Desertguide

Well think of it this way. If guys are using radios and hunting spot and stalk, then they aren't sitting on water or fighting with other guys for spots on water. The lid needs to stay on that box.

Guys would just use their phones and an earbud. I don't see them trying to outlaw phones while you're hunting.

Yeah let's impune the integrity of a commissioner with no evidence. That will bear great fruit. You sound a little like the guys I mentioned in my long post.

I forgot to add something to my long boring post from earlier. I completely disagree with this idea that the commission is somehow corrupt. What in the world do any of them have to gain from a trailcam ban? Some might say they're influenced by the cattle growers association. Ok... to what end? Free steaks?... lol. At the very worst, they're old school guys that want to see the old ways of hunting preserved. Does that amount to a conspiracy? No. I think we need to not let the national political climates influence on our thinking impede simple logic. Leave the conspiracy mindset on social media.

I think what he's getting at is the difference between a rule and a law. The legislature is the only entity that can make laws. The commission can only vote and implement rules. If you look in the regs you'll see arizona revised statutes and commission rules. Arizona Revised statues start with ARS and rules with R. Example... A.R.S. 17-362 is a law pertaining to guides. R-12-107 is a rule pertaining to the bonus point system

I made the decision yesterday not to comment anymore because at that point I felt it was a waste of time. There was another reason though. I was tired of arguing with people that I would agree with on nearly every other topic. Debate is good until it's destructive. At this point I feel like it's getting destructive. I'm commenting again because I feel like I can offer something positive, otherwise I wouldn't comment. Whenever you're dealing with an issue like this with two opposing sides, you have to ask yourself what each side stands to benefit. This is especially true if you're on the fence like I ended up being. That has been my approach. In this case there are really 3 sides if you add wildlife into the equation. Leading up to the commissions decision, I definitely leaned anti ban for three reasons. I don't believe in more laws, I didn't think it was enforceable and I worried about unintended consequences... which there are many. Before the meeting, both sides here made compelling arguments. As the debate progressed and considering how a ban would effect me, I drifted towards the middle. I still had concerns... (still do)... but they were less about trailcams and more about unintended consequences. Then I watched the meeting. At that point I could honestly say I was just an objective observer. The pro ban folks didn't pull me to their side or push me away. It was zero sum. Admittedly I get very worried anytime the anti's and hunters are on the same side. Especially the Humane Society. The pro ban hunters (the only ones on that side that matter to me) really don't stand to gain anything. One can question their motivation though and I think many want a ban simply because they hate guides. But in the end, they don't gain anything. The anti ban guys on the otherhand (some) TOTALLY turned me off. Some were respectful, made good arguments and were compelling. I was totally impressed with how Mike Ornoski handled himself. Russ Richardson was another I liked. Some on the otherhand were totally disrespectful, came off as totally self-serving and did nothing but hurt their cause. I know a few of them personally and want to maintain friendly relations so I won't name names. My advice to anyone interested in getting more involved in the political side of hunting would be to silence those guys and keep them from trying to represent you. They will ONLY hurt any cause they are involved in. I wish the outfitters and guides from both sides would have steered clear and not commented. No matter how pure their intentions might be, in a situation like this where guides are seen by many as the problem, they will appear corrupted by self interest. It's a sad fact but it's true. Finally the commission. They may have already had their minds made up. But I don't have an issue with that. Any chance of them voting on option 2 was shot to he!! by those who insulted them. It still blows my mind. It may have been a slim chance but after those comments... there was ZERO chance. The MOST important side in all of this is the wildlife. One can argue whether or not wildlife was helped by this. I think in most parts of the state wildlife will benefit. Especially where I hunt most in the desert. I worry about the "handful of units" because I think this will add human presence not lessen it. The most important thing is this didn't hurt wildlife in any way. That makes me happy. I think in the long run hunters will benefit. More time in the field makes you a better hunter. Theres no arguing that fact. Anyone that is forced out of the outdoors by this is only a benefit in the long run. If you can't get your butt out there and hunt without sitting water and using trailcams, you need to question why you hunt. Except of course those with mobility issues. I think they should make an exception for CHAMP hunters for sure. One thing that hasn't been talked about much is how the commission is keeping things like this out of the legislature and out the ballot box. There is no question that we want the legislature or non-hunting public out of wildlife management. They have no business making decisions about wildlife. That will benefit all of us. Sorry so long but that is my take. I think each of us needs to continue to question our own motives continually and remind ourselves that we always need to do what's best for wildlife and to preserve our hunting culture. Once the results come out, this will all calm down. Please remember that we are all on the same side in the end. Leave your animus on the thread when you walk away. Good luck to everyone in the draw!!!

No idea what Payson costs, I just wanted chime in and encourage you to get the he!! out of the valley. Other than a couple years in Wyoming and 4 years in the Corps, I lived in the valley my entire life. 40 years. Best thing I've ever done is get out of there permanently. I still travel to Phx for work sporadically and now I REALLY notice how bad it is. Everything you described in your original post. Pima isn't a ton cooler but MUCH smaller. I love it. Do it and never look back!!!!

I'm going to add this and then I'm going to move on from this topic. It's a done deal regardless of the debate. It's kind of a waste of time at this point. I hope we can all move on from this. I'm finding there are some really smart guys on both sides of the debate. For the guys that I went back and forth with, I'm leaving all that here. I don't take any of it personal and I hope you don't. One positive that will come from this is guys are gonna have to scout and hunt harder. That's NEVER a bad thing. Good luck to all of you... argue with you later... lol.

Reading back through my comments and I hope I didn't come off like a jerk!! If I did I apologize.

There's no doubt their lives will change dramatically. They'll have to actually get out and scout. Some outfitters will definitely tank because of this.

Here's the thing... and I've avoided saying this because I do NOT want to sound arrogant. We kill some of the bigger deer the desert has to offer. We do it without overly relying on trailcams (I don't use them at all). I've never hunted the strip but I can't fathom it being any harder than the desert we hunt. If we can get it done in the desert without cams they can get it done up there... with far more financial resources because of what they charge.

As I've said, the price of hunts will go way up. But... guys WILL pay it. That's a guarantee.

Oh and this night vision thing doesn't make any sense. Nobody is going to sit there with night vision. They don't kill them at night. If you can kill them during the day you can find them during the day. They also won't be sitting on top of the drinkers. They'll sit back at a distance and glass morning and evenings. Doing that will tell them 10x more than a trailcam pic. All a guy needs to know is if a big buck is in the area.

Your human effort numbers are nowhere close to reality. 1. 50 water holes is no longer a reality. They'll have to change the way they hunt. 20 at most. 2. $50 per day is a real number. Nobody is paying scouters/spotters $15 per hour. If I need a spotter, that's what I pay and guys jump at the opportunity. I can go up to NAU and find 5 kids to go camping and find deer for $50 per day with all other expenses paid. 3. 20 water holes, 5 guys, 4 water holes per guy, 40 days=$10,000. 4. Any other expense is a write off for the outfitter. Add another $30,000 for anything I missed. Still nowhere near $1,000,000 Is all that feasible to keep killing monsters? I have no idea. Just clearing up your human effort numbers

Here's a few videos. First 2 are from January. 3rd is from last Oct. First buck is one I've been after for 4 years. Wouldn't score very high but he's still a stud. I'm thinking he should be 8 or 9 this year if he's still alive. Second buck is one on my hit list. Weak backs but great fronts. He could end up being a monster in the next couple years if he could get some nourishment. Third buck is from a fairly new unit to me. We killed two awesome bucks on the rifle hunt there but I couldn't find this buck on that hunt. He's got amazing potential. Sorry about the whistles... lol. I was trying to get him to turn his head. See.... better than arguing about trailcams!!!! VID_20210104_104133.mp4 VID_20210105_114212_1.mp4 VID_20201009_075453_1.mp4

Heck no. You're one of the few that could actually kill them.

I think you're 100% spot on.

Funny you say all that. One of the commissioners used California and Oregon as an example of why he was voting for the ban.

I think the only way to be totally safe is to never use trailcams again. I definitely wouldn't post any trailcam pics online. I wouldn't have any on my phone or computer... even if its date stamped. (I'm certain guys that try and get away with using them will change the dates in their cams to 2021). You might be able to get away with using them if you use them in a unit you never hunt or one that takes a century to draw. You could use them for sheep if you've already gotten your sheep. DIY guys could find ways to keep enjoying them without too much fear. If you're a guide, you're an idiot if you ever touch another trailcam.

Was the "butt" a Freudian slip???.... 😂😂😂

Hadn't ever considered that

That includes guides too!!!

There are a lot of "hunters" out there that will never kill another animal unless they drastically change the way they hunt. One of them spoke pretty boisterously at the commission meeting. I laugh because he's got people buffaloed into believing he really knows his sh!t. As much as I don't like to see another rule, it will give me great pleasure to watch the truth come out about a lot of blowhard hacks that hunt in this state.

That's a little better than the average I see. What lowers our average are the corporate otc deer hunts. They're great groups but the guys getting the free hunts aren't usually guys that would go on a guided hunt. I've actually had guys that HATE guides in their home states. They definitely leave with a different view of outfitters and guides.

I think if game and fish could make the whole state like the Big Bo they would do it in a heartbeat.