# It was bound to happen- tcam & baiting



## flinger

Introduced restrictions on big game baiting and trail cameras.

https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/sta...k4hlVD1ePz65hLq2epv7yyt7OpazDDwt8J_zGNRBDrfV8

Update from rep.
https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2021/02/11/weve-taken-hunt-out/


----------



## 2full

No more apples ??


----------



## Critter

If this passes I know of a number of deer hunters who are going to have to change the way that they hunt. No more baiting deer at a waterhole and then sitting in their lawn chairs to shoot them from across the road.


----------



## middlefork

I can't say the camera rule would bother me at all. But it is pretty funny how law of omission is expressly circumvented by allowing salt and other minerals.

But I will admit I tried for many years to dump apples up in the mountains to attract deer just to get rid of them and I'm not sure one apple was ever touched. I understand the deer come in to orchards and browse them but I just never saw any indication it was a draw without some trees nearby.


----------



## Slayer

I have areas I put trail cameras that have never had a person show up on them in years. I'm pretty sure it is not affecting anybody at all by having them there! 
I don't care at all about the baiting rule though, the only baiting I do is when fishing!


----------



## SaltyWalty

does this mean you cant place a cam on public or can you only jan-aug?


----------



## MooseMeat

1. Casey snider can suck it.

2. Jokes on him. I’ll just set my stand 60 yards from my bait pile, 10 yards further than his 50 yard baited area definition and I’ll be completely legal. 

3. I lost the keys to all my trail cam lock boxes. Cant get into them to remove them and it’s illegal for me to cut down the tree they are on to get them removed before his season closure. My bad. :roll: what a bunch of Fbags


----------



## Vanilla

Oh, apples are a draw for sure! There is a reason some outfits bring them in by the truck load to drop off in areas. 

And it was only a matter of time before something like this was officially proposed. It is really getting out of hand out there. There has been no rule against it, so I’m not blaming anyone, but it’s too bad this is even necessary.


----------



## taxidermist

The way I read it, is the proposed law will require a bait permit. Just like the Bear baiting permit. If this does make it through, the next law will be eliminating bait stations for Bear. 


Trail cams IMO are considered very close to NOT being "fair chase" for a wild animal. Great if you use them, I'm not saying your wrong and I'm right. 


I just get tired of taking a hike and running into them almost everywhere I go. It's like a dog finds a place to **** his leg and mark "his territory". Is that what hunters are thinking....If I place a camera on this waterhole, its mine, stay away??


----------



## PBH

I have no complaints about this proposal. I actually kind of like it.




I'd also be OK with some modifications, or compromises. Restrict the number of cameras a user is allowed to use and require them to be registered and labeled with ownership info and date of installation. They simply need to be controlled. Unfortunately, sometimes you need some regulation. We are at that point with cameras. :noidea:


----------



## Vanilla

Pretend for a second that this bill passes, and that the law somehow gets enforced. 

This would have a significant impact on hunting success. Yes, we are going to get people on here that run cameras that will say, “ban them, it won’t change anything.” But they wouldn’t run cameras if it didn’t work. And they wouldn’t run a dozen cameras if it didn’t work. And they wouldn’t run 100+ cameras if they didn’t work. If cameras have to be gone by 7/1 and 8/1, you’ll see less people setting them up in the first place. But it is going to be very difficult to enforce. 

I wish we didn’t need something like this. I’d honestly rather just that people could put a couple cameras up if they wanted to and go about their business. That said, it’s getting out of hand how they’re being used. It’s that old adage that we have met the enemy and he is us. We shoot ourselves in the foot on this stuff too often.


----------



## outn'bout1

The title of this thread articulates this perfect. It was bound to happen. Can't say I am wholly for or against it. I know a lot of hunters are for something like this, it isn't the anti or non-hunters who are (although some probably are). Casey Snider is an avid hunter himself.
More and more states are going to move this direction. It has gotten out of hand and to a point where many states are going to start regulating cameras and bait because it is what a lot of constituents want.


----------



## BPturkeys

MooseMeat said:


> 1. Casey snider can suck it.
> 
> 2. Jokes on him. I'll just set my stand 60 yards from my bait pile, 10 yards further than his 50 yard baited area definition and I'll be completely legal.
> 
> 3. I lost the keys to all my trail cam lock boxes. Cant get into them to remove them and it's illegal for me to cut down the tree they are on to get them removed before his season closure. My bad. :roll: what a bunch of Fbags


Moose, you need to re-read the law. It seams pretty iron clad to me. First, you can't bait during prescribed times and you can't take animals that are traveling to or from a baited area.

Why must some people always look for some "loophole" in a law just so they can try and gain some advantage? It is thinking like this and actions by people of this mind set that make it necessary to pass laws in the first place. Laws are generally passed to make certain people act properly in society.

Take for example your thinking on the cameras. So, you lost the keys to the lock boxes, so I guess it's OK to just leave up the cameras...I can just imagine what the judge would say..."well geez, go ahead and leave 'em up then, sounds fair to me". If I park my car right in front of your driveway and I loose the keys, is it OK to just leave it there for ever?? Come on man, think.

Course, I know this is probably just the troll coming out in you as are many of your posts...well, it worked.


----------



## CPAjeff

Those poor insta-famous hunters, how are they going to keep their followers without posting the "giant," "stud," or "monster" they have hitting their baits?!? 

Honestly, I like the bill! Imagine if it included a provision that any camera found during the banned timeframe could be removed by any individual . . .


----------



## Vanilla

CPAjeff said:


> Imagine if it included a provision that any camera found during the banned timeframe could be removed by any individual . . .


I've said this before, but this is the only way this type of law could be enforceable. Put in the law that any camera left in the field after said dates is legally deemed abandoned property. The only way this gets policed is by other hunters.

Losing all your cameras seems like a good incentive to follow the law. You know, the carrot and the stick?


----------



## Airborne

I like this proposed law. This is going to level the playing field so to speak and I think will increase opportunity which is a great thing. Anyone who claims this law is government overreach or 'takin away our rights' is full of baloney! Hunting equipment has always had legal limitations, this is a reaction to modern 'advances' to maintain the ideals of fair chase or at least how we decide to define it. 

Let's not get caught up in the slippery slope fallacy--take this for what it is but don't straw man the arguments for or against


----------



## MrShane

What is the difference between a trail cam left on public property versus an old pop can or water bottle that someone left on the same public property?


----------



## PBH

MrShane said:


> What is the difference between a trail cam left on public property versus an old pop can or water bottle that someone left on the same public property?


Nothing! They all need to be packed out! And take your pop-up tent blind with you!

Pack it in --> Pack it out!


----------



## SaltyWalty

BPturkeys said:


> Moose, you need to re-read the law. It seams pretty iron clad to me. First, you can't bait during prescribed times and you can't take animals that are traveling to or from a baited area.
> 
> Why must some people always look for some "loophole" in a law just so they can try and gain some advantage? It is thinking like this and actions by people of this mind set that make it necessary to pass laws in the first place. Laws are generally passed to make certain people act properly in society.
> 
> Take for example your thinking on the cameras. So, you lost the keys to the lock boxes, so I guess it's OK to just leave up the cameras...I can just imagine what the judge would say..."well geez, go ahead and leave 'em up then, sounds fair to me". If I park my car right in front of your driveway and I loose the keys, is it OK to just leave it there for ever?? Come on man, think.
> 
> Course, I know this is probably just the troll coming out in you as are many of your posts...well, it worked.


way to tell the boomer, i think i need to take re-trolling lessons from you

"Don't get your cussed little butt in a tangle and meme on"


----------



## Natural Born Killer

*Like this is a normal???*

Like this is a normal??? outlaw the DAMNED things!


----------



## Vanilla

In units like that in the picture? Yes, it’s normal.


----------



## taxidermist

CPAjeff said:


> Those poor insta-famous hunters, how are they going to keep their followers without posting the "giant," "stud," or "monster" they have hitting their baits?!?
> 
> Honestly, I like the bill! Imagine if it included a provision that any camera found during the banned timeframe could be removed by any individual . . .


Jeff, don't forget a "Toad"


----------



## 2full

Also, don't forget......dandy. 
My personal favorite.


----------



## grecco189

**** just bought 10 cameras and was going to start using them this year. The thing that worries me after reading the law. Is they can be used with approval of the division. I think that a few of the outfitters will get approval but us normal folks wont get that approval. Or they will use the approval as a money generating tool charging us for every camera we want to place.


----------



## Critter

grecco189 said:


> **** just bought 10 cameras and was going to start using them this year. The thing that worries me after reading the law. Is they can be used with approval of the division. I think that a few of the outfitters will get approval but us normal folks wont get that approval. Or they will use the approval as a money generating tool charging us for every camera we want to place.


You'll still be able to use them but I'll say that they will have to be pulled before the hunting seasons start


----------



## Vanilla

Oh, don’t go counting those chickens before the eggs hatch fellers. This one has got a long ways to go before it becomes law. 

Who do you think is pounding legislators virtual doors down right now - The people that want cams regulated? Or the people with deep pockets that stand the most to lose if this gets passed?


----------



## ridgetop

I don't like how they lump several different things into one bill. I have no problem registering with the state. It does look like "apples" are being targeted but that fine with me too.


----------



## johnnycake

grecco189 said:


> **** just bought 10 cameras and was going to start using them this year. The thing that worries me after reading the law. Is they can be used with approval of the division. I think that a few of the outfitters will get approval but us normal folks wont get that approval. Or they will use the approval as a money generating tool charging us for every camera we want to place.


Don't worry, I've got a connection in the janitorial department at whichever department location is farthest from where you want to use those cameras. Now you just got to figure out what's in it for me?


----------



## ridgetop

Vanilla said:


> I've said this before, but this is the only way this type of law could be enforceable. Put in the law that any camera left in the field after said dates is legally deemed abandoned property. The only way this gets policed is by other hunters.
> 
> Losing all your cameras seems like a good incentive to follow the law. You know, the carrot and the stick?


I personally don't like the way this bill is worded. By reading all the responses, most people are not even reading the details.


----------



## taxidermist

I don't like how they lump several different things into one bill.


That's how crap gets slid into law. They just sneak it into a Bill that has a chance of becoming law. I don't like it when they start taking away ways of a Sportsmen and Women to better an experience/opportunity in the outdoor hunting platform. 


You let their foot in the door.... Well, you know where I'm going. What's the next "rule" they'll want to make law that would restrict a group of people? 


As much as I dislike trail cameras, I wouldn't want it to become law! But the way I understand the Bill, is it refers to using them near a water source. ???


----------



## elkfromabove

I/We just don't like the way you do something, so I/we are going to make it illegal! There's a lot of that going around these days.


----------



## Airborne

elkfromabove said:


> I/We just don't like the way you do something, so I/we are going to make it illegal! There's a lot of that going around these days.


That's literally the starting point for how laws are created since the creation of...laws. Representational form of government is a great thing IMHO.

I have yet to hear a good argument for keeping trail cams and bait on public land during hunting season. Seems like most of the arguments against the law are:

"well next their gonna ban..."

"Government bad"

"But I already have a bunch of trail cams and apples stockpiled!"

"Ya can't enforce it or here's how I'm gonna get around it"

"That's how I EXPERIENCE the outdoors"

"People would steal or break my illegally placed trail cameras"

"We should do XYZ instead"

"I'm a bad A$$ and can kill trophy critters without em anyways so why ban em!"

I'm probably missing some but that's what I'm picking up. None of the above arguments benefits wildlife, expands hunting opportunity nor promotes fair chase ethics. A lot of folks just want an edge and they like their toys.


----------



## MooseMeat

Cams don’t really give you an edge though... unless it’s the real time ones that send the photos to your phone. Those I can understand why they need to go. The others where you have to go change the battery and check the cards yourself don’t really help you be more successful


----------



## Airborne

MooseMeat said:


> Cams don't really give you an edge though... unless it's the real time ones that send the photos to your phone. Those I can understand why they need to go. The others where you have to go change the battery and check the cards yourself don't really help you be more successful


You're a good hunter Moose--ya don't need any stinkin trail cams man!--ya can stack those critters up without em. You're in top form when you're callin out lazy internet scouters and moochers of info on the forum--just pretend those trail cams are guys asking for a spot to hunt! :grin:


----------



## Vanilla

MooseMeat said:


> Cams don't really give you an edge though... unless it's the real time ones that send the photos to your phone. Those I can understand why they need to go. The others where you have to go change the battery and check the cards yourself don't really help you be more successful


This simply isn't true. They wouldn't be used if they didn't.

I do agree that the data cameras that send transmissions of images to your phone are more of an issue.


----------



## flinger

I would be surprised if this passed as is. I think once all the special interest groups get through there will be some more exceptions for trail cam use on public lands especially for livestock watering. Nevada has laws very similar to how this bill is written with some additional exceptions. 

Marking ownership of the trail camera is only for govt entities or possibly with permission of the division so that's probably not a worry for the average user. Average users don't get to use them at all during Aug -Dec on public lands.

The baiting one is poorly written imo. Very ambiguous. Are water developments/guzzlers considered bait the way it's written? It appears it is also saying the exception for use of salt/mineral blocks is for livestock purposes only, not hunters, but not very clearly. The way many on this thread seem to be interpreting the language in different ways is proof that's it's not very clear for the average person.

Also, animals could be on their way to or from a bait site 2+ miles away. How would a hunter or conservation officer even know?


----------



## MooseMeat

Vanilla said:


> This simply isn't true. They wouldn't be used if they didn't.
> 
> I do agree that the data cameras that send transmissions of images to your phone are more of an issue.


How do you figure? Just cuz you have a picture of the animal, doesn't mean it'll die. Most guys can get pics of stuff, but killing that animal is a completely different story. Most dudes suck at killing stuff. You know that. I know that. They don't know that though haha I really don't think cams give anyone an edge if they don't know how to take advantage of it. All they do is tell someone that animals are in the area. Looking at tracks can give you the same idea. But I do understand your point of view on it. I just see it differently from what I've seen guys personally do with the cam info they get. They still blow it!

But I do however think we would all be better off if they could somehow set a limit to how many "spotters" on the mountain 1 tag can have helping. I know there's no way to regulate or enforce that, but I see that issue being a bigger problem than trail cams. They seem to cause more problems with entitlement and harassment than a trail camera does. They limit the number of hounds a bear hunter can have chasing bears. Same concept needs to be applied to deer and elk. Sure a guy has a pic of a big buck. But the odds are pretty good with that deer being able to avoid 1 hunter out looking for him. But send 15 flatbrimmers hopped up on mtn ops, that have nothing but time on their hands, that think they are guides and the odds of that deer going undetected goes way down. But that is another topic for another day.


----------



## BigT

This will be so difficult to enforce for DWR. As some have said, this will be patrolled by the general public, but how will this be done. 

I personally don't have an issue with restricting trail cameras, or bait. I don't do either. But seeing spots that a tree has 5-6 cameras on it is discouraging in a lot of ways. A couple years ago helping a friend on the Vernon, any time you came across a water hole, there was tons of cameras on the water. Got to be careful where you use the bathroom... Or at least some of us are! 

I personally would love to see stiffer penalties on poachers... I would like to see hunters drawing easier draw units but still hunting their preferred unit face stiffer penalties for doing this. But again, they've got to be caught.


----------



## MooseMeat

BigT said:


> I personally would love to see stiffer penalties on poachers... I would like to see hunters drawing easier draw units but still hunting their preferred unit face stiffer penalties for doing this. But again, they've got to be caught.


Did those clowns get off the hook for doing that???


----------



## elkfromabove

Airborne said:


> That's literally the starting point for how laws are created since the creation of...laws. Representational form of government is a great thing IMHO.
> 
> I have yet to hear a good argument for keeping trail cams and bait on public land during hunting season. Seems like most of the arguments against the law are:
> 
> "well next their gonna ban..."
> 
> "Government bad"
> 
> "But I already have a bunch of trail cams and apples stockpiled!"
> 
> "Ya can't enforce it or here's how I'm gonna get around it"
> 
> "That's how I EXPERIENCE the outdoors"
> 
> "People would steal or break my illegally placed trail cameras"
> 
> "We should do XYZ instead"
> 
> "I'm a bad A$$ and can kill trophy critters without em anyways so why ban em!"
> 
> I'm probably missing some but that's what I'm picking up. None of the above arguments benefits wildlife, expands hunting opportunity nor promotes fair chase ethics. A lot of folks just want an edge and they like their toys.


Like I said, there's a lot of that going around!

Instead of giving some logical, sound reasons for banning them, you ridicule/attack anyone who doesn't fully agree with your way of thinking.


----------



## 3arabians

*It was bound to happen- tcam & baiting*

Dang it, this could really suck for me. Instead of telling my wife I'm off to set a couple gadgets, I'll be back in a few a hours and then say the same thing a couple weeks later to go check em. I'll be forced into loading everyone up in the truck for the weekend and planting my ass on a ridge to see what's going on for a few hours and hopefully getting some more quality time with my family, more fishing and campfire beers while I'm at it.

Oh nooooo!

Trail cams have been fun for me the last few years but I won't miss em very much if the bill passes. Ive gotten some cool pics of bucks and bulls but I can't say they've helped me as a hunter.

They've actually made me even more lazy.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ridgetop

Just for the record, if this passes into law. All my trail cam pictures going forward will be coming from private property. Even if I kill on public, the cameras will still be on private with the land owners knowledge of course. 
I also have a feeling there will be more cameras out there marked UDWR!


----------



## taxidermist

I do agree that the data cameras that send transmissions of images to your phone are more of an issue.

These types of cameras wouldn't even work where I hunt. Your lucky as it is to get a bar on your cell phone.  

https://utahwildlife.net/forum/12-big-game/204903-bound-happen-tcam-baiting-4.html#


----------



## Critter

taxidermist said:


> I do agree that the data cameras that send transmissions of images to your phone are more of an issue.
> 
> These types of cameras wouldn't even work where I hunt. Your lucky as it is to get a bar on your cell phone.
> 
> https://utahwildlife.net/forum/12-big-game/204903-bound-happen-tcam-baiting-4.html#


In a number of areas that I hunt we have what we call the "Phone Booths". These are areas where during mid day or late evening there will be a number of trucks parked calling home.

Then you have the areas where people are standing up in the bed of their trucks holding their cell phones at arms length straight up and using the speaker to make a call.

It's too bad that there are not more areas left like these.


----------



## Vanilla

taxidermist said:


> I do agree that the data cameras that send transmissions of images to your phone are more of an issue.
> 
> These types of cameras wouldn't even work where I hunt. Your lucky as it is to get a bar on your cell phone.
> 
> https://utahwildlife.net/forum/12-big-game/204903-bound-happen-tcam-baiting-4.html#


You might be surprised.


----------



## Vanilla

elkfromabove said:


> Like I said, there's a lot of that going around!
> 
> Instead of giving some logical, sound reasons for banning them, you ridicule/attack anyone who doesn't fully agree with your way of thinking.


EFA, if you say there had not been some logical sound reasons we the years given to support this, you just aren't listening to anyone that has a different point of view on it than you do. Yes, there is also what you mention mixed in every time, but if you haven't seen the valid reasons it's because you've chosen not to.

I'll wait to hear what logical and valid reasons you have to say they should remain completely unregulated. I'm open to having my opinion changed, it just seems the only reason I hear to keep them they way it is happens to be "That's how I like to do it."


----------



## flinger

ridgetop said:


> I also have a feeling there will be more cameras out there marked UDWR!


Haha...that's for sure!


----------



## Finnegan

Vanilla said:


> They wouldn't be used if they didn't work.


Wondering what you mean by "work". The purpose of a camera is to take photos. So, yes, they work. But otherwise, there's very little a camera can do for a hunter that he can't do for himself with minimal use of basic woodsmanship skills. Tracks, poop, rubs, scrapes - except for antler size, what's left to know that can be learned by a photo? But if you've seen any real evidence that cameras actually increase success rates, I'd appreciate a link. I might reconsider buying one of the things.


----------



## BigT

MooseMeat said:


> Did those clowns get off the hook for doing that???


I talked to the DWR guy recently. I believe it's still in process. But there hasn't been anything in the media yet if it has. I'll have to ask about it again.


----------



## BPturkeys

OK, I've made a decision. I absolutely hate to be walking around up in them thar hills and just as I stop to take leak...bam, there's some guy's camera recording the whole act and preserving it for all time in all it's digital glory. I absolutely hate the idea of some guy having some sort of edge on other hunters just because he can afford 2 or 3 thousand bucks worth of jpeg producing monsters sticking to the trees on public ground. And I absolutely hate, I guess, the modernization and commercialization of my beloved past time... hunting. 
But, on the other hand, today is now and now-a-days we have and use trailcams. I don't think they hurt hunting or disrupt game management nearly as much as restrictive laws based upon perceived notions of the old ways are best. So, you young fellers that want to use trail cams, go for it, but please, if you get a pic of some old guy standin there, both hands busy, legs slightly bowed, beard blowing in the wind, and a look of relief on his face....please, please...hit that delete button.


----------



## MooseMeat

I pick my treestand locations based on 4G availability. Netflix is a must on 13 hour day sits!

You can get service these days in many places. If you cant get it in one spot, move up the ridge 100 yards. In a deep hole I hunt quite a bit that I’ve never had service in before, last year my phone started ringing while I was in the very bottom of it. I figured it was some kinda alarm I had accidentally set. Nope, some dude probably named Habib or Mohammad was calling to talk about my cars extended warranty. After a little investigation, I determined a new tower had gone up or something cuz I had full service, better than what I get in my home.


----------



## bowgy

I've got mixed feelings, some things in the bill I like others not so much.

I just texted my representative while reading this. He kind of agrees with me but his feeling is that the legislature is not the place for this and should be handled by the wildlife board.


----------



## MooseMeat

It feels like this bill is personally targeting outfitters and guides. I’m sure $FW will step in and save the day for them. After all, it’s those few guides who this impacts, that makes the DWR and $FW all their money every year.


----------



## Vanilla

Moosemeat, agree fully. This one has a huge obstacle to get passed. I'll quote my previous statement a few pages ago, just for good measure.



Vanilla said:


> Oh, don't go counting those chickens before the eggs hatch fellers. This one has got a long ways to go before it becomes law.
> 
> Who do you think is pounding legislators virtual doors down right now - The people that want cams regulated? Or the people with deep pockets that stand the most to lose if this gets passed?


----------



## Vanilla

Finnegan said:


> Wondering what you mean by "work". The purpose of a camera is to take photos. So, yes, they work. But otherwise, there's very little a camera can do for a hunter that he can't do for himself with minimal use of basic woodsmanship skills. Tracks, poop, rubs, scrapes - except for antler size, what's left to know that can be learned by a photo? But if you've seen any real evidence that cameras actually increase success rates, I'd appreciate a link. I might reconsider buying one of the things.


I can make one trip to a camera every spring, and then sit on my couch and get pics sent to my phone. Let me see you do that with your basic woodmanship skills. And I can do that with 137 cameras if I want.

Tell you what, but me 100 cameras and the data plans to go with them, I'll go set them over a week, and I won't go back. We can compare notes this time next year what we each saw. I'll be sitting under a minkie working on my Instagram profile.

I'm being facetious, obviously. These cameras work at gathering information, and that's exactly why people invest the way they do. And that's exactly why some very connected people will work very hard to kill this bill.


----------



## elkfromabove

Vanilla said:


> EFA, if you say there had not been some logical sound reasons we the years given to support this, you just aren't listening to anyone that has a different point of view on it than you do. Yes, there is also what you mention mixed in every time, but if you haven't seen the valid reasons it's because you've chosen not to.
> 
> I'll wait to hear what logical and valid reasons you have to say they should remain completely unregulated. I'm open to having my opinion changed, it just seems the only reason I hear to keep them they way it is happens to be "That's how I like to do it."[
> 
> First off, I have indeed heard all of the "valid" reasons given to support the banning of trail cams and baiting (and a dozen or so other items and technics), but the vast majority of them boil down to nothing more than the supporters' perceptions with few of them having biological, safety, economical or logistical reasons. And those few can be dealt with via some workable regulations if they chose to do so.
> 
> You won't hear from me any logical and valid reasons they should be "completely" unregulated, because I don't think they should be "completely" unregulated any more than I think they should be "completely" banned!
> 
> This proposal attempts to provide some regulations, but for all practical purposes, those items are banned for the majority of Utah big game hunters and they will adapt to their advantage.
> 
> There's always talk about people finding "loopholes" in new laws and regulations, but those who make those regulations typically forget or ignore the fact that when they change the rules of any game, they automatically change the way it is played. There's ALWAYS unintended consequences to any change and this is no exception, whichever way it goes.


----------



## MooseMeat

Something to think about.

There’s a place that is known for its large muledeer in Utah, that to the best of my knowledge, isn’t allowed to have any kind of trail cameras set out by anyone from the public for any reason. It also restricts the public from going into many areas of this place, they are only allowed on the marked trails and roads. It’s called antelope island. Yet when I went out there 1 time during the shed hunt, guess how many trail cameras I found. More than just a couple. And guess who’s they were. “Mossback”. This isn’t a bash mossback post, but it is an example of what will happen if this gets passed. All this trail cam ban will do, is screw over the public land, general tag type hunters, and the honest people. The guides will still run cameras year round, and they will still run bait for deer. This won’t impact them at all. To think this is a great step forward for everyone, simply isn’t true. It’s just one more law that we will have that won’t be enforced, except for a few guys who get into a pissing match on who’s 2x3 that really is. 

I’d love to have some real life examples from people, telling us how bad cams really are and impacts they have had on them. And the “I don’t like my picture taken” excuse doesn’t fly. You had your photo taken 6 times that day before at the gas station, stop light, Walmart and atm you walked by before you got up on the mountain. I personally run into cameras all year long. Yes I’ve had some entitlement issues with a few people over some spots because of it, but that’s it. I’ve had a few broken by guys who couldn’t get them off the tree. But that’s a known risk when I put them out.

If you think it’s a technology unfair advantage over the wildlife being hunted, you’d better not own a range finder, bolt action rifle with a turret scope, spotting scope, SxS, compound bow, release, kuiu, Sitka, FirstLite, etc.. .


----------



## Vanilla

I’m wearing a pair of Kuiu pants as I type this message. They are not telling me anything about the game on the units I hunt. 

What am I doing wrong? How can I fix this? 

And EFA, like you pointed out, this isn’t a ban on trail cameras. So if you don’t believe they should be completely unregulated, tell us what regulations on them you think are appropriate. You’re a pretty logical, well reasoned guy. I’d love to hear your thoughts. Where does this one go wrong, and what regulations do you think are warranted?


----------



## MooseMeat

you know what I mean! Do you believe trail cam technology and bait play a bigger part in negative effects on wildlife and increase odds of success more than a 1,000 yard rifle? 100yd bow? 500yd muzzleloader? Range finder? Binos/spotting scope? Camouflage/gear? SxS/4x4/ATV?

I certainly don’t.

We shouldn’t ban 1 but leave the rest unregulated. Let’s go back to lever guns or single shots, straight wall cartridges, open sights, flintlocks, longbows and no range finders! The amount of big bucks running around in 5 years would be unbelievable


----------



## Vanilla

I absolutely 100% believe that cams impact big game more than binos, spotting scopes, and camouflage. Yes, they do. You’re completely kidding yourself if you try to say otherwise. And you know it. You like to ruffle peoples feathers and troll along, but you’re not dumb. You’re pretty smart, actually. And you know those things don’t have the same impact as cameras, particularly the type that transmit data, and you know the reasons why. 

As for weapons becoming vastly more advanced and efficient, those are likely problems we have to confront as well.. There are far less 1000 yard rifles out there than there are cameras, though. I’d be willing to entertain whatever proposal you’d like to offer, and will keep an open mind on that. 

You have to have a weapon to be able to hunt big game. You don’t have to have a trail camera. So I’ll tell you ahead of time I view those things in entirely different classes.


----------



## Fowlmouth

I love the Waterfowl section of the proposal. No Guiding on State Lands (WMA's) I would take it a step further and ban waterfowl guiding on private lands as well. No Guiding Period!


----------



## MooseMeat

Vanilla said:


> I absolutely 100% believe that cams impact big game more than binos, spotting scopes, and camouflage. Yes, they do. You're completely kidding yourself if you try to say otherwise. And you know it. You like to ruffle peoples feathers and troll along, but you're not dumb. You're pretty smart, actually. And you know those things don't have the same impact as cameras, particularly the type that transmit data, and you know the reasons why.
> 
> As for weapons becoming vastly more advanced and efficient, those are likely problems we have to confront as well.. There are far less 1000 yard rifles out there than there are cameras, though. I'd be willing to entertain whatever proposal you'd like to offer, and will keep an open mind on that.
> 
> You have to have a weapon to be able to hunt big game. You don't have to have a trail camera. So I'll tell you ahead of time I view those things in entirely different classes.


You're correct. Cams do play a bigger degree in negative impacts towards wildlife, than camo and binos. I was using it as an example. We all know camo is more for our own comfort than to actually conceal us from the hunted. But it all plays into it. It seems dumb to me to limit them however, when it appears to be an attack against guides and outfitters more than actually solving a legitimate problem people are having or stopping huge negative impacts against animals. Yes there are issues with both concerning cams, but really only in very small areas, not state wide. I'd wager the majority of cams placed throughout the entire state, don't have other guys pictures on them. Out of my 10 that I have out every year in 2 different units, I get pics of people on 2 of them. Last year was strange and I got a random family hiking on a 3rd cam. But that's it. I'm just not seeing the bigger problems they are claiming they are trying to fix. The problems I'm seeing and hearing about involves guides and bait, and ironically, that's who will still be allowed to use cams and "bait" year long after this. Deer will hit more than just apples, consistently. And again, it'll be the honest guys getting bent over and taking it once again. But I'm just one person from one point of view.

I don't need cameras to kill animals. It's just fun to have them out. It's fun to take my little boy out in September during the rut, when it's not 95 degrees. When most of us peasants don't have an elk tag, to listen to the bulls and check cards. Show him the pictures of all the animals. I can't be the only one who uses camera checking as family time. It's fun to leave them up over the winter. Pretty crazy what walks by when you assume there isn't anything up there that time of year. Plus, you never know when you'll get pictures of a creature that you are sure doesn't exist. 

I don't have any suggestions to fix all of this. There realistically isn't any answers to fix any of the bigger issues that won't impact most one way or another. And again, it'll be the privileged that won't see the effects of the laws put in place anyways, since they won't have to follow them. A particular sheep on the Nebo unit comes to mind when I think of "above the law". And that's just one example of many. I'm willing to support all limitations that will benefit wildlife in the future from negative impacts our technology is creating. Cams and apple piles just isn't one of them in my opinion. There's bigger issues to deal with first, but those certainly aren't as easy as implementing a camera season. This is just one more way big brother gets to tell us how to live our free lives on our public lands, enjoying our wildlife that supposedly all belong to us. What a great lie we are being sold.


----------



## MWScott72

MooseMeat said:


> How do you figure? Just cuz you have a picture of the animal, doesn't mean it'll die. Most guys can get pics of stuff, but killing that animal is a completely different story. Most dudes suck at killing stuff. You know that. I know that. They don't know that though haha I really don't think cams give anyone an edge if they don't know how to take advantage of it. All they do is tell someone that animals are in the area. Looking at tracks can give you the same idea. But I do understand your point of view on it. I just see it differently from what I've seen guys personally do with the cam info they get. They still blow it!


Ah come on Moose...we all know Vanilla sucks at killing stuff because he simply refuses to cash in his elk points. He's been piling them up for so long, he's forgotten what they are to be used for! 

Sorry Vanilla, it was too juicy to pass up. No harm intended...


----------



## Vanilla

That's fair. I'm a giant idiot, and deserve any and all ribbing received.


----------



## johnnycake

Vanilla said:


> That's fair. I'm a giant idiot, and deserve any and all ribbing received.


It's not as fun when you do it.

C'mon soft serve, get with the program


----------



## Vanilla

johnnycake said:


> It's not as fun when you do it.
> 
> C'mon soft serve, get with the program


But...he's right. I'd argue if I could!


----------



## caddis8

This has been an interesting topic. I've got a different perspective than most because I don't live there anymore. 

Having been in the world of trailcams for a really, really long time, I think people must not know how to use them if they say cameras don't help. Bull. They help. A lot. The cell cam game is really where it gets a little fuzzy legally with current laws. I had to navigate this crap all the time. 

There is a clear distinction between western hunters and not. It seems to me that western hunters fancy themselves purists. No bait. No cameras. Western states regulate muzzleloaders and what bullet/ignition system you can use. Colorado/Idaho for example- which require manufacturers to make specific guns for those states and require percussion cap and ball. Many states limit or regulate baiting/feeding/attractants.

By sheer dollars, Utah stores were in the bottom 1/3rd as far as dollars spent and trail cam volume. But that's still worth something and a high ticket ring like that is still sales tax dollars. There was a reason I chose a lot of cameras for promotions. We sold a lot of them. 

Now, I would like to understand the biology reason/rationale for limited trail cameras to July 1 or August 1. I have my thoughts on that but would be interested in feedback. 

Personally, I think there are bigger fish to fry than game cameras use on public lands. Is there a detriment to the wildlife and or land usage? What if a non hunter wanted to look at something in October that is migratory? What if a landowner wanted to watch for wolves on the public/private property line in December while the elk are on his hay fields? 

There are a lot of unintended consequences for a bill written as broadly as it is. I can see limiting the use of cell cams as that can legally be defined as sharing the location of game by electronic means- which is already illegal in many states. Technically, many states already ban the use of two way radios to give the location of a game animal. A cell camera isn't much different. 

I'm indifferent on baiting- it becomes a moral/ethical issue vs a legal issue pretty quickly. There are lots of states where baiting is illegal, but attractants aren't. Utah's neighbor to the East is the most restrictive state in the country regarding feeding/attracting/seeds. Lots of landowners have alfalfa fields for herds, but shoot a boatload of elk out of them, and happen to have a guiding service in the fall for elk on their ranch. hmmm. I know of a few that do that, and several are well known outdoor personalities. 

Long post. But be careful what you wish for, what you regulate, and how you do it. It can come back to bite you. And it costs sales tax money into the system at the same time. 

For the record, I love game cameras and put them out just to see critters, and I hardly hunt where I put them out. 

Just my .02 which isn't worth a nickel.


----------



## Ecpk91

*Cameras*

I will give my two cents on this topic. I have lived in Utah my whole life 48 years. I am an avid bowhunter. I believe bowhunting is a difficult hunt, you can't take a couple hundred yard shot, you have to be up close and personal, skilled and know the animals. That being said I do love trail cameras and utilize the. I would say I have used them since 2009 and they really haven't made me overly successful. I thoroughly enjoy seeing them in their habitat and obtaining awesome photos I often look at and stand in awe. It does help me identify the area they frequent, I do not place any camera off a main road, mine are battery powered. I hike deep off the road and want to learn if the hike is worth it with animals in the area. I do place mineral licks out, the ones cultivated in Utah so it is a natural mineral. I believe there are numerous restrictions already placed on hunters (takes me about 20 plus years to draw), I pay my camping fee's conservation stamp fees all my dues for tags. It seems more and more restrictions are placed in the name of "level the field" blah blah blah, look at what the police reforms are doing to cops. Whats next? writing a report for everytime I fire my shotgun at a duck and miss or when I can't find an arrow I shot? They already have slot limits on fish. I am for reasonable regulations but every d$%# year more and more limits get placed on a fun recreational activity that is not making it so fun anymore. Some things do need to change, some people need to change. I hate being told that I can no longer do something I have enjoyed and done for over 10 years to all of a sudden someone especially a politician come in and say ok time to stop doing this now, I am throwing a restriction in place because it affected me in a negative way. Soon they will limit the time of day I can drive as I get older (those between 50 and 65 can only drive between the hours of 3 am to 5 am). How about we discuss things before having knee jerk reactions and obtain research and ideas from those who are going to be affected? If that happened and it didn't go my way I would support these issues. It's when I don't feel heard or like I have a voice in the matter that it really irritates me.


----------



## Vanilla

There has been lots of discussion on this topic in surrounding states, it was only a matter of time before it came to Utah as well. As for not having your voice heard, the ironic thing about it is the legislative process affords you this ability much more than the RAC/Wildlife Board process does these days.

If anyone doesn’t like a proposed law change, you can make your voice heard. Call or email the sponsor. Call or email your elected representative. Click on the link for the law and watch status updates. (You can sign up for email updates every time something happens to the bill.) Login to the virtual committee meetings and speak on the record. 

In my view, democracy dies from apathy. Even if you don’t agree with me on a topic, by all means, please get involved! Your voice can be heard, but only if you make it heard. 

It’s seriously sad that I trust the legislative process more today than I do the wildlife rule making process. I can’t believe I typed that, but it’s true.


----------



## Ecpk91

I already emailed both my reps. Thanks for the advice though


----------



## Airborne

Good reminder--I need to email/call my reps to get this law passed. Nothin better than taking training wheels away from the spoiled masses. How the hell I kill bull elk every year without cameras and bait is a fetchin miracle! 

hehehe

:grin:


----------



## Jedidiah

If anyone's ever been going through their trail cam and found a better than average looking 30 something intentionally taking a whiz it uh....it wasn't me.


----------



## DallanC

I enjoy watching and listening to animals in their natural surroundings. I have had tens of thousands of images, maybe a thousand videos... its been fun to watch what the animals are doing later. Most and best videos are always August - Oct.

My bull elk in my avatar was captured by a neighboring landowners cameras about a week before I got him. They gave me a copy of him rutting and bugling on their cameras. It was really neat to have footage of him alive and bugling his head off. I'd never seen him on the property I hunted leading up to the hunt and never got him on any of my cameras.

In fact, I've never killed an animal I've had on my trail cam. 


-DallanC


----------



## ridgetop

Jedidiah said:


> If anyone's ever been going through their trail cam and found a better than average looking 30 something intentionally taking a whiz it uh....it wasn't me.


 what's your point?


----------



## Airborne

ridgetop said:


> what's your point?


He's just trying to be funny ridge, low level funny but it's there. Now if he woulda added something about wiener size on trail cams, he coulda bumped it up a couple notches :grin:


----------



## 7mm Reloaded

he probably meant average looking 30mm;-)


----------



## PBH

I don't believe that anyone is trying to say that trail cameras are not something fun. They are. I love seeing the pictures captured by them. And for those that continue to say that they don't make you "more successful" are just simply taking it all out of context. They certainly do improve your hunting -- knowledge is valuable, and gaining knowledge by viewing cameras obviously helps. 

The bad thing with the situation in Utah is that it has simply gone too far. The fulcrum is now so far to one side of the bar that it's going to take much more effort to raise the load back to balance. We might need to start thinking about moving the pivot point!

We cannot continue down this road of unregulated cameras. There has to be a compromise.


----------



## Ecpk91

Why does it bother guys so much that people use a trail camera? How does the use affect you? If multiple cameras are posted on your favorite spot then perhaps its not a good a spot as you thought. I really haven't read any posts on this topic as to why they are so bothersome? 

I think passage of this is going to give other hunters and excuse to say something like "well its not properly marked, its not placed during the regulated time frame it is my duty and obligation to confiscate this illegal item." 

So many of you have success taking an animal without the use of trail cameras congrats, I hope to one day be as amazing as you think you are. 

Seriously why does it bother you so much that other hunters use trail cameras or bait an area? It's a mighty big state with plenty of area, I have used 7-10 cameras each year, never had any stolen, never had any other pics of guys and if I try a new area and multiple cams are out that just tells me multiple hunters plan to be in that area so I go elsewhere.

But what do you care how I hunt, what I use to hunt when I don't hunt with you, know you or have anything to do with you? I see alot of pride in myself and in the world as a whole with many more concerned about being right rather than what is right. Who gets to decide the definition of right or wrong?


----------



## BearLakeFishGuy

Personally, I think baiting is fine. If someone is going to take the time to put out bait and keep maintaining a bait pile, then why prohibit it? Its all part of hunting. Bait piles allow you to have a better chance at making a good shot/quick/clean kill. We don't have to worry (yet) about disease spreading due to deer noses touching at the bait pile like they tried to use to justify banning bait in Michigan. In my experience, mulies don't come to bait like whitetails do, but it still lets a hunter maintain some hope. The baiting debate has been going on for 40+ years in MI and they are finally coming to a compromise back there. Thank goodness. Each year they make changes and the hunters have to try to keep up with the most ridiculous regulations. I think MI now only allows 5 gallons (a bucket) of bait placed once/day. 

As for the cameras, I say limit the number that can be used to 5 or less. No automatic satellite or cell phone uploads. Heck, when I'm out hunting birds or need to "go", I don't want to have to stop and look around to see if someone's camera is taking my picture.


----------



## PBH

ecpk91 -- I don't think this issue is targeted towards "most of us". How many cameras do you run per year? 5? maybe 10? OK.

It's those guys running +100's of them. It doesn't matter what mountain I'm on, and where I go, I'm going to see a WLH camera - probably 2 or 3. Or 5. Per square mile. On each unit. 

It does bother me that outfitters can put pictures of animals they have on camera "out there" and sell a hunt to someone based off that picture. "hey, we have this buck on camera in xyz area. It's going to be a toad in 2 years. We'll sell you this hunt for only $9,999,999,999.99". I don't think permanent cameras on every tree in Utah is a good thing. That's just me.

At what point do we draw a line? Personally, I think we've already crossed that line.


----------



## Ecpk91

Well thats part of my point PBH who gets to decide where the line is or if there is even a line? I am regulated on the type of truck I have and have to pour recycled urine in that really doesn't do anything but is a regulation. I need a plug in my shotgun cause someone thought having five shells gave me an advantage over ducks and geese so I comply cause its a regulation. There are many many regulations cause where is the line? I could make the same argument you do and say where is the line going to end when it comes to regulations? Eventually someone will say the weekend crowds camping is just too much on the mountains so we need to regulate how many campers are allowed on a mountain and it goes to a draw system. Soon a regulation will be passed that if I want to travel I have to carry an immunization card. We keep drawing lines more and more. All in the name of this is getting out of hand. Look at how many regulations there are for me to buy a firearm.


----------



## Critter

What I have seen as far as baiting is the trash that is left by those doing the baiting. I know of a site on the Plateau where some hunters will smash a few pumpkins and other things around a stock watering hole near a road. Then come opening day they sit in their lawn chairs and shoot at the deer as they come down to water. The pumpkins are hardly touched, and if you go back there a month later the pumpkins are still sitting there since the deer and have moved out. The biggest problem here is shooting across a road. 

As for cameras, there have been fights that have broken out when cameras are installed at a popular water hole. That along with camera's being damaged or spray painted where they are no longer useful. 

But I agree with a post that was made a few days ago. Register the cameras with the name of the owner and a registration number that can be traced back to the owner. If you want to bait, fine. Just register it like you have to on bear bait sites where if someone comes across it three or four months later and it hadn't been cleaned up they can report it.

In this age of modern technology there are way too many out there that figure that if their camera is on a waterhole then that waterhole is now theirs and no one else can place a camera up or hunt it.


----------



## Vanilla

Who gets to decide? 

"Law maker" - Someone that makes laws.
"Legislator" - Someone who legislates. 
"Representative" - Someone that represents others 

The person proposing this law, and his colleagues we have elected to do so. That is who gets to decide.


----------



## Airborne

Ecpk91 said:


> So many of you have success taking an animal without the use of trail cameras congrats, I hope to one day be as amazing as you think you are.


Yeah--that's never going to happen, you will never be as cool as I think I am--sorry man!

Trail cams are a crutch that help hunters be more successful. If they weren't they would not need to exist. That's fact. We regulate weapon systems and other means that help hunters be more successful (thermal imaging, night hunting, drones, airplane spotters, etc.) We do this under the premise of 'fair chase'. It's not black and white but rather a spectrum of what we chose to allow and what we don't.

Cameras are getting out of hand as others have noted. They contribute to higher harvest rates thereby decreasing the amount of tags that the DWR can issue. This in effect takes away opportunity from others that can't afford or don't want to mess with cameras. They were not on the landscape prior to 25 or so years ago and they have now become a detriment to our passion. If hunting is going to stay in the good graces of the general (non hunting) public then we need to police ourselves and keep our best foot forward. Focusing on fair chase and animal well being above our own selfish interest is key to this.

Talk to a non hunter and brag about all the whizbang gadgets that you have to help ya kill bambi and it really turns people off. On the other other hand focus on fair chase, herd wellbeing, and eating your game and folks are generally on board.

As a side note I hate walking through the woods and having my picture taken. It's not a 'natural' experience. Do you enjoy walking down the road or in a store and having folks take pics of you? I hunt to get away from technology, I don't need it forced on me so bubba can have a better shot at that pisscutter buck.


----------



## Ecpk91

"Trail cams are a crutch that help hunters be more successful. If they weren't they would not need to exist. That's fact." How exactly is it a crutch if it is fact do you have a source or some data you can provide to convince me or others it is a crutch? Do you have facts to prove it helps me be more successful? Do you have data or a source to prove your facts that a camera is a result of higher harvests? "They contribute to higher harvest rates thereby decreasing the amount of tags that the DWR can issue." I have yet to read a harvest report that says of the x amount of animals killed these were harvested due to the use of a camera. 

"Focusing on fair chase and animal well being above our own selfish interest is key to this." So because I choose to utilize a camera somehow that eliminates fair chase and animal well being? Do you have data or a source to show this is so?

"They were not on the landscape prior to 25 or so years ago and they have now become a detriment to our passion." Neither were rifles that could target an animal at 1000 yards or black powder rifles that could target the distances they do. Neither were as many four wheelers as you see today. Do you utilize any of these things for your getting away from technology?

What is your weapon of choice for the fair chase then airborne? you don't like technology so do you utilize a homemade spear? homemade long bow? Or do you use a high powered rifle or some other gadget that wasn't on the landscape 25 years ago? Do you use a nice backpack to pack your stuff in? or do you in all your "Yeah--that's never going to happen, you will never be as cool as I think I am--sorry man!" amazingness hunt naked so you can get away from all that technology?


----------



## Vanilla

Let me ask you the same question I posed back to elkfromabove that he didn't answer. 

Eckpk91 - where would YOU draw the line on technology? Or are you saying that anyone and everyone should be able to utilize any technology or method they choose to kill big game animals in Utah? I'm genuinely interested in your opinion on the matter. We know you don't like this law, so tell us what you do like.


----------



## Airborne

Your responses below could be used in a high school logic class in identifying logical fallacies and bad reasoning--it's honestly breathtaking 



Ecpk91 said:


> "Trail cams are a crutch that help hunters be more successful. If they weren't they would not need to exist. That's fact." How exactly is it a crutch if it is fact do you have a source or some data you can provide to convince me or others it is a crutch? Do you have facts to prove it helps me be more successful? Do you have data or a source to prove your facts that a camera is a result of higher harvests? "They contribute to higher harvest rates thereby decreasing the amount of tags that the DWR can issue." I have yet to read a harvest report that says of the x amount of animals killed these were harvested due to the use of a camera.
> 
> Hunters use cameras to increase their success %, otherwise why use them? I don't know why folks argue otherwise--that is the entire point to using trailcams is to give you an edge!--it's not rocket science.
> Folks kill more animals when they have knowledge about said animals.
> Increased harvest would have to result in decrease tags to maintain herd objectives. You can hide behind 'show me studies!' but the proof is present in why trail cams even exist
> 
> "Focusing on fair chase and animal well being above our own selfish interest is key to this." So because I choose to utilize a camera somehow that eliminates fair chase and animal well being? Do you have data or a source to show this is so?
> 
> Strawman argument; I literally said fair chase was on a spectrum and we chose where those fall. We need to keep the nonhunting voters in mind when making hunting laws if we want to continue our way of life. I think because of their prolific use on public land they detract from fair chase and my opinion is that they should now be taken off the landscape on public land during the hunting season. You use them to kill more critters so yeah, that detracts from an animals well being
> 
> "They were not on the landscape prior to 25 or so years ago and they have now become a detriment to our passion." Neither were rifles that could target an animal at 1000 yards or black powder rifles that could target the distances they do. Neither were as many four wheelers as you see today. Do you utilize any of these things for your getting away from technology?
> 
> This is neat because you combined a strawman argument and the slippery slope fallacy so double points. We are talking about trail cameras so let's stay on target shall we. If you want to talk about fair chase and the efficiency of different weapons then start another thread and I will chat about that and give my thoughts regarding those things. This doesn't help your argument, because it's not part of your argument--we are talking trail cams bud
> 
> What is your weapon of choice for the fair chase then airborne? again, we are talking trail cams man, where is your argument that they are good for fair chase, public perception, and herd health? you don't like technology so do you utilize a homemade spear? homemade long bow? You are the king of slippery slopes!
> talk trail cams man! If it makes yeah feel better I have killed deer elk and antelope with recurves and longbows but that's not what we are talking aboutOr do you use a high powered rifle or some other gadget that wasn't on the landscape 25 years ago? I still use my first bolt action rifle I bought in 1993--but that doesn't matter because I thought we were talking about trail cams Do you use a nice backpack to pack your stuff in? yawn...trailcam arguments please
> 
> or do you in all your "Yeah--that's never going to happen, you will never be as cool as I think I am--sorry man!" amazingness hunt naked so you can get away from all that technology?


 I would hunt naked but my image would be picked up by sooo many trail cams and I would really hate to inspire so much jealousy among the crutch needing less endowed trail cam guys hehehe! :grin: 

Here is a link on logical fallacies, you should read it--it's interesting stuff and you may enjoy it!

https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/


----------



## Ecpk91

Fair question. Where I draw the line on technology is when it invades my right to choose for myself. I do not believe all technology should be allowed, I don't like drones, thermal imaging and such. I don't like high tech cameras. I choose not to use them. I don't like when I feel my right to choose is taken away. 

I choose not to rifle hunt because my personal belief is there is no sport in taking an animal 800 yards plus away, I don't use black powder rifles for similar reasons. I choose to bow hunt. My choice and personal standards is I won't shoot anything over 60 yards away. I do use a rangefinder so I can be as accurate as possible and make a clean humane kill. I respect the right to choose what weapon of choice a hunter prefers. 

Do i agree with 100 plus cameras? No but I respect the right to choose. I am open to honest dialogue on issues and compromise. This topic is specific to camera use. I choose to utilize cameras. I love wildlife and respecting the outdoors and gifts it provides. I buy battery powered cameras none over $100.00. 

Do cameras give me an advantage? I don't believe anymore than a high powered spotting scope or the newest better binos, those gadgets weren't around 25 years ago, back then 10X25 binos were utilized. 

So on the topic of camera technology I don't believe it should be regulated as specified in the bill. I take way more pleasure and excitement going to see what animal I have on photo then I do in killing one. Scouting and seeing animals act in their natural environment is more a hobby now then trying to gain a hunt advantage. 

The camera simply lets me know animals are in the area, its up to me to be in the right position at the right time and execute a good shot.

If you want my opinion on all hunting technology perhaps we meet for lunch, my treat and we talk about all the technology available to a hunter or we start another thread on drones, fourwheelers, binos, spotting scopes, rifles, black powder rifles, Bows and all the technology that has evolved. Most of that technology is accepted yet there is a problem with camera's? 

I respectfully hope this answers the question asked, if not let me know and I will try again. Overall I want to choose for myself and would like to see others stop making the choice for me.


----------



## Ecpk91

Wow airborne I guess it is ok for you to throw insults in your opinion. You sound just like a democrat "BUD", you may as well just tell me that I need to fall in line and accept your agenda if I am a true American and not a terrorist or white supremacist. Have I insulted you in some way or judged you wrong? If so i apologize. 

I could throw some insults in like you but won't, I don't need to prove myself to you. For a minute I thought you were going to invite me to get in the ring. But instead you chose to insult me over my opinions. I guess I did insult you somewhere otherwise you probably would not have insulted me back. Again I apologize if I did so.


----------



## Airborne

Ecpk91 said:


> Wow airborne I guess it is ok for you to throw insults in your opinion. You sound just like a democrat "BUD", you may as well just tell me that I need to fall in line and accept your agenda if I am a true American and not a terrorist or white supremacist. Have I insulted you in some way or judged you wrong? If so i apologize.
> 
> I could throw some insults in like you but won't, I don't need to prove myself to you. For a minute I thought you were going to invite me to get in the ring. But instead you chose to insult me over my opinions. I guess I did insult you somewhere otherwise you probably would not have insulted me back. Again I apologize if I did so.


I said your arguments were fallacious--that's not calling you names or being mean or a 'democrat' (not sure what that has to do with it). You are welcome to hold your opinions but you should probably be able to defend them well otherwise they are not worth holding. I don't want ya to 'prove' yourself to me--I just want a good debate on trail cams that sticks to the subject and is logically based. Sorry if I came off arrogantly, It's a weakness of mine and I can work on it for sure.


----------



## Vanilla

Eckpk91, I don't want to misunderstand what you are saying, so I'm going to clarify. You said you may not like technologies like drones, thermal imaging, etc., but you don't want anyone to legislate one's right to choose. So are you saying those things should not be regulated? I just want to make sure I'm understanding your position and not inserting my own misunderstanding into it for you. I don't want to do that.



Ecpk91 said:


> So on the topic of camera technology I don't believe it should be regulated as specified in the bill. I take way more pleasure and excitement going to see what animal I have on photo then I do in killing one. Scouting and seeing animals act in their natural environment is more a hobby now then trying to gain a hunt advantage.


What in this proposed legislation would prevent you from continuing this? You'd just have to have them out of the field by July 1st if it was a cell cam that send images to you, or August 1st for any other camera. You could still do all of what you say under the legislation as written. Aside from maybe a little more work setting up and taking down each year, it seems the way you describe using your camera won't be impacted at all by this legislation.


----------



## middlefork

It would be interesting to see the increased success rates. I don't care where they come from. Can anybody provide some hard numbers?


----------



## Ecpk91

Thank you Vanilla for having respectful dialogue with me. I really appreciate your asking questions and sincerely trying to understand where I am coming from. That information to meet in person is open. I thoroughly believe face to face dialogue is way more valuable because you can't see the emotion or sincerity of a persons heart through text. 

You are right the way I choose to scout and hunt would not be affected by this legislation. I start placing cameras as soon as I can get up to where I go. I do take them down the first part of August. 

Where do we stop drawing the line? I am all for humane, responsible, leave it cleaner then you found it hunting. I am all for doing the best I can to obey laws, respect the land. Is the biggest reason camera's are frowned upon because there are so many out there? Is that it? is that the only reason? So now government has to step in and regulate yet another thing and decide this is in best interest of everyone?

I don't have the answer and won't pretend to have it. Yes certain items should be regulated, drones, thermal. I kind of feel if we start picking and choosing what is and isn't where does it stop? 

I am not trying to dodge your question and am really trying to convey why I have issue with this.


----------



## flinger

https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2021/02/11/weve-taken-hunt-out/

Update from an interview of the representative. I also read that SFWs official position is in support of the bill. Sounds like it might be getting some support from large groups.


----------



## caddis8

Is there actual ecological harm being done by the use of cameras? In my mind there needs to be some sort of harm or loss that is occuring. I could even buy some or data suggesting that cameras increase success hunter success rates by 15% and the targeted success rate is 25%, therefore cameras need to be reduced to achieve harvest objectives. I can buy that. 

However, as many laws are, this is a feel good law. I think sportsmen are the losers here. Here's why. Just because your way is not my way, it doesn't make it THE way. 

PBH, I think that game changers should be banned. Clearly they make you catch too many big fish. You couldn't have otherwise caught that fish with normal stuff and it isn't fair to the fish. Or, you could only use it between March 1 and August 1. I had to bring that it, only because I'm jealous of your fish.


----------



## PBH

caddis8 said:


> PBH, I think that game changers should be banned.


The fly has been retired. I won't ever use it again. 

Again -- I don't think this is a "succes" issue in the traditional sense of the average hunter using 3-4 cameras to help scout. I think this is an issue of outfitters, and others running hundreds of cameras.

I'd be OK with the bill being modified to only limit the number of flies...errr...I mean cameras that a person is allowed to operate. Require them to be registered, and require owner information to be attached to every camera in the field. Just level the playing field. that's all.


----------



## caddis8

PBH said:


> Again -- I don't think this is a "succes" issue in the traditional sense of the average hunter using 3-4 cameras to help scout. I think this is an issue of outfitters, and others running hundreds of cameras


Ok, that brings up an interesting point. Could an outfitter be required to register cameras? That is a private company taking advantage of a public resource- which could be a loss or harm. Commercialization of a public good is a valid reason to regulate in my opinion. Private citizens are hurt with it written as is. Bird Watchers wouldn't be able to have a camera out for example with it written as it. Game cameras are actually used for birding pretty regularly- surprisingly enough.

Clearly, I'm not against cameras because I'm used to them. Nebraska has 10% of the public land Utah does so the pressure for game cameras is high. Lots of cameras on the public areas. And I do have proof of a bear in Nebraska and a naked man walking in front of a camera in the absolute bush in a very remote area in Nebraska. Not the same camera, but the same place. So some concerns of being photographed is legitimate concern.

I think the biggest beef I would have is the timing of the removal of cameras. Aug 1 or July 1 is very early and critters change habits a lot after shedding velvet. I have no skin in the game, but I do think the law is written pretty broadly with some unintended negative consequences. There is no perfect law, I get it. But we can't legislate morality or ethics very easily. Using a camera or not isn't really an ethical question to me. But that's me. The outfitter question is a legitamate concern on public land with public resources.


----------



## Vanilla

I hear this term of “unintended consequences” thrown out there quite a bit. You mentioned the birders, but what real unintended consequences will this one have? 

Let’s get it all out there. Maybe dialogue here can help shape a better bill.


----------



## archeryobsession

For those of you who are opposed to using trail cams because it is unfair to the game, because you aren’t seeing as many deer or elk as you have in the past. Or you aren’t seeing the quality of animals you feel like you should be seeing then We should be taking a look at other things before the trail camera and baiting issues. For example, the multi season tag and the non restrictions on muzzleloaders. These are going to have a much bigger impact on animals than a trail cam. If a person wants to use trail cams to target ONE specific animal and are willing to eat tag soup if they dont get that animal then there will be more animals for everyone else. But if they band trial cams and now that person doesnt know if his ONE animal is still around so instead he shoots a smaller animal instead of poissibly not shooting one at all. 
I enjoy placing cameras and am always excited about going to check them to see what may or may not be on them. When I get the opportunity to take out young children that are just getting into the sport, they love seeing those pictures and videos too. Just think about everyone who is playing the point game, for those who have been lucky enough to draw their LE or OIL tag, they have had the advantage of using trail cams. I am still a very long way off from drawing one of these tags but if i do, the playing field will have changed and I wont have the same advantages of those before if this bill passes. 
But I think the most important thing to take away from this is how this bill has gotten to where it is right now. They skipped all the necessary steps to have outdoorsmen/women be able to voice their opinions on this issue. If this bill passes because outdoorsmen voted for it then I would support it, I wouldn’t agree with it but i would support it. This is something that needs to be brought up to the hunting community through the proper channels.


----------



## ns450f

Ecpk91 said:


> Why does it bother guys so much that people use a trail camera? How does the use affect you?


Quit thinking of yourself, this is as much about the animals as us hunters.

It might not be the case up north in the big mtn areas, but there are units in this state with extremely limited water sources. Studies have been done and there are areas where animals do not get the water they need because every single water source on a unit has multiple camera's on it.

Down here on the pine valley for instance you can go to any of the limited water holes and you will usually see 5+ if not 10+ camera's posted up. That equates to almost daily visitation and pressure from us two footers on water that used to never get that kind of pressure.

If you can't see how trail cameras are negatively impacting wildlife, than you should do some research.


----------



## Packout

This issue has been discussed in the RACs and Board many times over the last few years. The UDWR is currently working on a presentation dealing with technology and hunting strategies which is supposed to be presented sometime this year. I think the Legislature just got tired of waiting on the Wildlife Board to act. 

We are not allowed to bait turkeys and then we allow commercial interests to bait and kill the best antlered bucks in our herds. That makes no sense to me. 

..


----------



## Vanilla

I keep hearing “if you ban trail cams then...”

This law would not ban trail cams. You just have to pull them before August. (Or July of you have cell cams.) You can still take your kids for summer hikes and see the animals you’ve captured on camera. 

I have thought a lot about this proposal. I’m not sure I love it, if I’m being honest. But I do think something needs to be done. The area you hunt may not have a problem with this, but there are areas that have problems. I’ve asked multiple times what alternatives others have to cut back on technology and we only get hyperbole like “return to hunting with spears” or “only open sights on rifles” or “ban binoculars, because they are the same as cameras” and other rhetoric that really isn’t helpful. They are red herrings in attempts to only distract. 

If this legislation on bating and camera restrictions isn’t good, then what is? Let’s talk about real solutions, not rhetoric. Someone came up with they think is a real solution, and now it’s being proposed as law. This is how it works. As Packout said, this conversation isn’t new. If it’s the first time you are hearing it, you haven’t been listening. What are some realistic proposals that can help if this one isn’t it? Or if you like this, what other stuff is needed?


----------



## PBH

I'd be fine with some form of the following for cameras on public land:

limit / restrict the number of cameras a person / company is allowed to have out in the field.
Require registration.
Require ownership info placed on the camera.
Have a publicly accessible database displaying the location of all registered cameras.
Require something similar to camping / trapping: 14 day max before it must be moved?


----------



## PBH

It's kind of ironic that we have another thread (Strawberry) saying "why can't Utah be like other states?" and then we have this thread saying "we don't want to be like other states".


----------



## MooseMeat

PBH said:


> Have a publicly accessible database displaying the location of all registered cameras.


That would create hotspotting in areas like we've never seen before. If this whole thing is really in the best interest of the animals, showing the entire public hunting world where cams are focused in certain areas over others would be a death sentence for many animals that would otherwise live if their hiding spots are broadcasted for everyone to see.

$FW released a statement yesterday or the day before saying they support this bill. That's not good for the team hoping that this won't get pushed all the way through.


----------



## DallanC

Next up, drones with cameras. 

Followed by digiscoping which technically is already illegal for hunting (using a "light enhancement device").

-DallanC


----------



## caddis8

ns450f said:


> Down here on the pine valley for instance you can go to any of the limited water holes and you will usually see 5+ if not 10+ camera's posted up. That equates to almost daily visitation and pressure from us two footers on water that used to never get that kind of pressure.
> 
> If you can't see how trail cameras are negatively impacting wildlife, than you should do some research.


This is good data. Would you agree that maybe a more targeted, region or area specific approach may more effective at addressing the local conditions vs a statewide broad paintbrush approach? I would also think that the critters are coming in at night anyway, so what is the negative impact?

Could a pilot study be done to see if the approach is effective and wildlife, habitat, or conditions improved without having a camera on it? Funny enough, the DWR would likely put a camera on the waterhole to monitor.


----------



## Ecpk91

ns450f - Do you believe that the only reason an animal does not go to that water source is because of the camera? The fact that there are multiple cameras placed tells me regardless if you see a camera there or not many hunters know of that water source and many hunters will hunt that water source. 

I may be thinking of myself I probably am a very selfish person I can admit that. As discussed in other posts by me, I am against the constant regulations because as one article mentioned the rep proposing this feels we have gotten away from the traditional hunting. 

Where will the regulations stop? As a bowhunter should I start complaining that those rifle guys have an unfair advantage because they can shoot two ridges over at the bull casually walking along that has no idea they are on the mountain? Should I push for regulations on the muzzleoaders? Changing that season gave them an unfair advantage.

Where does the regulations stop? Maybe something should be done but as another post says this was done in haste without input from hunters themselves. I apologize for being selfish and thinking of myself.


----------



## flinger

Packout said:


> This issue has been discussed in the RACs and Board many times over the last few years. The UDWR is currently working on a presentation dealing with technology and hunting strategies which is supposed to be presented sometime this year. I think the Legislature just got tired of waiting on the Wildlife Board to act.
> 
> We are not allowed to bait turkeys and then we allow commercial interests to bait and kill the best antlered bucks in our herds. That makes no sense to me.
> 
> ..


I agree. It makes no sense and has been somewhat surprising to a lot of people over the last few years that baiting big game has been legal in Utah. I just hope they get the language right to where it is enforceable and clear.

The DWR/board should have been the front runners in getting big game baiting banned 10 years ago, but instead they decided to take away an extended archery elk hunt opportunity away instead. I still remember some of the DWR reps and board members (especially the very opinionated one with the cowboy hat) complaining about baiting elk into blinds and it being the primary reason for closure. They didn't want to ban baiting though, just the hunting opportunities.

Hopefully if/when the big game baiting gets banned, that extended archery elk hunt can be reinstated. Wink wink &#128521;

Regarding trail cameras, I've had the opportunity to go on a few Nevada deer and elk hunts and it's actually really nice to be able to walk by guzzlers and springs and not see dozens or even one camera on water during the hunt. In my experience and observations of hunting in Utah, large/mature bucks have been harvested directly because of trail camera use during the hunts. I would probably miss that technology option but I can definitely see why it needs to be regulated on public lands along with half dozen other recent technology advancements. I've heard some guides say that all tags should have an expected harvest rate of 100% by having full range of technology options and season dates, while that may be true in some cases, definitely not all and baiting and trail cameras help push the harvest rates closer to that 100% which further limits the number of people that can be out hunting each year and still maintain quality hunts. I hope this bill makes it through with just a few minor tweaks.


----------



## caddis8

Vanilla said:


> I hear this term of "unintended consequences" thrown out there quite a bit. You mentioned the birders, but what real unintended consequences will this one have?
> 
> Let's get it all out there. Maybe dialogue here can help shape a better bill.


I don't envy the DWR's position. I don't fault the legislature for trying to do something.

Here are unintended consequences- specifically camera related. I could take or leave the baiting proposition as I don't think that will have the impact to outdoorsmen as camera regulation will.

1- Public land is for all users- whether or not we like the legal use of that land. Closing roads during times of runoff preserves the resource and allows the resource to be used by all. If I want to put a camera out to look for bigfoot, that's my perogative. It could be misguided, but it public land and I have the right to access the land. Maybe I want to put a camera around a tree to see how many squirrels show up. Maybe I want to buy cameras for my school kids for home school and we want to study something in the age of COVID and home school. The current date suggestion won't allow me to do that. Maybe my house is on a border of public land and I want to see what is walking along the trail 20 yards into the "woods." Point is, limiting trail camera usage can limit the use of public consumption.

2- Will permit purchases go down? Will that impact budgets at DWR who already have limited funding? Will that drive folks to go out of state and thereby take their dollars elsewhere?

3- Hunting numbers (aside from COVID last year) and participation have been declining for several years. Why are we doing more that can frustrate or reduce participation? If I can take my kid to put cameras up and get him excited and outside, then I'm all for putting cameras out. It's more outside and time with him. I'll fight for that every day. Now, you may say take him outside anyway. Well, retrieving pictures on the camera is a small reward and builds excitement for the hunt. It helps me know where critters are or aren't so I can put him in a position to be successful and engage him in the outdoors.

4- What is the next regulation to come up that limits public use and access of land?

5- What is the public good that will come out of this? What are tangible benefits?

6- Who else can lose from this? Private companies lose sales and therefore reduce tax revenue? Do we know what that number looks like? People will buy less cameras if you can't use them as much. Personally, I don't love the idea of an entity that can tell me how much of anything I can buy or use. I'm not against regulation, but I think it needs to be very carefully weighed.

Every law has unintended consequences. You're a lawyer and I tend to agree with a lot of your positions. I had to argue a lot in my old days with people assuming and placing their view of hunting, outdoors, and wildlife on everyone else. The hunter in Texas who has a ranch or lease and baits deer and hogs is no less passionate or wrong than an elk hunter in Utah who can fit everything he needs to hunt for 2 weeks in a gallon ziplock bag. We have to be careful to have the thought process that my way is the only way to approach something. My way is not the way.

Just a few thoughts.


----------



## Ecpk91

sorry my last post. I am passionate about this. I would propose registering the cameras but don't like having personal information available to strangers, I investigate identity theft too often. Maybe register them with DWR then receive a registration number to post on the camera.

I don't use 100 plus cameras so I am not opposed to limiting the number. 7-10 I think is reasonable. Not sure I like the pull camera before August 1, don't have a suggestion on when to pull them. 

I have used them since 2009 and have taken 1 big bull LE tag in a spot I didn't even have a camera. I've taken 2 deer and 1 cow since 2009, in spots I had cameras. 

Last year we had elk in locations like crazy where we had camera's, then that drought hit and they moved. They started watering mainly at night, I had only one camera on a water source. So in using cameras for 11 years I have taken 3 animals in areas where my cameras are set. I do not post them on water sources cause my experience tells me numerous hunters know where they are located. On X Maps is pretty detailed. 

Have they given me an advantage? I look at it as yes just like a spotting scope. Did my cameras guarantee me a kill? No they let me know that animals are in the area.


----------



## flinger

MooseMeat said:


> [
> $FW released a statement yesterday or the day before saying they support this bill. That's not good for the team hoping that this won't get pushed all the way through.


Of course they did. The amended version from yesterday now includes exceptions for trail cam use for non profit corporations. Maybe that authority extends to their members with a "donation" of course. The exception list is growing!


----------



## Vanilla

That’s one analogy I can’t accept, this spotting scope/bino analogy that keeps coming up. 

Your spotting scope is not recording information for you 24/7 while you are not in the field for months on end. These two things are not even remotely similar, let alone the same.


----------



## ns450f

Ecpk91 said:


> ns450f - Do you believe that the only reason an animal does not go to that water source is because of the camera? .


Did you even read my post, I clearly state that it is increased pressure from people checking their cameras that is bothering game animals.

Here it is again so you can try ro read and comprehend what I am trying to elaborate on....

Down here on the pine valley for instance you can go to any of the limited water holes and you will usually see 5+ if not 10+ camera's posted up. That equates to almost daily visitation and pressure from us two footers on water that used to never get that kind of pressure.

I highly doubt the cameras themselves bother the animals. It is people checking their cameras, if you end up having people on the water almost everyday of the week than the resulting human pressure forces the animals to stay away and go nocturnal.

Before cameras people didn't hit the water up nearly as much. Maybe they would check it once or twice a a few weeks before the hunt to look for fresh sign. Now you have people on the water way more often and year round.

And yes, I would also agree that the animals start visiting the water at night in response to the increased human pressure. This leads to more hunters that start poaching and shooting before & after legal light each year. The last few times I have been big game hunting down here I have definitely heard high powered rifles going off during illegal shooting hours, much more so than in the past.

Even a remote possibilty that trail cameras and the resulting increased human presence could be influencing our game animals to become more nocturnal or hurting them is reason enough for me to want them seasonally banned.

We need to respect these animals and do everything we can to be responsible stewards of the land and wildlife. This will ensure our future rights to hunt.


----------



## caddis8

ns450f said:


> And yes, I would also agree that the animals start visiting the water at night in response to the increased human pressure. This leads to more hunters that start poaching and shooting before & after legal light each year. The last few times I have been big game hunting down here I have definitely heard high powered rifles going off during illegal shooting hours, much more so than in the past.


I would think that's a stretch to put cameras as the reason for poaching and shooting past shooting hours. Poaching is illegal. I would say increased pressure across the board, I'm not sure I would put it squarely on the use of cameras.

So, here's a question. If the state can use cameras for legitimate scientific research, that says that they are helpful. Why limit that to only government research?


----------



## PBH

question for those of you who use cameras, but insist that they are not helping you to harvest more animals:

Do you hunt areas that you have cameras that get 0 pictures of animals you are hunting?




thank you.


----------



## DallanC

PBH said:


> question for those of you who use cameras, but insist that they are not helping you to harvest more animals:


I'm the odd man out I guess, I dont even hunt in areas I had my cameras. I dont use my cameras for hunting purposes, just use them to get cool videos of interesting animals.



> Do you hunt areas that you have cameras that get 0 pictures of animals you are hunting?


The one time I did hunt in the area with my cameras, was my LE Bull Elk hunt, I had zero pictures of my bull on the camera before I killed him. As I posted earlier, neighbors gave me pictures of him on their cameras from the week prior (approx 1 mile away).

Amusingly, at the exact moment i was gutting my bull... my camera took a picture of an even larger bull... less than 500 yards away.

-DallanC


----------



## middlefork

PBH said:


> question for those of you who use cameras, but insist that they are not helping you to harvest more animals:
> 
> Do you hunt areas that you have cameras that get 0 pictures of animals you are hunting?
> 
> thank you.


Well yes I do. All that increased pressure and interruptions help move the animals right to me.

Still waiting on the statistics showing increased harvest.


----------



## PBH

I'm not saying cameras aren't fun. I enjoy the pictures. All I'm saying is that those guys saying that they aren't helping their success rates go up are full of crap!

Success rate doesn't = killing the targeted animal.

If you aren't getting pictures on your camera, you move. Plain and simple. I can't imagine someone putting a camera on a waterhole and watching it for months and months only to find that animals are not using that waterhole - and then hunting the waterhole _even though they already know nothing is using it_. :noidea:

This bill isn't targeted at limiting people's success. It is targeted at limiting the potential to exploit. Because that's what's happening right now - we are exploiting our public resource.


----------



## 7mm Reloaded

Ecpk91 said:


> ns450f - Should I push for regulations on the muzzleoaders? Changing that season gave them an unfair advantage.
> 
> Where does the regulations stop? Maybe something should be done but as another post says this was done in haste without input from hunters themselves. I apologize for being selfish and thinking of myself.


If your suggesting that when they moved the muzzleloader season from Nov. to Sept. A long time ago, gives hunters some type of advantage to kill a BIG buck you are sadly mistaken. My theory is they partly moved it because too many big bucks were being killed in the rut. I don't need a trail camera to find one. I'd go flintlock if I had a chance to hunt every November. Maybe I totally misunderstood your comment ?


----------



## Ecpk91

7MM sorry maybe a bad comparison. I felt when they did change it that disrupted what the animals were used to and that first year many bucks died, I have friends who muzzle load hunt regularly and that year they went 7 for 7 when typically they tagged 2-3 bucks prior to the move. 

I believe that pressure on the animals isn't just about guys frequenting a camera location. I strictly bowhunt. Opening weekend I see so many campers, recreational fourwheeling, many road hunters. What I have learned is that on opening days animals typically on top or out in the open sense the increased presence and they go dark. 

I hunt for the first two weeks. As soon as the weekend is over many people leave Sunday night or Monday, then Tuesday I am amazed at how many animals come out of the dark. Opening weekend i saw 3 bucks, Tuesday through Thursday I started seeing 10-13 bucks a day. 

So it feels in a way fingers are pointing and saying cameras increase and pressure animals, perhaps they do. But from what i see it is recreational four wheeling, camping and numerous people going to the mountains. The above small example is what I have seen for the last 5 years. We changed from hunting opening weekend to hunting during the week, I rarely run into another person during the weekday and rarely see another person at or near a waterhole during the weekday. I would discourage people from hunting weekdays it is lonely and scary when no one is around. 

I have seen and experienced the same thing ice fishing, on a Saturday at Strawberry bay when it is a small city, numerous wheelers and snow machines zipping around I do not catch anything. I go back on Tuesday or Wednesday, same spot, same bait and catch numerous fish. 

So perhaps cameras themselves aren't the problem it is us as humans. And it is probably a bad comparison about the spotting scopes, I have a friend in Lindon who sits on his back porch and spots mount mahogany, he knows just where animals hang out on that face and gets something yearly in that spot. So everything we use and have gives us advantage one way or another. Would he have started hunting up there if he didn't use that technology?


----------



## ns450f

caddis8 said:


> ns450f said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, I would also agree that the animals start visiting the water at night in response to the increased human pressure. This leads to more hunters that start poaching and shooting before & after legal light each year. The last few times I have been big game hunting down here I have definitely heard high powered rifles going off during illegal shooting hours, much more so than in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that's a stretch to put cameras as the reason for poaching and shooting past shooting hours. Poaching is illegal. I would say increased pressure across the board, I'm not sure I would put it squarely on the use of cameras.
> 
> So, here's a question. If the state can use cameras for legitimate scientific research, that says that they are helpful. Why limit that to only government research?
Click to expand...

Yeah your right, cameras certainly are not to blame for poaching. I meant to imply that as more and more animals go nocturnal more people are shooting during illegal hours.

The difference between scientists using cameras and hunters using cameras is how often they are checked. A scientist will install 1 camera at a location for a study vs multiple hunters installing cameras at 1 location.

1 scientist installing a camera in 1 location and checking it once a month probably isn't going to create enough pressure to negatively affect animal behavior.

10 hunters installing 10 cameras in 1 location and checking them weekly would be a completely different situation.

I wish we didn't have to legislate something like cameras but unfortunately people have proved they are not responsible enough to make ethical decisions time and time again.


----------



## MooseMeat

caddis8 said:


> 3- Hunting numbers (aside from COVID last year) and participation have been declining for several years.
> .


I am getting soooooo sick of hearing this, because it couldn't be further from the truth. World wide and maybe back East this could be a possibility. However anyone with a pulse that spends any kind of time hunting in the western United States every year knows hunter numbers are certainly NOT declining. Just look at the number of applicants that the big game and antlerless draws has every year. It keeps growing. We aren't losing hunters. We are gaining them at a rapid pace!!

And if you have EVER been pizzed or irritated by point creep and your terrible draw odds, you have zero room to complain about not drawing tags. If hunter numbers were declining, point creep would slow and it wouldn't take 3+ points to draw a dam cow elk or general rifle deer tag. Either be happy with tags getting harder to draw or don't complain about hunter numbers declining. You gotta pick a camp and stay in it. I wish hunter numbers would decline a whole bunch in utah. But I can tell you from 25 years of hunting waterfowl, big and small game, that hunter numbers are on the rise in the west. They aren't shrinking. At all.

Guys who are killers will still be killers, without their cameras and bait. Guys that struggle to even lay eyes on the animals they are hunting, will still eat tags. Cams don't make anyone a better hunter.


----------



## PBH

Ecpk91 said:


> ...
> So perhaps cameras themselves aren't the problem it is us as humans.


Yep. I agree. And when we start exploiting technology, and it gets out of hand, we (humans) get regulated.

FWIW -- I'd be OK with limiting ATVs on the mountain too. I'll support you on that.


----------



## MooseMeat

ns450f said:


> The last few times I have been big game hunting down here I have definitely heard high powered rifles going off during illegal shooting hours, much more so than in the past.


You do realize that it's not illegal to discharge a rifle after legal shooting hours right? You can shoot 24 hours a day. Just because you're hearing a gun go off at night, doesn't mean they are out poaching.


----------



## MooseMeat

PBH said:


> question for those of you who use cameras, but insist that they are not helping you to harvest more animals:
> 
> Do you hunt areas that you have cameras that get 0 pictures of animals you are hunting?
> 
> thank you.


Yep, all the time. Just because an animal didn't walk directly in front of my camera within 60', doesn't mean they aren't there at all or the area isn't worth hunting.

You're welcome.


----------



## MooseMeat

PBH said:


> Yep. I agree. And when we start exploiting technology, and it gets out of hand, we (humans) get regulated.
> 
> FWIW -- I'd be OK with limiting ATVs on the mountain too. I'll support you on that.


Let's limit all hunting access to foot traffic only. You park where the pavement ends walk the rest of the way.


----------



## Ecpk91

MooseMeat said:


> Let's limit all hunting access to foot traffic only. You park where the pavement ends walk the rest of the way.


That would decrease everything across the board and help me lose weight. I am game for this, plus hunt numbers would go down, size of animals would go up. I like it. I already hike pretty far into areas other shy away from which is why I dont have any cameras stolen, damaged or photos of other jabronies.


----------



## caddis8

MooseMeat said:


> I am getting soooooo sick of hearing this, because it couldn't be further from the truth. World wide and maybe back East this could be a possibility. However anyone with a pulse that spends any kind of time hunting in the western United States every year knows hunter numbers are certainly NOT declining. Just look at the number of applicants that the big game and antlerless draws has every year. It keeps growing. We aren't losing hunters. We are gaining them at a rapid pace!!


Can you show that? I tracked hunter participation nationwide because my job depended on it and hunting and fishing license sales had been declining. The average age of hunters is increasing and hunting recruitment of youth is declining. 1.2% of the population of the US hunts.

Here's one study that was done to support that.

https://cahss.org/research/the-future-of-hunting-and-fishing-project/

https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/n...ericans-participated-hunting-fishing-wildlife

One of the biggest trends that has limited hunting reduction has been land access. Here we are talking about restricting what can be done on public land ie limiting access.

Point creep doesn't have much to do with participation. What has increased has been outdoor usage. More people are outside. More people are on the roads. More people are moving into the state. More people are accessing public lands. Less people are hunting and fishing (as noted by declining license sales nationally). COVID was an anomoly and it is yet to be seen what will happen with participation after COVID. Will people stay fishing, hunting, and camping when the nation goes back to "normal- whenever that is?" That is an admittedly unanswered question.

Facts are facts and statistics are statistics. I would love to have unfettered access to my favorite reservoir and last year was too stinking crowded. But other people are just as entitled to access the land that I used to have to myself. People accessing land is increasing, no doubt. But hunter retention, participation, and recruitment had been declining. Habitat is declining along with it. Herd health in many places is declining because of habitat destruction, drought, and human interaction, winter habitat loss.

Pointing the blame on cameras is potentially missing an opportunity to actually improve something.


----------



## MooseMeat

caddis8 said:


> One of the biggest trends that has limited hunting reduction has been land access. Here we are talking about restricting what can be done on public land ie limiting access.


Hunter declines... because of Land access.... In the west.... now I've heard it all. Land access isn't an issue at all, doesn't matter how you define "access".

So you're telling me people will quit hunting because they can't use cameras hahahahaha I bet we lost a bunch of hunters when the FS made it illegal to build permanent treestands from 2x4s and plywood too! :roll:

Well if the ban goes through and guys drop out cuz they can't use trail cams, then I'll be thrilled. Don't really care to share public resources with guys who throw toddler tantrums because they can't put up their camera and apple pile.

I don't have numbers in front of me to show you my personal observations. But if you're a waterfowl hunter and have been for the last 10 years, take a look at what the parking lot at Farmington bay looked like in 2010 opening day Vs. what it was in 2020. Just to walk center dike, they are parking trucks dam near down to the airboat launch. 10 years ago you didn't have 1/3 that amount of vehicles. Look at the number of applicants for swan tags now compared to 2010. Some guys are waiting 3+ Years for their permits. In 2010 you drew every other year, and that was the worst case scenario. Permit numbers have also increased! Yet draw odds are worse. Look how fast general elk tags are selling now. Not even including last year, but the few years before, they were all sold out by mid September. 10 years ago you could still go buy one the day before the hunt started. That's just a couple examples. Demand for tags has gone through the roof in utah. And it's getting worse. If numbers were declining, we'd be seeing it by now. And we are seeing just the opposite. Anyone that's been around for 10+ years hunting utah will tell you the same thing. We are gaining far more every year than we lose. I don't care what your numbers say, they aren't accurate for the west. Not even close.


----------



## Airborne

Regarding resident hunters: In 2011 there were 91,873 general deer applicants for 67,673 available tags. In 2020 there were 104,353 general deer applicants for 50,383 tags.

is that proof enough for ya that hunters in Utah has increased and opportunity has decreased? Moose is correct in this this. you can proof this yourself on the DWR draw odds page.


----------



## Airborne

Nonresident general deer apps went from 6,629 in 2011 to 10,490 in 2020! That's quite a jump.


----------



## caddis8

Nationally, between 2011 and 2016, 2 million people stopped hunting. I'll see if I can information on the applications. There has been a rise of applications, I'll give you that. I would be interested in the household data on the applications. Are dads applying for tags for kids? Are the applications centered around only 5 highly sought after units? I'm not sure and I'll try to find some digging. Non resident applications is likely a direct result in the decrease of access elsewhere. They are likely not putting trail cameras out. They may or may not hire a guide. 

The public access points could be more crowded. Not arguing that. I would submit that much of that crowd is tied to lack of access to hunting to what was previously private. Development has done a number on habitat and access. so when you have less land available because of development, even if the number of participation stayed constant or declined then the public access points would be more crowded because there is less access in general because of the reduction of private access. 

I'm not going to change your mind, and that's ok. I'm offering a differing perspective and a warning from someone who has very limited public access with a lot of people (from out of state and across the state) coming to my area to hunt. People want to enjoy the outdoors, however they want to. Your way is a way. My way is a way. My way may not be THE way. It's just a view point to consider.


----------



## caddis8

Airborne said:


> Nonresident general deer apps went from 6,629 in 2011 to 10,490 in 2020! That's quite a jump.


Other states such as South Dakota and Nebraska did not allow for non-resident hunters to hunt in the state in 2020. Some likely went to states that allowed out of staters. I'm sure that the applications for non-residents are increasing.

I'll not hijack the thread further. The discussion is about trail cameras.


----------



## MrShane

Pheasant hunter numbers declined.....


----------



## Airborne

South Dakota and Nebraska DID allow Nonresident hunting in 2020! Or maybe my friends are all a bunch of liars? Sorry caddis but your credibility score has been reduced by 20% :grin:


----------



## caddis8

Airborne said:


> South Dakota and Nebraska DID allow Nonresident hunting in 2020! Or maybe my friends are all a bunch of liars? Sorry caddis but your credibility score has been reduced by 20% :grin:


Oops. Partially correct. Turkey hunting was stopped for non-residents and South Dakota allowed for voluntary tag returns.

My fault. If I only lost 20% credibility, you're too generous. I lost credibility a long time ago. I'll go back to my dish.


----------



## MooseMeat

caddis8 said:


> Nationally, between 2011 and 2016, 2 million people stopped hunting. I'll see if I can information on the applications. There has been a rise of applications, I'll give you that. I would be interested in the household data on the applications. Are dads applying for tags for kids? Are the applications centered around only 5 highly sought after units? I'm not sure and I'll try to find some digging. Non resident applications is likely a direct result in the decrease of access elsewhere. They are likely not putting trail cameras out. They may or may not hire a guide.
> 
> The public access points could be more crowded. Not arguing that. I would submit that much of that crowd is tied to lack of access to hunting to what was previously private. Development has done a number on habitat and access. so when you have less land available because of development, even if the number of participation stayed constant or declined then the public access points would be more crowded because there is less access in general because of the reduction of private access.
> 
> I'm not going to change your mind, and that's ok. I'm offering a differing perspective and a warning from someone who has very limited public access with a lot of people (from out of state and across the state) coming to my area to hunt. People want to enjoy the outdoors, however they want to. Your way is a way. My way is a way. My way may not be THE way. It's just a view point to consider.


Ok but we aren't talking about a national trail cam ban, it's a local one. And that's why I said hunter numbers might be declining worldwide, buy in Utah they are sky rocketing. And it's not cuz people are being pushed to public access points due to development. It's because more people are getting into hunting, buying licenses or applying for permits. You might be right on the decline as a whole, but again, in the west, that is far from the truth. If you aren't seeing that, you're either not a local or you're one of the new hunters that recently decided to take up that hobby. I've been around long enough to notice a huge increase in hunters in every type of hunting utah has. If banning cameras makes guys want to drop out because of stupid childish reasons, then they really aren't hunting for the right reasons to begin with.


----------



## ns450f

MooseMeat said:


> ns450f said:
> 
> 
> 
> The last few times I have been big game hunting down here I have definitely heard high powered rifles going off during illegal shooting hours, much more so than in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that it's not illegal to discharge a rifle after legal shooting hours right? You can shoot 24 hours a day. Just because you're hearing a gun go off at night, doesn't mean they are out poaching.
Click to expand...

Of course, but we never used to hear high powered rifles being fired after hours during general season deer or elk hunts. Now it seems to be a common theme. Its usually 3 or 4 rapid shots and than no more. I guess it could be predator hunters or target shooters.......


----------



## Brookie

All I know is we use Cameras and I support the bill. We also always pull the cameras off the 1st week in August. There is plenty of scouting time with cameras During July. I'm just sick of seeing cameras everywhere I hunt. At least If I see people hunting I can avoid them.


----------



## Vanilla

While you guys argue about what is what, the bill was amended in committee today and then passed with a favorable recommendation. On to the House floor. You can read the current version here:

https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/hbillamd/HB0295S01.htm


----------



## 2full

Soooo.....
Correct me if I'm wrong. 
You can still use trail cams on your own private property.


----------



## Vanilla

2full said:


> Soooo.....
> Correct me if I'm wrong.
> You can still use trail cams on your own private property.


Correct.

Go read the link. Everything underlined is new language.


----------



## flinger

That exception for non-profits presents a loop hole the size of Texas!

Flinger, Inc, a non-profit corporation. I like the sound of that. Anyone want to take part in a "study" with me?


----------



## Elk_41

More BAIT and switch by $FW, by advocating in favor of this amended bill with the non profit clause.


----------



## TmTmTl

Count me in as a member of Flinger, Inc!


----------



## OriginalOscar

Solution 
- Scour maps and looks for areas that look promising.
- Then take drives and glass likely spots.
- June start exploring on hikes. Look for old rubs, wallows.
- July-August double down with miles of hiking, hours glassing, listening and talking to locals or sheepherders.
- September-October - Go time. I'll be better shape than spring and know the areas very well.


----------



## caddis8

The only rub I see is the date, make it Oct 1 or something.... But I have no skin in the game. The non-profit thing is ripe for some exploitation- which hopefully isn't at the expense of the "regular joe."


----------



## Critter

I agree with the August date, you have to have them out of the hills before archery season starts.

If you waited until October you would have both archery and muzzle loader seasons where they could take advantage of them.


----------



## Elk_41

caddis8 said:


> The only rub I see is the date, make it Oct 1 or something.... But I have no skin in the game. The non-profit thing is ripe for some exploitation- which hopefully isn't at the expense of the "regular joe."


 What is your major gripe with this when you have no skin in the game? October 1 would be no different than what we have now.


----------



## MooseMeat

Brookie said:


> All I know is we use Cameras and I support the bill. We also always pull the cameras off the 1st week in August. There is plenty of scouting time with cameras During July. I'm just sick of seeing cameras everywhere I hunt. At least If I see people hunting I can avoid them.


Call me crazy but I'd rather run into cams than other people out hunting. Utards are known nation wide for being terrible hunters than scare off animals miles around. Not sure cams have that reputation or ability


----------



## 2full

Vanilla said:


> Correct.
> 
> Go read the link. Everything underlined is new language.


I did read the link.....was just making sure I understood it correctly. 8)


----------



## Elk_41

Everyone who agrees with the ban should write their Congress critters and tell them no on the non profit exemption. Any $FW/MDF or other wise non profit member could by definition hang as many cams as they wanted under the current amendment.


----------



## Vanilla

Elk_41 said:


> Everyone who agrees with the ban should write their Congress critters and tell them no on the non profit exemption. Any $FW/MDF or other wise non profit member could by definition hang as many cams as they wanted under the current amendment.


While there is more gray area than before, not really. It requires someone acting in their official capacity with the non-profit. Just being a member of RMEF doesn't allow you to keep a camera up beyond August 1st.


----------



## Elk_41

If it's true that you are a lawyer how would you argue that in court?


----------



## Vanilla

HB295 said:


> 54 (ii) an individual who is acting within the scope of the individual's official duties if:
> 55 (A) the individual is an employee or authorized agent of the state, a political
> 56 subdivision of the state, the federal government, an institution of higher education as that term
> 57 is defined in Section 76-8-701, or a foreign nonprofit corporation or domestic nonprofit
> 58 corporation as those terms are defined in Section 16-6a-102; and
> 59 (B) the individual clearly marks each trail camera or similar device to indicate
> 60 ownership.


Here is the relevant portion, with accompanying lines of the bill. To fall within the exception, it requires a person to be acting within the scope of their official duties of that non-profit and is an employee of authorized agent. So yes, some gray area for a limited amount of people, but not just for general membership. If they were not having the cam up for an official purpose within the scope of their non-profit, then they would be guilty here.

I'm more concerned about eco-chondriacs acting "in their official capacity" on this one than I am SFW, if I'm being candid.


----------



## johnnycake

Vanilla said:


> Here is the relevant portion, with accompanying lines of the bill. To fall within the exception, it requires a person to be acting within the scope of their official duties of that non-profit and is an employee of authorized agent. So yes, some gray area for a limited amount of people, but not just for general membership. If they were not having the cam up for an official purpose within the scope of their non-profit, then they would be guilty here.
> 
> I'm more concerned about eco-chondriacs acting "in their official capacity" on this one than I am SFW, if I'm being candid.


Ok, so cue the creation of an official sfw position of Resource Quality Procurement Officer, whose official duties are to find and advertise suitable animals for potential auction tags to help maximize revenues.

That language could very easily cue up SFW having very little competition by the knuckleheads for their buddies.


----------



## Vanilla

Like I said, there is some gray area for a limited amount of people, but not membership of an organization as a whole. 

The bill does charge the Wildlife Board with coming up with rules to enforce this policy. That will be where the devil presents itself in the details. Stay tuned...


----------



## Airborne

johnnycake said:


> Ok, so cue the creation of an official sfw position of Resource Quality Procurement Officer, whose official duties are to find and advertise suitable animals for potential auction tags to help maximize revenues.
> 
> That language could very easily cue up SFW having very little competition by the knuckleheads for their buddies.


That sounds like something a dirty rotten lawyer would say! Glad you aren't one of those Johnny! hehehe :grin: you're secret is safe with me and the rest of UWN

As an aside I like the exception for non profits. I know a couple professors (one at Utah State (best school ever!) and another at BYU (ho hum ;-)) that both run cameras for study and research purposes. One for game birds and one studying the effects of wild horses on the landscape. I think both are needed and warranted as they help all hunters and their data is available for all. Conspiracy and conjecture aside non profits are welcome in my book to continue their work that helps wildlife and all outdoorsy type folk.


----------



## caddis8

Elk_41 said:


> What is your major gripe with this when you have no skin in the game? October 1 would be no different than what we have now.


Oct 1 is before the general seasons of elk and deer, the two major hunts with the most participation. I think putting out cameras as an individual with a high demand limited entry tag is good. Most of the best hunts start in September and critters (especially elk) move a whole lot between Aug 1 and say Sept 15 because of the rut.

The idea that major outfitters aren't going to change their game is silly. Rather than have millions of cameras out, they'll have a bunch of people out trying to get eyes on the best critters- with or without a trail camera- which would likely increase traffic in high traffic areas.

Just a perspective. I'm not saying I'm right, and I'm not saying I'm wrong. I certainly have experience that many don't and have watched data for quite a while.


----------



## flinger

https://builttohunt.libsyn.com/ep-107-baiting-and-trail-cams-to-be-banned-in-utah-hb-295-discussion

I've never listened to this group before or even know who they are, but I found this and think they have some valid points about how we as hunters should not be so good at killing if we want to have a quality hunt more often.


----------



## Critter

flinger said:


> https://builttohunt.libsyn.com/ep-107-baiting-and-trail-cams-to-be-banned-in-utah-hb-295-discussion
> 
> I've never listened to this group before or even know who they are, but I found this and think they have some valid points about how we as hunters should not be so good at killing if we want to have a quality hunt more often.


I learned after many years of hunting to pass on a lot of animals that I would of shot years ago. In the last 30 years I have been about quality in the animal. Now when the freezer was close to empty then that went out the window but most of the time I'll pass up more animals that the casual hunter will see during the hunts.

I have no problem with hunters shooting the smaller ones but I do when they complain that there are no big animals anymore with a small one in their truck. For some reason I don't think that they know where the larger animals come from


----------



## MooseMeat

flinger said:


> https://builttohunt.libsyn.com/ep-107-baiting-and-trail-cams-to-be-banned-in-utah-hb-295-discussion
> 
> I've never listened to this group before or even know who they are, but I found this and think they have some valid points about how we as hunters should not be so good at killing if we want to have a quality hunt more often.


Dont worry, most hunters, and I'd say 85%+, are not good at killing stuff. Your average duck hunter kills what, 2 birds average each hunt? Your average elk hunter kills an elk every 2-5 years? Your average deer hunter kills a deer every other or third tag they draw? Turkeys is roughly every 3 years? There are guys that kill animals for every tag they have. You'll always have that. But they are rare. Most, and I do mean MOST, guys aren't very successful, effective or efficient in filling tags. Are success rates having better averages now compared to 10+ years ago? Yeah, but not by much.

Those examples were just wild guesses based on what I've observed through personal relationships or stuff I've seen on Facebook in every hunting utah group out there. There's a lot more guys complaining that the hunting sucks, and those are the guys who can't kill stuff, than there are guys saying it's good, and those are your consistent killers. What's the saying? 10% of the hunters kill 90% of the animals/ducks? Seems pretty true from what I've seen.


----------



## MooseMeat

Critter said:


> most of the time I'll pass up more animals that the casual hunter will see during the hunts.


Careful, I don't want your back to get sore from all those pats you keep giving yourself.

That's the 2nd time in this thread you've said that. We get it. You can find and pass on 2 points. I do it too. So do 15 other guys that are on this forum. I wasn't aware that was a bragging point, but thanks for bringing to our attention.


----------



## archeryobsession

https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2021/02/11/weve-taken-hunt-out/

He doesn't stop


----------



## caddis8

archeryobsession said:


> https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2021/02/11/weve-taken-hunt-out/
> 
> He doesn't stop


Oh no, he's even from Cache Valley. I can't even blame it on Utah County.... Don't know him.

From the article: "When a deer comes into view for a tasty sugar fix, the trail cameras snap a photo and moments later the image appears in the hunter's text-message feed. The practice all but guarantees a successful hunt and Rep. Casey Snider wants to put an end to it."

That's good politics there. What is the success rate on general archery? What is the success rate on limited entry archery? What is the success rate on rifle limited entry elk? General season elk and deer?

A trail camera does not all but guarantee success.


----------



## Vanilla

caddis8 said:


> That's good politics there. What is the success rate on general archery? What is the success rate on limited entry archery? What is the success rate on rifle limited entry elk? General season elk and deer?
> 
> A trail camera does not all but guarantee success.


You're right, it doesn't guarantee anything. But those questions you ask are not relevant to the discussion, or even the comment you mention. If you're really concerned about the accuracy of the quote, you'd be asking what the success rate is only for the hunters that use cell cams that immediately send text messages to their phones when the cam takes a pic of an animal.

No way to really know that one. We're all just guessing.


----------



## caddis8

Vanilla said:


> If you're really concerned about the accuracy of the quote, you'd be asking what the success rate is only for the hunters that use cell cams that immediately send text messages to their phones when the cam takes a pic of an animal.


Then regulate cell cameras as electronic devices like two way radios which make it illegal to communicate the location of a game animal.

I would have zero issues with regulating cell cams. That technology has gone fast. Just 4 years ago a cell camera was $299-$399. Now you can get a Spy-Point Link that is compatible with almost any camera for $99. That technology has evolved faster than states have evolved on the regulation. On the other hand, cell cams make it so there is less traffic which can limit interaction with critters that come into water holes.

What is the point of the legislation? What problem is it trying to solve? How is it helping hunters, wildlife, general public, and the public resource itself? The legislator is also on the RAC.


----------



## johnnycake

caddis8 said:


> Then regulate cell cameras as electronic devices like two way radios which make it illegal to communicate the location of a game animal.


Unless Utah has changed recently, that isn't true. While many states do prohibit using radios to locate a game animal, Utah is (or was until recently) A-OK with that practice.


----------



## caddis8

johnnycake said:


> Unless Utah has changed recently, that isn't true. While many states do prohibit using radios to locate a game animal, Utah is (or was until recently) A-OK with that practice.


Interesting. I thought it was, thanks for the clarification.

In my mind, if you're going to lump them all together, then deal with all technology at the same time, drones, cameras, radios, etc. If we're going after "fair chase" then go after a lot of the other stuff attached to it. Unlikely, but it's an idea. Oh well.


----------



## MooseMeat

caddis8 said:


> Interesting. I thought it was.


Do you know how many confrontations in the field I've seen started by guys who just absolutely KNEW laws were being broken, when it turned out that they had no clue what was really the law? There's be less fighting to begin with it guys sat down and read the field regs once a year. But oh know, they just know what the laws are.

I had a dude try to rip me out of my treestand one afternoon when he "caught" me sitting over a salt block. Which was "illegal" in Utah. Always had been! :roll:. They should make you sit down a read the proclamation before they issue you your tags every year.


----------



## landerman

Not much discussion about the waterfowl language in the bill. It originally prohibited guides and outfitters taking clients onto WMAs. Good move, I’ve seen an increase in that type of activity at FB. Didn’t take the guides and outfitters long to get to the bill sponsor. Latest revision now allows such practice with a permit approved by the Wildlife Board, and we all know who the Wildlife Board listens to. Of course they’ll make the argument that guides and outfitters take clients big game hunting on public property, so why shouldn’t they be able to do the same thing in WMAs. Big difference, millions of acres versus hundreds of acres. Now the average waterfowl hunter will have to continue to compete with outfitters for the limited choice spots on our WMAs. Just my two cents worth...


----------



## Substantialpart

I think this is pretty fair and reasonable.


----------



## Rmanwill

Call me old time, but I enjoy hunting and not just chummings, taking photos to select which animal I'm going to spend my time after and bragging when it works out. Give the animal a fair chance and get back to hunting and not all this electronic, high tech equipment and baiting. If it's not an advantage this issue would not be such a big topic.


----------



## johnnycake

Yeah! Think about how many more tags we could offer in the draw if we all go back to using rocks and pointy sticks to jab and bash our prey with. 

Actually, a nice chunk of slate or granite sounds like a fun upgrade to whack-a-fawn


----------



## FeartheTurtle

Drones are next.


----------



## MooseMeat

Rmanwill said:


> Call me old time, but I enjoy hunting and not just chummings, taking photos to select which animal I'm going to spend my time after and bragging when it works out. Give the animal a fair chance and get back to hunting and not all this electronic, high tech equipment and baiting. If it's not an advantage this issue would not be such a big topic.


I don't recall ever seeing it being mandatory that you had to put out cameras or
Use technology on your hunt. You can hunt however you want. Make it as Easy or hard as you'd like. That's your decision.

Are you a trapper? Do you use scents? Baits? What about steel traps? Maybe you should go back to the Stone Age and use sticks, rocks and self made twine and rope for your traps. You know, like the old boys use to when they were just trying to survive.

It's fun to see who thinks what technology crosses the line when it comes to certain things, yet are also the first ones to break out the more effective and efficient tools on the market today for other things. Maybe next time you want to go hunting, leave your 4x4 and ATV/sxs at home and just walk from there. You know, like they did before technology made hunting unfair. The animals have to walk everywhere they want to go. It's only fair that you should have to do the same


----------



## MooseMeat

FeartheTurtle said:


> Drones are next.


You really haven't been paying attention or understand any laws regarding hunting in Utah, have you?

Drones, used for locating game animals, is already illegal. Has been for quite awhile. Read up on your regs. It's not hard, only takes a few minutes.


----------



## Vanilla

If anyone is actually interested in what passed, here is the link. Everything underlined is new language in the codes.

https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0295.html


----------



## MooseMeat

So.... 

Can I place the same salt block from IFA that cattlemoochers place regularly on public land, 65 yards from My treestand and when that animal exits the 50 yard radius of said block, shoot it legally?

Is there a date I can use salt and attractants up to? Then after it’s gone there’s a waiting period I have to abide by before I can hunt said area? For example, I can throw out corn for turkeys if I want, but can’t hunt the area for 10 days AFTER all the corn has been removed. Is this the same kinda deal?

Can I use salt through July? Then after that I can use it anymore?

A spring I hunt for elk, a cattlemoocher places a salt block 20’ away from it every year. If I didn’t place it there, can I hunt that treestand? Or does that now, once again, restrict me from using my public resources, essentially giving him more rights to that area than me? 

Seems like there’s MANY unknowns and we jumped into this really quickly without looking at it from every angle. 

Oh, Asking for a friend of course.


----------



## MooseMeat

landerman said:


> Not much discussion about the waterfowl language in the bill. It originally prohibited guides and outfitters taking clients onto WMAs. Good move, I've seen an increase in that type of activity at FB. Didn't take the guides and outfitters long to get to the bill sponsor. Latest revision now allows such practice with a permit approved by the Wildlife Board, and we all know who the Wildlife Board listens to. Of course they'll make the argument that guides and outfitters take clients big game hunting on public property, so why shouldn't they be able to do the same thing in WMAs. Big difference, millions of acres versus hundreds of acres. Now the average waterfowl hunter will have to continue to compete with outfitters for the limited choice spots on our WMAs. Just my two cents worth...


I'd love to hear how you been personally impacted by guides on waterfowl management areas. Guides and outfitters can hunt and guide clients on state big game WMAs. Some of those are smaller than the waterfowl WMAs. Most waterfowl guiding on public WMAs is for swan hunting. Anything else usually takes place on private property. Have you been impacted by swan guides? I'd love to hear how


----------



## Vanilla

Moose, I posted the language. Did you see anything about you getting to place the IFA salt block up until a certain date?


----------



## flinger

For those that can't follow the link:

"23-16-11. Big game baiting prohibited.
(1) As used in this section:
(a) (i) "Bait" means intentionally placing food or nutrient substances to manipulate the behavior of wildlife for the purpose of taking or attempting to take big game.
(ii) "Bait" does not include:
(A) the use of salt, mineral blocks, or other commonly used types of livestock supplements placed in the field by agricultural producers for normal agricultural purposes; or 
(B) standing crops, natural vegetation, harvested croplands, or lands or areas where seeds or grains have been scattered solely as the result of a normal agricultural planting, harvesting, post-harvest manipulation, or normal soil stabilization practice.
(b) "Baited area" means all land within a 50-yard radius of the site where bait is placed, including the site where bait is placed.
(2) Unless authorized by a certificate of registration, it is unlawful to:
(a) bait big game;
(b) take big game in a baited area; or
(c) take big game that has been lured to or is traveling from a baited area.
(3) The division may only issue a certificate of registration to allow for the baiting of big game if the division determines that baiting is necessary to alleviate substantial big game depredation on cultivated crops or to facilitate the removal of deer causing property damage within cities or towns."

The final bill leaves little if any room for loop holes to hunt baited big game. Pretty tight imo, especially with the intentions discussed during the legislative session. It isn't very clear in some areas but I think the language was pretty vague on purpose, if more detail (time, distance of travel, etc.) is needed then I guess those that test the grey areas will likely hear it through a judge.
https://le.utah.gov/av/videoClip.js...2.smil/playlist.m3u8&offset=3735&endTime=3827


----------



## Ray

Now, what if I shoot a deer or an elk then sit on the gut pile for a bear? I’m not deliberately setting bait, I’m just hunting around bones and a gut pile.


----------



## MooseMeat

Vanilla said:


> Moose, I posted the language. Did you see anything about you getting to place the IFA salt block up until a certain date?


No, but it does say the cattle moochers can place them out in the field. And as long as I'm 51 yards from their salt block, I'm legal. There's gotta be a better definition of a baited area than what's in the bill currently. I know a few cattle moochers that'll place salt blocks on every water source they know of to keep bow hunters out of "their" area if that's the case.

This still isn't "law". And I'm sure the DWR will amend it in some way, they always do when it isn't them who came up with the idea. I'm sure the DWR will fine tune the language and law, it and when it passes.


----------



## MooseMeat

Ray said:


> Now, what if I shoot a deer or an elk then sit on the gut pile for a bear? I'm not deliberately setting bait, I'm just hunting around bones and a gut pile.


Did you intentionally place said carcass in an area specifically to bait bears? No? You can't control where a deer or elk falls. That's a natural occurrence, like a waterhole. I'd image you'd be legal to sit an elk rib cage and shoot a bear, so long as the proper amount of portions of meat are legally harvested from the animal


----------



## flinger

MooseMeat said:


> Ray said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, what if I shoot a deer or an elk then sit on the gut pile for a bear? I'm not deliberately setting bait, I'm just hunting around bones and a gut pile.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you intentionally place said carcass in an area specifically to bait bears? No? You can't control where a deer or elk falls. That's a natural occurrence, like a waterhole. I'd image you'd be legal to sit an elk rib cage and shoot a bear, so long as the proper amount of portions of meat are legally harvested from the animal
Click to expand...

Simple answer... Bear is not a big game animal.


----------



## flinger

MooseMeat said:


> And as long as I'm 51 yards from their salt block, I'm legal.


Not that simple when this is part of the prohibited activity.

"take big game that has been lured to or is traveling from a baited area."

Although there is a much simpler answer to your entire scenario but I'm not going to point it out.


----------



## MooseMeat

flinger said:


> Simple answer... Bear is not a big game animal.


Simpler answer.

Bears have their own baiting laws and restrictions. Some tags you can bait. Others you can't. He's not talking about bears being baited by the big game baited definition


----------



## MooseMeat

flinger said:


> Not that simple when this is part of the prohibited activity.
> 
> "take big game that has been lured to or is traveling from a baited area."
> 
> Although there is a much simpler answer to your entire scenario but I'm not going to point it out.


Prove that animal was "lured" to that area by the salt or was traveling to or from that area because of the "bait", which I didn't place there to begin with, when there's a water source I'm intentionally hunting over.

I wonder what they could do about it if a guy was to go out and completely saturate an area with mineral powder and attractants right now, when it isn't against the "law" yet? Salt lick areas will still be attracting animals long after the salt block has disappeared from salt dissolving and breaking down from rain and animal use and will remain in the soil for years. Is that area off limits to hunting completely now, even though it hasn't been baited since the law went into effect? Hmmmm....


----------



## flinger

MooseMeat said:


> flinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not that simple when this is part of the prohibited activity.
> 
> "take big game that has been lured to or is traveling from a baited area."
> 
> Although there is a much simpler answer to your entire scenario but I'm not going to point it out.
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that animal was "lured" to that area by the salt or was traveling to or from that area because of the "bait", which I didn't place there to begin with, when there's a water source I'm intentionally hunting over.
> 
> I wonder what they could do about it if a guy was to go out and completely saturate an area with mineral powder and attractants right now, when it isn't against the "law" yet? Salt lick areas will still be attracting animals long after the salt block has disappeared from salt dissolving and breaking down from rain and animal use and will remain in the soil for years. Is that area off limits to hunting completely now, even though it hasn't been baited since the law went into effect? Hmmmm....
Click to expand...

Like I said, get into the grey areas and see where it gets you. Maybe you'll "win" maybe you won't. I guess that's a much fun as hunting to some people. Reminds me of trespassers... who sneak around looking for "holes".


----------



## MooseMeat

flinger said:


> Like I said, get into the grey areas and see where it gets you. Maybe you'll "win" maybe you won't. I guess that's a much fun as hunting to some people. Reminds me of trespassers... who sneak around looking for "holes".


Well it's not illegal to put out salt right now, so......?

And if you properly mark your property, as the state defines, you won't have an issue with 'MOST' people, me included. But if it isn't properly posted and marked, you can't get too bent out of shape for people accessing said private property. You have to do your part as a land owner first, THEN you can get mad about guys using your land.


----------



## Vanilla

MooseMeat said:


> This still isn't "law". And I'm sure the DWR will amend it in some way, they always do when it isn't them who came up with the idea. I'm sure the DWR will fine tune the language and law, it and when it passes.


You may want to check your definition of "law." The legislature is the only state entity that has the power to make a law. The DWR (wildlife board is what you're looking for there) has rule-making power delegated to it by the legislature, but has no ability to make laws. They can, when given the authority to do so, make rules, however.

Read the bill. There are three main sections in the bill. There are two sections where the wildlife board is given authority to make rules regarding subjects in the bill. Big game baiting is not one of them. This is the very definition of a "law."


----------



## MooseMeat

Vanilla said:


> You may want to check your definition of "law." The legislature is the only state entity that has the power to make a law. The DWR (wildlife board is what you're looking for there) has rule-making power delegated to it by the legislature, but has no ability to make laws. They can, when given the authority to do so, make rules, however.
> 
> Read the bill. There are three main sections in the bill. There are two sections where the wildlife board is given authority to make rules regarding subjects in the bill. Big game baiting is not one of them. This is the very definition of a "law."


That's fine, but as it sits right now, as of March 8th 2021 at 7:50 pm, illegal baiting of big game has not been signed into law. And the DWR will tweek and change the wording of the "rules". I'm sure we will see it in their 2021 field regs that they will publish in the next couple months


----------



## Vanilla

You are correct. Assuming the governor does not veto this bill, it will go into effect in May. 

That said, I'll repeat, the legislature did not give the wildlife board the authority to tweak the baiting language. What is on the state code will be the law in May. Anything the DWR publishes is simply advice, the law is in state code.


----------



## flinger

MooseMeat said:


> flinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple answer... Bear is not a big game animal.
> 
> 
> 
> Simpler answer.
> 
> Bears have their own baiting laws and restrictions. Some tags you can bait. Others you can't. He's not talking about bears being baited by the big game baited definition
Click to expand...

That's interesting since this thread is in the big game section and a thread about big game baiting, but I digress. Back to point.


----------



## flinger

MooseMeat said:


> you won't have an issue with 'MOST' people, me included.


Good to know. Most people do, but the few might ruin it for the rest of us.


----------



## MWScott72

I kinda question the definition of "bait". It basically says salt, mineral blocks, etc placed and used for agricultural purposes (paraphrasing) are not "bait". Yeah, salt , mineral blocks are used and placed exactly for that, so they aren't "bait" as defined.

This has already been brought up by MM, but no way in hell the DWR would be able to enforce this fairly if they weer considered "bait" as MM has stated that salt and mineral blocks are pervasive across the entire western landscape. Are we perhaps reading into this too much??


----------



## Ray

MooseMeat said:


> flinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple answer... Bear is not a big game animal.
> 
> 
> 
> Simpler answer.
> 
> Bears have their own baiting laws and restrictions. Some tags you can bait. Others you can't. He's not talking about bears being baited by the big game baited definition
Click to expand...

This is what I was referring to, I know it's not inline with the subject matter, just a random thought.


----------



## Critter

As far as mineral and salt blocks that are used for cattle and sheep most of them are placed around common feeding and watering areas. 

As with all laws there are those who will figure a way to get around it or they may just continue on with what they were doing before.

As for gut piles, here in Colorado they are considered a natural occurring process. And this is in a state where you might get in trouble for placing bait and a trap for a rodent


----------



## Ray

Critter said:


> As for gut piles, here in Colorado they are considered a natural occurring process. And this is in a state where you might get in trouble for placing bait and a trap for a rodent


So it's gotta be legal here, right?

Also, what's the rodent deal? That's seriously insane..


----------



## Critter

Ray said:


> So it's gotta be legal here, right?
> 
> Also, what's the rodent deal? That's seriously insane..


You would have to live here in Colorado for a while to understand.

They passed about every law that they could a number of years ago banning just about any and all trapping. That along with having to consume any meat from a animal that you shoot. There were a few animals that they allow you to just kill but they are very few.

The tree and bunny hungers have come close to taking over this state.


----------



## MooseMeat

MWScott72 said:


> I kinda question the definition of "bait". It basically says salt, mineral blocks, etc placed and used for agricultural purposes (paraphrasing) are not "bait". Yeah, salt , mineral blocks are used and placed exactly for that, so they aren't "bait" as defined.
> 
> This has already been brought up by MM, but no way in hell the DWR would be able to enforce this fairly if they weer considered "bait" as MM has stated that salt and mineral blocks are pervasive across the entire western landscape. Are we perhaps reading into this too much??


The one cattle moocher I know in an area I hunt literally drops 2 giant salt blocks every year for his cattle right next to a well used elk wallow/water hole that I've hunted for years. Sorry, I didn't place it there and I'm not going to stop hunting there because he's putting salt out for his cows. I guess I'll be sure to document it the best I can via trail cam on who's dumping them there.

If they truly decide to go after dudes shooting animals from cattle salt licks, that would mean theres a lot of meadows and areas that game animals frequent on PUBLIC LAND that would now be off limits to hunters. Does that seem right? Or does that fall into the narrative that cattlemen again, have more rights to the public land than anyone else?

Again, asking for a friend of course.


----------



## BGD

If bate as the definition states - (ii) "Bait" does not include: (A) the use of salt, mineral blocks, or other commonly used types of livestock supplements placed in the field by agricultural producers for normal agricultural purposes; - then it seems you would not be hunting a baited site if you were hunting an area of a salt block placed by agricultural producers for normal agriculture purposes. So I don’t see how ranchers/cattlemen could use it to try and keep anyone from hunting an area by placing a salt block. Just the way I read it anyway. What am I missing?


----------



## MooseMeat

BGD said:


> If bate as the definition states - (ii) "Bait" does not include: (A) the use of salt, mineral blocks, or other commonly used types of livestock supplements placed in the field by agricultural producers for normal agricultural purposes; - then it seems you would not be hunting a baited site if you were hunting an area of a salt block placed by agricultural producers for normal agriculture purposes. So I don't see how ranchers/cattlemen could use it to try and keep anyone from hunting an area by placing a salt block. Just the way I read it anyway. What am I missing?


If you get a cattle moocher that doesn't like hunters in 'his' area, and there are plenty of them, he could deny ever placing the salt there for his cattle, and point the finger at the hunter in the area and it'll become the burden of the hunter to prove they weren't the one "baiting the area".


----------



## OriginalOscar

MooseMeat said:


> The one cattle moocher I know in an area I hunt literally drops 2 giant salt blocks every year for his cattle right next to a well used elk wallow/water hole that I've hunted for years. Sorry, I didn't place it there and I'm not going to stop hunting there because he's putting salt out for his cows. I guess I'll be sure to document it the best I can via trail cam on who's dumping them there.
> 
> Again, asking for a friend of course.


Care to share pic of this elk wallow/water hole? You are hunting next to a water development created by a cattleman. Water holes are man made by ranchers!

Baiting, Cameras = Lazy

Scouting, Stalking = Hunting

Get it?


----------



## MooseMeat

OriginalOscar said:


> Care to share pic of this elk wallow/water hole? You are hunting next to a water development created by a cattleman. Water holes are man made by ranchers!
> 
> Baiting, Cameras = Lazy
> 
> Scouting, Stalking = Hunting
> 
> Get it?











Does this look like a man made spring/seep/wallow to you??? :roll:

There's more natural springs than man made springs on that mountain!

Cams, water, glassing = scouting

Sitting water, stalking, etc = hunting

Get it?

Holy balls.


----------



## Vanilla

MooseMeat said:


> If you get a cattle moocher that doesn't like hunters in 'his' area, and there are plenty of them, he could deny ever placing the salt there for his cattle, and point the finger at the hunter in the area and *it'll become the burden of the hunter to prove they weren't the one "baiting the area"*.


Wrong again, moose. You're making this way more difficult than it really is.


----------



## Critter

I think that he is just trying to build his defense if he gets caught putting out mineral blocks.


----------



## Vanilla

He can put out whatever he wants, I really don't care about that to be perfectly honest. But if we are going to talk about the law, we need to make sure we don't misrepresent it EVERY SINGLE TIME we post about it. Which, is what he's done on this the last day.


----------



## MooseMeat

Vanilla said:


> He can put out whatever he wants, I really don't care about that to be perfectly honest. But if we are going to talk about the law, we need to make sure we don't misrepresent it EVERY SINGLE TIME we post about it. Which, is what he's done on this the last day.


Then please explain it to me. Because the way I'm reading the law that will go into effect (most likely) will prohibit anyone from legally hunting an area that has any kind of attractant in the area that lures animals into there


----------



## Vanilla

MooseMeat said:


> Then please explain it to me. Because the way I'm reading the law that will go into effect (most likely) will prohibit anyone from legally hunting an area that has any kind of attractant in the area that lures animals into there


Here is the answer to your question.



HB295 said:


> "Bait" does not include:
> (A) the use of salt, mineral blocks, or other commonly used types of livestock supplements placed in the field by agricultural producers for normal agricultural purposes;


It tells you what is bait and what is not bait. If it's not bait, then it's not a "baited area." There are no dates contained in the bill anymore. No need to ask questions about dates. There is no rule-making authority over bait given to the wildlife board here. No need to worry about the "DWR" tweaking the bill. There is no burden shifting provision in the statute requiring a hunter to prove they didn't place the "non" bait. No need to worry about that.

The bill is actually pretty simple, it does require one to read the language of it and not just what people are saying about it, however.


----------



## MooseMeat

Vanilla said:


> Here is the answer to your question.
> 
> It tells you what is bait and what is not bait. If it's not bait, then it's not a "baited area." There are no dates contained in the bill anymore. No need to ask questions about dates. There is no rule-making authority over bait given to the wildlife board here. No need to worry about the "DWR" tweaking the bill. There is no burden shifting provision in the statute requiring a hunter to prove they didn't place the "non" bait. No need to worry about that.
> 
> The bill is actually pretty simple, it does require one to read the language of it and not just what people are saying about it, however.


To me, it reads that only a cattle moocher can drop salt and mineral blocks for their cattle. A hunter doing so would be guilty of "baiting" since the rock salt isn't intended for the cattle. I hope salt is still legal to use for deer and elk, but I don't interpret the new law that way.


----------



## Vanilla

You are now correct. It is bait if it’s put out by non-agricultural purposes for any other purpose than “normal agricultural purposes.” Bug if an agricultural producer puts it out for normal agricultural purposes, it is not bait. 

Not bait for the ag-producer, and not bait for you. Not bait = not bait. Bait = bait. The definitions are there in the code. 

Looks like you need to buy a cow and turn it loose. Salt away!


Disclaimer: That is NOT legal advice, by the way!


----------



## flinger

Vanilla said:


> It is bait if it's put out by non-agricultural purposes for any other purpose than "normal agricultural purposes."


I'm may be wrong, but it appears there are other purposes for feeding big game food that are OK and not considered bait. See link below. It sounds like the state still has their bases covered somehow with regards to prohibting big game hunting/taking over or around said food, but time will tell I guess. Just my non-professional opinion.

https://le.utah.gov/av/videoClip.js...2.smil/playlist.m3u8&offset=3735&endTime=3827


----------



## Vanilla

flinger said:


> I'm may be wrong, but it appears there are other purposes for feeding big game food that are OK and not considered bait. See link below. It sounds like the state still has their bases covered somehow with regards to prohibting big game hunting/taking over or around said food, but time will tell I guess. Just my non-professional opinion.
> 
> https://le.utah.gov/av/videoClip.js...2.smil/playlist.m3u8&offset=3735&endTime=3827


By his answer, I assume the sponsor might be surprised that his bill actually prohibits baiting big game at all. There are three different subsections under what is unlawful to do without a certificate from the Division when it comes to baiting: 
a- bait big game;
b- take big game in a baited area; or 
c- take big game that has been lured to or is traveling from a baited area.

Any one of these things is unlawful due to the "or" in there. If it was an "and" it would require all three to be present to be unlawful. So it is not just the taking of big game using bait that this bill makes unlawful. Simply baiting big game is unlawful by itself. He definitely misspoke.


----------



## MooseMeat

Vanilla said:


> You are now correct. It is bait if it's put out by non-agricultural purposes for any other purpose than "normal agricultural purposes." Bug if an agricultural producer puts it out for normal agricultural purposes, it is not bait.
> 
> Not bait for the ag-producer, and not bait for you. Not bait = not bait. Bait = bait. The definitions are there in the code.
> 
> Looks like you need to buy a cow and turn it loose. Salt away!
> 
> Disclaimer: That is NOT legal advice, by the way!


Ok in a perfect world that might be the case. But you and I both know if someone were to hunt a waterhole, for elk, and there's a IFA salt block, that the cattle owner placed there, they can, could and very likely would be in trouble for hunting a "baited" area if someone were to turn them in, since they are actively hunting the area. I can see this scenario going many different ways, and all of them don't come out good for the guy hunting the area.

I guess I'll just have to stick a note on my cam and treestand that says something like "that's not mine" and then I'll be covered when Mr brown pants goes to investigate the area.


----------



## PBH

MooseMeat said:


> But you and I both know if someone were to hunt a waterhole, for elk, and there's a IFA salt block, *that the cattle owner placed there*, they can, could and very likely would be in trouble for hunting a "baited" area if someone were to turn them in...


not by the current definition. By the current definition, this would not be considered "bait" because it was placed by a cattle rancher for normal agricultural purposes. Hunt away.

Do you not think that CO's have a good feel for the cattle scene on the units they cover? I mean, I think it's pretty easy to tell when / where the cattle men are leaving salt blocks. What is it that the cool kids call this? A nothingburger?

I actually like this bill.


----------



## MooseMeat

PBH said:


> Do you not think that CO's have a good feel for the cattle scene on the units they cover? I mean, I think it's pretty easy to tell when / where the cattle men are leaving salt blocks. .


They seem to be pretty clueless about everything else that's happening in the units they cover, so yes I doubt it that they know what the cattle moochers are doing.


----------



## middlefork

MooseMeat said:


> They seem to be pretty clueless about everything else that's happening in the units they cover, so yes I doubt it that they know what the cattle moochers are doing.


It has been my experience that in most cases they know more about your so called cattle moochers than random hunters.

Hunters and other recreationists are all pretty random visitors . The people with a living on the line are a little more involved in what is going on with their animals.


----------



## PBH

MooseMeat said:


> They seem to be pretty clueless about everything else that's happening in the units they cover, ...


That comment tells me a lot about you. :noidea:


----------



## Vanilla

Yeah, moose's frustration here has much more to do with an axe to grind than any perceived confusion about the law itself. He's a smart guy and knows how to read. That is his major message to anyone that comes on here and asks questions. 

This is just his sounding board. He's getting out some pent up frustrations. Don't worry, there will be people asking for "not your honey hole, just a place to start" on units all around the state soon, and his attention will then turn to them. :mrgreen:


----------



## OriginalOscar

MooseMeat said:


> View attachment 146493
> 
> 
> Does this look like a man made spring/seep/wallow to you??? :roll:
> 
> There's more natural springs than man made springs on that mountain!
> 
> Cams, water, glassing = scouting
> 
> Sitting water, stalking, etc = hunting
> 
> Get it?
> 
> Holy balls.


That would be a spring. Not water hole. PM GPS coordinates and I could verify for you. :grin:

So what's the need for cam or salt block?


----------



## flinger

Vanilla said:


> flinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm may be wrong, but it appears there are other purposes for feeding big game food that are OK and not considered bait. See link below. It sounds like the state still has their bases covered somehow with regards to prohibting big game hunting/taking over or around said food, but time will tell I guess. Just my non-professional opinion.
> 
> https://le.utah.gov/av/videoClip.js...2.smil/playlist.m3u8&offset=3735&endTime=3827
> 
> 
> 
> By his answer, I assume the sponsor might be surprised that his bill actually prohibits baiting big game at all. There are three different subsections under what is unlawful to do without a certificate from the Division when it comes to baiting:
> a- bait big game;
> b- take big game in a baited area; or
> c- take big game that has been lured to or is traveling from a baited area.
> 
> Any one of these things is unlawful due to the "or" in there. If it was an "and" it would require all three to be present to be unlawful. So it is not just the taking of big game using bait that this bill makes unlawful. Simply baiting big game is unlawful by itself. He definitely misspoke.
Click to expand...

This is what he referred to: "Bait" means intentionally placing food or nutrient substances to manipulate the behavior of wildlife for the purpose of taking or attempting to take big game."

One might interpret that to mean food put out for big game for purposes other than taking or attempting to take big game is not considered "bait". That is what the sponsor alluded to. That would be a pretty big mislead if he really misspoke that bad. There are mountain subdivisions with cabins lots full of deer feeders put out by nonhunters that I think they are trying to say is still OK. But will this cause some issues with hunters and intent? Again, just my non professional opinion.


----------



## Vanilla

I agree with your “non professional opinion.” I misspoke on my last post, because it’s only baiting under this code when taking or attempting to take big game. So yes, you are correct and the bill sponsor did not misspeak. That was my mistake.


----------



## MooseMeat

OriginalOscar said:


> Care to share pic of this elk wallow/water hole? You are hunting next to a water development created by a cattleman. Water holes are man made by ranchers!
> 
> "That would be a spring. Not water hole. PM GPS coordinates and I could verify for you.
> 
> So what's the need for cam or salt block?"


So first I'm sitting water sources that were "made" by cattle moochers, and I should kiss the ground they walk on. Ask to share a pic in an effort to catch me in some technical wording, I did, and now it's a natural spring, and that's your best reply?

What a fine job you did there Sherlock!

I've got 6 wallows/springs I hunt in one unit for elk. Not 1 of them is man made. Doesn't matter what my need for my cam or (up to now) salt is. It/was legal and it's how I choose to hunt. I don't have to explain myself to you and it's none of your business


----------



## MooseMeat

PBH said:


> That comment tells me a lot about you. :noidea:


Please elaborate


----------



## flinger

Dwr getting ready to decide what to do about trail cams. Surveys are being sent out randomly. Here are a few of the questions. 


"Emerging technologies for hunting big game

Trail Cameras

5. Do you oppose or support the use of transmitting trail cameras during big game hunting seasons? (Transmitting trail cameras can send real-time images - including photos and/or videos - to an individual at a different, off-site location.)


6. Do you oppose or support the use of internal storage trail cameras during big game hunting seasons? (Internal storage trail cameras require an individual to physically retrieve the camera to offload its photos and/or videos.)


7. Would you oppose or support the following regulations used during established big game
hunting seasons in Utah?


Regulating trail cameras differently, depending on whether they are transmitting cameras or internal storage cameras (Transmitting cameras can send real-time photos and videos to a different off-site location, while internal storage cameras must be accessed in person to retrieve photos and videos)

Regulating trail cameras used specifically on private land 

Regulating trail cameras used specifically on public land"



I don't understand why they would even ask about trail cam restrictions on private land. Strange. That would be quite silly to even try to restrict them. Even if they try to say restrictions are only for hunting purposes that would still not be worth the paper it's written on. There are many more purposes for cameras on private land than just photographing wildlife. What's next, the state trying to charge a wildlife "model release" fee to take pics of their animals? Smh


----------



## MooseMeat

flinger said:


> Dwr getting ready to decide what to do about trail cams. Surveys are being sent out randomly. Here are a few of the questions.
> 
> "Emerging technologies for hunting big game
> 
> Trail Cameras
> 
> 5. Do you oppose or support the use of transmitting trail cameras during big game hunting seasons? (Transmitting trail cameras can send real-time images - including photos and/or videos - to an individual at a different, off-site location.)
> 
> 6. Do you oppose or support the use of internal storage trail cameras during big game hunting seasons? (Internal storage trail cameras require an individual to physically retrieve the camera to offload its photos and/or videos.)
> 
> 7. Would you oppose or support the following regulations used during established big game
> hunting seasons in Utah?
> 
> Regulating trail cameras differently, depending on whether they are transmitting cameras or internal storage cameras (Transmitting cameras can send real-time photos and videos to a different off-site location, while internal storage cameras must be accessed in person to retrieve photos and videos)
> 
> Regulating trail cameras used specifically on private land
> 
> Regulating trail cameras used specifically on public land"
> 
> I don't understand why they would even ask about trail cam restrictions on private land. Strange. That would be quite silly to even try to restrict them. Even if they try to say restrictions are only for hunting purposes that would still not be worth the paper it's written on. There are many more purposes for cameras on private land than just photographing wildlife. What's next, the state trying to charge a wildlife "model release" fee to take pics of their animals? Smh


I just love how they sent out yet another selective survey, where not everyone gets to voice their opinion or have input. I've got 4 hunters in my family tied to my email and none of them received that survey. Neither did my dad or brother. But this is the 2nd person I've seen say something about a survey.

Personally, if we aren't willing to pull the rifle elk hunt out of the rut to increase more opportunities for hunters, then I don't think we have any business talking about limiting other factors to create more opportunities for hunters. Look at it from any angle you want, but this whole thing has nothing to do with "fair chase" or level the playing field. It's selfish greed where everyone wants to see a 200" deer standing behind every tree that they can see from their SxS. It's not "fair" that some guys can kill big stuff, but most can't. Even with technology. So they want to limit the killers even more in an attempt to allow more carry over on animals annually with the hopes that at some point they can stumble into a deer for them to shoot at eventually.

But if we are going to disguise our selfish greed in the name of fair chase, conservation and leveling the playing field, Let's go to open sight late muzzy LE hunts on general units and for general hunts, pull the rifle elk hunt out of the rut. Late rifle elk hunts will now be late muzzleloader elk hunts. Want to hunt rifle big bulls? You get to do it mid October. September is for the archery guys. Fixed pin sights only on your bow, with a maximum of 5 pins allowed. Lever guns or bolt action rifles with no detachable mags allowed, 4x fixed scopes only with no exposed target turrets on them.

But attacking trail cams, bait, and some of the other chit in this survey that I've heard about is fukt, selfish and another attempt at the "hand me my trophy" mentality in hunting. This isn't about fairness to animals. It's about fairness cuz lots of guys can't cut tags and they are pizzed about it.


----------



## Vanilla

I would support some trail camera regulations, not all of what has been proposed, but there are some things I would support when regulating trail cams. And it has absolutely nothing to do with me being jealous or thinking I'm entitled to equal chances at a 200" buck. 

I think we should ban entirely data transmission cameras. I'm not sure about any of the other proposals, but those seem to be taking things too far for me. That one seems easy. 

Most of the rest of moose's post is just whataboutisms to distract from the topic at hand. If you feel strongly about those other things, find a bill sponsor and run it. That is what happened with cameras. If you want to include other topics, draft a bill, find a sponsor, and try your luck.


----------



## MooseMeat

Vanilla said:


> I would support some trail camera regulations, not all of what has been proposed, but there are some things I would support when regulating trail cams. And it has absolutely nothing to do with me being jealous or thinking I'm entitled to equal chances at a 200" buck.
> 
> I think we should ban entirely data transmission cameras. I'm not sure about any of the other proposals, but those seem to be taking things too far for me. That one seems easy.
> 
> Most of the rest of moose's post is just whataboutisms to distract from the topic at hand. If you feel strongly about those other things, find a bill sponsor and run it. That is what happened with cameras. If you want to include other topics, draft a bill, find a sponsor, and try your luck.


I agree with the cell phone cameras being banned. Personally I do think they are a problem.

My post was more to the point that our animal numbers and health are in the toilet. Bad. And we are looking to place the blame on things that ultimately in the long run won't fix our issues, or even bandaid it for the time being. All these things proposed will do is artificially carry over bucks and bulls another year or so longer than they normally would be around. Banning bait won't recruit fawn/calf survival. It won't grow more healthier cows and does. It won't improve habitat and preserve winter range. It doesn't knock bear and lion predation issue down. Our issue doesn't begin or end with saving a few male animals every year that would normally get killed because of technology. There's much more important things we need to focus on before we start making trail cams and apple piles the problem.

Eliminate all the technology you want, in 10 years we will still be in the same place we are now. Remember in 2012, $FW said going to a unit by unit management plan for deer would increase numbers and create stronger herds. Yet here we are 9 years later far worse than we were back them, with less tags and less opportunities for general deer hunters.


----------



## Vanilla

Agreed with everything you said there, Moose. 

The problem is that I haven’t heard anyone say trail cameras are to blame for the poor herd health you describe and I agree with. I haven’t heard a single person say that. This bill and issue has nothing to do with managing animals and everything to do with managing hunters. If you want to address herd health you have to start managing animals, not hunters. 

That said, it is possible to reasonably do both. And there are good reasons to do both. The hang up will always be how we each define “reasonable.”


----------



## MrShane

I don’t put out mineral blocks but I am very grateful to those hunters who do spend their money on them and lug them up the mountain to place.
It’s not just the males of our big game animals that benefit from those nutrients.
Mommas and toddlers need them also.
#FemalesLivesMatterToo


----------



## Critter

It makes you wonder how the wildlife survived before man started to pack in the mineral blocks and salt blocks for them.


----------



## MooseMeat

Vanilla said:


> Agreed with everything you said there, Moose.
> 
> The problem is that I haven't heard anyone say trail cameras are to blame for the poor herd health you describe and I agree with. I haven't heard a single person say that. This bill and issue has nothing to do with managing animals and everything to do with managing hunters. If you want to address herd health you have to start managing animals, not hunters.
> 
> That said, it is possible to reasonably do both. And there are good reasons to do both. The hang up will always be how we each define "reasonable."


I guess I'm trying to address 2 separate issues at the same time.

But I just have a hard time seeing people complaining about technology and wanting change when the only reasons I can see currently, is for personal greed. It doesn't benefit the animals as a whole. It doesn't really benefit the animals at all, since the ones being effected are really the bucks and bulls, on a trophy level. In my opinion if we are going to change the way we hunt, it should be to benefit all the wildlife. Not just a halfass effort to try and get more mature animals on the mountain for dudes to shoot at. I think we need to look at maintaining and increasing animal numbers, before we start addressing and redefining what's "fair" when it comes to the actual hunting methods used, as long as we stay within the bounds of the laws we currently have. I'd rather see the state declare war on lions, bears and coyotes first, before they tell me I can't place a mineral block in the mountains for deer and elk to use. I'd rather see the state stop shooting doe Muleys all together until our herds are stable and increasing, before they tell me my trail camera is an unfair advantage. I'd rather see mandatory harvest surveys done on every tag issued and base management plans off that info, before they suggest that my scope on a muzzleloader is a problem. I'd rather see actual legitimate, detailed winter range counts on every unit within the state for all species, instead of a quick sample and use a guesstimated method to come up with a number, before they tell me that my range finder is a problem.

The bottom line problem we have isn't technology related. It's a mismanagement problem. If we addressed the right issues first, then at some point, the other issues would address and work themselves out, to some extent.

I'm done with this topic. I think it's stupid what we are trying to do to ourselves when all it'll do is basically nothing in the long run. There does need to be a line drawn on technology. But I personally don't think we have crossed it too far yet as it is. I'd like to see thermal imaging equipment and cell cams banned. Automatic range finding scopes and sights being banned would be nice as well, but you still have to make the shot when it comes down to it, and a lot of guys just can't hold it together when that time comes. Other than that, I think we are fine and don't have any reason to change, other than for like I said previously, selfish greed in wanting bucks and bulls to grow bigger and live longer to possibly give people more opportunities for them to kill them at some point. But none of what's being suggested will positively impact the overall herd health in the future. It will just artificially impact buck and bull numbers, which has been proven many times as not to be beneficial to over all herd health so long as basic buck/bull ratios are met. I'm rambling... haha happy Sunday everyone. Hope you have a great day.


----------



## JuddCT

I wish I would also get the survey. I know how statistics work and I agree you don’t need to get 100% feedback. I do wish they would at least post the full list of questions asked in the email on the Division web page along with a link to email all the RACS and WB. It would make it easier for me to send my input to them on the specific questions being asked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla

Each of us have things that “I would like to see” and everything else is all about other’s greed. 

I’m guessing that the houndsmen on this forum would not like to see an all out war on bears and lions. And they might even perceive another’s desire for that all out war as selfish greed from people that just want to make it easier for that person to kill a buck. It’s all a matter of perspective, I guess. 

This is why management is never easy, and not just in the wildlife arena. We all have a way we like to do things, and the second regulation encroaches on our way of doing things it is all about the way others want to do things. But we also can’t just have a free for all in society. 

I think almost everyone agrees we should draw a line when it comes to technology and hunting. Where is the appropriate place for that line? That comes down to individual ethics, and that will always be tricky.


----------



## MooseMeat

Vanilla said:


> I'm guessing that the houndsmen on this forum would not like to see an all out war on bears and lions. And they might even perceive another's desire for that all out war as selfish greed from people that just want to make it easier for that person to kill a buck. It's all a matter of perspective, I guess.
> .


This is correct, but the lion numbers aren't in the toilet like they all claim (speaking strictly from personal experience and opinion) and the bear numbers are higher now than most of us have ever seen. When those 2 animals are impacting many other animals to the point where they can't maintain a stable population, things need to be done. We all agree our herds aren't stable. And most guys that spend enough time outside know that the claim of no lions and no bears in this state isn't close to the truth.

The division even realizes these 2 predators are a huge limiting factor in growing our herds, which is why they are getting more aggressive with offering more opportunity hunts and otc tags


----------



## PBH

Moose -- I agree with a lot of what you've posted. I get it that you're upset. But something has to be done about cameras.



If you want to get the rifle elk hunt moved out of the rut - I'm with you.
I'll support you on open sights for muzzleloaders.
I'll support you on adjusting late hunts (weapons and dates).
I'll support fixed sites on bows - and while we're at it, limit it to 3 pins!
I'll support no mags on rifles (lever and bolt only).
And, I'll support the ban on adjustable turrets.


Where / how do we start? I'm ready.


----------



## MooseMeat

PBH said:


> Moose -- I agree with a lot of what you've posted. I get it that you're upset. But something has to be done about cameras.
> 
> .


Why. Why is it cameras that are being targeted? Why are they the problem?

Here's my take. I'd bet cameras and their info are used more by bowhunters than any other type of hunter, for both deer and elk. Yes muzzy and rifle guys use them too, but during those hunts, the animals patterns have changed and can change over night with something as simple as the temps dropping. Making it a lot harder to use camera info for those hunts. The archery guys benefit the most from cameras. Yet we aren't seeing success rates through the roof because of them. Or bait for that matter. What is the success of general archery elk? 10%? And that's with cameras and bait being legal. What's the average success on archery deer? 20%? I sat and I watched the state officials meet and vote on the bait deal and all I saw was a bunch of emotional uneducated Bambi fans voting from what little they've been told about bait, and no personal experience. The one dude said something to the effect of "there is a substance called deer-cocaine. And it is just that. It's very addictive to them. They have to have it." Anyone who has used and tried "bait" will know that couldn't be further from the truth. This isn't Texas whitetails we are talking about and there's not corn feeders in every draw. And now I'm seeing guys say cameras are the problem. Problem with what exactly?

I support the ban on cell cams 100%. I personally know of a giant deer killed by a dude taking a nap back at camp and his phone went off. The buck that the entire mountain range full of hunters had been hunting for several years had moved during the middle of the day like he always had to avoid people, and crossed infront of a cam 400 yards from the guys camp, and he went down there and shot him. I understand that one. But when you have to personally hike in, and check the cards and change the batteries yourself, I just don't see how cameras are the problem, when there's bigger issues. The only thing I see is this is the first step at chipping away at what hunters can do in utah.

And for the record, I don't want to take my scope of my muzzy. I don't want to limit my pins on my bow. I don't want to take my turret scope off my rifle. I don't want anyone else to either. Not until we, as a state, start to address the bigger issues and move forward with efforts on fixing them. The only thing this technology discussion will solve is like I've said many times, artificially carry over male animals, allowing SOME, not many, to live an extra year or 2 and give guys something else to fight over and feel entitlement towards. But if we were to fix some bigger issues that would benefit the animals and hunters as a whole, we wouldn't have to worry about the technology discussion anymore, since there would be plenty more animals out there for us to hunt anyways.

But for the last time, we need to work on the other things first, before we start chipping away at what hunters can and can't do. And the state is refusing to take that route and try that first. Limit us to sling shots and spears for 10 years, and I'd still bet our herd numbers are in the toilet. MISMANAGEMENT is the biggest problem hunters and animals are facing right now. With both money and resources. 8.1 million dollars $FW raised last month on our wildlife and pimping our public tags. About all they will show for that money will be a pen raised pheasant hunt on state WMAs in November. What a great trade that is! :roll:


----------



## Ecpk91

I wholeheartedly agree moosemeat, I use trailcameras for bowhunting and have since 2009. I place them (battery powered ones) as soon as I can access where I hunt. I check them weekly. I also used trophy rock which is a natural substance harvested here in Utah. All the cameras have told me is animals are in the area, The camera doesn't tell me the animal crosses a certain path every day, I don't get photos every day, usually they come into the area 1-2 times a week sometimes a little more. The trophy rock in my 10 years of experience using them only show animals hitting them early in the season as they are growing antlers, trying to gain nutrients as the weeds and such begin to grow, eventually they stop hitting the trophy rock as the year goes on. I pull my cameras after the bowhunt. It has turned more into a hobby then a help me harvest a buck or an elk. Every year for the past three I have had numerous bears, and multiple cougar pics some with four cougars in the frame. I attached a few trail cam photos and agree with your bear and cougar assessment.


----------



## Vanilla

Can we PLEASE stop saying trail cams or any other technology doesn't help? 

It is patently false. If these things didn't help us, we wouldn't use them. Period. 

You can like using them still even if they help. You don't have to turn in your man card. You can still be a "killer" and awesome even if you use technology that helps you be successful, but for all that is holy....can we please stop with that total crap about it doesn't help you be successful? 

Sorry, I had to get that off my chest. That is the single biggest lie in hunting. I use an accurate shooting rifle and high end bullets because they help. I use binoculars because they help. I would use a trail cam (if I used them) because they help. Period.


----------



## MooseMeat

Vanilla said:


> Can we PLEASE stop saying trail cams or any other technology doesn't help?
> 
> It is patently false. If these things didn't help us, we wouldn't use them. Period.
> 
> You can like using them still even if they help. You don't have to turn in your man card. You can still be a "killer" and awesome even if you use technology that helps you be successful, but for all that is holy....can we please stop with that total crap about it doesn't help you be successful?
> 
> Sorry, I had to get that off my chest. That is the single biggest lie in hunting. I use an accurate shooting rifle and high end bullets because they help. I use binoculars because they help. I would use a trail cam (if I used them) because they help. Period.


Who said they don't help? They help. But not to the degree everyone assumes they do! You admittedly don't use them. How do you know how effective they really are? Especially outside of archery season.

And again, why are cameras, out of all the tools we have now to use, the problem? You don't want to run cams? Fine! But don't get mad at a guy who does, even if they are effective! This is an equally opportunity situation! No one has more advantage than the other. It's not not only a select few guys can use them and everyone else can't. We all can. So why are they the problem?

To me this is like someone wanting to ban the use of treestands. They are more effective than sitting on the ground behind a tree for many reasons. Of course they help you be more successful. But everyone can use them.

I've run cams on every animal I hunt. And the only thing I consistently use their info for is archery elk. After the archery season is over, I don't even check them until the following summer! Yet I'm still in the same area, hunting deer or elk during the other seasons. Why? To me once things cool off and hunting pressure starts, their patterns can't even be called patterns anymore.

Help me understand why cameras are the biggest problem. Yes they help. But not any more than your binos or your OnX mapping app. You still have to know how to use them and you still have to know how to use them effectively.


----------



## Ecpk91

I just re-read my last post Vanilla so for the love of all that is holy please do not misrepresent something I did not say. I never mentioned once in my last post that they do not help. Where did you read that from?


----------



## PBH

"the" problem? No. I don't believe cameras are "the" problem with hunting.

I believe cameras are "a" problem. Period. Not specific to hunting, but hunters certainly are a majority of "a" problem that I see.

I get tired of seeing camera, after camera, after camera on every single water hole in the entire state. 

I do not believe that guides and outfitters should be placing hundreds of camera's, leaving them permanently, and then selling hunts to clients on public land based off pictures collected from those cameras. 

Am I upset that people kill animals using cameras? No. But I can't stand to think that some groups are exploiting the technology and selling hunts to clients based off those pictures collected. Further, I do not like the entitled mentality that comes along with both the client and the outfitter while hunting one of those animals.
Do I believe that some restrictions should be in place to regulate this? Absolutely!

This has nothing to do with herd health. This has everything to do with some groups exploiting our public resources and diminishing outdoor experiences for others. Yes -- it does diminish my experience when I'm out hiking and I see camera, after camera, after camera taking my picture!


Restrict how many cameras a person or business can operate.
Restrict when those cameras can be used on public land (season dates)
Require cameras to be registered. Require identification tags to be attached.
Allow other outdoorsmen to help regulate.


----------



## elkfromabove

Vanilla said:


> Can we PLEASE stop saying trail cams or any other technology doesn't help?
> 
> It is patently false. If these things didn't help us, we wouldn't use them. Period.
> 
> You can like using them still even if they help. You don't have to turn in your man card. You can still be a "killer" and awesome even if you use technology that helps you be successful, but for all that is holy....can we please stop with that total crap about it doesn't help you be successful?
> 
> Sorry, I had to get that off my chest. That is the single biggest lie in hunting. I use an accurate shooting rifle and high end bullets because they help. I use binoculars because they help. I would use a trail cam (if I used them) because they help. Period.


So, why aren't we trying to ban accurate shooting rifles and high end bullets and binoculars (and cow-in-heat scents, and elk calls and camo and decoys and cover scents and rifle scopes and range finders and blinds and tree stands and etc.) if they all help? They all give us an advantage over the animals!

As I see it, the problem with trail cams and baiting is that those who want them banned assume they are more effective than they really are! I've used a FEW apples and some mineralized salt bricks in 3 different spots for about 20 years and have found that the ONLY advantage they give me is a minute or two of providing me a close, open, level, standing, broadside shot at a single calm animal of my choice who's eyes are behind a tree, bush, log or rock so he/she doesn't catch me drawing my bow. I place them in a spot that the deer and elk are ALREADY using. (Two of them are at water holes and the other is on a well used trail in a funnel area between bedding and feeding areas.)

Trail cams? I have ONE and only use it for hunting pronghorn every 5 years (or so) in order to identify the animals leaving the tracks.

Yes, they work, but IMO, not to the extent that would merit the banning. Regulating, YES. But total banning, NO.


----------



## Vanilla

EFA, moose- just so we are clear, I'm not mad at anyone for using trail cams. And I didn't try and ban anything. I've said multiple times on this issue I'm really torn, and I didn't advocate for or against it.

And you both have at least implied, if not directly said in previous posts they don't help. But were called out and now have changed your tune. Ecpk91, give me a break! It's a hobby more than a help. Whatever. You can have any opinion you want, it's cool. Take responsibility for what you say though. Don't put that on me.



elkfromabove said:


> Yes, they work, but IMO, not to the extent that would merit the banning. Regulating, YES. But total banning, NO.


EFA, I asked this before and it went unanswered. What regulations do you think are appropriate. To be clear, even the original proposal was never a ban, but only regulating cams. So I'd be interested in hearing which regulations you'd be in favor of. But this was never about a ban. Even in the first, most restrictive draft, they were still allowed, but only regulated.


----------



## MooseMeat

PBH said:


> "the" problem? No. I don't believe cameras are "the" problem with hunting.
> 
> I believe cameras are "a" problem. Period. Not specific to hunting, but hunters certainly are a majority of "a" problem that I see.
> 
> I get tired of seeing camera, after camera, after camera on every single water hole in the entire state.
> 
> I do not believe that guides and outfitters should be placing hundreds of camera's, leaving them permanently, and then selling hunts to clients on public land based off pictures collected from those cameras.
> 
> Am I upset that people kill animals using cameras? No. But I can't stand to think that some groups are exploiting the technology and selling hunts to clients based off those pictures collected. Further, I do not like the entitled mentality that comes along with both the client and the outfitter while hunting one of those animals.
> Do I believe that some restrictions should be in place to regulate this? Absolutely!
> 
> This has nothing to do with herd health. This has everything to do with some groups exploiting our public resources and diminishing outdoor experiences for others. Yes -- it does diminish my experience when I'm out hiking and I see camera, after camera, after camera taking my picture!
> 
> Restrict how many cameras a person or business can operate.
> Restrict when those cameras can be used on public land (season dates)
> Require cameras to be registered. Require identification tags to be attached.
> Allow other outdoorsmen to help regulate.


If only people got this irritated with $FW who literally does the exact things you just described....

Sounds like your reason for not wanting them used is mostly a personal issue.

And an outfitter using "hundreds" of cams? I know of 1 who might have 100. On a single unit. The rest of the outfitters don't use "hundreds". That's what their little highschool flatbrimmer finders fees are for.


----------



## MooseMeat

Vanilla said:


> EFA, moose- just so we are clear, I'm not mad at anyone for using trail cams. And I didn't try and ban anything. I've said multiple times on this issue I'm really torn, and I didn't advocate for or against it.
> 
> And you both have at least implied, if not directly said in previous posts they don't help. But were called out and now have changed your tune. Ecpk91, give me a break! It's a hobby more than a help. Whatever. You can have any opinion you want, it's cool. Take responsibility for what you say though. Don't put that on me.
> 
> EFA, I asked this before and it went unanswered. What regulations do you think are appropriate. To be clear, even the original proposal was never a ban, but only regulating cams. So I'd be interested in hearing which regulations you'd be in favor of. But this was never about a ban. Even in the first, most restrictive draft, they were still allowed, but only regulated.


I've never implied they don't help. I have said they aren't nearly as effective as people imagine.

And they truly are a hobby for many. for me, 10.5 months of the year they are out, isn't for any other reason than it's cool to see what's in the area. You learn more about the area itself than the animals using it, especially if you watch it consecutively. There's a spot I left a cam up over the winter and when I checked it the following summer, was shocked to see deer stayed there all winter long. Turned out to be one of the better shed hunting areas I've found. Didn't help me kill anything from the photos I got, but I did pick up several 180"+ sets and a couple hundred other antlers there in the last 10 or so years. The other 1.5 months they are out, they are used at an attempt to shoot a cow or a spike with my bow. 98% of the bull elk I get pictures of I don't have a permit for. 100% of the moose I get pics of, I don't have a permit for. 100% of the Bears I get pics of, again, no permit. And those cows I get pics of are only in trouble for 30 days. Then again, no permit. Does? No permits. Bucks? I don't hunt that unit for bucks, so they are safe too. Lions? Let's be honest, lions are never safe, no matter where they are located 

On a 1 to 10 scale of cams being "a problem" over all id list them at a 2. 1 to 10 on effectiveness? 4 on average probably. You still gotta know what to do with the info they collect. And again, this is utah, and most have no idea what they are doing.


----------



## Ecpk91

Vanilla give me a break "And you both have at least implied, if not directly said in previous posts they don’t help. But were called out and now have changed your tune. Ecpk91, give me a break! It’s a hobby more than a help. Whatever. You can have any opinion you want, it’s cool. Take responsibility for what you say though. Don’t put that on me."

You know you assume you know my hunting methods and what I do. You assume you know my mind set and what I am thinking and doing on the mountain. Don't make assumptions that makes us both look bad. I take full responsibility for what I say and nothing I posted says they don't provide an advantage. 

You admittedly do not use them yet you assume they provide a huge advantage. I'm letting you know from multiple years of using them they do not give the advantage you think they do. So don't preach to me vanilla. An implication is an assumption of you trying to read my mind. I've invited you to meet up, I can show you albums of collected photo's which does make it a hobby, just like collecting baseball cards.


----------



## 2full

My perspective:

I hunt mainly only private ground. I run 2 or 3 cameras. 
The way that they "help me" is that I know what is hanging around. 
It's a lot easier for me to pass up the 160 buck if I know there is a 180 hanging around somewhere. 
I still have to hunt and look for him, and I may not find him. Let alone take him. 
But it's a lot of fun looking for him. We had one 10+ years ago we called the vampire hanging out. 
Never saw him in the light. Toiok me 3 years to find him in the daytime. Ended up @187(193 green)
I'll probably never get one like that again.


----------



## Vanilla

I find it ironic that you claim I am making an assumption about your mindset, and the retort back is "they don't provide as much of an advantage as you think they do." 

Have I ever quantified the level of advantage that I believe the give? How could you possibly know how much of an advantage I "think" they give? I believe they help, and provide and advantage. That's the extent of my comment and my belief. And I don't believe that is just an opinion, I believe those are pretty objective facts. We would not invest the time, resources and energy into using them if they were not helpful. 

I'm not posting anything trying to make you or anyone else look bad. People who use trail cameras are not bad people. Using a trail cam is not bad. It is perfectly legal right now, and I don't fault anyone who does it. I'm not even against trail cams. I don't own a cam personally, but I've hunted with people that do, in the areas that they use them. (Although I've never held the tag in those areas, just helping out others.) 

I have no problem with people wanting to run cameras. And yes, I know people that run cameras on units they don't possess tags for that year either, Moose. But it is still helpful information. And that information will likely help me one day too in the not-too-distant future. But regulations are coming, so people ought to really dig in and find out what they can live with and what they can't live without. Simply saying "well so and so is using a long range rifle!" is not going to prevent these regulations from coming. The legislature just passed a law telling the wildlife board they HAVE to pass rules regulating the use of trail cameras. It is not an option, they have to do it. The regulations are coming, so what will be workable?


----------



## PBH

MooseMeat said:


> Sounds like your reason for not wanting them used is mostly a personal issue.


Well, duh Captain Obvious! This whole thread is full of opinions that are all personal issues! Yours are too! Why should I not get to have an opinion?

FWIW -- this bill would affect me too! Yes, I have cameras. In fact, there was a post on Facebook just the other day of a bull elk in wallow posted by the DWR. Guess what? That's one of our videos from one of our cameras posted on public land during a hunt! Certainly, this would affect us too. I'm just at a point where I believe it needs to be regulated. I'd have to follow the rules too.



MooseMeat said:


> And an outfitter using "hundreds" of cams? I know of 1 who might have 100. On a single unit. The rest of the outfitters don't use "hundreds". That's what their little highschool flatbrimmer finders fees are for.


Please. Are you trying to say that guys like Wade Lemon, and Ryan Carter don't have a camera on every tree in Utah?


----------



## Ecpk91

Vanilla you posted "And you both have at least implied, if not directly said in previous posts they don’t help. But were called out and now have changed your tune. Ecpk91, give me a break! It’s a hobby more than a help. Whatever. You can have any opinion you want, it’s cool. Take responsibility for what you say though. Don’t put that on me."

Your comment says I implied they don't help. I thought maybe I was wrong and have no problem saying I am sorry when I am wrong. So I went back and reviewed all my posts on this topic. I have posted 13 times. 

My first post stated " they haven't made me overly successful" Nothing mentioned in that post saying they didn't give an advantage.

8 of my other posts did not mention anything about advantage or disadvantages. 

4th post I quoted someone else saying they are a crutch that help hunters be more successful. I shared my experience with them (see post 1)

5th post said "do cameras give me an advantage" I don't believe anymore than a high powered spotting scope or the newest better binos"

9th post "have they given me an advantage? I look at it as yes just like a spotting scope, did my cameras guarantee me a kill? No they let me know animals are in the area." 

You stated above " And you both implied if not directly said in previous posts they don't help. But were called out and now have changed your tune." 

As I went back my tune hasn't changed, you misrepresented what I said and I am calling you out for that.


----------



## Vanilla

The "both" comment was directly to EFA and Moose. Just as an FYI. But the "it doesn't give me any more advantage than a spotting scope" comment cements you well in with their prior comments as well. 

So now I'll say "all three of you." Because your spotting scope is not on the mountain looking for animals for you 24 hours per day while you sit at work or home. So that is not correct. Not even close to being correct, and those are the types of comments that need to be called out.


----------



## Vanilla

MooseMeat said:


> And an outfitter using "hundreds" of cams? I know of 1 who might have 100. On a single unit. The rest of the outfitters don't use "hundreds". That's what their little highschool flatbrimmer finders fees are for.


I know of one outfitter that according to his own words had ~130 cameras on one unit, and he runs cameras on a total 4 different units in Utah. He could have been using puffery, I guess. But that was his own claim a few years ago. I'm guessing he has not reduced his camera usage as he's become more well known.

And yes, there are multiple outfitters with hundreds of cameras. Any guide that works for Doyle that has a camera out would count as a Mossback camera. They guide for that outfitter, therefore the camera is for that outfitter, even if Doyle Moss doesn't put the camera out himself. Care to guess how many that would be? I'm guessing that number is pretty high!

And outfitters are not the only culprits here. Hush is not an outfitter. I wonder how many cameras they have out in Utah? Tines Up? Joe Blow down the street that is running 45 cameras he got on TrailCamTuesday deals? And none of these people are wrong for doing it. It is legal what they are doing. At least for now.


----------



## Ecpk91

So do you believe my camera is taking 24/7 photos of the animals? Not true once again be happy to meet up and bring my SD card so you can see how many times in a two week period animals actually cross where my camera is. Is a spotting scope an advantage Yes I believe so. So I guess you and I can agree to disagree. I respect your opinion and theories cause I have mine as well. I won't change your mind and you won't change mine. I won't prove anything to you and you won't to me. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and ideas.


----------



## RandomElk16

I don't think I have spent as much time on premium/Le units as others... but it doesn't take long on one to realize how many cameras there are. 

I would bet Sean Morgan has 100 cams on the wasatch front. When he has sold/updated he has had a few DOZEN at a time for sale. 

That isn't a judgement or anything at all. More about people not believing there aren't people with 100 plus cams.. Sometimes on a single unit. I think the TRUE number of cams mossback, wade, etc have in utah would blow minds. 

As for the advantage part.. like Vanilla said there is 100% an advantage. That's why those guys with the swaro spotter still have $400+ cams all over the place. 

Just because YOUR one or two cams don't get a lot of pictures doesn't mean that's the norm. there are people with camera's that successfully capture multiple animals each day/night, every single day.


----------



## Vanilla

Honestly, I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion. I'm not even against trail cams. Use them all you want while it is legal to do so. I have no beef with that. 

That said, the regulation is coming. We need to start having an honest discussion about it all and try to influence the regulation in a way that works. We can talk about scopes, and binos, and side by sides, and long range rifles, and autorange-finding bow sights, or anything else, but the Wildlife Board was not told by the legislature they have to create rules to regulate those things. They were told they have to implement rules for the regulation of trail cameras though. The regulations are coming. Any of us can be a part of the solution or a part of the problem. 

So instead of fighting about how much they help or don't help, we could move the discussion to what is workable and what isn't. I think trail cam users would find a lot of allies in non-trail cam users if there was just a good, open and honest discussion about the merits of using a camera and the potential negative impacts on hunting experience for others. Not everyone will agree on those things, but the discussion needs to be open and respectful, and camera users could gain a lot of support from the general public, I think. Or create a lot of opposition if the discussion doesn't pass the smell test.


----------



## Critter

If you have one or two cameras out and not getting very many pictures you need to change the location unless you are happy with the pictures you are getting. 

When I am fishing for a location I'll check the camera weekly and if it isn't producing what I expect I'll move it. But if I had a dozen out I'd let it soak for quite a while to see just what was in the area.

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla

RandomElk16 said:


> .
> 
> Just because YOUR one or two cams don't get a lot of pictures doesn't mean that's the norm. there are people with camera's that successfully capture multiple animals each day/night, every single day.


And have them sent to your phone while you are at work so you can post them to Instagram and get all the likes! Although many have learned to not post them live during the season anymore. They wait until after the season and post lots of trail cam pics of the animal throughout the year that they ended up killing that the trail cam didn't help them kill...


----------



## Ecpk91

I am totally happy with the production of my cameras and would move them if I didn’t see what was on them. I don’t pretend to speak for anyone else but what my experience is and has been. I get plenty of 340 plus bulls on my cameras. I am currently trying to obtain an elk ridge bow tag so not presently hunting for big bulls. I get little bucks on my cameras and help new hunters by placing them in a stand where those bucks are. Like I said though I am trying to speak only to my experience and not for anyone else. I have no issue helping someone because it is almost a oil tag for a big bull especially if I have been trying for 11 years now to draw my deer tag I want. I’ll be pushing 58 to draw another big bull tag once I can put in for that again. I have yet to see another person on any of my 8 cameras, I go deep into the off trails because experience says less hunters in those areas. I’ve killed plenty of animals and have more interest in helping my kids find success and new hunters I know. I have kids between 21 to 15 who I help and my camera pics get them excited especially when they accompany me on an outing to swap SIM cards. I want kids to enjoy the outdoors and I have found providing proof of the animals via pics gets the excited and wanting to be outdoors and learn about wildlife. I have walked into many wallows to find multiple cameras and have decided not worth combat hunting there are other places with wallows that can be found by putting in the leg work and time. I’ve found those areas and no other traces of humans around them. Anyways kind of rambling a bit all over the place.


----------



## Ecpk91

Here is a phot of one of the cameras I use I have four of these been using since 2009. Nope no photos sent to my cell via this old bad boy.


----------



## middlefork

It would make the discussion easier if anyone can actually provide documentation as to how success rates have been improved as technology has advanced.

So far I have not been able to find any. The only thing I found was that increased buck/doe ratios and less hunters were the reason.


----------



## Critter

I don't think that it is just success rates. You can be successful by just shooting a animal, but most people that place cameras out are looking for the bigger animals. If they don't find them at one waterhole they will move on to the camera at the other water holes. 

Why hunt one area when you are not seeing the size of animal that you are after on your cameras? This is where outfitters will use a lot of them. Most of their clients want a "trophy" type of a animal and not a runt of the species, but then when you are paying what outfitters are charging I don't blame the clients.


----------



## middlefork

So then it is just back to the social thing? Get off my lawn! :smile:


----------



## DallanC

I used to have a picture of a old 1930's trail camera that was a glorified flashbulb camera with a mouse trap to trigger the camera release, with a string that they ran across the trail. I wish I could find it... it was quite ingenious.

There was a article in the National Geographic in the 1930s about trail camera images as well for wildlife. So yea, they've actually been around for about 100 years.


-DallanC


----------



## Critter

The problem with the Brownie Box camera was that you had to go reset it after every picture. Then after 12 or so pictures you had to go down to the drug store and then wait a week for the pictures to be developed only to find out that all of the pictures were taken at night and none of the flash bulbs worked.


----------



## MrShane

If I was in charge:
No cell phone/wireless cameras between end of July till May 1st.
No cameras at all from first day before archery deer season till May 1st.
No registration.
No limit on cameras/person.
They are declared ‘trash’ if left up during ‘no camera season’.
Everyone still gets to practice hobby, take kids hiking, learn ‘stuff’ about an area, not throw away an expensive investment, etc.
No ban on baiting, I still believe the positives of baiting outweigh the negatives, especially in drought years. 
Any mineral is a bonus to a living/growing organism.


----------



## Critter

A big problem with mineral blocks is that the wildlife learn to depend on them. Just like birds in the winter time with feeders. 

Then what happens to the birds that have become dependent on the feeders when no one is there to fill them?


----------



## JuddCT

Trail cams have been a lot of fun for my family (wife and kids) over the past 10 years of using them. A lot of great pictures and memories for sure.

Someone asked what would be some proposed regulations and obviously we are all going to differ on what we think is "too far". For me I have no issue if someone wants to run a camera year round. I would say that the only exception to that would be restricting cell/wifi cameras during active hunts. To me those cameras actively transmitting the photos to the hunter crosses the line. But I have no issue if a person wants to put up a camera that doesn't have that capability and leave it up no matter the time of the year.

Some have said there should be a cap on the number of cameras and they should be registered. I can't start to think what that number should be. I personally have 4 cameras that my wife and kids actively check year round. So at least keep it above that number. . Registering isn't that big of a deal with me, but I don't think we should require GPS coordinates as a part of it. Maybe instead, require guides/outfitters to register since they are a for profit business operating on public land.

I do struggle with enlisting fellow hunters as the "enforcement" arm of any of this. That is asking for trouble on both sides. The last thing we need to do is pit ourselves against each other over something like this. I think there will be a lot of further problems and mistrust amongst ourselves if that is how we intend to enforce it. Okay those are my 2 cents. Hopefully there can be some good discussion and open minds with all of this.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## middlefork

We put out a salt block (private land) for about 10 years. It was a lot of fun! I sat around a fire one morning while a cow and calf moose came in. The cow went to the salt and the calf went to a bucket of water we had out for the dogs. After the calf emptied the bucket it came over to sniff me and my friend while we sat there. Mom just kept licking the salt.

We finally quit when the moo cows became more of a problem than they were worth. It finally took about another five years before all the critters quit coming in looking for salt that had leached into the ground. They just find it somewhere else.

At certain times of the year I don't think there are many animals that are not looking for salt. They will find it from natural sources, "cattle moochers", sheep herders or along highways from the winter. They need it just like anything else. But I have never seen a rancher who placed it in close proximity to water. They like to have the critters move around not comigrated.


----------



## MooseMeat

Critter said:


> A big problem with mineral blocks is that the wildlife learn to depend on them. Just like birds in the winter time with feeders.
> 
> Then what happens to the birds that have become dependent on the feeders when no one is there to fill them?


Uh, they continue to fly south until the next food source is found. Just like every other migratory bird in the winter. Feed dries up, they move on.

Wildlife dependent on mineral blocks... haha oh boy


----------



## MWScott72

Critter said:


> A big problem with mineral blocks is that the wildlife learn to depend on them. Just like birds in the winter time with feeders.
> 
> Then what happens to the birds that have become dependent on the feeders when no one is there to fill them?


Is there documented evidence of this Critter? I understand that there are the highway issues with salting and other techniques, but is there evidence that using mineral blocks is "dumbing down" the animals that are using them? This, to me, seems to be stretching things a bit.

Edit: Post 2000! Cue the music... &#128521;


----------



## Critter

MooseMeat said:


> Uh, they continue to fly south until the next food source is found. Just like every other migratory bird in the winter. Feed dries up, they move on.
> 
> Wildlife dependent on mineral blocks... haha oh boy


They will do that if they get out before the freeze while they can still fly that far south. I've watched birds that do not belong where I live at 6500' in January when the lady who was feeding them passed away. They didn't last very long.



MWScott72 said:


> Is there documented evidence of this Critter? I understand that there are the highway issues with salting and other techniques, but is there evidence that using mineral blocks is "dumbing down" the animals that are using them? This, to me, seems to be stretching things a bit.
> 
> Edit: Post 2000! Cue the music... &#128521;


I have no idea. But when you supplement something and take away that supplement something is going to happen


----------



## MrShane

They do exactly what Middlefork and Moosemeat said, 
they move along until they find another source.
No different then a wild animal eating a forage plant down to unsuitable material, they move along to a suitable location.


----------



## MooseMeat

Critter said:


> They will do that if they get out before the freeze while they can still fly that far south. I've watched birds that do not belong where I live at 6500' in January when the lady who was feeding them passed away. They didn't last very long.


It's amazing ducks, geese, swans, doves, crows, cranes, song birds, etc... hell, even turkeys, have survived on the planet this long during the winter months, when a single food source dries up and they are forced to move on to greener pastures or die. Apparently even more so when these birds live above sea level. 6500 feet you say? Might as well be on the top of Everest with that kinda altitude


----------



## PBH

Ecpk91 -- from what I've read from you, I honestly don't see you being affected very much by any potential camera regulation. I don't think most of us will. The only thing might be a seasonal closure.

Judd -- again, I don't see running 4-5 cameras as an issue. It's the guys (businesses!) running 100's that need to be curbed. What is reasonable? 5 per person? between me and my brothers, that's 15 cameras! To be honest, that's a lot of work to be checking that many cameras.

Just a few things I would like to see considered:

* I certainly think that labeling cameras with ownership information should be required.
* A seasonal date should be required, which might include a 'number of days' restriction similar to camping. This would then require a tag showing date of installation.
* transmitting cameras (cell technology) should not be allowed, without some kind of certified and registered approval from the State. A set of criteria must be identified for this type of use.
* 'For profit' business use of cameras should be required to be registered with the State.


----------



## PBH

Critter said:


> If you have one or two cameras out and not getting very many pictures you need to change the location unless you are happy with the pictures you are getting.


I get tons of pictures on my cameras. In fact, too many. And most have no animals at all. I just get the wind blowing, and the shadows moving. :noidea:


----------



## Vanilla

PBH said:


> * 'For profit' business use of cameras should be required to be registered with the State.


Oh dang, the Insta-Warriors ain't going to like that! But I think I do. What should be the fee for that registration?


----------



## PBH

I don't know what the fee should be. I wouldn't guess very much. The reason I say require them to register would simply be to help enforce the 'number of cameras' restriction (assuming that was in play). A registered camera should have a registration number on it to identify it as registered. 

this won't be easy, and all those 'for profit' guys would certainly find ways to skirt around all of it (ie: using Moosemeats flatbrimmer highschoolers to place "their" cameras vs. registering). Enforcement would be a nightmare -- which brings up some of those comments allowing outdoorsmen to help with enforcement. 

Lot's of issues are going to come up that will need some thought. This won't be an easy issue to get right -- especially on try #1.


I just think we've tipped over that critical point...


----------



## Critter

PBH said:


> I get tons of pictures on my cameras. In fact, too many. And most have no animals at all. I just get the wind blowing, and the shadows moving. :noidea:


It could be from the ghost of all the animals that you have taken over the years.

When I first set one up I must of had a thousand pictures of a limb waving at me.


----------



## Ecpk91

You are right PBH I wouldn't be overly affected by any of this, I really am against further government restrictions and have said from the beginning where does it end? Government intrudes way to much and places regulations way to much I believe. I am hesitant on a few things you suggest, registration possibly could work but I am opposed to posting personal information on my camera that can jeopardize overall safety, possible identity theft or advertising my address and saying I am most likely gone in the mountains during certain times of the year. I investigate identify theft and know how simple it is to really hurt someone from that crime. Possibly some sort of registration that protects identity. Policing this is a tricky slope if we say let hunters police this there is inevitably going to be fights plus more. Most people placing cameras have some sort of weapon while out and about in the field. Without some sort of actual authority to police it, hunters cannot engage in that, I think it is too risky. I do like your proposal on guides and outfitters.


----------



## PBH

Critter said:


> When I first set one up I must of had a thousand pictures of a limb waving at me.


I have a couple cameras that end up looking like a time-lapse tracking a shadow's movement as the sun migrates across the sky. I've adjusted to "low" sensitivity - but still get the darned shadow.


----------



## MooseMeat

Anyone besides an actual law enforcement official from the state or FS tried to ‘enforce’ any kind of “law” on me while out hunting, there’s going to be a BIG problem. And it’s going to spiral out of control really freakin fast. There’s many guys out there with way worse tempers than I’ve got. Especially out of the gate. 

If you want to kindly and politely tell someone you believe they are in violation of a law, that’s fine. If people are and they weren’t aware of it, most guys try to correct immediately. At least from what I’ve personally witnessed and seen. After that, you better just walk your happy ass away and report it if you feel like you need to... adding on even more bullchit fish cops get to chase down on a daily basis. But if you try to step in and enforce any situation in the hills, you might find that trail cam regulations and enforce turns out to be the least of the states worries and concerns.


----------



## PBH

MooseMeat said:


> If you want to kindly and politely tell someone you believe they are in violation of a law, that's fine. .


I wouldn't tell you anything. If it was outside the legal season date, I'd simply remove your camera and take it home when you aren't there. :noidea:


----------



## 7mm Reloaded

o-||


----------



## Vanilla

This world has always had tough guys. And yet things seem to work out. The tough guys don't worry me. And as PBH said, "enforcement" of illegal trail cams doesn't require speaking to anyone. 

You will not have people approaching everyone in the woods saying, "Hey, is one of those 11 cameras your camera 1/3 mile due east on the second pine tree away from the 3rd mineral lick just by the spring over the ridge?" 

If a tough guy wants to take action like he's a tough guy when he's doing completely illegal behavior already, losing a camera may be the least of that tough guy's worries and concerns. Just sayin... 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the only way a regulation like this could be enforced would be to declare all cameras left out after whatever date or in violation of whatever regulation is passed as abandoned property. Then people could remove the cameras if they seen and they choose to with no legal repercussions. If that is not part of this then the regulation becomes really unenforceable. Tough guys can set up other illegal cameras to try and figure out who is removing their illegal cameras, and then try to hunt them down. And the law can deal with those tough guys accordingly.


----------



## MooseMeat

PBH said:


> I wouldn't tell you anything. If it was outside the legal season date, I'd simply remove your camera and take it home when you aren't there. :noidea:


You'll need a chainsaw or a portable angle grinder. Probably both.


----------



## PBH

or just a can of spray paint.


----------



## Airborne

PBH said:


> or just a can of spray paint.


I don't care where ya stand in this little spat--that's hilarious hahaha! :grin:

There's always a better mousetrap!


----------



## MooseMeat

PBH said:


> or just a can of spray paint.


I will definitely be looking for the part in the regs where it states that you can vandalize any camera found once in violation of the law, if you can't get it off the tree yourself, without destroying the tree first.

So in a related, unrelated topic, regarding trailers left on the mountain longer than the legal stay period. Can you take those too when you find them? What about cutting the tires and breaking out the windows if you can move them yourself?

I know this would be a huge issue in utah if there wasn't such honest people everywhere you look. Can you imagine the issues we'd have if our top notch LEO from the FS weren't out patrolling night and day for violators! I'm sure the trail cam season (if passed) will be strictly followed. Heaven forbid a camera gets left up over the winter months when you can't access the area anyways. What a crime that would be


----------



## caddis8

PBH said:


> or just a can of spray paint.


Or something like this guy did....There is no such thing as mind soap. This was my camera in the middle of nowhere Nebraska....and in a season with TONS of ticks. and I didn't see a return trip from him. Naked and Afraid....He was naked, I was afraid.

I would think a reasonable date would be Sept 1 ish. In my experience, after critters shed velvet, then salt licks and minerals aren't used as much and their patterns change quite a bit. You'll get a good feel for what is there, and it's before the major hunts. It doesn't address 100 cameras on a watering hole.

If I waited my whole life to draw a coveted limited or premium tag, and I had limited time to go scout because I lived in say Logan and the tag is the San Juan, Henry's, Boulder, or even the Strip, then I would love to have cameras out there to see what is there while I can't be there. Or if I continued putting in after moving out of state and I only had a couple of weekends to scout. Of course I would want to use every tool available to increase my odds of filling my tag. Several of the conveniences don't promise filling a tag, but I would hope that spending whatever the out of state tag costs or tag I put in for 20 years I would want to be successful. If I miss a shot or wound a critter or do something that is otherwise in my control, then I can accept eating tag soup. However, I want to do what I can to tilt the odds in my favor. Get off the road, hike around and get in shape, put cameras out, or whatever it came to, then any reasonable person would do that.

I'd be interested if a lot of the issues with trail cams on every water hole is concentrated to the highly desired limited entry units or it is everywhere including other less sought after units, southern Utah where it is a lot I spent my time on the Cache and my in-laws have a family cabin up Farmington Canyon. I've only seen a handful of game cameras where I go. Doesn't mean they're not there, just means I may not have seen them. There's one water hole that I know about that I haven't ever seen a soul at. Maybe it's changed, but I try to go hunt it when I come back and see my folks.


----------



## Vanilla

Moose, you can advocate for illegal behavior all you'd like. That is the type of stuff that is going to lose support in the general public, however. Good luck on your quest! 

Shocking that another red herring instead of real solutions and proposals came out of that last post. Shocking, indeed. I would be all for the FS enforcing the 14 day limit on camping and trailers, however. Hook them up, use asset forfeiture provisions to seize the property, and they can then sell it at auction to recoup costs of enforcement. I'm 100% in favor of this. Will you draft the bill? I'll help find a sponsor.


----------



## Airborne

If this forum didn't have red herrings, slippery slope fallacies, strawman arguments, circular reasoning, false equivalencies, and good old fashioned special pleading the darn thing probably wouldn't even exist!


----------



## MooseMeat

Vanilla said:


> Will you draft the bill? I'll help find a sponsor.


If I knew the first thing about that kinda stuff or knew how to do it, I would!

Anyways, I really done this time. I'm just pizzed because it will impact me. Not on a success level. I don't need a camera to kill stuff. I honestly like seeing what's around. Year round. It's fun to see what made it through the hunts. It's fun to see what the date is the last big game animal is in the area before winter hits and how early they show back up in the spring. It's fun taking my little boy and wife out on the easier accessed areas on a Sunday afternoon and changing batteries, swapping cards and putting out salt. It's just one more thing that's being taken from us. And for what purpose really? Look at what we've all lost in the last year that has nothing to do with hunting. And now we've got our hunting stuff being attacked, while screaming for even more to be taken from us in the process. If I could honestly see a wildlife benefit from doing these things, I'm 100% behind it. But all the reasons I'm hearing actually have very little to do with wildlife benefits. Most of the reasons I'm hearing is cameras give people a sense of entitlement to an area or an animal. Big deal. There'll be azzholes feeling entitled about those things the very first day they ever set foot in the area. I've got a Canyon I hunt religiously that has my grandfather, who
I never met, name carved in trees from the 1930s. And I don't have any more right to be there than some dude who drew that unit "on accident", will be hunting it for the first time ever and asked on Facebook for a place to go and someone sent him a pin to my favorite rock over look to sit and glass from.

I'm just not seeing it. But I am seeing more issues this will create. And I'm also seeing the honest guys getting boned. Again. There some much bigger issues currently that no one is really addressing. And until we do, limiting technology won't do anything to fix our problems. It won't even stall out the decline temporarily.

Anyone know when the RAC agenda packets will be published?? It's gotta be soon! I'm dying to know what tags I'm not gonna draw! Haha


----------



## Packout

Well- you all can be at ease knowing that trail cams are not banned, nor are they restricted at this time. There will be a public process thru the RAC and Board system to determine what restrictions are placed on cams. It appears to me that there will have to be restrictions or the Legislature may step in on the issue. The feedback I've had from people is completely against the transmitting cameras and 50/50 on the rest of cameras. 

..


----------



## RandomElk16

People don't want government regulations.. but we are also reaching the point that our passion is being commercialized to the point it's actually killing the very thing we love.

So at a certain point - WE need to decide where to draw the line before non-hunters. 

I don't think cellular cameras all over public lands is a great thing - that naked guy probably doesn't either lol. I don't know that long range guns, now long range muzzleloaders, or even expandable broadheads or 80lb bows. 

I DON'T KNOW where the line is. I do believe WE need to be the ones to try and determine where it is. That likely means some concessions.


----------



## MooseMeat

Packout said:


> Well- you all can be at ease knowing that trail cams are not banned, nor are they restricted at this time. There will be a public process thru the RAC and Board system to determine what restrictions are placed on cams. It appears to me that there will have to be restrictions or the Legislature may step in on the issue. The feedback I've had from people is completely against the transmitting cameras and 50/50 on the rest of cameras.
> 
> ..


Neither is "bait" at this time, officially. But that will likely be restricted too.

Cell cams need to get gone.


----------



## Vanilla

MooseMeat said:


> Neither is "bait" at this time, officially. But that will likely be restricted too.


Not "likely" be restricted. It will be restricted beginning May 5, 2021.


----------



## wyoming2utah

MooseMeat said:


> If I could honestly see a wildlife benefit from doing these things, I'm 100% behind it. But all the reasons I'm hearing actually have very little to do with wildlife benefits.


Hmmm...I know many states are citing "Concerns that frequent visits to set/check trail cameras are creating a significant disturbance to wildlife during extended dry periods of the year" and "Concerns among some livestock operators that frequent visits to set/check trail cameras are negatively affecting livestock operations" and "Concerns over the potential biological effects of setting/checking trail cameras on point source waters, especially during the ongoing drought."

In many of our remote deseret portions of the state--like off the Grand Staircase or in some portions of the Pauns or the extreme western portions of our state--the use of trail cams can absolutely be tied to potentially harming wildlife and specifically big game.


----------



## caddis8

RandomElk16 said:


> I don't think cellular cameras all over public lands is a great thing - that naked guy probably doesn't either lol.


There is very little cell range there. I got that by marching my happy rear end a mile from the nearest road, and checking cards pretty regularly. I think the salt block attracted him....

That was one of the funniest surprises I've ever had. It was awesome sending it out to the rest of the office. Imagine the corporate office of Cabela's getting that email. It was very normal to send pictures out to the teams of what we got on camera. I told a big story of the trophy and then they opened it... It started out as a snicker and then the whole crew was dying. Made it all over the building. Carry on.


----------



## caddis8

wyoming2utah said:


> In many of our remote deseret portions of the state--like off the Grand Staircase or in some portions of the Pauns or the extreme western portions of our state--the use of trail cams can absolutely be tied to potentially harming wildlife and specifically big game.


W2U- This is data that I can stand behind. If there is a potential harm to the resource then I can 100% back it. I'm not that sympathetic to disrupting cattle operations on public land as that resource is a public resource. But if publicly owned critters are being harmed, (which I have said in previous posts) then I can absolutely agree- and even have conservation type restrictions in place for units. If a unit is in extreme drought or something like that, then I think trail camera restrictions would be logical. Targeted solutions are always better than broad strokes.

I can also support something about outfitters because that is also exploiting a public resource. I'm not sure _how_ to regulate the outfitters as they have the right to earn an honest living. I don't love finders fees that outfits pay to find the biggest critter to put it on social media. If the outfitters own or are affiliated with call it 75% of the game cameras on select units, then I can see doing something.


----------



## middlefork

caddis8 said:


> I'm not that sympathetic to disrupting cattle operations on public land as that resource is a public resource.
> 
> I can also support something about outfitters because that is also exploiting a public resource. I'm not sure _how_ to regulate the outfitters as they have the right to earn an honest living.


So screw the rancher that more than likely developed the water source that benifits both livestock and wildlife but don't screw with the outfitters that pay only to remove wildlife from the land. Great idea! Not!


----------



## middlefork

I really do think that camera's are a bigger problem in the dryer parts of the state. But you do find cameras on all the water in a lot of the wetter areas too.


----------



## Packout

Yep- unless something crazy happens and Gov Cox doesn't sign HB295 into law, it will be illegal to bait before any big game seasons start this year. Not so with trail cams.

There are not many places left in the US where a trail cam can not transmit. Certain cams can link together and send data in a chain of cams and finally have one that can transmit out thru coverage. 

Nobody really likes regulation and yet we all need/benefit from it..... It isn't an easy line to walk at times.

..


----------



## flinger

wyoming2utah said:


> Hmmm...I know many states are citing "Concerns that frequent visits to set/check trail cameras are creating a significant disturbance to wildlife during extended dry periods of the year" and "Concerns among some livestock operators that frequent visits to set/check trail cameras are negatively affecting livestock operations" and "Concerns over the potential biological effects of setting/checking trail cameras on point source waters, especially during the ongoing drought."
> 
> In many of our remote deseret portions of the state--like off the Grand Staircase or in some portions of the Pauns or the extreme western portions of our state--the use of trail cams can absolutely be tied to potentially harming wildlife and specifically big game.


I agree there is potential harm. Nevada has it somewhat backward where they restrict camera use during the fall when water isn't as big of an issue, but allow cameras during June and July when water is critical.

If I was to make a quick suggestion it might look like this:

Private lands only: 
No restrictions at all. I don't think it could be reasonably enforced and also not infringe on the right to use and protect property/quiet enjoyment. Imagine not being able to have a security system on your home, especially during the time when criminal activity is at its peak.

Public lands only: 
Remote transmitting cameras (cell) allowed during the season from Feb 1 to July 31, but not allowed within 200 yards of any established water source such as a spring, lake, pond, stream, seep, permanent trough, drinker, guzzler, etc at any time during the season.
Non-transmitting cameras (non-cell) have a year round season but are not allowed within 200 yards of any established water source such as a spring, lake, pond, stream, seep, permanent trough, drinker, guzzler, etc at any time (exception for snowfall and rain)
Exceptions for users could be made for government, grazing permit holders/water right owners, and possibly some nonprofits, but not all. These entities would have to register the camera and location and post owner information and registration info on the camera.

I think that would spread out the cameras on public lands so there doesn't appear to be a ton of them because we see a dozen or so at a spring or guzzler, especially when combined with the likelihood of baiting being restricted. We could actually call them "trail" cameras and it would describe their main use. If not we may have to start calling them "bait" or "water" cameras. I think restricting the number of cameras and the requirement to register cameras for everyone would be an administrative nightmare, but ??? Just some thoughts.


----------



## MooseMeat

wyoming2utah said:


> Hmmm...I know many states are citing "Concerns that frequent visits to set/check trail cameras are creating a significant disturbance to wildlife during extended dry periods of the year" and "Concerns among some livestock operators that frequent visits to set/check trail cameras are negatively affecting livestock operations" and "Concerns over the potential biological effects of setting/checking trail cameras on point source waters, especially during the ongoing drought.".


Hahaha cattle and sheep run off more deer and elk from water sources DAILY than trail cammers do in month! not to mention the cattle moochers who push their cows from feed source to feed source. empty, stomped out spring to the next full one down the drainage.

Wildlife horses are a whole other subject.

But camera guys are what's running them off and causing the most issue. Got it.

Remember, the livestock guys want LESS wildlife than we've got now. But let's use their facts and info to drive the cause.


----------



## wyoming2utah

About what I figured, Moosey...even when you are given biological reasons, you wouldn't accept them because your mind is fixated on your own selfish reasoning. It isn't about protecting wildlife for you...it is about protecting your hobby.


----------



## SaltyWalty

wyoming2utah said:


> About what I figured, Moosey...even when you are given biological reasons, you wouldn't accept them because your mind is fixated on your own selfish reasoning. It isn't about protecting wildlife for you...it is about protecting your hobby.


hey man dont worry, he likes to get mad.


----------



## MooseMeat

wyoming2utah said:


> About what I figured, Moosey...even when you are given biological reasons, you wouldn't accept them because your mind is fixated on your own selfish reasoning. It isn't about protecting wildlife for you...it is about protecting your hobby.


I'll accept a biological reason, when the source of the info isn't just as or more so guilty as the party they are pointing a finger at.

I don't give 2 flyin Fs what the livestock people have to say on the matter, especially when it's regarding public land and the wildlife they seek to destroy for private gain and benefit.


----------



## Vanilla

MooseMeat said:


> when it's regarding public land and the wildlife they seek to destroy for private gain and benefit.


Doesn't this apply to lots of us as hunters as well?


----------



## caddis8

middlefork said:


> So screw the rancher that more than likely developed the water source that benifits both livestock and wildlife but don't screw with the outfitters that pay only to remove wildlife from the land. Great idea! Not!


Nope didn't say that. Cattle operations can cause more habitat damage and disrupt wildlife than someone on foot checking on a camera. Not saying ranchers aren't earning an honest living, they work hard. If a camera is used for ranching purposes then there should be accommodation for that.


----------



## MooseMeat

Vanilla said:


> Doesn't this apply to lots of us as hunters as well?


I've yet to collect on a paycheck from public wildlife and public land.... sure paid a lot into though.

I'm not out to destroy public land, resources or wildlife. I do participate in the management of the wildlife when I'm selected to do so.


----------



## MooseMeat

middlefork said:


> So screw the rancher that more than likely developed the water source that benifits both livestock and wildlife but don't screw with the outfitters that pay only to remove wildlife from the land. Great idea! Not!


Of all the water sources on public land that I know of that elk and deer use, I'd say only 15% of them are as a result of cattlemen. The others are naturally occurring.

I do love when I see guys try and give them more credit than they deserve or are entitled to. Can we start praising them for knocking down fire hazards, but our lands still get completely torched anyways, next?


----------



## Vanilla

Didn't you tell us you were done with this topic? :grin: Don't worry, none of us believed you either time you've said it. 

And I didn't say it applied to you. I asked if it applied to lots of hunters. I think it does. You use wildlife on public land to benefit financially even on social media, it would count. I don't do that, but lots of other people do. 

And when I have a tag, I'm absolutely trying to destroy wildlife. Isn't that whole point? Otherwise, pic up a camera and head out to the marsh in a canoe with Paddler. 

just illustrating that those in a glass house shouldn't throw stones is all. We all know you are against the camera regulations, and we all know why. It's okay, you can have any opinion you'd like to have. This is still America, after all.


----------



## wyoming2utah

MooseMeat said:


> I'll accept a biological reason, when the source of the info isn't just as or more so guilty as the party they are pointing a finger at.
> 
> I don't give 2 flyin Fs what the livestock people have to say on the matter, especially when it's regarding public land and the wildlife they seek to destroy for private gain and benefit.


The source of the info? Only one of the three "sources" had anything to do with livestock...the other "sources" were wildlife based on being expressed by wildlife bios.

But, I'm guessing you still won't accept that...

Oh, and by the way, the water sources where I see cameras almost all created by livestock owners. I know of one in particular in the desert that had 7 cameras on it last year.


----------



## OriginalOscar

MooseMeat said:


> I don't give 2 flyin Fs what the livestock people have to say on the matter, especially when it's regarding public land and the wildlife they seek to destroy for private gain and benefit.


Backcountry Hunters and Anglers disciple -8/-


----------



## Critter

In Colorado right now they are pointing a lot of fingers towards back country hikers for the decline in the elk population in a lot of the state. They claim that the disregard to the caving areas that the elk use by the hikers and their dogs is causing a lower birth rate than normal. 

I know that in a couple of the ski resorts that I worked around that they would actually close off areas during the elk caving period to access beginning around the end of April and running until the end of June. But most of the state is wide open to hikers and their dogs during the same time frame.

As for the water holes, even those that are not out in the open are usually maintained by the cattle and sheep men. It takes work to keep things cleaned out of them and to keep them opened up and not just a pool full of moss and nettles.


----------



## APD

is there a cliff notes version of what the new law says? 

cameras, salt, etc?


----------



## middlefork

APD said:


> is there a cliff notes version of what the new law says?
> 
> cameras, salt, etc?


Camera's - DWR has to come up with rules.
Bait - A no no unless it is used by agriculture producers.

I think Vanilla posted the final version several pages back.


----------



## middlefork

MooseMeat said:


> Of all the water sources on public land that I know of that elk and deer use, I'd say only 15% of them are as a result of cattlemen. The others are naturally occurring.
> 
> I do love when I see guys try and give them more credit than they deserve or are entitled to. Can we start praising them for knocking down fire hazards, but our lands still get completely torched anyways, next?


Obviously the public lands that you use are an aberration in the state of Utah.

The people of Utah have realized the need and undertaken development of the vast majority of water sources in the state. I would seriously say there are no unknown water sources in the state. As much as you think you know, there is a lot you don't. I certainly don't but do try and educate myself a little.


----------



## APD

middlefork said:


> Camera's - DWR has to come up with rules.
> Bait - A no no unless it is used by agriculture producers.
> 
> I think Vanilla posted the final version several pages back.


are there dates associated with putting out salts or is it cut and dry no salt without cattle?


----------



## Critter

Unless you are running livestock you cannot put out salt/mineral blocks or anything else that might entice game animals into a location 

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## elkfromabove

Looks like I just lost 1/2 of my sweet spots! (No reason for the animals to stop long enough to afford me a close, level, STANDING, CLEAR, broadside archery shot.) And I'm gonna hafta join the crowds around water holes where that can happen. Of course, a few days into the season, with all of the human stink around the water, the animals will begin avoiding the water holes during daylight and I'll lose them too.

Maybe I'll just get better acquainted with a few more ranchers to find out where they drop salt or offer them a "suggestion" where I'd like to see it! Or maybe I'll just apply for the rifle hunts and add to their point creep! Or just keep shooting does and fawns, and cow elk on antlerless hunts and depredation hunts. There's always a way if one puts his/her mind to it! :smile:


----------



## Vanilla

Yep, adapt is the name of the game, for sure. 

I'd still love to hear some of your proposals, EFA. You have a habit of having some pretty good things to consider.


----------



## APD

seems like a recipe for multiple flat brim wearing millennials on every knoll with binos on tripods.


it probably won't effect how i hunt but my kids sure will miss the pictures of all the animals. they loved seeing the bears and cats the most.


----------



## Vanilla

APD said:


> seems like a recipe for multiple flat brim wearing millennials on every knoll with binos on tripods.
> 
> 
> it probably won't effect how i hunt but my kids sure will miss the pictures of all the animals. they loved seeing the bears and cats the most.


APD, before you write the eulogy, go read the bill. Here it is. It's not long. 





__





HB0295







le.utah.gov


----------



## PBH

APD said:


> ...
> 
> it probably won't effect how i hunt but my kids sure will miss the pictures of all the animals...


I would be very surprised if the eventual rules prevent the general public from operating some trail cameras. I think what we'll all need to adjust to will simply be season dates, along with a few rules to follow.


----------



## bowgy

I can hear someone saying; But officer, I put that corn out for bears (or turkeys) not deer.


----------



## PBH

bowgy said:


> I can hear someone saying; But officer, I put that corn out for bears (or turkeys) not deer.


to which the officer would reply: Can you show me your bear / turkey tag?


I don't get it. Why is this so hard?


----------



## Critter

PBH said:


> to which the officer would reply: Can you show me your bear / turkey tag?
> 
> 
> I don't get it. Why is this so hard?


I don't believe that you can bait turkeys can you? For bears you would need your baiting permit.


----------



## Vanilla

PBH said:


> to which the officer would reply: Can you show me your bear / turkey tag?
> 
> 
> I don't get it. Why is this so hard?


Or, show me your bear baiting documents. 

It's hard because there will always be people that just simply don't think the rules apply to them. "I realize everyone else has to have a tag to shoot that bear, but I don't." "I realize the limit on ducks is 7 for everyone else, but it's not for me." "I realize that everyone else shouldn't hit their wife, but it's okay that I do." "I realize that I have covid and can pass it along if I don't stay home, but I'm going to go out as normal anyway." 

It would seriously shock you how many of these people there are out there, but they are everywhere. We as a species just simply suck. The word "humanity" is definitely mislabeled. Humans suck.


----------



## Critter

The sad thing is that the baiting law will pertain to hunters more than it will to just property owners. I know of a number of property owners who bait wild turkeys onto their property to "keep them from being killed" by hunters during the turkey season. Same with those that feed deer and other animals


----------



## bowgy

That's what I was getting at, there will always be someone trying to get around it. 

I have never used bait, I have found a few bait stations and there is always salt blocks on the wife's family property that are put there by the cattle ranchers that rent it. Never paid much attention to them.
Up by the cabin a lot of other cabin owners have feed boxes that they put grain in to attract animals.

There was one lady that threw corn all around to feed the turkeys.


----------



## MooseMeat

You can “feed” turkeys any time you’d like. You can “feed” deer and elk still. You can’t “bait” them into the area with the intent to hunt that area. With turkeys, you can “feed” them in an area you want to hunt, you just can’t actively hunt that area for 10 days, starting the day all the “feed” has been cleaned up and removed.

you can “feed” deer and elk minerals or anything else for just strictly trail cam and wildlife observation purposes. You just can’t hunt that “baited” area, within a 50 yard radius of the the bait site. There’s your loop hole. I talked with a LEO about it at length yesterday.

it all come down to your intent on what you’re doing with the mineral or corn you’re placing on the ground. The grey area starts with when you harvest an animal that just came from said location. “Traveling to” that area will be a hard one to prove, until it crosses that 50 yard line. Coming from, that’s when you’re gonna have an issue. If they can prove the animal was at the bait 30 seconds before you killed it, you’re in a tight spot.


----------



## APD

Vanilla said:


> APD, before you write the eulogy, go read the bill. Here it is. It's not long.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HB0295
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> le.utah.gov


thanks for directing me to that. so, looks like it was signed into law and left some things clear as mud. i'm not a lawyer but rather a layperson. in this statement 
(a) (i) "Bait" means intentionally placing food or nutrient substances to manipulate the
55 behavior of wildlife for the purpose of taking or attempting to take big game.

i read that you cannot attempt to take game over bait. it does not say you can't put out salts but rather you can't hunt game who's patterns have been altered by those salts/bait. that's where things start to get muddy for me. i wan't to stay legal but i also like to get some pics of the game i may be hunting and other local wildlife that i'm not hunting. it's nice to know when i have cougars in my backyard. so, provided that there is a season for cameras and you can place salts, will there be a provision that would consider an area "inactive" after a certain amount of time? i definitely don't want to shoot an elk after a long spot and stalk or still hunting dark timber only to find out that someone has a salt block or had one out recently. likewise, i don't want to shoot one over a place that i had a camera/salt out previously if it could be construed as illegal. i gather these laws are likely aimed at balancing fair chase but i really don't see our low success rates increasing or declining either way due to salt/minerals. 

oh well, i'm late to the party as usual. time to take the lumps and adapt as mentioned earlier.


----------



## Vanilla

I personally would not be putting out any salt or mineral unless I was an agriculture producer and doing it for agricultural purposes. I think you are asking for trouble if you do that, even if you try and justify that you are not doing it with an attempt to take game. 

Other than that, I would hunt as normal. I can't control if someone legally or illegally puts out a mineral block on public land somewhere in dark timber that I don't know about. While I could technically be in violation of the law, I am not going to worry about the things I don't know about that are done by other people. I just wouldn't sweat that too much, personally.

As of now there is no restriction of any kind on cameras. However, as the bill states, the wildlife board has to come up with rules to regulate the use of cameras. If I was a betting man I would expect there to be some sort of "camera season" implemented, and not much more. I think there are areas they could do better than just a camera season, but that is low hanging fruit and I doubt the wildlife board as currently constituted has an appetite for meaningful change there.


----------



## elkfromabove

Vanilla said:


> Yep, adapt is the name of the game, for sure.
> 
> I'd still love to hear some of your proposals, EFA. You have a habit of having some pretty good things to consider.


I haven't given much thought about trail cams because I'm not much of a trophy hunter and the tracks on the ground are all I need to see. Plus, it doesn't bother me to see them around. I already know there are other hunters in my areas and as far as I am concerned I usually enjoy meeting them. I've had quite a bit of help over the years with tracking one and/or hauling one that I shot. And visa versa! In any case, my proposals are limited to baiting.

I've posted those proposals several times on this forum and the other, and even sent them to the RAC's and Wildlife Board, not knowing that baiting was going to the big boys/gals at the capitol. It's been some time ago, so you'll have to bear with my memory a bit, 'cause I don't have time to look them up.

Disclaimer: Many of these ideas came from the regulations of other western states and some of them came from Utah's bear and trapping regulations and some I came up with from my own experience. Also, some of this information is a couple of years old and some state regulations may have changed.

1- Regulate the amount used, either by volume or weight. We don't want to FEED them, we just want to offer them a little treat. I think Washington does it by weight and there was another state did it by volume.
2- Register each bait site with the location and with a fee to cover the costs. We already do that with bear and traplines, so it shouldn't be too much of a problem. That way, we can control and monitor the number of sites in any unit and can keep them reasonably apart from each other.
3- Limit the number of sites allowed. A hunter only needs 2 or 3 to keep them fresh.
4- Regulate the time used. This could be on a seasonal basis or even on a daily basis.
5- Regulate the type. Salt, pellets/cubes, apples, pine nuts, acorns, etc. There are lots of companies that produce pellets and bricks designed for big game. I went to the local Sportsman's Warehouse and the CAL-Ranch Store and both of them still have Wildlife/deer baiting items on their shelves. (A Wildlife Board member works at CAL- Ranch so you'd think they would have gotten the word by now, but business is business I guess and they hope to sell the stuff to unknowing hunters who won't be able to use them.)
6- Limit it to certain areas/units. One of the Dakotas allows it in some parts of the state, but not in others. It might have something to do with Chronic Wasting Disease or something else, but whatever it is they still allow it in the state.
7- I think an online orientation course is in order to help with the proper methods used and with the PR with the general public and the non-baiting hunters alike. There's a big difference between baiting and feeding, but most people just see the high profile piles of apples and the so-called baiting machines which is FEEDNG and think that's how everyone does it and that's why they want it to stop. But that's certainly not how I do it and not the way I know most others do it. Unfortunately, those high profile sites get most of the attention, and thus, we are now where we are. And as usual, the 'little guy" gets caught in the middle. And, as usual, the "little guy" has to make adjustments while the ones causing the "problem" get to keep doing what they are doing to cause the "problem".


----------



## middlefork

Thanks EFA, I could get behind some of those ideas. But in the end you know they are going to take the easy way out.


----------



## elkfromabove

middlefork said:


> Thanks EFA, I could get behind some of those ideas. But in the end you know they are going to take the easy way out.


They already have! And, yes, I knew it when I made the proposals because this was a decision based first and foremost on hunters' emotions. When saw a lawyer friend post that "baiting is lame" as his reason for wanting to ban it, I saw the writing on the wall. How could anyone legally or logically dispute a statement like that?


----------



## Vanilla

Bait is already done. The legislature acted, the governor has signed the bill. As of May 5th you will not be allowed to bait big game for the purposes of hunting. You'll need to wait until next January and convince the legislature to change this if you want it different than what it is now. RAC and Wildlife Board have no role on that one at this point. 

Cameras is where they were instructed by the legislature to act.


----------



## PBH

Critter said:


> I know of a number of property owners who bait wild turkeys onto their property to "keep them from being killed" by hunters during the turkey season. Same with those that feed deer and other animals


These are the same people that then go to the DWR and ask for help with property damage done by wildlife. Ironic.


----------



## Vanilla

PBH said:


> These are the same people that then go to the DWR and ask for help with property damage done by wildlife. Ironic.


Yes, the very same people. Ironic is not the word I’d use to describe it.


----------



## bowgy

This thread reminded me of my first muzzy deer.

I came to the top of a knoll and saw two bucks feeding at the end of a meadow, I made my way to another little knoll that was between us and crawled to the top, at the crest I was about 125 yards from the bucks, I was excited to take my first muzzy deer, so I shot one of them.

When I went down to dress him I found that they were not feeding but licking on a couple of salt blocks that a rancher had put out.

Would I be in trouble now if the same thing happened?


----------



## elkfromabove

bowgy said:


> This thread reminded me of my first muzzy deer.
> 
> I came to the top of a knoll and saw two bucks feeding at the end of a meadow, I made my way to another little knoll that was between us and crawled to the top, at the crest I was about 125 yards from the bucks, I was excited to take my first muzzy deer, so I shot one of them.
> 
> When I went down to dress him I found that they were not feeding but licking on a couple of salt blocks that a rancher had put out.
> 
> Would I be in trouble now if the same thing happened?


It depends on whether or not the rancher put those out for cattle or deer. He/she can be a rancher and a deer hunter at the same time and can put those blocks wherever it's best for either of those roles.


----------



## Vanilla

elkfromabove said:


> It depends on whether or not the rancher put those out for cattle or deer. He/she can be a rancher and a deer hunter at the same time and can put those blocks wherever it's best for either of those roles.


The reality is he/she could do this and just say it was put out for agricultural purposes and it would be tough to prove otherwise if the rancher has animals in the area, but technically you may not put it out for hunting purposes any longer. (Well, beginning May 5th.)



bowgy said:


> Would I be in trouble now if the same thing happened?


Personally, I'm not going to worry about this type of a situation. If I didn't put the mineral out, and I didn't even know it was there, I'm not going to stress about things I don't know and don't control. I'm just going to hunt like I always have. I don't put out baits, so this doesn't worry me too much in how I will go about my business.


----------



## MooseMeat

until they ban mineral licks 100% on public land, regardless of the purpose, they are going to have a very step uphill battle citing and convicting off any circumstance, unless a hunter blatantly places bait in an area for the intention of luring animals into a certain are so the hunter can kill one. You’re going to have to prove 1) who did it. 2) when they did it. 3) why they placed the salt. What was the intent by doing so. 4) if a animal was actually killed in the baited area. 

if a guy goes out after may 5 2021, with the intent to place salt or other attractants for big game, and hunts within 50 yards of that bait sight, he will be breaking the law. If he kills an animal who is at that bait sight, they are in an even deeper hole at that point, if caught. The wording “50 yard radius” is stated in the bill For a purpose. It’s not just there for funzies. Don’t intentionally hunt within 50 yards of a known mineral lick or bait placed out after may 5th 2021 and you’ll be fine. But If you are caught hunting and harvesting an animal within a baited area and they can prove your knowledge of it being baited or can prove the hunter placed the bait after the ban, you’ll be in some hot water. Other than that, don’t worry about it.

If you come across a salt lick while hunting and you didn’t place the salt there, no worries. It’s not your responsibility to know who did or for what purpose. Proof of intent and proof of knowingly breaking the law falls on the officer and prosecutors. Without hard evidence for either of those, you’ll have nothing to worry about.


----------



## bowgy

I'm having lunch in about a half hour with my state representative, I will ask him that question and see what he thinks.


----------



## 2full

Lunch with Evan ?


----------



## MooseMeat

bowgy said:


> I'm having lunch in about a half hour with my state representative, I will ask him that question and see what he thinks.


I hope he’s a hunter and has personal experience with this kinda stuff. there’s too many representatives out there calling the shots on this stuff who’s only personal real life hunting experience is from watching Bambi.


----------



## bowgy

Rex, He is a big time hunter, not much luck at drawing, I think he has 20 + points for both LE elk and moose.


----------



## flinger

MooseMeat said:


> You can “feed” turkeys any time you’d like. You can “feed” deer and elk still. You can’t “bait” them into the area with the intent to hunt that area. With turkeys, you can “feed” them in an area you want to hunt, you just can’t actively hunt that area for 10 days, starting the day all the “feed” has been cleaned up and removed.
> 
> you can “feed” deer and elk minerals or anything else for just strictly trail cam and wildlife observation purposes. You just can’t hunt that “baited” area, within a 50 yard radius of the the bait site. There’s your loop hole. I talked with a LEO about it at length yesterday.
> 
> it all come down to your intent on what you’re doing with the mineral or corn you’re placing on the ground. The grey area starts with when you harvest an animal that just came from said location. “Traveling to” that area will be a hard one to prove, until it crosses that 50 yard line. Coming from, that’s when you’re gonna have an issue. If they can prove the animal was at the bait 30 seconds before you killed it, you’re in a tight spot.


Let's think through this. In order for there to be a "baited area" there needs to be "bait". If there is "bait" the law has already been broken. The 50 yard thing doesn't even need to come into play if you're nailed on this:

"Bait" means intentionally placing food or nutrient substances to manipulate the behavior of wildlife for the purpose of taking or attempting to take big game." ....
"it is unlawful to: (a) bait big game;"

Here is a link to a video (for the 3rd time) that appears to be very intentional with the question and answer. "Feed" appears to be able to be converted into "bait" in definition and doesn't appear to be based on the kill only being within 50 yards of the converted "feed" to "bait". 

https://le.utah.gov/av/videoClip.js...2.smil/playlist.m3u8&offset=3735&endTime=3827[/URL]

How will a judge interpret "attempt to take"? Well, I would imagine he/she might consider things such as does the one placing feed for big game hunt big game in the area? Does he have a permit for the big game in the area? Is he likely to have a permit for the big game in the future? How long has it been since the "feed" was cleaned up and the hunting began? Hard to say, I think the case law on this one will be interesting. I'm with Vanilla on this one, ag producers/agriculture purposes is really the only somewhat black and white "loop hole" (if you want to call it that) unless further clarification is given. Case law is probably bound to happen around this and I hope we don't see you as one of the characters in the story.

Your conversation with the LEO reminds me of the fiasco with the Nebo sheep hunt/governors tag. Some one-off interpretation, or maybe even a misunderstanding of what was said. You better double check, I'd suggest emailing the Chief enforcement officer at the DWR to see how they are really going to enforce/interpret this. They all probably haven't even had their training yet on it. I think we'd all be interested in what his response would be. Consider mentioning that you might hunt big game around the "feed" you put out which is intended for big game but not kill or hunt within 50 yards of it. I would also suggest you consult an attorney first before making such an admission though if this is really what you intend to do. 

In my opinion, hunters should be very careful putting any feed out that might manipulate big game unless they are ag producers putting it out for agriculture purposes, especially on public lands. I wonder if it might be good for you to try "Cattle Moocher" as your next handle?
Again, all just my opinion and take any of my suggestions/interpretations at your own risk.


----------



## MooseMeat

flinger said:


> Let's think through this. In order for there to be a "baited area" there needs to be "bait". If there is "bait" the law has already been broken. The 50 yard thing doesn't even need to come into play if you're nailed on this:
> 
> "Bait" means intentionally placing food or nutrient substances to manipulate the behavior of wildlife for the purpose of taking or attempting to take big game." ....
> "it is unlawful to: (a) bait big game;"
> 
> Here is a link to a video (for the 3rd time) that appears to be very intentional with the question and answer. "Feed" appears to be able to be converted into "bait" in definition and doesn't appear to be based on the kill only being within 50 yards of the converted "feed" to "bait".
> 
> https://le.utah.gov/av/videoClip.js...2.smil/playlist.m3u8&offset=3735&endTime=3827[/URL]
> 
> How will a judge interpret "attempt to take"? Well, I would imagine he/she might consider things such as does the one placing feed for big game hunt big game in the area? Does he have a permit for the big game in the area? Is he likely to have a permit for the big game in the future? How long has it been since the "feed" was cleaned up and the hunting began? Hard to say, I think the case law on this one will be interesting. I'm with Vanilla on this one, ag producers/agriculture purposes is really the only somewhat black and white "loop hole" (if you want to call it that) unless further clarification is given. Case law is probably bound to happen around this and I hope we don't see you as one of the characters in the story.
> 
> Your conversation with the LEO reminds me of the fiasco with the Nebo sheep hunt/governors tag. Some one-off interpretation, or maybe even a misunderstanding of what was said. You better double check, I'd suggest emailing the Chief enforcement officer at the DWR to see how they are really going to enforce/interpret this. They all probably haven't even had their training yet on it. I think we'd all be interested in what his response would be. Consider mentioning that you might hunt big game around the "feed" you put out which is intended for big game but not kill or hunt within 50 yards of it. I would also suggest you consult an attorney first before making such an admission though if this is really what you intend to do.
> 
> In my opinion, hunters should be very careful putting any feed out that might manipulate big game unless they are ag producers putting it out for agriculture purposes, especially on public lands. I wonder if it might be good for you to try "Cattle Moocher" as your next handle?
> Again, all just my opinion and take any of my suggestions/interpretations at your own risk.


Lots of “ifs” and opinion in your post. Just like mine. Bait, is with the intent to manipulate animal behavior for harvest. If I don’t harvest an animal in the area or even hunt the area, I’m not baiting. I’m simply observing animals.

trying to convict someone for baiting in the “might have a tag in the future” for an area is laughable!

if the 50 yard rule doesn’t apply, why even mention it at all? Why not say no “bait”. Ever. Never. Ever. Like stated, it’s not in there just for fun. There’s reason for it.

you certainly do not need to take my conversation with an officer as fact. I know how to understand and comprehend a conversation. I know how to read laws and I know they are worded very specifically for a reason. I didn’t call the janitor for the price office and ask them for their take on it, like they did with the Nebo sheep. I asked an actual officer. One who honestly doesn’t care for me much. He’s not going to look the other way for me. He told me his take on it, how he reads it and how he will enforce on that law. He said there is still much up in the air on this, but it will be addressed in the field regs this year, and they will enforce based upon what’s stated in those regs.

like I said, you do you, and I’ll do me.


----------



## APD

i have a camera that i place salt at every year. it is too far back for me to hunt solo and get an animal out so i don't hunt within a mile of there typically. the cam is in a place where other hunters don't typically go and the animals use as a safety zone. when i check the cam i get an idea of what is in the area and how they are using the safety zone. if there are elk using it then i stand a reasonable chance at harvesting where i hunt. to me, this seems reasonable to keep doing with the new law, provided i observe whatever dates the new cam law may come up with.


----------



## flinger

MooseMeat said:


> Lots of “ifs” and opinion in your post. Just like mine. Bait, is with the intent to manipulate animal behavior for harvest. If I don’t harvest an animal in the area or even hunt the area, I’m not baiting. I’m simply observing animals.
> 
> trying to convict someone for baiting in the “might have a tag in the future” for an area is laughable!
> 
> if the 50 yard rule doesn’t apply, why even mention it at all? Why not say no “bait”. Ever. Never. Ever. Like stated, it’s not in there just for fun. There’s reason for it.
> 
> you certainly do not need to take my conversation with an officer as fact. I know how to understand and comprehend a conversation. I know how to read laws and I know they are worded very specifically for a reason. I didn’t call the janitor for the price office and ask them for their take on it, like they did with the Nebo sheep. I asked an actual officer. One who honestly doesn’t care for me much. He’s not going to look the other way for me. He told me his take on it, how he reads it and how he will enforce on that law. He said there is still much up in the air on this, but it will be addressed in the field regs this year, and they will enforce based upon what’s stated in those regs.
> 
> like I said, you do you, and I’ll do me.


Attempt to take big game with big game feed doesn't require a take or harvest, just like attempted robbery doesn't require an actual robbery to occur. Both will be unlawful as defined. Like you said, it's worded the way it is for a reason.

The 50 yard portion could apply when someone hunts over someone else's bait. The "or" is there for a reason in section 2. Any one of those 3 activities will be unlawful. It doesn't require all 3 to have to occur before the law is broken. Come may 5th baiting big game is unlawful as defined...period.

Reading and comprehension are two separate things. Glad I could give you a good chuckle but it's all fun and games until someone gets hurt so try to be careful telling people in a matter of fact manner to not worry about doing something that you really don't know for sure will be a lawful activity. Some people actually believe everything they read on the internet.


----------



## MooseMeat

flinger said:


> until someone gets hurt


Hahahahaha oh boy.


----------



## Vanilla

APD said:


> i have a camera that i place salt at every year. it is too far back for me to hunt solo and get an animal out so i don't hunt within a mile of there typically. the cam is in a place where other hunters don't typically go and the animals use as a safety zone. when i check the cam i get an idea of what is in the area and how they are using the safety zone. if there are elk using it then i stand a reasonable chance at harvesting where i hunt. to me, this seems reasonable to keep doing with the new law, provided i observe whatever dates the new cam law may come up with.


I don’t believe that putting the salt out will be legal as you describe it. The camera is fine, pending date restrictions, though.


----------



## OriginalOscar

MooseMeat said:


> like I said, you do you, and I’ll do me.


Yeah that don't work. Frankly tired of poor ethics and lazy arguments offered by people who don't care to hunt ethically.


----------



## MooseMeat

OriginalOscar said:


> Yeah that don't work. Frankly tired of poor ethics and lazy arguments offered by people who don't care to hunt ethically.


Wow. Wasn’t aware having a conversation about a new law that’s very undetermined on specifics at this point translated into lazy, poor ethics and not hunting ethically.

frankly im tired of clowns taking chit they read on the internet personally and as fact. Remember, ethics and laws aren’t the same.

that’s fine. Next time I’ll be unethical when we cross paths. Not illegal. Just unethical. Which apparently really gets under your skin haha ive had the opportunity before, but chose not to. I won’t take that route in the future given the opportunity.


----------



## flinger

Moose, I vaguely recall you said you were done with this thread...oh wait that must have been just another... nevermind. My bad. If you have more important things to do like finding more unposted corners that's fine if you decide to be done with this, no one will think less of you. In FACT, it takes courage to just walk away sometimes. 

On another note I found this and I think it's very fitting for this thread. 



__ https://www.pinterest.com/pin/455145106072582990/

Cow clown with an apple! Maybe a new avatar? Hmm I'll have to think about it.


----------



## MooseMeat

flinger said:


> If you have more important things to do like finding more unposted corners that's fine if you decide to be done with this, no one will think less of you.


Do you know of any more un posted private property? I’m all ears if so! You can never have too many hunting spots!


----------



## elkfromabove

OriginalOscar said:


> Yeah that don't work. Frankly tired of poor ethics and lazy arguments offered by people who don't care to hunt ethically.


Therein lies the crux of this conversation and law! It's about ethics! Nothing more! It's about a larger group of people imposing their selective set of ethics on a smaller group of people. They are not against manipulating the behavior of animals for the purpose of hunting them. They are just against one of the methods the manipulation takes place. In Utah we will still be allowed to manipulate game animal behavior with fake sounds (calls and antler rattling and rubbing), natural or chemically produced odors (doe/cow in heat urine, buck/bull urine, scent gland oils) and fake sights (decoys, rubs and scrapes), but for some nebulous reason we will no longer be allowed to use "bait" as it is now defined. Why? Because it's unethical/"lame". 

And, to a great extent, the same logic applies to trail cams. I guess we'll find out to what extent when the Wildlife Board gets around to discussing the issue.


----------



## Packout

"Therein lies the crux of this conversation and law! It's about ethics! Nothing more!"
Elk, you are incorrect. It has much more to do with other issues and not just ethics. Biological concerns with baiting-
It congregates the animals. Spread of disease. It changes the way the animals use the landscape. It can lead to higher predation. What hormones/supplements are going into that "organic" meat?
Non-biological issue examples- Illegal dumping on public lands. People claiming the area they bait. 

I doubt the law was written for you and your 10 apples in a pile. I doubt the law was written to curb salt blocks. Unfortunately you and salt blocks get swept up in the dumping of literal Tons of apples and more-than-mineral-blocks on the landscape because it has to be all or nothing to enforce it. It should be pretty easy to understand. 

Why has it been ok to bait mule deer, elk and sheep and not ok to bait turkeys, doves, and ducks? That makes no sense and it seems reasonable they are trying to address it. I didn't read the 19 pages on this thread so maybe this post is redundant.


----------



## APD

elkfromabove said:


> Therein lies the crux of this conversation and law! It's about ethics! Nothing more! It's about a larger group of people imposing their selective set of ethics on a smaller group of people. They are not against manipulating the behavior of animals for the purpose of hunting them. They are just against one of the methods the manipulation takes place. In Utah we will still be allowed to manipulate game animal behavior with fake sounds (calls and antler rattling and rubbing), natural or chemically produced odors (doe/cow in heat urine, buck/bull urine, scent gland oils) and fake sights (decoys, rubs and scrapes), but for some nebulous reason we will no longer be allowed to use "bait" as it is now defined. Why? Because it's unethical/"lame".
> 
> And, to a great extent, the same logic applies to trail cams. I guess we'll find out to what extent when the Wildlife Board gets around to discussing the issue.


this is very true. we all search for an advantage when hunting game. someone else gets to decide what is too great of an advantage. what they base their decision on is where the problem lies. objective facts would be nice but too often it is subjective or driving by those who do not even hunt. 

with fishing, this state has determined that dynamite is not a proper method of take. i think we can all agree that it is unfair to the game and unnecessarily wasteful from a common sense standpoint. with elk and deer hunting in the west, many of these newly "unethical" methods of take are just not what people make them out to be. baiting as i knew it in whitetail country was placing piles of apples, corn feeders and other types of feed. that was an unfair advantage because you could set your clock by it. out west, the animals are far less predictable by the time hunting season begins. a simple salt block that was frequented weekly may not be visited again for the season. some tend to think these types of "advantages" are a slam dunk. with that in mind, how much would you see the 10% success rate change by when you allow mineral placements? how much would the success rate go down if you did not allow hunting during the rut, which happens to be a bull's most vulnerable time? it's generally considered to be poor form to shoot an animal tied up but how about fenced in? what about if someone walks you right to the animal and tells you which one to shoot? yeah right, try to ban guiding and see what happens. how many of you surveil an animal and use radios to walk a buddy into that animal? some may not see that as ethical either. just remember it's a slippery slope when you start pointing fingers and allowing others to do the thinking for you.


----------



## MooseMeat

[QUOTE="Packout, post: 2219582, member: ]
Why has it been ok to bait mule deer, elk and sheep and not ok to bait turkeys, doves, and ducks? 
[/QUOTE]
because those species you just mention are far easier to manipulate and alter their feed patterns by baiting than a muledeer or elk is. Now if we were talking pigs and whitetails, it would be a much different story


----------



## flinger

Packout said:


> "Therein lies the crux of this conversation and law! It's about ethics! Nothing more!"
> Elk, you are incorrect. It has much more to do with other issues and not just ethics. Biological concerns with baiting-
> It congregates the animals. Spread of disease. It changes the way the animals use the landscape. It can lead to higher predation. What hormones/supplements are going into that "organic" meat?
> Non-biological issue examples- Illegal dumping on public lands. People claiming the area they bait.
> 
> I doubt the law was written for you and your 10 apples in a pile. I doubt the law was written to curb salt blocks. Unfortunately you and salt blocks get swept up in the dumping of literal Tons of apples and more-than-mineral-blocks on the landscape because it has to be all or nothing to enforce it. It should be pretty easy to understand.
> 
> Why has it been ok to bait mule deer, elk and sheep and not ok to bait turkeys, doves, and ducks? That makes no sense and it seems reasonable they are trying to address it. I didn't read the 19 pages on this thread so maybe this post is redundant.


That's alright, you didn't miss much in the previous pages. This thread is full of redundancy and yet here we are at page 19 and some still don't get it (probably intentionally).

CWD is a nasty disease that everyone should be concerned about and be willing to do what they can to curb it. It's too bad Colorado had to make some drastic decisions lately targeting mature bucks because of it.


----------



## elkfromabove

Packout said:


> "Therein lies the crux of this conversation and law! It's about ethics! Nothing more!"
> Elk, you are incorrect. It has much more to do with other issues and not just ethics. Biological concerns with baiting-
> It congregates the animals. Spread of disease. It changes the way the animals use the landscape. It can lead to higher predation. What hormones/supplements are going into that "organic" meat?
> Non-biological issue examples- Illegal dumping on public lands. People claiming the area they bait.
> 
> I doubt the law was written for you and your 10 apples in a pile. I doubt the law was written to curb salt blocks. Unfortunately you and salt blocks get swept up in the dumping of literal Tons of apples and more-than-mineral-blocks on the landscape because it has to be all or nothing to enforce it. It should be pretty easy to understand.
> 
> Why has it been ok to bait mule deer, elk and sheep and not ok to bait turkeys, doves, and ducks? That makes no sense and it seems reasonable they are trying to address it. I didn't read the 19 pages on this thread so maybe this post is redundant.


Actually, all of the legal attracting methods I mentioned also do all of the things you mentioned baiting/feeding does. Baiting/feeding is not unique in that regard!

An elk call will draw ANY elk within calling distance, just as elk urine will draw ANY elk within smelling distance and decoys will draw them in if they are in sighting distance. In fact, that's why we use those things. We WANT the animals to change the way they use the landscape and to congregate within our shooting range.

As far as predation goes, Utah predators prefer SOLITARY animals, not groups. The fewer eyes, the better! Most of the ideal situations are does with fawns, fawns who are trying to hide, weak and/or older animals who can't keep up with the herd, bedding areas, etc. Cougars have been hunting deer for thousands of years and they quickly learn where there are likely to be single animals. They also learn where there are a lot of eyes.

As for passing on diseases, they've also done that for thousands of years also. They've licked and smelled genitals, body openings and body wastes, have fed on the same brush, drank from the same dirty water, and rubbed and touched and sneezed and coughed on each other for the same amount of time. They've also lived in large winter herds and in family groups according to the seasons. They don't know the meaning of social distancing! A few hundred or thousand baiting sites in 29+ millions of acres of deer habitat makes little difference. And this is why my proposals limit the number allowed and the location registration.

The dumping issue is an issue only if the "pile" is large and is done for a long period of time. "Bait" is biodegradable and is also used by other animals so it isn't there very long. That's also why my proposals limit the amount and the length of time it's allowed.

And the unknown mineral content could be addressed with one of my other proposals. Regulate the type of bait allowed. There are many feed companies that produce bricks, pellets, and cubes specifically designed for wildlife. They are as interested in the quantity and quality of big game as much as you are.

I've lived in Southern Utah long enough to know that local residents not only claim the area they bait, they claim the whole d+++ mountain and the animals on them. That's an issue with or without the bait (or camera). That's just human nature and isn't likely to change if you ban baiting (or anything else).

Banning baiting for waterfowl and small game is logical because we have DAILY limits for most of those and baiting would be a wipe-out for some species in some areas if allowed. But I have a SEASON limit of big game animals. I can't come back every day during the season and kill a deer.

It doesn't (didn't) have to be an "all or nothing" law biologically, but I guess that doesn't matter, does it?


----------



## MooseMeat

flinger said:


> It's too bad Colorado had to make some drastic decisions lately targeting mature bucks because of it.


Ya since they were the ideal model for hunting muleys in the rut with rifles for how long? They’ve been killing big bucks for years from chit management practices. Don’t bring up the CWD topic to fit your agenda


----------



## OriginalOscar

elkfromabove said:


> Therein lies the crux of this conversation and law! It's about ethics! Nothing more! It's about a larger group of people imposing their selective set of ethics on a smaller group of people. They are not against manipulating the behavior of animals for the purpose of hunting them. They are just against one of the methods the manipulation takes place. In Utah we will still be allowed to manipulate game animal behavior with fake sounds (calls and antler rattling and rubbing), natural or chemically produced odors (doe/cow in heat urine, buck/bull urine, scent gland oils) and fake sights (decoys, rubs and scrapes), but for some nebulous reason we will no longer be allowed to use "bait" as it is now defined. Why? Because it's unethical/"lame".
> 
> And, to a great extent, the same logic applies to trail cams. I guess we'll find out to what extent when the Wildlife Board gets around to discussing the issue.


The examples you give involve physical presence and participation by the hunter. Bait and trail cams are left to attract or record without presence and participation by human (not worthy of term hunter).


----------



## OriginalOscar

MooseMeat said:


> Next time I’ll be unethical when we cross paths. Not illegal. Just unethical. Which apparently really gets under your skin haha ive had the opportunity before, but chose not to. I won’t take that route in the future given the opportunity.


 Glad we know each other. Me - Troy Rushton. You?


----------



## flinger

MooseMeat said:


> Ya since they were the ideal model for hunting muleys in the rut with rifles for how long? They’ve been killing big bucks for years from chit management practices. Don’t bring up the CWD topic to fit your agenda


Truth hurts at times doesn't it? Maybe you should try spreading it sometime.


----------



## elkfromabove

OriginalOscar said:


> The examples you give involve physical presence and participation by the hunter. Bait and trail cams are left to attract or record without presence and participation by human (not worthy of term hunter).


So, it would be OK with you if I brought the bait with me and then took it home when I left. Since I only used about 2 dozen scattered apples and/or a brick of salt or half a block of compressed feed designed for wildlife, it would be a simple solution. (I never used my one and only trail cam for deer or elk and I never used bait for pronghorn.)

Oh, and congratulations! You've learned a great lesson from Tristate! Always leave your post with an attempted insult! "You're not a hunter" is one of his favorites.


----------



## Vanilla

That name is not allowed on this forum!


----------



## elkfromabove

Vanilla said:


> That name is not allowed on this forum!


Opps!! There are/have been so many anti-baiting threads on these forums, I forgot most of UWN members don't know the name. It won't happen again.


----------



## MooseMeat

Vanilla said:


> That name is not allowed on this forum!


Just refer to him as the little fat round guy from Texas that can only kill stuff over bait. That name fits him better anyways


----------



## ridgetop

I'm just worried that this whole thing is going to become a big "witch hunt" for many uneducated fools that want to take the law into their own hands and there are going to be a lot more cameras being stolen or damaged than ever before. Even if they are placed somewhere legally.


----------



## MooseMeat

ridgetop said:


> I'm just worried that this whole thing is going to become a big "witch hunt" for many uneducated fools that want to take the law into their own hands and there are going to be a lot more cameras being stolen or damaged than ever before. Even if they are placed somewhere legally.


I bet you see fighting and vandalism on the hill like never before. Guys will just assume the original bill banning trail cams pass and they’ll take it from there. People already thought baiting was illegal prior to this year which caused some conflicts. This just poured gas on the fire


----------



## Vanilla

I'm just going to put this out there. If you're big game hunting in a way that puts you in such regular personal contact with others on the mountain that you can have multiple conflicts or fights, then you're doing it wrong.


----------



## PBH

I think we can all learn something from this thread: 1 bad apple can spoil the bunch.


MooseMeat said:


> People already thought baiting was illegal prior to this year which caused some conflicts.


Those conflicts came about because it _wasn't _illegal.
Now that it IS illegal - why would there be more conflicts? There should be less - because it shouldn't be happening now, and if it is happening, it is illegal!


moose -- I want to feel bad for you, but your logic on these topics is so skewed that I just cannot feel any empathy at all for you. Sorry.


----------



## MooseMeat

PBH said:


> I think we can all learn something from this thread: 1 bad apple can spoil the bunch.
> 
> 
> Those conflicts came about because it _wasn't _illegal.
> Now that it IS illegal - why would there be more conflicts? There should be less - because it shouldn't be happening now, and if it is happening, it is illegal!
> 
> 
> moose -- I want to feel bad for you, but your logic on these topics is so skewed that I just cannot feel any empathy at all for you. Sorry.


No these conflicts came about because people found salt and other attractants that guys were sitting over and they have a verbal altercation because the one party thought bait was illegal to hunt over.

im not looking for anyone’s sympathy. My logic is skewed? Because I don’t agree with you? Ok....


----------



## elkfromabove

Vanilla said:


> I'm just going to put this out there. If you're big game hunting in a way that puts you in such reg'ular personal contact with others on the mountain that you can have multiple conflicts or fights, THEN YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG.


Oh Boy! Since we have now stopped baiting, and will further regulate trail cams because they were the WRONG way to hunt and caused multiple conflicts or fights, look out you treestand hunters, pop-up blind hunters, road hunters, long range hunters, deer drive hunters, large group hunters, spike, fork horn and antlerless hunters which also cause multiple conflicts and fights 'cause you've been on the ethic experts' lists for quite some time. Your time is coming! Then when the ethics experts find that regulating hunters' methods doesn't work, they'll get back to the hunter numbers and we'll again hear hunter overcrowding is the problem. 😁


----------



## MooseMeat

Vanilla said:


> I'm just going to put this out there. If you're big game hunting in a way that puts you in such regular personal contact with others on the mountain that you can have multiple conflicts or fights, then you're doing it wrong.


With the low numbers of wildlife, and what’s left of said wildlife, are only found in certain areas, and people concentrate in these areas, you’re gonna run into more guys. You’re gonna have more conflicts when this happens. New hunters are a major contributing factor in these issues. They have no idea what’s going on, ethics, etiquette or respect for others in the area. Many times, it’s the younger kids causing most of the issues. When guys deliberately try to ruin your hunt, or have entitled attitudes, or KNOW that things are illegal when they aren’t, there will be conflicts. Happens on every mountain range, every year.


----------



## Vanilla

elkfromabove said:


> Oh Boy! Since we have now stopped baiting, and will further regulate trail cams because they were the WRONG way to hunt and caused multiple conflicts or fights, look out you treestand hunters, pop-up blind hunters, road hunters, long range hunters, deer drive hunters, large group hunters, spike, fork horn and antlerless hunters which also cause multiple conflicts and fights 'cause you've been on the ethic experts' lists for quite some time. Your time is coming! Then when the ethics experts find that regulating hunters' methods doesn't work, they'll get back to the hunter numbers and we'll again hear hunter overcrowding is the problem. 😁


Not sure what my post about liking to stay away from people when I hunt had to do with this or why it spawned your response, but I hope you’ll still have good experiences in the field this year, EFA. We do this stuff to enjoy it. I hope you’re able to.


----------



## Vanilla

MooseMeat said:


> With the low numbers of wildlife, and what’s left of said wildlife, are only found in certain areas, and people concentrate in these areas, you’re gonna run into more guys. You’re gonna have more conflicts when this happens. New hunters are a major contributing factor in these issues. They have no idea what’s going on, ethics, etiquette or respect for others in the area. Many times, it’s the younger kids causing most of the issues. When guys deliberately try to ruin your hunt, or have entitled attitudes, or KNOW that things are illegal when they aren’t, there will be conflicts. Happens on every mountain range, every year.


Last year I had a very pleasant day of deer hunting where we didn’t see another person until we were back on the main trail close to the parking area. We also didn’t see any bucks, but it was still fun. I left fulfilled and was entirely conflict free. In fact, I’ve never had a conflict hunting big game in my life. So it is possible.

I’ve had a couple in the duck marsh that were unavoidable, but never in the mountains big game hunting.


----------



## MooseMeat

Vanilla said:


> Last year I had a very pleasant day of deer hunting where we didn’t see another person until we were back on the main trail close to the parking area. We also didn’t see any bucks, but it was still fun. I left fulfilled and was entirely conflict free. In fact, I’ve never had a conflict hunting big game in my life. So it is possible.
> 
> I’ve had a couple in the duck marsh that were unavoidable, but never in the mountains big game hunting.


Ask ridge about the type of hunters he encountered several years ago and in prior years. Ask him about the mentality and entitlement some of those people feel about certain areas. Then add a big deer into the mix and see what happens. I’m not making this stuff up. He’s witnessed plenty of it in an area I hunt and a few other places he hunts. I go out of my way to avoid confrontations. But you let people get away with **** and walk over you by doing so long enough, something is gonna get said that’ll light the short fuse. I’m sure there’s lots of places that everyone gets along with each other. But there’s just as many places that people think are theirs that they will do what they can to push you out or run you off.

wait until you get a phone call from a dude pissed you were hunting ‘his’ spot on public land and how dare you shoot an elk off there.

people are DBs and it’s only getting worse. The new wave of the flatbrim army that’s coming up is gonna cause waves like we’ve never had before with entitlement and attitudes about who owns what when it comes to public land and wildlife


----------



## middlefork

Last time I had someone threaten me while hunting was back in the 70's. Apparently the two point I shot was more important to him than me. I hope he enjoyed it.

Too many people view hunting as a competition. They have been around for a long time. Anybody remember Big Buck Contests back in the day? Yep just that periods Instagram. There is absolutely no way someone can convince me that todays hunting scene is more competitive and successful than back when there were 230,000 deer hunters.

If killing deer is the problem then shut it down. Simple. But we should already know that killing bucks is not the problem. It absolutely fries me that a problem on the southern units has this much influence. Even if the dude who ran the bill is from northern Utah.

My prediction is no decrease in success ratio's, no less "big bucks" killed, no less conflict, and no more herd growth. But there are those who can pat themselves on the back and say we will still get it done "my way".


----------



## 2full

middlefork said:


> Last time I had someone threaten me while hunting was back in the 70's. Apparently the two point I shot was more important to him than me. I hope he enjoyed it.
> 
> Too many people view hunting as a competition. They have been around for a long time. Anybody remember Big Buck Contests back in the day? Yep just that periods Instagram. There is absolutely no way someone can convince me that todays hunting scene is more competitive and successful than back when there were 230,000 deer hunters.
> 
> If killing deer is the problem then shut it down. Simple. But we should already know that killing bucks is not the problem. It absolutely fries me that a problem on the southern units has this much influence. Even if the dude who ran the bill is from northern Utah.
> 
> My prediction is no decrease in success ratio's, no less "big bucks" killed, no less conflict, and no more herd growth. But there are those who can pat themselves on the back and say we will still get it done "my way".


How and why is it a "Southern problem". 
I had not heard that. I personally know of stores up North that sell more "bait" than my store ever did. 
Not trying to be ignorant or mean, just wondering.


----------



## Vanilla

Keep in mind that the other side of the “my way” coin on this issue is people feeling entitled to put cameras and bait on public property. There are two sides to the coin, and neither is immune from thinking things should be “their way.”


----------



## middlefork

middlefork said:


> Last time I had someone threaten me while hunting was back in the 70's. Apparently the two point I shot was more important to him than me. I hope he enjoyed it.
> 
> Too many people view hunting as a competition. They have been around for a long time. Anybody remember Big Buck Contests back in the day? Yep just that periods Instagram. There is absolutely no way someone can convince me that todays hunting scene is more competitive and successful than back when there were 230,000 deer hunters.
> 
> If killing deer is the problem then shut it down. Simple. But we should already know that killing bucks is not the problem. It absolutely fries me that a problem on the southern units has this much influence. Even if the dude who ran the bill is from northern Utah.
> 
> My prediction is no decrease in success ratio's, no less "big bucks" killed, no less conflict, and no more herd growth. But there are those who can pat themselves on the back and say we will still get it done "my way".





2full said:


> How and why is it a "Southern problem".
> I had not heard that. I personally know of stores up North that sell more "bait" than my store ever did.
> Not trying to be ignorant or mean, just wondering.


Apple bait piles on southern Utah waterholes is the main catalyst for this whole debacle. Bait and camera's are two separate issues along with the whole waterfowl section. The legislature was smart enough to punt the trail camera issue to the wildlife board. Now it's not their fault.

Salt/mineral blocks have been used for livestock operations for years. It is not hard to see that wildlife are attracted to the same sources. Enter hunters who see this and spread it out to other areas. There is not a livestock operator on public land who is going to complain about somebody else leaving salt/minerals on their leases. 

If I was to guess the fact that the more desert areas which concentrate any animals to water sources are are responsible for the angst. How do you target animals in some place like the Uinta's?


----------



## 2full

Have you ever been on the Beaver or Panguitch units before ? Not to mention Boulders and a couple of others. There is a lot of water and public Forest Service and BLM land. It would be just as hard to target specific animals in those areas. 
It's not ALL desert terrain down here.


----------



## middlefork

I have. It has been a a hobby of mine to visit areas of Utah that I've not been too familiar with. I don't want to be accused of applying for areas I know nothing about if I decide to. I've spent the last 20 years spending time on a lot of the units in Utah one to two weeks at a time. Some even more.

I'm just going on the hearsay from other sites. But apparently some people are putting out truck loads of apples in order to target trophy deer. It has upset a few influential individuals. So hello squeaky wheel.


----------



## PBH

MooseMeat said:


> No these conflicts came about because people found salt and other attractants that guys were sitting over and they have a verbal altercation because_* the one party thought bait was illegal to hunt over.*_


Correct. And, thus the conflict. The party that _thought_ it was illegal caused an issue because they were ignorant to the law. With the new recent law making baiting illegal, there should be less conflict because now those people putting out bait shouldn't be putting out bait - and thus the potential for conflict will lessen.

Obviously, there will still be some that choose _to break the law_, and there will be some who choose to point it out. But overall, there should be fewer conflicts now that the law is in place.



elkfromabove said:


> Oh Boy! Since we have now stopped baiting, and will further regulate trail cams because they were the WRONG way to hunt and caused multiple conflicts or fights, look out you ... pop-up blind hunters... which also cause multiple conflicts and fights 'cause you've been on the ethic experts' lists for quite some time. Your time is coming! T


I'll fully support any new regulation to require those pop-up blind hunters to pack their blinds out with them when they leave. How better to reserve your water hole with multiple cameras and a salt lick, than to throw out your pop-up blind a week or two before the hunt starts? :noidea:
Pack It In --> Pack It Out



middlefork said:


> I'm just going on the hearsay from other sites. But apparently some people are putting out truck loads of apples in order to target trophy deer. It has upset a few influential individuals. So hello squeaky wheel.


Again, 1 bad apple spoils the bunch. But this certainly isn't an issue specific to only southern Utah.
I wonder how our Wildlife Board member(s) feel about this particular issue?


----------



## MooseMeat

No, now you’ll have guys stealing cams and vandalizing cams because they are CERTAIN cams were outlawed, thus creating a new conflicts. It’s going to happen. And when called out on their ignorance, their excuse will be “well that’s what I heard!” But the damage will be done and the fights will have already happened.


----------



## flinger

MooseMeat said:


> No, now you’ll have guys stealing cams and vandalizing cams because they are CERTAIN cams were outlawed, thus creating a new conflicts. It’s going to happen. And when called out on their ignorance, their excuse will be “well that’s what I heard!” But the damage will be done and the fights will have already happened.


The irony is strong with this one. Must just be an attempt at an April fools joke.


----------



## MWScott72

OriginalOscar said:


> The examples you give involve physical presence and participation by the hunter. Bait and trail cams are left to attract or record without presence and participation by human (not worthy of term hunter).


I’m sorry, but lumping everyone as “not worthy of the term hunter” if they were to use bait is a pretty big dig at a large segment on the hunting community. It’s this type of comment that divides instead of unifies, and is precisely what we should be going out of our way to avoid. It’s like telling a worm guy he doesn’t know how to fish because he doesn’t catch them on a fly! I know numerous people who use bait (either here or in other states), and they are **** good hunters and individuals.

How many whitetails are killed over bait? Bears? Elk? Just because a person may choose to use bait, where legal, doesn’t make them categorically less of a hunter. We don’t all have to have Daniel Boone credentials! If so, I imagine 95% of us would be found seriously lacking.

Let’s unite and not divide! OK, off my soapbox.


----------



## MooseMeat

MWScott72 said:


> It’s like telling a worm guy he doesn’t know how to fish because he doesn’t catch them on a fly!


or telling a guy he’s not a hunter if he uses turkey calls to shoot a turkey or duck decoys to shoot ducks...

Right, OO?


----------



## Vanilla

MWScott72 said:


> Just because a person may choose to use bait, *where legal*, doesn’t make them categorically less of a hunter.


I agree with this. I would not look down on someone for doing legal activities. HOWEVER, baiting big game will no longer be legal in Utah after May 5th. So anyone that does it after that point probably deserves to be judged harshly. Illegally taking wildlife is not becoming of a true sportsman, in my opinion. Those people become poachers.


----------



## elkfromabove

Vanilla said:


> I agree with this. I would not look down on someone for doing legal activities. HOWEVER, baiting big game will no longer be legal in Utah after May 5th. So anyone that does it after that point probably deserves to be judged harshly. Illegally taking wildlife is not becoming of a true sportsman, in my opinion. Those people become poachers.


If the truth be known, I'd guess that many, if not most, of you have already taken wildlife illegally! With the many forever changing federal, state, county and city ordinances regarding guns, archery, fences, cultivated property, wildlife, trespass, gates, definition of highways, watersheds, etc., at some point you've broken the law while hunting. So, let's be sure to add a few more!


----------



## Vanilla

elkfromabove said:


> If the truth be known, I'd guess that many, if not most, of you have already taken wildlife illegally! With the many forever changing federal, state, county and city ordinances regarding guns, archery, fences, cultivated property, wildlife, trespass, gates, definition of highways, watersheds, etc., at some point you've broken the law while hunting. So, let's be sure to add a few more!


So let's just get rid of all laws and let anyone kill anything they want any time they want? How does that sound? I mean, we're all poachers anyway, so what is the difference if someone unknowingly breaks a law like the definition of a highway versus going out and shooting a 370 bull in February on the winter range? 

Goodness...these principles just aren't that hard! You're making them way more difficult than they need to be. I know you want to put out your apples. Just go ahead and do it if you want to do it that badly and you don't view following the law that important. Choices have consequences, however.


----------



## MooseMeat

elkfromabove said:


> If the truth be known, I'd guess that many, if not most, of you have already taken wildlife illegally! With the many forever changing federal, state, county and city ordinances regarding guns, archery, fences, cultivated property, wildlife, trespass, gates, definition of highways, watersheds, etc., at some point you've broken the law while hunting. So, let's be sure to add a few more!


Yeah but no one ever wants to even care to admit that. It’s everyone else that breaks the law, not them.

it would shock most of the proud “public land” hunters in this state If they knew how much ground they parked on, traveled across, hunted on or drove through, was actually private land.

every year I see groups of guys, 2, 3, even 4, shoot at a single deer or elk, until it falls over. Then 1 guy cuts a tag and the rest get to continue hunting for another. That’s by definition, “party hunting”. There are degrees of party hunting, and it’s certainly not the worst, but it is party hunting. Same is done with ducks. 3 guys go out together, everyone shoots until there’s 21 in the pile. Happens every day of the season.

the examples are endless. But those don’t count, I’m sure. It’s what everyone else is doing that’s the issue, breaking the law, making them “the problem”.


----------



## Ecpk91

I am amazed this topic is still floating along, some good points on all sides. The last time I had a confrontation with a big game hunter up until last year was when I was in high school around 1990 on the rifle hunt over a shot spike. That was my last rifle hunt figured it wasn't worth being in an overcrowded field with high powered rifles and orange vests all over. I have since devoted all big game to bow hunting. I've met some amazing other hunters eager to help on the mountains. I have run into others scouting an area I hunt and have placed them in tree stands I had already set up hoping they find success. I did have a confrontation over a guy in a ground blind who hadn't hunted his spot for two days but was upset on the third day he showed up because my boys were hunting close by. I feel like if you are looking for a conflict you will find one, I have done this in many other aspects aside from hunting unfortunately. Not my proudest moments, I try not to look for these any longer it disrupts the peace I find in the mountains and streams

I also take the time every chance i get once the mountains are accessible to scout and going where no one else wants to hike pays off. So I can't use salt anymore, big deal, improvise, adapt and overcome. Animals are still up there and in the same areas. Yea I think it sucks but having a law enforcement background laws exist and though I may not like them I try to obey them. I have two choices either do it or don't, I can't convince or prove my way is for anyone else but me. I won't let this hinderance affect my peace and serenity in the hobbies I love. To quote a wonderful prayer " Living one day at a time, enjoying one moment at a time; accepting hardship as a pathway to peace...." Good luck hunting this year and enjoy the woods for what it offers.


----------



## Critter

Actually if 20 hunters are shooting at one deer and just one tags it that isn't party hunting as long as one person admits that it is his deer. How else would they figure out just who shot it? Call in CSI? 

Party hunting is when a person shoots a deer that he does not tag and has no intention of tagging and finds another hunter who will tag it.

Private property is the big thing. A few years ago on here a member asked when the USFS started to sell USFS property. He had hunted up above Electric all his life and finally a new owner placed private property signs on the boundaries.

Your example with ducks is party hunting. A person should claim the ducks that he shot and actually keep them separate from the other hunters and once he reaches his limit he needs to put his shotgun down. 

It is the same with fishing when there are more than one fishermen. When one reaches his limit he can continue to fish but he legally can not keep anymore fish to add to his friends limit. Now if he wants to cull fish out of a live well then he can keep the same amount of fish that he culls as long as the culls are still alive.


----------



## JuddCT

The wildlife board discussed the trail cam directive in the mule deer work session. Here are my thoughts on what they discussed:

They had a healthy discussion about the trail camera directive from the legislature. It is apparent that they want to still hear the feedback from the “average” Hunter on this and that the few questions asked in the technology survey they sent out is not enough to give them the public input they want. I would expect to see a specific trail camera survey on its own but not until after July or Aug. I could tell some of the board members wanted that information sooner, but it felt the DWR official felt like they had enough information from the technology survey they already sent out. In the end I think we will see a specific survey about trail cams and we all will have the opportunity to voice our concerns over the next 6 months. 

Carry on!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 7mm Reloaded

My daughter and I both shot at a buck within one second of each other and we both hit it but hers was the kill shot and we got checked and it is not party hunting


----------



## MooseMeat

7MM RELOADED said:


> My daughter and I both shot at a buck within one second of each other and we both hit it but hers was the kill shot and we got checked and it is not party hunting


Yeah that’s what every dad would say. “The kids shot is the one that killed it, not mine. Great shot kiddo! Now I can go find me one to shoot”.

I can’t wait until I get to shoot 2 bucks, 6 elk and whatever else me and my kid has tags for


----------



## 7mm Reloaded

my daughter probably a better shot than you. you wasn't there I nicked it.


----------



## MooseMeat

7MM RELOADED said:


> my daughter probably a better shot than you. you wasn't there I nicked it.


Yeah and my kid will always be a better shot than me on the first one we pull the trigger on, too.


----------



## Irish Lad

MooseMeat said:


> Yeah and my kid will always be a better shot than me on the first one we pull the trigger on, too.


That's how it always was when I started my grandson duck hunting 😁😁


----------



## bowgy

7MM RELOADED said:


> My daughter and I both shot at a buck within one second of each other and we both hit it but hers was the kill shot and we got checked and it is not party hunting


I believe it, I never shot any of my kid's animals. One time my youngest daughter shot a buck, the shot placement was too far forward, it went through both front shoulders and the brisket, it started circling a tree like it was tied to it, I told her to shoot it again, she did and it went down but tried to get back up and I told her to put one in the neck, that put it down, she made me promise not to tell anyone that it took her more than one shot to kill that deer since all of her others had been one shot kills. 

Well, I kept the promise till now but she is 40 and she hasn't hunted since she got off her mission 18 years ago.


----------



## CPAjeff

Meh - thanks to the mentor program, my kids will shoot their animals and mine (for the species where it's legal). I'd much rather see them pull the trigger.


----------



## 7mm Reloaded

She's 28 and its not like it's her first deer


----------



## MooseMeat

I wasn’t aware party hunting with your kids was only bad when it’s their first deer. Thanks for the update 👍🏻


----------



## 7mm Reloaded

I figured you'd take the bait. We just made an office bet. lol thanks for buying my lunch $$$


----------



## flinger

Dwr trail camera survey results showed during board meeting yesterday. They said their recommendation will follow the survey results closely.


----------



## APD

So likely no cell cams during the hunting season on public land but regular trail cams might be acceptable. I hope they at least address the issue of cell cams disabled. I don't care either way but how's a CO to know if they can is in transmit mode or just storage. They look the same from the outside.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

So what's the latest on this? I honestly haven't been paying much attention to trail cam issues because I've never bothered with them, but this year I was going try to put a couple cameras out with some critter lick. Naturally this morning I noticed all this stuff regarding hb 295 right after ordering a second camera off midway.... such is my luck.


----------



## APD

Lone_Hunter said:


> So what's the latest on this? I honestly haven't been paying much attention to trail cam issues because I've never bothered with them, but this year I was going try to put a couple cameras out with some critter lick. Naturally this morning I noticed all this stuff regarding hb 295 right after ordering a second camera off midway.... such is my luck.


Until they provide more clarity it looks like most folks are running status quo. I'd suggest not hunting over your salt as that is pretty clear. I haven't heard anything new about cams but it'll likely be related to in season use and possibly heavier restriction on cell cams.


----------



## middlefork

No problem so far running cameras. The problem would be with the "attractant".

I believe it was said on another site, it would be very problematic to put out attractants on a unit you have a tag for.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

APD said:


> Until they provide more clarity it looks like most folks are running status quo. I'd suggest not hunting over your salt as that is pretty clear. I haven't heard anything new about cams but it'll likely be related to in season use and possibly heavier restriction on cell cams.





middlefork said:


> No problem so far running cameras. The problem would be with the "attractant".
> 
> I believe it was said on another site, it would be very problematic to put out attractants on a unit you have a tag for.


Yeah that's kind of what i figured after reading the bill very closely. If I read it correctly, It sounds like Joaquin from Peru can put out some salt/minerals for his sheep, but thats were legally putting salt/minerals ends as far as the mountains go. I just had a hard time believing I read it correctly.

Glad I didn't buy any, I was going to today. Thanks.


----------



## ns450f

So using attractants and licks is now illegal. Thats funny because the local sportsmens in my area has them displayed front and center. Every time I hit the store I see some a$$hat flat brim type loading up on the things......


----------



## Lone_Hunter

ns450f said:


> So using attractants and licks is now illegal. Thats funny because the local sportsmens in my area has them displayed front and center. Every time I hit the store I see some a$$hat flat brim type loading up on the things......


Probably Hushin, they're practically the unofficial spokesman for the stuff. At least they were a couple years go.. dunno about now, stopped watching their videos a couple years ago.


----------



## MrShane

What is the ruling on using the little fiber attractant scent pads and stuff like DoeinHeat and CowinHeat?


----------



## Vanilla

Utah Code Section 23-16-11







le.utah.gov





That link is the entirety of the big game baiting law. If it isn’t written here, it isn’t the law.


----------



## MrShane

Very interesting that the State will only allow a baiting COR for cities and towns that have deer causing damage and not for elk that are causing damage.


----------



## Vanilla

MrShane said:


> Very interesting that the State will only allow a baiting COR for cities and towns that have deer causing damage and not for elk that are causing damage.


There is a provision for any big game deprivation. The mention of deer in cities and towns is probably because we don’t see many town elk taking up residence and eating Sister Jones’s prized blossoms.


----------



## MrShane

Correct me if I am wrong Vanilla but the law only allows that provision for elk if they are causing damage to cultivated crops?
Maybe I missed something?
The law is definitely ‘hastily fabricated’ in my opinion.


----------



## Vanilla

That is the only circumstance contemplated in the statute where the Board can issue the certificate for big game baiting. 

I disagree that this was hastily fabricated. You or I may disagree with how it was worded or not like how it ended up, but this bill probably had as much public comment, feedback, and contribution as any bill in the legislature last session. Top 5 for sure. Like many pieces of legislation that address new issues or policies, it will have some things to work out. I do think the Division should have had more input as they are tasked with enforcement, but that can take place over time.


----------



## MrShane

I will admit I am very disappointed with the new law, I am probably being extra critical is all.
Thank you for the clarification.
I was hoping that cameras would be banned and baiting would still be allowed.
So much for hoping.....


----------



## Critter

The biggest problem with baiting is the trash that is left behind.

I know a area on the Plateau that is trashed every year. People other than the hunters will clean it up and if you go back in the next year it will be trashed again.

Perhaps if they treated baiting deer and elk the same way that they do bears it might be different. But I think that the new law will work out for the better over time. 

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla

There will absolutely be tweaks to this as time goes on. Be involved, your voice can make a difference.


----------



## OriginalOscar

Anyone have something new to fight about?


----------



## ns450f

I have a feeling this is mainly going to be a feel good law. Who is actually going to enforce this law?


----------



## middlefork

ns450f said:


> I have a feeling this is mainly going to be a feel good law. Who is actually going to enforce this law?


No worry. There are plenty of folks who will hang themselves posting on social media. If you think LEO don't know that you are dreaming.


----------



## MooseMeat

middlefork said:


> No worry. There are plenty of folks who will hang themselves posting on social media. If you think LEO don't know that you are dreaming.


They already have. Sean Morgan posted on his story a couple weeks ago him hauling 90# of trophy rock up in the hills. There’s been several outfitters and other “big deals” that posted stuff on it too. I called a few of them out. Couple told me to go pound sand, but immediately deleted their posts 🤣 one clown I can’t stand I did screen shot and report their illegal behavior to a fish cop. I was told “it’s not hunting season yet….” So take that for what it’s worth.

then you have another outfitter that’s probably behind a lot of why trail cams and bait are being outlawed, posting pics of them cutting down live trees on FS land, to clear a path for their trail cams, to social media…. He’s always had the fuk everyone else mentality anyways, he’s better than them. If anyone wonders why this chit is happening, it’s cuz clowns are hunting for likes and attention


----------



## middlefork

And you proved my point. It may not happen overnight like some people seem to want but I'm sure there will be repercussions for for some. It will never be 100% but hopefully as news comes out it will cease to be a big deal and most people will comply.


----------



## Vanilla

Most people will comply. This is not unlike any other wildlife law out there. Most will follow the law simply because it’s the law. Some will break it ignorantly. Some will break it knowingly and get caught. Still, others, will break it intentionally simply because they don’t care about anyone but themselves and totally get away with it.

It’s just the way it is.


----------



## MooseMeat

middlefork said:


> And you proved my point. It may not happen overnight like some people seem to want but I'm sure there will be repercussions for for some. It will never be 100% but hopefully as news comes out it will cease to be a big deal and most people will comply.


The officer told me he won’t cite anyone until hunting season starts. Until then you’re simply viewing wildlife. If the salt or whatever is gone opening day, you aren’t hunting over bait. The 50 yard rule that’s in there is “grey area at best”. Meaning if you are caught within 50 yards of a bait pile, you’re gonna have some explaining to do. Other than that, they have to prove intent. And it’s pretty hard to question a dead elk or deer and ask them what their travel plans were for that day and the area they were in.

I guess the DWR is quite PO’d at the state over the whole deal, banning it completely then throwing the responsibility to them to figure out how to control or patrol it.

im not stating law or how every officer will treat it. I’m simply telling you what I was told in the conversation I had with a fish cop 2 weeks ago.


----------



## Critter

For most of the hunters out there that use bait I would wager that they have no idea that the law was even passed. 

Look at how many come on here and ask a question that could be answered if they would just open up the field regs book.


----------



## ns450f

Whats a field reg book?


----------



## APD

MooseMeat said:


> The officer told me he won’t cite anyone until hunting season starts. Until then you’re simply viewing wildlife. If the salt or whatever is gone opening day, you aren’t hunting over bait. The 50 yard rule that’s in there is “grey area at best”. Meaning if you are caught within 50 yards of a bait pile, you’re gonna have some explaining to do. Other than that, they have to prove intent. And it’s pretty hard to question a dead elk or deer and ask them what their travel plans were for that day and the area they were in.


this is about what i expected from this law.


----------



## elkfromabove

APD said:


> this is about what i expected from this law.


The law is extremely vague and far too encompassing and, with the exception of hunting within the 50 yard radius of 
"bait", it is practically impossible to enforce! No matter where the big game animal is now, you would have to not only know WHERE it has been or is going, but WHY it was there or is going there. AND we would have to know if and how the behavior of the animal was "manipulated". specifically by the "bait".

Please tell us again why this law was passed.


----------



## ns450f

It seems to me like the archery guys that build blinds or install tree stands while putting up trail cameras and bait/attractants are the ones who have to worry about this new law.


----------



## Vanilla

Honestly, I don't think this law is as ambiguous as people claim, and I don't think enforcement of it is any more difficult than any other wildlife law out there. 

Here's the truth about our wildlife code: It has a lot in it, and most of it is not enforced year after year due to a total lack of resources for the Division. We hope the most serious things get taken care of, but when a prominent guide has a client on the purchased statewide tag that shoots a bighorn sheep on a closed unit and the DWR asks the prosecutor to NOT file charges for poaching related offenses, you know they aren't going to make this a huge priority either. 

The law has been posted multiple times now. It is there for your consumption. I personally don't think it's hard to understand. Follow it, or don't. That's a choice. Just like any other law out there.


----------



## MrShane

The problem with this law is you could be a mile away from an old bait site, maybe not even yours, and if a LEO felt you killed an animal headed to that bait site you are now the proud owner of a citation.


----------



## MooseMeat

MrShane said:


> The problem with this law is you could be a mile away from an old bait site, maybe not even yours, and if a LEO felt you killed an animal headed to that bait site you are now the proud owner of a citation.


They have to prove intent. That’s everything. “Knowingly, willingly or recklessly”. If you didn’t bait the area and you aren’t inside the 50 yards, you have nothing to worry about. The burden of proof falls upon them. If there’s no proof of illegal activity or intent, there’s no citation. They’d need photo evidence of you baiting AND catch you hunting the area. Without both, there’s not much they can do other than waste a day in court for the prosecutor to tell you that in person. My bet is you wouldn’t even make it that far.


----------



## Vanilla

MooseMeat said:


> They have to prove intent. That’s everything. “Knowingly, *INTENTIONALLY* or recklessly”. If you didn’t bait the area and you aren’t inside the 50 yards, you have nothing to worry about. The burden of proof falls upon them. If there’s no proof of illegal activity or intent, there’s no citation. They’d need photo evidence of you baiting AND catch you hunting the area. Without both, there’s not much they can do other than waste a day in court for the prosecutor to tell you that in person. My bet is you wouldn’t even make it that far.


Fixed it for you moose. But otherwise, I tend to agree with your premise.

I said this way back before the bill even passed. I don’t bait, and so I won’t be planning to change how I hunt at all. Not even a little bit.


----------



## elkfromabove

ns450f said:


> It seems to me like the archery guys that build blinds or install tree stands while putting up trail cameras and bait/attractants are the ones who have to worry about this new law.


Of course, since the muzzy and rifle hunters don't build blinds or install treestands or put up trail cameras or put out bait/attractants.


----------



## MooseMeat

Vanilla said:


> Fixed it for you moose. But otherwise, I tend to agree with your premise.
> 
> I said this way back before the bill even passed. I don’t bait, and so I won’t be planning to change how I hunt at all. Not even a little bit.


You’re right. I knew it didn’t sound right haha you’d think with as many times as I’ve had that referenced in my life, I’d have the whole thing memorized by now!


----------



## backcountry

COs don't have the time to waste on randomly chasing down every deer killed coming and going from a potential baiting station. They can barely keep their head above water building cases against legitimate criminal behavior. 

This seems like a decent law trying to accommodate fair chase ethics of a highly sought after set of species. They'll have an issue with enforcement as the bottleneck is always the number of COs in the field but I'm guessing it will drastically reduce baiting as most of us are law abiding citizens and hunters.


----------



## MooseMeat

backcountry said:


> They can barely keep their head above water building cases against legitimate criminal behavior.


Eh… I dunno. If they want you, they usually can get you with any resources they determine necessary without too much effort. They do like to pick and choose who they go after though.


----------



## backcountry

They aren't going after a random hunter who unknowingly killed a deer coming/going from a bait station. 

If they catch you intentionally hunting a deer coming/going from a bait station or using a bait station to draw in deer than they could (will?) use their resources to prosecute if the evidence holds up. And I'm all for that. 

Like Vanilla said, it seems like if you are hunting legally you have nothing to worry about.

Per quote you responded to....I was being vague but my guess is they only prosecute a small portion of poaching (and the like). I could be wrong but that's my estimation.


----------



## MrShane

I agree with MM, even the best LEO has a bad day and might take it out on someone.
My advice, carry a 51 yard long string.
Put one end of string at said bait pile, and hunt at other end.
Free Pro tip: ONLY shoot animal if broadside to bait pile.


----------



## OriginalOscar

MooseMeat said:


> They do like to pick and choose who they go after though.


 #BHLM #defundDWR


----------



## Critter

I wouldn't bother hanging around a bait station much less measuring out the distance from one.

Also if you do find that one DWR officer who is having a bad day just answer his questions and sign the ticket if he gives you one and then go tell it to the judge.

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## APD

MooseMeat said:


> Eh… I dunno. If they want you, they usually can get you with any resources they determine necessary without too much effort. They do like to pick and choose who they go after though.



if the officer in the field wants you, he will write the ticket. with a little time, some crying, a closed door meeting and a lawsuit, you can poach your ass off and get your hunting rights restored. just ask muley freak.


----------



## MooseMeat

APD said:


> if the officer in the field wants you, he will write the ticket. with a little time, some crying, a closed door meeting and a lawsuit, you can poach your ass off and get your hunting rights restored. just ask muley freak.


And get the state to buy you all kinds of land owner tags and CWMU moose tags! Oh and don’t forget that 2020 Tacoma!


----------



## MrShane

Nobody commented on my Pro tip?
See, if the animal is broadside to the bait pile nobody can prove it was either going to or coming from the bait.
Safe!


----------



## MooseMeat

MrShane said:


> Nobody commented on my Pro tip?
> See, if the animal is broadside to the bait pile nobody can prove it was either going to or coming from the bait.
> Safe!


Last time I checked, ungulates make terrible eye witnesses. You can’t prove or disprove it’s intentions on the travel routes they take. I don’t even think they know half the time where they are going. They kinda wander and do their own thing. If salt happens to be in their path way, great. But I don’t ever recall seeing a deer or elk go out of its way to hit a bait pile. They do with water and natural feed. But bait is more of a convenience deal, just so happens most salt is located with a water source very close by.


----------



## middlefork

My personal experience is somewhat different. For several years we placed a salt / mineral block on our property literally 30 yards from a cabin and trailers. The closest water is maybe a half mile away. We always had deer and moose visit during the summer. We had some pretty neat experiences doing it. We finally gave it up to try and keep the cows out. Even several years after no longer putting it out the critters still came in licking the dirt.

But it was obvious that salt/minerals worked to attract them. They were the same ones time after time.

And in my area I have yet to see a rancher put salt next to a water source. That's just generally a bad idea.


----------



## MooseMeat

“And in my area I have yet to see a rancher put salt next to a water source. That's just generally a bad idea.”

There seems to be a huge increase in ranchers doing it this year. Weird.


----------



## elkfromabove

MooseMeat said:


> “And in my area I have yet to see a rancher put salt next to a water source. That's just generally a bad idea.”
> 
> There seems to be a huge increase in ranchers doing it this year. Weird.


And in my areas, they all do it all the time (and have for as long as I can remember since moving here in 1989) whether it's private or public land. They just make sure it's far enough away (25 or 30 yards) and downhill so it doesn't pollute any running water. So, is that "bait/baiting" or not? And what about the hay or grain they throw out?


----------



## flinger

Arizona Decides Trail Cameras Violate Fair Chase; Hits Hunters with Country's First Full Cam Ban


Arizona has become the first state in the country to institute a full ban on trail cameras for the use of hunting or scouting. State commission says they violate fair chase




www.fieldandstream.com





Arizona going with year round ban on any type of trail camera used for purpose of taking/hunting. Wow. 

Utah dwr proposal should be coming out soon.


----------



## PBH

flinger said:


> Utah dwr proposal should be coming out soon.



Funny comment.


How many times concerning other topics do we always look to other states because they do things "better" than Utah? We hear it all the time.

Utah has finally adopted something similar to "other" states with the camera and baiting laws. I honestly wouldn't be bothered at all if Utah moved towards a total ban like Arizona. While we're at it, can we include pop-up tent blinds?


----------



## Vanilla

Wow. Full on ban. That is surprising!


----------



## 67015

Natural Born Killer said:


> *Like this is a normal???*
> 
> Like this is a normal??? outlaw the DAMNED things!


If you spend time in the vernon or other desert units its pretty common to see 5-10 or more cameras per water hole, between guides and the average hunters or even just people helping there buddies out, there will be cameras, I just either find me a spot on the tree or move on.


----------



## flinger

PBH said:


> Funny comment.
> 
> 
> How many times concerning other topics do we always look to other states because they do things "better" than Utah? We hear it all the time.
> 
> Utah has finally adopted something similar to "other" states with the camera and baiting laws. I honestly wouldn't be bothered at all if Utah moved towards a total ban like Arizona. While we're at it, can we include pop-up tent blinds?


I'm not saying utah is or should go the AZ route, and I hope they don't go that far. It's in the fieldbook stating their trail cam proposal or response to the direction from recent legislation is going through the public process sometime this summer. Pg 30


----------



## Critter

Arizona's big problem is limited water resources and when you have a couple dozen or so people placing cameras on water holes they can and do disturb wildlife.

A few years ago I saw some campers get ticketed for camping too close to a wildlife water hole and all they were doing was camping. 

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## ns450f

They just decided to band all public access on the Kaibab national forest in Arizona. Hopefully Utah doesn't decide to follow that lead...


----------



## Lone_Hunter

Go go gadget stealth camp.


----------



## PBH

ns450f said:


> They just decided to band all public access on the Kaibab national forest in Arizona. Hopefully Utah doesn't decide to follow that lead...



I don't think Utah has any authority to ban any public access on the Kaibab NF.


----------



## Critter

It wasn't the state of Arizona that put the ban in place but the Kaibab National Forest office due to stage 3 fire restrictions.

In years past National Forest in Colorado have been closed for the same reason.

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## ns450f

PBH said:


> I don't think Utah has any authority to ban any public access on the Kaibab NF.


Obviously Utah didn't initate the public land band in Arizona. By they I meant the feds, specifically the dept of the interior. I meant to say that hopefully Utah isn't next in line.


----------



## backcountry

Not just Kaibab.

Also Coconino, Apache-Sitgreaves, Prescott and Tonto National Forests.

Sadly we'll likely see at least temporary closures on some USFS lands in Utah if this keeps up. Too many human caused fires. Most of us can be trusted to be thoughtful but it only takes one person to start a wildfire.


----------



## MooseMeat

backcountry said:


> Not just Kaibab.
> 
> Also Coconino, Apache-Sitgreaves, Prescott and Tonto National Forests.
> 
> Sadly we'll likely see at least temporary closures on some USFS lands in Utah if this keeps up. Too many human caused fires. Most of us can be trusted to be thoughtful but it only takes one person to start a wildfire.


Or a rogue plane that crashes in a wilderness area that 1. They refused to suppress and fight when it was still very small and allowed to grow out of control and 2. Won’t discuss any details about the plane crash, who was on it or why it was in that area when it went down. They just sat back let it burn and swept it under the rug.


----------



## OriginalOscar

MooseMeat said:


> Or a rogue plane that crashes in a wilderness area that 1. They refused to suppress and fight when it was still very small and allowed to grow out of control and 2. Won’t discuss any details about the plane crash, who was on it or why it was in that area when it went down. They just sat back let it burn and swept it under the rug.


Or lighting hits tree east of Utah Valley and tree smolders while Feds refuse to dispatch copter with bucket to douse since it's natural. Then it blows up and burns for weeks. 

This is where our states leadership deserve props for their willingness to call BS on federal bureaucrats and illogical decisions. AZ, CO likely victims of weak state leadership.


----------



## backcountry

Some fires should burn, including some in wildlife habitat. But if it's near residences or critical infrastructure than there should be accountability.

I don't know about the descriptions above. Do the fires have names?


----------



## 67015

The one on the stansburys started bout last Thursday, Wednesday it was roaring like crazy, then that rain put it out i never saw any attempt to put it out


----------



## OriginalOscar

backcountry said:


> Some fires should burn, including some in wildlife habitat. But if it's near residences or critical infrastructure than there should be accountability.
> 
> I don't know about the descriptions above. Do the fires have names?


September 2019 - Pole Creek - Bald Mountain Fires - 120,000 acres. Agreed some fires should burn and controlled burns good management. During periods of drought and summer-fall any fire should be doused if possible.

Oh and grazing cattle, sheep, and goats helps reduce grass, brush prone to burning. #loveranchers #lovesheepmen #goats
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd796970.pdf


----------



## backcountry

MooseMeat said:


> Or a rogue plane that crashes in a wilderness area that 1. They refused to suppress and fight when it was still very small and allowed to grow out of control and 2. Won’t discuss any details about the plane crash, who was on it or why it was in that area when it went down. They just sat back let it burn and swept it under the rug.


Morgan Canyon Fire? They had hot shot crews on it the day it started and a bucket dropping the next day when it was still 50 acres. It's still only 500 acres as of yesterday; hardly out of control. 

The plane crash info is on the NTSB and county sheriff to release names. But they immediately released plane details. USFS has no role outside investigating cause of ignition unless they prosecute which is tough when everyone onboard died.


----------



## backcountry

OriginalOscar said:


> September 2019 - Pole Creek - Bald Mountain Fires - 120,000 acres. Agreed some fires should burn and controlled burns good management. During periods of drought and summer-fall any fire should be doused if possible.
> 
> Oh and grazing cattle, sheep, and goats helps reduce grass, brush prone to burning. #loveranchers #lovesheepmen #goats
> https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd796970.pdf


Thx. Don't know that one being down south. I'll read up on your link, at some point.

Per summertime fires comment, we use to do that and it resulted in forest overgrowth, post-climax densities and much of our current predicament. We are still learning the "right" balance but I doubt we'll ever go back to extinguishing any fire during summer and droughts. That's especially true since we've been in drought most of the last 2 decades in Utah/Colorado River Basin. 

Most of the current approach is dictated by well thought out landscape-wide policy that is trying to balance short term alongside long term ecosystem management. Sadly, because of previous policy much of Utah's forest is in desperate need of burning in some form. Doesn't mean it is applied well in each case but they often have their hands tied by the time fire season starts. 

Wether we like it or not, our USFS are going to burn in some fashion unless citizens force Congress to challenge Dept. Of Interior policy. And without a better alternative I don't see much other option being tenable.


----------



## middlefork

backcountry said:


> Morgan Canyon Fire? They had hot shot crews on it the day it started and a bucket dropping the next day when it was still 50 acres. It's still only 500 acres as of yesterday; hardly out of control.
> 
> The plane crash info is on the NTSB and county sheriff to release names. But they immediately released plane details. USFS has no role outside investigating cause of ignition unless they prosecute which is tough when everyone onboard died.


Info has been out for awhile.








Family mourns loss of 6-year-old and grandma killed in Tooele County plane crash


A Montana family is sharing memories of their loved ones who passed away in a horrific plane crash late last week in Tooele County.




www.fox13now.com


----------



## middlefork

I think you will see pretty aggressive initial attack on most fires this summer with any threat to infrastructure.

But currently there are 13 fires being managed with other than full suppression strategy. As per Federal guidance.


https://www.nifc.gov/nicc/sitreprt.pdf


----------



## backcountry

Agreed, Middlefork. You can see the difference in how they manage in this year's case studies. Pack Creek and Mammoth had heavy initial attack. The Morgan Canyon is a great one for a different approach. 

And I hope folks look at all the work that went into protecting Mammoth Creek well before the fire started. The USFS gets a lot of heat because of high profile scenarios but there are plenty each year that are mitigated because of thoughtful, proactive fuel thinning. Compare that to the Brian Head Fire which smoldered on thick, largely un-thinned SITLA land before it blew up. 

And I'm speaking without any reference to the fire Original Oscar mentioned as I have no familiarity with it


----------



## APD

backcountry said:


> And I'm speaking without any reference to the fire Original Oscar mentioned as I have no familiarity with it











Pole Creek Fire (2018) - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org





That fire was managed for resource benefits. The new FS guy had the crews putting down fire instead of putting it out. This was ahead of forecasted red flag conditions. Ironically the crews burning were having trouble getting it going until they got on the NE aspects. After that it went quick. Then the forecasted winds showed up and took it to the structures.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

OriginalOscar said:


> September 2019 - Pole Creek - Bald Mountain Fires - 120,000 acres. Agreed some fires should burn and controlled burns good management. During periods of drought and summer-fall any fire should be doused if possible.
> 
> Oh and grazing cattle, sheep, and goats helps reduce grass, brush prone to burning. #loveranchers #lovesheepmen #goats
> https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd796970.pdf


I suppose I'll get around to digesting that entire PDF someday. (just D/L'ed it). That fire .. just a nostril flaring, teeth gritting subject. I still see the effects of that ****ing fire, because it destroyed one of my best freaking honeyholes. I used to see tons of grouse, deer, turkey, and the occasional moose. It was an an area few knew about, most forgot about, and it was always good for a weekend getaway 45 minutes from the house. I still go there on occasion, but what that fire wrought has destroyed that area, put it back on the map (espeically after covid), and where moose once grazed, I now see OHV race tracks cropping up. It's like a mini "red sands" now. There will be no habitat rehabilitation here. 

Now, if your connected enough (like most anywhere else), you can get the scuttlebut. Short version, I knew the father of a coworker of my wifes. He works in one of our local fire departments. I seriously considered getting into this line of work at some point. Went on a ride along with this fella. I've been inside their dispatch room. There's a HUGE monitor that feeds constant information for all to see, from all fire agencies that they monitor. County fire, other cities, etc.

So I know this source of info is good. What I heard coming from this guy later was he was pissed because county KNEW it was up there smoldering, and they let it go. If I recall correctly, it was so that the fire would get big enough so a federal agency would get involved. You can probably guess as to why. Assets? Money? Whatever.

The instant that fire took off, I knew we were screwed. I've been as far into those mountains and as deep into that timber as any local hunter could possibly be. There was A LOT of fuel loading. Tthis area had decades of fuel pilled up, I knew it was going to be bad once it spread. Now it's a moonscape. By the time that area grows back, I'll be dead and my daughter will be in her 40's.

Yeah.. anyway, NOT happy.


----------



## MooseMeat

OriginalOscar said:


> September 2019 - Pole Creek - Bald Mountain Fires - 120,000 acres. Agreed some fires should burn and controlled burns good management. During periods of drought and summer-fall any fire should be doused if possible.
> 
> Oh and grazing cattle, sheep, and goats helps reduce grass, brush prone to burning. #loveranchers #lovesheepmen #goats
> https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd796970.pdf


Please explain to us how the Nebo being way over grazed for years, helped in any way, reduce the fire potential and limit the spread of wildfires in the area. I’ll wait.

-habitat destruction.
-trail destruction.
-Natural spring/seep destruction.
-Noxious and invasive plants transmitted to our public lands by livestock.
-Taking feed and water from our wildlfie by over grazing and over staying their time allotment 
-entitled attitudes by ranchers
-cheap AUMs that the public rarely sees put back into the resource 
-wildlife being managed and killed to allow livestock more grazing opportunities 

but at least they help reduce fire potential! 🙄


----------



## MooseMeat

backcountry said:


> Morgan Canyon Fire? They had hot shot crews on it the day it started and a bucket dropping the next day when it was still 50 acres. It's still only 500 acres as of yesterday; hardly out of control.
> 
> The plane crash info is on the NTSB and county sheriff to release names. But they immediately released plane details. USFS has no role outside investigating cause of ignition unless they prosecute which is tough when everyone onboard died.


That fire sat at 50 acres all weekend. 0% contained. 500 acres is about all that mountain has left to burn after the 2013 fire they allowed to get out of control


----------



## middlefork

Do you understand the definition of containment as used in wildland fire?


----------



## MooseMeat

middlefork said:


> Do you understand the definition of containment as used in wildland fire?


Yep I sure do.


----------



## backcountry

450 acres of growth in one week is not out of control. That is a successful strategy actually given the crazy topography it started in. And your claim was false as they had teams on it ASAP, including bucket drops, and details about the crash were released as Middlefork showed.

On the other hand the massive fire Original Oscar listed sounds like it could have been managed more successfully, though I'm still judging that off heresay not a personal reading of details. 

If you dislike the current strategy employed on roadless forests I would suggest getting involved now as the policy making is often years if not decades in the making. These are complex decisions with lots of thoughtful professionals trying to counterbalance stakeholder expectations and long term ecosystem management. And sometimes that means letting a fire burn hot for a loss in the short term to have any chance of ever having a healthy forest again in the near future (ie 20-50 years). More and more of our forests are becoming post-climax and waiting is making it worse. Without us all supporting a severe increase in funding for fuels reduction labor we are stuck allowing wildfires to burn,in some fashion, in many of these places. And our generation sadly will take the hit for the hard lessons we had to learn from previous over-suppression.


But ultimately expecting the agencies to put out every 50 acre fire isn't rooted well in forest ecology or the high profile lessons of recent times. That old sort of "10 am" standard proved counter productive.


----------



## backcountry

Original Oscar,

Thanks for that link/pdf. Looks like they definitely made some mistakes, at least in hindsight, between September 10-12th. That shift from wet to red flag sounds like a nasty scenario. 

Glad I'm not personally in that business. Too much responsibility and too much complexity.


----------



## backcountry

middlefork said:


> Do you understand the definition of containment as used in wildland fire?


I didn't know the exact definition until reading the PDF Original Oscar provided. Seems to me the Morgan Canyon Fire is doing real well if the strategy is containment. I don't think I'd want my personnel right next to the fire doing direct attack in that terrain.


----------



## Vanilla

This thread is wild. From trail cam regulations, to bait, back to trail cams and right into fire suppression.


----------



## backcountry

Deleted


----------



## 67015

I bought a trail cam once.......

Seriously tho someone stole it and my salt lick on there side by side a mile off the road. I followed there side by side tracks right to it. Wonder why the bother trying to call it a roadless area..... I left it there over the winter went the day after Easter to get it to see what was goin on all winter. Freah tire tracks through the hills they must of just randomly ran into it and took it so they didn't get in trouble. Bastards I wish I could see the pics it got!


----------



## middlefork

Vanilla said:


> This thread is wild. From trail cam regulations, to bait, back to trail cams and right into fire suppression.


What? No thread drift? You got to be kidding.
#MooseMeat directorofdepartmentofinterior
He has all the answers


----------



## middlefork

I have no problem moving the fire discussion to another thread. If BC is ok how about Looks like we are off to the races. (fire report)
It certainly effects hunting and fishing.


----------



## APD

Containment is technically a subjective term. Mother nature has a way of reminding us we don't know jack. Rivers get spots thrown over them, 50" containment lines get blown out when winds unexpectedly lay 6' flame lengths over them, hell I've seen flaming bunnies run into the green and fire off the wrong side of your containment. Try chasing spot fires moving 20mph. Not easy to catch them. Solid containment is mopped up a chain or two into the black on all sides. That takes time unless you're in the desert. A D9 makes quick work of the fire line and gives you a chance to put fire down for even better containment. After that mop up can go pretty quick compared to timber fires.


----------



## flinger

I lost a trail camera in a wildfire once. I think the state should pass a law banning mother nature from wildfires during any trail camera season.


----------



## PBH

flinger said:


> I think the state should pass a law banning mother nature from wildfires during any trail camera season.


What? And miss out on all the hazard and overtime pay Utah residents could collect "controlling" a wildfire? No way. I think the State would rather pass a law requiring a "wild" fire any time a trail camera is found on Federal land! Said "wild" fire can be started as a controlled burn, and allowed to become "wild".


----------



## JuddCT

Just saw this and thought I’d share it to give some additional insight from the DWR and its enforcement:





__





What you should know about the new child support and big game baiting laws in Utah


Two laws that were passed during the 2020 and 2021 legislative sessions will soon have impacts on some hunters and anglers. Here is what you should know about each law.




wildlife.utah.gov






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Critter

I like the new child support law that is also talked about in the link.

On the baiting subject it clears up some questions that people might have such as being able to bait a animal during the summer and then having to pull the bait before hunting season. But it still has gray area in that if I am rifle hunting and don't pull the bait until September sometime what about the archery hunter in August that is hunting near the bait that I put out? Or if anyone is hunting near a bait that a photographer put out who doesn't fall under the hunting rules.

The child support law should of been passed a long time ago. 

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## MooseMeat

JuddCT said:


> Just saw this and thought I’d share it to give some additional insight from the DWR and its enforcement:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you should know about the new child support and big game baiting laws in Utah
> 
> 
> Two laws that were passed during the 2020 and 2021 legislative sessions will soon have impacts on some hunters and anglers. Here is what you should know about each law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wildlife.utah.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yeah that’s clear as mud.

what a joke. I’d expect a little better clarification on the matter since they will hammer anyone caught hunting a “baited area” with a felony. This isn’t just someone losing their fishing license over the deal, it’s a lot bigger than that if the wrong fish cop catches the right guy in what they assume as a “baited area”, even after the bait has been removed.


----------



## MrShane

Cracks me up that 2 of the 3 reasons baiting was outlawed was due to ‘habitat destruction’ and ‘disease transmission’.
Enlighten me please, do these two conditions only happen while hunting season is in progress?
If we can’t bait, then why can wildlife photographers be allowed to do it?
Oh yeah, I remember…. because hardly anything they purchase benefits wildlife unlike our purchases.
Silly me.
This law needs to be followed 100%, all the time.
Or, 0%.


----------



## Critter

To make it simple just don't bait.

Try doing it the old fashion way
Of wearing your boots out hiking to find the animals instead of using something artificial that makes them come to you.

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## Lone_Hunter

Figures, the one year I think about putting some salt/mineral down, they ban it. I do wonder just how many people were doing it. A lot I figure. Heck, I saw a brand new salt block down last weekend. I think it's the same guy from an adjacent private lands that puts a block out in the same spot on public every year.


----------



## OriginalOscar

MooseMeat said:


> Yeah that’s clear as mud.
> 
> what a joke. I’d expect a little better clarification on the matter since they will hammer anyone caught hunting a “baited area” with a felony. This isn’t just someone losing their fishing license over the deal, it’s a lot bigger than that if the wrong fish cop catches the right guy in what they assume as a “baited area”, even after the bait has been removed.


Lawyer Up, Decline Search and Shut Up!!!


----------



## MooseMeat

So……. How do we determine if a mineral block that we find out in the wild was placed there by a cattle runner or if it was put out by a hunter with poor intent?

asking for a friend of course.


----------



## 2full

I have sheep in and out of my place all the time.....
Am I okay if there is a salt lick ??


----------



## middlefork

MooseMeat said:


> So……. How do we determine if a mineral block that we find out in the wild was placed there by a cattle runner or if it was put out by a hunter with poor intent?
> 
> asking for a friend of course.


Well if you are as familiar with the area as you say you are then you would know the boundaries of the grazing allotments in the area. Then it would be up to the DWR to prove it wasn't put out by the operator.
It's not like it is some secret society.

I can almost guarantee that if you were putting salt out on an allotment, the person who has that allotment would not complain. If the "cattle runner" was putting salt out somewhere besides his allotment he would be a idiot. Not saying there couldn't be a few.

It really is pretty easy to figure out boundaries. It's only hard if you make it so.


----------



## MooseMeat

middlefork said:


> Well if you are as familiar with the area as you say you are then you would know the boundaries of the grazing allotments in the area. Then it would be up to the DWR to prove it wasn't put out by the operator.
> It's not like it is some secret society.
> 
> I can almost guarantee that if you were putting salt out on an allotment, the person who has that allotment would not complain. If the "cattle runner" was putting salt out somewhere besides his allotment he would be a idiot. Not saying there couldn't be a few.
> 
> It really is pretty easy to figure out boundaries. It's only hard if you make it so.


So…. You find a mineral block that they put out for their cattle and “relocate” it to a more convenient area near a water source… their cows are still going to utilize it when they come water. Illegal? Or within the legal limits?

again, asking for a friend.


----------



## middlefork

2full said:


> I have sheep in and out of my place all the time.....
> Am I okay if there is a salt lick ??


 If you want to help the sheep, live it up! Private land will be another issue entirely. Law of unintended consequences.


----------



## middlefork

MooseMeat said:


> So…. You find a mineral block that they put out for their cattle and “relocate” it to a more convenient area near a water source… their cows are still going to utilize it when they come water. Illegal? Or within the legal limits?
> 
> again, asking for a friend.


Why would you "need" to relocate it? Are you smarter than the person who placed it? Do you think that salt needs to be within X feet of water to be effective? I've said it before *"in my area"* there are no livestock producers that place salt near water sources. The salt attracts them to areas other than water. It is unproductive to concentrate them in a small area. The aim is to utilize the entire allotment.


----------



## MooseMeat

middlefork said:


> Why would you "need" to relocate it? Are you smarter than the person who placed it? Do you think that salt needs to be within X feet of water to be effective? I've said it before *"in my area"* there are no livestock producers that place salt near water sources. The salt attracts them to areas other than water. It is unproductive to concentrate them in a small area. The aim is to utilize the entire allotment.


You didn’t answer the question. I didn’t ask for your opinion on the location effectiveness. I asked if it’s legal to move a salt block legally placed on the landscape to somewhere other than where it was originally placed.

cows disperse themselves however they see fitting. You can put salt wherever you want, if there isn’t feed or water near by, they won’t stay in that area long, if at all. They hammer places near water. They move as feed or water disappears. Salt for cattle, like wildlife, doesn’t drive their desire to stay in an area. It’s a convenience factor.

they might not put salt by water in “your area”, but that doesn’t mean everyone else in the state does it that way.


----------



## middlefork

Ok then to answer your question for your "friend", No you did not place it. You have no right to move it. Seems pretty simple. No?


----------



## MooseMeat

middlefork said:


> Ok then to answer your question for your "friend", No you did not place it. You have no right to move it. Seems pretty simple. No?


I didn’t place the beer cans I find along the trail there either. But I move those to a more preferred spot. Is that illegal?


----------



## middlefork

You can do whatever you want with the beer cans. Most responsible people will pick them up and dispose of them. But if that bothers you them let them be.

People who have allotments can legally place salt/minerals where they want to. You according to law don't have the right to move them.. Get over it.


----------



## MrShane

Critter,
Who said I wanted to put out anything artificial?


----------



## MooseMeat

middlefork said:


> You according to law don't have the right to move them.. Get over it.


Where does it say that? I’ve never read any law saying I can’t pick up a mineral or rock that I find on public land and can’t throw, kick or relocate to another location


----------



## bowgy

I don't understand the mentality of not being able to leave other peoples property alone. I think most of us here are intelligent enough to know the difference between garbage and a salt block or camera or tree stand.
I don't consider my self to be judge, jury and executioner or even LEO, so if I see something that I think may be illegal I won't take matters into my own hand but will inform the authorities.


----------



## elkfromabove

Just what we need! A new tactic available for the animal rights enthusiasts to use without them having to worry about being sited for interfering with hunters during a hunt. And they don't even have to be there!


MooseMeat said:


> Where does it say that? I’ve never read any law saying I can’t pick up a mineral or rock that I find on public land and can’t throw, kick or relocate to another location


If YOU move it then YOU are "placing it for the purpose of taking or attempting to take big game" and it doesn't make any difference where you got it, it's baiting.
t


----------



## MooseMeat

elkfromabove said:


> Just what we need! A new tactic available for the animal rights enthusiasts to use without them having to worry about being sited for interfering with hunters during a hunt. And they don't even have to be there!
> 
> 
> If YOU move it then YOU are "placing it for the purpose of taking or attempting to take big game" and it doesn't make any difference where you got it, it's baiting.
> t


What if someone else moves it and you find it? How do you know 1) who put it there and 2) what it is intended for?


----------



## elkfromabove

Just for my own interest, I'm going to have the rancher sign a permission slip stating he/she placed the "bait" at the waterholes I plan on hunting.


----------



## elkfromabove

MooseMeat said:


> What if someone else moves it and you find it? How do you know 1) who put it there and 2) what it is intended for?


I'll include the coordinates on the baiting "permission" slips (see above). If it's moved I'll know it wasn't him/her and I'll be forced to move on. This foolish law will cause all kinds of trouble for all concerned.


----------



## MooseMeat

elkfromabove said:


> Just for my own interest, I'm going to have the rancher sign a permission slip stating he/she placed the "bait" at the waterholes I plan on hunting.


So you’re having someone else place salt out with the intent of hunting over it


----------



## elkfromabove

MooseMeat said:


> So you’re having someone else place salt out with the intent of hunting over it


No! I've hunted their properties and their tanks and wells on BLM land for years and they've always replaced the salt and blocks for the cattle. They've been doing it long before I ever hunted it! In fact, one family told me where the elk are likely to come most often and where they are causing the most trouble with fences, eating the grass and harassing the cattle. They even showed me the best blind sites, one of them 10 yards away from salt! Like I said, this law is troublesome for all stakeholders.


----------



## flinger

PBH said:


> What? And miss out on all the hazard and overtime pay Utah residents could collect "controlling" a wildfire? No way. I think the State would rather pass a law requiring a "wild" fire any time a trail camera is found on Federal land! Said "wild" fire can be started as a controlled burn, and allowed to become "wild".


If only wildfires respected property boundaries, but alas they are like some people.


----------



## 2full

I just got an email from the state letting me know that it illegal to bait....... thought that was pretty interesting. Will be interesting to see how much they enforce the rule. I know of a couple of private landowners that are feeding BIG amounts.


----------



## Vanilla

Got the same email. I'm wondering how they figure this law could be a class B misdemeanor all the way up to a felony?


----------



## 67015

25 to life for baiting a deer, child rapist out in 10 days... makes since


----------



## Critter

Yotedog27 said:


> 25 to life for baiting a deer, child rapist out in 10 days... makes since


When did you ever see a court set the maximum penalty for a wildlife violation? Most of the time is us usually just a slap on the wrist.


----------



## MooseMeat

Vanilla said:


> Got the same email. I'm wondering how they figure this law could be a class B misdemeanor all the way up to a felony?


That’ll depend on who they catch sitting over the bait and how big the animal was involved. Any elk killed illegally is a felony


----------



## flinger

Wonder when the July rac packet will drop here with the anticipated trail cam proposal. Last year the memo was dated July 9th. 






RAC, Board meeting agendas, materials & minutes


Action items on the agenda are voted on by the RACs and the Board. Wildlife Board meetings usually occur a few weeks after the Northern, Central, Northeastern, Southeastern and Southern RAC meetings.




wildlife.utah.gov


----------



## Vanilla

Yotedog27 said:


> 25 to life for baiting a deer, child rapist out in 10 days... makes since


Who is getting 25 to life? That’s a weird post.


----------



## 67015

Just saying if they're going to be handing out felonies for baiting deer... wasn't meant to be a exact quote of anything or literally. They should be focusing on other laws vs guys putting salt blocks out to get a picture of deer. And if possibly one buck I may shoot from the salted area, how many does and fawns appreciate that nutrients... ive got pictures of elk, deer, and pronghorn at my spots all at one time, then turkeys the next day then coyotes and bobcats coming to check it out then rabbits licking it all night. Even badgers, raccoons and squirrels come to check it out. So to me a salt lick in the hills is doing 0 damage.


----------



## backcountry

Some of us disagree. Altering wildlife behavior for a shot or photograph is too much impact in my book. I don't believe it deserves maximum sentencing but I'm fine with a ban and legal consequences for those that voluntarily choose to violate it. 

Explicitly I believe it clearly violates the long vocalized hunting ethic of fair chase and see that as enough reason for the ban. That's even more self-evident to me in a state with so many hunters and so few ungulates.


----------



## MrShane

It’s a sad, sad day that we are not helping out our deer in such a time of need.
Sounds like some ‘leaders’ of our State would like to see high fences,etc around all ag fields or other food sources because there are possibly nutrients to be had.
Sheesh, our road/highway system alters big game courses 1000x more than a salt block.
Plus, when a deer or elk tries to eat in a highway it never ends well.


----------



## MooseMeat

backcountry said:


> Some of us disagree. Altering wildlife behavior for a shot or photograph is too much impact in my book. I don't believe it deserves maximum sentencing but I'm fine with a ban and legal consequences for those that voluntarily choose to violate it.
> 
> Explicitly I believe it clearly violates the long vocalized hunting ethic of fair chase and see that as enough reason for the ban. That's even more self-evident to me in a state with so many hunters and so few ungulates.


Yeah kinda like guzzlers right? They install an artificial water source in an area that effectively congregates wildlife and birds (and mountain maggots) to a specific area. Maybe we should quit putting those in or ban all hunters from hunting within a square mile of them.

maybe we should drain all the waterfowl WMAs too. Those concentrate birds to specific areas that otherwise wouldn’t be attractive to them.

let’s ban decoys and calls too. Again, you’re attracting wildlife artificially to a certain area by using those as well.

and the use of dogs. Those give an unfair advantage as well.


----------



## backcountry

MooseMeat said:


> Yeah kinda like guzzlers right? They install an artificial water source in an area that effectively congregates wildlife and birds (and mountain maggots) to a specific area. Maybe we should quit putting those in or ban all hunters from hunting within a square mile of them.
> 
> maybe we should drain all the waterfowl WMAs too. Those concentrate birds to specific areas that otherwise wouldn’t be attractive to them.
> 
> let’s ban decoys and calls too. Again, you’re attracting wildlife artificially to a certain area by using those as well.
> 
> and the use of dogs. Those give an unfair advantage as well.


Not exactly a thoughtful, scaled response. Best of luck trolling someone else.


----------



## MooseMeat

backcountry said:


> Not exactly a thoughtful, scaled response. Best of luck trolling someone else.


Since that’s different cuz it would impact you? Sounds about right.


----------



## backcountry

Want to clarify? Or just trolling again?


----------



## MooseMeat

backcountry said:


> Want to clarify? Or just trolling again?


You know what I’m talking about. But play innocent and dumb. You’re good at that.


----------



## backcountry

You can keep up the random personal attacks all you want or you can actually explain yourself.


----------



## MooseMeat

backcountry said:


> You can keep up the random personal attacks all you want or you can actually explain yourself.


Or what? You gonna call me a troll again? Hahaha


----------



## backcountry

Have a goodnight Moosemeat.


----------



## 67015

I agree with moosemeat. Why can't I put out a salt lick but the state can put out thousands of guzzlers to attract wildlife... there's 7 guzzlers i know of just on west mountain alone. And go look how many cameras are on each one its insane. You think my couple salt licks is harming nature? What about the hundreds of thousands of pounds udot throws in salt on the roads a year, you think wildlife isn't licking it up? I'd rather pay a registration fee for my cameras then not be allowed salt, 50 percent of my cameras will stay up all year on private ground anyways.


----------



## Vanilla

Yotedog27 said:


> Why can't I put out a salt lick but the state can put out thousands of guzzlers to attract wildlife...


Because the law says you can’t.


----------



## backcountry

For clarity, I think they should also ban hunting over guzzlers. It's also unsportsmanlike. I've never been a big fan of them anyway but I'm no more invested in banning that as I was bait but I'll appreciate the benefits of it if it ever happens. Folks who dislike the law can do the hard work of petitioning their legislature to revoke it. 

Intention also matters which is why salting roads and agricultural use of licks aren't banned. 

Being on the losing side of legislation or elections sincerely sucks. But it's one of the few experiences that unite us as we all experience a fair amount. My worldview took a W on this one but I'll undoubtedly continue to experience plenty of Ls. I can learn to live with that even if wildlife is taken in ways I dislike and actually run contrary to what I was taught about the American hunting tradition.


----------



## OriginalOscar

Yotedog27 said:


> I agree with moosemeat. Why can't I put out a salt lick but the state can put out thousands of guzzlers to attract wildlife... there's 7 guzzlers i know of just on west mountain alone. And go look how many cameras are on each one its insane. You think my couple salt licks is harming nature? What about the hundreds of thousands of pounds udot throws in salt on the roads a year, you think wildlife isn't licking it up? I'd rather pay a registration fee for my cameras then not be allowed salt, 50 percent of my cameras will stay up all year on private ground anyways.


Guzzlers expand wildlife range and populations. They have no relevance in this discussion. 

Salt on highways save lives. It has no relevance in this discussion.


----------



## flinger

OriginalOscar said:


> Guzzlers expand wildlife range and populations. They have no relevance in this discussion.
> 
> Salt on highways save lives. It has no relevance in this discussion.


'Baiter Lives Matter' too. Haven't you heard?


----------



## MooseMeat

OriginalOscar said:


> Guzzlers expand wildlife range and populations. They have no relevance in this discussion.
> 
> Salt on highways save lives. It has no relevance in this discussion.


Are they not used by hunters to locate concentrated populations of wildlife? Do hunters not place trail cams over them? Hunt over them?

salt and mineral licks provide wildlife with needed mineral intake for them to be healthy and thrive.

They are just as relevant as any other resource utilized by hunters to locate wildlife.


----------



## flinger

Share your feedback on the RAC proposals


The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources is proposing changes to several rules, and is requesting the public's feedback.




wildlife.utah.gov







https://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/rac_minutes/memorandum-2021-08-big-game-changes.pdf



Trail cam restrictions proposed.


----------



## Vanilla

Interesting how they split the baby by making it only about transmitting cameras during the hunting seasons. I've got to be honest, I can't see any justification for allowing those to be used during the hunting season. I like it.


----------



## jewbacca

Vanilla said:


> Interesting how they split the baby by making it only about transmitting cameras during the hunting seasons. I've got to be honest, I can't see any justification for allowing those to be used during the hunting season. I like it.


100% agree. Not that they're useful where I'm hunting anyway, but transmitting cameras always seemed a _bit_ unfair.


----------



## caddis8

Vanilla said:


> Interesting how they split the baby by making it only about transmitting cameras during the hunting seasons. I've got to be honest, I can't see any justification for allowing those to be used during the hunting season. I like it.


While I disagree with the premise of the whole thing (and baiting), I understand the intent. I think the wireless cams are where the issue really exists. Those changes I think are a little more palatable than a complete ban. I do appreciate how private land is also included in the transmitting ban- brings consistency to a messy rule. I ref HS basketball and one rule I follow as strictly as possible is if I call a foul on one end of the court, I better call the same foul on the other end. The coach may not like it, but I'll be consistent. Same goes here.


----------



## 67015

I vote ban all cameras! Go nevada style, August 1st they better all be in the garage. Or just a complete ban year round. Make people get out and work again to find stuff. I saw 32 bulls last weekend. Had 6 bulls on cameras the rest were through my spotter... what's really more effective...


----------



## ridgetop

[/QUOTE="Yotedog27, post: 2228731, member: 67015"]
[QUOTE I vote ban all cameras! Go nevada style, August 1st they better all be in the garage. Or just a complete ban year round. Make people get out and work again to find stuff. I saw 32 bulls last weekend. Had 6 bulls on cameras the rest were through my spotter... what's really more effective...
QUOTE] If it's really not that effective, why worry about it. Some people like the suspense of seeing what may show up. You still have to hunt hard to find it at a later time. It's also a lot of work putting out and checking 5 or 6 cameras spear out several miles.


----------



## MooseMeat

Yotedog27 said:


> I vote ban all cameras! Go nevada style, August 1st they better all be in the garage. Or just a complete ban year round. Make people get out and work again to find stuff. I saw 32 bulls last weekend. Had 6 bulls on cameras the rest were through my spotter... what's really more effective...


Same argument could be made about guides and outfitters. Make people do it on their own. Guiding isn’t fair chase


----------



## 67015

Ya guides suck, who would want to spend that much time in the mountains learning all kinds of animals, who would want to do several limited entry and once in a lifetime hunts every year. Theyre dumb


----------



## Vanilla

MooseMeat said:


> Same argument could be made about guides and outfitters. Make people do it on their own. Guiding isn’t fair chase


Just like I support reasonable regulations of things like cameras, I also would support reasonable regulations on the guiding world. I'm not sure either needs to be all-out banned, but they shouldn't be able to be used without any limits on public land with all public resources either. 

Finding what is "reasonable" is the challenge.


----------



## Critter

I'm pretty sure that outfitters/guides are already regulated and licensed.


----------



## MooseMeat

Yotedog27 said:


> Ya guides suck, who would want to spend that much time in the mountains learning all kinds of animals, who would want to do several limited entry and once in a lifetime hunts every year. Theyre dumb


That’s no different than guys running cams. They spend more time in the hills putting up and checking cams, learning about the animals. They are still “hunting”, just aren’t killing.


----------



## MooseMeat

but I guess that’s different since you “guide”, and don’t want to be impacted or inconvenienced. Just make rules that apply to everyone else.


----------



## 67015

Even as a guide id support trail camera bans... we have to pay for all our permits to guide in blm and forest service, we're completely licensed and follow the rules, its the unlicensed "guides" and there "finders fees" doing stuff without licenses and permits i have a problem with...


----------



## MooseMeat

Yotedog27 said:


> Even as a guide id support trail camera bans... we have to pay for all our permits to guide in blm and forest service, we're completely licensed and follow the rules, its the unlicensed "guides" and there "finders fees" doing stuff without licenses and permits i have a problem with...


Any many have problems with guides taking paying clients out on public lands.


----------



## 67015

MooseMeat said:


> Any many have problems with guides taking paying clients out on public lands.


Shouldnt if I have to pay fees, be licensed and have insurance to do it. Follow the rules and people shouldn't complain. It's the guys that aren't legit that use all the public land they want for free that are the problem.


----------



## MooseMeat

Yotedog27 said:


> Shouldnt if I have to pay fees, be licensed and have insurance to do it. Follow the rules and people shouldn't complain. It's the guys that aren't legit that use all the public land they want for free that are the problem.


Until right now, there were no rules being broke by guys using trail cams, and all kinds of people complained. Which is how we ended up here. Hiring guides gives some a more “unfair” advantage… against the animals and other hunters with the same tag. Even more so than trail cams or bait ever did.


----------



## flinger

I think this new rule will be about as effective as the baiting law...not very much. Poorly written imo.


----------



## caddis8

Well it appears the rule has been put on pause to gather more data. Not sure if it is data or pushback that's the hold up.


----------



## Vanilla

caddis8 said:


> Well it appears the rule has been put on pause to gather more data. Not sure if it is data or pushback that's the hold up.


The wildlife board may drag their feet on this, but it will only mean they cut themselves out of the process. If they don’t make a rule, the legislature is going to. And people may not like what they come up with.


----------



## flinger

Hmm...momentum shift towards having a closed trail cam season for transmitting and non-transmitting during big game hunting season targeting hunters. Nevada style seems to be the flavor at the moment. RACs 2 to 1 in favor of a modified Nevada style surpringly.


----------



## flinger

Is this a preview of what we'll see at Utah's board meetings? It's a long appeal to watch, but Nevada is sure trying to send a message to those not following their baiting and trail cam rules, especially guides. Will Utah try as hard with their new regulations? 🤔


----------

