Arizona ban on trail cams

I think the technology can get a little carried away. I've always wondered when the time would come with the computerized sizer upper, tree stand/rifle combo would come. A guy could just get an alert on his cell phone and hit the kill now button over his private lease food plot. I prefer to scout the old way. works for me. I do have a couple game cams though. Fun to check them.
 
This is a dangerous slippery slope for all if us. "Unfair advantage" etc is commonly perceived with trail cams. Ok, you still have to have skill to hunt a specific animal in order to kill it. Oh wait, stand off long range with laser rangefinder with my super high bc high velocity slip stream bullet, high definition optics, carbon wrapped braked barrel which is now on the table as "unfair advantage". Who makes this determination of what is an "unfair advantage"? This can become the antis call to arms going forward. My question is what empirical evidence do they have of "widespread" abuse with trail cams? Outfitters make their living killing animals with clients. If they do not put clients on animals they are out of business. If the issue is how many they have in use, this can be addressed. I can see some concern with cell cams but some thoughts of no hunting within 3 days of photo. Enforcement in all of these scenarios is impossible. Like a lot of different hunting methods if you don't like it dont use them. Getting tired of someone telling me I cant do something just because you don't like it. Simple analogy "change the channel".
It's being abused by people watching their phone blow up with big stud critters, sending a guy in the area to that cam location and taking wildlife. Its also in line with drones and piloted aircraft. They are mostly restricted for the same reason. Its not "fair chase". Unscrupulous people/ guides will be the ones cheating the system. I was the victim of one of those "guides". He's out of business, forever.
 
It is an arm of the Arizona government, no? Are we to believe the Governor and the State Legislature have no authority over the various State agencies? If they don't, maybe that's the problem in Arizona.

I don't see how it could be enforced on private property. Lots of security cams in use on private property. If an animal wanders by, oh well...
 
It is an arm of the Arizona government, no? Are we to believe the Governor and the State Legislature have no authority over the various State agencies? If they don't, maybe that's the problem in Arizona.

I don't see how it could be enforced on private property. Lots of security cams in use on private property. If an animal wanders by, oh well...
AZGF is a separate entity not controlled by the state, since it receives no state tax funding. The only function the executive (governor) or the legislature has is appointing and approving AZGF commisioners.
It's worked extremely well.
They have sworn officers to enforce all state laws, and work with state, county and city police but usually involves wildlife or other criminal pursuits where G&F were involved in investigations or assisting in investigations.
We do not want the state politicizing wildlife decisions do we? That is a disaster.
Edit to add: the wildlife within AZ belong to the people of AZ. You cannot take big game on your property without a tag or not in season. Big game would be elk, pronghorn, deer, bear, lion, javelina, various sheep etc.. You can take all other non-game species when in season.
 
Last edited:
That doesn't sound much different than Alaska. If the Commissioners are appointed by the legislature and/or the Governor, they are subject to the authority of elected officials, to my way of thinking.

Those appointed commissioners understand those who giveth can taketh away.

About the only Commissioner in Alaska that's difficult to remove is the head of State Troopers. But even they can be removed.

As imperfect as it is, I'd rather have elected officials have ultimate oversight authority of State agencies, than Officials that can rule without regard to the populace and their votes. Which is why they're almost always accountable to an elected authority.
 
This is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Anti hunters have got to be behind it. Who cares if someone else has a trail cam. But wait there's bowhunters, crossbow hunters, muzzleloader hunters, levergun 45-70 hunters, just give me a 30-06 and a 3-9 hunters, and some guy with a 338 Edge sitting 1100 yards away and everyone is confused by how someone else wants to hunt.
 
That doesn't sound much different than Alaska. If the Commissioners are appointed by the legislature and/or the Governor, they are subject to the authority of elected officials, to my way of thinking.

Those appointed commissioners understand those who giveth can taketh away.

About the only Commissioner in Alaska that's difficult to remove is the head of State Troopers. But even they can be removed.

As imperfect as it is, I'd rather have elected officials have ultimate oversight authority of State agencies, than Officials that can rule without regard to the populace and their votes. Which is why they're almost always accountable to an elected authority.
When the political winds blow, think California.
 
This is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Anti hunters have got to be behind it. Who cares if someone else has a trail cam. But wait there's bowhunters, crossbow hunters, muzzleloader hunters, levergun 45-70 hunters, just give me a 30-06 and a 3-9 hunters, and some guy with a 338 Edge sitting 1100 yards away and everyone is confused by how someone else wants to hunt.
You can have game cameras here. They are discussing tele-cams. Mind you, I don't use cams, but many do. I'm sure the G&F have done enough investigations to find out how the tele-cams have been abused and are stating it's not fair chase. Drones, airplanes and these....
 
I for one don't know that I'd mind the ban too much even though I'm pretty against government entities dabbling in hunting and shooting rights. I live and hunt in AZ and the trophy units have certainly been overtaken by the guide business and trail cams. If you're going to be a reputable guide you have to play the camera game to be competitive with the rest of them. No way around it. Some of the folks that run them are true hunters to the core and use them as another tool the same as binoculars, etc and would continue being solid hunters without them but others just run gobs of cameras on every ounce of water or salt in a given unit to see every animal in that unit then decide which one to target. That takes its own level of dedication but it gives me some pause. I don't think it's very ethical to do things that way personally. I have a few cameras but I don't ever seem to put them in the right spot to find the shooter I've been looking for so I don't think I'd miss them that much. I do think the trophy quality statewide would be much better after a few years of no cameras because not as many people would discover them before they mature. They'd be harder to pattern and find though for sure.
 
Understand... that's why I won't live there.
I've seen abuses by appointed officials and commissioners, that were only corrected thru their removal from office.

I'm not sure there is a perfect solution...
I think there is a removal process within the G&F as part of their internal processes (employment agreements, performance) But not at the state level political side. There is a handoff only once, when appointed. Then the G&F owns them.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 4 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top