Would you support any of these camera bans?

[TimberMuleys]

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

[TimberMuleys]

Maybe they'll make the cams capable of shooting the deer for you
Or at least gps darting it so you can find it easier...at least for the guys that don't have time to "hunt"....

Everyone gets a trophy right...
It all started going downhill with millennials 

What 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?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If your goal is to eat wild game why do you care what size antlers the deer has?

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.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TimberMuleys]

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.
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

[boneaddict]

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. 

[HillHound]

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 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

[fishngamereaper]

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.
.

[CarbonHunter]

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.
.

 

[CarbonHunter]

I know a lot of you only see this in how you are using cameras or cell cameras. This probably should be 2 topics because my feeling is the issues revolve around cell cameras during hunting season and not cameras in general.

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.

[TimberMuleys]

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 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

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.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HUNTINCOUPLE]

NO!   

[HUNTIN4SIX]

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.   

[Feathernfurr]

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.

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.

[TimberMuleys]

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

[GWP]

I remember reading years ago about a game farm that you could pay for a critter, look at a camera online, pick your animal, and shoot it remotely.
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.

[TimberMuleys]

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.

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.

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…

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