Why Some Say They Give Hunters an Unfair Advantage 

Let’s say a hunter has a network of cellular trail cameras placed in the woods where she can monitor the activities of wildlife, such as whitetail deer, passing by. She chooses the locations of these trail cameras based on what she knows about whitetail deer patterns and preferences to optimize the amount of images she will capture. Her cameras pick up regular deer patterns, and she notices a nice shooter buck passing by the same hardwood-lined runway around dusk every few days. She plans to hunt that area on her day off, which she does, and she harvests that target buck. Is this unethical? Is this fair chase? Would it have mattered if her trail camera wasn’t a cellular kind, which sends information remotely, but rather the kind that needs to be manually checked with a card reader?

Hunting can be challenging, and many hunters prefer that. Some might argue that hunting is inherently  challenging, with or without modern tools. Others might argue still that it is irrelevant just how challenging the process of hunting is, because it’s about self-sufficiency and procuring wild food, and not about the logistics or thrill of the hunt. 

Do cellular trail camera give hunters an unfair advantage in this process? Some hunters think they do, while some do not. 

Many states have regulations governing the use of cellular trail cameras. In Alaska, there is a limit on the amount of information hunters are permitted to receive via trail cameras during active hunting seasons. In New Hampshire, the law prohibits hunters from killing an animal on the same day it showed up on a trail camera. Kansas, for example, has banned the use of the devices on all public lands. Some states, such as Arizona, have outright banned the use of any trail camera devices.

What do trail cameras do?

Trail cameras are electronic devices that are placed afield to observe what is happening in an area with minimal disturbance to wildlife. Sensors alert the camera to take photos whenever it detects an animal passing by (or sometimes a wayward tree branch or high gust of wind). Cellular trail cameras are equipped to be connected to a cell phone and transmit images and/or video remotely. Non-cellular trail cameras require the user to physically travel to the camera to manually check the images, which are saved on an SD card for later viewing.  

Do Trail Cameras Violate the Rules of Fair Chase? 

Trail cameras give hunters the ability to see an animal in a dated and time-stamped image before they see it in person. That is what they are designed to do. Some hunters argue that this violates the rules of fair chase because they believe all hunters should have an equal opportunity to shoot the game without interference from technology. 

Let’s take a look at the rules of fair chase, as defined by Pope and Young. The term fair chase refers to the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit of free-ranging wild game animals that does not give the hunter an improper or unfair advantage over the animal.

That means, according to Pope and Young, that no animals shall be taken under the following conditions: helpless in a trap, deep snow or water, or on ice; from any power vehicle or power boat; by jacklighting or shining a light at night; by the use of tranquilizers or poisons; while inside any escape-proof fenced enclosures; by the use of electronic devices for attracting, locating or pursuing game or guiding the hunter to such game, or by the use of a bow or arrow to which any electronic device is attached, with the exception of lighted nocks and recording devices that cast no light towards the target and do not aid in rangefinding, sighting, or shooting the bow. 

Most of these rules are straightforward, black or white, and without any wiggle room. But when it comes to trail camera use, it appeared to hunters that there was some gray area. 

The question of whether trail cameras violate these rules came up so often that the two main authorities in deer hunting, Pope and Young and Boone and Crockett, came together to release a joint statement on the matter. The statement read:

“The use of any technology that delivers real-time location data (including photos) to target or guide a hunter to any species or animal in a manner that elicits an immediate (real-time) response by the hunter is not permitted.”

The key component here is if the advantage of cellular trail cameras has an immediate effect on what action the hunter takes, and if that leads to a kill. So, for example, if a hunter receives an image on her phone from her cellular trail camera of a deer making its way toward a specific food plot, and she drops what she’s doing to immediately get to the food plot at the same time as the deer and proceeds to harvest that deer, that’s a real-time response. 

More recently, Boone and Crockett dug even deeper to clarify its stance. 

“Trail cameras can be a helpful tool in game management and selective hunting,” a statement read. “The use of any technology that delivers real-time location data (including photos) to target or guide a hunter to any animal in a manner that elicits an immediate (real-time) response by the hunter is not permitted. ‘Real time’ is the key concept. Seeing a photo and harvesting an animal a few hours later, or even the same day, uses this technology to assure a kill. It also takes advantage of the animal, which cannot detect impending danger from a camera. Waiting several days, or even until the following season, to pursue an animal captured on camera is different, and would not be deemed an unethical use of a trail camera.”

So to be clear, the use of trail cameras, even cellular trail cameras, in this definition, is not prohibited or deemed unethical. It’s that real-time response that is. 

“Technically, the reason we revisited the rule was because, as written, if you’ve followed a buck for four years on camera and the first pic of him years ago was on a cell cam, that buck was disqualified. We didn’t want that,” Justin Spring, formally of Boone and Crockett but current director of Pope and Young, said. “We just want hunters to think about the questions of fair chase. Is the use of this technology ensuring a harvest? Not giving an animal time to escape? We make hunters read and sign the (fair chase) affidavit, but at the end of the day, it comes down to the honesty of the hunter.”

Boone and Crockett’s in-depth statement covered more than just the use of trail cameras. It also touched on other advantages, as they defined them, such as drones, thermal night scopes, baiting, scent-attractants, and two-way radios or texting another hunter, and smart riflescopes. 

Our Hot Take on the Trail Camera Debate

Hunting regulations differ from region to region and from state to state, as do hunting styles and techniques. As time has passed, hunting has evolved with it. Modern technology has changed a lot about how we hunt, and of that there is no doubt. In many ways, it has given hunters an edge that wasn’t available a generation ago. 

These advancements inevitably bring up questions. It is healthy to explore different perspectives on modern advantages, such as trail cameras. There is no harm in respectful, thoughtful debate. 

This author believes there is nothing wrong with using trail cameras within legal limits. Like anything, trail cameras are another tool in the hunting arsenal. They offer insight into wildlife in a way that is noninvasive and doesn’t interrupt their normal routine. Use them as they are intended to be used, follow the law, and enjoy the experience.