Crossbow Nation banner
1 - 20 of 109 Posts

·
Registered
Excalibur Exomax
Joined
·
653 Posts
Technological advances in scopes, trail cameras, etc. should be taken advantage of but not used for unethical hunting. The problem is defining just how they could be used to provide an unfair advantage for the hunter. In my opinion this could be a slippery slope and could spill over into other hunting tools and methods. As difficult as it could be I think going after the outfitters, hunt clubs, individuals, etc. that are guilty of misusing the technology makes more sense than an outright ban.

Bill
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
Technological advances in scopes, trail cameras, etc. should be taken advantage of but not used for unethical hunting. The problem is defining just how they could be used to provide an unfair advantage for the hunter. In my opinion this could be a slippery slope and could spill over into other hunting tools and methods. As difficult as it could be I think going after the outfitters, hunt clubs, individuals, etc. that are guilty of misusing the technology makes more sense than an outright ban.

Bill
I started to put this in the Utah camera thread but figured I would just start a new one, seems everyone is choosing sides in the matter...
B&C Says Smart Scopes, Cellular Trail Cams Aren't Fair Chase | Outdoor Life
Smart scope. I use the Oracle X and yes it takes the range estimation factor out of making a kill shot. I fail to understand how it would be more ethical if I did not use the Oracle X, guessed the range wrong and wounded a deer.

Cellular trail cameras. I started using them this season and believe the major advantage to them is not having to disturb one’s hunting area to check them. I do not see how there is any “real time“ advantage to using them for Eastern whitetail hunting if by “real time“ it is meant that the photo is used soon after it is received to make a kill. I can understand how this would not be the case on Western hunts. Until B&C defines “real time” in terms of hour, days, etc. I think the cellular camera prohibition is going to generate a lot of discussion. My guess is “real time” will eventually be interpreted to mean a photo cannot be used the same day it was received to make a kill.
 

·
Registered
Darton Serpent, Serpend LTD, Viper SSxtreme and Scorpyd Aculeus 135lbs
Joined
·
239 Posts
Technological advances in scopes, trail cameras, etc. should be taken advantage of but not used for unethical hunting. The problem is defining just how they could be used to provide an unfair advantage for the hunter. In my opinion this could be a slippery slope and could spill over into other hunting tools and methods. As difficult as it could be I think going after the outfitters, hunt clubs, individuals, etc. that are guilty of misusing the technology makes more sense than an outright ban.
I find it difficult to prosecute someone for abuse if it is not clearly defined what an illegal advantage is. In my opinion, hunting at prepared feeding places or the use of attractants is also to the detriment of the animals. But if people monitor their entire hunting environment with trail cams, then animals in this area have little chance of escaping the hunter. However, if certain technical aids serve to reduce the suffering of animals due to missed shots, then this would already be a good approach for the technology, but unfortunately this would also be abusive because the possible hunting distances are very much exhausted. It will be a tough fight what you restrict and how or which rules you should set for what. It will be quite a balancing act between the interests of the hunters, those of the forestry authorities and the welfare of the animals.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
12,944 Posts
So ... whaddaya do when everyone embraces "advanced technology?" Stop counting records? You think someone shoots a free range 230" whitetail that the world isn't going to recognize it as the record? Or, if he shoots it with an ATN scope or Garmin or had a cell camera in the woods?

Remember when Bowhunting Magazines hated crossbows? Then crossbows swept through the nation. Suddenly Bowhunting magazines had crossbow advertisements. Then a word here and there mentioning crossbows. Finally, the same people who despised crossbows embraced them. "If you can't beatem ... join-em."
 

·
Registered
MK-XB58 Kraken / Hawke 3-9x50 parallax, mildot
Joined
·
2,840 Posts
fair?

i dont understand what part of killing an animal is fair
for someone who never hunted and past sworn pasifist (which i no longer am) killing efficient as possible is best option
i heard that least stress they expirience better it taste, might of been of the fish but... /meh
so killing without em never knowing you where there and batin seems to be easiest way to do that

all stalking ive seen on youtube, to my eyes, they have allways been aware of the hunter, just not of the danger
im sure there is hunters who can actually do that without getting exposed too
 

·
Registered
Darton Serpent, Serpend LTD, Viper SSxtreme and Scorpyd Aculeus 135lbs
Joined
·
239 Posts
So ... whaddaya do when everyone embraces "advanced technology?" Stop counting records? You think someone shoots a free range 230" whitetail that the world isn't going to recognize it as the record? Or, if he shoots it with an ATN scope or Garmin or had a cell camera in the woods?
That's where the problems start for me. I find shooting animals purely as a trophy or for any records deeply despicable. Animals should be used for nutrition and not for the satisfaction of any cravings. Quite apart from the fact that by taking out the best, largest and strongest animals you harm the population in the long run. If you want records, you should shoot at targets, because of me even at a mile away on a moving target, but who shoots animals for your own pleasure gain (record hunt) is not worth more than the lowest life form.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
3,729 Posts
Copied and pasted. (Rangefinders are a valuable and accepted tool, as are riflescopes. Combining the two into one device, (aka, “smart scopes”), however is a step too far.)
Sounds like its ok to use what i use but.

Does rifling in a barrel give a unfair advantage over a guy using a smooth bore. Sure it does but is it bad.

Once the challenge of the hunt was met. And you choose to shoot the only challenge left is you might mis or wound.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,314 Posts
I remember in the 90’s P&Y came down on higher let off bows and fiber optic sights. When was the last time someone actually said the words P&Y? This is why places like SCI pick up steam. Trail cameras alone will put a nail in their coffin. Hunters is general, no matter the weapon, use trail cameras. Cellular cameras keep you out of the area so you don’t stink the place up. Look at the outfitting business. They better have some nice bucks on camera to get a guy to plunk $3,500 down. I loved my 68 Mustang but it drove like crap compared to a modern vehicle.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
12,944 Posts
That's where the problems start for me. I find shooting animals purely as a trophy or for any records deeply despicable. Animals should be used for nutrition and not for the satisfaction of any cravings. Quite apart from the fact that by taking out the best, largest and strongest animals you harm the population in the long run. If you want records, you should shoot at targets, because of me even at a mile away on a moving target, but who shoots animals for your own pleasure gain (record hunt) is not worth more than the lowest life form.
Lotta truth ... to that. I've long said that "Boone & Crockett and Pope & Young are a pox on the hunting community."
 

·
Registered
Darton Serpent, Serpend LTD, Viper SSxtreme and Scorpyd Aculeus 135lbs
Joined
·
239 Posts
@Iron Duke Unfortunately, I often only partially understand your translated contributions, but I believe that we seem to agree from time to time.

It would already be possible today to use drones to depict moving targets at very long distances.If you just want to show what you can do, you should be able to prove it that way and not on animals.
 

·
Registered
E Tennessee
Joined
·
487 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Until B&C defines “real time” in terms of hour, days, etc. I think the cellular camera prohibition is going to generate a lot of discussion. My guess is “real time” will eventually be interpreted to mean a photo cannot be used the same day it was received to make a kill.
Could be, kind of like not being legal to hunt the same day as you "fly in" on Alaskan hunts. As I understand it, that stance is to attempt to eliminate searching for animals by air on the way in then setting down and trying to kill them.
As far as what real time is in MY definition it means exactly what it says... If i receive cell phone notification and pictures at 8:03am per my time zone, then I know that the game is pretty much still standing right where the picture shows it is...or at least within the parameters of the data transmission, which is almost instantaneous in most cases now days.
 

·
Registered
E Tennessee
Joined
·
487 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Another mentionable facet of the technology we have, I remember when there were folks developing drone type stationary shooting rigs. You could just set in a remote location and choose any number of targets within a 360* area and BOOM,.. let's go load it up...
As the military tech has shown us, even taking out targets from the air remotely is now possibly a feasible application to the hunting world.

With knowledge and technology comes responsibility
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
12,944 Posts
This rolls back... to the old ethics debate. And that argument always comes back to killing anything with more than your bare hands could be unfair on one end. On the other end is killing without the most advanced lethal technology and techniques could be unethical because to use otherwise increases the chance for wounding and suffering. So you have incremental technological lethality, stickbows, compounds, crossbow, black powder, shotguns, and rifles. Each category has multiple subcategories. Longbows, recurves, 50lb, 60lb, 70lb, etc., etc., until you probably have 50 lines in the sand that could claim challenge ends and unfair begins. 50 lines where challenge turns into brutal or unfair in the other direction.

Who gets to be the holy ones who sets the line in stone?
 
  • Like
Reactions: abwgtx

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
3,729 Posts
Most game cameras as a general rule. At least my experience has shown me. They will trigger and take a pic at about 30 feet or 10 yds and watch a patch of ground shaped like a slice of pizza. They don’t get every event but they watch about that much. Pretty small piece of the pie.

I was always told a acre is about the size of a football field. Not exact but close enough. So let’s say you have one acre to hunt. And you want to cover as much of that property as you can. So you buy 50 cell cameras. Here’s a hand drawn football field. Blocked off in 30 foot square's. The V is what each camera can see and watches and the area it will take a pic if triggered. The kinda shaded area outside the slice of pizza is the area it will miss. And I just drew in 10 cameras.


Most Guys including myself run a few cameras. I have 60 acres in Wv and about the same in Ohio I hunt. I ran 4 cell cameras on that 120 acres. How this gives me a unfair advantage I have no idea. That’s a 120 football fields. Give me a break. At about $12 a camera for the data plan. That’s $180 a month to keep a eye on 1/120th of my hunting.
Handwriting Font Rectangle Line Parallel
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,041 Posts
Boone & Crockett and Pope and Young have never done a thing for me. What started out as a noble idea has become the fuel for many unlawful merits over the years. The notoriety should go to the animal and not to the guy that killed it. That being said, like everything these days technology needs to have a "tempering period" for many to embrace it. A camera of any kind only lets you know what is living in the area, you still need to set up, play the wind, to go undetected to pull off a successful shot. If someone is going to cry foul over camera use why not pull the plug on excessive long shots? The animal didn't know you were in its area code so, how is the shot and kill deemed fair play? Baiting is another issue, why is it ok to sit in an apple orchard or over a clover field but, its skull and crossbones over a pile of corn or salt lick? These are the questions that will fade with time only because more places will allow their use and hunters ideology changes.
 

·
Registered
E Tennessee
Joined
·
487 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
This rolls back... to the old ethics debate. And that argument always comes back to killing anything with more than your bare hands could be unfair on one end. On the other end is killing without the most advanced lethal technology and techniques could be unethical because to use otherwise increases the chance for wounding and suffering. So you have incremental technological lethality, stickbows, compounds, crossbow, black powder, shotguns, and rifles. Each category has multiple subcategories. Longbows, recurves, 50lb, 60lb, 70lb, etc., etc., until you probably have 50 lines in the sand that could claim challenge ends and unfair begins. 50 lines where challenge turns into brutal or unfair in the other direction.

Who gets to be the holy ones who sets the line in stone?
That's just it me, the is no line in the stone, at least not one that we will ever be able to point definitively to and say, "There it is".
It's like being able to bait bears in the wilds of north america but you can't even feed them in the national parks. There is a good justification for both imo.
'
 

·
Registered
E Tennessee
Joined
·
487 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 · (Edited)
Most game cameras as a general rule. At least my experience has shown me. They will trigger and take a pic at about 30 feet or 10 yds and watch a patch of ground shaped like a slice of pizza. They don’t get every event but they watch about that much. Pretty small piece of the pie.

I was always told a acre is about the size of a football field. Not exact but close enough. So let’s say you have one acre to hunt. And you want to cover as much of that property as you can. So you buy 50 cell cameras. Here’s a hand drawn football field. Blocked off in 30 foot square's. The V is what each camera can see and watches and the area it will take a pic if triggered. The kinda shaded area outside the slice of pizza is the area it will miss. And I just drew in 10 cameras.


Most Guys including myself run a few cameras. I have 60 acres in Wv and about the same in Ohio I hunt. I ran 4 cell cameras on that 120 acres. How this gives me a unfair advantage I have no idea. That’s a 120 football fields. Give me a break. At about $12 a camera for the data plan. That’s $180 a month to keep a eye on 1/120th of my hunting. View attachment 216053
Maybe during the nighttime shots, during the daylight is a different story. During the daylight, I can monitor some pretty good-sized areas with just one camera. To use your example, If i put up a camera underneath the goal post on one end of the field pointing towards the others end zone, I will not only get the other goal post in the picture, but also into the bleachers on both side by the time the camera picks up what's in view of the lens.

Edited:
I stand corrected as you are only considering the actual trigger zone on a static system as opposed to the overall lens range... (y)
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
3,729 Posts
Maybe during the nighttime shots, during the daylight is a different story. During the daylight, I can monitor some pretty good-sized areas with just one camera. To use your example, If i put up a camera underneath the goal post on one end of the field pointing towards the others end zone, I will not only get the other goal post in the picture, but also into the bleachers on both side by the time the camera picks up what's in view of the lens.
No you can't the detection area on 99% of the cameras i have had used and tested is 30 feet. Now you might get a secondary pic of deer because a deer triggered it inside that 30 foot area. That's just luck and to add to this talking cell cameras once it has been formatted to be sent pic quality suffers greatly.

Your camera on the goal post will set there still as a mouse in a cat house. Until the cat gets very close and the mouse is triggered. That's just how they work.

Misinformation is fueling this foolishness.

Here this camera non cell camera sat there without taking any pics for maybe days. Then this buck happened to walk by. And triggered the camera he is about the limit or 30 feet from the camera. Everything else in the pic is a secondary happenstance.

Plant Tree Natural landscape Wood Twig


Had to switch to the phone to get a pic that shows better a secondary pic. Taken only because a deer triggered the camera inside that 30 feet.
If not for the triggering event the bucks in the background i would have never been seen. Pure luck.
Plant Green Tree Natural landscape Deer
 
1 - 20 of 109 Posts
Top