Arizona ban on trail cams

[snowypeakoutdoors]

No I don't. They still can monitor their property as long as they don't use the camera to assist in taking of Wildgame. That's not the issue we have in Az, 98% of the land we hunt is public.

And if Fish and Game find a camera on private land how do they know what it is being used for? They can just go after the land owner. Also, since 98% of the land is private, why did they not exclude the private land?

 

[JAYgs8163]

And if Fish and Game find a camera on private land how do they know what it is being used for? They can just go after the land owner. Also, since 98% of the land is private, why did they not exclude the private land?

You should call them and voice your concern! As I said before in a different thread and post. I don't dislike trail cameras, but it gives those that abuse them a unfair advantage over the animal. It's become such technology driven, remote cams, cell cams, range finders, high end range finding scopes, better quality everything for hunters. It seems to me that banning them to assist in the taking of Wildgame makes sense in our state of Az. Give the critters a break from eluding detection when they get water. Arizona's cam issue became a problem because cams were abused on water sources!

 

[Varmint Hunter]

It would seem to me that we should put the brakes on modern technologies somewhere. Drones, used for hunting/scouting, certainly seemed to get everyone's attention. Without limitations, we will soon be able to hunt and harvest game animals without ever leaving the livingroom. When is "hunting" no longer about the "hunt".

 

[Bob Wright]

"I don't think the enforcement arm are concerned" Well then why didn't they exclude it...it would have been very easy. This will be abused.

......On private property. I use them on my private property due to rodent destruction and where I set traps. Ranchers may want them for info on livestock predation so that can be addressed.
In pursuit of wildlife for the purposes of "take", is where you'll get enforcement. Officers have discretion, as stated. Most hunters will comply. Some will not.
I just read 28 pages of the rule making to respond. I suggest you do the same.

 

[Bob Wright]

And if Fish and Game find a camera on private land how do they know what it is being used for? They can just go after the land owner. Also, since 98% of the land is private, why did they not exclude the private land?

Read the rule making on this subject.
98% of "what" is private?

 

[Bob Wright]

It would seem to me that we should put the brakes on modern technologies somewhere. Drones, used for hunting/scouting, certainly seemed to get everyone's attention. Without limitations, we will soon be able to hunt and harvest game animals without ever leaving the livingroom. When is "hunting" no longer about the "hunt".

Drones are illegal for wildlife take.

 

[snowypeakoutdoors]

......On private property. I use them on my private property due to rodent destruction and where I set traps. Ranchers may want them for info on livestock predation so that can be addressed.
In pursuit of wildlife for the purposes of "take", is where you'll get enforcement. Officers have discretion, as stated. Most hunters will comply. Some will not.
I just read 28 pages of the rule making to respond. I suggest you do the same.

Yeah I read the whole thing. Officers have discretion. And therein lies the problem doesn't it. Are the officers now thought police? Ranchers want them for a lot of things but what is going to stop law enforcement from charging them? What if someone puts up a game camera at a water hole and is not using it for hunting?

Read the rule making on this subject.
98% of "what" is private?

Read what I quoted. I didn't come up with the 98%.

 

[JAYgs8163]

Yeah I read the whole thing. Officers have discretion. And therein lies the problem doesn't it. Are the officers now thought police? Ranchers want them for a lot of things but what is going to stop law enforcement from charging them? What if someone puts up a game camera at a water hole and is not using it for hunting?

I thought you said you read the whole thing? You would know if you read what I quoted.

Your comment states "98 % is private". I think you meant to say 98% is public! Most of the huntable land in this state is public property. Private makes up a very small part of it. We can agree to disagree on this. I live here and have hunted here 39 years, something needed to be done. Is it perfect, nope, is it better than what we had, yup! Will it get modified someday, probably.

 

[snowypeakoutdoors]

Your comment states "98 % is private". I think you meant to say 98% is public! Most of the huntable land in this state is public property. Private makes up a very small part of it. We can agree to disagree on this. I live here and have hunted here 39 years, something needed to be done. Is it perfect, nope, is it better than what we had, yup! Will it get modified someday, probably.

So 98% of hunting is done on public land. Got it. As far as agreeing to disagree, I am not sure what you mean by that. You said you agreed with this decision and then said that land owners should be able to monitor their land. Those things seem to be at odds.

 

[DesertDweller62]

In desert terrain water, and water sources are key to wildlife survival. There are guzzlers here in NV that had over 50 trail cams attached to the fence around the guzzler. Now, trail cams are outlawed from July 1 through December 31. In areas with many water sources it doesn't matter... in the desert, where water is scarce it makes since to curb there use in my opinion. DD62

 

[JAYgs8163]

So 98% of hunting is done on public land. Got it. As far as agreeing to disagree, I am not sure what you mean by that. You said you agreed with this decision and then said that land owners should be able to monitor their land. Those things seem to be at odds.

What don't you understand about the regulation? It clearly states you can't use a camera to assist in the taking of Wildgame. They can use the trail cam to monitor the land as long as it's not used to assist them in taking Wildgame.

You don't like that, I get it. I think it's fair. "We can agree to disagree."

Wildgame in Az is on a decline due to extreme drought conditions over the last 10 years. Tags have been reduced due to the drought and increased harvest success rates. Success rates increasing is partially due to excessive use of cams. Also the excessive use of them increases pressure all around on the land as these cams get run year around and checked constantly. I hunted unit 9 for Elk 2 years ago. 2 water holes I came upon each had over 25 cameras on them, that's just not good IMO. I also ran into a outfitter checking a camera on a water hole. He said his team of guides ran over 250 cameras in unit 9,10, and 7. That just doesn't seem fair to me or right. If you think it is I can appreciate that and we can agree to disagree.

 

[Varmint Hunter]

Drones are illegal for wildlife take.

So is this more or less fair then banning trail cameras for hunting?

 

[snowypeakoutdoors]

What don't you understand about the regulation? It clearly states you can't use a camera to assist in the taking of Wildgame. They can use the trail cam to monitor the land as long as it's not used to assist them in taking Wildgame.

You don't like that, I get it. I think it's fair. "We can agree to disagree."

Wildgame in Az is on a decline due to extreme drought conditions over the last 10 years. Tags have been reduced due to the drought and increased harvest success rates. Success rates increasing is partially due to excessive use of cams. Also the excessive use of them increases pressure all around on the land as these cams get run year around and checked constantly. I hunted unit 9 for Elk 2 years ago. 2 water holes I came upon each had over 25 cameras on them, that's just not good IMO. I also ran into a outfitter checking a camera on a water hole. He said his team of guides ran over 250 cameras in unit 9,10, and 7. That just doesn't seem fair to me or right. If you think it is I can appreciate that and we can agree to disagree.

I understand the regulation just fine. The regulation says you can not use it to aid in hunting. It also says you can use it to take wildlife photography even on public land. In fact, it says they have no ability to regulate cameras for those uses. The part I don't understand is how are they going to determine what the camera is being used for and what is going to stop law enforcement from just charging people and then having to go to court?(I am not even disagreeing with you on the use of camera part.)
a. A number of comments state the Commission lacks the authority to regulate the use of trail cameras. Agency Response: The Department disagrees. Under A.R.S. § 17-231(A)(3), "The Commission shall establish hunting, trapping and fishing rules and prescribe the manner and methods that may be used in taking wildlife, but the Commission shall not limit or restrict the magazine capacity of any authorized firearm. The Commission, through the Department, is responsible for the lawful management of Arizona's diverse wildlife. This is done through laws and rules that govern seasons, weapon types, lawful and unlawful methods of take, which includes devices. Trail cameras are a technological device that can be used to aid in the take of wildlife and when used for such purpose is entirely under the Commission's authority to regulate. Trail cameras used for general wildlife viewing, research, and/or home or camp security are not affected by this rulemaking.

 

[JAYgs8163]

I understand the regulation just fine. The regulation says you can not use it to aid in hunting. It also says you can use it to take wildlife photography even on public land. In fact, it says they have no ability to regulate cameras for those uses. The part I don't understand is how are they going to determine what the camera is being used for and what is going to stop law enforcement from just charging people and then having to go to court?

Well I'm not going to worry about what other people do with regards to using trail cameras unless it directly effects me. I would like to think if a person was observed using a trail camera by a AZGFD officer that they would proceed using caution and prudent judgment. I don't think the nature of the law is to run out and start charging people. They know it's a touchy subject. I think if people worried about the Wildgame as much as they worry about who's going to charge who for a violation we wouldn't even be having this discussion. People abuse things and they abused the trail cams here. This discussion you are having with me now you have not once mentioned what's in the best interest of the animals, it isn't trail cameras I can assure you that. How do they help them? I love to hunt but fair is fair for the critters.