Post by: bornhunter on December 14, 2020, 02:52:30 PM
Post by: full choke on December 14, 2020, 02:57:11 PM
On December 4th the Arizona Game Commission voted 5 to 0 to ban trail cameras during hunting season. Coming to a state near you? What say you?
From what I have read- they did this to themselves.
I heard this was basically as much about harassment of wildlife as anything. 100+ camera's on a single waterhole? People constantly checking their camera. In a place where there are not a lot of water sources for the animals- hunters scaring them out of the area's is not a real good thing.
This was just for during the season? I am fine with that.
Post by: Oh Mah on December 14, 2020, 02:58:49 PM
Post by: Jake Dogfish on December 14, 2020, 03:06:53 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 14, 2020, 03:08:34 PM
Post by: vandeman17 on December 14, 2020, 03:09:02 PM
On December 4th the Arizona Game Commission voted 5 to 0 to ban trail cameras during hunting season. Coming to a state near you? What say you?
From what I have read- they did this to themselves.
I heard this was basically as much about harassment of wildlife as anything. 100+ camera's on a single waterhole? People constantly checking their camera. In a place where there are not a lot of water sources for the animals- hunters scaring them out of the area's is not a real good thing.
This was just for during the season? I am fine with that.
:yeah: I am good with this ban as it is in the best interest for the animals given the specific challenges of the state. I have seen videos of people walking around watering holes that have fence posts, stakes whatever stuck in the ground with cameras on them. 20-30 or way more around a single watering hole.
Post by: Magnum_Willys on December 14, 2020, 03:09:43 PM
Agree right?
But that means if I want to put a blind up next to your camera you don't have a problem with that.
Still Agree with that ?
Post by: jrebel on December 14, 2020, 03:13:46 PM
I would never vote for, or be a proponent of outlawing game cameras. To many good uses that, in my opinion, far outway the bad.
Post by: boneaddict on December 14, 2020, 03:26:11 PM
Post by: h2ofowlr on December 14, 2020, 03:32:10 PM
Post by: CP on December 14, 2020, 03:37:44 PM
And as technology improves, they are becoming real-time, almost drone like.
Post by: Stein on December 14, 2020, 03:39:52 PM
Post by: jrebel on December 14, 2020, 03:42:54 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on December 14, 2020, 03:44:38 PM
I don't have a problem with it if it is on public ground and being done to reduce pressure on wildlife at a limited resource.
I doubt they would do it here but if they did mine would become security cameras. :chuckle:
Post by: CP on December 14, 2020, 03:47:55 PM
Out of curiosity....why do some of you not like them on public land? All of mine are on my property but I also don't care of others have them on public land.
I don’t mind them on public land, I used to put them in the NF and enjoyed the sport of getting pictures. I don’t do that anymore because I’ve had a couple stolen but mainly because I can’t hike as far as once could and hanging them near the road is a bad idea.
Post by: Stein on December 14, 2020, 04:00:01 PM
Out of curiosity....why do some of you not like them on public land? All of mine are on my property but I also don't care of others have them on public land.
Same reason I don't support using drones for hunting. I also don't like stuff left in the woods be it stands, cameras or garbage.
Post by: buckfvr on December 14, 2020, 04:05:14 PM
My comment pertains to here in Wa., not Az, that is a whole nother problem about financial gain and competition over trophies.
Post by: jrebel on December 14, 2020, 04:12:47 PM
Out of curiosity....why do some of you not like them on public land? All of mine are on my property but I also don't care of others have them on public land.
Same reason I don't support using drones for hunting. I also don't like stuff left in the woods be it stands, cameras or garbage.
Not looking for an argument....A drone and a trail camera are on two different levels though. I would 100% support a ban on flying drones while hunting. If you fly a drone in the woods during hunting season, you shouldn't be allowed to hunt for 24-48 hours. No different that most states that say you can't hunt for "X # of hours" after being flown in to your drop camp.
I could see how cellular cameras could be a bigger issue as they give real time (theoretically) images that could alert a hunter of game coming in. I may be persuaded to oppose cellular game cameras during hunting season. A standard camera....takes pics, gives no warning and is not real time.
I agree that garbage should not be left in the woods.
Post by: vandeman17 on December 14, 2020, 04:14:06 PM
Post by: buckfvr on December 14, 2020, 04:16:38 PM
Sign me up for being 100% ok with banning the cell cameras
:yeah: Ban during all open seasons.
Post by: trophyhunt on December 14, 2020, 04:28:20 PM
Anal is as anal does. I dont have a problem with cams where ever when ever, seems to me cams are just another adventure if you know how to use them. I get more tired of people telling me/us what they think we should and shouldnt be able to do. If you dont like it, dont do it, but leave others alone and dont try and force others to do as you like. Something as simple as cams, mind your own business.Agree, quit trying to get all up in peoples business. here in WA I'm talking about as well.
My comment pertains to here in Wa., not Az, that is a whole nother problem about financial gain and competition over trophies.
Post by: salt n sage90 on December 14, 2020, 04:31:38 PM
I have zero cellular cameras. I run all of mine for 2-3 month soaks all year on public land and it has been a lot of fun. It keeps me exercising, out in the woods, and I get to see what all is roaming around. If non-cellular cameras offer some heaping advantage to harvesting an animal I have yet to cash in on that, if anything checking my cameras during season has caused hair loss and sleepless nights.
I concur that the cellular cameras during hunting season whether public or private could start to blur the lines of "ethical".
That being said, I prefer to stay away from telling people what they can or can't do on their own property, they pay the taxes, they bought the camera. People use these cameras for more than just hunting. Unless I see some evidence that hunters with cellular cameras are out producing hunters without by a large margin then I will shy away from "tightening the grip" on private landowners.
fyi
-I would never leave a camera out in the woods indefinitely (aka litter). The Card in that camera is like gold, I gotta get it.
Post by: vandeman17 on December 14, 2020, 04:33:00 PM
I dont know what the situation in Arizona is, so I cant speak to how large of a nuisance this was becoming. But since the topic seems to have turned to Washington and I have become somewhat obsessed with running trail cams, I figured I would weight in.
I have zero cellular cameras. I run all of mine for 2-3 month soaks all year on public land and it has been a lot of fun. It keeps me exercising, out in the woods, and I get to see what all is roaming around. If non-cellular cameras offer some heaping advantage to harvesting an animal I have yet to cash in on that, if anything checking my cameras during season has caused hair loss and sleepless nights.
I concur that the cellular cameras during hunting season whether public or private could start to blur the lines of "ethical".
That being said, I prefer to stay away from telling people what they can or can't do on their own property, they pay the taxes, they bought the camera. People use these cameras for more than just hunting. Unless I see some evidence that hunters with cellular cameras are out producing hunters without by a large margin then I will shy away from "tightening the grip" on private landowners.
fyi
-I would never leave a camera out in the woods indefinitely (aka litter). The Card in that camera is like gold, I gotta get it.
Spot on. Good post and I agree
Post by: fishngamereaper on December 14, 2020, 04:34:50 PM
Post by: 10thmountainarcher on December 14, 2020, 04:35:21 PM
Post by: KFhunter on December 14, 2020, 04:36:09 PM
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: Bunny Thumper on December 14, 2020, 07:52:30 PM
Post by: TommyH on December 14, 2020, 08:04:29 PM
Anal is as anal does. I dont have a problem with cams where ever when ever, seems to me cams are just another adventure if you know how to use them. I get more tired of people telling me/us what they think we should and shouldnt be able to do. If you dont like it, dont do it, but leave others alone and dont try and force others to do as you like. Something as simple as cams, mind your own business.
My comment pertains to here in Wa., not Az, that is a whole nother problem about financial gain and competition over trophies.
:tup:
Post by: L8NITE on December 14, 2020, 08:12:08 PM
Post by: Stein on December 14, 2020, 08:35:02 PM
Im for banning them during season...but after all why would WA state ban them as there is no game left anyways :chuckle:
Because they haven't figured out a way to require punch cards or special permits to use them. :chuckle:
Post by: emac on December 14, 2020, 08:37:18 PM
I always thought I was the only one that hated trail cameras. Most people won’t agree with me but trail cameras are an invasion of privacy. If you took your kids to the park and there were cameras strapped to all the trees people would freak out but it’s ok in the national forest. I go to the woods to leave technology and electronics behind and yes, I do carry a gps and my phone but I don’t leave them strapped to trees for everyone to see. They are just another form of litter the same as helium balloons, water bottles and beer cans.that being said, on your own private property, do what you want.This is funny. There is no such thing as invasion of privacy anymore with the technology in this world. If you dont think you are being filmed st everything you do anymore you are wrong. Even in the woods if you can see another human there is a good possibility you are being filmed.
On the trail camera thing AZ is a whole different situation than here. I have cameras up year round on public and private ground. I will continue to do so also until someone can tell me a legitimate reason why I shouldn't. Littering doesn't work, invasion of privacy doesn't work, fair chase doesn't work since non of mine are cellular. And even if they were cellular the chances of an animal still being at a cam location and me being near the location to get there to harvest it are slim. I have yet to hear a good argument against them.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Post by: L8NITE on December 14, 2020, 08:55:00 PM
Post by: jrebel on December 14, 2020, 09:04:02 PM
I always thought I was the only one that hated trail cameras. Most people won’t agree with me but trail cameras are an invasion of privacy. If you took your kids to the park and there were cameras strapped to all the trees people would freak out but it’s ok in the national forest. I go to the woods to leave technology and electronics behind and yes, I do carry a gps and my phone but I don’t leave them strapped to trees for everyone to see. They are just another form of litter the same as helium balloons, water bottles and beer cans.that being said, on your own private property, do what you want.This is funny. There is no such thing as invasion of privacy anymore with the technology in this world. If you dont think you are being filmed st everything you do anymore you are wrong. Even in the woods if you can see another human there is a good possibility you are being filmed.
On the trail camera thing AZ is a whole different situation than here. I have cameras up year round on public and private ground. I will continue to do so also until someone can tell me a legitimate reason why I shouldn't. Littering doesn't work, invasion of privacy doesn't work, fair chase doesn't work since non of mine are cellular. And even if they were cellular the chances of an animal still being at a cam location and me being near the location to get there to harvest it are slim. I have yet to hear a good argument against them.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
All I have heard at this point is, "I don't like" therefore they should be outlawed!!
I can't speak to the OP's original concern in an area that has limited water, feed, etc and hundreds of cams around the only water source.....I would agree in this scenario something needs to be done.
I have never left a cam and littered. I have very rarely caught pics of other people so privacy is not to big a concern. Never killed an animal on the same day of checking my cams so don't really see an advantage to hunting with them. Matter of fact I have passed up smaller animals in search of the big ones and sometimes eat a tag because of it. Still waiting.
Post by: fishngamereaper on December 14, 2020, 09:17:48 PM
To each there own, but my cams on public land are not litter. And I don't run cell cams, I enjoy the effort it takes to check my cams.
Post by: Stein on December 14, 2020, 09:29:20 PM
Post by: fishngamereaper on December 14, 2020, 09:32:46 PM
What personal property should be allowed to be left on public land indefinitely?
Flagging tape.. :rolleyes:
Post by: jrebel on December 14, 2020, 09:37:15 PM
What personal property should be allowed to be left on public land indefinitely?
You make a lot of assumptions that people are leaving them there indefinitely. What is your definition of indefinitely anyway?
Before I had private property I had some cams in the Chihuahua unit. I would check them monthly and take them down for the winter. Depending on the area I would move them year to year.
Your camping footprint (assuming you camp on public land when you hunt) leaves a bigger footprint than my camera hanging in a tree. Should people rehab their camp spots to wipe out any trace of human activity or should we just ban all recreation on public lands. You ever crapped in the woods and left a pile of toilet paper or paper towels? That could take a year to biodegrade....is that indefinite based on your definition? Just curious because it sounds like people are just hanging cameras, walking away and never coming back to get them. :dunno:
Post by: fishngamereaper on December 14, 2020, 09:41:15 PM
That same reasoning doesn't carry much weight as far as Washington is concerned from my experiences.
Post by: buckfvr on December 14, 2020, 09:46:36 PM
I always thought I was the only one that hated trail cameras. Most people won’t agree with me but trail cameras are an invasion of privacy. If you took your kids to the park and there were cameras strapped to all the trees people would freak out but it’s ok in the national forest. I go to the woods to leave technology and electronics behind and yes, I do carry a gps and my phone but I don’t leave them strapped to trees for everyone to see. They are just another form of litter the same as helium balloons, water bottles and beer cans.that being said, on your own private property, do what you want.
Invasion of privacy ???? Do you own a cell phone or PC ??? Now thats invasion of privacy.
Post by: Stein on December 14, 2020, 09:51:48 PM
What personal property should be allowed to be left on public land indefinitely?
You make a lot of assumptions that people are leaving them there indefinitely. What is your definition of indefinitely anyway?
Before I had private property I had some cams in the Chihuahua unit. I would check them monthly and take them down for the winter. Depending on the area I would move them year to year.
Your camping footprint (assuming you camp on public land when you hunt) leaves a bigger footprint than my camera hanging in a tree. Should people rehab their camp spots to wipe out any trace of human activity or should we just ban all recreation on public lands. You ever crapped in the woods and left a pile of toilet paper or paper towels? That could take a year to biodegrade....is that indefinite based on your definition? Just curious because it sounds like people are just hanging cameras, walking away and never coming back to get them. :dunno:
Just asking a question.
I'll be more specific, let's say two months. What personal property is it ok to leave for two months unattended on public property? Is it just cameras, or anything as long as you come back at some point to check on it?
Post by: bornhunter on December 14, 2020, 09:53:56 PM
Post by: Dan-o on December 14, 2020, 10:12:25 PM
What personal property should be allowed to be left on public land indefinitely?
You make a lot of assumptions that people are leaving them there indefinitely. What is your definition of indefinitely anyway?
Before I had private property I had some cams in the Chihuahua unit. I would check them monthly and take them down for the winter. Depending on the area I would move them year to year.
Your camping footprint (assuming you camp on public land when you hunt) leaves a bigger footprint than my camera hanging in a tree. Should people rehab their camp spots to wipe out any trace of human activity or should we just ban all recreation on public lands. You ever crapped in the woods and left a pile of toilet paper or paper towels? That could take a year to biodegrade....is that indefinite based on your definition? Just curious because it sounds like people are just hanging cameras, walking away and never coming back to get them. :dunno:
Just asking a question.
I'll be more specific, let's say two months. What personal property is it ok to leave for two months unattended on public property? Is it just cameras, or anything as long as you come back at some point to check on it?
I love running trail cams just for fun, but you ask a great question.
I check mine every month or two when they are out, but any amount of time I am allowed to "ethically" leave my property unattended on public property is an arbitrary number.
Post by: jrebel on December 14, 2020, 10:14:50 PM
What personal property should be allowed to be left on public land indefinitely?
You make a lot of assumptions that people are leaving them there indefinitely. What is your definition of indefinitely anyway?
Before I had private property I had some cams in the Chihuahua unit. I would check them monthly and take them down for the winter. Depending on the area I would move them year to year.
Your camping footprint (assuming you camp on public land when you hunt) leaves a bigger footprint than my camera hanging in a tree. Should people rehab their camp spots to wipe out any trace of human activity or should we just ban all recreation on public lands. You ever crapped in the woods and left a pile of toilet paper or paper towels? That could take a year to biodegrade....is that indefinite based on your definition? Just curious because it sounds like people are just hanging cameras, walking away and never coming back to get them. :dunno:
Just asking a question.
I'll be more specific, let's say two months. What personal property is it ok to leave for two months unattended on public property? Is it just cameras, or anything as long as you come back at some point to check on it?
Cameras would fit that description. Toilet paper is another that comes to mind. People leave flagging behind often (not 100% in agreeance but not willing to says no flagging ever allowed again on public land). Tree stands (non permanent) are left up for months at a time. Ground blinds, natural and otherwise are often put up for longer periods of time. Memorials are another that comes to mind and I personally don't have a problem with those. Arrows that are not recovered after being shot. Bullets that lodge in trees and hillsides. Shotgun hulls or bullet casings after being ejected. Geocaching boxes are another, though not hunting related.
I'm sure if I think a little harder I can come up with more.
Some of these are biproducts of people recreating, some are tools that will be recovered. Some could be construed as litter and others not so much. I have yet to know a person that puts a trail camera up and just walks away to never come back. I find it to be a stretch to say that people leave them indefinitely. I also find it a stretch to say people that use trail cameras are littering.
I started this topic just to get opinions of some of us Wa folks. I spotted 3 different cameras this year while hunting public ground. It just seems like there are so many cameras out there the pure hunting experience is being lost. :dunno: Not criticizing those who use them but wondering if its time to put a little control on them at least on public ground?
Can you elaborate on the "pure hunting experience" and being "lost". What would you suggest for regulating them?
In most cases cameras extend my season and allow me to recreate all year long. It allows me to see how the animals are doing and what kind of predators I have that I would otherwise not see. An example would be the 5+ cougars and 16 bears I had on one camera last year. I would say we have a predator problem. Three years ago I saw very few bucks on my cameras. After a few years of pressuring the bear, planting food plots and choosing not to hunt deer in that area, we now have decent bucks running around. Some of this would never have been know without cameras. I adjusted my hunting based on the intel my cameras provided and now we have some huntable bucks. I also know that the amount of bear in that area need to be thinned down so family members have free rein during bear season. Unfortunately we have only been able to connect on a couple.....but the pressure is pushing them further out and my cams are getting fewer bear pics. My cams also have caught trespassers and protect my property.
Post by: Stein on December 15, 2020, 05:57:18 AM
I think the closer we can get to leave no trace, the better everyone is now and for future generations. I'm sure everyone inadvertently leaves stuff either by accident or they can't get back to pull all the trail markers, and hopefully they are also picking up other's stuff.
That's my opinion. They are legal to use per WDFW and a grey area by public land rules, so I support legal hunting methods today. I have never touched one, been on countless SD cards waving, but if WDFW asked for public input I wouldn't support it. If it's a problem in AZ it either is a problem here already or will be.
Post by: trophyhunt on December 15, 2020, 06:11:49 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on December 15, 2020, 06:20:02 AM
Post by: justyhntr on December 15, 2020, 06:53:12 AM
Post by: bear on December 15, 2020, 06:57:29 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on December 15, 2020, 06:58:54 AM
Lets just face it some people are a little more anal at things than others and over think and especially over dramatize things or flat out just like to complain.:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
Post by: trophyhunt on December 15, 2020, 06:59:16 AM
The argument from those apposed/indifferent to game/cell cameras is the same argument I heard in 1996 from hunters. Unfair advantage, garbage in the woods, when I go to the woods I want peace and quite, I don't want to hear a bunch of dogs barking or I don't do it so it doesn't impact me. What's next, spotting scopes, ecallers, ONX? The list can go on and on. Every time we give up one aspect of what we do and love in the outdoors we move on to another, mind blowing. If we keep eating our own we will continue this constant back slide. Another win for those that would love to see us go away, and we do it to ourselves. :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash::yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: Bingo!!!!!!
Post by: grundy53 on December 15, 2020, 07:10:09 AM
I always thought I was the only one that hated trail cameras. Most people won’t agree with me but trail cameras are an invasion of privacy. If you took your kids to the park and there were cameras strapped to all the trees people would freak out but it’s ok in the national forest. I go to the woods to leave technology and electronics behind and yes, I do carry a gps and my phone but I don’t leave them strapped to trees for everyone to see. They are just another form of litter the same as helium balloons, water bottles and beer cans.that being said, on your own private property, do what you want.There is no expectation of privacy in a public area. If you want privacy you should stay home.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: grundy53 on December 15, 2020, 07:11:36 AM
Traps. Do you want to ban trapping too?What personal property should be allowed to be left on public land indefinitely?
You make a lot of assumptions that people are leaving them there indefinitely. What is your definition of indefinitely anyway?
Before I had private property I had some cams in the Chihuahua unit. I would check them monthly and take them down for the winter. Depending on the area I would move them year to year.
Your camping footprint (assuming you camp on public land when you hunt) leaves a bigger footprint than my camera hanging in a tree. Should people rehab their camp spots to wipe out any trace of human activity or should we just ban all recreation on public lands. You ever crapped in the woods and left a pile of toilet paper or paper towels? That could take a year to biodegrade....is that indefinite based on your definition? Just curious because it sounds like people are just hanging cameras, walking away and never coming back to get them. :dunno:
Just asking a question.
I'll be more specific, let's say two months. What personal property is it ok to leave for two months unattended on public property? Is it just cameras, or anything as long as you come back at some point to check on it?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: Buckhunter24 on December 15, 2020, 07:21:14 AM
In Washington, I don't see any possible negative impact on the animals in the areas I hang them - western Washington and northeast Washington. It takes a lot of effort to hang them, hike back in and check cards etc, its part of scouting and is fair chase. Drawing the line at real time/cellular makes sense to me - my opinion is its no longer fair chase at that point.
Post by: NOCK NOCK on December 15, 2020, 07:35:46 AM
What personal property should be allowed to be left on public land indefinitely?
You make a lot of assumptions that people are leaving them there indefinitely. What is your definition of indefinitely anyway?
Before I had private property I had some cams in the Chihuahua unit. I would check them monthly and take them down for the winter. Depending on the area I would move them year to year.
Your camping footprint (assuming you camp on public land when you hunt) leaves a bigger footprint than my camera hanging in a tree. Should people rehab their camp spots to wipe out any trace of human activity or should we just ban all recreation on public lands. You ever crapped in the woods and left a pile of toilet paper or paper towels? That could take a year to biodegrade....is that indefinite based on your definition? Just curious because it sounds like people are just hanging cameras, walking away and never coming back to get them. :dunno:
Just asking a question.
I'll be more specific, let's say two months. What personal property is it ok to leave for two months unattended on public property? Is it just cameras, or anything as long as you come back at some point to check on it?
Hmmm,
Trailheads 1-14 day hikes/trips. Are those vehicles left behind free game?
Public camp grounds like FS. Is all that considered littering seeing as how it sits for months every year without being used?
Those cool memorials that are left in the mountains to remember a fallen hunter/?
Anyone who's been up the Entiat valley, Isn't that graffiti at the bottom?
Trappers traps?
Native's fish and game tracking devices/traps?
Bullets/arrows/fish lures we all leave behind. Littering?
Mining claim owners are allowed to do some improvements. Is it OK to take their stuff? It is public land they are on????
Funny thing about us humans is how smart we "think" we are. We never own anything in this world(personal property) we are just "renting" it if you will. 100 years from now how much of your private land will you own?
Just another hunter against hunter thing like all the rest...........WE are digging our own grave!!
Post by: Stein on December 15, 2020, 07:37:25 AM
Traps. Do you want to ban trapping too?What personal property should be allowed to be left on public land indefinitely?
You make a lot of assumptions that people are leaving them there indefinitely. What is your definition of indefinitely anyway?
Before I had private property I had some cams in the Chihuahua unit. I would check them monthly and take them down for the winter. Depending on the area I would move them year to year.
Your camping footprint (assuming you camp on public land when you hunt) leaves a bigger footprint than my camera hanging in a tree. Should people rehab their camp spots to wipe out any trace of human activity or should we just ban all recreation on public lands. You ever crapped in the woods and left a pile of toilet paper or paper towels? That could take a year to biodegrade....is that indefinite based on your definition? Just curious because it sounds like people are just hanging cameras, walking away and never coming back to get them. :dunno:
Just asking a question.
I'll be more specific, let's say two months. What personal property is it ok to leave for two months unattended on public property? Is it just cameras, or anything as long as you come back at some point to check on it?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
That's actually a good point although I think they have to be checked every 24 or 72 hours depending on the trap? There are also seasons and places where you can and can't set them.
I am for trapping. I'm generally for not removing hunting opportunity for the sake of removing it as opposed to removing or limiting due to resource declines.
Tech is a big issue with hunting, it's popping up everywhere and will only increase. I think it's perfectly acceptable for hunters to have conversations about issues and it's even ok if we don't all agree.
Post by: NOCK NOCK on December 15, 2020, 07:45:51 AM
Post by: grundy53 on December 15, 2020, 07:46:39 AM
Traps. Do you want to ban trapping too?What personal property should be allowed to be left on public land indefinitely?
You make a lot of assumptions that people are leaving them there indefinitely. What is your definition of indefinitely anyway?
Before I had private property I had some cams in the Chihuahua unit. I would check them monthly and take them down for the winter. Depending on the area I would move them year to year.
Your camping footprint (assuming you camp on public land when you hunt) leaves a bigger footprint than my camera hanging in a tree. Should people rehab their camp spots to wipe out any trace of human activity or should we just ban all recreation on public lands. You ever crapped in the woods and left a pile of toilet paper or paper towels? That could take a year to biodegrade....is that indefinite based on your definition? Just curious because it sounds like people are just hanging cameras, walking away and never coming back to get them. :dunno:
Just asking a question.
I'll be more specific, let's say two months. What personal property is it ok to leave for two months unattended on public property? Is it just cameras, or anything as long as you come back at some point to check on it?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
That's actually a good point although I think they have to be checked every 24 or 72 hours depending on the trap? There are also seasons and places where you can and can't set them.
I am for trapping. I'm generally for not removing hunting opportunity for the sake of removing it as opposed to removing or limiting due to resource declines.
Tech is a big issue with hunting, it's popping up everywhere and will only increase. I think it's perfectly acceptable for hunters to have conversations about issues and it's even ok if we don't all agree.
They check them. But leave them there. Just like I do with a trail cameras. I agree about tech in general becoming an issue IF (and that's a big if) it increases harvest rate or causes a decline in herd populations. You would be hard pressed to convince me non cell trail camera's do either.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: Katmai Guy on December 15, 2020, 07:48:34 AM
Post by: Stein on December 15, 2020, 07:52:00 AM
You arrive at a camp site on public land. Another group is already camped there. Is it Ok to just set up your camp amongst theirs? Its public land, 1st campers do not OWN it. Better yet, just leave all your stuff in your rig, heck easier to just use all theirs.
I don't think anyone on this thread suggested stealing stuff? :dunno:
Post by: bhawley76 on December 15, 2020, 08:16:43 AM
Post by: grundy53 on December 15, 2020, 08:33:52 AM
How's that song go, if you mind your own business then you wont be minding mine. I hate how so many threads turn sportsman against sportsman, Cameras, range finders, 209 primers, camps, lighted nocks, mechanical broad heads, ebikes, 4wheelers the list goes on and on.Well said
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: bornhunter on December 15, 2020, 08:40:01 AM
What personal property should be allowed to be left on public land indefinitely?
You make a lot of assumptions that people are leaving them there indefinitely. What is your definition of indefinitely anyway?
Before I had private property I had some cams in the Chihuahua unit. I would check them monthly and take them down for the winter. Depending on the area I would move them year to year.
Your camping footprint (assuming you camp on public land when you hunt) leaves a bigger footprint than my camera hanging in a tree. Should people rehab their camp spots to wipe out any trace of human activity or should we just ban all recreation on public lands. You ever crapped in the woods and left a pile of toilet paper or paper towels? That could take a year to biodegrade....is that indefinite based on your definition? Just curious because it sounds like people are just hanging cameras, walking away and never coming back to get them. :dunno:
Just asking a question.
I'll be more specific, let's say two months. What personal property is it ok to leave for two months unattended on public property? Is it just cameras, or anything as long as you come back at some point to check on it?
Cameras would fit that description. Toilet paper is another that comes to mind. People leave flagging behind often (not 100% in agreeance but not willing to says no flagging ever allowed again on public land). Tree stands (non permanent) are left up for months at a time. Ground blinds, natural and otherwise are often put up for longer periods of time. Memorials are another that comes to mind and I personally don't have a problem with those. Arrows that are not recovered after being shot. Bullets that lodge in trees and hillsides. Shotgun hulls or bullet casings after being ejected. Geocaching boxes are another, though not hunting related.
I'm sure if I think a little harder I can come up with more.
Some of these are biproducts of people recreating, some are tools that will be recovered. Some could be construed as litter and others not so much. I have yet to know a person that puts a trail camera up and just walks away to never come back. I find it to be a stretch to say that people leave them indefinitely. I also find it a stretch to say people that use trail cameras are littering.I started this topic just to get opinions of some of us Wa folks. I spotted 3 different cameras this year while hunting public ground. It just seems like there are so many cameras out there the pure hunting experience is being lost. :dunno: Not criticizing those who use them but wondering if its time to put a little control on them at least on public ground?
Can you elaborate on the "pure hunting experience" and being "lost". What would you suggest for regulating them?
In most cases cameras extend my season and allow me to recreate all year long. It allows me to see how the animals are doing and what kind of predators I have that I would otherwise not see. An example would be the 5+ cougars and 16 bears I had on one camera last year. I would say we have a predator problem. Three years ago I saw very few bucks on my cameras. After a few years of pressuring the bear, planting food plots and choosing not to hunt deer in that area, we now have decent bucks running around. Some of this would never have been know without cameras. I adjusted my hunting based on the intel my cameras provided and now we have some huntable bucks. I also know that the amount of bear in that area need to be thinned down so family members have free rein during bear season. Unfortunately we have only been able to connect on a couple.....but the pressure is pushing them further out and my cams are getting fewer bear pics. My cams also have caught trespassers and protect my property.
Not sure I can really answer that question. What I consider a pure hunting experience is going to be very different than say a 25 year old who has been hunting for 15 years. Those hunters who use all the new stuff that I didnt have when I started hunting I'm sure have as much fun now as I did without them back then. For me probably an age thing and longing for the good old days. And lets keep this civil with some good discussion on this topic. I am sure regulation on trail cameras will be here before long.
Post by: NOCK NOCK on December 15, 2020, 08:56:33 AM
You arrive at a camp site on public land. Another group is already camped there. Is it Ok to just set up your camp amongst theirs? Its public land, 1st campers do not OWN it. Better yet, just leave all your stuff in your rig, heck easier to just use all theirs.
I don't think anyone on this thread suggested stealing stuff? :dunno:
Nor am I. Its public land, I want to camp/use the spot there too. Granted the "use their stuff" was used in jest FYI
Post by: bornhunter on December 15, 2020, 08:57:35 AM
All my cams are for bigfoot research...
:chuckle:
Post by: NOCK NOCK on December 15, 2020, 08:57:47 AM
How's that song go, if you mind your own business then you wont be minding mine. I hate how so many threads turn sportsman against sportsman, Cameras, range finders, 209 primers, camps, lighted nocks, mechanical broad heads, ebikes, 4wheelers the list goes on and on.Well said
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
:yeah: X1000
Post by: Bob33 on December 15, 2020, 08:59:13 AM
Post by: jrebel on December 15, 2020, 09:09:08 AM
So anything goes? It's not ok to discuss whether new technologies should be restricted?
???? Who said it's not OK to discuss it ???? It appears there is open dialogue going on right now and for the most part it appears civil. Why would you even post this question?
Post by: Bob33 on December 15, 2020, 09:17:53 AM
"I hate how so many threads turn sportsman against sportsman, Cameras, range finders, 209 primers, camps, lighted nocks, mechanical broad heads, ebikes, 4wheelers the list goes on and on."So anything goes? It's not ok to discuss whether new technologies should be restricted?
???? Who said it's not OK to discuss it ???? It appears there is open dialogue going on right now and for the most part it appears civil. Why would you even post this question?
Post by: Oh Mah on December 15, 2020, 09:35:46 AM
They don't hurt anything why can't outdoorsman mind their own and quit whining about how someone else does it?
Post by: vandeman17 on December 15, 2020, 09:37:57 AM
Post by: bornhunter on December 15, 2020, 09:44:14 AM
It amazes me how people in the political threads will complain all day long that their voices are never heard but yet in a thread like this one, they want zero discussion. Having an open discussion about the pro's and con's of different types of trail cameras DOES NOT pit hunters against hunters. Good grief
:yeah:
Post by: justyhntr on December 15, 2020, 09:51:57 AM
Post by: bornhunter on December 15, 2020, 09:58:14 AM
Post by: Sandberm on December 15, 2020, 10:01:32 AM
This is not another bash on other user groups! This is about another state banning a tool (on public land) for hunting that many of us in this state also use. I was curious about what folks think?
See what you did? Its all your fault :chuckle:
What is your next topic started going to be? Corner crossing? Dummy Camps? :chuckle: :IBCOOL: :hello:
Post by: jrebel on December 15, 2020, 10:03:18 AM
For the anti trail camera guys / gals....can you please provide a reason to ban trail cameras? Change my mind..... Does it make me a better hunter? Does it give me an unfair advantage? Does it increase harvest rate? Does it have a negative impact on harvest numbers?
I will itemize what I see as the advantages;
1. I can manage my hunting based on intel obtained that would otherwise be an unknown. Example....the big brown color phase bear has cubs so don't shoot her. As opposed to Bear!!!! Bang!!!! Oh crap she was wet and I now killed three bears instead of one.
2. Seeing cougars (predators in general) that would otherwise not be seen.....I have a cougar problem and I have the proof that WDFW refuses to acknowledge. Same goes for our non existent wolf problem that WDFW refuses to acknowledge. I have wolf pics and I can monitor that problem year to year.
3. Seeing year to year the changes in game numbers and health of game to dictate the hunting pressure I'm willing to put on a piece of land.
4. Allows me to hunt year around. Keeps me active but also lessons the actual footprint on the land, thus lessening the stress on game.
5. Allows me to see game that is not alert and watch them in a more natural sense / setting.
6. Security for trespassers, poachers, etc.
7. It is just good clean fun that really does not hurt anyone. It gets my kids excited to hike and hunt. It is like going on a scavenger hunt as opposed to just a hike in the hills. My family loves pulling trail cams and can't wait to get home to look at the bounty.
Please list the Cons because so far this is all I've heard;
1. Littering....this does not pass the smell test, I have never left a trail cam without recovering it at some point. I check them regularly.
2. Privacy.....Well, this is another thread in and of itself. What are you worried you may get caught doing??? Privacy is not an inherent right on public land.
3. Unfair advantage....prove it, give me specifics. My cameras do not make me a more successful hunter or give me an unfair advantage but maybe I'm doing it wrong.
4. What else??
Post by: vandeman17 on December 15, 2020, 10:07:53 AM
Post by: Oh Mah on December 15, 2020, 10:10:27 AM
GOOD GRIEF.
Post by: BreezyBear on December 15, 2020, 10:11:12 AM
I've yet to hear a reason for banning trail cameras (at any time of the year) other than "I don't like them."
For the anti trail camera guys / gals....can you please provide a reason to ban trail cameras? Change my mind..... Does it make me a better hunter? Does it give me an unfair advantage? Does it increase harvest rate? Does it have a negative impact on harvest numbers?
I will itemize what I see as the advantages;
1. I can manage my hunting based on intel obtained that would otherwise be an unknown. Example....the big brown color phase bear has cubs so don't shoot her. As opposed to Bear!!!! Bang!!!! Oh crap she was wet and I now killed three bears instead of one.
2. Seeing cougars (predators in general) that would otherwise not be seen.....I have a cougar problem and I have the proof that WDFW refuses to acknowledge. Same goes for our non existent wolf problem that WDFW refuses to acknowledge. I have wolf pics and I can monitor that problem year to year.
3. Seeing year to year the changes in game numbers and health of game to dictate the hunting pressure I'm willing to put on a piece of land.
4. Allows me to hunt year around. Keeps me active but also lessons the actual footprint on the land, thus lessening the stress on game.
5. Allows me to see game that is not alert and watch them in a more natural sense / setting.
6. Security for trespassers, poachers, etc.
7. It is just good clean fun that really does not hurt anyone. It gets my kids excited to hike and hunt. It is like going on a scavenger hunt as opposed to just a hike in the hills. My family loves pulling trail cams and can't wait to get home to look at the bounty.
Please list the Cons because so far this is all I've heard;
1. Littering....this does not pass the smell test, I have never left a trail cam without recovering it at some point. I check them regularly.
2. Privacy.....Well, this is another thread in and of itself. What are you worried you may get caught doing??? Privacy is not an inherent right on public land.
3. Unfair advantage....prove it, give me specifics. My cameras do not make me a more successful hunter or give me an unfair advantage but maybe I'm doing it wrong.
4. What else??
Well stated!! Running cameras is fun, something very much needed this year!!
Post by: vandeman17 on December 15, 2020, 10:12:45 AM
ITS NOT WHAT IT STARTED AS BUT IT IS WHAT IT TURNED INTO.
GOOD GRIEF.
It is what you start in almost every thread you are involved in. It is always a pissing match of what you deem is right and your unwillingness to ever have a discussion. :twocents:
Post by: Oh Mah on December 15, 2020, 10:13:05 AM
Post by: Oh Mah on December 15, 2020, 10:14:13 AM
Not true but nice try.ITS NOT WHAT IT STARTED AS BUT IT IS WHAT IT TURNED INTO.
GOOD GRIEF.
It is what you start in almost every thread you are involved in. It is always a pissing match of what you deem is right and your unwillingness to ever have a discussion. :twocents:
Post by: Stein on December 15, 2020, 10:14:46 AM
So how do cell cameras give a hunter an advantage?
Real or perceived, they do provide an advantage or guides and others wouldn't forego the expense and time. Some are literally running over 100 cameras. I'm sure some people just like looking at pictures of course, but the percentage of people doing it to help their hunt has to be very high. I'm not saying this is necessarily bad, we use advantages in hunting all the time, just the reality of them.
There are two issues, whether the advantage should be allowed and whether stuff should be left on public land. In AZ, sounds like the latter was the issue, too much stuff left on public land and a general nuisance.
With cameras, as you noted they are already pretty much standard practice and a part of the culture for people that use them and I appreciate that position. I am glad the drone issue was settled one way or another at the start and it's the way it should be. Once the tech hits the market, have the conversation and the thumbs up or down before it gets widely adopted.
Post by: Oh Mah on December 15, 2020, 10:15:51 AM
Get all the spy cameras off public land. Do what you want on your own land. :twocents:right off the bat.spy cameras huh.
Post by: Buckhunter24 on December 15, 2020, 10:18:21 AM
https://www.themeateater.com/hunt/whitetail-deer/ask-wired-to-hunt-are-wireless-trail-cameras-fair-chase (https://www.themeateater.com/hunt/whitetail-deer/ask-wired-to-hunt-are-wireless-trail-cameras-fair-chase)
Post by: vandeman17 on December 15, 2020, 10:22:28 AM
This is a good article I had not come across until today. Worth a read, I cod be convinced of a 24 hr delay being a good idea.
https://www.themeateater.com/hunt/whitetail-deer/ask-wired-to-hunt-are-wireless-trail-cameras-fair-chase (https://www.themeateater.com/hunt/whitetail-deer/ask-wired-to-hunt-are-wireless-trail-cameras-fair-chase)
I agree with this and think its why a DISCUSSION is warranted so that people can hear differing opinions though some on here will refuse to listen. That doesn't mean a lot of us don't appreciate an open minded back and forth.
Post by: MR5x5 on December 15, 2020, 10:22:39 AM
Cell cams and hunting within 24 hrs of flying - seems to be addressing the same basic issue - real time location of game. I'd rather not see that.
Post by: Magnum_Willys on December 15, 2020, 10:24:07 AM
I've yet to hear a reason for banning trail cameras (at any time of the year) other than "I don't like them."
For the anti trail camera guys / gals....can you please provide a reason to ban trail cameras? Change my mind..... Does it make me a better hunter? Does it give me an unfair advantage? Does it increase harvest rate? Does it have a negative impact on harvest numbers?
I will itemize what I see as the advantages;
Please list the Cons because so far this is all I've heard;
.
4. What else??
I use em off season but what I don’t like is going out hunting and walking by a camera at every wallow. Why? Just does. Spending a lil time outdoors enjoying nature and solitude and heres techno and other hunters per se already there. Be fine with outlawing Sep-Nov.
Post by: Oh Mah on December 15, 2020, 10:27:33 AM
I listen,I read,You do realize DISCUSSIONS like this is what has lead to all of the eroding of what we do in the outdoors right?Whether it is on a forum or in private setting.Prop 90 started with discussions and opinions. :twocents:This is a good article I had not come across until today. Worth a read, I cod be convinced of a 24 hr delay being a good idea.
https://www.themeateater.com/hunt/whitetail-deer/ask-wired-to-hunt-are-wireless-trail-cameras-fair-chase (https://www.themeateater.com/hunt/whitetail-deer/ask-wired-to-hunt-are-wireless-trail-cameras-fair-chase)
I agree with this and think its why a DISCUSSION is warranted so that people can hear differing opinions though some on here will refuse to listen. That doesn't mean a lot of us don't appreciate an open minded back and forth.
Post by: Stein on December 15, 2020, 10:29:59 AM
This is a good article I had not come across until today. Worth a read, I cod be convinced of a 24 hr delay being a good idea.
https://www.themeateater.com/hunt/whitetail-deer/ask-wired-to-hunt-are-wireless-trail-cameras-fair-chase (https://www.themeateater.com/hunt/whitetail-deer/ask-wired-to-hunt-are-wireless-trail-cameras-fair-chase)
States seem to have gone one of two routes, free for all or none (during hunting season). I would guess enforcement of any rules in the middle would be nearly impossible.
Post by: Buckhunter24 on December 15, 2020, 10:32:17 AM
I listen,I read,You do realize DISCUSSIONS like this is what has lead to all of the eroding of what we do in the outdoors right?Whether it is on a forum or in private setting.Prop 90 started with discussions and opinions. :twocents:This is a good article I had not come across until today. Worth a read, I cod be convinced of a 24 hr delay being a good idea.
https://www.themeateater.com/hunt/whitetail-deer/ask-wired-to-hunt-are-wireless-trail-cameras-fair-chase (https://www.themeateater.com/hunt/whitetail-deer/ask-wired-to-hunt-are-wireless-trail-cameras-fair-chase)
I agree with this and think its why a DISCUSSION is warranted so that people can hear differing opinions though some on here will refuse to listen. That doesn't mean a lot of us don't appreciate an open minded back and forth.
Dude its a new hunting related technology. This forum is the right place to discuss the ins and outs of it and get perspectives. All new technology is going to be evaluated by the user group, and everyone is going to form an opinion on it.
Post by: Buckhunter24 on December 15, 2020, 10:33:22 AM
This is a good article I had not come across until today. Worth a read, I cod be convinced of a 24 hr delay being a good idea.
https://www.themeateater.com/hunt/whitetail-deer/ask-wired-to-hunt-are-wireless-trail-cameras-fair-chase (https://www.themeateater.com/hunt/whitetail-deer/ask-wired-to-hunt-are-wireless-trail-cameras-fair-chase)
States seem to have gone one of two routes, free for all or none (during hunting season). I would guess enforcement of any rules in the middle would be nearly impossible.
Yeah there would be no way of enforcing any sort of delay like that other than honor policy
Post by: Stein on December 15, 2020, 10:34:38 AM
I listen,I read,You do realize DISCUSSIONS like this is what has lead to all of the eroding of what we do in the outdoors right?Whether it is on a forum or in private setting.Prop 90 started with discussions and opinions. :twocents:This is a good article I had not come across until today. Worth a read, I cod be convinced of a 24 hr delay being a good idea.
https://www.themeateater.com/hunt/whitetail-deer/ask-wired-to-hunt-are-wireless-trail-cameras-fair-chase (https://www.themeateater.com/hunt/whitetail-deer/ask-wired-to-hunt-are-wireless-trail-cameras-fair-chase)
I agree with this and think its why a DISCUSSION is warranted so that people can hear differing opinions though some on here will refuse to listen. That doesn't mean a lot of us don't appreciate an open minded back and forth.
I just read about how a group of sportsmen got together in WA and proposed and lobbied for the limit of harlequin ducks to be dropped from 7 a day to 1 a year. By doing that, which was likely hugely unpopular, it prevented the closure of hunting them. If the limit had stayed at 7/day, the population would have crashed and WDFW was getting ready to shut it totally down permanently. (That's what I read, accuracy not guaranteed).
So, by having the discussion and thinking long term, hunting privileges were maintained by limiting hunting.
I think that happens quite a bit actually, both from a resource preservation perspective as well as public image.
Post by: buckfvr on December 15, 2020, 10:35:40 AM
So how do cell cameras give a hunter an advantage?
Real or perceived, they do provide an advantage or guides and others wouldn't forego the expense and time. Some are literally running over 100 cameras. I'm sure some people just like looking at pictures of course, but the percentage of people doing it to help their hunt has to be very high. I'm not saying this is necessarily bad, we use advantages in hunting all the time, just the reality of them.
There are two issues, whether the advantage should be allowed and whether stuff should be left on public land. In AZ, sounds like the latter was the issue, too much stuff left on public land and a general nuisance.
With cameras, as you noted they are already pretty much standard practice and a part of the culture for people that use them and I appreciate that position. I am glad the drone issue was settled one way or another at the start and it's the way it should be. Once the tech hits the market, have the conversation and the thumbs up or down before it gets widely adopted.
Seems as though you go right for the extreme end of an issue. It can be real but most of it is perceived (imo), as I do believe most hunters tend to the casual side, have cameras, but in no way use them to their full advantage. Here in n.e. wa., there are lots of cams (no surprise), and I know lots of owners (myself included), and by far most of the guys only dabble, and their dabbling does not translate to success. To me, its the same as your hunting knife being construed as a murder weapon. Sure, cams can be a real advantage, especially if its job related (guide etc.), but mostly they are for pleasure and not needed or required for hunting.
Post by: bornhunter on December 15, 2020, 10:47:59 AM
This is not another bash on other user groups! This is about another state banning a tool (on public land) for hunting that many of us in this state also use. I was curious about what folks think?
See what you did? Its all your fault :chuckle:
What is your next topic started going to be? Corner crossing? Dummy Camps? :chuckle: :IBCOOL: :hello:
Gosh I know. I know! Unless you get the vaccine shot you cannot get a hunting license. And you have to prove you got the shot by having the injection caught on a trail camera. :chuckle:
Post by: Stein on December 15, 2020, 11:00:45 AM
So how do cell cameras give a hunter an advantage?
Real or perceived, they do provide an advantage or guides and others wouldn't forego the expense and time. Some are literally running over 100 cameras. I'm sure some people just like looking at pictures of course, but the percentage of people doing it to help their hunt has to be very high. I'm not saying this is necessarily bad, we use advantages in hunting all the time, just the reality of them.
There are two issues, whether the advantage should be allowed and whether stuff should be left on public land. In AZ, sounds like the latter was the issue, too much stuff left on public land and a general nuisance.
With cameras, as you noted they are already pretty much standard practice and a part of the culture for people that use them and I appreciate that position. I am glad the drone issue was settled one way or another at the start and it's the way it should be. Once the tech hits the market, have the conversation and the thumbs up or down before it gets widely adopted.
Seems as though you go right for the extreme end of an issue. It can be real but most of it is perceived (imo), as I do believe most hunters tend to the casual side, have cameras, but in no way use them to their full advantage. Here in n.e. wa., there are lots of cams (no surprise), and I know lots of owners (myself included), and by far most of the guys only dabble, and their dabbling does not translate to success. To me, its the same as your hunting knife being construed as a murder weapon. Sure, cams can be a real advantage, especially if its job related (guide etc.), but mostly they are for pleasure and not needed or required for hunting.
Very well could be true. My experience is pretty limited, I own one camera from a failed attempt to catch a thief after break ins at my in-laws garage. I used it on two separate hunts about 3 and 4 years ago to help pattern elk in an area of interest. One time I found they were using a meadow, but only in the morning. The other time, I found they had vacated an area I had seen them in, so I didn't spend any more time hunting that particular area.
I felt they gave me essentially a second set of eyes. I was solo hunting and could hunt one area at daylight and know what was going on in a second area. I have no idea if that's the "best" way to use them or if I got lucky or they were really a benefit. Both instances were timed photos of a meadow which showed whether the elk were there or not and the approximate times they were coming and going. They weren't live, I had to go pull the cards and hope the future looked like the past.
If you can get live infrared images from a field 2 hours before hunting light, that seems pretty advantageous, especially since it would be illegal to use night vision if it wasn't on a camera.
Again, I'm not saying the simple fact of an advantage means they should be banned, just arguing they give an advantage that should be thoughtfully considered as any new tech comes to market.
Post by: jrebel on December 15, 2020, 11:21:32 AM
So how do cell cameras give a hunter an advantage?
Real or perceived, they do provide an advantage or guides and others wouldn't forego the expense and time. Some are literally running over 100 cameras. I'm sure some people just like looking at pictures of course, but the percentage of people doing it to help their hunt has to be very high. I'm not saying this is necessarily bad, we use advantages in hunting all the time, just the reality of them.
There are two issues, whether the advantage should be allowed and whether stuff should be left on public land. In AZ, sounds like the latter was the issue, too much stuff left on public land and a general nuisance.
With cameras, as you noted they are already pretty much standard practice and a part of the culture for people that use them and I appreciate that position. I am glad the drone issue was settled one way or another at the start and it's the way it should be. Once the tech hits the market, have the conversation and the thumbs up or down before it gets widely adopted.
Seems as though you go right for the extreme end of an issue. It can be real but most of it is perceived (imo), as I do believe most hunters tend to the casual side, have cameras, but in no way use them to their full advantage. Here in n.e. wa., there are lots of cams (no surprise), and I know lots of owners (myself included), and by far most of the guys only dabble, and their dabbling does not translate to success. To me, its the same as your hunting knife being construed as a murder weapon. Sure, cams can be a real advantage, especially if its job related (guide etc.), but mostly they are for pleasure and not needed or required for hunting.
Very well could be true. My experience is pretty limited, I own one camera from a failed attempt to catch a thief after break ins at my in-laws garage. I used it on two separate hunts about 3 and 4 years ago to help pattern elk in an area of interest. One time I found they were using a meadow, but only in the morning. The other time, I found they had vacated an area I had seen them in, so I didn't spend any more time hunting that particular area.
I felt they gave me essentially a second set of eyes. I was solo hunting and could hunt one area at daylight and know what was going on in a second area. I have no idea if that's the "best" way to use them or if I got lucky or they were really a benefit. Both instances were timed photos of a meadow which showed whether the elk were there or not and the approximate times they were coming and going. They weren't live, I had to go pull the cards and hope the future looked like the past.
If you can get live infrared images from a field 2 hours before hunting light, that seems pretty advantageous, especially since it would be illegal to use night vision if it wasn't on a camera.
Again, I'm not saying the simple fact of an advantage means they should be banned, just arguing they give an advantage that should be thoughtfully considered as any new tech comes to market.
I find this prospective only focuses on the perceived advantage, "second set of eyes", "patterning game", etc... and turns those advantages into a negative (if that makes sense). Assuming you are correct, having this "second set of eyes", and "patterning game" has been a positive in the fact that I know what is out there. My harvest rates have gone down because I am willing to pass on the smaller (dumber) bucks looking for the larger bucks thus growing the herd. It has also allowed me to pass on bears that are sows with or w/out cubs, that otherwise would be shot because in the NE the brush is so thick that when you see one it is hard to tell what is around them. Being able to see this game year round is a positive in my mind and if used correctly (key words) can actually benefit our herds.
Am I wrong??
Post by: 2MANY on December 15, 2020, 11:26:58 AM
Post by: vandeman17 on December 15, 2020, 11:29:58 AM
So how do cell cameras give a hunter an advantage?
Real or perceived, they do provide an advantage or guides and others wouldn't forego the expense and time. Some are literally running over 100 cameras. I'm sure some people just like looking at pictures of course, but the percentage of people doing it to help their hunt has to be very high. I'm not saying this is necessarily bad, we use advantages in hunting all the time, just the reality of them.
There are two issues, whether the advantage should be allowed and whether stuff should be left on public land. In AZ, sounds like the latter was the issue, too much stuff left on public land and a general nuisance.
With cameras, as you noted they are already pretty much standard practice and a part of the culture for people that use them and I appreciate that position. I am glad the drone issue was settled one way or another at the start and it's the way it should be. Once the tech hits the market, have the conversation and the thumbs up or down before it gets widely adopted.
Seems as though you go right for the extreme end of an issue. It can be real but most of it is perceived (imo), as I do believe most hunters tend to the casual side, have cameras, but in no way use them to their full advantage. Here in n.e. wa., there are lots of cams (no surprise), and I know lots of owners (myself included), and by far most of the guys only dabble, and their dabbling does not translate to success. To me, its the same as your hunting knife being construed as a murder weapon. Sure, cams can be a real advantage, especially if its job related (guide etc.), but mostly they are for pleasure and not needed or required for hunting.
Very well could be true. My experience is pretty limited, I own one camera from a failed attempt to catch a thief after break ins at my in-laws garage. I used it on two separate hunts about 3 and 4 years ago to help pattern elk in an area of interest. One time I found they were using a meadow, but only in the morning. The other time, I found they had vacated an area I had seen them in, so I didn't spend any more time hunting that particular area.
I felt they gave me essentially a second set of eyes. I was solo hunting and could hunt one area at daylight and know what was going on in a second area. I have no idea if that's the "best" way to use them or if I got lucky or they were really a benefit. Both instances were timed photos of a meadow which showed whether the elk were there or not and the approximate times they were coming and going. They weren't live, I had to go pull the cards and hope the future looked like the past.
If you can get live infrared images from a field 2 hours before hunting light, that seems pretty advantageous, especially since it would be illegal to use night vision if it wasn't on a camera.
Again, I'm not saying the simple fact of an advantage means they should be banned, just arguing they give an advantage that should be thoughtfully considered as any new tech comes to market.
I find this prospective only focuses on the perceived advantage, "second set of eyes", "patterning game", etc... and turns those advantages into a negative (if that makes sense). Assuming you are correct, having this "second set of eyes", and "patterning game" has been a positive in the fact that I know what is out there. My harvest rates have gone down because I am willing to pass on the smaller (dumber) bucks looking for the larger bucks thus growing the herd. It has also allowed me to pass on bears that are sows with or w/out cubs, that otherwise would be shot because in the NE the brush is so thick that when you see one it is hard to tell what is around them. Being able to see this game year round is a positive in my mind and if used correctly (key words) can actually benefit our herds.
Am I wrong??
I think majority on here are ok with the normal sd card based camera which is a little different than the topic of the thread of banning all of them in Arizona. I have ran them for many many years and its as much a hobby as it is for hunting. Majority of mine are actually in locations I don't or can't hunt but I just like seeing what is out there. The ones that are in areas I hunt have not "improved" my success from what I can tell but that also isn't the intent of running them.
Cell cams do present a different set of options and that is why I think an open discussion is warranted. First thing that comes to mind that COULD improve my success using them would be to have a series of them at different bait sites on the ridge that I am hunting. While sitting in my stand, I could somewhat be hunting multiple spots at once. I know this is a very specific example but it is just that, an example of what I PERSONALLY feel is a bit of an unfair advantage. Cell cameras have their uses for sure, I just am unsure I agree with them being used, at least during hunting season.
Post by: jrebel on December 15, 2020, 11:33:27 AM
Post by: vandeman17 on December 15, 2020, 11:34:47 AM
I think I could be convinced cell cams are not a good idea during hunting seasons. Imagine sitting in a blind on a food plot and be alarmed when deer are coming in off trails prior to their arrival. Gives the hunter real time knowledge of events that "may" give an unfair advantage to the hunter. I would be hard pressed to say they couldn't be used during the off season.
That is my stance as well. Hard part is that it is super tough to enforce :dunno:
Post by: jrebel on December 15, 2020, 11:38:28 AM
I think I could be convinced cell cams are not a good idea during hunting seasons. Imagine sitting in a blind on a food plot and be alarmed when deer are coming in off trails prior to their arrival. Gives the hunter real time knowledge of events that "may" give an unfair advantage to the hunter. I would be hard pressed to say they couldn't be used during the off season.
That is my stance as well. Hard part is that it is super tough to enforce :dunno:
Once caught it would be super easy to enforce. Subpoena the phone records and locations....these cameras leave a digital trail that would be a prosecutors dream. Just depends on how many resources they want to dedicate to these cases. Also, how would prove that the camera was not being used for security purposes if on private land. Public land....not so much. This could be a separate topic / post all together.
Post by: fishngamereaper on December 15, 2020, 11:55:33 AM
Post by: Oh Mah on December 15, 2020, 12:00:54 PM
Sorry but i don't see the topic being banning new high tech trail cams,What i see is banning all trail cams during hunting season then all together then on public land.nice to see it going in that direction though.So how do cell cameras give a hunter an advantage?
Real or perceived, they do provide an advantage or guides and others wouldn't forego the expense and time. Some are literally running over 100 cameras. I'm sure some people just like looking at pictures of course, but the percentage of people doing it to help their hunt has to be very high. I'm not saying this is necessarily bad, we use advantages in hunting all the time, just the reality of them.
There are two issues, whether the advantage should be allowed and whether stuff should be left on public land. In AZ, sounds like the latter was the issue, too much stuff left on public land and a general nuisance.
With cameras, as you noted they are already pretty much standard practice and a part of the culture for people that use them and I appreciate that position. I am glad the drone issue was settled one way or another at the start and it's the way it should be. Once the tech hits the market, have the conversation and the thumbs up or down before it gets widely adopted.
Seems as though you go right for the extreme end of an issue. It can be real but most of it is perceived (imo), as I do believe most hunters tend to the casual side, have cameras, but in no way use them to their full advantage. Here in n.e. wa., there are lots of cams (no surprise), and I know lots of owners (myself included), and by far most of the guys only dabble, and their dabbling does not translate to success. To me, its the same as your hunting knife being construed as a murder weapon. Sure, cams can be a real advantage, especially if its job related (guide etc.), but mostly they are for pleasure and not needed or required for hunting.
Very well could be true. My experience is pretty limited, I own one camera from a failed attempt to catch a thief after break ins at my in-laws garage. I used it on two separate hunts about 3 and 4 years ago to help pattern elk in an area of interest. One time I found they were using a meadow, but only in the morning. The other time, I found they had vacated an area I had seen them in, so I didn't spend any more time hunting that particular area.
I felt they gave me essentially a second set of eyes. I was solo hunting and could hunt one area at daylight and know what was going on in a second area. I have no idea if that's the "best" way to use them or if I got lucky or they were really a benefit. Both instances were timed photos of a meadow which showed whether the elk were there or not and the approximate times they were coming and going. They weren't live, I had to go pull the cards and hope the future looked like the past.
If you can get live infrared images from a field 2 hours before hunting light, that seems pretty advantageous, especially since it would be illegal to use night vision if it wasn't on a camera.
Again, I'm not saying the simple fact of an advantage means they should be banned, just arguing they give an advantage that should be thoughtfully considered as any new tech comes to market.
I find this prospective only focuses on the perceived advantage, "second set of eyes", "patterning game", etc... and turns those advantages into a negative (if that makes sense). Assuming you are correct, having this "second set of eyes", and "patterning game" has been a positive in the fact that I know what is out there. My harvest rates have gone down because I am willing to pass on the smaller (dumber) bucks looking for the larger bucks thus growing the herd. It has also allowed me to pass on bears that are sows with or w/out cubs, that otherwise would be shot because in the NE the brush is so thick that when you see one it is hard to tell what is around them. Being able to see this game year round is a positive in my mind and if used correctly (key words) can actually benefit our herds.
Am I wrong??
I think majority on here are ok with the normal sd card based camera which is a little different than the topic of the thread of banning all of them in Arizona. I have ran them for many many years and its as much a hobby as it is for hunting. Majority of mine are actually in locations I don't or can't hunt but I just like seeing what is out there. The ones that are in areas I hunt have not "improved" my success from what I can tell but that also isn't the intent of running them.
Cell cams do present a different set of options and that is why I think an open discussion is warranted. First thing that comes to mind that COULD improve my success using them would be to have a series of them at different bait sites on the ridge that I am hunting. While sitting in my stand, I could somewhat be hunting multiple spots at once. I know this is a very specific example but it is just that, an example of what I PERSONALLY feel is a bit of an unfair advantage. Cell cameras have their uses for sure, I just am unsure I agree with them being used, at least during hunting season.
Post by: Stein on December 15, 2020, 12:07:25 PM
I think I could be convinced cell cams are not a good idea during hunting seasons. Imagine sitting in a blind on a food plot and be alarmed when deer are coming in off trails prior to their arrival. Gives the hunter real time knowledge of events that "may" give an unfair advantage to the hunter. I would be hard pressed to say they couldn't be used during the off season.
That is my stance as well. Hard part is that it is super tough to enforce :dunno:
Driving on closed roads seems super tough to enforce....
The wording would have to be careful to cover instances of cell cameras with the cell portion disabled or used in areas without coverage or even never activated with no service to provide clarity on what is allowed and what is not.
It would not be easy to enforce, likely one of those violations that is almost always stacked on something else after an investigation and search.
I think the same could be said of game cameras in general where they are banned during hunting season. Not too hard to walk in, look at the pics and walk out, nobody knows who owns the camera and not likely Mr. or Mrs. Warden is going for a hike out in the woods far from a road to stakeout a camera hoping the owner will happen to check it while they are there.
Like many laws, probably tamps it down by 80%.
Post by: Katmai Guy on December 15, 2020, 01:45:08 PM
90 percent of my cam soak locations don't have cell service...so am I off the hook. :chuckle:
:yeah:
Post by: justyhntr on December 15, 2020, 01:54:31 PM
I also believe Boone and Crocket were coming out with their rules on cells, not sure if they have but it was my understanding that they were going to classify them with planes and drones, 24 hours after photo was sent.
Post by: OutHouse on December 15, 2020, 04:31:40 PM
One year I had an ankle surgery and so I sat in a blind through out archery and into muzzy on a multi tag. During muzzy, I put a camera on the trail my blind was near. It was pretty cool because the bucks would often times show up when I wasn't there. I learned during the first couple of days that they were mostly showing up at dusk and between 11 and 1 (right when I would take lunch). So I started doing an early morning sit, then leave for a few hours and come back for a midday sit, then leave and come back for the dusk hunt. On the fifth day got my buck close to dark. I think using a cellular cam in that situation where I was so close might be unethical.
Post by: Bob33 on December 15, 2020, 04:41:25 PM
I also believe Boone and Crocket were coming out with their rules on cells, not sure if they have but it was my understanding that they were going to classify them with planes and drones, 24 hours after photo was sent.https://www.boone-crockett.org/bc-position-statement-big-game-records-eligibility
The Club has decided that explaining the rationale behind each of the rules in its hunter entry affidavit will lead to a better understanding of why it excludes entry in its records books of any big game harvested through the use of the following methods, techniques, technology, or under the following conditions:
I. Spotting or herding game from the air, followed by landing in its vicinity for the purpose of pursuit and shooting;
With the popularity of personal aircraft in the 1960s increasing and being used in hunting to access remote areas in North America, it became apparent that some hunters were using aircraft not only to reach their hunting destination, but locate their game from the air, and in the vicinity, and pursue for a shot. In some cases, hunters were using aircraft to herd game into a more accessible situation. The Club determined that this was an unfair advantage to both the game and other hunters. At the same time the Club was instituting this policy, some states and provinces began outlawing the practice and instituting a 24-hour fly rule, which made it illegal to fly and hunt within the same 24-hour period.
II. Herding or chasing with the aid of any motorized equipment;
Using motorized vehicles to access hunting areas is a common and legal practice. Taking this one step further by herding or chasing game from a vehicle and then stopping to take a shot is deemed an unfair advantage and unsportsmanlike.
III. Use of electronic communication devices (2-way radios, cell phones, etc.) to guide hunters to game, artificial lighting, electronic light intensifying devices (night vision optics), sights with built-in electronic range-finding capabilities (including smart scopes), drones/unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), thermal imaging equipment, electronic game calls or cameras/timers/motion tracking devices that transmit images and other information to the hunter;
Technological advancement in hunting equipment is a natural progression of our desire to be successful and affective in ethically harvesting game. At some point, these technologies can displace a hunter’s skills to the point of taking unfair advantage of the game. Below are some examples (which are not intended to be an exhaustive list):
The Club believes that having another person on the other end of a two-way radio or cell phone to help locate or guide a hunter to game is not fair chase.
Big game animals cannot be legally hunted at night in any state or province. Using any technology or device that allows hunters to see in the dark in order to harvest an animal is both illegal and unsportsmanlike.
Knowing the range to a target is a critical piece of information for the ethical harvest of big game animals. Rangefinders are a valuable tool, as are riflescopes. However, combining the two into one device, commonly called smart scopes, disqualifies a trophy from being accepted.
Using drones to take pictures or video, or transmitting this information live whether scouting or during a hunt takes unfair advantage over a game animal and other hunters.
It can be argued that thermal imaging equipment is helpful in recovering wounded or lost game. The Club has determined using thermal imaging equipment to initially locate game for hunting, however, is not fair chase.
Trail cameras can be a helpful tool in game management and selective hunting. The use of devices that transmit captured or live images or video from the field back to the hunter crosses the line of fair chase.
Almost all cougars are hunted using dogs because of the considerable difficulty in locating them without dogs. The practice is legal in many states. The Club finds that using electronic collars to ensure far-ranging dogs do not become lost is understandable and acceptable, but using electronic collars to more easily locate and access a treed cougar in order to take a shot is not an appropriate use of that technology.
Post by: Machias on December 15, 2020, 06:13:19 PM
Post by: jrebel on December 15, 2020, 06:22:54 PM
These threads always crack me up. People who have no clue and have never used a cellular camera think they somehow make it a sure thing or unethical. I must be doing something wrong. I run three of them and have never harvested an animal because of my cameras. I never understand this mentality that guys get, someone must be getting over on me, so ban whatever it is I don't like. Cracks me up.
I 100% agree and think that most people that use "any" trail camera does so in an ethical way. I can see how cellular cameras "could" be used for less than ethical purposes, but I don't know for sure as I have never used one. I only have one area that that I hang cams that has cell service so I have chose to stick with the standard SD card version.
I think some guys just assume everyone that uses technology, does so with the purpose of cheating the system. That's like saying guys who can afford KUIU or Sitka gear clearly have an unfair advantage. :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: vandeman17 on December 16, 2020, 08:10:15 AM
These threads always crack me up. People who have no clue and have never used a cellular camera think they somehow make it a sure thing or unethical. I must be doing something wrong. I run three of them and have never harvested an animal because of my cameras. I never understand this mentality that guys get, someone must be getting over on me, so ban whatever it is I don't like. Cracks me up.
Just because you haven't harvested an animal because of cameras doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. You quickly assume that as soon as someone questions a new technology and wants an open dialogue that they want it banned and "are against you". I understand why we get defensive about things these days but a civil discussion where thoughts and ideas are presented seems to me to be anything but divisive. :twocents:
Post by: Machias on December 17, 2020, 10:08:08 AM
These threads always crack me up. People who have no clue and have never used a cellular camera think they somehow make it a sure thing or unethical. I must be doing something wrong. I run three of them and have never harvested an animal because of my cameras. I never understand this mentality that guys get, someone must be getting over on me, so ban whatever it is I don't like. Cracks me up.
Just because you haven't harvested an animal because of cameras doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. You quickly assume that as soon as someone questions a new technology and wants an open dialogue that they want it banned and "are against you". I understand why we get defensive about things these days but a civil discussion where thoughts and ideas are presented seems to me to be anything but divisive. :twocents:
How is my post not "civil".
Post by: vandeman17 on December 17, 2020, 10:16:55 AM
These threads always crack me up. People who have no clue and have never used a cellular camera think they somehow make it a sure thing or unethical. I must be doing something wrong. I run three of them and have never harvested an animal because of my cameras. I never understand this mentality that guys get, someone must be getting over on me, so ban whatever it is I don't like. Cracks me up.
Just because you haven't harvested an animal because of cameras doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. You quickly assume that as soon as someone questions a new technology and wants an open dialogue that they want it banned and "are against you". I understand why we get defensive about things these days but a civil discussion where thoughts and ideas are presented seems to me to be anything but divisive. :twocents:
How is my post not "civil".
I didn't say it wasn't civil. What I was saying is that there are lots of people who immediately stonewall an opposing viewpoint instead of engaging in discussion. I have always respected you and your input on the forum and that is why I personally would enjoy hearing the reason why you support them. I am on the fence with cell cameras and could be swayed either way.
Post by: Machias on December 17, 2020, 10:30:58 AM