Utah Trail Camera Public Comment Hearing

[Founder]

Here’s everyone’s chance to voice their thoughts on the trail camera rules in Utah. March 10th is the day.

 

[Hawkeye]

I hope the WB stands by its prior decision. In my opinion, the massive outcry from guides and outfitters only reinforces the fact that trail cameras should be closely regulated if not banned altogether.

Hawkeye

 

[elkassassin]

The New Rule Was Already Approved!

Until HELL-F'N-RIGHT is put in to Force It Ain't gonna matter anyway!

 

[elkassassin]

I Said earlier:

I'll Bet Somebody BAWLS!

Here The Hell We Are!

 

[elkassassin]

As Soon as They Get a Reversal on this!

Apples/CHUMMING Will Be Next!

TARDville!

Where if & When They Finally Pass a Law/Rule That Might Help just a very Little Somebody BAWLS and it's Always Money & GREED Related!

 

[PleaseDear]

I want it to stay how it is with the change and banned use.



Robb

 

[legacy]

The fact that the guides and outfitters are pushing so hard to overturn this only makes me want the ban that much more.

 

[hossblur]

The emails I sent, I told them that as members of the WB, even if they voted against the ban, they should vote for it now.
They should not be lending support to any attempt to end run the RAC/WB process, otherwise they are proving to hunters the process is a sham.

I'm sure that convinced Heaton?

 

[elkantlers]

Somebody's gonna flip, and it only takes 1.

My bet is SFW gets up there and suddenly has a change of heart and realizes how much it puts the "regular" hunter at a disadvantage not to be able to have trail cameras. You can bet your next paycheck that Doyle and the boys will be doing some campaigning at the Sexpo this weekend.

I really hope someone spends their 2 minutes calling out the WB for their self-serving practices.

 

[roadrunner]

I thought this trail camera thing was a done deal. At lest some say it was.

And then, the money starts to talk...

 

[deadibob]

Where can I find an email list for the wildlife board members?

 

[middlefork]

Wildlife Board members

Names and contact information of current members of the Utah Wildlife Board.

wildlife.utah.gov

 

[wetmule]

Heaton... not a conflict of interest at all lmao. Wolf guarding the sheep in UT

 

[hossblur]

Heaton... not a conflict of interest at all lmao. Wolf guarding the sheep in UT

One of the many replies I got back from Wade when I challenged him on his original votes.

 

[wetmule]

One of the many replies I got back from Wade when I challenged him on his original votes.

View attachment 67834

Then dude shouldn't have any issue with recusing himself from voting... given his above statement. You know, to remove all doubt about his bias or motivations towards a tool that in his own words he derives no benefit from.

 

[hossblur]

Then dude shouldn't have any issue with recusing himself from voting... given his above statement. You know, to remove all doubt about his bias or motivations towards a tool

7 emails back to me over 5 days.

It is pretty damn funny.

It's not buisness, he just thought an apple a day would keep the vet away, that's why he baited.

And as for cams. It wasn't for money. It was for 'merica.

 

[Tristate]

So what's wrong if someone does make their decision based off the money?

 

[wetmule]

So what's wrong if someone does make their decision based off the money?

Nancy Pelosi's stock trades as she kills related bills or shuffles them forward are for the greater good... come on man!

 

[hossblur]

So what's wrong if someone does make their decision based off the money?

Nothing.

Unless your on the WB, then it's a conflict of interest.

Similar to a developer being on the planning commission and voting for acceptance of his own development.

 

[Tristate]

So should no one on the wildlife board be a hunter? After all every decision they make could be a conflict of interest.

Let's not exaggerate. This isn't like a person being on the planning board and voting for his own development. It's like a person on the planning board voting for the use of a claw hammer.

 

[grosventrehunter]

So should no one on the wildlife board be a hunter? After all every decision they make could be a conflict of interest.

Let's not exaggerate. This isn't like a person being on the planning board and voting for his own development. It's like a person on the planning board voting for the use of a claw hammer.

An outfitter dumb-dumb. Texas logic?

 

[Clyde Hollinger]

Man this Hoss guy sure has his nuts in a wad over this whole deal. He's ran his mouth more about trail cams on an "internet" hunting forum than some dude from the Basin. No offence Bess. It's just pure entertainment what guys argue about on the internet and think they're going to get something done.

 

[hossblur]

Man this Hoss guy sure has his nuts in a wad over this whole deal. He's ran his mouth more about trail cams on an "internet" hunting forum than some dude from the Basin. No offence Bess. It's just pure entertainment what guys argue about on the internet and think they're going to get something done.

Cam ban. Bait ban.

So far it's 2-0..

Unlike you, I run my mouth where it counts as well

 

[hossblur]

Oh wait, we got thermal too.

3-0

 

[Clyde Hollinger]

Oh wait, we got thermal too.

3-0

*zing*

 

[gundog2]

I respect the WB for taking a stand for wildlife and hunting ethics, but I never used trail cams and I don’t feel like I should have to go meetings to argue with people that have more to lose than I do.

 

[deadibob]

Wildlife Board members

Names and contact information of current members of the Utah Wildlife Board.

wildlife.utah.gov

thank you

 

[deadibob]

So should no one on the wildlife board be a hunter? After all every decision they make could be a conflict of interest.

Let's not exaggerate. This isn't like a person being on the planning board and voting for his own development. It's like a person on the planning board voting for the use of a claw hammer.

hunting and outfitting are not the same thing. Try and keep up here.

 

[deadibob]

I respect the WB for taking a stand for wildlife and hunting ethics, but I never used trail cams and I don’t feel like I should have to go meetings to argue with people that have more to lose than I do.

and that attitude is what will keep them from losing

 

[grosventrehunter]

Man this Hoss guy sure has his nuts in a wad over this whole deal. He's ran his mouth more about trail cams on an "internet" hunting forum than some dude from the Basin. No offence Bess. It's just pure entertainment what guys argue about on the internet and think they're going to get something done.

Says a guy who comes on a hunting forum and runs his mouth. Brilliant....

 

[Tristate]

hunting and outfitting are not the same thing. Try and keep up here.

Hunting is worth money. Try and keep up.

 

[hossblur]

hunting and outfitting are not the same thing. Try and keep up here.

I'd be surprised is Heaton even hunted anymore

 

[hossblur]

I agree with dudes who are pissed this is happening again.

It can be fixed. By by legislators. Contact your rep, have them make it so WB/RAC are considered open meeting/public comment.

This one isn't on WB or DWR. It's mostly on the guides and their lawyer. And yes, if this ban stands, I'm sure there will be a lawsuit.

This one is on the legislature.

 

[middlefork]

I hate to interrupt the back and forth but does anyone actually have documentation of what the guides and outfitters want changed?

Is there an actual proposal to the board available to read? I haven't found one.

 

[hossblur]

I hate to interrupt the back and forth but does anyone actually have documentation of what the guides and outfitters want changed?

Is there an actual proposal to the board available to read? I haven't found one.

I haven't seen any. And they know we are reading their social media, so the ones I've seen are pretty cryptic.

I saw their is a lawyer floating a class action on a smaller, lesser known guides social.

Moss and WLH turned off comments.


Isn't it enough that they just want to protect 'Merica?

 

[elkassassin]

Who The HELL Are You

Clyde Hollinger?​

 

[elkassassin]

Maybe We'll Have a F'N Re-Vote?

 

[hossblur]

Who The HELL Are You

Clyde Hollinger?​

I figured he was one of your fanboys?

 

[Clyde Hollinger]

Says a guy who comes on a hunting forum and runs his mouth. Brilliant....

Haha K-lassic! The internet for the win!

 

[Clyde Hollinger]

Who The HELL Are You

Clyde Hollinger?​

So...
Who the HELL are you @elkassassin ?

I mean, we could be friends...

#trolled

 

[middlefork]

I haven't seen any. And they know we are reading their social media, so the ones I've seen are pretty cryptic.

I saw their is a lawyer floating a class action on a smaller, lesser known guides social.

Moss and WLH turned off comments.


Isn't it enough that they just want to protect 'Merica?

This is what I have a problem with. Sure you can get copies of emails and other social media with a FOI request but it certainly is a PIA.

For the WB to schedule a special hearing is should be much more open than it currently is. There is no way people can make comments on any proposal that isn't published.

 

[roadrunner]

I respect the WB for taking a stand for wildlife and hunting ethics, but I never used trail cams and I don’t feel like I should have to go meetings to argue with people that have more to lose than I do.

So, someone who uses a game camera doesn't have ethics, or doesn't share your ethics?

The later being completely irrelevant...

 

[javihammer]

I live in Arizona but I follow what is happening in Utah since their corporate hunting garbage flows downhill and we frequently have to put up barriers to keep it from flowing into our yards like sewage.

I have to give a shout out to Hossblur for being right on the money most of the time especially as it relates to this camera issue. This camera ban is EXTREMELY important to Utah hunting. The perversion of cheap camera information coupled with outfitter sponsored bounty pimping Drives other things like the privatization and expansion of 501 handout tags and CWMU junk. Every Utah DIY hunter should be writing the wildlife board members on this as it may be the best thing for Utah hunting in decades. Guys should also be going to the hearing to support the Commisioners on this as well, based on their last vote most seem to want to do the right thing.

As I read through the comments I hear the same dishonest comments from the anti camera regulation crowds...here is a list of their tactics and lies...

1. "The ban will hurt DIY hunters the most". - Yeah right, a disorganized group of guys with a handful of selectively placed cameras will be hurt worse than guides literally spamming the forest with thousands of cameras. Pretty stupid claim but some outfitter will try to make that claim in the next camera hearing...this should insult the intelligence of the WB.

2. "I don't have very many cameras and they don't bother me, I haven't even shot an animal I saw on my game cameras before" - This is a claim made by guys with access to other people camera information. They may not put their own cameras out but the get help from people who do like outfitters. gimme a break.

3. "This ban is unenforceable" - Wildlife officers will get plenty of first hand support from hunters, guaranteed.

4. "The I hate CELLULAR trail cameras too argument"- This is generally a tactic and claim used to pivot attention from the much larger problem of memory card cameras. Cellular cameras are terrible but memory card cameras are 90% of the ones littering the forest and degrading trophy quality for DIY guys. All cameras should be banned or regulated.

5. "The argument that this will hurt families using trail cameras for wildlife photography" - This was a popular rally cry made by the loudest outfitter in Arizona and sounds legit but everyone knows who the outfitters are and it is a pretty weak. Most regulations leave some season or provision for non-consumptive use.

6. "Camera bans cannot be enforced on private property" - I would agree it is harder to enforce but the wildlife isn't owned by property owner so their take must be inline with state hunting regulations.

7. "Camera bans are only supported by liberal snowflakes" - I have been hunting, mostly archery for almost 40 years. I made three kids with my beautiful wife, drive a truck and voted for Trump. my family and friends are similar and we all think trail cameras suck. The suggestion that this is a controversy is a joke, 90% or more of the hunting public hates trail cameras.

8. "The slippery slope claim that this will impact other hunting technology" - This is the lamest and weakest argument of all. Cameras allow guys to literally outsource the hunting so they can just show up and do the killing. other technology requires the hunter to be in the field.

9 "The argument that making changes should be based on data and general harvest rates"- sounds smart, but actually a dumb claim. the camera problem is qualitative not quantitative. Asking for "data" is a smoke screen and stall tactic.

Be strong Utah, make sure regulation applies to all cameras, there are no special provisions for outfitters and keep your thermal and ban on wildlife location sales as part of the regulation.

Ryan

 

[roadrunner]

I live in Arizona but I follow what is happening in Utah since their corporate hunting garbage flows downhill and we frequently have to put up barriers to keep it from flowing into our yards like sewage.

I have to give a shout out to Hossblur for being right on the money most of the time especially as it relates to this camera issue. This camera ban is EXTREMELY important to Utah hunting. The perversion of cheap camera information coupled with outfitter sponsored bounty pimping Drives other things like the privatization and expansion of 501 handout tags and CWMU junk. Every Utah DIY hunter should be writing the wildlife board members on this as it may be the best thing for Utah hunting in decades. Guys should also be going to the hearing to support the Commisioners on this as well, based on their last vote most seem to want to do the right thing.

As I read through the comments I hear the same dishonest comments from the anti camera regulation crowds...here is a list of their tactics and lies...

1. "The ban will hurt DIY hunters the most". - Yeah right, a disorganized group of guys with a handful of selectively placed cameras will be hurt worse than guides literally spamming the forest with thousands of cameras. Pretty stupid claim but some outfitter will try to make that claim in the next camera hearing...this should insult the intelligence of the WB.

2. "I don't have very many cameras and they don't bother me, I haven't even shot an animal I saw on my game cameras before" - This is a claim made by guys with access to other people camera information. They may not put their own cameras out but the get help from people who do like outfitters. gimme a break.

3. "This ban is unenforceable" - Wildlife officers will get plenty of first hand support from hunters, guaranteed.

4. "The I hate CELLULAR trail cameras too argument"- This is generally a tactic and claim used to pivot attention from the much larger problem of memory card cameras. Cellular cameras are terrible but memory card cameras are 90% of the ones littering the forest and degrading trophy quality for DIY guys. All cameras should be banned or regulated.

5. "The argument that this will hurt families using trail cameras for wildlife photography" - This was a popular rally cry made by the loudest outfitter in Arizona and sounds legit but everyone knows who the outfitters are and it is a pretty weak. Most regulations leave some season or provision for non-consumptive use.

6. "Camera bans cannot be enforced on private property" - I would agree it is harder to enforce but the wildlife isn't owned by property owner so their take must be inline with state hunting regulations.

7. "Camera bans are only supported by liberal snowflakes" - I have been hunting, mostly archery for almost 40 years. I made three kids with my beautiful wife, drive a truck and voted for Trump. my family and friends are similar and we all think trail cameras suck. The suggestion that this is a controversy is a joke, 90% or more of the hunting public hates trail cameras.

8. "The slippery slope claim that this will impact other hunting technology" - This is the lamest and weakest argument of all. Cameras allow guys to literally outsource the hunting so they can just show up and do the killing. other technology requires the hunter to be in the field.

9 "The argument that making changes should be based on data and general harvest rates"- sounds smart, but actually a dumb claim. the camera problem is qualitative not quantitative. Asking for "data" is a smoke screen and stall tactic.

Be strong Utah, make sure regulation applies to all cameras, there are no special provisions for outfitters and keep your thermal and ban on wildlife location sales as part of the regulation.

Ryan

The limitation with qualitative data is that it is based on a feeling.

That is why the issue is divided.

 

[hossblur]

This is what I have a problem with. Sure you can get copies of emails and other social media with a FOI request but it certainly is a PIA.

For the WB to schedule a special hearing is should be much more open than it currently is. There is no way people can make comments on any proposal that isn't published.

I'd assume they are voting on the original

 

[hossblur]

I live in Arizona but I follow what is happening in Utah since their corporate hunting garbage flows downhill and we frequently have to put up barriers to keep it from flowing into our yards like sewage.

I have to give a shout out to Hossblur for being right on the money most of the time especially as it relates to this camera issue. This camera ban is EXTREMELY important to Utah hunting. The perversion of cheap camera information coupled with outfitter sponsored bounty pimping Drives other things like the privatization and expansion of 501 handout tags and CWMU junk. Every Utah DIY hunter should be writing the wildlife board members on this as it may be the best thing for Utah hunting in decades. Guys should also be going to the hearing to support the Commisioners on this as well, based on their last vote most seem to want to do the right thing.

As I read through the comments I hear the same dishonest comments from the anti camera regulation crowds...here is a list of their tactics and lies...

1. "The ban will hurt DIY hunters the most". - Yeah right, a disorganized group of guys with a handful of selectively placed cameras will be hurt worse than guides literally spamming the forest with thousands of cameras. Pretty stupid claim but some outfitter will try to make that claim in the next camera hearing...this should insult the intelligence of the WB.

2. "I don't have very many cameras and they don't bother me, I haven't even shot an animal I saw on my game cameras before" - This is a claim made by guys with access to other people camera information. They may not put their own cameras out but the get help from people who do like outfitters. gimme a break.

3. "This ban is unenforceable" - Wildlife officers will get plenty of first hand support from hunters, guaranteed.

4. "The I hate CELLULAR trail cameras too argument"- This is generally a tactic and claim used to pivot attention from the much larger problem of memory card cameras. Cellular cameras are terrible but memory card cameras are 90% of the ones littering the forest and degrading trophy quality for DIY guys. All cameras should be banned or regulated.

5. "The argument that this will hurt families using trail cameras for wildlife photography" - This was a popular rally cry made by the loudest outfitter in Arizona and sounds legit but everyone knows who the outfitters are and it is a pretty weak. Most regulations leave some season or provision for non-consumptive use.

6. "Camera bans cannot be enforced on private property" - I would agree it is harder to enforce but the wildlife isn't owned by property owner so their take must be inline with state hunting regulations.

7. "Camera bans are only supported by liberal snowflakes" - I have been hunting, mostly archery for almost 40 years. I made three kids with my beautiful wife, drive a truck and voted for Trump. my family and friends are similar and we all think trail cameras suck. The suggestion that this is a controversy is a joke, 90% or more of the hunting public hates trail cameras.

8. "The slippery slope claim that this will impact other hunting technology" - This is the lamest and weakest argument of all. Cameras allow guys to literally outsource the hunting so they can just show up and do the killing. other technology requires the hunter to be in the field.

9 "The argument that making changes should be based on data and general harvest rates"- sounds smart, but actually a dumb claim. the camera problem is qualitative not quantitative. Asking for "data" is a smoke screen and stall tactic.

Be strong Utah, make sure regulation applies to all cameras, there are no special provisions for outfitters and keep your thermal and ban on wildlife location sales as part of the regulation.

Ryan

???????????????

 

[Vanilla]

It can be fixed. By by legislators. Contact your rep, have them make it so WB/RAC are considered open meeting/public comment.

Hoss, help me understand this one better. What are you asking the legislature to do?

WB/RAC meetings are meetings subject to the open meetings act. I’m not exactly sure what you want changed. Help me understand.

 

[hossblur]

Hoss, help me understand this one better. What are you asking the legislature to do?

WB/RAC meetings are meetings subject to the open meetings act. I’m not exactly sure what you want changed. Help me understand.

When I talked to Staci Coons, she said the legislature could vote to recognize WB as being an open meeting. That they don't, so it created a loophole that is being exploited by the outfitters.

At least that's how I understood it.

Your probably more in tune with particulars of open meetings act than I am.

I misunderstood to start with, so I called her to voice support. Which didn't matter.

I spent more time apologizing to her, especially after Doyle and WLH put out to blow up her email.

It only took 10 individuals to reopen the vote, so everyone else was just abuse. The outfitters made it sound like she could decide, which she couldn't, so I'm sure it was a pretty shitty week. So I felt bad even bugging her.

 

[Vanilla]

Interesting. Not sure how the WB would be exempt. I’ll look into it.

 

[Elkslayer2015]

The limitation with qualitative data is that it is based on a feeling.

That is why the issue is divided.

runner.

I might be wrong but this is how I see it divided.

20-30 years ago and later the technology wasn't even a thing.

15 years ago technology started excelling with a new era of hunters came in with technology.

This is where I think it started becoming divided.

The only thing the DWR did in my eye's wrong as far as technology goes.
Allowing scopes on muzzleloader and not addressing the technology sooner.

Now here we are thinking our rights are being taken away but in reality there not.
They are choking down on the technology side of it.

So who has caused this problem.

Pretty dam simple.
HUNTERS/GUIDES

my hunting box 20 years ago consisted

#1 bino's
#2 270 rem with a 3x9 scope
#3 bullets
#4 boots
#5 orange
#6 warm clothing
#7 85 Chevy pickup with a set of tire chains
#8 deer tag/elk tag whatever I'm hunting.

Fast forward till now

#1 Vortex viper binoculars.
#2 7mm mag with a 4x24 Zeiss scope on it with a turret that I don't even no how to spell or use.
#3 - bullets
#4 -3 pairs of books for different weather condition
#5-orange or camo (because of a multiseason elk tag)
#6 -tons of clothing for all types of weather
#7 -2015 dodge ram cummings with no tire chains
#8 -2 atv's
#9 -1 side by side
#10 -12 cameras
#11-15 SD cards
#12-card reader
#13- game calls
#14 -range finder good for 1200 yards
#15 -muzzleloader with a 3x9 scope on it
#16 -compound bow
#17-Vortex viper spotting scope
#18-hand held radios
#19-use to be Mineral block but that stuff is banned.

This is what is wrong and I'm just as guilty. now x that by all the other hunter's.

WE THINK WE NEED TECHNOLOGY BUT IN REALITY WE WANT IT.
I'm thinking the new hunting ERA has grown up with all the new technology! they have it in there minds that is the way you hunt.

This is why we are divided IMOP.

 

[deadibob]

Hunting is worth money. Try and keep up.

No, hunting costs money. Whoring wildlife is worth money. You aren't keeping up but I forgot, Texas.

 

[Tristate]

No, hunting costs money. Whoring wildlife is worth money. You aren't keeping up but I forgot, Texas.

The state disagrees with you. Thats why you pay a fine and RESTITUTION. Apparently they agree with me. The animal and the tags are both worth MONEY.

 

[middlefork]

 

[javihammer]

The limitation with qualitative data is that it is based on a feeling.

That is why the issue is divided.

I don't call that a limitation, the wildlife board is comprised of people with diverse geographic and life experiences. In theory there is an underlying expectation they have leadership abilities and a backbone capable of voting with their conscience. if they are prone to being railroaded by people in bedazzled wranglers with a tabacco plug in their mouths demanding "data" they aren't qualified to be on the board in my opinion. What qualifies as fair chase is largely a judgement call which is hopefully informed by input from their constituents/hunters. if the wildlife board relies on any other factor other than their conscience/feelings to make the decision on cameras the WB process will have failed.

As for whether the issue is divided, there is no question. As for whether it divides hunters equally and approaches a controversy, not even close. This has come down to a business challenge for Utah guides, that is all. Hunters are clear where they stand on the issue. the Lead commisioner that made the tie breaking vote said something smart, he said the issue would be raised again if they didn't take immediate and significant action now. Besides being right on that issue that guy also had some big nuts to make the decision he did that day, he deserves a hero t-shirt ?.

Ryan

 

[roadrunner]

The state disagrees with you. Thats why you pay a fine and RESTITUTION. Apparently they agree with me. The animal and the tags are both worth MONEY.

So is exceeding the speed limit...

 

[roadrunner]

runner.

I might be wrong but this is how I see it divided.

20-30 years ago and later the technology wasn't even a thing.

15 years ago technology started excelling with a new era of hunters came in with technology.

This is where I think it started becoming divided.

The only thing the DWR did in my eye's wrong as far as technology goes.
Allowing scopes on muzzleloader and not addressing the technology sooner.

Now here we are thinking our rights are being taken away but in reality there not.
They are choking down on the technology side of it.

So who has caused this problem.

Pretty dam simple.
HUNTERS/GUIDES

my hunting box 20 years ago consisted

#1 bino's
#2 270 rem with a 3x9 scope
#3 bullets
#4 boots
#5 orange
#6 warm clothing
#7 85 Chevy pickup with a set of tire chains
#8 deer tag/elk tag whatever I'm hunting.

Fast forward till now

#1 Vortex viper binoculars.
#2 7mm mag with a 4x24 Zeiss scope on it with a turret that I don't even no how to spell or use.
#3 - bullets
#4 -3 pairs of books for different weather condition
#5-orange or camo (because of a multiseason elk tag)
#6 -tons of clothing for all types of weather
#7 -2015 dodge ram cummings with no tire chains
#8 -2 atv's
#9 -1 side by side
#10 -12 cameras
#11-15 SD cards
#12-card reader
#13- game calls
#14 -range finder good for 1200 yards
#15 -muzzleloader with a 3x9 scope on it
#16 -compound bow
#17-Vortex viper spotting scope
#18-hand held radios
#19-use to be Mineral block but that stuff is banned.

This is what is wrong and I'm just as guilty. now x that by all the other hunter's.

WE THINK WE NEED TECHNOLOGY BUT IN REALITY WE WANT IT.
I'm thinking the new hunting ERA has grown up with all the new technology! they have it in there minds that is the way you hunt.

This is why we are divided IMOP.

Don't be so quick on limitation based on what's popular. Eventually you will not like what you get...

 

[Elkslayer2015]

Don't be so quick on limitation based on what's popular. Eventually you will not like what you get...

I started out with open sights model 94 30/30 lever action and I still have the gun.

I still have my Old Tasco‘s bino’s.

You want me to bring my long bow as well.

I’m ready bring it on.
I’m good with going back to the way I started.

We would have more tags and less success.

but the real question is can you?

 

[roadrunner]

I started out with open sights model 94 30/30 lever action and I still have the gun.

I still have my Old Tasco‘s bino’s.

You want me to bring my long bow as well.

I’m ready bring it on.
I’m good with going back to the way I started.

We would have more tags and less success.

but the real question is can you?

You don't get it. It's not about going back to the basics.

You Utahns are so short sighted...

 

[JB1975]

You don't get it. It's not about going back to the basics.

You Utahns are so short sighted...

How is it that you are always convinced you are the smartest person in the room?

 

[deadibob]

The state disagrees with you. Thats why you pay a fine and RESTITUTION. Apparently they agree with me. The animal and the tags are both worth MONEY.

YOU DON'T PAY A FINE AND RESTITUTION FOR HUNTING, YOU PAY IT FOR POACHING BUT THEN AGAIN YOU DON'T SEE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO TEX.

 

[Tristate]

It isn't about the difference between hunting and poaching deadibob. My point is the animal is worth money. The state has decided it has a monetary value. Therefore when you kill a deer you have received something of value. This is a discussion about MONEY. Something you don't seem to understand.

 

[roadrunner]

How is it that you are always convinced you are the smartest person in the room?

Never once I have ever said I was the smartest person in the room. The only two that have ever said that or implied that was El Gringo and OutdoorWriter and those two don't know how wrong they were on the matter.

I do know that once popular opinion gets involved into game management, results are not always what you want.

Popular opinion literally ended trapping on public land in New Mexico by legislative action because a "majority" didn't like the idea of it and quite frankly didn't understand it. Coyote hunting the way we've been able to do that in the past has ended as well.

The first ban of technology in UT can easily continue to cascade into other things the more that transplant weeds move into the state that do not share the same ideals as the long-time traditional residents do.

It's happening all over the west.

That's why I say Utahns are short-sighted. You can't see the potential of what's coming and it doesn't always end with what and how you want it to end. If this "label" hurt your feelings, good. Hopefully it stops something before it goes too far...

 

[Tristate]

Very often when I get in discussions with people that want something banned the best question is , "What is the problem?"

How they answer that question will very often tell you whether you are dealing with emotional problems, greed, an idiot, a liar, or a real problem.


So trail cameras, WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?

 

[OutdoorWriter]

Never once I have ever said I was the smartest person in the room. The only two that have ever said that or implied that was El Gringo and OutdoorWriter and those two don't know how wrong they were on the matter.

I never said or "implied'' any such thing about YOU.

I doubt you're even the smartest one in the room when you're alone.

If you were the smartest, you would recall this statement YOU made: "Stop pretending to be the smartest one in the room 'cause you aren't...," which erroneously IMPLIED that you were smarter than me.

 

[hossblur]

Never once I have ever said I was the smartest person in the room. The only two that have ever said that or implied that was El Gringo and OutdoorWriter and those two don't know how wrong they were on the matter.

I do know that once popular opinion gets involved into game management, results are not always what you want.

Popular opinion literally ended trapping on public land in New Mexico by legislative action because a "majority" didn't like the idea of it and quite frankly didn't understand it. Coyote hunting the way we've been able to do that in the past has ended as well.

The first ban of technology in UT can easily continue to cascade into other things the more that transplant weeds move into the state that do not share the same ideals as the long-time traditional residents do.

It's happening all over the west.

That's why I say Utahns are short-sighted. You can't see the potential of what's coming and it doesn't always end with what and how you want it to end. If this "label" hurt your feelings, good. Hopefully it stops something before it goes too far...

Check the Utah constitution to see how short sighted we are.

This is like listening to an addict.

"If you don't let me shoot up in the house, I'm just going to shoot up in an alley where it's more dangerous". Or......perhaps neither?

No, we don't have to let technology run wild, or the corporate industry run wild, to "check" those pesky libs.

 

[Vanilla]

Utah amended its constitution in 1998 to make any citizen initiative regarding hunting seasons or taking game to pass by 2/3 majority, not just a simple majority. That was in 1998. Short-sighted for sure! We backed that up recently with another constitutional amendment That says we have the constitutional right to hunt and fish. Utah, short-sighted?

Some people just don’t have a clue.

 

[wetmule]

Very often when I get in discussions with people that want something banned the best question is , "What is the problem?"

How they answer that question will very often tell you whether you are dealing with emotional problems, greed, an idiot, a liar, or a real problem.


So trail cameras, WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?

There's nobody more emotional or dishonest than some of those in favor of having a trail camera or 50 on every waterhole or guzzler in the unit.

When AZ contemplated this issue a couple yrs ago. There was a whiny outfitter that spoke in front of the commission with real tears streaming down his face saying if trail cameras go away he literally wouldn't be able to feed his family. It was pathetic! Commission bought his and other BS & caved. Took another year for the commission to come to their senses. Then there's the often heard proverbial "I get no benefit from trail cams" or you're a left wing liberal nut job for thinking hunters should actually have to be present & in the field when scouting or hunting. Yeah nice try with the emotional, dishonesty argument. You should actually listen to what some of those folks say with a straight face.

 

[Tristate]

There's nobody more emotional or dishonest than some of those in favor of having a trail camera or 50 on every waterhole or guzzler in the unit.

When AZ contemplated this issue a couple yrs ago. There was a whiny outfitter that spoke in front of the commission with real tears streaming down his face saying if trail cameras go away he literally wouldn't be able to feed his family. It was pathetic! Commission bought his and other BS & caved. Took another year for the commission to come to their senses. Then there's the often heard proverbial "I get no benefit from trail cams" or you're a left wing liberal nut job for thinking hunters should actually have to be present & in the field when scouting or hunting. Yeah nice try with the emotional, dishonesty argument. You should actually listen to what some of those folks say with a straight face.

Well you sure didn't answer the question.

I didn't say one word about Arizona, people who don't want a ban, people that do want a ban, or anything you said.

I asked a question and so far NO ONE ON EITHER SIDE WANTS TO HONESTLY ANSWER IT.

 

[GLEDEASY]

Very often when I get in discussions with people that want something banned the best question is , "What is the problem?"

How they answer that question will very often tell you whether you are dealing with emotional problems, greed, an idiot, a liar, or a real problem.


So trail cameras, WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?

Here is what I've gathered in answering your question...People are tired of guides and outfitters harvesting the biggest animals in the state (and perhaps the ways they have happened). IMO, the trail cam ban is a way to try and stick it to them.

The REAL problem to me is that we have created a system of wealth tags that have allowed profitable businesses. These businesses, just like any other, may push the limits to appease their "shareholders".

Now, since people's issues seem to deal with the outfitters and guides, being a business, is there not a way to regulate their use/actions? Maybe a registration and tax of their use, a limit to how many they can use, etc.

 

[DeerHunter53]

Old fashion hunting boot leather on the ground. Cameras are not fair to the animals as they have no where to hide.
With the way things are getting as far as getting tags it should be harder to hunt and give the animals a fair chance.

 

[Tristate]

Here is what I've gathered in answering your question...People are tired of guides and outfitters harvesting the biggest animals in the state (and perhaps the ways they have happened). IMO, the trail cam ban is a way to try and stick it to them.

The REAL problem to me is that we have created a system of wealth tags that have allowed profitable businesses. These businesses, just like any other, may push the limits to appease their "shareholders".

Now, since people's issues seem to deal with the outfitters and guides, being a business, is there not a way to regulate their use/actions? Maybe a registration and tax of their use, a limit to how many they can use, etc.

So it's an issue of competition???? You want a big buck and the hunter that hires a guide wants a big buck.

Why don't you want the other guy to get a big buck or decrease his chances of killing a big buck?

Straight conversation and questions. Let's answer them.

You seem like you are trying to be honest and logical.

 

[Tristate]

Old fashion hunting boot leather on the ground. Cameras are not fair to the animals as they have no where to hide.
With the way things are getting as far as getting tags it should be harder to hunt and give the animals a fair chance.

So the cameras are unfair to the animals???

Animals can speak to you and you answer for them? Rasmussen ran a poll and animals overwhelmingly told them cameras aren't fair Or do you posess a fairness meter which animals, you and all other people have agreed on what is fair and unfair?

You are talking about something we shoot to death, jerk it's guts out, and chew on his flesh, AND THEN TALK ABOUT ANIMAL "FAIRNESS "?????



These aren't real questions. You don't have to answer them. Just please don't vote in any future elections or work with sharp tools.

 

[hawkbill]

I’m surprised you even hunt, do you really think about wildlife that way. I just got back from the Expo, trail cams were a big talk, everyone I heard was totally against them. I did see Wade and Doyle I just didn’t have time to ask them. I know a few guides with hundreds of cams , they would also like to see the ban. I also saw a booth with a couple of guys with 8 to 10 foot poles, they had special attachments where they could put trail cams up high in trees in a couple of minutes, it truly surprises me all the new hunting products and gadgets. Im thinking of going back to flannel and my old 30-30

 

[Tristate]

I’m surprised you even hunt, do you really think about wildlife that way. I just got back from the Expo, trail cams were a big talk, everyone I heard was totally against them. I did see Wade and Doyle I just didn’t have time to ask them. I know a few guides with hundreds of cams , they would also like to see the ban. I also saw a booth with a couple of guys with 8 to 10 foot poles, they had special attachments where they could put trail cams up high in trees in a couple of minutes, it truly surprises me all the new hunting products and gadgets. Im thinking of going back to flannel and my old 30-30

Damn straight I think about wildlife that way. I don't hunt for you and what you or anyone else thinks about me hunting.

 

[hawkbill]

You are a true gem and believe me I don’t think about you!

 

[Tristate]

You are a true gem and believe me I don’t think about you!

You literally thought about it in post 73

 

[GLEDEASY]

So it's an issue of competition???? You want a big buck and the hunter that hires a guide wants a big buck.

Why don't you want the other guy to get a big buck or decrease his chances of killing a big buck?

Straight conversation and questions. Let's answer them.

You seem like you are trying to be honest and logical.

It is an issue of competition and unreal expectations. For the record I am not for the ban, against it. I have no problem with someone killing a big animal. Just was answering your question on what I think the problem is.

 

[Tristate]

It is an issue of competition and unreal expectations. For the record I am not for the ban, against it. I have no problem with someone killing a big animal. Just was answering your question on what I think the problem is.

That's perfect. I want to hear both sides as long as they are logically based.

 

[grosventrehunter]

That's perfect. I want to hear both sides as long as they are logically based.

Listen to this guy..... As long as they are logical. The most unlogical person on MM will decide if an argument is logical. City folks.....

 

[Tristate]

Listen to this guy..... As long as they are logical. The most unlogical person on MM will decide if an argument is logical. City folks.....

I can tell when someone is to scared to answer a question.

 

[roadrunner]

Utah amended its constitution in 1998 to make any citizen initiative regarding hunting seasons or taking game to pass by 2/3 majority, not just a simple majority. That was in 1998. Short-sighted for sure! We backed that up recently with another constitutional amendment That says we have the constitutional right to hunt and fish. Utah, short-sighted?

Some people just don’t have a clue.

Hide and watch. The arrogance with you is stifling. Only a fool thinks something can stay the way it is untouched. Liberalism can and will change UT one day, and arrogance like yours will be the reason.

 

[hossblur]

Hide and watch. The arrogance with you is stifling. Only a fool thinks something can stay the way it is untouched. Liberalism can and will change UT one day, and arrogance like yours will be the reason.

So, just so I understand.

The only way we beat back the commie, pinkos, from California, is to allow Doyle to run a few thousand cams?

Just trying to follow the logic here

So, if we just put on a billboard on1-15 down south,

"We support all Cams", those north bound Uhauls will flip around and head back to Frisco?

If the pro c guys are so fragile that not having them means they run out, fire up a fatty, and blast The Greatful Dead, then just maybe, they were shaky to start with

 

[Vanilla]

Hide and watch. The arrogance with you is stifling. Only a fool thinks something can stay the way it is untouched. Liberalism can and will change UT one day, and arrogance like yours will be the reason.

My arrogance or your idiocy?

You call Utah “short-sighted” when they literally have had much foresight on this issue. And when I show you objective factual information about it you say I’m arrogant. Not that you were wrong (which you were) but that I’m arrogant. You’re an idiot.

 

[roadrunner]

My arrogance or your idiocy?

You call Utah “short-sighted” when they literally have had much foresight on this issue. And when I show you objective factual information about it you say I’m arrogant. Not that you were wrong (which you were) but that I’m arrogant. You’re an idiot.

Short sighted in applauding a change in something used in hunting that a relatively small group from public comment made that now carries a penalty merely by the vote of a game commission.

Short sighted in not knowing that once you get a ball rolling in one direction, the avalanche of events that have the potential of happening. Maybe not today, but eventually.

I am not wrong in that, open your eyes as it is happening throughout the west.

Were you even old enough to vote in 1998 vanilla? I was and I had voted for those people in the state legislature during that timeframe when I lived in UT. You said "we". Who's "we", vanilla?

Your arrogance is that you think a protected hunting right by legislative action can't be changed once popular opinion evolves. It all begins by a few making a comment to limit an aspect of something based on a personal bias.

Pull your head out of the sand. I would hope someone with a law degree that passed the UT bar exam could be more adult than to referring to someone as an "idiot".

Arrogance is a behavior. Name calling, which I never did, is downright obnoxious. Maybe you thought I did when I said "only a fool would...". Are you a fool, vanilla? Because, if you aren't, then it shouldn't have offended you.

I suppose I will end any and all exchanges I will ever have with you again is the suggestion of 'grow up'...

 

[hossblur]

Short sighted in applauding a change in something used in hunting that a relatively small group from public comment made that now carries a penalty merely by the vote of a game commission.

Short sighted in not knowing that once you get a ball rolling in one direction, the avalanche of events that have the potential of happening. Maybe not today, but eventually.

I am not wrong in that, open your eyes as it is happening throughout the west.

Were you even old enough to vote in 1998 vanilla? I was and I had voted for those people in the state legislature during that timeframe when I lived in UT. You said "we". Who's "we", vanilla?

Your arrogance is that you think a protected hunting right by legislative action can't be changed once popular opinion evolves. It all begins by a few making a comment to limit an aspect of something based on a personal bias.

Pull your head out of the sand. I would hope someone with a law degree that passed the UT bar exam could be more adult than to referring to someone as an "idiot".

Arrogance is a behavior. Name calling, which I never did, is downright obnoxious. Maybe you thought I did when I said "only a fool would...". Are you a fool, vanilla? Because, if you aren't, then it shouldn't have offended you.

I suppose I will end any and all exchanges I will ever have with you again is the suggestion of 'grow up'...

I WAS old enough to vote in 1998.

In fact 1996.

You want to talk HONESTLY?

SFW PUSHED the cutting of Utah deer tags

130,000 dudes/chicks, GONE.

FEEL FREE to show me where PETA, WORLD WILDLIFE, etc, got rid of 130,000 hunters.

Pull YOUR head out. The WB, NOT the legislature already passed the cam ban.

It's REOPENED VIA THE RULES COMMITTEE. Or, to simplify, POLITICS.


You don't get it both ways. You don't get to ***** about "politics", then cheerlead politics.

Where do you think the anti come up with material to use in their campaigns? My family photo album, or cam pics, searching for customers?

Had the WB, loaded up with outfitters(Heaton, Bateman) and other special interest groups FOLLOWED what hunters wanted and the biologists were writing about, Casey Snider would have never needed to look at it.

The failure to address tech, baiting, thermal, years ago, put us where we are now.

And guess what. The "greenies" didn't do it.

The OUTFITTERS DID. And I'll be damned if I'm going to protect them, to "show them libs"

$fw cost us 130,000 hunters. That's a fact.

The corporate hunting industry and their non stop thirst for business, caused this.

Not me. Not Vanilla. Not Grizz.

They did.

Stop looking past the fox in the hen house, while worrying about the wolves down the street

 

[Vanilla]

Your arrogance is that you think a protected hunting right by legislative action can't be changed once popular opinion evolves. It all begins by a few making a comment to limit an aspect of something based on a personal bias.

Actually, I don’t believe that at all. I 100% know (not believe) any legislative action can be changed. I didn’t cite any legislative changes, however. I cited CONSTITUTIONAL provisions. There is a difference. They taught me that in law school and there was a question about it on the Utah bar exam.

If you don’t want to be called an idiot, don’t be an idiot. Your arrogance is stifling.

 

[Tristate]

$fw cost us 130,000 hunters. That's a fact.



View attachment 68083

Uh no.

 

[schoolhousegrizz]

I live in Arizona but I follow what is happening in Utah since their corporate hunting garbage flows downhill and we frequently have to put up barriers to keep it from flowing into our yards like sewage.

I have to give a shout out to Hossblur for being right on the money most of the time especially as it relates to this camera issue. This camera ban is EXTREMELY important to Utah hunting. The perversion of cheap camera information coupled with outfitter sponsored bounty pimping Drives other things like the privatization and expansion of 501 handout tags and CWMU junk. Every Utah DIY hunter should be writing the wildlife board members on this as it may be the best thing for Utah hunting in decades. Guys should also be going to the hearing to support the Commisioners on this as well, based on their last vote most seem to want to do the right thing.

As I read through the comments I hear the same dishonest comments from the anti camera regulation crowds...here is a list of their tactics and lies...

1. "The ban will hurt DIY hunters the most". - Yeah right, a disorganized group of guys with a handful of selectively placed cameras will be hurt worse than guides literally spamming the forest with thousands of cameras. Pretty stupid claim but some outfitter will try to make that claim in the next camera hearing...this should insult the intelligence of the WB.

2. "I don't have very many cameras and they don't bother me, I haven't even shot an animal I saw on my game cameras before" - This is a claim made by guys with access to other people camera information. They may not put their own cameras out but the get help from people who do like outfitters. gimme a break.

3. "This ban is unenforceable" - Wildlife officers will get plenty of first hand support from hunters, guaranteed.

4. "The I hate CELLULAR trail cameras too argument"- This is generally a tactic and claim used to pivot attention from the much larger problem of memory card cameras. Cellular cameras are terrible but memory card cameras are 90% of the ones littering the forest and degrading trophy quality for DIY guys. All cameras should be banned or regulated.

5. "The argument that this will hurt families using trail cameras for wildlife photography" - This was a popular rally cry made by the loudest outfitter in Arizona and sounds legit but everyone knows who the outfitters are and it is a pretty weak. Most regulations leave some season or provision for non-consumptive use.

6. "Camera bans cannot be enforced on private property" - I would agree it is harder to enforce but the wildlife isn't owned by property owner so their take must be inline with state hunting regulations.

7. "Camera bans are only supported by liberal snowflakes" - I have been hunting, mostly archery for almost 40 years. I made three kids with my beautiful wife, drive a truck and voted for Trump. my family and friends are similar and we all think trail cameras suck. The suggestion that this is a controversy is a joke, 90% or more of the hunting public hates trail cameras.

8. "The slippery slope claim that this will impact other hunting technology" - This is the lamest and weakest argument of all. Cameras allow guys to literally outsource the hunting so they can just show up and do the killing. other technology requires the hunter to be in the field.

9 "The argument that making changes should be based on data and general harvest rates"- sounds smart, but actually a dumb claim. the camera problem is qualitative not quantitative. Asking for "data" is a smoke screen and stall tactic.

Be strong Utah, make sure regulation applies to all cameras, there are no special provisions for outfitters and keep your thermal and ban on wildlife location sales as part of the regulation.

Ryan

Well said, couldn't agree more!

I emailed all the wildlife board members. A few of them responded and said they plan on sticking to their original vote.

If they stick to their guns, support for them will rise quite a bit. If they cave and change the rules on the trail cams, all respect for them will be gone. I told them the same thing in the emails. They really have a chance to stand up and show where their priorities lie. It could be a huge deal if they stick to their guns. Make sure you guys email them.

 

[deadibob]

How is it that you are always convinced you are the smartest person in the

Utah amended its constitution in 1998 to make any citizen initiative regarding hunting seasons or taking game to pass by 2/3 majority, not just a simple majority. That was in 1998. Short-sighted for sure! We backed that up recently with another constitutional amendment That says we have the constitutional right to hunt and fish. Utah, short-sighted?

Some people just don’t have a clue.

are you referring to prop five which ( summarizing) also said wildlife/hunting decisions would be based on scientific data and basically not pressured to do so from anti-groups.

 

[Elkslayer]

So the cameras are unfair to the animals???

Animals can speak to you and you answer for them? Rasmussen ran a poll and animals overwhelmingly told them cameras aren't fair Or do you posess a fairness meter which animals, you and all other people have agreed on what is fair and unfair?

You are talking about something we shoot to death, jerk it's guts out, and chew on his flesh, AND THEN TALK ABOUT ANIMAL "FAIRNESS "?????



These aren't real questions. You don't have to answer them. Just please don't vote in any future elections or work with sharp tools.

Interesting opinion. Sounds like you'd be a perfect fit in Korea, skin dogs alive and be perfectly OK with that.
You have no sense of human decency.

 

[Tristate]

Interesting opinion. Sounds like you'd be a perfect fit in Korea, skin dogs alive and be perfectly OK with that.
You have no sense of human decency.

I prefer not to skin dogs alive.

I have no problem with people that do.

Dogs are not humans.
Welcome to the real world the rest of us keep turning for self-righteous people like yourself.
Go back to watching your Disney movie little fella.

 

[Elkslayer]

 

[txhunter58]

You guys must really enjoy arguing with certain Texans. Couple of facts to consider:

No one ever “wins” an argument with certain posters. I guarantee that you can find posts on MM where I have changed my mind and admitted I was wrong about something. I will buy a six pack for anyone who can find a single post where a prominent Texas poster has ever done that.

Not every Texan agrees with a hunting “free for all” for western hunting, just like some Utah res Do agree with a “free for all”

So if you enjoy arguing for arguing sake, with no hope of ever changing the others mind, have at it. But in my mind it is a waste of time and bogs down legitimate discussions.

 

[Tristate]

Txhunter58,

They aren't arguing anything. They are dodging a question.

They realize how childish their arguments are.

 

[Elkslayer]

Speaking of dodging questions, all the years people have asked you who made you take down the Blammm sheep pic. I still haven't heard the answer.

 

[JB1975]

Speaking of dodging questions, all the years people have asked you who made you take down the Blammm sheep pic. I still haven't heard the answer.

Fact.

 

[Tristate]

Nobody made me take down the sheep pic. I answered that years ago.

Yall are still dodging the questions.

 

[Elkslayer]

I don't believe that.

 

[javihammer]

I was reading another thread about someone with a CWMU issue, he didn't like the fact that he couldn't access more of the unit with his privately purchased tag. Apparently the best hunting ground in that unit is well known and controlled by the unit manager.

I also heard a story on the news about the US southern border wall and how physical walls aren't possible or appropriate in some sections so virtual electronic walls are setup in those areas using sensors, thermal cameras and drones. In many cases the electronic walls are more reliable than physical walls that can be easily breached.

I bring this up because in many ways widespread outfitter camera abuse is establishing virtual fences/walls for public wildlife. And in some cases, the CWMU program and conservation program tags are providing a financial barrier to entry for most hunters based on price or other factors. When a guy squires a private tag on a CWMU they shop for a tag based on a specific trophy expectation. The CWMU manager provides some evidence to corroborate that expectation with photos. The tag is purchased and the hunter is hosted and likely provided with a level of detail information and access commensurate with the money exchanged.

When a guy buys a high fence hunt in Texas he contacts an operator or views the ranch website and determines the species and trophy availability. He might even be shown some photos of specific animals that he can choose from. If the guy buys a tag he is hosted by a representative of the ranch and the hunter is escorted to the area where he shoots the animal and the ranch hands do the heavy lifting. The only barrier to the shooter is how much money he is willing to spend.

In my opinion there isnt much difference between the private high fence ranches in Texas and the virtual high fence hunt opportunities pervading Utah right now. You could even make an argument that the hunts in Texas are more genuine because there is no illusion about the fact that it is all about the killing and horns. The high fence operator in Texas is probably even buying farmed wildlife that was born in captivity. Most of the virtual high fence hunts in Utah are wild animals owned by the citizens of Utah.

So sorry for another long post but if Utah has any hope to maintain credibility as a HUNTING destination they need to seriously regulate their corporate hunting and technology. Many of us criticize California and Texas but Utah is headed down the same path for criticism if they continue to undermine the tenets of real hunting in the western United States.

Ryan

 

[grizzly]

I don't believe that.

The operative word there is "made" but he's dodging the question about who told him to take down the picture.