A Theoretical Question...

What's the hunt looking like this year in your area? Share!
User avatar
kellory
 
Posts: 2677
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 3:01 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: A Theoretical Question...

Postby kellory » Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:08 pm

JPH wrote:
Woods Walker wrote:Thanks to all for the participation on this thread! Interesting answers for sure.

But I'd like to bring things back to the center for a bit.......

What are your opinions on trail cams that can be monitored from a computer or smart phone with you not having to set foot in the woods? (For hunting purposes). Is this a good thing? Is this going too far? Or if it's not too far, then is it a another step towards going too far? IS there a "too far"?

Again, these are personal limitations. I'm not suggesting banning anything.

That was the original question? Shoot, I missed the whole point. Forgive me, I'm a little show. What were we talking about again?

An easy mistake JPH, here it is for you. ;)" So here's my main question. For those of you who do use them, and even those who don't, what's YOUR "tech threshold"?

Just for the record....and I've stated this before....mine is pretty well regarding anything that has batteries and/or a microchip, as far as using it in the field. The 2 exceptions to that are a flashlight, and the throw away camera that I keep in my truck if I make a kill. But that's me. How about you?" Glad I could help. ;)
The only real difference between a good tracker and a bad tracker is observation. All the same data is present for both. The rest is understanding what you are seeing.

User avatar
bobow
 
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:26 am
Location: Northern IL

Re: A Theoretical Question...

Postby bobow » Thu Dec 22, 2011 5:55 am

Woods Walker wrote:But I'd like to bring things back to the center for a bit.......

What are your opinions on trail cams that can be monitored from a computer or smart phone with you not having to set foot in the woods? (For hunting purposes). Is this a good thing? Is this going too far? Or if it's not too far, then is it a another step towards going too far? IS there a "too far"?

Again, these are personal limitations. I'm not suggesting banning anything.


I'm kind of split on this. It would be nice just to monitor the population to see if anything is out there. If I could afford it, I don't know if I would or not.

Now a predator drone, that may be over the top! :D
Thomas Jefferson, 1774 July. "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time."

Life Member: NRA, ISRA; Member CCRA

User avatar
kellory
 
Posts: 2677
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 3:01 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: A Theoretical Question...

Postby kellory » Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:26 am

bobow wrote:
Woods Walker wrote:But I'd like to bring things back to the center for a bit.......

What are your opinions on trail cams that can be monitored from a computer or smart phone with you not having to set foot in the woods? (For hunting purposes). Is this a good thing? Is this going too far? Or if it's not too far, then is it a another step towards going too far? IS there a "too far"?

Again, these are personal limitations. I'm not suggesting banning anything.


I'm kind of split on this. It would be nice just to monitor the population to see if anything is out there. If I could afford it, I don't know if I would or not.

Now a predator drone, that may be over the top! :D

What about thermal sensors planted around the property, to determine where the highest concetration of heat is? Group or singles? Read out on live update by laptop computer or tablet? Or a rotating thermal camera that works like a radar sweep looking for heat.? I would be happy with game cameras that cost less, reported themselves stolen, gave live updates of thier stolen positions, And could be remotely detonated (with the correct code) if stolen. (I think it would greatly cut down on the amount of stolen or vandlized gear in the field.)
The only real difference between a good tracker and a bad tracker is observation. All the same data is present for both. The rest is understanding what you are seeing.

User avatar
motorbreaker
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 11:07 am
Location: s.ohio

Re: A Theoretical Question...

Postby motorbreaker » Thu Dec 22, 2011 7:24 am

I dont see anything wrong with viewing a game camera from your home. I think that would be great.
Alot of people dont have time to get out and scout, Maybe they live far from there hunting property.
Or work all the time. Its not worth the money to me.
One of the biggest reasons I use cameras is to be able to judge if a deer is a shooter, (in my book)
I dont know about you guys but every buck I have taken has looked larger then it realy was. I always
seem to be off by about 7 to 10 points.
If I have a pic of a buck, I can judge from the pic weather he is a shooter or not.And I dont have to take the
time guessing if I have an encounter with the buck.
my goal is to shoot 140" or larger bucks. If i shoot a buck smaller then 130". i'm not happy with myself.
And more often then not, There will be bucks that have not had there picture taken.
Jake

User avatar
JPH
 
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:28 am

Re: A Theoretical Question...

Postby JPH » Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:16 am

motorbreaker wrote:my goal is to shoot 140" or larger bucks. If i shoot a buck smaller then 130". i'm not happy with myself.
And more often then not, There will be bucks that have not had there picture taken.


To each his own, but I think your post is an example of why many hunters are turned off by technology in hunting. Cameras and other tech stuff seem to be tied in to the growing movement that measures the success of a hunt in inches of bone rather than the magic, mystique and meat that pulled most of it in the beginning.

I only say this because I want to see hunters enjoy the experience, but you may be looking at this wrong. Maybe the answer to not being "happy with yourself" at the end of a hunt is not photographic surveillance. Maybe the answer is to shut off the camera and let a little surprise creep back into it. Maybe it's about shooting the deer that feels right, rather than the one who looks best on camera.

User avatar
SwampLife
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 7:10 am
Location: South FL, BooHoo...

Re: A Theoretical Question...

Postby SwampLife » Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:59 am

Woods Walker wrote:Okay! So we have a "high fence/manipulation of genetics" limit, and a "no limit".

Keep 'em coming!


Wait, I thought we were talking about HUNTING!

:D

motorbreaker wrote:I dont see anything wrong with viewing a game camera from your home. I think that would be great.
Alot of people dont have time to get out and scout, Maybe they live far from there hunting property.
Or work all the time. Its not worth the money to me.
One of the biggest reasons I use cameras is to be able to judge if a deer is a shooter, (in my book)
I dont know about you guys but every buck I have taken has looked larger then it realy was. I always
seem to be off by about 7 to 10 points.
If I have a pic of a buck, I can judge from the pic weather he is a shooter or not.And I dont have to take the
time guessing if I have an encounter with the buck.
my goal is to shoot 140" or larger bucks. If i shoot a buck smaller then 130". i'm not happy with myself.
And more often then not, There will be bucks that have not had there picture taken.


Wow, at first I was very taken back by this reply. Measuring your success solely on inches seems kind of crazy. But then I got to thinking, Ohio is a 1 buck state. When I hunt in PA(1 buck state) I am generally only looking for the biggest buck of my life to date. Not because I am ashamed of shooting a smaller buck, but because once I do my chance of shooting my biggest buck or possibly the buck of my lifetime is gone for a whole year...

I think that may have been what you were alluding to, not that you are embarrassed or ashamed of a deer that is <140". But I could be wrong.
No Shortcuts. No Excuses. No Regrets.

User avatar
shaman
 
Posts: 2468
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:38 am

Re: A Theoretical Question...

Postby shaman » Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:07 pm

motorbreaker wrote:I dont see anything wrong with viewing a game camera from your home. I think that would be great.
Alot of people dont have time to get out and scout, Maybe they live far from there hunting property.
Or work all the time. Its not worth the money to me.
One of the biggest reasons I use cameras is to be able to judge if a deer is a shooter, (in my book)
I dont know about you guys but every buck I have taken has looked larger then it realy was. I always
seem to be off by about 7 to 10 points.
If I have a pic of a buck, I can judge from the pic weather he is a shooter or not.And I dont have to take the
time guessing if I have an encounter with the buck.
my goal is to shoot 140" or larger bucks. If i shoot a buck smaller then 130". i'm not happy with myself.
And more often then not, There will be bucks that have not had there picture taken.



I'm just across the Ohio River from you. I'm quite amazed that you can use cameras with that degree of precision. I don't mean for sizing a buck but using it as a predictive tool for gauging your hunting success. If I see a buck on my game cam, I can usually be certain I will never see him in the flesh. The one exception to this was a pair of nice shooters, probably twin brothers that I caught on the game cam in August, and they dropped by while I was setting up one of my stands in September in 2006-- walked up like a couple of kids at a construction job.
Genesis 9:2-4 Ministries of SW Bracken County, KY
Confessions of a Cervid Serial Killer
Image

User avatar
motorbreaker
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 11:07 am
Location: s.ohio

Re: A Theoretical Question...

Postby motorbreaker » Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:17 pm

Its the chalenge that excites me, I see small unwary bucks all the time. there is no challenge there.
ohio is a 1 buck state, And when I have pics of mature bucks, Its a challange to me to get a crack at
one of these mature deer.
Hek it harder to shoot a nice doe at my place then it is to shoot a small buck, There everywhere.

Sorry for gettin off the subject woodsie. But if you use a gun, why not a camera??
Jake

User avatar
motorbreaker
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 11:07 am
Location: s.ohio

Re: A Theoretical Question...

Postby motorbreaker » Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:27 pm

shaman wrote:
motorbreaker wrote:I dont see anything wrong with viewing a game camera from your home. I think that would be great.
Alot of people dont have time to get out and scout, Maybe they live far from there hunting property.
Or work all the time. Its not worth the money to me.
One of the biggest reasons I use cameras is to be able to judge if a deer is a shooter, (in my book)
I dont know about you guys but every buck I have taken has looked larger then it realy was. I always
seem to be off by about 7 to 10 points.
If I have a pic of a buck, I can judge from the pic weather he is a shooter or not.And I dont have to take the
time guessing if I have an encounter with the buck.
my goal is to shoot 140" or larger bucks. If i shoot a buck smaller then 130". i'm not happy with myself.
And more often then not, There will be bucks that have not had there picture taken.



I'm just across the Ohio River from you. I'm quite amazed that you can use cameras with that degree of precision. I don't mean for sizing a buck but using it as a predictive tool for gauging your hunting success. If I see a buck on my game cam, I can usually be certain I will never see him in the flesh. The one exception to this was a pair of nice shooters, probably twin brothers that I caught on the game cam in August, and they dropped by while I was setting up one of my stands in September in 2006-- walked up like a couple of kids at a construction job.

I dont believe a game cam has anything to do with my hunting success. We have only harvested one buck in the last 4 years
that we did not have a picture of.
Proley depends on the area you hunt, buck to doe ratiao,And hunting pressure. yes we get a lot of pics and never see all the bucks
in person all year. Some disapier never to be seen again. Some we see only in summer, Some only in late fall and winter. but
there are enough of them, And sooner or later, They will screw up. And my challange will be met.
Jake

User avatar
Woods Walker
 
Posts: 4953
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:21 am
Location: Northern Illinois

Re: A Theoretical Question...

Postby Woods Walker » Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:17 pm

"Sorry for gettin off the subject woodsie. But if you use a gun, why not a camera??"

I think I understand the context that you are asking this in, so with that in mind here's my response......

When I'm hunting with a gun, the gun is in my hands, and I am doing all of the physical guidance required for it's operation. If I were hunting with a camera, it would be the same situation. The only difference would be that when I pulled the "trigger" on the camera, film would be exposed and not a bullet. In this context, a trail cam would be more akin to a set gun that automatically shoots whatever it is programed to shoot, with me having no physical connection to the act whatsoever.

Hopefully that's what you meant! Correct me if I'm wrong.
Hunt Hard,

Kill Swiftly,

Waste Nothing,

Offer No Apologies.....

>>>--------------------------------->
NRA Endowment Life Member

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 9 guests