stanley Report post Posted September 6, 2007 Touche' Keven! We all find what we're looking for in our own way out in the woods, that's for sure.... Enjoy your hunts everyone! S. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mattys281 Report post Posted September 6, 2007 I've only started using the trail cameras this year, but I can tell you for a fact that they're far from being a miracle pill that'll triple everyone's success rates. I ran 3 of 'em in 27 for over two months before season started. I've got over 2000 pics of deer & elk, several dozen of which are bucks & some of those are nice bucks. Yet when season rolled around, I still ended up spending 10 days over there without seeing a single piece of velvet!? Not even a spike! How does that happen?! The one advantage I do think I gleaned from them was that I thoroughly enjoyed collecting those pictures & working those cameras kept me motivated and had me looking for any spare day I could afford to get over there & scout. They kept me in the woods more during the preseason than I've ever been before. At least I've go some nice photos to look at while enjoying my tag soup. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bowhuntinmaniac Report post Posted September 7, 2007 "if it's legal, it's ethical".............not necessarily true. AZG&F states that any centerfire firearm is legal for the take of big game during a general season hunt. A .25 auto is a centerfire, thus is legal, is it ethical? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AZLance Report post Posted September 7, 2007 I quit using trail cameras. I now use my new toy, a thermal imaging scope. I can see deer as far way as a mile at night. I can watch all night long. Amazing technology! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Huntn coues Report post Posted September 7, 2007 I quit using trail cameras. I now use my new toy, a thermal imaging scope. I can see deer as far way as a mile at night. I can watch all night long. Amazing technology! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Outdoor Writer Report post Posted September 7, 2007 "if it's legal, it's ethical".............not necessarily true. AZG&F states that any centerfire firearm is legal for the take of big game during a general season hunt. A .25 auto is a centerfire, thus is legal, is it ethical? Lots of these examples around. Mention taking an 850-yd. shot with a 22-250 or 100-yd. shot with a bow, and many of the same folks who claim "if it's legal, it's ethical" will say those shots are unethical. -TONY Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mattys281 Report post Posted September 7, 2007 I personally think that laws are to be determined by legislation (or game wardens & cops, depending on how many witnesses are around), and ethics are to be determined by individuals. I've got my bow sighted in out to 50 yards & then one "confidence" pin that is sighted in for 80. I practice more at eighty than any other yardage & hold a decent group at that range. If I was on fairly level terrain & the wind was some what calm & everything felt comfortable, I might take that shot & not feel that it was unethical. I know the arrow will do the job at that range, and I know I can make the shot. On the other hand, someone who can't hold a decent group at thirty yards has no business shooting at living animals at eighty or a hundred, or even fifty for that matter. People should practice enough to know their own limits & than make their ethics calls based on those limits, not on what other people say. If you take a shot thinking, "I might get luck", you very obviously just took an unethical shot, and you know it. As for cameras, I thoroughly enjoy using them as a hobby of their own & find them to be a useful scouting tool, but that's all they are. One of many tools that we employ to get the most out of our limited time in the field. Their no more unethical than are laser range finders, fiber-optic sights, 350 fps bows, scent-lok suits or whatever else people buy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scoutm Report post Posted September 7, 2007 I keep coming back to this thread trying to understand the two postions but I'm clearly having a difficult time following the anti-camera (I'll call it the CON side of the issue) side. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that the CON's don't like cameras becuase they create a precieved advantage by attracting deer - I've never seen a camera attact a deer - Bait is what attracts the deer not the camera. So is this debate truely about cameras or it about Baiting? I completely agree that hunting over Bait is not-fair chase and does unfairly increase shooting success. Hunting an area where a camera has been utilized to give you an idea of the quality of deer in the area is fair chase as long as you are not hunting over the BAIT that was utilized to get the deer to pose for the camera. Again as long as you are not hunting over the Bait, you still need to glass the deer up, you have to plan a stalk, you have to execute your stalk and you have to hit your mark with your shot - is that not the definition of fair chase? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Outdoor Writer Report post Posted September 7, 2007 I keep coming back to this thread trying to understand the two postions but I'm clearly having a difficult time following the anti-camera (I'll call it the CON side of the issue) side. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that the CON's don't like cameras becuase they create a precieved advantage by attracting deer - I've never seen a camera attact a deer - Bait is what attracts the deer not the camera. So is this debate truely about cameras or it about Baiting? I completely agree that hunting over Bait is not-fair chase and does unfairly increase shooting success. Hunting an area where a camera has been utilized to give you an idea of the quality of deer in the area is fair chase as long as you are not hunting over the BAIT that was utilized to get the deer to pose for the camera. Again as long as you are not hunting over the Bait, you still need to glass the deer up, you have to plan a stalk, you have to execute your stalk and you have to hit your mark with your shot - is that not the definition of fair chase? Let me see if I can help clear it up -- at least as far as what **I** mean. First, there is nothing inherently wrong with using a camera to take photos. I do it all the time, in fact. And there is nothing inherently wrong with placing a salt lick, a corn feeder or whatever else might attract game to that camera for the purpose of taking photos. I doubt anyone using cams just randomly hangs them on tree in the woods. The problem comes when hunting enters the photo-taking picture. Sometimes my wife tells me I'm dumber than a posthole, but I'm not naive. Even I know that hunters who are baiting a particular spot and attracting game to that particular spot are somewhat likely to hunt that particular spot. And the chances they will remove all traces of the bait before they do that are about nil -- as in nada, zilch, zero. Why should they if it's legal, i.e. "ethical?" Now, if some hunters who use cams at bait sites do NOT follow the scenario above, kudos to them. I suspect there are at least one or two of them. -TONY Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin Report post Posted September 7, 2007 The mule deer buck that I posted last week or so was not photographed over bait or water. It is illegal to use bait, even salt, in NM so I don't see the point of attracting deer to bait if I can't hunt it. I have only recently started using trail cams and it is very gratifying to get a buck of that quality knowing that I got it without attracting him to the camera. It encourages me to know that my skills and knowledge of the deer in this area were enough to get this bucks picture. I have often wondered if it would be less gratifying to kill a big buck over salt than to get him by other means? I'm not knocking some of you alls hunting methods, I'm just curious myself. One thing running cameras has done to make me a better hunter so far is that I find myself studying the deers environment differently than ever before. I spend a lot more time looking at details of how deer travel and areas they bed than I did before. Afterall, I want to have pictures on my cam when I check them! Also, knock on wood, I haven't lost a cam yet cause they aren't on waterholes where every deer or elk scouter is frequenting. As I mentioned in the thread when I posted the buck's picture, I don't have a tag for unit in which he lives. I found his shed and wanted to see him and the trail cam gave me that opportunity. And yes, you can bet I'll hunt him next year if I can draw that unit, but the camera didn't have much to do with that decision; the shed had already done that for me. So that brings up the question: Is it ethical to hunt sheds to try to see what type of animals live in an area? Lord knows we use plenty of technology these days to do that too. Live and let live folks, Kevin Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Outdoor Writer Report post Posted September 7, 2007 Is it ethical to hunt sheds to try to see what type of animals live in an area? Lord knows we use plenty of technology these days to do that too. Kevin I see nothing wrong with it. It's no different than hunting any other NATURAL habitats where deer frequent but often do so on a RANDOM basis, just as bears do when the prickly pear crop is ripe. The key is patterning and locating the game in that NATURAL habitat and not attracting the game to UNNATURAL tasty morsels. Comes down to skill, patience and perhaps some luck to be in the right place at the right time. Some folks call it hunting. Lastly, it sounds as if you're using your camera in a quite ethical manner. -TONY Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Non-Typical Solutions Report post Posted September 12, 2007 Can't believe I have been missing out on this one......ethical??? Sleeping with the neighbors wife, is that ethical, illegal or otherwise? I'll tell you what is unethical those $%#%%@&@% photo cams on loop 101 thats what..not only do they keep track of how often I come to the big city, but it keeps track of how dang fast I was going too....just kidding. It is all in the eye of the beholder........... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rembrant Report post Posted September 12, 2007 Nothin unethical about bait and cams. We can debate that until Jesus comes back if we want to. I gotta agree with Lark, "If its legal, it's ethical", (for the most part) or at least ethical enough to stay legal. Last time I checked, legal is good. However, bait and cams (along with fast bows, high-powered rifles, quads, 4 wheel drives, horses, optics, range finders, etc) have increased hunter success, especially in the bowhunting for deer world. So if the Game Dept. wants to increase hunter opportunity and maximizing the resource, what do you think may possibly be made illegal; the list of items in the brackets, or cams, or bait? So are we talking about ethics? or effectiveness? or are they kinda blending here? Why is spotlighting out of a vehicle with a rifle not legal? "Cause it's too darn effective!!! And thus deemed unethical. Get your deer over bait if you want to WHILE YOU STILL CAN. 'Cause guess what? It's pretty effective. Someday when bait is made illegal, it will also be considered unethical - as it is in other states. I think the biggest factor involved here relates to the overall success percentage; bait (salt) has never been a problem in this state historically, but nowdays, lots and lots of hunters are baiting and the success (effectiveness) is rising. Closing note: Information sharing on the internet should be included in the above list of effective tools, and perhaps THE ONE that is doing us in. Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TATAat27 Report post Posted September 12, 2007 I dont use cameras and never really thought about using them. I think that hunting game in their normal surroundings or under normal circumstances i.e. without the use of any baits or attractants is fair chase. I dont think that using baits or attractants even if its just to see whats in the area is the right thing to do. Yes its tough to find that buck of a lifetime and you have to put in a lot of time in the field, but I think in the end you'll be more satisfied with the results knowing that you did everything on your own, even if you dont kill anything. As far as people setting up cameras on trails and such, I think thats fine. It sounds like it takes a lot more work and dedication to find places to set them up and a lot more effort than I put into a hunt. So anyways, thats my opinion. I think if you get pleasure out of something and its legal, go ahead and do it. It just wouldn't work for me. Well whatever method you use, good luck to you all. Rich Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Outdoor Writer Report post Posted September 12, 2007 Nothin unethical about bait and cams. We can debate that until Jesus comes back if we want to. I gotta agree with Lark, "If its legal, it's ethical", (for the most part) or at least ethical enough to stay legal. Last time I checked, legal is good. My favorite legal thing to do is to shoot a deer in the gut first, and then I like to shoot it in a leg at a time until it can't walk any longer without a whole lot of effort. Once it stops for good, I'll shoot it in the head to put it out of its misery, which is the ethical thing to do. I wouldn't want to be inhumane. -TONY Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
