Desertguide

"Its those dadburn guides I tell ya!!". ANY guide worth his salt doesn't need a stupid trailcam to get animals killed. I have 4 and they're packed away in my shed... I think. They probably have all that white crusty crap around the batteries. I oppose more rules, plain and simple. Especially arbitrary, unenforceable rules. Someone with clout has a hard on for trailcams. So much so that they had to send a letter to Ducey changing the reason they want trailcams gone. The fact of the matter is this rule will hurt DIY hunters 10x more than guides. I have the time to scout when I want. Joe Hunter working 60 hours a week doesn't... and thats who will get hurt. Please for the love of God stop blaming guides and outfitters for everything under the sun. I guess we're bad people because we found a way to make a living doing what we love. So dumb

I would think so

I'm no lawyer but to make it enforceable I think they would need to ban trail cameras for any reason on all public land in AZ. The problem is that the wording allows trail cameras to be legal for all purposes except for hunting. That leaves the door wide open for interpretation. The grey area is miles wide. I'm one that would like to see permits or registrations for trailcams. If you're gonna make a dumb rule at least make some money at the same time... lol

Where was there a threat of lawsuit? This letter simply asks the governor to recind the approval for rule making under the guise of "public safety". Rightfully so because the department totally changed their tune. On a personal level I don't care one way or the other. It won't affect me at all. What I do personally oppose is arbitrary, unenforceable rules... which this is the way its worded.

True story... as far as I can tell. That may be different on state land but they definitely can't on BLM or NF. Now BLM and NF could. Don't quote me but I'm fairly certain you need a permit for commercial filming on NF land.

They can't say no to personal cams or cams simply for viewing wildlife. It basically says so in the wording of their proposed rule. They single out cams used for taking or aiding in the take of wildlife. I've never seen or heard of a cam "taking" wildlife but whatever. That's what makes it unenforceable. If a guy gets a pick of a buck, deletes the picture then goes and kills that buck, how the heck is game and fish going to prosecute? With what evidence? The whole thing is really dumb.