Scouting services in crosshairs

[hossblur]

Seems Wyoming and Montana are beginning to address location services. Are these bills the beginning of what I feel is a much needed addressing of tech in hunting? Or what a few feel is outfitter driven attacks on competition?

This forum is more measured than others if be interested to hear opinions.

 

[Schaaf]

I’m amazed at the backlash this has seen from a portion of the hunting community.

You absolutely should not be able to profit simply off an animals location.

 

[Trial153]

I’m amazed at the backlash this has seen from a portion of the hunting community.

You absolutely should not be able to profit simply off an animals location.

Almost all of what I think your referring to mostly stems from being anti anything BHA.

 

[MTGomer]

I support this but am puzzled by BHA’s involvement. It’s not a public access issue.
If BHA is straying beyond public access there are plenty of issues that hunters could use their support on. Trapping bans in Newmexico, wolf hunting bans in Montana, anti ammo legislation that would impact hunting, especially bird hunting in Oregon.
Wildlife Management policy.
The list of things they could involve themselves that would do a lot of good for the public land sportsman outside of directly targeting access is lengthy. Also, the list of things not being done that does target access is lengthy. Interesting allocation of resources.

 

[gutshootem]

Never used anything like this and never will but I dont see all that much difference from some of the subscription services that are available. They might not give you coordinates but damn close. Where is the red line drawn as to how far a hunting area can be narrowed down?

Further, if someone were to pay for hunting fool and another member gives them the exact location of game, how is that any different? Does that also mean we'd never be able to have paid subscriptions to forums like this one since I've seen threads where people share the exact location of animals?

 

[Nameless Range]

The selling of what are basically coordinates may be related to other examples of hunting services or situations but specifically crosses a threshold. I fully support this measure and would support measures that go further.

 

[Trial153]

This bill is pretty specific in that it make reference to a single animal, its discription and location. I think it's a stretch to try to equate that everything I see it being equated to ie hunting fool, go hunt ect ect.

How about this. Is it ok for me to acution off pictures and locations of legal Ram say in an unlimited unit? What about doing that in real time? Is that ok?

 

[Mallardsx2]

The selling of what are basically coordinates may be related to other examples of hunting services or situations but specifically crosses a threshold. I fully support this measure and would support measures that go further.

Whats the difference of selling coordinates of the location of animals and a guide taking clients to animals. I wholeheartedly see your point.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out for sure.

 

[Sytes]

Seems Wyoming and Montana are beginning to address location services. Are these bills the beginning of what I feel is a much needed addressing of tech in hunting? Or what a few feel is outfitter driven attacks on competition?

This forum is more measured than others if be interested to hear opinions.

Do you or any have a link to this issue? Off the cuff, from what I've read in this thread, I believe fair chase excludes the sale of public game animal's location.
It is an interesting conflict with respect to outfitters though. The purchase of a hunt experience where the guides have done their best to locate client game...

Seems a term such as "scout sitting" would be applicable.

Still shooting thoughts from the cuff though maybe something relative to the aerial location of wildlife *could be applied.

 

[Nameless Range]

Whats the difference of selling coordinates of the location of animals and a guide taking clients to animals. I wholeheartedly see your point.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out for sure.

I don't think there is a whole lot of difference philosophically between someone paying a guide to take them to a specific animal, and someone buying a specific animal's locations. I suppose the reason there is a stronger distaste for the latter as opposed to the former stems from possibilities we can imagine.

In conjunction with technology, I could imagine a website one would go to filled with hundreds of thumbnails of different bucks. Click on a buck you like, pay the site, and get all sorts of coordinates of past behavior as well as a live chat with an individual tasked with locating the current location of that animal who would notify you exactly where it is once they relocate it. That would be gross to me personally.

To clarify, I think that and paying a guide to take you to a specific animal is similar, and I don't think much of an argument could be made that there is a meaningful difference between the chit that goes on in the breaks for big rams and the website example above. I just think this is a good start.

 

[Sytes]

Nevermind, found the info. To share for others;

This goes directly to the MT.GOV .PDF as presented below.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw0Qil7ddBVBNMTMVhDj_KYH&cshid=1549461987244

66th Legislature SB0127.01
1 SENATE BILL NO. 127
2 INTRODUCED BY J. COHENOUR
3
4 A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: "AN ACT PROHIBITING THE SALE OF WILDLIFE IDENTIFICATION
5 INFORMATION FOR HUNTING; PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS AND PENALTIES; AND PROVIDING AN
6 IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE."
7
8 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:
9
10 NEW SECTION. Section 1. Sale of wildlife location and identification information for hunting
11 prohibited -- penalties -- exemptions.
12 (1) A person may not advertise or receive remuneration for providing a hunter with location and
13 identification information of a game animal as defined by 87-2-101 or trophy animal as described in 87-6-907 to
14 aid the hunter in the taking of that specific big game animal or trophy animal.
15 (2) Location and identification information prohibited by subsection (1) includes:
16 (a) geographical coordinates of the location of the animal or any maps, drawings, illustrations, or other
17 documents that show the location of the animal; and
18 (b) photographs, drawings, descriptions, or other information that identify the animal.
19 (3) (a) A person convicted of a violation of this section shall be fined not less than $50 or more than
20 $1,000 or be imprisoned in the county detention center for not more than 6 months, or both. In addition, the
21 person, upon conviction or forfeiture of bond or bail, may be subject to forfeiture of any current hunting, fishing,
22 or trapping license issued by this state and the privilege to hunt, fish, or trap in this state or to use state lands,
23 as defined in 77-1-101, for recreational purposes for a period of time set by the court.
24 (b) A violation of this section may also result in an order to pay restitution pursuant to 87-6-905 through
25 87-6-907.
26 (4) This section does not apply to:
27 (a) government agencies or employees, contractors, or designees of a government agency performing
28 lawful duties;
29 (b) resident landowners guiding hunters on land owned by or leased to the landowner; or
30 (c) an outfitter or guide licensed pursuant to Title 37, chapter 47, part 3, employed by a nonresident
- 1 - Authorized Print Version - SB 127

66th Legislature SB0127.01
1 hunter.
2
3 NEW SECTION. Section 2. Effective date. [This act] is effective on passage and approval.
4
5 NEW SECTION. Section 3. Codification instruction. [Section 1] is intended to be codified as an
6 integral part of Title 87, chapter 6, part 4, and the provisions of Title 87, chapter 6, part 4, apply to [section 1].
7 - END -
- 2 - Authorized Print Version - SB 127

 

[Deleted member 16014]

Whats the difference of selling coordinates of the location of animals and a guide taking clients to animals. I wholeheartedly see your point.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out for sure.

One is regulated and the other is not.

 

[BuzzH]

What Montana and Wyoming are attempting to curtail is the selling of GPS coordinates, along with photographs of specific animals being sold in scouting packages. The price of said packages depends on the B&C score of the specific animal in question. There are other issues as well, like the sellers of said information/photos not being licensed, regulated, insured, and having the proper filming permits to sell photos.

Then there is the ethical fair chase argument to make as well. Many, myself included, just don't find it that palatable to have people, mostly from out of State, essentially selling our wildlife. This type of thing can put an undue amount of pressure on wildlife, leading to higher and higher success rates. When that happens, Wildlife managers respond, typically by reducing season length, reducing permits, or both.

With all the good inexpensive technology advances, from better shooting firearms, bows, optics, rangefinders, etc. etc...this is just another way to stack the deck in favor of the hunter.

Some will argue that its no different than a guide/outfitter...well, yeah it is. Guides and outfitters are regulated. Some will argue its no different than gohunt, eastmans, or hunting fool...yeah, it is. They don't sell specific information to a particular animal, and base the cost of their service on the score of the animal.

As far as friends sharing information, again, wayyyy different, no money is changing hands and I'm very particular (like most people) on who I share information with.

The bill in Wyoming has made it through the House side, and passed out of the Senate TRW yesterday on a 4-1 vote to give the commission authority to set regulations on technology, including what is being discussed here.

 

[el unit]

Thanks for posting the info hossblur and Sytes.

 

[MTGomer]

This topic is being taken personally on the Rok under the General Discussioms forum. Good stuff

 

[Deleted member 16014]

This topic is being taken personally on the Rok under the General Discussioms forum. Good stuff

Yes the "backpack hunt for prairie dog" crowd is all up in arms on both sides over there...good entertainment.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Whats the difference of selling coordinates of the location of animals and a guide taking clients to animals.

Guiding is regulated as said by others, but also the main thing you are paying for on a guided hunt is logistical help, i.e. getting you there, gear, setting up camp, dealing with your animal, etc. I've yet to see a guiding service anywhere that says pay me 5k then I will text you the GPS coords of where I am, once you figure out how to get yourself here I will show you an animal then my job is done.

 

[RobG]

I support this but am puzzled by BHA’s involvement. It’s not a public access issue.
If BHA is straying beyond public access there are plenty of issues that hunters could use their support on. Trapping bans in Newmexico, wolf hunting bans in Montana, anti ammo legislation that would impact hunting, especially bird hunting in Oregon.
Wildlife Management policy.
The list of things they could involve themselves that would do a lot of good for the public land sportsman outside of directly targeting access is lengthy. Also, the list of things not being done that does target access is lengthy. Interesting allocation of resources.

I do not speak for BHA, but their mission is not limited to access. In addition, the text of the bill indicates the purpose is mostly to prevent the sale of info on public land, which would hurt backcountry hunting opportunities. That seems well within their mission.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

This topic is being taken personally on the Rok under the General Discussions forum. Good stuff

Looks like you struck a little too close to home for some people over there...


Also for the general public what is the upside of allowing these services? If they are allowed to continue aren't you essentially just destroying the age class of herds.

At least with guided hunts, you are allowing people to participate in the sport who may otherwise not be able to get out there on their own.

 

[Carnage2011]

I do not speak for BHA, but their mission is not limited to access. In addition, the text of the bill indicates the purpose is mostly to prevent the sale of info on public land, which would hurt backcountry hunting opportunities. That seems well within their mission.

Didn’t BHA say that they were a public access organization when asked for their stance on the grizzly bear delisting? That’s a serious question. I can’t remember for sure, but I thought I read that.