B&C Rules Cell Cams Not Fair Chase

[stash59]

Yes the question is who decides where to draw the line? I think a lot of archery hunters would feel like taking an animal at 150 yards. With archery gear during an archery only season. Would border on being an unfair advantage! I know there are a few archers out there capable of doing this. And some admittedly have done so! So should compound bows with sights be banned for everyone? Because of the slight number of individuals capable of pulling this kind of feat off?

I believe B&C doesn't allow any animals in their book. If a hunter had taken it. Within so many hours after flying in a plane! But they haven't banned all animals taken. Where flying in a plane was how the hunter reached their destination! So why not something similar with cell cameras. As far as how each state regards the use of these tools. If it causes a detriment to the animals. Alters overall well being of the herd. Causes too many animals to be harvested. Then some type of restriction would be in order!!!

A hunter using a cell cam to gain intel on an area 100's or 1000's of miles from their home! Is far different then the hunter switching a stand sight because they just got a photo on their phone! While hunting!!! As far as state laws against this! Who cares! How is using intel in this way. Any different then choosing to use a sighted compound bow and expandable broadheads. Over a DIY made selfbow with stone points! If the hunter is happy in how the adventure was had. Isn't that what counts? A states job is to manage the overall well being of the game animals. Not overly decide what is and isn't ethical!!

If you don't like the rules an organization has for record keeping! Don't support them in any way. Including not entering your animals in their books. Let them have their chest thumping show!!!

[Swedishbowhunter]

Yes the question is who decides where to draw the line? I think a lot of archery hunters would feel like taking an animal at 150 yards. With archery gear during an archery only season. Would border on being an unfair advantage! I know there are a few archers out there capable of doing this. And some admittedly have done so! So should compound bows with sights be banned for everyone? Because of the slight number of individuals capable of pulling this kind of feat off?

I believe B&C doesn't allow any animals in their book. If a hunter had taken it. Within so many hours after flying in a plane! But they haven't banned all animals taken. Where flying in a plane was how the hunter reached their destination! So why not something similar with cell cameras. As far as how each state regards the use of these tools. If it causes a detriment to the animals. Alters overall well being of the herd. Causes too many animals to be harvested. Then some type of restriction would be in order!!!

A hunter using a cell cam to gain intel on an area 100's or 1000's of miles from their home! Is far different then the hunter switching a stand sight because they just got a photo on their phone! While hunting!!! As far as state laws against this! Who cares! How is using intel in this way. Any different then choosing to use a sighted compound bow and expandable broadheads. Over a DIY made selfbow with stone points! If the hunter is happy in how the adventure was had. Isn't that what counts? A states job is to manage the overall well being of the game animals. Not overly decide what is and isn't ethical!!

If you don't like the rules an organization has for record keeping! Don't support them in any way. Including not entering your animals in their books. Let them have their chest thumping show!!!

Interesting points, I guess we all have are own personal view on what is ethical for ourselves. The ethics of fair chase as written by conservation clubs like P&Y and B&C, are what they consider to be the bare minimum of ethical standards. Just because something is legal, it may be unethical.
As far as flying and hunting, those are laws set by individual states as well as part of their rules of fair chase. I believe we would all agree that flying over a mountain range spotting some goats bedded on a point, radioing to a hunter on the ground their location so they can sneak up on them and shoot them is illegal and unethical. So how much different is it to have a cell cam sending you an animals exact location while you are hunting so you can run to the other end of the property to shoot it? Again going back to your analogy that just because some use a bow with a sight to take unethical shots hence we should get rid of all bows with sights, does this mean any deer taken with a cell cam is unethical and we should get rid of them? Absolutely not, & groups like B&C are not saying you cant use cell cams ethically.
As far as a chest thumping show.....please take time to visit their websites and learn a little bit more about B&C and P&Y, i think you may change your opinion of these organizations. The records program is such a small part of what they are all about

[dan]

This whole post is rather entertaining... I would find it perfectly ethical for a farmer to kill one of his cows for food... Would you? I would also find it ethical to go to a farm and pay the farmer to slaughter the cow I pick... I know people who buy a cow elk every year from an elk farm and go shoot it and butcher it themselves... Are they supposed to be deemed unethical? My point is that ethics and morals are not governed by rules made by uppity guys who smoke pipes and know more than us... They are goverened by the the individual and the reasons he is killing the animal... Its not up to me to decide how a man feeds his family, or rids his farm of deer damaging his crops... The real reason someone has a problem with someone else using a tool that they dont is because they deem hunting as a compitition and they are worried that guy will kill his buck, or that he will do better than him... Huntimg deer over a food plot on private land is a far superior way of killing deer than using a cell cam... And I would ask of thats ethical, but I actually know some of you that hunt public would sadly say yep, it should. be banned along with everything in hunting that individual does not use...

[Tim H]

Reading all of these posts going back and forth, it seems people are essentially debating the semantics of "fair chase". Honestly I think there isn't a one size fits all when it comes to fair chase. Is it fair to use a treestand, compound bow, over a food plot, on pristine managed land, of deer that have been conditioned to tolerate human presence? To some it might be, and to others it's not. Its just opinion and no one is better than the other.

[Jonny]

Everybody should decide for themselves what's ethical and not ethical. Stay within the law and go make yourself happy.

And honestly, the last group that's going to change my opinion of ethical is the boone and crockett club. Making hunting a game of inches and turning it into a measuring contest amongst hunters in my opinion is the root cause of all the bickering and negativity we see. People just acting jealous because so and so got a bigger buck. Then its a game of excuses or complaining because you don't like how they hunt. Either because you can't do it, or you just need to make an excuse for them shooting a buck you didn't.

Hunt for your own goals. Decide for yourself what's ethical and not ethical.

[Dewey]

This thread has absolutely nothing to do with what we feel is ethical or what we feel is unethical. It’s Boone & Crockets club and they can make the rules however they want to enter in it. If that means not allowing a buck to be entered if cell cams were used to kill it that’s their right. More power to them. I fully support B&C’s rules of fair chase.


Fair Chase Statement


FAIR CHASE, as defined by the Boone and Crockett Club, is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper or unfair advantage over the game animals.

HUNTER ETHICS
Fundamental to all hunting is the concept of supporting the conservation of natural resources. Modern hunting involves the regulated harvest of individual animals in a manner that conserves, protects, and perpetuates the hunted population, known as sustainable use. The hunter engages in a one-to-one relationship with the quarry and his or her hunting should be guided by a hierarchy of ethics related to hunting, which includes the following tenets:

Obey all applicable laws and regulations.
Respect the customs of the locale where the hunting occurs.
Exercise a personal code of behavior that reflects favorably on your abilities and sensibilities as a hunter.
Attain and maintain the skills necessary to make the kill as certain and quick as possible.
Behave in a way that will bring no dishonor to either the hunter, the hunted, or the environment.
Recognize that these tenets are intended to enhance the hunter's experience of the relationship between predator and prey, which is one of the most fundamental relationships of humans and their environment.

[Dewey]

I think this section sums it up well.



Is Legal Always Ethical? - Hunt Fair Chase

“Personal choice” is mentioned many times throughout this website. There is no escaping the fact that hunting itself is a personal experience, preceded by personal choices. The issue of legal versus ethical raises another very important personal choice question.

Certainly if something is illegal, the choice has already been made. It’s not ethical. This doesn’t mean however if something is legal that it is always ethical, but there are exceptions.

A good example today of something that is in illegal, but many consider unethical is extreme long-range shooting. Some hunters are secure in taking a rifle shot at a deer from 500 yards away. They practice at these distances and are confident in their equipment and ability to make a clean, accurate shot. They know their maximum-effective range across all hunting conditions. Still, other hunters would never think of taking a shot at this distance. It’s legal. There is nothing in the game regulations about maximum-allowable distances, yet many will not take that shot. Why? Some do not have experience with this type of shooting and all the variables that can come into play. Others feel the risk is too high for wounding and therefore, the practice is unethical. Others with the skill and confidence for the shot will choose to test their other skills and want to engage the animal by way of a closer stalk.

“Ethical behavior is doing the right thing when no one else is watching—even when doing the wrong thing is legal.”―Aldo Leopold

One exception to the question of legal versus ethical has to do with where we hunt. In different states, provinces, and countries there are different traditional hunting methods that are legal and acceptable, but the same method can be illegal elsewhere. Baiting is one example. The use of hounds is another. Traditions differ, and traditions in hunting are important. It is essential, and hunters are too few, to waste our energy and resources fighting among ourselves over such differences. It is essential then that we accept these different traditions.

The point is, there are many things in the hunting world that are legal, yet can be considered by some to be unethical. A good rule of thumb then would be; it’s not only about just what is legal, but also what’s honorable and ethical.

[muddy]

No way I'm reading all 9 pages, but good riddance to cell cams in that state, or any state. I have a buddy who works for AZ fish and game and our last conversation was about cell cam bans. As stated, there can be nearly 30-40 cameras over water holes, majorly disrupting animals ability to get adequate water during summer months. During season there are several stands within 100 yards of water holes and if you only see 2 guys come in to check cams you had a good hunt.

Personally, I feel cell cams should be banned on all public/federal lands. I know several guys who get a cell cam pic and immediately head out to try and get on a deer they "know is in the area" How about someone (yes I knew someone who did this) that had a cell cam on an corn pile and when the buck showed up they ran out and set up "somewhere" within a couple hundred yards of the bait. Not illegal if you're "X" distance from the corn either.

Using cell cams to monitor a driveway or 6, cool, go for it, good luck getting your trespassers. On a food plot or scrape line, that's sorta rubbing me the wrong way also. Too much technology out there IMO.

[SaddleMaster]

Below is the Indiana Code restricting the use of drones during hunting season. I would like to see cell cams added to this.

IC 14-22-6-16 Use of unmanned aerial vehicles to aid hunting
(c) During the period:
(1) beginning fourteen (14) days before the hunting season for a particular wild animal species; and
(2) ending upon the expiration of legal hunting hours on the last day of the hunting season;
a person may not knowingly use an unmanned aerial vehicle (as defined by IC 35-31.5-2-342.3) to search for, scout, locate, or detect a wild animal to which the hunting season applies as an aid to take the wild animal.

[Boogieman1]

No way I'm reading all 9 pages, but good riddance to cell cams in that state, or any state. I have a buddy who works for AZ fish and game and our last conversation was about cell cam bans. As stated, there can be nearly 30-40 cameras over water holes, majorly disrupting animals ability to get adequate water during summer months. During season there are several stands within 100 yards of water holes and if you only see 2 guys come in to check cams you had a good hunt.

Personally, I feel cell cams should be banned on all public/federal lands. I know several guys who get a cell cam pic and immediately head out to try and get on a deer they "know is in the area" How about someone (yes I knew someone who did this) that had a cell cam on an corn pile and when the buck showed up they ran out and set up "somewhere" within a couple hundred yards of the bait. Not illegal if you're "X" distance from the corn either.

Using cell cams to monitor a driveway or 6, cool, go for it, good luck getting your trespassers. On a food plot or scrape line, that's sorta rubbing me the wrong way also. Too much technology out there IMO.

Well said MuddBug! Every defense I’ve heard for them would work with a regular camera. Nothing makes them seem good to me. Sure a newbie just getting started would prob not benefit. But anyone who has a clue could remove all obstacles. For example say one is all about primary beds. Put the camera over those and u know ahead of time where to focus efforts. I don’t like em. I don’t think it’s fair for the kill at all costs types.

I’m gonna go head and say the dirty…. You give me a scoped weapon with the ability to hide behind a shooting stick and a few cell cams I would guarantee I whack, smoke, rotisserie, charbroil the biggest buck in the area routinely. Yes I said it! And with minimal effort.

[Swedishbowhunter]

This whole post is rather entertaining... I would find it perfectly ethical for a farmer to kill one of his cows for food... Would you? I would also find it ethical to go to a farm and pay the farmer to slaughter the cow I pick... I know people who buy a cow elk every year from an elk farm and go shoot it and butcher it themselves... Are they supposed to be deemed unethical? My point is that ethics and morals are not governed by rules made by uppity guys who smoke pipes and know more than us... They are goverened by the the individual and the reasons he is killing the animal... Its not up to me to decide how a man feeds his family, or rids his farm of deer damaging his crops... The real reason someone has a problem with someone else using a tool that they dont is because they deem hunting as a compitition and they are worried that guy will kill his buck, or that he will do better than him... Huntimg deer over a food plot on private land is a far superior way of killing deer than using a cell cam... And I would ask of thats ethical, but I actually know some of you that hunt public would sadly say yep, it should. be banned along with everything in hunting that individual does not use...

I see your point, and no I dont believe anyone would say thats unethical. But the farmers selling his beef or elk is a bit different, as they are domestic animals in a fence, there is no fair chase in that entire scenario. As far as someone viewing it as a competition and worrying about someone killing "their" buck, there probably is a few, but I dont believe the majority of hunters feel that way. Where I live we can go sturgeon spearing, i love the sport, its a lot of fun. Now its been flooded with technology as well, cameras, Panoptic fish finders, vexlars. These are all legal to use, but I choose not to use them and I am against there use as its appears lots of fish are wounded each year as people throw spears at fish only seen by their cameras thus they are just "hoping and poking" resulting in fish being wounded and lost. I base this off of what the people who use them tell me, and I hear it enough to form this opinion. I am not jealous of a person getting a fish using these tools, I honestly could care less if I get one, I do however worry that it could be detrimental to the fishery in the future. We have already seen lots of lakes drop the number of fish people are allowed to keep, who wants to drive an hour to be able to keep 5 blue gills, not me. I feel that this is directly related to how easy it has made fishing. Ever go troll walleyes, set the trolling motor to what ever speed, have the gps drive the boat, put on whatever bait & check your app that tells you if you pull it 100ft behind the boat going 1.3mph it will run at 6ft deep. Its a fun way to pound fish, but it gets to be like a darn video game. We just saw a drop in the number of walleyes you can keep legally, I feel technology is a big factor having a direct effect on fish numbers. Again, I have fished this way, but most of the time enjoy fishing without any of that stuff. Am I jealous of of these guys catching limits? Heck no, as if I chose to, I could do the same thing they are. I am however worried this ultimately will have a negative effect on the sport.

[Dan T]

Most of the conversation seems to be focused on "fairness" in regards to advantage and success of hunters and how their success is perceived by other hunters. What about how some of these "advantages" and continuously improving technology effects long term sustainability of deer populations in various areas and the public land we pursue them on? The more successful hunters are not as many deer grow to old age, populations can dwindle, increased pressure that lasts through the night time hours and in sensitive areas adds potential for stress. This an put health at risk in times of year like winter and can displace animals Puting them at predatory risk. Most public land I've traveled to has plenty of recent and historic evidence of hunter activity. New tree stands left for the season, old tree stands with growing chains, bright eyes, flagging, poor pruning cuts, sent wicks, trail cameras, etc,etc,etc.....I try my best to follow the same principals scouting and hunting as I do recreational hiking and exploring. Whatever goes in with me comes out. Hopefully more, either a deer or some trash maybe. This was my first year using cameras after getting one for Xmas a year ago. For the most part all they did was confirm what I already knew. I ended up using them primarily on road crossing and other areas where they crossed areas of day time human activity at night. I got pictures of nice buck where I knew there was nice bucks,Some were bigger than others. The closer I it got to the season I didn't like it. Seeing those buck pics ruined one of my favorite parts of hunting, the unknown. The mystique of the unknown is what kept me coming back for more since day one. The same goes for trapping and fishing. Reading the track, its size, gate, stride and depth. The marks he leaves when his rack hits a tree he passes regularly, those two same deep gouges I saw on a tree a mile away, that hole in his main beam marks in the snow she he stopped to feed, a seasons worth of scouting flooding my head with imagiation and images of what he might look like. I didn't like having a face to go with the sign, that's why I wait in the tree all those hours. To see him with my own eyes, if he comes in range great. If not, who cares i dont need to shoot my bow, I shoot it all the time. But laying eyes on what made that sign for the first time is priceless. it's
All that being said to each their own in accordance with the law, as long as long as the success an advantage produces doesn't exceed the rate for that population to replace itself and remain sustainable, as well as not making our public recreational lands look like a post apocalyptic candles. Don't forget to think long term.

[<DK>]

The ethics of fair chase as written by conservation clubs like P&Y and B&C, are what they consider to be the bare minimum of ethical standards.

Exactly

[dan]

This whole post is rather entertaining... I would find it perfectly ethical for a farmer to kill one of his cows for food... Would you? I would also find it ethical to go to a farm and pay the farmer to slaughter the cow I pick... I know people who buy a cow elk every year from an elk farm and go shoot it and butcher it themselves... Are they supposed to be deemed unethical? My point is that ethics and morals are not governed by rules made by uppity guys who smoke pipes and know more than us... They are goverened by the the individual and the reasons he is killing the animal... Its not up to me to decide how a man feeds his family, or rids his farm of deer damaging his crops... The real reason someone has a problem with someone else using a tool that they dont is because they deem hunting as a compitition and they are worried that guy will kill his buck, or that he will do better than him... Huntimg deer over a food plot on private land is a far superior way of killing deer than using a cell cam... And I would ask of thats ethical, but I actually know some of you that hunt public would sadly say yep, it should. be banned along with everything in hunting that individual does not use...

I see your point, and no I dont believe anyone would say thats unethical. But the farmers selling his beef or elk is a bit different, as they are domestic animals in a fence, there is no fair chase in that entire scenario. As far as someone viewing it as a competition and worrying about someone killing "their" buck, there probably is a few, but I dont believe the majority of hunters feel that way. Where I live we can go sturgeon spearing, i love the sport, its a lot of fun. Now its been flooded with technology as well, cameras, Panoptic fish finders, vexlars. These are all legal to use, but I choose not to use them and I am against there use as its appears lots of fish are wounded each year as people throw spears at fish only seen by their cameras thus they are just "hoping and poking" resulting in fish being wounded and lost. I base this off of what the people who use them tell me, and I hear it enough to form this opinion. I am not jealous of a person getting a fish using these tools, I honestly could care less if I get one, I do however worry that it could be detrimental to the fishery in the future. We have already seen lots of lakes drop the number of fish people are allowed to keep, who wants to drive an hour to be able to keep 5 blue gills, not me. I feel that this is directly related to how easy it has made fishing. Ever go troll walleyes, set the trolling motor to what ever speed, have the gps drive the boat, put on whatever bait & check your app that tells you if you pull it 100ft behind the boat going 1.3mph it will run at 6ft deep. Its a fun way to pound fish, but it gets to be like a darn video game. We just saw a drop in the number of walleyes you can keep legally, I feel technology is a big factor having a direct effect on fish numbers. Again, I have fished this way, but most of the time enjoy fishing without any of that stuff. Am I jealous of of these guys catching limits? Heck no, as if I chose to, I could do the same thing they are. I am however worried this ultimately will have a negative effect on the sport.

In your post you mention 2 things that indeed, actually do make your points valid. Wounding game: If a tactic or product is wounding game at an unacceptable rate, it is unethical in my eyes... I never saw a camera wound anything. #2 If the technology is effecting the population of the species it could be deemed unethical. Now, in most places I would say cameras are not making any difference in deer populations, however in certain states with limited water holes, or other spots where dozens of hunters are posting cameras in and around water sources to the point the animals can't use their water source naturally, I can see a problem there. However that could be solved with a no cameras or hunting within 500 yards of a man made water source.

[dan]

B&C club, and P&Y for that matter, have really turned hunting into a wiener measuring contest for hunters who want to be the biggest baddest hunter on the planet. They make claims like "Its only to honor the animal" However, they charge a human for the that animal to be honored, and put that humans Name in a list from biggest to smallest, Let me ask this, if they are really about honoring the animal why would they remove a deer cause it was killed By the use of a trail cam? Is that deer to blame? Obviously, B&C is a contest... And they are setting contest rules. It has nothing to do with ethics. If its about honoring the deer take the hunter names off the pages.

If cameras effect populations in a negative way... Ban them

If cameras alter the lives of wild deer making it difficult to get water, or some other needed resource and it puts their health in jeopardy, ban em...

but not because it gives your competition a perceived advantage. This is not supposed to be a competition. You guys would not believe how much hate I get for teaching people to hunt. Show a property and watch the hate and the call to be banned or boycotted. Fort Mccoy got emails and calls from people demanding I get banned from the property. Show a tactic or a little secret that helps me and I will get emails and messages about how I just ruined someones hunting cause now others will enjoy that tactic... We are out there to kill deer, to keep populations in check and to fill freezers, if we are lucky we get a few big bucks. If one guy uses a crossbow, or a camera, or an e-bike, or a kayak, or lit nock, and I don't, and it makes no difference in my hunting... Im not being judged by what they do, and only worry about me... Meanwhile our state DNR agencies are trying to find ways to kill more deer as the populations sky rocket. It don't seem like cameras are putting a dent in that population. What to ban something that is actually effecting populations? Ban doe seasons and bonus tags.

A private club making a living off hunting competition is not deciding for me what is ethical or moral... As Dewey mentioned, its a private club. They can do what ever they want, but the witch hunt is going to ne fun to watch... Lets see how they enforce this rule. So my questions to B&C would be:

1) Does the rule only apply to bucks entered? If the hunter is using cell cams but never got a picture of the buck being entered does it still count? What if he has shot bucks with cell cams, but this one was your version of fair chase?
2) Can we use trail cams, just not to kill bucks to be entered? If we are banned from use, how far back does that go? If I used a cell cam before the rule, are none of my deer aloud for the rest of my life? What If I did not hear about this rule in time and used a cell cam till I found out about your rule?
3) If you can use, or have used cell cams as long as you don't get the buck you enter on film, how you going to monitor or know if someone got or did not get trail cam photos?
4) what if I got a pic of the buck 6 months earlier"? Or the prior year, and now a year later I am hunting 800 yards from where I got the cam pic a year prior... ?