Idaho Fish and Game considering restricting the use of trail cameras

[Bar]

I guess not. You just naturally know how helpful they actually are with out ever using one...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

You don't? They do what I have to do in person. Do I need to know more than that?

 

[Grundy53]

You don't? They do what I have to do in person. Do I need to know more than that?

Yeah, you should...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Bar]

Yeah, you should...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I'm guessing you use cameras and don't like them being called an aid? Sorry, but that's what they are. Why do you think Idaho wants to restrict them?

 

[Grundy53]

I'm guessing you use cameras and don't like them being called an aid? Sorry, but that's what they are. Why do you think Idaho wants to restrict them?

Good guess. Not disputing that they are an aid. Just not to the extent that you seem to think. Literally everything you use to hunt is an aid. If it wasn't you wouldn't use it.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Bar]

Good guess. Not disputing that they are an aid. Just not to the extent that you seem to think. Literally everything you use to hunt is an aid. If it wasn't you wouldn't use it.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

My only point is they were an aid. To what degree they help is probably different with hunters and areas. I'm just automatically against aids, so I gave my unwanted opinion. I do that a lot.

Anyway, no harm, no foul.

 

[Grundy53]

My only point is they were an aid. To what degree they help is probably different with hunters and areas. I'm just automatically against aids, so I gave my unwanted opinion. I do that a lot.

Anyway, no harm, no foul.

Haha. Me to. It's a good debate. No worries.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[timekiller13]

I feel this is not a good idea. A game camera is by general definition an aid, but to what extent is it an aid? A game camera does not give you much better an opportunity to harvest an animal than any other type of hunting device. I have used cameras here in NC for 15 years. I cannot reasonably say that they have helped me kill more animals. They have helped me target specific animals, because without the camera it is doubtful i would have known they were there. Cameras also allow me to see other animals that I may not be targeting. I use cameras to keep tabs on the predators in my area (coyote, bobcat and bears). I also use them for security to keep an eye out for trespassers and thieves (private land). In the end the camera is just another tool to help me with scouting and hunting. Its no different than my bow, GPS, rifle, treestands, food plots or a multitude of other items I use. You ban one "aid" then what's to say another isn't next? Next it could be rangefinders, or scoped rifles or GPS units or satellite phones. You give them an inch, they will take a mile.

 

[BuzzH]

They have an impact on hunting, just like every other piece of technology.

I was talking with Ryan Hatch while working near Kanab Utah a few years back...he said, and I believe its 100% true, that trail cameras on the Arizona strip kill about 90% of the deer taken each year. Like he said, what used to take years and years to learn about the big deer there, is now as easy as hanging camera's. Once you know a big buck is in a certain area, it really narrows things down and just a matter of time before it gets whacked.

Technology has impacts on game, permit numbers, and opportunity...trail cams included.

If it comes down to it, I'd much rather limit technology than tag numbers and opportunity.

 

[Ross]

They are a fun toy and hobby for me. Been using them for about 10 yrs. leave some out all year others about 5 months. I've killed one bull that I had on camera but did not help me shoot him. My 7mm with leupold scope and bullet at ten yds in the Idaho jungles did that As with anything there is always change and if they restrict them that sucks but it won't change my success only take away a fun hobby. I much prefer being able to buy two tags than have trail cams out if need be

 

[Nick Muche]

I used them often while I lived in Idaho, for bear baiting. Killed three Idaho bears, wife killed 2 Idaho bears, same bait....never killed a single bear we had on camera.

They have their place... My advice (and I commented on this proposal) would be to try your best to not allow the great state of Idaho to take away any of your rights and focus more on doing what you can personally to enjoy the outdoors. Once you lose a right, it's much harder to get it back.

 

[N2TRKYS]

To me, trail cameras aren't any less fair chase than someone shooting game at long distance. Even if those two things weren't considered fair chase, how does that negatively affect the game species? The limits are set by the biologist. If the biologist are setting high tag limits in hopes that hunters won't kill their quarry, then that seems like a dangerous tactic.

 

[twall13]

There have been some good points brought up by proponents of both sides of this issue. This is the first year I've set trail cameras so I'm curious to see how it helps me. I put them in an area where I've killed elk in the past and have a decent idea of what to expect from them during season but I wanted to get a better understanding of their habits year round. Regardless of how I use them, from what I've read of the proposed rules via this thread, it sounds like it's not worded very well. If it were to be implemented this way I think it would be incredibly difficult to enforce. How are they going to know if you checked your trail cam that morning or the day before? As a result, I think it might stop an honest, ethical hunter but wouldn't do much to stop those abusing the cameras in the first place. In my mind it's similar to gun laws that only restrict those who obey them, not the criminals that ignore the laws in the first place. I think it would be easier to enforce a total ban on cameras during the season than something like what has been proposed.

 

[Gr8bawana]

Totally support limits on the use of cameras. Transmitting cameras are total BS. You aren't too far from using drones. I commented with my support of this limitation. I commented that all cameras should be pulled from public lands from Sept 1st to Nov 30th. Drastic to some, but that's my opinion.

I would fully support a regulation requiring cameras to be pulled at least 1 week before any big game hunting season.
What ever happened to finding good hunting spots by putting boots on the ground?

 

[P Carter]

To set and check trail cameras you have to put boots on the ground. The cameras just give a more comprehensive view of what's going on beyond the brief snapshots of time you can spend in the woods. Any complaint about not putting boots on the ground would be better directed towards google earth, interactive F&G departments, harvest statistics, and internet resources.

 

[BroodBuster]

If this were to pass my biggest question would be how are the elk going to pattern hunters?

 

[timekiller13]

Ummm.... How do you think the cameras got there? They don't just magically appear in the woods. A game camera does nothing for you if you don't scout. Its just a nice tool to have. You find an area that looks good, and then you hang a camera to see whats using the area. A camera is not a substitute for scouting, its just an additional tool in the arsenal.

 

[topher89]

Great thread and debate. 4 pages without getting off-track or name calling.

I personally feel trail cams should be pulled during hunting seasons. Not so much because of what they can do today but what they could and will do in the future. It is hard to make laws that keep up with technology. It was so great when every state got on the drone issue before it was an issue. Trail cameras have slipped by and not been regulated so now people are used to them.

I personally dislike the ownership aspect that goes along with trail cameras. Once a guy names a buck and starts acting like it it his to get, I think the technology has gotten in the way of fair chase and the challenge of hunting

 

[N2TRKYS]

Heck, they doing camera users a favor. If it's on public land, some jackass will steal them anyway.

 

[Mischief209]

You guys keep up the discussion to much longer and california sees this, will have that law implemented tomorrow. On a real note, i was looking at the wording and it states "transmitting device". Is that saying just cameras that use the wifi or realtime function will be banned? But regular memory card cameras are ok?

Ive only used a camera once. Got some good pics, mostly lions but manily pictures of nothing but leaves blowing. Havent used it since. This is a great debate as ive never really put much thought into the subject. Thank you

Edit: sorry re read it a few times and it looks like it could be any of those options. I found the proposals.

 

[Gr8bawana]

Great thread and debate. 4 pages without getting off-track or name calling.

I personally feel trail cams should be pulled during hunting seasons. Not so much because of what they can do today but what they could and will do in the future. It is hard to make laws that keep up with technology. It was so great when every state got on the drone issue before it was an issue. Trail cameras have slipped by and not been regulated so now people are used to them.

I personally dislike the ownership aspect that goes along with trail cameras. Once a guy names a buck and starts acting like it it his to get, I think the technology has gotten in the way of fair chase and the challenge of hunting

You guys think there might be any link between the fact that there are fewer big bucks and bulls and the fact that cameras show people where they are? Someone who sees pics of dinks isn't going to go hunt them. When they see large antlers which is the only goal these days due to all the crappy tv hunting shows, that is the animal they will hunt.