AZ trail cam ban coming

It's not a Fair Chase issue. If it was, electronic communication (radios) would go first. This is a squeaky wheel that the Comission is tired of hearing about. I do think it is political. It was started by a senator early this year as a proposition to ban them and then put iin the lap of the Commission to fix it... when two years ago they voted unanimously to keep trail cameras.

I could care less either way... but I don't like more spontaneous regulation. Ed F
 
  • Like
Reactions: sportyg, fishingkid and ilovesprig
JakeSCH said:
Exactly, if hunter success rates go up near 100% then how often we will actually get to hunt? For example imagine if D16 only gave out 300 tags a year instead of 3000. Waiting 3 to 4 years just to hunt in your own backyard. I rather have a tough time hunting every year than a shoe in every 4 years.
Click to expand...
I don’t know Jake, that’s a discussion that should be had bud.
 
stikbrandon said:
I don’t know Jake, that’s a discussion that should be had bud.
Click to expand...

I agree it needs to be had. It is the argument of quality vs opportunity. I would rather the state implement a 3x on one side rather than give only 300 tags because I want to be out chasing them not on my computer hoping that "this is the year" like many of us do x9a.
BOWUNTR said:
It's not a Fair Chase issue. If it was, electronic communication (radios) would go first. This is a squeaky wheel that the Comission is tired of hearing about. I do think it is political. It was started by a senator early this year as a proposition to ban them and then put iin the lap of the Commission to fix it... when two years ago they voted unanimously to keep trail cameras.

I could care less either way... but I don't like more spontaneous regulation. Ed F
Click to expand...

After reading the state's reason I would agree that "fair chase" is probably only a small portion of it. It sounds like main reason is hunters are not respecting each other and fighting over water holes / messing around with others cameras and such.
 
@JakeSCH I get it makes sense, I just think hammering bucks in the rut with rifles on an over the counter tag that has a horrible population because of many factors isn’t the best way to manage the herd.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: JakeSCH
Nevada already did it. I don’t see anything political here. To me it’s simply leveling the playing field. Professional outfitters were running hundreds of cameras. I have cameras and use them but if they banned them on Public (everyone’s land) land I’d be ok with it. Game commissions are always going to have to preclude some technology - or frankly the game won’t have a chance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 180ls1
GUNDOGLOVER49 said:
When it comes right down to it everything becomes political. Libs. wanting our gun, they can't get them or sholuld I say they have not got them so far. Ammo is getting harder to find, hunting bears with dogs outlawed, lead ammo banned, lead weights for fishing is next. limits on how many guns we can buy, limits on how much ammo we can buy, restriction on bringing ammo into Ca. from other states. they won't stop until hunting is band all together, and they WILL use politics to achieve their goal.
Click to expand...
So do you believe there should be no restrictions on hunting? I would guess not. We saw where that got us and it was almost extinction of many species. We have the face the fact that technology is developing at a staggering rate. We have muzzloader guys killing animals at 1,000+ yards now. It is in our best interest to be reasonable here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WaterDog
180ls1 said:
So do you believe there should be no restrictions on hunting? I would guess not. We saw where that got us and it was almost extinction of many species. We have the face the fact that technology is developing at a staggering rate. We have muzzloader guys killing animals at 1,000+ yards now. It is in our best interest to be reasonable here.
Click to expand...
we peta on board
 
FISHNFRANK said:
Nevada already did it. I don’t see anything political here. To me it’s simply leveling the playing field. Professional outfitters were running hundreds of cameras. I have cameras and use them but if they banned them on Public (everyone’s land) land I’d be ok with it. Game commissions are always going to have to preclude some technology - or frankly the game won’t have a chance.
Click to expand...
on public land in southern ca the kill rate is very low 6% or less and most of those are on private land
 
I would love to see all muzzleloader tags restricted to open sights. But at the same time I also shoot long range rifles. The waters get muddy real quick but hammering bulls during the rut from a 1/4 mile with a ML is something I would get behind regulating.
 
180ls1 said:
So do you believe there should be no restrictions on hunting? I would guess not. We saw where that got us and it was almost extinction of many species. We have the face the fact that technology is developing at a staggering rate. We have muzzloader guys killing animals at 1,000+ yards now. It is in our best interest to be reasonable here.
Click to expand...

Reasonable would be to ban optics. Optics get more animals killed than any other piece of equipment. Range finders would be a close second. In Arizona next is electronic communication... trail cameras are way down on the list. The Az commission is fixing a squeaky wheel that was started by a politician... it is political. Ed F
 
  • Like
Reactions: HortoTheSlayer, GUNDOGLOVER49 and ilovesprig
BOWUNTR said:
Reasonable would be to ban optics. Optics get more animals killed than any other piece of equipment. Range finders would be a close second. In Arizona next is electronic communication... trail cameras are way down on the list. The Az commission is fixing a squeaky wheel that was started by a politician... it is political. Ed F
Click to expand...

Those all sound fair. However, cellular trail cameras should be very high on the list. Having a camera in the woods, always watching animals that you can check 24/7 from your couch is too far IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MJB
ilovesprig said:
I'm just guessing here, but guys that use trail cams ain't spending that much time on the couch
Click to expand...
Let me be more clear. The cellular cameras allow someone to check any of their cameras (could be dozens, some run hundreds) from anywhere at any time. This can be done from your office, car, home, and so on. Once the camera is placed you never have to do any more work unless you want to move it or unless the batteries die (solar charger will be infinite).

Unlike the other items aforementioned with these you don't even have to be in the woods (besides the initial setup) to have them in use. Unlike binoculars, range finders and what have you.... you at least need to be out there using them to benefit.
 
Last edited:
Honestly if they only banned them in a few units it would probably solve the problems they are having. No one is complaining about a few cameras in the southern units. It’s the water holes on the strip and kaibab with 100 cameras that are causing the issue. I like what NV did this year where you can run cameras but they have to be pulled from Aug 1 - Dec 31
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: HortoTheSlayer and JakeSCH
You must log in or register to reply here.

About us

  • SCHoutdoors was created in January of 2011 by a few people who love the outdoors. The main goal is still the same – bring people together who enjoy the outdoors and share their knowledge and experience.
    Outdoors in the West, Hunting gear reviews, Big Game, Small Game, Upland Game, Waterfowl, Varmint, Bow Hunting, long Range Rifles, Reloading, Taxidermy, Salt WaterFishing, Freshwater Fishing, Buy-Sell-Trade on Classifieds and Cooking/Recipes
    All things outdoors…come join us, learn, contribute and become part of the SCHoutdoors community.

Quick Navigation

Home Forums Contact us

User Menu

Login
| Style and add-ons by ThemeHouse | Media embeds via s9e/MediaSites
Top Bottom
Back