Nevada new game camera ban.

[robby denning]

great summary CorbLand, I agree.

It's gotten to the point that you can't even take a dump in the hills anymore without fear of being on someones camera.

or PhoneSkope!

 

[sneaky]

Just because you use trail cameras doesn't mean you are going to kill what shows up on them. I've proven this over multiple years in multiple states. I need to re- read Robby's book.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[CorbLand]

Just because you use trail cameras doesn't mean you are going to kill what shows up on them. I've proven this over multiple years in multiple states. I need to re- read Robby's book.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Me too. I am more likely to shoot myself in the foot then I am to kill anything that shows up on my cameras and even at that I would probably still miss my foot.

 

[mproberts]

So does this come down to an intrusion/disruption on the animals issue or is this about fair chase? I'm just confused what NDOW is saying the major issue with them is and how their new regulations aim to combat this. (I don't hunt in NV and didn't get the notice)

At first glance I just feel like trail cameras are much less intrusive than people spending more time boots on the ground scouting an area out of season. I also can completely see how outfitters would be in favor of this, because they are basically selling a competing product to what a bunch of trail cameras can provide the average hunter going into the season. Does NV have laws in place to restrict the sale of "scouting packages"?

 

[sneaky]

So does this come down to an intrusion/disruption on the animals issue or is this about fair chase? I'm just confused what NDOW is saying the major issue with them is and how their new regulations aim to combat this. (I don't hunt in NV and didn't get the notice)

At first glance I just feel like trail cameras are much less intrusive than people spending more time boots on the ground scouting an area out of season. I also can completely see how outfitters would be in favor of this, because they are basically selling a competing product to what a bunch of trail cameras can provide the average hunter going into the season. Does NV have laws in place to restrict the sale of "scouting packages"?

Some of those water holes will have dozens of cams on them. That means, dozens of people trekking in and out to check them. I can see that being a major disruption to wildlife. Besides, if you walked up and saw 25 trail cameras would you WANT to put yours up? It would be ridiculous around those areas once season opened.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[blackpowderhunter]

I was going to say i feel like it was in Nevada where i once saw a picture of like 25 cameras hung over the same water hole.
Pretty ridiculous.

 

[CorbLand]

I was going to say i feel like it was in Nevada where i once saw a picture of like 25 cameras hung over the same water hole.
Pretty ridiculous.

I tried to find a picture similar. There was probably 20 Tstakes with 3 cameras per stake.

 

[mproberts]

Some of those water holes will have dozens of cams on them. That means, dozens of people trekking in and out to check them. I can see that being a major disruption to wildlife. Besides, if you walked up and saw 25 trail cameras would you WANT to put yours up? It would be ridiculous around those areas once season opened.

Perfect example of "ignorance is bliss", take away the cameras but it doesn't change the fact that numerous people are focusing on one area. Not sure how no cameras is going to translate to no hunting pressure. Honestly I would rather find out before the season than during the season that tons of guys are focusing on an area. Yeah it's obnoxious seeing that many cameras but it doesn't change the amount of tags issued, it just makes you as a hunter more aware of how many other people found your "honey hole". I understand the argument about people hiking in to place/check cameras and maybe the law will deter a few lazy guys from going into an area but I would think most of the other guys would just spend more time in an area actually hiking around scouting vice placing a camera and leaving. I feel like the major draw of cameras is the fact that you can limit the amount of pressure you put on an area.

 

[sneaky]

You still can, up until Aug 1st. Which is less than 10 days til season opens.

Perfect example of "ignorance is bliss", take away the cameras but it doesn't change the fact that numerous people are focusing on one area. Not sure how no cameras is going to translate to no hunting pressure. Honestly I would rather find out before the season than during the season that tons of guys are focusing on an area. Yeah it's obnoxious seeing that many cameras but it doesn't change the amount of tags issued, it just makes you as a hunter more aware of how many other people found your "honey hole". I understand the argument about people hiking in to place/check cameras and maybe the law will deter a few lazy guys from going into an area but I would think most of the other guys would just spend more time in an area actually hiking around scouting vice placing a camera and leaving. I feel like the major draw of cameras is the fact that you can limit the amount of pressure you put on an area.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

I think it will limit the amount of flat bill wearing outfitters in an area

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[itsTyrtruion]

You still can, up until Aug 1st. Which is less than 10 days til season opens.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Archery speed goat opens Aug 1.

The state doesn’t make any money off game cameras. But they do off the sale of their water book.

Ban the cams, that’s fine, but don’t sell the book and say the camera ban is an issue at water holes... they gladly took the money and pointed everyone with onX to the locations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mproberts]

I think it will limit the amount of flat bill wearing outfitters in an area

This is a gross affront to our flat bill way of life!!... errrr wait my bill is still curved.. never mind.. proceed with this clearly unbiased law.

 

[sneaky]

Who needs to buy a water map? Any topo map will show them, Google Earth etc etc. No need to buy a water map

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Owenst7]

Archery speed goat opens Aug 1.

The state doesn’t make any money off game cameras. But they do off the sale of their water book.

Ban the cams, that’s fine, but don’t sell the book and say the camera ban is an issue at water holes... they gladly took the money and pointed everyone with onX to the locations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Preposterous.

That book is 18"x24", printed in color on heavy laminated paper with heavy wire binding. I've dealt with the printing industry professionally. I challenge you to find a way to print that book for $50. They are not making any recordable profit.

I'd put money down that game cameras were developing all kinds of attention to social and cultural behaviors that reflect poorly on hunting. NDOW doesn't have the skills or resources to address social media nonsense. Simplest solution was to nip it in the bud. Good riddance.

 

[CorbLand]

My guess would be that this law was passed from a PR stand point. There has been a big push to show that hunters arent just a bunch of beer drinking, shot from the window of the pickup at anything that moves. This is just another way to show that you actually have to work for it and make it so you actually have to work for it.

 

[mcr-85]

Who needs to buy a water map? Any topo map will show them, Google Earth etc etc. No need to buy a water map

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Sneaky I believe Onx Maps has a map layer for guzzlers in Nevada showing all locations of guzzlers. I think thats what itsTyrtruion is talking about?

 

[itsTyrtruion]

Sneaky I believe Onx Maps has a map layer for guzzlers in Nevada showing all locations of guzzlers. I think thats what itsTyrtruion is talking about?

The book costs Nevada $25 to print, that’s why the onX chip for Nevada was $25 more that other states, before elite memberships.

Yes the book is very high quality. And it was also promoted as “know where the water is, increase your success rates”

I’m not pulling this crap out of thin air


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[desertcj]

Doesn't matter to me, I have one 10 year old camera and I didn't even apply in Nevada this year because it seemed like every time I tried, their system was all screwed up???

 

[Owenst7]

The book costs Nevada $25 to print, that’s why the onX chip for Nevada was $25 more that other states, before elite memberships.

Yes the book is very high quality. And it was also promoted as “know where the water is, increase your success rates”

I’m not pulling this crap out of thin air


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Citation for this claim?

A local international printer was charging me that for a paperback parts catalogue, despite both of us being fortune 200 companies having corporate partnerships to supply each-other at cost.

I can only imagine the PR fallout after some antihunting media publishes a photo of a dozen game cameras over a guzzler with a story about how all the SxS-driving fat guys are keeping animals from water, meanwhile selling the images with geotags on Facebook (a local guy recently was pushing an app he designed for this).

99% of hunters I run into in the field don't even have those books, so that argument is quite the red herring.

Pretty soon we were going to be swiping left or right for bucks.

 

[Jpeaston]

There is nothing like driving across two States in a hurry to get to a blind over a waterhole and then having three guys check their cam cards in the last hour of shooting light. Writing on your back window in the dust "Hunter in blind ahead" doesn't help either, as most will drive right past your vehicle and pull right up to the tank. I realize they have just as much right to be there as I do, even if they don't have a tag, but it sure is frustrating. I am happy they passed this.