SHOULD GAME CAMERAS BE ALLOWED FOR HUNTING?

[Mennoniteman]

Sorry but why would anyone want to hunt if they knew every deer on the property because of a non fair chase up to the second trail cam. It's just mind numbing. Hopefully states will ban them and SOON.

@victory posted an opinion about the ethics of using Game Cameras on a hunting page, and since this is a hot topic I started a separate thread here;

I think discussion is healthy and we're going to have opinions on both sides of this issue, so let's keep the discussion polite and consider other's viewpoints:

Just like the Amish struggle with what to do with technology, trail cameras have also been a contentious issue with hunters. The following 11 states currently have some limitations:

• Arizona: Prohibits the use of trail cameras for hunting anywhere in the state.
• Delaware: Bans recreational trail cameras on all state wildlife areas, state parks, and state forests.
• Kansas: Bans all trail or game cameras on public lands and waters year-round. This includes images from cameras used to aid in taking wildlife.
• Nevada: Prohibits the use of trail cameras for hunting purposes.
• Utah: Bans the use of trail cameras for taking or aiding in the taking of big game, cougars, or bears on public and private property between July 31 and December 31.
• Alaska: Prohibits the use of wireless or cellular cameras during hunting season.
• Montana: Bans remote-operated cameras that are capable of transmitting real-time information, pictures, or videos during hunting.
• New Mexico: Bans the use of any cellular, Wi-Fi, or satellite camera for hunting or scouting big game.
• Alaska: Has prohibited the use of has banned the use of wireless, cellular, or satellite-enabled cameras for the purpose of hunting.
• New Hampshire: A hunter cannot take an animal on the same calendar day that they remotely viewed an image or video of that animal.
• Iowa: The use of cellular trail cameras to hunt an animal is illegal on both private and public land. You cannot leave any type of game camera, including non-cellular ones, on public land overnight. You can leave non-cellular trail cameras on private property overnight.

 

[catscratch]

I'll go first... I love trailcams and have at least 1 out year round. I've never felt they helped my hunting at all. I like to see the pics and whatnot but actual information gained for me has been through scouting and general knowledge of the land, wind, and deer behavior. Granted that I don't use them the same as others. I've read about people who put up dozens of them to pinpoint a certain bucks travel patterns. That's not me. If someone want's to do that then I'm not in a position to care. It's their enjoyment, they can do it how they want.


I agree with not having them on public land. I grew up in KS where the state is 98% private ownership. But, I lived only a few miles from public and that's where I spent the majority of my youth (hunting, fishing, camping, parking with dates, etc). There's a degree of privacy taken away when cams are allowed on public. I completely understand the argument that there is no privacy on public, and I'm very aware that you will likely bump into people while outing on public. But I have a reasonable expectation that those people I bump into won't sneak around following me all day. Having trailcams on public "feels" like someone sneaking around following me.

 

[T-Max]

Another Kansas guy and I agree with Cat. Another reason they banned use on public is the amount of non-hunting intrusion due to several people checking trail cameras. If there was a big buck on a particular piece of public ground, there would be 20 guys running trail cameras in there. Cellular was a little less available even a few years ago when this passed and the amount of foot traffic those 20 guys could create going in and pulling SD cards every few days was incredible. It was common for me to drive by a public spot here in September and see 4-5 trucks in the parking lot. That wasn't good for anyone...

 

[buckdeer85]

I hunt private & just bought my 4th cell camera to put out. We have around ~350 acres that we hunt. I do it more for the "yearbook" aspect of seeing what bucks we have this year vs. actually using it to change my movements on deer. I live 3.5 hours away as well so this keeps me excited. It's not as practical for me to get up there & check the older model cams if I had them.

Also, I believe having game cameras allow some hunters to change their mindset on trigger pull. I'll explain. Someone, especially a younger hunter, may think there aren't any big bucks in these woods I'm just gonna shoot the next 4 pt. or whatever that comes out.

But if I show him hey look at these nice 8 & 10 pts. we have on camera here, just be patient & you may get lucky at a big boy. Therefore, it can help people to aid in let the younger deer grow older.

 

[Native Hunter]

His question is so poorly worded, I'm not sure I understand what he is actually asking. The thing about a "...second camera..." doesn't seem to go along with the first part of the question about "...[knowing] every deer...." It's hard to answer a question when you don't actually know what the question really is.

 

[yoderjac]

We have game laws and we have ethics. I have a wireless camera network that has been running 24/7/365 for over 10 years now. The primary purpose is for wildlife management. If you don't know how you management decisions are impacting the population, you don't know if they are helping or hurting the herd. I'm not sure how one would define "for hunting" in law. Our cameras are used for security as well as management. Can we somehow partition our minds and not consider what we know from these cameras when hunting? I recently retired and put up security cameras physically attached to my barn for security. It turns out, these 4K video cameras provide me more hunting information at my retirement property than the camera network at the farm where I primarily hunt. I think it would be pretty difficult to define an enforceable law.

Then there are ethics and they are up to each of us. Some guys won't hunt with a scope because it lets the hunter see further than a deer. Some won't use a modern firearm and only use a bow. Some won't even use a compound bow and stick to stick bows.

To me, fair chase is giving the animal a legitimate chance of escaping the hunter. With all the technology I use, far, far, more deer get within shooting distance of me, with the given weapon I'm using at the time, and escape than are harvested. On top of that, our ethics can rub up against each other. Another ethic many of us carry is a quick clean kill. Much of the technology we use helps ensure this.

I sleep well at night and I think that is a good yardstick for most of us. Wrestling with ethics is good for all of us. When I teach ethics at Hunter Education classes, I start with a question that most everyone in the class agrees is either ethical or unethical. I then refine the question more and more until folks begin changing their minds. For example, I will often ask: "Is it ethical to hunt behind a high fence?".

Most of the class will say "no" but sometimes folks who have done it say "yes". I'll then ask that group, what if there is 100 acres inside the fence, or 50, or 5? Eventually, they say it is not ethical. I then ask the other group, what if it is 1,000 acres, 10,000 acres, and so on. What about hunting on an island?

The bottom line is that ethics are grey, not black and white. We all need to define our limits but they are personal limits. While I have no issues using game cameras, I can certainly respect the opinion of someone who won't use them because they see them as unethical.

 

[catscratch]

His question is so poorly worded, I'm not sure I understand what he is actually asking. The thing about a "...second camera..." doesn't seem to go along with the first part of the question about "...[knowing] every deer...." It's hard to answer a question when you don't actually know what the question really is.

Ya, the only thing I gathered from his question is that he doesn't like trail cams. I think he shouldn't have to use them if he doesn't want to.

 

[KSQ2]

When it comes to trail cameras, the only ones I really have any thoughts on are the cell cams. As most of you know, I won one a couple years ago and began using it last summer. I purposely placed it in a position we did not hunt close to; so I wouldn’t be tempted to drop everything and head to a stand when I had realtime intel that a good buck was there. I will say this, the info we did get led me to put a stand there this year.
Now fast forward to this year, I put the camera in our back foodplot. It gets a lot more traffic typically and I like getting pics; BUT it will put me in a different position this year, having realtime information at a stand location. I’ve made a decision that I will not go get in that stand immediately if a big deer comes by, unless it was my plan to be there anyway. I will stick with that, but I will say having the camera by the stand does bother me a little bit. Dawna wanted it there for practical reasons, her logic was, why spend the money on the service, if you don’t have it in the place to get the most pics? She asked a really good question, and that’s why the camera now resides on the back plot.

 

[Native Hunter]

In my case, this year trail cameras saved the life of a deer rather than causing one to die. If I hadn’t known the existence of the Freak, I would have put a heart shot through the 165 ten point on day 1 of season. Go figure.

 

[catscratch]

When it comes to trail cameras, the only ones I really have any thoughts on are the cell cams. As most of you know, I won one a couple years ago and began using it last summer. I purposely placed it in a position we did not hunt close to; so I wouldn’t be tempted to drop everything and head to a stand when I had realtime intel that a good buck was there. I will say this, the info we did get led me to put a stand there this year.
Now fast forward to this year, I put the camera in our back foodplot. It gets a lot more traffic typically and I like getting pics; BUT it will put me in a different position this year, having realtime information at a stand location. I’ve made a decision that I will not go get in that stand immediately if a big deer comes by, unless it was my plan to be there anyway. I will stick with that, but I will say having the camera by the stand does bother me a little bit. Dawna wanted it there for practical reasons, her logic was, why spend the money on the service, if you don’t have it in the place to get the most pics? She asked a really good question, and that’s why the camera now resides on the back plot.

When I first got a trail camera I was curious about their effectiveness, and I wanted to know what I was missing while not hunting... so I put them at stand sites. One evening I was hunting, watched a medium buck look right at my trailcam, then sneak away. No pic and I never saw him again. I have not put a camera up at a stand site since.

 

[1100LT20]

I bought a camtrakker back in 1998 and it was not enough sugar for the dime. I’m not against cameras, I just don’t won’t to fool with them. If it benefits the hunter, go for it.

 

[KSQ2]

When I first got a trail camera I was curious about their effectiveness, and I wanted to know what I was missing while not hunting... so I put them at stand sites. One evening I was hunting, watched a medium buck look right at my trailcam, then sneak away. No pic and I never saw him again. I have not put a camera up at a stand site since.

It's more just in the plot than in the near vicinity of the stand. It's probably about 80-100 yards from the stand or so?

 

[yoderjac]

When it comes to trail cameras, the only ones I really have any thoughts on are the cell cams. As most of you know, I won one a couple years ago and began using it last summer. I purposely placed it in a position we did not hunt close to; so I wouldn’t be tempted to drop everything and head to a stand when I had realtime intel that a good buck was there. I will say this, the info we did get led me to put a stand there this year.
Now fast forward to this year, I put the camera in our back foodplot. It gets a lot more traffic typically and I like getting pics; BUT it will put me in a different position this year, having realtime information at a stand location. I’ve made a decision that I will not go get in that stand immediately if a big deer comes by, unless it was my plan to be there anyway. I will stick with that, but I will say having the camera by the stand does bother me a little bit. Dawna wanted it there for practical reasons, her logic was, why spend the money on the service, if you don’t have it in the place to get the most pics? She asked a really good question, and that’s why the camera now resides on the back plot.

My cameras send pictures back to camp in real time. In 20 years hunting the farm, I've never had a picture of deer come into camp and been able to take any real-time advantage of it. I am in the east, and we don't have much long range shooting.

 

[Mennoniteman]

His question is so poorly worded, I'm not sure I understand what he is actually asking. The thing about a "...second camera..." doesn't seem to go along with the first part of the question about "...[knowing] every deer...." It's hard to answer a question when you don't actually know what the question really is.

I gathered he meant "up to the second" meaning "you pretty much have track of a deer for every second until you shoot it"

 

[Drycreek]

Number one…..you don’t know every deer on your property, especially small acreage. They come and they go.
Number two…if you did know every deer, that doesn’t mean you kill the buck you are after, because they come and they go. The neighbor has just as good a chance as you do.
Number three…….you will see bucks in the rut that you’ve never seen before, because (wait for it) they come and they go
Number four…….the bucks you’ve been watching all summer may be gone, by now you know why


I mostly run cameras because I like to know about the fawn crop, how deer are using my plots, seeing how many does we can stand to take in a season, and yes, to inventory the bucks. I’m interested in ages, health, predation, etc. Game cameras give me a lot of insight as to what is there at any given time and what I might expect to see. It is by no means unethical. If it was, then you would have to say firearms, archery, and even the act of killing game is unethical. To me, hunting is not a sport, it’s as natural as raising tomatoes. I eat venison regularly and I have never found a way to get that without hunting and killing deer. A dead deer is a dead deer, makes no difference to it whether he was a regular on my camera or it had never been seen.

 

[victory]

Dry that's a pretty lame assessment. It's not fair chase and you can't defend it. It needs to be outlawed 30 days prior to the end of the season. That's why it is a sport and actually one being ruined by trail cams. I saw a post of a small buck a guy shot with the same buck two nights at the same time in a row at a bait pile and third night low and behold he shot it at the same time and bait pile. . Wtf is fair chase about it? That being said ffs and side imaging in fishing needs to go as well. Basically it's the llaziness of today's society, instant gratification. Why scout when you can cheat? Ever think about how anti hunters feel about it when your in the 20 % Brackett.

 

[Drycreek]

No, I don’t care what anti hunters think about my hunting, their minds aren’t going to change. Your opinion is just that, an opinion. You’re welcome to it, as I have my own.

 

[catscratch]

In your small buck 3 nights in a row scenario it sounds more likely that you'd be upset with the bait pile than the camera, but both were in use.

Scouting in general is trying to gain an advantage. Where is the technological line drawn; Gortex coats, optics on tripods, the truck that got you there?

I personally think archery should not allow a trigger. If I want to follow that rule for my personal interests I am free to. No where in drycreek's explanation of his camera use did he use it to find a specific deer and shoot it on a certain night. His scenario is not lame at all (to me).

Sport/cheating... only in competition does someone get bent out of shape about cheating. I hunt for big antlers but care nothing about if they are bigger or smaller than what someone else shoots. I suspect drycreek hunts for his own reasons also which doesn't concern others.

In principle seasons should be structured around biology. Less successful methods should be given more time/season, more successful methods should be more confined. Total harvest should be managed through knowing these methods and their effectiveness. If cell cams are making hunters more successful then a regulation should change to account for it. But how difficult it is for an individual to fill their tag does not affect me personally.

 

[Mennoniteman]

This is an interesting discussion, one I like to follow to stay current with popular opinion and differing viewpoints, especially because people's viewpoints is what drives new laws that might directly affect my own activities.
On a gamecam bunny trail, one thing that's been happening in Pennsylvania is multiple murderers hiding in the woods have been apprehended with the help of gamecam pics, so hunters are doing general society a service through providing security surveillance in the woods. It's interesting that multiple states are passing laws against game cameras when cameras is kindof the age we live in, and can make the world a safer place, nowadays if you leave the house you're probably on camera somewhere. Technology is here to stay and it's going to be hard to put it back into the box and pretend it's not here.
To illustrate how diverse each individuals opinions can be: While I'm somewhat neutral on game cameras, I'd be very much in favor of banning bait piles but of course, I'd be very unhappy if wildlife foods plots were banned at the same time. I'm in favor of the unpopular position of banning ar15's, but not in favor of banning bolt action repeaters. Id like to move opening day back to Monday, shut down Sunday hunting, and make crossbow illegal again, although I use one, go figure...
So the laws lining up with exactly what I and everybody eles wants is probably an impossibility that's not going to happen. We each have one vote, one voice, and one opinion. And I'm good if it's not exactly my own flavor of choice, I will obey the law without grumbling, and sometimes not operate at the fullest extent of the law if I don't morrally approve of it.

 

[yoderjac]

Dry that's a pretty lame assessment. It's not fair chase and you can't defend it. It needs to be outlawed 30 days prior to the end of the season. That's why it is a sport and actually one being ruined by trail cams. I saw a post of a small buck a guy shot with the same buck two nights at the same time in a row at a bait pile and third night low and behold he shot it at the same time and bait pile. . Wtf is fair chase about it? That being said ffs and side imaging in fishing needs to go as well. Basically it's the llaziness of today's society, instant gratification. Why scout when you can cheat? Ever think about how anti hunters feel about it when your in the 20 % Brackett.

Absolutely! It's got to go! Let's get rid of high magnification scopes as well! And while we are at it, I high powered rifle lets folks reach out 300+ yards, that is certainly not fair. I doubt a deer can see or smell me at that range....Now that I think about it, perhaps we should get rid of modern firearms as well, a muzzleloader seems more fair...but not one of those fancy schmancy in-lines. Even cap and ball seems a bit much firing most of the time we pull the trigger. Flintlocks might be the way to go. At least the delay between the trigger pull and firing gives the deer a chance to run away. But is it really fair that we can reach out that far? Perhaps fair chase is limited to bows...but not those fancy bows with training wheels, just recurves...or maybe just stick bows are fair chase...

Hopefully you get my point here. Fair chase is generally ensuring that at least 50% of the time, the animal escapes and we don't make a harvest. I have got to say that I use a lot of technology when I hunt. For me, it is an ethical choice. I harvest deer on a very small fraction of my hunts, and I hunt a lot. I just taught a Hunter Education class yesterday. It was opening day of archery, and instead of sitting in a treestand, I was teaching Ethics. For me, wounding and not recovering deer is very problematic. If I shoot at an animal, I want to maximize my chances of recovery. That is why I choose the technology I choose.

Technology can be used in an ethical or unethical way. For example I have a Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) device. I use it for several things. I don't use it to shoot deer. For me that would be an unethical choice. I do use it to protect my archery stands from discovery. For example, when it is getting dark enough that my shots are getting iffy, I scan around to make sure there are no deer in the area and get down. If I see deer in the area, I sit in the stand until well after dark before coming down. The primary way I uses it is to help me recover deer I have shot. To me that is an ethical choice showing respect for the animal.

It is good that we, as hunters, discuss our ethics, as long as it is done respectfully, and we each understand that others may have a different ethical standard than we have. If you sleep well at night with the choices you make, you are doing fine. We are best to provide grace to those who have a different ethic than we have.