The Kansas Public Land Trail Camera Ban
Kansas Public Land Trail Camera Ban: 5 Claims That Allude Kansas Did Limited Research
Government overreach at its finest. We recently released a podcast giving our take on the recently passed Kansas Trail Camera Ban on Public Land, reacting to the live stream of the debate and voting on the ban.
There's a lot to dissect from the Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks meeting where the ban was passed, and there were several highly questionable points made during the meeting. We narrowed it down to 5 points that really highlight the lack of effort on the part of the Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks Board of Commissioners and their ignorance to actually do their homework on trail cameras before passing a sweeping ban.
Listen to the full discussion:
#1. Do cameras really cause major conflict on public land?
The first point brought up at the meeting was the trail camera ban would help reduce confrontations on public land. There's more conflict over people hanging tree stands where a big deer lives than anything.
Walk any piece of public hunting land in the U.S. and you'll find ladder stands that have been there so long that the ratchet straps have grown into the tree. Trail cameras or no trail cameras, people will still get into fights on public land over "Their Spot".
Photo credit: Pintrest
#2. Will the ban of public land trail cameras really reduce human pressure on wildlife?
The second point brought up at the meeting was how human presence on public ground checking trail cameras all the time disturbs and disrupts wildlife. The idea of checking trail cameras increasing pressure on public land is crazy that it was even brought up as an argument.
If you're running a cell camera with a solar panel, you're going to set that up before the season and you're not going to go back and check that camera until the season is over.
Even if you are running regular SD card cameras, you aren't going in every couple of days to check it if you intend on hunting that spot. Most hunters will check their cameras maybe once a month at the minimum if it's not a long-term trail camera set that is going to soak all year. Never mind the fact that most weekends, public hunting land parking lots are full of cars from people hunting for over half of the year.
#3. Do trail cameras cause privacy issues on public land?
The third point brought up at the meeting was how people don't like their pictures being taken by trail cameras on public land. If they're worried about privacy, we live in a world where your privacy is bought and sold by the second.
Every time you go to an ATM to take out money, you're getting your picture taken. Every time you walk across a crosswalk in a metropolitan area, you have multiple cameras at that intersection snapping your photo. Every time you walk close to someone's Tesla, you're getting your picture taken.
Here at Exodus, we have sold thousands of trail cameras to numerous government agencies and wildlife departments for the sole purpose of monitoring activity on public property.
Like it or not, your picture is going to be taken regardless, wherever you go on public property.
#4. Can cell cameras and non-cellular game cameras be easily distinguished?
The fourth point brought up at the meeting (By the head of the Commission) was not being able to tell the difference between a cell camera and a regular SD card camera. How much due diligence does it take to understand what is a standard camera versus a cell camera?
A quick search on google will populate numerous pictures of cell cameras with antennas sticking out of the top of the camera. These are the people that are making a decision for the better good of an entire state and they don't even know the difference on the most basic level of the product.
#5. The bill had to be passed that day, because adding any amendment would be too complex?
The last point brought up at the meeting (By the head of the Commission again) was the fact that the head of the commission proposed to pass the resolution that day and possibly consider revisiting it later because adding amendments would be too complex and it wouldn't give enough time for the state to implement the ban for this upcoming fall.
After the vote passed, the commissioner spoke on record saying that "we do have a soft commitment to look into some modifications down the road with no guarantees."
The commission had their minds made up before the meeting even began that they were passing this resolution regardless to get trail cameras banned on public land immediately. This just goes to show that the meeting itself was just the commission following procedure for something that was already determined behind closed doors.
Watch our full breakdown:
The state of Kansas has been known for its trophy-caliber whitetail deer for some time now, but this latest legislation sets a dangerous precedent. Fair chase was brought up quite a few times during the full discussion as an argument for the ban. How long until Kansas (or any other state) introduces legislation banning other aspects of hunting such as high-powered scopes, decoys, or scent control products because someone on a committee somewhere feels that it is not fair chase? That seems to be the case with the Kansas Public Land Trail Camera Ban.
I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with two of the committee members owning thousands of acres of land that is directly adjacent to public hunting land in Kansas.
Written by: Lucas Jones
