Nevada outlaws trail cams

[labguy]

While everyone argues over the "ethics and morals" of trail cam use, your government is busy as a beaver propping up FN issues at the expense of resident hunting and angling opportunity.

FAIR CHASE - has ethics and morals all over it. Do not use the ethics and morals argument and the "to each his own" mentality to determine what can or can't be legal. We're already well into the ditch of ethics and morals when it comes right down to it.

Ethics and morals, unless legislated, are individual choices based on a number of factors. (Read Rationalizations)

For those arguing that game cams are ethical and moral (because they use them and they are legal) then why is the native guy, who pursues game 24/7 not ethical and moral? His method of hunting is legal and to him he sees no moral disconnect by doing so.

A friends son ( who is a status native ) drives around in his pickup with 2 guys in the back at night with spotlights and shoots whatever moves. He sees no ethical or moral issues with what he does because it's legal and he's providing for his family and friends.

Where is the line to be drawn here? Individual choices, legislation? Why is one behavior ethical and the other not?

This discussion won't resolve any of these questions but hopefully will cause some to think a bit deeper about what we want our hunting and outdoor heritage to look like for future generations of hunters.

[Ourea]

The thread is about trail cams compromising fair chase creating a conservation concern, not on personal ethics.

And driving around at night "shooting at anything that moves" yr round is a conservation concern!!!

[blindcast]

What in the world for? More laws that accomplish nothing?

[caddisguy]

So far the conservation concern "claim" seems to be that the use of trailcams provide an advantage in terms of a successful harvest, thus increasing the harvest ratio. I think a lot of people who actually use trailcams and know the work involved and increase (or decrease) in success ratio would really like to see this claim substantiated in some way before suggesting bans. Or do folks from the ban crowd shoot at sounds/movements?

How many people are "more successful" with the use of trailcams. How many people are less successful because they relied on a chance video of an animal passing by once, or an animal that was frequenting the area weeks prior to the season opening? Or they fixate on a "target animal" they never see again and don't cut a tag as a result? Or maybe they decide to spend the mid day lulls hiking in to check a camera in a spot they don't even hunt, just to check out some potential wildlife footage? What is the overall "net gain" (if any) in animal harvests in British Columbia?

I am highly sceptical there is even a "net gain". In fact, I do not think there is. Where are those advocating the banning of trailcams getting their data from? Or is the hunting community actually in a place where "hunters" advocate for banning things based off personal imagination of the use of devices they are not really familiar with using or and what impact those devices actually have?

I don't see "how" a standard trailcam could be abused. It has a range of 20ft. You have to hike it in and put it somewhere where you know there will be animals. You find the trails, you find the sign, you hang a camera because it will be fun to see some wildlife footage. Sounds like a conservation concern? Nope. Is there a potential for abuse if I go hang 20 of them 5 km's apart and spend countless hours checking them, changing batteries? Nope.

I think reasonable people would agree there isn't a net gain in harvest from the use of standard trailcams, but what about those cellular trailcams? Is there a potential for abuse? I would say a potential exists. If you are running a bunch of cellular cameras and able to collect data real time, without having to move from your location, then there is a potential. If I run 15 cameras within a kilometre of each other, I might be able to identify where an animal has bed down or is otherwise sticking around, or perhaps a better indication of their direction of travel. Even then, I would like to know how common this is, what the increase in harvest ratio is, etc before suggesting we ban it. And if such abuse is occurring and it is resulting in a conservation concern is there another way to prevent abuse but regulating the use in some other way without a full on ban? Maybe the location can be registered and you can't hunt off a cell cam same day it transmits? These are all things to consider IF it is deemed abuse is a occurring and IF there is in fact a conservation concern in British Columbia.

It is disturbing the "ban it" crowd is eager to define ethics and advocate bans without any sort of knowledge or data but rather just cry "ban high tech surveillance of animals" in the same way a gun ban advocate would say that a semi auto as a "high powered assault weapon" and needs to be ban, or an anti-hunter saying "evil hunters with small wangs slaughter innocent animals in cold blood and they are all going extinct as a result". Time for some self reflection, as your words and impulses are no different. If you deem something is a problem and think it should be banned, the onus is on YOU to present a case against it, not for the other side to prove to YOU that it isn't an issue. And if one suggests piggy backing BC laws on various provinces and states on a lowest common denominator basis, consider the end result that you might have a week long GOS among many other restrictions that make zero difference in conservation / animal populations. At least you will have a long time to reflect.

So let's discuss. What is the net gain or loss in harvest ratio with standard cams? What about cellular cams? Please inform this thread of the net gain/loss in harvest ratio from both. Has it led to decreased populations in BC wildlife below ecosystem carrying capacity or causing imbalances?

[hawk-i]

Use of remote data trail cams are not fair chase for Boone and Crockett, btw.

Well, Holy Crap.....there ya go!!! LOL

Oops, time to move on and change the channel I guess!

[Ourea]

^^^^^
Ur endless and valuable contributions on HBC are always greatly appreciated.
Always so insightful brimming with knowledge and solution to the topic at hand.

Many are not fans of river boats tearing up the river ecosystem that allow access to areas that you can't hike or drive to.
Maybe that's a tiny wee bit of a conservation concerns, serious concerns.......but those darn trail cams eh!

Oh, you hunt from a river boat.

[hawk-i]

^^^^^
Ur endless and valuable contributions on HBC are always greatly appreciated.
Always so insightful brimming with knowledge and solution to the topic at hand.

Many are not fans of river boats tearing up the river ecosystem that allow access to areas that you can't hike or drive to.
Maybe that's a tiny wee bit of a conservation concerns, serious concerns.......but those darn trail cams eh!

Oh, you hunt from a river boat.

You're a real joker! LOL

My river boat doesn't record game animals and movement patterns when I'm not around for months at a time!

Do you use a vehicle to access hunting areas?

[Wild one]

You're a real joker! LOL

My river boat doesn't record game animals and movement patterns when I'm not around for months at a time!

Do you use a vehicle to access hunting areas?

No but there are fishermen pushing for the ban of jet boat under a certain depth of water or complete ban on other rivers do to damage to possible fish spawning habitat

Which one do you think would be easier to prove has a negative impact on fish/wildlife cams or jet boats?

[hawk-i]

No but there are fishermen pushing for the ban of jet boat under a certain depth of water or complete ban on other rivers do to damage to possible fish spawning habitat

Which one do you think would be easier to prove has a negative impact on fish/wildlife cams or jet boats?

See, I just learnt something....I didn't know people used their Trail Cams for fishing!

Talk about desperation! How about nets when there is a sport fishing closure?

[Ourea]

You're a real joker! LOL

My river boat doesn't record game animals and movement patterns when I'm not around for months at a time!

Do you use a vehicle to access hunting areas?

Great point.
Everyone uses a vehicle.
First off I don't use a vehicle such as a river boat that tears up river beds and spawning grounds, but let's clump all access vehicles together where they can be used so your point can't be dismantled in a heartbeat.

So said guy drives a vehicle on a road and parks.
(Kinda like how every person on the earth gets around)

From there that guy packs in using only his boots to areas that take up to a day, a day and a half to access.
He hangs a trail cam or two back there.
He checks those cams 8 to 10 times a year minimum burning up weeks of times and endless energy.

Meanwhile, he can see a guy below in a river boat roaring up the river that took him 2 days to hike into
The guy parks his river boat on a sandbar, fires up his chainsaw, cuts firewood for his wall tent, unloads his boat.
Meanwhile the guy after his 2 day hike is saying to himself ......I'm not cool with that river boat thingy.

Meanwhile the river boat guy (YOU) cries foul over the fact the guy that took 2 days to hike into where YOU ripped up in a river boat in 3 hours.
"He used a trail cam in an area that I would never have the time or energy to hike into without the use of my river boat but that trail cam is unethical and is not fair chase he cries!"

Meanwhile the guy that spent 10 x's the time in the field as the river boater and has seen far more country as said boater, because he is in the field using his boots. River boater who occasionally accesses the area using his bad ass river boat declares "trail cams are unethical and are for lazy people to learn game movements"

Message being quit bitching at the hunting community about aspects that don't meet your flawed and selfish perception of what is right or wrong.

Message being you have yet to address that trail cams are a conservation concern (kinda what this thread is about)

Message being keep attacking aspects of how the hunting community lawfully approaches our sport.

Message being only your perspective is the only one that counts as you are more justified because it's your view.

I will end with this......
As this thread falls apart, a thread that was based on trail cams perhaps compromising fair chase that you have endlessly repeated your bias on personal opinion over fact ....
Meanwhile animals that you feel superior in your approach to be hunted "your way" are losing habitat every single day...
Certain segments of the population are hunting all species and age classes year round.
But let's debate trail cams.

Freakin nuts when you look at the big picture