Idaho F&G Proposal-Outlaw Trail Cameras

[NOCK NOCK]

 Says the guy  from Idaho on the Washington state forum. 

[NOCK NOCK]

 Not trying to start anything just thought it was very ironic

[lord grizzly]

This ones more fun is all. You guys are always crying about something. Over here we just go hunting and never post pictures

[Stein]

Perhaps you should actually use one to realistically get a sense of what advantage a cellular cam gives someone .  Sitting on a ridge in a well traveled game area and glassing a mile or two away with high powered spotting scopes also allows one to be in two palces as well.

The drone comparison is also not realistic.  One has to be reasonably close when using a drone.  Not so with cell cams.  I totally agree with Bearpaw and others that we hunbters tend to want to regulate away other's opportunity based on gut feelings and emotion.  Hey, I personally think long range shooting of game animals at 500-1000 yards is far worst than cams, cellular or otherwise, as far as taking animals that would otherwise live to see another day.  I also think it promotes a somewhat similar thought process to say sky busting in some hunters.  JMO

If I am sitting on a ridge, I am in one place, kind of hard to argue that.  If I have a dozen cell cameras, I can be on a ridge as well as looking at multiple other spots 1, 10 or 100 miles away at the same time, all by myself.  That is a new advantage that we didn't have before and a conversation about whether that is something we want to introduce into the hunting experience is completely legit. 

If I have 10 guys helping me, they all have to hump in and look with their own eyes.  In my mind, that is different.

I am not regulating away opportunity, I am saying as a community we have to decide on how to handle new technology or we will quickly find ourselves being able to hunt from the house.  The alternative will be essentially a free for all with no limits, not the kind of experience I think 99% of us want  Just think about drone technology, sensors, range, military technology and where this could go in a generation.

Some say ban it all, some say ban nothing and I happen to disagree with both.

[lord grizzly]

This topic is about an Idaho proposal also

[lord grizzly]

Perhaps you should actually use one to realistically get a sense of what advantage a cellular cam gives someone .  Sitting on a ridge in a well traveled game area and glassing a mile or two away with high powered spotting scopes also allows one to be in two palces as well.

The drone comparison is also not realistic.  One has to be reasonably close when using a drone.  Not so with cell cams.  I totally agree with Bearpaw and others that we hunbters tend to want to regulate away other's opportunity based on gut feelings and emotion.  Hey, I personally think long range shooting of game animals at 500-1000 yards is far worst than cams, cellular or otherwise, as far as taking animals that would otherwise live to see another day.  I also think it promotes a somewhat similar thought process to say sky busting in some hunters.  JMO

If I am sitting on a ridge, I am in one place, kind of hard to argue that.  If I have a dozen cell cameras, I can be on a ridge as well as looking at multiple other spots 1, 10 or 100 miles away at the same time, all by myself.  That is a new advantage that we didn't have before and a conversation about whether that is something we want to introduce into the hunting experience is completely legit. 

If I have 10 guys helping me, they all have to hump in and look with their own eyes.  In my mind, that is different.

I am not regulating away opportunity, I am saying as a community we have to decide on how to handle new technology or we will quickly find ourselves being able to hunt from the house.  The alternative will be essentially a free for all with no limits, not the kind of experience I think 99% of us want  Just think about drone technology, sensors, range, military technology and where this could go in a generation.

Some say ban it all, some say ban nothing and I happen to disagree with both.

Again stien you are dangerously close to bordering on a reasonable view point here. Be careful!!

[Taco280AI]

Perhaps you should actually use one to realistically get a sense of what advantage a cellular cam gives someone .  Sitting on a ridge in a well traveled game area and glassing a mile or two away with high powered spotting scopes also allows one to be in two palces as well.

The drone comparison is also not realistic.  One has to be reasonably close when using a drone.  Not so with cell cams.  I totally agree with Bearpaw and others that we hunbters tend to want to regulate away other's opportunity based on gut feelings and emotion.  Hey, I personally think long range shooting of game animals at 500-1000 yards is far worst than cams, cellular or otherwise, as far as taking animals that would otherwise live to see another day.  I also think it promotes a somewhat similar thought process to say sky busting in some hunters.  JMO

If I am sitting on a ridge, I am in one place, kind of hard to argue that.  If I have a dozen cell cameras, I can be on a ridge as well as looking at multiple other spots 1, 10 or 100 miles away at the same time, all by myself.  That is a new advantage that we didn't have before and a conversation about whether that is something we want to introduce into the hunting experience is completely legit. 

If I have 10 guys helping me, they all have to hump in and look with their own eyes.  In my mind, that is different.

I am not regulating away opportunity, I am saying as a community we have to decide on how to handle new technology or we will quickly find ourselves being able to hunt from the house.  The alternative will be essentially a free for all with no limits, not the kind of experience I think 99% of us want  Just think about drone technology, sensors, range, military technology and where this could go in a generation.

Some say ban it all, some say ban nothing and I happen to disagree with both.

Again stien you are dangerously close to bordering on a reasonable view point here. Be careful!!

 

This is the Interwebz, logic and reason has no place here,  Sir

[G-S]

It just sucks most of idaho has no cell service for the wireless camera's to send pictures thru 

[lord grizzly]

It just sucks most of idaho has no cell service for the wireless camera's to send pictures thru 

Satellites hit everywhere and i guarantee someone right now is working on a way to make that tech better and more affordable

[JimmyHoffa]

It just sucks most of idaho has no cell service for the wireless camera's to send pictures thru 

Satellites hit everywhere and i guarantee someone right now is working on a way to make that tech better and more affordable

SpaceX is.  They want to take the cell business to sat coverage at lower than cell costs.

[Wacenturion]

Perhaps you should actually use one to realistically get a sense of what advantage a cellular cam gives someone .  Sitting on a ridge in a well traveled game area and glassing a mile or two away with high powered spotting scopes also allows one to be in two palces as well.

The drone comparison is also not realistic.  One has to be reasonably close when using a drone.  Not so with cell cams.  I totally agree with Bearpaw and others that we hunbters tend to want to regulate away other's opportunity based on gut feelings and emotion.  Hey, I personally think long range shooting of game animals at 500-1000 yards is far worst than cams, cellular or otherwise, as far as taking animals that would otherwise live to see another day.  I also think it promotes a somewhat similar thought process to say sky busting in some hunters.  JMO

If I am sitting on a ridge, I am in one place, kind of hard to argue that.  If I have a dozen cell cameras, I can be on a ridge as well as looking at multiple other spots 1, 10 or 100 miles away at the same time, all by myself.  That is a new advantage that we didn't have before and a conversation about whether that is something we want to introduce into the hunting experience is completely legit. 

If I have 10 guys helping me, they all have to hump in and look with their own eyes.  In my mind, that is different.

I am not regulating away opportunity, I am saying as a community we have to decide on how to handle new technology or we will quickly find ourselves being able to hunt from the house.  The alternative will be essentially a free for all with no limits, not the kind of experience I think 99% of us want  Just think about drone technology, sensors, range, military technology and where this could go in a generation.

Some say ban it all, some say ban nothing and I happen to disagree with both.

A dozen cellular trail cams?  Let's see....mimimum of $400-$500 to the high end of $600-$800 per camera, not including a minimum of $96 a month service fees.  So that's just a nominal investment for the average sportsman of only $4896 to $7296 on the low end.  Couple that with putting them out on public land where you are not going to be able to sleep at night worrying about theft.   Again, not a realistic argument.

If, and I'm not sure you are, saying that 10 guys babysitting a potential 400 class bull 24/7 waiting for the shooter is ethical and cell cams are not, then I respectfully disagree.

[Wacenturion]

If I had to vote, I would let the existing use go on and restrict the use of cameras that transmit to outside the hunting season.  That is, you can use them to scout, but not to hunt.  My reasoning is that by transmitting pictures, it essentially allows a hunter to be at two or more places at once.  It is similar to the drone argument, it allows the hunter to get to get a view of someplace without actually having to get there.  This is very different in my mind from humping up to a high point and glassing because you have done the work to get that view and are simply using glass which has a long historical precedence.

Perhaps you should actually use one to realistically get a sense of what advantage a cellular cam gives someone .  Sitting on a ridge in a well traveled game area and glassing a mile or two away with high powered spotting scopes also allows one to be in two palces as well.

The drone comparison is also not realistic.  One has to be reasonably close when using a drone.  Not so with cell cams.  I totally agree with Bearpaw and others that we hunbters tend to want to regulate away other's opportunity based on gut feelings and emotion.  Hey, I personally think long range shooting of game animals at 500-1000 yards is far worst than cams, cellular or otherwise, as far as taking animals that would otherwise live to see another day.  I also think it promotes a somewhat similar thought process to say sky busting in some hunters.  JMO

Again it baffles me that you don't understand technology only advances, never the other way around. Today's cams maybe not the hugest issue. Next years...we bitch and bitch about public agencies being behind and having to catch up with problems in a reactive sense then when there proactive about legitimate oncerns in advancing technology you scream about what nazis they are.

Don't forget to put what state you're in when leaving comments on idahos website on this issue. Hopefully out of staters are not weighed as heavy in decision making

I understand technology and the possible advancements over time.  However it's like saying the sky is falling to make out like cell cams actually are responsible for a specific animal dying due to a picture, unlike high powered long range rifles and dial in sniper scopes that harvest animals that 20 years ago would have lived another day.  Baffles me you don't see the evolution on the way that you might harvest animals.  I'm assuming that the underlying tone to this thread and the proposal is "take", as in harvest.

[JohnD]

I'm not a very experienced hunter at all and 3 years ago I bought my first trail camera and a pass to a tree farm 90 minutes away from home. I have since bought a few more cameras and go out at least every few weeks to move them or just check on them but still have not had a successful hunt. I have thousands of pictures and videos of so many awesome animals but still have not figured out how to shoot one with my bow during hunting season.
Trail cameras have kept me interested and excited. I've learned a lot about where to be, what time of day and what type of areas to set up in for bear compared to deer. Not all of us have grown up with someone to teach us, and trail cameras have been a great tool for me. I feel like I'm getting closer to success and I love being in the woods any time. I would hate to see that tool taken away from anyone and I certainly don't think they are unethical in any way.
BTW, I'm in my mid 50's and just starting to get comfortable being alone in the woods overnight, not getting lost, figuring out what to pack, being prepared for weather and so much more. Without trail cameras, I don't know if I would have kept buying the pass because I sure never saw animals that first year or so. 

[lord grizzly]

If I had to vote, I would let the existing use go on and restrict the use of cameras that transmit to outside the hunting season.  That is, you can use them to scout, but not to hunt.  My reasoning is that by transmitting pictures, it essentially allows a hunter to be at two or more places at once.  It is similar to the drone argument, it allows the hunter to get to get a view of someplace without actually having to get there.  This is very different in my mind from humping up to a high point and glassing because you have done the work to get that view and are simply using glass which has a long historical precedence.

Perhaps you should actually use one to realistically get a sense of what advantage a cellular cam gives someone .  Sitting on a ridge in a well traveled game area and glassing a mile or two away with high powered spotting scopes also allows one to be in two palces as well.

The drone comparison is also not realistic.  One has to be reasonably close when using a drone.  Not so with cell cams.  I totally agree with Bearpaw and others that we hunbters tend to want to regulate away other's opportunity based on gut feelings and emotion.  Hey, I personally think long range shooting of game animals at 500-1000 yards is far worst than cams, cellular or otherwise, as far as taking animals that would otherwise live to see another day.  I also think it promotes a somewhat similar thought process to say sky busting in some hunters.  JMO

Again it baffles me that you don't understand technology only advances, never the other way around. Today's cams maybe not the hugest issue. Next years...we bitch and bitch about public agencies being behind and having to catch up with problems in a reactive sense then when there proactive about legitimate oncerns in advancing technology you scream about what nazis they are.

Don't forget to put what state you're in when leaving comments on idahos website on this issue. Hopefully out of staters are not weighed as heavy in decision making

I understand technology and the possible advancements over time.  However it's like saying the sky is falling to make out like cell cams actually are responsible for a specific animal dying due to a picture, unlike high powered long range rifles and dial in sniper scopes that harvest animals that 20 years ago would have lived another day.  Baffles me you don't see the evolution on the way that you might harvest animals.  I'm assuming that the underlying tone to this thread and the proposal is "take", as in harvest.

Never said anything about a specific animal, never said anything about harvest statistics or me not wanting any one to not be successful. I hope all all you guys fill your tags every year. I do and if you do or don't it doesn't affect my success in the least. I know it's real easy to just paint my view point as jealousy or elitism. It's much harde to have the discussion about what fair chase is, what it should be and what should be done to maintain it  in an ever advancing technology world. Especially when you e investment in that tech is so personal. Like I said, I use trail cams and am willing to give them up with what I see coming for the good of the sport I love. What are you willing  to sacrifice? Nothing?

[Wacenturion]

I'm willing to sacrifice anything if there is a scientific justification for it.

You said......"It's much harde to have the discussion about what fair chase is, what it should be and what should be done to maintain it  in an ever advancing technology world."

That's exactly what I'm discussing.  Obviously you think cellular cams are not fair chase, so I'll give you that.  Don't agree, but that's your opinion.  However,  I personally think long range 600-1000 yard rifles are not fair chase, and would not ever even think about going there myself.  To me it's not about harvest and making that my bar for success, but rather the experience.  Kind of like shooting a 150 plus class buck in an area open to the public just off a gravel road standing there tending a doe....not interested.