Az.Gamecam Ruling

dirtclod Az.

Active Member
Messages
251
Az. is hosting a webcast forum pertaining to the use of trail cameras use within 1/4 mile of a developed water source.
www.azgfd.gov/webcast.Questions can be submitted by e-mail during the forum at questions@azgfd/webcast.I think that trailcams should not be used around any water source such as cowponds/water holes etc.dirtclod AZ.
 
It shocks me when I see these sort of proposals, and then I see American citizens supporting them?

When the govt is able to convince the citizens to support actions / new laws that continue to erode their own personal freedoms / choices (especially on public land) you know its not long before they are in total CONTROL.

Who in the world would "vote" in favor of taking away your own continued "freedom of choice / actions?"
 
When you walk up to a water hole to check for tracks and there are 15 trailcams mounted on trees around it put there by guides to track deer remotely from home or nearby in there vehicles,that is not ethical hunting!Welcome to Arizona,now go home!
 
LAST EDITED ON May-19-18 AT 08:43AM (MST)[p]Whats the most novel to me is the fact that Arizona sportsmen even have a voice in the matter. And their F&G?s hands are not tied. And if this is legislative, that their politicians would even considering something beneficial to hunting quality. In Illinois that ended decades ago. The only thing that gets legislators slightest attention is special interest group money and exploitation of the resource, such as unlimited NR tags and crossguns. Every decision is based on money and payoffs. Game & fish managers have no say in the matter.

Perhaps the game cam industry is doing some lobbying with regards to this proposal? Anyways, after I get over that initial shock, and I can consider this proposal, for me personally it's a no brainer. I agree totally with Dirtclod, I have no use for the explosion of game cams everywhere I go on public. Even four miles in during my last AZ hunt. Really takes away from the hunt and disturbs game. I'm all for banning them.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-19-18 AT 09:51AM (MST)[p]What if trail cams were only usable for those with a big game tag for their specific unit. Then a registration system where you register up to 3 cams with the state and then the state sends you serialized stickers for each cam. Any cam without the serialized sticker gets cut off the tree. Registration fee of $20 per camera.
 
>When you walk up to a
>water hole to check for
>tracks and there are 15
>trailcams mounted on trees around
>it put there by guides
>to track deer remotely from
>home or nearby in there
>vehicles,that is not ethical hunting!Welcome
>to Arizona,now go home!

Ethics are one's own to decide, not yours or mine! Anyone can put a cam there, not just guides....its called "freedom of choice" to do as you please on public land (federal land) that we ALL pay for - non residents included.

If it bothers one so much, they are free to hunt private land where this won't likely be an issue?! Rather than restricting others who choose to like it/enjoy it an participate in it. That's why its "public" we all have to sometimes put up with things we don't like so everyone can partake.

I can't see how the answer to every issue is more laws / restrictions set forth by the govt? Laws/restrictions that "the people" are so quick to impose on themselves....I'll never get it?

Unethical you say? What about lazer range finders, 50x spotting scopes, long-range hunting rifles / dial-in scopes, posse hunting / scouting, even trophy hunting? Where do you propose to draw the line on ethics, personal choice? Are we to eventually outlaw all of these things, because someone takes offense / finds them unethical?
 
Obviosly Globalhunter must be an unethical guide?As for registering the cams,the game managers in Az. are stretched thin enough.Zim is on the right track,ban them or allow them to be used away from water sources.AS for laser scopes and airbows,I am an ethical bow hunter and would hope others to act responsibly on their hunts.I don't make enough or am willing to pay enough to hunt private land.If there are too many hunters in my public area I deal with it,and always have.
 
>Obviosly Globalhunter must be an unethical
>guide?As for registering the cams,the
>game managers in Az. are
>stretched thin enough.Zim is on
>the right track,ban them or
>allow them to be used
>away from water sources.AS for
>laser scopes and airbows,I am
>an ethical bow hunter and
>would hope others to act
>responsibly on their hunts.I don't
>make enough or am willing
>to pay enough to hunt
>private land.If there are too
>many hunters in my public
>area I deal with it,and
>always have.

I'm not an AZ guide, never have been, nor know why you would say I'm an unethical AZ guide? Fact is, I've rarely ever used cameras in my entire life, too much hassle to be frank. But if I don't agree with your position, I'm unethical about mine?

I just hate to see opportunities limited / taken away from others doing something they enjoy / like / benefit from simply because some find it offensive to the way they think it should be done, on public land we all are to share.

Every example you give here is only based strictly on your way of doing things / thinking, with no concern for all hunters as a whole who use the same woods as you. So you go to a water hole and there's 15 cameras on the water....how is that really negatively effecting your hunt other than the fact that you just don't like em? You're free to track, free to sit, free to do exactly as you wish - and I suspect you do?

You don't like trail cams at water, so they gotta go for everyone? I'm not familiar with a lazer scope or airbows, but I assume as an "ethical" bow hunter you use a lazer range finder? Some could argue that's not ethical...its cheating, etc. How far do we take this silliness?

You can't afford to hunt private property (no one's fault but your own) but you want to limit others on public land because you find cams personally offensive / unethical, so the rest of the public should comply?

You'll deal with too many hunters in the public areas you hunt...but not their trail cams?

In all honesty, I've seen the water holes littered with trail cams too - and I too agree it certainly doesn't look appealing. But the last thing we need is the govt imposing another LAW upon us telling us what we can / cannot do! It never stops there!!!

Will you be just as quick to help ban / legislate away the use of things you like / depend on / enjoy? Cause if you think slippery slopes like this aren't exactly what this will all eventually lead to - your knowledge of history in general is seriously lacking.
 
I see your point.I'll set up a trailcam next to your blind and go back and sit in camp.When my trailcam remotely signals me,I look at the monitor see a big bull. Jump in my 4x4 drive to the waterhole and shoot the bull from under you,load it up and drive back to camp.NO PROBLEMS HERE.
 
>I see your point.I'll set up
>a trailcam next to your
>blind and go back and
>sit in camp.When my trailcam
>remotely signals me,I look at
>the monitor see a big
>bull. Jump in my 4x4
>drive to the waterhole and
>shoot the bull from under
>you,load it up and drive
>back to camp.NO PROBLEMS HERE.
>

Unfortunately DirtHead that's sometimes the reality on public land...we've all dealt with it.

I don't mean to insinuate your opinion is any less valuable than mine....I just hate to say any of us lose more opportunity to do as we wish on Federal land, paid for with tax payer dollars.

I sincerely wish you luck on your up coming hunts!!
 
>I see your point.I'll set up
>a trailcam next to your
>blind and go back and
>sit in camp.When my trailcam
>remotely signals me,I look at
>the monitor see a big
>bull. Jump in my 4x4
>drive to the waterhole and
>shoot the bull from under
>you,load it up and drive
>back to camp.NO PROBLEMS HERE.
>

Aren't you cute! That's one heck of a scenario to make a mote point. If it were my blind, you'd be WAY too late gettin' there if it was a bull I wanted, and if it wasn't, you're more than welcome to it, if your 4X4 doesn't scare it off first. So, yeah, NO PROBLEMS HERE!

How about it if we just regulate against HUNTING within a 1/4 mile of a waterhole. That would solve the problem and it certainly would be "ethical"!

I guess we can't regulate against rudeness any more than we can regulate against stupidity!
 
>>I see your point.I'll set up
>>a trailcam next to your
>>blind and go back and
>>sit in camp.When my trailcam
>>remotely signals me,I look at
>>the monitor see a big
>>bull. Jump in my 4x4
>>drive to the waterhole and
>>shoot the bull from under
>>you,load it up and drive
>>back to camp.NO PROBLEMS HERE.
>>
>
>Aren't you cute! That's one heck
>of a scenario to make
>a mote point. If it
>were my blind, you'd be
>WAY too late gettin' there
>if it was a bull
>I wanted, and if it
>wasn't, you're more than welcome
>to it, if your 4X4
>doesn't scare it off first.
>So, yeah, NO PROBLEMS HERE!
>
>
>How about it if we just
>regulate against HUNTING within a
>1/4 mile of a waterhole.
>That would solve the problem
>and it certainly would be
>"ethical"!
>
>I guess we can't regulate against
>rudeness any more than we
>can regulate against stupidity!

Aren't I cute about what...I'm not following you, sorry? A mote - spelled "moat" is a water boundary.....I assume you meant moot point?

Why you continue to resort to personal attacks / accusations / insults / I'm not sure? I was trying to lobby on behalf of us all...including you.

But hey DirtHead, if you want to compare personal resumes with big bulls, etc, etc, just let me know....we can do so, I'm all in? I'll post em up right now bro? I've not been rude / sarcastic, or stupid, at all to you, I've simply tried to lay out another point of view for consideration....that's all. Hoping we can have a mature conversation that might result in a favorable outcome for all parties?!

Fact is....Insults are the last resort of insecure people with a crumbling position trying to appear confident!
 
LAST EDITED ON May-19-18 AT 11:24PM (MST)[p]>>>I see your point.I'll set up
>>>a trailcam next to your
>>>blind and go back and
>>>sit in camp.When my trailcam
>>>remotely signals me,I look at
>>>the monitor see a big
>>>bull. Jump in my 4x4
>>>drive to the waterhole and
>>>shoot the bull from under
>>>you,load it up and drive
>>>back to camp.NO PROBLEMS HERE.
>>>
>>
>>Aren't you cute! That's one heck
>>of a scenario to make
>>a mote point. If it
>>were my blind, you'd be
>>WAY too late gettin' there
>>if it was a bull
>>I wanted, and if it
>>wasn't, you're more than welcome
>>to it, if your 4X4
>>doesn't scare it off first.
>>So, yeah, NO PROBLEMS HERE!
>>
>>
>>How about it if we just
>>regulate against HUNTING within a
>>1/4 mile of a waterhole.
>>That would solve the problem
>>and it certainly would be
>>"ethical"!
>>
>>I guess we can't regulate against
>>rudeness any more than we
>>can regulate against stupidity!
>
>Aren't I cute about what...I'm not
>following you, sorry? A
>mote - spelled "moat" is
>a water boundary.....I assume you
>meant moot point?
>
>Why you continue to resort to
>personal attacks / accusations /
>insults / I'm not sure?
> I was trying to
>lobby on behalf of us
>all...including you.
>
>But hey DirtHead, if you want
>to compare personal resumes with
>big bulls, etc, etc, just
>let me know....we can do
>so, I'm all in?
>I'll post em up right
>now bro? I've not
>been rude / sarcastic, or
>stupid, at all to you,
>I've simply tried to lay
>out another point of view
>for consideration....that's all. Hoping
>we can have a mature
>conversation that might result in
>a favorable outcome for all
>parties?!
>
>Fact is....Insults are the last resort
>of insecure people with a
>crumbling position trying to appear
>confident!

Easy there, Globalhunter! I'm sorry you took my post as a personal attack because I was referring to your scenario, not to you personally. But since you put yourself in the scenario and I failed to make a written distinction I can see why you would think I attacked you. Sorry! In any case, anyone who would do what you proposed would certainly be rude and IMO, stupid and any new laws wouldn't have changed that.

The truth is, like you, I get so tired of some hunters fighting over what they consider "unethical" behavior that has no impact on the herds or how others chose to hunt. We get so many yearly changes in big game regulations here in Utah, it's nearly impossible to even know if we're legal at any time or place. And many of the changes happen because someone (or a group) simply doesn't like something.

I archery hunt over water holes from a blind or a tree stand and I use trail cams only for pronghorn because the tags don't come around very often and I have to make sure a buck is coming to the water. Otherwise, tracks are all I need, so your scenario is moot. (sorry for the spelling). And, FWIW, I'm a one-time trophy hunter and I've already got my P&Y elk and pronghorn, so I don't care if someone has a trail cam or not, since I'm not looking for another trophy elk, though I'll take one if it shows up. In fact, if they want to use my blind for a big one they've seen on the cam, all I ask is for them to call me and schedule it per my note posted on the door flap. I've had a few takers, but most people just leave it alone.

Changing something simply because it's "unethical" is elitist behavior and implies that some people are considered better than others because of the way they think or do things. That kind of thinking divides us and is detrimental to the sport.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-20-18 AT 05:26AM (MST)[p]My general philosophy when it comes to any public land is "Take nothing but memories, leave nothing but footprints". When I am in the timber I don't like seeing treestands, trailcams, garbage, nor anything else left by people. The new rage where I was last year in AZ was steel trailcam security boxes left chained and padlocked to the trees with no trailcam inside. Apparently the user was too lazy to remove these and haul them in/out 4 miles between hunting seasons? I found several like this. I consider this littering of public lands. When ever I see this stuff, I wonder where does it end? Rather than enact more legislation to limit all this with regulations, and enforce it, I think it's just better to ban all this stuff on public. I like to hunt public where site regulations require hauling your stands in/out on a daily basis. Can't stand it when the best tree in the area has a stand locked in it and I never see anybody using it all season. And others leave their stands up permanently, or abandon them altogether. There's just no need to infringe on other taxpayers. Also tired of filling my pack up with empty energy drink cans 3 miles into the timber. Nice. I consider all these items litter.

**********************************************
Wherever SFW goes, scandal and corruption follow:

http://kutv.com/news/local/allegations-of-corruption-surround-utah-hungtin-and-conservation-expo

https://www.cascwild.org/don-peay-the-man-who-would-be-king-baron/

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs...ares-north-american-hunting-model-“socialism”

http://www.standard.net/Recreation/...16-Western-Hunting-and-Conservation-Expo.html

http://www.mtbullypulpit.org/2012/06/pox-on-fox.html

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2013...on-essentially-buy-utah-division-of-wildlife/

http://westernvaluesproject.org/tax...hunting-energy-industry-over-hunters-anglers/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/u...-but-hunters-cry-foul.html?smid=pl-share&_r=2

http://www.themudflats.net/archives/25891

http://www.sltrib.com/news/4054427-155/rolly-lawyers-criticism-of-herbert-leads
 
I've never got how you can leave a camera on public land. If I leave a blind its illegal. If I leave my trailer for 15 days that's illegal. If I leave my beer can its illegal. I'm not sure why leaving a plastic box strapped to a tree is any different than leaving a milk crate laying in the forest.

I'm also curious how an outdoors tv show(hunting or otherwise) has to pay a filming fee to film in the forest, but a guide (I heard a Utah guide on podcast say he runs 125 on the 2 units he watches) can use cams for commercial purpose without fee?

I'd like to see Utah rule be cams HAVE to come down prior to first hunt(archery) and can't go back until the last one is over(end of anterless in Jan). Simply require cams to register online, any found after Aug, the owner gets ticket(littering), DWR gets the cam to auction for conservation money.



From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Open season on trail cams problem solved. Min 20 ga or larger requirement, video of the kill shot and gps for a 50 dollar bounty. You can't take a sh:t on the strip without five cameras catching your tail. Completely out of control.
4abc76ff29b26fc1.jpg
 
If enough of the PUBLIC decides they don't want gamecams on PUBLIC land then it should be so. That is what is called a democracy. I can't forbid you from putting it on your own private land, but I get a say in what happens on public. You don't get to decide by yourself.

Can you go build a cabin on PUBLIC land without the consent of the PUBLIC, live in a camper year round, ride a 4 wheeler off road...... Not any different.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
>LAST EDITED ON May-20-18
>AT 05:26?AM (MST)

>
>My general philosophy when it comes
>to any public land is
>"Take nothing but memories, leave
>nothing but footprints". When
>I am in the timber
>I don't like seeing treestands,
>trailcams, garbage, nor anything else
>left by people. The
>new rage where I was
>last year in AZ was
>steel trailcam security boxes left
>chained and padlocked to the
>trees with no trailcam inside.
> Apparently the user was
>too lazy to remove these
>and haul them in/out 4
>miles between hunting seasons?
>I found several like this.
> I consider this littering
>of public lands. When
>ever I see this stuff,
>I wonder where does it
>end? Rather than enact
>more legislation to limit all
>this with regulations, and enforce
>it, I think it's just
>better to ban all this
>stuff on public. I
>like to hunt public where
>site regulations require hauling your
>stands in/out on a daily
>basis. Can't stand it
>when the best tree in
>the area has a stand
>locked in it and I
>never see anybody using it
>all season. And others
>leave their stands up permanently,
>or abandon them altogether.
>There's just no need to
>infringe on other taxpayers.
>Also tired of filling my
>pack up with empty energy
>drink cans 3 miles into
>the timber. Nice.
>I consider all these items
>litter.
>
>**********************************************
>Wherever SFW goes, scandal and corruption
>follow:
>
>http://kutv.com/news/local/allegations-of-corruption-surround-utah-hungtin-and-conservation-expo
>
>https://www.cascwild.org/don-peay-the-man-who-would-be-king-baron/
>
>http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs...ares-north-american-hunting-model-“socialism”
>
>http://www.standard.net/Recreation/...16-Western-Hunting-and-Conservation-Expo.html
>
>http://www.mtbullypulpit.org/2012/06/pox-on-fox.html
>
>http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2013...on-essentially-buy-utah-division-of-wildlife/
>
>http://westernvaluesproject.org/tax...hunting-energy-industry-over-hunters-anglers/
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/u...-but-hunters-cry-foul.html?smid=pl-share&_r=2
>
>http://www.themudflats.net/archives/25891
>
>http://www.sltrib.com/news/4054427-155/rolly-lawyers-criticism-of-herbert-leads

And gut piles? Sh!!t piles? campfire circles and ashes? tire tracks? blinds constructed of site materials? makeshift bridges across creeks? brush cleared for tents? How far do we go?
 
WIll u guides still be able to charge as much to out of state idiots without the aid of 125 trail cams? I think probly so but I may be wrong. We like them drinker pix!!!!
 
Biggest problem I have with trailcam are when someone else season is going you have people coming in while you are hunting to check them for pictures at all hours. You take a tag that took 18 points or more to draw and you have someone drive up to a waterhole that you are in a blind waiting for a animal to come in to. They just screwed your time up, Then a hour later another guy shows up and does it again. WITH the amount of cams on some Waterholes/Guzzlers you can have a different guy show up every day or worse yet several guys stopping different times every day.

So yes I hope they put a big stop for this reason.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
For the record, I use trail cameras, 10 of them to be exact.

I find some of the comments about them hilarious and obviously made by people without a clue. Cameras that communicate remotely use cell service to do so. Most places where a camera would be effective have no cell service. If you're sitting in your trophy room in Kanab and a communication capable camera happens to be able to send you a picture of a buck bigger than the 255 incher you already have on the wall, you're only 2 1/2 hours away, so go bag him.

I have been sitting in a blind many times when hunters have come in to check for tracks around water and having no camera of their own. Then had deer and elk come in just minutes after they leave. by the way, my brush ground blinds are so good, I have rarely been spotted by others, some passing within 10 feet of me. Some people seem to think if a human gets within a quarter mile of an elk trail, the elk will leave the unit never to return.

Every argument I've seen is a fantasy made up to fit the author's narrative and justify their position. The only valid argument is "I don't hunt the way you do and I want you to stop and hunt like me". Kudos to those who have the sack to stand up and say it.

I happen to agree with the few that believe not every issue requires new regulation or government involvement. My experience is everybody loses in the long run when government gets involved. How many of you asked the government to introduce wolves into some of our best units?

We don't live in a democracy, thank God, but a constitutional republic that is supposed to protect the liberty and freedom of choice for everyone. Otherwise the majority could vote that you make too much money and the excess should be redistributed to the non-producers and probably not leave enough for to be able to spend some on hunting.

As for the proposal before the commission, the decision has already been made and trail cameras are going to be banned. All this "consideration" of public input is all for show. If you support the ban, quit your whining, you've already won. If you are concerned about government encroachment on your liberty, this just another log on the fire destroying freedom, albeit a small one.

"You can fly a helicopter to the top of Everest and say you've been there. The problem with that is you were an a$$hole when you started and you're still an a$$hole when you get back.
Its the climb that makes you a different person". - Yvon Chouinard
 
>LAST EDITED ON May-19-18
>AT 11:24?PM (MST)

>
>>>>I see your point.I'll set up
>>>>a trailcam next to your
>>>>blind and go back and
>>>>sit in camp.When my trailcam
>>>>remotely signals me,I look at
>>>>the monitor see a big
>>>>bull. Jump in my 4x4
>>>>drive to the waterhole and
>>>>shoot the bull from under
>>>>you,load it up and drive
>>>>back to camp.NO PROBLEMS HERE.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Aren't you cute! That's one heck
>>>of a scenario to make
>>>a mote point. If it
>>>were my blind, you'd be
>>>WAY too late gettin' there
>>>if it was a bull
>>>I wanted, and if it
>>>wasn't, you're more than welcome
>>>to it, if your 4X4
>>>doesn't scare it off first.
>>>So, yeah, NO PROBLEMS HERE!
>>>
>>>
>>>How about it if we just
>>>regulate against HUNTING within a
>>>1/4 mile of a waterhole.
>>>That would solve the problem
>>>and it certainly would be
>>>"ethical"!
>>>
>>>I guess we can't regulate against
>>>rudeness any more than we
>>>can regulate against stupidity!
>>
>>Aren't I cute about what...I'm not
>>following you, sorry? A
>>mote - spelled "moat" is
>>a water boundary.....I assume you
>>meant moot point?
>>
>>Why you continue to resort to
>>personal attacks / accusations /
>>insults / I'm not sure?
>> I was trying to
>>lobby on behalf of us
>>all...including you.
>>
>>But hey DirtHead, if you want
>>to compare personal resumes with
>>big bulls, etc, etc, just
>>let me know....we can do
>>so, I'm all in?
>>I'll post em up right
>>now bro? I've not
>>been rude / sarcastic, or
>>stupid, at all to you,
>>I've simply tried to lay
>>out another point of view
>>for consideration....that's all. Hoping
>>we can have a mature
>>conversation that might result in
>>a favorable outcome for all
>>parties?!
>>
>>Fact is....Insults are the last resort
>>of insecure people with a
>>crumbling position trying to appear
>>confident!
>
>Easy there, Globalhunter! I'm sorry you
>took my post as a
>personal attack because I was
>referring to your scenario, not
>to you personally. But since
>you put yourself in the
>scenario and I failed to
>make a written distinction I
>can see why you would
>think I attacked you. Sorry!
>In any case, anyone who
>would do what you proposed
>would certainly be rude and
>IMO, stupid and any new
>laws wouldn't have changed that.
>
>
>The truth is, like you, I
>get so tired of some
>hunters fighting over what they
>consider "unethical" behavior that has
>no impact on the herds
>or how others chose to
>hunt. We get so many
>yearly changes in big game
>regulations here in Utah, it's
>nearly impossible to even know
>if we're legal at any
>time or place. And many
>of the changes happen because
>someone (or a group) simply
>doesn't like something.
>
>I archery hunt over water holes
>from a blind or a
>tree stand and I use
>trail cams only for pronghorn
>because the tags don't come
>around very often and I
>have to make sure a
>buck is coming to the
>water. Otherwise, tracks are all
>I need, so your scenario
>is moot. (sorry for the
>spelling). And, FWIW, I'm a
>one-time trophy hunter and I've
>already got my P&Y elk
>and pronghorn, so I don't
>care if someone has a
>trail cam or not, since
>I'm not looking for another
>trophy elk, though I'll take
>one if it shows up.
>In fact, if they want
>to use my blind for
>a big one they've seen
>on the cam, all I
>ask is for them to
>call me and schedule it
>per my note posted on
>the door flap. I've had
>a few takers, but most
>people just leave it alone.
>
>
>Changing something simply because it's "unethical"
>is elitist behavior and implies
>that some people are considered
>better than others because of
>the way they think or
>do things. That kind of
>thinking divides us and is
>detrimental to the sport.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

My mistake....I thought you were DirtHead, very sorry sir!
 
>If enough of the PUBLIC decides
>they don't want gamecams on
>PUBLIC land then it should
>be so. That is
>what is called a democracy.
>I can't forbid you from
>putting it on your own
>private land, but I get
>a say in what happens
>on public. You don't
>get to decide by yourself.
>
>
>Can you go build a cabin
>on PUBLIC land without the
>consent of the PUBLIC, live
>in a camper year round,
>ride a 4 wheeler off
>road...... Not any different.
>
>txhunter58
>
>venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore
>I am)

Our country is not governed as a democracy...we are a constitutional republic, just FYI.
 
Guys - Regardless of what you think of my opinion, please remember this. Everytime you are willing to erode a personal choice / freedom, is another opportunity for the govt to permanently take it away from you and all others!!!
 
>>
>My mistake....I thought you were DirtHead,
>very sorry sir!

Thanks!
Some miscommunication on both our parts, but I think we're back to a mature discussion, at least for the moment.
 
I agree that the decision is already made, and the rule as proposed will become law. The AZ Game and Fish Commission doesn't really take input from sportsman anymore, like they did in the past. By the time you or I hear about the topic, they've made their decision. Incidentally, this law doesn't just apply to public land as has been alluded to.

That being said, DirtClod keeps speaking as if cell phone cameras and conventional cameras are the same thing. The new "proposal" treats them as separate issues. There is one law banning the cell phone cameras in their entirety. The other part of the proposal limits the use of conventional cameras around water sources. I can tell you as a person that hunted the AZ Strip last year during archery season, and witnessed 8+ cameras per water source, I never have seen a single cell phone based camera used in Arizona. So, I 4x4 coming roaring into YOUR water hole to shoot YOUR animal because they saw it remotely is currently not a high risk with or without the law (although obviously that could change in the future).

I would personally prefer that if they want to limit them, they should allow their use for off-season scouting, then require them to be removed during the hunts themselves (once the first hunt opens for the year). Trail cameras have become an outdoor activity all their own, and many people enjoy it much like shed hunting. It's like Christmas every time you check your pictures, and it's really very enjoyable. Why regulate out of an existence an enjoyable public outdoor activity that really has no significant impact on the resource (particularly when done in the off-season as I mention)?
 
LAST EDITED ON May-23-18 AT 12:30PM (MST)[p]I would hope that we all consider what effects this proposal, if passed, would have on the wildlife, the habitat, the outdoor recreational activities and/or hunting styles of others as well as our own. In other words, if this proposal is implemented what difference does it make to the rest of the stakeholders?

And we need to decide if trail cams are the only thing they are considering or going to consider and if this is just for hunting and only for public land.

And we need to consider the loss of another freedom to choose a hunting style.

From what I have seen on this forum and further research, it would make very little difference for hunters if not passed, but it would effect many hunters if it were.


In any case, I hope these more restrictive proposals don't come to Utah!
 
YEP JUST THE SOUND OF THAT QUAD FLYING UP TO THAT WATER HOLE must
call in all those animals, so If I have a quad sitting close I should start it up every now and then kind use it for like Bait LOL.
SO You are saying that it WILL NOT SCARE "any" animals away.
So if a animal is coming in it will just stand there and let you check your cam, then just trot on in for a drink.


H#ll all this year's I have been doing it wrong, That quiet sneak and peak crap was all for nothing. I needed to get a dang Drum and Banjo.

Sorry Dirt But 8-20 cam's around a guzzler need to go.
Same deal with 6 treestands around a waterhole.


"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
How is charging everyone who wants to hang a camera 50 bucks per camara on public land unfair? Problem solved.
 
"Sorry Dirt But 8-20 cam's around a guzzler need to go.
Same deal with 6 treestands around a waterhole."

So 7 cameras is okay? Last year in the Strip unit I hunted, the most cameras I saw on a water catchment was 5.

Now we need to regulate tree stands as well?

The regulation will ban ALL cameras and I suspect all tree stands as well if we went that route.

Let's get after those unethical range finders too, while we're at it and we can eliminate all those long range shots. You know the ones that are farther than you shoot.

One pet peeve I would like to see addressed is using optical magnification for long range scouting. I can't tell you how many times I have hiked my old decrepit body to the top of a high spot to glass only to find 3 or 4 other "hunters" already up there peering into every nook and cranny to find a bedded trophy. There isn't a place in the unit safe for an animal to bed down and evade the real hunters that only use their naked eye.

Rant not directed at any particular individual, but you get my point. We don't all pursue game in the same identical manner. Having the government put limitations on one class of hunters at the behest of another group that uses or avoids the use of any particular equipment or style is a slippery slope. More like a steep cliff.

"You can fly a helicopter to the top of Everest and say you've been there. The problem with that is you were an a$$hole when you started and you're still an a$$hole when you get back.
Its the climb that makes you a different person". - Yvon Chouinard
 
LAST EDITED ON May-24-18 AT 08:05PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON May-24-18 AT 08:02?PM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON May-24-18 AT 07:50?PM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON May-24-18 AT 07:37?PM (MST)

>Leave no trace...including game cameras

Be careful what you wish for!

Trace: a mark, object or OTHER INDICATION of the existence or passing of something. (Leave nothing and take nothing.)

https://Int.org/learn/principle-1
https://Int.org/learn/principle-2
https://Int.org/learn/principle-3
https://Int.org/learn/principle-4
https://Int.org/learn/principle-5
https://Int.org/learn/principle-6
https://Int.org/learn/principle-7

edited: Sorry, but I can't get the links to pick up the capital "I". You'll have to type them in separately. Or click on the link to Bing.
 
They must kill all the monster bucks in the Strip because after nearly 2 weeks shed hunting I only picked up 4 antlers. We need to close the deer season down. Its not fair.
 
>"Sorry Dirt But 8-20 cam's around
>a guzzler need to go.
>
>Same deal with 6 treestands around
>a waterhole."
>
>So 7 cameras is okay? Last
>year in the Strip unit
>I hunted, the most cameras
>I saw on a water
>catchment was 5.
>
>Now we need to regulate tree
>stands as well?
>
>The regulation will ban ALL cameras
>and I suspect all tree
>stands as well if we
>went that route.
>
>Let's get after those unethical range
>finders too, while we're at
>it and we can eliminate
>all those long range shots.
>You know the ones that
>are farther than you shoot.
>
>
>One pet peeve I would like
>to see addressed is using
>optical magnification for long range
>scouting. I can't tell you
>how many times I have
>hiked my old decrepit body
>to the top of a
>high spot to glass only
>to find 3 or 4
>other "hunters" already up there
>peering into every nook and
>cranny to find a bedded
>trophy. There isn't a place
>in the unit safe for
>an animal to bed down
>and evade the real hunters
>that only use their naked
>eye.
>
>Rant not directed at any particular
>individual, but you get my
>point. We don't all pursue
>game in the same identical
>manner. Having the government put
>limitations on one class of
>hunters at the behest of
>another group that uses or
>avoids the use of any
>particular equipment or style is
>a slippery slope. More like
>a steep cliff.
>
>"You can fly a helicopter to
>the top of Everest and
>say you've been there. The
>problem with that is you
>were an a$$hole when you
>started and you're still an
>a$$hole when you get back.
>
>Its the climb that makes you
>a different person". - Yvon
>Chouinard

"You can hang trail cams on every waterhole and say you killed a mule deer. The problem with that is you were an a$$hole when you started and you're still an a$$hole when you get back. Its the hunt that makes you a different person". - hunters with ethics
 
No Sagebrush It just that little thing first come first serviced deal that happen when there is a ton of stands around a hole.
You got the guy who put his stand up first then you have the guy who got up early and beat everyone to his stand before everyone. Now is the time you get the popcorn ready for the big fight that is going to take place.
First one who beats everyone in that morning is the winner in my book.
That where others believe differently.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
>
>"You can hang trail cams on
>every waterhole and say you
>killed a mule deer. The
>problem with that is you
>were an a$$hole when you
>started and you're still an
>a$$hole when you get back.
>Its the hunt that makes
>you a different person". -
>hunters with ethics.

As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

All the anti's have to do to win is sit back and watch us self-destruct!
 
This isn't just an ethics issue. In fact for most sportsmen I don't even think the ethics part of trail cams play a part in this type of legislation at all. I think for a lot of people it just looks like crap to have a bunch of trail cameras all over the place.

You can't litter, build your own house, leave a camp more than 15 days or so, or make an atv trail anywhere you want on public land and I think most of the people here would agree those are good laws, but there are still people who lost out on their way of hunting when some of those laws were made. Does that mean they shouldn't have been made? Of course not. The vast majority of people wanted to restrict some of those things to protect public land and keep it looking like nature the best they can. This is no different. If the majority of people think that they would enjoy the PUBLIC land more without trail cameras then the cameras shouldn't be there.

Those complaining about taking away our freedoms, I don't ever want to see a word of complaint when somebody litters all over one of your favorite hunting places or decides to mud bog through your favorite wallow that is closed to off road traffic. After all these are "freedoms" that people should have to use their public land how they want.
 
Like usual AZGFD is missing out on easy money. We have OHV stamps for quads and UTVs, why not game camera stamps?

Say you have 0-10 cameras, you pay $20 per camera per year for a non removable stamp that you stick to the outside. 10-30 cameras the price goes up to $40. Over 30 cameras and pay $60+ per camera per year. AZGFD gets money for more new trucks, employee raises, and/or wildlife projects. Of course maybe every guide will suddenly have 9 cameras? Still better than the typical knee-jerk reaction to ban everything like they did with the baiting issue(how's that working out for getting bison out of Grand Canyon Park?)
 
>Those complaining about taking away our
>freedoms, I don't ever want
>to see a word of
>complaint when somebody litters all
>over one of your favorite
>hunting places or decides to
>mud bog through your favorite
>wallow that is closed to
>off road traffic. After all
>these are "freedoms" that people
>should have to use their
>public land how they want.


Back in 2012 during the HB2072 issue, I learned first hand how heavily inundated MM is with outfitters and their posts promoting any issues that benefited themselves financially. Quite a bit more than any other hunting websites I visit. Of course they are not all like this, but many if not most are. Your analogy above is spot on.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-26-18 AT 09:44AM (MST)[p][font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON May-26-18 AT 09:43?AM (MST)[/font?
 
Constant disruption on the water hole has to be detrimental to the game animals that use them to water. I like the idea.
 
Zim,264mag and tracker12 Now we are seeing eye to eye.Fair chase and no disruption/littering are goals we all can agree on.Thanks for keeping a level head about this,and not flying off on some wild tangent.dirtclod Az.
 
The trail cam is just another fuel for addiction. The addictive brain says, "I want what I want and I want it now!" Guides and some hunters want to walk out to a water hole and see deer/bucks immediately. They haven no patience to wait. They are feeding their attention deficit and addictive brains.

My personal dislike of trail cams is due to the number of "days/years" it allows a guide or hunter to be in the field. If you set out 10 trail cams for 90 days leading up to a hunt, you've just spent the equivalent of 900 days in the field. In fact, because we as people can only really hunt for 16 hours per day, with the trail cam you get another 8 hours out of each day during the night, that means that trail cam days in the field are worth 50% more than a person in the field, so, in actuality, in my scenario, it's not 900 days in the field, it's 1350 days. 4 years worth of hunting in just one season. If you also determine that hunting is confined to roughly 3 months out of the year, you get 12 "hunting years" out of each season of hanging 10 trail cams for just 90 days.

You tell me that is the same as going into your honey hole for a few days every October hoping for a good buck to walk out.

"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24
 
LAST EDITED ON May-26-18 AT 06:42PM (MST)[p]>Guys - Regardless of what you
>think of my opinion, please
>remember this. Everytime you
>are willing to erode a
>personal choice / freedom, is
>another opportunity for the govt
>to permanently take it away
>from you and all others!!!
>
 
>Guys - Regardless of what you
>think of my opinion, please
>remember this. Everytime you
>are willing to erode a
>personal choice / freedom, is
>another opportunity for the govt
>to permanently take it away
>from you and all others!!!
>


As many wildlife laws as u have bent it seems the govt should?ve long taken ur freedom. I'm sure there are a lota good outfitters huh?! Can?t lump em all in with u
 
>The trail cam is just another
>fuel for addiction. The addictive
>brain says, "I want what
>I want and I want
>it now!" Guides and some
>hunters want to walk out
>to a water hole and
>see deer/bucks immediately. They haven
>no patience to wait. They
>are feeding their attention deficit
>and addictive brains.
>
>My personal dislike of trail cams
>is due to the number
>of "days/years" it allows a
>guide or hunter to be
>in the field. If you
>set out 10 trail cams
>for 90 days leading up
>to a hunt, you've just
>spent the equivalent of 900
>days in the field. In
>fact, because we as people
>can only really hunt for
>16 hours per day, with
>the trail cam you get
>another 8 hours out of
>each day during the night,
>that means that trail cam
>days in the field are
>worth 50% more than a
>person in the field, so,
>in actuality, in my scenario,
>it's not 900 days in
>the field, it's 1350 days.
>4 years worth of hunting
>in just one season. If
>you also determine that hunting
>is confined to roughly 3
>months out of the year,
>you get 12 "hunting years"
>out of each season of
>hanging 10 trail cams for
>just 90 days.
>
>You tell me that is the
>same as going into your
>honey hole for a few
>days every October hoping for
>a good buck to walk
>out.
>
>"Therefore, wo be unto him that
>is at ease in Zion!"
>2 Ne. 28: 24
+ 1
 
Copied from the Arizona section on same subject:

I have been following this topic for a while now and I have opinions both pro & con. I just have one question for the AZGF. How are you going to enforce such a ban? More cameras? (OK, that was 2 questions!)
I really don't know who has been complaining to the G&F, or what their agenda really is but I do know this.
The technology "Genie" is out of the bottle.
If you (we) ban trail cameras over water, then you better go ahead & ban the high tech optics, the radios, the rangefinders, GPS devices, extreme long range rifles, compound bows, in-line muzzleloaders, scopes on muzzleloaders, quads, side by sides, 4 X 4 vehicles, etc., etc., etc.,,,.
We had none of these advantages "back in the day". I remember reading an article by Jack O'Connor back in the early 70's challenging the need for, and ethics of, variable power scopes. From what I have read, even the old 30-30 Winchester was considered "revolutionary" when it was first introduced back in the 1890's.
My point is this, the technology is already here. There will always be someone coming up with something that some of us don't like. I wish we could go back to the "good old days", but we can't.
There have been some very good suggestions for compromise that I hope they consider. A rule that cannot be enforced, is worse than no rule at all.
 
Game and Fish decided they are going to wait until June for their ruling.Maybe someone should put a gamecam in their board room to see exactly what they are not doing.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom