Trail cams being outlawed, thoughts?

[KurtR]

Not talking about the one individual. I'm talking about the Rockstar outfitters that have ten 20 something year old's doing all the glassing and using radios and cell phones to call in the coordinates to what they are seeing...



Not me. A rangefinder can absolutely help you determine whether or not you should attempt the shot. I can't control the chuckle-head that thinks they need to lob lead because something might be a "booner"...

Superstar outfitters that post their glory photos are what is ruining hunting and herd health. Period. Prime example, a guy on that other forum hired a local outfitter to help him on the 1st rifle hunt in 2B (New Mexico) he drew for because he didn't have a clue where to go. The guy shoots a dandy 4x4 muley. Had the guy not used the outfitter, he likely would have gone home empty handed.

And game commissions are worried about trail cams?.....

so success rates are way higher than the game and fish think and to many animals are getting killed? Outfitters are a new thing the last few years?

 

[roadrunner]

so success rates are way higher than the game and fish think and to many animals are getting killed? Outfitters are a new thing the last few years?

No, outfitters are just getting better and better at it. Are you positive the once in a while hunter that hires an outfitter even fills out their harvest report? G & F records often show a percentage of hunters that don't report in.

Everybody is an outfitter these days and the hills are plagued with them that still have milk on their chins...

 

[CorbLand]

Not talking about the one individual. I'm talking about the Rockstar outfitters that have ten 20 something year old's doing all the glassing and using radios and cell phones to call in the coordinates to what they are seeing...

I don't think you will ever be able to stop a outfitter from hiring that many people. I would also be fully supportive of outlawing the use of radios and other communication devices to guide people in. The only defense that can be made for the difference between 10 guides and 10 cameras is the following.

All 10 of those guides/spotters are still limited by what they can and cannot see. They cannot glass through trees, rocks, etc.

Cameras are cheap. You can get decent ones for 35-50 bucks a piece and good ones for 100-200 a piece. I have 20 cameras and my average cost on them is 30-40 bucks each. I have had most of them for 4 plus years. The financial burden that having to hire more guides/spotters to make up for the loss of cameras should be prevalent. I don't know many 20 years old's that will work 24/7, 365 for 5 years for 200 bucks, an SD card and 8-12 AA batteries.

 

[JeffP_Or]

I believe there is a time and a place. Unfortunately, people can ruin them both and often need "guidance". I enjoy trail cams and have a few but only use them sporadically nd usually not during the season [except as security cams for camp]. Some of the habitat abuses, live technology and sale of coordinates/animals being experienced in western states is a bit much.

 

[roadrunner]

I don't know many 20 years old's that will work 24/7, 365 for 5 years for 200 bucks, an SD card and 8-12 AA batteries.

Unless you entice them with a $1,500 finders fee that is charged back to the client in the trip price. Besides, they only have to glass after July anyway, cameras will do the work for them before that.

 

[Goatboy22]

What!? Utah DWR concerned about technology making hunting easier, as I set up for my 520 yard shot with my scoped muzzleloader.....

 

[mrgreyman]

Here is a question for all you pro ban people...I am a landowner and like to make sure people are not on my land trespassing/stealing. These cameras are a great way to do that. How is this not government overreach telling me I can't do that? I am not allowed to have surveilance devices on my own property? Also, how do these laws define "game camera?"

 

[amassi]

Here is a question for all you pro ban people...I am a landowner and like to make sure people are not on my land trespassing/stealing. These cameras are a great way to do that. How is this not government overreach telling me I can't do that? I am not allowed to have surveilance devices on my own property? Also, how do these laws define "game camera?"

Utah specifically carved out an exception for this very purpose. You just can't use them for the taking of game.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[mrgreyman]

Utah specifically carved out an exception for this very purpose. You just can't use them for the taking of game.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

And how do they know what you are using them for? What happens when they just charge you anyway? (Like what has been happening frequently with civil asset forfeiture.) Here is your fine, prove you weren't using it to hunt...

 

[amassi]

And how do they know what you are using them for? What happens when they just charge you anyway? (Like what has been happening frequently with civil asset forfeiture.) Here is your fine, prove you weren't using it to hunt...

If you're that paranoid, they're coming to get you anyway.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

It’s been my opinion for a long time that game cameras should be for private property only. A lot of guys call me “old school” for wanting the most fair chase experience as possible though.

 

[mrgreyman]

If you're that paranoid, they're coming to get you anyway.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

If you think this will not be pushed to it's limit, you have very little experience dealing with the government.

 

[CorbLand]

Unless you entice them with a $1,500 finders fee that is charged back to the client in the trip price. Besides, they only have to glass after July anyway, cameras will do the work for them before that.

Well, if they are having to increased costs they should have to increase pricing, which in turn should lower demand. Doesn’t always happen but that’s what it should do on paper. Probably won’t happen as most outfitters have tons of guides/spotters and tons of cameras. It will be interesting to see.

The biggest thing the season will do is stop people from being able to pattern deer into the fall and winter ranges. How many times have you found a deer during the summer then have no clue where he goes mid September?

 

[Broomd]

I know of a 220"+ whitetail this year that got killed in my area where the guy was having lunch during gun season, got a cell cam alert which told him which wood lot the buck was in, and had him killed an hour later. I don't fault him because it's not illegal, but I'm not sure I consider that fair chase anymore.

There's also a big distinction between running cameras on private land for whitetails in the midwest and having 30-40 cameras set up on every water source on the Arizona Strip. Not sure outright bans make sense there, but there certainly be regulations on when they're used to as not to disrupt the animal trying to get a drink.

That is outrageous.....not illegal but dead wrong.
We should all welcome change to stop it.

 

[CorbLand]

Here is a question for all you pro ban people...I am a landowner and like to make sure people are not on my land trespassing/stealing. These cameras are a great way to do that. How is this not government overreach telling me I can't do that? I am not allowed to have surveilance devices on my own property? Also, how do these laws define "game camera?"

YouTube “Utah Wildlife Board Meeting” and you can watch it. Both questions you have asked are addressed by both the board and the division.

 

[MuleyFever]

Here is a question for all you pro ban people...I am a landowner and like to make sure people are not on my land trespassing/stealing. These cameras are a great way to do that. How is this not government overreach telling me I can't do that? I am not allowed to have surveilance devices on my own property? Also, how do these laws define "game camera?"

First post. Welcome to the forum.

 

[mrgreyman]

YouTube “Utah Wildlife Board Meeting” and you can watch it. Both questions you have asked are addressed both both the board and the division.

I watched it. Who gets to decide what someone is using the camera for? That question wasn't answered. Also, their definition of "trail camera" seems to include even my driveway camera.

 

[CorbLand]

I watched it. Who gets to decide what someone is using the camera for? That question wasn't answered. Also, their definition of "trail camera" seems to include even my driveway camera.

I mean I watched it while I was working so I may have missed it but I am pretty sure that they included something to the extent of “with the intention to take wildlife” so the burden of proof will be on the division to prove that was your intent and I don’t think many people put up drive way cameras for the intention of scouting wildlife but people do weird things.

Enforcement of this will most likely be reactionary versus proactive. I don’t trust the government anymore than most people but I would bet my last dollar that you aren’t going to get a knock on the door and a ticket because you have a Ring doorbell.

 

[lif]

I don’t know how to feel about this subject. I personally wish there weren’t cameras everywhere in the woods giving hunters these advantages because I personally don’t believe in hunting this way. I’m not sure I would classify it as unethical though, I’m just not sure how far we take all this technology and advantages before we say that’s the line. But I’m not sure I want to keep encouraging regulations from our governments. I can’t blame outfitters for doing it. There are people on this very forum willing to pay outfitters thousands of $$$$$$ for the animals they are finding on trail cams. As long as there is big money involved in anything, there will corruption in that matter.

 

[mrgreyman]

I mean I watched it while I was working so I may have missed it but I am pretty sure that they included something to the extent of “with the intention to take wildlife” so the burden of proof will be on the division to prove that was your intent and I don’t think many people put up drive way cameras for the intention of scouting wildlife but people do weird things.

Enforcement of this will most likely be reactionary versus proactive. I don’t trust the government anymore than most people but I would bet my last dollar that you aren’t going to get a knock on the door and a ticket because you have a Ring doorbell.

Sure that's what they said. I am just asking who gets to decide if your camera is there to "take wildlife" or to watch your property/ag fields? I also know that the burdon of proof should be on the division, but how does that saying go...you can beat the rap but can't beat the ride...I would bet money that if your trail cameras are up along the borders of BLM lands (like mine are) and a warden sees them, they are going to start walking around your property using their probable cause to do whatever they want and it will be their mind reading ability that is going to tell them if someone set the cameras up to watch game or watch for people. I don't have a problem with this rule on public land. Private is a whole different thing.