AGFD - IMPORTANT Commission Meeting - June 11, Payson

OutdoorWriter

Long Time Member
Messages
3,834
TIME CERTAIN AT 8:30 AM

3) Request to Approve Notice of Final Rulemaking and Economic Impact Statement Amending Rules Within Articles 1. Definitions and General Provisions and 3. Taking and Handling of Wildlife. Presenter: Larry Phoenix, FOR2 Regional Supervisor. The Department will ask the Commission to vote to approve a Notice of Final Rulemaking and Economic Impact Statement amending rules within Articles 1. Definitions and General Provisions and 3. Taking and Handling of Wildlife, related to the use of trail cameras.



309507-jsn2w9cyqg-3e82ad134bb85a11b98ac2c3cbd24a43.png

GAME AND FISH NEWS
June 9, 2021
Arizona Game and Fish Commission to meet
June 11 in Payson

PAYSON, Ariz. — The next public meeting of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission will be Friday, June 11, at the Quality Inn, Conference Room, 801 N. Beeline Highway in Payson.

The meeting begins at 8 a.m.

A complete agenda and more information on viewing the meeting, or speaking to the commission, can be found here or at at https://www.azgfd.com/agency/commission/meetingagenda/.​
 
Last edited:

Desertmuleyguide

Active Member
Messages
130
TIME CERTAIN AT 8:30 AM

3) Request to Approve Notice of Final Rulemaking and Economic Impact Statement Amending Rules Within Articles 1. Definitions and General Provisions and 3. Taking and Handling of Wildlife. Presenter: Larry Phoenix, FOR2 Regional Supervisor. The Department will ask the Commission to vote to approve a Notice of Final Rulemaking and Economic Impact Statement amending rules within Articles 1. Definitions and General Provisions and 3. Taking and Handling of Wildlife, related to the use of trail cameras.


GAME AND FISH NEWS
June 9, 2021
Arizona Game and Fish Commission to meet
June 11 in Payson
PAYSON, Ariz. — The next public meeting of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission will be Friday, June 11, at the Quality Inn, Conference Room, 801 N. Beeline Highway in Payson.

The meeting begins at 8 a.m.

A complete agenda and more information on viewing the meeting, or speaking to the commission, can be found here or at at https://www.azgfd.com/agency/commission/meetingagenda/.​
It'll be interesting to see what they decide. Right wrong or indifferent, I think cameras are going away
 

AZNATIVE98

Member
Messages
74
It'll be interesting to see what they decide. Right wrong or indifferent, I think cameras are going away
The official report



Ty E. Gray, Director
FROM: Tom Finley, Deputy Director TF
PRESENTER: Larry Phoenix, FOR2 Regional Supervisor
TITLE: Request to Approve Notice of Final Rulemaking and Economic Impact Statement Amending Rules Within Article 3. Taking and Handling of Wildlife.
DESCRIPTION: The Department will ask the Commission to vote to approve a Notice of Final Rulemaking and Economic Impact Statement amending rules within Article 3. Taking and Handling of Wildlife to regulate the use of trail cameras for the purpose of take. The Commission may vote to take action on and/or provide the Department direction on this item.
DATE: June 2, 2021
The Commission proposes to amend rules within Article 3 addressing the taking and handling of wildlife to regulate the use of trail cameras for the purpose of taking or aiding in the take of wildlife.
The Commission is considering regulating trail cameras as a result of concerns including:
• The use of trail cameras as it relates to Fair Chase.
o Commission Policy on Fair Chase includes: “…new or evolving technologies and practices that provide hunters or anglers with an improper or unfair advantage in the pursuit and taking of wildlife, or may create a public perception of an improper or unfair advantage…” The following criteria are used to evaluate whether a new technology or practice violates the Fair Chase ethic; does the technology or practice allow a hunter or angler to: locate or take wildlife without acquiring necessary hunting and angling skills or competency; pursue or take wildlife without being physically present and pursuing wildlife in the field; or almost guarantee the harvest of wildlife when the technology or practice prevents wildlife from eluding take.
• The use of trail cameras has become an increasing source of conflict between and amongst hunters, including increased traffic by hunters checking cameras for future hunts, during the hunts of others.
• Frequent visits to set and/or check trail cameras cause disturbance to wildlife, which may be exacerbated during extended dry periods of the year and during drought conditions.
• Livestock operators are concerned that frequent visits to set and/or check trail cameras are negatively affecting livestock operations.
• Invasion of privacy when trail cameras photograph other people in the field without permission.
• The potential monetization of game cameras to include services to place, monitor, check and sell camera images, and if those services increase, the numbers of cameras and their use for take could dramatically increase.
• Trail camera use has also been raised with the State Legislature and legislation has previously been introduced that has so far not advanced because the Commission maintains the authority to examine this issue through rulemaking.
As the state population continues to grow, the number of cameras continue to steadily increase as do
Arizona Game and Fish Commission Memo
Re: Request to Approve Notice of Final Rulemaking Amending Rules Within Article 3.
Page 2
concerns. The frequency and severity of these concerns is reasonably expected to continue to increase as technology advances, populations grow, and trail camera use continues to increase.
At the December 2020 Commission Meeting, the Commission directed the Department to pursue rulemaking to prohibit the use of trail cameras for the purpose of taking or aiding in the take of wildlife, or locating wildlife for the purpose of taking or aiding in the take of wildlife. The public comment period ran from January 1 through February 1, 2021. Over 2,000 public comments were received in response to the proposed rulemaking, all of which were provided to the Commission for consideration. A summary of those comments are included in the State-wide Prohibition Notice of Final Rulemaking, which is attached for the Commission’s consideration.
At the February 2021 Commission Meeting, the Commission directed the Department to pursue additional rulemaking to establish a seasonal prohibition on the use of trail cameras for the purpose of taking or aiding in the take of wildlife, or locating wildlife for the purpose of taking or aiding in the take of wildlife; and prohibit the use of trail cameras for the purpose of taking or aiding in the take of wildlife, or locating wildlife for the purpose of taking or aiding in the take of wildlife within one-fourth mile of a developed water source. The public comment period ran from March 12 through April 12, 2021. In addition to an advocate facilitated online petition that acquired over 6,000 signatures, over 1,800 public comments were received in response to the proposed rulemaking, all of which were provided to the Commission for consideration. A summary of those comments are included in the Seasonal/Developed Water Prohibition Notice of Final Rulemaking, which is attached for the Commission’s consideration.
If approved by the Commission and in accordance with the exemption authorized by the Governor's Office, the Department will submit the selected final rulemaking package to the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council for review and placement on a future agenda.
RECOMMENDATION:
THE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION VOTE TO APPROVE THE NOTICE OF FINAL RULEMAKING AND ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT AMENDING RULES WITHIN ARTICLE 3. TAKING AND HANDLING OF WILDLIFE TO ADOPT ONE OF THE TWO OPTIONS PRESENTED.
TF:LP:cmc
Attachments: State-wide Prohibition Notice of Final Rulemaking and Economic Impact Statement
Seasonal/Developed Water Prohibition Notice of Final Rulemaking and Economic Impact Statement

It looks like from this memo that the Department wants the commission to vote on either option 1(full ban) or option 2(season and no cameras within 1/4 mile water.)
 

OutdoorWriter

Long Time Member
Messages
3,834
From the agenda, it appears the female gender is now into poaching.

9) Hearings on License Revocations for Violations of Game and Fish Codes and Civil Assessments for the Illegal Taking and/or Possession of Wildlife. Presenter: Gene F. Elms, Law Enforcement Branch Chief. The Commission will consider and take action on the license revocations and/or civil assessments for the individuals listed below:

Name Docket # Conviction

Jennifer O. Marquez 2021-0027
Take Mule Deer By Unlawful Method.
Take Mule Deer Without License.
Waste Of Edible Game Meat.
 
Last edited:

OutdoorWriter

Long Time Member
Messages
3,834
I believe some of the commentors are off topic. The way I understood the chairman's intro, the discussion is which of the two rules should be passed -- not whether there should be any rule at all. That said, I guess they could fail to pass either one. I doubt it, however.
 
Last edited:

AZ8

Active Member
Messages
283
I believe some of the commentors aren't off topic. The way I understood the chairman's intro, the discussion is which of the two rules should be passed -- not whether there should be any rule at all. That said, I guess they could fail to pass either one. I doubt it, however.
I have a feeling the Commission is going to punt and move this issue to another time.
 

OutdoorWriter

Long Time Member
Messages
3,834
Well this latest guy sure knows how to win & influence people by telling them they "...ought to be ashamed of themselves." Sounds like a discussion that sometimes take place on this site.
 

OutdoorWriter

Long Time Member
Messages
3,834
I have a feeling the Commission is going to punt and move this issue to another time.
It's already been bent, spindled, multilated and folded several times. over more than a year. I believe it's now "sh!t or get off the pot" time.

And in my earlier message, I meant to say 'ARE' off topic, not 'aren't,' which I edited in.
 

AZ8

Active Member
Messages
283
It's already been bent, spindled, multilated and folded several times. over more than a year. I believe it's now "sh!t or get off the pot" time.

And in my earlier message, I meant to say 'ARE' off topic, not 'aren't,' which I edited in.
Yup, you’re right.

Just a vibe I’m getting.
 

OutdoorWriter

Long Time Member
Messages
3,834
Everything that was said months ago is just being rehashed ad finitum. And...anyone who gets up there and makes the statement that no deer have been killed by use of a trail camera automatically loses all credibility, IMO. If that were true, there would be no need to use them at all.
 
Last edited:

OutdoorWriter

Long Time Member
Messages
3,834
The point made about the future as far as possible LAWS was a good one. Just remember the trapping ban VOTER initiative. Although not likely, this rule can always be removed or amended. A LAW passed by a referendum vote cannot.

Oh, and yeah looks like a unanimous.
 
Last edited:

Desertmuleyguide

Active Member
Messages
130
Well I feel for him.....didn’t always agree with him, but admired his passion. Unfortunately, there is an art to addressing councils, commissions, and board of supervisors, etc.......do it incorrectly and you will lose. Just my experience.
I didn't think he spoke poorly at all. His delivery might have been a little rough but all in all it was a good speech.
 

OutdoorWriter

Long Time Member
Messages
3,834
Nothing was really said about enforcement. I think the wording of the rule might change a bit before it comes out in the spring regs
There are many, many rules & laws that have the same sort of supposed enforcement issues. At the end of the day, for many of them it mostly comes down to self-policing. For those so-called "law-abiding" hunters who decide following rules/laws is not their cup of tea, a few examples of those who do get caught might change their minds.
 

OutdoorWriter

Long Time Member
Messages
3,834
Well I can tell you now, I won't be taking any chances. I have 4 cameras in my shed that are going in the trash (haven't used them in years). They're cheapies otherwise I'd sell them online. I'm not losing my hunting or guides license for anything. There will be ZERO appearance of wrongdoing for this guy
You mean you don't think it's worth losing your guide's license over?? How dumb of you; are you a moron or something?? ;)
 

Desertmuleyguide

Active Member
Messages
130
Outdoor Writer, you won't know this but I have learned A LOT from you over the years. Going all the way back to 2004 or so. I started reading your comments on CWT around then. Then I read you and Duanes book. I appreciate the knowledge you've shared over all these years. Thank you!
 

OutdoorWriter

Long Time Member
Messages
3,834
Thank you. It's nice to have someone say stuff like that once in a while. Makes you feel sort of appreciated.

I've had a lot of super people teach me a bunch over the last 60 years. Duwane was one of them beginning in the about 35+ years ago.

I used to really enjoy CWT early on, but a lot has changed there. It's become what this site once was. So I decided to move on and haven't logged in there for a long time..
 

OutdoorWriter

Long Time Member
Messages
3,834
Outdoor Writer, you won't know this but I have learned A LOT from you over the years.
I should have mentioned that I learned a LOT over the last 5 decades or so from the many folks I have interacted with at the game department from the I&E folks to the heads of the various branches. When Ray Lee & Brian Wakeling were heads of the big game branch, we talked on the phone long & often. Many times, they woud answer a delicate question if I said it was off the record & not to be repeated.

At one point, I almost went to work at the AGFD in the I&E dept. about 14 years ago. The final interview was down to two people -- me and Doug Burt, who is still there. I was already in my 60s & Doug was a young stud. During my interview, I was honest & told them that I probably wouldn't stay on more than 5-6 years.

Of course, because of his age they hired Doug from out-of-state, even though he knew little about AZ. How do I know that? Because the head interviewer was someone there that I've known for 40 years or more, and he told me so.

Amusingly, after I thought about it a bit more I was ecstatic that they didn't choose me. I couldn't imaguine adapting to an office job with regular hours after being on my own time for 30 years.

Not too surprising, Doug & I became good friends, and he has done a good job. In fact, I just talked to him on the phone last week to ask about the CC deal of charging up front.
 
Last edited:

Desertmuleyguide

Active Member
Messages
130
Thank you. It's nice to have someone say stuff like that once in a while. Makes you feel sort of appreciated.

I've had a lot of super people teach me a bunch over the last 60 years. Duwane was one of them beginning in the about 35+ years ago.

I used to really enjoy CWT early on, but a lot has changed there. It's become what this site once was. So I decided to move on and haven't logged in there for a long time..
You're welcome!!!

I've been over there. It has changed a lot. Still
some good guys on there but it seems a lot of the FB hunting group guys have migrated there. It's really too bad.
 

OutdoorWriter

Long Time Member
Messages
3,834
You're welcome!!!

I've been over there. It has changed a lot. Still
some good guys on there but it seems a lot of the FB hunting group guys have migrated there. It's really too bad.
Even while I was still visiting CWT, the owner, Amanda had pretty much abnadoned it and left the running to a couple members. In the meantime, she is also active on FB with daily postings. We're "friends" so we see what each of us post.
 

Desertmuleyguide

Active Member
Messages
130
I should have mentioned that I learned a LOT over the last 5 decades or so from the many folks I have interacted with at the game department from the I&E folks to the heads of the various branches. When Ray Lee & Brian Wakeling were heads of the big game branch, we talked on the phone long & often. Many times, they woud answer a delicate question if I said it was off the record & not to be repeated.

At one point, I almost went to work at the AGFD in the I&E dept. about 14 years ago. The final interview was down to two people -- me and Doug Burt, who is still there. I was already in my 60s & Doug was a young stud. During my interview, I was honest & told them that I probably wouldn't stay on more than 5-6 years.

Of course, because of his age they hired Doug from out-of-state, even though he knew little about AZ. How do I know that? Because the head interviewer was someone there that I've known for 40 years or more, and he told me so.

Amusingly, after I thought about it a bit more I was ecstatic that didn't choose me. I couldn't imaguine adapting to an office job with regular hours after being on my own time for 30 years.

Not too surprising, Doug & I became good friends, and he has done a good job. In fact, I just talked to him on the phone last week to ask about the CC deal of charging up front.
I got to sit down with Brian Wakeling in his office once. Learned a lot in a very short period of time. He's the one that turned me on to the Mule Deer Working Group. It was right after the AZSFW auction tag deal back in 2011 or so. Very nice guy. We talked through email a few times until he left for Nevada.
 

OutdoorWriter

Long Time Member
Messages
3,834
I got to sit down with Brian Wakeling in his office once. Learned a lot in a very short period of time. He's the one that turned me on to the Mule Deer Working Group. It was right after the AZSFW auction tag deal back in 2011 or so. Very nice guy. We talked through email a few times until he left for Nevada.
I was sad to see him leave for Nevada. He was the one who nominated me for the commission's "Outdoor Writer of the Year" award.
 

AZ8

Active Member
Messages
283
Large scale outdoor company looking for energetic individuals to set and collect wildlife data for research. Candidate must have personal vehicle that is capable of accessing remote country via rough 4x4 roads. Candidate
will collect and transmit data immediately and continue until the end of hunting season. Candidate MUST NOT posses or aquire an Arizona hunting license. Your data collection will be sent via .jpeg files to our secure data collection center. Please send resume to: XYZ Outdoor Wildlife Research LLC. Job will begin January 1, 2022.

🤣
 

OutdoorWriter

Long Time Member
Messages
3,834
Interesting that all those Commissioners read from prepared statements after the public testimony.
Why??

The topic had been folded, spindled, mutilated, squashed, crunched, stomped, crinkled & run over by a truck. Any comments made at yesterday's meeting were merely 'repetitive rehashing of prior rehashing' because it was a necessary part of the rule-making process.

The game commission had two options in front of them -- a complete ban or a seasonal ban. As I wrote earlier, it was time to either sh!t or get off the pot; they either had to pass one or reject both. And there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell that they would reject both, given what had transpired before yesterday.

So to me, it wasn't any great surprise that every one of them knew how they would vote beforehand.
 
Last edited:

Desertmuleyguide

Active Member
Messages
130
Why??

The topic had been folded, spindled, mutilated, squashed, crunched, stomped, crinkled & run over by a truck. Any comments made at yesterday's meeting was merely 'repetitive rehashing of prior rehashing' because it was a necessary part of the rule-making process.

The game commission had two options in front of them -- a complete ban or a seasonal ban. As I wrote earlier, it was time to either sh!t or get off the pot; they either had to pass one or reject both. And there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell that they would reject both, given what had transpired before yesterday.

So to me, it wasn't any great surprise that every one of them knew how they would vote beforehand.
I honestly believed option #2 had a better chance. But... if I was a commissioner and had multiple guys get up and call me a dictator or start talking about the "nanny state"... I would have changed my vote to option #1. Imbeciles.
 

AZ8

Active Member
Messages
283
Then don't have public comment at the decision making meeting, it's a bad look that tells those that took their time to show up they don't matter.
Reading prepared statements was a middle finger to those that made the trip up or called in on the phone. Par for the course.

Its been like that forever. At that point of the process, their minds are already made up. It's only during a high profile rule making meeting where more people notice.

I can't remember a time where they changed their minds at the decision making meeting due to public comments.
 

Desertmuleyguide

Active Member
Messages
130
Reading prepared statements was a middle finger to those that made the trip up or called in on the phone. Par for the course.

Its been like that forever. At that point of the process, their minds are already made up. It's only during a high profile rule making meeting where more people notice.

I can't remember a time where they changed their minds at the decision making meeting due to public comments.
Many of the guys commenting used prepared statements as well. I don't see the difference.
 

OutdoorWriter

Long Time Member
Messages
3,834
Then don't have public comment at the decision making meeting, it's a bad look that tells those that took their time to show up they don't matter.
The SAME process for rule making has been in effect for decades. If they would have suspended the comments contrary to their own rule, it would have just brought on even more b!tching. The adage, "You can't win for losing," comes to mind.

I watched the entire segment yesterday, as I have done with the previous meetings on this topic. There was nothing -- zilch, nada, zero, nil -- said yesterday during the comment period that hadn't already been said over the last year+ during the other comment periods that led to the actual wording of the rule options. The only thing missing was the tears.

And now,, I'm done with this topic. So you can have the last word.
 

OutdoorWriter

Long Time Member
Messages
3,834
It is what it is. Now I'm really done. :ROFLMAO:

Rulemaking Process Details

Notice of Rulemaking Docket Opening: SOS publishes the Commission’s Notice in the Arizona Administrative Register (AAR) to notify the public that the Commission is considering amending its rules.


Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: SOS publishes the Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Arizona Administrative Register (AAR) to provide the public with actual proposed additions, deletions, or changes to the Commission’s rules.

Comment periods: The public has three opportunities in which to submit comments to the Commission: 1). Any time. Comments received by the Department are placed in the rule record and will be considered by the next review or Rulemaking team. 2). During the thirty (30) day public comment period immediately following the publication of the proposed rules in the AAR. Once a proposed rule is published, the public has at least thirty (30) days to submit comments to the Department concerning the rule. 3). At a Commission Meeting. A blue ‘speaker slip’ is required and are available to the public at each Commission Meeting.

Note: Comments are statements, suggested rule language, data, views, or other observations submitted to the Department in regards to an existing or proposed rule. Comments submitted during the official 30-day public comment period for a particular rulemaking will become part of the official record for that proposed rulemaking.


Notice of Final Rulemaking: The Department drafts a Notice of Final Rulemaking after considering comments and other information received during the comment period. The Department must determine whether the suggestions received meet the Department’s mission and objectives, do not place an undue burden on the regulated community, are not discriminatory, and are permitted under statute.


Submittal to Governor’s Regulatory Review Council: The Department submits the final rulemaking to GRRC. GRRC reviews the rulemaking to ensure that the rules are necessary, consistent with legislative intent, within the agency’s statutory authority, do not create an adverse impact on the public, and whether the benefits of the rule outweigh the costs.

Approval by GRRC: When GRRC determines that the rulemaking meets the statutory criteria identified above, GRRC will approve and file the final rulemaking with SOS.

Effective date: Typically, the effective date of the rule is sixty (60) days from the date of filing. However, the Commission may request an immediate or specific effective date when authorized by statute, specified in the rulemaking preamble, and approved by GRRC.

Codification: SOS publishes final rulemakings in the Arizona Administrative Code (Code). The Code is the official compilation of rules that govern state agencies, boards, and commissions; the paper copy of the Code serves as the official version. SOS is required to publish updates to the Code four times a year. As a result, the Code may not contain the most recent Game and Fish rules. The Rule Changes page provides Commission rules approved by GRRC, but not yet included in the Code.

The above rulemaking description is not comprehensive. It is meant only to provide a brief overview of the rulemaking process and is not binding on the Commission or Department. Furthermore, different types of rulemakings, such as emergency, exempt, and expedited rulemakings require different procedures for completion.
 
Last edited:

WapitiBob

Long Time Member
Messages
4,896
Kind of like going in for a loan and the banker pulls out the "denied" stamp before you submit the papers.
At least have the dignity to make it look like you followed the process and actually gave a crap about those who showed up.
 

BOHNTR

Moderator
Messages
4,154
Kind of like going in for a loan and the banker pulls out the "denied" stamp before you submit the papers.
At least have the dignity to make it look like you followed the process and actually gave a crap about those who showed up.
Actually, they already heard two different ‘input’ sessions and have had email input for some time now......also postponing their decision to June to gather additional input. It doesn’t really take another meeting (with no new information) to make their decision. I believe that’s why they already made up their minds???
 

Desertmuleyguide

Active Member
Messages
130
I'm one that believes they actually put a lot of thought into their decisions. If I imagine myself in their position, taking into account the implications of such a rule and how many sportsmen would be affected... they would have to be mindless robots to not feel the pressure of their decision. I truly think they believe they're doing what's best for wildlife. I do not envy them in any way. Their decision doesn't benefit them in any personal way. What would they get out of it other than to be hated by one side or the other? Taking all that into account, I have immense respect for the decision they made, whether I personally agree with it or not. That's why I think some of the responses were so offensive and there are a few guys that should be embarrassed by the words they chose.
 
Last edited:

Desertmuleyguide

Active Member
Messages
130
I have no problem with the decision, I support it. Just don't ask the public to testify before the decision is made, then blatantly show that the decision was made before they even showed up. Everybody thinks the draw was rigged, now this. It's just a bad look.
I can appreciate your take on it. I said in another group that the commission would probably like it far better if they didn't have to deal with public comments like yesterday. I also think they mostly had their minds made up. While watching one of the commissioners speak, I could see him wavering between option one and two but he ended up voting for option one. I almost think that if a few hadn't spoken in such a disrespectful way, they may have voted for the second option. But like OutdoorWriter said earlier, the second option didn't make a lot of sense.
 

sticksender

Active Member
Messages
755
Ok that's done. Now maybe they could kindly put the same amount of time and effort into transforming their archaic on-line hunt application system into one that's user-friendly, fast, and convenient. You know, like most every other western state has? Just a suggestion for something we'd all find highly useful ;)
 

Desertmuleyguide

Active Member
Messages
130
I read through this but must have missed the fine print. I take this to mean no trail cams. Correct? Just curious.
After Jan 1st, it will be illegal to use a trailcam to aid in the take of an animal. The key words are "aid in the take". You can still use trailcams for fun but you cannot get a picture of an animal and then go harvest that animal. After thinking it through, I think if you have a hunting license and you run trailcams, you are risking being cited. Technically, if you have a trailcam in unit X and you get a picture of a buck or bull, you'd better never kill that buck or bull or you're in violation. The safest thing for a hunter in my opinion is to never run trailcams.
 

OutdoorWriter

Long Time Member
Messages
3,834
Technically, if you have a trailcam in unit X and you get a picture of a buck or bull, you'd better never kill that buck or bull or you're in violation. The safest thing for a hunter in my opinion is to never run trailcams.
There is nothing in the rule that is specific to the killing of any individual animal, whether it's had its picture taken or not. "Take" includes "pursuing" & "hunting," which by default means any animal if one has a license/tag. And it doesn't need to be killed. In fact, it won't matter if there's no critter on the cam.

Your last sentence is about as good as any advice there is. ;)
 
Last edited:

Desertmuleyguide

Active Member
Messages
130
There is nothing in the rule that is specific to the killing of any individual animal, whether it's had its picture taken or not. "Take" includes "pursuing" & "hunting," which by default means any animal if one has a license/tag. And it doesn't need to be killed. In fact, it won't matter if there's no critter on the cam.

Your last sentence is about as good as any advice there is. ;)
Good point!!! Hadn't looked at it that way. All the more reason to follow my last sentence.
 

elkchaserreturns

Active Member
Messages
260
Finally made the time to sit & watch the entire Commission meeting from Friday. Whew! That was 8+ hours I will never get back.
I believe they made the right decision regarding the total ban on game cameras. It is going to be interesting to see how many comply starting Jan 1.
 

Desertmuleyguide

Active Member
Messages
130
Finally made the time to sit & watch the entire Commission meeting from Friday. Whew! That was 8+ hours I will never get back.
I believe they made the right decision regarding the total ban on game cameras. It is going to be interesting to see how many comply starting Jan 1.
What did you think of some of the comments against the ban?
 

Desertmuleyguide

Active Member
Messages
130
Not a chance. AZGFD is relentless and makes sure there is all kinds of pressure on prosecutors to move their cases forward.
I agree 100%. It's not like they don't see and didn't hear the comments about how it's unenforceable... and yes.. I've made them too... lol. They will go after the first bunch of violators with both barrels.
 

Desertmuleyguide

Active Member
Messages
130
Here's a question...

Will the posterboy for "don't use trail cameras" (the first guy busted under this rule) be a DIY guy or a guide?

I think it will be a guide.
 

huntazido

Active Member
Messages
639
If they haven't already, guides and outfitters are conjuring up their new plans of action. Something tells me many will try to skirt the intention of trail camera ban by having friends and relatives say cameras are theirs for animal watching purposes only. Actually, I have no idea what they will do but they will do something.
 

Desertmuleyguide

Active Member
Messages
130
If they haven't already, guides and outfitters are conjuring up their new plans of action. Something tells me many will try to skirt the intention of trail camera ban by having friends and relatives say cameras are theirs for animal watching purposes only. Actually, I have no idea what they will do but they will do something.
Not just guides and outfitters. Anyone that wants to get around the new rule. It'll be easier for DIY guys to get away with.
 

elkchaserreturns

Active Member
Messages
260
What did you think of some of the comments against the ban?
I think the anti-ban folks were shortsighted and selfish, and it showed. It was all about how the cameras didn't really help them that much! (Then why were they fighting so vehemently to keep them?), or the cameras don't bother the game, (really? try finding a legal animal anywhere near water during daylight).
It is unfortunate, but the reliance on cameras, and associated activity around water, has gotten completely out of hand.
The Commissioners closing comments were truly a surprise to me. I have to admit, I came away from watching that meeting with a whole new respect for the AZ Game & Fish Commission. They all showed a level of integrity that I have not seen for quite some time.

This was long overdue and I'm glad they voted to ban completely.
 

AZ8

Active Member
Messages
283
Since Nevada is the only state to compare to with a trail cam ban, 2018???.....it would be interesting to see the data 3 years prior to the ban vs. the 3 years after the ban. Were there significant changes or no changes at all to any data point?

Google search wasn't too effective for me.
 

Desertmuleyguide

Active Member
Messages
130
I think the anti-ban folks were shortsighted and selfish, and it showed. It was all about how the cameras didn't really help them that much! (Then why were they fighting so vehemently to keep them?), or the cameras don't bother the game, (really? try finding a legal animal anywhere near water during daylight).
It is unfortunate, but the reliance on cameras, and associated activity around water, has gotten completely out of hand.
The Commissioners closing comments were truly a surprise to me. I have to admit, I came away from watching that meeting with a whole new respect for the AZ Game & Fish Commission. They all showed a level of integrity that I have not seen for quite some time.

This was long overdue and I'm glad they voted to ban completely.
Thank you for your perspective. That was my take away. I started off against the ban but ended up on the fence before the actual vote. I don't use them so it doesn't really affect me. I had similar feelings after having listening to the commission.
 

Desertmuleyguide

Active Member
Messages
130
Since Nevada is the only state to compare to with a trail cam ban, 2018???.....it would be interesting to see the data 3 years prior to the ban vs. the 3 years after the ban. Were there significant changes or no changes at all to any data point?

Google search wasn't too effective for me.
One thing I do know is one of the outfitters that called and was in favor of the ban does pretty darn well guiding muley hunts in Nevada. Greg Krough with Mogollon Outfitters. He hunted a lot with Randy Ulmer for a lot of years. I've never heard a bad thing about him.
 

OutdoorWriter

Long Time Member
Messages
3,834
Since Nevada is the only state to compare to with a trail cam ban, 2018???.....it would be interesting to see the data 3 years prior to the ban vs. the 3 years after the ban. Were there significant changes or no changes at all to any data point?

Google search wasn't too effective for me.
I've got a message into my contact in NV for me to call him this week. So stay tuned.
 

Joe2Kool

Very Active Member
Messages
1,660
After Jan 1st, it will be illegal to use a trailcam to aid in the take of an animal. The key words are "aid in the take". You can still use trailcams for fun but you cannot get a picture of an animal and then go harvest that animal. After thinking it through, I think if you have a hunting license and you run trailcams, you are risking being cited. Technically, if you have a trailcam in unit X and you get a picture of a buck or bull, you'd better never kill that buck or bull or you're in violation. The safest thing for a hunter in my opinion is to never run trailcams.
Thanks DMG. I guess a DIY guy with a tag in unit X can run a camera in unit Y for the fun of it! I'm a NR from TN so I was just curious.

I've seen some of the pics on here with a dozen cameras on one tree at an AZ water hole, so I can see why they were banned. Here in the East TN mountains, I've been standing 10 feet from my own trail cams and not seen them sometimes!

Thanks guys.
 

Desertmuleyguide

Active Member
Messages
130
Thanks DMG. I guess a DIY guy with a tag in unit X can run a camera in unit Y for the fun of it! I'm a NR from TN so I was just curious.

I've seen some of the pics on here with a dozen cameras on one tree at an AZ water hole, so I can see why they were banned. Here in the East TN mountains, I've been standing 10 feet from my own trail cams and not seen them sometimes!

Thanks guys.
There are only really a handful of units like that. There are lots of places below in the rest of the state where there are only one or even none. Those units kind of ruined it for the whole state.
 

elkchaserreturns

Active Member
Messages
260
We started using two cameras in 2016 for muzzy elk. While scouting, I had spotted a truly exceptional bull in a unit we never expected to (6A). I desperately wanted to find out where that big guy was watering in the hopes of finding him when the season opened.
We never got him on camera, or saw him again!
We used them again during scouting in 2017 & 2020 for archery elk hunts & they did provide some useful information. Plus, it was cool to see the pictures of turkey, hawks, deer, bears, coyotes, etc. We ran into a few other cameras during scouting but, all in all, it wasn't all that bad. We always pulled our cameras before the season opened!
Then the archery elk season opened!
We hunt in a fairly remote section of the unit and we don't usually see very many people. There were 3-10 cameras on EVERY water source and people all over the place going to & from checking their damn cameras or arguing over who was there first.
Even if Game & Fish hadn't voted to ban them, I have decided to no longer use them.
I am getting old enough now that I doubt I have more than 1 or 2 elk hunts left. I would like to think that my son, my grandchildren, and their children will get the chance to experience some of what I have enjoyed.
I think the camera ban is a good thing.

Elkchaser
 

bigbull

Member
Messages
86
Wow... I can see some regulation on public with so many people having access but private? That's crazy IMO.
There is about >1% of land in AZ that's private and hunted for big game so not really a big deal. (Maybe a little more than that with the big bo ranch in unit 10, but they have a self implemented rule of no trail cam use anyway). Why should you get to use cameras to track animals to hunt on public or private? Every other game law applies equally to both.
 

OutdoorWriter

Long Time Member
Messages
3,834
There is about >1% of land in AZ that's private and hunted for big game so not really a big deal. (Maybe a little more than that with the big bo ranch in unit 10, but they have a self implemented rule of no trail cam use anyway). Why should you get to use cameras to track animals to hunt on public or private? Every other game law applies equally to both.
Some folks live in states where some wildlife related laws or rules do differ for each. Even in AZ, we have such a situtation with the ban on leg-hold traps, etc.; it applies only to public land.

(1) IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL TO TAKE WILDLIFE WITH ANY LEGHOLD TRAP, ANY INSTANT KILL BODY GRIPPING DESIGN TRAP, OR BY A POISON OR A SNARE ON ANY PUBLIC LAND, INCLUDING STATE OWNED OR STATE LEASED LAND, LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, THE STATE PARKS BOARD AND ANY COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY.
 

Arizona Hunting Guides & Outfitters

Chappell Guide Service

We hunt the best areas for Trophy Class Bulls. Quality rather than quantity is always our goal.

SilverGrand Outfitters

Offering mule deer, elk, antelope, bighorn sheep, javelina, and turkey hunts in Nevada and Arizona.

Arizona Elk Outfitters

Offering the serious hunter a chance to hunt trophy animals in the great Southwest.

Big Chino Guide Service

We only offer a quality trophy elk hunt in Arizona. Your trophy bull elk is waiting!

A3 Trophy Hunts

An Arizona Outfitter specializing in the harvest of World Class big game of all species.

Dieringer Outfitters

We offer guided hunts for elk, mule deer, coues whitetail, bighorn sheep, antelope, and mountain lions.

Arizona Strip Guides

Highly experienced and highly dedicated team of hardworking professional Arizona Strip mule deer guides.

Ward's Outfitters

We will share with you over 45 years of expertise in archery and rifle hunting experience in AZ and Mexico.

Urge 2 Hunt

THE premier hunts in Arizona for trophy elk, mule deer, couse deer and javelina.

Top Bottom