Idaho Fish and Game considering restricting the use of trail cameras

[Bubblehide]

Many Fish and Game/Wildlife departments use a string of cameras that send their pictures from one camera to the next, with an unlimited number of cameras in the string, eventually sending all the pictures video to a vehicle equipped to receive the pictures, and be viewed, in almost real time. With the advent of cameras sending pictures real time to one's cell phone, and the availability of the first system I described, clearly we no longer have a fair chase situation.

Using a camera to identify animals in a given area is one thing, knowing when and where they are in real time, is a whole different thing, and once again, it violates fair chase. As hunters, as the true conservationists, we should not only be welcoming such regulations as Idaho is considering, we should be pushing for it.

I have no problem with hunters using game cameras that they need to go into the field to check, during the season. I have no problem with hunters using any kind of game camera off season. But cameras that provide what can be considered pretty much real time information on the location of a game animal during the season, is not fair chase.

 

[P Carter]

Many Fish and Game/Wildlife departments use a string of cameras that send their pictures from one camera to the next, with an unlimited number of cameras in the string, eventually sending all the pictures video to a vehicle equipped to receive the pictures, and be viewed, in almost real time. With the advent of cameras sending pictures real time to one's cell phone, and the availability of the first system I described, clearly we no longer have a fair chase situation.

Using a camera to identify animals in a given area is one thing, knowing when and where they are in real time, is a whole different thing, and once again, it violates fair chase. As hunters, as the true conservationists, we should not only be welcoming such regulations as Idaho is considering, we should be pushing for it.

I agree, but look at the rule. Fish & Game is considering prohibiting/criminalizing non-transmitting trail cameras if you harvest an animal the same day or day after you check a trail camera. I.e., you cannot check your cameras the day before the season starts, hunt the same spot the next day and harvest an animal. Or check your camera in the morning and harvest an animal in the afternoon in the same spot (or a spot that's close, depending on how the officer interprets "used as an aid to take a big game animal."

Note also that even checking a camera with no animal, moving to a different spot, and harvesting the next day could be a violation of the rule. The failure of your camera to show an animal motivated you to move to a different spot, thus "aiding" your take of a big game animal. I guess I do not see a compelling reason to open that can of worms.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I really did not know that there was any controversy over using non-transmitting cameras. To me, it seems to be a good way of deepening one's understanding of, and appreciation for, animal behavior, as well as just a plain ol' fun way to enjoy nature. I know my six-year-old loves checking cameras and looking at the pictures. There's no aid in the actual pursuit, as in during the chase, more just a better understanding of where the animals are and what they are doing. What good hunters should be doing anyway. Plus it doesn't bother anyone. I support reasonable regulations on technology, but also a wide degree of deference to hunters on ethical issues. I sure don't want hunting to become more legalistic than it already is...altering your behavior according to the ins and outs of overly complex regulations and hoping that the game officers interpret the regulations in the same way you do.

Plus, try as it might, government simply cannot regulate us back to the "good 'ol days." (Whenever those were. The 90s? 80s? 70s? 30s? Before settlement? Before Columbus?) Better to specifically prohibit problematic practices, such as transmitting cameras, and leave the other stuff alone.

I agree that an "ownership" mentality is a problem, but that's the case whether you have a game camera, have been hunting the same spot for a number of years, have scouted the spot, got up there early, etc.

In any case, continue the discussion. I appreciate the other perspectives.

 

[Trial153]

I agree with the limits.

 

[Grundy53]

I agree, but look at the rule. Fish & Game is considering prohibiting/criminalizing non-transmitting trail cameras if you harvest an animal the same day or day after you check a trail camera. I.e., you cannot check your cameras the day before the season starts, hunt the same spot the next day and harvest an animal. Or check your camera in the morning and harvest an animal in the afternoon in the same spot (or a spot that's close, depending on how the officer interprets "used as an aid to take a big game animal."

Note also that even checking a camera with no animal, moving to a different spot, and harvesting the next day could be a violation of the rule. The failure of your camera to show an animal motivated you to move to a different spot, thus "aiding" your take of a big game animal. I guess I do not see a compelling reason to open that can of worms.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I really did not know that there was any controversy over using non-transmitting cameras. To me, it seems to be a good way of deepening one's understanding of, and appreciation for, animal behavior, as well as just a plain ol' fun way to enjoy nature. I know my six-year-old loves checking cameras and looking at the pictures. There's no aid in the actual pursuit, as in during the chase, more just a better understanding of where the animals are and what they are doing. What good hunters should be doing anyway. Plus it doesn't bother anyone. I support reasonable regulations on technology, but also a wide degree of deference to hunters on ethical issues. I sure don't want hunting to become more legalistic than it already is...altering your behavior according to the ins and outs of overly complex regulations and hoping that the game officers interpret the regulations in the same way you do.

Plus, try as it might, government simply cannot regulate us back to the "good 'ol days." (Whenever those were. The 90s? 80s? 70s? 30s? Before settlement? Before Columbus?) Better to specifically prohibit problematic practices, such as transmitting cameras, and leave the other stuff alone.

I agree that an "ownership" mentality is a problem, but that's the case whether you have a game camera, have been hunting the same spot for a number of years, have scouted the spot, got up there early, etc.

In any case, continue the discussion. I appreciate the other perspectives.

Well said.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Rob T]

I don't have a trail cam and I am for limiting technology to promote fair chase. I have registered my comments. This is a good thread.

 

[Bubblehide]

It's clear that they are implementing, or considering to, just as they do flying.

I can only speak for myself, but I prefer the challenge of fair chase. The idea of hunting a high fence facility, or finding my animals via pictures sent to my phone, and then going out after an animal in a situation that I know the approximate location is just not fair chase to me. As such, to ME, it's not hunting. I rather prefer the challenge of pitting myself, my skills, my knowledge, my abilities, against my prey. Granted, I primarily hunt a few areas I am pretty intimate with. I've learned those areas exceptionally well, and scout them pretty much year round (winter permitting). I've patterned the animals, year round, and noted any changes in patterns, travel routes, feed... In short, in those areas, over the years, I've done the work of dozens of cameras. I actually now have two game cameras, but have yet to use them.

I see how helpful game cameras can be. Not only in establishing the number and quality of animals in a given area, but travel routes, escape routes, feeding areas, watering areas, habits, and patterns. Having several, and/or moving them around can provide a plethora of invaluable information, and make the job of harvesting so much easier, and it is way less intrusive than being out in the field.

 

[Bar]

Trail cameras are an aid. Anybody who says they aren't just wants to use them. I think they should be banned completely. I'm not buying the hobby thing either.

 

[Hall256]

Trail cameras are an aid. Anybody who says they aren't just wants to use them. I think they should be banned completely. I'm not buying the hobby thing either.

The hobby aspect of it is pretty big out here on the East coast...it is a way to pass time and see who gets a pic of the biggest deer....usually if there is a group of hunters hanging out, they will have their cell phones out showing the latest pic one if their cameras captured.

It really is just part and parcel to the style of hunting out here, which is a lot of private or leased tracks...it was strange to me when I got out here, now it's normal to me. As for public lands out west, I would prefer to keep cameras off of them, just like I would prefer drones not fly.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

 

[P Carter]

?

Of course they're an aid. Like google earth, IDFG interactive website, online harvest statistics, GPS units, rangefinders, online forums, better bows, riflescopes, hunting videos, etc. (Obviously I'm not saying trail cameras are exactly like these other things; only that many (if not all) of the topics discussed on this website are aids. That's the whole point!)

The question is whether cameras are the type of aid that should be banned/limited or, instead, whether they have other benefits and should continue to be allowed. And whether the burden and unintended consequences of the proposed regulation outweigh its benefits. Saying "they're an aid" (and, implicitly, that they therefore should be banned) doesn't move the ball. While I support reasonable and well-thought-out limits on technology, knee-jerk bans based on vague notions of "they are bad" seem counterproductive and unnecessary. Just my two cents. Obviously feel free to comment however you'd like.

 

[Bubblehide]

The hobby aspect of it is pretty big out here on the East coast...it is a way to pass time and see who gets a pic of the biggest deer....usually if there is a group of hunters hanging out, they will have their cell phones out showing the latest pic one if their cameras captured.

It really is just part and parcel to the style of hunting out here, which is a lot of private or leased tracks...it was strange to me when I got out here, now it's normal to me. As for public lands out west, I would prefer to keep cameras off of them, just like I would prefer drones not fly.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

I see no indication of a consideration to restrict hobbyist.

What I do see possibly being restricted is a landowners right to check cameras for trespassers while engaging in hunting during the proposed time-frame. Granted, if a hobbyist is also a hunter, there is more motivation than just a hobbyist, and they would fall under the regulations, if they are implemented.

 

[Grundy53]

?

Of course they're an aid. Like google earth, IDFG interactive website, online harvest statistics, GPS units, rangefinders, online forums, better bows, riflescopes, hunting videos, etc. (Obviously I'm not saying trail cameras are exactly like these other things; only that many (if not all) of the topics discussed on this website are aids. That's the whole point!)

The question is whether cameras are the type of aid that should be banned/limited or, instead, whether they have other benefits and should continue to be allowed. And whether the burden and unintended consequences of the proposed regulation outweigh its benefits. Saying "they're an aid" (and, implicitly, that they therefore should be banned) doesn't move the ball. While I support reasonable and well-thought-out limits on technology, knee-jerk bans based on vague notions of "they are bad" seem counterproductive and unnecessary. Just my two cents. Obviously feel free to comment however you'd like.

Exactly!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Grundy53]

Trail cameras are an aid. Anybody who says they aren't just wants to use them. I think they should be banned completely. I'm not buying the hobby thing either.

Have you used them?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Bar]

?

Of course they're an aid. Like google earth, IDFG interactive website, online harvest statistics, GPS units, rangefinders, online forums, better bows, riflescopes, hunting videos, etc. (Obviously I'm not saying trail cameras are exactly like these other things; only that many (if not all) of the topics discussed on this website are aids. That's the whole point!)

The question is whether cameras are the type of aid that should be banned/limited or, instead, whether they have other benefits and should continue to be allowed. And whether the burden and unintended consequences of the proposed regulation outweigh its benefits. Saying "they're an aid" (and, implicitly, that they therefore should be banned) doesn't move the ball. While I support reasonable and well-thought-out limits on technology, knee-jerk bans based on vague notions of "they are bad" seem counterproductive and unnecessary. Just my two cents. Obviously feel free to comment however you'd like.

Nice list. I don't use any of them. However, cameras are high on my list of aids. I like to hunt as they did in the mountain man era. No aids. My only aid is my brain and boots.

 

[Bar]

Have you used them?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I'd sooner have a root canal.

 

[Grundy53]

Nice list. I don't use any of them. However, cameras are high on my list of aids. I like to hunt as they did in the mountain man era. No aids. My only aid is my brain and boots.

You don't use online forums, huh?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Bar]

You ever see me ask a question? I come to forums to help others.

 

[Grundy53]

I'd sooner have a root canal.

So then you are well versed with the subject matter...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Bar]

So then you are well versed with the subject matter...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

It's not a complicated subject. I don't have to use one to know what they do.

 

[Grundy53]

It's not a complicated subject. I don't have to use one to know what they do.

I guess not. You just naturally know how helpful they actually are with out ever using one...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[1signguy]

I have mixed feelings on the subject-

I look at it similar too hunting bears over bait. There are pluses and minuses. One thing you can bet- there are only going to be more and more of these in use on private land... where pressured animals go... so not sure this accomplishes a whole lot...

I certainly am a proponent of fair chase and I could see where this could be abused. However, I think most hunters are sportsmen and the cellular cameras are a tool that helps from a time management standpoint (long before the hunt), not disturbing game... than a I got you sort of deal. Will/are there those that abuse the technology? Sure! But most of those guys aren't going out and buying $400.00 game cameras... For me the jury is still out...

These are just my initial thoughts- We hunt a lot of private and public land and the cameras are an invaluable resource for hunt planning and game management. However, it never crossed my mind that someone might run out and shoot something they just caught on camera...