Arizona votes to ban trail cameras

[jmillr1]

Honestly this doesn't upset me. I always thought it was cheating when somebody gets a text from their camera real time of an animal.

I’m inclined to agree as far as public land goes.

 

[Marbles]

I'm all for it. Even on private land, the state already regulates methods of take on private land, so it is not anything new.

At least large posse's creat jobs.

Drones are already illegal to use for hunting in AZ. I know in Alaska drone use is illegal at any stage of a hunt (i.e. an animal must be removed from the field and using a drone while packing an animal out is illegal).

 

[jmillr1]

I'm all for it. Even on private land, the state already regulates methods of take on private land, so it is not anything new.

At least large posse's creat jobs.

Drones are already illegal to use for hunting in AZ. I know in Alaska drone use is illegal at any stage of a hunt (i.e. an animal must be removed from the field and using a drone while packing an animal out is illegal).

I'm just not a huge fan of more government stipulations on any form of private land. Granted I'm in Texas, but to me its like giving the mouse a cookie...

 

[MuleyFever]

Be nice if other states follow. In arid areas like AZ, UT, NV the water sources get covered in cameras.

 

[Blackcow]

Well, they didn’t ban trail cameras, just hunters using cameras for the take of wildlife. Everyone else can still use them.

 

[bowieknife50]

I'm just not a huge fan of more government stipulations on any form of private land. Granted I'm in Texas, but to me its like giving the mouse a cookie...

Or a pig a pancake

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

 

[Marbles]

I'm just not a huge fan of more government stipulations on any form of private land. Granted I'm in Texas, but to me its like giving the mouse a cookie...

I can see that point of view. Though I see it as the regulation is not on the land, but on the taking of wild game, which belongs to the state regardless of where it is located.

Should current government stipulations that are similar to this one not apply to private land? I.e. should explosives and drone mounted guns be legal methods of take on private land? What about using a rifle during bow season on private land? In eastern states (like Arkansas where I grew up) most land is private, so should the state be able to regulate the taking of game at all? What about closed seasons on private land, should a land owner be able to take game on his land year round and without limit? Should a hunting license be required on private land? If not, would that only apply to the land owner, or to everyone who hunts on private land?

If some stipulations are ok in regards to hunting and private land, how do we decided which are and which are not? Simply basing it on a date (i.e. nothing new) sounds like a poor method of determining validity to me.

 

[ODB]

Trying to see the overall negative side of this…still trying….still trying…

 

[HuntHarder]

I don't have a dog in this fight but I'm surprised they were able to get this through as I'm sure the outfitters were strongly opposed

Believe it or not, a lot of big name guide outfits were for the ban. I honestly think it will help them a little. Guides can spend the time in the woods and get to know animals habits, the average guy can not spend as much time in the woods, so he puts out a bunch of cameras to cover as much ground as possible.

This is why I was all for the ban. Guys literally sitting at home on the couch eating twinkies, while he is able to survey tons of different areas and get a pretty accurate inventory of the amount of animals in said area. hopefully the overall success rate drops a little and an animal or 2 hits the dirt and nobody knew they existed. Any more, every high profile tag narrows down their target animal to a few on trail cameras and one of them usually dies.

 

[Marble]

Probably just another law that Fish and Game will struggle to enforce

That's what I was thinking.

How do you prove the use of the camera was with the intent to aid in the using of game? And what exactly is aiding in the taking of game? Seems vague.

It may have already been figured out in case law in other states.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[SummitsCalling]

States like AZ trail cameras are out of hand, there is no mystery in anything. People would be surprised what just coordinates for deer go for. There is no unknown animal in many hard hit areas, what's the fun in that?

Now what we need is a limit on helpers in the field. Shouldn't need a small village to kill an animal.

 

[Sled]

I can see the appeal on public lands, however banning on private is just BS. Love em or hate em I am not for "the man" telling me what to do!

All for ban on cell type cams though, I have never run cams out west, however I managed a lot of whitetail property in the Midwest and cams are simply deadly! Never had cell cams, poor service, but had 30 plus Reconyx out, and if I got regular pics of target bucks they were in trouble!

On whitetail it makes patterning easy. It's difficult to pattern western animals, especially when the woods get inundated with humans.

As for cell cams, it's difficult to find cell service in the western mountains that I hunt. Sure, near cities it works but to reliably get service can be challenging.

Utah is close to regulating cams on public lands. It will likely be a ban on cell cams and pre hunting season for non cell cams. Bating just got banned this season but seems unlikely to change people's behaviour since the law is unclear and difficult to enforce. With cattle and sheep everywhere there are usually plenty of salt blocks around anyway.

 

[Sled]

Now what we need is a limit on helpers in the field. Shouldn't need a small village to kill an animal.

Maximum of 1 flat brim hat per square mile should take care of that.

 

[HoytHntr4]

Wish they would have just banned them in the major problem units like the strip and see how it went and if they were able to enforce it instead of jumping right to having to enforce it state wide. But knew it would probably be an all or nothing ruling. I hate
more rules on the books and being told you cannot do something, but If it will be a benefit to the animals I learn more to being for the ban

 

[Rich M]

I've not seen what you-all have gotten upset about - the piles of trail cams at water holes. The flocks of guides monitoring game, etc.

All I see is that some folks have this desire to remove the ability to see what game is out there - for everyone instead of letting folks choose if they want to do it or not. That's my issue with it all. If you feel the need to go it without technology, you can. If you want to fantasize about a booner, you can. No-one is stopping you.

Maybe a total technology ban is reasonable - anything that is battery or solar powered is not allowed while hunting or scouting? Get rid of it all?

 

[realunlucky]

I've not seen what you-all have gotten upset about - the piles of trail cams at water holes. The flocks of guides monitoring game, etc.

All I see is that some folks have this desire to remove the ability to see what game is out there - for everyone instead of letting folks choose if they want to do it or not. That's my issue with it all. If you feel the need to go it without technology, you can. If you want to fantasize about a booner, you can. No-one is stopping you.

Maybe a total technology ban is reasonable - anything that is battery or solar powered is not allowed while hunting or scouting? Get rid of it all?

It's not an all or nothing approach to technology in wildlife management, like many factors in life as the variables change the management strategies must also change.

Limited water resources really compounds the problem. You will see Utah follow Nevada and Arizona lead with a trail camera ban in some form within the next year.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[Fordguy]

I gotta say, I really wouldn't mind having things go back to the way they were before trail cams- especially on public, but on private too. That said, I do use a few cams on private property every year, and I have fun looking at the animals and seeing the year to year progression in growth. None of my cameras would have made a difference in my hunting or kill/harvest rates though.

 

[Stubborn_bowhunter]

Well, they didn’t ban trail cameras, just hunters using cameras for the take of wildlife. Everyone else can still use them.

I noticed that too. What's the rules for this? If you have a photo of a critter an said critter dies that season by you, or a guides client is that the considered used to take wildlife?

If you don't kill any critters you have photos of then it's legal?

 

[HuntHarder]

AGFD has a word called "Take"- Take includes pursuit, so you would not have to kill an animal to be charged with a crime. Obviously the intention of this new rule is to prevent hunters from using trail cameras in total. Most will adhere, there will be guys who will test the limits tho.

AGFD will need to get the land agencies on board to really completely shut down all the loopholes and "gray" areas. To most hunters with a good set of moral ethics, the law is pretty simple: Trail cameras are banned. The ones that want to look for every way to try and defeat it, will continue on their way until they get caught.

 

[Brusso89]

I'd imagine us AZ guys will just be taking up a new hobby of bird watching with our cameras and if game happens to be captured on them then oh well. Extremely hard to enforce and a lot of gray area in the rule.