[Clarq]

http://www.ndow.org/Our_Agency/News/Articles/New_Trail_Camera_Regulation_Now_in_Effect/

Nevada's new regulation essentially bans the use of trail cameras on public land during hunting season (August 1 through December 31).

Excessive, or reasonable?

Is something similar coming to Utah any time soon?

 

[DallanC]

For sure. I called it on drones a decade before the ban.



I'm just wondering when they will enforce a ban on smartphones when hunting due to them able to be used as "light amplification devices". I can download an app on my current samsung phone that turns off IR filtering (phone manufacturers removed physical IR filters years ago from phone cameras), allowing for night vision imaging. Stick that phone on a spotter with the app turned on... wala: tracking animals at night.




-DallanC

 

[CPAjeff]

On the surface, I like the ban. However, and at the risk of being redundant, there is a difference between knowing when and where an animals travels, waters, eats, and/or sleeps and having everything line up for a person to kill the animal. Arizona did something similar - no trail camera within 1/4 mile of developed water sources.

 

[taxidermist]

I think it's a good thing. Using technology (trail cams, night vision, etc.) I believe is NOT considered "Fair Chase". It's like, your neighbor across the street checking your significant other out with the spotting scope. Just saying...…… That's my two bitts worth.

 

[3arabians]

On the surface, I like the ban. However, and at the risk of being redundant, there is a difference between knowing when and where an animals travels, waters, eats, and/or sleeps and having everything line up for a person to kill the animal. Arizona did something similar - no trail camera within 1/4 mile of developed water sources.

Agreed. Even if you showed up at first light to your cam and caught a pic of the trophy you're after an hour before first light - well, can you see him now? Ya, you feel better about your chances and that would be neat but I think the advantage is slight.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

 

[Packout]

I think in some cases the advantage is significant. In dry areas- where water congregates critters, it is almost unfair. Cams with cell coverage can notify the owner within minutes with pics. And the tech will only get better.

A guy who hangs 2 or 3 cameras isn't an impact. 1000 guys hanging 2 or 3 cameras is- let alone the guys hanging 100+ cameras. In some areas every buck or bull is photoed. If they didn't work, people wouldn't use them they way we do now.

I have a couple trail cams and enjoy looking at pics. I can say 100% they help target animals. Been hanging cams for 15+ years. Can't say it would break my heart to have some sort of restriction on cams.

And Arizona either has or is considering banning their use within 1/4 mile of water sources. There are so many cams in some areas that visits of people to check their own is causing serious problems.

 

[Springville Shooter]

This is a great start. Now they need to outlaw the use of all electronic devices for scouting, pursuing, or taking game animals. Hopefully laser rangefinders are next on the list. ——SS

 

[mtnrunner260]

How will it be enforced? Will NDOW employees be issued bolt cutters? Wonder how many vigilantes will stockpile cameras and say they are helping.

 

[Critter]

You don't need bolt cutters anymore. Battery operated cutoff tools work a lot better.

I would imagine that if one is found and reported then the owner will loose it.

I would also like to see them require the cameras to be registered. The fee just needs to be enough to offset the cost of it. That way if one is found they will know who owns it. Perhaps a registration like Utah does on it's bear baiting sites where you have to apply for a location to put one up.

 

[DallanC]

They should be registered like traps need to be with owner contact info on the trap.




-DallanC

 

[High Desert Elk]

Would a trail cam on USFS be the same thing as a camp, groundblind, or treestand where it has to be moved every 14 days?

 

[sheepassassin]

I think to a certain point, cams can give you an advantage when hunting in the right scenario...

Last year while scouting for my dads LE hunt, I put a cam on a wallow that always has bigger bulls on it during the summer, but never really a very good cow or spike area until later in the fall. On day 4 of the archery hunt, I decided to go into this area and check the cam to see what bulls were still in there. I usually don’t take my bow when I check this area, but decided to “just in case”. All summer long I hadn’t got pics of a single cow or spike in there. When I got there around 4:30 pm, and checked my pics, I’d noticed that the last 3 night’s prior, a spike had showed up at the same time, 5:15ish, to hit the salt and water. So I jumped in the stand just to see what happened. Sure enough, 5:15 I saw him walk down the trail and right into the water. I wouldn’t have ever killed that spike if it wasn’t for a camera to tell on him...

So they can give an advantage, but not to the point where hundreds or thousands of animals are dying, only because of them

 

[GaryFish]

The thing I see is, and I've seen it on this board with regularity, if a guy has a cam out there, and follows a specific animal with it through the year, he seems to assume some kind of entitlement or de-facto ownership of the it. And if someone else harvests it during hunting season, they get all pissed off and cry foul. "I've been following that buck all year, just look at my trail cam pics, and this dude shows up opening morning and shoots it from the road. That was MY buck!" And then you've got a fight on your hands.

Rules like this are almost NEVER put in place because of overharvest or to protect the animals. Rules like this are put into place because a lot of hunters are total A-holes, and can't get along. So when I read this, I read "Too many A-Holes with Trail Cams being jerks!"

As 21st Century poet Taylor Swift once said, "This is why we can't have nice things."

 

[CAExpat]

Rules like this are put into place because a lot of hunters are total A-holes, and can't get along. So when I read this, I read "Too many A-Holes with Trail Cams being jerks!"

Precisely, and i'm sure the state was sick of hearing all the whining about it. I'm completely fine with it, it has nothing to do with any ethical argument etc. I used to be addicted to cameras, and you know what, I did enjoy it. I loved seeing big bulls and bucks in July/August. Guess what they do in October? They disappear!:grin:

 

[BPturkeys]

Don't worry about loosing your trail cams, if need be, a few well placed brides to our legislators from camera manufactures with the usual argument that the economy will be hurt and we will hurt the "job creators", etc, and laws will be passed to protect the use and even encourage the use of trail cams. This is the Utah way, remember?

 

[DallanC]

Don't worry about loosing your trail cams, if need be, a few well placed brides to our legislators from camera manufactures with the usual argument that the economy will be hurt and we will hurt the "job creators", etc, and laws will be passed to protect the use and even encourage the use of trail cams. This is the Utah way, remember?

Brides? We are back to 1800's politics eh? :mrgreen:

-DallanC

 

[katorade]

Trail cameras are getting out of hand imo, but as with everything more rules will just hurt the honest guy.'

 

[katorade]

And heck what happens if they make trail cameras get pulled by AUG. 1st. and you're lazy like me and wait till winter to pull half of them. Would this mean I'd have to get off my butt and go get them all when it's hot... Gah….

 

[DallanC]

Radio trackers will be next. Saw a thing on tv recently that scientists have trackers so small they put some on Monarch Butterfly's to track how far they can cover in a day during their migration. That's pretty darn amazing technology.



A guy could place some in super sticky glue along game trails that would stick to hair like ticks. Its coming soon if not already happening.





-DallanC

 

[middlefork]

I'm pretty sure the powers that be can't pass laws fast enough to stay ahead of technology.