Who's going to be the first hunting 'celebrity' or Youtube personality to put their foot down and stop using cellular cameras?

[arlow]

I think it would be very refreshing if someone came out and publicly verbalized their disapproval with where this technology is headed and backed that up with no longer using cell cameras for their hunting purposes.

Who cares

 

[sconnieVLP]

Article by Mark Kenyon on this subject, although it’s more of a discussion on “where is the line drawn” than “cell cameras are bad.”

https://www.themeateater.com/wired-...g-gear/how-to-create-a-fair-chase-cell-camera

 

[fulldraw1972]

Here is a look at Iowa and total buck harvest.
2022 - 46,464
2021 - 45,178
2017 - 47,995
2016 - 45,138
2012 - 46,626
2011 - 45,280
2007 - 52,134
2006 - 58,653

Guys can argue the ethics of cell cams all they want. Those numbers do not reflect in total harvest going up from the use of cell cams.

 

[Macintosh]

^^with iowa tags hard to draw, the argument could easily be made that if cell cams make hunting even a little easier that more people would be allowed to hunt with same harvest numbers if hunter efficacy could be slightly reduced, and cell cams could be one way to accomplish slightly reducing hunter efficacy. If it was a matter of getting more tags I’d trade in my cell cams in a heartbeat.

 

[bascott1]

If cell cameras are so bad and you wanna condemn them I hope you hunt with either a flintlock or a trad bow. Don’t use climbers or lock ons, no ground blinds. Hunt from the ground and wear blue jeans and heavy carhartt jackets and non insulated boots. Where I’m going is where does it stop? I’m sure at one point the compound bow and scopes on center fire rifles were controversial. I don’t use cell cameras at all but don’t hate on anyone that does. You do you boo.

 

[NLenz22]

I use cell cams exclusively now. It’s nice to be able to check your cams without bumping deer, it’s exciting to wake up to the notifications on your phone, and it really helps you get a feel for the timing of the season and when and how the patterns are changing, which is kind of cool.

It just seems so unlikely to me that you’re going to get a camera notification, check your phone, drop what you’re doing, pack your truck, get to your hunting spot, and find that specific deer in the same spot he was in god knows how long ago, and then kill him…

I think it may be different in western states where knowing a certain deer is in a particular canyon “right now” leaves you a pretty good chance of glassing him up and killing him. But in the Midwest, especially during the rut when movement is rapid and unpredictable, I just don’t see it panning out like that very often…

Or maybe I’m just doing it all wrong.

 

[fulldraw1972]

^^with iowa tags hard to draw, the argument could easily be made that if cell cams make hunting even a little easier that more people would be allowed to hunt with same harvest numbers if hunter efficacy could be slightly reduced, and cell cams could be one way to accomplish slightly reducing hunter efficacy. If it was a matter of getting more tags I’d trade in my cell cams in a heartbeat.

Iowa tags are hard to draw because demand has gone up. Tag numbers hasn’t decreased. There is a bill in the Iowa senate this year to increase
nonresident tags from 6000 to 7500.

Those harvest numbers show with technology there has not been an increase in harvest.

 

[Macintosh]

If that's the case then there shouldnt be an issue, at least in iowa. However, based on my own experience with cell cameras and cameras in general I highly question if that's true. Given I dont know what other factors might influence those numbers in IA I cant say that, but maybe you have more details that isolate the effect of cameras (I doubt cell cameras caused a decline in harvest, so something bigger changed--therefore I dont think you can say based only on those harvest numbers that cell cameras did not affect hunter efficacy). Question then is what are the implications of increasing tags...will that increase harvest, and if so will that need to be offset via some other means (shorter seasons, more of the season dedicated to primitive weapon, decrease in doe tags, etc)? Or are they actively trying to increase harvest?

I have no issue with cell cameras per se, people should do what makes sense for their preferences--UNTIL what other people do affects hunting opportunity or adds so much territorial pissing in the field that it makes for a relatively crappy experience on public land. We have well over 100 years of tradition in regulating the means of harvest specifically to fund conservation and management by maintaining and increasing hunting opportunity, hence bow-only seasons, muzzleloader and trad muzzleloader seasons, bans on night-hunting, bans on punt guns, bans on shooting from a boat under power, etc. Have no problem with making hunting sustainable without decreasing opportunity by making harvest a little more difficult. I would not advocate for any regulation without being able to show if they affect efficacy using data--but I personally think cell cameras do make me a more effective hunter without even leaving my couch, so in principle it makes sense to me to regulate the same way we do any other hunting implement in order to maximise opportunity within management objectives. But for an animal with unlimited or multiple over the counter tags where they are actively trying to increase harvest (i.e. whitetails in much of the East below the snow-belt), a regulation on cell cameras makes zero sense to me.

 

[fulldraw1972]

If that's the case then there shouldnt be an issue, at least in iowa. However, based on my own experience with cell cameras and cameras in general I highly question if that's true. Given I dont know what other factors might influence those numbers in IA I cant say that, but maybe you have more details that isolate the effect of cameras (I doubt cell cameras caused a decline in harvest, so something bigger changed--therefore I dont think you can say based only on those harvest numbers that cell cameras did not affect hunter efficacy). Question then is what are the implications of increasing tags...will that increase harvest, and if so will that need to be offset via some other means (shorter seasons, more of the season dedicated to primitive weapon, decrease in doe tags, etc)? Or are they actively trying to increase harvest?

I have no issue with cell cameras per se, people should do what makes sense for their preferences--UNTIL what other people do affects hunting opportunity or adds so much territorial pissing in the field that it makes for a relatively crappy experience on public land. We have well over 100 years of tradition in regulating the means of harvest specifically to fund conservation and management by maintaining and increasing hunting opportunity, hence bow-only seasons, muzzleloader and trad muzzleloader seasons, bans on night-hunting, bans on punt guns, bans on shooting from a boat under power, etc. Have no problem with making hunting sustainable without decreasing opportunity by making harvest a little more difficult. I would not adocate for any regulation without being able to show if they affect efficacy using data--but I personally think cell cameras do make me a more effective hunter, so in principle it makes sense to me to regulate the same way we do any other hunting implement in order to maximise opportunity within management objectives. But for an animal with unlimited or multiple over the counter tags where they are actively trying to increase harvest (i.e. whitetails in much of the East below the snow-belt), a regulation on cell cameras makes zero sense to me.

When I see a state legislature wanting to increase tag sales for nonresidents. It usually means money and not herd management.
1500 more nonresident tags adds 1.2 million in revenue.

Keep in mind when opportunity goes up it’s going to affect quality.

Another thing to keep in mind. 97.2 % of Iowa is private property. Those added tags need to hunt somewhere. Private land will be harder to come by and the public land will have more people on it as well.

I agree technology as a whole makes us more efficient as hunters.

 

[Honyock]

When I see a state legislature wanting to increase tag sales for nonresidents. It usually means money and not herd management.
1500 more nonresident tags adds 1.2 million in revenue.

Keep in mind when opportunity goes up it’s going to affect quality.

Another thing to keep in mind. 97.2 % of Iowa is private property. Those added tags need to hunt somewhere. Private land will be harder to come by and the public land will have more people on it as well.

I agree technology as a whole makes us more efficient as hunters.

Along the lines of 97.2% is private property, I recently read a report where they estimated nationwide that 95% of whitetails are killed on private land. In Oklahoma, a land lease (grazing, agriculture) is cheaper than a hunting lease. What used to be $8 per acre is now $20 per acre if it's decent hunting land.

 

[Coopsdaddy]

I have 120 in Oklahoma,no way im leasing it for 20 an acre.Not even double that.
Run cameras or don’t,not sure why it matters.
Been hunting same property for 20 years and just got 3 no cell cams. Never had interest but thought it may be fun..

 

[long hunter]

I run a camera or two, gives me a good idea of what is in the area, but come rut time you never know what is passing by Also, I like the pics of the other animals that are in the area or passing through. Getting ready now to put them out for this year, as I will be devoting the rest of the summer to working with the rifles I will take to Wyoming in October. Won't be home from there until its early muzzleloader season so don't really have a lot of time to sit in the woods and watch. And I do hunt traditional muzzleloader use a Christian Springs Anadreas Albricht .62 cal flintlock. So I guess the old meets the new.

 

[OKHunter84]

Everyone is always pontificating what is or isn't free chase. The cell camera thing isn't that big of a deal to me. I use one and it didn't change anything except I don't have to physically pull my card.

Why don't guys get as saucy about inline muzzleloaders, rifle season during the rut, crossbows being legal in a ton of states, auto ranging bow sights... things that actually could have large scale effects on harvest rates and efficacy?

 

[long hunter]

Because that's what most hunters use now of days.

 

[Macintosh]

….
Why don't guys get as saucy about inline muzzleloaders, rifle season during the rut, crossbows being legal in a ton of states, auto ranging bow sights... things that actually could have large scale effects on harvest rates and efficacy?

They do. Based on what I see, inlines, crossbows, auto adjusting bow sights cause at least as much handwringing as cell cams.

 

[Macintosh]

Regarding the post above about state legislatre and adding tags—does the iowa legislature set tag numbers? Does any state legislature?
Here, the fish and wildlife dept biologists recommend tag and license numbers based on herd estimates. The fish and wildlife board also takes public comment, and then makes an official recommendation of tag numbers, and the legislature either approves that or or not. At least here the political movement is toward reducing opportunity, I am not aware of a legislature in this region ever increasing tags above what biologists and wildlife board recommended. So Im curious how this works elsewhere.

 

[fulldraw1972]

Regarding the post above about state legislatre and adding tags—does the iowa legislature set tag numbers? Does any state legislature?
Here, the fish and wildlife dept biologists recommend tag and license numbers based on herd estimates. The fish and wildlife board also takes public comment, and then makes an official recommendation of tag numbers, and the legislature either approves that or or not. At least here the political movement is toward reducing opportunity, I am not aware of a legislature in this region ever increasing tags above what biologists and wildlife board recommended. So Im curious how this works elsewhere.

Here is a link to an article on it.
Not only do they want to increase non resident tags. They want to encourage nonresident hunters to shoot does. If this passes nonresidents that shoot does in high population areas will get a PP.

Legislation would increase number of out-of-state deer hunters by 25% - Iowa Capital Dispatch

Deer hunters who do not live in Iowa pine for the opportunity to hunt whitetail bucks in the state. A new bill would allow 1,500 more.

iowacapitaldispatch.com

 

[Macintosh]

Interesting. Sounds an awful lot like they are intentionally trying to reduce population, or at least reduce doe:buck ratio where they are increasing tags. The article also alluded to DNR setting tag numbers (“The DNR sets out-of-state quotas for different areas of the state”), so Im curious about the nuance on how that works there and what exactly is driving the push—the article makes it clear there would be a financial benefit but does not come out and say whether that was the rationale for the legislation.

 

[IsThisHeaven]

Our legislature tries every legislative season to increase nonresident tag numbers and to get more antlerless deer shot. The bill referenced above did not pass. They will try to get it, and many other awful wildlife/hunting bills passed again next spring.

Nonresident landowners and the Farm Bureau push most of these bills.

The DNR sets antlerless tag quotas.

 

[LookinforDirt]

Like them or not, use them or not doesn’t it come down to two things?

1. Have game harvest numbers increased due to cell cams to a level where it is harming the herd populations quantity, health, or quality?
2. Is it harming others ability to enjoy the woods and hunting?

A ton of technology is used today compared to 100, 50, 20, 10, even 5 years ago. Where do you draw the line? It’s already been said several times, will you give up your optics (scopes, binos, spotters), range finders, compound bows, smokeless powder, long range hunting equipment and components, anything that helps you shoot an animal over 200 yards, cooking fuel canisters, technical clothing and gear, motorized vehicles of any sort (e.g. boat, snowmobile), never go on the internet again to gain any information about hunting etc etc etc. An uncountable number of things have been developed over the decades to aid us and make hunting easier. The vast majority of them don’t require a screen or a battery. If it is not harming game and not interfering with other hunters ability to enjoy a hunt then it probably should be left alone.