Hope this link works for you guys...
Collared Grizzlies

I read an article about that and also saw a short video. Pretty cool, really. I didn't realize there were so few of them, geographically speaking. Hard country to make a living.

There is a lot of fresh air in between grizzlies up in GMU 26.

On the bright side, you can see them miles away!

Pete

The irony here is. you can have cell camera footage of what a grizzly does. Yet you can't have cell camera footage of your trap. I have spent many nights awake. trying to figure out. how cell cameras will increase my take of fur. I have not figured that out yet. Has anyone else figure how to use cameras to take fur home?

No, I have not. And the BOG has historically been slow to address anything "new". As most here know, I was pretty active with the Board and local Juneau AC as well as the Department during a period that saw quite a bit of change. Cliff Judkins was chair when I became active, and my main mission at the time was the stupid "emergency" action called by Joel Bennett to protect a single "white" bear around the Juneau Road system. The board's composition at the time suffered from a few Knowles appointees, and as such I had my work cut out, and was ultimately un-successful at tossing the regulation. However, later meetings and a few good proposals later, the regulation and interpretation of that reg was "refined".
I was also heavily involved in getting trapping along the numerous trail systems that cover every valley, ridgeline, and trapper-created trail in the Borough relaxed. The restrictions were 1/4 mile, and the list was growing at every meeting. After Cliff was relieved of his duties, (a self-inflicted black eye, to be sure), Ted was appointed chair, and Ben Grussendorf passed away, creating 2 open seats that were filled by a like-minded asset for Ted, (and myself!). That resulted in the 50-yard restriction for elevated sets, and later for submerged sets as well. Those trapping the Juneau Road system today owe a huge debt of gratitude to Ted Spraker. Those discussions went on, and on, and on, but the proposals passed.
We got a lot done, but then along came modern crossbows and in-line muzzle loaders. What a mess. Getting those bows allowed, even for general season, was a LONG drawn-out process. Then came cell cameras, infrared scopes, and then....DRONES! The general knee-jerk reaction was always rejection. But with Ted at the helm, there was always thoughtful discussion, and knowledgeable speakers were sometimes allowed to go over their time allotment. That usually led to insight and thorough fleshing of the subject, and sometimes a vote would be withheld and the proposal tabled, allowing time for research and learning for the members. That often led to informed decisions and a well-thought-out proposal had a real chance of making sense.
Don't give up!

The general idea is that if trappers have cell cameras on their sets, they will be lazy and not go check them in person. At least that is the argument here, as best I can parse it. Never really affected me, since I never have traps where I have cell service, but I don't understand their arguments. They have just changed some laws here on cell cameras. I believe you can still have them on your sets (always could, it just wasn't a legal trap check to look at a picture) but you can't use them for hunting between certain months (I be August to December). The way they wrote this up, is that you can have cell cameras out, but if you have a picture of a particular animal on your cell camera any time between those dates, it is illegal for you to kill that animal, regardless of how long or how far away you are). They swore up and down all through the discussions that it wouldn't be for predators, only ungulates, but as usual government can't be trusted to keep their word and when they wrote it up, after all the public comment (overwhelmingly, like 90% against restricting cell camera usage) they wrote for all big game, to include predators classified as big game (wolf, bear, cougar). Regular trail cameras are still acceptable to use the whole year. I'm not sure what these people think, that animals just camp out in a spot, so if you get a picture on your phone at work, you are going to rush up there and shoot it after work because it is going to be sitting there waiting for you?

You are on to something, bearcat, and wording in a proposal matters. Alaska proposals allow for significant opportunity to explain the proposal, reasons for such, and negative and positive impacts, both likely and un-likely. I think that with the right language, and the right forum, (Statewide), the use of cell cameras for trapping only would stand a chance of passing. And I would suggest finding a sympathetic biologist, or better yet a Regional, to discuss it with and get feedback. If you can get them on your side, it will be infinitely better for the proposal.

AV: The first problem I can see is that (as you know....) once a well-thought out proposal is published and goes to the Board, the public gets to weigh in, as is their right.

And sometimes what comes out on the other end of the process looks a WHOLE LOT DIFFERENT than how started out!

Pete