# Regulating Trail Cameras?



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Does Utah do this?


----------



## sheepassassin (Mar 23, 2018)

They regulate them as much as they regulate mud motors


----------



## 7mm Reloaded (Aug 25, 2015)

paddler said:


> Does Utah do this?


 not yet. I'm not against it though


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

How would you regulate trail cameras? Barely enough CO's out there to monitor (illegal) hunting activity...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Hunters can help self regulate...start regulating them!


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

High Desert Elk said:


> How would you regulate trail cameras? Barely enough CO's out there to monitor (illegal) hunting activity...


Personally, I wouldn't need law enforcement to actively enforce a rule on me. I'd take personally responsibility to follow whatever rules are set in place to regulate whatever activity I participate in.

But that's just me. I know personal responsibility is rare these days.


----------



## bow&muzzyhunter (Mar 28, 2009)

Why?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

So hunters have to hunt and cannot scout from their couches....instead of putting a camera on every tree.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

paddler said:


> Does Utah do this?


Why are you asking?


----------



## bow&muzzyhunter (Mar 28, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> So hunters have to hunt and cannot scout from their couches....instead of putting a camera on every tree.


If this is your argument, then no to regulating cameras. Hunters can put a camera on any tree they want. I enjoy putting them up, it gets me outside hiking around, see what animals are in the area. It's another tool that hunters have.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

bow&muzzyhunter said:


> It's another tool that hunters have.


Yup...another tool in a long list of tools. Do you really need another tool? I wish we could get rid of the tools...and get back to making a real hunt.


----------



## TPrawitt91 (Sep 1, 2015)

Agreed. If everyone can use them, no one has any real advantage over anyone else.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I'm not worried about who has an advantage over whom; I'm just sick of seeing cameras on every tree.

I'm glad that states like Montana, Nevada, and Arizona are setting the trend of eliminating them more and more as tools...


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I see no problem with requiring them to be registered to the owner if they are going to be used on public lands. A simple sticker or tag would do, no different than a ATV. I also think that anything else that is left on public lands should be registered. Tents, blinds, tree stands and what ever else someone plans to park and leave alone for a number of days. 

I would also like to see them outlaw the ones that will send a picture to your cell phone, at least during the hunting seasons from archery to the late elk and or deer hunts.


----------



## bow&muzzyhunter (Mar 28, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> Yup...another tool in a long list of tools. Do you really need another tool? I wish we could get rid of the tools...and get back to making a real hunt.



You are in control of your own hunt. If other people want to use them for their hunt have at it. What somebody else does with trail camera's should not affect your hunt or your hunting experience.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I agree with Critter.

I like the idea of having limits on tents, blinds, tree stands, cameras, etc, and requiring them to have names, phone numbers, dates, etc. on them. Make people responsible -- again, personal responsibility. We are lacking in it.

Why not use some of the same requirements that trapping include?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

bow&muzzyhunter said:


> What somebody else does with trail camera's should not affect your hunt or your hunting experience.


Call it privacy...I am not to keen on having my picture taken while I am out in the woods by some random person I don't know.

I was out this past weekend getting a Christmas tree...and, what do you know, I come across a trail cam. Really? In late November? Why?

I hate them...and hope they are regulated in Utah soon.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Really? In late November? Why?


Because people are lazy and don't have any intentions to take them down.

Pack it in --> Pack it out.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Call it privacy...I am not to keen on having my picture taken while I am out in the woods by some random person I don't know.
> 
> I was out this past weekend getting a Christmas tree...and, what do you know, I come across a trail cam. Really? In late November? Why?
> 
> I hate them...and hope they are regulated in Utah soon.


People can take your picture with their phone scope any time they want. How about banning cell phones and spotting scopes too. Believe me, if I get your picture on my cameras, I'm deleting it as fast as possible. I don't want your picture any more than you want it taken.unless your doing something illegal like taking tree stands.:shock:


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> ...unless your doing something illegal like taking tree stands.:shock:


At what point does your treestand (camera, blind, etc.) become abandoned property?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

ridgetop said:


> How about banning cell phones and spotting scopes too.


Most modern cell phones should already be illegal under the "light amplification device" section of the DWR rules.

-DallanC


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> People can take your picture with their phone scope any time they want. How about banning cell phones and spotting scopes too. Believe me, if I get your picture on my cameras, I'm deleting it as fast as possible. I don't want your picture any more than you want it taken.unless your doing something illegal like taking tree stands.:shock:


Ok...I'm good with that. Ban cell phones, spotting scopes, rifle scopes, binos etc.

Maybe I wouldn't take your tree stand if you weren't nailing it to trees... and leaving it up year after year after year until it becomes an abandoned eyesore:mrgreen:! Haul it in and haul it out the same day; otherwise, it is just trash!


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

My issue isn't with the casual (what i would term most of us here) hunter using a camera, or two, to aid in scouting for hunts.

My issue is with the extreme hunter that has 100 cameras, equipped with cellular / satellite communications, permanently mounted to every water hole in the Western US. These permanent mountings also serve as a "I was here first" marker so that other hunters are discouraged from hunting that area -- because, hey, who wants to have a conflict with another hunter that claimed the area 4 years prior by mounting a camera?



This issue is no different than any other piece of equipment. Take ATVs for example. They are all fine and great, up until every person in the world started using them and going anywhere they pleased. At some point rules were needed. I see the same thing with cameras. It's time to start implementing some rules to govern their use.


----------



## TPrawitt91 (Sep 1, 2015)

DallanC said:


> Most modern cell phones should already be illegal under the "light amplification device" section of the DWR rules.
> 
> -DallanC


I'm genuinely curious, fill me in please.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

PBH said:


> At what point does your treestand (camera, blind, etc.) become abandoned property?


ask the people in Park City


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

TPrawitt91 said:


> I'm genuinely curious, fill me in please.


Most cell phone camera sensor chips got so good that MFGs removed IR filters from camera lenses years ago. IR is filtered out in software now. You can get apps that allow raw IR imaging .... now stick that phone on a spotting scope and wala, you can definitely see animals at night at long range.

*R657-6-6. subsection 3B*

(3) A person may not use:
(a) a firearm capable of being fired fully automatic; or
(b)* any light enhancement device *or aiming device that casts a visible beam of light.

Some new phones like the CAT S60 have flir imaging built in!

-DallanC


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

PBH said:


> At what point does your treestand (camera, blind, etc.) become abandoned property?


That is a good question. I guess IMO it would be 16 days on the Dixie since that is the camping limit before you have to move it.

All these things would be good to bring up at RAC meetings.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Dallan
I would inturpit the law more to aiming a weapon able to harvest wildlife.
I dont see the law affecting just
'Taking pictures'.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

bowgy said:


> PBH said:
> 
> 
> > At what point does your treestand (camera, blind, etc.) become abandoned property?
> ...


Oddly enough, the DWR dose not regulate this issue.
Its the Forest service and BLM.
Items can be deemed abandoned at 72 hours on most districs I believe.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

A camera that took pictures at night would be no different than a pair of night vision binoculars


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

What if I am peeing in the woods and some dumb trail camera picks up my pics....is that considered voyeurism?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> What if I am peeing in the woods and some dumb trail camera picks up my pics....is that considered voyeurism?


Only if you are peeing on the camera


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

PBH said:


> At what point does your treestand (camera, blind, etc.) become abandoned property?


I've wondered that myself. Seems too many people buy a cheap kids $19 backyard tent and leave it on the mountain year around to save "their spot".

I think we are rapidly headed towards a fee based system to camp / leave equipment on the forest grounds. Each "permit" would have users info, and dates / times of stay. Then it would be easy to know when things have been left too long.

-DallanC


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I like what Nevada is saying about trail cam use:

"In recent years, Nevada has seen an explosion in the popularity and use of trail cameras. What began as a person using two or three cameras to check wildlife usage of a favorite water, has grown in orders of magnitude to a point at which we now find individual water sources with dozens of cameras. We hear of individuals putting out as many as 300 cameras to cover every
water source in a hunt unit, or series of hunt units. While this may not be much of a problem in areas with abundant water, Nevada has many dry, desert hunt areas with very few water sources in an entire mountain range. In many hunt units, simply by using trail cameras to cover every water source, a person can literally capture photos of every single big game animal in the entire hunt unit. Most of these hunt units have big game seasons that open in August when animals are still highly dependent on these water sources for daily water. This rapid increase in trail camera usage is problematic for two reasons. First is a wildlife disturbance issue. Heavy traffic in and out of a water source for people to place or check their cameras provides a significant disturbance, especially when some individual waters
have dozens of cameras on them. This disturbance is even more problematic when there are open seasons and some people checking their cameras for future seasons while hunters are actively hunting the current season. It may also be assumed that the very presence of a camera or multiple cameras disrupts the way some animals come to water, especially at night.

The second concern with such heavy use of trail cameras in desert hunt areas is the fair chase issue. When a person can photograph every single big game animal in a hunt area by using cameras and this occurs during the hunting season, the animal has a severely reduced ability to avoid detection by hunters."

Montana's reasoning for regulating trail camera's was threefold:
1) "protect trophy animals"
2) "Do what is ethically right"
3) "Non hunters influence hunting activities, this regulation demonstrates hunters do want to hunt ethically"

Interesting to me that state fish and game agencies are pointing to fair chase and ethics as a reason to regulate their use. What this tells me is that they are finding multiple instances and cases where the use of trail cameras is violating normal hunting ethics and fair chase.

Some regulation is necessary.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Critter said:


> Only if you are peeing on the camera


I know its a tongue in cheek joke here, but I can honestly tell you it actually is a real concern, and one that if it goes badly, could ruin your life.

Actually I know a older family friend, who pulled off the road to pee and got caught on a camera. His license plate was visible so the camera owner turned him in to the sheriff. He got tracked down, ticketed and had to hire a lawyer to appear in court and fight "public exposure" charges which would have landed him on the sex offenders list.

-DallanC


----------



## TPrawitt91 (Sep 1, 2015)

DallanC said:


> Most cell phone camera sensor chips got so good that MFGs removed IR filters from camera lenses years ago. IR is filtered out in software now. You can get apps that allow raw IR imaging .... now stick that phone on a spotting scope and wala, you can definitely see animals at night at long range.
> 
> *R657-6-6. subsection 3B*
> 
> ...


Interesting, based on the way you describe it specialized software is required, so you could make the case that the device by itself doesn't have the capability. Except the device you listed, and I'm sure many more coming soon.

Do you know of any videos that have been made using this method?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I used to not be opposed to trail cams, and I guess in general I still am not. But we are getting to a point of these things being a problem. I will say that I agree it is SUPER annoying to walk around and see cameras over every water hole. I don't think I have a "right to privacy" out in the woods, since I am in public and you kind of give that up when you go out in public. That said, I should be able to pee in the woods, or have my daughter pee in the woods, without having to do a 200 foot search of the perimeter to make sure our private parts won't end up on someone's hard drive. 

When there is one guy that runs ~115 cameras on one unit, it sure seems like something is out of whack. And when things get out of whack, it generally results in regulations. And the normal guy running two or three cameras in a small area they like to hunt each year will get hit hard because of the guy running 115 trying to cover an entire unit. 

What are the specific regulations Nevada, Montana, and Arizona have put on trail cams? I'd be interested to see what proposals people have. Reasonable regulations are just fine by me. What is "reasonable" is probably where we will all fight this one out.


----------



## CAA84 (Nov 20, 2018)

Vanilla said:


> I used to not be opposed to trail cams, and I guess in general I still am not. But we are getting to a point of these things being a problem. I will say that I agree it is SUPER annoying to walk around and see cameras over every water hole. I don't think I have a "right to privacy" out in the woods, since I am in public and you kind of give that up when you go out in public. That said, I should be able to pee in the woods, or have my daughter pee in the woods, without having to do a 200 foot search of the perimeter to make sure our private parts won't end up on someone's hard drive.
> 
> When there is one guy that runs ~115 cameras on one unit, it sure seems like something is out of whack. And when things get out of whack, it generally results in regulations. And the normal guy running two or three cameras in a small area they like to hunt each year will get hit hard because of the guy running 115 trying to cover an entire unit.
> 
> What are the specific regulations Nevada, Montana, and Arizona have put on trail cams? I'd be interested to see what proposals people have. Reasonable regulations are just fine by me. What is "reasonable" is probably where we will all fight this one out.


Vanilla,

Here is a link to Nevada's trail camera regulation.

http://www.ndow.org/uploadedFiles/n...cy/News/Articles/R012-16A - Trail Cameras.pdf

I agree with some of it but I also enjoy using a few cameras to see what's coming into a particular area and it's been a great way to get my son involved by checking them regularly. The one area that I struggle with is companies like scouttohunt that will hire/sponsor people to place cameras and then sell the pictures through a subscription service. They claim it's not selling specific locations since it's a 45 sq. mile area but they show a lot of background in many of their pictures and anyone with basic google earth skills can find that specific water hole or area in a 5 mile by 9 mile area. I agree that the "reasonable" portion is where we will all disagree.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

So Nevada basically says that as of August 1, or if your camera automatically sends pics to your phone on July 1, you have to go pull your trail cams? 

That would change the game significantly for a lot of people. The problem would be enforcement. I know what PBH is saying, and I too make it a point to simply follow the rules regardless of whether I'm going to get caught or not. But it is my general belief that unenforceable laws shouldn't be passed regardless of the topic or subject of the law. That does not only go for wildlife issues, but across the board. 

You know how you could make this Nevada regulation enforceable? Write into the law that any trail camera left up after August 1st is considered abandoned property and can be removed by any party. That might be incentive enough for trail camera owners to follow the law on that one in Nevada, and certainly a way for hunters to police ourselves...


----------



## CAA84 (Nov 20, 2018)

Yes, if the camera automatically transmits pictures you can't use it between July 1 and December 31 but even if it doesn't transmit pictures you can't use it between August 1 and December 31st. I agree that the only way to enforce it is to set a deadline and then if a camera is still up it's deemed abandoned property and can be removed by anyone.


----------



## carcass (Aug 14, 2017)

I've only seen one camera while out and that was because there was salt lick nearby. What it tells me is that someone else thinks it's a good area. Thats how I look at it. The land isn't theirs, nor are the critters. Cameras tell me game is going by them so I just mark it as a possible area to hunt. I heard people talking about removing the sim card and putt it in their device to see what's there and outting it back in or removing it and placing a new one. "Ethical" comes to mind. 
I'm thinking of getting one or two, but I know someone who has over 30. Using technology to better your chances is fine, but at what point is it too much?


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

I have 4 cameras that are spread out over a 40,000 acre square. I barely had enough time this year to continually check them and will be cutting one back next year. I think most of us are ethical in nature and it is usually the minority that is too extreme.

Anymore the trail cameras are more of a hobby that my children and I use as an excuse to go hiking together. We sure love it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

Yup! I love taking my daughter out to check trail cams also. Its a good excuse to get out there. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Much ado about nothing


----------



## katorade (Sep 23, 2007)

Ban them completely I'm tired of running them.... ;-) My knees hurt.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Call it privacy...I am not to keen on having my picture taken while I am out in the woods by some random person I don't know.
> 
> I was out this past weekend getting a Christmas tree...and, what do you know, I come across a trail cam. Really? In late November? Why?
> 
> I hate them...and hope they are regulated in Utah soon.


I've been known to deliberately put lithium batteries in and change from video to pictures just to get a camera to work all winter. And to put it up in late November, knowing that I won't be able to get to it before April. To each his own.

Mine are far enough off of the beaten path, that I rarely get evidence of another human being, let alone another hunter. There is no reason to regulate my use of trail cameras to make you happier.

⫸<{{{{{⦅°>


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Fishrmn said:


> There is no reason to regulate my use of trail cameras to make you happier.
> 
> ⫸<{{{{{⦅°>


But you want to use them to make you happier. So who gets to win between you and W2U?

You guys pay me enough and I'll play referee and make a decision for you.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Thousands, perhaps millions, of trail cams in Utah and no wolf videos. What good are they?


.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

wyogoob said:


> Thousands, perhaps millions, of trail cams in Utah and no wolf videos. What good are they?
> 
> .


Why would I show anyone my good wolf hunting spots???


----------



## StillAboveGround (Aug 20, 2011)

wyoming2utah said:


> What if I am peeing in the woods and some dumb trail camera picks up my pics....is that considered voyeurism?


 Pretty sure I got caught peeing once...
I usually put my hat over cameras I find for a few minutes just so they know someone found their camera (and may also hunt that area)...
Once even held an antler up in front of camera to tease them...
Wished I had a pair... would have held up one from each side from behind the tree.

I have a few cameras I put out, mainly in Spring and Summer, but not during the hunting season, because I move around so much.
I don't mind folks using cameras...
The are a great scientific tool.. (see wolverine https://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=30554173.)
But should not be able to retrieve video or photos via cell phone during hunting seasons.


----------



## StillAboveGround (Aug 20, 2011)

wyogoob said:


> Thousands, perhaps millions, of trail cams in Utah and no wolf videos. What good are they?
> .


Just a function of large area and low wolf population.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

StillAboveGround said:


> Just a function of large area and low wolf population.


Utahns are better at SSS...

-DallanC


----------



## StillAboveGround (Aug 20, 2011)

DallanC said:


> Utahns are better at SSS...
> 
> -DallanC


No doubt that has happened a time or two... Hence the low population (and maybe some deleted or unreported photos)...


----------



## Brookie (Oct 26, 2008)

They are fun but ever since the trophy group in the area I hunt discovered the big general season bucks, I run into cameras about every 200 to 500 yards over a span of 3 basin. We have to look any time we go to the bathroom. Plus the trophy hunters get mad at us for screwing up there spots cause we walk through there camera spots.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Brookie said:


> They are fun but ever since the trophy group in the area I hunt discovered the big general season bucks, I run into cameras about every 200 to 500 yards over a span of 3 basin. We have to look any time we go to the bathroom. Plus the trophy hunters get mad at us for screwing up there spots cause we walk through there camera spots.


I'd choose your words more wisely. 
What do you consider a trophy hunter?
That's a wide brush your painting with.

I have heard from guys at work that some units and areas are really heavy with trail cams, mainly used by the outfitters and guides. 
I've never seen anything like that, in fact I don't see many camera ever where I hunt.
So I can't relate with that problem.
I know I'd be very disappointed if I couldn't use cameras any more. I love seeing the awesome pictures that I have been getting and then sharing them with many of you.
I don't see it of much of an advantage in being more successful either.
It does take a lot of time in the day to check them. I can't imagine trying to check dozens of cameras. That would take days.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

I used two this past year to watch a drinker prior to a youth deer hunt in early Oct - too early for a deer hunt, but that's another discussion for a different day...

Had the cams on a trail to the drinker and one facing the drinker. Reason is that it was being hammered by deer, but which kind - does only or a few bucks as well? The pics showed a few bucks hitting it religiously right up until it started to rain a week before the hunt.

They have their use. My two cameras were pulled the day before the hunt and were only there for 3 weeks. 

I rarely use them because I don't have the time to check them regularly. What is aggrevating is when people leave them up year-round to "claim" their spot and the ones they put up may not be checked for years, depending on whether they draw the next year or not.

I did catch a guy walking around with a crossbow during archery deer/elk though. Hmmmm...


----------



## kdog (May 4, 2015)

Crossbows are allowed during archery if the person has the disability permit. I kmow a few that do and are legit. They would hunt with a bow if thier shoulders were not damaged.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

I think the fair chase concern is a legitimate ethics conversation. Hunters and conservationist have a long history of limiting technological creep on their pursuit. Its a subjective issue but game cameras undoubtedly provide a newer edge and benefit to big game hunting.

I think the BLM and USFS should have a 14 day policy on abandonment in most scenarios. Anything staying longer than that should require a special use permit. But any such policy would have to exist universally (not just regulating hunters) if the issue of abandonment was to be used as a form of civilian enforcement. Its not as common but other users groups do occasionally place them. 

Will be interesting to see how this pans out in those states.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

DallanC said:


> ridgetop said:
> 
> 
> > How about banning cell phones and spotting scopes too.
> ...


I don't believe that is the spirit of the statute or an enforceable interpretation. Even in the rare chance a CO has the ill-founded courage to cite a person for carrying a cell phone under that statute I doubt it would hold up even to the most basic of legal scrutiny. I would hope the state and DWR would recognize that as a lose-lose scenario under anything but the most blatant cases of poaching. Not to mention the safety factor of carrying cell phones, eg that seems like a nasty can of worms liability wise for the agency.

I've yet to see a common consumer phone camera that would be able to pick up a heat signature from an ungulate 100+ yards away. I mean my smart phone struggles in average low light conditions. The FLIR website mentions even their FLIR One Pro line cell phone attachment can only detect a human out to 130' feet. And that is with ideal conditions: temperature contrasts, lens quality, appropriate pixels, etc. Seems to me the standalone devices and attachments would be an easier case for citation than a cellphone.

But I recognize wilder things have happened.


----------



## ns450f (Aug 28, 2018)

I think they should at least be banned in wilderness areas. If I can't take a mountain bike or a chainsaw into a wilderness then trail cameras should not be allowed. Pack it in, pack it out.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

ridgetop said:


> I don't see it of much of an advantage in being more successful either.


They wouldn't be used if they didn't give you information you could otherwise easily obtain. They help you. They help others that use them. That is silly to say they don't give an advantage in being more successful than if you couldn't use them.


----------



## APD (Nov 16, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> They wouldn't be used if they didn't give you information you could otherwise easily obtain. They help you. They help others that use them. That is silly to say they don't give an advantage in being more successful than if you couldn't use them.


i think it's a much more effective tool for white tail in the east. it's also an effective tool against unpressured animals or high animal density areas. from my experiences in low populations that are heavily hunted i just get good pics and some useful info but so far no luck in truly "patterning" a particular animal. it will certainly reveal a pattern if one exists and your cam is in the right spot.

a caveat of the statement above: my cams are not in the most obvious spots. i've placed them in slightly out of the way areas and use salts to bring the animals near. if i used the hot spots then i may get more potential data sets. i also might lose more cameras.:?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

APD said:


> i just get good pics and some useful info...





APD said:


> it will certainly reveal a pattern if one exists and your cam is in the right spot.


These statements both seem to suggest advantages to me.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I really think in most cases the advantage is related to the fact “oh I have a nice critter in this area I’m going to concentrate my efforts here “. And then the time is spent there.
In reality not that much difference than spending time glassing. I guess I see as many phone scope lmages as trail cams.

Maybe we just need to outlaw people recreating after 8/1 except for the mighty hunters


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

kdog said:


> Crossbows are allowed during archery if the person has the disability permit. I kmow a few that do and are legit. They would hunt with a bow if thier shoulders were not damaged.


Yes they are. But it is not legal for a person to use one ****ed, locked, and ready to rock as he is walking around in the the trees. The odd thing was, he was with his buddy who was carrying a bow missing an arrow in the late afternoon on the last day in thick cover. The camera showed the bow guy looking and pointing at the ground as though they were tracking something. The way the crossbow guy walked and carried himself suggests he did not need the crossbow.

But that is just an assumption and I am by no means a detective...


----------



## APD (Nov 16, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> These statements both seem to suggest advantages to me.


i guess i'll be more direct. i have never killed an animal that i've had on a trail cam. i've also never killed an animal within less than a 1/4 mile from my trail cam.


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

I've killed several animals I've had on trail cams. I shot my le bull about 50 yards from my camera. No question they offer an advantage. Utah does a poor job at regulating anything hunting related trail cams aren't going any where

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

I respect another man's property, but when a poorly placed camera caught me in a squat, I took the SIM card. Didn't want my butt posted on social media. It's getting beyond ridiculous. No doubt the owner whined online about the libtard who messed with his toy.

Whatever happened to woodsmanship?

Hunting participation continues to drop. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the expensive commercial marketing industry that hunting has become.;-)


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Of course if "we" weren't all so tied up on book animals, trail cams would not matter.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

middlefork said:


> In reality not that much difference than spending time glassing.


I guess this is true, if you say and glasses for weeks on end 24 hours per day, like a trail cam does.

Why are people so afraid to say that cameras work exactly as they were designed to work?


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> I guess this is true, if you say and glasses for weeks on end 24 hours per day, like a trail cam does.
> 
> Why are people so afraid to say that cameras work exactly as they were designed to work?


I guess I did poorly word my comment from before when I said trail cams are not an advantage. 
What I was trying to get at was that from my experiences, they are no better at finding animals than other ways.
In fact, I have seen more bucks in two hours of glassing than I do with a half dozen cameras all summer. 
Same with at night time, I can go out and spotlight for a few hours and see more game than what the cameras will show in several weeks.
The main reason I use cameras other than getting really cool pictures is I can place them in places I can't glass, like thick oak brush or timber areas.
Even in those areas I have seen more bucks in a couple hours while still hunting, thats if I can keep the wind in my favor. 
People are making this into a much bigger deal than it really is. Maybe some regulations should be considered but an all out ban is not justified.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I love my trailcam, leave it out usually year around. I like to see videos of critters in their natural state. With one exception, I havent hunted where I've had it set out ironically.

When I did draw an LE elk tag for the unit, the bull I killed was one I'd never seen before. After I killed it and pictures got shared around, one of the neighbors went through his trailcam footage and found video of my bull a week before my hunt and gave it to me. He also went back through the prior years images and actually found a picture of the bull from the previous year.

Soooo... it didnt help me at all for my hunt, but the neighbors camera added to my overall experience and memories, having him on video strutting around and even a couple bugles (good bugle at 40sec).






-DallanC


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

ridgetop said:


> Maybe some regulations should be considered but an all out ban is not justified.


I agree.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

I didnt read every single reply, but Utah does have a regulation, correct? The rule is that cameras can only be used no earlier than a week before the hunt and through the hunt for which you have a tag, something or other... I believe the FS rule could trump that, but I believe that is the regulation. I think the much bigger issue are these low life thieves stealing stuff, too bad these bums in Park City didn't get much bigger penalties, no different than the meth head stealing from garages IMHO. -O,-


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Huge29 said:


> I didnt read every single reply, but Utah does have a regulation, correct? The rule is that cameras can only be used no earlier than a week before the hunt and through the hunt for which you have a tag, something or other... I believe the FS rule could trump that, but I believe that is the regulation.


Doubt it.

https://wildlife.utah.gov/wildlife-news/2233-prepare-now-for-utah-s-archery-hunts.html



DWR said:


> *Tip 6-Trail cameras, tree stands and ATVs*
> - If you want to learn more about the wildlife in your hunting area, p_lacing a trail camera or two is a great idea. _"It's a very enjoyable hobby and a very effective way to monitor big game movements and habits," Root says. "Check with the land managing agency or the landowner for rules pertaining to trail camera use."


-DallanC


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

cameras work exactly as they were designed to work. 



ridgetop said:


> Maybe some regulations should be considered but an all out ban is not justified.


I don't think anyone, including W2U, called for a ban on cameras. Just some regulation. Some basic rules on use are better than the free-for-all we have today.

Like I mentioned before, why not utilize some of the same rules that trappers have for trapping?

Register the cameras. Place a limit on the number allowed. Tags, dates, locations, names. Make sure they are being checked. Make sure they are within their designated location. Make sure they are within their designated date range.

The biggest problem, which has already been mentioned, is who's jurisdiction would the regulation fall under? UDWR would have a hard time creating a rule that applied to the simple "recreationist" or other non-consumptive user. But, are they part of the issue that many of us have with cameras? Probably not.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

PBH said:


> UDWR would have a hard time creating a rule that applied to the simple "recreationist" or other non-consumptive user. But, are they part of the issue that many of us have with cameras? Probably not.


If the concern is privacy and not getting your genitalia on someone's camera, why would we be less concerned about non-consumptive users than hunters?

In fact, I'd argue that I'd rather end up on a hunter's camera than a non-consumptive user's camera. I think their motivation to use it for nefarious purposes would be much higher than a hunter trying to find animals.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I guess my comment was based on my assumption that there are far more cameras out in the woods that are placed by hunters than by non-consumptive users. You have a valid point.

I'm all for making everyone register, tag, comply, etc.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

As much as i gripe about the cameras, I do enjoy the pictures we see from them.

So far, this is one of my favorites:









Can't wait to see more.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

Great, now we are going to have to regulate cameras on Mars.;-)


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

PBH said:


> As much as i gripe about the cameras, I do enjoy the pictures we see from them.
> 
> So far, this is one of my favorites:
> 
> ...


Looks like speedgoat territory to me.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

PBH said:


> I'm all for making everyone register, tag, comply, etc.


Not sure I like the idea of a bureaucracy controlling yet another aspect of my life...


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

High Desert Elk said:


> Not sure I like the idea of a bureaucracy controlling yet another aspect of my life...


Neither did the people that own cabins at Panguitch Lake -- so now we have a cesspool instead of a lake. They should have followed the same model used at Fish Lake, where cabin owners were regulated to comply with sewage disposal requirements...

sometimes regulations are good things.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

High Desert Elk said:


> Not sure I like the idea of a bureaucracy controlling yet another aspect of my life...


I tend to agree. The issue always comes in how we as individuals effect the whole. One guy driving his atv across the city park probably isn't an issue. 20 guys driving over the park is. One guy cutting a Christmas tree in the forest, not a big deal. 1,000 guys cutting a tree is a problem. One guy camping all summer in the same area on Fish Lake isn't a big deal. 100 guys camping in the same area is a problem. In the end, the Bureaucracy is there to protect the whole and unfortunately that effects the individual......

As for trail cameras, they have more of an effect on areas where animals congregate. Such as water holes in the desert. Or salt licks on the mtn. It is up to us (the bureaucracy) to regulate it or not.

I personally feel that image transmitting trail cams should not be allowed on public lands. The rest gets a little grayer. 
..


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

PBH said:


> *sometimes* regulations are good things.


I am glad you say sometimes. Regulations are usually a knee jerk reaction to a problem created us humans and our lack of personal responsibility. They also bring with them a good amount of unintended consequences.

In doing a research paper in college I came to the conclusion that we humans operate at the outer most boundary of what is legal and morally correct. We push the envelope until we create a problem and therefore require intervention in the form of regulations.

Do I want cameras regulated? No! Do I think they might become or be a problem? Yes, I can see it. Is there a solution to it? Yes! It resides in personal responsibility. Just because Joe, John, Jane, Jenny and every other hunter can have 300 cameras each out there does not make it right.

If there are 50 cameras at a single waterhole the impact to the area is huge. As humans we don't care because it's not illegal and it's my right and I can do it if I want to and you can't stop me. We always fail to see the responsibility we incur by exercising a right. Exercising rights have consequences and they usually impact others not ourselves.


----------



## caddis8 (Sep 10, 2007)

Well as a former major seller of trail cameras, the conversation has been very interesting. 

The capitalist in me thinks regulations are dumb. If someone wants to put out 200 cameras, go ahead. If it is public land, then someone has the right to do that. So put a sticker on it. Then the folks who are stealing it, know whose camera they stole. The person who put it out is still out the $ and time used for the camera. 

We watched regulations carefully. Especially with cell enabled cameras. In several states it is illegal to communicate the location of a game animal via electronic means. Most legal interpretations mean live conversations- which is why most cell cams don't have a live feature. Western states are almost all more regulation heavy (funny how western US is supposed to be conservative but most regulation heavy hunting states- I find it ironic). 

I'm somewere in the middle on regulation. If it is public land only, and have to register it, not sure i see the purpose. Limiting the amount a person can put out seems silly to me. If someone wants to put out that many, go ahead. If I were a guide, I'd have a lot out since that is my livelihood. I'd want to know what was walking around the mountain and where. I want to know that anyway and I'm not a guide. 

The most I have ran was 14, and that was quite a few for an area about 1500 acres of public land in Nebraska. I was testing several brands and put them in a lot of places to test functionality. I have hunted with people in Missouri that had over 200 out. They have a map of camera and stand location and do this for herd survey and tracking critters. They also track trespassers. 

As far as seeing surprisig things....well. This one is still my favorite of what I've caught on camera (yes this is my camera). I still laugh at it. Oh and there were LOADS OF TICKS that year. Maybe he was practicing for Naked and Afraid?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

MadHunter said:


> Just because Joe, John, Jane, Jenny and every other hunter can have 300 cameras each out there does not make it right.


But until there is a rule or regulation in place saying they can't, it doesn't make it wrong just because others don't like it.

That's why regulations are needed. I agree that if we humans are left to our own devices and morals, the world would explode in nanoseconds. And everyone's "ethics" are different. Who is right and who is wrong? That is probably in the eye of the beholder, or in this case...what the laws, rules, and regulations say.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

caddis8 said:


> I'm somewere in the middle on regulation. If it is public land only, and have to register it, not sure i see the purpose. Limiting the amount a person can put out seems silly to me. If someone wants to put out that many, go ahead. *If I were a guide, I'd have a lot out since that is my livelihood. I'd want to know what was walking around the mountain and where.* I want to know that anyway and I'm not a guide.


This is interesting. I'm much less sympathetic to guides who are making their living off entirely public resources than I am the guys just trying to kill an animal on their own. I'm much more interested in regulating people making their livelihood off our public lands and public animals than I am the guy just trying to hunt.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Vanilla said:


> caddis8 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm somewere in the middle on regulation. If it is public land only, and have to register it, not sure i see the purpose. Limiting the amount a person can put out seems silly to me. If someone wants to put out that many, go ahead. *If I were a guide, I'd have a lot out since that is my livelihood. I'd want to know what was walking around the mountain and where.* I want to know that anyway and I'm not a guide.
> ...


^ this

And most public lands policy is in agreement with that philosophy. Starting with regulations targeted at commercial users would make the most sense as they already go through a permitting and regulating process.


----------



## caddis8 (Sep 10, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> This is interesting. I'm much less sympathetic to guides who are making their living off entirely public resources than I am the guys just trying to kill an animal on their own. I'm much more interested in regulating people making their livelihood off our public lands and public animals than I am the guy just trying to hunt.


I don't disagree there. That's currently the reg (or lack thereof). Of course I'll use everything I can. I'm just a guy trying to hunt also.

Just giving maybe another point of view, that of the seller. Cameras were my livelihood along with several other categories but cameras were the top revenue generator for me. Most western states were in the bottom third of stores.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

caddis8 said:


> Most western states were in the bottom third of stores.


Which I am assuming that would mean that most of your customers were placing cameras on private property hunting back in the east. Private property owners and hunters can do whatever they want with cameras on their own land.

But when your rights to use and enjoy the land are equal to my rights to use and enjoy the land, that is where the conflict can arise and therefore necessitate regulation. No different if my brother and I own a business or land 50/50 and see things differently, we're going to come up with rules that make sure neither of us infringe upon the other outside of what is acceptable for both parties equally.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

The only real way to police the regulation of registering(?) and labeling your camera is to allow hunters to pull cameras they find that are obviously left behind after a season (you can usually tell when a camera has not been kept up for several weeks/months). Otherwise it becomes theft of property, regardless of it sitting on public land. The only ones to legally police it that way are law enforcement and we all know there aren't enough out there on patrol to do that.

I think the whole game/trail camera debate is a lost cause and it will either become totally unlawful or just something you have to deal with...


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Agreed HDE, but declaring all cameras not in compliance with any rule they put in place as abandoned property would go a long ways to creating self enforcement. As has been discussed earlier in this thread, if I ran cameras and they put regulations, I’d follow them just because that is the rule, not because I was worried I’d get caught. Unfortunately that isn’t the case for too many, and a little self-accountability (saving your pocket book from removed cameras) will go a long way to help compliance with any rule put in place.


----------



## bwood (Jan 5, 2011)

I haven't begun to read this whole thread but the cams absolutely can be unethical. 

Example: If I have the money to saturate an area with cell-enabled cameras can I not sit in my truck and get nearly real-time info on where animals are at? And if I combine that with hunting as a group and sending those locations to my friends/clients? Might as well be flying a drone around finding animals to kill.


----------



## bwood (Jan 5, 2011)

Not only declare them abandoned property but put a bounty on turning them in to the DWR. 

No trail cameras 8/1-12/31. Of course I also believe that bows and muzzle loaders should be primitive weapons......


----------



## runallday (Sep 17, 2018)

*Pew Pew*

Target practice


----------



## shaner (Nov 30, 2007)

I hate it when a grouse flies up between me and a camera....


----------

