IADNR bans cell cam "scouting" during hunting season

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

https://iowawhitetail.com/community/threads/iowa-cell-camera-rules.64462/

 

[Bearded Bowhunter]

Fully support this in every state. I personally just think real time updates via cell cam are a step too far.

 

[EdP]

I see two sides to the issue of real time electronic monitoring as an aid to taking animals. One is the sportsmanship side. Using real time electronic monitoring is like the use of drones, hunting the day you fly in, etc, and are methods that are usually considered unsportsmanlike and prohibitted. The other side is in regard to one purpose of hunting being to control animal populations, either to the carrying capacity or to within a socially acceptable level. In the case of population control, does it matter how an animal is located?

A few years ago here in Va a hunter located and killed an elk (legally) via cell cam. He was a legal deer hunter in a tree stand when he recieved a cell cam image of an elk a short distance away. The elk was outside the elk restoration area and thus fair game under his deer tag. The hunter left the stand he was in and found and killed the elk based on real time info from the cell cam. The elk was fair game under his deer tag because VDWR wants elk limited to the restoration area for social reasons. That means killing elk that have left the restoration area. Use of the cell cam aided achieving that goal.

The use of technology to improve hunting success is a tricky issue. Trail cams are a big step forward for locating game, real time monitoring of cell cam even more so, but so were binos when they were developed.

Personally I tend towards the sportsmanship argument but have a hard time discounting the counter argument where it is applicable.

 

[SandyCreek]

on one hadn seems great for hunting..the thought of governemnt telling me what i can and cant put on my own land is no bueno especially the number of people who use these for security purposes who also hunt seems like the wardens can bend that however they see fit

 

[Yoder]

I love my cell cams. If you don't like them, don't use them. Kind of like using a rifle instead of a stick bow. If they ban cell cams, I want to start lobbying to ban optics and centerfire rifles.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

I love my cell cams. If you don't like them, don't use them. Kind of like using a rifle instead of a stick bow. If they ban cell cams, I want to start lobbying to ban optics and centerfire rifles.

Not the same.

Outfitters and wealthy landowners scatter a freaking cell cam every 100 yards during the season so they can more or less observe/predict big buck movement in near real time. Then they place themselves or clients directly in the path of the buck. They're treating them like radios and other "electronic devices" that are used to reduce/eliminate fair chase.

It's also not hard to imagine outfitters hazing deer back onto their property/leases if cell cam pics indicate they're atttempting to cross over to the neighbors.

As if gigantic standing row crop baiting sites, I mean food plots, weren't enough of an advantage already.

Don't forget to lobby banning compound bows and crossbows that shoot let's say over 250 fps. And don't forget pendulum sights and those with more than 3 pins.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

on one hadn seems great for hunting..the thought of governemnt telling me what i can and cant put on my own land is no bueno especially the number of people who use these for security purposes who also hunt seems like the wardens can bend that however they see fit

The state owns/manages the wild life. They don't belong to people just because they're living on their property. Thus the state gets to say how they're hunted and attempt to ensure fair chase.

 

[SuperDUECE22]

@jjohnsonElknewbie
has there been an official release on this?
Is it just public land or private as well?

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

@jjohnsonElknewbie
has there been an official release on this?
Is it just public land or private as well?

I haven't had time to see if there was a formal release. However, my understanding is it's applicable to both private and public. Apparently they've made it illegal to leave anything (stands, cameras, saddles, etc...) on public overnight.

I'll take a closer look shortly.

 

[Fishsqueezer74]

Where does the banning of equipment end?

 

[TaperPin]

Thanks for posting this - usable real time video is something not even on my radar - the implications hadn’t sunk in until just now. Wow - being able to see a mountain’s animal traffic on every major game trail, and every mountain meadow all at once. Wow.

 

[MuleyFever]

Where does the banning of equipment end?

Hopefully not here.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

Interesting feedback from hunters during the 2023 Iowa deer hunter survey report.

Support for cell cams was evenly split with 37% agreeing that trasmitting cams impact fair chase and 36% saying they do not.

 

[Kurts86]

I had a coworker that ran a mess of cellular trail cameras and he would get a big buck on trail camera, put in for half a day PTO to go hunt right then. He was very successful in general for a lot of reasons besides just that but that was an extreme example.

I like cellular trail cameras because they save hours of driving and $$$ in fuel. It’s helpful for us to monitor water and vegetation growth on duck sloughs to make informed management decisions on a property 1.5 hours away.

I also like cellular trail cameras as pure entertainment to get wildlife photos in the middle of my day of suburban office work. I’ve seen very limited hunt decisions based on trail cams but I’ve usually only run 1-3 and not 30 of them.

I do think there would be a lot more trail camera bans if the technology had evolved in a few years and not over 2 decades. Trail cameras sucked for a long time and cellular cameras were prohibitively expensive until fairly recently. Where we are today they are ripe for abuse but it was so incremental we weren’t paying attention.

 

[Macintosh]

Devil will be in the details of course, but seems reasonable to me. Ia public land I have heard a few people comment about being caught on multiple cell cams on public land being more or less unavoidable and it being kind of a crappy experience as result, as well as it discouraging people from hunting in areas with cameras, so whether intended or not it is resulting in areas being “claimed”. I havent personally seen it so cant comment on the reality, just relating.

Fwiw NH has a reg preventing use for hunting, you can either not download pics until after a hunt or set it to delay sending for 24hrs with some brands. Obviously some people chafe at this, but the folks I know that work within it are generally pretty supportive and its not really an onerous requirement. I own and use cell cams year round, its fun as hell and the wife and I drink coffee and look at pics nearly every morning. I would not have a problem with it if I had to keep on private or delay pics in-season or similar.

I do think the distinction between situations in various states is important on this topic—use of tools that increase efficacy is different between a state with draw-hunts only and limited opportunity, versus a state with multiple otc tags available for a 3 or 4+ month season with the express goal of reducing a population, as well as states with lots of public vs very little public hunting opportunity.

I DONT think size/score of a buck or convenience of being able to scout on a distant area is relevant to the issue, have seen that brought up around the issue.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

Where does the banning of equipment end?

Equipment/tactics that reduce fair chase should be limited/eliminated.

For example, in IA, with few exceptions, there is rarely a shortage in quality food for whitetails. However, while the IADNR made baiting illegal years ago, maintaining a 5 acre "kill plot" is perfectly legal under the "included in agricultural activity" or whatever clause.

Out West, Bubba used to be limited by his physical fitness from getting to animals. Now ATVs, UTVs, and other motorized vehicles (including electric) make it far easier. At least when a guy packs in he's gotta have some riding skill and be able to tolerate the abuse from riding horses on mountain trails. I would 100% support non-motorized areas outside of wilderness areas.

Equipment that improves hunter precision does not impact fair chase IMO. For example, scopes with dialing turrets, centerfire rifles, electronic or pendulum bow sights, range finders, and crossbows. One can certainly argue that modern centerfire rifles and dialing turrets can extend the range of hunters that hone their marksmanship. However, the same can be said for compound bows and crossbows that are now shooting over 400 fps with electronic range finding sights and scopes. Even with this equipment, most hunters still need to use woodsmanship and marksmanship to get reasonably close to an animal.

 

[Yoder]

I can see how running 100 cell cams would affect fair chase. One or two, not so much. Just because a deer walked by a camera doesn't mean it will be there tomorrow.

 

[LongWayAround]

I can see how running 100 cell cams would affect fair chase. One or two, not so much. Just because a deer walked by a camera doesn't mean it will be there tomorrow.

Then you should be able to wait until tomorrow to see the pictures.

Cell cameras are cheating. It's well beyond the bounds of fair chase.

Also, your rifle vs stick bow "analogy" is not even close. Start your lobby against optics and center fires whenever you're ready.

 

[MallardSX2]

Email I received from the Iowa dnr this morning:



1) No trail or cell cameras of any type are allowed to be left unattended on public lands.
2) Cell cameras cannot be used anywhere (public or private) while actively hunting.

481A.24 Use of mobile radio transmitter prohibited — exceptions.
1. For the purposes of this section:
a. “One-way mobile radio transmitter” means a radio capable of transmitting a signal only but not capable of transmitting a voice signal. The signal may be tracked or located by radio telemetry or located by an audible sound.
b. “Two-way mobile radio transmitter” means a radio capable of transmitting and receiving voice messages including, but not limited to, a citizen band radio or a cellular telephone.
2. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person who is hunting shall not use a one-way or two-way mobile radio transmitter to communicate the location or direction of game or fur-bearing animals or to coordinate the movement of other hunters. This subsection does not apply to the hunting of coyotes except during the shotgun deer season as set by the commission under section 481A.38.
3. A licensed falconer may use a one-way mobile radio transmitter to recover a free-flying bird of prey properly banded and covered on the falconry permit.
4. A person hunting with the aid of a dog may use at any time a one-way mobile transmitter designed to track or aid in the recovery of the dog.

 

[Macintosh]

….
4. A person hunting with the aid of a dog may use at any time a one-way mobile transmitter designed to track or aid in the recovery of the dog.

Curious that they specify one-way transmission for this. Would this make a “track and train” device like a garmin alpha illegal, since it sends location info from
dog to handler, but also e-stim and tone/locate signal from handler to dog, that being two-way communication? Its not voice, but it seems ambiguous.