# Nevada just restricted trail cameras



## Clarq

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

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

Excessive, or reasonable?

Is something similar coming to Utah any time soon?


----------



## DallanC

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



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




-DallanC


----------



## CPAjeff

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


----------



## taxidermist

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


----------



## 3arabians

CPAjeff said:


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


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

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## Packout

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

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

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

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


----------



## Springville Shooter

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


----------



## mtnrunner260

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


----------



## Critter

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

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

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


----------



## DallanC

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




-DallanC


----------



## High Desert Elk

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


----------



## sheepassassin

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

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

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


----------



## GaryFish

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

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

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


----------



## CAExpat

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


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


----------



## BPturkeys

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


----------



## DallanC

BPturkeys said:


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


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

-DallanC


----------



## katorade

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


----------



## katorade

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


----------



## DallanC

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



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





-DallanC


----------



## middlefork

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


----------



## DallanC

middlefork said:


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


That thought right there predominantly affects my political voting. Technology is progressing so fast we need Government leaders who understand it and can manage it correctly.

Without getting political, that was my biggest beef with Hillary. She fully admitted she didn't understand even the basics of how email works. We need presidents, senators and representatives who understand Tech. Its one reason I always voted against Hatch.

If a leader at this point and time cant understand a IP address, let alone MAC or NAT address, they should be disqualified. Otherwise, how can they possibly understand the ramifications of 3D printing (is it a copyright violation to 3D print a micky mouse in your house? What about a AR15 lower?), torrent packets, spoofing, vpns, trailcameras ... lord the list is endless.

-DallanC


----------



## Fishrmn

taxidermist said:


> I think it's a good thing. Using technology (trail cams, night vision, etc.) I believe is NOT considered "Fair Chase". It's like, your neighbor across the street checking your significant other out with the spotting scope. Just saying...&#8230;&#8230; That's my two bitts worth.


So... are we going to ban spotting scopes? Binoculars?

⫸<{{{{{⦅°>


----------



## Springville Shooter

Fishrmn said:


> So... are we going to ban spotting scopes? Binoculars?
> 
> Nope, just rangefinders.------SS


----------



## CAExpat

> Nope, just rangefinders


So what's the argument against rangefinders? Or did I miss the joke?


----------



## taxidermist

Fishrmn said:


> So... are we going to ban spotting scopes? Binoculars?
> 
> ⫸<{{{{{⦅°>


 No, just walk across the street and slap the neighbor around some.


----------



## Fishrmn

taxidermist said:


> No, just walk across the street and slap the neighbor around some.


Then how 'bout we not ban trail cams, and just slap the guys who abuse them around some?

⫸<{{{{{⦅°>


----------



## PBH

Fishrmn said:


> Then how 'bout we not ban trail cams, and just slap the guys who abuse them around some?
> 
> ⫸<{{{{{⦅°>


I'd rather ban them, like Nevada, just prior to the hunts starting.


----------



## Critter

I think that what Nevada did was similar to what Montana set up a few years ago. They were worried that with the new technology that people could scout deer and elk from their living rooms sitting in their shorts. The cameras would send them pictures or videos in live time where you could see exactly what was happening at that camera site.

I still think that it would be a good idea that for anything that is left in the field longer than lets say overnight needs to be registered with a sticker on the item being left. It wouldn't matter if it was a trail camera, tree stand, or a popup blind..


----------



## Fishrmn

PBH said:


> I'd rather ban them, like Nevada, just prior to the hunts starting.


I have two of them out from May through November. I've set one up through the winter twice. They aren't for hunting. They're for wildlife viewing. They shouldn't be banned. One school shooter doesn't make AR15s bad. One problem with trail cameras doesn't mean we should ban them either. The kind that can send real time pictures could be a problem. But only during hunting hours.

⫸<{{{{{⦅°>


----------



## DallanC

Fishrmn said:


> I have two of them out from May through November. I've set one up through the winter twice. They aren't for hunting. They're for wildlife viewing. They shouldn't be banned.


I had that thought as well... specifically non-hunters who like to photograph wildlife and use trail cams to get pictures of them in their natural habitat.

-DallanC


----------



## Critter

That is a problem that they would need to address. It is a lot like hunters being required to wear hunter orange but if you are just out stumbling around in the hills you don't need to


----------



## PBH

DallanC said:


> I had that thought as well... specifically non-hunters who like to photograph wildlife and use trail cams to get pictures of them in their natural habitat.
> 
> -DallanC


that shouldn't matter. The intended use of the trail cam makes no difference.

People that hunt the bird refuges have to have a federal stamp. The same rule applies to photographers taking pictures of birds on that same refuge. It doesn't matter if you are hunting or not, the rule still applies. Why would trail cameras be any different?

The issue here is not limited only to those with a hunting permit. It also applies to guides / outfitters, photographers, pedophiles, and techno geeks. All across the board. If you're using a trail camera, it applies to you.


----------



## RandomElk16

Critter said:


> I think that what Nevada did was similar to what Montana set up a few years ago. They were worried that with the new technology that people could scout deer and elk from their living rooms sitting in their shorts. The cameras would send them pictures or videos in live time where you could see exactly what was happening at that camera site.
> 
> I still think that it would be a good idea that for anything that is left in the field longer than lets say overnight needs to be registered with a sticker on the item being left. It wouldn't matter if it was a trail camera, tree stand, or a popup blind..


I agree on the registration. As far as living room scouting - The same groups that allow long range muzzleloaders are against technology? What's more of an unfair advantage to animals? I don't use cams - but I can, you can, anyone can. It doesn't provide one person with an advantage over another, and the advantage on the animal is minimal compared to weapon advances, party hunting... err, mentoring, etc..

We do have an unfair advantage to not being rich. Arizona auctioned that elk tag and the guy got a 430" with Mossback (A3). BUT - these laws have a real interest in the animal lol.



DallanC said:


> I had that thought as well... specifically non-hunters who like to photograph wildlife and use trail cams to get pictures of them in their natural habitat.
> 
> -DallanC


Right - Are scientists somehow exempt from this? If so - WHY?

In all honesty - I am split on this. I don't use trail cams besides monitoring private property. But - they also have never hurt me.


----------



## GaryFish

It goes back to a guy thinking he "owns" an animal because he's been watching it on his trail cam. And then someone else shoots it, and you've got a conflict on your hands. Animals really don't care about trail cams. That's why every guy that has one well placed, as a picture of an elk or deer or bear or something licking it. It's all about dealing with the A-holes that get in fights because they have trail cams out there and think it equates ownership, like a bunch of dogs marking their territory. About 99% of hunting regulation has absolutely nothing to do with the animals - it is all about the people. And really, it is about dealing with like 5% of the people. They are the same guys that ignore "stay on the trail" rules with their 4 wheelers and tear a place up. They are the same guys that leave a pile of empty PBR cans half burned in the 8 different camp fire rings they make. They are the same guys glass the mountain with their rifle scope and think it is ok to point their rifle at you so they can see you on the next ridge. They are the same guys that leave an downed animal because the "4th was a bit too short" and they have a pic of a bigger one on the trail cam that they are chasing. These are the same guys that drive through your decoy spread while giving a one finger wave. So, yea. Rules like this are for the bunch of delta bravos that screw everything up for the rest of us.


----------



## PBH

GaryFish said:


> It goes back to a guy thinking he "owns" an animal because he's been watching it on his trail cam. And then someone else shoots it..


It's worse than that. Just look at numerous discussions from the past on this very site...

How many times has someone made a comment like "I scouted all summer long and never saw a single person in that area. Then opening day comes and all these other people show up in my area..."

These cameras give people a sense of entitlement. And it isn't limited to just hunters.

the penultimate thing I want to see while I'm out hunting is some "outfitter" checking the memory card on a camera. I can handle running into other hunters -- but running into guys out "scouting" during the archery hunt is a bunch of crap...

What ever happened to the thrill of not knowing what you might see? I guess this is why fishing continues to lure people into hopes of catching "the big one". The mystery of not knowing what lurks in those blue depths continues to pull at anglers. With hunting there is no mystery. Just names. Kickstand. Brutus. Bullwinkle. 1-Eye. Crabs.


----------



## Fishrmn

PBH said:


> the penultimate thing I want to see while I'm out hunting is some "outfitter" checking the memory card on a camera. I can handle running into other hunters -- but running into guys out "scouting" during the archery hunt is a bunch of crap...
> 
> What ever happened to the thrill of not knowing what you might see? I guess this is why fishing continues to lure people into hopes of catching "the big one". The mystery of not knowing what lurks in those blue depths continues to pull at anglers. With hunting there is no mystery. Just names. Kickstand. Brutus. Bullwinkle. 1-Eye. Crabs.


What's wrong with scouting?

I guess you don't have a fish finder on your boat? What about people who use a depth finder, but aren't fishing?

⫸<{{{{{⦅°>


----------



## sheepassassin

PBH said:


> that shouldn't matter. The intended use of the trail cam makes no difference.
> 
> People that hunt the bird refuges have to have a federal stamp. The same rule applies to photographers taking pictures of birds on that same refuge. It doesn't matter if you are hunting or not, the rule still applies. Why would trail cameras be any different?
> 
> The issue here is not limited only to those with a hunting permit. It also applies to guides / outfitters, photographers, pedophiles, and techno geeks. All across the board. If you're using a trail camera, it applies to you.


A- you need a federal stamp to hunt waterfowl ANYWHERE. Not just on federal refuges

B- bird lovers and photographers are NOT required to purchase the stamp that hunters are. Doesn't matter if they are on the federal refuge or not.

They bitch and moan about guys shooting the cute fluffy little birds, but seem to forget who really funds the projects and habitat these birds rely on


----------



## PBH

Fishrmn said:


> What's wrong with scouting?


scouting is fine. Just don't do it during a hunt. More specifically, don't scout in the area I'm hunting. :smile:

are you really comparing a sonar on a boat to a trail camera?
Wouldn't a better comparison be a stationary camera set up underwater on some structure? How would you feel if you were fishing a spot and someone showed up with snorkel gear to "check their camera" in that same spot you were fishing? "don't mind me -- just swimming in your fishing hole to pull my memory card".

while we are at it, can we outlaw ATVs during the hunts too?


----------



## PBH

sheepassassin said:


> B- bird lovers and photographers are NOT required to purchase the stamp that hunters are. Doesn't matter if they are on the federal refuge or not.
> 
> They bitch and moan about guys shooting the cute fluffy little birds, but seem to forget who really funds the projects and habitat these birds rely on


well.....****. They should!


----------



## Fishrmn

How 'bout we just outlaw ATVs.

You're telling me that people don't use fish finders to scout? Locate fish? Locate structure? Or that they don't offer an advantage that someone who doesn't use electronics doesn't enjoy?

⫸<{{{{{⦅°>


----------



## PBH

Fishrmn said:


> How 'bout we just outlaw ATVs.


:thumb:



Fishrmn said:


> You're telling me that people don't use fish finders to scout? Locate fish? Locate structure? Or that they don't offer an advantage that someone who doesn't use electronics doesn't enjoy?


I said no such thing.

My issue with trail cameras has nothing to do with any advantage that one person has over another. Just like a sonar, they can certainly help locate animals. That's fine. That's not my problem.

I've never had an angler using a sonar interfere with another anglers activities because he was checking his sonar. That's something nice about a sonar. I don't have to go drive my boat right up next to another anchored boat to check and see if there are any fish down next to their baits. I'm not intruding on them by using my equipment.

How do you check your camera?


----------



## GaryFish

fish finders to me are akin to a pair of binoculars while hunting. They give you real time information for the spot you are in, while you are there. If you left one in a spot attached to a post or a log, or a buoy or something and it recorded when fish passed through and all the conditions, that would be similar to a trail cam. 

The issue I see, is that from about September 1, there is some kind of hunt open, from archery, to doves, rabbits, bears, or whatever. Heck, in Idaho, bear season is a 365 day proposition. So if you don't allow the cams during a hunt, well, then you don't allow cams.


----------



## Fishrmn

PBH said:


> How do you check your camera?


I walk up to it and retrieve the SD card. But I've never seen another human being while I've been at my cameras.

⫸<{{{{{⦅°>


----------



## PBH

Fishrmn said:


> I walk up to it and retrieve the SD card. But I've never seen another human being while I've been at my cameras.


I'm assuming that most people use a similar method to check their cards.
I'm also going to assume that there are some people, a small minority group that gives a black eye to the rest, that also never see another person while checking their cards from June through July and into August.

And then the hunt starts. And there now there are other people hunting in that same area. And the guy with the camera who's been scouting all summer long is now upset because other people have encroached on his area! How dare them! He's been scouting all summer! Where have the others been? Why haven't they put forth the effort of scouting? He knows they haven't, because he has 14 cameras in the area with no pictures of the other hunters!

Further, the other hunters are also upset because some guy who isn't even hunting is out checking his cameras and scaring all the deer while he's doing it!

It's all hyperbole.
It's never actually happened to me.
I've had more hunts screwed up by grouse hunters and shed hunters than camera checkers.


----------



## 7mm Reloaded

DallanC said:


> Radio trackers will be next. Saw a thing on tv recently that scientists have trackers so small they put some on Monarch Butterfly's to track how far they can cover in a day during their migration. That's pretty darn amazing technology.
> 
> A guy could place some in super sticky glue along game trails that would stick to hair like ticks. Its coming soon if not already happening.
> 
> -DallanC


 Ya Trump better check that soccer ball


----------



## Fishrmn

PBH said:


> And then the hunt starts. And there now there are other people hunting in that same area. And the guy with the camera who's been scouting all summer long is now upset because other people have encroached on his area! How dare them! He's been scouting all summer! Where have the others been? Why haven't they put forth the effort of scouting? He knows they haven't, because he has 14 cameras in the area with no pictures of the other hunters!
> 
> Further, the other hunters are also upset because some guy who isn't even hunting is out checking his cameras and scaring all the deer while he's doing it!


So, I guess we all have to stay out of the woods when someone is hunting? No camping? No horseback riding? No photography? No hiking? No fishing?

What if your hunt starts a couple of weeks later than someone else's? They get to use trail cameras right up until the day of their hunt, but you have to remove your camera two weeks before your hunt starts?

Laws won't turn people into saints. Cameras don't guarantee success.

⫸<{{{{{⦅°>


----------



## sheepassassin

Opening morning 2012 archery elk hunt I had a camera checker royally hose me, intentionally. I had glassed up a herd of elk, on the manti. I was waiting to see which way they would feed before I tried to get close for a shot. About 30 minuets after first light, a guy dressed in a white shirt and blue jeans tops the ridge about 30 yards below me and stops to look at the obvious group of elk at the basin. I whistled at him to get his attention cuz I assumed he didn’t know i was there. He looks at me, waves and then proceeds to walk straight at the group of elk, with no effort at all to try and conceal his movement or noise. Of course the elk blow out after just a few seconds of this and are gone. Pissed off of course, I watched to see what made him more entitled than me to this hill and I see him go check 2 cameras in this basin. I confronted him about it later that morning and he told me that he “had been watching deer all summer and he’d been muzzy deer hunting that canyon longer than I’d been alive. Don’t have to apologize to some kid for using public land any day I’d like.” 

So I’m all for cameras, but only when you respect EVERYONE else who may also be using that same area at the same time


----------



## PBH

Fishrmn said:


> So, I guess we all have to stay out of the woods when someone is hunting?


You think we could get that? It sounds nice to me...



Fishrmn said:


> What if your hunt starts a couple of weeks later than someone else's? They get to use trail cameras right up until the day of their hunt, but you have to remove your camera two weeks before your hunt starts?


Well...Nevada picked a date. I think August 1 - December 31 sounds pretty good. That gives everyone Jan 1 - July 31 to use them.

:grin:


----------



## RandomElk16

Am I reading this wrong, or has it been inferred that if we get rid of trail cams... We won't run into ***holes during our hunt, fights won't happen over "their animal", and our hunts will never be disturbed?


Who is handing out the tinfoil hats here in lala land?


----------



## Rdog

Springville Shooter said:


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


While I have really strong opinions about long range "hunting" that sounds like you may agree with. I think that it would be a disservice to the animals we hunt to ban rangefinders. It means more wounded animals because we would be guessing at the yardage and making less lethal shots. There is a big difference between 30 and 50 yards with my bow. Maybe limit them to only range out to 400-500 yards or so? Problem is, there will always be that person that thinks it's ethical to take a mile long shot regardless of if they have a rangefinder or not.


----------



## Pokesmole

Well with my experience (only used the cam one season) but i got handfuls of nice bucks in photos but couldn't find any of them during the season. In fact I ended up killing a real small buck towards the end of the hunt. So at least in my case it didn't provide much of an advantage.


----------



## stillhunterman

Banning cams during certain parts of the year surely doesn't hurt my feel goods any. Personally I don't care for em, but I know lots of others enjoy them for various reasons. The one honestly good reason to have a few is to get those fuzzy, blurry, totally out of focus sasquatch shots to post up on youtube...:shock:


----------



## GaryFish

RandomElk16 said:


> Am I reading this wrong, or has it been inferred that if we get rid of trail cams... We won't run into ***holes during our hunt, fights won't happen over "their animal", and our hunts will never be disturbed?


Nah. Not at all. Trail cams are just one more thing for the Delta Bravos, to be Delta Bravos about. They'll be out there with or without trail cams. Always have been, always will be. Like I said, the same dudes ruining the whole deal over trail cams are the ones ruining it for the four wheeler crowd, duck hunters, fishermen, etc... They are the ones leaving foam worm boxes on the lake shores, tossing empty beer cans in the lake, pioneering a new 4 wheeler trail, and purposefully plowing the airboat through your decoy spread while giving the middle finger wave. Trail cams are just one more thing they can be a**holes over.


----------



## sheepassassin

GaryFish said:


> and purposefully plowing the airboat through your decoy spread while giving the middle finger wave


I've been around airboats and other airboat hunters my whole life and have never had one drive through my spread on purpose. And everyone that I've know would never purposefully drive through someone else's spread. I have on rare occasion had to drive through someone's spread when a foot soldier decides to string his entire decoy spread across the narrow channel that is the only option for an airboat to use when coming from the launch to access the main lake. And if there was a middle finger wave going on, it started with the owner of the decoys.

Now the mudbuddy crowd is a completely different story... talk about entitlement


----------



## CPAjeff

I just finished listening to a podcast with Randy Newberg and Cory Jacobsen about the use of trail cameras in their assoicated states. It was interesting to hear about their experiences (i.e. Randy has never used them and Cory uses them to find cow elk) and a little more into the story about why Arizona banned them within a 1/4 mile radius of water sources.

One topic that was brought up was about the harassment that occurs to wildlife, in arid climates, with trail cameras posted on water sources and the constant human appearances to those water sources - thus displacing animals. Another thing that Cory talked about was finding where the cow elk are in July and August, because that's where the bulls will move to during the rut. Two different examples of things I never had really thought much before about . . .


----------



## Critter

One thing on Arizona is that they have restricted camping within 1/4 mile of developed water sources for a long time.


----------



## middlefork

Camera's don't bother me much, but I can certainly see that they might affect the animals using water holes.
But if it were about the animals and not the people it would make more sense to ban people within a certain radius of water. But we all know that ain't gonna happen :rotfl:


----------



## muddydogs

sheepassassin said:


> Opening morning 2012 archery elk hunt I had a camera checker royally hose me, intentionally. I had glassed up a herd of elk, on the manti. I was waiting to see which way they would feed before I tried to get close for a shot. About 30 minuets after first light, a guy dressed in a white shirt and blue jeans tops the ridge about 30 yards below me and stops to look at the obvious group of elk at the basin. I whistled at him to get his attention cuz I assumed he didn't know i was there. He looks at me, waves and then proceeds to walk straight at the group of elk, with no effort at all to try and conceal his movement or noise. Of course the elk blow out after just a few seconds of this and are gone. Pissed off of course, I watched to see what made him more entitled than me to this hill and I see him go check 2 cameras in this basin. I confronted him about it later that morning and he told me that he "had been watching deer all summer and he'd been muzzy deer hunting that canyon longer than I'd been alive. Don't have to apologize to some kid for using public land any day I'd like."
> 
> So I'm all for cameras, but only when you respect EVERYONE else who may also be using that same area at the same time


This can happen with anything. A few years ago during the muzzy deer season we were chasing cow elk and had a guy walk up the side of an opening with his dog and run off a herd of elk. Since he didn't have a firearm but was dressed like a hunter we figured he was scouting. Weather checking camera's or scouting you would think other hunters would respect other hunting seasons and stay out of the woods or at least wait until midday as to not mess up anothers hunt. I know I check hunt dates if I want to scout late summer so I'm one less jerk off in the woods, I even try to be considerate of the lowly bow hunters.


----------



## Packout

Drones? Trail cams? Well here is the new tech--






..


----------



## DallanC

That looks like a blast to use. Wonder how drastic the learning curve is to learn to ride one... and how long the flight time is.


Millenials are too lazy for that though... they'd want a gun attached to it so they can fly it around with a game controller and shoot animals from their moms couch.

PS: 8k video... geebus.


-DallanC


----------



## Critter

There could be a problem if it lost power and you were not high enough to deploy the parachute.


----------

