Banning trail cameras in Arizona

[justyhntr]

The thing about cell cameras is they are not that great. The monthly cost to benefit just isn't worth it, at least that is my experience. When you get a good rain storm and you get a hundred triggers on rain the cost adds up on a cell. I will admit that right now I'm running them to give me an advantage, we hunt a spot in Thurston county that has had a cougar preying on livestock, I guess claw marks on the nose and the throat ripped out of a cow was not enough proof for the WDFW.  I'm using the cameras to get intel when he shows up so when I go call I know that he has at least been in the area and that I'm not totally cold calling. This is our second year, he's shown up 3 times and I still haven't called him in, I guess it's not that much of an advantage. I'm not in love with cells but at this point I'm not willing to give up anything whether I use it or not. 

I also believe Boone and Crocket were coming out with their rules on cells, not sure if they have but it was my understanding that they were going to classify them with planes and drones, 24 hours after photo was sent.   

[OutHouse]

It sounds like this was a good decision for the specific circumstances in AZ. Here? Not so sure. The cell cam discussion is quite interesting. I've thought they might be cool to own/use but don't have any myself. I do have two regular game cameras that I really enjoy using. Typically I don't use/rely on them during hunting season, but it is nice to check them during the season and see what's there to be hunted. However, I could be convinced the other way based on this discussion.

One year I had an ankle surgery and so I sat in a blind through out archery and into muzzy on a multi tag. During muzzy, I put a camera on the trail my blind was near. It was pretty cool because the bucks would often times show up when I wasn't there. I learned during the first couple of days that they were mostly showing up at dusk and between 11 and 1 (right when I would take lunch). So I started doing an early morning sit, then leave for a few hours and come back for a midday sit, then leave and come back for the dusk hunt. On the fifth day got my buck close to dark. I think using a cellular cam in that situation where I was so close might be unethical.

[Bob33]

I also believe Boone and Crocket were coming out with their rules on cells, not sure if they have but it was my understanding that they were going to classify them with planes and drones, 24 hours after photo was sent.   

https://www.boone-crockett.org/bc-position-statement-big-game-records-eligibility

The Club has decided that explaining the rationale behind each of the rules in its hunter entry affidavit will lead to a better understanding of why it excludes entry in its records books of any big game harvested through the use of the following methods, techniques, technology, or under the following conditions:   

I. Spotting or herding game from the air, followed by landing in its vicinity for the purpose of pursuit and shooting;

With the popularity of personal aircraft in the 1960s increasing and being used in hunting to access remote areas in North America, it became apparent that some hunters were using aircraft not only to reach their hunting destination, but locate their game from the air, and in the vicinity, and pursue for a shot. In some cases, hunters were using aircraft to herd game into a more accessible situation. The Club determined that this was an unfair advantage to both the game and other hunters. At the same time the Club was instituting this policy, some states and provinces began outlawing the practice and instituting a 24-hour fly rule, which made it illegal to fly and hunt within the same 24-hour period.

II. Herding or chasing with the aid of any motorized equipment;

Using motorized vehicles to access hunting areas is a common and legal practice. Taking this one step further by herding or chasing game from a vehicle and then stopping to take a shot is deemed an unfair advantage and unsportsmanlike.

III. Use of electronic communication devices (2-way radios, cell phones, etc.) to guide hunters to game, artificial lighting, electronic light intensifying devices (night vision optics), sights with built-in electronic range-finding capabilities (including smart scopes), drones/unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), thermal imaging equipment, electronic game calls or cameras/timers/motion tracking devices that transmit images and other information to the hunter;

Technological advancement in hunting equipment is a natural progression of our desire to be successful and affective in ethically harvesting game. At some point, these technologies can displace a hunter’s skills to the point of taking unfair advantage of the game. Below are some examples (which are not intended to be an exhaustive list):

The Club believes that having another person on the other end of a two-way radio or cell phone to help locate or guide a hunter to game is not fair chase.

Big game animals cannot be legally hunted at night in any state or province. Using any technology or device that allows hunters to see in the dark in order to harvest an animal is both illegal and unsportsmanlike.

Knowing the range to a target is a critical piece of information for the ethical harvest of big game animals. Rangefinders are a valuable tool, as are riflescopes. However, combining the two into one device, commonly called smart scopes, disqualifies a trophy from being accepted.

Using drones to take pictures or video, or transmitting this information live whether scouting or during a hunt takes unfair advantage over a game animal and other hunters.

It can be argued that thermal imaging equipment is helpful in recovering wounded or lost game. The Club has determined using thermal imaging equipment to initially locate game for hunting, however, is not fair chase.

Trail cameras can be a helpful tool in game management and selective hunting. The use of devices that transmit captured or live images or video from the field back to the hunter crosses the line of fair chase.

Almost all cougars are hunted using dogs because of the considerable difficulty in locating them without dogs. The practice is legal in many states. The Club finds that using electronic collars to ensure far-ranging dogs do not become lost is understandable and acceptable, but using electronic collars to more easily locate and access a treed cougar in order to take a shot is not an appropriate use of that technology.

[Machias]

These threads always crack me up.  People who have no clue and have never used a cellular camera think they somehow make it a sure thing or unethical.  I must be doing something wrong.  I run three of them and have never harvested an animal because of my cameras.  I never understand this mentality that guys get, someone must be getting over on me, so ban whatever it is I don't like.  Cracks me up.

[jrebel]

These threads always crack me up.  People who have no clue and have never used a cellular camera think they somehow make it a sure thing or unethical.  I must be doing something wrong.  I run three of them and have never harvested an animal because of my cameras.  I never understand this mentality that guys get, someone must be getting over on me, so ban whatever it is I don't like.  Cracks me up.

I 100% agree and think that most people that use "any" trail camera does so in an ethical way.  I can see how cellular cameras "could" be used for less than ethical purposes, but I don't know for sure as I have never used one.  I only have one area that that I hang cams that has cell service so I have chose to stick with the standard SD card version. 

I think some guys just assume everyone that uses technology, does so with the purpose of cheating the system.  That's like saying guys who can afford KUIU or Sitka gear clearly have an unfair advantage.   

[vandeman17]

These threads always crack me up.  People who have no clue and have never used a cellular camera think they somehow make it a sure thing or unethical.  I must be doing something wrong.  I run three of them and have never harvested an animal because of my cameras.  I never understand this mentality that guys get, someone must be getting over on me, so ban whatever it is I don't like.  Cracks me up.

Just because you haven't harvested an animal because of cameras doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. You quickly assume that as soon as someone questions a new technology and wants an open dialogue that they want it banned and "are against you". I understand why we get defensive about things these days but a civil discussion where thoughts and ideas are presented seems to me to be anything but divisive. 

[Machias]

These threads always crack me up.  People who have no clue and have never used a cellular camera think they somehow make it a sure thing or unethical.  I must be doing something wrong.  I run three of them and have never harvested an animal because of my cameras.  I never understand this mentality that guys get, someone must be getting over on me, so ban whatever it is I don't like.  Cracks me up.

Just because you haven't harvested an animal because of cameras doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. You quickly assume that as soon as someone questions a new technology and wants an open dialogue that they want it banned and "are against you". I understand why we get defensive about things these days but a civil discussion where thoughts and ideas are presented seems to me to be anything but divisive. 

How is my post not "civil".

[vandeman17]

These threads always crack me up.  People who have no clue and have never used a cellular camera think they somehow make it a sure thing or unethical.  I must be doing something wrong.  I run three of them and have never harvested an animal because of my cameras.  I never understand this mentality that guys get, someone must be getting over on me, so ban whatever it is I don't like.  Cracks me up.

Just because you haven't harvested an animal because of cameras doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. You quickly assume that as soon as someone questions a new technology and wants an open dialogue that they want it banned and "are against you". I understand why we get defensive about things these days but a civil discussion where thoughts and ideas are presented seems to me to be anything but divisive. 

How is my post not "civil".

I didn't say it wasn't civil. What I was saying is that there are lots of people who immediately stonewall an opposing viewpoint instead of engaging in discussion. I have always respected you and your input on the forum and that is why I personally would enjoy hearing the reason why you support them. I am on the fence with cell cameras and could be swayed either way.

[Machias]

My viewpoint is they do not have the impact a lot of folks seem to think they give you.  Case in point I have one set up on my 20 acres here in Idaho.  My camera sends me photos 12 times a day, every 2 hours.  My whitetails very rarely show up at the same time day in and day out.  Now I could get a photo, say at 1000 of a deer on the camera at 0959.  I would still never get close enough to that deer, even though it is 300 yards from my cabin, without it spooking.  I have another one 600 yards from my cabin.  By the time I got there that deer is long gone.  My bear baits in the spring have cellular cameras on them.  There's no way for me to go there once a bear shows up...I might as well be sitting there before he shows up as I would have a MUCH higher chance of harvesting him, if I was already in the stand.  I will tell you what my cellular camera does, it saves me a BUNCH of time and gas.  Particularly with my bear baits.  Where I have cell coverage, I can tell when my bait is finally hit, how often they are feeding and how soon I need to go in and refill the bait.  On my baits that are not in cell coverage, I have to go in and check them every few days to see if they have been hit.  Drive 75 miles, hike in and nope, bait has not been touched.  Drive back in three days, nope bait has not been touched.  Come back in three days bait has been slammed and is cleaned out.  Rebait, come back in three days, bait has been barely touched.  So if I would have been able to use a cellular camera, I would have saved at least 9 hours and probably a tank or two of gas.  It does not make it anymore likely that I will harvest a bear with or without my cellular camera or with a trail camera at all.  The only way that I could see a cellular trail camera really helping you harvest a deer is if you had multiple baits out in areas that you could see from a considerable distance.  Sit in your car or cabin and once you see a deer on the bait, go straight there and shoot from a long range.  Otherwise all this hand wringing and calling it unethical is pure fantasy.  When a deer walks past a trail camera on a trail, even if you were close by, it's still more than likely long gone by the time you get into the area.