Utah Trail Cam Ban

Seems to me a lot of people don't want to hunt anymore! That's the fun part of it! Tech has made it a lazy person thing. Trail cams maps gps. Let's get back to hunting again. I have 2 cameras and they do not even go on the hunt with me. Haven't set one in at least 5-6 years anywhere. To me it's not hunting. Just my 2 cents.
 
I Think You Guys Touched a Nerve!:D

I Have talked with a few Officials!

If Cams are Banned!

They Are Relying on Sportsmen to do the Patrolling/Removal of the Cams/Plastic in the Field!

Sounds Like there Might be a few TUNE-UPS/ASS WHOOPINS in the Field before it's all said & done!:D

That or We Just Caught Ridge in a Bad Mood!:D
 
I remove a lot of trash from the forest each year!

This year, there may be some expensive plastic trash mingled with those beer cans coming out of the hills!
 
I Think You Guys Touched a Nerve!:D

I Have talked with a few Officials!

If Cams are Banned!

They Are Relying on Sportsmen to do the Patrolling/Removal of the Cams/Plastic in the Field!

Sounds Like there Might be a few TUNE-UPS/ASS WHOOPINS in the Field before it's all said & done!:D

That or We Just Caught Ridge in a Bad Mood!:D
What has me concerned and a little frustrated is the fact you guys keep bringing up the word "banned". This bill is not banning trail cameras or even using salt products. This continued talk about stealing peoples personal property is going to insight more than a few idiots to take it upon themselves to be a visual anti and take the law into their own hands but more than likely braking the law themselves.
Elk, I know your probably think your being funny with all your "tune up" talk but that's a serious offense. I had my atv wires, break cables and fuel lines cut by some idiot several years ago. I caught the guy in the act and he was on the phone with the sheriff trying to turn me in. Although it wasn't an off road issue but rather than a perceived trespassing issue. The guy ended up getting charged with criminal mischief and paid for my repairs. The judge also chewed him out and said if I would have got hurt while hiking out in the dark. I could have sued him for all he's got. Anyways, a person can be charged for interfering in a hunter pursuit of game. So you guys better for darn sure be in the right or you may be paying some consequences.
 
So this bill comes up.

The usuals start the usual whine, "this is an anti hunter, politician with a personal agenda"


Then guys see who wrote it and have to educate that this "anti hunter" is the same guy who got us the Willard Spur, and was a driving force behind the "right to hunt ammendment"

Then we get "wildlife should be handled by the RAC and WB, not POLITICIANS"

Of course they forget the WB is appointed by tge Governor



So next comes the " trail cams dont help" guys.


Of course they forget they are on a forum which actually has trail cam contests. Or that this is a hunting forum, where the majority have cams, use cams, know why they use cams, and know the truth.


Next comes the "you cant enforce the law" guys.


It is true, this is difficult, but pretty sad that getting caught is there moral compass.


Then the personal attacks "your jealous", "now you are a $fw guy", etc, etc

This lasts for about 20 min until a link to HUSH interviewing Snider gets posted. Suddenly the accusers realize that they are with the flat brim leadership council, and BHA, and that shuts that up.


Then comes the "lets take your LR then, its worse"

That's pretty much like arguing with crickets in this forum.

Then comes my favorite

"This only hurts average guys"

This argument made super clear on HUSH, as the dudes who have numerous monetized videos on trail cams, useage, hunts comprised of them, etc, tell us Ryan Carter (the outfitter with more cams on the Bolder than there are in Hollywood) is concerned it will hurt the average guy. That episode brought to you via a discount code for a trail cam company. Also from dudes who normally would have spent last weekend hanging around outfitters who miraculously can scout the entire West, Mexico, and Canada, proved by their CAM PICS, trying to tell everyone replacing that cam with a hired guide, wont change the game for outfitters


Finally we are at "it wont change the deer management plan" or " killing deer is the management goal"

Forgetting that the corporate class who really started this cam proliferation issue, guide ALL big game, not just deer, aside. If that's your weak argument, then we shouldn't have any laws on method of take, or seasons for that matter. We should just have a quota system, and open tge flood gates Jan1, then shut down hunting once that quota is reached.





THIS is why we are where we are in Utah. This attitude of I GET MINE NO MATTER WHAT. Its what spawned $fw. Its what's given rise to 500+ "conservation tags". Its why Utah is the home to corporate hunting. Its why we dont have mature deer(gotta kill something). THIS ATTITUDE is why we are where we are, and are rapidly spiraling downward. This short sighted, no vision, no regard for the future, screw everyone, ME, MINE, NOW. And the guys who scream tge loudest about quality or bad management, are the exact same guys screaming about any attempt to address it(YES THE DWR KNOWS THERE IS A PROBLEM, THEY WERE INVOLVED IN THIS BILL FROM THE START).

As a guy who hunted before cams were invented. I promise, it can be done. We all had jobs, families, life's too. It made scouting harder, no different than today. But we still hunted. You will survive
 
So this bill comes up.

The usuals start the usual whine, "this is an anti hunter, politician with a personal agenda"


Then guys see who wrote it and have to educate that this "anti hunter" is the same guy who got us the Willard Spur, and was a driving force behind the "right to hunt ammendment"

Then we get "wildlife should be handled by the RAC and WB, not POLITICIANS"

Of course they forget the WB is appointed by tge Governor



So next comes the " trail cams dont help" guys.


Of course they forget they are on a forum which actually has trail cam contests. Or that this is a hunting forum, where the majority have cams, use cams, know why they use cams, and know the truth.


Next comes the "you cant enforce the law" guys.


It is true, this is difficult, but pretty sad that getting caught is there moral compass.


Then the personal attacks "your jealous", "now you are a $fw guy", etc, etc

This lasts for about 20 min until a link to HUSH interviewing Snider gets posted. Suddenly the accusers realize that they are with the flat brim leadership council, and BHA, and that shuts that up.


Then comes the "lets take your LR then, its worse"

That's pretty much like arguing with crickets in this forum.

Then comes my favorite

"This only hurts average guys"

This argument made super clear on HUSH, as the dudes who have numerous monetized videos on trail cams, useage, hunts comprised of them, etc, tell us Ryan Carter (the outfitter with more cams on the Bolder than there are in Hollywood) is concerned it will hurt the average guy. That episode brought to you via a discount code for a trail cam company. Also from dudes who normally would have spent last weekend hanging around outfitters who miraculously can scout the entire West, Mexico, and Canada, proved by their CAM PICS, trying to tell everyone replacing that cam with a hired guide, wont change the game for outfitters


Finally we are at "it wont change the deer management plan" or " killing deer is the management goal"

Forgetting that the corporate class who really started this cam proliferation issue, guide ALL big game, not just deer, aside. If that's your weak argument, then we shouldn't have any laws on method of take, or seasons for that matter. We should just have a quota system, and open tge flood gates Jan1, then shut down hunting once that quota is reached.





THIS is why we are where we are in Utah. This attitude of I GET MINE NO MATTER WHAT. Its what spawned $fw. Its what's given rise to 500+ "conservation tags". Its why Utah is the home to corporate hunting. Its why we dont have mature deer(gotta kill something). THIS ATTITUDE is why we are where we are, and are rapidly spiraling downward. This short sighted, no vision, no regard for the future, screw everyone, ME, MINE, NOW. And the guys who scream tge loudest about quality or bad management, are the exact same guys screaming about any attempt to address it(YES THE DWR KNOWS THERE IS A PROBLEM, THEY WERE INVOLVED IN THIS BILL FROM THE START).

As a guy who hunted before cams were invented. I promise, it can be done. We all had jobs, families, life's too. It made scouting harder, no different than today. But we still hunted. You will survive
Glad you've got it all figured out Hoss. You are the man!
 
I just finished listening to the Hush podcast with Casey Snider, sponsor of this bill. Kudos to Mr. Snider for articulating his position in a calm professional manner while listening and responding to all of the arguments from the other side. He did a great job! I am going to send emails later today to our state leaders in support of the bill.

Hawkeye
 
I just finished listening to the Hush podcast with Casey Snider, sponsor of this bill. Kudos to Mr. Snider for articulating his position in a calm professional manner while listening and responding to all of the arguments from the other side. He did a great job! I am going to send emails later today to our state leaders in support of the bill.

Hawkeye
I would hope with your letter of support that you ask that they throw in all of the other things that would be considered not fair chase. Range finders, and turrets have long range ability where a buck or bull feels safe but with the technology they are still in danger, this is the technology that needs removed from hunting, an animal 1000+ yards away should feel safe, how is shooting 1000+ considered fair chase.
 
Tuneups.....

If we wanna talk tuneups.....The safest way to stop the atv’s from landing on closed ground is bullet hole to the engine block!

No one gets hurt and point well taken!

They can go back and ask an officer for permission to retrieve their busted up trash from closed grounds!

Get their ticket and trash at the same time!

Sounds fair to me!

Until DWR can police the whole state, the “vigilantes” will have to do it for them!

Not saying I’m one of the “law enforcers” but if needed to step up, I know a few good people that value hunting to that extreme!
 
If they want to follow NV and NDOWS lead with trail cams, they should at least follow there lead with moving all elk rifle rut hunts out of September and have them in Nov/Dec. Also eliminate the the joke of a high powered scoped muzz. Also move to more accountability and a structured Master Guide/ Sub guide system as they have had in place for decades. They have a fraction of the wildlife and habitat as Utah, but hold a much better quality and experience of a hunt. As a life long Utah resident I’ve gladly hunted deer 3 times in the last 10 years in Nevada and paid through the teeth while not purchasing a deer tag in my home state. Utah needs a complete over haul and the (SFW/DWR) swamp needs to be drained. Dawn P and Troy Jerkinsome derailed the whole train 20 + years ago for the avg sportsmen.
 
I got to say after years of this debate, especially on bait, MDF being against this is real disappointing.
The MDF is against a lot of the things in the bill, especially baiting......and they are against the way it was written, not necessarily what it entails.
If that makes sense...
 
Last edited:
The MDF is against a lot of the things in the bill, especially baiting......and they are against the way it was written, not necessarily what it entails.
If that makes sense...
As in coming from legislature? Or wording of bill? Casey made it sound like MDF got a pretty good heads up
 
As in coming from legislature? Or wording of bill? Casey made it sound like MDF got a pretty good heads up
I was told to relay to my circles that "The MDF does not support this bill as written".

As for me personally, my stance has been very clear.
 
Heck I better hold off getting trail cam's if I can't use them.
might be able to pick up some used one's.

CWMU are they going to be able to use them still because of private lands??????????
Seems if they get to keep them that will give them a leg up on shooting those same deer and elk that stops the regular Joe from finding with those same trailcam because all those animals DON'T bed down only on private.
 
Hey Ridge!

If You Were Not Trespassing or in the Primitive/Closed Areas You'll Have Nothing to Worry about!

Cross That Line & I'd Keep an Eye out for BLooD!:D






What has me concerned and a little frustrated is the fact you guys keep bringing up the word "banned". This bill is not banning trail cameras or even using salt products. This continued talk about stealing peoples personal property is going to insight more than a few idiots to take it upon themselves to be a visual anti and take the law into their own hands but more than likely braking the law themselves.
Elk, I know your probably think your being funny with all your "tune up" talk but that's a serious offense. I had my atv wires, break cables and fuel lines cut by some idiot several years ago. I caught the guy in the act and he was on the phone with the sheriff trying to turn me in. Although it wasn't an off road issue but rather than a perceived trespassing issue. The guy ended up getting charged with criminal mischief and paid for my repairs. The judge also chewed him out and said if I would have got hurt while hiking out in the dark. I could have sued him for all he's got. Anyways, a person can be charged for interfering in a hunter pursuit of game. So you guys better for darn sure be in the right or you may be paying some consequences.
 
I personally enjoy my trail cameras. I enjoy getting "good" pictures, I even have one now as my screen saver.

My biggest issue is that now this law will make just one more reason for guys to be AH's on the side of the hill.

The whole "I'm gonna turn your *** in" BS that is simply not necessary.

It will soon turn the hunter into the hunted.

There is already so much competition on the hill when there is a decent animal around, now this will just add one more piece of BS to deal with.
 
I would hope with your letter of support that you ask that they throw in all of the other things that would be considered not fair chase. Range finders, and turrets have long range ability where a buck or bull feels safe but with the technology they are still in danger, this is the technology that needs removed from hunting, an animal 1000+ yards away should feel safe, how is shooting 1000+ considered fair chase.
You have to start somewhere. Trailcams and baiting are a good start. My guess is that we will have to look at other technologies and issues in the future.
 
Last edited:
Hey Ridge!

If You Were Not Trespassing or in the Primitive/Closed Areas You'll Have Nothing to Worry about!

Cross That Line & I'd Keep an Eye out for BLooD!:D
Yup, me and the posse be waiting for any and all violators!

44 mag engine block wrecker and a cordless sawzall for all them plastic picture taking trash heaps hanging on our precious trees!

Pitch forks and flames boys!!!
 
I Expect something better than Trail-Cams to take their Place!
I’m working on my own satellite to watch game!

If it works out, I’ll mass produce them and sell em to all flat brimmers and guide services!

Also working on a 30 passenger guide drone for those who are entitled to that last big buck out there!
 
I’m working on my own satellite to watch game!

If it works out, I’ll mass produce them and sell em to all flat brimmers and guide services!

Also working on a 30 passenger guide drone for those who are entitled to that last big buck out there!

30 passenger guide drones dont help kill deer. Pay attention!!
 
Hey Ridge!

If You Were Not Trespassing or in the Primitive/Closed Areas You'll Have Nothing to Worry about!

Cross That Line & I'd Keep an Eye out for BLooD!:D
I think some people's lines are as wide as a Utah deer unit. Hard to know exactly when it's been crossed.
 
I’ll admit I talked with SFW today and got a better understanding on their stance, I won’t try to explain it, but the original statement doesn’t do them justice. Do I agree not 100% but who agrees here 100%. All of us trying to agree on an issue will never happen, but understanding each other is different, I myself like to try and pound my opinion onto others, when in reality neither side on this issue is right or wrong, either way I will still hunt.
 
Hey cant!

I Think We Already Had This Talk?

We Will Still Hunt even when they Tell us we cant,Right?:D




I’ll admit I talked with SFW today and got a better understanding on their stance, I won’t try to explain it, but the original statement doesn’t do them justice. Do I agree not 100% but who agrees here 100%. All of us trying to agree on an issue will never happen, but understanding each other is different, I myself like to try and pound my opinion onto others, when in reality neither side on this issue is right or wrong, either way I will still hunt.
 
The watered-down version that removed direct trail cam regulations from the bill, but retained the baiting ban, passed the House on a vote of 62-9.

The nine Nay votes included three of the frequent flyers of "Who's Who of Legislative Idiocy" in Lisonbee, Acton, and Lyman.

It's now in the Senate where it looks reasonably likely to pass. We shall see.
 
The revised version of the bill gives the wildlife board authority to make regulations regarding trail cams, so it's going to run through the RACs/wildlife board to determine what, if any, restrictions are imposed.
 
If passed, when would the baiting ban go into regs? 2021 or 2022? I've got 24 LE deer pts I'd like to burn after it passes. I'm happy waiting to 2022 or 2023.
 
The watered-down version that removed direct trail cam regulations from the bill, but retained the baiting ban, passed the House on a vote of 62-9.

The nine Nay votes included three of the frequent flyers of "Who's Who of Legislative Idiocy" in Lisonbee, Acton, and Lyman.

It's now in the Senate where it looks reasonably likely to pass. We shall see.


Lisonbee is mine. I asked her to vote for it. She didnt like gov involved.



I agree with her. Which I expressed that then she shouldn't like WB involvement because they are gov appointees. Guess I lost
 
Interesting how it is now worded. The bill does not say the Wildlife Board “may” regulate the use of trail cams. The Board is being told they “shall” create rules to regulate the use of trail cams. It doesn’t simply tell them they can, it tells them that they have to. And not only that, but the Division must present a report back to the legislature each year on it.

I’m guessing Rep Snider heard the calls for it to go through the RAC/Board process, and will give them one bite at the apple to get it done. I suspect you’ll see him run another bill next year if they don’t act sufficiently (in his mind) on the issue.

I’ll be interested to see how many of those that complained “it didn’t go through the public process and I didn’t have a voice” will react next?
 
Lisonbee is mine. I asked her to vote for it. She didnt like gov involved.



I agree with her. Which I expressed that then she shouldn't like WB involvement because they are gov appointees. Guess I lost
Or any hunting regulations at all.
 
Interesting how it is now worded. The bill does not say the Wildlife Board “may” regulate the use of trail cams. The Board is being told they “shall” create rules to regulate the use of trail cams. It doesn’t simply tell them they can, it tells them that they have to. And not only that, but the Division must present a report back to the legislature each year on it.

I’m guessing Rep Snider heard the calls for it to go through the RAC/Board process, and will give them one bite at the apple to get it done. I suspect you’ll see him run another bill next year if they don’t act sufficiently (in his mind) on the issue.

I’ll be interested to see how many of those that complained “it didn’t go through the public process and I didn’t have a voice” will react next?
I noticed the "shall" part too.

Now I guess that could just be a regulation saying they're allowed. Or maybe just banning live-feed. There's no stipulation on what that "shall" has to entail... just that trail cams must be addressed in some way.
 
Last edited:
I noticed the "shall" part too.

Now I guess that could just be a regulation saying they're allowed. Or maybe just banning live-feed. There's no stipulation on what that "shall" has to entail... just that trail cams must be addressed in some way.

Yep, but I think Snider has made his feelings clear. Again, I’d expect to see another bill next year if the WB punts on this one. If I liked running trail cams, I’d be coming up with some ideas on what regulations I could live with and really pushing those hard. Notice has been given that the status quo isn’t acceptable.
 

Is this the one that passed?

Not only does it say they “shall”, but also says cams WILL be banned on public land with certain exceptions. They leave it pinto the board for the exact regs

If that is what passed, it still has some teeth
My understanding is this is the bill as it moves forward, it's labeled 2nd Substitute...


It doesn't appear to have a camera ban in it, unless I'm missing something.

It does ban the placing of " food and nutrient substances" (such as C'mere Deer) as well as salt blocks except when "placed in the field by agricultural producers for normal agricultural purposes."

Basically, no hauling up a salt block and hunting over it.
 
Last edited:
Ranchers are Gonna Be Mad!

They haven't Had To Haul Salt for Several Years!

One Thing about it though!

If We See a Salt Block on the Mountain now!

It was Surely A Rancher that Hauled it Up!
 
Money sure talks doesn’t it.....

Oh that’s right, it was prob Joe Q Public calling their legislator that got the full cam restrictions dropped. ?
 
We'll Try NO BAITING for at Least 5 Years to see if that Alone will Bring the Quality Back!

49 Years & Counting of Poor Deer Management!

Remember when We Broke the State up in 30+ Units To Manage better?

How'd That Work out now after Several Years?
 
I feel like Snider is getting a bad wrap. Hes mentioned several times now "the dwr knows there an issue". Ive yet to see a statement from the dwr refuting that. I dont know Casey at all, but I dont think this is the personal crusade guys accuse him of having.


It really seems to be they know its a problem, we know its a problem, but the WB is a roadblock. Kinda seems like dwr end ran the WB.

Which wouldn't be shocking, its no secret who the WB supports in the end. Corporate hunting first.
 
I've said it a million times and I'll try one more time.
"Baiting and camera's have absolutely nothing to do with the decline of our herd numbers."
That's not what this debate is about. It's about fair chase. Think of it along the lines of spotlighting deer or using dogs to run them down. Should that be legal? If not, why not?
 
I've said it a million times and I'll try one more time.
"Baiting and camera's have absolutely nothing to do with the decline of our herd numbers."

I haven’t said it a million times, but I’ve said it a couple, and I’ll try one more time.

This is not a herd management law. It’s a hunter management law. Trying to say that regulating cameras and bait won’t increase our herds is either misunderstanding what this is about, or is a red herring to distract from what it is about.
 
I haven’t said it a million times, but I’ve said it a couple, and I’ll try one more time.

This is not a herd management law. It’s a hunter management law. Trying to say that regulating cameras and bait won’t increase our herds is either misunderstanding what this is about, or is a red herring to distract from what it is about.
It's nothing more than a feel good law and I get that. A lot of guys hate seeing a bunch of cameras while out hunting and I get that too. It also sometimes bugs me when I come across someone's camera. I usually have always removed mine in the past before archery season starts. Just so most people won't run across them. The only cameras I've left up longer are either so far back in and hidden that nobody will run across them or on private with the owners permission. So nothing will change for me much going forward with this new law if it passes.
 
I've said it a million times and I'll try one more time.
"Baiting and camera's have absolutely nothing to do with the decline of our herd numbers."
Correct, but nobody on this site cares about that. They just like to whine, complain, and ban stuff. A few years down the road when the herd numbers continue to decline they'll look for something else to ban, then something else....Eventually a ban will be brought up that impacts them and they'll wonder how we got to this point.

A lot of comments on here about banning different ways of hunting baffle me, why hunters choose to continue dividing each other is just crazy. If you want better numbers or quality hunters need to come together and unite on causes that will actually have a meaningful impact.
 
A lot of comments on here about banning different ways of hunting baffle me, why hunters choose to continue dividing each other is just crazy. If you want better numbers or quality hunters need to come together and unite on causes that will actually have a meaningful impact.

Like what? Let's hear some of your ideas.
 
Correct, but nobody on this site cares about that. They just like to whine, complain, and ban stuff. A few years down the road when the herd numbers continue to decline they'll look for something else to ban, then something else....Eventually a ban will be brought up that impacts them and they'll wonder how we got to this point.

A lot of comments on here about banning different ways of hunting baffle me, why hunters choose to continue dividing each other is just crazy. If you want better numbers or quality hunters need to come together and unite on causes that will actually have a meaningful impact.

Pretty big talk from a person with 34 posts on this website.

For me its not about numbers or trophies. It boils down to two things. It’s about Fairchase, and a quality “hunt”. If I were to hunt a water hole with 30 cameras pointed at it, that takes away from the quality of that hunt for me.

As I have said, I own and use some trail cams. But I am for this change. In cases like this, a few have spoiled it for us all.
 
Could we up the buck to doe ratio already, goodness. I know I know, it may not help herd numbers but it would help increase mature bucks. And do the counts after the winter is over.
 
We’re STILL stuck on the Cameras.... It’s amazing how little the Utah boys like to discuss their Bait. They just pose with those big Velvet bucks, and never EVER mention the weekly trips to dump that pile of apples. I thought people might actually talk about it, but apparently I’m the only one that thinks it’s a bad look for Western hunters.
 
We’re STILL stuck on the Cameras.... It’s amazing how little the Utah boys like to discuss their Bait. They just pose with those big Velvet bucks, and never EVER mention the weekly trips to dump that pile of apples. I thought people might actually talk about it, but apparently I’m the only one that thinks it’s a bad look for Western hunters.
Fire up a thread on baiting. I’m sure there are plenty of opinions.
 
Like what? Let's hear some of your ideas.
Give me a break, really? I'm not even from Utah but I'll give it a shot. How about managing for better buck/doe ratios? How about managing for better winter range forage? Better predator control? What about shortening seasons? What about more enforcement against poaching (in many states poaching is about equal to legal harvest)? How about issuing less tags until the above conditions are met?

So now, how about you tell me if you really think this is going to help improve herd numbers in a measurable way? I'll save you having to think about it....no it won't.
 
Last edited:
Pretty big talk from a person with 34 posts on this website.

For me its not about numbers or trophies. It boils down to two things. It’s about Fairchase, and a quality “hunt”. If I were to hunt a water hole with 30 cameras pointed at it, that takes away from the quality of that hunt for me.

As I have said, I own and use some trail cams. But I am for this change. In cases like this, a few have spoiled it for us all.
You bring up fair chase and then talk about sitting on a water hole, that's funny. I think I'll start a petition to end sitting on a waterhole because I don't think it's fair chase...they need that water to survive in dry climates.

I'll say it again, banning things is exactly what anti-hunters want to happen. Divide and conquer, it's pretty sad when we do it to ourselves.

BTW, mule deer numbers started declining way before the advent of trail camera use. How about we start using actual data to drive wildlife management instead of emotion. We already have enough of that going on in this country.

FWIW, I don't own and never will own a trail camera.
 
I feel pretty sure you are the only one here who would bring up sitting on a waterhole as a fair chase issue. What we are discussing here is TECH that makes it easier to harvest an animal. Doing actual scouting, reading tracks and sign at a particular water hole is what real hunting is all about. With cameras, you already know where to sit.

Is being in the woods a problem with fair chase too?

Now a real question for you. Should it be legal to shoot an animal remotely from a computer? After all, someone is still scouting and finding an animal and pointing the gun. You are simply completing the act by “pulling” the trigger.

If not, then you are against SOME tech, just not trail cams. What this discussion is about is whether trail cams (as they are being used in Utah), crosses that line.
 
Last edited:
I feel pretty sure you are the only one here who would bring up sitting on a waterhole as a fair chase issue. What we are discussing here is TECH that makes it easier to harvest an animal. Doing actual scouting, reading tracks and sign at a particular water hole is what real hunting is all about. With cameras, you already know where to sit.

Is being in the woods a problem with fair chase too?

Now a real question for you. Should it be legal to shoot an animal remotely from a computer? After all, someone is still scouting and finding an animal and pointing the gun. You are simply completing the act by “pulling” the trigger.

If not, then you are against SOME tech, just not trail cams. What this discussion is about is whether trail cams (as they are being used in Utah), crosses that line.
You obviously didn't get my point. I don't feel sitting on a waterhole is wrong....I was making the point that anyone can ban something.

Oh, it's about the tech. Ok, what type of weapon do you use? Does it have a scope? Does it use smokeless powder? Do you use a compound bow? Do you use a broadhead? What about binoculars? All of these things make it easier to "harvest an animal". I'm assuming you use some or all of the above...so it's NOT about tech, only some tech.

How far back do you want to go in regards to tech?
 
You bring up fair chase and then talk about sitting on a water hole, that's funny. I think I'll start a petition to end sitting on a waterhole because I don't think it's fair chase...they need that water to survive in dry climates.

I'll say it again, banning things is exactly what anti-hunters want to happen. Divide and conquer, it's pretty sad when we do it to ourselves.

BTW, mule deer numbers started declining way before the advent of trail camera use. How about we start using actual data to drive wildlife management instead of emotion. We already have enough of that going on in this country.

FWIW, I don't own and never will own a trail camera.
You're so far off base it's ridiculous to read.....sorry, just stating a fact.
First off, comparing a pile of apples in the desert to a natural water hole is laughable.
Second.....I thought I mentioned how many times I've said this along with many others here....."cameras have absolutely nothing to do with declining herd numbers".

Follow along please......
 
You're so far off base it's ridiculous to read.....sorry, just stating a fact.
First off, comparing a pile of apples in the desert to a natural water hole is laughable.
Second.....I thought I mentioned how many times I've said this along with many others here....."cameras have absolutely nothing to do with declining herd numbers".

Follow along please......
Where did I bring up apples? How about a little better reading comprehension on your part?

Read my post slowly and you might understand. I'm saying banning is NOT the answer and WON'T help.
 
Divide and conquer, it's pretty sad when we do it to ourselves.
There's two sides to your "divide and conquer" argument. If the apple stackers would agree to ban baiting then there would be no division. Problem solved.

Everybody who claims all hunters must have unanimity of thought say that only applying it to their own beliefs.

They want everybody to acquiesce to their beliefs, but never the other way around.
 
Are you not talking about baiting?

Because if you're talking about cameras, you may want to read the bill... cameras aren't regulated by this bill at all.
I'm sorry I must have gotten lost somewhere around the way in responding to posts. I thought this was about trail cameras and people not wanting technology in the field.
 
You obviously didn't get my point. I don't feel sitting on a waterhole is wrong....I was making the point that anyone can ban something.
I'm not sure even you get your own point. You want removal of predators, I wonder if the houndsmen would view that as you trying to take away something they want to do?

Interesting how you are only concerned about the pursuit you value, and are willing to cut their legs out from under them to better your desire to do something. Sound familiar?

And no, I will not give you a break, really. I'm tired of people coming on here and shooting down ideas and riding around on their high horse and offer exactly NOTHING to the discussion.

As I've said before, regulations are coming. Like it or not, pizz and moan about it or love it, they are coming. Time for people to poop or get off the pot on these topics. If you continue to try and stall on the tracks for long enough, eventually you're going to get run over by the train. The train is coming. People ought to think long and hard about what they are willing to give up and make it workable in the system.
 
Where did I bring up apples? How about a little better reading comprehension on your part?

Read my post slowly and you might understand. I'm saying banning is NOT the answer and WON'T help.
Banning won't help what, bring the herds back?

Junkys quote-"BTW, mule deer numbers started declining way before the advent of trail camera use."

Baiting and cams have absolutely nothing to do with declining deer numbers, why do you continue to lump two seperate issues into one??
 
Correct, but nobody on this site cares about that. They just like to whine, complain, and ban stuff. A few years down the road when the herd numbers continue to decline they'll look for something else to ban, then something else....Eventually a ban will be brought up that impacts them and they'll wonder how we got to this point.

A lot of comments on here about banning different ways of hunting baffle me, why hunters choose to continue dividing each other is just crazy. If you want better numbers or quality hunters need to come together and unite on causes that will actually have a meaningful impact.


You dont think a corporate hunting industry(outfitters, guides, CWMU) with in many cases 75% or better success rates affects numbers?

There are 3 options

1. Grow more deer

2. Lower success rates

3. Cut out hunters


Kinda seems like just maybe losing more hunters so a few can run unlimited tech devises, is a lot more harmful to the future of hunting.

This discussion starts to beg the question. Are you about hunting? Or killing?

If you believe there should be no limits, Utah has high fence units. Elk with GPS ear tags, use your sniper rifle, a drone, etc. Their success rates are about 100%, and they produce massive animals.

If you are about hunting. Step one is the chance to hunt. Losing tags, means losing that chance.

Your tag IS NOT a guaranteed kill. Its a chance.

Somewhere in the last 10 years or so there's become a mindset that a guaranteed kill is what matters. Rge hunting part has become secondary
 
This discussion starts to beg the question. Are you about hunting? Or killing?
I'm about freedom and not getting my panties in a twist if I decide I like hunting while others stay focused on killing.

Do you remember when kids were taught to mind their own business and worry about their own problems?????? So what's your problem that means you need to get big brother to boss everyone around for you????
 
Do you think it should be legal to hunt deer/elk at night with the aid of a spotlight? If not, why not?
 
That's the only reason? Not because it's not fair to the game? What about flushing them out and chasing them down with a helicopter and shooting them?
 
That's the only reason? Not because it's not fair to the game? What about flushing them out and chasing them down with a helicopter and shooting them?
Nope. I don't have childish conversations about fairness. Especially for an animal. Fairness is a concept for people who don't have the fortitude to resolve conflict.

Just so I can be clear. I equate discussing "fairness" of killing animals with 2 men legally defining "rape" without the input of a woman.

Let me also be clear. At this point I don't have a problem with someone killing an animal out of a helicopter. I can see how it could be debated and decided as a public safety issue since I have known 4 men killed in 3 different chopper crashes while shooting animals.
 
Thank you. So, I think we've safely established that you don't believe in the rules of fair chase (commonly defined as the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit of free-ranging wild game animals in a manner which does not give the hunter an improper or unfair advantage over the animal).

Since you've shown that you don't believe in that, the rest of what I say probably doesn't apply to you, but it will make sense to others reading this.

Society in general (both hunters and non-hunters who support hunting) does believe that hunting should be done in an ethical manner, which includes adhering to rules of fair chase. Some of those commonly accepted rules of fair chase include not taking animals under the following conditions:

- When they are helpless in a trap
- From a vehicle or aircraft
- At night with the aid of a spotlight
- While inside an escape-proof enclosure

The two practices currently being debated also fall under this topic of fair chase:
- By intentionally placing food or nutrient substances in an area to concentrate them and manipulate their behavior
- By the use of electronic devices to locate animals

Society in general supports the establishment of laws to ensure that hunters abide by the rules of fair chase. There are laws in every state that fall into this category. Other states already prohibit baiting and the use of trail cameras. Utah is finally taking its turn, but it's not threatening to take away all of our freedoms, including the right to hunt. In fact, it's very likely to strengthen support for hunting from society, because it's giving the game we pursue a fair chance.
 
Thank you. So, I think we've safely established that you don't believe in the rules of fair chase (commonly defined as the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit of free-ranging wild game animals in a manner which does not give the hunter an improper or unfair advantage over the animal).

Since you've shown that you don't believe in that, the rest of what I say probably doesn't apply to you, but it will make sense to others reading this.
And now you have made two foolish assumptions.

First, I choose to hunt fair chase. I'm just not that big of a busy body that I think I should be forcing my hunting ethics on other people.

Second, most of society doesn't know squat about hunting ethics or fair chase. Don't kid yourself and think you are backed up by any society or majority. Ethics, hunting laws, and sportsmanship, varies widely across state and national boundaries just as the definition of "fair" does.
 
Just so I can be clear. I equate discussing "fairness" of killing animals with 2 men legally defining "rape" without the input of a woman.

I guess if the object of Tri's desires does not or can't object, then he is good to go!

Not shocking in the least.
 
Thank you. So, I think we've safely established that you don't believe in the rules of fair chase (commonly defined as the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit of free-ranging wild game animals in a manner which does not give the hunter an improper or unfair advantage over the animal).

Since you've shown that you don't believe in that, the rest of what I say probably doesn't apply to you, but it will make sense to others reading this.

Society in general (both hunters and non-hunters who support hunting) does believe that hunting should be done in an ethical manner, which includes adhering to rules of fair chase. Some of those commonly accepted rules of fair chase include not taking animals under the following conditions:

- When they are helpless in a trap
- From a vehicle or aircraft
- At night with the aid of a spotlight
- While inside an escape-proof enclosure

The two practices currently being debated also fall under this topic of fair chase:
- By intentionally placing food or nutrient substances in an area to concentrate them and manipulate their behavior
- By the use of electronic devices to locate animals

Society in general supports the establishment of laws to ensure that hunters abide by the rules of fair chase. There are laws in every state that fall into this category. Other states already prohibit baiting and the use of trail cameras. Utah is finally taking its turn, but it's not threatening to take away all of our freedoms, including the right to hunt. In fact, it's very likely to strengthen support for hunting from society, because it's giving the game we pursue a fair chance.
SureShot
Very well written!
I applaud you!
 
And now you have made two foolish assumptions.

First, I choose to hunt fair chase. I'm just not that big of a busy body that I think I should be forcing my hunting ethics on other people.

Second, most of society doesn't know squat about hunting ethics or fair chase. Don't kid yourself and think you are backed up by any society or majority. Ethics, hunting laws, and sportsmanship, varies widely across state and national boundaries just as the definition of "fair" does.
No assumptions, (and I'll refrain from expounding on who the fool is).

First, we're not talking about your personal hunting practices. We're talking about whether you believe there should be laws based on the rules of fair chase, which you have clearly demonstrated that you do not.

Second, I am backed up by what the majority of society believes. There are many surveys to support this, but let's start here:

"Although legal hunting in general is supported by 83% of Virginians and 78% of Americans, only 26% of Virginians and 27% of Americans supports hunting over bait (Duda and Jones 2008, Resource Management (RM) 2008, RM 2014). The three hunting practices with the largest majority of Virginians and Americans opposing them are hunting using high-tech gear, hunting in a highfence preserve, and hunting over bait (RM 2008, RM 2014). Sixty-eight (68%) of Virginians and 59% of Americans oppose hunting over bait (RM 2008, RM 2014). Importantly, a majority of American hunters also oppose these three methods (RM 2008). Two-thirds of Virginia hunters oppose hunting over bait (RM 2014). The main reason given by hunters and nonhunters alike for opposing hunting over bait is that it goes against the principles of fair chase and animal welfare (Williamson 2000, RM 2008, RM 2014)" - A Study Report on the Effects of Removing the Prohibition Against Hunting Over Bait in Virginia (2014)
 
First you say this.

"So, I think we've safely established that you don't believe in the rules of fair chase "

Then you say this.
"First, we're not talking about your personal hunting practices. We're talking about whether you believe there should be laws based on the rules of fair chase, which you have clearly demonstrated that you do not."


These are two different statements and you are crawfishing.

Then you say this.

"Society in general supports the establishment of laws to ensure that hunters abide by the rules of fair chase."

And give some BS microcosm statistic about some hunters that are against baiting and you think that is about "fair chase". Guess what slick. Virginia and West Virginia isn't all of society by a long shot.

WE HAVE AND SUPPORT BAITING IN TEXAS BY MAJORITY AND BOONE AND CROCKETT RECOGNIZES IT AS FAIR CHASE.

Texas is 29 million people. West Virginia and Virginia comprise 10.4 million. I WOULD SAY THE MAJORITY OF SOCIETYMIGHT ACTUALLY BE FOR FAIR CHASE BAITING.

BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAM!

Drop the mic. Like I said FOOLISH. Quit assuming the the world revolves around your beliefs.
 
Did you miss, or intentionally skip over because it doesn't match your beliefs, the part there that said 59% of Americans (that's 300+ million) oppose hunting over bait and that "the main reason given by hunters and nonhunters alike for opposing hunting over bait is that it goes against the principles of fair chase"?

Where's that mic you dropped?
 
On the floor. Did you miss the part where I said Boone and Crockett recognizes baiting as "fair chase".

Americans ain't all of society. You can't seem to get that. Plus you don't understand polls and demographics. %21 of Americans over 18 don't support any hunting of any type so almost half of your against baiting group is all together against all hunting. CONGRATULATIONS YOUR SUPPORTED BY ANTI-HUNTERS NOW.
 
Wow. That's really pathetic. Most people would just give up or admit defeat when they've been bested in a debate. I'm not even going to bother responding to the nonsense spewing forth from your keyboard now as it LITERALLY makes no sense.

I've made my point, which was actually intended for a rational audience (no, not you), and I'll now put you back on Ignore where you belong.
 
Hey SureSHot You want some real statistics about your Majority????? Who am I kidding you actually don't want to learn anything that's why when you have to face reality you just go to the ignore button.


How Many states have legal baiting for big game??????

THE ANSWER IS 27.

How many state is it legal but restricted to bait?????

THE ANSWER IS 6.

How many states make it completely illegal to bait for big game?????

THE ANSWER IS 16

I know that's only 49 but I can't find any baiting rules for Hawaii.

Sure looks like the majority of American Hunting Society is fine with baiting.

GO be an anti-hunter somewhere else sure shot.
 
Don't kid yourself. Western states have legal baiting. Go look it up.
I have.

Wyoming allows baiting only with special Division permission for landowners on private property for the purpose of depredation, and the animals cannot be shot under commercial circumstances.

Every state that touches Utah's borders bans it. Washington and California ban hunting big game over bait, I'm not sure on Oregon. Montana bans it.

Basically it's down to every state west of Colorado bans shooting over bait except Utah and maybe Oregon. Unless I'm mistaken. Feel free to post up the regs if I missed something somewhere.
 
Last edited:
Back to the real subject at hand...

Does anybody know when the bill is heard by the Senate Committee.
 

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