Idaho F&G Proposal-Outlaw Trail Cameras

[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. 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.

I've also been pretty clear that I don't think the current cams are an issue with there current limitations. so I've answered that question a few times in not so many words of how its affected me. I've also been pretty clear that my issue isn't with how I think it will affect me but rather how it affects the relationship between game and hunter. nothing you do hunting will affect my ability to harvest. taking pics, sitting in a tree whatever.  this topic for me any way, is philosophical and in no way personal to any one person on here. ive tried to make that clear but it seems some of you just like a fight. 

[DBHAWTHORNE]

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. 

I'd fall in the group that hasn't used this type of camera.

[bearpaw]

I'll defer to my signature line, which is the specific reason all user groups keep losing opportunity. Everybody is ready to take something away they perceive to be harmful but fail to realize that the next time they them self will be on the receiving end of losing opportunity.

"Americans are systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights. Support all user groups & quit losing opportunity!"

That is one reason we lost hound hunting and baiting in WA, too many other hunters saw an opportunity to limit the competition or had some preconceived idea that hounds or bait is unfair or not fair chase. Every hunter should stand up for other hunter's methods unless it's proven to be detrimental to wildlife and hunting! 

[Wacenturion]

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

Using your assumption that cells cams account for the taking of animals that would otherwise not be taken, then how do you rationlize as an example long range 800-1000 rifles that take animals that would not normally have been taken?  One, the rifle,  kills an animal that in all likelyhood  would have walked away before you closed the distance and the other takes a picture of an animal that probably walks away before you get there.  One dead....unfair?  One alive...say cheese.   

[Bob33]

I'll defer to my signature line, which is the specific reason all user groups keep losing opportunity. Everybody is ready to take something away they perceive to be harmful but fail to realize that the next time they them self will be on the receiving end of losing opportunity.

"Americans are systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights. Support all user groups & quit losing opportunity!"

That is one reason we lost hound hunting and baiting in WA, too many other hunters saw an opportunity to limit the competition or had some preconceived idea that hounds or bait is unfair or not fair chase. Every hunter should stand up for other hunter's methods unless it's proven to be detrimental to wildlife and hunting! 

Dale, the loss of hounds and bait for bear hunting was due to voting by the general public on an initiative (655). Why do you conclude that was the result of hunters wanting to restrict opportunity?

An argument can be made the other direction as well. If hunters had put some minimal restrictions on the use of bait or hounds, would the general public have found it so offensive that they banned it completely?

[Wacenturion]

  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.

 

[Wacenturion]

I'll defer to my signature line, which is the specific reason all user groups keep losing opportunity. Everybody is ready to take something away they perceive to be harmful but fail to realize that the next time they them self will be on the receiving end of losing opportunity.

"Americans are systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights. Support all user groups & quit losing opportunity!"

That is one reason we lost hound hunting and baiting in WA, too many other hunters saw an opportunity to limit the competition or had some preconceived idea that hounds or bait is unfair or not fair chase. Every hunter should stand up for other hunter's methods unless it's proven to be detrimental to wildlife and hunting! 

Therein lies the real problem with this preceived notion that cams and especially cell cams are bad or going a video game in the near future.  It's like raising a red flag and waving it at the general public and anti's.  Then the world starts to think there is actually something wrong with using them.  Then they vote....end of opportunity.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

I'll defer to my signature line, which is the specific reason all user groups keep losing opportunity. Everybody is ready to take something away they perceive to be harmful but fail to realize that the next time they them self will be on the receiving end of losing opportunity.

"Americans are systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights. Support all user groups & quit losing opportunity!"

That is one reason we lost hound hunting and baiting in WA, too many other hunters saw an opportunity to limit the competition or had some preconceived idea that hounds or bait is unfair or not fair chase. Every hunter should stand up for other hunter's methods unless it's proven to be detrimental to wildlife and hunting! 

Therein lies the real problem with this preceived notion that cams and especially cell cams are bad or going a video game in the near future.  It's like raising a red flag and waving it at the general public and anti's.  Then the world starts to think there is actually something wrong with using them.  Then they vote....end of opportunity.

That's for sure... if hunters want to give away opportunity the antis are more than happy to oblige.

[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.

I've also been pretty clear that I don't think the current cams are an issue with there current limitations. so I've answered that question a few times in not so many words of how its affected me. I've also been pretty clear that my issue isn't with how I think it will affect me but rather how it affects the relationship between game and hunter. nothing you do hunting will affect my ability to harvest. taking pics, sitting in a tree whatever.  this topic for me any way, is philosophical and in no way personal to any one person on here. ive tried to make that clear but it seems some of you just like a fight. 

Last thing in the world I like doing is fighting with someone, particularly on here.  Maybe I've been taking it wrong but you seem to constantly be saying I'm not an ethical hunter, no you have not said me in particular, but have repeated multiple times that someone using this and other technology just doesn't get it, most won't.  Anyways, you are against them, I am for them, we'll both present our views to the Fish and Game and whatever they end up deciding is what we will abide by.  I'm done with the back and forth, my only hope in this whole discussion is if you are going to be against something, you are against if for the right reasons, in other words against the true capabilities and not some made up fantasy capabilities. 

[bearpaw]

I'll defer to my signature line, which is the specific reason all user groups keep losing opportunity. Everybody is ready to take something away they perceive to be harmful but fail to realize that the next time they them self will be on the receiving end of losing opportunity.

"Americans are systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights. Support all user groups & quit losing opportunity!"

That is one reason we lost hound hunting and baiting in WA, too many other hunters saw an opportunity to limit the competition or had some preconceived idea that hounds or bait is unfair or not fair chase. Every hunter should stand up for other hunter's methods unless it's proven to be detrimental to wildlife and hunting! 

Dale, the loss of hounds and bait for bear hunting was due to voting by the general public on an initiative (655). Why do you conclude that was the result of hunters wanting to restrict opportunity?

An argument can be made the other direction as well. If hunters had put some minimal restrictions on the use of bait or hounds, would the general public have found it so offensive that they banned it completely?

You asked so I'm going to open the worms!

I had plenty of other hunters tell me they were voting against hounds and even bait, many were bow hunters opposed to dog hunting because it was competition in the woods when they were bow hunting deer and elk! I don't feel this way, but I know some hound hunters who are waiting for the chance to vote against bow hunting. This is a big reason we all lose! We all should support each other, unless there is proven impacts on wildlife you will almost never see me advocating to take anything away from anyone, that road goes both ways, too bad more people don't realize that!

Some people are so sure they are right they don't care what they take away from others, but listen to them complain when their sport gets targeted!

I don't own a cell cam but I will defend them until someone proves they are a detriment to hunting. If we made laws the way some people think we wouldn't even be driving cars, we should have never built them because someone might get in an accident. That is the kind of thinking going on in this topic!

[Machias]

I worked a trapping booth at the Big Horn Show in Spokane, I was stunned by the number of hunters who were for the trapping ban.  Crazy thing, lots of them were bird hunters and didn't seem to put two and two together, more skunks, coons, possums equals less chicks hatching which equals less birds for bird hunters.  Stunning to me.

[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. 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.

I've also been pretty clear that I don't think the current cams are an issue with there current limitations. so I've answered that question a few times in not so many words of how its affected me. I've also been pretty clear that my issue isn't with how I think it will affect me but rather how it affects the relationship between game and hunter. nothing you do hunting will affect my ability to harvest. taking pics, sitting in a tree whatever.  this topic for me any way, is philosophical and in no way personal to any one person on here. ive tried to make that clear but it seems some of you just like a fight. 

Last thing in the world I like doing is fighting with someone, particularly on here.  Maybe I've been taking it wrong but you seem to constantly be saying I'm not an ethical hunter, no you have not said me in particular, but have repeated multiple times that someone using this and other technology just doesn't get it, most won't.  Anyways, you are against them, I am for them, we'll both present our views to the Fish and Game and whatever they end up deciding is what we will abide by.  I'm done with the back and forth, my only hope in this whole discussion is if you are going to be against something, you are against if for the right reasons, in other words against the true capabilities and not some made up fantasy capabilities.

it is no fantasy what is coming. pull the touch screen out of your pocket and open up the blue tooth option. that's going to only get better with farther ranges. and so will any electronic device that profit can be made off of to a user group. you know a user group that spends more money on what they love than us hunters? there are but were right up there. the fantasy is thinking this wont happen. its a nice one, and I wish I could share it but reality is its coming. that's why departments like Montana have already nixed it and why Idaho is looking at it.

[Bob33]

I'll defer to my signature line, which is the specific reason all user groups keep losing opportunity. Everybody is ready to take something away they perceive to be harmful but fail to realize that the next time they them self will be on the receiving end of losing opportunity.

"Americans are systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights. Support all user groups & quit losing opportunity!"

That is one reason we lost hound hunting and baiting in WA, too many other hunters saw an opportunity to limit the competition or had some preconceived idea that hounds or bait is unfair or not fair chase. Every hunter should stand up for other hunter's methods unless it's proven to be detrimental to wildlife and hunting! 

Dale, the loss of hounds and bait for bear hunting was due to voting by the general public on an initiative (655). Why do you conclude that was the result of hunters wanting to restrict opportunity?

An argument can be made the other direction as well. If hunters had put some minimal restrictions on the use of bait or hounds, would the general public have found it so offensive that they banned it completely?

You asked so I'm going to open the worms!

I had plenty of other hunters tell me they were voting against hounds and even bait, many were bow hunters opposed to dog hunting because it was competition in the woods when they were bow hunting deer and elk! I don't feel this way, but I know some hound hunters who are waiting for the chance to vote against bow hunting. This is a big reason we all lose! We all should support each other, unless there is proven impacts on wildlife you will almost never see me advocating to take anything away from anyone, that road goes both ways, too bad more people don't realize that!

Some people are so sure they are right they don't care what they take away from others, but listen to them complain when their sport gets targeted!

I don't own a cell cam but I will defend them until someone proves they are a detriment to hunting. If we made laws the way some people think we wouldn't even be driving cars, we should have never built them because someone might get in an accident. That is the kind of thinking going on in this topic!

Thanks for the perspective.

Since approximately only 3-4% of Washington's voting population hunts, the bait and hound initiative would have passed even if all hunters were opposed to it.

I do think it's important for hunters to consider the image that certain practices may have with the non-hunting public.

[bearpaw]

I'll defer to my signature line, which is the specific reason all user groups keep losing opportunity. Everybody is ready to take something away they perceive to be harmful but fail to realize that the next time they them self will be on the receiving end of losing opportunity.

"Americans are systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights. Support all user groups & quit losing opportunity!"

That is one reason we lost hound hunting and baiting in WA, too many other hunters saw an opportunity to limit the competition or had some preconceived idea that hounds or bait is unfair or not fair chase. Every hunter should stand up for other hunter's methods unless it's proven to be detrimental to wildlife and hunting! 

Dale, the loss of hounds and bait for bear hunting was due to voting by the general public on an initiative (655). Why do you conclude that was the result of hunters wanting to restrict opportunity?

An argument can be made the other direction as well. If hunters had put some minimal restrictions on the use of bait or hounds, would the general public have found it so offensive that they banned it completely?

You asked so I'm going to open the worms!

I had plenty of other hunters tell me they were voting against hounds and even bait, many were bow hunters opposed to dog hunting because it was competition in the woods when they were bow hunting deer and elk! I don't feel this way, but I know some hound hunters who are waiting for the chance to vote against bow hunting. This is a big reason we all lose! We all should support each other, unless there is proven impacts on wildlife you will almost never see me advocating to take anything away from anyone, that road goes both ways, too bad more people don't realize that!

Some people are so sure they are right they don't care what they take away from others, but listen to them complain when their sport gets targeted!

I don't own a cell cam but I will defend them until someone proves they are a detriment to hunting. If we made laws the way some people think we wouldn't even be driving cars, we should have never built them because someone might get in an accident. That is the kind of thinking going on in this topic!

Thanks for the perspective.

Since approximately only 3-4% of Washington's voting population hunts, the bait and hound initiative would have passed even if all hunters were opposed to it.

I do think it's important for hunters to consider the image that certain practices may have with the non-hunting public.

In Montana where 30ish percent of the population hunts it's easy to see how hunters can impact an election. Even in Washington when you have a lesser number of hunters opposing a hunting method it's easy to understand how additional voters could be convinced to vote against an issue that other hunters say should be outlawed.

I will always stand up for all outdoor users unless a method is determined to be detrimental to wildlife!

I can appreciate the image argument, that makes a great deal of sense, however in this case the opposition isn't the general public, the opposition sadly is other hunters! 

[bearpaw]

At what point do we outlaw fish finders, using electronics to put the bait in the face of the fish! Rangefinders that tell us how far the animal is so we know exactly how to compensate? Rifles that used to shoot accurate to 300 yards and now up to a mile! This list goes on but I think the point has been made many times already, all hunters are already utilizing equipment that makes them far more efficient than a camera that sends pictures to a cell phone. It's not that I am opposed to any of those items, I'm merely using them as an example of the hypocrisy of this topic.