Post by: 2MANY on July 30, 2013, 07:07:58 AM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on July 30, 2013, 07:09:38 AM
Post by: BIGINNER on July 30, 2013, 07:11:01 AM
Post by: seth30 on July 30, 2013, 07:12:19 AM
Post by: Jellymon on July 30, 2013, 07:12:27 AM
simple answer. NO.... why would that even be considered?
Because we live in Washington, they like to create useless laws that make no sense.
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 30, 2013, 07:14:31 AM
Post by: CedarPants on July 30, 2013, 07:15:07 AM
Post by: turkeyfeather on July 30, 2013, 07:17:10 AM
I'm interested as to the OP's impetus for posing this question.Trolling to :stirthepot:
Post by: jackelope on July 30, 2013, 07:21:07 AM
I'm interested as to the OP's impetus for posing this question.Trolling to :stirthepot:
He's not a troll. I think it's a semi-legit question, albeit far fetched IMO. Lord knows there's been enough drama re: bears and trail cameras. They're illegal in Montana during hunting season(something or other). I can't quote the exact law but something along those lines.
Post by: MIKEXRAY on July 30, 2013, 07:21:57 AM
Post by: CedarPants on July 30, 2013, 07:23:39 AM
I'm interested as to the OP's impetus for posing this question.Trolling to :stirthepot:
He's not a troll. I think it's a semi-legit question, albeit far fetched IMO.
Agreed
Post by: turkeyfeather on July 30, 2013, 07:26:24 AM
Ok, I stand corrected. I had no idea Montana had a law like that.I'm interested as to the OP's impetus for posing this question.Trolling to :stirthepot:
He's not a troll. I think it's a semi-legit question, albeit far fetched IMO. Lord knows there's been enough drama re: bears and trail cameras. They're illegal in Montana during hunting season(something or other). I can't quote the exact law but something along those lines.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on July 30, 2013, 07:27:39 AM
Post by: boneaddict on July 30, 2013, 07:36:57 AM
-one, taking my photo without permission doesn't really suit me. (invasion of privacy)
-Leaving private property on public land sometime makes me wonder
-the damage caused by bait sites sometimes has irked me. Irresponsible people dumping salt etc out in the woods can cause serious damage for the years to follow.
-change of game patterns done by baiting and sometimes the habituation of critters to man...
- The unfair edge it gives hunters towards animals sometimes poses ethical/moral/whatever the word is, questions in my head. We are going to technology ourselves out of our game.
-mass use by certain organizations like USO for scouting abilities to make money off of harvest....placing thousands of cameras out
Those are some thoughts that have crossed my mind.
Post by: jrebel on July 30, 2013, 07:43:04 AM
With that being said.....my answer to the OP's post is "NO".
Johnny
Post by: coachcw on July 30, 2013, 07:45:50 AM
Post by: rtspring on July 30, 2013, 07:46:23 AM
Post by: coachcw on July 30, 2013, 07:50:12 AM
I have cameras and it has changed the way I hunt. Before, I would shoot any legal animal cause I was primarily a meat hunter. Now I will pass on smaller bucks in search for the bigger bucks I have on camera. If I cannot connect on a mature deer I will harvest a doe (archery) instead of a small buck. I have noticed more quality bucks in my areas in just a few short years.antler resrictions and less preasure equals bigger bucks or maybe all the minerals your putting down , really if you only take one buck whats the difference it's a numbers game . my last few years I only have shot deers with age on them I'm just not interested in shooting a young buck . But from a management stand point we need to harvest spikers to help the gene pool grow stronger and on the eastside that's not happening . I saw let youth shoot spikes and get the hunting bug. Sorry for getting off track and topic .
With that being said.....my answer to the OP's post is "NO".
Johnny
Post by: coachcw on July 30, 2013, 07:51:49 AM
Post by: Greenhorn on July 30, 2013, 07:58:58 AM
Post by: turkeyfeather on July 30, 2013, 07:59:52 AM
Post by: rtspring on July 30, 2013, 08:07:47 AM
RT if your using them tom help me I'm ok with that ! HA HA.
I figured you would say that!!
Post by: coachcw on July 30, 2013, 08:11:39 AM
:devil: just stiring the pot LOL. Dam I just need to get out into the woods this elk fever is killing me .RT if your using them tom help me I'm ok with that ! HA HA.
I figured you would say that!!
Post by: Curly on July 30, 2013, 08:39:40 AM
The bad part about all these technology advancements is the increase in success rates. Better success leads to shortened hunting seasons. Trail cameras do lead to better success and easier scouting for a hunter. So, I do think it is a valid question to ask if they should be banned. I think it would be real battle to get them banned in this state. If they were going to ban them, the time to do it would have been 10 years ago, before they really got popular.
So, that said, I say trail cameras should not be banned unless we want to start banning internet forums, gps use, cell phones, etc. I'm sure no one wants to ban those things. :dunno:
Post by: BIGINNER on July 30, 2013, 08:43:10 AM
Post by: coachcw on July 30, 2013, 08:45:02 AM
Technology is both a good thing and a bad thing. Trail cameras are just another tool that helps hunters be successful. Just like GPS's, quality optics, cell phones, satellite phones, rifle scopes with ballistic reticles or turrets, etc., etc. (Oh, and the internet. Forums like this help people gain knowledge that we had a hard time gathering 20 years ago.)Good point !
The bad part about all these technology advancements is the increase in success rates. Better success leads to shortened hunting seasons. Trail cameras do lead to better success and easier scouting for a hunter. So, I do think it is a valid question to ask if they should be banned. I think it would be real battle to get them banned in this state. If they were going to ban them, the time to do it would have been 10 years ago, before they really got popular.
So, that said, I say trail cameras should not be banned unless we want to start banning internet forums, gps use, cell phones, etc. I'm sure no one wants to ban those things. :dunno:
Post by: grundy53 on July 30, 2013, 08:46:02 AM
sent from my typewriter
Post by: grundy53 on July 30, 2013, 08:47:20 AM
without trail cameras the state would probably only have 1 confirmed wolf pack.... :bash:
I think this would be the motivation if the state ever went this route...
sent from my typewriter
Post by: CedarPants on July 30, 2013, 08:49:24 AM
-Leaving private property on public land sometime makes me wonder
-the damage caused by bait sites sometimes has irked me. Irresponsible people dumping salt etc out in the woods can cause serious damage for the years to follow.
-change of game patterns done by baiting and sometimes the habituation of critters to man...
- The unfair edge it gives hunters towards animals sometimes poses ethical/moral/whatever the word is, questions in my head.
We talking about arguments against trail cams, or bear baiting :dunno: :chuckle:
Not knocking you at all, because I think these are all important topics for the hunting community to discuss. I guess I'm more worried about us ethical/moral/whatevering ourselves out of the game than anything. Hard to draw a line in the sand for everyone to agree on :twocents:
Post by: Fl0und3rz on July 30, 2013, 09:06:49 AM
That said, I would be in favor of limiting usage of cameras that can transmit pictures remotely during the hunting season, so as to avoid some of the same ethical problems associated with high fence hunting, aircraft spotting, and radio telemetry usage.
Quote
3. Using aircraft: It is illegal to:2013 Regs, p. 78.
• Use an aircraft to spot, locate, or report the location of wildlife for the purpose of hunting.
• Hunt big game on the same day you were airborne for any purpose, except for a regularly scheduled commercial flight.
14. Radio-telemetry equipment: It is illegal to use radio-telemetry equipment to locate and hunt wildlife with transmitters attached to them.
At some point, technology usage makes the sport no longer hunting; it is just shooting. Each sportsman has their own idea of where that line is drawn. For me, wireless camera usage such as previously described (locating game while in the field during a hunting season, without getting your boots wet, that is) crosses that line.
What's next in the technological evolution of "hunting," robot controlled rifle and video camera that let's you "hunt" from the of your 30' WiFi equipped RV?
Post by: bobcat on July 30, 2013, 09:35:57 AM
I would agree with a law against the ones that transmit photos as they are taken. That's taking the technology just a little too far, in my opinion.
Outside of hunting season though, no problem. Think of the fuel that would be saved by reducing trips to check cameras. Kind of hard to argue with the environmental friendliness if it. :tup:
Post by: Nice Racks on July 30, 2013, 09:51:51 AM
Post by: CP on July 30, 2013, 09:57:12 AM
Post by: boneaddict on July 30, 2013, 11:18:15 AM
as for the argument about security cameras etc. I have the expectations that I am being filmed at that time. When I am alone in the woods on some mountain, getting away, I don't necessarily want to have the expectations that I am being filmed as I am walking down the trail, taking a leak behind that tree etc.
Typical of any user group, there are morons that will ruin it for everyone. Throwing down a 50 pound bag of salt can be very devastating.
Post by: sticky on July 30, 2013, 11:22:22 AM
That being said, the state doesn't care about issues of equity. Their only action would be to put an extra tax on trail cameras so those that find them affordable can pay more.
Post by: boneaddict on July 30, 2013, 11:28:35 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on July 30, 2013, 11:33:10 AM
Post by: wildmanoutdoors on July 30, 2013, 11:55:55 AM
No, they shouldn't be outlawed, I have 10 myself. Trail cams are my new hobby. I can enjoy them year 'round, hunting is only 3 to 4 months at best.
I would agree with a law against the ones that transmit photos as they are taken. That's taking the technology just a little too far, in my opinion.
Outside of hunting season though, no problem. Think of the fuel that would be saved by reducing trips to check cameras. Kind of hard to argue with the environmental friendliness if it. :tup:
:yeah:
Its not a whole lot different than flying in a plane to scout and shoot the same day. :dunno:
Post by: boneaddict on July 30, 2013, 12:22:26 PM
Post by: bobcat on July 30, 2013, 12:27:12 PM
Post by: 300rum on July 30, 2013, 12:55:58 PM
I don't want to know what goes on in the woods at night, I kind of think of that as the animals time. That's just a personal thing though.
I don't like having to look around at every tree, just to take a leak. I don't like the idea of my girls having to either.
I don't like them being used by the guides to "peddle" their hunt (happening more and more now). I think field photos of an animal on the ground with a happy client/hunter are much better.
I don't really want my face to be plastered on the "people on trail cams" thread when I am hunting. I don't want my picture taken at all, really.
I don't like the mess that they leave.
I have mixed feeling on the "feeding" that goes on.
If it is your property, I am fine with it. Public property, I don't like it at all, similar to building a duck blind and then thinking it is "yours" to only be used by you (on public property).
Post by: Gringo31 on July 30, 2013, 01:06:26 PM
Some interesting points. I all for whatever you want on private property. Don't care at all if people do so on public property and are "low impact". But, we have too many laws already.
Just watch, WDFW will soon be selling trail cam permits :yike:
Post by: furbearer365 on July 30, 2013, 03:18:35 PM
Post by: h20hunter on July 30, 2013, 03:22:16 PM
Post by: bowhunterforever on July 30, 2013, 03:27:05 PM
No. They should not. I enjoy running my cam all year. It is a fun hobby and isn't hurting a damn thing.:yeah: Its like opening a christmas present when you check your card
Post by: huntnnw on July 30, 2013, 03:31:09 PM
I agree on the cell phone transmitted cams, that could directly help someone harvest an animal. Imagine placing 3 or 4 of them on wallows .. U could see how easy and direct that helps someone
Post by: biggfish on July 30, 2013, 03:36:46 PM
I've posed the question in my head several times.....I can agree with some of your points here. The only thing I think may pose an ethical problem is the baiting it's not scouting for you at that point its showing you how many you were able to trick into stopping by and possibly actualizing them to come to that spot for a treat. That being said ethics aren't universal if the voice in your head is saying there is something not quite right here doesn't mean another is hearing the say call. I use attractants when I hunt but I don't run cams do to cost right now and don't think I would bait if I did, but that's because I'm looking for natural habits. I do think they should be kept legal the damage caused and unfair advantages that may be created all lie on the conscience of those that put them there. Unless it's illegal to each his own.
-one, taking my photo without permission doesn't really suit me. (invasion of privacy)
-Leaving private property on public land sometime makes me wonder
-the damage caused by bait sites sometimes has irked me. Irresponsible people dumping salt etc out in the woods can cause serious damage for the years to follow.
-change of game patterns done by baiting and sometimes the habituation of critters to man...
- The unfair edge it gives hunters towards animals sometimes poses ethical/moral/whatever the word is, questions in my head. We are going to technology ourselves out of our game.
-mass use by certain organizations like USO for scouting abilities to make money off of harvest....placing thousands of cameras out
Those are some thoughts that have crossed my mind.
Post by: buckfvr on July 30, 2013, 03:45:14 PM
I agree with bone and his experience in NM....that is where it goes too far.
Post by: vandeman17 on July 30, 2013, 03:52:31 PM
One aspect, at least for me, is I think it makes me a better hunter because when I am out finding new places to hang cameras, it makes me try to think more like a deer or elk or whatever then if I was just scouting. I find myself really studying the terrain and my surroundings to try and find that perfect spot to hang a camera. I think it has helped teach my girlfriend some basics about animals' travel habits and tendencies.
As for the bait argument, I am fine with it because I am aiding the overall herd health. When I put out salt, it brings minerals to tons of animals that visit it. Even if I were to harvest one of them that came in to my sight, I think that the benefit to all the others that consumed my bait out weighs the one that I killed.
The one thing I am against are the cameras that send the photos back to your phone or computer. The only way I would ever use those is during non hunting seasons but even then I highly doubt I would use them because half the fun is getting out in the woods. After all, that is the main reason we all hunt and fish is to get away from everything and spend time out in the woods. :twocents:
Post by: huntnnw on July 30, 2013, 05:01:14 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on July 30, 2013, 05:12:56 PM
Post by: buckfvr on July 30, 2013, 05:33:48 PM
Cameras tell me hang a stand, or move on......that simple. I wont hang a camera where I wouldnt/cant hang a stand...............
Post by: vandeman17 on July 31, 2013, 09:24:55 AM
Vandeman your forgetting that most on here think elk and deer will eat so much salt they will die!! Once again people with 0 exp. they will not consume what they don't need or lack from there diet! They are not like people! My big bucks may hit a salt site 5 times a month and spend no more than 5 min there on avg
I agree. In one of my spots now I have a few bucks that come back about once per week and they are only there for a few minutes then they bounce. Elk are a little different but they are much bigger animals and require the minerals from the salt longer but they still take what they need and move on.
Post by: woodman on July 31, 2013, 09:40:08 AM
Post by: 2MANY on July 31, 2013, 10:28:54 AM
Personally I find it funny that I simply wanted to see other peoples opinions on this subject and that irritates some people.
I was just curious how people felt and that's why I asked the question.
Those that have a problem with me wondering or consider me a troll for asking may want to take a trail camera picture of themselves staring into the camera and then ask the guy in the picture.................Is this the kind of person that I aspire to be?
If the answer is yes then perhaps they should set their goals a little higher.
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 31, 2013, 11:38:51 AM
Personally I find it funny that I simply wanted to see other peoples opinions on this subject and that irritates some people.
I was just curious how people felt and that's why I asked the question.
Those that have a problem with me wondering or consider me a troll for asking may want to take a trail camera picture of themselves staring into the camera and then ask the guy in the picture.................Is this the kind of person that I aspire to be?
If the answer is yes then perhaps they should set their goals a little higher.
It is a hot topic. You asked a controversial question and got some controversial answers. I'm sure some people thought you might be proposing it. A lot of folks on here have thousands of dollars tied up in cameras. You also didn't respond for several pages, so it did kind of seem like a troll to me until I checked you other posts on this forum.
Start another thread about whether compound bows should be illegal and watch what happens. :yike:
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on July 31, 2013, 12:00:33 PM
Post by: turkeyfeather on July 31, 2013, 12:14:00 PM
Quote from: 2MANY link=topic=130652.msg1739699#msg1739699
I have lots of trail camera pics of myself, and can honestly say I am exactly the kind of person I aspired to be.
Those that have a problem with me wondering or consider me a troll for asking may want to take a trail camera picture of themselves staring into the camera and then ask the guy in the picture.................Is this the kind of person that I aspire to be?
Post by: PolarBear on July 31, 2013, 12:20:06 PM
I've posed the question in my head several times.....:yeah:
-one, taking my photo without permission doesn't really suit me. (invasion of privacy)
-Leaving private property on public land sometime makes me wonder
-the damage caused by bait sites sometimes has irked me. Irresponsible people dumping salt etc out in the woods can cause serious damage for the years to follow.
-change of game patterns done by baiting and sometimes the habituation of critters to man...
- The unfair edge it gives hunters towards animals sometimes poses ethical/moral/whatever the word is, questions in my head. We are going to technology ourselves out of our game.
-mass use by certain organizations like USO for scouting abilities to make money off of harvest....placing thousands of cameras out
Those are some thoughts that have crossed my mind.
Post by: turkeyfeather on July 31, 2013, 12:23:25 PM
Looks like maybe I was right about the stirring the pot thing. ;) Which is cool and I have no problem with. Alot of times that leads to the best debates and discussions. Carry on.I'm interested as to the OP's impetus for posing this question.Trolling to :stirthepot:
He's not a troll. I think it's a semi-legit question, albeit far fetched IMO.
Agreed
Post by: Bob33 on July 31, 2013, 01:14:37 PM
It is a matter that every hunter should take seriously. If nothing else, in Washington 97 percent of the population does not hunt and many of them vote. They often form opinions about hunting from slanted, distorted, and incomplete snippets of information.
It is not in the best interests of hunting to ban everything that anyone considers unethical. Nor it is in the best interests of hunters to take the position “everyone gets to decide what is ethical for himself, and to heck with what anyone else thinks.” This “don’t impose your morals/ethics on me” attitude will ultimately harm hunting. It already has.
The concept of fair chase is a principal that is the basis for many of our current regulations. It is illegal to use artificial light. It is illegal to hunt waterfowl over bait. It is illegal to hunt upland birds with shotguns capable of holding more than three rounds.
Certain hunting situations are not necessarily designed to be fair chase, such as depredation hunts. However, the vast majority are and should adhere to some common guiding principles.
I personally believe that anything that artificially alters wildlife behavior solely for the sake of improved or increased hunter harvest is on the slippery slope of unethical hunting. Baiting falls into that category. How about baiting bear or cougars? A case could be made that the intent is not simply to increase bear or cougar harvest, but to also reduce deer and elk predation. A good case of conflicting goals, so it can be debated with some pros and cons.
If game cameras are OK, how about remote control drones with video cameras? Why not?
How about live satellite feeds beamed over Google Earth, where you can scout from home on your computer, mark the location, plug it into your GPS, and go shoot the animal? Why not?
Is there no line anywhere?
I welcome debate on these topics and encourage everyone to refrain from snide, demeaning, and derogatory comments.
Post by: turkeyfeather on July 31, 2013, 01:32:33 PM
Post by: 300rum on July 31, 2013, 01:45:00 PM
What it is about are rules, laws. What the government (by our laws who owns the game) tells you is o.k. to do versus what is right to do. To some hunting is unethical and amoral in any form but the law says it is o.k as long as you follow the "rules". To Boone and Crockett, a deer killed swimming across a river is unethical and amoral, to someone who is hungry, it is food.
Morality and unethical sure get thrown around a lot in the hunting world, we have been duped into believing that it exists.
Post by: kirkl on July 31, 2013, 02:31:08 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 31, 2013, 06:09:54 PM
There is no such thing as "ethical" or "moral" hunting, it exists only in your mind and believing what someone else told you to believe. It is all killing when you get down to it. The two words began to be associated with hunting when people went from hunting for food to hunting for enjoyment/sport. It gained further traction when Boone and Crockett and others (hunting magazines) who "felt" something might be wrong so they called it "unethical" and "amoral" and then had laws passed against such activities. Ethical/unethical or moral/amoral, then gets passed down in magazines, hunters ed, and such and is just someone's view of what should or shouldn't take place.
What it is about are rules, laws. What the government (by our laws who owns the game) tells you is o.k. to do versus what is right to do. To some hunting is unethical and amoral in any form but the law says it is o.k as long as you follow the "rules". To Boone and Crockett, a deer killed swimming across a river is unethical and amoral, to someone who is hungry, it is food.
Morality and unethical sure get thrown around a lot in the hunting world, we have been duped into believing that it exists.
I must respectfully disagree. It's about more than laws. It's also about doing the right thing. It's perfectly legal to see an elk at 200 yards and point an arrow into the air and try to hit it. It's completely unethical to do so, however.
The ethics of using trail cams are definitely person to person judgment call; some say ethical and some don't. But the example I gave above is clearly unethical hunting behavior. 300RUM, I doubt seriously that you hunt without ethics. I think your statement is probably not representative of your true attitude for hunting. I may be wrong.
Post by: Bob33 on July 31, 2013, 07:20:30 PM
There is to many of the 97% of our population who don't hunt, and to quite a few who do.
Post by: rasbo on July 31, 2013, 07:32:43 PM
Post by: _TONY_ on July 31, 2013, 08:21:05 PM
Personally I find it funny that I simply wanted to see other peoples opinions on this subject and that irritates some people.
I was just curious how people felt and that's why I asked the question.
Those that have a problem with me wondering or consider me a troll for asking may want to take a trail camera picture of themselves staring into the camera and then ask the guy in the picture.................Is this the kind of person that I aspire to be?
If the answer is yes then perhaps they should set their goals a little higher.
2many is no troll... He's mutual friends with some of my friends and is spoken highly of.
I still need to pick your brain on that out of state hunt :)
Post by: huntnnw on July 31, 2013, 10:44:04 PM
There is no such thing as "ethical" or "moral" hunting, it exists only in your mind and believing what someone else told you to believe. It is all killing when you get down to it. The two words began to be associated with hunting when people went from hunting for food to hunting for enjoyment/sport. It gained further traction when Boone and Crockett and others (hunting magazines) who "felt" something might be wrong so they called it "unethical" and "amoral" and then had laws passed against such activities. Ethical/unethical or moral/amoral, then gets passed down in magazines, hunters ed, and such and is just someone's view of what should or shouldn't take place.
What it is about are rules, laws. What the government (by our laws who owns the game) tells you is o.k. to do versus what is right to do. To some hunting is unethical and amoral in any form but the law says it is o.k as long as you follow the "rules". To Boone and Crockett, a deer killed swimming across a river is unethical and amoral, to someone who is hungry, it is food.
Morality and unethical sure get thrown around a lot in the hunting world, we have been duped into believing that it exists.
:yeah:A select few on here should read this
Post by: biggfish on August 01, 2013, 12:03:07 AM
Let start by saying I'm not trying to blast you on this piano man, but morals and ethics are not universal. And even your own ethical code is on a sliding scale in the right situation even legal obligation might be thrown out the window. Some may find legal methods to be unethical as lots of us believe some illegal equipment is more ethical i.e. expandable broadheads. Basically everyone has an obligation to the law and as long as that is fulfilled you're fine, doesn't mean someone is not a jerk for doing something stupid or reckless that falls within the law.There is no such thing as "ethical" or "moral" hunting, it exists only in your mind and believing what someone else told you to believe. It is all killing when you get down to it. The two words began to be associated with hunting when people went from hunting for food to hunting for enjoyment/sport. It gained further traction when Boone and Crockett and others (hunting magazines) who "felt" something might be wrong so they called it "unethical" and "amoral" and then had laws passed against such activities. Ethical/unethical or moral/amoral, then gets passed down in magazines, hunters ed, and such and is just someone's view of what should or shouldn't take place.
What it is about are rules, laws. What the government (by our laws who owns the game) tells you is o.k. to do versus what is right to do. To some hunting is unethical and amoral in any form but the law says it is o.k as long as you follow the "rules". To Boone and Crockett, a deer killed swimming across a river is unethical and amoral, to someone who is hungry, it is food.
Morality and unethical sure get thrown around a lot in the hunting world, we have been duped into believing that it exists.
I must respectfully disagree. It's about more than laws. It's also about doing the right thing. It's perfectly legal to see an elk at 200 yards and point an arrow into the air and try to hit it. It's completely unethical to do so, however.
The ethics of using trail cams are definitely person to person judgment call; some say ethical and some don't. But the example I gave above is clearly unethical hunting behavior. 300RUM, I doubt seriously that you hunt without ethics. I think your statement is probably not representative of your true attitude for hunting. I may be wrong.
Post by: winshooter88 on August 01, 2013, 01:43:32 AM
Post by: Jellymon on August 01, 2013, 01:46:28 AM
Post by: winshooter88 on August 01, 2013, 02:07:09 AM
Post by: huntnnw on August 01, 2013, 02:17:00 AM
Post by: 300rum on August 01, 2013, 07:02:43 AM
I once shot a deer at 300 yards, one shot kill. I didn't like it at all. In fact I was real disappointed in myself. It didn't feel good to make that far of a shot, in fact I know that I could have gotten closer, much closer. It just didn't do anything for me. Now, I could say that shooting game at long distance is unethical or amoral. I do get that "feeling" that it just isn't the way that it should be done, but, that would be wrong to call it unethical.
Using your 200 yard bow shot on an animal, you could replace it with a 1000 yard rifle shot. What about a 100 yard bow shot? For me, bow hunting is about how close I can get, not how far I can shoot. But, once again, a long shot with a bow isn't unethical, although it may be stupid.
We are juggling knives when we go around saying something is amoral and unethical, saying it easily and then believing it. Against the law, yes or no, that is mostly straight forward. Run a pole on here if a 20 yard bow shot is amoral, then go to Pike's Place Market and ask 100 people if it is.....
There is no such thing as "ethical" or "moral" hunting, it exists only in your mind and believing what someone else told you to believe. It is all killing when you get down to it. The two words began to be associated with hunting when people went from hunting for food to hunting for enjoyment/sport. It gained further traction when Boone and Crockett and others (hunting magazines) who "felt" something might be wrong so they called it "unethical" and "amoral" and then had laws passed against such activities. Ethical/unethical or moral/amoral, then gets passed down in magazines, hunters ed, and such and is just someone's view of what should or shouldn't take place.
What it is about are rules, laws. What the government (by our laws who owns the game) tells you is o.k. to do versus what is right to do. To some hunting is unethical and amoral in any form but the law says it is o.k as long as you follow the "rules". To Boone and Crockett, a deer killed swimming across a river is unethical and amoral, to someone who is hungry, it is food.
Morality and unethical sure get thrown around a lot in the hunting world, we have been duped into believing that it exists.
I must respectfully disagree. It's about more than laws. It's also about doing the right thing. It's perfectly legal to see an elk at 200 yards and point an arrow into the air and try to hit it. It's completely unethical to do so, however.
The ethics of using trail cams are definitely person to person judgment call; some say ethical and some don't. But the example I gave above is clearly unethical hunting behavior. 300RUM, I doubt seriously that you hunt without ethics. I think your statement is probably not representative of your true attitude for hunting. I may be wrong.
Post by: bobcat on August 01, 2013, 07:09:33 AM
Quote
I once shot a deer at 300 yards, one shot kill. I didn't like it at all. In fact I was real disappointed in myself. It didn't feel good to make that far of a shot, in fact I know that I could have gotten closer, much closer. It just didn't do anything for me.
You don't feel right about shooting deer at 300 yards and your name on here is 300rum? :o :chuckle:
Post by: Curly on August 01, 2013, 07:18:28 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 01, 2013, 07:20:09 AM
I know it is a new thought in our world but let me try to explain it.
I once shot a deer at 300 yards, one shot kill. I didn't like it at all. In fact I was real disappointed in myself. It didn't feel good to make that far of a shot, in fact I know that I could have gotten closer, much closer. It just didn't do anything for me. Now, I could say that shooting game at long distance is unethical or amoral. I do get that "feeling" that it just isn't the way that it should be done, but, that would be wrong to call it unethical.
Using your 200 yard bow shot on an animal, you could replace it with a 1000 yard rifle shot. What about a 100 yard bow shot? For me, bow hunting is about how close I can get, not how far I can shoot. But, once again, a long shot with a bow isn't unethical, although it may be stupid.
We are juggling knives when we go around saying something is amoral and unethical, saying it easily and then believing it. Against the law, yes or no, that is mostly straight forward. Run a pole on here if a 20 yard bow shot is amoral, then go to Pike's Place Market and ask 100 people if it is.....There is no such thing as "ethical" or "moral" hunting, it exists only in your mind and believing what someone else told you to believe. It is all killing when you get down to it. The two words began to be associated with hunting when people went from hunting for food to hunting for enjoyment/sport. It gained further traction when Boone and Crockett and others (hunting magazines) who "felt" something might be wrong so they called it "unethical" and "amoral" and then had laws passed against such activities. Ethical/unethical or moral/amoral, then gets passed down in magazines, hunters ed, and such and is just someone's view of what should or shouldn't take place.
What it is about are rules, laws. What the government (by our laws who owns the game) tells you is o.k. to do versus what is right to do. To some hunting is unethical and amoral in any form but the law says it is o.k as long as you follow the "rules". To Boone and Crockett, a deer killed swimming across a river is unethical and amoral, to someone who is hungry, it is food.
Morality and unethical sure get thrown around a lot in the hunting world, we have been duped into believing that it exists.
I must respectfully disagree. It's about more than laws. It's also about doing the right thing. It's perfectly legal to see an elk at 200 yards and point an arrow into the air and try to hit it. It's completely unethical to do so, however.
The ethics of using trail cams are definitely person to person judgment call; some say ethical and some don't. But the example I gave above is clearly unethical hunting behavior. 300RUM, I doubt seriously that you hunt without ethics. I think your statement is probably not representative of your true attitude for hunting. I may be wrong.
1000 yard rifle shot is only unethical if you're not proficient out to 1000 yards in the given conditions at the time of the shot. Shooting an arrow up into the air (hail Mary, if you will), hoping it will come down on the animal is completely different and is absolutely unethical. There are clearly unethical practices in almost everything we do. Hunting is no exception. I don't know how you can dispute that, but you are. :dunno:
Post by: boneaddict on August 01, 2013, 07:35:53 AM
Post by: turkeyfeather on August 01, 2013, 07:48:06 AM
If someone practices in the right conditions, how is a 1000 yard shot with a rifle any more ethical than a 100 yard shot with a bow. That sounds a bit hypocritical P-man.
1000 yard rifle shot is only unethical if you're not proficient out to 1000 yards in the given conditions at the time of the shot. Shooting an arrow up into the air (hail Mary, if you will), hoping it will come down on the animal is completely different and is absolutely unethical. There are clearly unethical practices in almost everything we do. Hunting is no exception. I don't know how you can dispute that, but you are. :dunno:
Post by: lghtnquik on August 01, 2013, 07:59:25 AM
Post by: BNAElkhntr on August 01, 2013, 08:04:13 AM
I heard Obama is wanting to monitor our trail cams. He is borrowing the funding for it from China as we speak.:chuckle:
Post by: turkeyfeather on August 01, 2013, 08:05:39 AM
turkey he never said it was. In the previous post 200yd was referenced and that by any and all standards I believe would be considered unethical with archery tackle.Yeah he did. He referred to it as a "hail mary". Now I personally dont think either shot is a good shot, but I am not going to tell one guy hes good to go and the other hes not.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 01, 2013, 08:07:54 AM
If someone practices in the right conditions, how is a 1000 yard shot with a rifle any more ethical than a 100 yard shot with a bow. That sounds a bit hypocritical P-man.
1000 yard rifle shot is only unethical if you're not proficient out to 1000 yards in the given conditions at the time of the shot. Shooting an arrow up into the air (hail Mary, if you will), hoping it will come down on the animal is completely different and is absolutely unethical. There are clearly unethical practices in almost everything we do. Hunting is no exception. I don't know how you can dispute that, but you are. :dunno:
Because I didn't say a 100-yard shot with a bow was unethical. I said a Hail Mary 200-yard shot. I know bowmen who are proficient out to 100 yards. I wouldn't take a 100-yard shot, but that doesn't make it necessarily unethical. No need to call me a hypocrite, either. I was simply making the point that most people understand that ethics exist, in direct opposition to the opinion of 300RUM who says there is no unethical behavior.
Post by: turkeyfeather on August 01, 2013, 08:21:31 AM
Sorry maybe the hypocrite comment was a bit uncalled for. I apologize. But I still dont see how one can say that a 200 yard shot is unethical if the shooter is confident and has practiced. You can make the exact same argument for a 1000 yard rifle shot. It's your opinion, that doesn't make it un-ethical. This is the problem everyone bases ethics on their opinions. That's fine for them, but they should not use their standards to judge everyone else.If someone practices in the right conditions, how is a 1000 yard shot with a rifle any more ethical than a 100 yard shot with a bow. That sounds a bit hypocritical P-man.
1000 yard rifle shot is only unethical if you're not proficient out to 1000 yards in the given conditions at the time of the shot. Shooting an arrow up into the air (hail Mary, if you will), hoping it will come down on the animal is completely different and is absolutely unethical. There are clearly unethical practices in almost everything we do. Hunting is no exception. I don't know how you can dispute that, but you are. :dunno:
Because I didn't say a 100-yard shot with a bow was unethical. I said a Hail Mary 200-yard shot. I know bowmen who are proficient out to 100 yards. I wouldn't take a 100-yard shot, but that doesn't make it necessarily unethical. No need to call me a hypocrite, either. I was simply making the point that most people understand that ethics exist, in direct opposition to the opinion of 300RUM who says there is no unethical behavior.
Post by: Curly on August 01, 2013, 08:26:38 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 01, 2013, 08:27:36 AM
Sorry maybe the hypocrite comment was a bit uncalled for. I apologize. But I still dont see how one can say that a 200 yard shot is unethical if the shooter is confident and has practiced. You can make the exact same argument for a 1000 yard rifle shot. It's your opinion, that doesn't make it un-ethical. This is the problem everyone bases ethics on their opinions. That's fine for them, but they should not use their standards to judge everyone else.If someone practices in the right conditions, how is a 1000 yard shot with a rifle any more ethical than a 100 yard shot with a bow. That sounds a bit hypocritical P-man.
1000 yard rifle shot is only unethical if you're not proficient out to 1000 yards in the given conditions at the time of the shot. Shooting an arrow up into the air (hail Mary, if you will), hoping it will come down on the animal is completely different and is absolutely unethical. There are clearly unethical practices in almost everything we do. Hunting is no exception. I don't know how you can dispute that, but you are. :dunno:
Because I didn't say a 100-yard shot with a bow was unethical. I said a Hail Mary 200-yard shot. I know bowmen who are proficient out to 100 yards. I wouldn't take a 100-yard shot, but that doesn't make it necessarily unethical. No need to call me a hypocrite, either. I was simply making the point that most people understand that ethics exist, in direct opposition to the opinion of 300RUM who says there is no unethical behavior.
You're completely missing the point. The point is that there are ethics and ethical decisions to be made. I was debating what 300RUM had said when he said there are no ethics. The specifics of a shot are besides the point.
I was referring to a Hail Mary shot. This is not a practiced shot. This is when you point the bow up into the air hoping that the arrow will come down where you want it to but really having not idea what'll actually happen.
Post by: turkeyfeather on August 01, 2013, 08:39:50 AM
Ok, but nobody at any time has suggested that they thought or would even try just pointing the bow in the air and letting an arrow go. Unless I missed something, I didnt see where anyone did or would condone a shot like that. So I'm confused as to what exactly your referring to.Sorry maybe the hypocrite comment was a bit uncalled for. I apologize. But I still dont see how one can say that a 200 yard shot is unethical if the shooter is confident and has practiced. You can make the exact same argument for a 1000 yard rifle shot. It's your opinion, that doesn't make it un-ethical. This is the problem everyone bases ethics on their opinions. That's fine for them, but they should not use their standards to judge everyone else.If someone practices in the right conditions, how is a 1000 yard shot with a rifle any more ethical than a 100 yard shot with a bow. That sounds a bit hypocritical P-man.
1000 yard rifle shot is only unethical if you're not proficient out to 1000 yards in the given conditions at the time of the shot. Shooting an arrow up into the air (hail Mary, if you will), hoping it will come down on the animal is completely different and is absolutely unethical. There are clearly unethical practices in almost everything we do. Hunting is no exception. I don't know how you can dispute that, but you are. :dunno:
Because I didn't say a 100-yard shot with a bow was unethical. I said a Hail Mary 200-yard shot. I know bowmen who are proficient out to 100 yards. I wouldn't take a 100-yard shot, but that doesn't make it necessarily unethical. No need to call me a hypocrite, either. I was simply making the point that most people understand that ethics exist, in direct opposition to the opinion of 300RUM who says there is no unethical behavior.
You're completely missing the point. The point is that there are ethics and ethical decisions to be made. I was debating what 300RUM had said when he said there are no ethics. The specifics of a shot are besides the point.
I was referring to a Hail Mary shot. This is not a practiced shot. This is when you point the bow up into the air hoping that the arrow will come down where you want it to but really having not idea what'll actually happen.
Post by: rtspring on August 01, 2013, 08:45:21 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 01, 2013, 08:47:39 AM
Ok, but nobody at any time has suggested that they thought or would even try just pointing the bow in the air and letting an arrow go. Unless I missed something, I didnt see where anyone did or would condone a shot like that. So I'm confused as to what exactly your referring to.Sorry maybe the hypocrite comment was a bit uncalled for. I apologize. But I still dont see how one can say that a 200 yard shot is unethical if the shooter is confident and has practiced. You can make the exact same argument for a 1000 yard rifle shot. It's your opinion, that doesn't make it un-ethical. This is the problem everyone bases ethics on their opinions. That's fine for them, but they should not use their standards to judge everyone else.If someone practices in the right conditions, how is a 1000 yard shot with a rifle any more ethical than a 100 yard shot with a bow. That sounds a bit hypocritical P-man.
1000 yard rifle shot is only unethical if you're not proficient out to 1000 yards in the given conditions at the time of the shot. Shooting an arrow up into the air (hail Mary, if you will), hoping it will come down on the animal is completely different and is absolutely unethical. There are clearly unethical practices in almost everything we do. Hunting is no exception. I don't know how you can dispute that, but you are. :dunno:
Because I didn't say a 100-yard shot with a bow was unethical. I said a Hail Mary 200-yard shot. I know bowmen who are proficient out to 100 yards. I wouldn't take a 100-yard shot, but that doesn't make it necessarily unethical. No need to call me a hypocrite, either. I was simply making the point that most people understand that ethics exist, in direct opposition to the opinion of 300RUM who says there is no unethical behavior.
You're completely missing the point. The point is that there are ethics and ethical decisions to be made. I was debating what 300RUM had said when he said there are no ethics. The specifics of a shot are besides the point.
I was referring to a Hail Mary shot. This is not a practiced shot. This is when you point the bow up into the air hoping that the arrow will come down where you want it to but really having not idea what'll actually happen.
Wow, again, the choice of shot makes no difference. My point was that there are ethical dilemmas. That's all. The whole point. Forget the shot. This thread is about outlawing cameras.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 01, 2013, 08:48:53 AM
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on August 01, 2013, 09:07:18 AM
My interpretation of 300's post was not that ethics do not exist, but rather that attempting to define an ethical standard is impossible. I agree. To one person an unpracticed shot from any range is unethical, using less than brand new BH blades is unethical, killing anything with a bow other than bowtech is unethical :chuckle:..... To another that is all legal and ethical. Perhaps they are naive, perhaps thats how they were brought up, maybe they just dont care.
Regardless, I think as responsible hunters we should evaluate our own ethics constantly, and encourage others to do the same, but that where it should end. Its not up to me to impose my individual ethics on another. regardless of how foolish I may think they are.
As for trail cams I dont use them and have no desire as of now to do so. I know plenty of guys who do, I enjoy the pics and if my mind changed in the future i would like to have the option. I see no reason to ban them.
Post by: turkeyfeather on August 01, 2013, 09:13:33 AM
I think I see your point. I was confused thinking that ypu were saying it's ok for a rifleman to take an abnormally long shot but not an archer. I think I understand now that wasnt what you were saying, just making an example. Your right though, back to the camera debate. :jacked:Ok, but nobody at any time has suggested that they thought or would even try just pointing the bow in the air and letting an arrow go. Unless I missed something, I didnt see where anyone did or would condone a shot like that. So I'm confused as to what exactly your referring to.Sorry maybe the hypocrite comment was a bit uncalled for. I apologize. But I still dont see how one can say that a 200 yard shot is unethical if the shooter is confident and has practiced. You can make the exact same argument for a 1000 yard rifle shot. It's your opinion, that doesn't make it un-ethical. This is the problem everyone bases ethics on their opinions. That's fine for them, but they should not use their standards to judge everyone else.If someone practices in the right conditions, how is a 1000 yard shot with a rifle any more ethical than a 100 yard shot with a bow. That sounds a bit hypocritical P-man.
1000 yard rifle shot is only unethical if you're not proficient out to 1000 yards in the given conditions at the time of the shot. Shooting an arrow up into the air (hail Mary, if you will), hoping it will come down on the animal is completely different and is absolutely unethical. There are clearly unethical practices in almost everything we do. Hunting is no exception. I don't know how you can dispute that, but you are. :dunno:
Because I didn't say a 100-yard shot with a bow was unethical. I said a Hail Mary 200-yard shot. I know bowmen who are proficient out to 100 yards. I wouldn't take a 100-yard shot, but that doesn't make it necessarily unethical. No need to call me a hypocrite, either. I was simply making the point that most people understand that ethics exist, in direct opposition to the opinion of 300RUM who says there is no unethical behavior.
You're completely missing the point. The point is that there are ethics and ethical decisions to be made. I was debating what 300RUM had said when he said there are no ethics. The specifics of a shot are besides the point.
I was referring to a Hail Mary shot. This is not a practiced shot. This is when you point the bow up into the air hoping that the arrow will come down where you want it to but really having not idea what'll actually happen.
Wow, again, the choice of shot makes no difference. My point was that there are ethical dilemmas. That's all. The whole point. Forget the shot. This thread is about outlawing cameras.
Post by: 300rum on August 01, 2013, 09:20:42 AM
QuoteI once shot a deer at 300 yards, one shot kill. I didn't like it at all. In fact I was real disappointed in myself. It didn't feel good to make that far of a shot, in fact I know that I could have gotten closer, much closer. It just didn't do anything for me.
You don't feel right about shooting deer at 300 yards and your name on here is 300rum? :o :chuckle:
Post by: 300rum on August 01, 2013, 09:58:33 AM
We have interwoven laws into "ethics" and then been taught by hunting magazine writers, the industry, hunters ed, etc. that there is a line somewhere (that we can even cross legally but not "ethically") and we call it "ethical" or "unethical" depending on whatever side you happen to be on. Then we defend it to the "death".
As an example. I have heard, on this forum, where guys don't think that it is "ethical" to shoot coyotes in the spring when they are denned up with pups. Or, that it is unethical to shoot ducks with more then 3 shells in your shotgun. In the shotgun case, it is illegal (in this state), but is it unethical to have four, or five? What if you are hunting snow geese and the law says you can have more then 3 rounds in your shotgun? Is that unethical? Or, is it just against the law in some states?
Back to this thread.....
Is it ethical for a guy to use trail cams on his property or public property but unethical for a guide to put out dozens? It may be different depending on what you think but it might "feel" like it is and then they use "ethics" to defend their position while holding their nose high in the air.
All of us have the same MORAL compass. We all believe that hunting and killing is "ok".... or if your like me you even think its GOOD. :chuckle: The pikes place reference in 300's post is an example of morality, it doesnt matter how you killed the animal, the fact that you killed it in the first place makes it wrong in their mind.
My interpretation of 300's post was not that ethics do not exist, but rather that attempting to define an ethical standard is impossible. I agree. To one person an unpracticed shot from any range is unethical, using less than brand new BH blades is unethical, killing anything with a bow other than bowtech is unethical :chuckle:..... To another that is all legal and ethical. Perhaps they are naive, perhaps thats how they were brought up, maybe they just dont care.
Regardless, I think as responsible hunters we should evaluate our own ethics constantly, and encourage others to do the same, but that where it should end. Its not up to me to impose my individual ethics on another. regardless of how foolish I may think they are.
As for trail cams I dont use them and have no desire as of now to do so. I know plenty of guys who do, I enjoy the pics and if my mind changed in the future i would like to have the option. I see no reason to ban them.
Post by: JLS on August 01, 2013, 10:14:39 AM
That is a good way of explaining it blackveltbowhunter.
We have interwoven laws into "ethics" and then been taught by hunting magazine writers, the industry, hunters ed, etc. that there is a line somewhere (that we can even cross legally but not "ethically") and we call it "ethical" or "unethical" depending on whatever side you happen to be on. Then we defend it to the "death".
As an example. I have heard, on this forum, where guys don't think that it is "ethical" to shoot coyotes in the spring when they are denned up with pups. Or, that it is unethical to shoot ducks with more then 3 shells in your shotgun. In the shotgun case, it is illegal (in this state), but is it unethical to have four, or five? What if you are hunting snow geese and the law says you can have more then 3 rounds in your shotgun? Is that unethical? Or, is it just against the law in some states?
Back to this thread.....
Is it ethical for a guy to use trail cams on his property or public property but unethical for a guide to put out dozens? It may be different depending on what you think but it might "feel" like it is and then they use "ethics" to defend their position while holding their nose high in the air.
All of us have the same MORAL compass. We all believe that hunting and killing is "ok".... or if your like me you even think its GOOD. :chuckle: The pikes place reference in 300's post is an example of morality, it doesnt matter how you killed the animal, the fact that you killed it in the first place makes it wrong in their mind.
My interpretation of 300's post was not that ethics do not exist, but rather that attempting to define an ethical standard is impossible. I agree. To one person an unpracticed shot from any range is unethical, using less than brand new BH blades is unethical, killing anything with a bow other than bowtech is unethical :chuckle:..... To another that is all legal and ethical. Perhaps they are naive, perhaps thats how they were brought up, maybe they just dont care.
Regardless, I think as responsible hunters we should evaluate our own ethics constantly, and encourage others to do the same, but that where it should end. Its not up to me to impose my individual ethics on another. regardless of how foolish I may think they are.
As for trail cams I dont use them and have no desire as of now to do so. I know plenty of guys who do, I enjoy the pics and if my mind changed in the future i would like to have the option. I see no reason to ban them.
You raise some good points here. Some states allow more than three shells in a shotgun for upland birds. I can speculate as to why this law was ever enacted (who here has killed more than one bird with a shot, and NOT on purpose?) in terms of over limits and sky busting. Is it unethical to use more than three? Heavens no. I could care less. I think it is unethical to break the law, whatever it may be.
I don't like long range "hunting". It's a personal opinion. But, if you can take a shot with a very high probability of making a clean kill, then I don't consider it an unethical shot. However, don't confuse high probability with a "decent chance".
Is it unethical to shoot a cow or a calf elk? Is it unethical to ever shoot a hen mallard? Is it unethical to kill a trout from Lake Lenice? I would emphatically answer "No" to all of these, others may disagree.
I think there are a few instances where the ethical choice does not jive with the legal choice.
Post by: magnanimous_j on August 01, 2013, 10:24:29 AM
That being said, it’s another technology that makes the learning curve easier, and that is an ethical consideration. Think about how many years and skill it used to take someone to become a long range marksman, using iron sights. Now anyone with a $50 Big5 scope can make those shots on their first day. The ability to make those shots used to be earned, now it’s purchased… cheaply. This is kind of the same thing. When I fish, I think using a fish finder is kind of cheating. I mean, where is the sport in that? Where is the years of experience that used to go into knowing where the fish liked to hang out in a particular water at a particular time of day and in a particular weather? On the other hand, when I’m fishing with someone whose using a fish finder, the fish we catch aren’t any less tasty.
So no, they shouldn’t be illegal, but it’s up to each sportsman to decide where the line is for them. Would you hunt with a drone? Why not? If the population remains the same and the animal can be taken humanely? But I will say, that if the cameras start increasing success rates, the only ones who are going to get any game are the people with a whole spy network set up in the woods, because the seasons will be so short that there won’t be enough time to, you know, actually look for animals.
Post by: 300rum on August 01, 2013, 10:30:59 AM
It is my personal feeling (read about it, can't remember where, should have kept it) that the 3 shells in a shotgun came from SxS and O/U hunters, who tend to be much more snooty. :chuckle: (show up at a sporting clays range with an 870 with the plug out, or better yet with a short barrel 870 with ghost rings on it!)
The explanation was that the law comes from "market hunting" but market hunting and shooting over your bag limit is illegal anyway, so what difference does it make if you use an 1100 without the plug and shoot your limit or a single shot long tom and shoot over your limit?
Similar to our arrow weight laws. Initially Easton fought tooth and nail against the use of non aluminum (carbon) arrows. Remember the hunters of the day (sponsored in some cases by Easton) talking down carbon arrows in the hunting magazine's? The theory was that the arrows where too light to kill efficiently, and thus must be unethical.
Post by: Curly on August 01, 2013, 10:51:19 AM
It is funny that we are discussing the 3-shell in a shotgun law now. I just had a dream last night that I was on a guided goose hunt and everybody was using 20 gauge shotguns.
Anyway, when I went to put shells in the gun, I noticed that I could put 5 shells in the gun. In the dream I thought, oh well, we never get checked anyway I guess I'll just use it. Right as I said that, 3 wardens came up to the pit blind and were going to check us. Then I woke up and I don't know what happened.
Now, I've never hunted with my plug out..........so I don't know why I was dreaming about that. Maybe I need to go check my shotguns and make sure the plugs are in all of them. :dunno:
Sorry for the :jacked: and the dream story.
And, to get back on topic.............trail cameras should NOT be outlawed. :twocents:
Post by: huntnnw on August 01, 2013, 12:51:29 PM
I would like to think I give the quarry I hunt a bit of a sporting chance, otherwise I might as well hunt in my little high fence. There are very few good surprises left in this world and the anticipation of not knowing what animal I am after is one of them. Its my choice that I also don't like baiting.
And guys who hunt whitetails seriously or along the lines as obsessed! Hunting the same giant buck year after year is the ultimate accomplishment to match his wits and piece the puzzle together is the ultimate accomplishment in the whitetail world. One of the turn offs to being serious about mule deer is they wander you may never see it again in the same area.I find not much satisfaction or accomplishment taking a mature buck that is a surprise or I got lucky. The guys taking big whitetails consistently have history with almost all of them. Where cams help guys see if these bucks are alive still. Here's an example... I've been chasing a mountain buck around 4 years this year .. I have never seen this buck ever! My cams have him on it.. If it wasn't for my cam Id never know this buck existed! What it has done for me is to piece slowly together what he does every year I know he's alive a little more I learn.. This past April I walked the area he lives in with a GPS and marked every scrape, rub and bed I found I had no idea if he survived winter. I got pics on my cam last week of him. Would I like to scout him like I want to by glassing and watching him in the summer ? Hell yea! But I can't ! the area is pure solid timber!! There is 0 fields, clear cuts and meadows it would do more harm than good to even venture into this bucks area . This is why I love using trail cams its unlocked some areas for me to chase big bucks. I employ using old fashion scouting in conjunction with cams to help me get a particular buck. I don't use my cams on trails , funnels or ridges as I feel just my intrusion in there would do more harm. People wanna say trail cams help harvest .. I don't think so .. I killed 15 bucks before I ever had a camera and continue to kill a buck almost every year. Cams have let me hunt areas I didn't in the past cause it was nearly impossible to scout like I do by glassing and watching buck and doe behavior.
Post by: boneaddict on August 01, 2013, 12:58:36 PM
How about using your instinct, being able to read tracks, rubs, scent posts, scrapes, deer behavior?
Post by: huntnnw on August 01, 2013, 01:15:39 PM
Post by: bearpaw on August 01, 2013, 01:17:38 PM
Should trail cameras be outlawed?
NO
I don't see the biological need to outlaw them at this time.
Post by: huntnnw on August 01, 2013, 01:23:44 PM
Post by: boneaddict on August 01, 2013, 01:57:00 PM
I guess u didn't read my post very well
I probably didn't. You lost me on sentence one or two when you were saying only serious whitetail hunters(I figured that was a little contentious)..........then I skipped to the GPS and Cam which proved a point in my head. I threw in the last sentence because I think you are actually out in the woods enough to know how to "hunt the old fashioned" way(a compliment). Though I have judged you as a big advocate of harvesting off of bait, something I dislike but dont' disapprove of. Ultimately, re-reading the end of your post, that surprise is what I like, and I can see that you don't, you'd rather know what was there. By the way, I don't think of my hunting style as blind luck.
Post by: huntnnw on August 01, 2013, 02:04:31 PM
Post by: Opportunist on August 02, 2013, 10:46:49 PM
I think the bait issue has risen it's ugly head and taken over this thread. Baiting is not really my thing but there was a time when I tried it for bear when it was legal, so never say never. I'm not into banning, just don't feel right. I remember voting against the hound/baiting measure and at the time I didn't much care for hound hunting. A few years later after hunting rabbits over beagles I changed my opinion on hound hunting, my conscience was clear because I didn't try to ban someone elses form of hunting. :twocents:
Post by: 2MANY on August 03, 2013, 08:36:06 AM
There are definitely some masters of bait on this thread.
Post by: addicted on August 03, 2013, 08:38:52 AM
Post by: Kain on August 03, 2013, 10:11:57 AM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on August 03, 2013, 10:17:38 AM
Given the commonness of cameras observing our everyday life here and in Montana, how could one specifically target one kind of camera, one user group or one presumed use?
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on August 03, 2013, 02:33:56 PM
Post by: PolarBear on August 03, 2013, 06:24:07 PM
To answer the original question....No they should not be outlawed! Apparently too many people depend on them instead of skill and we would be over run with all those extra dinks. :chuckle:
Post by: bobcat on August 03, 2013, 06:44:42 PM
I do try to pattern deer and elk, but so far about all I've found is there is no pattern. Other than the obvious pattern we already know about- they are most active in the early morning and late evening.
If you don't like trail cams, don't use them. I didn't, until three years ago. Got one for a Christmas gift and I found out I had been missing out on a lot of fun.
Post by: turkeyfeather on August 03, 2013, 07:06:36 PM
Post by: Greenhorn on August 03, 2013, 07:11:10 PM
What ever happened to us guys who hunt by reading sign, the lay of the land, weather etc. without all that bait, cams and crap?You do that to figure out where to set up your trail cam! :chuckle:
Post by: huntnnw on August 04, 2013, 09:25:44 AM
I have lots of skill. Programming some of these camera's takes a IT degree. It's terrible to say that hunters that like to see pics of animals in their natural, undisturbed habitat are unskilled and don't know what they're doing. That kind of attitude is why we will never all be united for the benefit of all.
:yeah:
Post by: biggfish on August 04, 2013, 11:21:25 AM
If you don't like trail cams, don't use them.I think we've hit the nail on the head with this one.
Post by: smartazz171 on August 04, 2013, 08:09:53 PM
:yeah:If you don't like trail cams, don't use them.I think we've hit the nail on the head with this one.
I actually can't believe this thread has so much play. I use trail cams to save me money in my scouting. I can't afford every weekend to spend $50 in gas to scout. I scout hard on paper first, circle areas that are worth investment and then I spend 2 days scouting and putting up trail cams. I check them a week or two later and depending on what I see and sign on the ground, I judge if im going to spend more time there. I don't live in the Midwest where I can hunt out of my backyard but choose to sit on my a$$ all day. It makes me more effective on where in the vast western frontier to concentrate my skills and dreams of hunting elk. By the way, I'm sure everyone here who doesn't like the technology of game cams, I'm sure you hunt only with 50 yard max muzzle loaders, iron sights on your grandfathers ww2 gun, and your flint tipped arrows being launched from longbows. Hypocrites...
Post by: huntnnw on August 04, 2013, 09:51:40 PM
Post by: 2MANY on August 05, 2013, 07:53:25 AM
IMHO it's been interesting to see people's responses here.
Personally I could care less what individuals do as long as we hunters are responsible and the option to hunt will be there for my son 20 years from now.
I own 2 trail cams but don't use them anymore.
When my son is a few years older they may see more use.
Post by: akirkland on August 05, 2013, 09:17:55 AM
Post by: DARKTIMBER on August 17, 2013, 09:28:31 PM
Post by: huntnphool on August 17, 2013, 09:37:56 PM
Post by: huntnnw on August 18, 2013, 11:01:16 PM
I don't have an issue with the cams. But when you see pics of 3 or 4 animals all eating from the same salt lick, then it seems to be a little shaddy. Just set it up on a trail or water hole. Anyone can toss out salt lick or that swamp donkey mix and get pics of critters.
IGNORANT statement right there
Post by: predatorpro on August 18, 2013, 11:08:46 PM
So in other words, you couldn't kill him on his turf in his "game" without the use of technology. GPS, infared cameras etc.? probably not even with scents, rattling or calling???i use a trail cam all the time...but i have never actually hunted deer over a salt lick or bait or for that fact anywhere near my trail cam lol, i still prefer to hunt without all the technology...no rangefinders, gps...the closest thing i have to tech out there is a radio and my phone to take a picture of a deer if i get one lol i definately think it should be legal, its a fun hobby and doesnt hurt nothing and there is really no reason why the state needs to get into how we hunt anymore than it already does
How about using your instinct, being able to read tracks, rubs, scent posts, scrapes, deer behavior?
Post by: huntnnw on August 18, 2013, 11:14:13 PM
Post by: Dan-o on August 18, 2013, 11:23:06 PM
Post by: boneaddict on August 19, 2013, 09:30:45 AM
Quote
Whats hilarious is hearing guys ripping these cams, but yet photograph animals :dunno:I tell you right now we could start a thread on people feel about guys tromping the woods to take pics be just like this one or worse
We aren't :stirthepot: are we? I'd like to see how taking photos of big game lend an unfair advantage. :chuckle: Must be all the bait and high fences I use and infared. :chuckle:
Post by: buckfvr on August 19, 2013, 09:34:03 AM
Post by: huntnphool on August 19, 2013, 02:19:20 PM
Whats hilarious is hearing guys ripping these cams, but yet photograph animals :dunno:I tell you right now we could start a thread on people feel about guys tromping the woods to take pics be just like this one or worseDid I miss something? :dunno:
Post by: PolarBear on August 19, 2013, 07:36:16 PM
Post by: huntnphool on August 19, 2013, 08:33:37 PM
Bone, someone seems to be hyper sensitive as usual. Take away trail cams, quads, private land and bait and I guarantee you that a bunch of our self proclaimed big buck hunters would shooting does and spikes. :twocents::chuckle:
Post by: 300rum on August 19, 2013, 09:19:05 PM
Bone, someone seems to be hyper sensitive as usual. Take away trail cams, quads, private land and bait and I guarantee you that a bunch of our self proclaimed big buck hunters would be shooting nothing but does and spikes. :twocents:
Post by: huntnnw on August 19, 2013, 09:51:17 PM
Bone, someone seems to be hyper sensitive as usual. Take away trail cams, quads, private land and bait and I guarantee you that a bunch of our self proclaimed big buck hunters would be shooting nothing but does and spikes. :twocents:
that would be me! haha
Post by: huntnnw on August 19, 2013, 09:52:00 PM
Post by: PolarBear on August 19, 2013, 10:38:27 PM