Post by: TimberMuleys on January 17, 2025, 10:22:08 AM
Post by: callturner on January 17, 2025, 10:39:00 AM
Post by: Rainier10 on January 17, 2025, 10:47:18 AM
Post by: Sundance on January 17, 2025, 10:51:01 AM
Post by: Sundance on January 17, 2025, 10:52:24 AM
I have twenty cameras out, ten of them are cellular cameras, ALL of them are on my private property. They better not ban the use of them on my private property.
Those are surveillance cameras for the safety of your property, not for tracking game movements. That would be my interpretation at least.
Post by: baldopepper on January 17, 2025, 10:54:44 AM
Post by: LDennis24 on January 17, 2025, 10:57:00 AM
I have twenty cameras out, ten of them are cellular cameras, ALL of them are on my private property. They better not ban the use of them on my private property.
I would say you should be able to put up cameras all you want on private ground. It's absolutely a security measure. On public ground, take them down by September 1st. They can go back up April 1st.
Post by: kentrek on January 17, 2025, 11:08:15 AM
Its a feel good smoke a mirror game
Post by: dreadi on January 17, 2025, 11:27:15 AM
BLACK HAMMER ARMS
07/02 NFA Dealer
http://www.blackhammerarms.com
http://www.facebook.com/blackhammerarms
https://www.instagram.com/blackhammerarms
Post by: Rainier10 on January 17, 2025, 11:37:47 AM
I have twenty cameras out, ten of them are cellular cameras, ALL of them are on my private property. They better not ban the use of them on my private property.
Those are surveillance cameras for the safety of your property, not for tracking game movements. That would be my interpretation at least.
I have twenty cameras out, ten of them are cellular cameras, ALL of them are on my private property. They better not ban the use of them on my private property.
I would say you should be able to put up cameras all you want on private ground. It's absolutely a security measure. On public ground, take them down by September 1st. They can go back up April 1st.
Agreed. On the cell cameras when you set them up it asks if they are for security, hunting or observation/conservation. I never put hunting.
Post by: Feathernfurr on January 17, 2025, 11:39:35 AM
Camera bans lower the age class and lead to less selective hunting...if you want younger animals to be killed then ban away ..banning a camera will not increase anyones oppertunies for better hunting
Its a feel good smoke a mirror game
I don’t feel like that is accurate. Age class of animal is totally dependent on the hunter, I know plenty of people with giants on camera that still harvest little bucks. Additionally, that logic would really only work on a blanket ban of all trail camera use. People that do their due diligence to scout can inventory bucks during the spring/summer with cameras, then hunt the season knowing what bucks are around without the advantage of real time feedback from cell cameras to increase the harvest odds of mature bucks.
Post by: zwickeyman on January 17, 2025, 11:39:44 AM
Post by: GOcougsHunter on January 17, 2025, 11:41:42 AM
Post by: hunter399 on January 17, 2025, 11:45:14 AM
Might as well do a state wide bait ban with a statewide trail cam ban.
I really don't see one without the other.
Cell cam vs traditional cam.
Many different opinions on this,fair chase,ethics ,all that.
Post by: hunter399 on January 17, 2025, 11:48:42 AM
I agree.Camera bans lower the age class and lead to less selective hunting...if you want younger animals to be killed then ban away ..banning a camera will not increase anyones oppertunies for better hunting
Its a feel good smoke a mirror game
I don’t feel like that is accurate. Age class of animal is totally dependent on the hunter, I know plenty of people with giants on camera that still harvest little bucks. Additionally, that logic would really only work on a blanket ban of all trail camera use. People that do their due diligence to scout can inventory bucks during the spring/summer with cameras, then hunt the season knowing what bucks are around without the advantage of real time feedback from cell cameras to increase the harvest odds of mature bucks.
Sometimes I will hunt an area that has many bucks.
Not big bucks,it just ups the odds of seeing something legal to hang a tag on.
Post by: hunter399 on January 17, 2025, 11:53:07 AM
I won’t support a ban even if I disagree with it. It, once again is just something they can strip us of like baiting Bear and running cats . Whether I agree with it or not I won’t vote against itI also agree strongly, despite what I think about cell cams vs traditional. I wouldn't support any ban.
If we have learned anything,when it's gone, gone forever.
With our current commission, keeping any opportunities,is better then what's coming on the commission end of things.
Post by: kentrek on January 17, 2025, 11:59:40 AM
Camera bans lower the age class and lead to less selective hunting...if you want younger animals to be killed then ban away ..banning a camera will not increase anyones oppertunies for better hunting
Its a feel good smoke a mirror game
I don’t feel like that is accurate. Age class of animal is totally dependent on the hunter
The hunters mindset will be dependant on the information he has..trail cameras provide information for the hunter to make a decision
Your inventory completely changes from summer to fall.. real time cell cams could be delayed by 24 hours or what ever the ethics police determines but an outright ban is a step in the wrong direction
Trail cameras will turn a hunter from a scarcity mindset to an abundance mindset...the same people looking to ban cameras wont see any difference in there succes and will move onto tbe next thing to ban...its a culture thats eating itself
Post by: 2MANY on January 17, 2025, 12:06:08 PM
Post by: fishngamereaper on January 17, 2025, 12:08:10 PM
Unfortunately we enter the woods right now with rules and regulations based for the most part on perceived necessity... Wether we agree or not there needs to be something in place to stay ahead of technology...cams, drones, smart phones...all give us the advantage. Many of us did just fine harvesting animals pre technology. (The good days)..I'm not against technology...but at some point we need to be honest and draw a line...even if it's squiggly.
If we don't regulate ourselves the State, timber companies etc...will regulate us.
I know of people that set up elk camp, set a dozen cell cams, and sit by the fire watching their phone... :o....
Also of note... I knew of some Foresters that would take cams they found on timber company land...their tree's their rules..... there's also FS rules in place for leaving items unattended..
We don't like ghost camps, random tents, or tree stands littering the land.....at least I don't.
I'm not sure if there's a perfect answer...
But regardless.... we'll see something in the next couple years..
Post by: hunter399 on January 17, 2025, 12:14:04 PM
I don't support in general any restrictions of our hunting and recreational abilities ...True
Unfortunately we enter the woods right now with rules and regulations based for the most part on perceived necessity... Wether we agree or not there needs to be something in place to stay ahead of technology...cams, drones, smart phones...all give us the advantage. Many of us did just fine harvesting animals pre technology. (The good days)..I'm not against technology...but at some point we need to be honest and draw a line...even if it's squiggly.
If we don't regulate ourselves the State, timber companies etc...will regulate us.
I know of people that set up elk camp, set a dozen cell cams, and sit by the fire watching their phone... :o....
Also of note... I knew of some Foresters that would take cams they found on timber company land...their tree's their rules..... there's also FS rules in place for leaving items unattended..
We don't like ghost camps, random tents, or tree stands littering the land.....at least I don't.
I'm not sure if there's a perfect answer...
But regardless.... we'll see something in the next couple years..
I know of one tree stand still hanging right now.
All big game seasons closed. Still has the piss bottle up there.... 😂
If you don't want your tree stand messed with,be sure to leave the piss bottle. Nobody wants that...lol
Maybe hang piss bottle off my trail cams🤔
Post by: Platensek-po on January 17, 2025, 12:18:31 PM
I don't support in general any restrictions of our hunting and recreational abilities ...
Unfortunately we enter the woods right now with rules and regulations based for the most part on perceived necessity... Wether we agree or not there needs to be something in place to stay ahead of technology...cams, drones, smart phones...all give us the advantage. Many of us did just fine harvesting animals pre technology. (The good days)..I'm not against technology...but at some point we need to be honest and draw a line...even if it's squiggly.
If we don't regulate ourselves the State, timber companies etc...will regulate us.
I know of people that set up elk camp, set a dozen cell cams, and sit by the fire watching their phone... :o....
Also of note... I knew of some Foresters that would take cams they found on timber company land...their tree's their rules..... there's also FS rules in place for leaving items unattended..
We don't like ghost camps, random tents, or tree stands littering the land.....at least I don't.
I'm not sure if there's a perfect answer...
But regardless.... we'll see something in the next couple years..
Well said
Post by: Rainier10 on January 17, 2025, 12:26:51 PM
Post by: hunter399 on January 17, 2025, 12:38:15 PM
I have a camera placed on a road running through my place. No bait just pointed at the road. I get 15-20 pics a day of one or all of these deer,elk, bobcats, coyotes, cougars and wolves just walking by.I agree , bait isn't necessary. Good game trails, easiest path to travel all that. They can be used without bait. Just a lot easier with an attractant to achieve a complete inventory of animals within a given area quickly.
Post by: Buckhunter24 on January 17, 2025, 12:41:38 PM
I don't support in general any restrictions of our hunting and recreational abilities ...
Unfortunately we enter the woods right now with rules and regulations based for the most part on perceived necessity... Wether we agree or not there needs to be something in place to stay ahead of technology...cams, drones, smart phones...all give us the advantage. Many of us did just fine harvesting animals pre technology. (The good days)..I'm not against technology...but at some point we need to be honest and draw a line...even if it's squiggly.
If we don't regulate ourselves the State, timber companies etc...will regulate us.
I know of people that set up elk camp, set a dozen cell cams, and sit by the fire watching their phone... :o....
Also of note... I knew of some Foresters that would take cams they found on timber company land...their tree's their rules..... there's also FS rules in place for leaving items unattended..
We don't like ghost camps, random tents, or tree stands littering the land.....at least I don't.
I'm not sure if there's a perfect answer...
But regardless.... we'll see something in the next couple years..
I'm not doubting your experience, but that is a small minority of foresters. Any chance they had lag bolted boxes onto the tree? Because in that scenario I could see an industrial landowner removing a camera.
Post by: Feathernfurr on January 17, 2025, 12:42:57 PM
I don't support in general any restrictions of our hunting and recreational abilities ...
Unfortunately we enter the woods right now with rules and regulations based for the most part on perceived necessity... Wether we agree or not there needs to be something in place to stay ahead of technology...cams, drones, smart phones...all give us the advantage. Many of us did just fine harvesting animals pre technology. (The good days)..I'm not against technology...but at some point we need to be honest and draw a line...even if it's squiggly.
If we don't regulate ourselves the State, timber companies etc...will regulate us.
I know of people that set up elk camp, set a dozen cell cams, and sit by the fire watching their phone... :o....
Also of note... I knew of some Foresters that would take cams they found on timber company land...their tree's their rules..... there's also FS rules in place for leaving items unattended..
We don't like ghost camps, random tents, or tree stands littering the land.....at least I don't.
I'm not sure if there's a perfect answer...
But regardless.... we'll see something in the next couple years..
Agreed. I feel like I’m constantly trying to get the point across similarly that I don’t love regulation and losing rights, but feel firmly that if we don’t regulate ourselves in a manner that we deem fair and just, someone else will regulate us in the way they see fit. Most likely by someone that doesn’t have a true dog in the fight.
Post by: KrisKamm27 on January 17, 2025, 12:47:59 PM
Post by: huntnnw on January 17, 2025, 01:07:28 PM
Supporting any kind of a ban is how you lose your rights. Be it baiting , dog hunting , Trapping, semi auto rifles, magazines. electric bikes etc.
Post by: ljsommer on January 17, 2025, 01:11:06 PM
Post by: GWP on January 17, 2025, 01:20:49 PM
Let ‘er rip and let the various groups devour each other. It would be fun to watch!
I can not imagine what a mess it would be, and yes,
I am joking,
but everyone wants what they want, and most want it restricted to what they like.
Post by: Rainier10 on January 17, 2025, 01:24:31 PM
No doubt. I will say I am shocked at how many cameras I have and certain animals only show up on one and other animals show up on multiple.I have a camera placed on a road running through my place. No bait just pointed at the road. I get 15-20 pics a day of one or all of these deer,elk, bobcats, coyotes, cougars and wolves just walking by.I agree , bait isn't necessary. Good game trails, easiest path to travel all that. They can be used without bait. Just a lot easier with an attractant to achieve a complete inventory of animals within a given area quickly.
Post by: Cougartail on January 17, 2025, 02:42:24 PM
I don't support in general any restrictions of our hunting and recreational abilities ...
Unfortunately we enter the woods right now with rules and regulations based for the most part on perceived necessity... Wether we agree or not there needs to be something in place to stay ahead of technology...cams, drones, smart phones...all give us the advantage. Many of us did just fine harvesting animals pre technology. (The good days)..I'm not against technology...but at some point we need to be honest and draw a line...even if it's squiggly.
If we don't regulate ourselves the State, timber companies etc...will regulate us.
I know of people that set up elk camp, set a dozen cell cams, and sit by the fire watching their phone... :o....
Also of note... I knew of some Foresters that would take cams they found on timber company land...their tree's their rules..... there's also FS rules in place for leaving items unattended..
We don't like ghost camps, random tents, or tree stands littering the land.....at least I don't.
I'm not sure if there's a perfect answer...
But regardless.... we'll see something in the next couple years..
Agreed. I feel like I’m constantly trying to get the point across similarly that I don’t love regulation and losing rights, but feel firmly that if we don’t regulate ourselves in a manner that we deem fair and just, someone else will regulate us in the way they see fit. Most likely by someone that doesn’t have a true dog in the fight.
Good lord! We started making concessions and they just kept coming. Never give an inch for if you do it's like sharks in the water.
Look at trapping.. they played that game and lost.
Post by: BigredRusch on January 17, 2025, 02:42:44 PM
I believe you have to think critically rather than having a knee jerk reaction. If banning trail cameras or limiting use get us extended seasons or new opportunities, I am in favor.
The bottom line is we all need to participate in these decisions rather than just being stuck in the mud. Honestly the world will quietly move on from us and not even think about it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Feathernfurr on January 17, 2025, 03:48:51 PM
I don't support in general any restrictions of our hunting and recreational abilities ...
Unfortunately we enter the woods right now with rules and regulations based for the most part on perceived necessity... Wether we agree or not there needs to be something in place to stay ahead of technology...cams, drones, smart phones...all give us the advantage. Many of us did just fine harvesting animals pre technology. (The good days)..I'm not against technology...but at some point we need to be honest and draw a line...even if it's squiggly.
If we don't regulate ourselves the State, timber companies etc...will regulate us.
I know of people that set up elk camp, set a dozen cell cams, and sit by the fire watching their phone... :o....
Also of note... I knew of some Foresters that would take cams they found on timber company land...their tree's their rules..... there's also FS rules in place for leaving items unattended..
We don't like ghost camps, random tents, or tree stands littering the land.....at least I don't.
I'm not sure if there's a perfect answer...
But regardless.... we'll see something in the next couple years..
Agreed. I feel like I’m constantly trying to get the point across similarly that I don’t love regulation and losing rights, but feel firmly that if we don’t regulate ourselves in a manner that we deem fair and just, someone else will regulate us in the way they see fit. Most likely by someone that doesn’t have a true dog in the fight.
Good lord! We started making concessions and they just kept coming. Never give an inch for if you do it's like sharks in the water.
Look at trapping.. they played that game and lost.
I suppose it depends on the lens you view it through. I love hunting and believe in conservation, but don’t have a ton of confidence in the long term future of hunting. I’d equate it to an eminent domain. You can either fight and fight and fight and eventually lose it all, or you can play the give and take game and maybe prolong the inevitable outcome. At the end of the day giving up cameras during the hunting season is not equal to losing the ability to run hounds for predators or losing some other high value tradition. It’s merely giving up a tool and moving the needle a little back to the centerline of what’s fair between game animals and hunters.
Post by: boneaddict on January 17, 2025, 03:50:20 PM
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/68034e43-19b7-4de3-9566-c3ba9c52d3f8/962f43e6-8813-4a95-92d8-22bc7c393a1a.jpeg)
Post by: Feathernfurr on January 17, 2025, 03:59:20 PM
Pre technology. Sorry folks, we have to own some of it.
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/68034e43-19b7-4de3-9566-c3ba9c52d3f8/962f43e6-8813-4a95-92d8-22bc7c393a1a.jpeg)
I don’t want to assume but what are you insisting by referencing this photo?
Post by: boneaddict on January 17, 2025, 04:11:25 PM
Post by: LDennis24 on January 17, 2025, 04:11:46 PM
Post by: CarbonHunter on January 17, 2025, 04:29:43 PM
It’s illegal to hunt with the aid of an electronic device to locate animals. Whether it is a drone or someone with a radio telling you where the animal is. Obviously a cell camera that alerts you to the location of an animal falls within that realm.
I have no issues with someone who has a camera and walks to the camera to check the card but if alerts are sent to you it is not only unethical by P&Y and B&C but it is illegal in most situations. If less people were using cell cameras to hunt in our state there would be more animals for the ethical hunter to harvest.
Post by: Feathernfurr on January 17, 2025, 04:32:34 PM
The good ole days. Yes a lot of things contributed to how things are today compared to then. We have to own some of it also, always looking for the next best thing. If folks don’t admit to the scales being tipped, well then it’s a done deal.
They definitely were. I’m intimately familiar with the area this photo was taken. It’s where I hoped to retire to before COVID ruined it. Now it has a mayor that is on Forbes 30 under 30 list and it’s on its was to becoming just like its neighbor to the northeast. This photo was from back in the day when they were allowed to hunt the winter range in December with rifles. I’m sure when people pushed to have wintering wildlife protected there, the hunters probably lost their minds.back then I’m sure they figured
The late season tag for this area is the only tag I’ve ever applied for, I’ve never drawn it. Unfortunately that tag is lucky to produce 1-2 bucks a season like the ones in that photo.
I’ll hop off my soapbox now.
Post by: GOcougsHunter on January 17, 2025, 05:01:03 PM
Post by: boneaddict on January 17, 2025, 05:03:39 PM
The good ole days. Yes a lot of things contributed to how things are today compared to then. We have to own some of it also, always looking for the next best thing. If folks don’t admit to the scales being tipped, well then it’s a done deal.
They definitely were. I’m intimately familiar with the area this photo was taken. It’s where I hoped to retire to before COVID ruined it. Now it has a mayor that is on Forbes 30 under 30 list and it’s on its was to becoming just like its neighbor to the northeast. This photo was from back in the day when they were allowed to hunt the winter range in December with rifles. I’m sure when people pushed to have wintering wildlife protected there, the hunters probably lost their minds.back then I’m sure they figured
The late season tag for this area is the only tag I’ve ever applied for, I’ve never drawn it. Unfortunately that tag is lucky to produce 1-2 bucks a season like the ones in that photo.
I’ll hop off my soapbox now.
It’s the facts though. Same with the Methow when we had split seasons into November. Folks were pissed off when they took that away. Then folks will bitch about shorter seasons, then folks will bitch about …. You obviously get it, but some folks don’t seem to get it. Let’s throw scopes on muzzelloaders, oh yeah, not muzzelloaders anymore. Primitive right? Lol
Post by: CarbonHunter on January 17, 2025, 05:11:03 PM
I have been enjoying watching this discussion today. I am seeing lots of good points of view and has broadened my understanding of why some folks thinks it's against fair chase ethics. If this did get some traction here in WA and any of the scenarios in the poll were enacted, how would it actually get enforced? I see a ton of grey here... what is considered a trail camera? Does a Ring camera attached to my garage constitute a trail camera if it picks up an animal and I am actively hunting the property? If I am running a trail camera on my property for security purposes how am I to defend myself against a hunting violation if I am also hunting the property? How is using a trail camera for the purposes of pursuing game truly going to be defined? How is a LEO going to enforce this? How do we establish ownership of a non cell game camera? If I am hunting an area, harvest an animal and while notching my tag, I look up and see a game camera placed nearby, am I in violation? these are just rhetorical questions, but, things we need to think about. I am definitely of the mind that less laws, the better, overall. Our LEO resources need to be spent on bigger issues.
How many of you are searching for world record animals in HOA’s?
If it’s not your game cameras and you are not getting alerts to the animal obviously you are not hunting with the aid of the camera.
Post by: kentrek on January 17, 2025, 05:27:19 PM
The best states for hunting in the west already ban game cameras during hunting season.
If less people were using cell cameras to hunt in our state there would be more animals for the ethical hunter to harvest.
Yup and how is the trail cam ban going for those states ?? Did anything change what so ever ? Did clients shoot younger animals or older animals ? Did populations just explode from all the unsucceful lazy trail camera hunters that cant run cameras ?
No..so why would any of that happen in washington ?
Trail cameras are not taking anything away from anyone, its simply a feel good for those that dont run cameras to want to ban them
Again...put a delay on live action type cell cams to 24-48 hours if its an issue
Post by: MADMAX on January 17, 2025, 05:36:35 PM
I run cameras
In my yard
And no I don’t hunt yard deer
In this state it’s become less opportunity for all
Predators and mismanagement
IMO
Not a game camera
Post by: TimberMuleys on January 17, 2025, 05:38:40 PM
The best states for hunting in the west already ban game cameras during hunting season.The best states in the west for hunting have much better hunting and predator control. Their terrain is also much more open than some of the areas in Washington. People want to talk about the “good ole days” but giving away hunting rights is one of the main reasons those days are the good ole days now. Yes, big bucks still got shot before trail cameras, however, the populations were incrementally higher then. It was much easier to find larger mature bucks back then. Or any buck for that matter. Many of the old timers who used to kill those big bucks don’t even hunt anymore because they don’t think it’s worth their time. Taking away trail cameras is taking away the only game in town for many of the weekend warriors who want to notch their tag on the biggest and most mature animals around in the low density areas.
It’s illegal to hunt with the aid of an electronic device to locate animals. Whether it is a drone or someone with a radio telling you where the animal is. Obviously a cell camera that alerts you to the location of an animal falls within that realm.
I have no issues with someone who has a camera and walks to the camera to check the card but if alerts are sent to you it is not only unethical by P&Y and B&C but it is illegal in most situations. If less people were using cell cameras to hunt in our state there would be more animals for the ethical hunter to harvest.
Also, if someone wants to have a cell camera on every single trail and have constant surveillance of a buck, why does that matter to you? If someone wants to spend the insane amount of money and time that takes to kill that one deer, I’m fine with it. They earned it. That person still only has one tag. They’re probably going to kill at a more efficient rate than someone trudging through the brush jump shooting the first buck they see, because I know that bucks like that get wounded. Most people with a family and a life outside of hunting, don’t have much time to go out and scout out where all of the deer are, especially in areas as difficult as the NE corner. If someone wants to throw up a cell cam and when the forked horn shows up, they hop in the truck and shoot it, then their family eats it and enjoys it, why does it matter? Who is that effecting? I’m glad because they are getting a lot of quality meat to eat instead of the unhealthy, cancer-rich food we get that the grocery stores. I’d rather some family get to eat the meat than a pack of wolves or a cougar.
I understand how some people could argue the ethics of cell cameras, but P&Y and B&C still recognize animals taken with cellular trail cams as long as it wasn’t within 24hrs of the harvest. But also, even if it were completely unethical in your book, if it’s not directly effecting you, why is it a big deal? I would consider the for the vast majority of people any shot over 600yds to be unethical, should we ban every single rifle that is capable of shooting that far? And also, just because you find it ethically wrong to have a cell cam, does that mean you need to support a mandate to make it to where nobody else gets to have them?
I know that’s a lot, but I don’t think many of you are seeing the bigger picture and ramifications of taking away more hunting rights. Once they’re gone, they don’t come back. There is so many blatant examples of this. It actually baffles me that there is this many people supporting this. If you want the “good ole days” we need to start getting our old hunting rights back. Then maybe take away technology.
Again, I would love for anyone to point out flaws in my thinking, that’s why I started this topic, as I find it important. I am completely open to seeing it another way if brought up. Sorry for the long write up.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: TimberMuleys on January 17, 2025, 05:39:32 PM
:yup:The best states for hunting in the west already ban game cameras during hunting season.
If less people were using cell cameras to hunt in our state there would be more animals for the ethical hunter to harvest.
Yup and how is the trail cam ban going for those states ?? Did anything change what so ever ? Did clients shoot younger animals or older animals ? Did populations just explode from all the unsucceful lazy trail camera hunters that cant run cameras ?
No..so why would any of that happen in washington ?
Trail cameras are not taking anything away from anyone, its simply a feel good for those that dont run cameras to want to ban them
Again...put a delay on live action type cell cams to 24-48 hours if its an issue
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Humptulips on January 17, 2025, 05:43:44 PM
Pre technology. Sorry folks, we have to own some of it.Those were the days when Baker, Ragen, Lehmkuhl, Roland and Smith were still in school.
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/68034e43-19b7-4de3-9566-c3ba9c52d3f8/962f43e6-8813-4a95-92d8-22bc7c393a1a.jpeg)
Post by: fishngamereaper on January 17, 2025, 05:59:09 PM
Or at least gps darting it so you can find it easier...at least for the guys that don't have time to "hunt".... :rolleyes:
Everyone gets a trophy right...
It all started going downhill with millennials :chuckle:
Post by: TimberMuleys on January 17, 2025, 06:13:56 PM
Maybe they'll make the cams capable of shooting the deer for youWhat is your point? Are you just trying to belittle people that don’t make hunting a priority in their life but still want to eat wild game? Maybe just bashing millennials because you can’t refute the argument put forth? Not trying to accuse you, I’m just confused?
Or at least gps darting it so you can find it easier...at least for the guys that don't have time to "hunt".... :rolleyes:
Everyone gets a trophy right...
It all started going downhill with millennials :chuckle:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: JakeLand on January 17, 2025, 06:23:27 PM
Post by: Feathernfurr on January 17, 2025, 06:26:27 PM
Timber, populations were not necessarily better in the “good ol days”, many were actually lower. The difference was the hunters per capita were far lower, and hunters often harvested the first opportunity they got. Some of the management techniques of the past that took away hunting rights are far more consequential than taking away cameras. Like I mentioned, taking away the most effective way to manage predators, and a spring predator season is far more detrimental than removing cameras during the season.
The idea behind limiting cell cameras gives animal a better chance at survival, less animals pulled off the landscape = higher populations. There’s a reason most states B&C books have 10x the entries in the 40-70’s vs 2000’s. It’s because bucks made it to maturity, which has been proven to be more negatively impacted by guys harvesting 4.5-5.5yo deer than 1.5-2.5yo deer. Elk age class is slightly different and less impactful. Cameras and technology allow a lot more mature and near mature game animals to be removed from the population, it’s undeniable. Hunting is not meant to be easy, and the idea that the “little guy that has responsibilities” deserves an easy harvest is not how it should work. Anyone with a 2-3 days to scout a year can get out and kill a doe or young buck during general season with a gun, it’s just not that hard, regardless of area. As more hunters with better equipment and gear hit the woods with higher success rates you have to find ways to mitigate their impacts on game populations. There’s a reason guys don’t get to hunt elk with rifles in September, mule deer on winter range in late October, ducks with punt guns. If we still had those things in place there wouldn’t be any animals left to hunt.
You said it in your own success post, you had given up on the 180” and had plenty of pictures of 160’s that you decided to chase. Had you stuck to that plan you would’ve killed a 160” that may have been a 180” next year.
Post by: hughjorgan on January 17, 2025, 06:29:16 PM
Post by: Cougartail on January 17, 2025, 06:31:48 PM
Back in the good old days we had 3 day checks which made it doable.
Sorry if us lowly trappers are so selfish as to adjust to regulations so we can trap.
Post by: boneaddict on January 17, 2025, 06:34:42 PM
Post by: hunter399 on January 17, 2025, 06:37:27 PM
I asked a biologist for some reference points to start looking one time.Maybe they'll make the cams capable of shooting the deer for youWhat is your point? Are you just trying to belittle people that don’t make hunting a priority in their life but still want to eat wild game? Maybe just bashing millennials because you can’t refute the argument put forth? Not trying to accuse you, I’m just confused?
Or at least gps darting it so you can find it easier...at least for the guys that don't have time to "hunt".... :rolleyes:
Everyone gets a trophy right...
It all started going downhill with millennials :chuckle:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The response I got was.....
Do you want us to tie it to a tree for you.
Never asked a biologist about hunting spots ever again.
Post by: TimberMuleys on January 17, 2025, 06:41:34 PM
Kenetrek, I feel like you’re not reading these posts very closely. No one suggested those states suddenly exploded with game. All of these states with the exception of New Hampshire have a lot of trophy opportunities. They’re not trying to make things better per se, rather they’re trying to maintain what they have and keep it from getting worse.
Timber, populations were not necessarily better in the “good ol days”, many were actually lower. The difference was the hunters per capita were far lower, and hunters often harvested the first opportunity they got. Some of the management techniques of the past that took away hunting rights are far more consequential than taking away cameras. Like I mentioned, taking away the most effective way to manage predators, and a spring predator season is far more detrimental than removing cameras during the season.
The idea behind limiting cell cameras gives animal a better chance at survival, less animals pulled off the landscape = higher populations. There’s a reason most states B&C books have 10x the entries in the 40-70’s vs 2000’s. It’s because bucks made it to maturity, which has been proven to be more negatively impacted by guys harvesting 4.5-5.5yo deer than 1.5-2.5yo deer. Elk age class is slightly different and less impactful. Cameras and technology allow a lot more mature and near mature game animals to be removed from the population, it’s undeniable. Hunting is not meant to be easy, and the idea that the “little guy that has responsibilities” deserves an easy harvest is not how it should work. Anyone with a 2-3 days to scout a year can get out and kill a doe or young buck during general season with a gun, it’s just not that hard, regardless of area. As more hunters with better equipment and gear hit the woods with higher success rates you have to find ways to mitigate their impacts on game populations. There’s a reason guys don’t get to hunt elk with rifles in September, mule deer on winter range in late October, ducks with punt guns. If we still had those things in place there wouldn’t be any animals left to hunt.
You said it in your own success post, you had given up on the 180” and had plenty of pictures of 160’s that you decided to chase. Had you stuck to that plan you would’ve killed a 160” that may have been a 180” next year.
Thanks for the response, I’m glad to have some productive discussion. However, I would encourage you took look at deer populations and hunter numbers. Because there are plenty of numbers that show hunter numbers have gone down since 1980. Also, where are you getting that the populations aren’t down from where they used to be? It’s blatantly obvious that they are, not just in WA, but across the west. And any study will show you that. (Except for elk, elk are doing great as a whole)
Also, where are you seeing data that shows that cameras are negatively affecting ungulate populations? Because if we want to go down the populations route, let’s start using cell cams to knock down the predator populations. I did a big write up in the “Would you check someone else’s trail camera” thread and the numbers of how many deer people are killing versus predators. If you are worried about age class and populations, cameras are not the problem. And if you still don’t believe me, I will send you some studies to prove it to you.
You also said “Anyone with a 2-3 days to scout a year can get out and kill a doe or young buck during general season with a gun, it’s just not that hard, regardless of area.” Which is completely not true, at least not for mule deer in my area. I ran 20ish cameras this summer and wasn’t within range a buck, let alone legal, until the last day of rifle. I had a multi-season tag, hunted at least a couple days in each season, and scouted more than 99.999% of people. You can say “well that is because you’re not a good hunter” or whatever. However, the fact is there isn’t a lot of deer, and not near what there was even 5 years ago.
You also mentioned success rates?!? In WA?!? Let’s compare success rates to any other state in the west and compare. Let me know what you come back with.
Also side note, about shooting 160 bucks, the vast majority of bucks don’t even ever get past the 160-170 mark. You could be shooting a 10 year old 160 buck that never made it over 160.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: TimberMuleys on January 17, 2025, 06:48:29 PM
It’s interesting you arguing taking away cameras is taking away hunting rights, yet I am arguing there won’t be h7nting period if folks don’t wake up and curb technology. :chuckle: If cameras are so important for your harvest then I’d think they must be contributing to more harvest. :chuckle:I can see you there bone, but I think taking away technology is just going in the wrong direction. Why do you think that keeping cameras is going to lead to losing hunting as a whole?
With where our populations have gone since running cats and bears was outlawed, the deer that are dying because of cameras is minute compared to how many are killed by predators. If we are so worried about technology killing animals, let’s ban cars. Yes, I understand that is not hunting related, but it’s true, they kill way more deer. I think we need to rebuild our conservation model and get back to healthier populations, then we can look at curbing technology. But curbing technology now in the name of “population control” is just punishing younger hunters for the mistakes of the old timers who didn’t stand for our hunting rights years ago.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: boneaddict on January 17, 2025, 06:57:59 PM
Post by: baldopepper on January 17, 2025, 06:58:38 PM
Post by: TimberMuleys on January 17, 2025, 07:12:55 PM
I don’t think cameras are the end all. They are something we can control. 600 yard shots we can’t control. We can control drones. We can control spotlights, we can control thermal imaging. We can’t control binos. Hopefully you see what I mean. Yes, there is a list. Predator management, tribal hunting, again some we can control, some we can’t. Season are easily controlled. That’s why they get shorter. Antler restrictions can be controlled. Those that don’t care about if it’s a spike versus a three point care about that. The goal, a healthy herd that we can hunt for generations to come. The better we manage things the longer it will last and the more opportunity there will be.I can see you there. However, over the last x amount of years, all we have done is control and manage more and more… how has that worked? Have we seen any benefits on the populations from that? Hunter numbers are down, yet populations are low. Would a rifle season in sept for elk hurt the population? Yes, we should keep management like that. Same with November mule deer hunts. However, there has to be a line in the sand where instead of taking more and more, we see the true problem. I’ve heard the saying “the definition of insanity is to repeatedly do the same thing and expect a different outcome”, and that’s what I feel we are doing by just making shorter seasons and making it harder to hunt. If we started spending the time we have been on managing hunters, and started managing predators, we would have a lot more success. I understand that we have given those rights to mange predators effectively, however, one of the best ways currently to kill cougars is putting cell cams on fresh kills. I just feel we are digging the hole deeper and deeper and eventually we aren’t going to be able to dig back out.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: kentrek on January 17, 2025, 07:23:09 PM
I don’t think cameras are the end all. They are something we can control. 600 yard shots we can’t control. We can control drones. We can control spotlights, we can control thermal imaging. We can’t control binos. Hopefully you see what I mean. Yes, there is a list. Predator management, tribal hunting, again some we can control, some we can’t. Season are easily controlled. That’s why they get shorter. Antler restrictions can be controlled. Those that don’t care about if it’s a spike versus a three point care about that. The goal, a healthy herd that we can hunt for generations to come. The better we manage things the longer it will last and the more opportunity there will be.
The #1 way to better management of lands is with cameras and having a hunting culture that is fine not filling a tag...changing hunting culture from its brown its down to wanting mature male animal is a must or we will self regulate until there is only low nunber special permit hunts....the winter grounds will continue to fill up with homes and the summer grounds will continue to get pound by hikers...that land can only produce so many animals and i dont see that increasing over my lifetime...if hunters self regulate our culture we might just be able to let that young kid shoot a spiker while the old buck killer still has a chance at somthing special...and simple put i believe trail cameras are a great way to induce this type of hunting culture...i get my butt kicked year in and out hunting deer that potentialy might not even be killable...if i wasnt chaising ghosts would i be popping forkers ??? when i hit random areas with no scouting my expectations instantly drop..look at whats going on in PA....they are getting some slammer bucks these days...20 years ago ? Spiker bucks....thats not becasue of any rules...its because the hunting culture changed
#1 threat to hunting is hunter regulating hunters
Post by: kentrek on January 17, 2025, 07:30:56 PM
Along with thermals....the night crew in every state was noticably higher this year along with chatter of using thermals while hunting...much much more common then people admitt and more detrimental then cameras ever thought of being
If you want to ban somthing ban these
Post by: fishngamereaper on January 17, 2025, 07:34:00 PM
Maybe they'll make the cams capable of shooting the deer for youWhat is your point? Are you just trying to belittle people that don’t make hunting a priority in their life but still want to eat wild game? Maybe just bashing millennials because you can’t refute the argument put forth? Not trying to accuse you, I’m just confused?
Or at least gps darting it so you can find it easier...at least for the guys that don't have time to "hunt".... :rolleyes:
Everyone gets a trophy right...
It all started going downhill with millennials :chuckle:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Lighten up Francis...I was hunting before you where even a thought.. :chuckle:...
Your response proved my point... hunting can't always be a priority obviously..been there done that...but that doesn't mean people deserve anything out of the hunting time they get... simplifying it with cams giving you minute by minute updates is not hunting....it's grocery shopping..
My scenarios you reacted to are real life possibilities actually in action on some private ranches...so where do you draw the line.. genuine question...
At least I didn't bash Gen Z...those kids ...man I tell ya...btw anyone got a spare room for a 21 year old :chuckle:
And for the record..I'm not anti trail cams...I'm pro self regulation... otherwise someone will regulate for you...it seems pretty simple to me...
Post by: CarbonHunter on January 17, 2025, 07:43:09 PM
I also do not see how using a cell camera to notify you that something is in your trap is in anyway the same as a person sitting by a fire waiting for a notification on their phone to go to the field to kill an animal. There is a difference between the sport of hunting and the art of trapping.
Post by: hughjorgan on January 17, 2025, 07:51:18 PM
A very real reality is we will have AI electonic binos very soon....the birders all ready have them...id think efforts to curb game finding binos would be a much better cause
Along with thermals....the night crew in every state was noticably higher this year along with chatter of using thermals while hunting...much much more common then people admitt and more detrimental then cameras ever thought of being
If you want to ban somthing ban these
You realize hunting with thermals is illegal right?
RCW 77.15.450
Spotlighting big game—Penalty.
(1) A person is guilty of spotlighting big game in the second degree if the person hunts big game with the aid of a spotlight, other artificial light, or night vision equipment while in possession or control of a firearm, bow and arrow, or cross bow. For purposes of this section, "night vision equipment" includes electronic light amplification devices, thermal imaging devices, and other comparable equipment used to enhance night vision
Post by: LDennis24 on January 17, 2025, 07:55:42 PM
It’s interesting you arguing taking away cameras is taking away hunting rights, yet I am arguing there won’t be h7nting period if folks don’t wake up and curb technology. :chuckle: If cameras are so important for your harvest then I’d think they must be contributing to more harvest. :chuckle:
:yeah:
Post by: Feathernfurr on January 17, 2025, 08:14:13 PM
Kenetrek, I feel like you’re not reading these posts very closely. No one suggested those states suddenly exploded with game. All of these states with the exception of New Hampshire have a lot of trophy opportunities. They’re not trying to make things better per se, rather they’re trying to maintain what they have and keep it from getting worse.
Timber, populations were not necessarily better in the “good ol days”, many were actually lower. The difference was the hunters per capita were far lower, and hunters often harvested the first opportunity they got. Some of the management techniques of the past that took away hunting rights are far more consequential than taking away cameras. Like I mentioned, taking away the most effective way to manage predators, and a spring predator season is far more detrimental than removing cameras during the season.
The idea behind limiting cell cameras gives animal a better chance at survival, less animals pulled off the landscape = higher populations. There’s a reason most states B&C books have 10x the entries in the 40-70’s vs 2000’s. It’s because bucks made it to maturity, which has been proven to be more negatively impacted by guys harvesting 4.5-5.5yo deer than 1.5-2.5yo deer. Elk age class is slightly different and less impactful. Cameras and technology allow a lot more mature and near mature game animals to be removed from the population, it’s undeniable. Hunting is not meant to be easy, and the idea that the “little guy that has responsibilities” deserves an easy harvest is not how it should work. Anyone with a 2-3 days to scout a year can get out and kill a doe or young buck during general season with a gun, it’s just not that hard, regardless of area. As more hunters with better equipment and gear hit the woods with higher success rates you have to find ways to mitigate their impacts on game populations. There’s a reason guys don’t get to hunt elk with rifles in September, mule deer on winter range in late October, ducks with punt guns. If we still had those things in place there wouldn’t be any animals left to hunt.
You said it in your own success post, you had given up on the 180” and had plenty of pictures of 160’s that you decided to chase. Had you stuck to that plan you would’ve killed a 160” that may have been a 180” next year.
Thanks for the response, I’m glad to have some productive discussion. However, I would encourage you took look at deer populations and hunter numbers. Because there are plenty of numbers that show hunter numbers have gone down since 1980. Also, where are you getting that the populations aren’t down from where they used to be? It’s blatantly obvious that they are, not just in WA, but across the west. And any study will show you that. (Except for elk, elk are doing great as a whole)
Also, where are you seeing data that shows that cameras are negatively affecting ungulate populations? Because if we want to go down the populations route, let’s start using cell cams to knock down the predator populations. I did a big write up in the “Would you check someone else’s trail camera” thread and the numbers of how many deer people are killing versus predators. If you are worried about age class and populations, cameras are not the problem. And if you still don’t believe me, I will send you some studies to prove it to you.
You also said “Anyone with a 2-3 days to scout a year can get out and kill a doe or young buck during general season with a gun, it’s just not that hard, regardless of area.” Which is completely not true, at least not for mule deer in my area. I ran 20ish cameras this summer and wasn’t within range a buck, let alone legal, until the last day of rifle. I had a multi-season tag, hunted at least a couple days in each season, and scouted more than 99.999% of people. You can say “well that is because you’re not a good hunter” or whatever. However, the fact is there isn’t a lot of deer, and not near what there was even 5 years ago.
You also mentioned success rates?!? In WA?!? Let’s compare success rates to any other state in the west and compare. Let me know what you come back with.
Also side note, about shooting 160 bucks, the vast majority of bucks don’t even ever get past the 160-170 mark. You could be shooting a 10 year old 160 buck that never made it over 160.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You’re looking at too small of a data sample my friend. You are aware of the impacts of market hunting, the implementation of conservation/management in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, and the fact that deer and elk populations in many western states were on the brink of extrpation, right?
The argument of hunter number going down has been discussed to death here and in every state agency across the country. The numbers that suggest there are less hunters are generally not accurate or are “per capita” as in there was 10% of the population that were hunters and now it’s 8%, except it’s 8% of 4 million vs. 1 million. Obviously these are not accurate numbers, but you get the jest, and I will gladly swap from my phone to my laptop to argue studies with you. Ask any R3 coordinator in any of the states, Hunter numbers are not lower.
Again, read closer. I suggested cell camera are a bigger threat to mature and near mature bucks and bulls. I’m not suggesting they are the sole cause of population decline. To suggest such a thing would be silly, seeing as cell cameras haven’t even been in the hunting space long enough to have a sample size to determine any sort of causation. However, one could easily argue that if cell camera, and camera technology lead to hunter being even 5% more effective at harvesting animals, over time you would absolutely see an impact. Imagine if every single unit in the state had a 10% increase in harvest odds. The math for tag alottment doesn’t mean the state can afford to remove the amount of game animals as they sell tags. It relys on the fact that people will generally be as successful as they historically have been, and accounting for new hunters impact on efficiency as well as the removal of older more efficient hunters. I never said predators didn’t have a greater impact than hunters, but imagine if the impact of predators and hunters continues to increase. Game populations don’t just spring up out of no where.
I stand by what I said, even with struggling populations, people that put in 2-3 days of scouting and have a decent knowledge of what to look for can harvest does/young bucks with ease. There’s a reason the orange army in trucks shoot a bunch of does and forkies, it’s easy. You may not have been within range, but you hunted somewhere hard with low pressure, which probably has a smaller population density, and often times has higher quality bucks because it gets less pressure, because of the low density.
The unit I hunted this year in Washington had deer and elk success rates that were far higher than the two units I’ve hunted in Idaho for the last decade.
In some areas that’s absolutely true about 160” deer. Guess what though, if you shoot a 160” every year there is a 100% chance you don’t shoot a 180” 😂 the score more obviously changes vastly by species and location. But you can very realistically argue that 3.5-4.5yo bucks and satellite bulls are far more susceptible to harvest than 5.5 and herd bulls, you throw in extreme tech and you wipe out that age class and eventually down the line there are no 5.5+ and herd bulls left.
I hate all of you for making me type this all out on my phone 😂
Post by: kentrek on January 17, 2025, 08:42:28 PM
In some areas that’s absolutely true about 160” deer. Guess what though, if you shoot a 160” every year there is a 100% chance you don’t shoot a 180” 😂 the score more obviously changes vastly by species and location. But you can very realistically argue that 3.5-4.5yo bucks and satellite bulls are far more susceptible to harvest than 5.5 and herd bulls, you throw in extreme tech and you wipe out that age class and eventually down the line there are no 5.5+ and herd bulls left.
I hate all of you for making me type this all out on my phone 😂
Take it one step further amd how do you encourage the hunting public to hold out for those 5.5 year old animals when they dont even think they exist...you show them a freaking trail cam photo :chuckle:
The score is just an example of a healthy moma deer that had lots of fat and wasnt preasured and then 4-8 years of great conditions for the buck she gave birth to grow into a great animal....it takes 7 generations to optimize this growth
Age is whats important, score just shows the environment is in check...in my opinion
I also hate typing these things out
Post by: kentrek on January 17, 2025, 08:44:01 PM
Post by: LDennis24 on January 17, 2025, 08:44:47 PM
Maybe they'll make the cams capable of shooting the deer for youWhat is your point? Are you just trying to belittle people that don’t make hunting a priority in their life but still want to eat wild game? Maybe just bashing millennials because you can’t refute the argument put forth? Not trying to accuse you, I’m just confused?
Or at least gps darting it so you can find it easier...at least for the guys that don't have time to "hunt".... :rolleyes:
Everyone gets a trophy right...
It all started going downhill with millennials :chuckle:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If your goal is to eat wild game why do you care what size antlers the deer has?
Post by: furbearer365 on January 17, 2025, 08:49:03 PM
Post by: Feathernfurr on January 17, 2025, 08:50:55 PM
And as a side note....look at the bulls washington produced this year...after 30 years of trail cams records are still being beat
Agreed, but I think Washington bulls has a lot more to do with the fact that you can’t kill branch antler bulls in a lot of the states units lol, or even hunt them otc and not cameras.
People held out for big bucks long before cameras were around. Although I’ll still point back to the argument I’ve made in some of the posts. I’m all for off season cameras for inventory, just not during active hunting seasons. Rub em from January 1 to August 30, so you know what’s around. I’m aware in lots of areas you have different bucks in season than summer. But people for decades have managed to keep track of big bucks on summer and winter ranges without use of tech.
Post by: kentrek on January 17, 2025, 09:01:18 PM
And as a side note....look at the bulls washington produced this year...after 30 years of trail cams records are still being beat
Agreed, but I think Washington bulls has a lot more to do with the fact that you can’t kill branch antler bulls in a lot of the states units lol, or even hunt them otc and not cameras.
People held out for big bucks long before cameras were around. Although I’ll still point back to the argument I’ve made in some of the posts. I’m all for off season cameras for inventory, just not during active hunting seasons. Rub em from January 1 to August 30, so you know what’s around. I’m aware in lots of areas you have different bucks in season than summer. But people for decades have managed to keep track of big bucks on summer and winter ranges without use of tech.
Unless your hunting velvet animals i dont think a summer camera season does much for hunters..its fun but honestly boots on the ground is extremely effective june-august..the real information is the transition periods.
I have zero doubt they will do a trail camera ban in washington, just like lead ammo and anything an everyrhing they can possible ban they are going to....but with 100% i can tell you the hunting will not get better and the same people will move to ban other things that they deem is why they arnt having success..we are killing ourselves
Post by: Gooseassassin on January 17, 2025, 10:11:24 PM
Post by: TimberMuleys on January 18, 2025, 02:09:42 AM
Maybe they'll make the cams capable of shooting the deer for youWhat is your point? Are you just trying to belittle people that don’t make hunting a priority in their life but still want to eat wild game? Maybe just bashing millennials because you can’t refute the argument put forth? Not trying to accuse you, I’m just confused?
Or at least gps darting it so you can find it easier...at least for the guys that don't have time to "hunt".... :rolleyes:
Everyone gets a trophy right...
It all started going downhill with millennials :chuckle:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Lighten up Francis...I was hunting before you where even a thought.. :chuckle:...
Your response proved my point... hunting can't always be a priority obviously..been there done that...but that doesn't mean people deserve anything out of the hunting time they get... simplifying it with cams giving you minute by minute updates is not hunting....it's grocery shopping..
My scenarios you reacted to are real life possibilities actually in action on some private ranches...so where do you draw the line.. genuine question...
At least I didn't bash Gen Z...those kids ...man I tell ya...btw anyone got a spare room for a 21 year old :chuckle:
And for the record..I'm not anti trail cams...I'm pro self regulation... otherwise someone will regulate for you...it seems pretty simple to me...
Yeah, I may have been a little harsh in my last response, and I apologize for that. Just out of curiosity, have you ever used a cell camera? I completely do not believe it is “grocery shopping”. Most of the time, batteries don’t last worth Jack if you have cameras on immediate sending when taking pictures. And even if you do, how many mature deer are you getting staying at a bait pile in daylight more than 15 minutes? The rare time where someone can go shoot a buck directly from a cellular camera is if they are hunting right next to their house or already close enough to that area, that they most likely would’ve gotten a chance anyways. The cell cam I had out for my buck this year only had him 1 time of the 2 months before I shot him. And not one time in the last 5 weeks before I shot him. God doesn’t just give you the key to killing every deer because you bought a cell cam. It is a very useful tool in the right hands, but to many, it doesn’t really do too much for killing the deer. More just helping busy people still be able to target specific animals, or people with 0 time to still get a decent chance.
I guess we just differ on the “grocery shopping”. I would rather there be people “grocery shopping” with their cell cameras than those deer just getting ate by predators anyways. I mean, wouldn’t you? If more people are in tune with eating wild game and the benefits of hunting, and our culture as a whole was back to the way it used to be, I think we will be much closer to the “good old days” than taking away 1 tool that may be unfit for hunting purists to use.
I think there can be something to the other arguments brought forth, but anyone worried about populations and wanting to ban cell cams makes no sense. Banning cell cams with our current predator issues is like plucking a leaf off a weed and expecting for it to stop growing. We have been tip toeing and trying our best to work around it for so long now. The few deer that may get saved from cell cams will be diminished the the deer being hemorrhaged away by predators.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: TimberMuleys on January 18, 2025, 02:20:16 AM
The argument that you don’t have time to hunt as much as the other hunter and that you are entitled to use technology to ensure you get your “kill” is ludicrous. I am all for people who scout all year and I have no problem with cameras that you walk to and check the photos. My issue is with the killer (no hunting to this) that decides where they hunt in the morning by reviewing the photos that were sent to their smart phone while they slept to determine which of the dozens of killing sites they will go to so they can pull the trigger.
I also do not see how using a cell camera to notify you that something is in your trap is in anyway the same as a person sitting by a fire waiting for a notification on their phone to go to the field to kill an animal. There is a difference between the sport of hunting and the art of trapping.
A few things with that.
1) if someone wants to go out and not “hunt” but just harvest a deer, what’s the issue with that? How is that affecting you personally? It’s the same as if someone went out and road hunted and shot the first deer they saw off the road in my eyes. Do I see either as “hunting” or “ethical”? Absolutely not. But at least this way, it leads to less deer getting poached or other illegal activities. I think we all know one story of another in that realm of “hunting”.
2. You just said you have no problem with people putting in work and checking all of their cameras and reaping the rewards. Then the next sentence you said “dozens” of cell cams out and receiving pictures. If someone has a dozen bait piles and cell cameras out, they did more work and spent more money towards a deer than 99.9% of people. And if they have done that much work, they aren’t sifting through all of those pictures and going to the one with the spike in the hay… they’re going to where they know the biggest buck has been most of the time… at least the hunters I know.
3. You also mention that someone wakes up and looks at pictures and sees a buck on their cell cam. The chances of that buck being at their cell cam by the time they leave their house, drive to the stand location, hike in, and get ready to kill the animal, that deer couple be miles away. Like said before, the only time cell cams are like “grocery shopping” is if the person has it set up on land very close to their house, or in their backyard. And in most cases, those people were going to shoot a deer anyways.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: TimberMuleys on January 18, 2025, 02:27:31 AM
I don’t remember ever saying my personal goal was to eat wild game. I think every person on the planet should have that opportunity though. At least at some point or another. I think there is something to knowing where your food comes from. Whether it be locally raised or wild raised that you harvest. I don’t like having to buy meat from stores, and I don’t want to push that on anyone else. If someone wants to go wack the first spike they see, I personally don’t think they should, but I completely believe they should have the freedom to do so. I choose to hunt mature animals, preferably with bigger horns, because I love the challenge of it. I love the 3D chess game you play with a mature cagey buck. That’s why I love my cameras so much. I lived on the mountain with my buck for much of the summer and never even saw him until I shot him. After that experience, it was a little sad when it was over. I can see why bone decides to just photograph them now instead of harvest them. I would almost trade my tag back to keep my cameras and keep chasing him. He was in the hardest spot I’ve ever hunted and it’s not even close. I think most would have trouble ever even seeing a deer here, let alone getting 32yds from a 190” and getting the opportunity to shoot it. Even if I would’ve just been walking around with a camera, there was no way to see his horns very well, all I could see were 2 tines coming out of the brush. Luckily, I had trail cam pictures of him and knew what I was looking at, so I got him. I fully believe if I had taken one more step to where he could see me, that I most likely wouldn’t have got him.Maybe they'll make the cams capable of shooting the deer for youWhat is your point? Are you just trying to belittle people that don’t make hunting a priority in their life but still want to eat wild game? Maybe just bashing millennials because you can’t refute the argument put forth? Not trying to accuse you, I’m just confused?
Or at least gps darting it so you can find it easier...at least for the guys that don't have time to "hunt".... :rolleyes:
Everyone gets a trophy right...
It all started going downhill with millennials :chuckle:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If your goal is to eat wild game why do you care what size antlers the deer has?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: TimberMuleys on January 18, 2025, 03:30:21 AM
You’re looking at too small of a data sample my friend.
The argument of hunter number going down has been discussed to death here and in every state agency across the country. The numbers that suggest there are less hunters are generally not accurate or are “per capita” as in there was 10% of the population that were hunters and now it’s 8%, except it’s 8% of 4 million vs. 1 million. Obviously these are not accurate numbers, but you get the jest, and I will gladly swap from my phone to my laptop to argue studies with you. Ask any R3 coordinator in any of the states, Hunter numbers are not lower.
Again, read closer. I suggested cell camera are a bigger threat to mature and near mature bucks and bulls. I’m not suggesting they are the sole cause of population decline. To suggest such a thing would be silly, seeing as cell cameras haven’t even been in the hunting space long enough to have a sample size to determine any sort of causation. However, one could easily argue that if cell camera, and camera technology lead to hunter being even 5% more effective at harvesting animals, over time you would absolutely see an impact. Imagine if every single unit in the state had a 10% increase in harvest odds. The math for tag alottment doesn’t mean the state can afford to remove the amount of game animals as they sell tags. It relys on the fact that people will generally be as successful as they historically have been, and accounting for new hunters impact on efficiency as well as the removal of older more efficient hunters. I never said predators didn’t have a greater impact than hunters, but imagine if the impact of predators and hunters continues to increase. Game populations don’t just spring up out of no where.
I stand by what I said, even with struggling populations, people that put in 2-3 days of scouting and have a decent knowledge of what to look for can harvest does/young bucks with ease. There’s a reason the orange army in trucks shoot a bunch of does and forkies, it’s easy. You may not have been within range, but you hunted somewhere hard with low pressure, which probably has a smaller population density, and often times has higher quality bucks because it gets less pressure, because of the low density.
The unit I hunted this year in Washington had deer and elk success rates that were far higher than the two units I’ve hunted in Idaho for the last decade.
In some areas that’s absolutely true about 160” deer. Guess what though, if you shoot a 160” every year there is a 100% chance you don’t shoot a 180”the score more obviously changes vastly by species and location. But you can very realistically argue that 3.5-4.5yo bucks and satellite bulls are far more susceptible to harvest than 5.5 and herd bulls, you throw in extreme tech and you wipe out that age class and eventually down the line there are no 5.5+ and herd bulls left.
Just to clarify, what statistic group was I looking at that was too small?
Also, I should have been more clear, yes, you are correct, there are more hunters… however tag allotment has gone down. Which we may have more hunters across the west with hunting licenses, but that doesn’t mean they are all out in the field filling tags. I think harvest numbers would be a more accurate statistic to look at wouldn’t you? I know I brought up the amount of hunter’s previously, but I don’t think that statistic is as relevant to the topic, since we are talking about cell cameras damaging deer populations, not amount of deer hunters. When looking at the official WA harvest statistics, it’s pretty obvious that they are not going up. I couldn’t find a place where you could see state by state very well, so this is the best I got. If anyone wishes to check all of the WA state harvest reports and disprove these numbers, feel free.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20250118/f79b520db85faaebe7de6d506bcbe942.png)
I guess my point with the whole population thing is, I feel it is an extremely poor argument for banning trail cameras. So far, since cell cameras have been introduced, not only have they not increased hunter harvest numbers, but in the small amount of years included, the number have dropped significantly. Which I understand doesn’t necessarily prove that cell cameras aren’t getting deer killed, but I think you guys get the point.
As far as the harvest percentage, I was talking about the states as a whole. Not just one or two selected units that fit the argument.
Now onto the next point you brought up…. You stated that it’s not difficult to go shoot a doe or a young buck. Which, in most cases, I would agree. I do think that it’s more difficult than you may think in some of my areas. You said you thought I was hunting low density areas, which was true for where I killed my big buck, but I did spend a couple days in “higher density”, higher pressure areas. From what I have seen from the area, being on nearly every mountain in that unit, I think one of the mountains I hunted may be the highest pressure mountain in the unit. I did see a few bucks, one that was around the 160” mark, but never made an attempt. There’s really not an “high density” areas in the NE corner.
Where the problem I see with this logic is when you went on to talk about losing the age class. I personally think that cameras lead to more people passing younger bucks. I 100% completely agree that bucks under 4.5 are much more susceptible to be shot by hunters. I don’t think anyone will argue with you there. However, if hunters knew there was a big, mature buck that has been frequenting the ridge they are on, that they might pass a young buck in hopes to shoot the big one? I think if everyone knew about what bucks were living in the area they were hunting, there would have been more 2.5 year old three points that wouldn’t have been shot, at least not on opening day. I think if just about any hunter is being honest and realistic, I’d they see 2 bucks, with the exact same opportunity/shot/situation, they are going to shoot the bigger one. And I think if many people knew about the 180” deer living on one of the most pressured mountains in the unit, they might’ve tried to hold out for it. I know it works for me and the hunters I am in contact with, knowing there is a 180” buck or an old troll somewhere on the ridge makes it much easier to pass the 4.5yr old 160” buck, wouldn’t you agree?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: boneaddict on January 18, 2025, 03:52:43 AM
And as a side note....look at the bulls washington produced this year...after 30 years of trail cams records are still being beat
Let’s not even get into Ring cameras. :chuckle:
Post by: HillHound on January 18, 2025, 04:53:54 AM
I DONT think we as hunters need to be starting these conversations. Let people hunt how they want and you hunt how you want. Antis are going to continue to take opportunities from us until hunting is gone in this state so don’t help them speed the process because you don’t believe in cams, or bait, or e-bikes, or scopes, or compound bows, or using traditional archery without harvesting the flint for the arrowhead and sinew for the string yourself. I’m sure the OP uses something that another hunter could say is an unfair advantage and that could be as simple as the store bought flint he made his arrowhead out of. So who cares. Stop attacking other hunters and the LEGAL ways they hunt. We have enough antis for that
Post by: fishngamereaper on January 18, 2025, 06:04:30 AM
And I don't think lumping this conversation into other hunting restrictions is accurate.
I've never used cell cams, don't use bait. Currently run cams on my Washington and Idaho properties. Didn't grow up using cams, and have only ran them a couple times in limited numbers for two quality tags.
In a nutshell for me personally.
I go into the woods to get away. Don't much care for crowd's so I make it a point when I'm in the woods to avoid people. I don't want to have my picture taken around every tree. Especially real time
Secondly cell cams aren't fair chase IMO. They have the ability to be abused. Real time data for a location your not at...but it gives you direction. It's like using drones or... flying. That type of abuse of real time Intel is the reason for restrictions on day of flight hunting.
If you where hiking into cam A to hunt but cam B alerts to a good buck. You change plans, right...
I'm not a purist...I'm a realist... other states banning cams during hunting season's and cell cams in general are able to justify it... record books recognize it as a disqualifier if used in a certain way..so there's an issue that at some point will need attention in WA.
I don't think its to much of an ask for people to just acknowledge technology breeds rules..
And if you don't want more rules be wary of overusing technology.
Very similar to shed hunting,.. people couldn't figure out how to manage themselves, it got to popular, became the new fad, people are using drones to locate sheds, and bingo...
forced States to create rules, restrictions and seasons.
.
Post by: CarbonHunter on January 18, 2025, 07:01:46 AM
In general people are going to shoot the first legal animal they see...with of without knowledge of that trophy buck...not everyone has the time or resources to hold out for mature deer.
And I don't think lumping this conversation into other hunting restrictions is accurate.
I've never used cell cams, don't use bait. Currently run cams on my Washington and Idaho properties. Didn't grow up using cams, and have only ran them a couple times in limited numbers for two quality tags.
In a nutshell for me personally.
I go into the woods to get away. Don't much care for crowd's so I make it a point when I'm in the woods to avoid people. I don't want to have my picture taken around every tree. Especially real time
Secondly cell cams aren't fair chase IMO. They have the ability to be abused. Real time data for a location your not at...but it gives you direction. It's like using drones or... flying. That type of abuse of real time Intel is the reason for restrictions on day of flight hunting.
If you where hiking into cam A to hunt but cam B alerts to a good buck. You change plans, right...
I'm not a purist...I'm a realist... other states banning cams during hunting season's and cell cams in general are able to justify it... record books recognize it as a disqualifier if used in a certain way..so there's an issue that at some point will need attention in WA.
I don't think its to much of an ask for people to just acknowledge technology breeds rules..
And if you don't want more rules be wary of overusing technology.
Very similar to shed hunting,.. people couldn't figure out how to manage themselves, it got to popular, became the new fad, people are using drones to locate sheds, and bingo...
forced States to create rules, restrictions and seasons.
.
:yeah:
Post by: CarbonHunter on January 18, 2025, 07:16:27 AM
Just to let some of you understand where cell cameras are going. I work in the security industry designing and installing camera systems and more. Over the last few years the major camera manufacturers have been getting requests to improve the analytics of their cameras to determine the different types of animals and even the sex of the animals. These analytics are being refined to distances out to a mile and send alerts to the user.
Most of these cameras are deployed on private land but Axis has a network of cameras around the world watching cities and detecting wildfires across the west that the public can view.
Technology has advanced beyond the current laws and laws will need to be updated to address the technology. I would rather those laws be debated and proposed by hunters than the antis who are just trying to ban all hunting. The idea that we should not say anything and nothing will change is completely wrong and past is proof of that.
Post by: TimberMuleys on January 18, 2025, 07:44:43 AM
I support NO ban. Banning hound hunting and baiting without a doubt increased the take of adolescent bears and sows with cubs. Now you see a bear you shoot it because you don’t have time to watch them and see if it’s small.. Take away trail cameras too and now we can’t see that this bear does have cubs or there’s a four point buck using that same trail the spike is that you see everyday. I think way less younger animals will be passed up if people don’t know there is potential to do better in the area.I started this conversation because I don’t believe we should have more bans. However, it is important to all be on the same page as hunters. The only way to get on the same page is to discuss and debate. I think there has been a lot of beneficial conversations so far, don’t see why you think that is a bad thing.
I DONT think we as hunters need to be starting these conversations. Let people hunt how they want and you hunt how you want. Antis are going to continue to take opportunities from us until hunting is gone in this state so don’t help them speed the process because you don’t believe in cams, or bait, or e-bikes, or scopes, or compound bows, or using traditional archery without harvesting the flint for the arrowhead and sinew for the string yourself. I’m sure the OP uses something that another hunter could say is an unfair advantage and that could be as simple as the store bought flint he made his arrowhead out of. So who cares. Stop attacking other hunters and the LEGAL ways they hunt. We have enough antis for that
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on January 18, 2025, 07:53:28 AM
Post by: HUNTIN4SIX on January 18, 2025, 07:54:01 AM
In general people are going to shoot the first legal animal they see...with of without knowledge of that trophy buck...not everyone has the time or resources to hold out for mature deer.
And I don't think lumping this conversation into other hunting restrictions is accurate.
I've never used cell cams, don't use bait. Currently run cams on my Washington and Idaho properties. Didn't grow up using cams, and have only ran them a couple times in limited numbers for two quality tags.
In a nutshell for me personally.
I go into the woods to get away. Don't much care for crowd's so I make it a point when I'm in the woods to avoid people. I don't want to have my picture taken around every tree. Especially real time
Secondly cell cams aren't fair chase IMO. They have the ability to be abused. Real time data for a location your not at...but it gives you direction. It's like using drones or... flying. That type of abuse of real time Intel is the reason for restrictions on day of flight hunting.
If you where hiking into cam A to hunt but cam B alerts to a good buck. You change plans, right...
I'm not a purist...I'm a realist... other states banning cams during hunting season's and cell cams in general are able to justify it... record books recognize it as a disqualifier if used in a certain way..so there's an issue that at some point will need attention in WA.
I don't think its to much of an ask for people to just acknowledge technology breeds rules..
And if you don't want more rules be wary of overusing technology.
Very similar to shed hunting,.. people couldn't figure out how to manage themselves, it got to popular, became the new fad, people are using drones to locate sheds, and bingo...
forced States to create rules, restrictions and seasons.
.
Well said!
My son has trail cams, we use them minimally. Hunting has been around for thousands of years. Cameras have been around for 20yrs or so. Some on here don't even remember life without them. I do. I believe it was simpler without cameras. Does anyone think Cameras have made us better hunters? In my opinion they have dumbed us down. I would have no problem banning them during certain months.
Post by: Feathernfurr on January 18, 2025, 08:24:05 AM
I believe I said it before but I’ll say it again, no one is arguing that cameras are more detrimental than predators or even vehicle collisions which may be additive mortalities. I also just don’t believe hunters are using cell cameras to target the most impactful of predators. Sure, guys use them a bunch for black bears, but black bears aren’t the real issue in the realm of wolves and lions. There are plenty of states with way more black bears than Washington that have plenty of ungulates. In a perfect world we should get the state to return our rights to hunt bears over bait and run hounds, but that’s not likely in this state unfortunately. Adding the impacts of cell cameras on top of predators isn’t going to be a large and noticeable impact this year or even 5 years from now, but it snowballs, you have to be mindful of where it goes.
I’d love to believe that cameras are going to make guys wait for bigger, more mature animals. But I think that’s a mindset and not so much an impact of the camera. Sure seeing a big buck will let guys know they’re around, but a lot of guys aren’t going to pass up opportunities to wait for that mature buck, especially if they have a decent one on camera everyday. Not to mention most inexperienced hunters cannot accurately field judge animals, even with photos. I can’t tell you how many guys show me 160” whitetails that are actually 125”. I think the biggest concern to me is that is does give hunters an unfair advantage over the game, in a scenario where we already have so many advantages. The animals have to win some and the hunters have to win some, if it’s completely one sided the game comes to an end eventually. I will also stand by the fact that your above average hunter that has time to spend in the field will have much higher success ratios with the aid of cellular cams, and seeing as a lot of your above average hunters still aren’t great at field judging game, they’re going to shoot good bucks that look great on the hoof that aren’t actually mature.
Someone else here made a remark about criticizing hunters. I can’t disagree with this more. Sure, we should do our best to not air our dirty laundry. I often times wish more of these threads were in the members only sections and out of the public view. Better yet, I wish groups still did meet ups and events. I’d much rather argue this stuff with you all in person, over beers. Where it’s not put into writing for the world to see. However, the idea that we should just blindly support everything is blissful ignorance. I’ll also be honest, not all forms of hunting are equal, and some of it makes us look really bad. We have a duty to our community/culture to hold one another accountable and strive to be better as a whole.
Post by: TimberMuleys on January 18, 2025, 08:24:22 AM
In general people are going to shoot the first legal animal they see...with of without knowledge of that trophy buck...not everyone has the time or resources to hold out for mature deer.
And I don't think lumping this conversation into other hunting restrictions is accurate.
I've never used cell cams, don't use bait. Currently run cams on my Washington and Idaho properties. Didn't grow up using cams, and have only ran them a couple times in limited numbers for two quality tags.
In a nutshell for me personally.
I go into the woods to get away. Don't much care for crowd's so I make it a point when I'm in the woods to avoid people. I don't want to have my picture taken around every tree. Especially real time
Secondly cell cams aren't fair chase IMO. They have the ability to be abused. Real time data for a location your not at...but it gives you direction. It's like using drones or... flying. That type of abuse of real time Intel is the reason for restrictions on day of flight hunting.
If you where hiking into cam A to hunt but cam B alerts to a good buck. You change plans, right...
I'm not a purist...I'm a realist... other states banning cams during hunting season's and cell cams in general are able to justify it... record books recognize it as a disqualifier if used in a certain way..so there's an issue that at some point will need attention in WA.
I don't think its to much of an ask for people to just acknowledge technology breeds rules..
And if you don't want more rules be wary of overusing technology.
Very similar to shed hunting,.. people couldn't figure out how to manage themselves, it got to popular, became the new fad, people are using drones to locate sheds, and bingo...
forced States to create rules, restrictions and seasons.
.
Well said!
My son has trail cams, we use them minimally. Hunting has been around for thousands of years. Cameras have been around for 20yrs or so. Some on here don't even remember life without them. I do. I believe it was simpler without cameras. Does anyone think Cameras have made us better hunters? In my opinion they have dumbed us down. I would have no problem banning them during certain months.
I would disagree, again, I think it depends on whose hands they are in. Some may become lazy, but for me, I think it has increased my knowledge of how deer use the mountains I hunt. With no way of glassing, I don’t get much time to actually watch big buck behavior, because there isn’t a whole lot of time to watch a big buck on his feet in the timber, especially when you cant see him until he’s less than 50yds from you. Having these cameras has increased my knowledge on how big bucks move, when they move, and where they go. I have learned also learned the mannerisms of how whitetails hit scrapes and approach areas. I get to see how often a deer walks with the wind in their face when approaching a salt, or hay pile, and that they don’t walk without the wind in their favor much at all, at least not the ones I have seen. Almost all of these things would be very difficult to figure out by just watching big bucks in heavy timber, especially without snow.
Like said, I can see where technology could go and getting worse than the already questionable ethics of cell cameras. But, I don’t think just doing a full ban on them is the answer. Maybe Washington can put a ban on companies selling plans for immediate sending, like they have to wait 24 hours? (that’s how mine are set)
Besides in the early 1900s like previously mentioned, do we have a single example of restrictions on hunting leading to better populations or higher success percentages?
I would agree with many that I don’t like having my picture taken on cameras, and I don’t think have real time images in the places you are hunting is fair chase. However, I think banning bucks harvested by using that technology from entering record books is enough. Why make it illegal? I don’t think personal etiquette and preference is enough to make something else illegal.
Bringing up that other states banned them so we can too doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me. Would anyone on this platform recommended wolves for Colorado? I’m sure someone brought up, “well, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho did it”. I think if the technology keeps advancing, we may need to draw a line somewhere, but I think we should sit back and wait for more data, at least for now.
There’s really no numbers to state that cameras are leading to higher success rates or total deer killed. I guess maybe the question isn’t whether people want to ban cell cams, but if they think everyone should have the same base on hunting ethics and fair chase? Might be another good thread. It seems to me that quite a few guys want them banned because they’re not “fair chase” and it leads to “grocery shopping”, and I personally just don’t see any issue with it. They’re still only killing 1 deer, if they even kill it, if cellular cameras were as simple, as described by some, more deer would be dying. But it’s not that easy, I find it ironic that most of the guys on here so far that are the most vocal about being against them also say that have very little interactions with them. It sounds easier than it is. I would love to see some of these guys who say “it’s so easy” go kill a buck even over 160” because of a cell camera. It’ll take years for a lot. We have low populations, short seasons, and already have it harder than just about anywhere else in the west. Why try to make it harder just because you personally don’t see it ethical?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: GWP on January 18, 2025, 08:44:30 AM
How about having live game cams alerting you to a critter, remote launching an armed drone and filling your tag using the armed drone? Still only filling one tag. And hey, no time to scout and a busy life, so why not?
Or maybe open it up where you can have someone fill your tag for you? Then you could have meat in the freezer, the person that likes taking critters gets to take more critters. Only filling one tag per person. Should be good to go!
Might sound extreme, but I remember laughing to tears when the military first started using the small drones and stating they “Would never be armed”. Yeah, right.
Not sure of the answers, but I will say I am kind of glad my hunting days are mostly behind me if not over.
Post by: TimberMuleys on January 18, 2025, 08:47:36 AM
Timber, I was suggesting that you’re looking at too small of a time frame. Looking at say the statistics of the last 15-20 years would point towards a trend that may not be completely accurate vs 100-150 year time span.Gotcha, I still feel that a 10+ year period is plenty to see a trend. I mean for an example, when cats weren’t ran anymore, wolves were protected, bears because harder to hunt, how long did it take for our populations to start heading the wrong way? I think 10 years is more than plenty. The last few years we have seen a 33% decline in deer harvests. Sure that is only compared to the 5 years before that, but all 5 of those years were right around the 30k mark then we just had a drop to 20k the last few? Obviously cell cameras haven’t even helped us reach our harvest numbers from 5 years ago…
I believe I said it before but I’ll say it again, no one is arguing that cameras are more detrimental than predators or even vehicle collisions which may be additive mortalities. I also just don’t believe hunters are using cell cameras to target the most impactful of predators. Sure, guys use them a bunch for black bears, but black bears aren’t the real issue in the realm of wolves and lions. There are plenty of states with way more black bears than Washington that have plenty of ungulates. In a perfect world we should get the state to return our rights to hunt bears over bait and run hounds, but that’s not likely in this state unfortunately. Adding the impacts of cell cameras on top of predators isn’t going to be a large and noticeable impact this year or even 5 years from now, but it snowballs, you have to be mindful of where it goes.
I’d love to believe that cameras are going to make guys wait for bigger, more mature animals. But I think that’s a mindset and not so much an impact of the camera. Sure seeing a big buck will let guys know they’re around, but a lot of guys aren’t going to pass up opportunities to wait for that mature buck, especially if they have a decent one on camera everyday. Not to mention most inexperienced hunters cannot accurately field judge animals, even with photos. I can’t tell you how many guys show me 160” whitetails that are actually 125”. I think the biggest concern to me is that is does give hunters an unfair advantage over the game, in a scenario where we already have so many advantages. The animals have to win some and the hunters have to win some, if it’s completely one sided the game comes to an end eventually. I will also stand by the fact that your above average hunter that has time to spend in the field will have much higher success ratios with the aid of cellular cams, and seeing as a lot of your above average hunters still aren’t great at field judging game, they’re going to shoot good bucks that look great on the hoof that aren’t actually mature.
Someone else here made a remark about criticizing hunters. I can’t disagree with this more. Sure, we should do our best to not air our dirty laundry. I often times wish more of these threads were in the members only sections and out of the public view. Better yet, I wish groups still did meet ups and events. I’d much rather argue this stuff with you all in person, over beers. Where it’s not put into writing for the world to see. However, the idea that we should just blindly support everything is blissful ignorance. I’ll also be honest, not all forms of hunting are equal, and some of it makes us look really bad. We have a duty to our community/culture to hold one another accountable and strive to be better as a whole.
Do I agree that a few less deer may die because of cameras, probably? Maybe? Not enough to see, sure as hell not enough to see in only 5-10 years. Like I said before, the only time deer are “dying” to cell cams is backyard hunters, and extremely dedicated hunters who may have 2 target bucks. If they reacts picture of buck and instead of buck b, they would most likely go hunt buck a. I can’t tell you how many times guys I know have done this and it backfired though. I know a guy who missed out on a true 170”+ whitetail with a 6” dropper because of that. It goes both ways. Like I said before, everyone complaining about the “ease” of cell cams needs to start using them. I’m not gonna hold my breath until you start killing big deer because of them. They’re only dangerous in very certain scenarios, and I think most the time someone gets a buck because of a cell cam, they were going to get one anyways. The vast majority of deer will not be affected because Billy bob who doesn’t know to check the wind has a cell cam.
I understand your point of view that it won’t hurt, but I think the predator populations continuing to be unregulated is just going to cancel out and eventually surpass our efforts to manage ourselves. It’s the same cycle we have been doing ever since hounds and bait for bears got banned. And instead of trying to save the few hundred deer, we need to stand together United and fight back. I know getting cat hunting back is a tall task, maybe even impossible, but I’m done sitting on the sidelines and just watch us go further and further down the hole. Where is the line for you? When we aren’t allowed to pack rifles or compound bows anymore? When we have 2 days seasons with a 6 point minimum? I know those are extremely exaggerated but I’m sure if we were being honest, everyone would go back to the “good old days” without cameras and when we had good populations. Much simpler, more natural, in my eyes. I’d be all for taking my cameras out of the woods if I didn’t have to cover 20 different mountains to find a buck over 180”. But we aren’t ever going to get back to that by taking all of these steps back instead of attacking the main problem at hand.
Agreed on taking this off of the internet, it would be really nice to discuss this in person instead of writing a book on my phone.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: HUNTIN4SIX on January 18, 2025, 08:49:28 AM
In general people are going to shoot the first legal animal they see...with of without knowledge of that trophy buck...not everyone has the time or resources to hold out for mature deer.
And I don't think lumping this conversation into other hunting restrictions is accurate.
I've never used cell cams, don't use bait. Currently run cams on my Washington and Idaho properties. Didn't grow up using cams, and have only ran them a couple times in limited numbers for two quality tags.
In a nutshell for me personally.
I go into the woods to get away. Don't much care for crowd's so I make it a point when I'm in the woods to avoid people. I don't want to have my picture taken around every tree. Especially real time
Secondly cell cams aren't fair chase IMO. They have the ability to be abused. Real time data for a location your not at...but it gives you direction. It's like using drones or... flying. That type of abuse of real time Intel is the reason for restrictions on day of flight hunting.
If you where hiking into cam A to hunt but cam B alerts to a good buck. You change plans, right...
I'm not a purist...I'm a realist... other states banning cams during hunting season's and cell cams in general are able to justify it... record books recognize it as a disqualifier if used in a certain way..so there's an issue that at some point will need attention in WA.
I don't think its to much of an ask for people to just acknowledge technology breeds rules..
And if you don't want more rules be wary of overusing technology.
Very similar to shed hunting,.. people couldn't figure out how to manage themselves, it got to popular, became the new fad, people are using drones to locate sheds, and bingo...
forced States to create rules, restrictions and seasons.
.
Well said!
My son has trail cams, we use them minimally. Hunting has been around for thousands of years. Cameras have been around for 20yrs or so. Some on here don't even remember life without them. I do. I believe it was simpler without cameras. Does anyone think Cameras have made us better hunters? In my opinion they have dumbed us down. I would have no problem banning them during certain months.
I would disagree, again, I think it depends on whose hands they are in. Some may become lazy, but for me, I think it has increased my knowledge of how deer use the mountains I hunt. With no way of glassing, I don’t get much time to actually watch big buck behavior, because there isn’t a whole lot of time to watch a big buck on his feet in the timber, especially when you cant see him until he’s less than 50yds from you. Having these cameras has increased my knowledge on how big bucks move, when they move, and where they go. I have learned also learned the mannerisms of how whitetails hit scrapes and approach areas. I get to see how often a deer walks with the wind in their face when approaching a salt, or hay pile, and that they don’t walk without the wind in their favor much at all, at least not the ones I have seen. Almost all of these things would be very difficult to figure out by just watching big bucks in heavy timber, especially without snow.
Like said, I can see where technology could go and getting worse than the already questionable ethics of cell cameras. But, I don’t think just doing a full ban on them is the answer. Maybe Washington can put a ban on companies selling plans for immediate sending, like they have to wait 24 hours? (that’s how mine are set)
Besides in the early 1900s like previously mentioned, do we have a single example of restrictions on hunting leading to better populations or higher success percentages?
I would agree with many that I don’t like having my picture taken on cameras, and I don’t think have real time images in the places you are hunting is fair chase. However, I think banning bucks harvested by using that technology from entering record books is enough. Why make it illegal? I don’t think personal etiquette and preference is enough to make something else illegal.
Bringing up that other states banned them so we can too doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me. Would anyone on this platform recommended wolves for Colorado? I’m sure someone brought up, “well, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho did it”. I think if the technology keeps advancing, we may need to draw a line somewhere, but I think we should sit back and wait for more data, at least for now.
There’s really no numbers to state that cameras are leading to higher success rates or total deer killed. I guess maybe the question isn’t whether people want to ban cell cams, but if they think everyone should have the same base on hunting ethics and fair chase? Might be another good thread. It seems to me that quite a few guys want them banned because they’re not “fair chase” and it leads to “grocery shopping”, and I personally just don’t see any issue with it. They’re still only killing 1 deer, if they even kill it, if cellular cameras were as simple, as described by some, more deer would be dying. But it’s not that easy, I find it ironic that most of the guys on here so far that are the most vocal about being against them also say that have very little interactions with them. It sounds easier than it is. I would love to see some of these guys who say “it’s so easy” go kill a buck even over 160” because of a cell camera. It’ll take years for a lot. We have low populations, short seasons, and already have it harder than just about anywhere else in the west. Why try to make it harder just because you personally don’t see it ethical?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not even assuming your baiting nor do i care, but if most people running cameras in mountains are running salt or bait how does that tell you how deer are using the mountains? If they are just migrating to bait? The idea that cameras don't cause success to go up is absolute BS. The no brainer is.... if it wasn't easier or success didn't go up , most wouldn't be using them? There are simple facts to camera use that most just don't want to admit. I would be curious to know the percentage of folks using bait under cameras? Or are most just randomly throwing them up on trails?
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 18, 2025, 09:12:16 AM
Post by: TimberMuleys on January 18, 2025, 09:13:13 AM
I do both, but most run on baits, at least in my area. Good question, if you run normal cameras on video mode you can see how bucks are using an area, especially with windicators in the background. Setting up cams on a main trail near beds, you can see he got out of his bed on the southeast side at 11:26am and walked with the wind in his face to a bedding area somewhere else. You can see whether he was on a mission, or just feeding his way through. Another example, I got a picture of a nice, younger, 150s type buck on opening day of rifle season in the mountain I shot my buck on. It was on a mail trail that went from a main food source area towards a known bedding area, that buck fed in front of the camera for 2 minutes (8:39-8:40) with the thermals in his face and he walked up and bedded at the top of the ridge. My uncle jumped him a few hours later and we checked the camera afterwards and found out what buck it was.In general people are going to shoot the first legal animal they see...with of without knowledge of that trophy buck...not everyone has the time or resources to hold out for mature deer.
And I don't think lumping this conversation into other hunting restrictions is accurate.
I've never used cell cams, don't use bait. Currently run cams on my Washington and Idaho properties. Didn't grow up using cams, and have only ran them a couple times in limited numbers for two quality tags.
In a nutshell for me personally.
I go into the woods to get away. Don't much care for crowd's so I make it a point when I'm in the woods to avoid people. I don't want to have my picture taken around every tree. Especially real time
Secondly cell cams aren't fair chase IMO. They have the ability to be abused. Real time data for a location your not at...but it gives you direction. It's like using drones or... flying. That type of abuse of real time Intel is the reason for restrictions on day of flight hunting.
If you where hiking into cam A to hunt but cam B alerts to a good buck. You change plans, right...
I'm not a purist...I'm a realist... other states banning cams during hunting season's and cell cams in general are able to justify it... record books recognize it as a disqualifier if used in a certain way..so there's an issue that at some point will need attention in WA.
I don't think its to much of an ask for people to just acknowledge technology breeds rules..
And if you don't want more rules be wary of overusing technology.
Very similar to shed hunting,.. people couldn't figure out how to manage themselves, it got to popular, became the new fad, people are using drones to locate sheds, and bingo...
forced States to create rules, restrictions and seasons.
.
Well said!
My son has trail cams, we use them minimally. Hunting has been around for thousands of years. Cameras have been around for 20yrs or so. Some on here don't even remember life without them. I do. I believe it was simpler without cameras. Does anyone think Cameras have made us better hunters? In my opinion they have dumbed us down. I would have no problem banning them during certain months.
I would disagree, again, I think it depends on whose hands they are in. Some may become lazy, but for me, I think it has increased my knowledge of how deer use the mountains I hunt. With no way of glassing, I don’t get much time to actually watch big buck behavior, because there isn’t a whole lot of time to watch a big buck on his feet in the timber, especially when you cant see him until he’s less than 50yds from you. Having these cameras has increased my knowledge on how big bucks move, when they move, and where they go. I have learned also learned the mannerisms of how whitetails hit scrapes and approach areas. I get to see how often a deer walks with the wind in their face when approaching a salt, or hay pile, and that they don’t walk without the wind in their favor much at all, at least not the ones I have seen. Almost all of these things would be very difficult to figure out by just watching big bucks in heavy timber, especially without snow.
Like said, I can see where technology could go and getting worse than the already questionable ethics of cell cameras. But, I don’t think just doing a full ban on them is the answer. Maybe Washington can put a ban on companies selling plans for immediate sending, like they have to wait 24 hours? (that’s how mine are set)
Besides in the early 1900s like previously mentioned, do we have a single example of restrictions on hunting leading to better populations or higher success percentages?
I would agree with many that I don’t like having my picture taken on cameras, and I don’t think have real time images in the places you are hunting is fair chase. However, I think banning bucks harvested by using that technology from entering record books is enough. Why make it illegal? I don’t think personal etiquette and preference is enough to make something else illegal.
Bringing up that other states banned them so we can too doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me. Would anyone on this platform recommended wolves for Colorado? I’m sure someone brought up, “well, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho did it”. I think if the technology keeps advancing, we may need to draw a line somewhere, but I think we should sit back and wait for more data, at least for now.
There’s really no numbers to state that cameras are leading to higher success rates or total deer killed. I guess maybe the question isn’t whether people want to ban cell cams, but if they think everyone should have the same base on hunting ethics and fair chase? Might be another good thread. It seems to me that quite a few guys want them banned because they’re not “fair chase” and it leads to “grocery shopping”, and I personally just don’t see any issue with it. They’re still only killing 1 deer, if they even kill it, if cellular cameras were as simple, as described by some, more deer would be dying. But it’s not that easy, I find it ironic that most of the guys on here so far that are the most vocal about being against them also say that have very little interactions with them. It sounds easier than it is. I would love to see some of these guys who say “it’s so easy” go kill a buck even over 160” because of a cell camera. It’ll take years for a lot. We have low populations, short seasons, and already have it harder than just about anywhere else in the west. Why try to make it harder just because you personally don’t see it ethical?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not even assuming your baiting nor do i care, but if most people running cameras in mountains are running salt or bait how does that tell you how deer are using the mountains? If they are just migrating to bait? The idea that cameras don't cause success to go up is absolute BS. The no brainer is.... if it wasn't easier or success didn't go up , most wouldn't be using them? There are simple facts to camera use that most just don't want to admit. I would be curious to know the percentage of folks using bait under cameras? Or are most just randomly throwing them up on trails?
I’m not saying cameras don’t make it easier, I would never say that. They do, but I don’t think they will ever make it easier enough to be seeing a noticeable increase in harvest numbers. I think what can be learned from cameras can make us better understand timber bucks and their mannerisms.
All of that is beside the point to me, I still don’t understand why we are hell bent on taking a tool out of the woods that kills a minuscule amount of deer every year. My cell cameras did not aid in me taking my buck this year, but the knowledge I have gained from them will help me be a more informed and better hunter. And I would argue I use cell cams more effectively than the vast majority of people. If cell cams were really having that much of an impact, it would show in harvest percentages and numbers. Which, over the last 3 years, it has been the opposite.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: LDennis24 on January 18, 2025, 09:16:50 AM
In general people are going to shoot the first legal animal they see...with of without knowledge of that trophy buck...not everyone has the time or resources to hold out for mature deer.
And I don't think lumping this conversation into other hunting restrictions is accurate.
I've never used cell cams, don't use bait. Currently run cams on my Washington and Idaho properties. Didn't grow up using cams, and have only ran them a couple times in limited numbers for two quality tags.
In a nutshell for me personally.
I go into the woods to get away. Don't much care for crowd's so I make it a point when I'm in the woods to avoid people. I don't want to have my picture taken around every tree. Especially real time
Secondly cell cams aren't fair chase IMO. They have the ability to be abused. Real time data for a location your not at...but it gives you direction. It's like using drones or... flying. That type of abuse of real time Intel is the reason for restrictions on day of flight hunting.
If you where hiking into cam A to hunt but cam B alerts to a good buck. You change plans, right...
I'm not a purist...I'm a realist... other states banning cams during hunting season's and cell cams in general are able to justify it... record books recognize it as a disqualifier if used in a certain way..so there's an issue that at some point will need attention in WA.
I don't think its to much of an ask for people to just acknowledge technology breeds rules..
And if you don't want more rules be wary of overusing technology.
Very similar to shed hunting,.. people couldn't figure out how to manage themselves, it got to popular, became the new fad, people are using drones to locate sheds, and bingo...
forced States to create rules, restrictions and seasons.
.
Well said!
My son has trail cams, we use them minimally. Hunting has been around for thousands of years. Cameras have been around for 20yrs or so. Some on here don't even remember life without them. I do. I believe it was simpler without cameras. Does anyone think Cameras have made us better hunters? In my opinion they have dumbed us down. I would have no problem banning them during certain months.
I would disagree, again, I think it depends on whose hands they are in. Some may become lazy, but for me, I think it has increased my knowledge of how deer use the mountains I hunt. With no way of glassing, I don’t get much time to actually watch big buck behavior, because there isn’t a whole lot of time to watch a big buck on his feet in the timber, especially when you cant see him until he’s less than 50yds from you. Having these cameras has increased my knowledge on how big bucks move, when they move, and where they go. I have learned also learned the mannerisms of how whitetails hit scrapes and approach areas. I get to see how often a deer walks with the wind in their face when approaching a salt, or hay pile, and that they don’t walk without the wind in their favor much at all, at least not the ones I have seen. Almost all of these things would be very difficult to figure out by just watching big bucks in heavy timber, especially without snow.
Like said, I can see where technology could go and getting worse than the already questionable ethics of cell cameras. But, I don’t think just doing a full ban on them is the answer. Maybe Washington can put a ban on companies selling plans for immediate sending, like they have to wait 24 hours? (that’s how mine are set)
Besides in the early 1900s like previously mentioned, do we have a single example of restrictions on hunting leading to better populations or higher success percentages?
I would agree with many that I don’t like having my picture taken on cameras, and I don’t think have real time images in the places you are hunting is fair chase. However, I think banning bucks harvested by using that technology from entering record books is enough. Why make it illegal? I don’t think personal etiquette and preference is enough to make something else illegal.
Bringing up that other states banned them so we can too doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me. Would anyone on this platform recommended wolves for Colorado? I’m sure someone brought up, “well, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho did it”. I think if the technology keeps advancing, we may need to draw a line somewhere, but I think we should sit back and wait for more data, at least for now.
There’s really no numbers to state that cameras are leading to higher success rates or total deer killed. I guess maybe the question isn’t whether people want to ban cell cams, but if they think everyone should have the same base on hunting ethics and fair chase? Might be another good thread. It seems to me that quite a few guys want them banned because they’re not “fair chase” and it leads to “grocery shopping”, and I personally just don’t see any issue with it. They’re still only killing 1 deer, if they even kill it, if cellular cameras were as simple, as described by some, more deer would be dying. But it’s not that easy, I find it ironic that most of the guys on here so far that are the most vocal about being against them also say that have very little interactions with them. It sounds easier than it is. I would love to see some of these guys who say “it’s so easy” go kill a buck even over 160” because of a cell camera. It’ll take years for a lot. We have low populations, short seasons, and already have it harder than just about anywhere else in the west. Why try to make it harder just because you personally don’t see it ethical?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not even assuming your baiting nor do i care, but if most people running cameras in mountains are running salt or bait how does that tell you how deer are using the mountains? If they are just migrating to bait? The idea that cameras don't cause success to go up is absolute BS. The no brainer is.... if it wasn't easier or success didn't go up , most wouldn't be using them? There are simple facts to camera use that most just don't want to admit. I would be curious to know the percentage of folks using bait under cameras? Or are most just randomly throwing them up on trails?
:yeah:
You learn absolutely nothing about how the deer is using the mountain by putting salt out to habituate them to a certain area. You altered their pattern after you did that. If you were to put cameras on places like water, the ridge leading to water, the ridge that gets the most sun mid day, and the trail leading down through the dark ravine, etc. Then you would have a better idea of how they use the mountain. But putting salt out to attract them to a certain area tells you nothing. It just gives you an opportunity to bring the animals to one area and know because of the cameras which one of your bait piles the deer prefer most and go there.
Post by: TimberMuleys on January 18, 2025, 09:16:59 AM
I believe that if the WDFW i.e. game commission proposes to ban trail cams especially at any time of the year it will use the spread of CWD as the reasoning. Weather it's justified or not. But this discussion/vote seems to be started on the ethical or non ethical use and time if any they should be used. Obviously each person has their own reasoning for usage or non usage of trail cams. Then cell cameras got put in the discussion. I like to see what's out there on my trail cams and even what's out there in areas I don't hunt. I like to get a feel for the number and what predators are also out there. Just my take and opinion.Completely agree on the CWD. However, I think baiting will go first, that’s how Idaho is. If we lost baiting, and trail cams, harvest percentages would plummet. Still hunting is the only other game in town in thick areas, and we all know that it is a very difficult thing. I’ve killed a few bucks till hunting, but I’ve also had a lot of experience and mistakes made to get me there. I think people looking at the numbers know that cell cams aren’t killing enough deer to even get a noticeable %, because even with cell cams, our numbers are going down.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: hunter399 on January 18, 2025, 09:21:28 AM
It really depends on the area,on if a camera or bait will give any advantage. Heavy hunted public land will have a very low advantage. Deer/elk will change pattern regardless.In general people are going to shoot the first legal animal they see...with of without knowledge of that trophy buck...not everyone has the time or resources to hold out for mature deer.
And I don't think lumping this conversation into other hunting restrictions is accurate.
I've never used cell cams, don't use bait. Currently run cams on my Washington and Idaho properties. Didn't grow up using cams, and have only ran them a couple times in limited numbers for two quality tags.
In a nutshell for me personally.
I go into the woods to get away. Don't much care for crowd's so I make it a point when I'm in the woods to avoid people. I don't want to have my picture taken around every tree. Especially real time
Secondly cell cams aren't fair chase IMO. They have the ability to be abused. Real time data for a location your not at...but it gives you direction. It's like using drones or... flying. That type of abuse of real time Intel is the reason for restrictions on day of flight hunting.
If you where hiking into cam A to hunt but cam B alerts to a good buck. You change plans, right...
I'm not a purist...I'm a realist... other states banning cams during hunting season's and cell cams in general are able to justify it... record books recognize it as a disqualifier if used in a certain way..so there's an issue that at some point will need attention in WA.
I don't think its to much of an ask for people to just acknowledge technology breeds rules..
And if you don't want more rules be wary of overusing technology.
Very similar to shed hunting,.. people couldn't figure out how to manage themselves, it got to popular, became the new fad, people are using drones to locate sheds, and bingo...
forced States to create rules, restrictions and seasons.
.
Well said!
My son has trail cams, we use them minimally. Hunting has been around for thousands of years. Cameras have been around for 20yrs or so. Some on here don't even remember life without them. I do. I believe it was simpler without cameras. Does anyone think Cameras have made us better hunters? In my opinion they have dumbed us down. I would have no problem banning them during certain months.
I would disagree, again, I think it depends on whose hands they are in. Some may become lazy, but for me, I think it has increased my knowledge of how deer use the mountains I hunt. With no way of glassing, I don’t get much time to actually watch big buck behavior, because there isn’t a whole lot of time to watch a big buck on his feet in the timber, especially when you cant see him until he’s less than 50yds from you. Having these cameras has increased my knowledge on how big bucks move, when they move, and where they go. I have learned also learned the mannerisms of how whitetails hit scrapes and approach areas. I get to see how often a deer walks with the wind in their face when approaching a salt, or hay pile, and that they don’t walk without the wind in their favor much at all, at least not the ones I have seen. Almost all of these things would be very difficult to figure out by just watching big bucks in heavy timber, especially without snow.
Like said, I can see where technology could go and getting worse than the already questionable ethics of cell cameras. But, I don’t think just doing a full ban on them is the answer. Maybe Washington can put a ban on companies selling plans for immediate sending, like they have to wait 24 hours? (that’s how mine are set)
Besides in the early 1900s like previously mentioned, do we have a single example of restrictions on hunting leading to better populations or higher success percentages?
I would agree with many that I don’t like having my picture taken on cameras, and I don’t think have real time images in the places you are hunting is fair chase. However, I think banning bucks harvested by using that technology from entering record books is enough. Why make it illegal? I don’t think personal etiquette and preference is enough to make something else illegal.
Bringing up that other states banned them so we can too doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me. Would anyone on this platform recommended wolves for Colorado? I’m sure someone brought up, “well, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho did it”. I think if the technology keeps advancing, we may need to draw a line somewhere, but I think we should sit back and wait for more data, at least for now.
There’s really no numbers to state that cameras are leading to higher success rates or total deer killed. I guess maybe the question isn’t whether people want to ban cell cams, but if they think everyone should have the same base on hunting ethics and fair chase? Might be another good thread. It seems to me that quite a few guys want them banned because they’re not “fair chase” and it leads to “grocery shopping”, and I personally just don’t see any issue with it. They’re still only killing 1 deer, if they even kill it, if cellular cameras were as simple, as described by some, more deer would be dying. But it’s not that easy, I find it ironic that most of the guys on here so far that are the most vocal about being against them also say that have very little interactions with them. It sounds easier than it is. I would love to see some of these guys who say “it’s so easy” go kill a buck even over 160” because of a cell camera. It’ll take years for a lot. We have low populations, short seasons, and already have it harder than just about anywhere else in the west. Why try to make it harder just because you personally don’t see it ethical?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not even assuming your baiting nor do i care, but if most people running cameras in mountains are running salt or bait how does that tell you how deer are using the mountains? If they are just migrating to bait? The idea that cameras don't cause success to go up is absolute BS. The no brainer is.... if it wasn't easier or success didn't go up , most wouldn't be using them? There are simple facts to camera use that most just don't want to admit. I would be curious to know the percentage of folks using bait under cameras? Or are most just randomly throwing them up on trails?
Private or public land that has low hunting pressure,it may give a tiny advantage. That's my honest opinion.
Now I can tell ya without a doubt,heavy hunted public land .
Which is where I'm at most times. Picture count will go from thousands a month to a handful of pics for the month.
During the fall season. I have spots the elk will disappear for 3 months exactly,you could set your watch or calendar to it.
Advantage of knowing a buck/elk was there mid-summer.
Getting a game animal from trail cam to the back of a pickup is harder than most think. It takes some luck. Years of work,to figure the fall season pattern.
Post by: LDennis24 on January 18, 2025, 09:22:06 AM
I believe that if the WDFW i.e. game commission proposes to ban trail cams especially at any time of the year it will use the spread of CWD as the reasoning. Weather it's justified or not. But this discussion/vote seems to be started on the ethical or non ethical use and time if any they should be used. Obviously each person has their own reasoning for usage or non usage of trail cams. Then cell cameras got put in the discussion. I like to see what's out there on my trail cams and even what's out there in areas I don't hunt. I like to get a feel for the number and what predators are also out there. Just my take and opinion.
So question for you, if every hunter on public land started using game cameras and had 15-30 of them in the woods, how many cameras would you be seeing on land such as a single school land dnr parcel? Would you think it was cool to walk into the woods and every 20 feet see a game camera? Some folks who put game cameras out get the attitude that if they put the camera there it's somehow their spot. It's been discussed on here before. And sometimes there will be 6+ cameras looking at the same wallow! Doesn't sound very appealing and it's not if you have seen it. It's irritating and takes away from the person who wants to be out in nature and not be walking up on "surveillance" every time they come around a tree.
Post by: Feathernfurr on January 18, 2025, 09:29:57 AM
Your cell cameras didn’t help you harvest your buck this year except they absolutely did. They showed you a buck to target, they drove you to scour the entire mountain for clues, they did because of the things they taught you.
Using cameras on bait is the lowest hanging fruit. Start getting cameras in bedding areas and funnels and they’re 100x more effective. I have run cameras in the past that have been on beds and gotten photos of bucks in the bed for 14 hours a day.
I’m really not trying to be critical but I think you’re just too close to the problem to see the big picture. I used to be in the same place. I have 10 cell cams and run them with a groups of hunting buddies that totally close to 40 cell cams. We harvest a ton of mature bucks and elk because of them and have all openly admitted that it’s unfair. Half the places we hunt require a 30m-2h drive followed by launching a boat and 30 minute boat ride before we even walk in. At the end of the day, we’ll keep using them, because everyone else is and we won’t put ourselves behind the 8 ball. We won’t self regulate when it puts us at a disadvantage, which is why it needs to be addressed by the community as a whole.
Post by: hunter399 on January 18, 2025, 09:36:44 AM
I know a few parcels right now,trail cam or not.I believe that if the WDFW i.e. game commission proposes to ban trail cams especially at any time of the year it will use the spread of CWD as the reasoning. Weather it's justified or not. But this discussion/vote seems to be started on the ethical or non ethical use and time if any they should be used. Obviously each person has their own reasoning for usage or non usage of trail cams. Then cell cameras got put in the discussion. I like to see what's out there on my trail cams and even what's out there in areas I don't hunt. I like to get a feel for the number and what predators are also out there. Just my take and opinion.
So question for you, if every hunter on public land started using game cameras and had 15-30 of them in the woods, how many cameras would you be seeing on land such as a single school land dnr parcel? Would you think it was cool to walk into the woods and every 20 feet see a game camera? Some folks who put game cameras out get the attitude that if they put the camera there it's somehow their spot. It's been discussed on here before. And sometimes there will be 6+ cameras looking at the same wallow! Doesn't sound very appealing and it's not if you have seen it. It's irritating and takes away from the person who wants to be out in nature and not be walking up on "surveillance" every time they come around a tree.
People are there recreational activities every day.
You can show up any day of week ,your never alone.
Post by: TimberMuleys on January 18, 2025, 10:01:12 AM
That’s just not enough time to see that kind of impact. Wildlife and fisheries studies are often conducted for 20 plus year to quantify the impacts of changes in an ecosystem oof management technique. I’m not sure what your job field is or your educational background is but I would suggest looking into biostatistics. With a small enough data sample, such as 3 years, I could easily suggest that the consumption of Coca Cola has a direct correlation to the decline in deer harvest. Causation vs correlation.
Your cell cameras didn’t help you harvest your buck this year except they absolutely did. They showed you a buck to target, they drove you to scour the entire mountain for clues, they did because of the things they taught you.
Using cameras on bait is the lowest hanging fruit. Start getting cameras in bedding areas and funnels and they’re 100x more effective. I have run cameras in the past that have been on beds and gotten photos of bucks in the bed for 14 hours a day.
I’m really not trying to be critical but I think you’re just too close to the problem to see the big picture. I used to be in the same place. I have 10 cell cams and run them with a groups of hunting buddies that totally close to 40 cell cams. We harvest a ton of mature bucks and elk because of them and have all openly admitted that it’s unfair. Half the places we hunt require a 30m-2h drive followed by launching a boat and 30 minute boat ride before we even walk in. At the end of the day, we’ll keep using them, because everyone else is and we won’t put ourselves behind the 8 ball. We won’t self regulate when it puts us at a disadvantage, which is why it needs to be addressed by the community as a whole.
Coca Cola, really? Ok, well then by that logic we cannot ban any cell cameras for the next 20 years because we don’t know what the implications are yet. Let’s also just open unlimited tags for ungulates and not fix it for 20 years because we don’t have enough numbers to support that our populations are dangerously low. I know those are outlandish, but do you not see the flaw in waiting 20 years to make an adjustment to management strategies? If the numbers are already showing you something? A 30% drop being maintained over three years should at least be alarming! I understand 3 years isn’t a lot, I have been speaking with our local biologist regularly. I am an electrician right now, but my buddy is studying to be a wildlife biologist and I study biology in my free time on occasion. However, the WDFW numbers are very clear. Populations are down, and so are harvest numbers, despite there being more hunters.
My argument is that I didn’t kill my buck because of cell cameras. I would’ve done the same thing if I had normal cameras. It was my #1 spot this year. If anything, if I didn’t have cell cameras, I wouldn’t have been able to know what was living on other mountains and wouldn’t have hunted a few 160 type bucks for a few days. I know that trail cameras 100% aided in me killing my buck, however, I still had to obey the wind, and still hunt through nasty terrain and make it count at 32yds. Cell cam or not, most people aren’t making it happen. That’s not to toot my own horn at all, I’m just saying, cell cams don’t just all of a sudden make it easy to kill big deer.
I have put cameras on funnels and beds, once again, that is why I think some of my salts and cameras are more effective than others. I try putting my salts along where I think bucks would feel safe traveling between feed and bedding. I also put cameras on beds. In fact, I have pictures of a tagged bull moose in a bed. When I spoke to the biologist about it, she said they didn’t have any tagged bulls in the whole unit. So, after digging a little deeper, she found that the bull had been relocated in 2020. He then had traveled 65 miles as a crow flies and been living where I had him on cam for much of the summer! I thought that was pretty cool! Bull number 246 if anyone is curious.
Completely agree with having the cell cameras a long distance away. My cell cams are over 3 hours of driving and 1-5 miles of hiking to get back to. That is why I argue that it doesn’t mean anything if I get a buck to come in to the cell cam. Because, most people use cell cams where they don’t have time to go check cards enough or don’t want to spend the gas money.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: EnglishSetter on January 18, 2025, 10:05:38 AM
If you want a cam during hunting season, then you need to attend it manually. i.e. no cell cams during hunting season.
Post by: hunter399 on January 18, 2025, 10:08:36 AM
Of course I only run traditional cameras.
This buck showed during the summer months.
I pulled the camera before fall season starts. Over the course of modern. Most days 2-6 pickups at gate,I was only able to hunt at that spot twice , with nobody there.
I put camera back up in December,he hasn't shown.
Did I really get some great advantage.
His pattern most likely changed during fall, always a chance he is still alive. Here I'm running cams, can't even tell if he is alive.
All I got was some pics to drool over
Post by: TimberMuleys on January 18, 2025, 10:11:26 AM
I'll give a example here.Dandy buck, great example.
Of course I only run traditional cameras.
This buck showed during the summer months.
I pulled the camera before fall season starts. Over the course of modern. Most days 2-6 pickups,I was only able to hunt at that spot twice , with nobody there.
I put camera back up in December,he hasn't shown.
Did I really get some great advantage.
His pattern most likely changed during fall, always a chance he is still alive.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Feathernfurr on January 18, 2025, 10:35:20 AM
I'll give a example here.
Of course I only run traditional cameras.
This buck showed during the summer months.
I pulled the camera before fall season starts. Over the course of modern. Most days 2-6 pickups at gate,I was only able to hunt at that spot twice , with nobody there.
I put camera back up in December,he hasn't shown.
Did I really get some great advantage.
His pattern most likely changed during fall, always a chance he is still alive. Here I'm running cams, can't even tell if he is alive.
All I got was some pics to drool over
I mean I think you’re making some of our points. You know the buck was there from running cameras in the off season, but they weren’t there in the season and therefore didn’t assist in you harvesting said buck.