erode public support for hunting. It is very difficult to maintain any credible claim that hunting is rewarding because
of the challenge if the entire experience can come down to pressing a button on a highly sophisticated device."


Yep..and the explanation I gave above describes a technology that is equivalent to buying a skill... (i.e. closing the distance)

so you would agree than that our agencies need to stay ahead of emerging tech (like remote real time surveillance) and not be playing catch up after the fact?

I would say our agencies job is to maximize opportunities in a sustainable manner. This includes new technologies. I would say it's not their job to minimize opportunities. What they shouldn't allow is "feelings" of individuals or even the majority to define the aesthetics of the hunt for others.

[Wacenturion]

The essay is pretty much right on as the underlying theme is personal ethics.  It up to us all to do the right thing.  Yes, I have cell cams.  Am I going to use them to my advantage during hunting season in real time....no, but hell no.  Thats not me.  My intent is far removed from having an advantage harvesting game.  I'm enjoying my property froim 6 hours away when I'm not there.  I also have a drone.  Bought it to get aerial photos of my property and use it to do other things as the software updates measuring food plots etc.

There are lots of things you or I might might consider to be unethical, but that doesn't mean we infringe on someone else's choices.  Grizz, you apparently are a hound hunter.  Now before you think I opposed to hound hunting let me say I'm not.  However someone could just as equally make the same argument you are making.....unfair.  Want to hunt bears, hit the woods and pursue one.  Hounds let you know in real time whether you have trackers on the collars or not by their barking where the bear is.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

another good sampling form the same essay


“Some people claim we have too many hunting laws and principles like hunting ethics and fair
chase and that these are just words used to justify hunting to the wider public as if we were
doing something wrong. I disagree; and I disagree strongly. Clearly we need never apologize for
something that provides as much as hunting does for society and for the natural environment.
Having rules, laws, and personal ethics to govern and guide our hunting practices is about
respect, for the wildlife we pursue, for the landscapes in which those creatures thrive, and for
ourselves as hunters. Certainly we should also acknowledge that our society rightly expects,
and deserves, an ethical approach to the use of any public resources and especially toward any
living creature. The truth is, we are hunting today because the majority of sportsmen over the
past century have held themselves to a high ethical standard. My concern, and the concern of
many sportsmen I have talked to is this: what they were taught was unacceptable is now being
shown as acceptable to our next generation of hunters. Unfortunately, times and circumstances
are changing, moving the line between what was once unthinkable to something now less troubling.”—
Shane Mahoney, Hunt Ethics episode, Boone and Crockett Country 2012

The problem comes when we try to let one group "define" ethics for another group when what we are really talking about has more to do with the "aesthetics" of the hunt for one person/group vs another. The "aesthetics" of the hunt are personal to the individual. We should be looking to sustain maximize opportunity... The reality is this...real time trail cams (which I have never used..but wouldn't be opposed to) will contribute to kills fractionally if at all...The example of technology I gave greatly increases success rates.

lets fire up the drones and jump in the air planes then. its all fair chase right?

1. What kind of impact does it have on the resource?
2. What level of impact does it have on others experience?