“According to documents filed January 8 to the New Hampshire Fish and Game department, hunters would be banned from using so-called ‘Live-Action Game Cameras’ to ‘locate, surveil (sic) or aid or assist in any attempt to locate or surveil any wild animals for the purpose of taking or attempting to take the wildlife,'” grandviewoutdoors.com reports. “The rule appears to propose the ban of increasingly popular game cameras that use cellular technology to transmit photos or video footage to a hunter’s smartphone or computer when the animal triggers the device.” The new reg would also ban TrackingPoint’s Precision-Guided Firearms. Fish and Game Law Enforcement Chief Martin Garabedian says that’s because . . .
“We need to establish rules regarding these fast-changing technologies to make sure that people understand that their use for hunting is not appropriate or ethical. Use of this equipment violates the principle of fair chase because it gives hunters an unfair advantage over wildlife.”
I know! Why don’t we give the Live Free or Die State’s wildlife human-monitoring cameras and Precision-Guided Firearms? Oh right, opposable thumbs. But seriously, doesn’t NH F&G control hunting via licensing? If hunting becomes so efficient that animal numbers decline, F&G can deal. As for the “ethical” considerations of TrackingPoint’s PGFs . . .
“Banning the use of technology such as TrackingPoint’s Precision-Guided Firearm would be a mistake not only for hunters but for all New Hampshire residents,” said TrackingPoint marketing VP Danielle Hamblin. “This technology is also more ethical, resulting in cleaner kills, responsible harvesting and far less wounding of animals.”
The reg would also ban hunting drones. I mean, hunting with drones. So no hunting with members of the New Hampshire Fish and Game department, then.
Simple solution…have the state distribute these technologies randomly throughout hunting lands. If the wildlife wants to use it, let it. Oh, and surveil is a proper term.
What is “unethical” about killing game (i.e. animals destined to be human food) more efficiently?
Fewer rounds expended per bowl of venison stew. It’s for the children! It’s for the environment!
…Unless wildlife management is not your goal… What is the goal here, NHF&G?
What’s with the “(sic)” after “surveil”? That’s a perfectly good word, spelled and used correctly.
“Unfair advantage over wildlife”?
You mean, like anything but our bare hands?
I knew a special forces guy who got a buck once while dressed like Tarzan and using just a knife (to prove it could be done, on a dare). Was that “fair” to the wildlife? or should he have skipped the knife?
I’m ok with all the measures. Every state has its own “culture” and I trust voters to figure it out.
Not trying to be critical here- just google “fair chase”, and try to understand the ethic.
Hunting is about more than just harvesting.
Nothing wrong with that- I am in the “hamburger” stage of evolution, myself. But you need to respect the wishes of other hunters, and what works for all.
Fish and Game in all states is about managing the animals, to keep herd sizes at roughly the best size for what habitat is available. It smooths out the boom and bust natural cycle- where you might otherwise have many animals dying of starvation otherwise, and so few there is nothing to hunt, next season.
Until we know more about the mass effects of these technologies, its only wise to slow the use, to avoid over-hunting and draining the resource.
Hunting fees pay for education, and in some states, habitat restoration and acquisition.
Comments are closed.