Would hate to be a resident of Utah

[Rubeng]

It’s crazy how many people think that cameras make you “less of a hunter”. I run cameras 365 days on my place, but that doesn’t mean I kill more deer them anyone around me. We use them to keep records of animals and just to see what’s around.

[Encinal]

I say we ban looking at tracks next.

This does nothing to limit harvest and everything to limit selective harvest for people with less money.

It's laughable. It's going to put more people on the ground scouting for governors tag bucks on public land and make criminals out of private landowners who are managing for wildlife and want to be more selective.

Western states may vote red, but "public landowners" are socialist as hell.

[ACbob]

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.

Why is about the outfitters? Not trying to be snarky at all.

[Craw3773]

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

Bwahaha!

Trust us... it's going to be ok... for us...

[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!

[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.

[Speedgoat]

I don't see how that is constitutional

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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?

[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

[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.