DonMartin
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,077
Fellow Sportsmen:
Thursday night, the AZGFD will be hosting a webinar on all of the Article 3 proposals, including trail camera use.
Go to their website and get the link. I will be on the road and unable to watch.
A good question to ask them is this: How is a scope that has a built in laser rangefinder and when you get the range, the computer inside generates the correct hold and all you do is squeeze the trigger "NOT AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE but a trail cam that takes a picture that you may not see for days or weeks, is considered an unfair advantage?
I will say this. I have 10 cameras and to my knowledge not one of them has ever jumped off a pole or tree and shot anything?
Hunters have no control on where and when an animals comes to a water. And yes, a lot of these waters were paid for with sportsman dollars, and as far as I know, there is no law that prevents a hunter from sitting close by to a water and watches what comes in.
To me this 1/4 mile set back is being done only to placate the antis, and keep them from trying to put it on the ballot.
And once the public finds out about those scopes that do everything but pull the trigger, watch and see what happens.
I agree with about 95% of what is being proposed, but the trail camera set back is not something I see as being justified.
Thursday night, the AZGFD will be hosting a webinar on all of the Article 3 proposals, including trail camera use.
Go to their website and get the link. I will be on the road and unable to watch.
A good question to ask them is this: How is a scope that has a built in laser rangefinder and when you get the range, the computer inside generates the correct hold and all you do is squeeze the trigger "NOT AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE but a trail cam that takes a picture that you may not see for days or weeks, is considered an unfair advantage?
I will say this. I have 10 cameras and to my knowledge not one of them has ever jumped off a pole or tree and shot anything?
Hunters have no control on where and when an animals comes to a water. And yes, a lot of these waters were paid for with sportsman dollars, and as far as I know, there is no law that prevents a hunter from sitting close by to a water and watches what comes in.
To me this 1/4 mile set back is being done only to placate the antis, and keep them from trying to put it on the ballot.
And once the public finds out about those scopes that do everything but pull the trigger, watch and see what happens.
I agree with about 95% of what is being proposed, but the trail camera set back is not something I see as being justified.