Arizona makes a decision on trail camera bans

[robby denning]

I honestly thought they were going to go with the 440 yard restriction but a 5-0 votes says it all.

PAYSON, Ariz. — In a 5-0 vote, the Arizona Game and Fish Commission agreed to retain the provision that prohibits use of live-action trail cameras for the purpose of taking or aiding in the take of wildlife, but removed the provision that prohibits the use of other trail cameras within one-fourth mile (440 yards) of a developed water source. The provisions were in the amended Article 3, “Taking and Handling of Wildlife,” Notice of Final Rulemaking, which was submitted to the Commission for consideration during Friday’s public meeting in Payson. A live-action trail camera is defined as an unmanned device capable of transmitting images, still photographs, video or satellite imagery, wirelessly to a remote device such as, but not limited to, a computer, smartphone or tablet. This does not include a trail camera that records photographic or video data for later use (such as on an SD card), provided the device is not capable of transmitting wirelessly. The unanimous decision, reached following a thorough public input process by the Commission and the department, has prompted a Supplemental Rule Making process that will include a 30-day public comment period beginning in July. The final rule will be presented to the Commission at its Sept. 21 meeting at the Navajo County Heber Complex, 2188 W. Country Club Drive, in Overgaard. The Commission then could take action on the remainder of the Article 3 rulemaking proposals. To track the progress of this rule, view the regulatory agenda and all previous Five-year Review Reports, and to learn about any other agency rulemaking matters, visit www.azgfd.gov/rulemaking. ​

Game and Fish Commission modifies proposed rules on trail cameras Ban on use of live-action trail cameras remains in place; prohibition on use of other trail cameras within one-fourth mile of a developed water source is lifted ​

 

[kjack_74]

What is your take on that Robby? I personally can't afford the wireless variety but have looked into them to help with my out of state scouting ... Of course then it might be harder to convince my wife I need to make as many scouting trips. Not having any of these tools or skin in the game do like the idea of limiting it to folks willing to hike in more then once to get there photos. I like making things a touch more difficult though, I like having to earn it but would defer to you and your experience.

P.S. love your book, finally getting to reading it (had to steal it from my brother when I was helping him move), only problem is it's got me itching for deer season already.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk

 

[robby denning]

What is your take on that Robby? I personally can't afford the wireless variety but have looked into them to help with my out of state scouting ... Of course then it might be harder to convince my wife I need to make as many scouting trips. Not having any of these tools or skin in the game do like the idea of limiting it to folks willing to hike in more then once to get there photos. I like making things a touch more difficult though, I like having to earn it but would defer to you and your experience.

P.S. love your book, finally getting to reading it (had to steal it from my brother when I was helping him move), only problem is it's got me itching for deer season already.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk

-
well, my take is that what AZ passed isn't going to make a big difference. I really don't know how many people are really running wireless cams but if it's not many, then not a big difference. The units people want less cams in (13A, 13B, 12B) are still going to be buried in them, even if wireless is banned. It's the new norm and honestly, the success rate on deer was always high by the people who put in the effort, so I'm not so sure they're killing any more bucks with cams vs. without. Now they may be killing bigger bucks with the cams as they help people be more selective and focus, but that's not a bad thing to me. Others may disagree and that's OK. One thing is for sure, there is more technology available than ever before.

Not sure if you saw the review I just did on Stealth Cam's wireless cams, but to me, the wireless is not the game-changer (or the threat) that I think it's been made out to be. When I hear people say that fat-asses will sit at home or in camp until a buck shows up on their phone and then go kill it, I'm not sure where they've been hunting that makes big bucks so easy to kill. Just my take on the whole thing. Here's the article:
Review: Stealth Cam Wireless GXW Trail Camera - Rokslide

 

[kjack_74]

I don't see anyone having success using the wireless cams to spot and stalk from camp or home but I do know it's easier to set 30 cams that you don't have to go and physically check again then it is to check them physically, the time commitment alone to check cams is a way to self regulate the number of cams out and about ... And that's the only way short of a ban (which I think is wrong) to limiting some of the craziness.

And that physical on the ground checking is the difficulty, the barrier to entry I was talking about, but I take your point and agree that those putting in effort we're always the ones with success. I just know that I lived and worked on the Henrys daily and the way folks went about scouting that and hunting it often put a bad taste in my mouth and I'm a hunter so it had to be pretty bad for the non-hunters and I always try to approach these things from that perspective.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk

 

[TheTone]

-
It's the new norm and honestly, the success rate on deer was always high by the people who put in the effort, so I'm not so sure they're killing any more bucks with cams vs. without. Now they may be killing bigger bucks with the cams as they help people be more selective and focus, but that's not a bad thing to me. Others may disagree and that's OK. One thing is for sure, there is more technology available than ever before.
[/url]

By people being putting in effort, you mean guides and outfitters right? Its such a long shot to draw a tag that people doing it on their own probably aren't hanging cams all over the place, year after year in hopes they might someday pull a tag

 

[robby denning]

TheTone,yes, for the most part guides and outfitters, but there's always some die-hard diys out there too.

 

[SW hunter]

I think AZGFD is on the right track here. I think this is in the interest of the vast majority of diy hunters. Are they making the decision in the best interest of game or hunters? I dont know.

I have a fair amount of experience with cellular based cameras and your standard sd card trail cameras. More experience than most people will have. Its something my employer utilizes. I’m not paying for those services myself. I’m not wealthy.

With wireless cameras hunters or outfitters can monitor a much larger area in real time. This can be used to monitor or scout for animals but it can also be used to do the same for monitoring other hunters as well. They can be used to monitor entrance points into roads, trails, canyons, camps, etc. I’m not interested in entering into that chess game. Its supposed to be enjoyable, its not a battlefield. Robby points out wireless cams don’t mean that now a lazy slob can stay in town, run out to his chosen unit and whack a trophy and then roll back to town with minimal field time. Not that easy but its a direction I don’t like and an element I don’t want.

The wireless cameras also allow you to sort thru larger amounts of data at once. Strategically placed you can really nail down the travel routes and times of animals quickly. Its a real advantage. Pulling cards every 3 days versus realtime is night and day difference in most applications.

And there can be an argument made that guys can utilize radios or multiple spotters or spotting scopes or checking their sd cards more regularly and accomplish nearly the same thing. Theres some truth there. You can argue let the market dictate who uses them. Thats a thought too. Im not interested in introducing drones, wireless cams, spotter planes, etc. These are technologies “big brother” uses. I’m opposed to inviting this stuff in. I was annoyed when people started using radios. I remember being disgusted when I got cell signal on a hunt for the first time.

 

[BBob]

Not so fast. Proposed alternate rule to the total ban.

AZGFD

www.azgfd.com

In part:

● In response to internal and external discussions and comments related to the December proposed rulemaking, at the February 2021 Commission meeting, the Commission voted 5-0 to open a separate rulemaking with proposed language that, if approved, would:

o Prohibit the use of trail cameras for the purpose of taking or aiding in the take of wildlife within ¼ mile of a developed water source.
o Allow the use of trail cameras to aid in the take of wildlife from February 1 through June 30 as long as the camera is not placed within ¼ mile of a developed water source.​

● This new proposed language presented in February does not replace the December proposed rule, but provides the Commission with options to consider at the conclusion of both rulemaking processes.

● The final rulemaking related to the regulation of trail cameras will not be heard at the March 19 Commission meeting as previously anticipated. The final rulemaking for both proposals will be heard at the June 11 Commission meeting in Payson. At that meeting, the Commission can approve either of the two final rules or terminate rulemaking all together.

● The proposed language presented in February has two parts, a seasonal aspect and a developed water aspect.

 

[BRTreedogs]

Not so fast. Proposed alternate rule to the total ban.

AZGFD

www.azgfd.com

In part:

● In response to internal and external discussions and comments related to the December proposed rulemaking, at the February 2021 Commission meeting, the Commission voted 5-0 to open a separate rulemaking with proposed language that, if approved, would:

o Prohibit the use of trail cameras for the purpose of taking or aiding in the take of wildlife within ¼ mile of a developed water source.
o Allow the use of trail cameras to aid in the take of wildlife from February 1 through June 30 as long as the camera is not placed within ¼ mile of a developed water source.​

● This new proposed language presented in February does not replace the December proposed rule, but provides the Commission with options to consider at the conclusion of both rulemaking processes.

● The final rulemaking related to the regulation of trail cameras will not be heard at the March 19 Commission meeting as previously anticipated. The final rulemaking for both proposals will be heard at the June 11 Commission meeting in Payson. At that meeting, the Commission can approve either of the two final rules or terminate rulemaking all together.

● The proposed language presented in February has two parts, a seasonal aspect and a developed water aspect.

Not so fast????
Your replied to a thread from 2018

 

[BBob]

Not so fast????
Your replied to a thread from 2018

Yep, guilty. Got threads mixed up. Still relevant though as new rule-making on regular trail cams is pending.