# Utah Wildlife Board meets tomorrow (March 10) for trail camera hearing



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

I realize that tomorrow's trail camera hearing is already being discussed in a couple of threads, but I wanted to post a quick reminder of the meeting details.

The Utah Wildlife Board will meet tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. at the Eccles Wildlife Education Center (1157 South Waterfowl Way in Farmington). The meeting agenda explains the purpose of the hearing and provides details about the public comment process. Board members have already received — and responded to — many emails on this topic. 

We will be livestreaming the meeting for those who want to watch or listen to it.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Thanks Amy!

I know people opposed to the ban are going - is anyone from here planning on attending?


----------



## RemingtonCountry (Feb 17, 2016)

I wish I could, but it looks like a great turnout from the public!

EDIT - Looks like 73 public comment cards.


----------



## Isuckathunting (Sep 15, 2019)

I wasn't able to get work off but I'm streaming it. I didn't realize SFW was so anti trail camera. That's interesting. Love seeing all the guys in hushin gear get up and say that a trail camera doesn't help them kill anything but they better not ban them because it makes them happy to run cameras.


----------



## Ecpk91 (Jun 13, 2018)

It is very interesting listening to the comments, Several comments stated that we "Need to respect the animals" or Fair chase." While there is no actual proof that a trail camera increases harvests all we really have is opinion. The same argument about trail cameras being an unfair advantage can be made about rifles and scopes that allow a hunter to take an animal from 800 to 1000 yards away. How is that fair chase when a hunter can sit so far away and watch two bulls engaging in a fight then decide to shoot the bigger one when they finish? Is that ethical or fair chase? did the use of that technology give that hunter an unfair advantage? The bulls had no idea they were being watched from that distance. Is that giving respect to the animal? I do not rifle hunt at all. I am simply saying if restrictions apply to one source of technology then lets look at all technology and apply the same perspective. Can you imagine if they actually restricted rifles and scopes? We would have all these rifle hunters up in arms. Does the rifle technology and scope technology now available give the hunter an unfair advantage?..... to quote one speaker "absolutely."


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

emotions are overriding logic. It's interesting.

"since when do we make decisions not based on science, but based on social issues?"


ummm.....for a long time. Should we cite current fishing regulations on the Middle Provo river??



But, the best arguments so far? "don't take this away from our kids!"


----------



## Ecpk91 (Jun 13, 2018)

Love that guy who just spoke on the fair chase definitions!!!!


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

'but but....think about the children!!!' 

Pretty sure the kidos can still use their daddies trail cameras to get pics for half the year or better. Even little league soccer has a season!


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Finally -- someone that's honest! "A blank SD card is just as important as a card full of 200" deer".


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I've never seen a group of people work so dang hard to keep a practice going that does nothing to help them. It's odd...


----------



## Ecpk91 (Jun 13, 2018)

In reality I doubt anything changes. It's actually amazing anyone gets along, but then again it seems we get along best when individuals share the same opinion. And when people don't we resent, hold bitterness, get angry and even hate when someone thinks different.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Ecpk91 said:


> In reality I doubt anything changes. It's actually amazing anyone gets along, but then again it seems we get along best when individuals share the same opinion. And when people don't we resent, hold bitterness, get angry and even hate when someone thinks different.


I can promise that I don't resent, hold bitterness towards, or get angry at anyone based upon their position when it comes to trail cameras. I certainly have seen what you are talking about, however.


----------



## Isuckathunting (Sep 15, 2019)

This is like trail camera testimony meeting.


----------



## RemingtonCountry (Feb 17, 2016)

I wish someone would mention that the board members have literally received death threats from the general public over this thing..


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I put out 100 trail camera but have never shot a animal that was on any of them. 

I just use them to get my kids evolved in hunting seams to be the most common comment.


----------



## Ecpk91 (Jun 13, 2018)

"Trail Camera Testimony meeting" Best comment ever!! Nothing is being presented to change the law as it sits. I use camera's, I feel it is the same as driving up and using a spotting scope, I hike 3-5 miles into certain areas to place my camera's. I feel I put in the miles probably more so then a spotting scope or binocular guy. There is a reason I have never had another hunter appear on my camera's, they aren't willing to hike in where I do. I check my cameras every week, I have found numerous springs and water sources, some I have created to hold water better believing it provides better drinking for animals as it then takes longer to dry up when it is hot. In my experience my trail camera's gave me as much advantage as a guy with a spotting scope who spent thousands on that scope, I spent $79.95 on the camera and bought batteries, I still hike and move spots like the spotting scope guy, we both used the form of technology that we enjoyed and gave us both an advantage.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I like the guy speaking now, trail camera helped me loose weight......


----------



## Ecpk91 (Jun 13, 2018)

Now if we really want to regulate what affects wildlife... I am of the opinion we regulate sheep and cattle, instead of just dropping them off and owing down the mountain from top to bottom, destroying water sources, lets set a season when they should be off the mountain, I propose they be removed July 15 from the mountain range. Has anyone seen what sheep can do to the landscape? this has a huge affect on wildlife more so then a camera.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I propose we ban cell phones during hunting, as "light amplification devices". Cell phones digi-scoped to a spotting scope, easily amplify images in failing or dark light. Really no difference between that and a cheap night-vision devices, in fact with the new phones you can have great image quality... at night. Get a FLIR capable phone, now you can see heat "hot spots" on the mountain side, even through brush.










-DallanC


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

It's been ironic for me to listen to the comments about involving the youth and getting them hooked on hunting/the outdoors. The vast majority of the adults in that room started hunting well before trail cams were made available to the common public . . . how on earth did they start hunting and stay hooked, as a youth, without trail cams???


----------



## Ecpk91 (Jun 13, 2018)

CPA Jeff, youth are involved now because Dad's sell it like playing a reality video game.


----------



## MuleDeer123 (Dec 20, 2021)

I think it's nice to see the Wildlife Board appears to be heading towards standing its ground on this one. I think limiting trail camera use is just fine.


----------



## MuleDeer123 (Dec 20, 2021)

Motion passed, and the regulations on trail cameras stays in place.


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

Did I miss something?
Is there a rule somewhere that a parent can’t take a kid out and sit/watch with a normal camera and not have to have retrieving an SD card be the be all/end all goal?
I promise that a close up picture of wild game taken with a regular camera in your hands is MUCH more rewarding than having a little plastic box do it for you.
Plus, no season on using a regular camera!


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I thought it was a good meeting. If nothing else everyone should listen to the first part before public comments begins. I think the threshold for an appeal is too low and hope it changes. I think it is much more important to understand the process than agree or disagree with the results.

And I certainly don't agree with threats to the board members or their families.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

MrShane said:


> Did I miss something?
> Is there a rule somewhere that a parent can’t take a kid out and sit/watch with a normal camera and not have to have retrieving an SD card be the be all/end all goal?
> I promise that a close up picture of wild game taken with a regular camera in your hands is MUCH more rewarding than having a little plastic box do it for you.
> Plus, no season on using a regular camera!


You did not miss that rule. In fact, there is not even a rule saying a parent can’t take their kids out 7 months a year and look at trail cams!

If your kids get interest through trail cams, awesome! Keep doing it up until July 31. If you share pics of animals running around the LE unit to your sick father for his enjoyment, please keep doing it! All the way up to July 31.

The hobby camera people who claim to get no benefit in helping them kill animals shouldn’t be impacted by this at all outside of taking them down and resetting them rather than leaving them out all year. If they aren’t helping anyway, then no big deal not using them once the hunts start. Right?


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

I can still use my cameras before and during Turkey season. I’m happy! Honestly, could care less if they had a complete ban on them year round, I hate feeling like I’m being watched constantly in the backwoods. You can’t take a piss without wondering who’s camera is snapping photos.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> I've never seen a group of people work so dang hard to keep a practice going that does nothing to help them. It's odd...


This was my thought as well and has been for some time given the arguments made for them. I'm glad it's motivated people to get in the mountains, involve youth, get lovely pictures of animals in their natural state, lose their chubby legs, revitalize their love for hunting and encourage them to invest resources into their hobby, etc, etc, etc. The truth is they can continue to do all of those things and even use trail cameras to do it. It just happens to have a season now. I do feel sorry for the poor dude who can't afford to get all of his cameras off the mountain by July 31st with gas prices as high as they are. Of course I don't know what value his cameras will provide since he probably can't afford to drive to see what's on them either.

The reality is cameras do aid in locating game. If we can't fly an area for 48 hours prior to or following a hunt, how is a camera much different. It tells me if an animal is in an area. If I place my cameras in the right way, I may be able to determine what trails it is using to move from bedding to feeding and watering areas and what time it's typically moving. I can see if its habits are changing leading up to the hunt. I can hunt one area and locate it in another if it has moved. Quite frankly, if this were just guys running a half dozen cameras it probably wouldn't be an issue. But those with the most to gain are running hundreds of cameras all year long. 

They are also becoming a nuisance. I can't even take a piss anymore without looking around to be sure I'm not on somebody's camera. Watering holes and wallows are often covered with dozens of cameras. Some just there to make sure they get a picture of whoever is stealing cards and cameras.

I'm glad to see the board held their position. As was stated before the public comment period began, this wasn't about biological issues. This is a social issue. Technology comes with lot's of implications and I'm glad to see that the UDWR is taking these issues seriously and creating policy to deal with them.


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

I ran a camera last year on my bear hunt and never lost my chubby legs.
Maybe I should not have dipped in to Yogi’s day old donut payload….


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

The decision was already made before the meeting. 
Letting people make comments was only a formality. Good or bad choice to ban or not, depending on a person's opinion. 
I have enjoyed my 2 or 3 cameras for a lot of years. 
Fun to see the different animals and birds that run around. Esp the nocturnal ones.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

2full said:


> The decision was already made before the meeting.
> Letting people make comments was only a formality.


This is probably true. In fact, it was made at the last meeting and the loophole the big outfitters used to get this appeal meeting in place probably rubbed most of the board the wrong way because they didn't want this meeting today anyway. Another miscalculation by a group that is used to getting anything and everything they want for some time now, and likely not used to being told "no" at the moment. 

Honestly, I was more concerned about the cell transmitting cameras than anything. And I have my opinions on how little this regulation is going to actually do to cameras in the woods this fall. (Meaning, next to no difference at all) I'm not sure what the answers here are, but if we continue to try and push technology to the fullest, we'll continue to see more regulations come of that. That is just how the world works, and hunting is no different. Control yourself, or be controlled. That is a principle as old as mankind itself.


----------



## Jenx13 (Aug 24, 2015)

After all is said and done, the Wildlife Board left UDWR with a big education project. This is to educate all who are in the field this fall that cameras are not banned if you are not using them for taking or aid in taking of animals. It is not up to the hunter to destroy or malign a camera they find. There will be recreation cameras that are indeed not used for hunting.


----------



## elkhunterUT (Jan 21, 2008)

Jenx13 said:


> After all is said and done, the Wildlife Board left UDWR with a big education project. This is to educate all who are in the field this fall that cameras are not banned if you are not using them for taking or aid in taking of animals. It is not up to the hunter to destroy or malign a camera they find. There will be recreation cameras that are indeed not used for hunting.


I agree with you, but good luck with that. I am sure there will be many with the attitude of "If I can't do it, no one else is going to either" who will destroy every camera they come in contact with.


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

Jenx13 said:


> After all is said and done, the Wildlife Board left UDWR with a big education project. This is to educate all who are in the field this fall that cameras are not banned if you are not using them for taking or aid in taking of animals. It is not up to the hunter to destroy or malign a camera they find. There will be recreation cameras that are indeed not used for hunting.


No doubt some will try and side step this new rule with their perceived gray area interpretation of what a trail camera can be used for. 

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

I just finished watching the final portion of the meeting where the board made their comments. I really like how the board handled this situation!


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Im just gonna go on record here and say this. Im happy with the law and the vote and will have all my hunting cams pulled down by mid June this year with no intention of placing them up for big game hunting purposes ever again (unless a new rule is made or amended), however… there is 1 camera in central utah on the west side of I-15 that I cannot get off the tree because I’m an idiot, double 4” lag bolted a 10 gauge steel box to a tree and used a really fancy anti theft lock on it (shady dudes have been known to frequent this area. More like a wolf pack if you will), and I lost the key to it. It’s been up since June 9, 2019 and has my number written on it. Smash it, shoot it, hit it with a rock, call me to tell me what you think of me in ‘your’ spot (love those phone calls) I don’t care. It’s gone and I can’t get it back. I’ve tried. Sorry to those whom I might offend with my littering and irresponsible/unethical behavior, but it is what it is.

anyways, just trying to CMA, since so many are too worried about what others are doing and make it clear on what my ‘intent’ was for that particular camera.

carry on.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

CPAjeff said:


> I just finished watching the final portion of the meeting where the board made their comments. I really like how the board handled this situation!


This. If everybody watched the first 20 minutes or so they would understand how this went down. I'm sure that some will go ahead a criticize the process but seeing everything that goes on I think pretty much every opinion was represented.

If you agree with the outcome or not please become familiar with the process. This is only the beginning of what may be coming down technology wise. If you care follow the agendas and packets posted on the DWR site. Make your opinion heard during the comment periods for the RAC and WB meetings. If nothing else this meeting showed how few people it takes to sway an outcome.


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

MooseMeat said:


> Im just gonna go on record here and say this. Im happy with the law and the vote and will have all my hunting cams pulled down by mid June this year with no intention of placing them up for big game hunting purposes ever again (unless a new rule is made or amended), however… there is 1 camera in central utah on the west side of I-15 that I cannot get off the tree because I’m an idiot, double 4” lag bolted a 10 gauge steel box to a tree and used a really fancy anti theft lock on it (shady dudes have been known to frequent this area. More like a wolf pack if you will), and I lost the key to it. It’s been up since June 9, 2019 and has my number written on it. Smash it, shoot it, hit it with a rock, call me to tell me what you think of me in ‘your’ spot (love those phone calls) I don’t care. It’s gone and I can’t get it back. I’ve tried. Sorry to those whom I might offend with my littering and irresponsible/unethical behavior, but it is what it is.
> 
> anyways, just trying to CMA, since so many are too worried about what others are doing and make it clear on what my ‘intent’ was for that particular camera.
> 
> carry on.


Need to borrow a chainsaw?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

A battery operated grinder with a cutoff blade should work









20V Cordless 4-1/2 in. Slide Switch Angle Grinder - Tool Only


Amazing deals on this 20V Cordless 4-1/2In Grinder Tool Only at Harbor Freight. Quality tools & low prices.




www.harborfreight.com





Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## Slockem (Nov 29, 2016)

I got a lot of issues with regulating trail cameras. 1. The wildlife board should stick to their job and figure out how many big game animals we should be harvesting. If trail cameras are causing harvest rates to be too high, then lower the number of tags. That is your job, not to regulate hunting methods. 2. If trail cams give us an unfair advantage why doesn't the wildlife board eliminate guided hunts on public land? If I can't run my trail cameras year round because it gives me an unfair advantage over animals and other hunters why is it legal for rich, and most likely less passionate hunters, to hire and pay guides to find and kill the best animals on our public lands. 3. I need less government in my life telling me what to do and how to do it, restrict my trail cams this year, what is next...there will be a next. I think people that don't have trail cameras, or don't want to run trail cameras, and that are bothered by getting their picture taken out in the woods, are glad they're gone, but I think their happiness will come with a cost. The bigger picture is, more government, bigger government, and anti hunters just got their foot a little farther into our world. I don't think a bunch of passionate hunter started movement to restrict trail cameras, I think people that don't like hunting got this started, maybe some hunters that saw guides killing big animals on the their limited entry hunts, but get rid of the guides, not our rights to use our public lands. Hopefully the regulation that are imposed in the future continue to agree with all the anti trail camera people out there.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Slockem said:


> ...and anti hunters just got their foot a little farther into our world.


I got a dressing down by a feisty lad for thinking [and saying] this same type of thing and how outside interest groups and influential people can have an impact of what a state does.

So, tread lightly. Just sayin'...


----------



## Ecpk91 (Jun 13, 2018)

I have to laugh at the dudes who keep saying I can't take a piss wondering who might be taking my photo, to me this is the same argument of I do it for my kids. I run cameras since 2009 and have yet to have a dude taking a pee in front of my camera, have yet to get anyone on camera. I also agree with the post above about regulations, in this day and age of "equality" just wait more will be coming, whats the difference in a camera use and gun and scope technology? Not much, is that next? If like snider and others stated about respect and fair chase are limits and regulations on guns, scopes, bows coming down the line? If we really want to find out what is having the biggest impact on wildlife study cattle and sheep impact on the mountains, limit those things I would bet numbers increase in mule deer and elk. Boone and Crokett define fair chase as 

"*FAIR CHASE,* as defined by the Boone and Crockett Club, is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper or unfair advantage over the game animals."

Maybe it is time to address the capability of a rifle and scope to blast an unsuspecting animal from 800 to 1000 plus yards away, is that fair chase? A buddy of mine last year sat on one ridge with his elderly father, pulled out a lawn chair and watched two large bulls fight, ended up shooting the winner at 783 yards away, the bull didn't even suspect he was being watched (probably took a piss too). Is that fair chase as defined by Boone and Crockett? Could his dad have made the shot open sight? Doubt it as he had a hard time seeing the animals without his technologically advanced scope. 

I have a solution... all those with the last name starting in A through J can only hunt Monday through Wednesdays, K through Z Thursday through Saturday, no hunting allowed Sundays we give the animals a day of rest. Maybe that is the next regulation so we don't have too many on the mountains all at once.


----------



## Brookie (Oct 26, 2008)

Ecpk91, there are a lot less cows and sheep on the mountain today than 30 years ago, not the problem, but what has changed is the technology, I agree we should limit it. For example In every sport I follow rules or technology has been adjusted, because of new tech.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Slockem, I think you misunderstand what the wildlife board’s job is. It is to do what the legislature tells it to do. The wildlife board was created by the legislature to be closer to the issues to better manage wildlife in Utah and in a more efficient way than through an annual legislative session from Jan-March each year. But the wildlife board can ONLY do what the legislature gives it power to do through statute.

In the 2021 legislative session, the legislature passed a law requiring the wildlife board to come up with rules governing the use of trail cams. So by very definition, the wildlife board was doing their jobs as defined in state law by coming up with rules on trail cams.

You and I may not like the rules they came up with, but this very much was their job to do this. They had no choice. The law said they had to.

This is probably why I’m the most disappointed in Utah hunters and how they’ve responded to the board. As a society we’ve gone and lost our collective minds. People sending threats to board members over this? Harassing them? We as sportsmen used to be better than this, and it’s really disappointing that we still are not. The entitlement involved here is shocking and disappointing.


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

Slockem said:


> I got a lot of issues with regulating trail cameras. 1. The wildlife board should stick to their job and figure out how many big game animals we should be harvesting. If trail cameras are causing harvest rates to be too high, then lower the number of tags. That is your job, not to regulate hunting methods. 2. If trail cams give us an unfair advantage why doesn't the wildlife board eliminate guided hunts on public land? If I can't run my trail cameras year round because it gives me an unfair advantage over animals and other hunters why is it legal for rich, and most likely less passionate hunters, to hire and pay guides to find and kill the best animals on our public lands. 3. I need less government in my life telling me what to do and how to do it, restrict my trail cams this year, what is next...there will be a next. I think people that don't have trail cameras, or don't want to run trail cameras, and that are bothered by getting their picture taken out in the woods, are glad they're gone, but I think their happiness will come with a cost. The bigger picture is, more government, bigger government, and anti hunters just got their foot a little farther into our world. I don't think a bunch of passionate hunter started movement to restrict trail cameras, I think people that don't like hunting got this started, maybe some hunters that saw guides killing big animals on the their limited entry hunts, but get rid of the guides, not our rights to use our public lands. Hopefully the regulation that are imposed in the future continue to agree with all the anti trail camera people out there.


I hope more regulations on technology are coming.
I want more tags available, not less!


----------



## silentstalker (Feb 19, 2008)

O yay! I can’t wait to see the vast improvement of our deer herds due to this vital law change! 

What a complete waste of time and even more important, tax dollars wasted on this topic. 

Why don’t we get back to science based wildlife management and help our herds? 

I’m neither for or against this ban. I only have 2 cameras that I don’t use much unless I’m spring bear baiting. But, come on. There are much bigger issues to the herds than cameras. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> This is probably why I’m the most disappointed in Utah hunters and how they’ve responded to the board. As a society we’ve gone and lost our collective minds. People sending threats to board members over this? Harassing them? We as sportsmen used to be better than this, and it’s really disappointing that we still are not. The entitlement involved here is shocking and disappointing.


One shouldn't be surprised. Have you seen school board meetings, city council hearings, legislative sessions recently? This seems par for the course and the outfitter/trophy crowd is not used to being told *no* by people they figured were in their pockets.


----------



## jewbacca (Jan 27, 2020)

Fowlmouth said:


> I can still use my cameras before and during Turkey season. I’m happy! Honestly, could care less if they had a complete ban on them year round, I hate feeling like I’m being watched constantly in the backwoods. You can’t take a piss without wondering who’s camera is snapping photos.


Look about before whipping it out! 

Well, not July-December, I suppose.


----------



## jewbacca (Jan 27, 2020)

Slockem said:


> I got a lot of issues with regulating trail cameras. 1. The wildlife board should stick to their job and figure out how many big game animals we should be harvesting. If trail cameras are causing harvest rates to be too high, then lower the number of tags. That is your job, not to regulate hunting methods.


Your argument is you'd rather have trail cameras but fewer tags??? I'd much rather see "advantages" restricted and keep tag output high. 

But I'll throw out my $0.02 fwiw. I don't care much either way on this ruling. Cameras capable of live transmitting make me uncomfortable, so I'm happy to see them go. I don't see an issue with regular trail cams. I ran one cam last season, and I'd be a liar if I said it didn't help me in my scouting efforts and ultimately in filling my tag. The elk I killed never showed up on my trail cam, but so what? That argument is a red herring. It provided plenty of visual confirmation that the area I was focusing on would give me a decent chance of success, which ultimately factored into my planning from start to finish of the hunt.

Of course I'm a little disappointed I don't get to leave my cam up. The pics I got were awesome. My kids loved them, and we had a great time looking them over together. But there are other ways I can get them involved and excited about the outdoors and hunting.

I would have preferred a middle ground in banning only transmitting cams. But how can I argue against the ruling? If it makes success rates drop, is that a bad thing? If it doesn't, what does it matter?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Catherder said:


> One shouldn't be surprised. Have you seen school board meetings, city council hearings, legislative sessions recently? This seems par for the course and the outfitter/trophy crowd is not used to being told *no* by people they figured were in their pockets.



I am not surprised, unfortunately. The entitlement era of society is at its all-time peak. What is surprising is which groups have become the most entitled whiners.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

even though this whiny azzhat Matt Klar from the northern RAC got his way on the vote, threatening anything due to the outcome of a decision is NOT ok, especially when he’s in a position to represent the PEOPLE and not himself. He needs to resign anyways. We don’t need or want a cry baby, ‘My way or no way’ type person representing us.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

For those who don't think this issue should demand the Wildlife Boards attention, what exactly do you think the responsibility of the board is? This is exactly what the board was formed to accomplish...to tackle both biological and social issues regarding hunting.

Technology is impacting every facet of our lives now. We have to address it's impact within the hunting community. 

This particular issue was force on the board by the legislature and fortunately we had the opportunity to voice our thoughts. The bill could have passed at the state legislative session with no input from sportsmen at all.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

People miss the point of the "biggest and most deer where in the 60s when we had plenty of sheep and cattle on the mountain" ... that point is they used 1080 ruthlessly to kill all predators in those areas. It wasn't having sheep or cattle by them selves mattered much, it was the predator control that went along with it benefiting sheep, cattle, as well as deer, elk, moose, pronghorn etc etc.

Sucked to be a bear or a mt lion hunter during that time though.

-DallanC


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

MooseMeat said:


> even though this whiny azzhat Matt Klar from the northern RAC got his way on the vote, threatening anything due to the outcome of a decision is NOT ok, especially when he’s in a position to represent the PEOPLE and not himself. He needs to resign anyways. We don’t need or want a cry baby, ‘My way or no way’ type person representing us.
> View attachment 151406


Didn’t see this. What happened?


----------



## elkhunterUT (Jan 21, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> Didn’t see this. What happened?


He threatened to resign from his position on the Northern RAC if the Board reversed their decision.


----------



## silentstalker (Feb 19, 2008)

elkhunterUT said:


> He threatened to resign from his position on the Northern RAC if the Board reversed their decision.


He should resign. What a baby. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

DallanC said:


> People miss the point of the "biggest and most deer where in the 60s when we had plenty of sheep and cattle on the mountain" ... that point is they used 1080 ruthlessly to kill all predators in those areas. It wasn't having sheep or cattle by them selves mattered much, it was the predator control that went along with it benefiting sheep, cattle, as well as deer, elk, moose, pronghorn etc etc.
> 
> Sucked to be a bear or a mt lion hunter during that time though.
> 
> -DallanC


Amen.
That is why I wished we copied Idaho in that any hunter can ‘cash’ in your deer tag on a Bear or Cat during deer season.
Win/win/win.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

silentstalker said:


> He should resign. What a baby.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The members in that region need to call him out and request his resignation.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

taxidermist said:


> The members in that region need to call him out and request his resignation.


His email is 

[email protected]


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

elkhunterUT said:


> He threatened to resign from his position on the Northern RAC if the Board reversed their decision.





silentstalker said:


> He should resign. What a baby.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





taxidermist said:


> The members in that region need to call him out and request his resignation.





MooseMeat said:


> His email is
> 
> [email protected]


Sorry I don't see any of you stepping up. Sorry if I missed it.
He didn't understand the appeal process along with a few members of the board. Go figure.

Who's signing up? Anybody going to take the abuse? I have a hard time imagining people stepping up to put up with any of this BS. Some of you genius's need to put your body where your mouth is.

There should be no threats on either side of the fence. Problem being most don't don't seem to have a filter anymore.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Online anonymity has a lot to do with people acting foolish, talking nonstop smack, threatening others with differing opinion. If folks name, address, and phone number were tied to every online message in the world this non sense would be cleaned up post haste. Oh well--I guess it's better than burning people at the stake but still sucks.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

middlefork said:


> Sorry I don't see any of you stepping up. Sorry if I missed it.
> He didn't understand the appeal process along with a few members of the board. Go figure.
> 
> Who's signing up? Anybody going to take the abuse? I have a hard time imagining people stepping up to put up with any of this BS. Some of you genius's need to put your body where your mouth is.
> ...


Put me on the central RAC. I don’t know how to get on there, but im more than willing to step up. Tell me the process, someone nominate me or whatever it takes. I’ll happily play a part in this. Although my opinions won’t be popular with the majority, but im certain my views align with many.


----------



## deerlevi (Oct 10, 2021)

MooseMeat said:


> Put me on the central RAC. I don’t know how to get on there, but im more than willing to step up. Tell me the process, someone nominate me or whatever it takes. I’ll happily play a part in this. Although my opinions won’t be popular with the majority, but im certain my views align with many.


This is from last year, but if a position opens up the process will likely be the same.





__





Apply to be on a Regional Advisory Council and help decide how wildlife is managed in Utah


If you are interested in Utah's wildlife and how species are managed, several positions will soon be opening on four of the five Regional Advisory Councils that share public feedback with the Utah Wildlife Board.




wildlife.utah.gov


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

MooseMeat said:


> Put me on the central RAC. I don’t know how to get on there, but im more than willing to step up. Tell me the process, someone nominate me or whatever it takes. I’ll happily play a part in this. Although my opinions won’t be popular with the majority, but im certain my views align with many.


Here you go. Get after it.





Apply for RACs


After June 30, 2021, there will be six vacancies in four Regional Advisory Councils. If you would like to nominate someone for one or more of these positions, please complete the RAC member nomination form by 11:59 p.m. on April 30, 2021.




wildlife.utah.gov





There are very few individuals who will step up to be publicly scrutinized to be trashed or threatened. Personally I appreciate that they are willing to do it. Just because they have an opinion that doesn't relate to another persons agenda doesn't mean it is not vald.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

middlefork said:


> Here you go. Get after it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I’ll be sure to apply when it’s open. I’ve been publicly scrutinized, trashed and threatened for over 10 years. Online, in person and over the phone. That doesn’t bother me. Im not owned by anyone or answer to anyone (expect my wife). I’d be happy to represent the “average” hunter and I’d be honored to be on the RAC if selected to do so.


----------



## silentstalker (Feb 19, 2008)

middlefork said:


> Sorry I don't see any of you stepping up. Sorry if I missed it.
> He didn't understand the appeal process along with a few members of the board. Go figure.
> 
> Who's signing up? Anybody going to take the abuse? I have a hard time imagining people stepping up to put up with any of this BS. Some of you genius's need to put your body where your mouth is.
> ...


I have stepped up. Many times. I have spoke in these meetings. I have sat in on committee meetings for the elk management plan. I did a lot when I thought the RAC and WB process was a legitimate deal. I learned the hard way that these things are decided Long before the meeting occurs. 

I’m certain I have done more in the last 30 years than you have in your lifetime. Maybe I’m wrong but you are too. 

In that position you are not supposed to act like that. He should resign for his behavior, not his stance on the ban. That act is unbecoming of a public representative IMO. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I’ll gladly step up to be on the Central RAC if someone has connections to an organization that will nominate me. I don’t have those connections.


----------



## runallday (Sep 17, 2018)

I think everybody missed the point that it’s only for the aiding in taking big game and if you’re not hunting off of your cameras then you can have all the cameras you want out in the field for recreational purposes. If you don’t have a tag or you’re not helping somebody with the tag for the area that you have cameras it doesn’t affect you whatsoever. As far as enforcing the rules it’s going to require hunters to maintain high ethics. I run dozens of transmitting cameras and it is an obvious advantage to hunt off of these. And as far as the argument that the quality is down in Utah that is total bull****, we take 400+ bulls off of public land every few years. The reality is that too many people have tied their hunting ability to the use of new technologies instead of taking the time to actually master a habitat zone, learning how to stalk and spend time getting to know the animals in that area. If you think you’re just gonna draw tag and show up and shoot a high-quality animal you’re just fooling yourself. You need to do a lot of work and it’s more of a lifestyle then a couple of weekends out in the hills and if it wasn’t hard it wouldn’t have any value. It is a bummer for the outfitters that have made the investment to use new technologies to progress their business. These band will have an impact there but they know their inventory by the end of July and are good enough sportsman to still be able to get the job done since they’re still going to spend the time in the field.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

runallday said:


> I think everybody missed the point that it’s only for the aiding in taking big game and if you’re not hunting off of your cameras then you can have all the cameras you want out in the field for recreational purposes. If you don’t have a tag or you’re not helping somebody with the tag for the area that you have cameras it doesn’t affect you whatsoever. As far as enforcing the rules it’s going to require hunters to maintain high ethics. I run dozens of transmitting cameras and it is an obvious advantage to hunt off of these. And as far as the argument that the quality is down in Utah that is total bull****, we take 400+ bulls off of public land every few years. The reality is that too many people have tied their hunting ability to the use of new technologies instead of taking the time to actually master a habitat zone, learning how to stalk and spend time getting to know the animals in that area. If you think you’re just gonna draw tag and show up and shoot a high-quality animal you’re just fooling yourself. You need to do a lot of work and it’s more of a lifestyle then a couple of weekends out in the hills and if it wasn’t hard it wouldn’t have any value. It is a bummer for the outfitters that have made the investment to use new technologies to progress their business. These band will have an impact there but they know their inventory by the end of July and are good enough sportsman to still be able to get the job done since they’re still going to spend the time in the field.


If you think these outfitters won’t use information gathered by cameras through hunting seasons from here on out, you’re fooling yourself. You already mentioned the loophole they’ll utilize to do that with. Im happy the ban is in place. But it’ll impact the general average hunter the most. It’ll be business as usual with the outfitters and their methods used to kill trophy animals


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

With all of the opinions, ideas, statements, threats, pleas, curses, and rambling, the scariest sentence I heard came from the board at the end, "We have to start somewhere."


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

elkfromabove said:


> With all of the opinions, ideas, statements, threats, pleas, curses, and rambling, the scariest sentence I heard came from the board at the end, "We have to start somewhere."


This is going to get sooooo much worse. Especially if we as a whole don’t just shut up and quit complaining.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

silentstalker said:


> I have stepped up. Many times. I have spoke in these meetings. I have sat in on committee meetings for the elk management plan. I did a lot when I thought the RAC and WB process was a legitimate deal. I learned the hard way that these things are decided Long before the meeting occurs.
> 
> I’m certain I have done more in the last 30 years than you have in your lifetime. Maybe I’m wrong but you are too.
> 
> ...


I believe that Mr. Klars comments were directed to the process proceeding the hearing and not understanding the appeals part. 7 years on the RAC and now it is time to hang him high? Should he get so upset?. Probably not. There were others that did not understand why and how the appeal was proceeding. Sorry you have wasted your time in the past engaged in the process. That comment really encourages other to step up now.

Congratulations on your last 30 years. I appreciate your effort even though it appears you have now given up the effort. I'll admit I painted with a wide brush with my comment. I apologize.

As for Moose meat and Vanilla for Central RAC? Have at it. Maybe you guys can form another organization to sponsor you. Or hit up silentstalker and get BOU to put you up.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

MooseMeat said:


> This is going to get sooooo much worse. Especially if we as a whole don’t just shut up and quit complaining.


That is what is so frustrating. Everybody has ten ideas to fix a hundred problems. Give any of them traction with out fact to back them and yes, hang on for the ride.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

middlefork said:


> That is what is so frustrating. Everybody has ten ideas to fix a hundred problems. Give any of them traction with out fact to back them and yes, hang on for the ride.


All of our shiz right now is coming from Casey snider. If he’d chill out or someone could throw him out office they would be good. At least for awhile. the problem is with his “good intent”, he’s divided hunters and turned them against each other. “Well if they are gonna take mine, I’ll take theirs”. The last 2 big things to pass have mostly the bowhunters division. He banned their baiting and took away their cams that in all honesty, many rely on for that hunt. The hunters have admitted these new laws feel that they really impact them and not really the other hunts. In many ways, they are right. Next on the list, guiding, which can impact archers pretty hard again. So what’s next? The muzzle guys? No scopes? And possibly much worse? We already know how big of a thing that will be. So they’ll all be mad, looking for a torch and pitch fork. Then you’ll have 2/3 of the hunters after blood against the rifle guys, which in reality is the biggest fight. More interest, more options, more technology, BETTER hunting dates, etc… than the other 2 groups that just got extremely limited, combined.

Just something to think about


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

MooseMeat said:


> He banned their baiting and took away their cams that in all honesty, *many rely on for that hunt. *


Wait, I thought cams didn’t help people kill animals?!?!?

If you want to see what Utah could look like with other possible changes, look at surrounding states. Nothing that has happened in Utah is unique. These regulations already exist in neighboring states and we’re finally catching up. There are other areas that will see regulation as well. What scopes can be on muzzleloaders is my guess for the next shoe to drop. (That’s a prediction, but an ask…)


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I hear you, I do.
Casey Snider is not the problem. There are plenty of others behind his proposals.

Hunters are going to tear themselves apart because of division. They have been doing it for a very long time. Pick a target, somebody will address it. Keep pounding away to find some advantage over others.

Will technology need to be addressed? I'm sure there are many reasons to have the discussions. Will they get ugly? I'm sure they will. Anytime something is subjective with no defined goal such as "put the hunt back into hunting" or "we need to improve the quality of the herd" everybody can have an opinion. Yet nobody can get a consensus on what needs to happen and how to get there.


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

A hundred or so years ago our ducks and geese were in big trouble from hunting practices that made them way too effective,ie:
Shooting in the dark, punt guns, no limits, spring duck seasons, etc.
Too bad hunters didn’t ban together and police themselves in order to conserve waterfowl so we could have liberal limits and 107 day seasons in our lifetimes.
Oh wait, they did get together and they did police themselves…..
And look what we all get to enjoy now.
Crazy good Waterfowling in the second driest state in the USA!


----------



## jbseamus83 (Oct 5, 2021)

middlefork said:


> I hear you, I do.
> Casey Snider is not the problem. There are plenty of others behind his proposals.
> 
> Hunters are going to tear themselves apart because of division. They have been doing it for a very long time. Pick a target, somebody will address it. Keep pounding away to find some advantage over others.
> ...


I completely agree. I'm new to the state (only been here a couple of years). However, this feels like an issue that people are going to tear each other apart on. I do feel that something should be done in terms of fair chase. I don't have all the answers. I know in TX where I moved from, everyone uses trail cams, set up on corn feeders, know every deer they have moving on their place, and even have them all named. I participated in this while I lived there. But, it certainly loses the hunts sense of surprise. It becomes expected to some extent. However, 96% of hunters in that state are on private land. If they were all doing this on public land, sharing it with all the other hunters in the field, it would totally change hunting in the state. I think that is a huge piece of this. The public vs. private discussion. Like I said, I don't have all of the answers, but yelling, screaming, threatening each other because someone's toes are a little stepped on or someone is a little less comfortable helps no one that shares the interests of the outdoors.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

MrShane said:


> A hundred or so years ago our ducks and geese were in big trouble from hunting practices that made them way too effective,ie:
> Shooting in the dark, punt guns, no limits, spring duck seasons, etc.
> Too bad hunters didn’t ban together and police themselves in order to conserve waterfowl so we could have liberal limits and 107 day seasons in our lifetimes.
> Oh wait, they did get together and they did police themselves…..
> ...


If you haven’t been paying attention, watch closer. That 107 day, 7 bird limit is in the crosshairs by many ‘hunters’ at this very moment. And it has nothing to do with biology.


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

Yeah…..you are right.
The Dark Goose limit is in the crosshairs, and most likely we will be given one more bird each day.
And, the potential for two buck Pintails a day is a very likely possibility.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Uh huh…

might wanna dig a little deeper than the UWA Facebook page.


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

MooseMeat said:


> Uh huh…
> 
> might wanna dig a little deeper than the UWA Facebook page.


Sorry, I don’t do Facebook.
Let’s get back together and finish this conversation in a few months.
Deal?
If I am wrong I owe you an apology.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

middlefork said:


> Sorry I don't see any of you stepping up. Sorry if I missed it.
> He didn't understand the appeal process along with a few members of the board. Go figure.
> 
> Who's signing up? Anybody going to take the abuse? I have a hard time imagining people stepping up to put up with any of this BS. Some of you genius's need to put your body where your mouth is.
> ...


If I lived in the Northern RAC area, I sure the hell would be calling him out. I'm not afraid to let someone know what I fell about them.  You included!!


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

MrShane said:


> Sorry, I don’t do Facebook.
> Let’s get back together and finish this conversation in a few months.
> Deal?
> If I am wrong I owe you an apology.


This isn’t a ‘few month’ battle. Like I said, look deeper


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

taxidermist said:


> If I lived in the Northern RAC area, I sure the hell would be calling him out. I'm not afraid to let someone know what I fell about them.  You included!!


No sense in limiting your thoughts to your region. Let him know. I'm sure he will be happy to hear from you.

*Matt Klar*
[email protected]
Ogden, Utah
_At large_
I guess I personally got a different impression of his rant than others did. Oh well to each his own.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

middlefork said:


> No sense in limiting your thoughts to your region. Let him know. I'm sure he will be happy to hear from you.
> 
> *Matt Klar*
> [email protected]
> ...


He’ll just block you on any form of media you attempt to contact him on, Like he has me and a few others I know who sent him messages. His opinion is the only one that matters. Everyone else is invalid. Pretty typical of most RACs, even though they should be the voice of the public


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

middlefork said:


> No sense in limiting your thoughts to your region. Let him know. I'm sure he will be happy to hear from you.
> 
> *Matt Klar*
> [email protected]
> ...


Well OK then, I'll send an email and see what happens. Thanks middlefork, I wasn't looking forward to meeting anyone at the flagpole after school.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

silentstalker said:


> Why don’t we get back to science based wildlife management and help our herds?


LOL. I just keep chuckling every time I hear this.


Let's start with the special regulations on the Middle Provo River! There is no scientific reason for those regulations. They are purely social. 

So, why have them???
Because social reasons aren't bad reasons for making rules. They are necessary too.

In the fisheries management business there are ONLY 4 tools used to manage fish populations. I know we are talking about big game, but the tools used to manage big game are very similar: 1) rules and regulations; 2) public relations and education; 3) stocking and removal; 4) habitat improvement and manipulation. These tools are not limited to only "science". They address the "social" side as well. Social reasons are a necessary part of management. 

Be careful what you ask for -- because if you truly want "science based" rules and regulations to manage our wildlife, you may be in for a very rude awakening.


----------



## elkhunterUT (Jan 21, 2008)

middlefork said:


> Sorry I don't see any of you stepping up. Sorry if I missed it.
> He didn't understand the appeal process along with a few members of the board. Go figure.
> 
> Who's signing up? Anybody going to take the abuse? I have a hard time imagining people stepping up to put up with any of this BS. Some of you genius's need to put your body where your mouth is.
> ...


middlefork - someone asked what the RAC member threatened, and I simply stated what his threat was. Not sure why you felt the need to call that out, but since you are such a tough guy and have all the answers, why aren't you putting your "body where your mouth is"? What are you doing?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I’m guessing middlefork has a personal connection that made calling out the RAC member strike a nerve. Which is okay. He’s wrong in saying nobody on here has stepped up to do things, but it’s fine if he wants to go to bat for his guy.

I didn’t see the comment so don’t have an opinion on it, but it’s fine if people don’t like it just like it’s fine if he wants to get the guy’s back.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

elkhunterUT said:


> middlefork - someone asked what the RAC member threatened, and I simply stated what his threat was. Not sure why you felt the need to call that out, but since you are such a tough guy and have all the answers, why aren't you putting your "body where your mouth is"? What are you doing?





middlefork said:


> *I guess I personally got a different impression of his rant than others did. Oh well to each his own.*


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> I’m guessing middlefork has a personal connection that made calling out the RAC member strike a nerve. Which is okay. He’s wrong in saying nobody on here has stepped up to do things, but it’s fine if he wants to go to bat for his guy.
> 
> I didn’t see the comment so don’t have an opinion on it, but it’s fine if people don’t like it just like it’s fine if he wants to get the guy’s back.


No personal connection at all. I was just offended that everybody wants to jump the guy. He was upset that the proposal had already gone through the RAC and WB process and was now going through an appeal process that he and many others weren't aware of. Did he go overboard with his threat to quit? Probably so.

I apologized to silent stalker for painting with a wide brush. I'll personally apologize to others if they took my comment personally.


----------



## elkhunterUT (Jan 21, 2008)

middlefork said:


> No personal connection at all. I was just offended that everybody wants to jump the guy. He was upset that the proposal had already gone through the RAC and WB process and was now going through an appeal process that he and many others weren't aware of. Did he go overboard with his threat to quit? Probably so.
> 
> I apologized to silent stalker for painting with a wide brush. I'll personally apologize to others if they took my comment personally.


You didn't just paint with a wide brush, you called each one of us out. But no biggie - I didn't take it personally, just thought it odd and wanted to know what you have done to put your body where you mouth is. All good.


----------



## weekendwarrior (May 19, 2016)

elkhunterUT said:


> You didn't just paint with a wide brush, you called each one of us out. But no biggie - I didn't take it personally, just thought it odd and wanted to know what you have done to put your body where you mouth is. All good.


This is a **** show. Are we talking a social issue or technical issues. If it’s a social issue and concern with cameras all over, what good does a season do for only hunters? If it’s a technical issue indicating it’s not fair chase, get ready to give up your ballistic range finders, scoped muzzleloaders, long range rifles, spotting scopes, and you might as well throw in OnX maps and GPS systems. Ignorance is bliss in this state… we are all chosen 🙏🖕


----------

