Idaho F&G Proposal-Outlaw Trail Cameras

[Bob33]

I have a sincere question for those in favor of not having restrictions on cellular cameras: is there any hunting equipment and method that you oppose? If so, what is the basis for your opposition?

Airplanes? Night vision? Hunting from motor vehicles? Radio telemetry gear?

Airplanes to spot game? I am on the fence on this one.
Night vision, against, too much of an advantage.
From a motor vehicle, against, not safe.
Radio telemetry gear, against, too much of an advantage.
Bait for bears, I am for.
Dogs for bears, I am on the fence.
Dogs for cougars, definitely for.
Crossbows during archery, no.
209 enclosed primers for muzzleloaders, I am against.
Party hunting, I am against.

So yes I have limits.  But each individual has a different idea of what is acceptable.  It really comes down to what is acceptable to the majority and I believe if you don't care either way on a subject you should side with less restrictions.

Devil's advocate here.

"Too much of an advantage with night vision": is there science supporting that? I'd like to use night vision; aren't you denying me opportunity? If you don't want to use it, fine - but why should you restrict my use?

I do welcome an open discussion on this topic. If hunters don't address these issues, I'm afraid non-hunters will.

[bearpaw]

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.

So this example from page 4 is fair chase c'mon .

You've still got to successfully get within shooting range before the animal leaves and without spooking the animal. All the camera did was tell you an animal you would like to shoot was there at the time the photo was taken. Successfully getting there in time to kill the animal relies on your hunting ability and how good your other equipment is to get you close enough to begin the stalk!

With my 1000 yard rifle and sporting scope easily done (southern accent) and joking of course

If you are sitting watching a bear with your 1000 yard rifle i doubt you are worried about the cell phone! 

[KFhunter]

On the plus side of cellular trail cams, think how much impact could be saved by people not having to drive up in the woods, park, hike in and retrieve the SD card however often they do so.  Put in awesome batteries and save multiple trips up the mountain road.

I still want some texts when a coyote is on the bait pile in my back hayfield   

[bearpaw]

I have a sincere question for those in favor of not having restrictions on cellular cameras: is there any hunting equipment and method that you oppose? If so, what is the basis for your opposition?

Airplanes? Night vision? Hunting from motor vehicles? Radio telemetry gear?

Sincere answers:

Airplanes?
I am not opposed, I've hunted from helicopter overseas where it was legal, I want to hunt from a chopper for hogs in TX as soon as I can before someone gets it outlawed. That does not mean I am opposed to other styles of hunting, I like it all.

Night vision?
Most species are closed to hunting at night. For species legal to hunt at night I say use night vision if you want.

Hunting from motor vehicles?
I use vehicles to hunt quite often, depending on game hunted. In most cases you are required to get out of the vehicle before you can load your gun. If a hunter has a disabled permit and we are road hunting I stop and shut off the engine.

Radio telemetry gear?
Use it on my hounds every hunt, I will not risk losing a dog without it.

It's illegal to use radio telemetry to track a collared wild animal, that's not something i want to do, and in my experience most hunters would not want to hunt a wild animal by tracking them with a radio collar around their neck. Maybe there are instances I don't know?

[bigtex]

It's illegal to use radio telemetry to track a collared wild animal, that's not something i want to do, and in my experience most hunters would not want to hunt a wild animal by tracking them with a radio collar around their neck. Maybe there are instances I don't know?

It happens in WA every couple of years, and those are just the ones who are caught. Someone gets their hands on the telemetry frequencies. Obviously not an everyday thing but definitely not something that never happens.

[KFhunter]

I have a sincere question for those in favor of not having restrictions on cellular cameras: is there any hunting equipment and method that you oppose? If so, what is the basis for your opposition?

Airplanes? Night vision? Hunting from motor vehicles? Radio telemetry gear?

I can't think of any, but I can think of a lot of methods I'd like to see be legal.  I'm not in favor of "restrictions" in lieu of proper management; where the restrictions are there to limit take or somehow hamper success rates.

[bearpaw]

It's illegal to use radio telemetry to track a collared wild animal, that's not something i want to do, and in my experience most hunters would not want to hunt a wild animal by tracking them with a radio collar around their neck. Maybe there are instances I don't know?

It happens in WA every couple of years, and those are just the ones who are caught. Someone gets their hands on the telemetry frequencies. Obviously not an everyday thing but definitely not something that never happens.

Criminals break most every law at some point! 

[lord grizzly]

examples pertaining to this discussion from my prospective.

opportunity- hunting season is X day to Y day. I wouldn't propose changing that based on a camera on a tree. your opportunity to peruse game has not decreased.

advantage - remotely tracking an animal via electronic device with the intention to harvest. your advantage over that game animal has increased significantly . again I end up back at my fair chase stance.

if your stance is you believe tech should be made available to make hunting easier your barking up the wrong tree with a guy like me and I doubt you would get much public support with that as a basis of your argument.

Tech should be made available for people's enjoyment and the tech we are talking about should be made available because it provides a marginal advantage at best and will have no negative impact on the game.... The hypocrisy of your statement about tech is stupefying. I 100% know you use all kinds of tech to make your hunts easier...to make your hunts possible... but then you speak as if your above using tech to make hunting easier....you want to argue about how some certain type of tech (which does not provide near the advantage of technology you already use) should not be allowed because it's not fair chase.... all the while using technology that gives you a much, much, much greater advantage over the animal than the tech we are discussing ever would.

Wow you know me so well and yet we've never met. Gives a lot of insight to your personality and likely motives of where you point of view comes from. Your a very short sighted individual but you certainly have the right to be. Funny that "Washington for wildlife" group you have branded there. Sure seems like that's you main concern reading your perspectives....

[lord grizzly]

Those who can't see the risks here can not because they choose not too. Some people don't have the ability to see beyond there own desires. That's fine, hopefully our game departments do what's right. As others already have

[Bob33]

I'd appreciate seeing this thread stay on track and not devolve into personal attacks.

Lots of worthwhile opinions. Let's keep it that way.

[JimmyHoffa]

Other than maybe tracking the collar freqs, is their any tech that is more effective than just plain ol' hunting the rut or migration?  I didn't see those listed for the fair chase essays.

[Machias]

Great discussion from both sides. 
I will say I do get irritated when folks act like if I'm for these cameras somehow I am unethical and I can't see the dangers or the big picture.  Too stupid or short sighted.  Have no hunting skills, am relying on this technology...etc.  I'm a trapper, I have to have enough skill at reading animal sign to predict where an animal will put his foot within 1.5 inches.  So yes I can read animal sign and I am proficient at knowing animal habits.  I am fully aware of the dangers of certain practices that threaten our way of life.  I've been on the side of arguing for less technology.  But I have this camera, I know the real advantages, not the what if this happens or what if that happens.  I come at this from knowing and using this item and know that some of the what ifs are just not realistic or likely to happen.

So in Montana, are non-hunters not allowed to use trail cameras during the season?  How in the world would you enforce this law?  Someone ask how would you know if this impacts harvest numbers.  Seems fairly straight forward to me if nothing else has changed from seasons to season in Montana they have to have some idea if the restrictions have had any impact on harvest numbers.  I am extremely against the Fish and Game Department, on their own deciding what is and what is not ethical.  Like they did here in WA when they took it upon themselves to outlaw hunting coyotes with dogs.  Purely a political reason, absolutely nothing to do with science.

[Rainier10]

I have a sincere question for those in favor of not having restrictions on cellular cameras: is there any hunting equipment and method that you oppose? If so, what is the basis for your opposition?

Airplanes? Night vision? Hunting from motor vehicles? Radio telemetry gear?

Airplanes to spot game? I am on the fence on this one.
Night vision, against, too much of an advantage.
From a motor vehicle, against, not safe.
Radio telemetry gear, against, too much of an advantage.
Bait for bears, I am for.
Dogs for bears, I am on the fence.
Dogs for cougars, definitely for.
Crossbows during archery, no.
209 enclosed primers for muzzleloaders, I am against.
Party hunting, I am against.

So yes I have limits.  But each individual has a different idea of what is acceptable.  It really comes down to what is acceptable to the majority and I believe if you don't care either way on a subject you should side with less restrictions.

Devil's advocate here.

"Too much of an advantage with night vision": is there science supporting that? I'd like to use night vision; aren't you denying me opportunity? If you don't want to use it, fine - but why should you restrict my use?

I do welcome an open discussion on this topic. If hunters don't address these issues, I'm afraid non-hunters will.

In your position of devils advocate, if you are for night vision hunting that is your choice.  We certainly won't agree on every issue.  I believe that these issues should be decided by the game department as they come up. I think they should go with what the majority wants or what is best for wildlife.  Hopefully they can both be achieved, give the majority what they want and have it be the best thing for wildlife.  If they differ I think they should side with what is best for wildlife.

Here is the kicker for any of these debates, I think if you feel strongly about something you should stand behind it.  If you are really against cell trail cams fight to ban their use.  if you really like to use them fight to keep them legal.  If you could go either way vote in favor of less restrictions.

[Machias]

Here is the kicker for any of these debates, I think if you feel strongly about something you should stand behind it.  If you are really against cell trail cams fight to ban their use.  if you really like to use them fight to keep them legal.  If you could go either way vote in favor of less restrictions.

I completely agree with this!

[DBHAWTHORNE]

examples pertaining to this discussion from my prospective.

opportunity- hunting season is X day to Y day. I wouldn't propose changing that based on a camera on a tree. your opportunity to peruse game has not decreased.

advantage - remotely tracking an animal via electronic device with the intention to harvest. your advantage over that game animal has increased significantly . again I end up back at my fair chase stance.

if your stance is you believe tech should be made available to make hunting easier your barking up the wrong tree with a guy like me and I doubt you would get much public support with that as a basis of your argument.

Tech should be made available for people's enjoyment and the tech we are talking about should be made available because it provides a marginal advantage at best and will have no negative impact on the game.... The hypocrisy of your statement about tech is stupefying. I 100% know you use all kinds of tech to make your hunts easier...to make your hunts possible... but then you speak as if your above using tech to make hunting easier....you want to argue about how some certain type of tech (which does not provide near the advantage of technology you already use) should not be allowed because it's not fair chase.... all the while using technology that gives you a much, much, much greater advantage over the animal than the tech we are discussing ever would.

Wow you know me so well and yet we've never met. Gives a lot of insight to your personality and likely motives of where you point of view comes from. Your a very short sighted individual but you certainly have the right to be. Funny that "Washington for wildlife" group you have branded there. Sure seems like that's you main concern reading your perspectives....

I only need to know a few things and make logical assumptions that apply to 99.9% of hunters to know if the above is true...such as... You hunt with a legal weapon that makes it easier for you to kill the animal, you use some type of vehicle at least some of the time to make it easier for you to get to/from your hunt locations, you use technologically advanced clothing that allows you the handle the elements better which gives you a tremendous advantage etc... Bottom line.. You already use technology to make your hunting easier.. I don't need to know you personally to know this is true... It's the nature of what we do... Man is able to kill animals regularly because he has designed tools/technology and uses those to make it possible...it's been that way since the dawn of time...those are all facts. You are not above it... You are complicit in the very thing you say you oppose... using technology to make the hunt/chase/kill easier..... Ironically, in this case.. you are opposing something that really doesn't give anywhere near the measurable advantage as items you are already using.