Opinion: Kansas Trail Cam Ban
Written By: Zachary Glay
On March 9th, Kansas Fish and Game voted to outright ban the use of any trail cameras on all public lands owned/leased by the Fish and Game Commission. While Kansas adds their name to a growing list of states to have some sort of ban on trail cameras, their reasoning falls outside the norm set forth by other states. Western states like Montana, Nevada, etc. who have some sort of limitation on trail cams is largely because of a “fair chase” concern, but Kansas cites hunter privacy and conflict as their reason for banning trail cameras. Fish and Game commissioner Gerald Lauber is quoted saying, “In some places, cameras are used to spy on other hunters. And some people recoil from seeing a camera. They’re private. They don’t want to have somebody take their picture and then have it on Facebook.” Now since this is an opinion piece, let's break it down to pros and cons.
The Pros:
Less conflict within public lands. The story plays out every year, a public land hunter walks into his set where he has a treestand and camera waiting and finds another hunter setup in the area. Usually the hunter walks away annoyed but understands that it is public land and you cannot claim the area. However, occasionally it devolves into a conflict and fight about who can hunt where and why they feel like they have a right to be there exclusively. Of course this is wrong and nobody can claim anything on public land but there are just those people out there. I'll be the first to tell you I am in favor of limiting people’s ability to “claim” public hunting land. Nothing is more annoying than hearing someone say they took “my” spot or shot a deer from “my” tree when they are hunting public. Another “pro” is that this ban stops people from being photographed without their knowledge and posted publicly. Lastly, though Kansas Fish and Game do not cite fair chase as a reason, there is an element that might come into play here, especially with the introduction of cell cams, though this seems unfounded and can be argued another time. Though unintended, another pro is that this could lead to a return to old school tactics and limiting technology in the deer hunting realm, a movement I could certainly get behind.
The Cons:
These are not so much cons to introducing this regulation, as much as they are pointing out where this fails to make sense. Starting with the “privacy” aspect. I get that nobody wants to have their picture taken and posted without their permission but let’s be honest, how often is that really happening? Does it happen? Sure, but is it really common enough to pass legislature and/or bans around it? Unlikely. Also, at the end of the day, you are hunting public land and I have a hard time drawing a line between the commissioners statement about “private” and applying it to public land. If privacy is your main concern, get permission on private, lease private, or buy land. Public is public and private is private.
Also, if their concern is conflict between hunters and claiming areas to hunt, there are better ways to address this. Kansas allows stands to be placed before season and stay up until after season, this seems like a much more likely source of conflict. It is one thing to claim you have a right to hunt somewhere because of a camera, it is much more substantial of a claim when you have a stand. There’s also no way to limit stupidity, if people are going to start a fuss and fight about where they can hunt on public, banning cameras is not going to do anything.
This ban is also not only for deer hunters, though that seems to be who will be most affected. It is a year round ban, meaning no preseason scouting, no velvet pictures, turkey hunting usage, or public cameras to see unique animals or track movement. We caught a black bear on a camera in Ohio last year, a rare occurrence, and while on private, had it not been for the camera we would have no idea we had such a rare encounter lurking on the property. These unique pictures and intel into what types of animals are present where you hunt will be a thing of the past on Kansas public.
A special and rare picture of a black bear on a farm we hunt in Ohio, would not be possible without a trail camera out before the season started
Finally, this hurts hunters. So many hunters work hard 5 days a week and chase game hard Saturday and Sunday, they only have so much time to scout and then get in the woods. The most effective way to know what bucks are in the area, narrow down a specific spot to hunt, and get general intel is with trail cameras. Not to mention the out of state hunters bringing revenue to Kansas through tags and licenses. Some whitetail hunters will visit earlier in the year and hang cameras to gather intel on an area and then come back to hunt it later in the season. If they cannot hang cameras and learn about the area then forget it, they won’t come to Kansas at all, they’ll head to Missouri, Nebraska, or another neighboring state.
At the end of the day, the whole thing feels like a good concept that was poorly thought out. The idea of limiting a bunch of cameras in the woods and allowing people a sense of privacy is a nice idea but the approach might not pan out as planned. It seems like there was a rash decision made and it won’t end up changing what they want it to change. There are better options for limiting conflict, hunting public land is not a private experience, and by doing this, Kansas hurts its hunters in and out of state. It hurts their image, their bottom line, and the hunters and outdoorsmen they look to help and support. I’m sure this will not be the last time we hear about a state doing this and I predict it will become more common.
