# Banned trail cams... or at least regulated



## Ecpk91 (Jun 13, 2018)

Well it happened, I disagree with this but it is what it is. The reason is I killed a spike elk this year, yes I do use camera's, however on the day I killed this elk (bowhunting) my camera gave me exactly zero evidence this spike would come in when it did, the elk I killed I saw on a ridge and called it to my location. I simply do not believe it gives me any unfair advantage, I don't have any statistics but I don't believe anyone has any supporting the theory they do provide an advantage. All I have is hearsay, opinions that they do but no actual data. Now I can't wait to read about the " if you have to use a camera your not a real hunter" or "If I see a camera during the banned period I'll destroy it." Not everyone is going to be happy and not everyone can be pleased. I wonder how the rifle hunters would feel if they banned any scope that can assist in a shot over 100 yards. Regulations can be placed on anything and everything and some will be all for it some won't be, I wonder what will be the next thing someone pushes to be banned or regulated.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Ecpk91 said:


> Well it happened, I disagree with this but it is what it is. The reason is I killed a spike elk this year, yes I do use camera's, however on the day I killed this elk (bowhunting) my camera gave me exactly zero evidence this spike would come in when it did, the elk I killed I saw on a ridge and called it to my location. I simply do not believe it gives me any unfair advantage, I don't have any statistics but I don't believe anyone has any supporting the theory they do provide an advantage. All I have is hearsay, opinions that they do but no actual data. Now I can't wait to read about the " if you have to use a camera your not a real hunter" or "If I see a camera during the banned period I'll destroy it." Not everyone is going to be happy and not everyone can be pleased. I wonder how the rifle hunters would feel if they banned any scope that can assist in a shot over 100 yards. Regulations can be placed on anything and everything and some will be all for it some won't be, I wonder what will be the next thing someone pushes to be banned or regulated.


Many outfitters have 100-200 cams minimum on LE units. Heck even S**n M****n runs that along the wasatch front. This is not for the heck of it. It 100% helps them with scouting and growth.

Since it doesn't help you, the ban won't hurt I suppose.


I agree on the slippery slope. The debate that I put in that other thread is "What goes against fair chase vs what helps fair chase". I believe that making more accurate and ethical shots helps fair chase. It's better for the animal if I put an extremely accurate shot on it, which scopes and rangefinders assist. Then comes the shot distance debate. There 100% can be a slope.

That also goes back to: If you care about something, be active. In this case, I believe very few people were active.

"_*The proposal generated 46 online comments over the span of a month*_, according to Justin Shirley, the director of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources." KSL Article

46. How many hunters are in Utah? So in addition to not even attending the meetings.. 46 people felt compelled to leave a comment of some form. I did and I don't even care that much about the result, which is pretty funny when I think about the final tally. The KSL article has more comments!!

So, if people want to impact change and want a voice - they are going to have to physically make that happen and not wait for others. It's literally up to us to see the change we want.


----------



## TPrawitt91 (Sep 1, 2015)

RandomElk16 said:


> Many outfitters have 100-200 cams minimum on LE units. Heck even S**n M****n runs that along the wasatch front. This is not for the heck of it. It 100% helps them with scouting and growth.
> 
> Since it doesn't help you, the ban won't hurt I suppose.
> 
> ...


WOW! RandomElk just convinced me, I’m going to educate myself on the Wildlife Board, RAC, and other legislative processes involved in the hunting world. 46 replies is pathetic regardless of your stance. We need to organize better!

So many social media groups got the word out on the CO orange archery proposal and they got 1000’s of hunters to respond. Sh!t I got 4-5 people to respond and none of us even hunt CO.

If we had an organization aimed at educating existing hunters and new hunters to how this process works and worked to engage people in the process we would at least have better representation.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

TPrawitt91 said:


> If we had an organization aimed at educating existing hunters and new hunters to how this process works and worked to engage people in the process we would at least have better representation.


We already do. The DWR itself has made it easy to be involved.

If you somebody to define what issues are important to you SFW, MDF and RMEF all "listen" to their members. Myself, I like to participate as an individual that is why I make comments directly to the RAC and WB. The RAC's and WB have been summarizing the responses they have received from individuals.





__





Public meetings


Utah Wildlife Board and RAC meeting schedules, agendas and materials.




wildlife.utah.gov


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

RandomElk16 said:


> That also goes back to: If you care about something, be active. In this case, I believe very few people were active.
> 
> "_*The proposal generated 46 online comments over the span of a month*_, according to Justin Shirley, the director of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources." KSL Article
> 
> ...


Man, people won't realize how true this is! I learned this lesson a long time ago in the stream access battles. So very few people guide policy in this state because the rest of us refuse to take the time to be involved. I've been having regular conversations with my teenage daughter about this, and often remind her that "the world us run by those that show up." People will take the time to argue for 3 days over 7 pages on this forum on this issue, and then they won't submit a thing to the RAC or WB on the topic. Then they wonder why nobody "listened" to them. 

This goes beyond the wildlife board. Go watch a city council meeting in your city. Figure out who in your community is running the show because they are the 3 people that show up to the meetings and comment. Find a bill at the legislature that you think is important (not one of the 5 that catches all the attention in the media, but one of the other 500+ bills that will pass here over the next two months), get 5 of your neighbors and ask them to contact members of the legislature on the issue. And then see how 5 people can change the entire discussion! Yes...I've seen it more than one time. 

I want to circle back to this, and it's something I've said multiple times before: If the only thing you did is complain about an issue on social media or the internet, you did nothing. It's honestly crazy to me how little people actually care about what they claim to care about. And again, this goes well beyond the wildlife board.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Ecpk91 said:


> I don't have any statistics but I don't believe anyone has any supporting the theory they do provide an advantage.


If they don't help, then it won't matter that people can't use them. It's as easy as that.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

I never had a problem with trail cameras, until the wireless data cameras showed up. Yes, that is unfair because it's real time data. Trail cameras in general are a nuisance though.


----------



## Wbrim (Sep 5, 2021)

I was one of the few (46) that commented on this. My comment was a direct result of the link being provided on this forum (and similar forums). The RAC and WB meeting posts guided you right to it.
I was very surprised so few comments were actually made. Far fewer people spoke up than are now discussing it.
It did mean watching a few minute long video first, but nothing remotely difficult.


----------



## APD (Nov 16, 2008)

I'm a bit conflicted. I like to use cams to see what's in the "back yard" at the cabin. The kids like checking the cams and I get to know the animals visiting the area. I hunt that area rarely but now that my kid is of hunting age I might more often. I can't say cams have made me more successful but they may have given me the confidence to hunt an area that had more elk sightings. If I could pattern elk like whitetail then I'd certainly have an advantage. 

On the flip side of the coin I don't enjoy walking past a waterhole with a dozen cams pointed at it. I don't prefer having my picture taken anywhere, much less in the woods. 

I'll continue to use cams during the legal period, especially when checking out new areas. It's probably more fun and trouble than helpful but hey, it gets the kids out in the woods.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Didn't register a preference as I've been torn on several of these issues. I'm often torn voting on my ideal that's so in contrast to opposing views.

I to hate walking up on the jungle of cams I've seen at multiple honey holes. To me it's an intrusion.

I also believe it's adds a benefit for the hunter.

But at the end of the day I didn't say anything because it seemed so tense and more or less an even split. It's done now and time will tell if it change the experience and how hunters cooperate. I'm guessing 99% of users will comply.

With this close of a vote, what is the possibility of nullification in the future?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

backcountry said:


> With this close of a vote, what is the possibility of nullification in the future?


nullification? No chance. Modification? certain chance.

Too many other states are doing the same thing. Regulating (banning) trail cams is not a new concept -- in fact, Utah is doing exactly what hunters have asked Utah to do for years: follow our neighboring states leads.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

From above linked KSL article:


> Under the new rule, hunters would not be allowed to use handheld and non-handheld transmitting and non-transmitting devices between July 31 and Dec. 31.


I can see DURING hunting season, but seriously, i'd leave mine out until the week before archery opening and THEN pull them. A lot of movement can happen in that last week if your undecided on which spot to work on opening day.

As an aside, I didn't even know there was a comment period on this rule change, let alone it's existence until JUST now.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Vanilla said:


> Man, people won't realize how true this is! I learned this lesson a long time ago in the stream access battles. So very few people guide policy in this state because the rest of us refuse to take the time to be involved. I've been having regular conversations with my teenage daughter about this, and often remind her that "the world us run by those that show up." People will take the time to argue for 3 days over 7 pages on this forum on this issue, and then they won't submit a thing to the RAC or WB on the topic. Then they wonder why nobody "listened" to them.
> 
> This goes beyond the wildlife board. Go watch a city council meeting in your city. Figure out who in your community is running the show because they are the 3 people that show up to the meetings and comment. Find a bill at the legislature that you think is important (not one of the 5 that catches all the attention in the media, but one of the other 500+ bills that will pass here over the next two months), get 5 of your neighbors and ask them to contact members of the legislature on the issue. And then see how 5 people can change the entire discussion! Yes...I've seen it more than one time.
> 
> I want to circle back to this, and it's something I've said multiple times before: If the only thing you did is complain about an issue on social media or the internet, you did nothing. It's honestly crazy to me how little people actually care about what they claim to care about. And again, this goes well beyond the wildlife board.


A lot of truth to this until you show up and a governing board or panel does what they want anyway - I've seen that outcome as well...


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

High Desert Elk said:


> A lot of truth to this until you show up and a governing board or panel does what they want anyway - I've seen that outcome as well...


There is more to it than just showing up to meetings. Remember, the WB is appointed by the governor. If you don't like what the WB is doing -- stop voting the way you have been!!


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

PBH said:


> There is more to it than just showing up to meetings. Remember, the WB is appointed by the governor. If you don't like what the WB is doing -- stop voting the way you have been!!


It sounds good and all, but doesn't always work like that. You can vote the way you should, but when the majority votes the other way, really not much you can do about it beyond that.

I can promise you, you want me voting the way I do...


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Also keep in mind that if you do get involved and speak up and the vote does not go your way, don't give up. I see so many internet warriors who claim the system is fixed because they spoke up once and the issue went the other way. It's going to happen but that's not a conspiracy or not listening to the public, it's that ya win some and ya lose some. But if you don't speak up you lose all of them!

I have my state rep and senators email and I have spoken to both on the phone and have gone to their townhall meetings. I know for a fact my opinion has influenced them in certain areas. Hell, I have gotten in arguments with my city council members and the city admin folks knows me by name because that's the way you get sh!t done! You want change, you work for it. There, I'm off my soapbox


----------



## Ecpk91 (Jun 13, 2018)

Vanilla said:


> If they don't help, then it won't matter that people can't use them. It's as easy as that.


I think you misunderstand what I was saying here. I meant to say I don't have any statistics that cameras dont provide an advantage and I don't have any statistics that they do provide an advantage. Can you provide some statistics that they do provide an advantage? If so I would love to see those. I think it is mostly opinion or preference.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

High Desert Elk said:


> ...but when the majority votes the other way, really not much you can do about it beyond that.


That's democracy, right? As was mentioned, it doesn't mean that you stop. But we all know that in this state, there are a lot of rubber stamps being used.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

Some good deals on trail cams now


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Ecpk91 said:


> I think you misunderstand what I was saying here. I meant to say I don't have any statistics that cameras dont provide an advantage and I don't have any statistics that they do provide an advantage. Can you provide some statistics that they do provide an advantage? If so I would love to see those. I think it is mostly opinion or preference.


You want evidence they provide an advantage? Follow this guy: Login • Instagram

I don’t have any issue with RC, just for the record. I actually quite enjoy following his page, and I think he appears to be a pretty classy guy. I met him once on a sledding hill with our families, he was very nice. But don’t tell me running cameras hasn’t helped him. Good on him for doing it. He hasn’t violated any laws. He has helped kill some of the biggest elk in the west over the last 5 years. He’s amazingly good at it. I’m sure he’ll still do fine. But again, don’t tell me cameras have not given him a leg up. He wouldn’t run 130+ if that wasn’t the case. There is evidence. I’ll wait for any showing otherwise.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

PBH said:


> That's democracy, right? As was mentioned, it doesn't mean that you stop. But we all know that in this state, there are a lot of rubber stamps being used.


Democracy just means the people have a voice. The real problem is we are not a democratic nation, but many think we are. We are a Constitutional Republic. There is a difference.

The reason I say what I say about being involved and watching things go the other way is I live in a world (state) that is so deep blue it is navy in color. Yeah, the minority really doesn't have a chance. The minority, in this case, are the ones who are actively engaged. If we had help from the back row crowd, things would be different.

For instance, we get to observe others "right" to terminate a pregnancy up to and including labor. We don't get to trap anymore on public lands. We don't get to shoot coyotes on state lands. Many of us showed up, we wrote letters, and we made phone calls. The votes went the other way all the same...


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

colorcountrygunner said:


> View attachment 150818
> Some good deals on trail cams now



Those are some expensive targets!


----------



## jewbacca (Jan 27, 2020)

RandomElk16 said:


> That also goes back to: If you care about something, be active. In this case, I believe very few people were active.
> 
> "_*The proposal generated 46 online comments over the span of a month*_, according to Justin Shirley, the director of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources." KSL Article
> 
> ...


Lesson learned for me. I took a break from the forums for a bit and didn't hear a peep about this vote. Would have loved to voice my opinion, but no one to blame but myself. I have to pay closer attention to the RAC and WB activities from here on.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

High Desert Elk said:


> Many of us showed up, we wrote letters, and we made phone calls. The votes went the other way all the same...


Which way is the "other" way?
From my perspective -- I wrote letters (email), and i made phone calls - and the board came up with a solution that I asked for. So, from my perspective, what failed? It all worked out how I hoped it would. 🤷‍♂️ 



Maybe, as was mentioned in another conversation, your letters and phone calls cancelled out my letters and phone calls? Net gain of 0.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

PBH said:


> Which way is the "other" way?
> From my perspective -- I wrote letters (email), and i made phone calls - and the board came up with a solution that I asked for. So, from my perspective, what failed? It all worked out how I hoped it would. 🤷‍♂️
> 
> 
> ...


It only matters on how your desire aligns with the desire of the deciding assembly. If they are in sync, you will get the result you want. If they aren't, you will not get the result you want.

In my ignorance, I am not familiar with any deciding assembly that will change it's mind based on the popular contrast to their own bias, nor am I familiar with any deciding assembly that goes into any process completely free of any bias...


----------



## NativeCutt (Dec 31, 2020)

Vanilla said:


> Man, people won't realize how true this is! I learned this lesson a long time ago in the stream access battles. So very few people guide policy in this state because the rest of us refuse to take the time to be involved. I've been having regular conversations with my teenage daughter about this, and often remind her that "the world us run by those that show up." People will take the time to argue for 3 days over 7 pages on this forum on this issue, and then they won't submit a thing to the RAC or WB on the topic. Then they wonder why nobody "listened" to them.
> 
> This goes beyond the wildlife board. Go watch a city council meeting in your city. Figure out who in your community is running the show because they are the 3 people that show up to the meetings and comment. Find a bill at the legislature that you think is important (not one of the 5 that catches all the attention in the media, but one of the other 500+ bills that will pass here over the next two months), get 5 of your neighbors and ask them to contact members of the legislature on the issue. And then see how 5 people can change the entire discussion! Yes...I've seen it more than one time.
> 
> I want to circle back to this, and it's something I've said multiple times before: If the only thing you did is complain about an issue on social media or the internet, you did nothing. It's honestly crazy to me how little people actually care about what they claim to care about. And again, this goes well beyond the wildlife board.


I remember the stream access battle as if it was yesterday. I did show up. I went to the rallies, I sent emails to my rep and senators. I went down to the legislative session and invited my representative to come out and talk. I called him on the phone. I sent emails to every legislature voting on bills to limit access and overturn the Utah supreme court's original ruling of allowing access for recreational pursuits. I learned a lot. Mostly what I learned was in this situation the DWR was powerless. The only thing they can do is ask for money to "buy" access with walk-in programs. My favorite letter came from Orrin Hatch who was campaigning that he was good for Utah. I asked him what we could do to secure stream access and his return letter said basically that he couldn't help because he worked on the national level, and this was a Utah issue. Huh? I thought he was good for Utah. Anyway, to get back to the trail cam issue. I think deer and elk hunters should be dropped off by helicopter in the wilderness, totally naked, without any gear or weapons. See how many can get their deer!


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Do they have to survive each other first like the Hunger Games? That might eliminate point creep.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Nativecutt, while in the end that issue didn’t go our way, it showed what the power of getting involved was. HB187, the original bill we defeated, was run by the chair of the rules committee and one of the most influential legislators in the Capitol at the time. And we kicked his butt! I still remember BF’s reaction to losing that vote. Priceless! 

It was the next year when we ultimately “lost,” but still had a major influence in the process. Legislators from that era will still tell you to this day that was the most amazing thing they’d ever seen. We created allies that you’d never expect. Fishsnoop’s efforts made Greg Hughes of all people one of our advocates! If a bunch of fishermen can go toe to toe with the Utah Association of Realtors and the Farm Bureau (two of the most powerful lobbies in the state) and take the vote down to the last second, that shows the way people can get involved and have influence. 

This was also the time I was talking to a legislator that first year and his response was, “I’ve received 5 emails on this. Why is everyone so upset? Help me understand.” 

Five. FIVE! That’s all it took to make this representative take note that it was a big deal and realize he better educate himself on the topic. Five. 

Get involved if it’s important to you, folks. Don’t just complain on the internet or social media. That just makes you a whiner.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Well, I applaud the DWR decision to ban all trail cameras beginning 48 hours prior to the start of the season. Couldn't come soon enough. Enforcement could be an issue, but I'm thinking that maybe the Division could put a bounty on trail cameras left behind.


----------



## CHIEF_10_BEERS (Mar 24, 2021)

paddler said:


> Well, I applaud the DWR decision to ban all trail cameras beginning 48 hours prior to the start of the season. Couldn't come soon enough. Enforcement could be an issue, but I'm thinking that maybe the Division could put a bounty on trail cameras left behind.


You do realize that they are only restricting use of trail cameras during the season by someone who is actually hunting that unit, right? 
Anyone else can legally use a trail camera during the restricted time period.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Utah is super conservative politically and people full blown forced them to legalize MaryJane. That was because they took action.

If people who are proponents of something that makes you lazy, can get out there and not be lazy... Then hunters who do something inherently not lazy should be able to also do the same.


----------



## muleydeermaniac (Jan 17, 2008)

This is a grey area for me as I use them on my property for security reasons, but I also hunt the property.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Why not start a 4th thread on the topic? (Insert face palm…)


----------



## Buckfinder (May 23, 2009)

Enforcement will be an issue for sure, not near enough officers to cover millions of acres of land.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Just so that you members will know I just merged Paddler's thread on trail cameras with this thread to try and keep all of it together. 

I'll leave the one in the thread on the guide book alone for now.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)




----------



## 7mm Reloaded (Aug 25, 2015)

CHIEF_10_BEERS said:


> You do realize that they are only restricting use of trail cameras during the season by someone who is actually hunting that unit, right?
> Anyone else can legally use a trail camera during the restricted time period.


They Banned “ALL” trailcams fron Aug 1 to Dec 31. People looking for loopholes already?


----------



## Slayer (Feb 3, 2013)

7mm Reloaded said:


> They Banned “ALL” trailcams fron Aug 1 to Dec 31. People looking for loopholes already?


They did not ban all trail cams. Go read the DWR press release. It is illegal to use a trail cam during those months to “harvest or aid in the harvest of big game”. You can use trail cams during hunting seasons, but cant use them to help you harvest. So its illegal to hunt the areas where you have trail cams out. You can legally use a trail cam for recreation purposes, just not for harvesting big game.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

So, what's the difference between using trail cams to help harvest against 10 spotter's working for an outfitter?


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

Looking at the larger picture, i wonder if they're cutting corners where they can, to make it harder to be successful, in order to avoid a general season draw. Yeah I know crazy thought, but if you look at the totality between new trail cam laws, possible removal of optics on smoke poles, and who knows whatever other proposal is waiting in the wings, on the heels of a major pushback from general season going to a draw - I wonder if that has something to do with it. Goes hand in hand with increase of hunters and population. Can't keep cutting X number of tags if the harvest yield is too high.

I'll take tin foil hat for 500 Alex.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Lone_Hunter said:


> Looking at the larger picture, i wonder if they're cutting corners where they can, to make it harder to be successful, in order to avoid a general season draw. Yeah I know crazy thought, but if you look at the totality between new trail cam laws, possible removal of optics on smoke poles, and who knows whatever other proposal is waiting in the wings, on the heels of a major pushback from general season going to a draw - I wonder if that has something to do with it. Goes hand in hand with increase of hunters and population. Can't keep cutting X number of tags if the harvest yield is too high.
> 
> I'll take tin foil hat for 500 Alex.


I think that they should ban optics on muzzleloaders. It started out as a primitive weapon hunt, but there's very little primitive about modern muzzleloaders. I don't know if it remains true today, but I remember Pennsylvania allowed only flintlocks on the muzzleloader hunt. 

E bike usage continues to increase on our WMAs, too. And ATVs are OOC in our mountains. The list goes on, but prohibiting trail cameras was a step in the right direction, IMO. Fair chase and quietude should be the guiding philosophies.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

paddler said:


> I think that they should ban optics on muzzleloaders. It started out as a primitive weapon hunt,


Wrong, as we've already covered in the other thread. the original ML season was just an rifle season extension, for people who paid $10 and swapped the cartridge gun for the smokepole in that extended week. There was no actual ML hunt... it was the rifle season, using your rifle tag... extended 1 week, if you bought the $10 piece of paper.



> ... but there's very little primitive about modern muzzleloaders. I don't know if it remains true today, but I remember Pennsylvania allowed only flintlocks on the muzzleloader hunt.


And TC came out with the Black Mountain Magnum in response. Composite stock, 150gr max charge, fiber optic sites, specialized flame channel to ignite pellets, specialized flints to give reliable ignition... but hey, its just fine because it met the new restrictions right?

Too much technology has blurred all the lines. IDK how you can define a primative weapon, when even modern replica's are turned out on multi-million $$$ cnc's and using metals that didnt exist all that long ago.

What I find incredibly ironic is I could go to a museum, get an actual Ferguson rifle made in 1770 ... something that predates today's hawkin style guns by 60 years... and its illegal to hunt with today under our muzzleloader regulations.

Germany had inline muzzleloaders in 1734 ... predating hawkin style sidelocks by 100 years. Germany also had a prince that had a steel cartridge based rifle around that time as well.

So what really does "primative" even mean.

-DallanC


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Dallan has forgotten more about muzzleloaders than I’ll ever know. That’s for sure!


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Vanilla said:


> Dallan has forgotten more about muzzleloaders than I’ll ever know. That’s for sure!


When inlines were first being introduced, there were incredible wars on various forums over bans or not. I was heavily involved in those, did alot of research and picked a side (bet you cant guess what side that is lol). Thats when I ran across the 1734 Germany reference. If you think about it... an inline rifle barrel is a MUCH easier forging than one with a angled flame channel. Another interesting ML action type you should google up are "under hammer" guns. Thats even simpler design.

The final straw for me between the two types is when I rebarreled my T/C Hawkin with a Green Mt "fast twist sabot barrel". It was every bit as accurate as the Rem 700ML my wife gave me for christmas years later. What was interesting, is Green Mt was turning out barrels for all guns types, on the same multi-million $$$ machines. They could end up on a sidelock action, or a inline action... but the barrels themselves were the same. Both types were highly accurate. The only real difference between the two firearm types, is a few milliseconds locktime.

All of those guns at that time had exposed ignitions so both styles were subject to weather and powder fouling (easily fixed as the old trappers used to do: Roll some bee's wax between your fingers into a thin roll.. the flatten it around where the cap and nipple meet. Easy peasy. I used to do dunk tests of my original hawkin barrel trying various things to make sure it was waterproof. Most people getting into the ML game didnt know about that... or calfs knee's etc etc.

-DallanC


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

When it comes to the primitive weapons discussion everybody always discusses modern muzzleloaders as compared to the older styles as well as the whole magnifying optics thing. How come nobody compares the simple stick and string our forebears used to hunt and rain down hellfire from castles with to the space age contraptions we call bows today? Talk about a game changer. I have been shooting a struggle stick for nearly a year now and I'm just barely starting to feel like I have a clue what I'm doing. But then again, I have felt this way before. Ask me how confident I am tomorrow....


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

When can we expect to see banning fish finders used in locating fish by fishermen on the RACs and WB agenda? That definitely gives fishermen an unfair advantage. We should also look at banning artificial lures and jigs. We need to go back to a more primitive style of fishing, like they did in the old days. Hooks and worms. Let’s put the fish back in fishing!


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

MooseMeat said:


> When can we expect to see banning fish finders used in locating fish by fishermen on the RACs and WB agenda? That definitely gives fishermen an unfair advantage. We should also look at banning artificial lures and jigs. We need to go back to a more primitive style of fishing, like they did in the old days. Hooks and worms. Let’s put the fish back in fishing!


If you really want to be scared of what technology can do to your favorite fishing hole, read up on what Panoptix is doing to some famous Crappie fishing areas back east.
When I first saw Panoptix years ago I wanted one so bad my teeth hurt, now I am seriously worried if they get cheap enough that everyone can afford/use one.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

MooseMeat said:


> When can we expect to see banning fish finders used in locating fish by fishermen on the RACs and WB agenda? That definitely gives fishermen an unfair advantage. We should also look at banning artificial lures and jigs. We need to go back to a more primitive style of fishing, like they did in the old days. Hooks and worms. Let’s put the fish back in fishing!


And no more powerbait. Worms, salmon eggs, velveeta cheese or marshmallows only.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

People use Velveeta cheese?


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

colorcountrygunner said:


> When it comes to the primitive weapons discussion everybody always discusses modern muzzleloaders as compared to the older styles as well as the whole magnifying optics thing. How come nobody compares the simple stick and string our forebears used to hunt and rain down hellfire from castles with to the space age contraptions we call bows today? Talk about a game changer. I have been shooting a struggle stick for nearly a year now and I'm just barely starting to feel like I have a clue what I'm doing. But then again, I have felt this way before. Ask me how confident I am tomorrow....





3arabians said:


> And no more powerbait. Worms, salmon eggs, velveeta cheese or marshmallows only.


Just don't prohibit shoepeg corn.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

backcountry said:


> People use Velveeta cheese?


Not many these days but when I was a kid I saw a lot of it around. The only person I know that still uses it is my FIL. He’ll bait his hook and then start snacking on it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

backcountry said:


> People use Velveeta cheese?


That was the base for the old Ed's Pokey Bait that used to be sold in Provo Canyon. You could smell the anise oil as you drove by the spot that they were selling it. 

Plus when you fished with Velveeta Cheese and corn you didn't have to pack a lunch. 

I do still use it occasionally.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

backcountry said:


> People use Velveeta cheese?


You must not be from around here…


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

backcountry said:


> People use Velveeta cheese?


It was before the days of power bait..... 😎


----------



## Irish Lad (Jun 3, 2008)

backcountry said:


> People use Velveeta cheese?



All I used when I was a kid in the 60s 😄 .


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

MooseMeat said:


> We should also look at banning artificial lures and jigs. We need to go back to a more primitive style of fishing, like they did in the old days. Hooks and worms.


That's a new one. Usually, it is the artificial fly crowd that wants fisheries restricted to no bait use. 

Generally, similar rationales though. Restrict how the "other guy" does it to keep them off "their" water. Come up with some flimsy biological or social reason for the change, and pitch a fit in the appropriate meetings. Same deal really. 

FWIW, my dad used to use Kraft garlic cheese in the tube instead of Velveeta. We caught a lot of fish that way in the day.


----------



## NativeCutt (Dec 31, 2020)

Vanilla said:


> Nativecutt, while in the end that issue didn’t go our way, it showed what the power of getting involved was. HB187, the original bill we defeated, was run by the chair of the rules committee and one of the most influential legislators in the Capitol at the time. And we kicked his butt! I still remember BF’s reaction to losing that vote. Priceless!
> 
> It was the next year when we ultimately “lost,” but still had a major influence in the process. Legislators from that era will still tell you to this day that was the most amazing thing they’d ever seen. We created allies that you’d never expect. Fishsnoop’s efforts made Greg Hughes of all people one of our advocates! If a bunch of fishermen can go toe to toe with the Utah Association of Realtors and the Farm Bureau (two of the most powerful lobbies in the state) and take the vote down to the last second, that shows the way people can get involved and have influence.
> 
> ...


Like I said, I learned a lot. I know more about the process and can use it for future issues. I got to face-to-face tell BF, he lied to me. My legislature at the time also lied to me. He was replaced with someone who loves to hunt but is also a developer. While he should be representing the "people", I believe he's there more for his own interests.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

(this thread needs some music)


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

colorcountrygunner said:


> When it comes to the primitive weapons discussion everybody always discusses modern muzzleloaders as compared to the older styles as well as the whole magnifying optics thing. How come nobody compares the simple stick and string our forebears used to hunt and rain down hellfire from castles with to the space age contraptions we call bows today? Talk about a game changer. I have been shooting a struggle stick for nearly a year now and I'm just barely starting to feel like I have a clue what I'm doing. But then again, I have felt this way before. Ask me how confident I am tomorrow....


I agree. The one thing I will say is different with bows is that there is still a limiting factor (factors) with them. Draw weight is a limiting factor to range. Now some guys still get out to 140 (wreckless), so I don't disagree at all with what you are saying - but there is still a limiting factor. Crossbows can change that. In my opinion, you put a max draw weight in place and that would limit it enough outside the morons that will always take bad shots anyways.

I could use the gunwerks ML as an example but even the regular joe can grab a Rem Ultra. We just need to decide if an ML hunt should exist at all. If yes - then why? That explination should determine what limits, if any, are put on ML. At this point we might as well go the CO route and just have multiple rifle seasons. If that's not what they want then they need to get that description sorted out and make some changes.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

RandomElk16 said:


> We just need to decide if an ML hunt should exist at all. If yes - then why? That explination should determine what limits, if any, are put on ML.


Originally, it was just an extension to the rifle hunt... people lobbied to use a smokepole, the DWR was fine with an additional revenue stream for very little effort. They didn't even have to worry about tag alotment or anything else. A guy could slap down $10 and get a piece of paper that let him use his rifle tag for an additional week.

Remember, at that time hunters could get 2 buck tags in a year.

Then, it was more looked on as a way to spread out rifle hunters a bit vs having overcrowding on the mts for a week. The ML tag and Rifle tags where the same pool. There was no difference, from a tag standpoint and the DWR didnt treat the hunts themselves any different other than which end of the gun you load it from.



> At this point we might as well go the CO route and just have multiple rifle seasons. If that's not what they want then they need to get that description sorted out and make some changes.


We do have multiple rifle seasons. There's specifically an early and normal rifle season, plus we have that new super early rifle season while bucks are in the velvet. I'd argue the dedicated ML Rifle season really was the first multi-season rifle hunting in Utah.

-DallanC


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

DallanC said:


> Originally, it was just an extension to the rifle hunt... people lobbied to use a smokepole, the DWR was fine with an additional revenue stream for very little effort. They didn't even have to worry about tag alotment or anything else. A guy could slap down $10 and get a piece of paper that let him use his rifle tag for an additional week.
> 
> Remember, at that time hunters could get 2 buck tags in a year.
> 
> ...


I am aware how it started, but what is the now continued purpose? It also was in November so obviously stuff evolved. 

They added early season rifle in 2018, yes. So very new and again, an evolving look at seasons and the reasons. At this rate, I am saying Sept is just another one. Instead of late and early, which only exist on some units btw, all units just have 3-4 rifle seasons and if you want to use a smokepole, go for it. 

If they decide that the evolved ML purpose is to be a primitive thing, or to have lower harvest, or whatever the ways some hunters see it as then they need to change definition. If it's simply another season, then screw it. Make it a single shot rifle or a full on any weapon. 

Those primitive weapon hunts they added should be heavily restricted.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

RandomElk16 said:


> I am aware how it started, but what is the now continued purpose? It also was in November so obviously stuff evolved.
> 
> They added early season rifle in 2018, yes. So very new and again, an evolving look at seasons and the reasons. At this rate, I am saying Sept is just another one. Instead of late and early, which only exist on some units btw, all units just have 3-4 rifle seasons and if you want to use a smokepole, go for it.
> 
> ...


It was never a “primitive” weapon hunt. It’s always been a muzzleloader hunt. I’m not sure why you’re asking what it’s purpose is? It’s another hunt opportunity for the public. Canceling it or moving it to another any weapon hunt won’t help fix the point creep issue at all. Lots of guys can’t/won’t archery hunt. Lots of guys can’t/won’t muzzleloader hunt. Everyone can/will rifle hunt. It’s for opportunity. It spreads hunters and applications out. Utah doesn’t need to mirror every other state and follow the “primitive” weapon trend. We have a muzzleloader hunt. It’s just that.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The first muzzle loader hunt that I remember was way back in 1976 and it was in September, you could also use a pistol during the hunt.


----------



## 7mm Reloaded (Aug 25, 2015)

I like the idea of being able to have a single shot muzzleloader “Scout” pistol as a back up . What do you guys think? we should ask for this if they do decide to go back to open sights.I have a 1830s model that needs a job besides a paper weight.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

If we could grow deer like we grow fish we wouldn't need any of these limitations. Wouldn't that be cool, go visit the deer hatchery!

Things change and sometimes ya have to start over or revamp to change with the times. If the WB says muzzleloaders are now considered a 'primitive' hunt then that's what it is regardless of what it used to be. Of course someone will argue:

'_well back in October of 1734 ole Prince Hendrick IV invented a wizz bang full auto muzzle loader to fight the Hun so what is primitive anyways and that predates the Chinese rocket sling so what do think about that! _' 

so we maybe we don't use the term 'primitive' and just call it 'Weapon Class 2' or 'Limited Range Weapons' or 'Billy Bada$$ Weapon Season' 

The 'what about-ism' arguments on this thread are pretty weak. Here are some truths:

The Mountain West has a hard time growing deer, an easy time growing people

Hunting demand outpaces supply

We can either sit on the sidelines and hunt little or be creative and institute real changes that decrease harvest rates thereby allowing increased opportunity 

If desired we can make laws that limit weapon effectiveness and decrease harvest

I do think Utah has a lot of opportunity if you plan and strategize but every year it does get harder to get tags and it isn't going to get better. Instead of the usual suspects on this forum saying why we can't change or why we shouldn't change, I would love to hear your views on how to increase opportunity. If ya say 'grow more deer' jeeze then open that deer hatchery! 

I would love to see a couple of deer units go over the counter with strict weapon restrictions and see what happens--just try it out--it's not like we can hurt the deer herds worse than they already are:

Archery rule: no release aids
Muzzy: Flintlock actions only, not sabots, propellant in powder form, projectiles have to be round, iron sights only
ALW Season: iron sights only, straight walled centerfire cartridge's or shotgun slugs only

Just brainstorming fellas, now tell me how I'm wrong and Moosemeat and his buddies will kill just as many deer with their atlatls as they do with their mega magnums


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

All this ^^^ AND application money up front.
Bingo!!!


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

MooseMeat said:


> It was never a “primitive” weapon hunt. It’s always been a muzzleloader hunt. I’m not sure why you’re asking what it’s purpose is? It’s another hunt opportunity for the public. Canceling it or moving it to another any weapon hunt won’t help fix the point creep issue at all. Lots of guys can’t/won’t archery hunt. Lots of guys can’t/won’t muzzleloader hunt. Everyone can/will rifle hunt. It’s for opportunity. It spreads hunters and applications out. Utah doesn’t need to mirror every other state and follow the “primitive” weapon trend. We have a muzzleloader hunt. It’s just that.


You act like this line of questioning I have came from nowhere.

They point blank said they are making a committee to restrict things. Multiple rac's voted on eliminating optics on ML. Wade ran through a list of stuff they need to look into.

All I was suggesting was putting a "why" before making the rules. Same was said about cam's.

So you can say "It just is a muzzleloader hunt" but that won't change the random *** rules they make. Setting a purpose and description would. That's what I was getting at. As it sits, there is 0 reason to make rules... but they are going to. So they need to figure out WHY.

But whatever, I will bow out of this because no one else cares and they can just keep making random rules, allows scopes then ban them, and on and on with no actual reason other than the mood of that current board.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

RandomElk16 said:


> But whatever, I will bow out of this because no one else cares and they can just keep making random rules, allows scopes then ban them, and on and on with no actual reason other than the mood of that current board.


Is that not what they do already? Regardless of the public opinion or the DWR proposal, they have their minds made up before the meeting even starts.

people seem to have the idea that killing less bucks some how magically grows deer numbers as a total. And they also refuse to acknowledge data, past and present Regarding the topic in question, to make a logical decision from. Scopes didn’t translate to more success. It stayed the same. Banning them again won’t create any less dead bucks. It won’t create any more living bucks. The only way to do that is other by other topics that don’t have anything to do with the technology or weapons that hunters use.


----------



## 7mm Reloaded (Aug 25, 2015)

Want more deer ? cancel all the deer hunts for 1 year and have unlimited predator hunting seasons. Ya I know it won’t happen no money in it.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Hey moosemeat--let's pretend that Utah no longer had any firearm seasons and everything was archery only. Wouldn't the state be able to issue a ton more tags, create more opportunity, and still kill the same number of animals? We all know that answer is yes

So some level of weapon restrictions(s) could create more opportunity while taking the same number of animals off the landscape. You are correct that the current muzzy scope/no scope issue wouldn't do a thing but maybe something else would.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Pretend all you want. The last deer hunt will be a rifle season.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Airborne said:


> Hey moosemeat--let's pretend that Utah no longer had any firearm seasons and everything was archery only. Wouldn't the state be able to issue a ton more tags, create more opportunity, and still kill the same number of animals? We all know that answer is yes
> 
> So some level of weapon restrictions(s) could create more opportunity while taking the same number of animals off the landscape. You are correct that the current muzzy scope/no scope issue wouldn't do a thing but maybe something else would.


You throw enough archers out there over a 3 month window and you’ll see success rates higher than anyone could anticipate. If you forced a guy to shoot a bow and he puts in a little effort, it’s amazing what can happen. You’d have to make it a traditional archery only hunt to get the results you’re talking about. With compounds in the mix, You’d see your younger age class bucks really take a beating. After 3 or 4 years, you’d be back in the same boat we are in now. No mature bucks to speak of and the 1.5 year olds weeded out before they rut gets going. Add does info the mix and success rates would be through the roof. Now if you only hunted deer for 30 days and the other 11 months of the year they were left alone, that would be a different story. But you’d have to spread out the tags or crowding would be a giant issue.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I've heard some talk of taking a part of a unit and making it recurve/longbow, open sight ML, and open sight rifle. Actually sounds intriguing.... 
(This wasn't from the UDWR)


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

MooseMeat said:


> people seem to have the idea that killing less bucks some how magically grows deer numbers as a total. And they also refuse to acknowledge data, past and present Regarding the topic in question, to make a logical decision from. Scopes didn’t translate to more success. It stayed the same. Banning them again won’t create any less dead bucks. It won’t create any more living bucks. The only way to do that is other by other topics that don’t have anything to do with the technology or weapons that hunters use.


Which is exactly why I said they need to define what they believe these hunts are and why they want to create rules...


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

In split-decision, Utah Wildlife Board approves seasonal ban on trail cameras; other changes discussed


ST. GEORGE — Beginning with the 2022 hunting season, the use of all trail cameras to harvest or aid in the harvest of big game will be banned – establishing an ongoing seasonal ban. The ban, which will be in effect from July 31 to Dec. 31, was approved in the Jan. 4 meeting of […]




www.stgeorgeutah.com


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

"Hunter orange is no longer required for adults during the general season of any bull archery hunt when it overlaps with the youth archery hunt 
I get a kick out of this. So only adults are exempted. Anyone under 18 still has to wear orange. This can't be a quote from the DWR. The whole discussion was pertaining to the youth any weapon hunt. It had nothing to do with some supposed youth archery hunt.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

I really don't think that is a mule deer in the first picture........as the description states.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I totally missed that. I guess that's what happens when you zone out adds. Journalism at its finest.


----------

