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

[Rich M]

I think it would be refreshing and hold a lot of weight in the industry if someone did this.....

Really? You really worry about this?

 

[Honyock]

Cell cameras are good guard dogs. When you live 100 miles from your land, it's good to know if you've had any two-legged visitors come over the fence. It helps to hand a picture to the wildlife officer when you have tresspassers. Also good for seeing what bucks survived the Orange Army.

 

[Yoder]

If you guys get cameras banned, they need to do a buy back program just like guns. I run 4 cell cams and 4 regular cams. My biggest buck so far was killed using data from the regular cam, three months after I got a picture of him. My dad is getting pretty old so the cell cams have been really helpful trying to get him on some deer. I can see how they can be abused but I don't think it's that big of an impact. I would be good with the 12 or 24 hr delay. Mine are setup with a 12hr delay anyway to save batteries.

 

[DunnCoHunter]

I think the delay would be a great compromise. But IMO trying to enforce a ban on cell cams or even a 12-24 hour delay is going to be almost impossible.

 

[Woodchuck16]

Really? You really worry about this?

Well, in the last few years that cell cameras have been utilized it has changed how people hunt. A lot of change in a little amount of time - that is what I 'worry' about. If other people are not thinking or 'worrying' about this, its a giant miss.

 

[hh76]

I look at cell cams similar to how I look at people using cell phones/texts. Use them to discuss/ learn about areas and movement, but you shouldn't be allowed to use them to relay info while hunting.

You shouldn't be allowed to text a hunter when you see an animal headed their way, and you shouldn't be allowed to have a camera do the same.

 

[Rich M]

Well, in the last few years that cell cameras have been utilized it has changed how people hunt. A lot of change in a little amount of time - that is what I 'worry' about. If other people are not thinking or 'worrying' about this, its a giant miss.

I got nothing against trail or cell cams.

I dont really care how other people hunt or what they shoot. My thought is everyone should get 1 “any deer” tag to be used how they want, no restrictions on weapons either. Go hunt, have fun, shoot something. But after you shoot your 1 deer you are done for the year.

Someone is mad cause bob gets a bigger buck using cell cams, onxmaps, google earth, solunar tables, and a bucket of corn. So we need to ban all that stuff. Why they bother worrying about bob? Put the energy into scouting and go shoot they own deer?

 

[wind gypsy]

I think they may technically be illegal if "used to assist in taking a deer" in my home state of MN already but never heard of anyone getting charged. If they made having them out during a deer season completely illegal I wouldn't blame them or be upset about it and I probably have $3k in cell cams.

 

[dr.mooseknuckles]

I just received 4 brand new Moultrie Cell Cams via some veterinary work bartering.
Should I return the cameras and put the cat's ovaries and uterus back in the pussy (pun intended)?

 

[Woodchuck16]

Trail cameras don't kill deer, hunters kill deer.

The main advantage I see from cell cams in the East is putting them in places early where I wouldn't go to check a camera. It allows you to survey an area without leaving scent behind.


There's situations where they could be (and are) used during a hunt, but I think generally they aren't.

Then you wouldnt care if cell cameras were to be illegal. They dont kill the deer, you do.

 

[Billy Goat]

Then you wouldnt care if cell cameras were to be illegal. They dont kill the deer, you do.

I don't really care.

Point is its the people.

 

[WCB]

Minnesota DNR I believe just sent out a cell camera or trail camera

I am assuming these are most helpful during the rut as most mature bucks are nocturnal otherwise??

Or are these used to just kill whatever is legal?

Depends on what the hunter wants to kill. I know guys that kill small bucks does etc and base where they sit of pictures and frequency of deer at that site. IMO in general they are used like any other trail cam just guys can get to the minute information.

I've use them mostly when I hunt another state we have a house in. I can set the cameras and leave them not having to make the 6hr drive to check them and then the mile + walk. We also used them late season when walking through thigh high snow didn't seem all that fun to check every day with 10 cameras out over a 20+ mile area.

For guys that want to ban them and fish....check the electronics in your boat...if you can identify the species of fish visually and tell how far away from the boat the school is then watch your bait hit it in the face....you have zero room to talk against cell cams. And FYI I won't really be affected either way in cell cams were outlawed Ill just hunt.

 

[wind gypsy]

Minnesota DNR I believe just sent out a cell camera or trail camera

Was there more to this that didn't get finished?

Edit: just read this in outdoor news confirming it is in fact illegal to use cell cams to “take” game in MN. Never heard of enforcement but maybe they’ve nabbed some dumbasses on social media telling their kill stories.

What is illegal and what's not for hunters using cell cameras in Minnesota? - Outdoor News

Minnesota DNR Enforcement Operations Manager Maj. Robert Gorecki says two state statutes apply to the scenario of hunters taking game with the help of cellular trail cameras. Combined with the growing use of drones, the DNR is crafting new language – which might see action this 2023 legislative...

www.outdoornews.com

Plymouth, Minn. — You’re hard at work at the office on a crisp autumn day, debating whether to take a few hours of PTO to climb into a treestand for a late-afternoon sit.

Suddenly your phone pings with an image via one of your cellular-enabled trail cameras near a hunting stand. It shows a real-time photo of an 8-pointer you’ve been watching.

Headed for the door, you text your boss and tell him you’re indeed burning those few hours of vacation. Ninety minutes later, the buck lies at your feet. Months of scouting have delivered fresh venison and a not-too-shabby set of antlers.

You may also have broken the law.

It may be the most inadvertently violated hunting rule on the books, but you just used a wireless device to take game. And per Page 31 of the 2022 Minnesota Hunting and Trapping Regulations, that is illegal: “Using walkie talkies, cell phones, remote control, or other radio equipment, including drones, to take big game is unlawful.”
Trail cameras are everywhere, with better resolution and cellular capabilities that can send owners instant images and now, instant video. Readers use cellular trail cameras regularly, perhaps even as described at the top of this story.

Minnesota DNR Enforcement Operations Manager Maj. Robert Gorecki says two state statutes apply to the scenario. First, 97B.085, which – per the hunting regulations – addresses radio use in taking of wild game. Then there’s Statute 97A.015, Subd. 47, which defines “taking.”

“Taking means pursuing, shooting, killing, capturing, trapping, snaring, angling, spearing, or netting wild animals, or placing, setting, drawing, or using a net, trap, or other device to take wild animals. Taking includes attempting to take wild animals, and assisting another person in taking wild animals.”

(The word “attempting” is important, too, because it means you don’t have to be successful in killing a critter to have violated the law. You simply had to attempt.)

The use of trail cameras prior to the season is not problematic, Gorecki said, but when the devices immediately change hunter behavior during a season, you could be heading into violator territory.

Combined with the growing use of drones, the DNR is crafting new language – which might see action this 2023 legislative session – to more clearly articulate what’s illegal with the use of this modern technology.

Gorecki stressed that the agency isn’t looking to create a new class of violations but rather clarify that it’s one thing to use drones or trail cameras for scouting, but it’s definitely illegal to use them in the act of taking game.

“Technology is great, but we don’t want people to use that equipment to adjust what they’re doing on the fly,” Gorecki said.

Drones might be easier to understand, because most reasonable hunters don’t want to see the devices buzzing around their stands, or harassing wildlife. Out West, for example, there have been cases of people using drones to drive elk from public to private land, or vice versa.

And most ethical hunters understand that flying a drone over a valley, sighting a deer, then putting a stalk on it violates fair-chase standards.

But cellular-enabled cameras fall into a grayer area. What exactly defines “to take” when using one?

Outdoor News ran a couple of scenarios past Gorecki. First, say it’s the evening before you intend to hunt, and your cell camera pings a big buck. You alter your plans for the next day based on the image, but you do not hunt until after a good night’s sleep and the calendar flips to the next day. Legal or illegal?

“That would be fine. Because when you received that signal you were not actively taking big game,” he said. “That deer could be in the next county after moving all night.”

The logic syncs with big-game hunting rules in Canada, which prohibit hunters from heading afield the same day they’ve flown into camp. That’s to prevent scouting via aircraft.

A similar, 24-hour or overnight-type rule or law could formally clarify the use of devices like cellular trail cams and drones in Minnesota.

Scenario 2: A hunter sitting at home has a line of stands, perhaps on a ridge, and the southernmost cell-trail cam pings an image of a buck heading north. Our hunter leaps out of his La-Z-Boy and races to his northernmost stand a half-mile away, where he kills the moving buck 15 minutes later.

That’s clearly violating the spirit of the wireless rule, Gorecki told Outdoor News.

What about the situation at the beginning of this story? The hunter was at the office not actively hunting, though he did immediately alter his behavior based on a real-time image. Gorecki acknowledged that the situation enters a shade of gray that an officer would review on a case-by-case basis, but the point is immediate action.

“If we can articulate in court that you used that signal to take an animal and that’s how and why you did it, then there could be a case,” he said.

Before the explosion of smartphones 15 years ago, walkie-talkies on public open radio frequencies were common in many hunters’ pockets. Conservation officers and other law enforcement encouraged hunters to carry a set for safety purposes.

But the same COs also were clear that, because the devices employed a radio signal, they could not be used to take game. If a CO heard hunters coordinating a drive via such devices (which were easy to monitor via public radio channels), they might get a ticket. Officers handed out a few in Minnesota.

Cell phones are private data, however, so without probable cause and a warrant, it’s tougher for COs to catch hunters in the act of receiving real-time game images, and then acting on them.

That said, a solid TIP call or other evidence could provide probable cause for a search warrant.

DNR Enforcement staff are drafting and reviewing language on a possible new law now, and it could appear in a bill later this winter or spring. There’s no telling when or if it could become law. In the meantime, Gorecki says there’s really only one foolproof way to avoid violating the radio device law with a cellular-enabled trail cam.

“We advise people to turn them off when actively hunting,” he said.

What’s Happening in Other States?​

Lt. Mike Melgaard, a Wisconsin conservation warden supervisor based in Spooner, said he is unaware of any regulation restricting cellular trail camera use while hunting as described in the story above.

The Badger State does prohibit aircraft, including drones, in hunting, and a clause on Page 13 of the Wisconsin deer hunting regs notes that the use of wireless devices cannot be used to establish contact between hunters while group hunting.

Tim Brass, director of state policy and stewardship for Missoula, Mont.-based Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, said several states in the West recently have addressed the game camera policies, with more pending.

Arizona established a prohibition on the use of “live action” trail cameras for taking or locating or aiding in the take of wildlife in 2018, and effective Jan. 1, 2022, the state prohibited the use of all trail cameras for the take of wildlife.

Also in 2022, Utah implemented the following policy: “You may not use any trail camera (or non-handheld device) in the take of big game, cougars or bears – or to aid in the take of big game, cougars or bears – between July 31 and Dec. 31 on public or private property.

BHA opposes their use in hunting and adopted the following North American policy statement on the fair use of game cameras in February 2019:

“To safeguard fair-chase standards, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers supports efforts to enact regulations that prohibit the in-season use of live-action game cameras for the purpose of hunting and/or harvesting wildlife and address preseason use of cameras on public-access lands where there is intent to provide information on animal location and movement that will be sold for the purposes of hunting and/or harvesting wildlife. Furthermore, where state regulations do not apply or are limited in scope, BHA encourages the adoption of ethical policies and regulations for the use of game cameras that support fair chase and advocate for voluntary practices in the interim.”

 

[Honyock]

I don't hunt to impress anyone (if you do, you might want to rethink why you hunt). I hunt because I enjoy it. What someone does in another county or state doesn't affect me or the deer on our property. If Jim Bob kills a record book buck using a trail camera, crossbow or a spear and it's legal, it makes no difference to me. Different strokes for different folks. Unless you have a shortage of deer, which we don't, as long as they are following the law, I don't care what someone else does. Just got a batch of pictures today of deer, hogs, turkey, bobcats and coyotes, which tells me we need to slaughter some hogs and thin out some coyotes.

 

[Chili_Goose]

This was my stance for a long time.

This morning I was watching a Youtube video, and these two guys were overlooking a clearing between two wood lots. They get a cell-cam notification of a buck walking by in one of the wood blocks, and decide to wait him out. Buck eventually steps out and they blast it.

Something a little cringey about that.

I bought my first piece of land and cellular cameras about two years ago. I had never thought about them being used like this. I always took the approach that less traffic around my land the better so that was my intent, but your comment made me look at this differently. Someone else mentioned a lag time before sending out the pictures which may work. However, I did use my cameras in the same fashion as you mentioned to take down a coyote, and I didn't feel the least bad about it. lol

 

[Szwampdonkey]

So many corner cutters and those who take the path of least resistance in every facet of their lives. They take that same approach to hunting using cell cams, crossbows during archery seasons, E Bikes cause you might break a sweat walking, and on and on.

It’s just signs of the times men. People are by in large getting softer and lazier so just take advantage of them seeing as they put up flags telling you where they hunt.

 

[Rich M]

So many corner cutters and those who take the path of least resistance in every facet of their lives. They take that same approach to hunting using cell cams, crossbows during archery seasons, E Bikes cause you might break a sweat walking, and on and on.

It’s just signs of the times men. People are by in large getting softer and lazier so just take advantage of them seeing as they put up flags telling you where they hunt.

Folks use computers and internet instead of typing or handwriting letters and mailing them or sending by pigeon or pony express or those old style running couriers. Heck, lazy people riding around in cars and trucks instead of on horseback or walking and wearing out some shoe soles. LoL!

Do you shoot a compound or a single-string stick bow? I'm really hoping you shoot a recurve and not a compound. If you shoot a compound, you're a hypocritical part of the problem. A recurve and at least you stick to your principals and probably make your own clothes too.

 

[Big_wals]

I look at cell cams similar to how I look at people using cell phones/texts. Use them to discuss/ learn about areas and movement, but you shouldn't be allowed to use them to relay info while hunting.

You shouldn't be allowed to text a hunter when you see an animal headed their way, and you shouldn't be allowed to have a camera do the same.

I believe it technically is illegal in Idaho here. Cell phones, walkie-talkies, and any electronic communication isn't allowed to aid in the taking of game. I would think using cell cams during an actual hunt like some of the examples above would be illegal too idk how you would get caught tho, unless you were dumb enough to admit to it on social media.

I have one cell cam, and mainly just like the fact that it brightens my day when I'm at work and get a picture of a critter. I've had lots of little mini hunts in my head also love the excitement of checking regular cams too, kind of like opening a Christmas present! It'll be interesting to see how this all shakes out and what different states do.

 

[nosajnh]

I used 4 of them last year and there is no question you get a new advantage in that you do not have to pull cards and disturb the area and you know if they are active in the area. They are legal in New Hampshire however you cannot use them the same calendar day. I am not sure how they would ever enforce it short of subpoenaing the camera manufactures or if you were dumb enough to put it on social media. I follow the NH laws by logging out of the app the night before I am going to hunt. I do enjoy seeing the all the activity on the cell cameras, deer and other wildlife.

For now I am going to continue to hunt with them and if I feel I want/need more of a challenge I may stop. I see some in the hunting media space such as Zach Ferenbaugh and Cody D'Acquisto have stopped using cameras not necessarily because they thought it was unethical but because it made the hunt more enjoyable for them for their own reasons. Even if it was legal I would not use cell cameras to tell me when the big one was coming down the trail or rush out to cut the big one off as he heads back to bedding, I hunt deer for the experience of scouting, hunting, processing and cooking deer/venison not the head.

I hunt for my own enjoyment, not as a comparison with others so as long as I am enjoying the hunt and the resource can sustain the advantage I will probably keep using them.

 

[Macintosh]

Many of the folks posting in this thread live in states where deer tags are over the counter, and many of those where you get several tags, or even a pile of tags. To me its more interesting to ask how people would view a limitation on cell cameras specifically in a place where tags were available by lottery only. More aids to the hunt=higher efficacy=Either fewer tags or a shorter season. Limiting some peripheral things such as communication, cell cams, regular cams, etc, if it limits average hunter efficacy by even a low %, would only increase the number of available tags or allow for a longer season. Another scenario would be in states that aspire to have a higher % of older/mature deer....if the choice was an antler restriction versus a limitation on cell cams forcing people to use woodsmanship and time on the ground to find older deer rather than relying on technology, in place of not allowing anyone to harvest younger deer at all.
Thoughts?