Post by: Machias on June 05, 2017, 08:50:50 AM
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on June 05, 2017, 09:00:35 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 05, 2017, 09:13:32 AM
Is the main complaint coming from hunters?
Post by: Bob33 on June 05, 2017, 09:20:19 AM
Commissioners agreed to work on a future rule that could restrict the use of trail cameras that can transmit live footage to devices like cellphones or computers. Similar to rules restricting the use of aircraft to locate game, the intent of the rule would be to make sure people aren’t using remote cameras as same-day hunting aids.
Deputy Director Sharon Kiefer told commissioners that Colorado and Montana have adopted such rules. New commissioner Jerry Meyers of Salmon, a retired judge, warned enforcing such a rule will be difficult. He said conservation officers would need search warrants to seize cameras and the devises they send images to and predicted that prosecutors would be reluctant to take cases based on the rule.
“If officers can’t put a clear case together, the prosecutor is not going to want to take it,” he said. ”I think we need to have something fairly tight.”
Despite the difficulty, commissioners said they must do something to combat the increasing use of technology in hunting.
“This has to be addressed,” Corkill said. “I’m not sure how to do it.”
They hope to work on the rule beginning next spring to have it ready for consideration by the 2018 Legislature.
Post by: hunter399 on June 05, 2017, 09:28:03 AM
Post by: Wacenturion on June 05, 2017, 09:30:48 AM
Post by: Wacenturion on June 05, 2017, 09:41:55 AM
I'm sure the main reason is the fact that you can see what's there in real time ,and show up there in 15 minutes and shoot animals ,doesn't seem like fair chase to me.
That's probably their thinking, however one could argue trail cams and patterning isn't fair chase as well. In my mind pretty hard to prove one is using it for the perceived illegal whatever activity. I use mine for several reasons, monitoring for trespass, wildlife usage on mineral and feed sites, condition of wildlife, food plot monitoring, etc. Hunting advantage isn't really on the list.
Post by: Machias on June 05, 2017, 09:42:19 AM
I'm sure the main reason is the fact that you can see what's there in real time ,and show up there in 15 minutes and shoot animals ,doesn't seem like fair chase to me.
I realize this is what people think can happen, but it is not reality. You're not going to receive a photo and then go harvest an animal it just doesn't work that way. I have wireless cameras on my bear baits. I get a photo within 10 seconds of it triggering, I'd have to jump in my truck and drive 45 miles, get out and sneak in undetected. It's not realistic. The animal is long gone or will hear you coming into the camera location. Deer and elk are even more mobile. What it does do is save tremendous amounts of gas. That should make the environmental Nazis happy. I don't have to drive an hour to see if my bait has been hit, I know one way or the other....it saves a LOT of gas.
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on June 05, 2017, 09:44:24 AM
Post by: hunter399 on June 05, 2017, 09:59:53 AM
Post by: hunter399 on June 05, 2017, 10:04:04 AM
I'm sure the main reason is the fact that you can see what's there in real time ,and show up there in 15 minutes and shoot animals ,doesn't seem like fair chase to me.
I realize this is what people think can happen, but it is not reality. You're not going to receive a photo and then go harvest an animal it just doesn't work that way. I have wireless cameras on my bear baits. I get a photo within 10 seconds of it triggering, I'd have to jump in my truck and drive 45 miles, get out and sneak in undetected. It's not realistic. The animal is long gone or will hear you coming into the camera location. Deer and elk are even more mobile. What it does do is save tremendous amounts of gas. That should make the environmental Nazis happy. I don't have to drive an hour to see if my bait has been hit, I know one way or the other....it saves a LOT of gas.
If you have a cam next to a clear cut,or open area ,and you show up 20 mins after animal has been there ,it's gonna be pretty easy to spot said animal. :twocents:
Post by: Machias on June 05, 2017, 11:23:31 AM
Post by: Stein on June 05, 2017, 11:31:42 AM
That's unlikely to happen, but even if it did, certainly not enough frequency to ban them from use.
It doesn't sound like they are trying to ban the use of all game cams:
Quote
Commissioners agreed to work on a future rule that could restrict the use of trail cameras that can transmit live footage to devices like cellphones or computers.
Post by: lord grizzly on June 05, 2017, 12:17:32 PM
Post by: Magnum_Willys on June 05, 2017, 12:34:56 PM
Post by: Bob33 on June 05, 2017, 12:45:22 PM
It's hard to imagine that there was a day when hunters could get game without Mt Palomar sized telescopic sights, without computerized ballistic calculators and weather instruments, without GPS, without laser rangefinders, and without $600 shirts.
Post by: seth30 on June 05, 2017, 12:48:13 PM
If it’s not here already, I suspect that high-resolution real-time satellite imagery will be available to consumers in the near future: a live version of Google Earth.your shirts are only $600? :chuckle: :chuckle:
It's hard to imagine that there was a day when hunters could get game without Mt Palomar sized telescopic sights, without computerized ballistic calculators and weather instruments, without GPS, without laser rangefinders, and without $600 shirts.
Post by: Bob33 on June 05, 2017, 12:51:25 PM
I get mine at Goodwill for $600; I just can't see myself spending $900 on the same thing new. ;)If it’s not here already, I suspect that high-resolution real-time satellite imagery will be available to consumers in the near future: a live version of Google Earth.your shirts are only $600? :chuckle: :chuckle:
It's hard to imagine that there was a day when hunters could get game without Mt Palomar sized telescopic sights, without computerized ballistic calculators and weather instruments, without GPS, without laser rangefinders, and without $600 shirts.
Post by: buckcanyonlodge on June 05, 2017, 12:54:29 PM
If you DRIVE into a clear cut and an animal has been there for 20 min. it's gonna be pretty easy to spot from your vehicle...OUTLAW vehicles while hunting too. Walk & Stalk only.. also OUTLAW spotting scopes...you could spot an animal a couple miles away and then go after said animal. Open the can of worms...
Post by: Stein on June 05, 2017, 12:58:43 PM
Post by: kentrek on June 05, 2017, 01:02:04 PM
If it’s not here already, I suspect that high-resolution real-time satellite imagery will be available to consumers in the near future: a live version of Google Earth.
It's hard to imagine that there was a day when hunters could get game without Mt Palomar sized telescopic sights, without computerized ballistic calculators and weather instruments, without GPS, without laser rangefinders, and without $600 shirts.
The technology is letting us be better hunters with out becoming better hunters.....its amazing how much knowledge is lost about hunting
Post by: buckcanyonlodge on June 05, 2017, 01:04:18 PM
Post by: jpharcher on June 05, 2017, 01:19:00 PM
Post by: Southpole on June 05, 2017, 01:22:13 PM
Post by: Bob33 on June 05, 2017, 01:35:03 PM
Post by: DaveMonti on June 05, 2017, 01:37:27 PM
The host was pushing new cell enabled trail cams. He pulled out his phone and had just happened to get an alert and a picture from one of the multiple cell cams out on the ranch. "I'm headed out there right now! These new cameras tell me what stand to go to find the deer!" It was on some farm or ranch down south somewhere. I can guarantee he shot the deer on the cam, fist bumped his camera man and the rest of the entourage that was along for the kill, yelled "I SMOKED HIM!!!!" and did some sort of victory dance.
I have no doubt that at some point, you will see a hunter in his elevated "cabin" stand, snoring on a comfy bed while his cell enabled cameras "alert" him to wake up, open the window and shoot at the deer that just triggered his cam outside his hunting palace blind. Inside the palace blind will be a full kitchen, heater, TV, and a recliner, multiple screens streaming video from his cams just outside, and a full working bathroom.
Now that's hunting!
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 05, 2017, 01:39:01 PM
Sooo, have these cameras been an issue? Is this just another case of creating a solution to a non existent problem :dunno:I would guess (just seems the way things happen) that someone with a little influence probably didn't get 'their' bull and heard that the guy that did was using those cameras. Probably a one guy thing. Again, just my wild guess.
Post by: Bob33 on June 05, 2017, 01:56:18 PM
Quote
I have no doubt that at some point, you will see a hunter in his elevated "cabin" stand, snoring on a comfy bed while his cell enabled cameras "alert" him to wake up, open the window and shoot at the deer that just triggered his cam outside his hunting palace blind. Inside the palace blind will be a full kitchen, heater, TV, and a recliner, multiple screens streaming video from his cams just outside, and a full working bathroom.I'd prefer a hot tub myself.
Now that's hunting!
Post by: Katmai Guy on June 05, 2017, 02:41:07 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on June 05, 2017, 02:46:04 PM
Just make them illegal once the season has started. Patterns should already be figured out by then.That's how Montana does it. Not that I am for any more restrictions, just saying that is how Montana's law was written, come opening day of archery, no more cameras in the woods.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on June 05, 2017, 02:52:21 PM
I have a very good friend in Wyoming who shot a couple of coyotes from his girlfriend's hot tubQuoteI have no doubt that at some point, you will see a hunter in his elevated "cabin" stand, snoring on a comfy bed while his cell enabled cameras "alert" him to wake up, open the window and shoot at the deer that just triggered his cam outside his hunting palace blind. Inside the palace blind will be a full kitchen, heater, TV, and a recliner, multiple screens streaming video from his cams just outside, and a full working bathroom.I'd prefer a hot tub myself.
Now that's hunting!
Post by: Bob33 on June 05, 2017, 02:58:55 PM
I can't imagine it gets much better than that. :tup:I have a very good friend in Wyoming who shot a couple of coyotes from his girlfriend's hot tubQuoteI have no doubt that at some point, you will see a hunter in his elevated "cabin" stand, snoring on a comfy bed while his cell enabled cameras "alert" him to wake up, open the window and shoot at the deer that just triggered his cam outside his hunting palace blind. Inside the palace blind will be a full kitchen, heater, TV, and a recliner, multiple screens streaming video from his cams just outside, and a full working bathroom.I'd prefer a hot tub myself.
Now that's hunting!
Post by: Wacenturion on June 05, 2017, 03:46:34 PM
Is it normal and customary hunting practice to shoot a bull elk at 1,000yds.? If they want to address new technology where do they start. There's a whole bunch of "new technologies" in that can of worms.
Thank you....good points, both of your last posts. :tup:
Post by: DaveMonti on June 05, 2017, 03:47:04 PM
Just make them illegal once the season has started. Patterns should already be figured out by then.That's how Montana does it. Not that I am for any more restrictions, just saying that is how Montana's law was written, come opening day of archery, no more cameras in the woods.
Rick, is this ANY camera, or just cell enabled ones?
Dave
Post by: lord grizzly on June 05, 2017, 04:31:50 PM
Post by: lord grizzly on June 05, 2017, 04:32:44 PM
Post by: hunter399 on June 05, 2017, 04:33:04 PM
Post by: Bob33 on June 05, 2017, 04:42:44 PM
Just make them illegal once the season has started. Patterns should already be figured out by then.That's how Montana does it. Not that I am for any more restrictions, just saying that is how Montana's law was written, come opening day of archery, no more cameras in the woods.
Rick, is this ANY camera, or just cell enabled ones?
Dave
Post by: singleshot12 on June 05, 2017, 05:16:02 PM
Here's the thing. Pretty soon there will be live streaming blue tooth enabled trail cams that guys can spread all over the woods and have full surveillance in real time while there "hunting" right on there smart phone. yes the game departments need to stay ahead or at least as close as possible to advancing technologies in regards to fair chase. If that means they outlaw trail cams or adopt Montanas law here in Idaho than I'm all for it.
:yeah:
Post by: JL on June 05, 2017, 08:41:58 PM
Post by: WoolyRunner on June 05, 2017, 08:51:21 PM
If it’s not here already, I suspect that high-resolution real-time satellite imagery will be available to consumers in the near future: a live version of Google Earth.
It's hard to imagine that there was a day when hunters could get game without Mt Palomar sized telescopic sights, without computerized ballistic calculators and weather instruments, without GPS, without laser rangefinders, and without $600 shirts.
Except for the fact that the seasons were much longer and much more liberal. Where you could essentially, "Just go hunting", like my grandad used to say.
Post by: Rainier10 on June 05, 2017, 09:33:02 PM
No trail cams period once the hunting season starts in montana.Just make them illegal once the season has started. Patterns should already be figured out by then.That's how Montana does it. Not that I am for any more restrictions, just saying that is how Montana's law was written, come opening day of archery, no more cameras in the woods.
Rick, is this ANY camera, or just cell enabled ones?
Dave
Post by: Machias on June 06, 2017, 08:21:51 AM
Sooo, have these cameras been an issue? Is this just another case of creating a solution to a non existent problem :dunno:
BINGO!
Post by: bobcat on June 06, 2017, 08:25:58 AM
Sooo, have these cameras been an issue? Is this just another case of creating a solution to a non existent problem :dunno:
BINGO!
I think the only real issue is the way non-hunters might perceive the use of trail cameras and their usefulness and the advantage they may give hunters.
There's no doubt if it were put up to a vote of the people, surely Washington state voters would be in favor of banning trail cameras entirely.
Post by: lord grizzly on June 06, 2017, 08:27:20 AM
Sooo, have these cameras been an issue? Is this just another case of creating a solution to a non existent problem :dunno:
BINGO!
your both missing the point. like I said, technology isn't going to move backwards here. much rather see game departments n front of issues than years behind trying to catch up wouldn't you? especially considering the area here (tech) is the fastest evolving thing in the history of man. I understand no one likes change and they like it even less when there inconvenienced but try some practical thinking here and remember were not talking about a game department like Washington, were talking Idaho's. you cant get much more pro hunting than our F&G. this isn't going to be motivated by spite like you guys may be used to, there going to legitimately try and maintain fair chase using practical game laws.
but I know you spent a bunch on your fancy cameras...
Post by: Machias on June 06, 2017, 08:27:28 AM
Post by: lord grizzly on June 06, 2017, 08:30:34 AM
Most of you guys have an unrealistic idea of what these things actually enable you to do. I've been using my wireless trail camera for a couple of years now, in Virginia and in Idaho. It does NOT increase your harvest. Are there instances where it is possible to abuse them, yes same as anything else, but it is just not the reality. At $470 a pop, very few guys will have these things plastered all over the woods tracking a deer or elks every movement. Come on guys let's at least have a realistic discussion, not one based on fantasy.
I would say the fantasy is the one where you don't think this tech gets better and cheaper cuz that never happens...
Post by: lord grizzly on June 06, 2017, 08:32:13 AM
Post by: Duckslayer89 on June 06, 2017, 08:38:25 AM
Here's the thing. Pretty soon there will be live streaming blue tooth enabled trail cams that guys can spread all over the woods and have full surveillance in real time while there "hunting" right on there smart phone. yes the game departments need to stay ahead or at least as close as possible to advancing technologies in regards to fair chase. If that means they outlaw trail cams or adopt Montanas law here in Idaho than I'm all for it.
Sadly i could picture this!
Post by: Machias on June 06, 2017, 08:38:45 AM
do you disagree with the current game rules on drones too?
What are they? I'll do some research and let you know. Look I'm all for restricting technology in the field if it HONESTLY impacts the herds. I'm a guy who is not for lighted nocks, but for reasons other than what most folks who are against them. There is a ton of stuff in the woods right now that has vastly more impact than what a wireless trail camera or any trail camera does. It's like we are stepping over a dollar bill to pick up a nickel. I mean if we want to be honest about why we want to outlaw certain things but turn a blind eye to other things.
Post by: lord grizzly on June 06, 2017, 08:44:03 AM
here's a good place to start. I just don't see the difference. if finding animals in real time with surveillance equipment like drones (or helicopters/planes for that matter) is widely accepted as not fair chase. why should remote access cameras be exempt?
Post by: Machias on June 06, 2017, 08:50:20 AM
Post by: Wacenturion on June 06, 2017, 08:55:08 AM
Sooo, have these cameras been an issue? Is this just another case of creating a solution to a non existent problem :dunno:
BINGO!
your both missing the point. like I said, technology isn't going to move backwards here. much rather see game departments n front of issues than years behind trying to catch up wouldn't you? especially considering the area here (tech) is the fastest evolving thing in the history of man. I understand no one likes change and they like it even less when there inconvenienced but try some practical thinking here and remember were not talking about a game department like Washington, were talking Idaho's. you cant get much more pro hunting than our F&G. this isn't going to be motivated by spite like you guys may be used to, there going to legitimately try and maintain fair chase using practical game laws.
but I know you spent a bunch on your fancy cameras...
Yeah, well WDFW was pretty pro hunter when I first started my career in 1974. Things change and from my experience I can with certainty tell you that Idaho F&G is also evolving. Headquarters in Boise, just like WDFW headquarters in Olympia. Bigger towns, more liberal views as their populations grown. Just the way things are. I would guess that today there are far more graduates coming out of colleges in the natural resource field without the "grew up hunting" backgrounds of say 40-60 years ago. Views about things are also evolving.
So just because it's Idaho F&G, don't think for a minute that they don't have staff with far different opinions than you or me on various issues.
Post by: Machias on June 06, 2017, 08:56:07 AM
Post by: Wacenturion on June 06, 2017, 08:58:13 AM
Post by: lord grizzly on June 06, 2017, 10:01:07 AM
lord grizzly you hound hunt, correct? What type of tracking system are you using? One of the new Garmins?
I don't. and I don't think tracking your own animals quite correlates to this topic of tracking wild ones. im pretty sure its also illegal to use a radio color tracking device to pick up on wild collared animals in the pursuit of hunting. as it should be
Post by: lord grizzly on June 06, 2017, 10:04:00 AM
Post by: Machias on June 06, 2017, 10:17:25 AM
Post by: boneaddict on June 06, 2017, 10:46:32 AM
Post by: Machias on June 06, 2017, 10:50:20 AM
Thinking cameras don't increase the chance of harvest seems a little niave, since in reality if it didn't, why would so many people be using them. Just a thought. I have never liked them, but definitely see how they are fun. There are a lot of critters that were never known to have existed, usually monarchs (especially whitetail). Then they were spotted at night....no escaping detection I guess. The big outfits love them. THey will put one on every waterhole and figure out which ones to put clients on. I guess that's fair.....
You misunderstand, I'm saying a wireless trail camera does not increase harvest over any other trail camera. Do you really think that if they outlaw trail cameras the harvest numbers will drop?
Post by: Machias on June 06, 2017, 10:55:38 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 06, 2017, 11:24:49 AM
Post by: Machias on June 06, 2017, 11:35:20 AM
machias, I think your example of staying home/saving gas probably cancels and even subtracts the perceived advantages of those cameras. When I go check my cameras (still in the dark ages of trail cams :chuckle:), I figure since I've already driven all the way out there that I need to get my gas $ worth. So, I'm working on my trails/fixing roads/exploring new areas and then tracking what has been at the camera. I'll spend three or four days out on a camera check. I know half a dozen bow guys that hunt the same area and they sort of do the same thing. If we were all on text cams, all the intel would be limited to the small area the camera is focused on.
That is assuming I don't put in the same time doing the same things. I know for baiting bears and hogs it was a life saver. Consider putting in a new bait site with a regular camera or no camera at all. When do you go check your bait to see if they have hit your bait site? Do you wait a couple of days, what if they by chance found it the first night and by day two or three they've cleaned you out? Do you give it a week to 10 days since over the years it seems like that is the average time it takes for hogs or bears to find your bait? So you wait for 10 days and go back and the site has not been touched....or it's cleaned out....How many times are they hitting the bait site, how often do you need to replenish your bait? It saves me a heck of a lot of time and gas. Now for deer and elk, it has not saved me any time or gas. I place my stands based on deer and elk sign, not on what a camera tells me. The camera can confirm what size of animals are frequenting a trail or area and can tell me roughly what time to sit, but there were ways to do that even before trail cameras came along.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 06, 2017, 11:41:07 AM
Post by: Machias on June 06, 2017, 12:04:22 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 06, 2017, 12:23:38 PM
Compare a pamphlet from 40 years ago to one today! :dunno:
Post by: KFhunter on June 06, 2017, 12:26:09 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 06, 2017, 12:35:41 PM
Sooo, have these cameras been an issue? Is this just another case of creating a solution to a non existent problem :dunno:
BINGO!
your both missing the point. like I said, technology isn't going to move backwards here. much rather see game departments n front of issues than years behind trying to catch up wouldn't you? especially considering the area here (tech) is the fastest evolving thing in the history of man. I understand no one likes change and they like it even less when there inconvenienced but try some practical thinking here and remember were not talking about a game department like Washington, were talking Idaho's. you cant get much more pro hunting than our F&G. this isn't going to be motivated by spite like you guys may be used to, there going to legitimately try and maintain fair chase using practical game laws.
but I know you spent a bunch on your fancy cameras...
Yeah, well WDFW was pretty pro hunter when I first started my career in 1974. Things change and from my experience I can with certainty tell you that Idaho F&G is also evolving. Headquarters in Boise, just like WDFW headquarters in Olympia. Bigger towns, more liberal views as their populations grown. Just the way things are. I would guess that today there are far more graduates coming out of colleges in the natural resource field without the "grew up hunting" backgrounds of say 40-60 years ago. Views about things are also evolving.
So just because it's Idaho F&G, don't think for a minute that they don't have staff with far different opinions than you or me on various issues.
VERY WELL SAID! THANK YOU
Our current director migrated from Idaho!
Post by: Bob33 on June 06, 2017, 01:12:04 PM
Our current director migrated from Idaho!The version I heard what that in fact he was dropped in NE Washington from a black van at midnight, and isn't even the same specie. :o
Post by: bearpaw on June 06, 2017, 01:22:41 PM
:chuckle:Our current director migrated from Idaho!The version I heard what that in fact he was dropped in NE Washington from a black van at midnight, and isn't even the same specie. :o
He might be a nice guy, I've never met him, but a lot of hunters I know are not impressed.
Post by: Wacenturion on June 06, 2017, 01:35:09 PM
The biggest thing that concerns me is the anxiety of hunters to oppose other hunters due to perceived advantages that may not actually exist! It has come to the point that hunters turn on each other on an ever frequent basis because they think another hunter may have an advantage. I think any restriction should be very carefully considered, once something is gone you almost never ever get it back, hunters should be far more considerate of other hunters preferred methods! Unless it's proven that a method is detrimental to our wildlife or hunting, I don't think we should keep adding restrictions, before long the rules pamphlet will be 2 inches thick, nobody will be able to do everything right! :twocents:
Compare a pamphlet from 40 years ago to one today! :dunno:
Your post made me chuckle. About a half hour before I typed out and was going to post...."Ironic how hunters canabalize each other" and make almost the exact comments like yours. However, shook my head and figured, what's the point. :bash:
Glad to see your post. Could not agree more. Yeah, I really miss those thin pamphlets. Funny, we had a lot more hunters back then as well. Perhaps it was due to making the total paper allotment for the pamphlet work out. :chuckle:
Post by: Southpole on June 06, 2017, 01:38:09 PM
The biggest thing that concerns me is the anxiety of hunters to oppose other hunters due to perceived advantages that may not actually exist! It has come to the point that hunters turn on each other on an ever frequent basis because they think another hunter may have an advantage. I think any restriction should be very carefully considered, once something is gone you almost never ever get it back, hunters should be far more considerate of other hunters preferred methods! Unless it's proven that a method is detrimental to our wildlife or hunting, I don't think we should keep adding restrictions, before long the rules pamphlet will be 2 inches thick, nobody will be able to do everything right! :twocents:I agree with this as well. Until it's been proven that a certain devise or tactic is really hurting other people or game animals, leave it alone. I see more of an issue with things that are already illegal, like trespassing that never seems to get any better, as an example.
Compare a pamphlet from 40 years ago to one today! :dunno:
Post by: lord grizzly on June 06, 2017, 01:38:13 PM
The biggest thing that concerns me is the anxiety of hunters to oppose other hunters due to perceived advantages that may not actually exist! It has come to the point that hunters turn on each other on an ever frequent basis because they think another hunter may have an advantage. I think any restriction should be very carefully considered, once something is gone you almost never ever get it back, hunters should be far more considerate of other hunters preferred methods! Unless it's proven that a method is detrimental to our wildlife or hunting, I don't think we should keep adding restrictions, before long the rules pamphlet will be 2 inches thick, nobody will be able to do everything right! :twocents:
Compare a pamphlet from 40 years ago to one today! :dunno:
I don't believe the proposal or those who support it have anything to do with perception of one hunter having an advantage over another. I make pretty good money and I could buy any camera on the market. The root of both the proposal and my support at least is fair chase and our game department staying ahead of technology. I'm not sure why that's hard to understand, they have to evolve with the tech. I can't think of a better example than drones. If the game departments just said " oh well what ever you want to do with that thing" you bet your ass guys would be packing drones into the woods and buzzing elk here's.
Today, no these cameras make little difference I will conceade that. 2 years ? 1 year? What do they look like? When you hear of team mossback putting 100 cameras up with one guy live steaming from a lap top to 20 guides with head pieces on while they run down the next governors tag bull you guys gunna be all " wow what a great example of Boone and Crockett trophy taking!!" ? Probably not. It's ok to restrict tech in fair chase and it's unquestionable that it's advancement moves faster than hunting regs.
Post by: bearpaw on June 06, 2017, 02:13:03 PM
The biggest thing that concerns me is the anxiety of hunters to oppose other hunters due to perceived advantages that may not actually exist! It has come to the point that hunters turn on each other on an ever frequent basis because they think another hunter may have an advantage. I think any restriction should be very carefully considered, once something is gone you almost never ever get it back, hunters should be far more considerate of other hunters preferred methods! Unless it's proven that a method is detrimental to our wildlife or hunting, I don't think we should keep adding restrictions, before long the rules pamphlet will be 2 inches thick, nobody will be able to do everything right! :twocents:
Compare a pamphlet from 40 years ago to one today! :dunno:
I don't believe the proposal or those who support it have anything to do with perception of one hunter having an advantage over another. I make pretty good money and I could buy any camera on the market. The root of both the proposal and my support at least is fair chase and our game department staying ahead of technology. I'm not sure why that's hard to understand, they have to evolve with the tech. I can't think of a better example than drones. If the game departments just said " oh well what ever you want to do with that thing" you bet your ass guys would be packing drones into the woods and buzzing elk here's.
Today, no these cameras make little difference I will conceade that. 2 years ? 1 year? What do they look like? When you hear of team mossback putting 100 cameras up with one guy live steaming from a lap top to 20 guides with head pieces on while they run down the next governors tag bull you guys gunna be all " wow what a great example of Boone and Crockett trophy taking!!" ? Probably not. It's ok to restrict tech in fair chase and it's unquestionable that it's advancement moves faster than hunting regs.
I'm not questioning drones, I'm questioning the need to outlaw trailcams, hounds, baiting bear or baiting deer, and a host of other issues that certain people would like to outlaw because they don't do it! :twocents:
Post by: bigtex on June 06, 2017, 02:36:44 PM
:yeah:The biggest thing that concerns me is the anxiety of hunters to oppose other hunters due to perceived advantages that may not actually exist! It has come to the point that hunters turn on each other on an ever frequent basis because they think another hunter may have an advantage. I think any restriction should be very carefully considered, once something is gone you almost never ever get it back, hunters should be far more considerate of other hunters preferred methods! Unless it's proven that a method is detrimental to our wildlife or hunting, I don't think we should keep adding restrictions, before long the rules pamphlet will be 2 inches thick, nobody will be able to do everything right! :twocents:
Compare a pamphlet from 40 years ago to one today! :dunno:
I don't believe the proposal or those who support it have anything to do with perception of one hunter having an advantage over another. I make pretty good money and I could buy any camera on the market. The root of both the proposal and my support at least is fair chase and our game department staying ahead of technology. I'm not sure why that's hard to understand, they have to evolve with the tech. I can't think of a better example than drones. If the game departments just said " oh well what ever you want to do with that thing" you bet your ass guys would be packing drones into the woods and buzzing elk here's.
Today, no these cameras make little difference I will conceade that. 2 years ? 1 year? What do they look like? When you hear of team mossback putting 100 cameras up with one guy live steaming from a lap top to 20 guides with head pieces on while they run down the next governors tag bull you guys gunna be all " wow what a great example of Boone and Crockett trophy taking!!" ? Probably not. It's ok to restrict tech in fair chase and it's unquestionable that it's advancement moves faster than hunting regs.
Most state fish and wildlife agencies are not staying ahead, or even keeping in line with technology. The trend seems to be that some new piece of technology comes out, some hunters do some unethical, or activity with that piece of equipment which doesn't look good to the public, then the agency moves in and outlaws it.
I can kind of see why an agency doesn't "jump the gun" and outlaw things immediately because hey nobody's abused the technology, but as soon as someone does something, then the agency looks to be behind the times.
Post by: hunter399 on June 06, 2017, 02:52:59 PM
Idaho is not the first state to start the ban of these
http://www.grandviewoutdoors.com/grand-view-outdoors/new-hampshire-proposes-ban-on-cellular-game-cameras-smart-rifles/
Also these are the some of the smart rifles these talking about .
Post by: lord grizzly on June 06, 2017, 03:05:20 PM
The biggest thing that concerns me is the anxiety of hunters to oppose other hunters due to perceived advantages that may not actually exist! It has come to the point that hunters turn on each other on an ever frequent basis because they think another hunter may have an advantage. I think any restriction should be very carefully considered, once something is gone you almost never ever get it back, hunters should be far more considerate of other hunters preferred methods! Unless it's proven that a method is detrimental to our wildlife or hunting, I don't think we should keep adding restrictions, before long the rules pamphlet will be 2 inches thick, nobody will be able to do everything right! :twocents:
Compare a pamphlet from 40 years ago to one today! :dunno:
I don't believe the proposal or those who support it have anything to do with perception of one hunter having an advantage over another. I make pretty good money and I could buy any camera on the market. The root of both the proposal and my support at least is fair chase and our game department staying ahead of technology. I'm not sure why that's hard to understand, they have to evolve with the tech. I can't think of a better example than drones. If the game departments just said " oh well what ever you want to do with that thing" you bet your ass guys would be packing drones into the woods and buzzing elk here's.
Today, no these cameras make little difference I will conceade that. 2 years ? 1 year? What do they look like? When you hear of team mossback putting 100 cameras up with one guy live steaming from a lap top to 20 guides with head pieces on while they run down the next governors tag bull you guys gunna be all " wow what a great example of Boone and Crockett trophy taking!!" ? Probably not. It's ok to restrict tech in fair chase and it's unquestionable that it's advancement moves faster than hunting regs.
I'm not questioning drones, I'm questioning the need to outlaw trailcams, hounds, baiting bear or baiting deer, and a host of other issues that certain people would like to outlaw because they don't do it! :twocents:
Did you even read my post?
Post by: bearpaw on June 06, 2017, 03:13:31 PM
:yeah:The biggest thing that concerns me is the anxiety of hunters to oppose other hunters due to perceived advantages that may not actually exist! It has come to the point that hunters turn on each other on an ever frequent basis because they think another hunter may have an advantage. I think any restriction should be very carefully considered, once something is gone you almost never ever get it back, hunters should be far more considerate of other hunters preferred methods! Unless it's proven that a method is detrimental to our wildlife or hunting, I don't think we should keep adding restrictions, before long the rules pamphlet will be 2 inches thick, nobody will be able to do everything right! :twocents:
Compare a pamphlet from 40 years ago to one today! :dunno:
I don't believe the proposal or those who support it have anything to do with perception of one hunter having an advantage over another. I make pretty good money and I could buy any camera on the market. The root of both the proposal and my support at least is fair chase and our game department staying ahead of technology. I'm not sure why that's hard to understand, they have to evolve with the tech. I can't think of a better example than drones. If the game departments just said " oh well what ever you want to do with that thing" you bet your ass guys would be packing drones into the woods and buzzing elk here's.
Today, no these cameras make little difference I will conceade that. 2 years ? 1 year? What do they look like? When you hear of team mossback putting 100 cameras up with one guy live steaming from a lap top to 20 guides with head pieces on while they run down the next governors tag bull you guys gunna be all " wow what a great example of Boone and Crockett trophy taking!!" ? Probably not. It's ok to restrict tech in fair chase and it's unquestionable that it's advancement moves faster than hunting regs.
Most state fish and wildlife agencies are not staying ahead, or even keeping in line with technology. The trend seems to be that some new piece of technology comes out, some hunters do some unethical, or activity with that piece of equipment which doesn't look good to the public, then the agency moves in and outlaws it.
I can kind of see why an agency doesn't "jump the gun" and outlaw things immediately because hey nobody's abused the technology, but as soon as someone does something, then the agency looks to be behind the times.
I'm glad laws aren't always made in anticipation of someone abusing something. That rules booklet would soon be 4" instead of how thick it is now. :twocents:
Post by: hunter399 on June 06, 2017, 03:21:31 PM
:yeah:The biggest thing that concerns me is the anxiety of hunters to oppose other hunters due to perceived advantages that may not actually exist! It has come to the point that hunters turn on each other on an ever frequent basis because they think another hunter may have an advantage. I think any restriction should be very carefully considered, once something is gone you almost never ever get it back, hunters should be far more considerate of other hunters preferred methods! Unless it's proven that a method is detrimental to our wildlife or hunting, I don't think we should keep adding restrictions, before long the rules pamphlet will be 2 inches thick, nobody will be able to do everything right! :twocents:
Compare a pamphlet from 40 years ago to one today! :dunno:
I don't believe the proposal or those who support it have anything to do with perception of one hunter having an advantage over another. I make pretty good money and I could buy any camera on the market. The root of both the proposal and my support at least is fair chase and our game department staying ahead of technology. I'm not sure why that's hard to understand, they have to evolve with the tech. I can't think of a better example than drones. If the game departments just said " oh well what ever you want to do with that thing" you bet your ass guys would be packing drones into the woods and buzzing elk here's.
Today, no these cameras make little difference I will conceade that. 2 years ? 1 year? What do they look like? When you hear of team mossback putting 100 cameras up with one guy live steaming from a lap top to 20 guides with head pieces on while they run down the next governors tag bull you guys gunna be all " wow what a great example of Boone and Crockett trophy taking!!" ? Probably not. It's ok to restrict tech in fair chase and it's unquestionable that it's advancement moves faster than hunting regs.
Most state fish and wildlife agencies are not staying ahead, or even keeping in line with technology. The trend seems to be that some new piece of technology comes out, some hunters do some unethical, or activity with that piece of equipment which doesn't look good to the public, then the agency moves in and outlaws it.
I can kind of see why an agency doesn't "jump the gun" and outlaw things immediately because hey nobody's abused the technology, but as soon as someone does something, then the agency looks to be behind the times.
I'm glad laws aren't always made in anticipation of someone abusing something. That rules booklet would soon be 4" instead of how thick it is now. :twocents:
It's funny how people worry about how thick the rule reg book is , and not about management.With more hunters ,you will get more idiots,thinker reg book comes with that.
Post by: bearpaw on June 06, 2017, 03:24:46 PM
:yeah:The biggest thing that concerns me is the anxiety of hunters to oppose other hunters due to perceived advantages that may not actually exist! It has come to the point that hunters turn on each other on an ever frequent basis because they think another hunter may have an advantage. I think any restriction should be very carefully considered, once something is gone you almost never ever get it back, hunters should be far more considerate of other hunters preferred methods! Unless it's proven that a method is detrimental to our wildlife or hunting, I don't think we should keep adding restrictions, before long the rules pamphlet will be 2 inches thick, nobody will be able to do everything right! :twocents:
Compare a pamphlet from 40 years ago to one today! :dunno:
I don't believe the proposal or those who support it have anything to do with perception of one hunter having an advantage over another. I make pretty good money and I could buy any camera on the market. The root of both the proposal and my support at least is fair chase and our game department staying ahead of technology. I'm not sure why that's hard to understand, they have to evolve with the tech. I can't think of a better example than drones. If the game departments just said " oh well what ever you want to do with that thing" you bet your ass guys would be packing drones into the woods and buzzing elk here's.
Today, no these cameras make little difference I will conceade that. 2 years ? 1 year? What do they look like? When you hear of team mossback putting 100 cameras up with one guy live steaming from a lap top to 20 guides with head pieces on while they run down the next governors tag bull you guys gunna be all " wow what a great example of Boone and Crockett trophy taking!!" ? Probably not. It's ok to restrict tech in fair chase and it's unquestionable that it's advancement moves faster than hunting regs.
Most state fish and wildlife agencies are not staying ahead, or even keeping in line with technology. The trend seems to be that some new piece of technology comes out, some hunters do some unethical, or activity with that piece of equipment which doesn't look good to the public, then the agency moves in and outlaws it.
I can kind of see why an agency doesn't "jump the gun" and outlaw things immediately because hey nobody's abused the technology, but as soon as someone does something, then the agency looks to be behind the times.
I'm glad laws aren't always made in anticipation of someone abusing something. That rules booklet would soon be 4" instead of how thick it is now. :twocents:
It's funny how people worry about how thick the rule reg book is , and not about management.With more hunters ,you will get more idiots,thinker reg book comes with that.
I don't think hunter numbers are an issue, there are fewer hunters today than even 20 years ago. Maybe we are chasing hunters away from the sport with all the technicalities?
Post by: lord grizzly on June 06, 2017, 03:29:23 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 06, 2017, 03:51:04 PM
Yeah it's way better to be reactive than pro active. That way we can be 5 years behind a problem and all bitch on line about how the game department has there heads up there asses and embattled user groups can then scream about there "rights" being taken away. You know every once in a while they might just have some foresight on an upcoming problem. For example how technology will affect fair chase hunting. But I'm sure you just dropped a bunch of money on cameras so that's more important
Actually I did buy 6 cameras from one of those deals at Midway that another member posted here on the forum a few weeks back. I don't have any of the cams that send a photo to my phone, too many areas we hunt don't have cell coverage. But it seems that would be interesting to try. Personally I think smokeless powder and optics result in more advanced hunting success than anything else, if you really want to make it fair chase outlaw optics, so we have no scopes, no binos, no spotters, no rangefinders, and take us back to muzzleloaders, that will make it more fair chase. Wait, muzzies might have an advantage over bows, better outlaw the muzzies too. While we are at it, man used to use spears, those bows give the hunter an advantage, to be more fair chase lets get rid of everything but spears or herding the animals over a cliff. Oh wait, herding over the cliiff could result in exceeding the bag limit! (an attempt at humor)
It's not a huge deal to me if they outlaw cameras, it's the principal of making laws without needing to make laws that I am mostly opposed to!
Yes, when making new laws I think it's better to be reactive than proactive. Why have laws we don't need? I still haven't seen any evidence that trail cameras are impacting game numbers or hunting opportunities. :dunno:
Post by: Machias on June 06, 2017, 03:57:56 PM
Post by: lord grizzly on June 06, 2017, 04:05:42 PM
Post by: bigtex on June 06, 2017, 04:06:41 PM
Yeah it's way better to be reactive than pro active. That way we can be 5 years behind a problem and all bitch on line about how the game department has there heads up there asses and embattled user groups can then scream about there "rights" being taken away. You know every once in a while they might just have some foresight on an upcoming problem. For example how technology will affect fair chase hunting. But I'm sure you just dropped a bunch of money on cameras so that's more importantActually I did buy 6 cameras from one of those deals at Midway that another member posted here on the forum a few weeks back. I don't have any of the cams that send a photo to my phone, too many areas we hunt don't have cell coverage. But it seems that would be interesting to try. Personally I think smokeless powder and optics result in more advanced hunting success than anything else, if you really want to make it fair chase outlaw optics, so we have no scopes, no binos, no spotters, no rangefinders, and take us back to muzzleloaders, that will make it more fair chase. Wait, muzzies might have an advantage over bows, better outlaw the muzzies too. While we are at it, man used to use spears, those bows give the hunter an advantage, to be more fair chase lets get rid of everything but spears or herding the animals over a cliff. Oh wait, herding over the cliiff could result in exceeding the bag limit! (an attempt at humor)
It used to be in WA that muzzleloader and archery hunting was viewed by most hunters and the commission as the 'primitive' method and why some of the technologies that were legal in other states weren't legal here. Things like illuminated nocks, sabats, mechanical broadheads, heck even crossbows, were things that in the 'old' mindset probably wouldn't have been legalized in this state. Quite honestly, I never thought I'd see crossbows made legal in WA.
I think hunters and the commission have changed their views on archery and muzzleloader hunting away from that 'primitive' mindset, which has led to the legalization of these methods. Maybe I'm just an old guy who use to like things they were they were before... :dunno:
Post by: bearpaw on June 06, 2017, 04:09:59 PM
Actually the proposal I read was prohibiting ALL trail cameras, not just wireless. The same BS rules as Montana.
Machias you are a perfect example, you had some of those unfair techy trail cams, you used the photos to target specific bear, how unfair of you! As a result of the obscene harvest numbers at your bait site(s) Idaho may have to shorten the bear season and other hunters will be impacted by your unfair practices!
How many bear did you and your friends harvest as a result of those cameras? 10, 20, or was it more?
Post by: bearpaw on June 06, 2017, 04:15:57 PM
Man I'm glad you guys live in Washington. Sounds like you all deserve the game department you have. If Idaho sends this topic out in there surveys I will make sure my support is well stated. Good luck over there boys
Didn't realize you were in Idaho, I'm surprised.
I probably spend more time in Idaho than Washington, it's been that way for 20 years, I will be lobbying to keep trail cams. :tup:
Post by: lord grizzly on June 06, 2017, 04:27:22 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 06, 2017, 04:38:06 PM
It's interesting to hear a guide that doesn't understand the implications of emerging technologies on fair chase hunting. maybe lead one to think said guide is blinded by careing more about his bottom line than the integrity of fair chase. If I were the type to use a guide I imagine that would weigh on n my decision of who I'd use. Glad I don't have that problem
If I thought the use of cameras were impacting wildlife or hunter opportunity I'd probably sing a different tune. I've yet to see how cameras are making a negative impact other than upsetting a few hunters who don't agree with them. I'm sure there are some people who appreciate my unobtrusive views and hopefully that outweighs the ones who want more control that don't like my conservative views? Hard to know for sure i guess? :dunno:
Maybe it's the wrong way to look at it, but I sort of view this camera issue the same way I view purest flyfishers who want other types of fishing made illegal! :dunno:
Post by: Machias on June 06, 2017, 04:40:08 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 06, 2017, 04:48:20 PM
I'm probably a bad example, so far Zero bears harvest at our bait sites. 😀
If you wanted to shoot bear you could have, with or without the camera pics. You had the fun of using the camera and seeing the photos, but the camera probably didn't male you any more or less proficient, you could have killed bear with or without the camera. Instead you opted to pass bear, the biggest thing I see regarding your photos is that everyone really enjoyed seeing the photos you posted and you had a great time with it. :tup:
Post by: bigtex on June 06, 2017, 04:48:53 PM
Post by: hunter399 on June 06, 2017, 05:48:36 PM
Post by: Machias on June 06, 2017, 10:57:15 PM
Are we sure this is still a valid proposal before the ID Fish and Game Commission? Everything I've seen says it was revoked last November..
It's being reported as a proposal by the Idaho Houndsmen Assoc.
Post by: Rainier10 on June 07, 2017, 07:35:20 AM
If and this is a big if, real time photo game cameras start affecting hunter success to the point that it is affecting wildlife numbers then they will either need to adjust season dates (more days in the field mean more animals taken, less days in the field equals less animals taken) or they eliminate the use of these cameras.
If one of those adjustments was made I would want to see some real proof that the number of animals had dropped significantly because of the use of game cameras.
I am 100% against taking away someones opportunity because it's not the way that I do it.
Post by: lord grizzly on June 07, 2017, 07:41:38 AM
do you believe 24 hour real time surveillance is fair chase hunting?
Post by: Machias on June 07, 2017, 07:42:17 AM
Post by: Machias on June 07, 2017, 07:43:07 AM
simple yes or no question here for the group (see if that happens).
do you believe 24 hour real time surveillance is fair chase hunting?
Surveillance is not hunting
Post by: hunter399 on June 07, 2017, 07:43:37 AM
Post by: Machias on June 07, 2017, 07:44:17 AM
Post by: lord grizzly on June 07, 2017, 08:30:40 AM
simple yes or no question here for the group (see if that happens).
do you believe 24 hour real time surveillance is fair chase hunting?
Surveillance is not hunting
so that's a no?
Post by: fishngamereaper on June 07, 2017, 09:38:30 AM
Post by: lord grizzly on June 07, 2017, 09:43:18 AM
How's real time trail cam pics any different than flying a real time video capable drone or having someone spot from a plane.
exactly
Post by: Rainier10 on June 07, 2017, 09:55:54 AM
simple yes or no question here for the group (see if that happens).No because I am not allowed to hunt 24 hours.
do you believe 24 hour real time surveillance is fair chase hunting?
If you see a herd of elk cross the road into a field 20 minutes before shooting hours do you just keep driving to your planned hunting spot for the day because you have obtained information about their location outside of legal hunting hours? My guess is you post up in that field and wait for hunting hours.
Post by: lord grizzly on June 07, 2017, 10:04:28 AM
simple yes or no question here for the group (see if that happens).No because I am not allowed to hunt 24 hours.
do you believe 24 hour real time surveillance is fair chase hunting?
If you see a herd of elk cross the road into a field 20 minutes before shooting hours do you just keep driving to your planned hunting spot for the day because you have obtained information about their location outside of legal hunting hours? My guess is you post up in that field and wait for hunting hours.
if you really cant see the difference there than you need to work on your critical thinking skills. I realize this is the internet and of course obtuse arguments must be made but really??
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 07, 2017, 10:07:33 AM
simple yes or no question here for the group (see if that happens).
do you believe 24 hour real time surveillance is fair chase hunting?
Yes.... it's just as ethical as using technology that allows us to have significantly magnified vision and reach out to kill animals at large distances (which I am perfectly fine with)....I guarantee this type of technology I just described...which has been out for a long period of time.....results in much higher success rates for hunters than real time surveillance.
Post by: lord grizzly on June 07, 2017, 10:20:45 AM
https://www.boone-crockett.org/pdf/On_Fair_Chase.pdf
Advancements in technology can also have an effect on the hunt equation and challenge our notions of fair
chase. The use of technological advancements in mechanized travel for hunting, such as by boat, airplane, or other
motorized vehicle is a good example. Their use increases our advantage while decreasing the reasonable chance of
game to escape. Transporting ourselves and our equipment to the area where we are hunting is one thing. Fair chase
requires that from this point (unless physically limited), that the final stalk is done on foot. Other technologies
have certainly made us better and more efficient marksmen relative to taking game quickly and humanely, which
are positive advancements. On the other hand, when technology becomes a substitute for basic skills in the field
(i.e., buying skill), this is where technology not only undermines the hunting experience, but also has the potential
to erode public support for hunting. It is very difficult to maintain any credible claim that hunting is rewarding because
of the challenge if the entire experience can come down to pressing a button on a highly sophisticated device.
States and provinces sometimes establish laws to limit the use of emerging technologies, but new hunting products
are constantly being developed and marketed. Advances in technology have made hunting very efficient for the
hunter, more efficient than what some game populations can bear. Even where legal, hunters must consider the ethics
of using technologies that allow them to shoot at substantially increased distances far beyond an animal’s ability
to sense danger; game scouting cameras that transmit live, real time images to the hunter; on call hunting (using
cell phones to call in a hunter when game has been located by others), and using two-way radios to guide a hunter
to game in the field.
When the challenges of hunting are eliminated, we risk losing the special nature of the hunting experience itself.
Most hunters agree that the uncertainty and the “no-guarantees” character of hunting is its most powerful attraction.
Recognizing humans are the alpha predator and that there is a need to limit our hunting advantage over wildlife
is key to using technology in an ethical manner. A fair chase hunter does not measure success by the sophistication
of the technology they employ, but by the level of restraint they use. Inevitably, each of us will have to choose
if easier is better.
“The true hunter counts his achievement in proportion to the effort involved and the fairness of
the sport.” —Saxton Pope
Some people believe that trophy hunting—selectively hunting for animals with the largest antlers, horns, or skull—
is an unacceptable motivation for hunting. This disapproval is not based on how an animal is hunted, but on the
belief that the sole purpose of the hunt is to collect a large mount for the wall, and the rest of the animal is wasted.
Despite these misperceptions by some people, if a hunter’s intent is to hunt hard and hold out for an animal that
is well into maturity, passed his breeding prime and has survived many seasons, that is a choice that should be respected.
The primary motivation for seeking a trophy is a higher degree of difficulty. An older, more mature animal
is experienced
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 07, 2017, 10:24:23 AM
(i.e., buying skill), this is where technology not only undermines the hunting experience, but also has the potential
to erode public support for hunting. It is very difficult to maintain any credible claim that hunting is rewarding because
of the challenge if the entire experience can come down to pressing a button on a highly sophisticated device."
Yep..and the explanation I gave above describes a technology that is equivalent to buying a skill... (i.e. closing the distance)
Post by: lord grizzly on June 07, 2017, 10:24:39 AM
“Some people claim we have too many hunting laws and principles like hunting ethics and fair
chase and that these are just words used to justify hunting to the wider public as if we were
doing something wrong. I disagree; and I disagree strongly. Clearly we need never apologize for
something that provides as much as hunting does for society and for the natural environment.
Having rules, laws, and personal ethics to govern and guide our hunting practices is about
respect, for the wildlife we pursue, for the landscapes in which those creatures thrive, and for
ourselves as hunters. Certainly we should also acknowledge that our society rightly expects,
and deserves, an ethical approach to the use of any public resources and especially toward any
living creature. The truth is, we are hunting today because the majority of sportsmen over the
past century have held themselves to a high ethical standard. My concern, and the concern of
many sportsmen I have talked to is this: what they were taught was unacceptable is now being
shown as acceptable to our next generation of hunters. Unfortunately, times and circumstances
are changing, moving the line between what was once unthinkable to something now less troubling.”—
Shane Mahoney, Hunt Ethics episode, Boone and Crockett Country 2012
Post by: lord grizzly on June 07, 2017, 10:26:34 AM
"On the other hand, when technology becomes a substitute for basic skills in the field
(i.e., buying skill), this is where technology not only undermines the hunting experience, but also has the potential
to erode public support for hunting. It is very difficult to maintain any credible claim that hunting is rewarding because
of the challenge if the entire experience can come down to pressing a button on a highly sophisticated device."
Yep..and the explanation I gave above describes a technology that is equivalent to buying a skill... (i.e. closing the distance)
so you would agree than that our agencies need to stay ahead of emerging tech (like remote real time surveillance) and not be playing catch up after the fact?
Post by: boneaddict on June 07, 2017, 10:27:01 AM
Some will get it, some wont.
Post by: lord grizzly on June 07, 2017, 10:27:33 AM
:yeah: Nice Essays.
Some will get it, some wont.
most wont
Post by: Wacenturion on June 07, 2017, 10:28:14 AM
a good excerpt from Boone & Crocket below. and a link
https://www.boone-crockett.org/pdf/On_Fair_Chase.pdf
Advancements in technology can also have an effect on the hunt equation and challenge our notions of fair
chase. The use of technological advancements in mechanized travel for hunting, such as by boat, airplane, or other
motorized vehicle is a good example. Their use increases our advantage while decreasing the reasonable chance of
game to escape. Transporting ourselves and our equipment to the area where we are hunting is one thing. Fair chase
requires that from this point (unless physically limited), that the final stalk is done on foot. Other technologies
have certainly made us better and more efficient marksmen relative to taking game quickly and humanely, which
are positive advancements. On the other hand, when technology becomes a substitute for basic skills in the field
(i.e., buying skill), this is where technology not only undermines the hunting experience, but also has the potential
to erode public support for hunting. It is very difficult to maintain any credible claim that hunting is rewarding because
of the challenge if the entire experience can come down to pressing a button on a highly sophisticated device.
States and provinces sometimes establish laws to limit the use of emerging technologies, but new hunting products
are constantly being developed and marketed. Advances in technology have made hunting very efficient for the
hunter, more efficient than what some game populations can bear. Even where legal, hunters must consider the ethics
of using technologies that allow them to shoot at substantially increased distances far beyond an animal’s ability
to sense danger; game scouting cameras that transmit live, real time images to the hunter; on call hunting (using
cell phones to call in a hunter when game has been located by others), and using two-way radios to guide a hunter
to game in the field.
When the challenges of hunting are eliminated, we risk losing the special nature of the hunting experience itself.
Most hunters agree that the uncertainty and the “no-guarantees” character of hunting is its most powerful attraction.
Recognizing humans are the alpha predator and that there is a need to limit our hunting advantage over wildlife
is key to using technology in an ethical manner. A fair chase hunter does not measure success by the sophistication
of the technology they employ, but by the level of restraint they use. Inevitably, each of us will have to choose
if easier is better.
“The true hunter counts his achievement in proportion to the effort involved and the fairness of
the sport.” —Saxton Pope
Some people believe that trophy hunting—selectively hunting for animals with the largest antlers, horns, or skull—
is an unacceptable motivation for hunting. This disapproval is not based on how an animal is hunted, but on the
belief that the sole purpose of the hunt is to collect a large mount for the wall, and the rest of the animal is wasted.
Despite these misperceptions by some people, if a hunter’s intent is to hunt hard and hold out for an animal that
is well into maturity, passed his breeding prime and has survived many seasons, that is a choice that should be respected.
The primary motivation for seeking a trophy is a higher degree of difficulty. An older, more mature animal
is experienced
As DB pointed out above, I could rationlize as one example, long range 800-1000 yard rifles fitting into this definition as well.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 07, 2017, 10:32:58 AM
another good sampling form the same essay
“Some people claim we have too many hunting laws and principles like hunting ethics and fair
chase and that these are just words used to justify hunting to the wider public as if we were
doing something wrong. I disagree; and I disagree strongly. Clearly we need never apologize for
something that provides as much as hunting does for society and for the natural environment.
Having rules, laws, and personal ethics to govern and guide our hunting practices is about
respect, for the wildlife we pursue, for the landscapes in which those creatures thrive, and for
ourselves as hunters. Certainly we should also acknowledge that our society rightly expects,
and deserves, an ethical approach to the use of any public resources and especially toward any
living creature. The truth is, we are hunting today because the majority of sportsmen over the
past century have held themselves to a high ethical standard. My concern, and the concern of
many sportsmen I have talked to is this: what they were taught was unacceptable is now being
shown as acceptable to our next generation of hunters. Unfortunately, times and circumstances
are changing, moving the line between what was once unthinkable to something now less troubling.”—
Shane Mahoney, Hunt Ethics episode, Boone and Crockett Country 2012
The problem comes when we try to let one group "define" ethics for another group when what we are really talking about has more to do with the "aesthetics" of the hunt for one person/group vs another. The "aesthetics" of the hunt are personal to the individual. We should be looking to sustain maximize opportunity... The reality is this...real time trail cams (which I have never used..but wouldn't be opposed to) will contribute to kills fractionally if at all...The example of technology I gave greatly increases success rates.
Post by: lord grizzly on June 07, 2017, 10:37:02 AM
take method is a entirely different discussion and you may even be surprised that we would agree in that one. it is ok to have separate discussions about separate issues. even on the internet
Post by: lord grizzly on June 07, 2017, 10:38:09 AM
another good sampling form the same essay
“Some people claim we have too many hunting laws and principles like hunting ethics and fair
chase and that these are just words used to justify hunting to the wider public as if we were
doing something wrong. I disagree; and I disagree strongly. Clearly we need never apologize for
something that provides as much as hunting does for society and for the natural environment.
Having rules, laws, and personal ethics to govern and guide our hunting practices is about
respect, for the wildlife we pursue, for the landscapes in which those creatures thrive, and for
ourselves as hunters. Certainly we should also acknowledge that our society rightly expects,
and deserves, an ethical approach to the use of any public resources and especially toward any
living creature. The truth is, we are hunting today because the majority of sportsmen over the
past century have held themselves to a high ethical standard. My concern, and the concern of
many sportsmen I have talked to is this: what they were taught was unacceptable is now being
shown as acceptable to our next generation of hunters. Unfortunately, times and circumstances
are changing, moving the line between what was once unthinkable to something now less troubling.”—
Shane Mahoney, Hunt Ethics episode, Boone and Crockett Country 2012
The problem comes when we try to let one group "define" ethics for another group when what we are really talking about has more to do with the "aesthetics" of the hunt for one person/group vs another. The "aesthetics" of the hunt are personal to the individual. We should be looking to sustain maximize opportunity... The reality is this...real time trail cams (which I have never used..but wouldn't be opposed to) will contribute to kills fractionally if at all...The example of technology I gave greatly increases success rates.
lets fire up the drones and jump in the air planes then. its all fair chase right?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 07, 2017, 10:39:32 AM
I think the 800-1000+ shooters are still so small in number that they don't account for much--kind of like the expensive-texting cams. I would guess that the range that has really opened up a lot of game to people is that area between 400-600 yds; and that was mostly as a result of rangefinders.a good excerpt from Boone & Crocket below. and a link
https://www.boone-crockett.org/pdf/On_Fair_Chase.pdf
Advancements in technology can also have an effect on the hunt equation and challenge our notions of fair
chase. The use of technological advancements in mechanized travel for hunting, such as by boat, airplane, or other
motorized vehicle is a good example. Their use increases our advantage while decreasing the reasonable chance of
game to escape. Transporting ourselves and our equipment to the area where we are hunting is one thing. Fair chase
requires that from this point (unless physically limited), that the final stalk is done on foot. Other technologies
have certainly made us better and more efficient marksmen relative to taking game quickly and humanely, which
are positive advancements. On the other hand, when technology becomes a substitute for basic skills in the field
(i.e., buying skill), this is where technology not only undermines the hunting experience, but also has the potential
to erode public support for hunting. It is very difficult to maintain any credible claim that hunting is rewarding because
of the challenge if the entire experience can come down to pressing a button on a highly sophisticated device.
States and provinces sometimes establish laws to limit the use of emerging technologies, but new hunting products
are constantly being developed and marketed. Advances in technology have made hunting very efficient for the
hunter, more efficient than what some game populations can bear. Even where legal, hunters must consider the ethics
of using technologies that allow them to shoot at substantially increased distances far beyond an animal’s ability
to sense danger; game scouting cameras that transmit live, real time images to the hunter; on call hunting (using
cell phones to call in a hunter when game has been located by others), and using two-way radios to guide a hunter
to game in the field.
When the challenges of hunting are eliminated, we risk losing the special nature of the hunting experience itself.
Most hunters agree that the uncertainty and the “no-guarantees” character of hunting is its most powerful attraction.
Recognizing humans are the alpha predator and that there is a need to limit our hunting advantage over wildlife
is key to using technology in an ethical manner. A fair chase hunter does not measure success by the sophistication
of the technology they employ, but by the level of restraint they use. Inevitably, each of us will have to choose
if easier is better.
“The true hunter counts his achievement in proportion to the effort involved and the fairness of
the sport.” —Saxton Pope
Some people believe that trophy hunting—selectively hunting for animals with the largest antlers, horns, or skull—
is an unacceptable motivation for hunting. This disapproval is not based on how an animal is hunted, but on the
belief that the sole purpose of the hunt is to collect a large mount for the wall, and the rest of the animal is wasted.
Despite these misperceptions by some people, if a hunter’s intent is to hunt hard and hold out for an animal that
is well into maturity, passed his breeding prime and has survived many seasons, that is a choice that should be respected.
The primary motivation for seeking a trophy is a higher degree of difficulty. An older, more mature animal
is experienced
As DB pointed out above, I could rationlize as one example, long range 800-1000 yard rifles fitting into this definition as well.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 07, 2017, 10:41:09 AM
"On the other hand, when technology becomes a substitute for basic skills in the field
(i.e., buying skill), this is where technology not only undermines the hunting experience, but also has the potential
to erode public support for hunting. It is very difficult to maintain any credible claim that hunting is rewarding because
of the challenge if the entire experience can come down to pressing a button on a highly sophisticated device."
Yep..and the explanation I gave above describes a technology that is equivalent to buying a skill... (i.e. closing the distance)
so you would agree than that our agencies need to stay ahead of emerging tech (like remote real time surveillance) and not be playing catch up after the fact?
I would say our agencies job is to maximize opportunities in a sustainable manner. This includes new technologies. I would say it's not their job to minimize opportunities. What they shouldn't allow is "feelings" of individuals or even the majority to define the aesthetics of the hunt for others.
Post by: Wacenturion on June 07, 2017, 10:42:00 AM
There are lots of things you or I might might consider to be unethical, but that doesn't mean we infringe on someone else's choices. Grizz, you apparently are a hound hunter. Now before you think I opposed to hound hunting let me say I'm not. However someone could just as equally make the same argument you are making.....unfair. Want to hunt bears, hit the woods and pursue one. Hounds let you know in real time whether you have trackers on the collars or not by their barking where the bear is.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 07, 2017, 10:44:53 AM
another good sampling form the same essay
“Some people claim we have too many hunting laws and principles like hunting ethics and fair
chase and that these are just words used to justify hunting to the wider public as if we were
doing something wrong. I disagree; and I disagree strongly. Clearly we need never apologize for
something that provides as much as hunting does for society and for the natural environment.
Having rules, laws, and personal ethics to govern and guide our hunting practices is about
respect, for the wildlife we pursue, for the landscapes in which those creatures thrive, and for
ourselves as hunters. Certainly we should also acknowledge that our society rightly expects,
and deserves, an ethical approach to the use of any public resources and especially toward any
living creature. The truth is, we are hunting today because the majority of sportsmen over the
past century have held themselves to a high ethical standard. My concern, and the concern of
many sportsmen I have talked to is this: what they were taught was unacceptable is now being
shown as acceptable to our next generation of hunters. Unfortunately, times and circumstances
are changing, moving the line between what was once unthinkable to something now less troubling.”—
Shane Mahoney, Hunt Ethics episode, Boone and Crockett Country 2012
The problem comes when we try to let one group "define" ethics for another group when what we are really talking about has more to do with the "aesthetics" of the hunt for one person/group vs another. The "aesthetics" of the hunt are personal to the individual. We should be looking to sustain maximize opportunity... The reality is this...real time trail cams (which I have never used..but wouldn't be opposed to) will contribute to kills fractionally if at all...The example of technology I gave greatly increases success rates.
lets fire up the drones and jump in the air planes then. its all fair chase right?
1. What kind of impact does it have on the resource?
2. What level of impact does it have on others experience?
Post by: lord grizzly on June 07, 2017, 10:52:24 AM
Post by: Southpole on June 07, 2017, 11:00:25 AM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 07, 2017, 11:03:14 AM
im actually not a hound hunter (nothing against it) and DB your last response is just silly and I think you may already know that. it is currently illegal to use drones in aid of hunting or to hunt on the same day as flying over an area. as it should be. these cameras will become paramount to the same type of surveillance. Montana has it right. use them all you want out of season. I hope Idaho follows suit.
It's not silly...it's valid.
- People do hunt pigs from helicopters so it is legal in some places.
- The problem with using airborne technology is the unsustainable/excessive stress it can put on the animals.
- Another issues with the use of airborne technology is that it can significantly impact the experience of others (particularly on public lands)
Post by: lord grizzly on June 07, 2017, 11:03:18 AM
Drones have the ability to cover miles of ground, cell cameras are stuck in one spot covering a very small space. I don't put them in the same category at all.
until a commercial operation puts one up every 1/4 mile because they cant use drones to cover those miles.
Post by: lord grizzly on June 07, 2017, 11:05:17 AM
im actually not a hound hunter (nothing against it) and DB your last response is just silly and I think you may already know that. it is currently illegal to use drones in aid of hunting or to hunt on the same day as flying over an area. as it should be. these cameras will become paramount to the same type of surveillance. Montana has it right. use them all you want out of season. I hope Idaho follows suit.
It's not silly...it's valid.
- People do hunt pigs from helicopters so it is legal in some places.
- The problem with using airborne technology is the unsustainable/excessive stress it can put on the animals.
- Another issues with the use of airborne technology is that it can significantly impact the experience of others (particularly on public lands)
I suppose its valid to the point that its already addressed in game regs. and then you answered your own question. so why ask it?
Post by: Bob33 on June 07, 2017, 11:09:17 AM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 07, 2017, 11:12:33 AM
Drones have the ability to cover miles of ground, cell cameras are stuck in one spot covering a very small space. I don't put them in the same category at all.
until a commercial operation puts one up every 1/4 mile because they cant use drones to cover those miles.
If they did I bet it wouldn't have any notable impact on their success rate.... Take some technologies away from them that you probably already use/support....and I bet it would
Post by: lord grizzly on June 07, 2017, 11:14:39 AM
Post by: Southpole on June 07, 2017, 11:16:05 AM
That sounds practical and inexpensive :rolleyes:Drones have the ability to cover miles of ground, cell cameras are stuck in one spot covering a very small space. I don't put them in the same category at all.
until a commercial operation puts one up every 1/4 mile because they cant use drones to cover those miles.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 07, 2017, 11:18:39 AM
If the sole standard for determining if something should be regulated is whether or not it increases harvest, then the list of things to be regulated is nearly endless. I suspect that advancements in firearms, optics, and mapping technologies as examples have done more to increase harvest over the last 50 years that drones ever would, and yet most hunters support regulation of drones.
I think all impacts to the resource (not just increased harvest) have to be considered. I also think the impact it has on the experience of other has to be considered. However, we do have to be careful about using something as subjective as how it impacts the experience of others...because we can make that one a slippery slope.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 07, 2017, 11:20:50 AM
I think you need to separate your view of success rate and fair chase. they are two entirely different things.
Even if I go off the part you highlighted from B&C regarding Fair Chase everything I said still stands as valid. Those things we already allow go much further in substituting for skill than the technologies we are currently discussing.
Post by: lord grizzly on June 07, 2017, 11:27:34 AM
That sounds practical and inexpensive :rolleyes:Drones have the ability to cover miles of ground, cell cameras are stuck in one spot covering a very small space. I don't put them in the same category at all.
until a commercial operation puts one up every 1/4 mile because they cant use drones to cover those miles.
right now yes. unpractical, only thing stopping it is access to better and readily affordable tech. that's been my point in this whole discussion (most people must not read entire sentences) why do any of you think this tech is not advancing every day? and why is it such a terrible thing to see game departments trying to keep up with it? as much as you all bitch about F&G not doing anything you bitch more when they do. amazing
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 07, 2017, 11:28:40 AM
For the ones that get governor's tags it probably is, but the clientele to use those operations will likely be so small that harvest would be almost negligible.That sounds practical and inexpensive :rolleyes:Drones have the ability to cover miles of ground, cell cameras are stuck in one spot covering a very small space. I don't put them in the same category at all.
until a commercial operation puts one up every 1/4 mile because they cant use drones to cover those miles.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 07, 2017, 11:32:18 AM
That sounds practical and inexpensive :rolleyes:Drones have the ability to cover miles of ground, cell cameras are stuck in one spot covering a very small space. I don't put them in the same category at all.
until a commercial operation puts one up every 1/4 mile because they cant use drones to cover those miles.
right now yes. unpractical, only thing stopping it is access to better and readily affordable tech. that's been my point in this whole discussion (most people must not read entire sentences) why do any of you think this tech is not advancing every day? and why is it such a terrible thing to see game departments trying to keep up with it? as much as you all bitch about F7G not doing anything you bitch more when they do. amazing
Probably because we all have our own opinions. Probably because we aren't ready to hop on the side of anti-hunters. Probably because we want to maximize and protect hunting opportunities if it can be sustained by the resource...even if we personally don't like it. I'm sure you may do things/use hunting methods that don't really appeal to me. I'm sure I could use your definition of "ethics" to make sound, logical arguments why they should be regulated.... but I would never support efforts to minimize your opportunity or take away from your hunt.
Post by: lord grizzly on June 07, 2017, 11:36:31 AM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 07, 2017, 11:42:09 AM
again harvest success and fair chase are completely separate issues. I kill a deer and elk every year. my success rate is 100% on public land. the fact that I do has nothing to do with the issue of fair chase on a whole or how my harvest success affect others. I could really care less if you do or don't get your bull. I do care that the bull has his chance to be persuade as fairly as possible. I think you guys are correlating fair chase to be between hunters, its not, its between hunters and game. and tech in this area needs to be kept up with period.
I get it...and don't disagree.... but who gets to define that? I have killed animals at 300-400 yards with a rifle... aside from making a shot that I can make 99 out of 100 times under a variety of conditions what was really fair about that... In some cases I didn't even have to be all that quiet or stealthy.. I just lucked out that they were standing out in the open long enough for me to spot/stalk in closer. Is that Fair Chase? Because honestly the odds of them surviving that encounter weren't all that high.
Post by: lord grizzly on June 07, 2017, 11:53:42 AM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 07, 2017, 11:56:39 AM
our game departments get to decide that. that's what there for. we get to voice our opinions in their meetings and in some cases make a difference with how we vote. as the old saying goes "democracy is the worst form of government in the world...except for all the rest of them."
I 100% agree...that's why they shouldn't use the "opinion" of the majority of hunters to make management decisions. It should be based on science and how it impacts the resource and opportunity....and the goal should always be to maximize that opportunity in a manner that is sustainable to the resource.
Post by: lord grizzly on June 07, 2017, 12:00:13 PM
Post by: bobcat on June 07, 2017, 12:02:23 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 07, 2017, 12:06:27 PM
sounds like we agree on the process. and it certainly sounds like I'm not the "majority" on this issue. as I stated I hope Idaho adopts some form of this measure to help insure the integrity of fair chase hunting against the ever advancing tech in the market.
Hard to say. You might be in the majority on the issue in the western US. You probably won't get much support back east or from most Whitetail Bowhunters but aside from that I think there are lot of people that would vote against them. I can say if I hunted private lands with cell reception I would love to have them. However, current trail cameras work just fine for me in the areas that I prefer to hunt... my enjoyment of trail cameras in general are a big part of the experience for me. I'd be a trail camer even hunting was outlawed.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 07, 2017, 12:08:46 PM
Very little of game management is based on science, at least in this state. Popular opinion has more weight than science.
Honestly, that is the biggest issue I have had with WDFW. I'm very frustrated when year after year I see them bringing up issues for discussion that really only serve to divide hunters rather that manage the resource or maximize opportunity. It's almost like they try to use the popular vote to make a lot of their decisions.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 07, 2017, 12:09:11 PM
Very little of game management is based on science, at least in this state. Popular opinion has more weight than science.:yeah:
Bear, cougar, soon wolves, as many other animals and fish are determined by king county libs and tribes.
Post by: Wacenturion on June 07, 2017, 12:24:05 PM
our game departments get to decide that. that's what there for. we get to voice our opinions in their meetings and in some cases make a difference with how we vote. as the old saying goes "democracy is the worst form of government in the world...except for all the rest of them."
I 100% agree...that's why they shouldn't use the "opinion" of the majority of hunters to make management decisions. It should be based on science and how it impacts the resource and opportunity....and the goal should always be to maximize that opportunity in a manner that is sustainable to the resource.
Well said....exactly. :tup:
Post by: kentrek on June 07, 2017, 12:26:52 PM
our game departments get to decide that. that's what there for. we get to voice our opinions in their meetings and in some cases make a difference with how we vote. as the old saying goes "democracy is the worst form of government in the world...except for all the rest of them."
I 100% agree...that's why they shouldn't use the "opinion" of the majority of hunters to make management decisions. It should be based on science and how it impacts the resource and opportunity....and the goal should always be to maximize that opportunity in a manner that is sustainable to the resource.
Well said....exactly. :tup:
:yeah:
Post by: Machias on June 07, 2017, 12:34:35 PM
.. my enjoyment of trail cameras in general are a big part of the experience for me. I'd be a trail camer even hunting was outlawed.
:yeah: :yeah:
Lots of fun, I'll leave the illegal and unethical activity to other folks.
Post by: lord grizzly on June 07, 2017, 01:33:37 PM
.. my enjoyment of trail cameras in general are a big part of the experience for me. I'd be a trail camer even hunting was outlawed.
:yeah: :yeah:
Lots of fun, I'll leave the illegal and unethical activity to other folks.
That is why we need to have laws and regulations in a society isn't it
Post by: Machias on June 07, 2017, 01:39:50 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on June 07, 2017, 02:05:24 PM
Where do you draw the line on 24 hour surveillance? It appears at trail cameras.simple yes or no question here for the group (see if that happens).No because I am not allowed to hunt 24 hours.
do you believe 24 hour real time surveillance is fair chase hunting?
If you see a herd of elk cross the road into a field 20 minutes before shooting hours do you just keep driving to your planned hunting spot for the day because you have obtained information about their location outside of legal hunting hours? My guess is you post up in that field and wait for hunting hours.
if you really cant see the difference there than you need to work on your critical thinking skills. I realize this is the internet and of course obtuse arguments must be made but really??
I am certainly not one that needs to work on my critical thinking skills. If you think I am obtuse you obviously don't know me.
I am all for management that is based on fact. If it can be proven that these cameras are increasing harvest, reducing opportunity for others and hurting our game herds I am all for a conversation about either limiting their use or modifying the hunting seasons to account for the over harvest.
Do you get that? Read it again, I am open to using or limiting the use of these cameras. Would you say that you are as open minded on the conversation as I?
Post by: lord grizzly on June 07, 2017, 02:12:45 PM
Where do you draw the line on 24 hour surveillance? It appears at trail cameras.simple yes or no question here for the group (see if that happens).No because I am not allowed to hunt 24 hours.
do you believe 24 hour real time surveillance is fair chase hunting?
If you see a herd of elk cross the road into a field 20 minutes before shooting hours do you just keep driving to your planned hunting spot for the day because you have obtained information about their location outside of legal hunting hours? My guess is you post up in that field and wait for hunting hours.
if you really cant see the difference there than you need to work on your critical thinking skills. I realize this is the internet and of course obtuse arguments must be made but really??
I am certainly not one that needs to work on my critical thinking skills. If you think I am obtuse you obviously don't know me.
I am all for management that is based on fact. If it can be proven that these cameras are increasing harvest, reducing opportunity for others and hurting our game herds I am all for a conversation about either limiting their use or modifying the hunting seasons to account for the over harvest.
Do you get that? Read it again, I am open to using or limiting the use of these cameras. Would you say that you are as open minded on the conversation as I?
Again confusing fair chase with harvest. Very different the things. Open your mind to the ethics side of the topic of technology and hunting as it pertains to fair chase. Like I said fair chase has nothing to do with one hunter to another it is hunter and game.
For the record I have cameras hanging I the woods right now. So all Of you thinking I'm looking down my nose at another user groups are quite mistaken. I'm looking down the slippery slope of advancing technology and what it means to the ethics of hunting. Sorry that offends so many of you sportsman
Post by: Rainier10 on June 07, 2017, 02:51:12 PM
Ethics are the toughest thing you are ever going to argue. We have one heck of time at hunter ed talking about them. Is it legal to shoot ducks on the water? Yes. Is it ethical? Is it in the spirit of fair chase? To most, no, to some, yes.
Post by: Machias on June 07, 2017, 03:34:44 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on June 07, 2017, 03:55:33 PM
I will say that I like and use trail cameras. I just bought a live feed camera to put at my place so I don't have to drive 5 hours to check it.
If someone wants to argue that it is a bad thing I will tell them I am saving the planet by reducing my carbon footprint and not burning fossil fuel to go check my cameras and I am using the intel to harvest some truly free range totally organic red meat. I am actually part of team green. :tup:
Post by: Wacenturion on June 07, 2017, 04:44:45 PM
Post by: fishngamereaper on June 07, 2017, 05:20:50 PM
Years ago you never saw a cam in the woods. I've ran cams for a long time and keep them really well hidden as to not alarm the average person. But it seems now you walk through the woods and see cams everywhere. If this keeps up I can see private timber companies/WDFW restricting the number of cams you can have, requiring them to be marked with name and phn #, and maybe even registering the location.
And comparing cams to other technologies is senseless. Completely different topics.
Post by: Wacenturion on June 07, 2017, 06:25:45 PM
As it has already been pointed out, having the technology to shoot an animal at 800-1000 yards has far more impact on the possibility of said animal to not be able to escape than a cellular cam. Technology is technology, and they can be compared relevant to whats being discussed. :twocents:
Post by: lord grizzly on June 07, 2017, 08:00:26 PM
But you do sound like you are looking down your nose, because you keep throwing out fair chase, as if I am not following fair chase, I am an unethical hunter using unfair practices to hunt. And now the revelation that you are using cameras as well, doing the exact same thing I am. The only difference is you drive out and download your photos. I receive mine in an e-mail. We have our cameras out for a week. On Saturday you and I are both looking at 100 photos. The difference is I saved 2 hours of driving to retrieve my photos.
Wrong. I never said you were practicing anything unethical. Again, actually read what I'm writing, maybe a little slower and with less defences up. I'm saying the opertunity is there with the ever advancing technology and I fully support the game departments getting in front of tech instead of chasing it
Post by: lord grizzly on June 07, 2017, 08:01:41 PM
Post by: lord grizzly on June 07, 2017, 08:05:04 PM
One thing you left out the equation.....you need coverage for cell cams to work. Most deer camps out in the booneys probable don't have service or at least signal strength strong enough to utilize cellular cams. So the picture you paint of guys sitting around deer camp and watching 20 cams on their laptop is unrealistic.
Because that's going to stay the same forever :DOH: by the way I'm replying to this on a device that fits In my pocket that 20 years ago would take up an entire desk and have to be plugged into a wall. Oh and cost an arm and a leg at the time. Yup all will stay just as it is
Post by: NOCK NOCK on June 07, 2017, 08:34:53 PM
again harvest success and fair chase are completely separate issues. I kill a deer and elk every year. my success rate is 100% on public land. the fact that I do has nothing to do with the issue of fair chase on a whole or how my harvest success affect others. I could really care less if you do or don't get your bull. I do care that the bull has his chance to be persuade as fairly as possible. I think you guys are correlating fair chase to be between hunters, its not, its between hunters and game. and tech in this area needs to be kept up with period.
Lord Grizzly,
Through out this thread you seem to be a HUGE proponent of fair chase, and ethical hunting, (majority of your posts contain, in your own words, fair chase.
I may be confusing you with someone else, but, were you not one of those who were in support of Bullwinkles killing/killer, TR.?
Just a question. :dunno:
Post by: lord grizzly on June 07, 2017, 08:42:30 PM
Post by: NOCK NOCK on June 07, 2017, 08:44:34 PM
Post by: lord grizzly on June 07, 2017, 08:45:40 PM
Post by: Odell on June 07, 2017, 08:56:52 PM
Or just regulate them to send once every 24 hours. 9:00 pm send and you hunt the next day. I can see the advantages to being able to check in from home. Just not having live streaming
Post by: lord grizzly on June 07, 2017, 08:59:12 PM
Cams need to be pulled prior to openeimg day. Pretty simple and you can still reap benifits and enjoyment from trail cams
Post by: Rainier10 on June 08, 2017, 08:09:39 AM
"A Montana wildlife law enforcement official confirmed that the driving force behind the law was “for fair chase reasons, not game management reasons.” And, their regulations state the following:
“It is illegal for a person to possess or use in the field any electronic or camera device whose purpose is to scout the location of game animals or relay the information on a game animal’s location or movement during any Commission-adopted hunting season.”"
So they don't think that it has anything to game management, it's an ethics thing.
Post by: lord grizzly on June 08, 2017, 08:11:45 AM
Here is an excerpt talking about the Montana law from the Outdoor Life article Bob33 posted.
"A Montana wildlife law enforcement official confirmed that the driving force behind the law was “for fair chase reasons, not game management reasons.” And, their regulations state the following:
“It is illegal for a person to possess or use in the field any electronic or camera device whose purpose is to scout the location of game animals or relay the information on a game animal’s location or movement during any Commission-adopted hunting season.”"
So they don't think that it has anything to game management, it's an ethics thing.
I think that's what ive been saying....
Post by: Rainier10 on June 08, 2017, 08:15:41 AM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 08, 2017, 08:26:25 AM
And what I have been saying is if it affecting game populations I am open to discussions about limiting the use of these new technologies. If it is a "I don't hunt that way and I don't think anyone should hunt different than I do" then I have an issue with taking away the ability to use these cameras.
Exactly...that's what many of these restrictions come down to.... It's our own fellow hunters trying to define what the hunt is for another hunter.... it's the aesthetics... that's 99% of the issue over things like baiting.
Post by: boneaddict on June 08, 2017, 08:27:14 AM
Quick example......the muledeer population in the Methow. What factor led to the demise of the herd....... prove it.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 08, 2017, 08:30:58 AM
Question to your point. How could you ever monitor that one factor in its relationship to harvest or population trends. How could you differentiate it with say the other 20 factors effecting populations......doesn't there have to be some sort of thought, discussion into its logic, or not.
Quick example......the muledeer population in the Methow. What factor led to the demise of the herd....... prove it.
A well structured study could determine the impact.
Post by: fishngamereaper on June 08, 2017, 08:35:14 AM
Post by: hunter399 on June 08, 2017, 08:35:32 AM
And what I have been saying is if it affecting game populations I am open to discussions about limiting the use of these new technologies. If it is a "I don't hunt that way and I don't think anyone should hunt different than I do" then I have an issue with taking away the ability to use these cameras.
HUNTING ETHICS. ... FAIR CHASE, as defined by the Boone and Crockett Club, is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North American big game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals.
The Rules of Fair Chase
The term “Fair Chase” shall not include the taking of animals under the following conditions:
Helpless in a trap, deep snow or water, or on ice.
From any power vehicle or power boat.
By “jacklighting” or shining at night.
By the use of any tranquilizers or poisons.
While inside escape-proof fenced enclosures.
By the use of any power vehicle or power boats for herding or driving animals, including use of aircraft to land alongside or to communicate with or direct a hunter on the ground.
By the use of electronic devices for attracting, locating or pursuing game or guiding the hunter to such game, or by the use of a bow or arrow to which any electronic device is attached with the exception of lighted nocks and recording devices that cast no light towards the target and do not aid in rangefinding, sighting or shooting the bow.
Any other condition considered by the Board of Directors as unacceptable.
The fair chase concept does, however, extend beyond the hunt itself; it is an attitude and a way of life based in a deep-seated respect for wildlife, for the environment, and for other individuals who share the bounty of this vast continent’s natural resources.
Some people have more respect for wildlife than others I guess ,as for it effecting game populations ,it will over time when cell trail cams become more affordable for every sportsman.This attitude that it's not effecting game populations now so why worry about is not good , that is part of the problem with wildlife management.Cause we wait ,then the populations take a lot of years to rebound.
Post by: boneaddict on June 08, 2017, 08:36:46 AM
I think Montana handled it wisely.
Post by: bobcat on June 08, 2017, 08:39:36 AM
Most hunting regulations are going to be based on what people in general feel is right or wrong, or fair chase, or not.
I bet if spotting game from the air and then communiticating the location to a hunter on the ground were legal, it would not have a significant impact on deer or elk populations, or even if it did, it would be difficult or impossible to prove.
So why not change the laws regarding spotting game from the air so that is no longer illegal?
Post by: Rainier10 on June 08, 2017, 08:43:15 AM
Question to your point. How could you ever monitor that one factor in its relationship to harvest or population trends. How could you differentiate it with say the other 20 factors effecting populations......doesn't there have to be some sort of thought, discussion into its logic, or not.I agree there are a ton of factors. The WDFW is supposed to be monitoring the herd health and adjusting season dates, permit allotment, weapon restrictions and rule changes in an effort to maintain healthy numbers while maintaining the habitat for the animals and opportunity for the hunting community.
Quick example......the muledeer population in the Methow. What factor led to the demise of the herd....... prove it.
If they say that the population is down, like in the Methow and they say the way to fix it is to eliminate doe permits, go to permit only for bucks during the modern firearm season, eliminate any late season archery hunts and eliminate the use of trail cameras during the hunting season I would be willing to listen to that argument.
If it is a conversation of ethics and "I don't hunt like that and I don't want anyone to hunt different than I do", then you are getting onto a slippery slope.
Post by: lord grizzly on June 08, 2017, 08:47:30 AM
too many variables, sometimes common sense has to come into play.
I think Montana handled it wisely.
one of the most intelligible replies in this thread yet.
Post by: Rainier10 on June 08, 2017, 08:48:27 AM
You do realize that hunting effects game populations correct? Guns, muzzleloaders and archery equipment are all used to take animals thus effecting game populations.And what I have been saying is if it affecting game populations I am open to discussions about limiting the use of these new technologies. If it is a "I don't hunt that way and I don't think anyone should hunt different than I do" then I have an issue with taking away the ability to use these cameras.
HUNTING ETHICS. ... FAIR CHASE, as defined by the Boone and Crockett Club, is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North American big game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals.
The Rules of Fair Chase
The term “Fair Chase” shall not include the taking of animals under the following conditions:
Helpless in a trap, deep snow or water, or on ice.
From any power vehicle or power boat.
By “jacklighting” or shining at night.
By the use of any tranquilizers or poisons.
While inside escape-proof fenced enclosures.
By the use of any power vehicle or power boats for herding or driving animals, including use of aircraft to land alongside or to communicate with or direct a hunter on the ground.
By the use of electronic devices for attracting, locating or pursuing game or guiding the hunter to such game, or by the use of a bow or arrow to which any electronic device is attached with the exception of lighted nocks and recording devices that cast no light towards the target and do not aid in rangefinding, sighting or shooting the bow.
Any other condition considered by the Board of Directors as unacceptable.
The fair chase concept does, however, extend beyond the hunt itself; it is an attitude and a way of life based in a deep-seated respect for wildlife, for the environment, and for other individuals who share the bounty of this vast continent’s natural resources.
Some people have more respect for wildlife than others I guess ,as for it effecting game populations ,it will over time when cell trail cams become more affordable for every sportsman.This attitude that it's not effecting game populations now so why worry about is not good , that is part of the problem with wildlife management.Cause we wait ,then the populations take a lot of years to rebound.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 08, 2017, 09:16:06 AM
Studies won't and can't prove anything, in my opinion. At least not the kind of study that would be economically feasible to conduct.
Most hunting regulations are going to be based on what people in general feel is right or wrong, or fair chase, or not.
I bet if spotting game from the air and then communiticating the location to a hunter on the ground were legal, it would not have a significant impact on deer or elk populations, or even if it did, it would be difficult or impossible to prove.
So why not change the laws regarding spotting game from the air so that is no longer illegal?
I agree with you... it probably wouldn't have a significant impact because it simply wouldn't be within the financial reach of most people. If anything it shouldn't be allowed because of the impact it would have on the experience of other hunters.
The problem with leaving it up to people's feelings is that the majority will always define the aesthetics of the hunt/experience for everyone else. The average whitetail bowhunter hunting in the mountains of NE WA is likely to get after things much differently than the guy who does spot and stalk in open country or calls in elk with a bugle, or walks around in the woods looking for deer during the rifle season. However, those other groups are more than happy to place restrictions on things they don't use because it doesn't meet their own personal definition of "hunting".......... Meanwhile that bowhunter may think plinking animals at several hundred yards with a rifle and optics doesn't require all that much skill.... who gets to decide... if we go off feelings I guess it's good to be in the majority.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 08, 2017, 09:22:38 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 08, 2017, 09:23:37 AM
It would only take something like 2 or 3 planes in the same drainage to make the FAA pretty nervous and recommend shutting down aerial help. Plus, given the season dates, people would be trying to go up in light fog further bugging the FAA.
If you want to use aircraft just look around for WDFW planes and helicopters that seem to like to push animals around during modern.
Post by: lord grizzly on June 08, 2017, 09:37:02 AM
I will say this.. there are certain laws you guys could pass that can guarantee someone like me will move out of the state. A Montana type game cam law would be one of them. You might think that is great...and perhaps it would be in your lifetime... but eventually you too will lose the support for the things you enjoy and someone like me who would be that additional voice supporting your rights won't be there...... hopefully for your own interests it won't be in your generation (I feel sorry for the next generations though)...If there is going to be a state where we see big restrictions on hunting in the future then I'd have to think WA would be near the top of the list... aside from the crazy politics on the west side we seem to have so many hunters more than willing to join the side of those who want to restrict opportunity.
how is restricting technology in the spirit of fair chase restrict opportunity? I don't se anything about taking cams out of the woods eliminating seasons or there durations? in fact I've seen some on here state that perhaps a answer would be allowing these cameras and shortening seasons to accommodate (makes zero sense to me where that's coming from) but that would indeed be restricting opportunity. last I checked Montana has some pretty liberal hunting seasons and this rule didn't change that.
Post by: Wacenturion on June 08, 2017, 10:12:28 AM
Post by: singleshot12 on June 08, 2017, 11:23:53 AM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 08, 2017, 12:09:38 PM
I will say this.. there are certain laws you guys could pass that can guarantee someone like me will move out of the state. A Montana type game cam law would be one of them. You might think that is great...and perhaps it would be in your lifetime... but eventually you too will lose the support for the things you enjoy and someone like me who would be that additional voice supporting your rights won't be there...... hopefully for your own interests it won't be in your generation (I feel sorry for the next generations though)...If there is going to be a state where we see big restrictions on hunting in the future then I'd have to think WA would be near the top of the list... aside from the crazy politics on the west side we seem to have so many hunters more than willing to join the side of those who want to restrict opportunity.
how is restricting technology in the spirit of fair chase restrict opportunity? I don't se anything about taking cams out of the woods eliminating seasons or there durations? in fact I've seen some on here state that perhaps a answer would be allowing these cameras and shortening seasons to accommodate (makes zero sense to me where that's coming from) but that would indeed be restricting opportunity. last I checked Montana has some pretty liberal hunting seasons and this rule didn't change that.
Opportunity: a set of circumstances that makes it possible to do something.
On one hand you argue the use of this tech is not fair chase, substitutes for skill and gives an advantage and then you ask how restricting this tech would restrict opportunity. Obviously if those who use it gain an advantage then opportunity increases. It follows, that by restricting its you restrict opportunity.
And if it doesn't increase advantage in the chase by any measurable amount...and certainly much less than technology you personally are probably already using.... (which is my position) then restricting it still restricts opportunity..that opportunity being...."the set of circumstances that make it possible" to use and enjoy these devices.
You bring up the point about some mentioning shortening seasons so we could use this tech. If this tech gave such an "unfair" chase advantage that it had that kind of impact on the resource then I wouldn't support its use. But in all honesty.. if we wanted to get down to nut cutting about restricting technology that truly impacts those populations....things like rifle deer seasons (especially if there are seasons during the rut/pre-rut) should technically go long before something like those cameras because no hunter needs a study to know the kind of impact that has on the deer herd.... but again.. I would support getting rid of this electronic tech if it would save a weapon/season length... why... because taking those things away would "restrict" opportunity on a much larger scale.... You see... even though I could care less about hunting with a rifle (and espcially during the rut)...and would absolutely love to have no rifle season during the rut or pre-rut... and would much rather personally use trail cameras during the season.... I would never want to take those wonderful opportunities away from rifle hunters even though it doesn't really do it for me personally.
Post by: lord grizzly on June 08, 2017, 12:16:14 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 08, 2017, 12:20:57 PM
There has to be some limits set in place for the use of the growing electronic tech in the hunting world. Kinda like auto-matic bait feeders and heat sensors. Will it really help our cause if this up coming generation relies on hi-tech equipment to aid in the hunt? IMO anything electronic is worlds apart from fair chase hunting. I think lord grizzy has a good point by looking at the big picture.
Heat sensing technology is great for hogs. I have personally used automatic bait feeders down in Texas. You should have seen how those big bucks came running in. Every year I'd bag out with the biggest buck on the property in the first five minutes of shooting light... just as soon as the feeder went off.... Of course.. that's not true... I never killed a single big buck in TX.... and I hunted high fence (military base), on private land, on public lands, with feeders, without feeders, using rattling horns, using mock scrapes, hunting funnels, hunted fields, hunted water, hunted with high powered rifles and optics, hunting during the rut etc.... Now.. I did have a lot of big buck pictures.. but none of it ever equated to a big buck.... With smaller bucks and does I had opportunities on those under any/all the above scenarios......perhaps if I hunted an area that was so low pressure that I was the only hunter for several square miles (like I experience bowhunting in the west) some of those tactics might have been ever so slightly more effective... but even then...almost any advantage I have seen from technology is marginal at best..
Post by: hunter399 on June 08, 2017, 12:24:24 PM
Ya I realize that hunting effects game populations other wise there would be no seasons at all,Let's say cell connected trail cams are 20 dollars a piece, and every Hunter has one ,You don't think for one minute that it's not gonna effect game harvest or population numbers .Here you better add cell trail cams to this chart , so you can see the big picture.You do realize that hunting effects game populations correct? Guns, muzzleloaders and archery equipment are all used to take animals thus effecting game populations.And what I have been saying is if it affecting game populations I am open to discussions about limiting the use of these new technologies. If it is a "I don't hunt that way and I don't think anyone should hunt different than I do" then I have an issue with taking away the ability to use these cameras.
HUNTING ETHICS. ... FAIR CHASE, as defined by the Boone and Crockett Club, is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North American big game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals.
The Rules of Fair Chase
The term “Fair Chase” shall not include the taking of animals under the following conditions:
Helpless in a trap, deep snow or water, or on ice.
From any power vehicle or power boat.
By “jacklighting” or shining at night.
By the use of any tranquilizers or poisons.
While inside escape-proof fenced enclosures.
By the use of any power vehicle or power boats for herding or driving animals, including use of aircraft to land alongside or to communicate with or direct a hunter on the ground.
By the use of electronic devices for attracting, locating or pursuing game or guiding the hunter to such game, or by the use of a bow or arrow to which any electronic device is attached with the exception of lighted nocks and recording devices that cast no light towards the target and do not aid in rangefinding, sighting or shooting the bow.
Any other condition considered by the Board of Directors as unacceptable.
The fair chase concept does, however, extend beyond the hunt itself; it is an attitude and a way of life based in a deep-seated respect for wildlife, for the environment, and for other individuals who share the bounty of this vast continent’s natural resources.
Some people have more respect for wildlife than others I guess ,as for it effecting game populations ,it will over time when cell trail cams become more affordable for every sportsman.This attitude that it's not effecting game populations now so why worry about is not good , that is part of the problem with wildlife management.Cause we wait ,then the populations take a lot of years to rebound.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 08, 2017, 12:54:15 PM
I did not bring up shortening seasons another member on here did in this thread. i repeated it and said it didn't make sense to me. and "opportunity" is not the same as "advantage" those dots aren't connecting. your opportunity does not decrease with the lack of tech, yes your advantage does. very circular discussion now since that's right back to my fair chase stance. you obviously cant see the forest for the trees on this one and that's ok. im talking about my game department not yours so im pretty happy there looking into getting this on the right track.
I'm tracking that you didn't personally suggest shortening the season. Read that part again and you will see I mentioned "some"...as in... the people that you were talking about that brought it up. I would agree with you.. it wouldn't make sense to me either.... If these tech devices were having that kind of impact on game that we were looking at reduction in seasons then I'd be in favor of pulling back on the tech as much as required before shortening seasons.
I can see the forest and the trees.... The reality is we are apparently using two different operating definitions for "opportunity"... I'm not sure what your definition is but mine came directly from the dictionary. I'm not saying that to be sarcastic.. I really have no idea how you are defining opportunity and feel that I clearly gave you logical explanation to support that definition.
I can't argue with you that this tech during the season provides some advantage... but I can say from personal experience... if we are talking about the kill... the advantage is marginal...but admittedly...existent (on that note...all technology..especially the stuff that has been around for years... gives me an advantage in killing an animal)....With a camera in the season the biggest advantages I get is knowing that a certain animal I am after is still hanging out in an area... that a certain animal is still alive...that daylight activity has picked up in the area I hunt.... which is hours away from home .....and it helps me know when I should consider taking some time off work (all of which gives some degree of advantage that I wouldn't have otherwise).......This advantage allows me to pursue other opportunities when that animal is no longer there....(those cameras often help me find other opportunities I might be interested in). Honestly, if I was simply trying to kill any legal deer... or even a nice respectable 4x4 each season.... then I wouldn't gain much advantage by having a camera in the season. However, since my hunting time is extremely valuable and I want to maximize it by being in an area that holds the specific type of animal I am looking for... it' is very valuable...and advantageous in that endeavor..... and even with all that help..... I still manage to eat my tag more seasons than not because I lack the type of skill that some of you apparently have....it sounds like for some of you guys taking big bucks with that kind of tech would be as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.
You know.. if I didn't have those cameras in the season... I'd hunt much closer to home most of the time.. much closer to the city... where I could scout in person more frequently.... I'm sure those rural communities don't really need the large amount of revenue myself and others who use this technology to hunt further from home bring to the area during those seasons....... yes... this is reality..... A law as simple as this would have an undeniable, felt impact on those rural communities.... and that... is yet again... opportunity lost.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 08, 2017, 12:56:03 PM
Ya I realize that hunting effects game populations other wise there would be no seasons at all,Let's say cell connected trail cams are 20 dollars a piece, and every Hunter has one ,You don't think for one minute that it's not gonna effect game harvest or population numbers .Here you better add cell trail cams to this chart , so you can see the big picture.You do realize that hunting effects game populations correct? Guns, muzzleloaders and archery equipment are all used to take animals thus effecting game populations.And what I have been saying is if it affecting game populations I am open to discussions about limiting the use of these new technologies. If it is a "I don't hunt that way and I don't think anyone should hunt different than I do" then I have an issue with taking away the ability to use these cameras.
HUNTING ETHICS. ... FAIR CHASE, as defined by the Boone and Crockett Club, is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North American big game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals.
The Rules of Fair Chase
The term “Fair Chase” shall not include the taking of animals under the following conditions:
Helpless in a trap, deep snow or water, or on ice.
From any power vehicle or power boat.
By “jacklighting” or shining at night.
By the use of any tranquilizers or poisons.
While inside escape-proof fenced enclosures.
By the use of any power vehicle or power boats for herding or driving animals, including use of aircraft to land alongside or to communicate with or direct a hunter on the ground.
By the use of electronic devices for attracting, locating or pursuing game or guiding the hunter to such game, or by the use of a bow or arrow to which any electronic device is attached with the exception of lighted nocks and recording devices that cast no light towards the target and do not aid in rangefinding, sighting or shooting the bow.
Any other condition considered by the Board of Directors as unacceptable.
The fair chase concept does, however, extend beyond the hunt itself; it is an attitude and a way of life based in a deep-seated respect for wildlife, for the environment, and for other individuals who share the bounty of this vast continent’s natural resources.
Some people have more respect for wildlife than others I guess ,as for it effecting game populations ,it will over time when cell trail cams become more affordable for every sportsman.This attitude that it's not effecting game populations now so why worry about is not good , that is part of the problem with wildlife management.Cause we wait ,then the populations take a lot of years to rebound.
It's so marginal it wouldn't make that chart.
Post by: lord grizzly on June 08, 2017, 01:22:32 PM
opportunity- hunting season is X day to Y day. I wouldn't propose changing that based on a camera on a tree. your opportunity to peruse game has not decreased.
advantage - remotely tracking an animal via electronic device with the intention to harvest. your advantage over that game animal has increased significantly . again I end up back at my fair chase stance.
if your stance is you believe tech should be made available to make hunting easier your barking up the wrong tree with a guy like me and I doubt you would get much public support with that as a basis of your argument.
Post by: bearpaw on June 08, 2017, 01:23:08 PM
The simple fact remains, no matter how you spot or find out about an animal, while driving a mountain road, while glassing from a mile away, from talking to other hunters, or while viewing photos coming to your phone from a trail cam miles away, you cannot shoot the animal until you get withing shooting range of that animal. Trail cam photos, even real time photos, do not kill an animal, you must hunt/stalk to within shooting distance. If the hunter fails to get within range quick enough the animal may be gone without even having been spooked, if the hunter fails to be stealthy enough while hunting to get within range the animal may be gone, and then once within range the hunter still has to make the shot count.
Please explain how viewing an animal on a cell phone replaces the hunt, the act of successfully stalking/getting within range to kill the animal. I would think autos, high power optics, horses, long range rifles, gun powder, quality bullets, etc, etc, all have more influence on a hunter actually successfully hunting and killing an animal. It would seem all those items would result in a hunt being less fair chase? :dunno:
Post by: hunter399 on June 08, 2017, 01:28:14 PM
So this example from page 4 is fair chase c'mon .
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 08, 2017, 01:30:40 PM
examples pertaining to this discussion from my prospective.
opportunity- hunting season is X day to Y day. I wouldn't propose changing that based on a camera on a tree. your opportunity to peruse game has not decreased.
advantage - remotely tracking an animal via electronic device with the intention to harvest. your advantage over that game animal has increased significantly . again I end up back at my fair chase stance.
if your stance is you believe tech should be made available to make hunting easier your barking up the wrong tree with a guy like me and I doubt you would get much public support with that as a basis of your argument.
Tech should be made available for people's enjoyment and the tech we are talking about should be made available because it provides a marginal advantage at best and will have no negative impact on the game.... The hypocrisy of your statement about tech is stupefying. I 100% know you use all kinds of tech to make your hunts easier...to make your hunts possible... but then you speak as if your above using tech to make hunting easier....you want to argue about how some certain type of tech (which does not provide near the advantage of technology you already use) should not be allowed because it's not fair chase.... all the while using technology that gives you a much, much, much greater advantage over the animal than the tech we are discussing ever would.
Post by: KFhunter on June 08, 2017, 01:32:49 PM
I simply don't get the unethical advantage of seeing an animal on a cell phone that "results in a lack of fair chase"... :dunno:
The simple fact remains, no matter how you spot or find out about an animal, while driving a mountain road, while glassing from a mile away, from talking to other hunters, or while viewing photos coming to your phone from a trail cam miles away, you cannot shoot the animal until you get withing shooting range of that animal. Trail cam photos, even real time photos, do not kill an animal, you must hunt/stalk to within shooting distance. If the hunter fails to get within range quick enough the animal may be gone without even having been spooked, if the hunter fails to be stealthy enough while hunting to get within range the animal may be gone, and then once within range the hunter still has to make the shot count.
Please explain how viewing an animal on a cell phone replaces the hunt, the act of successfully stalking/getting within range to kill the animal. I would think autos, high power optics, horses, long range rifles, gun powder, quality bullets, etc, etc, all have more influence on a hunter actually successfully hunting and killing an animal. It would seem all those items would result in a hunt being less fair chase? :dunno:
If I get a text on my phone at 3 am I groan, roll out of bed, grab the .223, flip on the light, blast the coyote off the bait pile, climb back in bed and wait for another text.
I don't actually do this, but it would be a dang good idea if only I had cellular coverage in my hay field :chuckle:
Post by: singleshot12 on June 08, 2017, 01:34:41 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 08, 2017, 01:37:32 PM
For example, consider a hypothetical hunting scenario during firearm season, with a wireless camera set over a food plot. To use real-time data, lets say a photo or video of a buck on that food plot right now, and then stalk over and shoot that buck because I knew he was there right now – that would be an over-reach of technology and crossing of the fair-chase line, in my opinion.
So this example from page 4 is fair chase c'mon .
Using that logic the rifle is also not fair chase because the animal standing out in the open and the odds are very high it won't survive that encounter with such advanced technology.
While the scenario you paint is possible...and disturbing... I'd say that it would be so few and far between that it would have little if no impact on the resource... in the end we would simply be restricting the pleasure/enjoyment of many for some scenario that isn't how 99.9% will use this piece of technology. Ye have little faith in most of your fellow hunters.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 08, 2017, 01:43:25 PM
Relying on technology to pattern animals = hunters loosing their instinct.
Not really... takes the exact sames instincts as it takes when I observe them in person (actually in some cases takes more). I know they are there... now I have to figure out what to do.. how to set up for the wind, they don't reliably tell me what direction to expect them from so that's a piece to figure out too (something I don't have to figure out if I watch them in person), when I locate them on camera I may have only night pictures so I need to use my instinct and skill to figure out where they are likely to be during daylight hours... I need my instincts to think about how they use the terrain, I need to use my instincts to determine where to hunt morning and evening based on all the above (the cams can help here sometimes but more often than not they don't)...... I need to think about how I am going to get 30 yards or less from the animal undetected... I could keep going.
Post by: singleshot12 on June 08, 2017, 01:52:13 PM
For example, consider a hypothetical hunting scenario during firearm season, with a wireless camera set over a food plot. To use real-time data, lets say a photo or video of a buck on that food plot right now, and then stalk over and shoot that buck because I knew he was there right now – that would be an over-reach of technology and crossing of the fair-chase line, in my opinion.
So this example from page 4 is fair chase c'mon .
This method would be disturbingly effective for a guides with multiple bait stations and clients.
Post by: idaho guy on June 08, 2017, 01:53:17 PM
I'm sure the main reason is the fact that you can see what's there in real time ,and show up there in 15 minutes and shoot animals ,doesn't seem like fair chase to me.
I realize this is what people think can happen, but it is not reality. You're not going to receive a photo and then go harvest an animal it just doesn't work that way. I have wireless cameras on my bear baits. I get a photo within 10 seconds of it triggering, I'd have to jump in my truck and drive 45 miles, get out and sneak in undetected. It's not realistic. The animal is long gone or will hear you coming into the camera location. Deer and elk are even more mobile. What it does do is save tremendous amounts of gas. That should make the environmental Nazis happy. I don't have to drive an hour to see if my bait has been hit, I know one way or the other....it saves a LOT of gas.
I agree no place I hunt could I receive the e-mail and get there in time to still sneak in and kill the animail real time. I should have known this would happen I just bought one a few days ago online! ha ha.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 08, 2017, 01:54:37 PM
For example, consider a hypothetical hunting scenario during firearm season, with a wireless camera set over a food plot. To use real-time data, lets say a photo or video of a buck on that food plot right now, and then stalk over and shoot that buck because I knew he was there right now – that would be an over-reach of technology and crossing of the fair-chase line, in my opinion.
So this example from page 4 is fair chase c'mon .
This method would be disturbingly effective for a guides with multiple bait stations and clients.
I doubt it.
Post by: bearpaw on June 08, 2017, 01:56:21 PM
For example, consider a hypothetical hunting scenario during firearm season, with a wireless camera set over a food plot. To use real-time data, lets say a photo or video of a buck on that food plot right now, and then stalk over and shoot that buck because I knew he was there right now – that would be an over-reach of technology and crossing of the fair-chase line, in my opinion.
So this example from page 4 is fair chase c'mon .
You've still got to successfully get within shooting range before the animal leaves and without spooking the animal. All the camera did was tell you an animal you would like to shoot was there at the time the photo was taken. Successfully getting there in time to kill the animal relies on your hunting ability and how good your other equipment is to get you close enough to begin the stalk!
Post by: singleshot12 on June 08, 2017, 01:58:53 PM
Relying on technology to pattern animals = hunters loosing their instinct.
Not really... takes the exact sames instincts as it takes when I observe them in person (actually in some cases takes more). I know they are there... now I have to figure out what to do.. how to set up for the wind, they don't reliably tell me what direction to expect them from so that's a piece to figure out too (something I don't have to figure out if I watch them in person), when I locate them on camera I may have only night pictures so I need to use my instinct and skill to figure out where they are likely to be during daylight hours... I need my instincts to think about how they use the terrain, I need to use my instincts to determine where to hunt morning and evening based on all the above (the cams can help here sometimes but more often than not they don't)...... I need to think about how I am going to get 30 yards or less from the animal undetected... I could keep going.
I see what you are saying.. But I just don't like to see hunting along with everything else go so hi tech.
If the Eastman brothers aren't for it either am I :chuckle:
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 08, 2017, 02:01:06 PM
Relying on technology to pattern animals = hunters loosing their instinct.
Not really... takes the exact sames instincts as it takes when I observe them in person (actually in some cases takes more). I know they are there... now I have to figure out what to do.. how to set up for the wind, they don't reliably tell me what direction to expect them from so that's a piece to figure out too (something I don't have to figure out if I watch them in person), when I locate them on camera I may have only night pictures so I need to use my instinct and skill to figure out where they are likely to be during daylight hours... I need my instincts to think about how they use the terrain, I need to use my instincts to determine where to hunt morning and evening based on all the above (the cams can help here sometimes but more often than not they don't)...... I need to think about how I am going to get 30 yards or less from the animal undetected... I could keep going.
I see what you are saying.. But I just don't like to see hunting along with everything else go so hi tech.
If the Eastman brothers aren't for it either am I :chuckle:
:chuckle: I do understand the resistance even if I disagree with it to the extent that it doesn't negatively impact the resource in any measurable way. If primitive hunters had their way we wouldn't be using compounds either.
Post by: bearpaw on June 08, 2017, 02:03:17 PM
For example, consider a hypothetical hunting scenario during firearm season, with a wireless camera set over a food plot. To use real-time data, lets say a photo or video of a buck on that food plot right now, and then stalk over and shoot that buck because I knew he was there right now – that would be an over-reach of technology and crossing of the fair-chase line, in my opinion.
So this example from page 4 is fair chase c'mon .
This method would be disturbingly effective for a guides with multiple bait stations and clients.
So rather than put our hunters on a bait stand, you think I should tell them that we'll sit in a central location viewing my cell phone and drive like the wind to try and get to a bait before a bear fills his belly and leaves. Exactly how many baits have you viewed a bear that stays at a bait long enough for that to happen? And have you ever seen how cautious a bear acts at a bait, you will still need to be a very effective stalker to slip in and see the bear standing if you can get there before it leaves!
Before I get accused, no I do not own any of the cell phone cameras! :chuckle:
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 08, 2017, 02:06:25 PM
For example, consider a hypothetical hunting scenario during firearm season, with a wireless camera set over a food plot. To use real-time data, lets say a photo or video of a buck on that food plot right now, and then stalk over and shoot that buck because I knew he was there right now – that would be an over-reach of technology and crossing of the fair-chase line, in my opinion.
So this example from page 4 is fair chase c'mon .
This method would be disturbingly effective for a guides with multiple bait stations and clients.
So rather than put our hunters on a bait stand, you think I should tell them that we'll sit in a central location viewing my cell phone and drive like the wind to try and get to a bait before a bear fills his belly and leaves. Exactly how many baits have you viewed a bear that stays at a bait long enough for that to happen? And have you ever seen how cautious a bear acts at a bait, you will still need to be a very effective stalker to slip in and see the bear standing if you can get there before it leaves!
Before I get accused, no I do not own any of the cell phone cameras! :chuckle:
:chuckle: This is what is confusing the heck out of me.... It's almost like I hunt completely different animals than the rest of these guys do.
Post by: Bob33 on June 08, 2017, 02:25:29 PM
Airplanes? Night vision? Hunting from motor vehicles? Radio telemetry gear?
Post by: hunter399 on June 08, 2017, 02:39:39 PM
With my 1000 yard rifle and sporting scope easily done :tup:(southern accent) and joking of course :chuckle:For example, consider a hypothetical hunting scenario during firearm season, with a wireless camera set over a food plot. To use real-time data, lets say a photo or video of a buck on that food plot right now, and then stalk over and shoot that buck because I knew he was there right now – that would be an over-reach of technology and crossing of the fair-chase line, in my opinion.
So this example from page 4 is fair chase c'mon .
You've still got to successfully get within shooting range before the animal leaves and without spooking the animal. All the camera did was tell you an animal you would like to shoot was there at the time the photo was taken. Successfully getting there in time to kill the animal relies on your hunting ability and how good your other equipment is to get you close enough to begin the stalk!
Post by: Rainier10 on June 08, 2017, 02:39:51 PM
I have a sincere question for those in favor of not having restrictions on cellular cameras: is there any hunting equipment and method that you oppose? If so, what is the basis for your opposition?Airplanes to spot game? I am on the fence on this one.
Airplanes? Night vision? Hunting from motor vehicles? Radio telemetry gear?
Night vision, against, too much of an advantage.
From a motor vehicle, against, not safe.
Radio telemetry gear, against, too much of an advantage.
Bait for bears, I am for.
Dogs for bears, I am on the fence.
Dogs for cougars, definitely for.
Crossbows during archery, no.
209 enclosed primers for muzzleloaders, I am against.
Party hunting, I am against.
So yes I have limits. But each individual has a different idea of what is acceptable. It really comes down to what is acceptable to the majority and I believe if you don't care either way on a subject you should side with less restrictions.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 08, 2017, 02:43:01 PM
I have a sincere question for those in favor of not having restrictions on cellular cameras: is there any hunting equipment and method that you oppose? If so, what is the basis for your opposition?I don't have any issue with WDFW hunting wolves from helicopters using telemetry gear, other than the price.
Airplanes? Night vision? Hunting from motor vehicles? Radio telemetry gear?
Post by: Bob33 on June 08, 2017, 02:46:20 PM
Devil's advocate here.I have a sincere question for those in favor of not having restrictions on cellular cameras: is there any hunting equipment and method that you oppose? If so, what is the basis for your opposition?Airplanes to spot game? I am on the fence on this one.
Airplanes? Night vision? Hunting from motor vehicles? Radio telemetry gear?
Night vision, against, too much of an advantage.
From a motor vehicle, against, not safe.
Radio telemetry gear, against, too much of an advantage.
Bait for bears, I am for.
Dogs for bears, I am on the fence.
Dogs for cougars, definitely for.
Crossbows during archery, no.
209 enclosed primers for muzzleloaders, I am against.
Party hunting, I am against.
So yes I have limits. But each individual has a different idea of what is acceptable. It really comes down to what is acceptable to the majority and I believe if you don't care either way on a subject you should side with less restrictions.
"Too much of an advantage with night vision": is there science supporting that? I'd like to use night vision; aren't you denying me opportunity? If you don't want to use it, fine - but why should you restrict my use?
I do welcome an open discussion on this topic. If hunters don't address these issues, I'm afraid non-hunters will.
Post by: bearpaw on June 08, 2017, 02:51:37 PM
With my 1000 yard rifle and sporting scope easily done :tup:(southern accent) and joking of course :chuckle:For example, consider a hypothetical hunting scenario during firearm season, with a wireless camera set over a food plot. To use real-time data, lets say a photo or video of a buck on that food plot right now, and then stalk over and shoot that buck because I knew he was there right now – that would be an over-reach of technology and crossing of the fair-chase line, in my opinion.
So this example from page 4 is fair chase c'mon .
You've still got to successfully get within shooting range before the animal leaves and without spooking the animal. All the camera did was tell you an animal you would like to shoot was there at the time the photo was taken. Successfully getting there in time to kill the animal relies on your hunting ability and how good your other equipment is to get you close enough to begin the stalk!
If you are sitting watching a bear with your 1000 yard rifle i doubt you are worried about the cell phone! :dunno:
Post by: KFhunter on June 08, 2017, 03:08:00 PM
I still want some texts when a coyote is on the bait pile in my back hayfield :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on June 08, 2017, 03:14:01 PM
I have a sincere question for those in favor of not having restrictions on cellular cameras: is there any hunting equipment and method that you oppose? If so, what is the basis for your opposition?
Airplanes? Night vision? Hunting from motor vehicles? Radio telemetry gear?
Sincere answers:
Airplanes?
I am not opposed, I've hunted from helicopter overseas where it was legal, I want to hunt from a chopper for hogs in TX as soon as I can before someone gets it outlawed. That does not mean I am opposed to other styles of hunting, I like it all.
Night vision?
Most species are closed to hunting at night. For species legal to hunt at night I say use night vision if you want.
Hunting from motor vehicles?
I use vehicles to hunt quite often, depending on game hunted. In most cases you are required to get out of the vehicle before you can load your gun. If a hunter has a disabled permit and we are road hunting I stop and shut off the engine.
Radio telemetry gear?
Use it on my hounds every hunt, I will not risk losing a dog without it.
It's illegal to use radio telemetry to track a collared wild animal, that's not something i want to do, and in my experience most hunters would not want to hunt a wild animal by tracking them with a radio collar around their neck. Maybe there are instances I don't know?
Post by: bigtex on June 08, 2017, 03:22:53 PM
It's illegal to use radio telemetry to track a collared wild animal, that's not something i want to do, and in my experience most hunters would not want to hunt a wild animal by tracking them with a radio collar around their neck. Maybe there are instances I don't know?It happens in WA every couple of years, and those are just the ones who are caught. Someone gets their hands on the telemetry frequencies. Obviously not an everyday thing but definitely not something that never happens.
Post by: KFhunter on June 08, 2017, 03:23:28 PM
I have a sincere question for those in favor of not having restrictions on cellular cameras: is there any hunting equipment and method that you oppose? If so, what is the basis for your opposition?
Airplanes? Night vision? Hunting from motor vehicles? Radio telemetry gear?
I can't think of any, but I can think of a lot of methods I'd like to see be legal. I'm not in favor of "restrictions" in lieu of proper management; where the restrictions are there to limit take or somehow hamper success rates.
Post by: bearpaw on June 08, 2017, 03:29:17 PM
It's illegal to use radio telemetry to track a collared wild animal, that's not something i want to do, and in my experience most hunters would not want to hunt a wild animal by tracking them with a radio collar around their neck. Maybe there are instances I don't know?It happens in WA every couple of years, and those are just the ones who are caught. Someone gets their hands on the telemetry frequencies. Obviously not an everyday thing but definitely not something that never happens.
Criminals break most every law at some point! :dunno:
Post by: lord grizzly on June 08, 2017, 04:48:56 PM
examples pertaining to this discussion from my prospective.
opportunity- hunting season is X day to Y day. I wouldn't propose changing that based on a camera on a tree. your opportunity to peruse game has not decreased.
advantage - remotely tracking an animal via electronic device with the intention to harvest. your advantage over that game animal has increased significantly . again I end up back at my fair chase stance.
if your stance is you believe tech should be made available to make hunting easier your barking up the wrong tree with a guy like me and I doubt you would get much public support with that as a basis of your argument.
Tech should be made available for people's enjoyment and the tech we are talking about should be made available because it provides a marginal advantage at best and will have no negative impact on the game.... The hypocrisy of your statement about tech is stupefying. I 100% know you use all kinds of tech to make your hunts easier...to make your hunts possible... but then you speak as if your above using tech to make hunting easier....you want to argue about how some certain type of tech (which does not provide near the advantage of technology you already use) should not be allowed because it's not fair chase.... all the while using technology that gives you a much, much, much greater advantage over the animal than the tech we are discussing ever would.
Wow you know me so well and yet we've never met. Gives a lot of insight to your personality and likely motives of where you point of view comes from. Your a very short sighted individual but you certainly have the right to be. Funny that "Washington for wildlife" group you have branded there. Sure seems like that's you main concern reading your perspectives....
Post by: lord grizzly on June 08, 2017, 04:51:15 PM
Post by: Bob33 on June 08, 2017, 04:53:44 PM
Lots of worthwhile opinions. Let's keep it that way.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 08, 2017, 05:11:28 PM
Post by: Machias on June 08, 2017, 07:52:20 PM
I will say I do get irritated when folks act like if I'm for these cameras somehow I am unethical and I can't see the dangers or the big picture. Too stupid or short sighted. Have no hunting skills, am relying on this technology...etc. I'm a trapper, I have to have enough skill at reading animal sign to predict where an animal will put his foot within 1.5 inches. So yes I can read animal sign and I am proficient at knowing animal habits. I am fully aware of the dangers of certain practices that threaten our way of life. I've been on the side of arguing for less technology. But I have this camera, I know the real advantages, not the what if this happens or what if that happens. I come at this from knowing and using this item and know that some of the what ifs are just not realistic or likely to happen.
So in Montana, are non-hunters not allowed to use trail cameras during the season? How in the world would you enforce this law? Someone ask how would you know if this impacts harvest numbers. Seems fairly straight forward to me if nothing else has changed from seasons to season in Montana they have to have some idea if the restrictions have had any impact on harvest numbers. I am extremely against the Fish and Game Department, on their own deciding what is and what is not ethical. Like they did here in WA when they took it upon themselves to outlaw hunting coyotes with dogs. Purely a political reason, absolutely nothing to do with science.
Post by: Rainier10 on June 08, 2017, 09:36:28 PM
In your position of devils advocate, if you are for night vision hunting that is your choice. We certainly won't agree on every issue. I believe that these issues should be decided by the game department as they come up. I think they should go with what the majority wants or what is best for wildlife. Hopefully they can both be achieved, give the majority what they want and have it be the best thing for wildlife. If they differ I think they should side with what is best for wildlife.Devil's advocate here.I have a sincere question for those in favor of not having restrictions on cellular cameras: is there any hunting equipment and method that you oppose? If so, what is the basis for your opposition?Airplanes to spot game? I am on the fence on this one.
Airplanes? Night vision? Hunting from motor vehicles? Radio telemetry gear?
Night vision, against, too much of an advantage.
From a motor vehicle, against, not safe.
Radio telemetry gear, against, too much of an advantage.
Bait for bears, I am for.
Dogs for bears, I am on the fence.
Dogs for cougars, definitely for.
Crossbows during archery, no.
209 enclosed primers for muzzleloaders, I am against.
Party hunting, I am against.
So yes I have limits. But each individual has a different idea of what is acceptable. It really comes down to what is acceptable to the majority and I believe if you don't care either way on a subject you should side with less restrictions.
"Too much of an advantage with night vision": is there science supporting that? I'd like to use night vision; aren't you denying me opportunity? If you don't want to use it, fine - but why should you restrict my use?
I do welcome an open discussion on this topic. If hunters don't address these issues, I'm afraid non-hunters will.
Here is the kicker for any of these debates, I think if you feel strongly about something you should stand behind it. If you are really against cell trail cams fight to ban their use. if you really like to use them fight to keep them legal. If you could go either way vote in favor of less restrictions.
Post by: Machias on June 08, 2017, 09:50:04 PM
Here is the kicker for any of these debates, I think if you feel strongly about something you should stand behind it. If you are really against cell trail cams fight to ban their use. if you really like to use them fight to keep them legal. If you could go either way vote in favor of less restrictions.
I completely agree with this!
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 08, 2017, 11:22:42 PM
examples pertaining to this discussion from my prospective.
opportunity- hunting season is X day to Y day. I wouldn't propose changing that based on a camera on a tree. your opportunity to peruse game has not decreased.
advantage - remotely tracking an animal via electronic device with the intention to harvest. your advantage over that game animal has increased significantly . again I end up back at my fair chase stance.
if your stance is you believe tech should be made available to make hunting easier your barking up the wrong tree with a guy like me and I doubt you would get much public support with that as a basis of your argument.
Tech should be made available for people's enjoyment and the tech we are talking about should be made available because it provides a marginal advantage at best and will have no negative impact on the game.... The hypocrisy of your statement about tech is stupefying. I 100% know you use all kinds of tech to make your hunts easier...to make your hunts possible... but then you speak as if your above using tech to make hunting easier....you want to argue about how some certain type of tech (which does not provide near the advantage of technology you already use) should not be allowed because it's not fair chase.... all the while using technology that gives you a much, much, much greater advantage over the animal than the tech we are discussing ever would.
Wow you know me so well and yet we've never met. Gives a lot of insight to your personality and likely motives of where you point of view comes from. Your a very short sighted individual but you certainly have the right to be. Funny that "Washington for wildlife" group you have branded there. Sure seems like that's you main concern reading your perspectives....
I only need to know a few things and make logical assumptions that apply to 99.9% of hunters to know if the above is true...such as... You hunt with a legal weapon that makes it easier for you to kill the animal, you use some type of vehicle at least some of the time to make it easier for you to get to/from your hunt locations, you use technologically advanced clothing that allows you the handle the elements better which gives you a tremendous advantage etc... Bottom line.. You already use technology to make your hunting easier.. I don't need to know you personally to know this is true... It's the nature of what we do... Man is able to kill animals regularly because he has designed tools/technology and uses those to make it possible...it's been that way since the dawn of time...those are all facts. You are not above it... You are complicit in the very thing you say you oppose... using technology to make the hunt/chase/kill easier..... Ironically, in this case.. you are opposing something that really doesn't give anywhere near the measurable advantage as items you are already using.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 09, 2017, 02:05:15 AM
Here is the kicker for any of these debates, I think if you feel strongly about something you should stand behind it. If you are really against cell trail cams fight to ban their use. if you really like to use them fight to keep them legal. If you could go either way vote in favor of less restrictions.
:chuckle: What fun would that be... .No way.. I'm not stopping until I change Lord's opinion. :chuckle:
Post by: singleshot12 on June 09, 2017, 06:14:41 AM
Post by: lord grizzly on June 09, 2017, 06:41:17 AM
examples pertaining to this discussion from my prospective.
opportunity- hunting season is X day to Y day. I wouldn't propose changing that based on a camera on a tree. your opportunity to peruse game has not decreased.
advantage - remotely tracking an animal via electronic device with the intention to harvest. your advantage over that game animal has increased significantly . again I end up back at my fair chase stance.
if your stance is you believe tech should be made available to make hunting easier your barking up the wrong tree with a guy like me and I doubt you would get much public support with that as a basis of your argument.
Tech should be made available for people's enjoyment and the tech we are talking about should be made available because it provides a marginal advantage at best and will have no negative impact on the game.... The hypocrisy of your statement about tech is stupefying. I 100% know you use all kinds of tech to make your hunts easier...to make your hunts possible... but then you speak as if your above using tech to make hunting easier....you want to argue about how some certain type of tech (which does not provide near the advantage of technology you already use) should not be allowed because it's not fair chase.... all the while using technology that gives you a much, much, much greater advantage over the animal than the tech we are discussing ever would.
Wow you know me so well and yet we've never met. Gives a lot of insight to your personality and likely motives of where you point of view comes from. Your a very short sighted individual but you certainly have the right to be. Funny that "Washington for wildlife" group you have branded there. Sure seems like that's you main concern reading your perspectives....
I only need to know a few things and make logical assumptions that apply to 99.9% of hunters to know if the above is true...such as... You hunt with a legal weapon that makes it easier for you to kill the animal, you use some type of vehicle at least some of the time to make it easier for you to get to/from your hunt locations, you use technologically advanced clothing that allows you the handle the elements better which gives you a tremendous advantage etc... Bottom line.. You already use technology to make your hunting easier.. I don't need to know you personally to know this is true... It's the nature of what we do... Man is able to kill animals regularly because he has designed tools/technology and uses those to make it possible...it's been that way since the dawn of time...those are all facts. You are not above it... You are complicit in the very thing you say you oppose... using technology to make the hunt/chase/kill easier..... Ironically, in this case.. you are opposing something that really doesn't give anywhere near the measurable advantage as items you are already using.
a good barometer of how weak an argument is how far you have to stretch to make it. what kind of shirt im wearing? what legal weapon im hunting with? pretty silly stuff. for the record (and its a pretty easy record to check, click back numerically in the corner of this thread there) ive not once stated that technology was bad. again, read what I actually wrote. not 99.9% of what you think I wrote. (little advice that last tenth of a percent can make you look like a real jack ass sometimes) what I've said is very easy to check by reviewing recent history. technology moves faster than our agencies can keep up with it and this particular one has potential to affect fair chase hunting as it does. (again bud, just talking this one, remote trail cams. not super fancy shirts)
ive also never broached the subject of harvest. don't need to. F&G already has systems in place for that. if harvest numbers spike or decrease they adjust tag numbers and seasons accordingly. they don't need to adopt an amendment for that. like they do for advancements in tech, in regards to fair chase(starting to see a theme yet? its only been 10 pages)
I will say some of the recent comments on here are alarming "night vision, helicopters, hell ya!! I don't need no fish cop telling me how to live my life!!!" really guys? are you typing that while you throw your beer can out the window on your way to dump your trash at the end of the logging road? no wonder you've lost things like hound hunting and trapping over there. to joe public (or more accurately Joanne public) you sound like a bunch of pigs.
I may get dinged by mods on that last paragraph but I stand by it. the comment is general not personal though it will be taken that way.
and for the record I wear mostly wool and cotton blends...how could I....
Post by: NW SURVEYOR on June 09, 2017, 07:06:48 AM
I assume that most people agree that using a radio to talk another hunter into an animal for a kill is unethical.
For you that do not agree, that's your perogative (sp?).
I happen to think that it is highly unethical (My opinion) and do not practice this iilegal (I believe) methodology.
This practice, which I have witnessed is not a rare occurance, however it requires two people, both poachers.
Now, jump ahead to the guy who has a few camaras with the phone link and you have the same situation with only one participant.
A guy can monitor a few sites and sneak into the area with full knowledge of where the game is and the reaction of that game to any disturbance.
Any arguement that this is not practical in my opinion is ridiculous.
I have hunted for 45 years and have stalked game succesfully numerous times.
This methodology allows aperson to monitor numerous sites at daylight and to then pick the area he will hunt that morning with secure knowledge of game in the immediate area. To think that someone is/will not take advantage of this is really putting your head in the sand.
Does everyone do this? I am sure not, but I am convinced that this is wrong.
I wil further state that using a drone to spot game with a camara and then immediately hunt that animal is also unethical.
I am sure that Bearpaw and most hunters are using this technology in a responsibe manner.
But laws are not always written for the righteous.
They are written to provide protection from those individuals who are irresponsible.
I say pull ALL the camaras at the beginning of the season.
As I side note, I just bought my first (2) camaras this winter which I have used with limited success.
They are used ones with a card that I can download to my PC.
This is good conversation.
Later,
Rob.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 09, 2017, 07:30:21 AM
examples pertaining to this discussion from my prospective.
opportunity- hunting season is X day to Y day. I wouldn't propose changing that based on a camera on a tree. your opportunity to peruse game has not decreased.
advantage - remotely tracking an animal via electronic device with the intention to harvest. your advantage over that game animal has increased significantly . again I end up back at my fair chase stance.
if your stance is you believe tech should be made available to make hunting easier your barking up the wrong tree with a guy like me and I doubt you would get much public support with that as a basis of your argument.
Tech should be made available for people's enjoyment and the tech we are talking about should be made available because it provides a marginal advantage at best and will have no negative impact on the game.... The hypocrisy of your statement about tech is stupefying. I 100% know you use all kinds of tech to make your hunts easier...to make your hunts possible... but then you speak as if your above using tech to make hunting easier....you want to argue about how some certain type of tech (which does not provide near the advantage of technology you already use) should not be allowed because it's not fair chase.... all the while using technology that gives you a much, much, much greater advantage over the animal than the tech we are discussing ever would.
Wow you know me so well and yet we've never met. Gives a lot of insight to your personality and likely motives of where you point of view comes from. Your a very short sighted individual but you certainly have the right to be. Funny that "Washington for wildlife" group you have branded there. Sure seems like that's you main concern reading your perspectives....
I only need to know a few things and make logical assumptions that apply to 99.9% of hunters to know if the above is true...such as... You hunt with a legal weapon that makes it easier for you to kill the animal, you use some type of vehicle at least some of the time to make it easier for you to get to/from your hunt locations, you use technologically advanced clothing that allows you the handle the elements better which gives you a tremendous advantage etc... Bottom line.. You already use technology to make your hunting easier.. I don't need to know you personally to know this is true... It's the nature of what we do... Man is able to kill animals regularly because he has designed tools/technology and uses those to make it possible...it's been that way since the dawn of time...those are all facts. You are not above it... You are complicit in the very thing you say you oppose... using technology to make the hunt/chase/kill easier..... Ironically, in this case.. you are opposing something that really doesn't give anywhere near the measurable advantage as items you are already using.
a good barometer of how weak an argument is how far you have to stretch to make it. what kind of shirt im wearing? what legal weapon im hunting with? pretty silly stuff. for the record (and its a pretty easy record to check, click back numerically in the corner of this thread there) ive not once stated that technology was bad. again, read what I actually wrote. not 99.9% of what you think I wrote. (little advice that last tenth of a percent can make you look like a real jack ass sometimes) what I've said is very easy to check by reviewing recent history. technology moves faster than our agencies can keep up with it and this particular one has potential to affect fair chase hunting as it does. (again bud, just talking this one, remote trail cams. not super fancy shirts)
ive also never broached the subject of harvest. don't need to. F&G already has systems in place for that. if harvest numbers spike or decrease they adjust tag numbers and seasons accordingly. they don't need to adopt an amendment for that. like they do for advancements in tech, in regards to fair chase(starting to see a theme yet? its only been 10 pages)
I will say some of the recent comments on here are alarming "night vision, helicopters, hell ya!! I don't need no fish cop telling me how to live my life!!!" really guys? are you typing that while you throw your beer can out the window on your way to dump your trash at the end of the logging road? no wonder you've lost things like hound hunting and trapping over there. to joe public (or more accurately Joanne public) you sound like a bunch of pigs.
I may get dinged by mods on that last paragraph but I stand by it. the comment is general not personal though it will be taken that way.
and for the record I wear mostly wool and cotton blends...how could I....
It's obvious you are the one that is stretching now or perhaps you forgot what you wrote. This whole piece of the thread above is a reply to the following statement you clearly made " if your stance is you believe tech should be made available to make hunting easier you are barking up the wrong tree with a guy like me "... the replies that followed that statement are addressing the clear hypocrisy of that statement.
Regarding the questions you asked about clothing/weapons.. the details are really irrelevant to the point being made but I'll entertain it:
1. Clothing: Unless you are naked or wearing stuff hand made/not made in a manufacturing plant then you are wearing technologically advanced clothing that provides you an advantage under extreme conditions.
2. Weapon: You are using a weapon.. even if it's a primitive bow/arrow that his hand made it's still a tool/piece of technology that took at least basic (and I'd argue advanced) scientific knowledge and thought processes to perfect.
So again...I have read all your post. I never argued you were opposed to technology as a whole. To the contrary I am using your stated and unstated support of technology to clearly show your hypocrisy on this particular issue. I realize you are only selectively and hypocritically opposed to the use of technology that doesn't fit in your own personal definition of the hunt which you then believe should be used to define "the hunt" for every other hunter in Idaho.. (which I want to make clear... I believe is perfectly within your right as an individual to do...I'm glad you have that right.... not arguing against that...It's just a pretty unfortunate to see a fellow hunter take a position against his fellow hunters because it doesn't tickle his fancy and not because it's truly a bad thing for the resource that we all share).
Regarding Fair Chase... it's really coming down to each individual position on it....you say it's not fair chase...I say it is...... I have seen you prove no unfair advantage these cameras provide that isn't already far blown away by technology that 99.9% of hunters are using during the season...technology that increases the hunters advantage in the chase far more than a camera in the season.
I can agree there is a line to fair and unfair chase... but it's really hypocritical for us to move that line around simply because it's something we personally don't like and use...all the while using technology that puts the animal at a much greater disadvantage than the technology we are castigating.
For the record...I didn't take your comment personally. I'd share a hunting camp with you anytime.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 09, 2017, 07:41:17 AM
I guess the question should be - - where do we draw the line on electronic technology associated with hunting big game? You would think cell trail cams would cross that line :dunno:
For me they don't cross the line because I think they will really not create the kind of advantage that some seem to believe.... but I can understand the argument against them...I just think the concerns aren't based in the same reality that I live in where animals don't wait around for me to show up and even if they do I'm not likely to stalk up on them successfully (not that I would ever use them in that capacity in the first place... I'd even be in favor of some kind of delay in the send/receipt of the photo..... I wouldn't desire immediate pictures.....but getting pictures without having to disturb the area and stress the animals is a good thing)..... I'll probably never use them in the Northwest....However, I'm strongly opposed to removing trail cam use during the season (like Montana does) as has been proposed....and even though I probably won't use them in the NW I'm not in favor of restricting them for those who do enjoy their use.... If I thought it gave some kind of real advantage that resulted in an unfair chase then I would oppose them.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 09, 2017, 07:48:57 AM
Here we go.
I assume that most people agree that using a radio to talk another hunter into an animal for a kill is unethical.
For you that do not agree, that's your perogative (sp?).
I happen to think that it is highly unethical (My opinion) and do not practice this iilegal (I believe) methodology.
This practice, which I have witnessed is not a rare occurance, however it requires two people, both poachers.
Now, jump ahead to the guy who has a few camaras with the phone link and you have the same situation with only one participant.
A guy can monitor a few sites and sneak into the area with full knowledge of where the game is and the reaction of that game to any disturbance.
Any arguement that this is not practical in my opinion is ridiculous.
I have hunted for 45 years and have stalked game succesfully numerous times.
This methodology allows aperson to monitor numerous sites at daylight and to then pick the area he will hunt that morning with secure knowledge of game in the immediate area. To think that someone is/will not take advantage of this is really putting your head in the sand.
Does everyone do this? I am sure not, but I am convinced that this is wrong.
I wil further state that using a drone to spot game with a camara and then immediately hunt that animal is also unethical.
I am sure that Bearpaw and most hunters are using this technology in a responsibe manner.
But laws are not always written for the righteous.
They are written to provide protection from those individuals who are irresponsible.
I say pull ALL the camaras at the beginning of the season.
As I side note, I just bought my first (2) camaras this winter which I have used with limited success.
They are used ones with a card that I can download to my PC.
This is good conversation.
Later,
Rob.
Rob,
I really think this is a solid point:
"This methodology allows a person to monitor numerous sites at daylight and to then pick the area he will hunt that morning with secure knowledge of game in the immediate area "
I usually have animals in around my stands at/around daylight and more times than not it doesn't equate to success on what I'm looking for.... so I can't say that I it would provide any great advantage but it's certainly something worth further scrutiny.
I can't speak to the use of radios.. I don't think they would create an advantage for what I do but I guess if you were doing drives and such then they would really help out. I'd have to defer to people who hunt in a manner that could see these being abused.
Post by: Machias on June 09, 2017, 07:56:03 AM
Post by: lord grizzly on June 09, 2017, 07:58:01 AM
:chuckle: You guys seem to have this idea that a wireless trail camera is akin to a video game.
they will be.
and DB :tup:
Post by: Machias on June 09, 2017, 07:58:58 AM
:chuckle: You guys seem to have this idea that a wireless trail camera is akin to a video game.
they will be and DB :tup:
And WHEN they get to that point, I'll be standing shoulder to shoulder with you asking for them to be banned.
Post by: lord grizzly on June 09, 2017, 08:00:31 AM
:chuckle: You guys seem to have this idea that a wireless trail camera is akin to a video game.
they will be and DB :tup:
And WHEN they get to that point, I'll be standing shoulder to shoulder with you asking for them to be banned.
it will be to late. the user group will then be embattled and screaming about there "rights" being taken (this thread is a good example) . mentioned that before as well. again, proactive, not reactive
Post by: Machias on June 09, 2017, 08:02:38 AM
Post by: lord grizzly on June 09, 2017, 08:04:10 AM
:chuckle: You guys seem to have this idea that a wireless trail camera is akin to a video game.
they will be and DB :tup:
And WHEN they get to that point, I'll be standing shoulder to shoulder with you asking for them to be banned.
had to quote you again on this one. interesting. this is exactly the stance I've been taking that you've been arguing is wrong. it appears we see the same issue, I just see it now (or should I say ahead of time). why do you think this wont happen?
Post by: Rainier10 on June 09, 2017, 08:05:07 AM
Here is the kicker for any of these debates, I think if you feel strongly about something you should stand behind it. If you are really against cell trail cams fight to ban their use. If you really like to use them fight to keep them legal. If you could go either way vote in favor of less restrictions.
Again I think that for the most part this is a healthy conversation and we can each alot from everyone's input and different viewpoints. I am not sure anyone hardlined on one side or the other is going to change their minds but for those in the middle I think this can be very educational.
Carry on. :tup:
Post by: Machias on June 09, 2017, 08:16:49 AM
:chuckle: You guys seem to have this idea that a wireless trail camera is akin to a video game.
they will be and DB :tup:
And WHEN they get to that point, I'll be standing shoulder to shoulder with you asking for them to be banned.
had to quote you again on this one. interesting. this is exactly the stance I've been taking that you've been arguing is wrong. it appears we see the same issue, I just see it now. why do you think this wont happen?
Because it's like every other PROGRESSIVE argument, we need gun control because this or that might happen, we need this rule or regulation because this MIGHT happen. WHEN it gets to THAT point and there is a REAL problem it's never too late to take a step back and say we've gone too far. Your in Idaho, how has my wireless camera affected YOU? It hasn't and it won't. I have a wireless camera on a bear bait and a friend of mine has a wireless camera on another bait. Neither of us has taken a bear off of our baits. We have 16 bears hitting our baits. We have a third bait site with a regular trail camera. Nothing is different between the three bait sites. I hate the mentality that is always looking to fix something that is not broke.
Post by: lord grizzly on June 09, 2017, 08:25:44 AM
:chuckle: You guys seem to have this idea that a wireless trail camera is akin to a video game.
they will be and DB :tup:
And WHEN they get to that point, I'll be standing shoulder to shoulder with you asking for them to be banned.
had to quote you again on this one. interesting. this is exactly the stance I've been taking that you've been arguing is wrong. it appears we see the same issue, I just see it now. why do you think this wont happen?
Because it's like every other PROGRESSIVE argument, we need gun control because this or that might happen, we need this rule or regulation because this MIGHT happen. WHEN it gets to THAT point and there is a REAL problem it's never too late to take a step back and say we've gone too far. Your in Idaho, how has my wireless camera affected YOU? It hasn't and it won't. I have a wireless camera on a bear bait and a friend of mine has a wireless camera on another bait. Neither of us has taken a bear off of our baits. We have 16 bears hitting our baits. We have a third bait site with a regular trail camera. Nothing is different between the three bait sites. I hate the mentality that is always looking to fix something that is not broke.
I've also been pretty clear that I don't think the current cams are an issue with there current limitations. so I've answered that question a few times in not so many words of how its affected me. I've also been pretty clear that my issue isn't with how I think it will affect me but rather how it affects the relationship between game and hunter. nothing you do hunting will affect my ability to harvest. taking pics, sitting in a tree whatever. this topic for me any way, is philosophical and in no way personal to any one person on here. ive tried to make that clear but it seems some of you just like a fight.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 09, 2017, 08:27:01 AM
Couple of things. I think for the most part this is a great discussion. Second I think it is a great one to have before this becomes an issue in Washington, right now this is being discussed for Idaho not Washington. And finally I think there are some that have commented that have actually used these types of cameras and know all the facts about them and others may be commented and forming opinions without any actual experience with these cameras and their capabilities. They may be assuming how these might effect hunting situations.Here is the kicker for any of these debates, I think if you feel strongly about something you should stand behind it. If you are really against cell trail cams fight to ban their use. If you really like to use them fight to keep them legal. If you could go either way vote in favor of less restrictions.
Again I think that for the most part this is a healthy conversation and we can each alot from everyone's input and different viewpoints. I am not sure anyone hardlined on one side or the other is going to change their minds but for those in the middle I think this can be very educational.
Carry on. :tup:
I'd fall in the group that hasn't used this type of camera.
Post by: bearpaw on June 09, 2017, 09:00:24 AM
"Americans are systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights. Support all user groups & quit losing opportunity!"
That is one reason we lost hound hunting and baiting in WA, too many other hunters saw an opportunity to limit the competition or had some preconceived idea that hounds or bait is unfair or not fair chase. Every hunter should stand up for other hunter's methods unless it's proven to be detrimental to wildlife and hunting! :twocents:
Post by: Wacenturion on June 09, 2017, 09:07:13 AM
I guess the question should be - - where do we draw the line on electronic technology associated with hunting big game? You would think cell trail cams would cross that line :dunno:
Using your assumption that cells cams account for the taking of animals that would otherwise not be taken, then how do you rationlize as an example long range 800-1000 rifles that take animals that would not normally have been taken? One, the rifle, kills an animal that in all likelyhood would have walked away before you closed the distance and the other takes a picture of an animal that probably walks away before you get there. One dead....unfair? One alive...say cheese.
Post by: Bob33 on June 09, 2017, 09:08:27 AM
I'll defer to my signature line, which is the specific reason all user groups keep losing opportunity. Everybody is ready to take something away they perceive to be harmful but fail to realize that the next time they them self will be on the receiving end of losing opportunity.Dale, the loss of hounds and bait for bear hunting was due to voting by the general public on an initiative (655). Why do you conclude that was the result of hunters wanting to restrict opportunity?
"Americans are systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights. Support all user groups & quit losing opportunity!"
That is one reason we lost hound hunting and baiting in WA, too many other hunters saw an opportunity to limit the competition or had some preconceived idea that hounds or bait is unfair or not fair chase. Every hunter should stand up for other hunter's methods unless it's proven to be detrimental to wildlife and hunting! :twocents:
An argument can be made the other direction as well. If hunters had put some minimal restrictions on the use of bait or hounds, would the general public have found it so offensive that they banned it completely?
Post by: Wacenturion on June 09, 2017, 09:12:51 AM
:chuckle: You guys seem to have this idea that a wireless trail camera is akin to a video game.
they will be and DB :tup:
And WHEN they get to that point, I'll be standing shoulder to shoulder with you asking for them to be banned.
had to quote you again on this one. interesting. this is exactly the stance I've been taking that you've been arguing is wrong. it appears we see the same issue, I just see it now. why do you think this wont happen?
Because it's like every other PROGRESSIVE argument, we need gun control because this or that might happen, we need this rule or regulation because this MIGHT happen. WHEN it gets to THAT point and there is a REAL problem it's never too late to take a step back and say we've gone too far. Your in Idaho, how has my wireless camera affected YOU? It hasn't and it won't. I have a wireless camera on a bear bait and a friend of mine has a wireless camera on another bait. Neither of us has taken a bear off of our baits. We have 16 bears hitting our baits. We have a third bait site with a regular trail camera. Nothing is different between the three bait sites. I hate the mentality that is always looking to fix something that is not broke.
:tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup:
Post by: Wacenturion on June 09, 2017, 09:17:19 AM
I'll defer to my signature line, which is the specific reason all user groups keep losing opportunity. Everybody is ready to take something away they perceive to be harmful but fail to realize that the next time they them self will be on the receiving end of losing opportunity.
"Americans are systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights. Support all user groups & quit losing opportunity!"
That is one reason we lost hound hunting and baiting in WA, too many other hunters saw an opportunity to limit the competition or had some preconceived idea that hounds or bait is unfair or not fair chase. Every hunter should stand up for other hunter's methods unless it's proven to be detrimental to wildlife and hunting! :twocents:
Therein lies the real problem with this preceived notion that cams and especially cell cams are bad or going a video game in the near future. It's like raising a red flag and waving it at the general public and anti's. Then the world starts to think there is actually something wrong with using them. Then they vote....end of opportunity.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 09, 2017, 09:21:10 AM
I'll defer to my signature line, which is the specific reason all user groups keep losing opportunity. Everybody is ready to take something away they perceive to be harmful but fail to realize that the next time they them self will be on the receiving end of losing opportunity.
"Americans are systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights. Support all user groups & quit losing opportunity!"
That is one reason we lost hound hunting and baiting in WA, too many other hunters saw an opportunity to limit the competition or had some preconceived idea that hounds or bait is unfair or not fair chase. Every hunter should stand up for other hunter's methods unless it's proven to be detrimental to wildlife and hunting! :twocents:
Therein lies the real problem with this preceived notion that cams and especially cell cams are bad or going a video game in the near future. It's like raising a red flag and waving it at the general public and anti's. Then the world starts to think there is actually something wrong with using them. Then they vote....end of opportunity.
That's for sure... if hunters want to give away opportunity the antis are more than happy to oblige.
Post by: Machias on June 09, 2017, 09:21:19 AM
:chuckle: You guys seem to have this idea that a wireless trail camera is akin to a video game.
they will be and DB :tup:
And WHEN they get to that point, I'll be standing shoulder to shoulder with you asking for them to be banned.
had to quote you again on this one. interesting. this is exactly the stance I've been taking that you've been arguing is wrong. it appears we see the same issue, I just see it now. why do you think this wont happen?
Because it's like every other PROGRESSIVE argument, we need gun control because this or that might happen, we need this rule or regulation because this MIGHT happen. WHEN it gets to THAT point and there is a REAL problem it's never too late to take a step back and say we've gone too far. Your in Idaho, how has my wireless camera affected YOU? It hasn't and it won't. I have a wireless camera on a bear bait and a friend of mine has a wireless camera on another bait. Neither of us has taken a bear off of our baits. We have 16 bears hitting our baits. We have a third bait site with a regular trail camera. Nothing is different between the three bait sites. I hate the mentality that is always looking to fix something that is not broke.
I've also been pretty clear that I don't think the current cams are an issue with there current limitations. so I've answered that question a few times in not so many words of how its affected me. I've also been pretty clear that my issue isn't with how I think it will affect me but rather how it affects the relationship between game and hunter. nothing you do hunting will affect my ability to harvest. taking pics, sitting in a tree whatever. this topic for me any way, is philosophical and in no way personal to any one person on here. ive tried to make that clear but it seems some of you just like a fight.
Last thing in the world I like doing is fighting with someone, particularly on here. Maybe I've been taking it wrong but you seem to constantly be saying I'm not an ethical hunter, no you have not said me in particular, but have repeated multiple times that someone using this and other technology just doesn't get it, most won't. Anyways, you are against them, I am for them, we'll both present our views to the Fish and Game and whatever they end up deciding is what we will abide by. I'm done with the back and forth, my only hope in this whole discussion is if you are going to be against something, you are against if for the right reasons, in other words against the true capabilities and not some made up fantasy capabilities.
Post by: bearpaw on June 09, 2017, 09:23:03 AM
I'll defer to my signature line, which is the specific reason all user groups keep losing opportunity. Everybody is ready to take something away they perceive to be harmful but fail to realize that the next time they them self will be on the receiving end of losing opportunity.Dale, the loss of hounds and bait for bear hunting was due to voting by the general public on an initiative (655). Why do you conclude that was the result of hunters wanting to restrict opportunity?
"Americans are systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights. Support all user groups & quit losing opportunity!"
That is one reason we lost hound hunting and baiting in WA, too many other hunters saw an opportunity to limit the competition or had some preconceived idea that hounds or bait is unfair or not fair chase. Every hunter should stand up for other hunter's methods unless it's proven to be detrimental to wildlife and hunting! :twocents:
An argument can be made the other direction as well. If hunters had put some minimal restrictions on the use of bait or hounds, would the general public have found it so offensive that they banned it completely?
You asked so I'm going to open the worms!
I had plenty of other hunters tell me they were voting against hounds and even bait, many were bow hunters opposed to dog hunting because it was competition in the woods when they were bow hunting deer and elk! I don't feel this way, but I know some hound hunters who are waiting for the chance to vote against bow hunting. This is a big reason we all lose! We all should support each other, unless there is proven impacts on wildlife you will almost never see me advocating to take anything away from anyone, that road goes both ways, too bad more people don't realize that!
Some people are so sure they are right they don't care what they take away from others, but listen to them complain when their sport gets targeted!
I don't own a cell cam but I will defend them until someone proves they are a detriment to hunting. If we made laws the way some people think we wouldn't even be driving cars, we should have never built them because someone might get in an accident. That is the kind of thinking going on in this topic! :twocents:
Post by: Machias on June 09, 2017, 09:26:46 AM
Post by: lord grizzly on June 09, 2017, 09:29:59 AM
:chuckle: You guys seem to have this idea that a wireless trail camera is akin to a video game.
they will be and DB :tup:
And WHEN they get to that point, I'll be standing shoulder to shoulder with you asking for them to be banned.
had to quote you again on this one. interesting. this is exactly the stance I've been taking that you've been arguing is wrong. it appears we see the same issue, I just see it now. why do you think this wont happen?
Because it's like every other PROGRESSIVE argument, we need gun control because this or that might happen, we need this rule or regulation because this MIGHT happen. WHEN it gets to THAT point and there is a REAL problem it's never too late to take a step back and say we've gone too far. Your in Idaho, how has my wireless camera affected YOU? It hasn't and it won't. I have a wireless camera on a bear bait and a friend of mine has a wireless camera on another bait. Neither of us has taken a bear off of our baits. We have 16 bears hitting our baits. We have a third bait site with a regular trail camera. Nothing is different between the three bait sites. I hate the mentality that is always looking to fix something that is not broke.
I've also been pretty clear that I don't think the current cams are an issue with there current limitations. so I've answered that question a few times in not so many words of how its affected me. I've also been pretty clear that my issue isn't with how I think it will affect me but rather how it affects the relationship between game and hunter. nothing you do hunting will affect my ability to harvest. taking pics, sitting in a tree whatever. this topic for me any way, is philosophical and in no way personal to any one person on here. ive tried to make that clear but it seems some of you just like a fight.
Last thing in the world I like doing is fighting with someone, particularly on here. Maybe I've been taking it wrong but you seem to constantly be saying I'm not an ethical hunter, no you have not said me in particular, but have repeated multiple times that someone using this and other technology just doesn't get it, most won't. Anyways, you are against them, I am for them, we'll both present our views to the Fish and Game and whatever they end up deciding is what we will abide by. I'm done with the back and forth, my only hope in this whole discussion is if you are going to be against something, you are against if for the right reasons, in other words against the true capabilities and not some made up fantasy capabilities.
it is no fantasy what is coming. pull the touch screen out of your pocket and open up the blue tooth option. that's going to only get better with farther ranges. and so will any electronic device that profit can be made off of to a user group. you know a user group that spends more money on what they love than us hunters? there are but were right up there. the fantasy is thinking this wont happen. its a nice one, and I wish I could share it but reality is its coming. that's why departments like Montana have already nixed it and why Idaho is looking at it.
Post by: Bob33 on June 09, 2017, 09:33:36 AM
Thanks for the perspective.I'll defer to my signature line, which is the specific reason all user groups keep losing opportunity. Everybody is ready to take something away they perceive to be harmful but fail to realize that the next time they them self will be on the receiving end of losing opportunity.Dale, the loss of hounds and bait for bear hunting was due to voting by the general public on an initiative (655). Why do you conclude that was the result of hunters wanting to restrict opportunity?
"Americans are systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights. Support all user groups & quit losing opportunity!"
That is one reason we lost hound hunting and baiting in WA, too many other hunters saw an opportunity to limit the competition or had some preconceived idea that hounds or bait is unfair or not fair chase. Every hunter should stand up for other hunter's methods unless it's proven to be detrimental to wildlife and hunting! :twocents:
An argument can be made the other direction as well. If hunters had put some minimal restrictions on the use of bait or hounds, would the general public have found it so offensive that they banned it completely?
You asked so I'm going to open the worms!
I had plenty of other hunters tell me they were voting against hounds and even bait, many were bow hunters opposed to dog hunting because it was competition in the woods when they were bow hunting deer and elk! I don't feel this way, but I know some hound hunters who are waiting for the chance to vote against bow hunting. This is a big reason we all lose! We all should support each other, unless there is proven impacts on wildlife you will almost never see me advocating to take anything away from anyone, that road goes both ways, too bad more people don't realize that!
Some people are so sure they are right they don't care what they take away from others, but listen to them complain when their sport gets targeted!
I don't own a cell cam but I will defend them until someone proves they are a detriment to hunting. If we made laws the way some people think we wouldn't even be driving cars, we should have never built them because someone might get in an accident. That is the kind of thinking going on in this topic! :twocents:
Since approximately only 3-4% of Washington's voting population hunts, the bait and hound initiative would have passed even if all hunters were opposed to it.
I do think it's important for hunters to consider the image that certain practices may have with the non-hunting public.
Post by: bearpaw on June 09, 2017, 09:59:05 AM
Thanks for the perspective.I'll defer to my signature line, which is the specific reason all user groups keep losing opportunity. Everybody is ready to take something away they perceive to be harmful but fail to realize that the next time they them self will be on the receiving end of losing opportunity.Dale, the loss of hounds and bait for bear hunting was due to voting by the general public on an initiative (655). Why do you conclude that was the result of hunters wanting to restrict opportunity?
"Americans are systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights. Support all user groups & quit losing opportunity!"
That is one reason we lost hound hunting and baiting in WA, too many other hunters saw an opportunity to limit the competition or had some preconceived idea that hounds or bait is unfair or not fair chase. Every hunter should stand up for other hunter's methods unless it's proven to be detrimental to wildlife and hunting! :twocents:
An argument can be made the other direction as well. If hunters had put some minimal restrictions on the use of bait or hounds, would the general public have found it so offensive that they banned it completely?
You asked so I'm going to open the worms!
I had plenty of other hunters tell me they were voting against hounds and even bait, many were bow hunters opposed to dog hunting because it was competition in the woods when they were bow hunting deer and elk! I don't feel this way, but I know some hound hunters who are waiting for the chance to vote against bow hunting. This is a big reason we all lose! We all should support each other, unless there is proven impacts on wildlife you will almost never see me advocating to take anything away from anyone, that road goes both ways, too bad more people don't realize that!
Some people are so sure they are right they don't care what they take away from others, but listen to them complain when their sport gets targeted!
I don't own a cell cam but I will defend them until someone proves they are a detriment to hunting. If we made laws the way some people think we wouldn't even be driving cars, we should have never built them because someone might get in an accident. That is the kind of thinking going on in this topic! :twocents:
Since approximately only 3-4% of Washington's voting population hunts, the bait and hound initiative would have passed even if all hunters were opposed to it.
I do think it's important for hunters to consider the image that certain practices may have with the non-hunting public.
In Montana where 30ish percent of the population hunts it's easy to see how hunters can impact an election. Even in Washington when you have a lesser number of hunters opposing a hunting method it's easy to understand how additional voters could be convinced to vote against an issue that other hunters say should be outlawed.
I will always stand up for all outdoor users unless a method is determined to be detrimental to wildlife!
I can appreciate the image argument, that makes a great deal of sense, however in this case the opposition isn't the general public, the opposition sadly is other hunters! :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on June 09, 2017, 10:08:45 AM
Post by: lord grizzly on June 09, 2017, 10:13:42 AM
For the purpose of entry into the Boone and Crockett Club’s® records, North American big game harvested by the use of the following methods or under the following conditions are ineligible:
I. Spotting or herding game from the air, followed by landing in its vicinity for the purpose of pursuit and shooting;
II. Herding or chasing with the aid of any motorized equipment;
III. Use of electronic communication devices to guide hunters to game, artificial lighting, electronic light intensifying devices (night vision optics), sights with built-in electronic range-finding capabilities, thermal imaging equipment, electronic game calls or cameras/timers/motion tracking devices that transmit images and other information to the hunter;
IV. Confined by artificial barriers, including escape‑proof fenced enclosures;
V. Transplanted for the purpose of commercial shooting;
VI. By the use of traps or pharmaceuticals;
VII. While swimming, helpless in deep snow, or helpless in any other natural or artificial medium;
VIII. On another hunter’s license;
IX. Not in full compliance with the game laws or regulations of the federal government or of any state, province, territory, or tribal council on reservations or tribal lands;
Post by: Bob33 on June 09, 2017, 10:21:14 AM
At what point do we outlaw fish finders, using electronics to put the bait in the face of the fish! Rangefinders that tell us how far the animal is so we know exactly how to compensate? Rifles that used to shoot accurate to 300 yards and now up to a mile! This list goes on but I think the point has been made many times already, all hunters are already utilizing equipment that makes them far more efficient than a camera that sends pictures to a cell phone. It's not that I am opposed to any of those items, I'm merely using them as an example of the hypocrisy of this topic.I think the answer is possibly "never", but I don't think we should shy away from having discussions on them. There are options between banning everything, and restricting nothing.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 09, 2017, 10:22:51 AM
here's part of the questionnaire you need to answer when submitting a trophy to B&C, underlined an interesting part. im not the only one holding these opinions, you guys find this group to be against you has a hunter?
For the purpose of entry into the Boone and Crockett Club’s® records, North American big game harvested by the use of the following methods or under the following conditions are ineligible:
I. Spotting or herding game from the air, followed by landing in its vicinity for the purpose of pursuit and shooting;
II. Herding or chasing with the aid of any motorized equipment;
III. Use of electronic communication devices to guide hunters to game, artificial lighting, electronic light intensifying devices (night vision optics), sights with built-in electronic range-finding capabilities, thermal imaging equipment, electronic game calls or cameras/timers/motion tracking devices that transmit images and other information to the hunter;
IV. Confined by artificial barriers, including escape‑proof fenced enclosures;
V. Transplanted for the purpose of commercial shooting;
VI. By the use of traps or pharmaceuticals;
VII. While swimming, helpless in deep snow, or helpless in any other natural or artificial medium;
VIII. On another hunter’s license;
IX. Not in full compliance with the game laws or regulations of the federal government or of any state, province, territory, or tribal council on reservations or tribal lands;
Keep in mind B&C is a private record keeping organization and only get to define fair chase as it relates the records entered into that book. To respect the integrity of the record book. I'd say that restriction is understandable in the off chance that someone did manage to use the cameras in a capacity that wasn't fair chase. That being said... people use legal weapons all the time to poach game in ways that aren't fair chase. However, we don't ban them just because those rare exceptions where people lack ethics.
Post by: lord grizzly on June 09, 2017, 10:28:20 AM
I under stand my opinion meaning nothing, im nobody. but you may want to at least entertain where an organization like B&C is coming form and why. if you really care about the topic that is.
Post by: baldopepper on June 09, 2017, 10:30:54 AM
At what point do we outlaw fish finders, using electronics to put the bait in the face of the fish! Rangefinders that tell us how far the animal is so we know exactly how to compensate? Rifles that used to shoot accurate to 300 yards and now up to a mile! This list goes on but I think the point has been made many times already, all hunters are already utilizing equipment that makes them far more efficient than a camera that sends pictures to a cell phone. It's not that I am opposed to any of those items, I'm merely using them as an example of the hypocrisy of this topic.
Seems to me its coming to the "where do you draw the line" situation. Went halibut fishing on a newer boat with all the latest in electronics and electric reels and honestly felt like it was almost cheating with electronics doing all the brain work and me just pulling up the fish. Just a matter of time until someone comes up with a programmable gun that only requires you to aim in the general direction of your target and it does all the rest. Like Bearpaw, I'm not really opposed to these advances, just can't help but wonder where we draw the line. Guess it's up to the individual what constitutes fair chase and how far he'll let the competition to get a trophy take him (or her).
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 09, 2017, 10:34:38 AM
I know exactly who B&C are as an organization. and they are highly recognized as the leaders in hunting and fair chase. to elude at dismissing there stance on issues because there "a private record keeping origination " is once again a weak point to stand on. they have shaped hunting and conservation in this country from a time when there was no regulation and real threat of loosing resources was apparent.
I under stand my opinion meaning nothing, im nobody. but you may want to at least entertain where an organization like B&C is coming form and why. if you really care about the topic that is.
I have considered their position:
They are coming from a position that these devices could possibly be used in a method that's not fair chase and it wouldn't be possible for them to verify how they were/weren't used and thus they are in a position where they must ban the use of them for entering game in the record books.
I bring up the point that they are a private organization to just point out they do not speak for all hunters, they are not the sole omniscient purveyor of fair chase and its definition. Their definition of fair chase has an applicable purpose as it applies to their record book.
Post by: Rainier10 on June 09, 2017, 10:34:55 AM
Two really great statements here. :tup:At what point do we outlaw fish finders, using electronics to put the bait in the face of the fish! Rangefinders that tell us how far the animal is so we know exactly how to compensate? Rifles that used to shoot accurate to 300 yards and now up to a mile! This list goes on but I think the point has been made many times already, all hunters are already utilizing equipment that makes them far more efficient than a camera that sends pictures to a cell phone. It's not that I am opposed to any of those items, I'm merely using them as an example of the hypocrisy of this topic.I think the answer is possibly "never", but I don't think we should shy away from having discussions on them. There are options between banning everything, and restricting nothing.
Post by: lord grizzly on June 09, 2017, 10:41:44 AM
all hunters are already utilizing equipment that makes them far more efficient than a camera that sends pictures to a cell phone. It's not that I am opposed to any of those items, I'm merely using them as an example of the hypocrisy of this topic.
what hypocrisy? I fully agree there's many other items that affect efficiency of hunting. never said there wasn't, never said cameras did more. the topic at hand, if I read the title correctly is trail cameras. lets start a new thread for range finders and go have a discussion there since there absolutely not a camera feeding you a remote image.
I would say there's more attempts to muddy the issue I've read on here then hypocrisy.
Post by: Machias on June 09, 2017, 10:49:12 AM
here's part of the questionnaire you need to answer when submitting a trophy to B&C, underlined an interesting part. im not the only one holding these opinions, you guys find this group to be against you has a hunter?
For the purpose of entry into the Boone and Crockett Club’s® records, North American big game harvested by the use of the following methods or under the following conditions are ineligible:
I. Spotting or herding game from the air, followed by landing in its vicinity for the purpose of pursuit and shooting;
II. Herding or chasing with the aid of any motorized equipment;
III. Use of electronic communication devices to guide hunters to game, artificial lighting, electronic light intensifying devices (night vision optics), sights with built-in electronic range-finding capabilities, thermal imaging equipment, electronic game calls or cameras/timers/motion tracking devices that transmit images and other information to the hunter;
IV. Confined by artificial barriers, including escape‑proof fenced enclosures;
V. Transplanted for the purpose of commercial shooting;
VI. By the use of traps or pharmaceuticals;
VII. While swimming, helpless in deep snow, or helpless in any other natural or artificial medium;
VIII. On another hunter’s license;
IX. Not in full compliance with the game laws or regulations of the federal government or of any state, province, territory, or tribal council on reservations or tribal lands;
I think you are missing a nuance in their rules. A hunter on the mountain with a 2 way radio kills a big B&C Bull. Is the bull allowed into the record books? Yes, unless the hunter used the 2 way radio to harvest this bull. He's not banned from having a 2 way radio, or a cell phone, he's just not allowed to use it to kill the bull. If I go out tonight and kill a B&C bear on a site I have my wireless trail camera on, I'm still allowed to enter it in the books, unless I used that trail camera to kill that bear. If I plan on going out tonight and I sit there from 5 pm until 9 pm and kill a bear on that site, it is still eligible for the book. Now if I was sitting in my truck in between my three bait sites, waiting for the bear to show up at whichever site popped up on my cell phone, then that would be unethical and would not be eligible for the book. I can ride a ATV into my hunting area and kill a book animal and it is legal in the eyes of B&C, but once I start to herd animals or chase them down, then it's no longer eligible. We don't ban ATVs for hunting because someone might use them illegally.....
Post by: lord grizzly on June 09, 2017, 10:52:22 AM
here's part of the questionnaire you need to answer when submitting a trophy to B&C, underlined an interesting part. im not the only one holding these opinions, you guys find this group to be against you has a hunter?
For the purpose of entry into the Boone and Crockett Club’s® records, North American big game harvested by the use of the following methods or under the following conditions are ineligible:
I. Spotting or herding game from the air, followed by landing in its vicinity for the purpose of pursuit and shooting;
II. Herding or chasing with the aid of any motorized equipment;
III. Use of electronic communication devices to guide hunters to game, artificial lighting, electronic light intensifying devices (night vision optics), sights with built-in electronic range-finding capabilities, thermal imaging equipment, electronic game calls or cameras/timers/motion tracking devices that transmit images and other information to the hunter;
IV. Confined by artificial barriers, including escape‑proof fenced enclosures;
V. Transplanted for the purpose of commercial shooting;
VI. By the use of traps or pharmaceuticals;
VII. While swimming, helpless in deep snow, or helpless in any other natural or artificial medium;
VIII. On another hunter’s license;
IX. Not in full compliance with the game laws or regulations of the federal government or of any state, province, territory, or tribal council on reservations or tribal lands;
I think you are missing a nuance in their rules. A hunter on the mountain with a 2 way radio kills a big B&C Bull. Is the bull allowed into the record books? Yes, unless the hunter used the 2 way radio to harvest this bull. He's not banned from having a 2 way radio, or a cell phone, he's just not allowed to use it to kill the bull. If I go out tonight and kill a B&C bear on a site I have my wireless trail camera on, I'm still allowed to enter it in the books, unless I used that trail camera to kill that bear. If I plan on going out tonight and I sit there from 5 pm until 9 pm and kill a bear on that site, it is still eligible for the book. Now if I was sitting in my truck in between my three bait sites, waiting for the bear to show up at whichever site popped up on my cell phone, then that would be unethical and would not be eligible for the book. I can ride a ATV into my hunting area and kill a book animal and it is legal in the eyes of B&C, but once I start to herd animals or chase them down, then it's no longer eligible. We don't ban ATVs for hunting because someone might use them illegally.....
we keep saying the same thing and you keep telling me how wrong I am.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 09, 2017, 11:06:59 AM
here's part of the questionnaire you need to answer when submitting a trophy to B&C, underlined an interesting part. im not the only one holding these opinions, you guys find this group to be against you has a hunter?
For the purpose of entry into the Boone and Crockett Club’s® records, North American big game harvested by the use of the following methods or under the following conditions are ineligible:
I. Spotting or herding game from the air, followed by landing in its vicinity for the purpose of pursuit and shooting;
II. Herding or chasing with the aid of any motorized equipment;
III. Use of electronic communication devices to guide hunters to game, artificial lighting, electronic light intensifying devices (night vision optics), sights with built-in electronic range-finding capabilities, thermal imaging equipment, electronic game calls or cameras/timers/motion tracking devices that transmit images and other information to the hunter;
IV. Confined by artificial barriers, including escape‑proof fenced enclosures;
V. Transplanted for the purpose of commercial shooting;
VI. By the use of traps or pharmaceuticals;
VII. While swimming, helpless in deep snow, or helpless in any other natural or artificial medium;
VIII. On another hunter’s license;
IX. Not in full compliance with the game laws or regulations of the federal government or of any state, province, territory, or tribal council on reservations or tribal lands;
I think you are missing a nuance in their rules. A hunter on the mountain with a 2 way radio kills a big B&C Bull. Is the bull allowed into the record books? Yes, unless the hunter used the 2 way radio to harvest this bull. He's not banned from having a 2 way radio, or a cell phone, he's just not allowed to use it to kill the bull. If I go out tonight and kill a B&C bear on a site I have my wireless trail camera on, I'm still allowed to enter it in the books, unless I used that trail camera to kill that bear. If I plan on going out tonight and I sit there from 5 pm until 9 pm and kill a bear on that site, it is still eligible for the book. Now if I was sitting in my truck in between my three bait sites, waiting for the bear to show up at whichever site popped up on my cell phone, then that would be unethical and would not be eligible for the book. I can ride a ATV into my hunting area and kill a book animal and it is legal in the eyes of B&C, but once I start to herd animals or chase them down, then it's no longer eligible. We don't ban ATVs for hunting because someone might use them illegally.....
we keep saying the same thing and you keep telling me how wrong I am.
I don't think you are completely wrong on that issue.. but I think this type of use would be a rarity..and even when they tried to use it that way the difference in success rate would be negligible if at all because again... it's just not a very practical method to get after those animals......thus overall...it won't end up impacting the overall resource. For this reason I'm not in favor of banning it for everyone.
Post by: Machias on June 09, 2017, 11:17:52 AM
here's part of the questionnaire you need to answer when submitting a trophy to B&C, underlined an interesting part. im not the only one holding these opinions, you guys find this group to be against you has a hunter?
For the purpose of entry into the Boone and Crockett Club’s® records, North American big game harvested by the use of the following methods or under the following conditions are ineligible:
I. Spotting or herding game from the air, followed by landing in its vicinity for the purpose of pursuit and shooting;
II. Herding or chasing with the aid of any motorized equipment;
III. Use of electronic communication devices to guide hunters to game, artificial lighting, electronic light intensifying devices (night vision optics), sights with built-in electronic range-finding capabilities, thermal imaging equipment, electronic game calls or cameras/timers/motion tracking devices that transmit images and other information to the hunter;
IV. Confined by artificial barriers, including escape‑proof fenced enclosures;
V. Transplanted for the purpose of commercial shooting;
VI. By the use of traps or pharmaceuticals;
VII. While swimming, helpless in deep snow, or helpless in any other natural or artificial medium;
VIII. On another hunter’s license;
IX. Not in full compliance with the game laws or regulations of the federal government or of any state, province, territory, or tribal council on reservations or tribal lands;
I think you are missing a nuance in their rules. A hunter on the mountain with a 2 way radio kills a big B&C Bull. Is the bull allowed into the record books? Yes, unless the hunter used the 2 way radio to harvest this bull. He's not banned from having a 2 way radio, or a cell phone, he's just not allowed to use it to kill the bull. If I go out tonight and kill a B&C bear on a site I have my wireless trail camera on, I'm still allowed to enter it in the books, unless I used that trail camera to kill that bear. If I plan on going out tonight and I sit there from 5 pm until 9 pm and kill a bear on that site, it is still eligible for the book. Now if I was sitting in my truck in between my three bait sites, waiting for the bear to show up at whichever site popped up on my cell phone, then that would be unethical and would not be eligible for the book. I can ride a ATV into my hunting area and kill a book animal and it is legal in the eyes of B&C, but once I start to herd animals or chase them down, then it's no longer eligible. We don't ban ATVs for hunting because someone might use them illegally.....
we keep saying the same thing and you keep telling me how wrong I am.
Then what are you arguing about???? There is a whole hosts of items we all use in the field all the time that can be abused, we both agree they shouldn't be abused, yet we are not talking about and supporting banning these other items!!
Post by: Bob33 on June 09, 2017, 11:20:32 AM
Fair chase is part of an overall hunting ethic. It reflects an ideal to pursue game in the field in a manner that pays respect to the animals hunted and the traditions of hunting as a mechanism for conservation. Fair chase is an approach that elevates the quality of the chase, the challenge, and experience above all else. By not overwhelming game species with human capabilities, fair chase helps define a hunter’s engagement in conservation. Fair chase has been embraced by hunters as the proper conduct of a sportsman in the field, and taught to new hunters for over a century.
As with any guideline that falls within a legal framework, but is also grounded in personal ethics that cannot and should not be legislated, interpretations of fair chase can vary. Laws are largely set by society and to protect, conserve and manage wildlife resources that are held in the public trust. Ethical decisions in hunting, however, ultimately rest with the individual in what feels right or wrong, and what technologies or methods are acceptable or unacceptable for them to be successful.
As a leading conservation organization and promoter of fair chase in North America, it is important to the Boone and Crockett Club that the nuances and benefits of fair chase are clearly understood by hunters and non-hunters. The Club is concerned that hunting practices that were once deemed unacceptable are becoming more commonplace. This is not only eroding our overall hunting ethic, but the public’s widespread support for hunting.
...
Fair chase is what separates hunting from simply killing or shooting. It demands restraint and self-reliance, aligns with North American wildlife laws, and is in service to conservation. Fair chase allows for lasting memories hunters can be proud of, provides young hunters with a proper path in hunting and in life, and meet the expectations of our modern societies. The Boone and Crockett Club believes ethical choices in hunting are more important today than at any previous time. Hunter’s values—their motivations and their conduct—shape society’s opinion of hunting. Hunters should be guided by principles whether applying to the activities of hunting in general, or for the qualification of trophies into the Club’s big game record book.
Post by: singleshot12 on June 09, 2017, 11:22:28 AM
I guess the question should be - - where do we draw the line on electronic technology associated with hunting big game? You would think cell trail cams would cross that line :dunno:
For me they don't cross the line because I think they will really not create the kind of advantage that some seem to believe.... but I can understand the argument against them...I just think the concerns aren't based in the same reality that I live in where animals don't wait around for me to show up and even if they do I'm not likely to stalk up on them successfully (not that I would ever use them in that capacity in the first place... I'd even be in favor of some kind of delay in the send/receipt of the photo..... I wouldn't desire immediate pictures.....but getting pictures without having to disturb the area and stress the animals is a good thing)..... I'll probably never use them in the Northwest....However, I'm strongly opposed to removing trail cam use during the season (like Montana does) as has been proposed....and even though I probably won't use them in the NW I'm not in favor of restricting them for those who do enjoy their use.... If I thought it gave some kind of real advantage that resulted in an unfair chase then I would oppose them.
Ok roger that! DB. I'm not really opposed to trail cam usage in season either. But in my mind I picture "that guy" abusing that usage. With him sitting above a semi open draw in eastern Washington. Down below the draw he has several bait stations set up couple hundred yards apart with cell cams at each one. This "guy" or "gal" for that matter is sitting on their ATV waiting for their cell phone to text an image of that trophy buck so they can race like a bat outa hell to the above location and snipe the animal 500 yards or so away below them.
It's the folks that abuse a privilege like baiting for example that ruin it for everyone and laws need to be adjusted for it.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 09, 2017, 11:23:10 AM
Post by: singleshot12 on June 09, 2017, 11:26:02 AM
Here we go.
I assume that most people agree that using a radio to talk another hunter into an animal for a kill is unethical.
For you that do not agree, that's your perogative (sp?).
I happen to think that it is highly unethical (My opinion) and do not practice this iilegal (I believe) methodology.
This practice, which I have witnessed is not a rare occurance, however it requires two people, both poachers.
Now, jump ahead to the guy who has a few camaras with the phone link and you have the same situation with only one participant.
A guy can monitor a few sites and sneak into the area with full knowledge of where the game is and the reaction of that game to any disturbance.
Any arguement that this is not practical in my opinion is ridiculous.
I have hunted for 45 years and have stalked game succesfully numerous times.
This methodology allows aperson to monitor numerous sites at daylight and to then pick the area he will hunt that morning with secure knowledge of game in the immediate area. To think that someone is/will not take advantage of this is really putting your head in the sand.
Does everyone do this? I am sure not, but I am convinced that this is wrong.
I wil further state that using a drone to spot game with a camara and then immediately hunt that animal is also unethical.
I am sure that Bearpaw and most hunters are using this technology in a responsibe manner.
But laws are not always written for the righteous.
They are written to provide protection from those individuals who are irresponsible.
I say pull ALL the camaras at the beginning of the season.
As I side note, I just bought my first (2) camaras this winter which I have used with limited success.
They are used ones with a card that I can download to my PC.
This is good conversation.
Later,
Rob.
[/quote/]
Well stated and solid point Rob
Post by: lord grizzly on June 09, 2017, 11:28:17 AM
that's the only issue I've brought forward here. and I will say I don't think you are completely wrong on its affect on game populations or that actions frequency of occurrence, now. in the coming future I believe the later increases and as boneaddict mentioned there re to many variables to definitively say one way or another with out intensive study what population/harvest ramifications would be. the unethical nature of the act Machias described I believe is with out question and unfortunately for the rest of us laws and regulations need to be written to the lowest common denominator.
again, I've been very open with the fact that I take this stance from a philosophical view point. there is precious little in this world outside my wife and children that means more to me than hunting and being as in tune with nature as I am when I'm in these mountains. and thus I have very passionate view points, one of them being the maintain of fair chase between game and hunter. I realize you all want to paint me as wanting to take from a user group out of some sort of jealousy or fear there taking from me. trust me, you guys wont see me in the mountains, very few do where I'm at. no this stems from the incredible amount of respect I have for the game I pursue and the belief that it deserves it from all aspects.
sitting in your truck waiting for an alert to go kill a bull I find degrading. as ive presented here with the examples of B&C and Montana F&G im not the only one
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 09, 2017, 11:29:06 AM
I guess the question should be - - where do we draw the line on electronic technology associated with hunting big game? You would think cell trail cams would cross that line :dunno:
For me they don't cross the line because I think they will really not create the kind of advantage that some seem to believe.... but I can understand the argument against them...I just think the concerns aren't based in the same reality that I live in where animals don't wait around for me to show up and even if they do I'm not likely to stalk up on them successfully (not that I would ever use them in that capacity in the first place... I'd even be in favor of some kind of delay in the send/receipt of the photo..... I wouldn't desire immediate pictures.....but getting pictures without having to disturb the area and stress the animals is a good thing)..... I'll probably never use them in the Northwest....However, I'm strongly opposed to removing trail cam use during the season (like Montana does) as has been proposed....and even though I probably won't use them in the NW I'm not in favor of restricting them for those who do enjoy their use.... If I thought it gave some kind of real advantage that resulted in an unfair chase then I would oppose them.
Ok roger that! DB. I'm not really opposed to trail cam usage in season either. But in my mind I picture "that guy" abusing that usage. With him sitting above a semi open draw in eastern Washington. Down below the draw he has several bait stations set up couple hundred yards apart with cell cams at each one. This "guy" or "gal" for that matter is sitting on their ATV waiting for their cell phone to text an image of that trophy buck so they can race like a bat outa hell to the above location and snipe the animal 500 yards or so away below them.
It's the folks that abuse a privilege like baiting for example that ruin it for everyone and laws need to be adjusted for it.
I do believe people can abuse things..but I don't agree we need to make laws for all potential abuses unless it happens on such scale that it impacts the resource or the experience of others (and we have to be careful when we use the measure of impacting the experience of others because it can be so subjective... I think resource impact is more measurable).
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 09, 2017, 11:29:31 AM
And that guy in that scenario has a decent likelihood of doing that for the purpose of getting into the record books of an above mentioned record keeping organization that defines 'fair chase'. (IMO)I guess the question should be - - where do we draw the line on electronic technology associated with hunting big game? You would think cell trail cams would cross that line :dunno:
For me they don't cross the line because I think they will really not create the kind of advantage that some seem to believe.... but I can understand the argument against them...I just think the concerns aren't based in the same reality that I live in where animals don't wait around for me to show up and even if they do I'm not likely to stalk up on them successfully (not that I would ever use them in that capacity in the first place... I'd even be in favor of some kind of delay in the send/receipt of the photo..... I wouldn't desire immediate pictures.....but getting pictures without having to disturb the area and stress the animals is a good thing)..... I'll probably never use them in the Northwest....However, I'm strongly opposed to removing trail cam use during the season (like Montana does) as has been proposed....and even though I probably won't use them in the NW I'm not in favor of restricting them for those who do enjoy their use.... If I thought it gave some kind of real advantage that resulted in an unfair chase then I would oppose them.
Ok roger that! DB. I'm not really opposed to trail cam usage in season either. But in my mind I picture "that guy" abusing that usage. With him sitting above a semi open draw in eastern Washington. Down below the draw he has several bait stations set up couple hundred yards apart with cell cams at each one. This "guy" or "gal" for that matter is sitting on their ATV waiting for their cell phone to text an image of that trophy buck so they can race like a bat outa hell to the above location and snipe the animal 500 yards or so away below them.
It's the folks that abuse a privilege like baiting for example that ruin it for everyone and laws need to be adjusted for it.
Maybe just have the record clubs determine a stricter 'fair chase' stance that doesn't bleed over so much in opportunity/harvest of the game agencies?
Post by: lord grizzly on June 09, 2017, 11:31:24 AM
here's part of the questionnaire you need to answer when submitting a trophy to B&C, underlined an interesting part. im not the only one holding these opinions, you guys find this group to be against you has a hunter?
For the purpose of entry into the Boone and Crockett Club’s® records, North American big game harvested by the use of the following methods or under the following conditions are ineligible:
I. Spotting or herding game from the air, followed by landing in its vicinity for the purpose of pursuit and shooting;
II. Herding or chasing with the aid of any motorized equipment;
III. Use of electronic communication devices to guide hunters to game, artificial lighting, electronic light intensifying devices (night vision optics), sights with built-in electronic range-finding capabilities, thermal imaging equipment, electronic game calls or cameras/timers/motion tracking devices that transmit images and other information to the hunter;
IV. Confined by artificial barriers, including escape‑proof fenced enclosures;
V. Transplanted for the purpose of commercial shooting;
VI. By the use of traps or pharmaceuticals;
VII. While swimming, helpless in deep snow, or helpless in any other natural or artificial medium;
VIII. On another hunter’s license;
IX. Not in full compliance with the game laws or regulations of the federal government or of any state, province, territory, or tribal council on reservations or tribal lands;
I think you are missing a nuance in their rules. A hunter on the mountain with a 2 way radio kills a big B&C Bull. Is the bull allowed into the record books? Yes, unless the hunter used the 2 way radio to harvest this bull. He's not banned from having a 2 way radio, or a cell phone, he's just not allowed to use it to kill the bull. If I go out tonight and kill a B&C bear on a site I have my wireless trail camera on, I'm still allowed to enter it in the books, unless I used that trail camera to kill that bear. If I plan on going out tonight and I sit there from 5 pm until 9 pm and kill a bear on that site, it is still eligible for the book. Now if I was sitting in my truck in between my three bait sites, waiting for the bear to show up at whichever site popped up on my cell phone, then that would be unethical and would not be eligible for the book. I can ride a ATV into my hunting area and kill a book animal and it is legal in the eyes of B&C, but once I start to herd animals or chase them down, then it's no longer eligible. We don't ban ATVs for hunting because someone might use them illegally.....
we keep saying the same thing and you keep telling me how wrong I am.
Then what are you arguing about???? There is a whole hosts of items we all use in the field all the time that can be abused, we both agree they shouldn't be abused, yet we are not talking about and supporting banning these other items!!
I keep wondering the same thing about you
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 09, 2017, 11:31:52 AM
DB,
that's the only issue I've brought forward here. and I will say I don't think you are completely wrong on its affect on game populations or that actions frequency of occurrence, now. in the coming future I believe the later increases and as boneaddict mentioned there re to many variables to definitively say one way or another with out intensive study say what population/harvest ramifications would be. the unethical nature of the act Machias described I believe is with out question and unfortunately for the rest of us laws and regulations need to be written to the lowest common denominator.
again, I've been very open with the fact that I take this stance from a philosophical view point. there is precious little in this world outside my wife and children that means more to me than hunting and being as in tune with nature as I am when I'm in these mountains. and thus I have very passionate view points, one of them being the maintain of fair chase between game and hunter. I realize you all want to paint me as wanting to take from a user group out of some sort of jealousy or fear there taking from me. trust me, you guys wont see me in the mountains, very few do where I'm at. no this stems from the incredible amount of respect I have for the game I pursue and the belief that it deserves it from all aspects.
sitting in your truck waiting for an alert to go kill a bull I find degrading. as ive presented here with the examples of B&C and Montana F&G im not the only one
I think we can all agree that the idea of someone waiting for a pic to run out and kill the animal at/near that time is nauseating...particularly if they are successful.
Post by: Machias on June 09, 2017, 11:32:41 AM
here's part of the questionnaire you need to answer when submitting a trophy to B&C, underlined an interesting part. im not the only one holding these opinions, you guys find this group to be against you has a hunter?
For the purpose of entry into the Boone and Crockett Club’s® records, North American big game harvested by the use of the following methods or under the following conditions are ineligible:
I. Spotting or herding game from the air, followed by landing in its vicinity for the purpose of pursuit and shooting;
II. Herding or chasing with the aid of any motorized equipment;
III. Use of electronic communication devices to guide hunters to game, artificial lighting, electronic light intensifying devices (night vision optics), sights with built-in electronic range-finding capabilities, thermal imaging equipment, electronic game calls or cameras/timers/motion tracking devices that transmit images and other information to the hunter;
IV. Confined by artificial barriers, including escape‑proof fenced enclosures;
V. Transplanted for the purpose of commercial shooting;
VI. By the use of traps or pharmaceuticals;
VII. While swimming, helpless in deep snow, or helpless in any other natural or artificial medium;
VIII. On another hunter’s license;
IX. Not in full compliance with the game laws or regulations of the federal government or of any state, province, territory, or tribal council on reservations or tribal lands;
I think you are missing a nuance in their rules. A hunter on the mountain with a 2 way radio kills a big B&C Bull. Is the bull allowed into the record books? Yes, unless the hunter used the 2 way radio to harvest this bull. He's not banned from having a 2 way radio, or a cell phone, he's just not allowed to use it to kill the bull. If I go out tonight and kill a B&C bear on a site I have my wireless trail camera on, I'm still allowed to enter it in the books, unless I used that trail camera to kill that bear. If I plan on going out tonight and I sit there from 5 pm until 9 pm and kill a bear on that site, it is still eligible for the book. Now if I was sitting in my truck in between my three bait sites, waiting for the bear to show up at whichever site popped up on my cell phone, then that would be unethical and would not be eligible for the book. I can ride a ATV into my hunting area and kill a book animal and it is legal in the eyes of B&C, but once I start to herd animals or chase them down, then it's no longer eligible. We don't ban ATVs for hunting because someone might use them illegally.....
we keep saying the same thing and you keep telling me how wrong I am.
Then what are you arguing about???? There is a whole hosts of items we all use in the field all the time that can be abused, we both agree they shouldn't be abused, yet we are not talking about and supporting banning these other items!!
I keep wondering the same thing about you
:) :)
Post by: singleshot12 on June 09, 2017, 11:37:18 AM
And that guy in that scenario has a decent likelihood of doing that for the purpose of getting into the record books of an above mentioned record keeping organization that defines 'fair chase'. (IMO)I guess the question should be - - where do we draw the line on electronic technology associated with hunting big game? You would think cell trail cams would cross that line :dunno:
For me they don't cross the line because I think they will really not create the kind of advantage that some seem to believe.... but I can understand the argument against them...I just think the concerns aren't based in the same reality that I live in where animals don't wait around for me to show up and even if they do I'm not likely to stalk up on them successfully (not that I would ever use them in that capacity in the first place... I'd even be in favor of some kind of delay in the send/receipt of the photo..... I wouldn't desire immediate pictures.....but getting pictures without having to disturb the area and stress the animals is a good thing)..... I'll probably never use them in the Northwest....However, I'm strongly opposed to removing trail cam use during the season (like Montana does) as has been proposed....and even though I probably won't use them in the NW I'm not in favor of restricting them for those who do enjoy their use.... If I thought it gave some kind of real advantage that resulted in an unfair chase then I would oppose them.
Ok roger that! DB. I'm not really opposed to trail cam usage in season either. But in my mind I picture "that guy" abusing that usage. With him sitting above a semi open draw in eastern Washington. Down below the draw he has several bait stations set up couple hundred yards apart with cell cams at each one. This "guy" or "gal" for that matter is sitting on their ATV waiting for their cell phone to text an image of that trophy buck so they can race like a bat outa hell to the above location and snipe the animal 500 yards or so away below them.
It's the folks that abuse a privilege like baiting for example that ruin it for everyone and laws need to be adjusted for it.
Maybe just have the record clubs determine a stricter 'fair chase' stance that doesn't bleed over so much in opportunity/harvest of the game agencies?
I guess we do live in a very competitive world where "that trophy" means more that anything else :chuckle:
Post by: lord grizzly on June 09, 2017, 11:38:58 AM
Post by: Machias on June 09, 2017, 11:40:54 AM
Post by: baldopepper on June 09, 2017, 11:53:19 AM
Post by: bearpaw on June 09, 2017, 12:12:12 PM
Post by: hunter399 on June 09, 2017, 12:26:26 PM
Everybody has a different opinions on what these should be.
In the end it will be fish and game in all states to draw a line in the sand of what these will be .Protect wildlife from over harvest,keep hunting a fair chase sport .And yes they will make this decision with the public eye of hunters and non Hunter alike.Idaho and montana both allow 22 centerfire for deer and they wanna take away cell trail cams or trail cams durring open season tells me there is something wrong with cell trail cams and will be abused .Everybody on here is all about ethics,too many deer running off,Sportsmanship,when you bring up 22 centerfire for deer,but trail cams that tell you where deer at anytime ripe for the picking ,a lot of people are for it ,saying it's not gonna effect harvest number ,population,blah,blah,ect.Its crazy how people are so ethic do gooder when it's something they want ,There is something wrong with hunters in washington ,I'm not sure what to call it , but it's not right . :twocents:
Post by: hunter399 on June 09, 2017, 12:30:55 PM
It's certainly not the end of the world if cams are outlawed, the reason I stand against it is for the reasons I have stated. In the end there will be hunters wondering why other hunters took away their trail cams just like I am still wondering why other hunters voted against me being able to hunt hounds, bait, trap, and hunt coyotes with dogs in WA. It saddens me every time I see hunters lose the ability to do something they enjoy because i've been that guy too many times. Yes, Montana outlawed trail cams, it really don't affect me or my Montana business but I know guys who wished they could still use their trail cams in Montana!Yes keep going on about bear baiting and hound hunting I wish we could also.Thank the people on the coast,and the way people view it in the public eye of non hunters.I know eastern Washington didn't want to ban it. :dunno:
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 09, 2017, 12:31:39 PM
It's certainly not the end of the world if cams are outlawed, the reason I stand against it is for the reasons I have stated. In the end there will be hunters wondering why other hunters took away their trail cams just like I am still wondering why other hunters voted against me being able to hunt hounds, bait, trap, and hunt coyotes with dogs in WA. It saddens me every time I see hunters lose the ability to do something they enjoy because i've been that guy too many times. Yes, Montana outlawed trail cams, it really don't affect me or my Montana business but I know guys who wished they could still use their trail cams in Montana!
Thanks BP!
As a diehard WA public land whitetail bowhunter who hunts hours away from home losing trail cams in season as some has suggested would seriously impact my ability to do what I do. I could certainly overcome it but I wouldn't be spending much time hunting away from home..before I started using trail cams in 2009 I spent much more of my time hunting closer to home because that's where I found bucks I wanted to hunt. I will say losing trail cameras in season would seriously take away from something I truly enjoy. It would take away from my experience. I love having thousands of trail cam photos of bucks throughout the years for several seasons. The hunted the buck in my avatar for 3 years and have all sorts of documentation on that buck.
When I'm living stateside I easily drop $8-$10K per year in those rural communities because I spend so much time there throughout the year. That wouldn't happen with a trail cam ban. I have to think there are other hunters in the same boat. All these little restrictions are like death by a thousand cuts to some of these communities.... I think something like restriction on baiting (a topic we have discussed many times in the past) would have the same sort of impact.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 09, 2017, 12:32:18 PM
I guess you could take the point of view that the major justification for hunting is that it is a tool game managers use to find the balance between game animals and the environment in which they live. Most of what we are allowed to do (at least on paper) is predicated on that basis. Therefore, you could take the stance that why should it matter what method we use to reach the quota that game managers want to see harvested in a certain area. We hunters set the artificial parameters of what is the fairest way of helping game managers reach their goals. Obviously there is a very wide area of disagreement amongst hunters on those parameters. As stated earlier, I'm not sure where that line is nor how to enforce once it's drawn. I can only hunt according to my own rules (of course within the legally set rules) and let others let their own conscience be their guide. Personally I would never use the game cameras in question and would, therefore, not have any problem if they were banned.
I think you make some very sound points.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 09, 2017, 12:38:44 PM
This really boils down to ethics,fair chase, Sportsmanship,
Everybody has a different opinions on what these should be.
In the end it will be fish and game in all states to draw a line in the sand of what these will be .Protect wildlife from over harvest,keep hunting a fair chase sport .And yes they will make this decision with the public eye of hunters and non Hunter alike.Idaho and montana both allow 22 centerfire for deer and they wanna take away cell trail cams or trail cams durring open season tells me there is something wrong with cell trail cams and will be abused .Everybody on here is all about ethics,too many deer running off,Sportsmanship,when you bring up 22 centerfire for deer,but trail cams that tell you where deer at anytime ripe for the picking ,a lot of people are for it ,saying it's not gonna effect harvest number ,population,blah,blah,ect.Its crazy how people are so ethic do gooder when it's something they want ,There is something wrong with hunters in washington ,I'm not sure what to call it , but it's not right . :twocents:
"It's crazy how people are so ethic do gooder when it's something they want"..."I'm not sure what to call it , but it's not right . :twocents:"
It's called hypocrisy.. what you are stating is exactly what I'm talking about/arguing against... it's the shifting line of ethics based off personal preference.
Post by: bearpaw on June 09, 2017, 12:46:00 PM
It's certainly not the end of the world if cams are outlawed, the reason I stand against it is for the reasons I have stated. In the end there will be hunters wondering why other hunters took away their trail cams just like I am still wondering why other hunters voted against me being able to hunt hounds, bait, trap, and hunt coyotes with dogs in WA. It saddens me every time I see hunters lose the ability to do something they enjoy because i've been that guy too many times. Yes, Montana outlawed trail cams, it really don't affect me or my Montana business but I know guys who wished they could still use their trail cams in Montana!Yes keep going on about bear baiting and hound hunting I wish we could also.Thank the people on the coast,and the way people view it in the public eye of non hunters.I know eastern Washington didn't want to ban it. :dunno:
There were hunters right here in Colville where I live that voted against hounds and baiting, they told me they did, they were proud of their vote and that it passed, it appeared they enjoyed rubbing it in, I will never forget that! That remains a constant reminder to me of how hunters will turn on each other based on their own personal views! Unfortunately the division runs deep among hunters as can be seen in this topic! A good portion of hunters want to take trail cams away from the other hunters who use them "because of the way they view the use of cams" in spite of how actual users have stated they actually use cams! Oh well, that is the world we live in, if you enjoy something do it to the fullest while you can, there is someone out there who wants to stop what you enjoy doing!
Post by: Rainier10 on June 09, 2017, 12:48:31 PM
Anyways, ethics aren't black and white at all and I think ethics are one of the most fluid areas of hunting. I know what was okay when I started hunting isn't okay in my mind now and some of the things that I was dead set against when I started are acceptable now. I think it has a lot to do with personal experience and a ton of other variables.
Post by: Wacenturion on June 09, 2017, 01:13:51 PM
here's part of the questionnaire you need to answer when submitting a trophy to B&C, underlined an interesting part. im not the only one holding these opinions, you guys find this group to be against you has a hunter?
For the purpose of entry into the Boone and Crockett Club’s® records, North American big game harvested by the use of the following methods or under the following conditions are ineligible:
I. Spotting or herding game from the air, followed by landing in its vicinity for the purpose of pursuit and shooting;
II. Herding or chasing with the aid of any motorized equipment;
III. Use of electronic communication devices to guide hunters to game, artificial lighting, electronic light intensifying devices (night vision optics), sights with built-in electronic range-finding capabilities, thermal imaging equipment, electronic game calls or cameras/timers/motion tracking devices that transmit images and other information to the hunter;
IV. Confined by artificial barriers, including escape‑proof fenced enclosures;
V. Transplanted for the purpose of commercial shooting;
VI. By the use of traps or pharmaceuticals;
VII. While swimming, helpless in deep snow, or helpless in any other natural or artificial medium;
VIII. On another hunter’s license;
IX. Not in full compliance with the game laws or regulations of the federal government or of any state, province, territory, or tribal council on reservations or tribal lands;
It only guides someone to an animal if the animal is there. You're assuming it does, which it does not in the vast majority of instances as mentioned over and over in this thread. Just because B&B say a certain thing, as mentioned above, it's for entry into their book. I could argue 800-1000 yrd rifles are not fair chase as well and perhaps they should list those.
As I have said previously, a 800-1000 yard rifle and mega optics (click click) takes far more game that would not have been taken under regular rifle capability, than some cellular camera for crying out loud. In my mind and just my opinion mind you, those rifles perhaps foster the belief in some that flinging lead at distances beyond normal is realistic, whether or not they spend the time to make sure they can. Wonder if that has impacts? Kind of an image thing as well. Wonder why B&B doesn't consider that, if they think some of those other things are a no no.
How do you hunt...rangefinders....rifles that shoot that far? Just curious.
Post by: hunter399 on June 09, 2017, 01:14:31 PM
It's certainly not the end of the world if cams are outlawed, the reason I stand against it is for the reasons I have stated. In the end there will be hunters wondering why other hunters took away their trail cams just like I am still wondering why other hunters voted against me being able to hunt hounds, bait, trap, and hunt coyotes with dogs in WA. It saddens me every time I see hunters lose the ability to do something they enjoy because i've been that guy too many times. Yes, Montana outlawed trail cams, it really don't affect me or my Montana business but I know guys who wished they could still use their trail cams in Montana!Yes keep going on about bear baiting and hound hunting I wish we could also.Thank the people on the coast,and the way people view it in the public eye of non hunters.I know eastern Washington didn't want to ban it. :dunno:
There were hunters right here in Colville where I live that voted against hounds and baiting, they told me they did, they were proud of their vote and that it passed, it appeared they enjoyed rubbing it in, I will never forget that! That remains a constant reminder to me of how hunters will turn on each other based on their own personal views! Unfortunately the division runs deep among hunters as can be seen in this topic! A good portion of hunters want to take trail cams away from the other hunters who use them "because of the way they view the use of cams" in spite of how actual users have stated they actually use cams! Oh well, that is the world we live in, if you enjoy something do it to the fullest while you can, there is someone out there who wants to stop what you enjoy doing!
Just some fun facts about bear baiting and hound hunting.
Stevens
Yes/No Votes
No 9461
Yes 6985
Pend Oreille
Yes/No Votes
No 2485
Yes 2428
Spokane
Yes/No Votes
Yes 99834
No 56757
Ferry
Yes/No Votes
No 1722
Yes 1112
It was spokane county that hurt us most in that election for eastern Washington.
What can be abused-will be abused , And the rest will suffer.
"because of the way they view the use of cams"
Cause of the few that will abuse it ,not the way we view it.
Trail cams are great,but cell trail cams have taken it to a whole new level of what fair chase really means.
Post by: Wacenturion on June 09, 2017, 01:26:31 PM
It's certainly not the end of the world if cams are outlawed, the reason I stand against it is for the reasons I have stated. In the end there will be hunters wondering why other hunters took away their trail cams just like I am still wondering why other hunters voted against me being able to hunt hounds, bait, trap, and hunt coyotes with dogs in WA. It saddens me every time I see hunters lose the ability to do something they enjoy because i've been that guy too many times. Yes, Montana outlawed trail cams, it really don't affect me or my Montana business but I know guys who wished they could still use their trail cams in Montana!Yes keep going on about bear baiting and hound hunting I wish we could also.Thank the people on the coast,and the way people view it in the public eye of non hunters.I know eastern Washington didn't want to ban it. :dunno:
There were hunters right here in Colville where I live that voted against hounds and baiting, they told me they did, they were proud of their vote and that it passed, it appeared they enjoyed rubbing it in, I will never forget that! That remains a constant reminder to me of how hunters will turn on each other based on their own personal views! Unfortunately the division runs deep among hunters as can be seen in this topic! A good portion of hunters want to take trail cams away from the other hunters who use them "because of the way they view the use of cams" in spite of how actual users have stated they actually use cams! Oh well, that is the world we live in, if you enjoy something do it to the fullest while you can, there is someone out there who wants to stop what you enjoy doing!
BP....could not have said it better myself. Saw it over and over again during my 30 year career at WDFW.
Post by: lord grizzly on June 09, 2017, 01:30:18 PM
here's part of the questionnaire you need to answer when submitting a trophy to B&C, underlined an interesting part. im not the only one holding these opinions, you guys find this group to be against you has a hunter?
For the purpose of entry into the Boone and Crockett Club’s® records, North American big game harvested by the use of the following methods or under the following conditions are ineligible:
I. Spotting or herding game from the air, followed by landing in its vicinity for the purpose of pursuit and shooting;
II. Herding or chasing with the aid of any motorized equipment;
III. Use of electronic communication devices to guide hunters to game, artificial lighting, electronic light intensifying devices (night vision optics), sights with built-in electronic range-finding capabilities, thermal imaging equipment, electronic game calls or cameras/timers/motion tracking devices that transmit images and other information to the hunter;
IV. Confined by artificial barriers, including escape‑proof fenced enclosures;
V. Transplanted for the purpose of commercial shooting;
VI. By the use of traps or pharmaceuticals;
VII. While swimming, helpless in deep snow, or helpless in any other natural or artificial medium;
VIII. On another hunter’s license;
IX. Not in full compliance with the game laws or regulations of the federal government or of any state, province, territory, or tribal council on reservations or tribal lands;
It only guides someone to an animal if the animal is there. You're assuming it does, which it does not in the vast majority of instances as mentioned over and over in this thread. Just because B&B say a certain thing, as mentioned above, it's for entry into their book. I could argue 800-1000 yrd rifles are not fair chase as well and perhaps they should list those.
As I have said previously, a 800-1000 yard rifle and mega optics (click click) takes far more game that would not have been taken under regular rifle capability, than some cellular camera for crying out loud. In my mind and just my opinion mind you, those rifles perhaps foster the belief in some that flinging lead at distances beyond normal is realistic, whether or not they spend the time to make sure they can. Wonder if that has impacts? Kind of an image thing as well. Wonder why B&B doesn't consider that, if they think some of those other things are a no no.
How do you hunt...rangefinders....rifles that shoot that far? Just curious.
I hunt various different ways and once again the attempt to put words in my mouth or call me out as hypocritical isn't very productive or warranted by any of my comments. I've not once in this thread gone off the topic or claimed some moral high ground about what equipment I do or don't use. ive even mentioned i have trail cams in the woods right now. I have maintained through out my comments that my contention is the advancement in the technology of these cameras were talking about and there potential ramifications to fair chase hunting. I've cited B&C's own parameters because they are widely recognized as the leaders (in fact they came up with the term "fair chase" in hunting) in defining fair chase.
Post by: Wacenturion on June 09, 2017, 01:34:48 PM
It's certainly not the end of the world if cams are outlawed, the reason I stand against it is for the reasons I have stated. In the end there will be hunters wondering why other hunters took away their trail cams just like I am still wondering why other hunters voted against me being able to hunt hounds, bait, trap, and hunt coyotes with dogs in WA. It saddens me every time I see hunters lose the ability to do something they enjoy because i've been that guy too many times. Yes, Montana outlawed trail cams, it really don't affect me or my Montana business but I know guys who wished they could still use their trail cams in Montana!Yes keep going on about bear baiting and hound hunting I wish we could also.Thank the people on the coast,and the way people view it in the public eye of non hunters.I know eastern Washington didn't want to ban it. :dunno:
There were hunters right here in Colville where I live that voted against hounds and baiting, they told me they did, they were proud of their vote and that it passed, it appeared they enjoyed rubbing it in, I will never forget that! That remains a constant reminder to me of how hunters will turn on each other based on their own personal views! Unfortunately the division runs deep among hunters as can be seen in this topic! A good portion of hunters want to take trail cams away from the other hunters who use them "because of the way they view the use of cams" in spite of how actual users have stated they actually use cams! Oh well, that is the world we live in, if you enjoy something do it to the fullest while you can, there is someone out there who wants to stop what you enjoy doing!
Just some fun facts about bear baiting and hound hunting.
Stevens
Yes/No Votes
No 9461
Yes 6985
Pend Oreille
Yes/No Votes
No 2485
Yes 2428
Spokane
Yes/No Votes
Yes 99834
No 56757
Ferry
Yes/No Votes
No 1722
Yes 1112
It was spokane county that hurt us most in that election for eastern Washington.
What can be abused-will be abused , And the rest will suffer.
"because of the way they view the use of cams"
Cause of the few that will abuse it ,not the way we view it.
Trail cams are great,but cell trail cams have taken it to a whole new level of what fair chase really means.
Do you personally use cell cams? If so, what level are you referring to? So lets say a hunter is sitting at home, or eating breakfast in town, whatever. A picture taken on a regular cam of say a deer is stored on a card until the hunter pulls the card and actually views it. A cell cam transmits the picture to a cell phone via email or app and also stores it on a card. By the time the individual get to the cell cam he has two pictures, one on his phone and one on his card. Advantage...one extra picture. :bash:
Post by: Wacenturion on June 09, 2017, 01:36:23 PM
here's part of the questionnaire you need to answer when submitting a trophy to B&C, underlined an interesting part. im not the only one holding these opinions, you guys find this group to be against you has a hunter?
For the purpose of entry into the Boone and Crockett Club’s® records, North American big game harvested by the use of the following methods or under the following conditions are ineligible:
I. Spotting or herding game from the air, followed by landing in its vicinity for the purpose of pursuit and shooting;
II. Herding or chasing with the aid of any motorized equipment;
III. Use of electronic communication devices to guide hunters to game, artificial lighting, electronic light intensifying devices (night vision optics), sights with built-in electronic range-finding capabilities, thermal imaging equipment, electronic game calls or cameras/timers/motion tracking devices that transmit images and other information to the hunter;
IV. Confined by artificial barriers, including escape‑proof fenced enclosures;
V. Transplanted for the purpose of commercial shooting;
VI. By the use of traps or pharmaceuticals;
VII. While swimming, helpless in deep snow, or helpless in any other natural or artificial medium;
VIII. On another hunter’s license;
IX. Not in full compliance with the game laws or regulations of the federal government or of any state, province, territory, or tribal council on reservations or tribal lands;
It only guides someone to an animal if the animal is there. You're assuming it does, which it does not in the vast majority of instances as mentioned over and over in this thread. Just because B&B say a certain thing, as mentioned above, it's for entry into their book. I could argue 800-1000 yrd rifles are not fair chase as well and perhaps they should list those.
As I have said previously, a 800-1000 yard rifle and mega optics (click click) takes far more game that would not have been taken under regular rifle capability, than some cellular camera for crying out loud. In my mind and just my opinion mind you, those rifles perhaps foster the belief in some that flinging lead at distances beyond normal is realistic, whether or not they spend the time to make sure they can. Wonder if that has impacts? Kind of an image thing as well. Wonder why B&B doesn't consider that, if they think some of those other things are a no no.
How do you hunt...rangefinders....rifles that shoot that far? Just curious.
I hunt various different ways and once again the attempt to put words in my mouth or call me out as hypocritical isn't very productive or warranted by any of my comments. I've not once in this thread gone off the topic or claimed some moral high ground about what equipment I do or don't use. ive even mentioned i have trail cams in the woods right now. I have maintained through out my comments that my contention is the advancement in the technology of these cameras were talking about and there potential ramifications to fair chase hunting. I've cited B&C's own parameters because they are widely recognized as the leaders (in fact they came up with the term "fair chase" in hunting) in defining fair chase.
So I take that to be a yes.
Post by: lord grizzly on June 09, 2017, 01:36:32 PM
Post by: lord grizzly on June 09, 2017, 01:38:42 PM
Post by: Wacenturion on June 09, 2017, 01:42:35 PM
its clear you'll never get it. must be a blissful existence.
No I do get it. I feel that you, by your statements have a definitive opinion of what technology I use and when I should or should not be allowed to use it, and although I don't, I could just as easily have a definitive opinion about your technology usage.
Post by: Wacenturion on June 09, 2017, 01:48:49 PM
the irony is your replying on such an advanced machine that didn't exist with the amount of power they have now just a few short years ago. all the evidence you need of what's to come is literally under your fingers as you reply but you still can t see it. amazing..
What is ironic is how you do not consider 1000 yard weapons and optics worthy of the same argument that you are using for cellular cams. :twocents:
Post by: Wacenturion on June 09, 2017, 01:57:03 PM
Picture taken about an hour ago. Didn't see it until now, as I was too busy playing here :chuckle:.
Post by: lord grizzly on June 09, 2017, 02:31:15 PM
the irony is your replying on such an advanced machine that didn't exist with the amount of power they have now just a few short years ago. all the evidence you need of what's to come is literally under your fingers as you reply but you still can t see it. amazing..
What is ironic is how you do not consider 1000 yard weapons and optics worthy of the same argument that you are using for cellular cams. :twocents:
I haven't stated any opinion on long range shooting. What I've said is range finders don't remotely send you pictures. Pretty sure I got that one right. I e also said it's ok to have separate discussions about separate items. And it is. But again if you can't find a coherent leg to stand on change the subject and put words in someone's mouth for them. You must live in western Washington
Post by: hunter399 on June 09, 2017, 02:36:22 PM
It's certainly not the end of the world if cams are outlawed, the reason I stand against it is for the reasons I have stated. In the end there will be hunters wondering why other hunters took away their trail cams just like I am still wondering why other hunters voted against me being able to hunt hounds, bait, trap, and hunt coyotes with dogs in WA. It saddens me every time I see hunters lose the ability to do something they enjoy because i've been that guy too many times. Yes, Montana outlawed trail cams, it really don't affect me or my Montana business but I know guys who wished they could still use their trail cams in Montana!Yes keep going on about bear baiting and hound hunting I wish we could also.Thank the people on the coast,and the way people view it in the public eye of non hunters.I know eastern Washington didn't want to ban it. :dunno:
There were hunters right here in Colville where I live that voted against hounds and baiting, they told me they did, they were proud of their vote and that it passed, it appeared they enjoyed rubbing it in, I will never forget that! That remains a constant reminder to me of how hunters will turn on each other based on their own personal views! Unfortunately the division runs deep among hunters as can be seen in this topic! A good portion of hunters want to take trail cams away from the other hunters who use them "because of the way they view the use of cams" in spite of how actual users have stated they actually use cams! Oh well, that is the world we live in, if you enjoy something do it to the fullest while you can, there is someone out there who wants to stop what you enjoy doing!
Just some fun facts about bear baiting and hound hunting.
Stevens
Yes/No Votes
No 9461
Yes 6985
Pend Oreille
Yes/No Votes
No 2485
Yes 2428
Spokane
Yes/No Votes
Yes 99834
No 56757
Ferry
Yes/No Votes
No 1722
Yes 1112
It was spokane county that hurt us most in that election for eastern Washington.
What can be abused-will be abused , And the rest will suffer.
"because of the way they view the use of cams"
Cause of the few that will abuse it ,not the way we view it.
Trail cams are great,but cell trail cams have taken it to a whole new level of what fair chase really means.
Do you personally use cell cams? If so, what level are you referring to? So lets say a hunter is sitting at home, or eating breakfast in town, whatever. A picture taken on a regular cam of say a deer is stored on a card until the hunter pulls the card and actually views it. A cell cam transmits the picture to a cell phone via email or app and also stores it on a card. By the time the individual get to the cell cam he has two pictures, one on his phone and one on his card. Advantage...one extra picture. :bash:
The level I'm talking about is .
Let me ask this question .
I'm gonna buy a cell trail cam ,put it about 10 min or less from my house on public land ,when I get the pic of the deer I want ,in gonna go there and shoot it , then post it up here on this forum ,are you ok with that?
Post by: bearpaw on June 09, 2017, 02:57:10 PM
For what it's worth, this is the real enjoyment I get from my cellular cams. First fawn on the property that I've seen. Mama looks sleek and healthy from all the feed available the last two months. I 've seen what the local deer look like in comparison.
Picture taken about an hour ago. Didn't see it until now, as I was too busy playing here :chuckle:.
You have planted food plots to attract wildlife and now they are visiting your property, I know that as soon as you see a big buck on your cell phone you are going to drop what you are doing and drive as fast as you can to get there and shoot that buck. By golly you are cheating me out of opportunity plus that's not fair chase in my eyes, I want to ban your food plots and your trail cam because I think you are destroying the image of hunting. Shame on you! :rolleyes:
Post by: bearpaw on June 09, 2017, 03:00:48 PM
It's certainly not the end of the world if cams are outlawed, the reason I stand against it is for the reasons I have stated. In the end there will be hunters wondering why other hunters took away their trail cams just like I am still wondering why other hunters voted against me being able to hunt hounds, bait, trap, and hunt coyotes with dogs in WA. It saddens me every time I see hunters lose the ability to do something they enjoy because i've been that guy too many times. Yes, Montana outlawed trail cams, it really don't affect me or my Montana business but I know guys who wished they could still use their trail cams in Montana!Yes keep going on about bear baiting and hound hunting I wish we could also.Thank the people on the coast,and the way people view it in the public eye of non hunters.I know eastern Washington didn't want to ban it. :dunno:
There were hunters right here in Colville where I live that voted against hounds and baiting, they told me they did, they were proud of their vote and that it passed, it appeared they enjoyed rubbing it in, I will never forget that! That remains a constant reminder to me of how hunters will turn on each other based on their own personal views! Unfortunately the division runs deep among hunters as can be seen in this topic! A good portion of hunters want to take trail cams away from the other hunters who use them "because of the way they view the use of cams" in spite of how actual users have stated they actually use cams! Oh well, that is the world we live in, if you enjoy something do it to the fullest while you can, there is someone out there who wants to stop what you enjoy doing!
Just some fun facts about bear baiting and hound hunting.
Stevens
Yes/No Votes
No 9461
Yes 6985
Pend Oreille
Yes/No Votes
No 2485
Yes 2428
Spokane
Yes/No Votes
Yes 99834
No 56757
Ferry
Yes/No Votes
No 1722
Yes 1112
It was spokane county that hurt us most in that election for eastern Washington.
What can be abused-will be abused , And the rest will suffer.
"because of the way they view the use of cams"
Cause of the few that will abuse it ,not the way we view it.
Trail cams are great,but cell trail cams have taken it to a whole new level of what fair chase really means.
Do you personally use cell cams? If so, what level are you referring to? So lets say a hunter is sitting at home, or eating breakfast in town, whatever. A picture taken on a regular cam of say a deer is stored on a card until the hunter pulls the card and actually views it. A cell cam transmits the picture to a cell phone via email or app and also stores it on a card. By the time the individual get to the cell cam he has two pictures, one on his phone and one on his card. Advantage...one extra picture. :bash:
The level I'm talking about is .
Let me ask this question .
I'm gonna buy a cell trail cam ,put it about 10 min or less from my house on public land ,when I get the pic of the deer I want ,in gonna go there and shoot it , then post it up here on this forum ,are you ok with that?
I'm fine with that. I figure if you are a good enough hunter to sneak in on that deer while he's at the feeder you are probably a good enough to stalk a deer under many other circumstances such as while he's in an alfalfa field, meaning you would kill a deer one way or another. Thus there is no biological reason to outlaw the camera.
Post by: lord grizzly on June 09, 2017, 03:03:02 PM
Post by: Bob33 on June 09, 2017, 03:15:07 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 09, 2017, 03:20:09 PM
Post by: lord grizzly on June 09, 2017, 03:23:30 PM
Post by: Bob33 on June 09, 2017, 03:24:53 PM
kind of like an apple fed, pet mega-bull in your backyard pasture?:yike:
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 09, 2017, 03:31:27 PM
Do you know what group coined the term fair chase? If you do it's really pretty funny when you take jabs at " not my idea of fair chase" because the group that created that term doesn't think so either. It's back a couple pages if you wanna go look
The coining of the term is credited to TR.
Post by: lord grizzly on June 09, 2017, 03:34:10 PM
Do you know what group coined the term fair chase? If you do it's really pretty funny when you take jabs at " not my idea of fair chase" because the group that created that term doesn't think so either. It's back a couple pages if you wanna go look
The coining of the term is credited to TR.
And who started Boone & Crocket?
Post by: Machias on June 09, 2017, 03:36:49 PM
It's certainly not the end of the world if cams are outlawed, the reason I stand against it is for the reasons I have stated. In the end there will be hunters wondering why other hunters took away their trail cams just like I am still wondering why other hunters voted against me being able to hunt hounds, bait, trap, and hunt coyotes with dogs in WA. It saddens me every time I see hunters lose the ability to do something they enjoy because i've been that guy too many times. Yes, Montana outlawed trail cams, it really don't affect me or my Montana business but I know guys who wished they could still use their trail cams in Montana!Yes keep going on about bear baiting and hound hunting I wish we could also.Thank the people on the coast,and the way people view it in the public eye of non hunters.I know eastern Washington didn't want to ban it. :dunno:
There were hunters right here in Colville where I live that voted against hounds and baiting, they told me they did, they were proud of their vote and that it passed, it appeared they enjoyed rubbing it in, I will never forget that! That remains a constant reminder to me of how hunters will turn on each other based on their own personal views! Unfortunately the division runs deep among hunters as can be seen in this topic! A good portion of hunters want to take trail cams away from the other hunters who use them "because of the way they view the use of cams" in spite of how actual users have stated they actually use cams! Oh well, that is the world we live in, if you enjoy something do it to the fullest while you can, there is someone out there who wants to stop what you enjoy doing!
Just some fun facts about bear baiting and hound hunting.
Stevens
Yes/No Votes
No 9461
Yes 6985
Pend Oreille
Yes/No Votes
No 2485
Yes 2428
Spokane
Yes/No Votes
Yes 99834
No 56757
Ferry
Yes/No Votes
No 1722
Yes 1112
It was spokane county that hurt us most in that election for eastern Washington.
What can be abused-will be abused , And the rest will suffer.
"because of the way they view the use of cams"
Cause of the few that will abuse it ,not the way we view it.
Trail cams are great,but cell trail cams have taken it to a whole new level of what fair chase really means.
Do you personally use cell cams? If so, what level are you referring to? So lets say a hunter is sitting at home, or eating breakfast in town, whatever. A picture taken on a regular cam of say a deer is stored on a card until the hunter pulls the card and actually views it. A cell cam transmits the picture to a cell phone via email or app and also stores it on a card. By the time the individual get to the cell cam he has two pictures, one on his phone and one on his card. Advantage...one extra picture. :bash:
The level I'm talking about is .
Let me ask this question .
I'm gonna buy a cell trail cam ,put it about 10 min or less from my house on public land ,when I get the pic of the deer I want ,in gonna go there and shoot it , then post it up here on this forum ,are you ok with that?
I'll save you the trouble, you can borrow my wireless trail camera, that way you don't have to spend your money. Heck I'll tell you what. I will show you exactly where my bear bait is. I'll add your e-mail address to the system so you are alerted the instant a bear walks in. You can go try and kill it. $100 bucks you can't kill a bear off of my bait!
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 09, 2017, 03:37:04 PM
Do you know what group coined the term fair chase? If you do it's really pretty funny when you take jabs at " not my idea of fair chase" because the group that created that term doesn't think so either. It's back a couple pages if you wanna go look
The coining of the term is credited to TR.
And who started Boone & Crocket?
TR... but I'm pretty sure he wasn't against game cams that sent photos to cell phones. :chuckle:
Post by: KFhunter on June 09, 2017, 03:37:07 PM
Post by: KFhunter on June 09, 2017, 03:45:33 PM
Quote
I'll save you the trouble, you can borrow my wireless trail camera, that way you don't have to spend your money. Heck I'll tell you what. I will show you exactly where my bear bait is. I'll add your e-mail address to the system so you are alerted the instant a bear walks in. You can go try and kill it. $100 bucks you can't kill a bear off of my bait!
I'll take that bet, no I won't win that $100 bucks but by golly I'll kill the next bear that walks in 8)
Post by: Wacenturion on June 09, 2017, 03:49:48 PM
For what it's worth, this is the real enjoyment I get from my cellular cams. First fawn on the property that I've seen. Mama looks sleek and healthy from all the feed available the last two months. I 've seen what the local deer look like in comparison.
Picture taken about an hour ago. Didn't see it until now, as I was too busy playing here :chuckle:.
You have planted food plots to attract wildlife and now they are visiting your property, I know that as soon as you see a big buck on your cell phone you are going to drop what you are doing and drive as fast as you can to get there and shoot that buck. By golly you are cheating me out of opportunity plus that's not fair chase in my eyes, I want to ban your food plots and your trail cam because I think you are destroying the image of hunting. Shame on you! :rolleyes:
Yep, for sure. I was actually considering jumping in my car and driving 6 hrs so I could get a better look at that fawn. :chuckle:
Post by: lord grizzly on June 09, 2017, 03:50:32 PM
Post by: Machias on June 09, 2017, 03:50:56 PM
QuoteI'll save you the trouble, you can borrow my wireless trail camera, that way you don't have to spend your money. Heck I'll tell you what. I will show you exactly where my bear bait is. I'll add your e-mail address to the system so you are alerted the instant a bear walks in. You can go try and kill it. $100 bucks you can't kill a bear off of my bait!
I'll take that bet, no I won't win that $100 bucks but by golly I'll kill the next bear that walks in 8)
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: KFhunter on June 09, 2017, 03:55:54 PM
It's just very entertaining that you guys sit there and say "don't you tell me what fair chase is" When the very organization that created the concept holds the same view on the issue. A stance with integrity would be to just come out with it and say I don't believe in fair chase hunting, as I'm convinced by many comments on here that is the case for a few of you. Not cherry pick what makes you sound good on the internet
B&C uses the term "Conservationist" over and over in their fair chase statement. wireless cams effect conservation because it eases traffic in the woods, less people checking cams less often give the animals more breathing room.
Post by: Machias on June 09, 2017, 03:57:36 PM
Post by: lord grizzly on June 09, 2017, 03:57:41 PM
It's just very entertaining that you guys sit there and say "don't you tell me what fair chase is" When the very organization that created the concept holds the same view on the issue. A stance with integrity would be to just come out with it and say I don't believe in fair chase hunting, as I'm convinced by many comments on here that is the case for a few of you. Not cherry pick what makes you sound good on the internet
B&C uses the term "Conservationist" over and over in their fair chase statement. wireless cams effect conservation because it eases traffic in the woods, less people checking cams less often give the animals more breathing room.
No it's very clearly outlined. I have a cut and paste from there web site a couple pages back.
Post by: lord grizzly on June 09, 2017, 03:59:52 PM
Post by: Machias on June 09, 2017, 03:59:59 PM
Post by: Machias on June 09, 2017, 04:01:35 PM
If you've submitted a trophy for the book recently you e actually read and agreed that you didn't use any devices such as we're discussing to harvest it
And if I kill a bear tonight on my bait I can sign that and NOT be falsifying the records. No different than if I had a cell phone or a 2 way radio in my possession. Just because I have this camera at this site and took a photo of a B&C bear last week, does not disqualify this bear.
Post by: KFhunter on June 09, 2017, 04:06:12 PM
If you've submitted a trophy for the book recently you e actually read and agreed that you didn't use any devices such as we're discussing to harvest it
Thanks for that, I found it. It is pretty clear cut. If someone is a trophy hunter seeking to have an animal submitted to B&C a wireless trail cam would invalidate it.
Not all hunters are trophy hunters, a lot just hunt for meat. Should a trophy hunters self imposed rules/ethics via B&C become the law for all hunters?
I think not.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 09, 2017, 04:07:54 PM
It's just very entertaining that you guys sit there and say "don't you tell me what fair chase is" When the very organization that created the concept holds the same view on the issue. A stance with integrity would be to just come out with it and say I don't believe in fair chase hunting, as I'm convinced by many comments on here that is the case for a few of you. Not cherry pick what makes you sound good on the internet
If we go by their original definition of fair chase: "the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native north American big game animals in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals." I think all points previously discussed remain valid within that definition. If you want us to admit that these devices do not qualify as "fair chase" for entering into the record book then I don't think anyone disagrees with that being a fact...... However, if you want to argue that these devices provide an improper advantage as compared to other ones that are called fair chase under that same definition then it's really hard for you to logically defend it.
You will also notice that the definition is very subjective to whoever happens to be in control of making the rules for the club at any one time. In other words.. it's subject to individual/group agendas not honoring the spirit and intent of the definition.....However, regardless of the influence individuals have played over the years we clearly see the original definition...we know what type of technology fell under that definition at that time....and we know that even that antiquated technology (by todays standards)...provides a far greater advantage in the actual taking of these animals than the piece of technology we are discussing.
Post by: KFhunter on June 09, 2017, 04:08:19 PM
How about instead of a time problem since most guys are hung up about the real time photo, we stipulate that the camera cannot be set up and used within a certain distance...say 45 miles from the receiver? Would that make you feel better? Take at least an hour to get there....or would 100 miles be suitable?
I liked my idea better, program a time delay on the camera so it doesn't transmit the photo's for 24 hours. I say 24 hours because that's the airplane time frame. It still saves people from having to physically pull SD cards all the time, and they get to see that their camera isn't pointing at the dirt or sky.
Post by: Wacenturion on June 09, 2017, 04:18:04 PM
It's just very entertaining that you guys sit there and say "don't you tell me what fair chase is" When the very organization that created the concept holds the same view on the issue. A stance with integrity would be to just come out with it and say I don't believe in fair chase hunting, as I'm convinced by many comments on here that is the case for a few of you. Not cherry pick what makes you sound good on the internet
Boy for someone who doesn't personally know any of us, you sure are certain we are something you have pictured us to be because we hold a different opinion than you. Boone and Crockett....good organization I guess. Personally not interested in shaping my hunting activites to perhaps land in their books. Not me, with the exception of when I was a young man back in the 70's. I shot a Longrifle (ML) book mule deer which I submitted. I rather doubt that you will meet people with more personal integrity and as you put it "fair chase" in mind than many of the people in this discussion.
Funny when pressed for your ways of doing things, you deflect with some comment questioning other's integrity. Just because you and your highly regarded B&B see it a certain way, doesn't necessarily means it meets the muster with everyone in the hunting arena. We all have opinions about what we like and don't like in the realm of hunting, but for the most part we are willing to enjoy things our way while accepting the way others do it within the legal limits.
As I previously mentioned, I have watched hunters canabalize each other over my 30 year career with WDFW. As BP stated so well, some are just thrilled to restrict your opportunity to enhance theirs because of their views on how the hunting world should operate. That is until their opportunity is impacted.
If a proposed regulation or law is scientifically based and necessary for the proper management of species, so be it. If it's based in factless opinion then it's not a valid way to regulate. Too much of that alteady, don't need any more. :twocents:
Oh and for the record you must be phychic....I do live in western Washington. Sounds like you are you inferring something negative. How cute.
Post by: lord grizzly on June 09, 2017, 04:46:23 PM
It's just very entertaining that you guys sit there and say "don't you tell me what fair chase is" When the very organization that created the concept holds the same view on the issue. A stance with integrity would be to just come out with it and say I don't believe in fair chase hunting, as I'm convinced by many comments on here that is the case for a few of you. Not cherry pick what makes you sound good on the internet
If we go by their original definition of fair chase: "the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native north American big game animals in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals." I think all points previously discussed remain valid within that definition. If you want us to admit that these devices do not qualify as "fair chase" for entering into the record book then I don't think anyone disagrees with that being a fact...... However, if you want to argue that these devices provide an improper advantage as compared to other ones that are called fair chase under that same definition then it's really hard for you to logically defend it.
You will also notice that the definition is very subjective to whoever happens to be in control of making the rules for the club at any one time. In other words.. it's subject to individual/group agendas not honoring the spirit and intent of the definition.....However, regardless of the influence individuals have played over the years we clearly see the original definition...we know what type of technology fell under that definition at that time....and we know that even that antiquated technology (by todays standards)...provides a far greater advantage in the actual taking of these animals than the piece of technology we are discussing.
Of course 2017 is different than 1917 and the organization has evolved with times as all need to. I was really pointing out how funny it was bearpaw using the term in a sarcastic manner as if it was just my elitist idea and not realizing he doesn't even line up with the creators of the concept.
Post by: lord grizzly on June 09, 2017, 04:49:58 PM
Post by: Wacenturion on June 09, 2017, 04:52:32 PM
Doesn't surprise me though. Its obvious that fair chase is t a top priority for that guide by his comments here
I personally think that going way over the line.
Post by: lord grizzly on June 09, 2017, 05:03:02 PM
Post by: KFhunter on June 09, 2017, 05:08:02 PM
Quote
As with any guideline that falls within a legal framework, but is also grounded in personal ethics that cannot and should not be legislated, interpretations of fair chase can vary. Laws are largely set by society and to protect, conserve and manage wildlife resources that are held in the public trust. Ethical decisions in hunting, however, ultimately rest with the individual in what feels right or wrong, and what technologies or methods are acceptable or unacceptable for them to be successful.
Post by: lord grizzly on June 09, 2017, 05:17:21 PM
As a leading conservation organization and promoter of fair chase in North America, it is important to the Boone and Crockett Club that the nuances and benefits of fair chase are clearly understood by hunters and non-hunters. The Club is concerned that hunting practices that were once deemed unacceptable are becoming more commonplace. This is not only eroding our overall hunting ethic, but the public’s widespread support for hunting
Post by: singleshot12 on June 11, 2017, 11:23:12 AM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 11, 2017, 11:38:06 AM
What? did the lord get the last word on this subject :dunno: Some of you guys remind me of teenagers that are getting threatened by their parents that are taking your electronics away :chuckle:. You guys need to realize the hunting world and your hunting senses are much better off without electronic technology :twocents:
:chuckle:
Post by: predatorpro on June 11, 2017, 11:44:30 AM
Post by: predatorpro on June 11, 2017, 11:48:01 AM
Post by: DaveMonti on June 11, 2017, 11:58:49 AM
What? did the lord get the last word on this subject :dunno: Some of you guys remind me of teenagers that are getting threatened by their parents that are taking your electronics away :chuckle:. You guys need to realize the hunting world and your hunting senses are much better off without electronic technology :twocents:
Hunting without electronics "builds character".
Post by: Wacenturion on June 11, 2017, 12:07:47 PM
What? did the lord get the last word on this subject :dunno: Some of you guys remind me of teenagers that are getting threatened by their parents that are taking your electronics away :chuckle:. You guys need to realize the hunting world and your hunting senses are much better off without electronic technology :twocents:
Nothing like that. Thread starting to take an accusatory direction by someone who just keeps ......
Post by: hunter399 on June 11, 2017, 12:26:45 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 11, 2017, 12:36:23 PM
What? did the lord get the last word on this subject :dunno: Some of you guys remind me of teenagers that are getting threatened by their parents that are taking your electronics away :chuckle:. You guys need to realize the hunting world and your hunting senses are much better off without electronic technology :twocents:
I'm not going to stoop to his level of insulting. He has his opinion and everyone else can suffer the consequences of his thoughts on what's fair chase.
Predatorpro hit the nail on the head!
"Americans are systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights. Support all user groups & quit losing opportunity!"
Post by: hunter399 on June 11, 2017, 01:05:29 PM
Post by: Wacenturion on June 11, 2017, 01:06:43 PM
http://www.funnydog.tv/video/new-long-range-shooting-record-3720-yards/t5m_vBSAFoA
Post by: bearpaw on June 11, 2017, 01:11:48 PM
Post by: hunter399 on June 11, 2017, 01:17:56 PM
Post by: hunter399 on June 11, 2017, 01:19:52 PM
I could make these all day :chuckle:
Post by: Wacenturion on June 11, 2017, 01:22:55 PM
Wacenturian these guys know they are right, they know what is fair and what's not fair for everyone else. By golly those heat seeking missille firing trailcams are just unfair, in another 10 years they will be able to gut the animal and deliver it by email to your smart phone! :rolleyes: :chuckle: :chuckle:
:tup:
Post by: h20hunter on June 11, 2017, 01:23:33 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 11, 2017, 02:04:33 PM
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
I could make these all day :chuckle:
Yep... good meme....no cell trail cam will provide this large of an advantage over the animal.
Post by: KFhunter on June 11, 2017, 02:55:45 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 11, 2017, 10:32:49 PM
I don't think we should be putting meme's on hunters' success pics shared on HW. I removed it.
Dang.. Wish I would have seen it. Never used cell cams but 3 seasons of dedicated pursuit with the buck in my avatar using trail cams in season.... With the advantage they supposedly give I either have the worst hunting skills ever or these devices don't provide as much of an edge as some would lead one to believe.
I'll say this... My clothing and hi-tech compound bow with carbon fiber arrows gave me a huge advantage... The bow got the job done on the first opportunity.
Post by: hunter399 on June 12, 2017, 12:42:15 AM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 12, 2017, 10:37:09 AM
Was a joke that may have went too far.Glad you did delete it , that is a nice buck,3 years hunting it sounds like you earned it . :tup:
Thank you. I love hunting these NE WA Public Land Deep Woods Mountain Bucks.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 12, 2017, 12:36:50 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 12, 2017, 12:39:16 PM
Post by: singleshot12 on June 12, 2017, 01:09:49 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 12, 2017, 01:51:36 PM
Wow nice DB! and they have already shed their velvet. Incredible antler growth. Is there a special feed or mineral that helps that along?
I do have a mineral mix that I use for spring/early summer pictures but the only one of these that ever had any of it was the buck in picture 3 and 4 from the top.
Post by: singleshot12 on June 12, 2017, 02:00:06 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on June 12, 2017, 02:04:31 PM
Must be mostly genetics, Damn nice deer! :tup:
We definitely have good genetics in NE WA...these are all big woods, public land, mountain bucks... no agricultural fields anywhere near these areas.
Post by: singleshot12 on June 12, 2017, 02:08:27 PM
Post by: HunterofWA on June 13, 2017, 11:15:00 AM
Post by: lord grizzly on July 05, 2017, 12:25:40 PM
couple good ones to get behind here. for sure be getting my comments
Post by: Machias on July 06, 2017, 10:06:36 AM
https://idfg.idaho.gov/press/fish-and-game-seeks-comments-several-proposed-rule-changes
couple good ones to get behind here. for sure be getting my comments
Thanks for posting the link.
Post by: luvmystang67 on July 06, 2017, 03:10:47 PM
Idaho is expensive for out-of-staters. I've never seen large animals there in person. I have seen large animals on my game cameras. If not for game cameras, I would probably not continue hunting Idaho. Seriously. We don't see that many animals, the only reason I know the quality of animal that is available where I hunt is by camera, and it keeps me coming back to try for more.
The communication bit, that's just ridiculous. They should ban binos and scopes instead...
Post by: idaho guy on July 06, 2017, 03:52:18 PM
Post by: lord grizzly on July 09, 2017, 04:29:04 PM
When responding to the proposal, I just thought of the biggest thing they should be concerned about.
Idaho is expensive for out-of-staters. I've never seen large animals there in person. I have seen large animals on my game cameras. If not for game cameras, I would probably not continue hunting Idaho. Seriously. We don't see that many animals, the only reason I know the quality of animal that is available where I hunt is by camera, and it keeps me coming back to try for more.
The communication bit, that's just ridiculous. They should ban binos and scopes instead...
Well now I support the ban even more!!
Post by: luvmystang67 on July 10, 2017, 09:23:18 AM
When responding to the proposal, I just thought of the biggest thing they should be concerned about.
Idaho is expensive for out-of-staters. I've never seen large animals there in person. I have seen large animals on my game cameras. If not for game cameras, I would probably not continue hunting Idaho. Seriously. We don't see that many animals, the only reason I know the quality of animal that is available where I hunt is by camera, and it keeps me coming back to try for more.
The communication bit, that's just ridiculous. They should ban binos and scopes instead...
Well now I support the ban even more!!
haha, I mean you can say that, but there's no denying the impact of non residents paying 10x more for tags. Its not like we have higher success rates, we just pay a ton more money. We help keep tag fees low for residents.
Post by: Wacenturion on July 10, 2017, 11:23:26 AM
When responding to the proposal, I just thought of the biggest thing they should be concerned about.
Idaho is expensive for out-of-staters. I've never seen large animals there in person. I have seen large animals on my game cameras. If not for game cameras, I would probably not continue hunting Idaho. Seriously. We don't see that many animals, the only reason I know the quality of animal that is available where I hunt is by camera, and it keeps me coming back to try for more.
The communication bit, that's just ridiculous. They should ban binos and scopes instead...
Well now I support the ban even more!!
haha, I mean you can say that, but there's no denying the impact of non residents paying 10x more for tags. Its not like we have higher success rates, we just pay a ton more money. We help keep tag fees low for residents.
I remember as a young man pursuing my wildlife/fisheries degree at the University of Idaho in the early 70's, that non resident revenues in the Idaho F&G budget accounted for about 72% of the total. Fast forward to an article (link below) in 2013 that shows that the income from non residents has decreased further to about an even 50-50 breakdown. Idaho, a state with a low population and dependent on non resident fees. Be careful what you wish for when it comes to fee increases or policy changes that affect opportunity.. :twocents:
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2013/jan/29/drop-sales-hunting-fishing-licenses-non-residents-crimps-revenue-idaho-fish-game/
Post by: JimmyHoffa on July 10, 2017, 12:01:26 PM
Post by: lord grizzly on July 10, 2017, 03:57:22 PM
Guess everyone will just have to move to Idaho then and become residents. :yike:
nah you don't want to come here. cant even use trail cams. stay in Washington its way better
Post by: Machias on July 10, 2017, 04:11:28 PM
Guess everyone will just have to move to Idaho then and become residents. :yike:
nah you don't want to come here. cant even use trail cams. stay in Washington its way better
:chuckle:
I had an Idaho resident let me know what they thought about trail cameras. Had a bear take my camera down, which wasn't the bad part, somehow it was able to remove, and chew into tiny pieces, my SD card. Seriously bummed me out. 3 hour drive one way and it was out for 2 months. I was so excited to get the photos.... :'(
Post by: Wacenturion on July 10, 2017, 06:37:39 PM
Guess everyone will just have to move to Idaho then and become residents. :yike:
nah you don't want to come here. cant even use trail cams. stay in Washington its way better
:chuckle:
I had an Idaho resident let me know what they thought about trail cameras. Had a bear take my camera down, which wasn't the bad part, somehow it was able to remove, and chew into tiny pieces, my SD card. Seriously bummed me out. 3 hour drive one way and it was out for 2 months. I was so excited to get the photos.... :'(
What was that Yogi thing...."smarter than the average bear". :chuckle:
Post by: Wacenturion on July 10, 2017, 07:25:42 PM
Guess everyone will just have to move to Idaho then and become residents. :yike:
nah you don't want to come here. cant even use trail cams. stay in Washington its way better
:chuckle:
I had an Idaho resident let me know what they thought about trail cameras. Had a bear take my camera down, which wasn't the bad part, somehow it was able to remove, and chew into tiny pieces, my SD card. Seriously bummed me out. 3 hour drive one way and it was out for 2 months. I was so excited to get the photos.... :'(
That sucks.....I'm hoping it wasn't one of your Spartan cameras. Sounds like it may have been from your description....sorry to hear that.
Post by: G-S on July 10, 2017, 09:33:36 PM
Post by: lord grizzly on July 11, 2017, 07:02:18 AM
Since I live a block away from a regional f&g office I'm going to go talk with them and not be very supportive of losing the use of my trail camera's but am going to be very supportive of the no electronic communications law.
Aren't the trail cameras in question electronic communications?
Post by: luvmystang67 on July 11, 2017, 10:08:42 AM
Muzzleloader and archery only would be a great proposal.
:stirthepot:
Post by: Stein on July 11, 2017, 10:31:14 AM
Drones aren't used much and hunters I believe generally would agree that they would provide a new benefit and most probably would agree with them being banned. But, if you let them be used for 10-20 years, then the new generation would likely flip out if you tried to pull them.
I believe the current rules have more to do with history than a defensible, logical argument. An example I would use is that I can march in a 10 string pack train into a wilderness area, but if I take a two wheel game cart, that is a no-no. It would be hard to argue that 10 horses are treading lighter than a game cart, but horses have been in the wilderness for a couple hundred years and are accepted as part of the American wilderness.
Thus, I am in support of having a prompt discussion on new technology before it gets embedded into the hunting culture.
Post by: lord grizzly on July 11, 2017, 11:05:13 AM
Post by: Machias on July 11, 2017, 10:10:13 PM
Guess everyone will just have to move to Idaho then and become residents. :yike:
nah you don't want to come here. cant even use trail cams. stay in Washington its way better
:chuckle:
I had an Idaho resident let me know what they thought about trail cameras. Had a bear take my camera down, which wasn't the bad part, somehow it was able to remove, and chew into tiny pieces, my SD card. Seriously bummed me out. 3 hour drive one way and it was out for 2 months. I was so excited to get the photos.... :'(
That sucks.....I'm hoping it wasn't one of your Spartan cameras. Sounds like it may have been from your description....sorry to hear that.
Nope, cheap $30 camera...which is still working. No cell service in that area.
Post by: Machias on July 11, 2017, 10:13:15 PM
Be careful stien, sound to reasonable about addressing technology and you'll be labeled a right snatching ,jealous ,elitist
Or voice support for them and you'll be labeled a unethical slob hunter who doesn't care about fair chase or the sport of hunting or the animals we pursue.
Post by: bearpaw on July 12, 2017, 08:09:50 AM
1. Regarding biological reasoning, I don't know of any studies proving cameras that send photos result in increased harvest or the need to prohibit use due to over harvest? Are there any studies showing a biological need to prohibit use?
2. Regarding hunter image/ethics, I don't get it, how is a camera sending a photo any more unfair than spotting the same animal from miles away with a 60x spotter or using a camera with high powered telephoto lens? Either way you know the animal is there but you still have to stalk within shooting range without spooking the animal and successfully make the shot, provided the animal is still where the photo was taken or where it was spotted. As any seasoned hunter knows, many times an animal will simply not be where is was seen only 30 minutes ago by the time you get the spot where it was seen, unless you were lucky enough for the animal to bed down. So I would suggest that a spotting scope or good binoculars are actually more unfair than a camera which sends photos from only one small location. With a spotter or binos you can scan across the countryside, you can scan entire hillsides, you can watch animals move along, and you can see where an animal beds down and then go after a bedded down animal! Additionally almost all modern rifles are capable of shooting accurately from 300 to 500 or more yards. Many hunters shoot across canyons and take other long distance shots. In summary for those who feel a camera sending a photo from one small location is an unfair advantage or unethical I seriously urge them to reconsider the use of high powered optics and modern rifles in hunting. It's quite obvious these other items provide hunters a much greater advantage in hunting.
I do not own a trail cam that sends photos but I might like to own one some day in the future!
Post by: White Pass Outfitters on July 12, 2017, 08:29:02 AM
Post by: bearpaw on July 12, 2017, 08:34:04 AM
I would be careful on what you say about Whats unethical to use, they don't need anymore Dumb ass ideas. We are already dealing with a lot of non hunters in our game department and as the years go on it just going to get worse.
I'm not opposed to any of the items mentioned, I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy! I would think all the commissioners have had thoughts regarding long range optics and guns, the weight of hunting rifles is already restricted in idaho, this has been an issue in the past.
Post by: White Pass Outfitters on July 12, 2017, 08:45:49 AM
Post by: White Pass Outfitters on July 12, 2017, 09:26:28 AM
Post by: lord grizzly on July 12, 2017, 09:42:09 AM
I still find it interesting the guys that can get behind the communications regulations but not the camera one. What's the difference if I text you a pic of a deer while we're hunting or a camera does. It's all electronic communication isn't it?
Post by: lord grizzly on July 12, 2017, 09:43:45 AM
I have been waiting for the game departments to say no cameras in the wilderness due to being a mechanical device. Not sure of how they determine whats mechanical or not. I do know the FS told me no coma-longs in the wilderness a few yrs back. I had to laugh about that one.
You already need a permit to film in the wilderness. I imagine it would be a pretty easy thing to add trail cams to that law
Post by: bearpaw on July 12, 2017, 09:45:58 AM
I have been waiting for the game departments to say no cameras in the wilderness due to being a mechanical device. Not sure of how they determine whats mechanical or not. I do know the FS told me no coma-longs in the wilderness a few yrs back. I had to laugh about that one.
You already need a permit to film in the wilderness. I imagine it would be a pretty easy thing to add trail cams to that law
only to commercially film :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on July 12, 2017, 09:48:33 AM
I have been waiting for the game departments to say no cameras in the wilderness due to being a mechanical device. Not sure of how they determine whats mechanical or not. I do know the FS told me no coma-longs in the wilderness a few yrs back. I had to laugh about that one.
You already need a permit to film in the wilderness. I imagine it would be a pretty easy thing to add trail cams to that law
It's really no different than your position, you are not opposed to the things you use but want to ban the things other hunters use! :dunno:
Post by: Taco280AI on July 12, 2017, 10:18:57 AM
What's the difference if I text you a pic of a deer while we're hunting or a camera does. It's all electronic communication isn't it?
Difference is you're not going to be in the woods 24/7 and in multiple places at once like cams can be.
Post by: lord grizzly on July 12, 2017, 10:34:19 AM
I have been waiting for the game departments to say no cameras in the wilderness due to being a mechanical device. Not sure of how they determine whats mechanical or not. I do know the FS told me no coma-longs in the wilderness a few yrs back. I had to laugh about that one.
You already need a permit to film in the wilderness. I imagine it would be a pretty easy thing to add trail cams to that law
It's really no different than your position, you are not opposed to the things you use but want to ban the things other hunters use! :dunno:
I currently use trail cams. Difference between us is I see the potential problems and I'm willing to sacrifice a practice I currently use to avoid it. Are you?
Post by: lord grizzly on July 12, 2017, 10:35:06 AM
What's the difference if I text you a pic of a deer while we're hunting or a camera does. It's all electronic communication isn't it?
Difference is you're not going to be in the woods 24/7 and in multiple places at once like cams can be.
So you agree with banning them I take it?
Post by: White Pass Outfitters on July 12, 2017, 11:18:06 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on July 12, 2017, 11:30:10 AM
If that gets passed, where will it end. Range finders, dialing in your scope and isnt a rifle a mechanical thing. I say fight hard on not letting them get there foot in the door !!! We are already living by to many rules and regulations. And yes I am anti-gov !!!:yeah:, if they ban them here, I'm going to hang even more of them! This is too far of a reach, bunch of BS,
Post by: lord grizzly on July 12, 2017, 11:46:03 AM
Post by: Taco280AI on July 12, 2017, 12:24:38 PM
What's the difference if I text you a pic of a deer while we're hunting or a camera does. It's all electronic communication isn't it?
Difference is you're not going to be in the woods 24/7 and in multiple places at once like cams can be.
So you agree with banning them I take it?
Is that what I said? You posed a question, I replied.
I'm not against TCs at all. I would be against using drones to fly around to find game.
Post by: lord grizzly on July 12, 2017, 01:10:38 PM
Post by: bearpaw on July 13, 2017, 07:52:54 AM
I have been waiting for the game departments to say no cameras in the wilderness due to being a mechanical device. Not sure of how they determine whats mechanical or not. I do know the FS told me no coma-longs in the wilderness a few yrs back. I had to laugh about that one.
You already need a permit to film in the wilderness. I imagine it would be a pretty easy thing to add trail cams to that law
It's really no different than your position, you are not opposed to the things you use but want to ban the things other hunters use! :dunno:
I currently use trail cams. Difference between us is I see the potential problems and I'm willing to sacrifice a practice I currently use to avoid it. Are you?
The difference I see between us is that I don't think we should ban any more items than necessary. Please see my signature and think about it, unless there is a biological reason or more obvious reasons that harm will actually be done to hunting I generally do not support banning anything. Every time something is banned someone loses, if we all support banning different items pretty soon everyone will be left wondering why there are so many laws, why so many methods are outlawed, and why we have no freedom of choice! READ MY SIGNATURE AND THINK ABOUT IT!
(nothing personal just a difference of opinion on this subject, we can certainly agree to disagree)
Post by: Stein on July 13, 2017, 08:01:28 AM
I have been waiting for the game departments to say no cameras in the wilderness due to being a mechanical device. Not sure of how they determine whats mechanical or not. I do know the FS told me no coma-longs in the wilderness a few yrs back. I had to laugh about that one.
You already can't leave stuff unattended for more than 24 hours, so their use is already greatly curtailed.
Post by: Stein on July 13, 2017, 08:06:46 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on July 13, 2017, 08:27:35 AM
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.But for the bolded, there are outfits that provide multiple guides and game cams/scouting for a single client. Some of those high rollers with gov tags wait around until the guides have scoured he woods and poured through all the photos.
Post by: Wacenturion on July 13, 2017, 08:35:08 AM
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
Post by: Wacenturion on July 13, 2017, 08:38:24 AM
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.But for the bolded, there are outfits that provide multiple guides and game cams/scouting for a single client. Some of those high rollers with gov tags wait around until the guides have scoured he woods and poured through all the photos.
The cams, if used, may have allerted the guides to know an animal is in the area, but the cams by themselves don't sit on that targeted animal exact location for weeks prior to the shooter arriving. That is what does the animal in.
Post by: lord grizzly on July 13, 2017, 10:49:55 AM
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
Post by: NOCK NOCK on July 13, 2017, 10:57:34 AM
Post by: NOCK NOCK on July 13, 2017, 10:58:25 AM
Post by: lord grizzly on July 13, 2017, 11:04:08 AM
Post by: Stein on July 13, 2017, 11:04:34 AM
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.
Post by: lord grizzly on July 13, 2017, 11:04:58 AM
Post by: lord grizzly on July 13, 2017, 11:06:45 AM
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!!
Post by: Taco280AI on July 13, 2017, 11:12:43 AM
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!!
:yeah:
This is the Interwebz, logic and reason has no place here, Sir
Post by: G-S on July 13, 2017, 11:16:02 AM
Post by: lord grizzly on July 13, 2017, 11:22:20 AM
It just sucks most of idaho has no cell service for the wireless camera's to send pictures thru :bash: :bash: :bash:
Satellites hit everywhere and i guarantee someone right now is working on a way to make that tech better and more affordable
Post by: JimmyHoffa on July 13, 2017, 11:25:48 AM
SpaceX is. They want to take the cell business to sat coverage at lower than cell costs.It just sucks most of idaho has no cell service for the wireless camera's to send pictures thru :bash: :bash: :bash:
Satellites hit everywhere and i guarantee someone right now is working on a way to make that tech better and more affordable
Post by: Wacenturion on July 13, 2017, 11:58:51 AM
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.
Post by: Wacenturion on July 13, 2017, 12:08:57 PM
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.
Post by: JohnD on July 13, 2017, 01:06:45 PM
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. :)
Post by: lord grizzly on July 13, 2017, 01:49:39 PM
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?
Post by: Wacenturion on July 13, 2017, 02:02:13 PM
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.
Post by: lord grizzly on July 13, 2017, 02:05:50 PM
Unfortunately most guys don't realize that and think they can buy it.
Post by: Machias on July 13, 2017, 03:01:44 PM
Post by: lord grizzly on July 13, 2017, 03:12:52 PM
The hound guys are coming out hard against the proposal, since the 2 way electronic communications would have a heavy impact on them, possibly even impacting tracking collars, including GPS tracking collars.
It stated specifically that it would not pertain to tracking collars
Post by: Machias on July 13, 2017, 03:20:58 PM
Post by: lord grizzly on July 13, 2017, 04:13:44 PM
Post by: Machias on July 14, 2017, 09:01:01 AM
GPS collars aren't enough? Really?
Enough as opposed to what? Not sure what your question is.
Post by: lord grizzly on July 14, 2017, 09:39:05 AM
Post by: luvmystang67 on July 14, 2017, 10:18:35 AM
0.5) I'm carrying a phone/GPS in the field.
1) I text my mom and tell her where I am and that I'm okay.
2) I text my buddy and tell him that I'm going to come back to camp at 10am for a snack
3) I text my buddy and tell him we should meet up at the nearby landing to talk about strategy
3.5) Same thing as 3, but on the way to the landing he harvests an animal.
4) I text my buddy and tell him that I saw an animal below him 100 yards. He walks down there, doesn't find the animal. Later that day he is walking back to camp and sees the animal I mentioned and harvests it half a mile from where I said I saw it.
5) I text my buddy and tell him there's an elk right below him and he goes to harvest it, we both delete the text message.
6) I tell him where the elk is, he goes and harvests it, and we celebrate.
Assuming #6 is over the line and 0.5 is under the line, where is the freakin line? Also, how do you EVER catch anyone for this. Unenforceable laws are the dumbest thing ever and shouldn't exist.
Post by: lord grizzly on July 14, 2017, 11:09:04 AM
There is of course that old saying "integrity is what you do when no ones looking"
Post by: luvmystang67 on July 14, 2017, 11:44:21 AM
Currently none of that is breaking the law. With some assumptions I imagine 4-6 would be a violation. There's no such thing as a deleted text, that being said there would have to be real cause to spend the time a resource to recover it.
There is of course that old saying "integrity is what you do when no ones looking"
Nothing in there says you cannot carry the devices on your person while in the field, it states that they cannot be used to aid in the taking of game... Using it to call mom isn't aiding in taking of game... at least as far as I read.
Post by: luvmystang67 on July 14, 2017, 11:48:55 AM
With any electronic device, including, but not limited to, cellular phones, smart phones,
satellite phones, 2-way radios, and GPS devices, used in any manner to communicate the location or
approximate location of any big game animal to another person for the purpose of aiding the take of that
big game animal. Nothing in the rule shall be interpreted to preclude the use of such electronic devices for
communication for other lawful purposes
Post by: lord grizzly on July 14, 2017, 12:05:32 PM
Currently none of that is breaking the law. With some assumptions I imagine 4-6 would be a violation. There's no such thing as a deleted text, that being said there would have to be real cause to spend the time a resource to recover it.
There is of course that old saying "integrity is what you do when no ones looking"
Nothing in there says you cannot carry the devices on your person while in the field, it states that they cannot be used to aid in the taking of game... Using it to call mom isn't aiding in taking of game... at least as far as I read.
I agree. Also I never said any different
Post by: bigmacc on July 14, 2017, 05:35:01 PM
Post by: buglebrush on July 14, 2017, 06:56:50 PM
Post by: bigmacc on July 14, 2017, 07:32:15 PM
Game cameras are something that gets my whole family involved in hunting year round. I often take my young children to hang cameras, replenish salt, etc... We always all gather around the computer to see what was on the cards. It also makes it so fun to see what is in the woods. Just are an extra layer of year round fun. And I especially love checking my camera during hunting season, and it's never aided my hunting in any way. I can see the argument on wireless cameras though.
I here you buglebrush and I appreciate what your doing with your kids, we used to do it year round also, we just did it in person with a pack full of sandwiches and an extra pair of socks :chuckle:. My dad worked 60 hrs a week and we lived on the west side, during the crucial times he would pack us up and off we went. Great memories. He would ask us when the rut was, he would let us know if we were close then tell us to "get packed, we are heading out tomorrow!"...Good times, we learned a lot and had a blast! Sometimes it was over and back depending on his work, but what fun!....and all we needed was a journal and a pencil :tup:
Post by: bearpaw on July 16, 2017, 12:04:01 PM
I don't view myself as an old person but the truth is I am at the age where I'm not the same rugged hunter I once was and unforeseen health issues could happen and it's only going to get more possible every year. I'm hoping to guide hunters until I'm 70 or 80 but I have started texting or calling the other guides with my location frequently every day just in case something unforseen did happen. During the winter I'm often 20+ miles from my truck on snowmobile in waist deep snow and probably would have a hard time hiking out if I had a breakdown or mishap. In fact I have been rescued a couple times in the last few winters after mishaps.
My advice to these people laying around imagining how certain technology might be viewed unfairly is to actually get out and spend more time hunting by different methods so that rather than dreaming of ways technology might be viewed poorly, you may actually see how technology can be useful and make the woods safer for hunters! People are getting softer and less woodwise by the decade. When I first started outfitting 90% wanted to camp when hunting, now 90% want indoor accommodations and are truly miserable if camping in cold weather. Many hunters, especially older hunters or hunters new to the outdoors, need and want the safety of checking in frequently with two way communications.
Post by: Bob33 on July 16, 2017, 12:08:43 PM
I think it's a mistake to take away two way communications from hunters. If you take away communications more hunters likely will not carry communications equipment and that could result in more individuals being lost or in a questionable situation without communication ability. I use communications on a daily basis in my guiding business, often times I have more than one hunter and place them in various locations or have them do hunts and pick them up at another location. Communications allows me to make sure my hunters are ok and helps me find them after hiking to different locations. It also helps me find my hunters to help them with downed or wounded game. In many instances two way communications have resulted in getting help to a location to help find wounded game that otherwise would not have been recovered. I also have my drop campers text me the location of their kills, increasingly more and more hunters do not possess the physical ability to pack an elk back to camp.None of that would be illegal with the proposed change. The use of electronic communications to "aid in the taking of game" would be the only restricted use.
I don't view myself as an old person but the truth is I am at the age where I'm not the same rugged hunter I once was and unforeseen health issues could happen and it's only going to get more possible every year. I'm hoping to guide hunters until I'm 70 or 80 but I have started texting or calling the other guides with my location frequently every day just in case something unforseen did happen. During the winter I'm often 20+ miles from my truck on snowmobile in waist deep snow and probably would have a hard time hiking out if I had a breakdown or mishap. In fact I have been rescued a couple times in the last few winters after mishaps.
My advice to these people laying around imagining how certain technology might be viewed unfairly is to actually get out and spend more time hunting by different methods so that rather than dreaming of ways technology might be viewed poorly, you may actually see how technology can be useful and make the woods safer for hunters! People are getting softer and less woodwise by the decade. When I first started outfitting 90% wanted to camp when hunting, now 90% want indoor accommodations and are truly miserable if camping in cold weather. Many hunters, especially older hunters or hunters new to the outdoors, need and want the safety of checking in frequently with two way communications.
Post by: bearpaw on July 16, 2017, 12:24:57 PM
I think it's a mistake to take away two way communications from hunters. If you take away communications more hunters likely will not carry communications equipment and that could result in more individuals being lost or in a questionable situation without communication ability. I use communications on a daily basis in my guiding business, often times I have more than one hunter and place them in various locations or have them do hunts and pick them up at another location. Communications allows me to make sure my hunters are ok and helps me find them after hiking to different locations. It also helps me find my hunters to help them with downed or wounded game. In many instances two way communications have resulted in getting help to a location to help find wounded game that otherwise would not have been recovered. I also have my drop campers text me the location of their kills, increasingly more and more hunters do not possess the physical ability to pack an elk back to camp.None of that would be illegal with the proposed change. The use of electronic communications to "aid in the taking of game" would be the only restricted use.
I don't view myself as an old person but the truth is I am at the age where I'm not the same rugged hunter I once was and unforeseen health issues could happen and it's only going to get more possible every year. I'm hoping to guide hunters until I'm 70 or 80 but I have started texting or calling the other guides with my location frequently every day just in case something unforseen did happen. During the winter I'm often 20+ miles from my truck on snowmobile in waist deep snow and probably would have a hard time hiking out if I had a breakdown or mishap. In fact I have been rescued a couple times in the last few winters after mishaps.
My advice to these people laying around imagining how certain technology might be viewed unfairly is to actually get out and spend more time hunting by different methods so that rather than dreaming of ways technology might be viewed poorly, you may actually see how technology can be useful and make the woods safer for hunters! People are getting softer and less woodwise by the decade. When I first started outfitting 90% wanted to camp when hunting, now 90% want indoor accommodations and are truly miserable if camping in cold weather. Many hunters, especially older hunters or hunters new to the outdoors, need and want the safety of checking in frequently with two way communications.
One point is that if you tell hunters they can't use communications then hunters may not carry communications. Additionally I don't want to have to argue with some jerk game warden about how my communications are being used. All the game wardens are not nice understanding folks, some are out to write every ticket they can and they delight in trying to write an outfitter a ticket. There are no doubt game wardens who would try to write a person if you used your radios or text while out hunting. I would rather keep two way communications wide open. Is there a biological issue. Has the general public complained. No and no, this again is dogooders dreaming up reasons to outlaw what they believe to be unfair or don't personally approve of.
I had a new young game warden in Montana who was going to write me up because my hunter took his tag with his horns to Australia rather than leaving it on the carcass at the meat locker. I had nothing to do with it but because I was the outfitter he was writing me a ticket. I only got out of it because my rancher called up the regional office and threatened to remove public access to a popular fishing stream through his property.
Post by: Bob33 on July 16, 2017, 12:33:05 PM
That could be.I think it's a mistake to take away two way communications from hunters. If you take away communications more hunters likely will not carry communications equipment and that could result in more individuals being lost or in a questionable situation without communication ability. I use communications on a daily basis in my guiding business, often times I have more than one hunter and place them in various locations or have them do hunts and pick them up at another location. Communications allows me to make sure my hunters are ok and helps me find them after hiking to different locations. It also helps me find my hunters to help them with downed or wounded game. In many instances two way communications have resulted in getting help to a location to help find wounded game that otherwise would not have been recovered. I also have my drop campers text me the location of their kills, increasingly more and more hunters do not possess the physical ability to pack an elk back to camp.None of that would be illegal with the proposed change. The use of electronic communications to "aid in the taking of game" would be the only restricted use.
I don't view myself as an old person but the truth is I am at the age where I'm not the same rugged hunter I once was and unforeseen health issues could happen and it's only going to get more possible every year. I'm hoping to guide hunters until I'm 70 or 80 but I have started texting or calling the other guides with my location frequently every day just in case something unforseen did happen. During the winter I'm often 20+ miles from my truck on snowmobile in waist deep snow and probably would have a hard time hiking out if I had a breakdown or mishap. In fact I have been rescued a couple times in the last few winters after mishaps.
My advice to these people laying around imagining how certain technology might be viewed unfairly is to actually get out and spend more time hunting by different methods so that rather than dreaming of ways technology might be viewed poorly, you may actually see how technology can be useful and make the woods safer for hunters! People are getting softer and less woodwise by the decade. When I first started outfitting 90% wanted to camp when hunting, now 90% want indoor accommodations and are truly miserable if camping in cold weather. Many hunters, especially older hunters or hunters new to the outdoors, need and want the safety of checking in frequently with two way communications.
One point is that if you tell hunters they can't use communications then hunters may not carry communications. Additionally I don't want to have to argue with some jerk game warden about how my communications are being used. All the game wardens are not nice understanding folks, some are out to write every ticket they can and they delight in trying to write an outfitter a ticket. There are no doubt game wardens who would try to write a person if you used your radios or text while out hunting. I would rather keep two way communications wide open. Is there a biological issue. Has the general public complained. No and no, this again is dogooders dreaming up reasons to outlaw what they believe to be unfair or don't personally approve of.
I had a new young game warden in Montana who was going to write me up because my hunter took his tag with his horns to Australia rather than leaving it on the carcass at the meat locker. I had nothing to do with it but because I was the outfitter he was writing me a ticket. I only got out of it because my rancher called up the regional office and threatened to remove public access to a popular fishing stream through his property.
Montana has the same regulation.
Post by: bearpaw on July 16, 2017, 12:36:36 PM
That could be.I think it's a mistake to take away two way communications from hunters. If you take away communications more hunters likely will not carry communications equipment and that could result in more individuals being lost or in a questionable situation without communication ability. I use communications on a daily basis in my guiding business, often times I have more than one hunter and place them in various locations or have them do hunts and pick them up at another location. Communications allows me to make sure my hunters are ok and helps me find them after hiking to different locations. It also helps me find my hunters to help them with downed or wounded game. In many instances two way communications have resulted in getting help to a location to help find wounded game that otherwise would not have been recovered. I also have my drop campers text me the location of their kills, increasingly more and more hunters do not possess the physical ability to pack an elk back to camp.None of that would be illegal with the proposed change. The use of electronic communications to "aid in the taking of game" would be the only restricted use.
I don't view myself as an old person but the truth is I am at the age where I'm not the same rugged hunter I once was and unforeseen health issues could happen and it's only going to get more possible every year. I'm hoping to guide hunters until I'm 70 or 80 but I have started texting or calling the other guides with my location frequently every day just in case something unforseen did happen. During the winter I'm often 20+ miles from my truck on snowmobile in waist deep snow and probably would have a hard time hiking out if I had a breakdown or mishap. In fact I have been rescued a couple times in the last few winters after mishaps.
My advice to these people laying around imagining how certain technology might be viewed unfairly is to actually get out and spend more time hunting by different methods so that rather than dreaming of ways technology might be viewed poorly, you may actually see how technology can be useful and make the woods safer for hunters! People are getting softer and less woodwise by the decade. When I first started outfitting 90% wanted to camp when hunting, now 90% want indoor accommodations and are truly miserable if camping in cold weather. Many hunters, especially older hunters or hunters new to the outdoors, need and want the safety of checking in frequently with two way communications.
One point is that if you tell hunters they can't use communications then hunters may not carry communications. Additionally I don't want to have to argue with some jerk game warden about how my communications are being used. All the game wardens are not nice understanding folks, some are out to write every ticket they can and they delight in trying to write an outfitter a ticket. There are no doubt game wardens who would try to write a person if you used your radios or text while out hunting. I would rather keep two way communications wide open. Is there a biological issue. Has the general public complained. No and no, this again is dogooders dreaming up reasons to outlaw what they believe to be unfair or don't personally approve of.
I had a new young game warden in Montana who was going to write me up because my hunter took his tag with his horns to Australia rather than leaving it on the carcass at the meat locker. I had nothing to do with it but because I was the outfitter he was writing me a ticket. I only got out of it because my rancher called up the regional office and threatened to remove public access to a popular fishing stream through his property.
Montana has the same regulation.
Yes, we have to be very careful in MT, we get used to communicating casually in other states and it always worries me someone may try to say we are aiding the hunt somehow! I'm constantly reminding the other guides, they probably get tired of hearing me worry. >:(
Post by: KFhunter on July 16, 2017, 12:43:18 PM
Post by: bearpaw on July 16, 2017, 12:48:14 PM
Those types give a bad name to all the others who use common sense and good judgment.
Yes I know, most of the wardens are really good guys. But....
Post by: Bob33 on July 16, 2017, 12:49:08 PM
You need to develop some secret codes for communicating.Those types give a bad name to all the others who use common sense and good judgment.
Yes I know, most of the wardens are really good guys. But....
“Hey you guys - I’m getting ready to take a lunch break” means “Quick - bring the hunter! There’s a 5x5 over here!” :chuckle:
Post by: KFhunter on July 16, 2017, 12:51:11 PM
Post by: bearpaw on July 16, 2017, 12:52:06 PM
You need to develop some secret codes for communicating.Those types give a bad name to all the others who use common sense and good judgment.
Yes I know, most of the wardens are really good guys. But....
“Hey you guys - I’m getting ready to take a lunch break” means “Quick - bring the hunter! There’s a 5x5 over here!” :chuckle:
Like: Hey I'm going to have a sandwich but you have the mustard, which way do I go to get the mustard? :chuckle:
We try to follow all rules that way there isn't any worrying, but I still worry! :chuckle:
Post by: singleshot12 on July 16, 2017, 12:54:43 PM
Wow, just checked this thread out and I see a lot of opinions :chuckle:, heres another, just my :twocents:....what the heck did we do to get our game 30, 40 or 50 years ago? Quick answer- WE HUNTED! I remember as a kid my dad and I sitting at the top of a draw in late Nov.or early Dec. in below zero temps watching to see what a Muley would do when spooked, I had to keep records of temperature, wind direction, moon phase, etc, etc, etc! Everything was written in journals. We would do the same in spring and fall. It taught us where deer hung out at different times of year, different temps, winter or summer range. I can tell you it made me a HUNTER. Til this day I don't use electronics, gadgets, or cameras to get my animals and none in our family do either and we do pretty good, I will not knock those that do, but really folks theres a lot to be said to getting out there and HUNTING the way it should be done(IMHO)....If hunting hadn't become so competitive, what it scores, and commercialized (tv shows, equipment etc) maybe we would still be teaching our young to "HUNT".....just my :twocents:
Well said Bigmac! People are so far removed from the natural world as it is. So why should hunters go down the same drain?
Post by: singleshot12 on July 16, 2017, 12:58:44 PM
We try to follow all rules that way there isn't any worrying, but I still worry! :chuckle:
I would think the main worry would be whether or not clients would fill their tag :dunno:
Post by: bearpaw on July 16, 2017, 12:59:08 PM
I was impressed with the game warden from Lincoln CO. whom I just met the other day in a hunters ED class. He seemed like the type we want out in the field, 30yrs or so of service. Hate to seem them older guys go, guys who are more like a traditional game warden than a police officer who happens to enforce game laws. :tup:
I'm amazed by the difference in new hires between the states. I get to meet a lot of the new wardens in Idaho because the local region head warden trains many of Idaho's new wardens. They are around for a year or two and then take a position elsewhere in the state, mostly good guys who are hunters themselves. In Washington I'm amazed by how many new hires are not even hunters! They really are more suited to be police than wardens.
Post by: bearpaw on July 16, 2017, 01:02:41 PM
We try to follow all rules that way there isn't any worrying, but I still worry! :chuckle:
I would think the main worry would be whether or not clients would fill their tag :dunno:
I've been an outfitter for a long time, longer than most, this is mostly because we try very hard to follow the rules. After being legal, the next most important issue is getting the hunters shot opportunities and showing them a good time.
Post by: cem3434 on July 16, 2017, 01:55:26 PM
I was impressed with the game warden from Lincoln CO. whom I just met the other day in a hunters ED class. He seemed like the type we want out in the field, 30yrs or so of service. Hate to seem them older guys go, guys who are more like a traditional game warden than a police officer who happens to enforce game laws. :tup:
Do you remember his name? I bumped into one up there about 2 years ago and he was a very good LEO and treated us with the same respect that we gave him. We talked about football (he was originally from Wisconsin) and he ever told us about a couple of other places to try. Overall, one of the best interactions I have had with a game warden.
Post by: Odell on July 16, 2017, 02:23:00 PM
Post by: NW SURVEYOR on July 16, 2017, 02:27:18 PM
Seeing how the camera's have never helped you kill animals, I'm sure you wouldn't mind removing them from the woods while the rest of us hunt.
The more I follow this thread the more inclined I am to support the ban on Game Cams during actual hunting season.
As has been pointed out, this is hunting, there should be an element of fair chase and I think that this deters from that.
Now you could argue that by using a rifle, I am more well equipped than a bow hunter.
Also, I DO have some pretty nice synthetic gear that makes my time afield more comfortable.
Or that BearPaws dogs give him an advantage chasing cats, that's your right.
But I really believe that this camera thing can lead to the use of more effective technology which could severely impact our sport.
I do have a couple cameras, and they will not be in the woods during the season.
They are kinda fun, but for me, more of a hassle.
I'm not trying to cut into your recreation with your family, but that's my opinion.
Later,
Rob.
Post by: bigtex on July 16, 2017, 02:52:09 PM
There actually are very few WDFW Officers who don't have a hunting background, and those typically are stationed in the saltwater areas.I was impressed with the game warden from Lincoln CO. whom I just met the other day in a hunters ED class. He seemed like the type we want out in the field, 30yrs or so of service. Hate to seem them older guys go, guys who are more like a traditional game warden than a police officer who happens to enforce game laws. :tup:I'm amazed by the difference in new hires between the states. I get to meet a lot of the new wardens in Idaho because the local region head warden trains many of Idaho's new wardens. They are around for a year or two and then take a position elsewhere in the state, mostly good guys who are hunters themselves. In Washington I'm amazed by how many new hires are not even hunters! They really are more suited to be police than wardens.
There is a difference between many of your inland state wildlife officers and those in states that border the coast. In Idaho (and many other inland states) officers are both LEOs and biologists. They actually take part in biological survey, studies, etc. In WA, and many other coastal states officers are simply LEOs, the biologists do the bio work. The big reason is simply the coastal states have a bigger variety of species and seasons on their plate, mainly fish related. Back before the Dept. of Wildlife and Dept. of Fisheries merged in WA, the Wildlife Officers were like Idaho in that they were both LEOs and biologist, the Fisheries Officers were 100% LEOs.
Post by: buglebrush on July 16, 2017, 10:00:19 PM
BugleBrush,
Seeing how the camera's have never helped you kill animals, I'm sure you wouldn't mind removing them from the woods while the rest of us hunt.
The more I follow this thread the more inclined I am to support the ban on Game Cams during actual hunting season.
As has been pointed out, this is hunting, there should be an element of fair chase and I think that this deters from that.
Now you could argue that by using a rifle, I am more well equipped than a bow hunter.
Also, I DO have some pretty nice synthetic gear that makes my time afield more comfortable.
Or that BearPaws dogs give him an advantage chasing cats, that's your right.
But I really believe that this camera thing can lead to the use of more effective technology which could severely impact our sport.
I do have a couple cameras, and they will not be in the woods during the season.
They are kinda fun, but for me, more of a hassle.
I'm not trying to cut into your recreation with your family, but that's my opinion.
Later,
Rob.
Well some of my cameras are so deep in, I only check them in the spring and then again during hunting season. Maybe us bowhunters should start trying to outlaw guns, scopes, rangefinders, ATVs, camper trailers, etc... :bash:
Why would we want to support cutting others freedoms just because we don't personally use them? Like I said I could see the wireless argument, but can truly say the items I mentioned would prove far more impactful to fair chase than pulling a card during season.
Post by: NW SURVEYOR on July 17, 2017, 06:18:55 AM
I do personally use a couple of camera's, just not during hunting season.
As stated earlier, I believe there is to much room for them to be used in a manner inconsistant with "Fair Chase".
Most hunters are honest and respectful with regards to fair chaes, but many are not.
This is the reason Idaho is pursuing this.
You cannot indiscriminently write/apply laws, they must be written for everyone to obey.
If my/your toes get stepped on a bit, that's the price of having this technology.
As for bowhunters trying to outlaw guns, scopes, rangefinders, campers, etc., that seems a bit childish.
I imagine that many bowhunters use rangefinders, campers, ATVs and a few probably carry guns (Pistols).
Have fun with that.
I have no issue with bowhunters, rifle hunters or end-stuffers.
My issue is with the great potential to use very advanced technology to precisely target specific animals.
I respect and understand your position on this subject, I just disagree.
Thanks for allowing me to discuss this with you guys and gals.
Later,
Rob.
Post by: buglebrush on July 17, 2017, 05:29:12 PM
BB,
I do personally use a couple of camera's, just not during hunting season.
As stated earlier, I believe there is to much room for them to be used in a manner inconsistant with "Fair Chase".
Most hunters are honest and respectful with regards to fair chaes, but many are not.
This is the reason Idaho is pursuing this.
You cannot indiscriminently write/apply laws, they must be written for everyone to obey.
If my/your toes get stepped on a bit, that's the price of having this technology.
As for bowhunters trying to outlaw guns, scopes, rangefinders, campers, etc., that seems a bit childish.
I imagine that many bowhunters use rangefinders, campers, ATVs and a few probably carry guns (Pistols).
Have fun with that.
I have no issue with bowhunters, rifle hunters or end-stuffers.
My issue is with the great potential to use very advanced technology to precisely target specific animals.
I respect and understand your position on this subject, I just disagree.
Thanks for allowing me to discuss this with you guys and gals.
Later,
Rob.
The issue isn't your opinion on it. That part is fine. The issue lies in you wanting to curtail others freedom simply because you personally consider it not "Fair-Chase". My point was that if I followed your logic I would outlaw the things mentioned as IMO they do greater harm to fairchase than simply swapping cards during hunting season on a camera that is 10 miles deep in the wilderness.
Just be grateful that, unlike yourself, most of us don't believe in curtailing your freedom simply because we may feel differently about ATVs, long-range rifles, etc... :twocents:
Post by: Bob33 on July 17, 2017, 05:59:25 PM
Do you believe anything should be restricted in the interest of fair chase?BB,
I do personally use a couple of camera's, just not during hunting season.
As stated earlier, I believe there is to much room for them to be used in a manner inconsistant with "Fair Chase".
Most hunters are honest and respectful with regards to fair chaes, but many are not.
This is the reason Idaho is pursuing this.
You cannot indiscriminently write/apply laws, they must be written for everyone to obey.
If my/your toes get stepped on a bit, that's the price of having this technology.
As for bowhunters trying to outlaw guns, scopes, rangefinders, campers, etc., that seems a bit childish.
I imagine that many bowhunters use rangefinders, campers, ATVs and a few probably carry guns (Pistols).
Have fun with that.
I have no issue with bowhunters, rifle hunters or end-stuffers.
My issue is with the great potential to use very advanced technology to precisely target specific animals.
I respect and understand your position on this subject, I just disagree.
Thanks for allowing me to discuss this with you guys and gals.
Later,
Rob.
The issue isn't your opinion on it. That part is fine. The issue lies in you wanting to curtail others freedom simply because you personally consider it not "Fair-Chase". My point was that if I followed your logic I would outlaw the things mentioned as IMO they do greater harm to fairchase than simply swapping cards during hunting season on a camera that is 10 miles deep in the wilderness.
Just be grateful that, unlike yourself, most of us don't believe in curtailing your freedom simply because we may feel differently about ATVs, long-range rifles, etc... :twocents:
Post by: buglebrush on July 17, 2017, 06:21:04 PM
Post by: NW SURVEYOR on July 17, 2017, 06:40:38 PM
Okay,
Let me get this straight;
You would outlaw guns, camper trailers, ATVs, rangefinders and scopes.
Are there any other things that you would "Outlaw"?
Please let me know so that I can plan accordingly.
If you have read my posts you would see that I am not in support of "Outlawing" anything.
It is my opinion that we should perhaps consider the intelligent use and application of technology.
No one is advocating taking away you precious camera, or the enjoyment it brings you and your family.
But with the fairly recent advent of the wireless downloads and such, this is an issue which has the potential for poaching in the worst way.
I don't believe that I am the only one that sees this as an issue.
We can take it one step further and limit the use of drones with mounted cameras during hunting season as well.
It's only a matter of time till someone gets caught shooting a nice bull that they flew over and found.
They will then put on a stalk and shoot the elk/deer that was until the shot, well hidden.
This is not fair chase, and if you think it is, we are really at opposite ends of the subject.
Let's take another example; what if you see a couple guys out a day or two before rifle elk season that have suppressors on their rifle?
They tell you that they're hunting coyotes with their trusty .338s.
They're good to go, right??
Opening morning you hear a couple shots and out strolls our new friends with a couple of cold bulls.
Hell, they're two for two, opening day, gotta like that.
Good for them, they're hunters of the new generation, success to them is dead elk whatever it takes.
And next year, they might bring a friend and show him the ropes; the more the merrier.
So, you tell a game warden that things might be a bit out of sorts, but no worries, they're legal.
Oh, yeah, they have 10 cameras in the woods all with live streams and a laptop in their daypack.
That's all right to, because we don't want to spoil their fun, or CURTAIL THEIR FREEDOM.
The problem is, everyone wants to have their rights extend into other peoples rights.
I'm no different, but I am trying to look at a practical solution to a problem which I believe does exist.
I also believe that the State of Idaho believes this problem exists or it would not put the time and effort into it.
I am not saying that this happens often, but the wardens need to have the tools to convict people using unethical means of taking game.
Notice I did not say "Poaching:, because it's not if the camera/drone is legal.
It's a tough thing to legislate, I don't know the answers but we better do something.
Like Dad said, "Ya can't have curly hair and everything".
Have a nice day!!
Rob.
Post by: NW SURVEYOR on July 17, 2017, 06:41:04 PM
Okay,
Let me get this straight;
You would outlaw guns, camper trailers, ATVs, rangefinders and scopes.
Are there any other things that you would "Outlaw"?
Please let me know so that I can plan accordingly.
If you have read my posts you would see that I am not in support of "Outlawing" anything.
It is my opinion that we should perhaps consider the intelligent use and application of technology.
No one is advocating taking away you precious camera, or the enjoyment it brings you and your family.
But with the fairly recent advent of the wireless downloads and such, this is an issue which has the potential for poaching in the worst way.
I don't believe that I am the only one that sees this as an issue.
We can take it one step further and limit the use of drones with mounted cameras during hunting season as well.
It's only a matter of time till someone gets caught shooting a nice bull that they flew over and found.
They will then put on a stalk and shoot the elk/deer that was until the shot, well hidden.
This is not fair chase, and if you think it is, we are really at opposite ends of the subject.
Let's take another example; what if you see a couple guys out a day or two before rifle elk season that have suppressors on their rifle?
They tell you that they're hunting coyotes with their trusty .338s.
They're good to go, right??
Opening morning you hear a couple shots and out strolls our new friends with a couple of cold bulls.
Hell, they're two for two, opening day, gotta like that.
Good for them, they're hunters of the new generation, success to them is dead elk whatever it takes.
And next year, they might bring a friend and show him the ropes; the more the merrier.
So, you tell a game warden that things might be a bit out of sorts, but no worries, they're legal.
Oh, yeah, they have 10 cameras in the woods all with live streams and a laptop in their daypack.
That's all right to, because we don't want to spoil their fun, or CURTAIL THEIR FREEDOM.
The problem is, everyone wants to have their rights extend into other peoples rights.
I'm no different, but I am trying to look at a practical solution to a problem which I believe does exist.
I also believe that the State of Idaho believes this problem exists or it would not put the time and effort into it.
I am not saying that this happens often, but the wardens need to have the tools to convict people using unethical means of taking game.
Notice I did not say "Poaching:, because it's not if the camera/drone is legal.
It's a tough thing to legislate, I don't know the answers but we better do something.
Like Dad said, "Ya can't have curly hair and everything".
Have a nice day!!
Rob.
Post by: bearpaw on July 17, 2017, 06:45:15 PM
Post by: Bob33 on July 17, 2017, 07:25:34 PM
The problem is that too many hunters will advocate banning whatever they don't use or whatever is in their view not necessary. If we continue down this road soon all that will be left are the most popular activities and everyone will be wondering why we can't do anything else! :dunno:I don't see it that way. This discussion is about technology that didn't even exist ten years ago.
Post by: buglebrush on July 17, 2017, 07:26:02 PM
The problem is that too many hunters will advocate banning whatever they don't use or whatever is in their view not necessary. If we continue down this road soon all that will be left are the most popular activities and everyone will be wondering why we can't do anything else! :dunno:
Thank You. That's what I was trying to say.
Post by: buglebrush on July 17, 2017, 07:32:44 PM
BB,
Okay,
Let me get this straight;
You would outlaw guns, camper trailers, ATVs, rangefinders and scopes.
Are there any other things that you would "Outlaw"?
Please let me know so that I can plan accordingly.
If you have read my posts you would see that I am not in support of "Outlawing" anything.
It is my opinion that we should perhaps consider the intelligent use and application of technology.
No one is advocating taking away you precious camera, or the enjoyment it brings you and your family.
But with the fairly recent advent of the wireless downloads and such, this is an issue which has the potential for poaching in the worst way.
I don't believe that I am the only one that sees this as an issue.
We can take it one step further and limit the use of drones with mounted cameras during hunting season as well.
It's only a matter of time till someone gets caught shooting a nice bull that they flew over and found.
They will then put on a stalk and shoot the elk/deer that was until the shot, well hidden.
This is not fair chase, and if you think it is, we are really at opposite ends of the subject.
Let's take another example; what if you see a couple guys out a day or two before rifle elk season that have suppressors on their rifle?
They tell you that they're hunting coyotes with their trusty .338s.
They're good to go, right??
Opening morning you hear a couple shots and out strolls our new friends with a couple of cold bulls.
Hell, they're two for two, opening day, gotta like that.
Good for them, they're hunters of the new generation, success to them is dead elk whatever it takes.
And next year, they might bring a friend and show him the ropes; the more the merrier.
So, you tell a game warden that things might be a bit out of sorts, but no worries, they're legal.
Oh, yeah, they have 10 cameras in the woods all with live streams and a laptop in their daypack.
That's all right to, because we don't want to spoil their fun, or CURTAIL THEIR FREEDOM.
The problem is, everyone wants to have their rights extend into other peoples rights.
I'm no different, but I am trying to look at a practical solution to a problem which I believe does exist.
I also believe that the State of Idaho believes this problem exists or it would not put the time and effort into it.
I am not saying that this happens often, but the wardens need to have the tools to convict people using unethical means of taking game.
Notice I did not say "Poaching:, because it's not if the camera/drone is legal.
It's a tough thing to legislate, I don't know the answers but we better do something.
Like Dad said, "Ya can't have curly hair and everything".
Have a nice day!!
Rob.
I quite clearly stated that I would not outlaw those things, but that if I behaved like YOU in this quote
"The more I follow this thread the more inclined I am to support the ban on Game Cams during actual hunting season."
Then those are the things I would ban, since I believe they are more detrimental to fair chase than simply swapping cards in a standard non wireless cameras. Are you purposely being facetious?
Post by: bigmacc on July 17, 2017, 07:34:59 PM
BB,
Okay,
Let me get this straight;
You would outlaw guns, camper trailers, ATVs, rangefinders and scopes.
Are there any other things that you would "Outlaw"?
Please let me know so that I can plan accordingly.
If you have read my posts you would see that I am not in support of "Outlawing" anything.
It is my opinion that we should perhaps consider the intelligent use and application of technology.
No one is advocating taking away you precious camera, or the enjoyment it brings you and your family.
But with the fairly recent advent of the wireless downloads and such, this is an issue which has the potential for poaching in the worst way.
I don't believe that I am the only one that sees this as an issue.
We can take it one step further and limit the use of drones with mounted cameras during hunting season as well.
It's only a matter of time till someone gets caught shooting a nice bull that they flew over and found.
They will then put on a stalk and shoot the elk/deer that was until the shot, well hidden.
This is not fair chase, and if you think it is, we are really at opposite ends of the subject.
Let's take another example; what if you see a couple guys out a day or two before rifle elk season that have suppressors on their rifle?
They tell you that they're hunting coyotes with their trusty .338s.
They're good to go, right??
Opening morning you hear a couple shots and out strolls our new friends with a couple of cold bulls.
Hell, they're two for two, opening day, gotta like that.
Good for them, they're hunters of the new generation, success to them is dead elk whatever it takes.
And next year, they might bring a friend and show him the ropes; the more the merrier.
So, you tell a game warden that things might be a bit out of sorts, but no worries, they're legal.
Oh, yeah, they have 10 cameras in the woods all with live streams and a laptop in their daypack.
That's all right to, because we don't want to spoil their fun, or CURTAIL THEIR FREEDOM.
The problem is, everyone wants to have their rights extend into other peoples rights.
I'm no different, but I am trying to look at a practical solution to a problem which I believe does exist.
I also believe that the State of Idaho believes this problem exists or it would not put the time and effort into it.
I am not saying that this happens often, but the wardens need to have the tools to convict people using unethical means of taking game.
Notice I did not say "Poaching:, because it's not if the camera/drone is legal.
It's a tough thing to legislate, I don't know the answers but we better do something.
Like Dad said, "Ya can't have curly hair and everything".
Have a nice day!!
Rob.
Well said.......
Post by: lord grizzly on July 17, 2017, 07:44:14 PM
Post by: bearpaw on July 18, 2017, 08:48:54 AM
The problem is that too many hunters will advocate banning whatever they don't use or whatever is in their view not necessary. If we continue down this road soon all that will be left are the most popular activities and everyone will be wondering why we can't do anything else! :dunno:I don't see it that way. This discussion is about technology that didn't even exist ten years ago.
It seems to me that some are advocating banning technology that doesn't yet exist, read the posts, that's one of the main complaints, they want to ban technology today based on what might exist tomorrow! In my opinion that is ludicrous, they don't really even know what they want to ban! :chuckle:
Post by: NOCK NOCK on July 18, 2017, 09:16:09 AM
Post by: Bob33 on July 18, 2017, 09:47:12 AM
My comment was directed at the use of cellular game cameras that transmit images immediately, as in the proposed Idaho restriction. To the best of my knowledge those devices were not available until the last couple years.The problem is that too many hunters will advocate banning whatever they don't use or whatever is in their view not necessary. If we continue down this road soon all that will be left are the most popular activities and everyone will be wondering why we can't do anything else! :dunno:I don't see it that way. This discussion is about technology that didn't even exist ten years ago.
It seems to me that some are advocating banning technology that doesn't yet exist, read the posts, that's one of the main complaints, they want to ban technology today based on what might exist tomorrow! In my opinion that is ludicrous, they don't really even know what they want to ban! :chuckle:
"With any device capable of recording and transmitting photographic or video wirelessly to a remote device such as a computer or smart phone, used as an aid to take a big game animal during the same day of transmission or the following day."
Post by: Wacenturion on July 18, 2017, 09:59:36 AM
BB,
Okay,
Let me get this straight;
You would outlaw guns, camper trailers, ATVs, rangefinders and scopes.
Are there any other things that you would "Outlaw"?
Please let me know so that I can plan accordingly.
If you have read my posts you would see that I am not in support of "Outlawing" anything.
It is my opinion that we should perhaps consider the intelligent use and application of technology.
No one is advocating taking away you precious camera, or the enjoyment it brings you and your family.
But with the fairly recent advent of the wireless downloads and such, this is an issue which has the potential for poaching in the worst way.
I don't believe that I am the only one that sees this as an issue.
We can take it one step further and limit the use of drones with mounted cameras during hunting season as well.
It's only a matter of time till someone gets caught shooting a nice bull that they flew over and found.
They will then put on a stalk and shoot the elk/deer that was until the shot, well hidden.
This is not fair chase, and if you think it is, we are really at opposite ends of the subject.
Let's take another example; what if you see a couple guys out a day or two before rifle elk season that have suppressors on their rifle?
They tell you that they're hunting coyotes with their trusty .338s.
They're good to go, right??
Opening morning you hear a couple shots and out strolls our new friends with a couple of cold bulls.
Hell, they're two for two, opening day, gotta like that.
Good for them, they're hunters of the new generation, success to them is dead elk whatever it takes.
And next year, they might bring a friend and show him the ropes; the more the merrier.
So, you tell a game warden that things might be a bit out of sorts, but no worries, they're legal.
Oh, yeah, they have 10 cameras in the woods all with live streams and a laptop in their daypack.
That's all right to, because we don't want to spoil their fun, or CURTAIL THEIR FREEDOM.
The problem is, everyone wants to have their rights extend into other peoples rights.
I'm no different, but I am trying to look at a practical solution to a problem which I believe does exist.
I also believe that the State of Idaho believes this problem exists or it would not put the time and effort into it.
I am not saying that this happens often, but the wardens need to have the tools to convict people using unethical means of taking game.
Notice I did not say "Poaching:, because it's not if the camera/drone is legal.
It's a tough thing to legislate, I don't know the answers but we better do something.
Like Dad said, "Ya can't have curly hair and everything".
Have a nice day!!
Rob.
As I mentioned in an earlier such comment.....do you have any understanding of the cost and how unrealistic that statement is. Funny how all those that have no actual experience with cellular cams have such expert opinions.
Hunters eating hunters, a traditional that just keeps on giving. :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on July 18, 2017, 10:02:37 AM
My comment was directed at the use of cellular game cameras that transmit images immediately, as in the proposed Idaho restriction. To the best of my knowledge those devices were not available until the last couple years.The problem is that too many hunters will advocate banning whatever they don't use or whatever is in their view not necessary. If we continue down this road soon all that will be left are the most popular activities and everyone will be wondering why we can't do anything else! :dunno:I don't see it that way. This discussion is about technology that didn't even exist ten years ago.
It seems to me that some are advocating banning technology that doesn't yet exist, read the posts, that's one of the main complaints, they want to ban technology today based on what might exist tomorrow! In my opinion that is ludicrous, they don't really even know what they want to ban! :chuckle:
"With any device capable of recording and transmitting photographic or video wirelessly to a remote device such as a computer or smart phone, used as an aid to take a big game animal during the same day of transmission or the following day."
Bob I realize specifically what you were citing, but if you read through all the responses in this topic the reasoning mentioned in some comments is based on technology that isn't in use yet, they are basically saying we need to ban these cameras now because greater technology is coming. With that mentality perhaps we should have banned gunpowder centuries ago to prevent further technology from impacting hunting? If we were all using spears or bows that would be much more fair chase! :chuckle:
Post by: Wacenturion on July 18, 2017, 10:06:09 AM
My comment was directed at the use of cellular game cameras that transmit images immediately, as in the proposed Idaho restriction. To the best of my knowledge those devices were not available until the last couple years.The problem is that too many hunters will advocate banning whatever they don't use or whatever is in their view not necessary. If we continue down this road soon all that will be left are the most popular activities and everyone will be wondering why we can't do anything else! :dunno:I don't see it that way. This discussion is about technology that didn't even exist ten years ago.
It seems to me that some are advocating banning technology that doesn't yet exist, read the posts, that's one of the main complaints, they want to ban technology today based on what might exist tomorrow! In my opinion that is ludicrous, they don't really even know what they want to ban! :chuckle:
"With any device capable of recording and transmitting photographic or video wirelessly to a remote device such as a computer or smart phone, used as an aid to take a big game animal during the same day of transmission or the following day."
Ok, so I go in the woods late morning and pull SD cards out of my non cellular cam and low and behold, the buck or bull of a lifetime in on the card with pictures taken minutes before I got there. I look around and find him later that day or the next morning and harvest him. What is the difference? If that is the concern, then ban all cams, because you know that example could happen as well.
Post by: Bob33 on July 18, 2017, 10:07:34 AM
Yes I know some want more restrictions. My perspective is that if cellular trail cameras were banned, I wouldn't consider that as the first step toward banning all hunting related equipment.My comment was directed at the use of cellular game cameras that transmit images immediately, as in the proposed Idaho restriction. To the best of my knowledge those devices were not available until the last couple years.The problem is that too many hunters will advocate banning whatever they don't use or whatever is in their view not necessary. If we continue down this road soon all that will be left are the most popular activities and everyone will be wondering why we can't do anything else! :dunno:I don't see it that way. This discussion is about technology that didn't even exist ten years ago.
It seems to me that some are advocating banning technology that doesn't yet exist, read the posts, that's one of the main complaints, they want to ban technology today based on what might exist tomorrow! In my opinion that is ludicrous, they don't really even know what they want to ban! :chuckle:
"With any device capable of recording and transmitting photographic or video wirelessly to a remote device such as a computer or smart phone, used as an aid to take a big game animal during the same day of transmission or the following day."
Bob I realize specifically what you were citing, but if you read through all the responses in this topic the reasoning mentioned in some comments is based on technology that isn't in use yet, they are basically saying we need to ban these cameras now because greater technology is coming. With that mentality perhaps we should have banned gunpowder centuries ago to prevent further technology from impacting hunting? If we were all using spears or bows that would be much more fair chase! :chuckle:
I believe there's middle ground between banning everything, and banning nothing.
Should hunters oppose all restrictions? If I oppose drones, the use of .22 handguns for elk, and shooting game from aircraft does that make me an enemy of hunters and an advocate for banning everything hunting related?
:twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on July 18, 2017, 10:37:44 AM
Yes I know some want more restrictions. My perspective is that if cellular trail cameras were banned, I wouldn't consider that as the first step toward banning all hunting related equipment.My comment was directed at the use of cellular game cameras that transmit images immediately, as in the proposed Idaho restriction. To the best of my knowledge those devices were not available until the last couple years.The problem is that too many hunters will advocate banning whatever they don't use or whatever is in their view not necessary. If we continue down this road soon all that will be left are the most popular activities and everyone will be wondering why we can't do anything else! :dunno:I don't see it that way. This discussion is about technology that didn't even exist ten years ago.
It seems to me that some are advocating banning technology that doesn't yet exist, read the posts, that's one of the main complaints, they want to ban technology today based on what might exist tomorrow! In my opinion that is ludicrous, they don't really even know what they want to ban! :chuckle:
"With any device capable of recording and transmitting photographic or video wirelessly to a remote device such as a computer or smart phone, used as an aid to take a big game animal during the same day of transmission or the following day."
Bob I realize specifically what you were citing, but if you read through all the responses in this topic the reasoning mentioned in some comments is based on technology that isn't in use yet, they are basically saying we need to ban these cameras now because greater technology is coming. With that mentality perhaps we should have banned gunpowder centuries ago to prevent further technology from impacting hunting? If we were all using spears or bows that would be much more fair chase! :chuckle:
I believe there's middle ground between banning everything, and banning nothing.
Should hunters oppose all restrictions? If I oppose drones, the use of .22 handguns for elk, and shooting game from aircraft does that make me an enemy of hunters and an advocate for banning everything hunting related?
:twocents:
Realistically I don't know of anyone who opposes all restrictions, that analogy is a definite misrepresentation and a slap in the face of those who are opposed to banning methods that have not been proven to be harmful to hunting. I have not seen any proof of biological reasoning to outlaw these cams nor have I seen any proof that the non-hunting public considers them to be an unethical advantage. All I see are some hunters wanting to ban methods they feel are are unethical based in part on their own ideology that technology will improve in the future and potentially create problems. As others have pointed out many of these same hunters who want to ban the cams have no actual experience with them so they are actually wanting to ban them based on perception only. I am not one of those people who will climb on the ban wagon just because of some imagined potential harm, show me some facts, show me some truth. Until then there is no reason to randomly ban items and methods.
I hope you weren't trying to paint a picture or imply that I am opposed to all restrictions! If so, that's simply not true! I am supportive of restrictions based on biological data and known necessity for maintaining or improving our wildlife populations and our outdoor heritage. I am opposed to unproven unnecessary regulations!
Post by: Bob33 on July 18, 2017, 10:43:37 AM
I'm not aware of any biological data which supports a restriction of .22 handguns for elk, for example, but I would support that anyway based on my perception of ethical activity. I guess we can agree to disagree. :tup:Yes I know some want more restrictions. My perspective is that if cellular trail cameras were banned, I wouldn't consider that as the first step toward banning all hunting related equipment.My comment was directed at the use of cellular game cameras that transmit images immediately, as in the proposed Idaho restriction. To the best of my knowledge those devices were not available until the last couple years.The problem is that too many hunters will advocate banning whatever they don't use or whatever is in their view not necessary. If we continue down this road soon all that will be left are the most popular activities and everyone will be wondering why we can't do anything else! :dunno:I don't see it that way. This discussion is about technology that didn't even exist ten years ago.
It seems to me that some are advocating banning technology that doesn't yet exist, read the posts, that's one of the main complaints, they want to ban technology today based on what might exist tomorrow! In my opinion that is ludicrous, they don't really even know what they want to ban! :chuckle:
"With any device capable of recording and transmitting photographic or video wirelessly to a remote device such as a computer or smart phone, used as an aid to take a big game animal during the same day of transmission or the following day."
Bob I realize specifically what you were citing, but if you read through all the responses in this topic the reasoning mentioned in some comments is based on technology that isn't in use yet, they are basically saying we need to ban these cameras now because greater technology is coming. With that mentality perhaps we should have banned gunpowder centuries ago to prevent further technology from impacting hunting? If we were all using spears or bows that would be much more fair chase! :chuckle:
I believe there's middle ground between banning everything, and banning nothing.
Should hunters oppose all restrictions? If I oppose drones, the use of .22 handguns for elk, and shooting game from aircraft does that make me an enemy of hunters and an advocate for banning everything hunting related?
:twocents:
Realistically I don't know of anyone who opposes all restrictions, that analogy is a definite misrepresentation and a slap in the face of those who are opposed to banning methods that have not been proven to be harmful to hunting. I have not seen any proof of biological reasoning to outlaw these cams nor have I seen any proof that the non-hunting public considers them to be an unethical advantage. All I see are some hunters wanting to ban methods they feel are are unethical based in part on their own ideology that technology will improve in the future and potentially create problems. As others have pointed out many of these same hunters who want to ban the cams have no actual experience with them so they are actually wanting to ban them based on perception only. I am not one of those people who will climb on the ban wagon just because of some imagined potential harm, show me some facts, show me some truth. Until then there is no reason to randomly ban items and methods.
I hope you weren't trying to paint a picture or imply that I am opposed to all restrictions! If so, that's simply not true! I am supportive of restrictions based on biological data and known necessity for maintaining or improving our wildlife populations and our outdoor heritage. I am opposed to unproven unnecessary regulations!
Post by: luvmystang67 on July 18, 2017, 11:16:56 AM
1) Bow hunting is illegal, must have a rifle
2) Hunting with dogs, horses, etc, some degree of legal, even for deer
3) No cost licenses
4) No limits on animals and liberal seasons (generally speaking)
5) You can sell game meat to a butcher who can sell to the general public
Even if these aren't 100% true all the time, generally these ideas are supported. I find that baffling because we live by very different predetermined rules and values over here. I guess its just what you're used to. If we had shot animals from planes for many years that may seem ethical. New tech has to be evaluated with what you already deemed fair. Drones are kind of a long shot (they relate to planes which we consider unfair) cameras aren't as big of a deal because we already had trip lines, regular cameras, scopes, etc. Although, at first, and even a little still, I generally oppose personal property (trash) on public lands and increased surveillance by anyone, including private citizens on land that isnt theirs. But... its so dang exciting to use them!
In any case, just food for thought.
Post by: Wacenturion on July 18, 2017, 11:26:15 AM
"I'm not aware of any biological data which supports a restriction of .22 handguns for elk, for example, but I would support that anyway based on my perception of ethical activity. I guess we can agree to disagree."
I'm would think that that regulation lies more in the data realm regarding firearms and realistic humane taking , rather than biological data. So in my mind there is probably a lot of supoporting data that would at the very least say that a .22 caliber is not effective enough to allow for the taking of certain animals. JMO........
Post by: bearpaw on July 18, 2017, 11:40:23 AM
I'm not aware of any biological data which supports a restriction of .22 handguns for elk, for example, but I would support that anyway based on my perception of ethical activity. I guess we can agree to disagree. :tup:Yes I know some want more restrictions. My perspective is that if cellular trail cameras were banned, I wouldn't consider that as the first step toward banning all hunting related equipment.My comment was directed at the use of cellular game cameras that transmit images immediately, as in the proposed Idaho restriction. To the best of my knowledge those devices were not available until the last couple years.The problem is that too many hunters will advocate banning whatever they don't use or whatever is in their view not necessary. If we continue down this road soon all that will be left are the most popular activities and everyone will be wondering why we can't do anything else! :dunno:I don't see it that way. This discussion is about technology that didn't even exist ten years ago.
It seems to me that some are advocating banning technology that doesn't yet exist, read the posts, that's one of the main complaints, they want to ban technology today based on what might exist tomorrow! In my opinion that is ludicrous, they don't really even know what they want to ban! :chuckle:
"With any device capable of recording and transmitting photographic or video wirelessly to a remote device such as a computer or smart phone, used as an aid to take a big game animal during the same day of transmission or the following day."
Bob I realize specifically what you were citing, but if you read through all the responses in this topic the reasoning mentioned in some comments is based on technology that isn't in use yet, they are basically saying we need to ban these cameras now because greater technology is coming. With that mentality perhaps we should have banned gunpowder centuries ago to prevent further technology from impacting hunting? If we were all using spears or bows that would be much more fair chase! :chuckle:
I believe there's middle ground between banning everything, and banning nothing.
Should hunters oppose all restrictions? If I oppose drones, the use of .22 handguns for elk, and shooting game from aircraft does that make me an enemy of hunters and an advocate for banning everything hunting related?
:twocents:
Realistically I don't know of anyone who opposes all restrictions, that analogy is a definite misrepresentation and a slap in the face of those who are opposed to banning methods that have not been proven to be harmful to hunting. I have not seen any proof of biological reasoning to outlaw these cams nor have I seen any proof that the non-hunting public considers them to be an unethical advantage. All I see are some hunters wanting to ban methods they feel are are unethical based in part on their own ideology that technology will improve in the future and potentially create problems. As others have pointed out many of these same hunters who want to ban the cams have no actual experience with them so they are actually wanting to ban them based on perception only. I am not one of those people who will climb on the ban wagon just because of some imagined potential harm, show me some facts, show me some truth. Until then there is no reason to randomly ban items and methods.
I hope you weren't trying to paint a picture or imply that I am opposed to all restrictions! If so, that's simply not true! I am supportive of restrictions based on biological data and known necessity for maintaining or improving our wildlife populations and our outdoor heritage. I am opposed to unproven unnecessary regulations!
There is data regarding .22 energy and probably regarding accuracy, I would concur with you on that issue, but we will have to agree to disagree on the cam issue! :tup:
Post by: Bob33 on July 18, 2017, 01:00:12 PM
Dale, for the record I don't necessarily support restrictions on trail cameras but I do like to hear different viewpoints on it to help form my opinion. I do believe some restrictions are good for hunting. Now if everyone would just agree with me... ;)I'm not aware of any biological data which supports a restriction of .22 handguns for elk, for example, but I would support that anyway based on my perception of ethical activity. I guess we can agree to disagree. :tup:Yes I know some want more restrictions. My perspective is that if cellular trail cameras were banned, I wouldn't consider that as the first step toward banning all hunting related equipment.My comment was directed at the use of cellular game cameras that transmit images immediately, as in the proposed Idaho restriction. To the best of my knowledge those devices were not available until the last couple years.The problem is that too many hunters will advocate banning whatever they don't use or whatever is in their view not necessary. If we continue down this road soon all that will be left are the most popular activities and everyone will be wondering why we can't do anything else! :dunno:I don't see it that way. This discussion is about technology that didn't even exist ten years ago.
It seems to me that some are advocating banning technology that doesn't yet exist, read the posts, that's one of the main complaints, they want to ban technology today based on what might exist tomorrow! In my opinion that is ludicrous, they don't really even know what they want to ban! :chuckle:
"With any device capable of recording and transmitting photographic or video wirelessly to a remote device such as a computer or smart phone, used as an aid to take a big game animal during the same day of transmission or the following day."
Bob I realize specifically what you were citing, but if you read through all the responses in this topic the reasoning mentioned in some comments is based on technology that isn't in use yet, they are basically saying we need to ban these cameras now because greater technology is coming. With that mentality perhaps we should have banned gunpowder centuries ago to prevent further technology from impacting hunting? If we were all using spears or bows that would be much more fair chase! :chuckle:
I believe there's middle ground between banning everything, and banning nothing.
Should hunters oppose all restrictions? If I oppose drones, the use of .22 handguns for elk, and shooting game from aircraft does that make me an enemy of hunters and an advocate for banning everything hunting related?
:twocents:
Realistically I don't know of anyone who opposes all restrictions, that analogy is a definite misrepresentation and a slap in the face of those who are opposed to banning methods that have not been proven to be harmful to hunting. I have not seen any proof of biological reasoning to outlaw these cams nor have I seen any proof that the non-hunting public considers them to be an unethical advantage. All I see are some hunters wanting to ban methods they feel are are unethical based in part on their own ideology that technology will improve in the future and potentially create problems. As others have pointed out many of these same hunters who want to ban the cams have no actual experience with them so they are actually wanting to ban them based on perception only. I am not one of those people who will climb on the ban wagon just because of some imagined potential harm, show me some facts, show me some truth. Until then there is no reason to randomly ban items and methods.
I hope you weren't trying to paint a picture or imply that I am opposed to all restrictions! If so, that's simply not true! I am supportive of restrictions based on biological data and known necessity for maintaining or improving our wildlife populations and our outdoor heritage. I am opposed to unproven unnecessary regulations!
There is data regarding .22 energy and probably regarding accuracy, I would concur with you on that issue, but we will have to agree to disagree on the cam issue! :tup:
Post by: Machias on July 18, 2017, 03:48:27 PM
For the guys who somehow think that because I use a cellular trail camera, somehow I'm now detached from the woods, don't hunt as much as I used to, blah blah blah. I'm probably in the woods more than most. I'm a trapper, a houndsmen, a bowhunter, a whitewater rafter, camper etc....I'm in the woods ALL the time. Please stop with the this technology is making us less hunters and more reliant on gadgets. What a bunch of hooey. It saves me time and money, that's all it does. Oh and it's a FUN! Also please stop oh most hunters are good guys but you know some would abuse it. Whatever, someone somewhere is abusing something or some method, doesn't mean we need to ban the practice or item for everyone else.
Post by: buglebrush on July 18, 2017, 04:17:17 PM
My comment was directed at the use of cellular game cameras that transmit images immediately, as in the proposed Idaho restriction. To the best of my knowledge those devices were not available until the last couple years.The problem is that too many hunters will advocate banning whatever they don't use or whatever is in their view not necessary. If we continue down this road soon all that will be left are the most popular activities and everyone will be wondering why we can't do anything else! :dunno:I don't see it that way. This discussion is about technology that didn't even exist ten years ago.
It seems to me that some are advocating banning technology that doesn't yet exist, read the posts, that's one of the main complaints, they want to ban technology today based on what might exist tomorrow! In my opinion that is ludicrous, they don't really even know what they want to ban! :chuckle:
"With any device capable of recording and transmitting photographic or video wirelessly to a remote device such as a computer or smart phone, used as an aid to take a big game animal during the same day of transmission or the following day."
Did you realize that Idaho is also taking feedback on banning swapping cards on Standard non-wireless cameras? That's what I've been talking about, and it is a totally different level than wireless cameras. :twocents:
Post by: hunter399 on July 18, 2017, 04:25:02 PM
I will agree all us hunters fighting over stuff like this is stupid.I use ta think fighting for hunters rights ,trying to gain ground on the regs of hunting,voicing your words to wdfw was a good thing intell I joined this forum and found out how other hunter will cut your throat on anything they disagree on.So now I just believe it's every man for himself and let wdfw decide what's right ,what's wrong,and fair chase,and follow the regs best I can,and keep hunting. :tup:
Post by: buglebrush on July 18, 2017, 10:10:30 PM
Sigh, what a thread.:yeah:
For the guys who somehow think that because I use a cellular trail camera, somehow I'm now detached from the woods, don't hunt as much as I used to, blah blah blah. I'm probably in the woods more than most. I'm a trapper, a houndsmen, a bowhunter, a whitewater rafter, camper etc....I'm in the woods ALL the time. Please stop with the this technology is making us less hunters and more reliant on gadgets. What a bunch of hooey. It saves me time and money, that's all it does. Oh and it's a FUN! Also please stop oh most hunters are good guys but you know some would abuse it. Whatever, someone somewhere is abusing something or some method, doesn't mean we need to ban the practice or item for everyone else.
Post by: bearpaw on July 19, 2017, 02:54:11 AM
Dale, for the record I don't necessarily support restrictions on trail cameras but I do like to hear different viewpoints on it to help form my opinion. I do believe some restrictions are good for hunting. Now if everyone would just agree with me... ;)I'm not aware of any biological data which supports a restriction of .22 handguns for elk, for example, but I would support that anyway based on my perception of ethical activity. I guess we can agree to disagree. :tup:Yes I know some want more restrictions. My perspective is that if cellular trail cameras were banned, I wouldn't consider that as the first step toward banning all hunting related equipment.My comment was directed at the use of cellular game cameras that transmit images immediately, as in the proposed Idaho restriction. To the best of my knowledge those devices were not available until the last couple years.The problem is that too many hunters will advocate banning whatever they don't use or whatever is in their view not necessary. If we continue down this road soon all that will be left are the most popular activities and everyone will be wondering why we can't do anything else! :dunno:I don't see it that way. This discussion is about technology that didn't even exist ten years ago.
It seems to me that some are advocating banning technology that doesn't yet exist, read the posts, that's one of the main complaints, they want to ban technology today based on what might exist tomorrow! In my opinion that is ludicrous, they don't really even know what they want to ban! :chuckle:
"With any device capable of recording and transmitting photographic or video wirelessly to a remote device such as a computer or smart phone, used as an aid to take a big game animal during the same day of transmission or the following day."
Bob I realize specifically what you were citing, but if you read through all the responses in this topic the reasoning mentioned in some comments is based on technology that isn't in use yet, they are basically saying we need to ban these cameras now because greater technology is coming. With that mentality perhaps we should have banned gunpowder centuries ago to prevent further technology from impacting hunting? If we were all using spears or bows that would be much more fair chase! :chuckle:
I believe there's middle ground between banning everything, and banning nothing.
Should hunters oppose all restrictions? If I oppose drones, the use of .22 handguns for elk, and shooting game from aircraft does that make me an enemy of hunters and an advocate for banning everything hunting related?
:twocents:
Realistically I don't know of anyone who opposes all restrictions, that analogy is a definite misrepresentation and a slap in the face of those who are opposed to banning methods that have not been proven to be harmful to hunting. I have not seen any proof of biological reasoning to outlaw these cams nor have I seen any proof that the non-hunting public considers them to be an unethical advantage. All I see are some hunters wanting to ban methods they feel are are unethical based in part on their own ideology that technology will improve in the future and potentially create problems. As others have pointed out many of these same hunters who want to ban the cams have no actual experience with them so they are actually wanting to ban them based on perception only. I am not one of those people who will climb on the ban wagon just because of some imagined potential harm, show me some facts, show me some truth. Until then there is no reason to randomly ban items and methods.
I hope you weren't trying to paint a picture or imply that I am opposed to all restrictions! If so, that's simply not true! I am supportive of restrictions based on biological data and known necessity for maintaining or improving our wildlife populations and our outdoor heritage. I am opposed to unproven unnecessary regulations!
There is data regarding .22 energy and probably regarding accuracy, I would concur with you on that issue, but we will have to agree to disagree on the cam issue! :tup:
I completely agree that some restrictions are needed. But I can't agree with taking away methods for imagined consequences. I know you want what you think is best for the sport, I respect that, and I thank you for your ability to keep a little humor in the conversation! :tup: :hello:
Post by: bigmacc on July 19, 2017, 05:22:46 PM
Post by: bearpaw on July 19, 2017, 10:04:33 PM
Ok, I've been watching this also just as a lot of you have, Ive made a post and heres another :twocents: :chuckle:...I too like a lot of you have spent a lot of time in the woods, I've hunted, I've fished, Ive camped I,ve hiked and I have packed in to some of the most remote spots in this state. Am I a better hunter because I did It the "old fashioned"way? Who the heck knows :dunno:. One thing I do know is there is a lot to be said for the ways things used to be done. There is a lot of gripeing (including on here) about how things were when we were kids 20, 30,40 years ago, how we would get out and do things. Whether it was riding bikes, playing ball in a field next door or getting out and looking for deer or heading down to a stream to throw a line in. The thing was we were getting out and doing something not sitting on a couch looking at pics on a screen or playing video games. Soon , the "art and skill" of hunting will be checking cameras, computers and cell phones! My dad was 80 years old and was still outsmarting deer, elk and moose, could catch fish like no other, knew were deer and elk were at depending on time of year, temp, moon phase and wind. He did it all without the aid of all this "hi tech" stuff. My 10 and 12 year old granddaughters are great hunters, they know how to navigate with a compass, by the sun and by moon. They have been brought up to "hunt". Yes they have cell phones, they have a computer but they are not used to hunt. One has killed a dandy whitetail and one had a 4 by 5 Muley in her sights. I am saying the more hi-tech we become as hunters the more we will draw attention to our sport, and if some use the technology to break laws then there we go. There is something to be said for the saying" keep it simple"...just my :twocents:...let me have it :chuckle:
I guess that's the difference between myself and some others, I would like to keep the rules simple rather than add more complication. I have nothing against how anyone wants to enjoy their sport as long as there are no severe consequences. I don't feel it should be up to me or you to decide if others want to use trailcams to get pics on their cell phone, unless there are significant negative impacts! A big part of what's wrong today is that everyone wants to tell everyone else how to conduct their life! :twocents:
Post by: hunter399 on July 20, 2017, 12:55:52 AM
That negative impacts is load of horse $@$! .I can also say 22cal for big game has showed no negative impacts on other states why can't we have it here.Ok, I've been watching this also just as a lot of you have, Ive made a post and heres another :twocents: :chuckle:...I too like a lot of you have spent a lot of time in the woods, I've hunted, I've fished, Ive camped I,ve hiked and I have packed in to some of the most remote spots in this state. Am I a better hunter because I did It the "old fashioned"way? Who the heck knows :dunno:. One thing I do know is there is a lot to be said for the ways things used to be done. There is a lot of gripeing (including on here) about how things were when we were kids 20, 30,40 years ago, how we would get out and do things. Whether it was riding bikes, playing ball in a field next door or getting out and looking for deer or heading down to a stream to throw a line in. The thing was we were getting out and doing something not sitting on a couch looking at pics on a screen or playing video games. Soon , the "art and skill" of hunting will be checking cameras, computers and cell phones! My dad was 80 years old and was still outsmarting deer, elk and moose, could catch fish like no other, knew were deer and elk were at depending on time of year, temp, moon phase and wind. He did it all without the aid of all this "hi tech" stuff. My 10 and 12 year old granddaughters are great hunters, they know how to navigate with a compass, by the sun and by moon. They have been brought up to "hunt". Yes they have cell phones, they have a computer but they are not used to hunt. One has killed a dandy whitetail and one had a 4 by 5 Muley in her sights. I am saying the more hi-tech we become as hunters the more we will draw attention to our sport, and if some use the technology to break laws then there we go. There is something to be said for the saying" keep it simple"...just my :twocents:...let me have it :chuckle:
I guess that's the difference between myself and some others, I would like to keep the rules simple rather than add more complication. I have nothing against how anyone wants to enjoy their sport as long as there are no severe consequences. I don't feel it should be up to me or you to decide if others want to use trailcams to get pics on their cell phone, unless there are significant negative impacts! A big part of what's wrong today is that everyone wants to tell everyone else how to conduct their life! :twocents:
Why do we close roads there's no negative impact on wildlife.
Why do we follow any of the regs ,show me the proof of the negative impacts on wildlife.
Oh ya thats right ,we don't make the rules,and really don't have a say in most regs,as we follow the rules so that we can hunt in this great state and we all are arguing over something that we have no control over .Rant over.(fun times) :chuckle:
So let's wait till there are significant negative impacts! On wildlife before we think about the future of wildlife.It's kinda like don't act ,till it's to late,that's not good for me.
Post by: NW SURVEYOR on July 21, 2017, 06:25:05 AM
That way the critters might not wander so far and I can catch them napping.
I see no biological data that would preclude me from trying this.
Other than the fact that it's dumbest idea in the world.
Plus it's old technology.
Post by: Machias on July 21, 2017, 09:41:18 AM
Is it okay if I mix a few Qualudes in my bait?
That way the critters might not wander so far and I can catch them napping.
I see no biological data that would preclude me from trying this.
Other than the fact that it's dumbest idea in the world.
Plus it's old technology.
Thanks for that contribution to the conversation. :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on July 21, 2017, 01:57:30 PM
That negative impacts is load of horse $@$! .I can also say 22cal for big game has showed no negative impacts on other states why can't we have it here.Ok, I've been watching this also just as a lot of you have, Ive made a post and heres another :twocents: :chuckle:...I too like a lot of you have spent a lot of time in the woods, I've hunted, I've fished, Ive camped I,ve hiked and I have packed in to some of the most remote spots in this state. Am I a better hunter because I did It the "old fashioned"way? Who the heck knows :dunno:. One thing I do know is there is a lot to be said for the ways things used to be done. There is a lot of gripeing (including on here) about how things were when we were kids 20, 30,40 years ago, how we would get out and do things. Whether it was riding bikes, playing ball in a field next door or getting out and looking for deer or heading down to a stream to throw a line in. The thing was we were getting out and doing something not sitting on a couch looking at pics on a screen or playing video games. Soon , the "art and skill" of hunting will be checking cameras, computers and cell phones! My dad was 80 years old and was still outsmarting deer, elk and moose, could catch fish like no other, knew were deer and elk were at depending on time of year, temp, moon phase and wind. He did it all without the aid of all this "hi tech" stuff. My 10 and 12 year old granddaughters are great hunters, they know how to navigate with a compass, by the sun and by moon. They have been brought up to "hunt". Yes they have cell phones, they have a computer but they are not used to hunt. One has killed a dandy whitetail and one had a 4 by 5 Muley in her sights. I am saying the more hi-tech we become as hunters the more we will draw attention to our sport, and if some use the technology to break laws then there we go. There is something to be said for the saying" keep it simple"...just my :twocents:...let me have it :chuckle:
I guess that's the difference between myself and some others, I would like to keep the rules simple rather than add more complication. I have nothing against how anyone wants to enjoy their sport as long as there are no severe consequences. I don't feel it should be up to me or you to decide if others want to use trailcams to get pics on their cell phone, unless there are significant negative impacts! A big part of what's wrong today is that everyone wants to tell everyone else how to conduct their life! :twocents:
Why do we close roads there's no negative impact on wildlife.
Why do we follow any of the regs ,show me the proof of the negative impacts on wildlife.
Oh ya thats right ,we don't make the rules,and really don't have a say in most regs,as we follow the rules so that we can hunt in this great state and we all are arguing over something that we have no control over .Rant over.(fun times) :chuckle:
So let's wait till there are significant negative impacts! On wildlife before we think about the future of wildlife.It's kinda like don't act ,till it's to late,that's not good for me.
Some states do allow centerfire .22 which seem to be effective for some big game. There have been studies showing too many roads negatively impact wildlife, but I am opposed to closing access roads that most people need to access large areas. I don't understand your comment but I follow the hunting laws whether I like them or not, that's just the way it has to be in an organized society. I still see no need to outlaw items or methods other hunters use unless there is justifiable reasoning. Hunters banning this and that which they don't use or agree with is driving other hunters from the sport and limiting what remaining hunters can do, plain and simple. Are you ready to give up your 4x4 and walk to all your hunting locations, that probable has more impact on hunting than any other item?
Post by: singleshot12 on July 21, 2017, 02:19:47 PM
I can just see the future now - - fat guy sitting on his couch waiting for the txt msg to show animals on the auto-feeder so he can send his drone over and lazer beam his trophy :rolleyes: Some of you people are scaring me.
Post by: bearpaw on July 21, 2017, 02:23:44 PM
I sure wish people would wake up to the big picture. Hunters need to stop worrying about any potential new laws that might save traditional hunting.
I can just see the future now - - fat guy sitting on his couch waiting for the txt msg to show animals on the auto-feeder so he can send his drone over and lazer beam his trophy :rolleyes: Some of you people are scaring me.
Do you have a problem with overweight people too, maybe we should outlaw hunters based on weight?
In reality drones are already illegal and lazer beams do not fit the definition of legal weapons, :dunno:
Post by: singleshot12 on July 21, 2017, 02:27:41 PM
Post by: Machias on August 07, 2017, 09:01:43 PM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hunt101.com%2Fdata%2F500%2F20622135_1427400904014261_530581265549558372_n.jpg&hash=2173bc8779d0dc04932b7722ba89520ee76b5441)
Post by: Rainier10 on August 07, 2017, 09:13:57 PM
Post by: Wacenturion on August 07, 2017, 09:51:25 PM
Well thankfully a overwhelming majority is against the proposals. Now we'll see if the ID F&G listen to their own survey.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hunt101.com%2Fdata%2F500%2F20622135_1427400904014261_530581265549558372_n.jpg&hash=2173bc8779d0dc04932b7722ba89520ee76b5441)
:tup:
Post by: bearpaw on August 08, 2017, 06:49:25 AM