Idaho F&G Proposal-Outlaw Trail Cameras

[DBHAWTHORNE]

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.

  What fun would that be... .No way.. I'm not stopping until I change Lord's opinion. 

[singleshot12]

I guess the question should be - - where do we draw the line on electronic technology associated with hunting big game? You would think cell trail cams would cross that line

[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....

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.

a good barometer of how weak an argument is how far you have to stretch to make it. what kind of shirt im wearing? what legal  weapon im hunting with? pretty silly stuff. for the record (and its a pretty easy record to check, click back numerically in the corner of this thread there) ive not once stated that technology was bad. again, read what I actually wrote. not 99.9% of what you think I wrote. (little advice that last tenth of a percent can make you look like a real jack ass sometimes) what I've said is very easy to check by reviewing recent history. technology moves faster than our agencies can keep up with it and this particular one has potential to affect fair chase hunting as it does. (again bud, just talking this one, remote trail cams. not super fancy shirts)

ive also never broached the subject of harvest. don't need to. F&G already has systems in place for that. if harvest numbers spike or decrease they adjust tag numbers and seasons accordingly. they don't need to adopt an amendment for that. like they do for advancements in tech, in regards to fair chase(starting to see a theme yet? its only been 10 pages)

I will say some of the recent comments on here are alarming "night vision, helicopters, hell ya!! I don't need no fish cop telling me how to live my life!!!" really guys? are you typing that while you throw your beer can out the window on your way to dump your trash at the end of the logging road? no wonder you've lost things like hound hunting and trapping over there. to joe public (or more accurately Joanne public) you sound like a bunch of pigs.

I may get dinged by mods on that last paragraph but I stand by it. the comment is general not personal though it will be taken that way.

and for the record I wear mostly wool and cotton blends...how could I....

[NW SURVEYOR]

Here we go.

I assume that most people agree that using a radio to talk another hunter into an animal for a kill is unethical.
For you that do not agree, that's your perogative (sp?).
I happen to think that it is highly unethical (My opinion) and do not practice this iilegal (I believe) methodology.
This practice, which I have witnessed is not a rare occurance, however it requires two people, both poachers.

Now, jump ahead to the guy who has a few camaras with the phone link and you have the same situation with only one participant.
A guy can monitor a few sites and sneak into the area with full knowledge of where the game is and the reaction of that game to any disturbance.
Any arguement that this is not practical in my opinion is ridiculous.
I have hunted for 45 years and have stalked game succesfully numerous times.

This methodology allows aperson to monitor numerous sites at daylight and to then pick the area he will hunt that morning with secure knowledge of game in the immediate area.  To think that someone is/will not take advantage of this is really putting your head in the sand.

Does everyone do this? I am sure not, but I am convinced that this is wrong.
I wil further state that using a drone to spot game with a camara and then immediately hunt that animal is also unethical.
I am sure that Bearpaw and most hunters are using this technology in a responsibe manner.
But laws are not always written for the righteous.
They are written to provide protection from those individuals who are irresponsible.

I say pull ALL the camaras at the beginning of the season.
As I side note, I just bought my first (2) camaras this winter which I have used with limited success.
They are used ones with a card that I can download to my PC.

This is good conversation.

Later,
Rob.
 

[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.

a good barometer of how weak an argument is how far you have to stretch to make it. what kind of shirt im wearing? what legal  weapon im hunting with? pretty silly stuff. for the record (and its a pretty easy record to check, click back numerically in the corner of this thread there) ive not once stated that technology was bad. again, read what I actually wrote. not 99.9% of what you think I wrote. (little advice that last tenth of a percent can make you look like a real jack ass sometimes) what I've said is very easy to check by reviewing recent history. technology moves faster than our agencies can keep up with it and this particular one has potential to affect fair chase hunting as it does. (again bud, just talking this one, remote trail cams. not super fancy shirts)

ive also never broached the subject of harvest. don't need to. F&G already has systems in place for that. if harvest numbers spike or decrease they adjust tag numbers and seasons accordingly. they don't need to adopt an amendment for that. like they do for advancements in tech, in regards to fair chase(starting to see a theme yet? its only been 10 pages)

I will say some of the recent comments on here are alarming "night vision, helicopters, hell ya!! I don't need no fish cop telling me how to live my life!!!" really guys? are you typing that while you throw your beer can out the window on your way to dump your trash at the end of the logging road? no wonder you've lost things like hound hunting and trapping over there. to joe public (or more accurately Joanne public) you sound like a bunch of pigs.

I may get dinged by mods on that last paragraph but I stand by it. the comment is general not personal though it will be taken that way.

and for the record I wear mostly wool and cotton blends...how could I....

It's obvious you are the one that is stretching now or perhaps you forgot what you wrote. This whole piece of the thread above is a reply to the following statement you clearly made " if your stance is you believe tech should be made available to make hunting easier you are barking up the wrong tree with a guy like me "... the replies that followed that statement are addressing the clear hypocrisy of that statement.

Regarding the questions you asked about clothing/weapons.. the details are really irrelevant to the point being made but I'll entertain it:

1. Clothing: Unless you are naked or wearing stuff hand made/not made in a manufacturing plant then you are wearing technologically advanced clothing that provides you an advantage under extreme conditions.

2. Weapon: You are using a weapon.. even if it's a primitive bow/arrow that his hand made it's still a tool/piece of technology that took at least basic (and I'd argue advanced) scientific knowledge and thought processes to perfect.

So again...I have read all your post. I never argued you were opposed to technology as a whole. To the contrary I am using your stated and unstated support of technology to clearly show your hypocrisy on this particular issue. I realize you are only selectively and hypocritically opposed to the use of technology that doesn't fit in your own personal definition of the hunt which you then believe should be used to define "the hunt" for every other hunter in Idaho.. (which I want to make clear... I believe is perfectly within your right as an individual to do...I'm glad you have that right.... not arguing against that...It's just a pretty unfortunate to see a fellow hunter take a position against his fellow hunters because it doesn't tickle his fancy and not because it's truly a bad thing for the resource that we all share).

Regarding Fair Chase... it's really coming down to each individual position on it....you say it's not fair chase...I say it is...... I have seen you prove no unfair advantage these cameras provide that isn't already far blown away by technology that 99.9% of hunters are using during the season...technology that increases the hunters advantage in the chase far more than a camera in the season.

I can agree there is a line to fair and unfair chase... but it's really hypocritical for us to move that line around simply because it's something we personally don't like and use...all the while using technology that puts the animal at a much greater disadvantage than the technology we are castigating.

For the record...I didn't take your comment personally. I'd share a hunting camp with you anytime.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

I guess the question should be - - where do we draw the line on electronic technology associated with hunting big game? You would think cell trail cams would cross that line

For me they don't cross the line because I think they will really not create the kind of advantage that some seem to believe.... but I can understand the argument against them...I just think the concerns aren't based in the same reality that I live in where animals don't wait around for me to show up and even if they do I'm not likely to stalk up on them successfully (not that I would ever use them in that capacity in the first place... I'd even be in favor of some kind of delay in the send/receipt of the photo..... I wouldn't desire immediate pictures.....but getting pictures without having to disturb the area and stress the animals is a good thing)..... I'll probably never use them in the Northwest....However, I'm strongly opposed to removing trail cam use during the season (like Montana does) as has been proposed....and even though I probably won't use them in the NW I'm not in favor of restricting them for those who do enjoy their use.... If I thought it gave some kind of real advantage that resulted in an unfair chase then I would oppose them.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

Here we go.

I assume that most people agree that using a radio to talk another hunter into an animal for a kill is unethical.
For you that do not agree, that's your perogative (sp?).
I happen to think that it is highly unethical (My opinion) and do not practice this iilegal (I believe) methodology.
This practice, which I have witnessed is not a rare occurance, however it requires two people, both poachers.

Now, jump ahead to the guy who has a few camaras with the phone link and you have the same situation with only one participant.
A guy can monitor a few sites and sneak into the area with full knowledge of where the game is and the reaction of that game to any disturbance.
Any arguement that this is not practical in my opinion is ridiculous.
I have hunted for 45 years and have stalked game succesfully numerous times.

This methodology allows aperson to monitor numerous sites at daylight and to then pick the area he will hunt that morning with secure knowledge of game in the immediate area.  To think that someone is/will not take advantage of this is really putting your head in the sand.

Does everyone do this? I am sure not, but I am convinced that this is wrong.
I wil further state that using a drone to spot game with a camara and then immediately hunt that animal is also unethical.
I am sure that Bearpaw and most hunters are using this technology in a responsibe manner.
But laws are not always written for the righteous.
They are written to provide protection from those individuals who are irresponsible.

I say pull ALL the camaras at the beginning of the season.
As I side note, I just bought my first (2) camaras this winter which I have used with limited success.
They are used ones with a card that I can download to my PC.

This is good conversation.

Later,
Rob.

Rob,

I really think this is a solid point:

"This methodology allows a person to monitor numerous sites at daylight and to then pick the area he will hunt that morning with secure knowledge of game in the immediate area "


I usually have animals in around my stands at/around daylight and more times than not it doesn't equate to success on what I'm looking for.... so I can't say that I  it would provide any great advantage but it's certainly something worth further scrutiny.


I can't speak to the use of radios.. I don't think they would create an advantage for what I do but I guess if you were doing drives and such then they would really help out. I'd have to defer to people who hunt in a manner that could see these being abused.
 

[Machias]

   You guys seem to have this idea that a wireless trail camera is akin to a video game.  That's part of the problem with this discussion, the unrealistic view of what the capabilities are.  So if I sit on a mountain side and glass an entire mountain with a spotting scope and then shoot what ever animal I see from 1000 yards, that's ok, but if I have a camera fixated on a 30 by 80 foot section, I'm no longer being fair....

[lord grizzly]

  You guys seem to have this idea that a wireless trail camera is akin to a video game. 

they will be.

and DB 

[Machias]

  You guys seem to have this idea that a wireless trail camera is akin to a video game. 

they will be and DB 

And WHEN they get to that point, I'll be standing shoulder to shoulder with you asking for them to be banned.

[lord grizzly]

  You guys seem to have this idea that a wireless trail camera is akin to a video game. 

they will be and DB 

And WHEN they get to that point, I'll be standing shoulder to shoulder with you asking for them to be banned.

it will be to late. the user group will then be embattled and screaming about there "rights" being taken (this thread is a good example) . mentioned that before as well. again, proactive, not reactive

[Machias]

A solution LOOKING for a problem.

[lord grizzly]

  You guys seem to have this idea that a wireless trail camera is akin to a video game. 

they will be and DB 

And WHEN they get to that point, I'll be standing shoulder to shoulder with you asking for them to be banned.

had to quote you again on this one. interesting. this is exactly the stance I've been taking that you've been arguing is wrong. it appears we see the same issue, I just see it now (or should I say ahead of time). why do you think this wont happen?

[Rainier10]

Couple of things.  I think for the most part this is a great discussion.  Second I think it is a great one to have before this becomes an issue in Washington, right now this is being discussed for Idaho not Washington.  And finally I think there are some that have commented that have actually used these types of cameras and know all the facts about them and others may be commented and forming opinions without any actual experience with these cameras and their capabilities.  They may be assuming how these might effect hunting situations.

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.

Again I think that for the most part this is a healthy conversation and we can each alot from everyone's input and different viewpoints.  I am not sure anyone hardlined on one side or the other is going to change their minds but for those in the middle I think this can be very educational.

Carry on. 

[Machias]

  You guys seem to have this idea that a wireless trail camera is akin to a video game. 

they will be and DB 

And WHEN they get to that point, I'll be standing shoulder to shoulder with you asking for them to be banned.

had to quote you again on this one. interesting. this is exactly the stance I've been taking that you've been arguing is wrong. it appears we see the same issue, I just see it now. why do you think this wont happen?

Because it's like every other PROGRESSIVE argument, we need gun control because this or that might happen, we need this rule or regulation because this MIGHT happen.  WHEN it gets to THAT point and there is a REAL problem it's never too late to take a step back and say we've gone too far.  Your in Idaho, how has my wireless camera affected YOU?  It hasn't and it won't.  I have a wireless camera on a bear bait and a friend of mine has a wireless camera on another bait.  Neither of us has taken a bear off of our baits.  We have 16 bears hitting our baits.  We have a third bait site with a regular trail camera. Nothing is different between the three bait sites.  I hate the mentality that is always looking to fix something that is not broke.