Trail cams being outlawed, thoughts?

[WCB]

Nope, especially when the requirements to be able to do it are dumb. In NM, a guide has to work for an outfitter for 3 years before they can even apply for an outfitters license. The hilarious thing is, a 50 year guy cannot outfit a hunt because he hasn't guided for three years, but a 23 year old man-child can because he started guiding out of high school...

And because of his age the 50 year old guy is a better hunter or would be a better outfitter? I don't see your point. Why is that a dumb rule? You want people with zero experience in the outfitting/guiding business to just come in and get an outfitters license?

 

[fatlander]

And because of his age the 50 year old guy is a better hunter or would be a better outfitter? I don't see your point. Why is that a dumb rule? You want people with zero experience in the outfitting/guiding business to just come in and get an outfitters license?

Honestly, I would like that. It’d be easier to find someone to help you get an outfitter tag at a fraction of the price of an outfitted hunt. The 10% rule is a grotesque government overreach that provides outfitter welfare on the backs of hunting and fishing license sales, Pittman Robertson Funds, and taxpayer dollars.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[robby denning]

I got this in an email from Wyoming.

Looks like they’re paying attention to what goes on in Utah with this ban.

I checked this thread and didn’t see it, but If this link was already posted, my bad

'It's not a fair hunt any longer': Utah bans trail cameras, other tech during hunting season

One of the more divisive issues to ever come across the Utah Wildlife Board ended with a rule change.

www.ksl.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[packer58]

I run a bunch of SD card type cams and really enjoy pulling cards and seeing the pics, that being said, I know first hand that cams will give you an advantage purely by sampling the animals in your area. That sampling will make you focus on specific areas knowing without a doubt that your target animal is in the general area providing you or others haven't bumped him enough to change his normal patterns.

Restricting cams during the hunting season makes sense to me especially the cell type cams, Nevada has similar regulations already and I have no problem with that.

I guess I would compare cell cams with flying in and hunting the same day........

 

[bowhuntrben]

I got this in an email from Wyoming.

Looks like they’re paying attention to what goes on in Utah with this ban.

I checked this thread and didn’t see it, but If this link was already posted, my bad

'It's not a fair hunt any longer': Utah bans trail cameras, other tech during hunting season

One of the more divisive issues to ever come across the Utah Wildlife Board ended with a rule change.

www.ksl.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting and thanks for sharing.

I haven't looked into the actual language, but according to this article "A trail camera is defined by the state as a 'device that is not held or manually operated by a person and is used to capture images, video or location data of wildlife and uses heat or motion to trigger the device.'"

Based off of this, what would prevent a person from using a point-and-shoot or other camera and setting it on a water source or some other location and set it to do time-lapse photos? You'd have to figure out battery situation, etc., but it could still provide some of the same info. Sure you'd get a lot empty photos, but you could still weed through them and see the ones with animals in them. You'd be within the law with the language specified above. Maybe there's more language that would prevent this, but the definition above wouldn't prevent it since it says "and uses heat or motion to trigger the device."

I'm not advocating for trying to get around the rules. Just an observation.

 

[MallardSX2]

The indians and Daniel Boone didn't have em, so they are an unfair advantage in the pursuit of game. I just have a habit of painting with a wide brush.

Daniel Boone also hunter bears elk and deer with LARGE packs of hounds all across the US......FYI.

 

[2ski]

This is all just a ploy by the council of Bigfoot so they won't get caught on game cams. Or so that's what the Bigfoot thread has me thinking.

 

[CorbLand]

Interesting and thanks for sharing.

I haven't looked into the actual language, but according to this article "A trail camera is defined by the state as a 'device that is not held or manually operated by a person and is used to capture images, video or location data of wildlife and uses heat or motion to trigger the device.'"

Based off of this, what would prevent a person from using a point-and-shoot or other camera and setting it on a water source or some other location and set it to do time-lapse photos? You'd have to figure out battery situation, etc., but it could still provide some of the same info. Sure you'd get a lot empty photos, but you could still weed through them and see the ones with animals in them. You'd be within the law with the language specified above. Maybe there's more language that would prevent this, but the definition above wouldn't prevent it since it says "and uses heat or motion to trigger the device."

I'm not advocating for trying to get around the rules. Just an observation.

Not a lawyer but my guess would be this portion "manually operated by a person." By setting it and leaving, you are no longer manually operating the camera.

I would interpret that to say that "the device is not being held or manually operated by a person" not "can be manually operated or held by a person."

 

[Rob5589]

This is all just a ploy by the council of Bigfoot so they won't get caught on game cams. Or so that's what the Bigfoot thread has me thinking.

Poor Darrell just wants to be left alone...

After reading here and other places, it's a bit disingenuous to say cams don't help. Why would anyone buy 15-20 game cameras otherwise?

 

[CorbLand]

Poor Darrell just wants to be left alone...

After reading here and other places, it's a bit disingenuous to say cams don't help. Why would anyone buy 15-20 game cameras otherwise?

The only argument that I have seen that answers this is that its a hobby and generally you dont look for financial ROI on a hobby. So, spending that much money to not see a return is justified. Same with hunting in general. If you calculate out what you have spent versus what you get back financially, its probably not there and would be cheaper to just buy meat. The return that cameras provides cannot be converted to a number, therefore, it cant be quantified.

Everyone knows that cameras provide a massive advantage. If they didnt, not many people would fight so hard to keep them.

 

[bowhuntrben]

Not a lawyer but my guess would be this portion "manually operated by a person." By setting it and leaving, you are no longer manually operating the camera.

I would interpret that to say that "the device is not being held or manually operated by a person" not "can be manually operated or held by a person."

Quite possible.

My experience dealing with contracts/specifications makes the "and" jump out at me. In the language shown it means that it also has to meet the requirement of being activated by heat or motion.

In my organization, if we had something like that in the contract documents and didn't actually mean that it also has to be activated by heat or motion, we would lose every time because of the "and". Perhaps it is different in a case where is prosecution, though...and maybe there is more clarifying language in the actual document.

 

[CorbLand]

Quite possible.

My experience dealing with contracts/specifications makes the "and" jump out at me. In the language shown it means that it also has to meet the requirement of being activated by heat or motion.

In my organization, if we had something like that in the contract documents and didn't actually mean that it also has to be activated by heat or motion, we would lose every time because of the "and". Perhaps it is different in a case where is prosecution, though...and maybe there is more clarifying language in the actual document.

I watched it while I was working so I don't know where that language came from. If it was the wildlife board, they cant make law, only instruct law to be made. If that is the case, the language will be changed when the law is written into code.

It would be interesting to have a lawyer chime in but I, who is not a lawyer, would read that as the first part is the precursor to everything behind it. Meaning that in order for the other one to apply, the first has to be met.

 

[robby denning]

cameras give me an edge, or I wouldn't be using them, but it is a small edge.

 

[CorbLand]

cameras give me an edge, or I wouldn't be using them, but it is a small edge.

Would be curious to why you would say its a "small edge" and how small you think it is?

It would also be interesting to hear your side of it and Hobbs side of it. Hobbs seems to think that it provides a big advantage when you are saying its small.

 

[svivian]

Speaking for me only.... I feel that it is a small advantage if I'm just looking to harvest an animal. I don't put up Trail Cams in areas I know elk or deer are if im just wanting to harvest one. I think its a medium to large advantage for someone who is looking to harvest a trophy for a particular unit. I think a Cell Camera is a huge advantage.

I think quantity of cameras also plays a role in how much of an advantage a person has.

 

[robby denning]

Would be curious to why you would say its a "small edge" and how small you think it is?

It would also be interesting to hear your side of it and Hobbs side of it. Hobbs seems to think that it provides a big advantage when you are saying its small.

I say it's small because I've really only found one big buck on a tcam in 8 years that I hadn't known about all ready. *Edit, two big bucks, and I never killed either.

I run 5-10 cams per year but they're not usually dictating where I hunt or focusing on specific bucks.

I have two cell cams too, but in the steep country I've used them in, no big advantage as you can't get anywhere quickly enough. Just like the daily feedback they provide. I understand that's different in easier to hunt places.

I almost always have my cams pulled before hunting season for obvious reasons, on public land.

Cams give me confidence the bucks could be around but before cams I still had other ways to know they were around like tracks, glassing.

It won't make a difference to me by much if they go away. But if they're legal, I'll continue to dabble.

I don't live in a really arid state like Ut/Nv (for the most part) where cams are more effective either, so that's some of the difference.

I don't run near the cams that Hobbs and those guys do, and that could be the difference too.

 

[NEWAoutdoors]

I for one would be devastated. Because for me the wildlife watching is so enjoyable. And Its another excuse to get outside and hike somewhere. Basically has nothing to do with hunting for me even if im hunting and have them out

 

[Where's Bruce?]

When you have one Outfitter placing 5000 cameras in nine units, and those same guides know exactly how, where and when the (insert game of choice here) are moving and their clients are effectively killing all the big animals in those units...well then you have laws like this. It's a reaction to perceived threat rather than a typical law and neither good or bad. We'll know if this is good or unhelpful 5 years from now.

 

[amassi]

I for one would be devastated. Because for me the wildlife watching is so enjoyable. And Its another excuse to get outside and hike somewhere. Basically has nothing to do with hunting for me even if im hunting and have them out

I suppose you could set cameras in designated refuge areas since you can't hunt them

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[roadrunner]

And because of his age the 50 year old guy is a better hunter or would be a better outfitter? I don't see your point. Why is that a dumb rule? You want people with zero experience in the outfitting/guiding business to just come in and get an outfitters license?

I would trust a 50 year with twice the life experience that's been hunting for a few decades over a 20 something year old with milk still on his chin anyday.

A 50 year old with decades of experience is a better bet than a kid just starting out. But hey, let's let the bright eye and bushy tail youngster be accountable for a clients safety because he guided for 3 years first.

That's my point.