Kill the Trail Cam Bill

Bocephus

Active Member
Messages
682
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.

 
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.


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.
 
I agree with you, and thanks for the link. We as the public should have a voice in how a public resource is managed. This really should come to a public vote. We have no say, and it will be determined by legislators that have no idea what a trail camera is, and by Casey Snider who has a personal agenda to push.
 
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.


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.
Actually yes it has, many many times. If the numbers get high enough its hard to ignore.

With that said, BAN THE TRAILCAMS!
 
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.

 
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.


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.
 
I hear the frustration about the process here. I understand it and can sympathize to some extent. But as I said in the other thread, this is not a wildlife management issue, it’s a hunter management issue. And lest we forget, the Wildlife Board only has power and authority the legislature gives it. Every single thing the Board can do comes from legislation passed allowing the board to do so. Which is why this bill charges the Board to come up with the rules to enforce this state policy. I think that is something those crying foul on the process are ignoring and hoping we all will ignore.

And I’m not going to pretend that the Board process is any more open to me than the legislative process. In fact, I like my chances with the legislature better than with the current Board. Anyone that thinks the RAC/Board process is working well right now is either not paying attention or is benefitting from the Board’s current slanted bias. We all like the process when we get what we want. Not so much when it goes the other way.
 
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.
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.

Also, the bill is just messy. Trail cameras are used for more than just hunting. Guys hang them to watch a campsite, a truck, a cattle/sheep tank, even a trapline. As the bill is written now, those cameras would all be illegal after July 1 or August 1 depending on type of camera. Just not crafted well enough to become law at this point.
 
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.
 
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.
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.

In AZ, there is language in the trail cam bill that mentions the use of cameras specifically to pursue big game. I'm not sure how NV's law reads, I'd have to look that up. Yes, language like that would create issues in and of itself (ie, no Mr. Wildlife officer, I'm not hunting big game I'm just wanting to look at photos) but enforcement of this law would be a nightmare no matter what, and at least at that point other legitimate uses for trail cameras would be allowed.

The baiting stuff is fuzzy as well...salt, chemical "attractants", etc.

Really man, I'm not 100% against this. Hell, I barely use trail cameras! I own a couple, I put one out occasionally, usually to see if cow elk are in an area. Took one to Africa to get some cool photos over there one time. Meant to take one to Kodiak to see if I could get a bear on a deer carcass but forgot to bring it dammit, sad too cause I absolutely could have gotten some sweet pictures of at least one bear. I think they can be fun, I can also see where they can become a problem. I just want to see this thing done right if it is going to be done and this as it stand now isn't right.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

We have CWD (chronic wasting disease) in the state,” said hunter Steve Sorensen, a member of the wildlife division’s mule deer committee. “It’s spread by saliva and nose-to-nose contact. A deer is going to leave saliva on an apple.”

Baiting also congregates deer in unnatural ways, increasing the chance of disease spreading, said wildlife biologist Brock McMillan, who also serves on the state committee.

“The way mule deer roam, their home range is 150 miles (241 kilometers),” McMillan said. “When you manipulate that with baiting, it changes the natural way they use the landscape.”

Washington Times


Heres 2 in pdf, I didnt download to send link, your welcome to

There dozens of others on mule deer movement patterns with supplemental feeding. With ornamental feeding in urban interfaces.

Like I said, there a bunch of data, not liking the answer doesnt mean there isn't an answer

Screenshot_20210215-182057.png


Screenshot_20210215-181837.png
 
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. 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.

Top of the list SHOULD be limiting the technology on your rifles. Turrets, scopes, apps, rangefinders should be priority over this bill.

Guns kill more animals than cameras, apples and arrows. This is NOT about herd management. Nobody complained too loud when they allowed magnified scopes on your muzzys, nobody complains too loud about rifle elk hunts in the middle of the rut, but damn we need to get rid of trail cams and bait! Comical
 
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.

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
 
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.
 
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!
 
The Western Wyoming herd covers 150 miles between their summer and winter range.
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.

Another case of sensationalism to advance an agenda. Whether you complain usually depends on which side you are on. But I complain whenever I see it. Enough with the dumbing down.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
“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“

That sentence implies that NO technology should be banned. If that is not what you are saying, then debate this issue on the merits and start a grass roots effort to ban other techs you don’t think should be allowed
 
Last edited:
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
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....
 
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.
 
Oh 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 :ROFLMAO:
 
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.
"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."

Certainly everybody that thinks it's okay to shoot over apples doesn't also think it's okay to cover them in cyanide and save the bullet; even though the deer dies either way. It's the same with your argument.

It's called a false dichotomy and is a commonly used fallacy in debate.
 
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.

4 years ago, opener general
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?

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.
 
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 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.
 
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.
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.
 
Cameras and scopes aren’t the same. There is no limit on the number of cameras. But I’m good with open sights.

And the privacy concern is real. I don’t live in the city because they are full of other a-holes. And I don’t want my picture taken in the woods by them either.

I was pretty open until these threads. Im liking the ban more after reading the arguments :rolleyes: . The law needs to say that if they are found in the field, they are considered abandoned property. That should take care of the enforcement.
 
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?
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.

The world would be a better place if more people were willing to think for themselves instead of just picking a group and automatically doing whatever they say... and that applies to more than just hunting.
 
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.


ID support the WB voting. BUT ONLY if the outfitters who have a commercial interest in maintain cams recuse themselves. As well as those members who are from lobbying groups for outfitters.

Now you see why this has to bypass the WB huh.
 
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.


AGAIN. Here it is again. "Trail cams are as bad as........" So, you agree that they are a problem. That's all you've said.

You also apparently agree we have a corporate hunting community that is out of control with both cams and bait.

I totally agree, the WB and RAC system are broken. The WB is made up of SFW and outfitters, and in some cases, both. Would I rather Casey make a decision, or Byron Bateman? Casey had to answer to his constituents every 2 years? Has Byron?

You HONESTLY believe Byron Bateman(SFW and Bateman Hunting) is going to damage both to support this? Because science? Or $$$. Which, given his history with SFW and WB has neen shown to happen?

You think Wade Heaton is going to vote to cost himself money?

The system IS broken. I agree. But I didnt break it.

And further. Where ARE YOU going to draw the line? Cams are good, real time cams arent. And before you start, TODAY you can daisy chain cams to gain service. Do you think the technology is over today? You dont think sat capability isn't here tommorow? Then what? You are going to ban certain brands?

But im with you, lets take ALL electronics out of hunting. Let me know when you get that proposal together, ill fight along with you.
 
I don't do cameras but the ones that want to should have the right to run a few.
I believe most all of us can agree that the outfitters and some individuals that run dozens even some run into the hundreds across state wide.
Let's not just right out make trail cameras illegal put some limitations on how many an individual can have out in the field. They say we can't do that because it would be to hard to regulate and how would you enforce the law. Baiting site's for bear hunting is regulated just because it is hard to enforce the law don't mean we just make it illegal.
Make a law you have to register your cameras with the DWR, I am not saying you need to give them GPS coordinates. The individual would register with the DWR and the DWR could charge a fee and you would get 4 identification tags for 4 cameras and if a camera is found on public property without a identification tag it is illegal.
The camera without a tag could then be considered abandoned or if someone could identify the person that put the camera there illegal they could turn them in.
I just don't believe in punishing everyone because some individuals or outfitters might break the law. We can do better than over regulate.
 
Limitations 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 .../
 
Limitations 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 .../
Which are legal and which aren't

I do belive I stated you must have a issued tag from the DWR on your camera!
I suppose we just look at things differently, I believe most people would follow some sort of regulation on trail cameras yes pepole will abuse the system, but I don't worry about the cheaters. I would prefer to not lose more freedom's.
We have already heard guys voicing there opinions that scouting (guides hired hands sitting on a buck) should be limited or even outlawed where does this stop.
I can't scout on Monday through Friday so should we make them days illegal to scout because it gives guys unfair advantage that can scout them days.
Trail cameras only tell you a specific animal is coming in to the site that your camera is on and it will give you info of what time but all that information may do little to help you be successful.
Last general deer hunt there was multiple guys that had trail cameras on a particular water source that had several good bucks coming in to water. They think only one of them bucks got harvested and they aren't sure if it is one of them bucks because it was quite a few miles away. The trail cameras did nothing for them guys other than informed them there was several good bucks coming in and that the bucks was watering after dark.
Yes I know some guys are going to come along quickly and point out the apple pie that these guys feed these buck's and yes that diffintly increases the odds of killing a buck but that is not the trail camera's doings, you can be just as successful doing your scouting and knowing a buck is in the area and then putting out your apple pie as you would have been with a trail camera. It is not too hard to figure out a buck is hitting your apples with out a camera, hunters have been doing it for centuries.
 
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.


Are you worried you support BHA position?

Guess Youre a green decoy now?
 
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?
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)
 
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!

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.
 
Last edited:
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)

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?
 
Last edited:
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.
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???
 
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?
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.
 
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
 
Are you worried you support BHA position?

Guess Youre a green decoy now?
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.
 
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
Sure they did. Like a typical politician the question was skirted.
 
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.
 
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.
Strike a chord Grizz???

Cancel me if you don't agree.....point proven. Thank you.
 
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.


Nah. I just recognize BULLSHIT.

You want to discuss the degree to which a cam helps, that's honest.

You want to try and blow smoke there isn't any help, is BULLSHIT.

For the 80th time. If they dont help you, why use one?

Are there a lot of other non useful tools you use as well?
 
Strike a chord Grizz???

Cancel me if you don't agree.....point proven. Thank you.
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.

People don't hide that they shoot a bear over bait, but they're ashamed of their apple piles for deer. It never makes the pictures or the story. Ever. How sad it is that guys do things they find shameful just looking for that Instagram ?? of the big buck they shot over the week-old Gala's.

I previously said it was hard to find anything more sophomoric than the "jealous" stuff you wrote, but your last post made a run at proving me wrong.
 
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.


Im more of the if WLH, MOSS, DC, TINES UP, etc are lobbying for it, its bad for average Jose.

Ill assume that $fw big money guys dont like the the average dudes competing using cams, like the outfitters they hire do. But that kinda shows that AGAIN cams enhance success rates, right? We keep spinning dont we? The pros use them because they work. Tge deep pockets dont like tgem because they work, causing competition. Pretty much seems like everyone agrees they work, on both sides huh

Im confused. Trail cams dont do anything, what's to he jealous of? Jealous of a non useful tool?


Brian on Hush I think had a legit thought. Why not ban cellular cams, and the coming sat cams? Leave old school cams alone.

That seems like a compromise.

But Heres a secret. I have trail cams. So i guess im jealous of myself? I want to ban myself?

Could it be that maybe, just maybe, im tired of hearing guys ***** about cutting tags, or cutting hunters, or bitching about tech, then squealing anytime a solution gets presented. Its always the other guy causing the issue.

Im just old enough to remember when we didnt have cams. Somehow we still hunted. We managed.

Are cams the worst problem? No. But they are tool #1 of our worst problem(corporate hunting). You can have my LR gun. The cartridge was made in 1903.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.


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
 
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
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.

Is there anyone who wants to protect hunting privileges who has no financial incentive to do so?
 
Hunting is an industry that generates income and livelihoods for many. I'm not necessarily talking about the HUSH's and Mossback's of the world, (though they are certainly in that boat) more the manufacturers, marketing folks, sales reps, retailers, retail employees, etc...even stretches farrther into the trade show industry, lobbyists, and the like. Even the NRA or conservation groups.

That's a hell of a rabbit hole to go down on an internet forum, even worse than whether or not trail cameras are bad, but economics can't totally be ignored when these issues come up IMO.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
??????
 
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.
 
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...
 
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...
Improving the herd, kill less animals, that will help. Limiting technology will also help.
 
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.


I know you were. I agree with you. Hard to convey emotion online.

Eventually we will have to go after LR. Going to be hard. Browning is a historic part of this state. Im a huge fan of them. So I get we get in word circles.

That was my point with HUSH vs others
 
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.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.


I listen to a lot of podcasts. Staring at gray walls all day gets pretty boring.

I did a job by the flat brim temple(mtn ops building). Wasnt hard to miss Chessers truck, the hood is painted HUSH. Didnt know the constant stream of other dudes that filed in and out, I heard there is a gym in there.

Must be good money in vitamin

I listened to HUSH when it got posted. UT if you listen to podcasts, usually a week after the expo they all start posting interviews they did with people who were there. HUSH gets around.

I love how triggered the flat brimmers get by being called that. It makes me happy
 
Improving the herd, kill less animals, that will help. Limiting technology will also help.
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.
 
I finally listened to the Hush podcast, was a good put together interview from all sides. But the honest truth and reality of it all is, I think those boys missed there calling, they could give Joe Bidens Press secretary a run for her money. When the bearded wonder dropped “let’s get to the Brass Tax of it all”, that’s when I knew these YouTube sensations got there chit together and there not gonna circle back on HB295.
 
So if you have trail cam around your cabin for keeping a eye on it will they be ok. what if someone tears it down can you at least get him for destroy your property.
 
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.
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
 
Last edited:
TC do work Ryan Carter knew chunkey monkeys rotation pretty good. His words on Gritty podcast. How come you haven't killed chunky ryan, "I've never had a bowhunter that wanted to kill him or we probably could."
 
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
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:

Prior to trail cameras or bait, bucks were being killed.

My point is regardless of using a trail cam, bait etc. bucks will die. So would you say this isn't necessarily about bucks dying, but more about the size of bucks dying? Would you agree that the point of managing a resource is to kill the oldest, mature animals? So could we debate a trail cam/bait is an effective management tool? Or is this truly not about herd management, and more about what size of bucks dying?
 
Last edited:
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 protein powders, t-shirts, hunting equipment, or Trophy Rock), and perhaps, even by securing a sponsorship from a bow or clothing manufacturer seem 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 bring myself to admit publicly that trail cameras had any role in my success. Rather, if someone threatens to “regulate” me, I must 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
 
Last edited:
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 ?
 
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
Rim great post and congrats on a hard earned buck! Was it an archery or gun kill? Not that it matters just curious?

Answers to your questions:

1. Yes (although not remotely the advantage that is portrayed in many of the posts on this site) I would say minute advantage and in some cases a disadvantage. Which I'll explain below.
2. No- I've spent days sitting trails, bait, water, fence crossings etc. because I had a picture of a buck I wanted to kill that went by my camera. He for sure would come back again right??? Wrong. I've never killed a "target" buck, but I have wasted a lot of prime time sitting in a tree when I could have been out glassing, covering ground etc. Many years my target buck lived or was killed by another hunter.
3. 6-8 cams, most years 2-3
 
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

Jesus... I'll start by answering #3 first.... I have used a trail camera. I typically buy new batteries for my camera and then let it sit until the batteries go bad. This year I found a trail camera and pulled the card, read the pictures and put the card back. I did see one really nice yearling 2-point. Real nice buck. I bet he was murdalized by that trail cam. damn... what a shame. My trail camera has caught more people wandering through my camp than deer or elk on the mountain. I understand that the point of you asking me this question was to catch me up in being selfish or maybe intellectually dishonest, but you have failed. Read on for your next set of internet armchair failures...

In response to question #1: No. No it does not. I really don't understand how you don't understand how cameras work. I hope by the time this settles that you'll maybe google a bit of information on cameras and see that they take pictures.

In response to #2.... No, using a trail camera during season does not give a guy an advantage during the season.

Now, In response to my response, since you don't like my prior arguments and factually based points... you may only reply using consonants. You may actually only reply using facts. You need to prove to me, in order to ever change my mind, in these two areas:

1- more deer are killed and those kills are directly related to the aid of a trail camera (I don't see how this can be proven since cameras don't operate weapons.... but I digress)

2- Those deaths directly related to the use of a trail camera have substantial negative impact on the deer herd in general.


I'd try and write out a list of things you're unable to use in response but I'm not one to tie another's hand behind his back during a valid discussion, unlike you.



All I have done is call out the hypocrisy of those who would support the measure. Their nasty lady claws have come out in full strength. Rarrr. You are a hypocrite for supporting the banning of a camera that literally does nothing to kill an animal while you run around with modern day weapons and call yourself a hunter. I took a picture through my spotting scope at an elk that was more than two miles away. I turned myself into fish and game for killing that elk with a picture so you didn't have to.

Until you use sticks and rocks to kill your way up the food chain and obtain only natural resources to fashion spears and bows you will be a hypocrite. I know this is hard for you to swallow so drink some water after reading this and cool off, calm down, it will be okay.

Lastly, arguing on the internet is fun, but please don't ne the guy that tries to date me in PM's. Nobody likes him and I'm not into dudes.
 
Thanks for your answers and your candor. We could use more of that around here...

I shot him with a rifle, in bow range... :)
 
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! :p LOL

Hopefully all the deer and elk killed with pictures will have a chance to recover.
 
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 ?
More fun to me than anything Grizz, but you've made your point clear. Glad nobody is forcing you to use them.
 
Rimrock Great post.
Post like rimrock made can make you question do I need to limit myself to help out? The answer is yes.
We can all do more to help out, on years like this past year maybe make that choice to not harvest a buck, on years like this last year maybe not put cameras on water sense there was alot of water holes that dried up maybe I could put cameras on trails more instead. Years like this maybe i should stay away from the deer on the winter range a little more than usual.
In the end it is up to us the hunters to be the conservationists, if we keep fighting to take away others ways of hunting their might not be enough of us to fight against the ones that want to take all forms of hunting away.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom