Would you support any of these camera bans?

[TimberMuleys]

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

:yup:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Humptulips]

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.

[fishngamereaper]

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 

[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

[JakeLand]

No way , plus they just passed this last year that we can check/monitor our traps with cell cameras as a legal way

[Feathernfurr]

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.

[hughjorgan]

I don’t see cell cams or game cams increasing success for many guys or gals. I started running cell cams the last couple years cause life gets in the way. Have three kids under three my times limited so I can throw out some salt and some cell cams and take inventory of what is in the area and decide where I want to hunt. Never saw a spike in my spots the two weekends I was able to hunt, plenty of cows and bulls. Will do it again this year, maybe they’ll help this year who knows. Fun to see what’s out there with limited time though.

[Cougartail]

Is it OK with you purist if trappers use cellular cameras to check traps?

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.

[boneaddict]

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.    If cameras are so important for your harvest then I’d think they must be contributing to more harvest. 

[hunter399]

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

I asked a biologist for some reference points to start looking one time.
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.

[TimberMuleys]

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

[TimberMuleys]

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.    If cameras are so important for your harvest then I’d think they must be contributing to more harvest. 

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

[boneaddict]

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.

[baldopepper]

This whole thread is basically a clash of the old ways vs the new ways.  Constant clash over lots of things in life.  Many of us remember the old days when life seemed simpler, particularly our ways of hunting. Most hit the trail with their rifle, a pair of so-so binoculars, a pocket full of shells, and a sharp knife. That's basically what was available. Would we have ridden around in quads, put out trail cams, carried 50 power spotting scopes and shot guns capable out to a thousand yard?  Probably would have had it been available.  Was hunting a less complicated endeavor  in the old days? I think so.  Times have certainly changed but we used the best equipment and techniques available just like the modern hunters do. Personally feel we need to draw a line in the sand when it comes to the use of higher tech in hunting, just not sure where in the sand to mark it.




 
 

[TimberMuleys]

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