Does anyone use a thermal while scanning before switching to traditional optics?

[USP45]

States and record keeping organizations have been keen to limit the use of electronics to aid in the taking of game. Comparing that to an increase in optical magnification IMO is disingenuous.

I understand your point and as stated before it is a slippery slope, but we all now use electronic devices on the regular to hunt. And electronic optical devices at that such as not only rangefinders, but rangefinders that will compensate for inclination, take into account temperature, barometric pressure, wind speed/direction, Bluetooth to your Kestrel and then spit out and exceeding accurate ballistic computation so that we may now make reliable shots at distances which would have been seen as totally unethical 20 years ago. Just as some see the use of thermals as being unethical now.

I am not trying to argue, just a counterpoint. Many of the devices that we ethically use today (to include electronic of various forms) would have been seen as disingenuous 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Will be interesting to see if something like thermal devices are in more common use in 20 years at which time they will be accepted and we will be talking about some other new for of technology and if it should be allowed or not... maybe laser guided .30 bullets or something lol.

 

[MattB]

I understand your point and as stated before it is a slippery slope, but we all now use electronic devices on the regular to hunt. And electronic optical devices at that such as not only rangefinders, but rangefinders that will compensate for inclination, take into account temperature, barometric pressure, wind speed/direction, Bluetooth to your Kestrel and then spit out and exceeding accurate ballistic computation so that we may now make reliable shots at distances which would have been seen as totally unethical 20 years ago. Just as some see the use of thermals as being unethical now.

I am not trying to argue, just a counterpoint. Many of the devices that we ethically use today (to include electronic of various forms) would have been seen as disingenuous 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Will be interesting to see if something like thermal devices are in more common use in 20 years at which time they will be accepted and we will be talking about some other new for of technology and if it should be allowed or not... maybe laser guided .30 bullets or something lol.

None of the things you mentioned helps a hunter find game, which is the crux of the issue.

 

[Blowdowner]

This topic has certainly caused a significant emotional event for some, that was not the intent.

No I don’t think anyone responded with even slightly significant emotion. That you’d say this suggests it WAS the intent.

 

[Mykolaivka887]

States and record keeping organizations have been keen to limit the use of electronics to aid in the taking of game. Comparing that to an increase in optical magnification IMO is disingenuous.

I agree, totally.

 

[Mykolaivka887]

...... but we all now use electronic devices on the regular to hunt.

You are totally wrong about that, Sir. There are those, myself included, that DO NOT use any electronic devices whatsoever to hunt.

 

[Hatchet Jack]

not sure whats dumber in this thread... wanting to use thermal while hunting deer or relying on someone answering the phone at a CPW office to interpret the law for you and then rely on their answer.

 

[kthomas]

None of the things you mentioned helps a hunter find game, which is the crux of the issue.

They can, if they are RF binos like Leica Geovids.

If our contention with technology is that it makes it to easier to find game, then we also shouldn't be using binoculars or spotters.

It's the exact same logic.

 

[ManyBullets]

“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”​

― Mark Twain

 

[ognennyy]

By that same logic, wouldn't using any magnified optics that enhances your ability to see game be considered "cheating"?

Just like humans didn't evolve to have the capability to see thermal imagery with our naked eyes, we don't have the biological ability to see 8x-60x magnification without the use of man-made artificially constructed optical instruments.

Sure I suppose I can see the argument there. But if we carry that one all the way through to conclusion, everything besides running through the woods naked with hand-crafted spears is cheating.

At the end of the day I'm just someone who rejects the notion that making everything easier is a good thing. The most rewarding things in life are challenging. If you're not driven enough to find a way to accomplish a task without the blight of technology taking the challenge out of it, you don't deserve it.

 

[kthomas]

Sure I suppose I can see the argument there. But if we carry that one all the way through to conclusion, everything besides running through the woods naked with hand-crafted spears is cheating.

At the end of the day I'm just someone who rejects the notion that making everything easier is a good thing. The most rewarding things in life are challenging. If you're not driven enough to find a way to accomplish a task without the blight of technology taking the challenge out of it, you don't deserve it.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, I'm just pointing out the fallacy in the logic being applied by some in this thread.

I don't have nor use a thermal scanner. But the arguments being made against them in here are beyond silly and hypocritical, given that we all probably use optical technology to enhance our ability to find game.

 

[USP45]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, I'm just pointing out the fallacy in the logic being applied by some in this thread.

I don't have nor use a thermal scanner. But the arguments being made against them in here are beyond silly and hypocritical, given that we all probably use optical technology to enhance our ability to find game.

This is kind of where the thread went.

 

[Formidilosus]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, I'm just pointing out the fallacy in the logic being applied by some in this thread.

I don't have nor use a thermal scanner. But the arguments being made against them in here are beyond silly and hypocritical, given that we all probably use optical technology to enhance our ability to find game.

This is kind of where the thread went.

I use thermals a lot- A lot. There is a massive difference between a optical instrument with magnification and a thermal- it’s not even close. If an animal is behind a bush, you can not see through the bush to the bedded animal. With a thermal, cover means nothing.

As for the electronic devices and technology- I would be fine if they banned all of it for hunting. Humans used technology in history because we hunted for survival and because the “technology” wasn’t such an advantage that you had to artificially limit how many hunters could hunt. We are well past the point where game can sustain itself, and we must artificially limit what can be used- you either limit technology to lower the success rate, or you severely limit how many hunters can hunt with near guaranteed success.

 

[USP45]

As for the electronic devices and technology- I would be fine if they banned all of it for hunting. Humans used technology in history because we hunted for survival and because the “technology” wasn’t such an advantage that you had to artificially limit how many hunters could hunt. We are well past the point where game can sustain itself, and we must artificially limit what can be used- you either limit technology to lower the success rate, or you severely limit how many hunters can hunt with near guaranteed success.

So this is a valid argument, and you are correct in that thermals certainly offer the ability to see through brush. We have quite the pig issue in Texas and we too use thermals extensively here.

As you eluded to, the question becomes at what point do you say enough is enough. It would seem as though most would be happy with either stopping where we are now, or even scaling back from current hunting technology levels such as eliminating electronics. If this were the case then many people out there also need to get comfortable with land nav, terrain association etc.

 

[Formidilosus]

So this is a valid argument, and you are correct in that thermals certainly offer the ability to see through brush. We have quite the pig issue in Texas and we too use thermals extensively here.

If the goal is to reduce animal numbers by whatever it takes, then thermals are certainly effective. I’ve used thermals, and a lot worse on pigs.

As you eluded to, the question becomes at what point do you say enough is enough. It would seem as though most would be happy with either stopping where we are now, or even scaling back from current hunting technology levels such as eliminating electronics. If this were the case then many people out there also need to get comfortable with land nav, terrain association etc.

Yes they would. And that’s ok. There’s a cery limits resource, so control opportunity, access, or success rates- those are the options. Limited hunting opportunity is the worst way to do so, but seems to be the only one that states and hunters want to employ. Far better would be using means that allows most to get a tag, but limits success or access- limit technology and/or road use.

 

[2rocky]

I have placed a call with Colorado Parks and Wildlife Gunnison office to clarify and am waiting on a return call.

I understand how several on here have read the statute due to the "or", but I read that as a complete statement i.e. "hunting or taking wildlife outside legal hunting hours" meaning you cannot use them outside of legal hunting hours but can during. If you were not allowed to use thermals to hunt at all then why even talk about legal hunting hours? Why not just say you cannot use them period.... why include a time period.

I'm reminded of a quote.....

 

[MattB]

They can, if they are RF binos like Leica Geovids.

If our contention with technology is that it makes it to easier to find game, then we also shouldn't be using binoculars or spotters.

It's the exact same logic.

Based on the functions he listed, they can’t.

My contention was clear, it is only your misrepresentation of it which opens the door for comparison based on a false premise.

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

Just want to make sure that I’m following this correctly….

Spot lighting game at night is wrong but doing the equivalent during daylight with a thermal is ok.

And for the proponents, how effective is it actually at detecting animals when it’s 90* or hotter and sunny? Any difference in effectiveness between open country in the west versus the meth camps in East Texas?

 

[isItFallYet]

And 10 years ago, I was bummed when I found out that I couldn’t use my drone to help me locate game…

 

[UpTop]

These threads are always funny and entertaining. Peoples ideas of what is and isn’t “fair/ethical” sure is a muddled up mess of BS. Calling one thing wrong while using all the other means of “fair/ethical” devices or advantages has always seemed hypocritical and entitled. There’s nothing inherently “fair,ethical” about a mass majority of any of it. But if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy then by all means carry on in the blissful state you’ve wrapped yourself in.

 

[USP45]

There are some very strong opinions for sure. I do not mind disenting opinions, especially when well articulated like Formidilosus, but when someone simply comes on and says "that is unfair, you are a cheating piece of ****" and then devolve into geographical based insults... come on.

Everyone is here due to a shared common interest, one that is increasingly under liberal scrutiny. If ideas are bounced and someone does not like the idea then great, explain your position and we will move on. Some of the comments here remind me of ar15 forum or old school snipers hide.