Fair chase--laser scopes and trail cameras

Having done an article or two on the Article 3 proposals for a local newspaper and having spoken to a couple of Department personnel (Including Mr. Jay Cook) about some of the issues, I have come to the following conclusion.

The Department in some cases seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouth, especially on the trail camera issue and the laser sighted rifle scopes and here is why, in my opinion.

The Department and Commission feel that a camera siting at a water hole--one that probably sportsmen dollars have paid for by the way--is a violation of fair chase.

Hmm, I have 10 cameras total and can assure you that at no time has any of those cameras jumped off the posts or tree and killed anything!

They have taken photos of critters at different times (mostly at night) yes, but actually being responsible for something being taken, NOPE!

Now lets make the switch over to laser sighted rifle scopes and use the Burris Eliminator scope as an example of technology at work that the Commission seems to feel is NOT a violation of the fair chase edict.

The Commission has said that they don't consider it a violation to use one of these scopes as the hunter still has to have skill to make the shot.

Really?

What they don't tell you is that with the Eliminator scope, you push the button, it gets the range and if you've got your load data in it, it automatically sets the crosshairs to be right on target regardless of the range.

Slowly squeeze the trigger, and BOOM you've got yourself a deer, elk, whatever.

So that deer or elk at 500+ yards that never even knew you were there, goes down..

And yet that use of technology doesn't violate fair chase, according ot he Commission, but a trail camera that does nothing but take photos does. Hmm, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that logic.

Funny how in the explanation about the laser equipped scopes the Department never talks about how these modern scopes can figure out the both the range AND holdover. They say range yes, but conveniently forgets to talk about how the scopes can figure out the holdover to ensure a virtual hit? Nope, that part of the "story" is never mentioned that in the explanation.

Sorry, but I think if you're rifle scope has the capabilities to not only give you the exact range to the target, but also has the capacity to compute and set the crosshairs for the required holdover, now that is stretching the term "Fair chase!"

I think all of this is based on public perception. But the public doesn't know the true capabilities of some of these modern laser equipped "super" scopes.

But its easy for the public and some sportsmen to think that trail cameras will lead to the demise of ALL wildlife.

I know many sportsmen are against the trail cameras. But just because the department believes they have issues in a couple of units is no reason to restrict their use statewide.

Now you want me to tear off a scab of this technology issue and really let the blood flow?

Lets talk about the new fish finders that you can literally see a fish take your bait or lure..

Come on, how many of you guys out there that are anti cameras have fish finders on your boats?

Read the language, it includes hunters and anglers if it gives them a perceived "unfair advantage" over their quarry.

So when they ban/restrict these cameras as being a violation of fair chase, what are you gonna do when and if the Department decides to ban electronics on boats for the very same reasons?

Hmm, something to think about, huh?

And yes, I utilize 15x56 Leica Geovid BINOCULARS that has a laser rangefinder in it, and I have Lowrance electronics on both my fishing boats!!!

So a word of caution my friends, be careful what you wish for!

Don Martin

LAST EDITED ON Apr-11-18 AT 01:14PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Apr-11-18 AT 09:12?AM (MST)

Personally, I support the idea of getting rid of Trail Cameras. For full disclosure, I have about 4 and have used them over the years. However, after seeing so many of them in the woods, I think we would all be better served if we just eliminated them entirely.

In my opinion, as is just human nature, the masses operate under the old rule: "if a little is good a lot is better."

And some trail cameras now have technology which allow it to send the pictures, as they are taken, over the internet to the owner.

At some point, I think it is better for the sport to dumb down some for the good of the sport. Not only in requiring us all to maintain a certain level of hunting skill, but also to lessen the ammunition used against us by the anti-hunter types. It is not good for our image when the tree hugging antis go out in the woods and see cameras at every water source, as well as on well used trails.

I admit that this is a complicated and to some, emotional issue, but this is my view of the situation.

I think you are losing on the camera issue. They said many more are against them than are for them. Just have become a nuisance. They don't kill anything but my buddy and his son saw two good 6x6 bulls on water last fall. Dad killed one the first day and son killed the other one next day. They do help to narrow down where and when the animals are there. I have a couple but have never used them to hunt with.

LAST EDITED ON Apr-11-18 AT 10:41AM (MST)[p]The claim that these devices spoil "fair chase" is not true at all IMO. But then we're also told that a majority of sportsmen are in favor of a ban. I think if you peel away the layers of spin, to reveal the real reasons for this support, you might find it has little to do with fair chase ethics.

So....who could these sportsmen be, who are in favor of a ban? One group I know for sure would be the guys who absolutely hate trail cams, even to the point of destroying or stealing cams they find on public land. These guys give various reasons, as we've seen posted many times on this website. The most common reason being that they resent the idea of getting their picture taken involuntarily, and that the cams are the same as "littering" on public property. In reality the biggest issue that I think they have, but won't admit, is that encountering a camera is a stark visual reminder that they do not have the area to themselves. That others are hunting there too, and the spot is no secret. And their deep-seated belief that these other hunters are gaining a big advantage over themselves, who don't use cams.

Another objection that some guys have, stems from outfitter hatred. There is certainly a pool of DIY hunters who despise all outfitters. And to them, extensive trail cam usage has become synonymous with outfitters. When they see trail cams at every waterhole, its just too much of a reminder that outfitters are working the area too. And since these guys attribute trail cam usage to drastically increasing outfitter success, the damn things are a nuisance that need to be banned! Nobody wants to share the woods, or be reminded that they have to.

The characterization that trail cams make killing so much easier, is IMO a huge exaggeration. I see the use of cams as far less of an advantage than....let's say, glassing up a buck from a hilltop with your 95mm Swaro spotting scope, pulling out your bipod-mounted Gunwerks Co-Pilot Rifle, and with the press of a trigger, dropping your selected buck at 1300 yards. That practice will of course remain perfectly legal after the evil trail cams are banned.

LAST EDITED ON Apr-11-18 AT 11:58AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Apr-11-18 AT 11:55?AM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Apr-11-18 AT 11:52?AM (MST)

>LAST EDITED ON Apr-11-18
>AT 10:41?AM (MST)
>
>The claim that these devices spoil
>"fair chase" is not true
>at all IMO. But then
>we're also told that a
>majority of sportsmen are in
>favor of a ban. I
>think if you peel away
>the layers of spin, to
>reveal the real reasons for
>this support, you might find
>it has little to do
>with fair chase ethics.
>
>So....who could these sportsmen be, who
>are in favor of a
>ban? One group I know
>for sure would be the
>guys who absolutely hate trail
>cams, even to the point
>of destroying or stealing cams
>they find on public land.
>These guys give various reasons,
>as we've seen posted many
>times on this website. The
>most common reason being that
>they resent the idea of
>getting their picture taken involuntarily,
>and that the cams are
>the same as "littering" on
>public property. In reality the
>biggest issue that I think
>they have, but won't admit,
>is that encountering a camera
>is a stark visual reminder
>that they do not have
>the area to themselves. That
>others are hunting there too,
>and the spot is no
>secret. And their deep-seated belief
>that these other hunters are
>gaining a big advantage over
>themselves, who don't use cams.
>
>
>Another objection that some guys have,
>stems from outfitter hatred. There
>is certainly a pool of
>DIY hunters who despise all
>outfitters. And to them, extensive
>trail cam usage has become
>synonymous with outfitters. When they
>see trail cams at every
>waterhole, its just too much
>of a reminder that outfitters
>are working the area too.
>And since these guys attribute
>trail cam usage to drastically
>increasing outfitter success, the damn
>things are a nuisance that
>need to be banned! Nobody
>wants to share the woods,
>or be reminded that they
>have to.
>
>The characterization that trail cams make
>killing so much easier, is
>IMO a huge exaggeration. I
>see the use of cams
>as far less of an
>advantage than....let's say, glassing up
>a buck from a hilltop
>with your 95mm Swaro spotting
>scope, pulling out your bipod-mounted
>Gunwerks Co-Pilot Rifle, and with
>the press of a trigger,
>dropping your selected buck at
>1300 yards. That practice will
>of course remain perfectly legal
>after the evil trail cams
>are banned.

The comment they made about "most sportsmen" being in favor of the ban is nothing more than them spinning it to suit their needs. Think about this....The Toyota Camry has been the number one best selling cars for many years now. However, if you look at customer complaints it has one of the highest number. Now to be clear...that's actual "number' of complaints. Why this is is simply because of two things...One: there are far more of those on the road than most other any other brands...but we are talking "numbers" of complaints, not percentages. Two: People are far more likely to file a complain than they are to randomly email Toyota to tell them how great their car is.
Same with the trail cameras...I'm sure they have far more complaints than positive comments about trail cameras. Again, its common knowledge that (unless asked) people are much more likely to file a compliant than they would be to file a positive comment on how well the Commission is handling things.
For the record...I am all for eliminating real time cellular cameras and compensating scopes.

I know this is about trail cams, but worst part of laser rangefinding/compensating scopes is that they give people false confidence in their long range shooting ability that ends up with more wounded game. Few will practice with enough to really know what their capabilities are. By nature, it's a shortcut that misses (no pun intended) a lot.

Here's an idea. why doesn't the AZGFD put their own trail cameras on every tank and charge $10 a month(or something similar) to anyone who wants to see what is on each camera? Would be easy money for an alleged cash strapped department. I think trail cameras are fine to have and use, however the outfitters on the Strip have taken it to a whole new level. Some have in excess of 300 cameras on literally every water hole. They know exactly where the 220+ bucks are and which water holes they use. In that case, deer have to drink!, they have an unfair advantage in my opinion. I also worry that maybe this allows the removal of the best genetics out of the pool before some of these bucks have a chance to breed. But I agree to target the areas with excessive problems and not the entire state.

Not sure about these rangefinding scopes. I remember seeing an article a few years ago about some of these new scopes actually having the ability to also pull the trigger at the exact right moment. The long range hunting epidemic is worse in my opinion than the game camera epidemic. Again, I think this can be addressed by the department through regulations and season changes instead of punishable laws. Give the most primitive weapons the prime times and move the advanced weapons into their own seasons. For instance, I would suggest 6 different weapon season. First during the prime rut(elk as an example) period, only allow longbows and recurves (0-30 yards). Next hunt let the compounds hunters give it a go(0-100 yards). Then the open sight muzzleloaders(0-140 yards). Next open sight rifles(0-200 yards). After that open it up to scoped muzzleloaders(0-250 yards), and lastly, much later in the season, let the scoped rifles in(0-infinity yards). Distribute the current tags among the 6 different weapon season. It would allow everyone to hunt how they like and maybe even encourage some new, or forgotten, skills in using open sights and getting closer.

Otherwise I agree wholeheartedly with Don's sentiments on these issues.

I'm pretty sure the reason for the camera ban is the number of outfitter cameras on the Strip. What's really funny is, they really don't help that much. The big deer use the water catchments until about the middle of July then the monsoon hits and there is hardly anything on the catchments after that. This is from my personal experience with cameras on the Strip.

For the life of me, I can't understand why anyone would have a complaint about something as passive as a camera. I figure its more about "My way is right" and forcing everyone else to go along with it.

I do know one thing. When the government agencies start imposing the will of the squeaking wheels, things go downhill fast. Everybody had their a$$ up in the air when HSUS wanted a vote to ban cat hunting. This process even bypasses a vote. I'm with Don. Be careful what you wish for. Why should ammunition with more than 1400 ft lbs of energy at 300 yards be allowed for hunting? It allows a shooter to take those long range unethical shots. What about scopes over 4 power or range finders? Or any scope at all for that matter. Where does one draw the line? It only sounds ridiculous if you use that equipment but there are plenty of people, at least 54,000 that we know for sure, that think using any equipment for hunting is unethical.

"You can fly a helicopter to the top of Everest and say you've been there. The problem with that is you were an a$$hole when you started and you're still an a$$hole when you get back.
Its the climb that makes you a different person". - Yvon Chouinard