Arizona ban on trail cams

[snowypeakoutdoors]

Well I'm not going to worry about what other people do. 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.

I would like to think that too. Unfortunately, experience has told me that you give the government a hammer and they are sure to see nails everywhere. That is how our rights are being eroded constantly. I don't have a problem with banning the trail cameras on public land. I have a huge problem with banning cameras on private land and thought crimes. I use my cameras to take pictures of wildlife on my property, and even more so for security reasons. I am concerned for my fellow landowners in AZ. As far as your "you have not once mentioned what's in the best interest of the animals" comment...why would I address it when it has no bearing on what I am talking about?

 

[JAYgs8163]

I would like to think that too. Unfortunately, experience has told me that you give the government a hammer and they are sure to see nails everywhere. That is how our rights are being eroded constantly. I don't have a problem with banning the trail cameras on public land. I have a huge problem with banning cameras on private land and thought crimes. I use my cameras to take pictures of wildlife on my property, and even more so for security reasons. I am concerned for my fellow landowners in AZ. As far as your "you have not once mentioned what's in the best interest of the animals" comment...why would I address it when it has no bearing on what I am talking about?

Because that's what the law is intended to protect from abusive use and it's why the regulation was enacted. Again, trail cameras can still be used as long as they're not used for assistance in the taking of wildgame. As long as the regulation is followed should be a no issue and they're used as you stated you use them. As a private landowner also in Az I will have no problem running a cam on my family property to observe and protect it. Anyways, have a good day.

 

[mrjashu]

Because that's what the law is intended to protect from abusive use and it's why the regulation was enacted. Again, trail cameras can still be used as long as they're not used for assistance in the taking of wildgame. As long as the regulation is followed should be a no issue and they're used as you stated you use them. As a private landowner also in Az I will have no problem running a cam on my family property to observe and protect it. Anyways, have a good day.

I think a big part of the problem that snowypeakoutdoors (and others including myself) is having with this is the huge amount of gray area there is when it comes to enforcement of this. AZGFD hasn't exactly done a great job building up trust with hunters. Many have experienced "guilty until proven innocent" attitudes which if extended to trail cameras has the potential to make people's lives miserable. As a hunter will I feel comfortable running a camera or two to learn about wildlife in an area (with no intention to hunt there) at the risk of AZGFD coming down on me? No I probably won't even though it would be perfectly within the rules to do so. The potential of getting hassled by AZGFD and maybe even going to court just isn't worth it.

In general I'm fine with not using trail cameras for hunting, but the way the rule will be interpreted and enforced by AZGFD on the ground is going to be the real story.

I'm curious what people think about some of these examples, I'd like your feedback.

• Example 1: I have trail cameras up in a unit to view wildlife. I know there are game in that unit so I apply and as soon as I draw a tag in that unit I pull my cameras? Okay or not?

• Example 2: I have trail cameras up in a unit that I don't hunt, to view wildlife but I have an OTC deer tag (or a general hunting license) in my possession. Okay or not? Okay as long as I never hunt there?

• Example 3: I have trail cameras up in a unit to view the wildlife. As a result I end up with an idea of game in that unit. I pull my cameras. Two (three? four? what's the number?) years later I draw a tag and hunt that unit. Okay or not?

These are the sorts of things that people are playing out in their minds, I'm sure there are a lot more that I could come up with if I thought about it. It would be nice to get some clarity from AZGFD how they plan to enforce this. As I think about it maybe I will send some of these to them and see if they respond.

 

[JAYgs8163]

I think a big part of the problem that snowypeakoutdoors (and others including myself) is having with this is the huge amount of gray area there is when it comes to enforcement of this. AZGFD hasn't exactly done a great job building up trust with hunters. Many have experienced "guilty until proven innocent" attitudes which if extended to trail cameras has the potential to make people's lives miserable. As a hunter will I feel comfortable running a camera or two to learn about wildlife in an area (with no intention to hunt there) at the risk of AZGFD coming down on me? No I probably won't even though it would be perfectly within the rules to do so. The potential of getting hassled by AZGFD and maybe even going to court just isn't worth it.

In general I'm fine with not using trail cameras for hunting, but the way the rule will be interpreted and enforced by AZGFD on the ground is going to be the real story.

I'm curious what people think about some of these examples, I'd like your feedback.

• Example 1: I have trail cameras up in a unit to view wildlife. I know there are game in that unit so I apply and as soon as I draw a tag in that unit I pull my cameras? Okay or not?

• Example 2: I have trail cameras up in a unit that I don't hunt, to view wildlife but I have an OTC deer tag (or a general hunting license) in my possession. Okay or not? Okay as long as I never hunt there?

• Example 3: I have trail cameras up in a unit to view the wildlife. As a result I end up with an idea of game in that unit. I pull my cameras. Two (three? four? what's the number?) years later I draw a tag and hunt that unit. Okay or not?

These are the sorts of things that people are playing out in their minds, I'm sure there are a lot more that I could come up with if I thought about it. It would be nice to get some clarity from AZGFD how they plan to enforce this. As I think about it maybe I will send some of these to them and see if they respond.

Example 1. Not okay
Example 2. Maybe but until the actual regs are drafted and approved we are just guessing.
Example 3. I would say okay but again the regs have not been written yet so we would be guessing. It's my understanding you can use them as you want until the new regs addressing this comes out.

All is a guess at this point as they just voted to proceed with a ban. When the regs are released we will then see how and what interpretations are used. I assume and heard they will be completely banned from being used on water sources. Let's agree that the cams on the water is where the issue exists. I was hoping that's what they banned but we will see what the regs say when they come out. Have a good day!

 

[mrjashu]

All is a guess at this point as they just voted to proceed with a ban. When the regs are released we will then see how and what interpretations are used. I assume and heard they will be completely banned from being used on water sources.

If I understand correctly what they actually voted for was to modify the rule to remove "live-action", which would expand the current rule to all cameras. If that's the case then I assume the old language will be the same with that one exception. It sounds like you think they're going to expand the language even further, do you have information in this regard?

This is the rule from the regs:

A person shall not use a live-action trail camera, or ​

images from a live-action trail camera, for the purpose of:​

a. Taking or aiding in the take of wildlife, or​

b. Locating wildlife for the purpose of taking or aiding ​

in the take of wildlife.​

If they just remove the "live-action" part then that still leaves the rest open for enforcement interpretation, which of course is the case with any rule. I guess this one just seems a bit weird because they're trying to regulate "an act before an act" if that makes sense. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head that is similar is fly over rules that some states implement. That is when you fly over (or into) an area you have to wait for one full day before you hunt. I think Alaska does this? That is very concrete and easy to understand. My hope is that G&F give us some clarification language like that...but I'm not holding my breathe.

I will say that is pretty cut and dried for guides though. It will be easy to assume that any guide using a trail camera fits into "b" above.

 

[JAYgs8163]

If I understand correctly what they actually voted for was to modify the rule to remove "live-action", which would expand the current rule to all cameras. If that's the case then I assume the old language will be the same with that one exception. It sounds like you think they're going to expand the language even further, do you have information in this regard?

This is the rule from the regs:

A person shall not use a live-action trail camera, or ​

images from a live-action trail camera, for the purpose of:​

a. Taking or aiding in the take of wildlife, or​

b. Locating wildlife for the purpose of taking or aiding ​

in the take of wildlife.​

If they just remove the "live-action" part then that still leaves the rest open for enforcement interpretation, which of course is the case with any rule. I guess this one just seems a bit weird because they're trying to regulate "an act before an act" if that makes sense. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head that is similar is fly over rules that some states implement. That is when you fly over (or into) an area you have to wait for one full day before you hunt. I think Alaska does this? That is very concrete and easy to understand. My hope is that G&F give us some clarification language like that...but I'm not holding my breathe.

I will say that is pretty cut and dried for guides though. It will be easy to assume that any guide using a trail camera fits into "b" above.

The regulation now is related to the prior ban which addresses Cell Cams only. The new regs have not been written but I would bet there will be additional amendments to the existing reg. Time will tell. I very rarely ever used them so it will have no effect on me. I've never took any Wildgame from the results of a trail cam. All was done with on the ground scouting. Sitting behind glass for hours and covering ground.

 

[TexasSportsman]

There are far too many game cams and too few game wardens. I doubt that very many people will be fined or jailed or whatever because they have a game cam. They will depend on friends, family and neighbors to rat out those that have cams. They burden of proof will be on those caught with cameras to prove they weren't using them to take game.

 

[TexasSportsman]

Arizona hunting and Texas hunting cannot be compared. It's massively private there, hogs are not a problem in Texas (it's a revenue source for landowners or they would be extinct already). We don't use feeders, cultivate plots, sell hunts on private property, import African animals, cull hunt, etc, etc.
We have limited tags, fierce competition applying for the chance and it's getting worse every single year.
I could only say that the small population of people using them and selling the Intel, ruined it for everyone.
If you have private property here and have a need for them, I don't think the enforcement arm of G&F are concerned. Public lands is ~85% in AZ, excluding reservation land. That public land is shrinking.
Most of the country is privately held outside of the few states with state trust, BLM and National forests. Many of the western states have intense pressure on those lands for hunting, recreating.
There is ZERO comparison.

Feral hogs are a problem and not every land owner opens their gates to allow hunting of any kind. Just because you know of a people who don't use feeders or food plots doesn't mean they aren't used...legally or illegally.

As I mentioned before the law doesn't make sense so it's likely to be repealed...when? Who knows but I feel it will.

 

[TexasSportsman]

Correct, you can't use trail cams to assist in the taking of Wildgame.

I don't see it as foolish. Comparing Az hunting to Texas is like comparing apples and oranges.

We have no feral hogs in Az.

I beg to differ that there aren't feral hogs in AZ. If they are in a wildlife refuge they are in just about every other place in AZ.

At Arizona refuge, battle continues against feral hogs - Outdoor News

LAKE HAVASU CITY, Ariz. — U.S. Department of Agriculture aerial sharpshooters are returning to the Lake Havasu National Wildlife Refuge for a second attempt to exterminate feral hogs at the refuge along the Colorado River. However, the facility’s manager told the Today’s News-Herald that it may...

www.outdoornews.com

 

[JAYgs8163]

I beg to differ that there aren't feral hogs in AZ. If they are in a wildlife refuge they are in just about every other place in AZ.

At Arizona refuge, battle continues against feral hogs - Outdoor News

LAKE HAVASU CITY, Ariz. — U.S. Department of Agriculture aerial sharpshooters are returning to the Lake Havasu National Wildlife Refuge for a second attempt to exterminate feral hogs at the refuge along the Colorado River. However, the facility’s manager told the Today’s News-Herald that it may...

www.outdoornews.com

That's old news from 2018 and they were exterminated by USDA predation control team here in Az. I know because my hunting partner is the manager for that team in the state.
I'll say it again. We have no feral hog issues here in Az at this time. Can that change, of course it can. It won't happen in most of the state as water is too scarce and they need it, otherwise they would already be here.

 

[Korhil78]

They also need to get rid of that OTC archery deer tag in December. Archery equipment has come a long ways and that is killing a ton of deer each year. But this is another subject.

 

[JAYgs8163]

They also need to get rid of that OTC archery deer tag in December. Archery equipment has come a long ways and that is killing a ton of deer each year. But this is another subject.

Well that's our Archery Rut season. I would prefer they get rid of the OTC August tag where people just sit on water. Anyways.... that's a entirely different thread.

 

[Korhil78]

I'm taking about ending it for non residents just to clarify. Just too many tags.

 

[LVJ76]

There have been reports of hogs westt of Tucson, west of the Rincon Mountains. I've heard it a few times but can't verify it.