Would hate to be a resident of Utah

[Uncle_Milty]

Maybe they will ban live scan for fishing then!?!?!?

[TexasTrophyBowhunter]

Maybe they will ban live scan for fishing then!?!?!?

I agree with this! It’s not really fishing anymore!

On another note im going to start looking into the Utah classified sections for some good deals on game cameras lol [emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tps7742]

Did I read it right that they banned them on private land??? Screw that…I was trying to catch poachers….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From the article
"This new rule does not apply to government or educational organizations gathering wildlife information, private landowners who are monitoring their property for trespass or active agricultural operations or cities involved in the urban deer program."

[Landrover]

Works for me also.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

[Hogmauler]

Maybe they will ban live scan for fishing then!?!?!?

Boom! Uh oh! That’s coming. I’ve never used a game camera to hunt a pati ulnar animal. Primarily because I’ve never hunted on a place with trophy animals. I simply enjoy watching animals be animals. Have any of y’all ever had an animal show up on time? Right when you expected? If so it’s due to the feeder and the conditioning it creates.

[BTLowry]

If you have to have a game cam to kill an animal then you are probably not much of a hunter

Now the private land thing I don't agree with

[Craw3773]

Private land is unconstitutional imo. For public land Im torn. I agree with the promotion of fair chase principles but at the same time its the public’s land, not the governments.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please elaborate. How would this be unconstitutional?

Also, if it's "the publics" land, wouldn't that be the exact place where representatives chosen by the public would have a responsibility to do what they see best for the public?

[WyoBull]

Oh, the drama, the drama! What did we do before all this technology?
We actually hunted and killed big animals.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Low Fence]

Good move.

The government can and should regulate means and methods for harvesting wildlife resources of the state (people), no matter where they are taken.
Y’all think spotlighting on private property is OK?

But I work days and only have nights off to hunt. The guberment wants everyone to have equal opportunity… that was the reasoning behind arrow guns. It’s such a joke now with equipment, technology and fences they should just say

“Here ya go, you get 2 tags. Kill them however you want so long as not trespassing”

People that follow rules follow rules…. Those that don’t, don’t

[glen]

I’m not a camera guy but my opinion. On public land I don’t have an issue with rules (laws). No motorized vehicles, no cameras, etc. but as far as private lands this is wrong and should not even be in question

[wytex]

Great move on their part. The outfitters were going crazy with cams on waterholes etc..
Wish all states would ban them for hunting, especially cell cams, they have been banned in many states.

[Ætheling]

Please elaborate. How would this be unconstitutional?

Also, if it's "the publics" land, wouldn't that be the exact place where representatives chosen by the public would have a responsibility to do what they see best for the public?

You serious? My points are very clear and require no further elaboration.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Speedgoat]

I don't see how that is constitutional

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Craw3773]

You serious? My points are very clear and require no further elaboration.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Try reading the constitution again..... I mean for the first time. Then explain what section utilizing a camera to assist in the taking of a natural resource would fall under.

Secondly, please explain how a properly elected government does not have the right to regulate a government owned resource.

This entire discussion to me is hilarious. I don't care about tree cams, hell I just checked one, because I like watching the deer when I can't hunt. That being said, this is a state purview, and the state decided they wanted to lower the efficacy of hunters.

That is 1 of 2 ways to limit harvest, and preserve resources. The other is to issue less tags. While some would argue that the state just wants more money, maybe they are trying to give more opportunity.

[Nicholson84]

Try reading the constitution again..... I mean for the first time. Then explain what section utilizing a camera to assist in the taking of a natural resource would fall under.

Secondly, please explain how a properly elected government does not have the right to regulate a government owned resource.

This entire discussion to me is hilarious. I don't care about tree cams, hell I just checked one, because I like watching the deer when I can't hunt. That being said, this is a state purview, and the state decided they wanted to lower the efficacy of hunters.

That is 1 of 2 ways to limit harvest, and preserve resources. The other is to issue less tags. While some would argue that the state just wants more money, maybe they are trying to give more opportunity.

Hello, we are from the government and here to help! Wake up man!