G&F commission voted unanimously to ban trail cams

[Delw]

7 hours ago, Elkhunter1 said:

As a hunter, how would you be able to run cameras AND hunt? The wording is vague at best which leads the wardens to get creative in their interpretation and application of the law. All you would have to do is hunt in the same general area to be in violation.

it would be the same as a hunter owning thermal imaging scopes or full autos and using them on single fire and not being able to use them to hunt

[elkaholic]

But I sold that property and taking all  my cameras to wisc. I've used no trail camera in the taking of wildlife.

Is it illegal to be in procession of a picture from a legal trail camera.. taken from a unit I hunt  while I'm hunting.  Kinda silly if  that means I'm hunting illegally 

[Elkhunter1]

22 minutes ago, Delw said:

it would be the same as a hunter owning thermal imaging scopes or full autos and using them on single fire and not being able to use them to hunt

That doesn't make any sense!  In what way could you LEGALLY use cameras to photograph wildlife and still be able to hunt the very animals you get on camera?

[Delw]

all these hypothetical posts are kinda silly if you ask me.

[elkaholic]

Guess we wait and see.  How many violations are actually ticketed. Im sure there will be some!

[Elkhunter1]

5 minutes ago, elkaholic said:

Guess we wait and see.  How many violations are actually ticketed. Im sure there will be some!

I for one don't like waiting when it comes to legal issues!  If they can't definitively outline what and how a violation is done, I don't see how they can successfully prosecute one.  I mean either you are speeding or your not, way too much room for interpretation.

[desertmafia21]

You thought cameras were bad…wait until there’s 10 guys sitting around the same water source 24 hours a day. When there’s big money involved with these world class bucks anything goes. Ethics are out the window. You’re going to be wishing a silly little camera was on the water instead everybody and their mom. This will more than likely cause more issues with “violence” and competition.

[Desertguide]

6 minutes ago, desertmafia21 said:

You thought cameras were bad…wait until there’s 10 guys sitting around the same water source 24 hours a day. When there’s big money involved with these world class bucks anything goes. Ethics are out the window. You’re going to be wishing a silly little camera was on the water instead everybody and their mom. This will more than likely cause more issues with “violence” and competition.

I think you're 100% spot on. 

[AZtroutman]

48 minutes ago, desertmafia21 said:

You thought cameras were bad…wait until there’s 10 guys sitting around the same water source 24 hours a day. When there’s big money involved with these world class bucks anything goes. Ethics are out the window. You’re going to be wishing a silly little camera was on the water instead everybody and their mom. This will more than likely cause more issues with “violence” and competition.

I think you're 100% wrong

[HuntHike61]

Fun math exercise.  Unit 13 has about 50 waterholes worth covering.  So what does it take for a guide to cover the whole unit, before and after?

Before:  50 cameras, 150 mile route to cover, about 40 hours effort to cover the route.  Assume about 10 weeks of coverage, done weekly at most.  Replace about 10 cameras per year as they go bad.  Cost is about $5K upfront, $1K per year in equipment.  Labor costs for fun-loving runners at about $15/hr would be $600 per route, $6K per year.  Add some cost for gas, maintenance- whole thing costs $10K annually.

After, to get SAME coverage via human effort:  50 water holes * 24 hours * 70 days is 84,000 hours.  Labor cost alone is over $1M.  That’s 100X what it cost to do it with cameras, and it doesn’t include the cost of good night-vision equipment.  Even if they reduce the intel gathering to just 2 weeks, it still costs 20X what it cost before, assuming you can line up that kind of labor for one short period.

Of course, you can play a bit up or down with either number.  But anyway you look at it, the water hole coverage will be exponentially less in the new world- no guide can afford pure human effort to get the same coverage as before.

[AZtroutman]

33 minutes ago, HuntHike61 said:

Fun math exercise.  Unit 13 has about 50 waterholes worth covering.  So what does it take for a guide to cover the whole unit, before and after?

Before:  50 cameras, 150 mile route to cover, about 40 hours effort to cover the route.  Assume about 10 weeks of coverage, done weekly at most.  Replace about 10 cameras per year as they go bad.  Cost is about $5K upfront, $1K per year in equipment.  Labor costs for fun-loving runners at about $15/hr would be $600 per route, $6K per year.  Add some cost for gas, maintenance- whole thing costs $10K annually.

After, to get SAME coverage via human effort:  50 water holes * 24 hours * 70 days is 84,000 hours.  Labor cost alone is over $1M.  That’s 100X what it cost to do it with cameras, and it doesn’t include the cost of good night-vision equipment.  Even if they reduce the intel gathering to just 2 weeks, it still costs 20X what it cost before, assuming you can line up that kind of labor for one short period.

Of course, you can play a bit up or down with either number.  But anyway you look at it, the water hole coverage will be exponentially less in the new world- no guide can afford pure human effort to get the same coverage as before.

Just to give you an idea of numbers of cams they actually run, I believe during the commission meeting one of the commissioners said he talked to Matt Schimberg (A3) and he said they have 1350 cameras. I could have sworn they said that was the strip alone but sounds more like a overall state number. Either way, try replacing 1350 cameras monitoring 24/7/365 with people and the math gets even crazier in regards to these guys saying "they'll just have 10 guys on every water hole now 24/7!" Bottom line as you said, there will be a significant decrease in water hole coverage. And most of that coverage that does happen will be during the day, when a lot of mature animals only drink at night.

[HuntHike61]

1 minute ago, AZtroutman said:

Just to give you an idea of numbers of cams they actually run, I believe during the commission meeting one of the commissioners said he talked to Matt Schimberg (A3) and he said they have 1350 cameras. I could have sworn they said that was the strip alone but sounds more like a overall state number. Either way, try replacing 1350 cameras monitoring 24/7/365 with people and the math gets even crazier in regards to these guys saying "they'll just have 10 guys on every water hole now 24/7!"

Yep, but the math scales in any case.  20 to 100X whatever they were investing before to get same or similar coverage.  

[HuntHike61]

Another point- when I hunted unit 13, I had two whole cameras.  I picked two tanks and just left them the whole 18 days I was there.  I checked the cameras 3 times over that period.  There were deer on them about 15 times- and 75% of the time it was during dark.  So I gotta think that night vision is critical.  My question is:  who does that?  Sit on a tank all night with night vision equipment?  Ya, I suppose their are a few folks with nothing better to do than stare through night vision scopes all night long- but that's a 1/1000 kind of patience right there!

[Desertguide]

50 minutes ago, HuntHike61 said:

Fun math exercise.  Unit 13 has about 50 waterholes worth covering.  So what does it take for a guide to cover the whole unit, before and after?

Before:  50 cameras, 150 mile route to cover, about 40 hours effort to cover the route.  Assume about 10 weeks of coverage, done weekly at most.  Replace about 10 cameras per year as they go bad.  Cost is about $5K upfront, $1K per year in equipment.  Labor costs for fun-loving runners at about $15/hr would be $600 per route, $6K per year.  Add some cost for gas, maintenance- whole thing costs $10K annually.

After, to get SAME coverage via human effort:  50 water holes * 24 hours * 70 days is 84,000 hours.  Labor cost alone is over $1M.  That’s 100X what it cost to do it with cameras, and it doesn’t include the cost of good night-vision equipment.  Even if they reduce the intel gathering to just 2 weeks, it still costs 20X what it cost before, assuming you can line up that kind of labor for one short period.

Of course, you can play a bit up or down with either number.  But anyway you look at it, the water hole coverage will be exponentially less in the new world- no guide can afford pure human effort to get the same coverage as before.

Your human effort numbers are nowhere close to reality.

1. 50 water holes is no longer a reality. They'll have to change the way they hunt. 20 at most.

2. $50 per day is a real number. Nobody is paying scouters/spotters $15 per hour. If I need a spotter, that's what I pay and guys jump at the opportunity. I can go up to NAU and find 5 kids to go camping and find deer for $50 per day with all other expenses paid. 

3. 20 water holes, 5 guys, 4 water holes per guy, 40 days=$10,000. 

4. Any other expense is a write off for the outfitter. 

Add another $30,000 for anything I missed. 

Still nowhere near $1,000,000

 

Is all that feasible to keep killing monsters? I have no idea. Just clearing up your human effort numbers

[HuntHike61]

Fair enough- I wished I had hunted the unit with that in place.  I guarantee they had much further coverage than that when I was there.  And I still believe night coverage won't be anywhere near complete.  Nobody sits all night long on a water hole for $50.