A Theoretical Question...

What's the hunt looking like this year in your area? Share!
User avatar
kellory
 
Posts: 2654
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 3:01 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: A Theoretical Question...

Postby kellory » Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:08 pm

Woods Walker wrote:"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.

Would it be a fair assumption then, that your oppose setting snares or leg traps? It does it's work with out your intervention as well, yet it is another side of hunting as a whole. And it captures an image instead of a leg, So what is the difference? They are both snares, yet cameras do not harm the animal. Yet trapping has been around about as long as hunting.
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
Woods Walker
 
Posts: 4933
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:21 am
Location: Northern Illinois

Re: A Theoretical Question...

Postby Woods Walker » Fri Dec 23, 2011 9:28 pm

I trapped for many years, in fact I trapped before I started hunting. In one sense you're right, there is a lot of comparison. But on the other hand, if you've ever trapped you know the skill level it takes to put a specific animal into a set that you made. Far more than hanging a camera in a tree. But that's me.

Besides, traps don't use batteries or microchips! And if something for the woods uses either one of them then I neither want nor need it. :mrgreen:
Hunt Hard,

Kill Swiftly,

Waste Nothing,

Offer No Apologies.....

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

User avatar
kellory
 
Posts: 2654
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 3:01 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: A Theoretical Question...

Postby kellory » Fri Dec 23, 2011 11:44 pm

Woods Walker wrote:I trapped for many years, in fact I trapped before I started hunting. In one sense you're right, there is a lot of comparison. But on the other hand, if you've ever trapped you know the skill level it takes to put a specific animal into a set that you made. Far more than hanging a camera in a tree. But that's me.

Besides, traps don't use batteries or microchips! And if something for the woods uses either one of them then I neither want nor need it. :mrgreen:

You know I have and use no cameras, however, there ia nothing wrong with a battery or a chip. Especially if the batteries are recharables, and use a solar cell to keep them topped off. In that case, the are nearly perfect. Chips are much more reliable than any mechanical apiture especially in the cold. These componients alone do not make something bad or too techie. It is all in how it is used. Yes, you traps required knowledge and skill, and some of the camera ideas I have seen also required skill and creativity. Cameras catching cameras in crossfire to snoke out thieves, cameras set as hidden watchers for tresspassers, cameras set from high angles to make them unstealable, and still watch game trails. This uplink ability is a new twist because it will allow scouting without stinking up the woods. Even th best scout leaves some trace of himself behind, and we all know it does not take much to alert a mature buck or mature doe. Cameras have become a fact of life in our daily lives wiether we like it or not, and to try to ignore them would be to put your head in the sand. You are on camera dozens of times a day, from ATMs , stores, survailance cameras of apartment buildings, buses, subways, train and airports, nearly everywhere you go, you may be on camera. Cameras for hunting are nothing more than tools to examine what is already there, and what may be happening. It can't do anything more for you than the sight on your gun, as it focases your attenion, and refines your aim. A game camera might help me decide to take out a lame or sick deer, instead of a health one because I would have more than a few seconds or minutes to decide on a course of action. I had a choice between a 6 point and an 8 point a few years ago. I choose the 6 because it looked injured. What I saw was scar tisue from an eartier injury (it had tangled with a truck at some time). I am a meat hunter, and I choose the deer with the least meat because of that injury. It looked worse than it was. But a camera might have allowed a better examination. I did what felt right, but there was nothing really wrong with that deer. It is a ligitamate tool for some sorts of hunting, and scouting. But the only use we are getting out of th one camera we recently picked up, is patrol duty. metal thieves have walked off with most of the man portable steel and aluminum on the farm. So we now have a hidden survailance camera. Either way it seems to catch animals. :(
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
charlie 01
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 4:44 am
Location: Illinois

Re: A Theoretical Question...

Postby charlie 01 » Sat Dec 24, 2011 12:38 am

I use trail cams, and enjoy them immensly. I like being able to see what is going on in and around my areas, whether it's people, coyote, or big buck traffic. I don't consider it a tool for hunting. The bucks around me are not that predictable, there are no set times in their travels. I like to know just what kind of bucks are around. With all the years I've been at this, (bow hunting) I have always set my goals as I've graduated on up the line from does to bucks to the biggest, and I presume the smartest in the area. It dosn't always work out. I've passed on bucks these last 2 years waiting and hoping for a chance at the one I'm trying for, and ending up with nothing, but enjoying every day I hunted even though I didn't kill anything. To me, it's all about the challenging goals I set for myself. But thats just me, everyone is different.
I use a range finder. Our goal is to make a clean and quick kill. I will use anything (within reason) that can help me to accomplish that. But what ever I use, rest assured I will be out in the woods using it, not at home behind a computer.
never say never
patience is the companion of wisdom

User avatar
Woods Walker
 
Posts: 4933
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:21 am
Location: Northern Illinois

Re: A Theoretical Question...

Postby Woods Walker » Sat Dec 24, 2011 8:13 am

Again, I'm not saying that no one should use trail cams, or any other legal device for that matter. This is soley about personal preference. No more, no less.

And for me, if I'm going to observe a deer, then I'd rather I see it with my own eyes, in the woods, in real time. But I don't even have to see it. For me, reading sign is part of the woods experience and adding a device that replaces a human activity detracts from that. This is also why I find hunting shows to be mind-numbingly boring. There's nothing worse than watching someone else who I don't know doing what I want to be doing. Hunting for me is definately a "hands on" activity, from the scouting to the hand sharpening of the broadheads I use. Taking something all set to go from a package just doesn't do it for me. Sometimes that can't be avoided, but as much as I can I like to do it myself.

Aldo Leopold in his "Sand County Almanac" said that technology is fine as long as it enhances a learned skill and not replaces it. Trail cams can be debated either way on this one I suppose. But like I say, if I'm going to take a photo, I'd rather be there taking it. The same would apply to a remote video camera.

Another example are calling devices. I've hunted crows and predators with electronic calls and with mouth/hand calls, and I much prefer the mouth/hand calls, and I even learned how years ago to call predators with no call at all, just my hands. For me, getting a coyote of a fox to fall for your ruse with just the sounds you make with your body is a very satisfying experience.

On the other side of the coin, if it's during mosquito season, DON'T DEPRIVE ME OF MY THERMACELL! :mrgreen:
Last edited by Woods Walker on Sun Dec 25, 2011 12:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Hunt Hard,

Kill Swiftly,

Waste Nothing,

Offer No Apologies.....

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

User avatar
Gulfcapt
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:30 pm

Re: A Theoretical Question...

Postby Gulfcapt » Sat Dec 24, 2011 5:44 pm

This thread been going for awhile.

I to enjoy the use of a cam It's neat to view what you might have in the area your hunting, and pictures that you can share with friends and family that don't hunt but enjoy seeing those kind of pics..Heck I have pics of bucks that I have never seen during the day or even got pics of during the day.. I can't remember who it was on this forum last year that was takeing pics with a camera and posting them but those were great photos also.

people that don't use them I believe miss out on some neat deer they will never see. :D

User avatar
Woods Walker
 
Posts: 4933
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:21 am
Location: Northern Illinois

Re: A Theoretical Question...

Postby Woods Walker » Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:14 pm

" I will use anything (within reason) that can help me to accomplish that."

So Charlie, my question again.......Where, for you, does "within reason" become unreasonable? (And for the sake of this discussion, let's assume that we are talking legal.) There are no right or wrong answers, just honest ones. Maybe you really don't know, or you haven't really thought about it much. Maybe you don't care.

Another way to put it, is how much high tech stuff would you use before it began to DETRACT from the hunting experience? As I said, this is a personal benchmark and it will differ for all of us. And no one person is at the same benchmark for all time either. It may vary, and in my case I hit my tech "peak" about a decade ago. I just wasn't enjoying the hunt like I had, so I went back to simple for the most part, and it's where I want to be.
Hunt Hard,

Kill Swiftly,

Waste Nothing,

Offer No Apologies.....

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

User avatar
kellory
 
Posts: 2654
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 3:01 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: A Theoretical Question...

Postby kellory » Sun Dec 25, 2011 1:00 am

Woods Walker wrote:I trapped for many years, in fact I trapped before I started hunting. In one sense you're right, there is a lot of comparison. But on the other hand, if you've ever trapped you know the skill level it takes to put a specific animal into a set that you made. Far more than hanging a camera in a tree. But that's me.

Besides, traps don't use batteries or microchips! And if something for the woods uses either one of them then I neither want nor need it. :mrgreen:

So. you would be opposed to a leg trap that could report that it has been triggered? That would require a chip and a battery, but could prevent several hours of needless suffering in a leg trap, and that is assuming the traps are run each day as required here.That IS one of the biggest complaints from the Anti's when it comes to trapping. It would not allow enough time for an animal to chew off it's trapped leg either, letting it excape wounded, or die wasted. An addition no larger than my thumb would prevent that and be no more complacated than a beeping noise on a standard am/fm radio. I could make those, and simply zip-tie them to the traps now, if I had the parts. Would that be too high tech for you? It could trigger with a mercury switch when the trap springs, or as contacts closing when the jaws close, though it would be more universal to set a cherry switch to the trigger lever near the piviot. (there it would not impede the motion or break pressure of the trigger :geek: ) Would that interfere eith your enjoyment of the sport in any way?
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
Gulfcapt
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:30 pm

Re: A Theoretical Question...

Postby Gulfcapt » Sun Dec 25, 2011 6:55 am

I would have to ask what is the difference between setting out a leg trap over night or putting a camera up over night? Your still haveing to #1 scout a place to set the camera just like a leg trap #2 put it out like a leg trap #3 check it like a leg trap. But one thing that does come to mind is you don't run the chance with a trail cam of lameing a animal that dosn't deserve to be in a leg trap.

User avatar
Woods Walker
 
Posts: 4933
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:21 am
Location: Northern Illinois

Re: A Theoretical Question...

Postby Woods Walker » Mon Dec 26, 2011 7:31 am

You want to talk trapping? GREAT! Let's dance!

First off.....this talk of animals chewing off their limbs and lingering for many hours. I know PETA and the like try to paint that as the norm, but that's about as accurate as their claim that for every RECOVERED bow shot deer, there are 4 or 5 that wander off and die lingering deaths. That's kind of thing is the mark of inexperience in a trapper. Here's why. The whole point of trapping is to get the animals pelt. You want that pelt in as perfect a condition as possible so that you can get the most money for it. To do that you want that animal to spend as little time in a trap alive as possible so that all damage is minimized. You also speak of tearing off limbs. The only time that can happen is if the animal is alive, and you in your inexperience have set a trap for the particular animal you are setting for that is TOO BIG for it and you break bone. When you trap aquatic furbearers, you rig either "killer" type traps (Conibears), or you make drowning sets. That's what I did for my muskrat, beaver and mink sets. In all the years I trapped, I had ONE pull out, and that was when I first started. After that my mentor showed me how to make drowning sets. For land based animals, you DO NOT stake a trap, but you use brush grapples so that the animal cannot get a firm pull. They do not go far.

When trapping certain animals you also use a trap size specifically for a front or rear foot. This is quite common when trapping beaver. You have to know how to analyze beaver "slides" where they enter and leave the water. For land animals, you need to be able to target exactly where an animal will set a foot based on body size so that you catch the animal you are pursuing. An example of this is if you want coyotes, and not possums.

As far as a camera in this application goes, all it would do is tell you when you had an animal, and it would be a moot point for me, because the cost of a camera that could be monitored from home would make the entire venture cost prohibitive, and for me the whole point of trapping in the first place was the daily (and sometimes twice daily) walk I made in the woods and fields. The so-called "lessening of time suffering" wouldn't change. Any ethical and smart trapper checks his traps ASAP for the reasons I already pointed out. Drowning and killer traps take that part out of the equation, but you still want to recover the animal quick to lessen pelt damage by other predators.

I know you are trying to "catch" me in a "whats' the difference" analogy, but the camera angle ain't it. But being the benevolet fellow that I am (remember, no right or wrong answers, just honest ones), I will tell you how you can. If I were really wanting NO "high tech" (which again is a realtive term and will vary with each person, or as JPH says...quite accurately I may add.....is a "moving target") as far as trapping goes, then I'd NOT be using mass produced steel traps. I'd be using deadfalls and other type set ups that used all natural materials that I found in the woods. But I don't. Lastly, for me anyway, setting up a camera is no comparison to the skills and woodsmanship one needs to trap. If you have any woods skills at all then figuring out where to point a camera in the hopes of taking a picture of a deer shouldn't be all that difficult, while with the trap you have to know what is there, and specifically to the square inch of where you want it to put it's foot.

As a final point...be VERY careful with this kind of analogy....

"I would have to ask what is the difference between setting out a leg trap over night or putting a camera up over night? Your still haveing to #1 scout a place to set the camera just like a leg trap #2 put it out like a leg trap #3 check it like a leg trap. But one thing that does come to mind is you don't run the chance with a trail cam of lameing a animal that dosn't deserve to be in a leg trap."

Why? Because that very thing can be said for hunting. Why attempt to shoot the deer and risk wounding and not recovering it when you can just take a harmless photo of it?

These are my answers to your questions. You may not agree with them, and that's fine. But that's where I'm at.....for me, not you or anyone else.
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: No registered users and 11 guests