Contributors to this thread:
Any truth to the state banning cellular cams on public property?
Any cameras, state land and all walk in areas
Yeah, they banned them at the latest commission meeting. Department land and WIHA, as WI said. Commission says they’re gearing up for a baiting ban fight the next couple years. That’ll be fun!
Any bans should be for ALL property, public and private.
If it's bad, then it's bad and stepping over property line doesn't change that.
There are other states that have banned them on public.
It would be next to impossible to enforce that on private land.
I use my cell camera for security at my house.
Should that be illegal? Try me.
Arizona has banned baiting and more recently all cams on public and private (for hunting use) in recent years.
"AZ banned the use of cams during hunting seasons on public lands, not year-round, and the ban certainly doesn't apply to private property."
You may want to check on that, AZ. Here's the actual language from the regulation that was passed:
"5. A person shall not place, maintain, or use a trail camera, or images, video, to include location, time, or date data from a trail camera, for the purpose of taking or aiding in the take of wildlife or locating wildlife for the purpose of taking or aiding in the take of wildlife."
I don't see any distinction between public and private, or off-season and on-season.
Matt
What is the rational for banning them on public?
I do like the wording of that AZ regulation. It's pretty forceful.
I'd expect that private landowners will have some success (though perhaps limited) with arguing plausible deniability and a claim that they are merely keeping tabs on tresspassers, but think of the up-side here for public land hunters in terms of having to compete with extreme pressure in areas known to many to hold a particularly desirable "trophy" animal. And let's face it - if people are targeting a specific individual buck/bull/ram/billy/what-have-you, 3 is "a lot" of people and 2 is probably one too many as far as most would be concerned...
Personally, I hope it catches on like a bad fire in a worse drought. "How other people choose to hunt" doesn't affect me... until it does. And I think there's a very solid, rational argument to be made that bait, trail cams and stands that get left in place all season - or year after year, as is clearly the case up here - are all perfectly legitimate examples of individual practices which result in impacts on other hunters.
Didn't AZ do it due to the disruption it was causing on water holes? Something like a hundred cameras on a single water source?
azelkhntr I couldn't agree more.
It does apply to private property in AZ.
A chip here, a chip there...Lol
Baiting will be next with CWD spreading faster by the year, they've said it for 2 years when they run through the data at the meetings. A quarter to almost half of the 2.5 year old or older bucks in north central and northwest ks are positive according to their data.
What did KANSAS cite as the rational for banning the cams?
Reduce conflict on public lands - using them to monitor parking lots or other hunters in the area and using them to "claim" certain hunting areas is what they said at the meeting
"Reduce conflict on public lands - using them to monitor parking lots or other hunters in the area and using them to "claim" certain hunting areas is what they said at the meeting"
I get banning trail cameras on public land, but question banning them on private land. Seems an over-reach to me.
Thanks KSB. Too bad it just results in another gift to the big landowners and the outfitters that lease up their land. Public Land Joe gets flicked in the nuts one more time "for the good of hunting".
Bait bans only on public will be an even bigger kick to the nads. Outfitters will just lace the borders with bait and make sure Joe Public never gets a chance at a deer. And then hunters will wring their hands and worry about dwindling hunter numbers and influence.
Good points KSB, and not to hijack the thread, but I personally don’t believe CWD is spreading like wildfire; I believe that testing is spreading because that’s where the easy money is.
Kansas ranks 49th for least amount of public land. 98.1% private ownership. So when outfitters lace the boarders it's almost always private.
I don't think baiting has ever been allowed on public in KS.
I don't imagine them ever banning cameras on private, just public lands.
Public land only, they didn’t hit the private…Just watched clips of the meeting! SMH I thought CA was bad, but KS board is a very close 2nd!!! Wow
So the change affects 1.9 percent of the land mass of Kansas?!
Is your 1.9 including the private that is enrolled in the walk in hunting program.
Ambush and DGW, I got that stat off a random website that compares states private land vs public land. I believe the site I looked at went with ownership as it's criteria, so no it probably doesn't include WIHA as it is privately owned (opened to the public through the program). I don't know the number of acres enrolled in WIHA and suspect it probably changes yearly anyway.
I haven't paid real close attention to all this but if I'm correct they intend to ban camera's from public land, then go towards a total ban on baiting (public and private).
I'm all for it. Ban cell cams and baiting nationwide.
I own 100 cellular game cameras and I have plenty of time. I am going to put them on every trail on every bit of WIHA ground I can find starting in August
By Oct 1st I'm going to know far, far more about which bucks live where than a guy who doesn't run camera's at all
My advantage is the technology - right ?
I think that's what a public ban on hunting camera's is - it levels the field (and no, I don't really have 100 cameras)
I support the bans and as a hunter who goes to KS every year, there is a place of two I do put cameras on public land and doing so allows me to get an idea of what bucks are in those areas. Now? I'll do it old school - I'll walk it, look for big scrapes, big rubs and actually have to hunt more than I would have just by hanging a couple of cameras
I'm ok with that
Another law another restriction just another way for the government to control you. Be careful what you wish for.
Why don't we just ban the monetization of our wildlife through content producers, video production, and product promotion? The rest will take care of itself.
KS resident... I like it. If I recall correctly the reasoning was mainly two parts: people don't want their picture taken on some random persons camera while they are out enjoying public lands and secondly, they were causing conflicts.
I have experienced all of this. I have walked past a cell cam and had notes on my truck when I got back to stay out. I have had people come in to "check their camera" while I am hunting because I got there first. And other issues...
I try not to give a damn what other people do. But it would be nice to enjoy the out of doors with out any extra hassles. There is not a lot of public land in KS, especially in the east where the majority of the population is.
Stealthycat- you just think you know all the bucks. I've owned some small properties for over ten years and often see much larger bucks in person that I often never get on camera. I once ran cameras in the wildlife area north of my town. Got the same young bucks for weeks, then moved one a short distance away to a new woodlot and got a big 7x7 on it. Talked to a nearby landowner and he said that 7x7 came from 2 miles away.
