Idaho F&G Proposal-Outlaw Trail Cameras

[lord grizzly]

im actually not a hound hunter (nothing against it) and DB your last response is just silly and I think you may already know that. it is currently illegal to use drones in aid of hunting or to hunt on the same day as flying over an area. as it should be. these cameras will become paramount to the same type of surveillance. Montana has it right. use them all you want out of season. I hope Idaho follows suit.

[Southpole]

Drones have the ability to cover miles of ground, cell cameras are stuck in one spot covering a very small space. I don't put them in the same category at all. 

[DBHAWTHORNE]

im actually not a hound hunter (nothing against it) and DB your last response is just silly and I think you may already know that. it is currently illegal to use drones in aid of hunting or to hunt on the same day as flying over an area. as it should be. these cameras will become paramount to the same type of surveillance. Montana has it right. use them all you want out of season. I hope Idaho follows suit.

It's not silly...it's valid.

- People do hunt pigs from helicopters so it is legal in some places.

- The problem with using airborne technology is the unsustainable/excessive stress it can put on the animals.

- Another issues with the use of airborne technology is that it can significantly impact the experience of others (particularly on public lands)

[lord grizzly]

Drones have the ability to cover miles of ground, cell cameras are stuck in one spot covering a very small space. I don't put them in the same category at all.

until a commercial operation puts one up every 1/4 mile because they cant use drones to cover those miles.

[lord grizzly]

im actually not a hound hunter (nothing against it) and DB your last response is just silly and I think you may already know that. it is currently illegal to use drones in aid of hunting or to hunt on the same day as flying over an area. as it should be. these cameras will become paramount to the same type of surveillance. Montana has it right. use them all you want out of season. I hope Idaho follows suit.

It's not silly...it's valid.

- People do hunt pigs from helicopters so it is legal in some places.

- The problem with using airborne technology is the unsustainable/excessive stress it can put on the animals.

- Another issues with the use of airborne technology is that it can significantly impact the experience of others (particularly on public lands)

I suppose its valid to the point that its already addressed in game regs. and then you answered your own question. so why ask it?

[Bob33]

If the sole standard for determining if something should be regulated is whether or not it increases harvest, then the list of things to be regulated is nearly endless. I suspect that advancements in firearms, optics, and mapping technologies as examples have done more to increase harvest over the last 50 years that drones ever would, and yet most hunters support regulation of drones.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

Drones have the ability to cover miles of ground, cell cameras are stuck in one spot covering a very small space. I don't put them in the same category at all.

until a commercial operation puts one up every 1/4 mile because they cant use drones to cover those miles.

If they did I bet it wouldn't have any notable impact on their success rate.... Take some technologies away from them that you probably already use/support....and I bet it would

[lord grizzly]

I think you need to separate your view of success rate and fair chase. they are two entirely different things.

[Southpole]

Drones have the ability to cover miles of ground, cell cameras are stuck in one spot covering a very small space. I don't put them in the same category at all.

until a commercial operation puts one up every 1/4 mile because they cant use drones to cover those miles.

That sounds practical and inexpensive 

[DBHAWTHORNE]

If the sole standard for determining if something should be regulated is whether or not it increases harvest, then the list of things to be regulated is nearly endless. I suspect that advancements in firearms, optics, and mapping technologies as examples have done more to increase harvest over the last 50 years that drones ever would, and yet most hunters support regulation of drones.

I think all impacts to the resource (not just increased harvest) have to be considered. I also think the impact it has on the experience of other has to be considered. However, we do have to be careful about using something as subjective as how it impacts the experience of others...because we can make that one a slippery slope.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

I think you need to separate your view of success rate and fair chase. they are two entirely different things.

Even if I go off the part you highlighted from B&C regarding Fair Chase everything I said still stands as valid. Those things we already allow go much further in substituting for skill than the technologies we are currently discussing.

[lord grizzly]

Drones have the ability to cover miles of ground, cell cameras are stuck in one spot covering a very small space. I don't put them in the same category at all.

until a commercial operation puts one up every 1/4 mile because they cant use drones to cover those miles.

That sounds practical and inexpensive 

right now yes. unpractical, only thing stopping it is access to better and readily affordable tech. that's been my point in this whole discussion (most people must not read entire sentences) why do any of you think this tech is not advancing every day? and why is it such a  terrible thing to see game departments trying to keep up with it? as much as you all bitch about F&G not doing anything you bitch more when they do. amazing

[JimmyHoffa]

Drones have the ability to cover miles of ground, cell cameras are stuck in one spot covering a very small space. I don't put them in the same category at all.

until a commercial operation puts one up every 1/4 mile because they cant use drones to cover those miles.

That sounds practical and inexpensive 

For the ones that get governor's tags it probably is, but the clientele to use those operations will likely be so small that harvest would be almost negligible.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

Drones have the ability to cover miles of ground, cell cameras are stuck in one spot covering a very small space. I don't put them in the same category at all.

until a commercial operation puts one up every 1/4 mile because they cant use drones to cover those miles.

That sounds practical and inexpensive 

right now yes. unpractical, only thing stopping it is access to better and readily affordable tech. that's been my point in this whole discussion (most people must not read entire sentences) why do any of you think this tech is not advancing every day? and why is it such a  terrible thing to see game departments trying to keep up with it? as much as you all bitch about F7G not doing anything you bitch more when they do. amazing

Probably because we all have our own opinions. Probably because we aren't ready to hop on the side of anti-hunters. Probably because we want to maximize and protect hunting opportunities if it can be sustained by the resource...even if we personally don't like it. I'm sure you may do things/use hunting methods that don't really appeal to me. I'm sure I could use your definition of "ethics" to make sound, logical arguments why they should be regulated.... but I would never support efforts to minimize your opportunity or take away from your hunt.

[lord grizzly]

again harvest success and fair chase are completely separate issues. I kill a deer and elk every year. my success rate is 100% on public land. the fact that I do has nothing to do with the issue of fair chase on a whole or how my harvest success affect others. I could really care less if you do or don't get your bull. I do care that the bull has his chance to be persuade as fairly as possible.  I think you guys are correlating fair chase to be between hunters, its not, its between hunters and game. and tech in this area needs to be kept up with period.