Desertguide

I haven't agreed with you on much concerning this topic but I absolutely do with this comment. Zero excuse for breaking a game law or rule

Well shite... now that you put it that way... lol.

I loved that all the commissioners commented about us all sticking together after this. Thankfully most of the guys on here are good dudes and won't carry any hate forward. Can't say the same about what I hear about FB. Sounds like it's a shite show.

Jan 1 2022

Lol... pass!!! I do my own work homie

I think anyone with a hunting license better be very careful running cameras at all. Especially if it's a unit you have a tag for. As a guide I won't run a camera for ANY reason. It'll put a huge target on my back that I do not want. As a matter of fact, I have 4 cheapies that are coming out of the shed and going in the trash this weekend. I want nothing to do with them

I personally know about half the guys that got up and spoke. A couple of them were complete idiots with their comments and didn't help their cause at all. Stupid

I knew there would be at least a partial ban. It is what it is.

My selfish side is actually for a ban because of everything you mentioned. I've talked about riding the fence and that's why I'm riding it.

It has to do with time in the field. A regular hunter might have a handful of days to scout. Trailcams would be a huge advantage to him because he doesn't have to be there to see the animals movement or the caliber of the animals that are moving through the area. Guides or Outfitters... like AZ Groundpounders who are for the ban... have far more time in the field and don't really need trailcams to find the big ones. I am proof of that. I've helped put some stud desert muleys on the ground without ever using a trailcam to locate them because I'm able to be in the field 10x as much as a regular hunter. Guides that want this ban know full well they will have less competition for the big animals.

1 guide for and 1 guide against. As a guide I will fully admit that I guide for personal financial gain. It's how I make a living. It's the same for any guide or outfitter. You have to ask yourself why an outfitter... a very good one at that... would be for the ban. I'll answer that question... because they stand to financially gain from a ban. I believe it's because they know that it will tip the odds of killing big animals further in their favor. What I also find interesting is that the Humane Society of America has decided to jump in and oppose cams. I pray I never ever find myself on the ae side of ANY issue as those kooks.

I still think it will be a tough rule to prosecute because of evidence and the workload WM's already have. But regardless of what I think, they're likely to push it through and it will become reality. Everyone will have to decide how far they will push the envelope. I for one won't be taking any chances. The juice ain't worth the squeeze.

Well if you go back to the proposed rule, it says "to aid in the take". By game and fish definition that would include pursuit. So it could be translated as "aid in the pursuit". Its a stretch in my mind too but that's what the regs say.

Getting you on base shouldn't be any issue. Not sure about the flightline. We had families come to the squadron for promotion ceremonies so that might not even be an issue.

There's a new fire that started today in the Santa Theresa Wilderness west of Safford. Saw smoke over that way this morning. Looks like it started in Limestone Canyon. Had to have been human caused.

Nope. If you killed that wolf and you had a picture of it, I can promise you under this possible rule, you'd be charged with using a camera to aid in the take of wildlife. Along with a bunch of federal stuff

The problem is the same people writing the rules are the same ones writing the definitions. If they say taking a picture of an animal is "pursuing" then it is.

Good point

654321, please don't take my comments as argumentative. I'm just sharing my opinion based on my personal experience. It could very well turn out just like you say. I'm not a fortune teller.

Oh I won't be one that uses loopholes man. I don't use cameras now so I certainly won't use them if there's a rule. As for Larry, what do you think he's gonna say? "Nope, it's unenforceable and my WM's can't keep up with their current workload let alone a new camera rule that will be extremely difficult to prosecute." I have a lot of experience with higher ups at game and fish and one thing they are all experts at is public relations. That and playing politics. Edit... "A lot of experience" is a stretch. I have a some experience with the higher ups.

Well, it'll be like the baiting rule. Salt is the loophole in that one. Everybody keeps referring back to the baiting rule but fail to mention or forget that there are thousands of totally legal salt sites in Arizona. Guys will use the loophole in this one which is cameras for simply viewing wildlife won't be illegal. How do you prove that a guy had a camera up and killed an animal because of a picture from that camera? Guys will just delete their pictures. Boom... evidence is gone. So in the end it will accomplish nothing but creating more camera conflicts because guys will take it upon themselves to enforce rules and steal/destroy others property. Again, I get the purpose and I can agree with the spirit of the rule but there are huge flaws in the enforcement.

This is all kind of funny. If you go back and read the other cam thread from the beginning, it's the same debate repeated over and over. I've gone from being totally against a ban to being sort of a fence rider. HuntHarder and I went back and forth and he made some very convincing points. I'm certain I would like him if I met him in person. While I don't like more rules, I certainly understand the point of view of those who are pro ban. I'll obey the rule regardless of the outcome as I'm sure all here will. Sad that we've come to a point where game and fish even needs to make such a rule.

You're right. I forgot that it was the commission pushing this to begin with.

They were basically trying to do the same thing last time and only ended up banning cell type cameras. The dept can recommend anything they want, doesn't mean the commission will approve it. That being said, my bet is option 2 will become the new rule.

They move commission meetings around the state. They always have. I could be totally wrong but I believe they do it on a circuit. This meeting is in Payson, next one might be in Flag, the one after that might be in Kingman... so on and so forth. I don't believe it has anything whatsoever to do with the topics to be dealt with