B&C Limits tech use

[ChrisG]

To me, an organization that won't adapt will eventually die. One way or the other. I don't have a smart scope but I don't hate the idea. If something aids in making clean, quick kills and the hunter can shoot the given distance reliably, I have a hard time hating it. And the bit in the article about houndsmen not being able to use gps collars to locate and get to a treed cat faster is laughable to anyone who has hunted over hounds and enjoyed it in any manner. No good hound hunter is going to willingly ignore that and go listen for dogs barking treed or some other old fashioned way when they have invested in GPS collars. No need to let your dogs stand out in the elements and or potentially be in a scrape with a cat ( in the case of it being bayed up on the ground) longer than needed just for some numbers in a book.

I'll bite. Personally, the day that fieldcraft, stalking, and shooting (the only skills really required to be a successful hunter) are no longer required. That will be the day I stop hunting. Now... to a degree, a smart scope that can range find for you, I get.

But people are becoming so stinkin' lazy when it comes to hunting that it is shocking to me. I hunt black bear in the Adirondacks where I live, and where I hunt is totally vacant of hunters. Why? Because the yocals from downstate who want to drive their ATV to base of their treestand so they don't have to get off their 350lb butts and actually HIKE a little bit, can't do that there as the terrain is too rough. There's no cell service there so they can't use cellular cameras. "I have to walk for 30 MINUTES JUST TO CHECK A CAMERA?!?!?". Everyone know these kind of "hunters". So the only people willing to hunt in that game rich place are people who want to put in the work to get there.

Hunting, for me at least, is about testing YOUR skill against the animal. NOT testing your technology against an animal. There is a heritage to hunting that some technology destroys. Look at the immense popularity of traditional muzzleloaders! Decades after the inline "modern" muzzleloader was introduced, pietta and Uberti are still in business and their business is thriving!

Hunting is adventure and instant gratification technology removes that adventure for me. I use some trail cams, but I have to hike in and check them. They are only to see if game is in the area. I don't use them to look for trophies. (I am not after the biggest whatever ( rack/skull/measurement). I could care less. I am after the whole experience and if I happen on a large specimen its more exciting but it's not why I am there.

I dont know for sure where the line is... but I know for sure when things cross it. Why not just have a rifle mounted to a scope cam on a motorized tripod in the woods? If you were a subsitence hunter, sure. But none of us are anymore. We dont rely soley on what you can grow and kill to survive. Technology is great if it makes surviving or making a living less arduous (look how the elephant hunters of old migrated whole-heartedly to smokeless cartridges). But when what you're doing is a hobby... I think there is a point at which people are just in it to show off their "prowess", when they really have none and rely solely on their cell phone, trail cams, stupidly complicated rifles and scopes, to just shoot some hapless deer that you could have gotten with a bit more work and corresponding more fulfillment.

If people are just checking boxes at having killed the biggest "insert-animal-here", then what fulfillment is there other than some percieved bragging right? And genuine hunters can usually spot the braggart very quickly and avoid them at all costs.

Now this is just my take on it and it isn't intended to offend anyone in particular, but when hunting requires me to spend more time on my phone and laptop than actually being in the woods, its no longer worth it.

 

[crs]

Chris G - Well said.

 

[DieJager]

Let's add electronic game calls to the list too.

Multiple countries in Europe that ban them vI think. I know the Netherlands does

 

[ChrisG]

I would also add, there needs to be some element of risk involved (after all, isn't that why we hunt dangerous game?). The risk of missing the chance to shoot, the risk of botching the shot, some personal risk... etc.

I am sure, if legality were no concern, you could just pot a trophy brown bear or buffalo from a helicopter with impunity. Why? There aren't even bragging rights there. The element of risk and a measure of the "primitive" is the thrill. You could just hit your buff with a .338 lapua from 500 yards, then go collect your trophy. The thing is, it won't be a "trophy" any more than collecting a large whitetail deer that has been hit by a car is a "trophy".

 

[BRICKBURN]

. “Our intent is to try to show folks that each person will have their own personal fair-chase ethic. Our requirements are the bare minimum. You can’t drop below our standards and be anywhere close to fair chase.”

High fences, radios, drones, spotter planes, etc, etc.

B&C just set a standard, agree or don’t. If you don’t , you need not apply. That’s it.

Personal choices.

My jurisdiction it is illegal to hunt game behind a fence. Something I had to manage in my decisions about hunting in my hunts in other jurisdictions, including many in Africa. You decide, as B&C notes.


The article says Utah banned Trail cameras for hunting season. All of them. Wow.

Best of luck on your hunts.

 

[Ragman]

Generally I think it is a positive, it would be nice to keep a lot of the ever advancing technology out of hunting. I do, however, like rangefinders. Whether handheld or built into your scope/binoculars. I don't have either of those but when I was hunting with Marius his range-finding binos were great. my old style rangefinder I only use for bow hunting. I'm too cheap to buy a better one for rifle hunting! I do have one trail camera which I use on my own property that I get a lot of enjoyment out of. It's just plain fun to see what comes and goes. Sometimes we shoot something we have pics of and sometimes we don't. The buck that I had pics of prior to the season that I wanted to shoot never showed up again after opening day. And the buck that I did shoot I didn't have any pics of.
Now I must admit that personally I don't care what B&C does with their rules. I have zero interest in and have never had any of my animals scored. To me it just seems to be an ego thing. I think it's the only thing that drives some people to hunt. Bad reason to kill something in my mind. Big buck contests turn me off as well. In my mind scores are for football and hockey games and don't belong in hunting. Anyway this is all just my two pennies.

 

[Cam Moon]

Multiple countries in Europe that ban them vI think. I know the Netherlands does

Illegal where I hunt.

 

[TXhunter65]

Technologies have advanced to a point where limits will be difficult at best generally serving to incentivize manufactures to work around them until B&C will ban the use of all electronic devise to aid hunting. I'm neither advocating for nor against either position. What will be will be, having to worry about entering an animal in their club is not something I'll likely ever have the pleasure of fretting over.

Animals harvested within the laws of the governing bodies of the ground it was taken are good with me. Morals, ethics, and principals are to each their own and isn't a discussion that changes minds. My concern is the instituting and changing of laws obstructing hunter recruitment and prohibiting methods of hunting all together as it will never be one fail swoop that ends all hunting...it will be minor things here and there that some of us will node in agreement with as it doesn't align with our regional culturally influenced moral compass and this will continue until we've all moraled, ethiced, and principled our way completely out of hunting.

 

[Philip Glass]

You can use your Swaro range finder on the golf course to get the distance and pick the right club for the distance. Ban that technology in a Major Championship event (and maybe all of Pro Tour golf?) and make golfers/caddies use charted information separately gathered instead, just like a hunter has to use a separate range finder from scope. No one is upset by having rules for top tier golf, but there's a problem with setting rules for top level hunting?

My point is I only need an extra second or two to achieve the same thing as the smart scope With my binos.
I would‘nt know anything about golf so I’ll leave that comparison to you folks.
Regards,
Philip

 

[Tbitty]

My point is I only need an extra second or two to achieve the same thing as the smart scope With my binos.
I would‘nt know anything about golf so I’ll leave that comparison to you folks.
Regards,
Philip

I'm just playing a little devils advocate here. I certainly understand there is very little difference in using a rangefinder and scope separately, but I do believe it is a significant difference.

We all know seconds can be the difference in getting a shot or not sometimes. For example, this year I got a buck with my bow that came in silently and walked straight down the trail near my stand. Luckily, I knew the range and only had to draw and release. Had I needed to range him, he'd have walked past before I could put down rangefinder and pick up bow. Seconds matter.

More importantly to this conversation, there is no skill involved when you only have to push a button and a red X lights up in your scope screen as the corrected crosshairs for range, ballistics, wind, elevation, temperature or whatever else those gizmos can do. Any idiot can point and shoot with something like that. Comparatively, if I have to use a rangefinder, calculate my drop based on zero and distance, correct for any other variables, then change the dials or adjust my point of aim (which is exactly how I do it with my gear), I'm at a significant disadvantage to the high dollar technology but I know I am using skills I have learned and spent time engraving in my brain.

I could formulate an argument as well that even with a generic Remington 700 off the shelf, equipped with a $100 scope and any box of factory ammo is an advantage today over anything used 100 years ago. There is no way to set a definitive line to what is or is not a technological advantage. Everyone may have a little different view of what is or is not "fair." As someone else above referenced - i don't know that I can specifically define it, but I do know it when I see it. And the only way a group like B&C can make these rules is to set clear definitions that can't be ambiguous. Besides, it's only a piece of paper signed that says "I didn't use these things" - I could simply sign it and how would they know? Everyone had to be their own judge to some level

 

[Big5]

The Boone and Crockett Club is a non-profit organization with a Records Committee and set of rules and requirements for book entry.

I have no self interest in the B&C Club rules one way or the other. I am simply one who believes that any club or private organization can establish and or modify membership and entry rules as they see fit. When those rules do not suit one’s personal belief’s they have a right to refrain from participating. With that thought in mind I see no problem here.

Just my 2 cents. Other than that, . . . shoot straight and good hunting to you all.

 

[rookhawk]

This B&C ruling troubles me, particularly the "smart rifle scopes" ban. The reason it troubles me is that it puts ego and bravado over humane kills. If someone uses a scope that provides a firing solution, it ensures a more precise kill. Whether we think that's too much technology or not, it is a distant afterthought to the benefit that more animals die swiftly with less suffering.

I like really good glass and low profile scopes. For those reasons, I do not believe I will ever own a rangefinding rifle scope as there will never be sufficient demand to justify a straight tube or small bell riflescope in the 1-8x range with this feature. What I do whenever I have the time to do so, is I glass my intended animal whether at 40 yards or 225 yards with my leica binos and get a range confirmation. I then hold correctly whether that is 2" low or 12" high. It's not for my ego, its for the animal's benefit that if I chuff the shot, hopefully its still a proper shot into the vitals.

The B&C policy against rangefinding tech was thoughtless and was aimed at harming a group they do not like and that I don't care for particularly: the ultra long-range hunter. B&C wanted to screw over these guys taking shots at 1300 yards on elk across canyons with scopes that reset the crosshairs so it is point-and-click. Those same guys can take that same unethical shot without a computer by doping the wind and getting out their mil/min chart and doing some pen and paper calculations. In either case, the ethical violation happening is the terminal performance of the bullet being inadequate to ensure proper expansion and a swift death. But B&C contrived a technology they thought they could ban to stick it to these hunters. Wrong move. Stick it to those hunters by explaining what unethical shooting distances are and why. Do not punish a technology that even at close ranges will result in less needless suffering for wildlife shot with the wrong holdover.

The trail camera laws are another ridiculous ban. Most people I know using 30 trail cameras on their property are using them for much more important reasons than patterning a big buck, sadly. They are dealing with a constant onslaught of poaching trespassers and video evidence of coyotes dragging piles of dead fawns around. The net consequence of the trail camera bans are that we will not be able to manage our land for trespassers, poachers, and predators. And you know what we will do in response to that? We will kill every F'ing deer that shows 1" of antler the second we see it. Because if we can't police our lands for threats on wildlife we sure the hell are not going to let those 150" bucks walk, giving them another year. A poacher is going to jack them and never get caught without the trailcamera evidence so the hell with this. Scorched earth. Kill every damned "brown its down" deer you see because if you don't kill it, someone trespassing sure the hell will. Your property, better kill it before the crooks do.

And that's why I hate legislating hunting ethics. It never works, and the unintended consequences are rarely considered. A bunch of old elitists just make this shit up to f' over certain seedy elements of the hunting community without any consideration to the overall damage to conservation.

P.S. - Mights as well poach the hell out of all lands you can at this point, when you get busted doing it on someone's trail camera you can get the case tossed because the photo evidence would be inadmissable. Yay conservation and wildlife!

 

[rookhawk]

I just read the Colorado DOW rules on game cameras. "Live action" game cameras are banned, but cameras that "record" visual data and store data for later use are legal.

The Colorado boys certainly didn't know a thing about technology when they wrote that law. "Live Action" implies a video feed. So an analog video file would be banned which is 24 frames per second. But what about a picture, say a Jpeg? What about 5 of them in a burst (what all cameras do). Oh, okay. What about cellular upload? Is that realtime? What's realtime, the latency of the public internet? What if I add 1500ms delay before they upload? What if the camera only connects and uploads every 5 minutes to push the images? What if its every 5 hours?

That's the problem with such ambiguity. It will just create firmware updates for cameras to circumvent whatever stupid rules they create. It's also unconstitutional I would suspect. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, freedom from harm, right to defend one's person and property. The DNR cannot define why a "trail camera" is being used. They can never know intent. Is it to take pictures of big bucks and instantly leap from your bed in your PJs to go jack that deer while it is standing in the food plot? Or is it to ensure you don't have trespassers? Or is it to ensure you do not have feral cats, predators, or to look at the amount of weeds growing our the draught of your crops? What if the ADT security cameras on the barn or shop accidentally record your food plot or ag field and deer are recorded? Is your home security or work security system illegal? What if I install permanent, wired cameras throughout the food plots provided by a security company?

It seems nobody thought of any of this stuff, they just got pissed off that there were 83 trail cameras at their favorite water hole out west and somebody else was getting the lead bull every year before they could.

 

[rookhawk]

The Boone and Crockett Club is a non-profit organization with a Records Committee and set of rules and requirements for book entry.

I have no self interest in the B&C Club rules one way or the other. I am simply one who believes that any club or private organization can establish and or modify membership and entry rules as they see fit. When those rules do not suit one’s personal belief’s they have a right to refrain from participating. With that thought in mind I see no problem here.

Just my 2 cents. Other than that, . . . shoot straight and good hunting to you all.

Accept these "clubs" are really more of trade unions or PACs. What they say instills power and mandate into politicians and bureaucrats. With B&C onboard, you'll find more DNR departments emboldened to ban things legally. You cannot legislate ethics. Ever. Law and ethics are wholly unrelated.

I've made three replies in a row. I gotta cut it out. Just hot under the collar this morning .

 

[Tundra Tiger]

I have no dog in this fight. Never had anything scored... probably never will. My youngest daughter's first big game animal was a brown bear above the minimum. I've thought about getting it officially scored... but probably won't. Ditto a handful of decent caribou I have been blessed to kill.

My own take is what others have said: it's their club. If you don't like it, walk away. I personally think there's too much technology in hunting now anyway, but... I'm a stick in the mud and know it, and the bell can't be unrung, even if some organizations choose to try and safeguard against it.

Stupid people are going to do stupid things and dishonest people are always going to be OK with lying. It's been that way since the beginning of time and it seems to me that it just gains momentum with each successive year.

Heck, someone trying to take a stand probably makes me respect them a bit more, even if they are likely pissing into the wind.

 

[Tbitty]

The Colorado boys certainly didn't know a thing about technology when they wrote that law. "Live Action" implies a video feed. So an analog video file would be banned which is 24 frames per second. But what about a picture, say a Jpeg? What about 5 of them in a burst (what all cameras do). Oh, okay. What about cellular upload? Is that realtime? What's realtime, the latency of the public internet? What if I add 1500ms delay before they upload? What if the camera only connects and uploads every 5 minutes to push the images? What if its every 5 hours?

That's the problem with such ambiguity. It will just create firmware updates for cameras to circumvent whatever stupid rules they create. It's also unconstitutional I would suspect. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, freedom from harm, right to defend one's person and property. The DNR cannot define why a "trail camera" is being used. They can never know intent. Is it to take pictures of big bucks and instantly leap from your bed in your PJs to go jack that deer while it is standing in the food plot? Or is it to ensure you don't have trespassers? Or is it to ensure you do not have feral cats, predators, or to look at the amount of weeds growing our the draught of your crops? What if the ADT security cameras on the barn or shop accidentally record your food plot or ag field and deer are recorded? Is your home security or work security system illegal? What if I install permanent, wired cameras throughout the food plots provided by a security company?

It seems nobody thought of any of this stuff, they just got pissed off that there were 83 trail cameras at their favorite water hole out west and somebody else was getting the lead bull every year before they could.

You are awfully hot under the collar for not bothering to read the regulations. I'll help you out: below is a direct copy and paste from their online rule book.

▶ Use live-action game cameras to locate, surveil, or aid/assist in locating/surveiling
game wildlife in order to take/try to take wildlife during the same or following day.
"Live-action game camera" is any device capable of recording and transmitting
photographic/video data wirelessly to a remote device (such as a computer or smart
phone). This doesn't include game cameras that record photographic/video data
and store such data for later use, as long as the device cannot transmit data wirelessly.

So the boys at Colorado did write the law to effectively remove the ambiguity you're so worried about. I added the boldface so you could see the clear definitions. Anyone who doesn't understand could call the Parks and Wildlife Department for clarity. Or think they can outsmart the law like you attempt to do with your post (maybe you/they get away with something or maybe face the consequences of breaking laws). Handily, they also define these as illegal for the purpose/intent of taking game. Note thay there is no attempt to define why you are using one, nor disallow you to use them with the purpose to prevent poachers or landowners to protect their land.

This is no different than laws against using artificial light to take game. It doesn't say you can't own or use a flashlight to walk in/out of a stand or any other reason.

Read the rules first. Then formulate an argument if you still feel these laws are not in the best interest of ethical hunting. I also disagree with most of your other post, too, but I'm tired of typing. Instead I'll limit myself to saying your "P.S." addition is completely asinine and not even remotely related to anything the B&C is trying to do. ... go poach your baby deer if that's what makes you feel good about being better than B&C's rules.

 

[CoElkHunter]

The Colorado boys certainly didn't know a thing about technology when they wrote that law. "Live Action" implies a video feed. So an analog video file would be banned which is 24 frames per second. But what about a picture, say a Jpeg? What about 5 of them in a burst (what all cameras do). Oh, okay. What about cellular upload? Is that realtime? What's realtime, the latency of the public internet? What if I add 1500ms delay before they upload? What if the camera only connects and uploads every 5 minutes to push the images? What if its every 5 hours?

That's the problem with such ambiguity. It will just create firmware updates for cameras to circumvent whatever stupid rules they create. It's also unconstitutional I would suspect. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, freedom from harm, right to defend one's person and property. The DNR cannot define why a "trail camera" is being used. They can never know intent. Is it to take pictures of big bucks and instantly leap from your bed in your PJs to go jack that deer while it is standing in the food plot? Or is it to ensure you don't have trespassers? Or is it to ensure you do not have feral cats, predators, or to look at the amount of weeds growing our the draught of your crops? What if the ADT security cameras on the barn or shop accidentally record your food plot or ag field and deer are recorded? Is your home security or work security system illegal? What if I install permanent, wired cameras throughout the food plots provided by a security company?

It seems nobody thought of any of this stuff, they just got pissed off that there were 83 trail cameras at their favorite water hole out west and somebody else was getting the lead bull every year before they could.

You make SOME valid points. It's some of the same DOW thinking that bans scopes, sabots, pellet powder and inline ignition for muzzleloaders during the muzzle loading seasons. I'm guessing some of these handicaps, especially not being able to use a scope, leads to a number of wounded and lost animals every year. But, in their defense, these regulations are meant to limit an unfair advantage for muzzleloader hunters versus rifle hunters as the muzzleloaders get the first hunting season with mostly limited tags. Anyway, with regards to the use of trail cameras, I feel their use is mostly a moot point unless it's on private property with few or no other hunters pursuing the game. I mostly hunt on public land in the National Forests. The game is relentlessly pursued and there could be a "live feed" camera on every tree and it wouldn't make any difference as to any advantage gain by the hunter. This isn't the movies/videos, where you see elk standing around on some private ranch waiting to get shot. They haven't seen or smelled a hunter and haven't been chased around either. During hunting seasons, these animals feed and drink at night and are moving constantly during the day. This fallacy that elk or deer on public hunting property are standing around a "water hole" at dawn or dusk waiting for the hunter watching a live feed video from the comfort of his motor home to walk their fat ass several miles to "surprise" them is just not reality. Where I hunt, there are NUMEROUS beaver ponds, streams and small lakes over MANY square miles. How many cameras does the "hunter" want to use? They better have a SAT COM link because otherwise they won't have any signal. So, in conclusion, I don't really care if someone wants to waste their time setting up trail cameras (legal or otherwise) where I hunt. Two years ago, some idiot was flying a drone in the camp across from us. I guess "Mr. Wizard" thought he was going to try and spot elk with it when the hunting season started the next day. If he were to be caught using it, the DOW would seize everything from him except his thong. I guess trail cameras can be beneficial in certain applications, but not where I hunt and probably most of public land hunting in the West.