DarkTimber
Member
- Messages
- 35
It’s a hot topic right now. It could be situation specific, but generally speaking do baiting and trail cameras give an unfair advantage to hunters?
I don't believe trail cameras give an unfair advantage. The camera serves the same exact purpose as if I were out hiking every day and glassing or just sitting on a trail or water hole and watching what comes in every day. Only thing different is that with the camera I am not disturbing the animals and running them around like I would be if I were constantly hiking about. Cameras also allow me to use my preference points and time more wisely, and possibly help me select an animal that I would like to harvest, instead of shooting the first animal that walks within range.Yep, and the funny thing is the guys who say they don't help that much are the same ones that are against getting rid of them.
I don't believe trail cameras give an unfair advantage. The camera serves the same exact purpose as if I were out hiking every day and glassing or just sitting on a trail or water hole and watching what comes in every day. Only thing different is that with the camera I am not disturbing the animals and running them around like I would be if I were constantly hiking about. Cameras also allow me to use my preference points and time more wisely, and possibly help me select an animal that I would like to harvest, instead of shooting the first animal that walks within range.
On the other hand I do agree that baiting is unfair. It's like opening a buffet or all the best grub in town. You know for a fact that if you sit there on that food, something worth your time will come, where as with a camera, all you are doing is learning what naturally comes to that location.
They for sure can help make a hunt successful. I'm not talking about using like a cam that instantly sends me pictures as they are take. I'm not that rich haha. But yes, we can't be in the hills 24/7, so to learn what comes to an area when I can't be there is nice information.So what you're saying is... they help you kill animals and scout when you're unable to be in the woods. Okay, got it, but it's not unfair. I see your point....
um...you just explained the advantage trail cams give you. if people cant see the advantage of 24 hour surveillance they cant be helped to understand itI don't believe trail cameras give an unfair advantage. The camera serves the same exact purpose as if I were out hiking every day and glassing or just sitting on a trail or water hole and watching what comes in every day. Only thing different is that with the camera I am not disturbing the animals and running them around like I would be if I were constantly hiking about. Cameras also allow me to use my preference points and time more wisely, and possibly help me select an animal that I would like to harvest, instead of shooting the first animal that walks within range.
On the other hand I do agree that baiting is unfair. It's like opening a buffet or all the best grub in town. You know for a fact that if you sit there on that food, something worth your time will come, where as with a camera, all you are doing is learning what naturally comes to that location.
Yeah I guess I should have added thay everyone has the ability to utilize this surveillance..it would be unfair if only certain people could use them.um...you just explained the advantage trail cams give you. if people cant see the advantage of 24 hour surveillance they cant be helped to understand it
Ohhh ok my mistake if rhays the case. I can understand it being kind of unfair for animals.i think its the fair chase for the game discussion. not advantage over other guys.
Yeah I'm with ya. I use them but that's because I will be hunting a huge area and it takes 15 years to draw so I'd like to make my odds the best.personally i say whatever. i use one for bear bait. undoubtedly gives me an advantage to pattern bears. i don't use one for deer or elk just because its not worth the time to me to run them.
i'm not for or against them but definitely believe there elimination is an advantage to game.
bigwiffy should be along shortly to talk about long rage hunting.you can set your watch to how these threads are going to go....
Define "baiting" and "unfair advantage"!It’s a hot topic right now. It could be situation specific, but generally speaking do baiting and trail cameras give an unfair advantage to hunters?
Night calling elk?? I've never done that ?? nor heard of it. How about spot lighting?? LolTo take this off the rails:
What about night calling elk?
That's what door locks and a big a$$ dog is for.Love the 35% of guys (so far) that say trail cams give you no advantage. Answer me this. If I keep your house under 24 hour surveillance do you think I have an advantage to know when to break in and steal all your chit?
Nah. No advantage there….
Night calling elk?? I've never done that ?? nor heard of it. How about spot lighting?? Lol
I do believe it's to give the animal a larger advantage/chance. I do agree as I said earlier that game cams do give you a step above animals. You know where they are coming, when, how often etc.....What is the end goal of the ban?
What is hopeful result of banning cameras?
Are we banning because some think it's unfair to the animal?
Are we banning because some think it's unfair to other hunters who don't run cameras or as many as some hunters or Outfitters?
Will it help Utah grow more deer and elk?
Has there been a survey done on how many deer or elk have been harvested over bait?
Just trying to get a better understanding of what is trying to be accomplished.
Spotlighting is another one in Idaho. Just don't get caught doing it with a gun in the truck.Night calling elk?? I've never done that ?? nor heard of it. How about spot lighting?? Lol
I don't believe trail cameras give an unfair advantage. The camera serves the same exact purpose as if I were out hiking every day and glassing or just sitting on a trail or water hole and watching what comes in every day. Only thing different is that with the camera I am not disturbing the animals and running them around like I would be if I were constantly hiking about. Cameras also allow me to use my preference points and time more wisely, and possibly help me select an animal that I would like to harvest, instead of shooting the first animal that walks within range.
On the other hand I do agree that baiting is unfair. It's like opening a buffet or all the best grub in town. You know for a fact that if you sit there on that food, something worth your time will come, where as with a camera, all you are doing is learning what naturally comes to that location.
What is the end goal of the ban?
What is hopeful result of banning cameras?
Are we banning because some think it's unfair to the animal?
Are we banning because some think it's unfair to other hunters who don't run cameras or as many as some hunters or Outfitters?
Will it help Utah grow more deer and elk?
Has there been a survey done on how many deer or elk have been harvested over bait?
Just trying to get a better understanding of what is trying to be accomplished.
All good and appropriate questions. I think when people start fighting over trees to hang their cam on, it's time for them all to go.What is the end goal of the ban?
What is hopeful result of banning cameras?
Are we banning because some think it's unfair to the animal?
Are we banning because some think it's unfair to other hunters who don't run cameras or as many as some hunters or Outfitters?
Will it help Utah grow more deer and elk?
Has there been a survey done on how many deer or elk have been harvested over bait?
Just trying to get a better understanding of what is trying to be accomplished.
Technically I could. If work and what not wasn't a thing. But absolutely I physically could. Someone who was rich enough could sit on a waterhole every day for as long as desired. Now that doesn't mean anyone has done that, mainly because there's trail cameras, so why not use technology. It's no different than a rifle scope compared to iron sights. I absolutely could shoot iron sights, but why would I do that when I could use a scope and shoot farther easier. Cams...why use my time sitting and gathering the Intel when I could use the game camera to do that. It's all about effectiveness.No it doesn't.
You out hiking and sitting 24 hours a day, 365 year?
Absolutely.All good and appropriate questions. I think when people start fighting over trees to hang their cam on, it's time for them all to go.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe during hunting season those GPS or cellular cams are illegal. I thought I read that during the season they have to be SD card style recordings, not instant transmission. But I do agree!Seeing game is not the same as killing it.
Camera's that send an alert to your cell phone can definitely be an unfair advantage. Mr. cell camera is hunting on one ridge and gets an alert his target animal is on the other ridge, don't tell me he's not going to head that way. He'll never admit to this already illegal act after putting his tag on it. Not something that's talked about.
The big problem with this is a lot, if not all, game departments issue more tags than the unit can support harvest, knowing that historical averages for harvest will be attained. The easier you make it to harvest the fewer tags the units can support, it's pretty simple. As a good hunter wouldn't you rather more opportunity(tags) in lower success units? I'm saying I'd rather try to out hunt other people every year without cams than have to wait on tags and get to use cams.Technically I could. If work and what not wasn't a thing. But absolutely I physically could. Someone who was rich enough could sit on a waterhole every day for as long as desired. Now that doesn't mean anyone has done that, mainly because there's trail cameras, so why not use technology. It's no different than a rifle scope compared to iron sights. I absolutely could shoot iron sights, but why would I do that when I could use a scope and shoot farther easier. Cams...why use my time sitting and gathering the Intel when I could use the game camera to do that. It's all about effectiveness.
Seeing game is not the same as killing it.
Camera's that send an alert to your cell phone can definitely be an unfair advantage. Mr. cell camera is hunting on one ridge and gets an alert his target animal is on the other ridge, don't tell me he's not going to head that way. He'll never admit to this already illegal act after putting his tag on it. Not something that's talked about.
100% serious, and 100% not a dem, but thanks for asking. And I have a lot of common sense thanks again lol. And there's a level of stupidity that you hit thinking all this stuff and going so far as to think that using helicopters is even remotely close to using a camera in the woods that you have to set up and then go back out to get to see any information.Good hell mountainsqwabler, are you serious or are you being sarcastic. if your serious you are a flat brimmer that hasn’t any common sense, and is definetly a Democrat. If that’s your logic I’m going to use helicopters. It’s way easier and hell it’s just technology.
That's a more respectful response, thank you. Where I do agree that not all technology should be used for hunting and there must be a limit, but that limit shouldn't be cameras. Maybe instant messaging cams like stated above should be banned, I'll sign that bill. But if in June I want to watch a water hole and then in August pick my camera up and sort through pictures and videos and find times and dates for when the animal was there....yeah I should be able to. You say there should be restrictions to technology, how about extremely EXTREMELY long ranged scopes allowing guys to take 1300+ yard shots at bears and elk and other game, how fair is that?from what your saying technology is great so let’s use everything we can. There comes a point that we overwhelm the pray we are after with technology. we are at that cross roads. Let’s make it a little more fair to the animals
And I never said technology was so great, all I Said was that game cameras allow us to do effective, non intrusive surveying of an area of land such as a water hole and see what is coming to said spot. I never said lets grab a helicopter and start chasing elk around the hills and maybe throw in a bazooka!!!from what your saying technology is great so let’s use everything we can. There comes a point that we overwhelm the pray we are after with technology. we are at that cross roads. Let’s make it a little more fair to the animals
Technically I could. If work and what not wasn't a thing. But absolutely I physically could. Someone who was rich enough could sit on a waterhole every day for as long as desired. Now that doesn't mean anyone has done that, mainly because there's trail cameras, so why not use technology. It's no different than a rifle scope compared to iron sights. I absolutely could shoot iron sights, but why would I do that when I could use a scope and shoot farther easier. Cams...why use my time sitting and gathering the Intel when I could use the game camera to do that. It's all about effectiveness.
They make iron sights with lighted dots...so yes you can.Your rifle with iron sights can't shoot in the pitch dark.
Your cam can take pics.
And NO you can't be awake, 24/7/365.
Your cam is
Same thing could be said about the 200 posts of steak and fries.Are we in a time warp?? Has anything of consequence changed?
This topic has been bent, spindled, stapled & otherwise mutilated about a gazillion times here over the last couple years. Heck, there are even at least three other threads currently available.
....man I won't even entertain a debate with you. You're just a short grumpy old Fart who is too simple minded. Your opinion is yours and mine is mine. I have stated nothing that supports you lolEvery time you talk you make my point for making cameras illegal. I Feel so sorry for you that you have to actually drive out and pickup your camera and sift through your pictures. I’ll bet that’s rough on a guy.
Have a good one sir!Well this grump old fart has to go to sleep now so I’ll see ya later.
They make iron sights with lighted dots...so yes you can.
And it's just an example. During the day time I could stay up, that would show me all I needed because I hunt during the day. And regardless, I have to go back out and get the camera and sift through any pictures on it to see what's been there at any time of day. It's not like the camera calls me when an animal is infront of it lol.
That's auto correct. It's centerfire. I caught it at the top.Indians had "centerline" rifles?
I think you described yourself perfectly when you referred to mental midgets.
I agree. Those whole debate steams from the lack of mule deer and elk hunting opportunities. If there was a surplus of animals, then no one would care (for the most part) how we hunt or harvest them. One example is hunting coyotes, most hunters never worry about the "fair chase" or "ethics" just reduce the number. This is just a distraction over the real issues. Some claim it will help increase herds or quality. I'm in favor of trying a unit or 2 in the state as a test. Personally, I don't think it will do a thing to help. But I've been wrong before.So I'm trying to understand these responses.
We got centerfire rifles. We got binoculars and spotting scopes. We got camouflage. We got scopes for our center fire rifles. We got bows with cams on them. We got space age carbon fiber arrows. We got mechanical broudheads. We got 4 wheelers. Then we got side by sides. We got ballistic turrets. We got ballistic calculators. We got radios. We got cell phones. We got mapping technology.
AND SUDDENLY OUT OF NOWHERE YOU DECIDE A BAIT PILE OR A CRAPPY CAMERA THAT CAN TAKE PICTURES IN THE DARK OF ONE SPOT 50 FEET IN FRONT OF IT ISN'T FAIR????????????? or that it's killing to many animals?????????????
This is more stupid than the idea of "born again virgins"
By the way Indians used bait long before they had a centerfire rifle.
START TALKING TO EACH OTHER ABOUT THE REAL PROBLEMS AND MAYBE YOUR HUNTING WILL GET BETTER.
Keep squabbling over distractions for mental midgets and your kids will be bird watchers instead of hunters.
This is the hill you die on?????
Sadly colorado did this with a few units for mule deer, but CPW stated it was to help mitigate CWD. Over I believe.....6 or 7 units they added some like 6,000 doe tags! And we experienced the same issue this last year, a 160" buck was a monster......very saddening.Idaho ruined one of it's best trophy units for both mule deer and elk in the last decade or so. The F&G did this because some genius determined there were too many elk for the feed capacity of the range. Point being they upped the cow elk tags to 400 a year. Well it turns out that people with cow elk tags are more than happy to say when and where they saw a buck or a bull. And with that many hunters there was no way any buck or bull was not going to be seen. Long story short, there are no longer cow hunts in that unit and the bull and buck tags have been cut to the bone, also you'd be hard pressed to find a 160" deer in a unit that should produce 190"+ every year. If you think more eyes(and cameras are eyes) don't impact quality of bucks/bulls you're wrong. It's a binary choice; no cameras and more tags or cameras and less tags, if you want to maintain herd quality.
It has nothing to do with reliance. People talk, it might even be your wife, friend, cousin, co-worker, etc., with the cow tag. The more eyes in the unit the more people who know where the big ones are, until they aren't.If a buck or a bull hunter has to rely on cow hunters to dial them in, then the buck and bull hunters don't know the hell what they're doing...
I suppose that could be true. I know an elite buck and bull hunter who couldn't tie his own shoes let alone find a buck or bull without someone giving him some "tips"...It has nothing to do with reliance. People talk, it might even be your wife, friend, cousin, co-worker, etc., with the cow tag. The more eyes in the unit the more people who know where the big ones are, until they aren't.
You are not sitting 10 water holes 365 days a year. Most people dont just put out one cameraTechnically I could. If work and what not wasn't a thing. But absolutely I physically could. Someone who was rich enough could sit on a waterhole every day for as long as desired. Now that doesn't mean anyone has done that, mainly because there's trail cameras, so why not use technology. It's no different than a rifle scope compared to iron sights. I absolutely could shoot iron sights, but why would I do that when I could use a scope and shoot farther easier. Cams...why use my time sitting and gathering the Intel when I could use the game camera to do that. It's all about effectiveness.
Being a nonresident I should not comment on how Idaho and Montana ruined their hunting , but being in the wildlife management business Idaho and other western states imo should start a major overhaul by doingIdaho ruined one of it's best trophy units for both mule deer and elk in the last decade or so. The F&G did this because some genius determined there were too many elk for the feed capacity of the range. Point being they upped the cow elk tags to 400 a year. Well it turns out that people with cow elk tags are more than happy to say when and where they saw a buck or a bull. And with that many hunters there was no way any buck or bull was not going to be seen. Long story short, there are no longer cow hunts in that unit and the bull and buck tags have been cut to the bone, also you'd be hard pressed to find a 160" deer in a unit that should produce 190"+ every year. If you think more eyes(and cameras are eyes) don't impact quality of bucks/bulls you're wrong. It's a binary choice; no cameras and more tags or cameras and less tags, if you want to maintain herd quality.
If that camera that takes pictures out to 30 yards is that big of an advantage, then while we're at it we must ban scopes past 24 power because shooting that far is unfair, range finders must go because that's Unfair, spotting scopes because that's unfair, it's all unfair to the animals.If cameras don’t help then why is big three outfitters fighting the ban so hard. They know how much they help them. Stop whoring out the pictures they get.
Never said I don't agree, they do Give an advantage, but there are other things that should go before the game cameraYup it sure a big advantage. If you don’t believe me ask the big three
As I stated, long ranged scopes allowing guys to shoot so far at animals should go before a camera. How about electronic rifle scopes that can basically show you where to aim on the animal?What should go before the cameras?
Well I’m explaining my point of view. So yes it gives a unfair advantage. Have a little backboneIt’s a hot topic right now. It could be situation specific, but generally speaking do baiting and trail cameras give an unfair advantage to hunters?
Huh? You mean comments like you just made? It’s a message board for crying out loud.It's no wonder we can't agree when y'all can't follow simple instructions! The OP asked you to vote and explain why you voted as you did. Once you did that, you should move on! He didn't invite you to give your opinion about everybody else's vote or explanation or opinion. Now we'll NEVER know how many of the readers feel about these two issues 'cause they don't want to get raked over the coals for having an opinion different from yours. Start your own thread or MOVE ON!
All of our auction/raffle tags are only good during open season; NOT year-round. Further, a commissioner's tag holder must pick the unit as well as the species. No bouncing around from unit to unit. Only Governor's tag holders may hunt ANY open unit. Year long tags will NEVER happen in Wyoming.Nontypical good for you guys up in Wyoming. Just don’t let your state turn into utah and you will probably be all right. Fight them auction tags up there.
Tri, that would be my old man's CZ .22What kind of weapon you got there Sqwabler?
Tri, that would be my old man's CZ .22