Don't care to debate on this thread, but those of you who enjoy running your cams and are sick of government overreach may be interested in signing the below petition. It's gaining some steam.
...unlike those on the Wildlife Board who literally make their living off trail cameras and bait piles.and by Casey Snider who has a personal agenda to push.
Actually yes it has, many many times. If the numbers get high enough its hard to ignore.Has change.org ever successfully brought a change to anything? Even a single time? On any topic?
Instead of signing a worthless online petition, contact your legislators and talk to them about it. Click this link, type in your address and you’ll see who you need to reach out to.
District Map
le.utah.gov
I have really mixed feelings on this bill, personally. I don’t love it, but see why some people think it’s necessary. However you feel, if you want to be involved, then get involved. But do it by talking to the right people.
Several threads on this subject...copying and pasting...
The biggest issue with HB295 is that it has been brought by a single state legislator based only on his opinion on the matters. Zero data, zero research...in fact, no mention of what goal is trying to be accomplished (harvest reduction? wildlife harassment? we literally have no idea) with the bill and impending law. Not only that, but the bill purposefully sidestepped the normal process for wildlife regulations in this state, the RAC committees, meaning no public input was allowed.
I am not at all automatically opposed to trail cam regulations and/or baiting bans, but all of us as hunters should demand better...even if you agree with this particular issue and would like to see cameras and/or baiting gone, that's just fine, but the process should not work this way. A single legislator should not be able to bring and push a bill based solely on his own personal agenda. What happens when the next legislator doesn't like trapping, or doesn't like the idea of hounds for lions or bears, or any other number of "controversial" outdoor-related issues? Slippery slope.
Do a little reading on Casey Snider's "reasoning" for bringing the bill and you will see nothing but one man's opinion. Zero data. Do cameras, cell or otherwise, increase harvest statistics? I don't know. Possible they do, but having that info available (among other data points) as part of this would be a nice start, no?
This SL Tribune article has zero fact, only opinion, hearsay, and hyperbole at best (outright lies at worst). To say there is not a single water source in the state without "dozens" (Casey has used "a half-dozen" at times as well) is not true at all. Implying that hunters are getting a text message that a deer is at the apple pile and killing it 5 mins later is a pretty damn broad brush to paint with, but any non-hunter that reads that article will likely agree (as many of us would) that a scenario such as that is wrong. Problem is, again, there if very little (more like any) proof this is actually happening outside of an isolated incidence here and there, someone's brother-in-law's buddy did it type of thing.
Read the article. Read some of Casey's posts online about the bill.
‘We’ve taken a little bit of the hunt out of hunting’: Utah lawmaker seeks to ban baiting, trail cameras
Rep. Casey Snider, R-Paradise, has introduced a bill, HB295, that would ban the use of bait and trail cameras in big game hunting. Many hunters, including Snider, consider such practices unethical and believe they are becoming too widespread in Utah to the detriment of wildlife.www.sltrib.com
Baiting is surely a big part of the bill. As are some of the waterfowl initiatives. The "official" reasoning for bypassing the RAC is because the DWR/RAC doesn't have jurisdiction over trail cameras, so it's not really a "wildlife" initiative, it's a "technology" initiative. Fair, but as you mention the baiting part of the bill surely is a wildlife initiative and as such absolutely should not be bypassing the RAC system. I am not against regulations if they are based on data, with a plan that shows how the regulations expect to accomplish the goal. All about the process.You make some valid points but sometimes it is necessary to bypass the camel
With his nose in the feed bag.
And people seem to be kinda ignoring the “no baiting” part of this bill. Although I have a ranch in Texas and do use feeders and bait, that is an apples and oranges comparison to western hunts. We probably have a deer for every 5 acres. ? We can’t hardly kill enough each year to stay ahead of the population. That is not the situation in Utah and other western states.
Didn't realize amendments were made after last Friday's vote, thanks. The August 1 date for all cameras is an improvement over two different dates for sure, but my comment was more based on the idea of cameras being used for many other reasons outside of hunting, sorry, I wasn't very clear about that.Take a look at the first substitute that received the favorable recommendation from the committee. The date was moved to August 1 for all cameras. There were some other changes as well.
Can you post a link to some research or data on baiting here in UT? I don’t doubt at all that it’s there, I just don’t know where to find it, and it hasn’t even been alluded to by anyone related to the bill. I’m not being a jerk, legitimately asking here is all. I would think publishing that data along with the bill would greatly improve the chances of getting it passed.Its funny to me, that guys who are ranting and raving about "no facts, data, research", but dont actually look. There IS research on bait. You not liking the outcomes, doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
As to cams. Every time some guy says "cams dont help get animals", but they still put them out, is proving their own assertions wrong. If they dont work, why do it? Why would a buisness, which exists to maximize kills, while minimizing methods, use them if they dontvwork? Are we to believe DC, or Moss, WLH, etc put out thousands of cams and pay thousands in wages to do so, because they dont work?
Them being used by the corporate guys proves that they enhance their buisness model. Which is killing 100% of the time, as quickly as possible, tge most mature animals
Can you post a link to some research or data on baiting here in UT? I don’t doubt at all that it’s there, I just don’t know where to find it, and it hasn’t even been alluded to by anyone related to the bill. I’m not being a jerk, legitimately asking here is all. I would think publishing that data along with the bill would greatly improve the chances of getting it passed.
Cameras, I posted above why I like to use them on rare occasions, for fun. I can’t speak for the outfitters, I assume it’s not just for fun but I’m not wearing their shoes.
And again, I’ve said this plenty, I’m not against this. I’ve used cameras here and there, I’ve used salt here and there. Salt always for cow elk, cameras mostly for them too or else when I think I can get a cool picture. I could personally take or leave either of them, that’s whats so funny about all this. There are checks and balances (supposedly) in place for wildlife matters in this state. They are not being followed in this case. That is literally 100% of my argument. If we need to ban this stuff let’s do it, but show us why, SHOW us why, don’t just tell us the sky is red (“not a speck of water anywhere in the state without at least a half-dozen cameras on it”) and expect us to believe it.
The Western Wyoming herd covers 150 miles between their summer and winter range.150 miles? I wish guys wouldn't write stuff like that. It completely discredits whatever else they wrote.
Plenty of data backing this. Look at success rates. Lowest success rate by a landslide is archery hunting. The population this impacts the most is archers. If this truly is a manner of management cameras and bait would be at the bottom of the list.I also think you can go overboard relying on studies and data. To me trail cams and baiting are the smoking gun. Pretty much anyone with a brain knows they make killing easier and with cameras make targeting a specific animal easier. If someone wants to put up data, it needs to be the ones against the ban. Data showing the opposite of what I just said. But.... they can’t.
Plenty of data backing this. Look at success rates. Lowest success rate by a landslide is archery hunting.
Top of the list SHOULD be limiting the technology on your rifles. Turrets, scopes, apps, rangefinders should be priority over this bill.
It was intentionally written to imply that a typical mule deer has a 150 mile range. In fact, an english teacher would say it says all mule deer. I challenge either assertion.The Western Wyoming herd covers 150 miles between their summer and winter range.
Anybody who is for the banning of taking pictures should 100% be donating all of their rifles and scopes to me! PM me and I’ll come pick them up. I know you wouldn’t want to be a hypocrite and you must only hunt with a spear or a home made longbow, right? I’ll take those weapons that can kill a deer from 3000 feet away off your hands so that you’re not provided an unfair advantage. If you think taking a picture of an animal as it walks by hurts hunting in some way but own a rifle , then you are a hypocrite of the highest degree.
What's the difference? Bait, cam or not, archery has the lowest success rates case and point. It's the least effective way of killing, that is fact based. If you are concerned about the herd you would put down your rifle which is the most effective at killing, again fact based. If you can't connect those dots plug it in your app to help you....You prove my point with archery hunting. So what if it has the “lowest success rate” of all methods is take. If you compared archers that use bait to archers that don’t, then you would have data to back up your claim. But there is no such data that would show that there is no advantage to baiting or cameras
And Your argument: “we can’t do “this”because something is worse and needs to be done first” is not a reason. From some persons point a view, there is always “something worse” out there. Let’s just stick with the issue at hand
Hahaha so you've turned this into a peeping Tom issue??? C'mon Hoss wear your ventilator when the painter is spraying your drywall. I would hate to see you lose what few brain cells you have left.I have to actually be in the mtn with the rifle. My rifle doesnt have night vision.
Again. Im a professional Drywaller. I own tools that make me better, and or faster. I dont invest in things that dont do either. Cams are no different. Its why they are used. Lets stop pretending that they dont.
Cams do both. That's why they are used. Period.
Do LR rifles, ballistic computers, etc hurt? Yup. So go get them limited.
Every guy that comes in here against limiting cams outside seasons, makes the point as to why they should be limited.
It doesnt seem a radical position to think that hunting, and methods, should include you actually being on the mtn.
Even beyond that. How is leaving a plastic box with a cam in it not littering, but leaving a box with beer can littering?
And how isn't it an invasion of privacy to not be filming people? I doubt Travis would appreciate a cam set in front of his daughters window at his house, but one watching someones daughter in the forest is ok?
And last. Why is flying a drone with a cam banned. But the cam isnt?
Let’s add more to the bill, let’s ban Utah!
You can have utah and the ideology of the hunters there. But I do fly into SLC fairly often. But I beat feet out of there after I take a dump at the airportOh how I wish the rest of the country would just forget about Utah. All you foreigners are really starting to screw this place up.
You can have utah and the ideology of the hunters there. But I do fly into SLC fairly often. But I beat feet out of there after I take a dump at the airport
"If you kill deer with a bullet over bait but think killing them by poisoning the same bait pile is unethical, then your a hypocrite."Anybody who is for the banning of taking pictures should 100% be donating all of their rifles and scopes to me! PM me and I’ll come pick them up. I know you wouldn’t want to be a hypocrite and you must only hunt with a spear or a home made longbow, right? I’ll take those weapons that can kill a deer from 3000 feet away off your hands so that you’re not provided an unfair advantage. If you think taking a picture of an animal as it walks by hurts hunting in some way but own a rifle , then you are a hypocrite of the highest degree.
Utah is so full of them. They are the first guy to call someone out for taking a 500+ yard shot, but are also the first ones to run their rifle dry then single feed 9 more, without a second thought when that 200 (in reality 170) steps out at 927 yards when they’ve never shot that far before in their life. It happens every day, all season long.Anybody who is for the banning of taking pictures should 100% be donating all of their rifles and scopes to me! PM me and I’ll come pick them up. I know you wouldn’t want to be a hypocrite and you must only hunt with a spear or a home made longbow, right? I’ll take those weapons that can kill a deer from 3000 feet away off your hands so that you’re not provided an unfair advantage. If you think taking a picture of an animal as it walks by hurts hunting in some way but own a rifle , then you are a hypocrite of the highest degree.
I have to actually be in the mtn with the rifle. My rifle doesnt have night vision.
Again. Im a professional Drywaller. I own tools that make me better, and or faster. I dont invest in things that dont do either. Cams are no different. Its why they are used. Lets stop pretending that they dont.
Cams do both. That's why they are used. Period.
Do LR rifles, ballistic computers, etc hurt? Yup. So go get them limited.
Every guy that comes in here against limiting cams outside seasons, makes the point as to why they should be limited.
It doesnt seem a radical position to think that hunting, and methods, should include you actually being on the mtn.
Even beyond that. How is leaving a plastic box with a cam in it not littering, but leaving a box with beer can littering?
And how isn't it an invasion of privacy to not be filming people? I doubt Travis would appreciate a cam set in front of his daughters window at his house, but one watching someones daughter in the forest is ok?
And last. Why is flying a drone with a cam banned. But the cam isnt?
Hahaha so you've turned this into a peeping Tom issue??? C'mon Hoss wear your ventilator when the painter is spraying your drywall. I would hate to see you lose what few brain cells you have left.
I'm not arguing that point. What I am arguing is the fact that they are one of the least effective way to kill. Proven fact looking at archery success rates across the board.. Listening to the podcast with Casey it is very evident he is pushing his opinion and agenda, and also defends SFW. So where do you stand Hoss? I've read many posts where you bad mouth SFW, but now that they are supporting your personal agenda you agree with them, and they are ok now?I guess your cams have the extra special button that only takes pics of deer huh?
Heres a hint. When you try to argue that cams dont increase killing efficiency. And standing next to you are WLH, Moss, DC, you should pay attention.
Oh I know. You are the only guy who pays money, spends gas, takes time to have cams, but do so only because you like landscape pics. And those landscape pics are only good from Aug 1 to Dec 31. That's prime landscape season. It has nothing to do with what EVERY hunter knows. Cams increase efficiency.
Im sure there in the camera company s payroll.The HUSHIN crew just did a podcast with Casey Snider and it’s on You Tube for all you to check out. I recommend it!
Hoss is showing intellectual integrity by keeping with his actual positions instead of trotting behind somebody else's opinion just because he's agreed with them in the past.So where do you stand Hoss? I've read many posts where you bad mouth SFW, but now that they are supporting your personal agenda you agree with them, and they are ok now?
Utah is so full of them. They are the first guy to call someone out for taking a 500+ yard shot, but are also the first ones to run their rifle dry then single feed 9 more, without a second thought when that 200 (in reality 170) steps out at 927 yards when they’ve never shot that far before in their life. It happens every day, all season long.
4 years ago, opener general
many of you guys seem to think running cams is as easy as putting them on a tree and you’ll know everything there is to know about the area. That deer might as well jump in the back of the truck himself, cuz once you get a single pic of him at 2 a.m, he’s as good as dead. There’s so much more than that to it. And even with your summer information you get from a cam, it all goes out the window opening morning of the bowhunt and you’re back to
cams relay information. Bottom line. At the end of the day, as a hunter, you still need to be able to interpret the information you receive and you still need to possess the skills necessary to kill the animal you get pictures of from your camera. The majority of the hunters in Utah can’t put all those puzzle pieces together well enough to consistently kill animals. If they could, general archery elk tags wouldn’t be an unlimited quota, they wouldn’t be OTC and it wouldn’t be “hunters choice”.
The privacy part of it I have a hard time standing behind. You’re on camera EVERYWHERE you go. Even in the mountains with UDOTS live traffic feed cams. If you feel like your privacy is being violated when you leave the house, stay home. It’s literally impossible to not be on cam. Getting your pictures taken in the privacy of your own room at home isnt even in the same ballpark of violation as getting caught on someone’s trail cameras. Don’t wanna get your pictures taken in the woods? Don’t go hike up to springs and wallows. That’s where most cameras are found. Easy fix.
I will 100% support any effort or attempts to limit technology and give wildlife an upper hand, if the roots of the bill is exactly that, to benefit wildlife. But this bill isn’t about that. There’s other agendas being pushed here. Which is why its going through this system and not the wildlife board and RACs. The timing of it all doesn’t seem coincidental either. Everyone’s nerves and emotions are shot after last year and so far this year for a variety of reasons. When people are worked up over other things, little stuff send them over the edge and are easily fired up over nothing. You should hear some of the arguments I’ve heard in person over this topic in the last year. Pretty wild... I support wildlife laws that everyone is subject to following. This won’t be that way. There will still be apple piles on private property in southern utah. There will still be cams run by outfitters all year long on public land. Cam violations won’t be investigated or pursued unless it’s an easy catch. We can’t even patrol and police the serious crimes such as poaching very well as it is with our limited resources. This is just one more thing to add to the under paid over worked officers plate to deal with. The only ones getting boned here are honest guys and fish and game officer who are expected to deal with the issues from it.
I'm not arguing that point. What I am arguing is the fact that they are one of the least effective way to kill. Proven fact looking at archery success rates across the board.. Listening to the podcast with Casey it is very evident he is pushing his opinion and agenda, and also defends SFW. So where do you stand Hoss? I've read many posts where you bad mouth SFW, but now that they are supporting your personal agenda you agree with them, and they are ok now?
If this was truly a bill about increasing the overall population of wildlife we would be starting at rangefinders, optics, long range weapons etc. This is about inches and dollars, meanwhile the average guy that enjoys running a few cameras takes the brunt of the bill in the shorts. Look at California they have allowed legislation to destroy their hunting heritage and this is exactly how it started there. Casey is right there isn't many people in politics that hunt or even understand it, but we are freely giving them reign to make hunting and wildlife decisions for us. You can't spin that as a positive.
Which are legal and which aren'tLimitations won’t work. Already thought about that and ruled it out. Why? Not because of guys like you, but because the commercial guys who hire dozens of people will have every employee sign up for the max allowed number of cams. So limiting numbers would do nothing to solve the problem. Both private and commercial guys will still have the same number out they do now
AND, if you allow ANY in the woods, THEN it really becomes an enforcement nightmare. Which are legal, which aren’t .../
I'm not arguing that point. What I am arguing is the fact that they are one of the least effective way to kill. Proven fact looking at archery success rates across the board.. Listening to the podcast with Casey it is very evident he is pushing his opinion and agenda, and also defends SFW. So where do you stand Hoss? I've read many posts where you bad mouth SFW, but now that they are supporting your personal agenda you agree with them, and they are ok now?
If this was truly a bill about increasing the overall population of wildlife we would be starting at rangefinders, optics, long range weapons etc. This is about inches and dollars, meanwhile the average guy that enjoys running a few cameras takes the brunt of the bill in the shorts. Look at California they have allowed legislation to destroy their hunting heritage and this is exactly how it started there. Casey is right there isn't many people in politics that hunt or even understand it, but we are freely giving them reign to make hunting and wildlife decisions for us. You can't spin that as a positive.
I really want to break this down in simple and basic terms for you to understand...I have to actually be in the mtn with the rifle. My rifle doesnt have night vision.
Again. Im a professional Drywaller. I own tools that make me better, and or faster. I dont invest in things that dont do either. Cams are no different. Its why they are used. Lets stop pretending that they dont.
Cams do both. That's why they are used. Period.
Do LR rifles, ballistic computers, etc hurt? Yup. So go get them limited.
Every guy that comes in here against limiting cams outside seasons, makes the point as to why they should be limited.
It doesnt seem a radical position to think that hunting, and methods, should include you actually being on the mtn.
Even beyond that. How is leaving a plastic box with a cam in it not littering, but leaving a box with beer can littering?
And how isn't it an invasion of privacy to not be filming people? I doubt Travis would appreciate a cam set in front of his daughters window at his house, but one watching someones daughter in the forest is ok?
And last. Why is flying a drone with a cam banned. But the cam isnt?
The HUSHIN crew just did a podcast with Casey Snider and it’s on You Tube for all you to check out. I recommend it!
I really want to break this down in simple and basic terms for you to understand...
-Trail cams do not kill wildlife.
-Trail cams take pictures of animals
-You do not legally have an expectation of privacy when your outside. (I'm not going to debate this with you because the supreme court has settled this.)
-Leaving a can on the ground with no intention of returning is littering. (Again, I'm not going to debate laws with you because... well... they are laws and you can read them on your own)
-Placing a camera on a tree and coming back for it isn't littering. (I'm not going to debate laws with you. Learn to read state code).
-If you park your truck on public ground and walk away from it then I'm taking it because you littered. (That is a great point...)
-Don't try and conflate hiking 3 miles into the back country and taking pictures of animals with voyerism as the two are completely and utterly disconnected.
-Lastly, you need to turn that gun in because of all the things mentioned... that is the only thing actually killing game. Is it just because you aren't affected by a trail cam ban that you support it? I hope they pass legislation rendering all firearms with anything but a front bead sight illegal because I bow hunt. (This is how dumb you sound)
Holy smokes I think hossburr is the president of the HUSH fanboy club. He knows everything about them and brings them up on a regular basis???Last I Checked Casey from HUSH lives in Idaho. So with all do respect, his opinion on this matters absolutely ZERO. Utah reserves the right to manage or hunting how we see fit. Hes welcome to return to his resident state. He may thank Utah in advance for the oppurtunity we provide him
These idiots seem to forget their 3rd wheel Eric has multiple episodes of him hiking in, spreading salt and setting cams.
Or that they are friends with one of tge states outfitters that has turned the Boulder into a sound stage.
It also should be noted they are sponsored by tail cam companies.
But GAWD listening to the flat brim leadership discuss this is hard to deal with. I mean we are talking about dudes who film themselves taking a chit. Their thoughts are a little slanted.
These 3 couldn't load a truck without dudes showing them how to do it, without cams, other dudes taking them theyd be lost.
I laughed when they started discussing how Ryan Carter is concerned how it affects the average guy.
I really don’t understand how you don’t understand this... regardless of where I am, on a mountain or naked in the tub, a trail cam only does 1 thing. It takes pictures. It can not kill an animal. I now believe modern day cartridges to be unlawful. You need to spear an animal with a homemade spear made from naturally sourced wood and rock. You may make a bow from the guts of your first kill. Now I’ll throw away my one trail cam. Your hypocrisy runs so deep here. Go read your own words in the mirror. Look at that guy and try to take him serious. I know, it’s hard.Im fine with open sights. Ill have to choose between my 06', .303 or 30-30. Or ill use my bow. Or my Thompson new England side hammer. Your barking up the wrong tree with that
Ryan Carter runs 100 cams. Lets average them at $50 per cam.
He spends $5000 for what?
So my defense is , hey I planned on coming back and picking up that can sometime so its not littering?
Dont try and pretend every cam is deep in the back country. Ill show you 3 I can see from the road on AI
Again. I have to BE ON THE MTN with my gun. If you dont understand the difference I dont know what to tell you.
Guys put out cams because they WORK. They scout for you when your not there. That's 100% what they do. No matter how many times you say they dont, logic tells me you arent an idiot. You hike 3 miles in to set a cam, because they work. Or are you stupid ?
If they dont work, then why is not having them during hunting season a big deal? I keep asking, guys keep passing by that.
If they dont work, then not having them during the season doesnt change anything for you, right?
Not worried one bit. I know where I stand on the issue at hand. My fight has always been that this is not a management issue, but a jealousy issue for many. It's a personal agenda of a few being pushed on all. "I don't like it, so cancel it" "I don't agree with it, so cancel it" I can't do it, so cancel it" SFW being on board should be a pretty good indication that it's not in the best interest of the public land, average Joe hunter. I thought you would at least agree to that, but you seem to be singing a different tune these days.Are you worried you support BHA position?
Guess Youre a green decoy now?
Sure they did. Like a typical politician the question was skirted.Here's my two cents, buried deep.
I think there are plenty of things that reduce Fair Chase. I think Trail Cams are one of them, a big one. I watched HUSH's podcast with Rep Snider and was disappointed all they wanted to talk about was who the bill would hurt. Never asked if it would help the deer herd. Never entertained the idea it could benefit hunters.
Also, you can get 30% off trail cams using code HUSH at a certain retailer. LOL
Strike a chord Grizz???Can we please get off calling everybody that disagrees with your position "jealous?"
It is showing up all over the place on MM. It's hard to come up with a more sophomoric response, especially when the person saying that has nothing more than a few posts to form that diagnosis and has likely never met the individual to which they're assigning that designation. Grow up.
And PS... I have never met a single person that was "jealous" of somebody's trail cameras or apple piles.
I really don’t understand how you don’t understand this... regardless of where I am, on a mountain or naked in the tub, a trail cam only does 1 thing. It takes pictures. It can not kill an animal. I now believe modern day cartridges to be unlawful. You need to spear an animal with a homemade spear made from naturally sourced wood and rock. You may make a bow from the guts of your first kill. Now I’ll throw away my one trail cam. Your hypocrisy runs so deep here. Go read your own words in the mirror. Look at that guy and try to take him serious. I know, it’s hard.
Not at all, and you weren't even talking to me at the time. How could I be jealous of something that's as easy as stopping by Walmart for a Stealthcam and bag of Granny Smith's. It's pretty clear that those unable to actually hunt are jealous of the truly successful guys and are projecting that jealousy on others. See, there's some armchair psychology for you.Strike a chord Grizz???
Cancel me if you don't agree.....point proven. Thank you.
Not worried one bit. I know where I stand on the issue at hand. My fight has always been that this is not a management issue, but a jealousy issue for many. It's a personal agenda of a few being pushed on all. "I don't like it, so cancel it" "I don't agree with it, so cancel it" I can't do it, so cancel it" SFW being on board should be a pretty good indication that it's not in the best interest of the public land, average Joe hunter. I thought you would at least agree to that, but you seem to be singing a different tune these days.
Ryan Carter runs 100 cams. Lets average them at $50 per cam.
He spends $5000 for what?
I know this was only a hypothetical, but he runs way more than 100 cameras (according to the one podcast he was a guest I’ve heard him talk), and the 4K video cams he’s running cost just a titch more than $50.
I actually think Ryan is a pretty standup guy. He’s one of the few people I’ve heard that is being honest about the situation when he says they help him kill bulls. I watched his statement on the issue. Now, he did downplay how much they help, and gave the standard “cameras don’t kill elk,” but circled back to saying you want him being successful killing the oldest/biggest bulls on the mountain. And he admitted cameras help him be successful. I’m not going to listen to the HUSH deal. Those clowns aren’t worth the time. But I can only imagine how little trail cams helped EC know that #firebull existed.
I still wish this was different. I don’t like blanket restrictions, but if we as people had ANY restraint at all, we would never get regulated. I’ve heard very few opponents of this bill offer an alternative, almost all just complain. I do think notdon’s proposal merits further discussion. Does requiring registration and limiting how many “tags” one can obtain to put out cameras accomplish the same or more as the current bill?
Personally, one of the only parts of this issue I think I’ve settled in my own brain is that cell cams should be banned all together on public land. No reason to be able to put a camera up one time and return one time a year to swap out batteries, and collect the rest of the information sitting on your couch. That is one thing I’d support. The rest is still a bit murky in my mind. Mixed feelings on this one for sure.
Not un common at all.150 miles? I wish guys wouldn't write stuff like that. It completely discredits whatever else they wrote.
Sweet. Maybe a Pauns buck will wander thru my yard.Not un common at all.
Of course HUSH is panicked. Stealthcams is one of their sponsors/partners/paychecks. They find themselves in the same predicament as many companies or politicians... Maybe they do have a moral leg in the game, but it's sullied by also having monetary skin in the game... It's what hunting is becoming. Or has become.I have to use nice round, easy numbers.?
I listened to HUSH just so I could hear Snider in his own voice. HUSH almost seemed panicked about losing cams.
Im still not overly wild about it going through legislature. But Snider covered it pretty well, especially in that bait had been presented, but not acted on.
Im with you. Im much more concerned with what cams are today, and tommorow than just the old school ones. But I also know how these loopholes and exceptions get exploited to death in this sport. Give an inch dudes take miles
What I'm saying is yes, for certain many folks have financial incentives weighing heavily into their ideals on certain issues. Not sure anyone can be blamed for that, everyone needs to make a dollar even if not everyone agrees about how they do it.
??????There were guys who made punt guns. Guys who made their living skinning buffalo, made their living as market hunters, beaver trappers, etc, etc, etc
They did what was legal at the time.
But looking at that past and how those things turned out, when left to a marketplace only, gives us a glance at where things will go if we dont check the issues facing hunting today.
I doubt highly anyone in here denies technology is a big threat. The argument seems to be a "this is worse than that".
As to HUSH. There are guys like Rinella, Newberg, Jim Shockey, etc, for whom hunting "industry" kinda cam to them. Then there are the guys like the HUSH dudes, MTN OPS, etc who seem to have round a living pimping. Many of them starting hunting AFTER they started the "buisness".
Its the Gritty Bowman vs Aron Snider thing. One guy you know lives the life, the other didn't.
If hunting was outlawed, HUSH would start a golf channel.
Supporting this bill or not is individual. Im sure the cam companies are against it. We expect that, they make cams.
Casey going after $fw and Peay, when they've built their buisness with $fw and the expo, shows their stripes.
There are dudes who attend because their sponsors want them to. And guys who go there looking for buisness. There is a difference.
So uncommon it happens every year.?150 miles is uncommon, that’s what makes it special! #ripjet
Uncommon as only a couple mule deer herds migrate that far. And even within that herd very migrate that far ?So uncommon it happens every year.?
Improving the herd, kill less animals, that will help. Limiting technology will also help.Lots of good debating points here, but I just keep coming back to the fact that UT has a deer herd management crisis. Why not focus more effort on improving the herd instead of banning trail cameras??? Seems like these guys have their priorities mixed up...
Hoss, I was just speaking in generalities, not trying to support anyone's stance specifically, HUSH or anyone else. Lots of people make money from hunting in either direct or roundabout ways. It's an industry. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, though I'm starting to think you might just like to argue...lol
No hard feelings here at all though, everyone is entitled to their opinion and at the end of the day I think most all of us want the same thing, a continuation and even betterment if possible of the thing we love to do, hunting.
HossThere were guys who made punt guns. Guys who made their living skinning buffalo, made their living as market hunters, beaver trappers, etc, etc, etc
They did what was legal at the time.
But looking at that past and how those things turned out, when left to a marketplace only, gives us a glance at where things will go if we dont check the issues facing hunting today.
I doubt highly anyone in here denies technology is a big threat. The argument seems to be a "this is worse than that".
As to HUSH. There are guys like Rinella, Newberg, Jim Shockey, etc, for whom hunting "industry" kinda cam to them. Then there are the guys like the HUSH dudes, MTN OPS, etc who seem to have round a living pimping. Many of them starting hunting AFTER they started the "buisness".
Its the Gritty Bowman vs Aron Snider thing. One guy you know lives the life, the other didn't.
If hunting was outlawed, HUSH would start a golf channel.
Supporting this bill or not is individual. Im sure the cam companies are against it. We expect that, they make cams.
Casey going after $fw and Peay, when they've built their buisness with $fw and the expo, shows their stripes.
There are dudes who attend because their sponsors want them to. And guys who go there looking for buisness. There is a difference.
Haha wait for it.... "I'm old enough to know what it was like hunting without trail cameras..........but I also know every flat brim YouTube star on a first and last name basis...." Hoss I think you're a good dude even if you are a closet flat brimmer.Hoss
You seem to know everything about these guys, normally when someone knows this much about others we call that stalking. ?
I know who Shokey and Mt Ops is but most of the other names you keep throwing around I only can recognize them because of how often some of you guys keep bringing them up. HUSH I recognize the name but I can not actually tell you what they are about.
He was the 4th member of HUSH. He didn’t last long though and it was down to three in no time.Hoss
You seem to know everything about these guys, normally when someone knows this much about others we call that stalking. ?
I know who Shokey and Mt Ops is but most of the other names you keep throwing around I only can recognize them because of how often some of you guys keep bringing them up. HUSH I recognize the name but I can not actually tell you what they are about.
Haha wait for it.... "I'm old enough to know what it was like hunting without trail cameras..........but I also know every flat brim YouTube star on a first and last name basis...." Hoss I think you're a good dude even if you are a closet flat brimmer.
Wouldn't cutting tags do more for the herd than banning trail cameras? I know this is another endless debate topic, but I think they are overlooking the bigger issue on this one.Improving the herd, kill less animals, that will help. Limiting technology will also help.
Travis,I really don’t understand how you don’t understand this... regardless of where I am, on a mountain or naked in the tub, a trail cam only does 1 thing. It takes pictures. It can not kill an animal. I now believe modern day cartridges to be unlawful. You need to spear an animal with a homemade spear made from naturally sourced wood and rock. You may make a bow from the guts of your first kill. Now I’ll throw away my one trail cam. Your hypocrisy runs so deep here. Go read your own words in the mirror. Look at that guy and try to take him serious. I know, it’s hard.
I like your post, I think you make some great points. Travis can answer the poignant questions you outlined since you asked him. My only rebuttal would be this:Travis,
Since you are interested in simplicity, will you please answer a few very simple questions for us:
1. Does using trail cameras during the hunting season give a hunter an advantage over the animal he is pursuing?
2. Does using trail cameras during the hunting season give a hunter an advantage over the hunter who chooses not to use cameras?
Let me make this simple for you. And feel free to pull out your mirror, if you’d like, while you read this...
Everyone knows a trail camera cannot physically kill a buck. Most hunters, however, will admit that using trail cameras during hunting seasons certainly do aid a hunter in killing an animal. How? The answer is surprisingly simple. Because you can’t kill a buck if you can’t find the buck. It is far more difficult to find the buck during daylight (shooting) hours if you have to locate him with your own eyes ... even with the aid of binoculars or a spotting scope. Further, it is impossible to find him in the dark. Trail cameras take pictures 24x7, just like you said. Day and night. But, trail cameras do more than just take pictures. You know this ... even if you won’t admit it. We all do. Those pictures provide hunters with the exact date, time, and location of a target buck. With that valuable information in hand, a hunter can eliminate all other areas in the unit and not waste his time where he now knows the buck is not living. With that valuable information in hand, the hunter can focus his attention in the exact area where his trail camera told him the buck is currently living. The hunter didn’t discover this information on his own, his trail camera did. Do you think this information gives the hunter an advantage over the buck that was caught on his camera at 2:00 am while the hunter was sleeping, a common survival tactic of wise old bucks? Does this information give the hunter an advantage over another hunter who chose not to use a trail camera, but is chasing the same buck, and last spotted him at first light, in a different basin, a mile away, three days earlier? Does this valuable information give the hunter an advantage by providing him with new motivation to keep hunting, instead of giving up and going home, after 6 days of not being able to find the old buck because he went nocturnal, because perhaps, the hunter believes the buck had been killed by someone else or had been pushed out of the country?
Please give us your honest and simple answers to those simple questions.
If you don’t believe using trail cameras aid the hunter who uses them in successfully taking the animal he’s pursuing, will you please explain why not? Also, please tell us, if trail cameras are such ineffective tools in helping kill a targeted animal, why do hunters and outfitters spend so much time, effort, and money to use them during the hunting season? If they’re not effective and don’t help hunters, why would any hunter who believes in fair-chase oppose limiting their use during hunting season? Surely, there must be a very simple explanation...
And as you answer these simple questions, to keep this conversation focused on the current bill being voted on, please don’t change the subject to any of the following topics:
Long range guns do more damage than trail cameras
Rangefinders do more damage than trail cameras
Scopes on muzzleloaders are worse than trail cameras
The government is taking away my rights
Trail cameras don’t impact the deer herd
The DWR makes bad wildlife policies
The proposed law can’t be enforced
There are too many tags issued
Guys who use trail cameras have to work hard, too
Guys who don’t use trail cameras are jealous of those who do
If trail cameras are limited, the next thing they’ll take away is...
These are all interesting topics that can be debated another time, but they are not the issue we are discussing here.
Last question for you is also a simple one:
3. How many trail cameras do you use during the hunting seasons?
Rimrock
Rim great post and congrats on a hard earned buck! Was it an archery or gun kill? Not that it matters just curious?Bocephus,
Thanks for your reply. Those are fair questions. I’ll take a swing at ‘em.
I don’t believe trail cameras are the leading cause of the declining deer herds in Utah, or elsewhere in the west. But, I haven't seen a reliable study that could provide data to prove or disprove that belief. I think Mother Nature, predators, hunting regulations, and road access, combined with a growing list of technological advancements hunters now rely on are all major factors. Trail cameras are one part of the puzzle. Long range rifles, scopes on muzzleloaders, rangefinders, better glass, better clothes, better food, lighter hunting equipment, gps, Google earth, mapping software, ebikes, and atvs are all examples of the technology - that when combined (and when abused by seemingly more people every year) have tipped the scales very heavily in the favor of the hunter ... to the point where true fair-chase has come into question. I think we’ve reached the point where any honest hunter looking at the big picture honestly, has to admit that it’s true.
The problem is, while we all know it’s true, deep down, there are some who won’t admit it publicly, and in fact, will argue - and lobby - loudly that it is not. But, the reality is that we as hunters have been unwilling or unable to regulate ourselves. A percentage of our group have gotten out of control. Why? Simple. I believe it’s primarily a combination of a desire for social media fame for some and a desire to make a dollar for some. Good old fashioned self interest. The appeal of fame and glory combined with the opportunity to turn that notoriety into a dollar (by selling hats, health supplements and powders, t-shirts, hunting equipment, or Trophy Rock), and perhaps, even a sponsorship from a bow or clothing manufacturer seems to be too much for some to resist. All I need to do is kill a giant buck or two, post the pictures on all my social media platforms, gain a following of hunters who covet my trophy, go on a few podcasts to explain how hard I worked for my fire bull, post a few videos of me working out in the gym or shooting my bow, run a few IG promotional give always, and I become a hunting “celebrity”, a social media influencer ... possibly even making an extra buck or two along the way. And that’s not even mentioning the $ that is driving so much unethical behavior in the outfitting business.
So, with all that at stake, I can’t argue that trail cameras had any role in my success. Rather, I take the position that “trail cameras don’t kill animals” or “trail cameras don’t impact the deer herds” or “if we regulate trail cameras, the next thing they’ll take from me is...” or “long range rifles are worse than trail cameras” ... and the list goes on. And the debate continues. And nothing changes to help level the playing field that we all know is hurting the game we all love to hunt. It’s sad, frustrating, and quite frankly, pretty stupid.
So, to circle back to your questions about animals dying... The direct answer is that I agree, one of the goals of hunting is to kill an animal. And, I’m like many others who want to find, target, and kill an older age class animal. Other hunters have different objectives and I don’t have a problem with either approach, but I am an advocate of fair-chase and common sense. As an example, last year I killed what I believe is a 7 or 8 year old deer, with nearly 40 inches of mass, and a 31” outside spread. He was not my target buck (which was killed by another hunter), but he did make my heart beat a little faster when my scouting paid off and I was finally able to sneak in on him at very close range. I liked him a lot, so I pulled the trigger. My hunt happened on public land, 4 miles from the nearest road, while competing with 18 other hunters within a one mile radius of where I killed my buck. I spent more than 30 days on the mountain, with a heavy pack on my back, during the summer and fall. During that time I found and passed up more than 60 bucks, holding out for 3 or 4 bucks that had my attention. It was a lot of hard work. Took a lot of time. Sacrificed some things. Especially for a 53 year-old man with a desk job. It was also a very enjoyable and satisfying experience because I did it with my two sons in a beautiful place. This all happened without a single trail camera. Like always, it’s the experience and the memories with my family that I cherish most. The old buck is icing on the cake...
Yes, bucks were killed before trail cameras and they’re being killed with them. Big bucks and little bucks. My point is that I would like to see the hunting community put our self-interest aside, dial back the technology, control the predators, pray that the weather cooperates, and implement more effective regulations (season dates, tag numbers, etc.) in order to benefit the big game we love and thereby preserve the hunting opportunities we enjoy ... so, that my 2 year old grandson will have the opportunity to experience what his grandfather enjoys.
Now, don’t be shy, Bocephus, I’m interested in your answers to my 3 questions, too ...
Rimrock
Travis,
Since you are interested in simplicity, will you please answer a few very simple questions for us:
1. Does using trail cameras during the hunting season give a hunter an advantage over the animal he is pursuing?
2. Does using trail cameras during the hunting season give a hunter an advantage over the hunter who chooses not to use cameras?
Let me make this simple for you. And feel free to pull out your mirror, if you’d like, while you read this...
Everyone knows a trail camera cannot physically kill a buck. Most hunters, however, will admit that using trail cameras during hunting seasons certainly do aid a hunter in killing an animal. How? The answer is surprisingly simple. Because you can’t kill a buck if you can’t find the buck. It is far more difficult to find the buck during daylight (shooting) hours if you have to locate him with your own eyes ... even with the aid of binoculars or a spotting scope. Further, it is impossible to find him in the dark. Trail cameras take pictures 24x7, just like you said. Day and night. But, trail cameras do more than just take pictures. You know this ... even if you won’t admit it. We all do. Those pictures provide hunters with the exact date, time, and location of a target buck. With that valuable information in hand, a hunter can eliminate all other areas in the unit and not waste his time where he now knows the buck is not living. With that valuable information in hand, the hunter can focus his attention in the exact area where his trail camera told him the buck is currently living. The hunter didn’t discover this information on his own, his trail camera did. Do you think this information gives the hunter an advantage over the buck that was caught on his camera at 2:00 am while the hunter was sleeping, a common survival tactic of wise old bucks? Does this information give the hunter an advantage over another hunter who chose not to use a trail camera, but is chasing the same buck, and last spotted him at first light, in a different basin, a mile away, three days earlier? Does this valuable information give the hunter an advantage by providing him with new motivation to keep hunting, instead of giving up and going home, after 6 days of not being able to find the old buck because he went nocturnal, because perhaps, the hunter believes the buck had been killed by someone else or had been pushed out of the country?
Please give us your honest and simple answers to those simple questions.
If you don’t believe using trail cameras aid the hunter who uses them in successfully taking the animal he’s pursuing, will you please explain why not? Also, please tell us, if trail cameras are such ineffective tools in helping kill a targeted animal, why do hunters and outfitters spend so much time, effort, and money to use them during the hunting season? If they’re not effective and don’t help hunters, why would any hunter who believes in fair-chase oppose limiting their use during hunting season? Surely, there must be a very simple explanation...
And as you answer these simple questions, to keep this conversation focused on the current bill being voted on, please don’t change the subject to any of the following topics:
Long range guns do more damage than trail cameras
Rangefinders do more damage than trail cameras
Scopes on muzzleloaders are worse than trail cameras
The government is taking away my rights
Trail cameras don’t impact the deer herd
The DWR makes bad wildlife policies
The proposed law can’t be enforced
There are too many tags issued
Guys who use trail cameras have to work hard, too
Guys who don’t use trail cameras are jealous of those who do
If trail cameras are limited, the next thing they’ll take away is...
These are all interesting topics that can be debated another time, but they are not the issue we are discussing here.
Last question for you is also a simple one:
3. How many trail cameras do you use during the hunting seasons?
Rimrock
But honestly, the best part about my position is that its been removed from the proposed bill and trailcam users won! LOLTravis,
Since you are interested in simplicity, will you please answer a few very simple questions for us:
1. Does using trail cameras during the hunting season give a hunter an advantage over the animal he is pursuing?
2. Does using trail cameras during the hunting season give a hunter an advantage over the hunter who chooses not to use cameras?
Let me make this simple for you. And feel free to pull out your mirror, if you’d like, while you read this...
Everyone knows a trail camera cannot physically kill a buck. Most hunters, however, will admit that using trail cameras during hunting seasons certainly do aid a hunter in killing an animal. How? The answer is surprisingly simple. Because you can’t kill a buck if you can’t find the buck. It is far more difficult to find the buck during daylight (shooting) hours if you have to locate him with your own eyes ... even with the aid of binoculars or a spotting scope. Further, it is impossible to find him in the dark. Trail cameras take pictures 24x7, just like you said. Day and night. But, trail cameras do more than just take pictures. You know this ... even if you won’t admit it. We all do. Those pictures provide hunters with the exact date, time, and location of a target buck. With that valuable information in hand, a hunter can eliminate all other areas in the unit and not waste his time where he now knows the buck is not living. With that valuable information in hand, the hunter can focus his attention in the exact area where his trail camera told him the buck is currently living. The hunter didn’t discover this information on his own, his trail camera did. Do you think this information gives the hunter an advantage over the buck that was caught on his camera at 2:00 am while the hunter was sleeping, a common survival tactic of wise old bucks? Does this information give the hunter an advantage over another hunter who chose not to use a trail camera, but is chasing the same buck, and last spotted him at first light, in a different basin, a mile away, three days earlier? Does this valuable information give the hunter an advantage by providing him with new motivation to keep hunting, instead of giving up and going home, after 6 days of not being able to find the old buck because he went nocturnal, because perhaps, the hunter believes the buck had been killed by someone else or had been pushed out of the country?
Please give us your honest and simple answers to those simple questions.
If you don’t believe using trail cameras aid the hunter who uses them in successfully taking the animal he’s pursuing, will you please explain why not? Also, please tell us, if trail cameras are such ineffective tools in helping kill a targeted animal, why do hunters and outfitters spend so much time, effort, and money to use them during the hunting season? If they’re not effective and don’t help hunters, why would any hunter who believes in fair-chase oppose limiting their use during hunting season? Surely, there must be a very simple explanation...
And as you answer these simple questions, to keep this conversation focused on the current bill being voted on, please don’t change the subject to any of the following topics:
Long range guns do more damage than trail cameras
Rangefinders do more damage than trail cameras
Scopes on muzzleloaders are worse than trail cameras
The government is taking away my rights
Trail cameras don’t impact the deer herd
The DWR makes bad wildlife policies
The proposed law can’t be enforced
There are too many tags issued
Guys who use trail cameras have to work hard, too
Guys who don’t use trail cameras are jealous of those who do
If trail cameras are limited, the next thing they’ll take away is...
These are all interesting topics that can be debated another time, but they are not the issue we are discussing here.
Last question for you is also a simple one:
3. How many trail cameras do you use during the hunting seasons?
Rimrock
More fun to me than anything Grizz, but you've made your point clear. Glad nobody is forcing you to use them.You guys know the House removed the trail cam ban from the bill, right?
With that said, the number one reason I've seen that people want to use trail cams is that they're totally ineffective. But totally necessary ?