javihammer

This is 100% correct. Although I appreciate the initiative someone took to setup this poll it is about as unscientific as it gets. As Delw said, the key stakeholders in this are the resident Arizona big game hunters, who knows where these votes are coming from or whether someone has voted more than once. AZGFD has the complete list of Arizona hunters and could make sure the right population is polled. The only representative poll would be one conducted by a third party firm with polling expertise. There is a whole lot of statistical modeling and psychology that goes into creating a good pool and all of them have some degree of inherent bias in the way the questions are asked even when the poller tries to minimize it. Third party firms are there to help minimize the bias, polls that come from companies directly are usually assumed to support a pre-conceived agenda. As far as this poll, Several guys have mentioned they would like seasons minimally but also don’t like bans. The choice related to permitting is a stand alone choice but would likely be necessary for tracking violators if there were seasons. I find it interesting that the zero ban choice was around 12% most of the day yesterday but is now over 30%. Wondering if there is some thumb on the scale going on as that is quite a jump. It is promising to know that even on a site with dedicated named forums for outfitters and trail camera content all over the place there is still a huge segment that supports a complete ban of memory card trail cameras for hunting in Arizona. Imagine the overwhelming landslide in ban supporters there would be if the playing field was more level. Ryan

I didn’t provide commentary on the 2018 camera regulation meeting because I like to play Perry Mason. I was trying to show that beyond the crying guide antics the meeting as related to trail cameras was a smoke show that was thin on regular hunters, thick on commercial interests and seasoned with dubious claims made by a fellow commissioner if the meeting minutes are to be believed. If I were Kurt Davis I would have been pretty ticked by the final outcome and memory card trail cameras would be in my crosshairs when I finally got into a position to get things done. I bring this up because several people in this thread have mentioned that Arizona Hunters have already spoken on this issue in 2018 which I disagree with since that meeting only had a few token hunters in attendance. The Commissioners have been known to read these threads and I plan to direct them here when I send them each a note about my feelings on this issue. Sir Royal, you are probably a great old school guide and I cannot fathom how you can honestly support the status quo on trail cameras but all I can say is that I disagree with you. One thing I can promise is that as long as we finally have real independent minded Commissioners I will share my thoughts and hope to see good things happen. As long as the ship is headed in the right direction I plan to hang on despite your generous offer for an early dismissal. Ryan

MAHGA — Make Arizona Hunting Great Again. Love it!

I agree 100%, a survey by AZGFD would show the real sentiment about trail cameras in Arizona. I did a simple google search of the people that were listed as being at the meeting where Commissioner Sparks advocated for them in 2018 (it was posted earlier today by trophyseeker). The people were listed as members of the public in the meeting notes. I did a google search with their name followed by arizona hunting. Out of the 16 pro camera attendees, here is what my simple search revealed. - Three were advisory members of a Bighorn sheep Committee (probably not your average hunters if they are focused on Bighorns, they may have been at the meeting for some other reason or ?) - Eight were guides, most affilliated with the big outfitter that flaunts their camera inventory on facebook (someone posted pictures of it in an earlier reply to this thread) - One was an Arizona attorney, he could have been a hunter or representing the pro camera side or possibly both. - One was the leader of an outdoor 501c3 that probably has a cozy relationship with the guides that help with donated tags. - Three of them were mysteries, at least using my simple search. If the Commission honestly considered the pro camera attendees to be simple public citizen hunters they were mislead. A few more thoughts on that meeting. A fairly reliable senior member of this forum doubted the claim that all of the trophy groups were contacted as Sparks claimed back then. He is in a pretty good position to make that judgement since he would have been the primary contact for one of the groups. Since one of the basis for trail camera regulation was that they violated fair chase this claim would likely have been taken into serious consideration by the Commission at the time. I also found the claim that trail cameras assist disabled hunters to be curious, I am guessing most disabled hunters are thrilled to shoot a mature animal and have little need to scrutinize their racks on a trail camera first. Maybe the guides are looking for trophies to post in their marketing photos but I doubt trail cameras really add that much to the experience for disabled people. I think that was another formulaic baseless line of crap. Bottom line, if the pro camera guys approach this like they did they did the last time they are going to get steamrolled this time. That weak bullcrap isnt going to hold water the next time. And one more note for the guys claiming they will fail to comply. If you have or have had an Arizona hunting license in the past few years you are going to have a heck of a time claiming you arent using your cameras for hunting in the future. You will be forced to choose whether you are a criminal, a hunter or a wildlife photographer. Only two of those are law abiding citizens so the turning law abiding citizens into criminals line is also a load as well. Ryan - -

2020 has been a crappy year but the prospect of a trail camera ban in Arizona is truly a bright spot. It is proof that we might just have a game commission made up of hunters instead of bobble head dolls for business interests. Trail camera regulation has been discussed in Arizona for a long time, even before Nevada put their rules in place. Even though we didnt beat Nevada to the punch on regulation it is great that we seem to have Commissioners with integrity and the backbone for leadership. And lets be really honest, this isnt about cameras for the guides, it is about data. Cameras are simply a cheap tool that allows outfitters to send teams of young inexperienced wanna be guides into the field to collect data for outfitting syndicates, some controlled outside the state of Arizona. Also, many of the pictures collected are used to market expo and auction tags for people that view the hunt as the wasted time between when they get off the plane and the time they pull the trigger. Trail cameras are turning some large outfitters in multi national Walmarts when the citizens of Arizona would be much better served by keeping the guide businesses local. Outfitters should be hired based on skill, not by their level of access to some trophy hunting database. And the thought of not having a guide walk into a wallow at 10 AM to check a camera on my 5BS archery bull elk hunt while I was sitting in a ground blind with my 8 year old son in 2016 would be great. The thought of a team of camera checkers not running the camera circuit all day long on my Kaibab archery deer hunt in 2018 would also be nice. Even nicer would have been the ability to take a leak virtually anywhere on the strip in 2012 during my archery deer hunt , that place was covered up with camera.s then I cannot imagine it now. And like I said above., getting cameras off of public land will reduce the number of fresh juicy marketing pictures that fuels the engine that drives the shift of more tags to expos, raffles and other circuses., a total win win for 99% of us. And like someone mentioned above, if we must register the cameras they could be tagged with color coded annual registration stickers purchased online and linked to each hunters hunting license. A limit of 10 cameras per license, the first 3 cameras are 10 bucks, the next 7 are 50 bucks each. If cameras will be used for commercial purposes they will need to capture device serial numbers in the metadata for each photo in order to make sure the device is properly registered.in Arizona . Cameras would not be allowed from aug-dec and there would be no special loopholes for guides to use more than the established personal camera limits. Unregistered cameras would be viewed as empty beers cans and other trash and responsible hunters would be encouraged to clean them up which should take the burden off of the Wildlife managers. I am looking forward to the public meeting about this, I will be on the ban side of the room. It is exciting to think some parts of hunting could be like they were when I started almost 40 years ago. Ryan

Okay, I read the great big article one write-up and some things stood out as concerning. Bottom line is that the Arizona Game and Fish gets a lot of “marketing” power from the article one changes, all in the name of “running things like a business”. In most cases running things like a business is fine, but the Arizona Game and Fish department isn’t a business. Businesses are evaluated based on revenue, government agencies are evaluated based on how well they serve their customers, not by how many dollars they generate or how well they market themselves on TV and billboards through public awareness campaigns. The largest customer for AZGFD is resident hunters of average means and their children who will be advocates in the future. The Game and Fish Department needs to preserve opportunity for their largest customers. This is a function of keeping the sport affordable and minimizing complexity that serves as a barrier to entry for new hunters. I also attended the information sessions last year about the membership program tag surrender idea, I can also vouch for the fact that there was very little support in the room for tag surrenders based on a membership of any kind. I read through the changes and took notes since I know few other people would be inclined read them. If my understanding of the changes are wrong please feel free to correct me. http://www.azgfd.gov/pdfs/fishing/article1NPRM.pdf R12-4-104 – Amendment to no longer send refunds for overpayments of less than $5.00. Spending $3.00 to send a $5.00 check that probably won’t be cashed is dumb. GOOD CHANGE R12-4-107 – Provides some relief from losing loyalty point for a slight underpayment. Stipulates that loyalty point is preserved if the fee paid covers the license and application fee. Also clarifies which hunter education course qualifies for hunter ED point. GOOD CHANGE R12-4-108 - Amendment to update Management Unit boundaries to incorporate future changes to management unit boundaries. I was wondering if this is laying the foundation to redistrict for private property hunt units similar to the CWMU program in Utah. That would be extremely unpopular with Arizona hunters. Maybe I am just paranoid since I heard there was a survey that went out within the past year with questions related to private property access for a fee. TO BE DETERMINED R12-4-110 – Seems to give additional discretion to the Commission to control roads on State Land. As long as ranching and commercial interests aren’t lobbying the commissioners too hard this could be a good thing. TO BE DETERMINED R12-4-111 – Department IDs as primary ID instead of SSN numbers. This is long overdue considering fraud concerns. GOOD CHANGE R12-4-114 – This is the change to keep half the non-resident bonus pass tags for the random draw. This is probably the biggest change for non-residents, it gives most non-residents a chance at some currently unavailable tags. GOOD CHANGE FOR MOST NON-RESIDENTS R12-4-118 – This is the amendment to allow for tag surrenders with bonus point re-instatement based on a new “membership” program on the AZGFD portal. The fact that the summary of this change required 2 ½ pages of single spaced lines to describe it raises flags on its own. Despite the fact that the write-up suggests that applicants are eligible to get surrendered tags at all membership levels, the reinstatement process establishes priority for those at the highest level of membership levels first. People buying entry level memberships may be thinking they are in the running for surrendered tags when in reality they may not be. The write-up of this program also mentions that the number of tag surrenders allowed per person will also be dictated by membership level. There are so many potential doors to abuse with this process that it defies any attempt at logic. Especially after public comments last year were against tag surrenders with bonus point reinstatement based on membership. If implemented this will be the first step toward separating hunters into classes in Arizona. A TERRIBLE IDEA THAT ESTABLISHES A TERRIBLE PRECEDENT R12-4-121 – This allows the surrender of a tag and reinstatement of bonus points (with a membership) by surrendering a tag to a non-profit organization that provides hunt opportunities to terminally ill kids and veterans with a service related disability. Unlike the general tag surrender process, there were few details about how priority would be established for the recipients of the tags or what would happen to the tags if there were more tags available than eligible applicants. There is also an internal 501c3 qualification process that might leave some of the larger and more established veteran and sick kid non-profits out of the running if they aren’t paying attention. I believe that If we want to give tags to veterans or terminally ill kids, establish an allocation in the primary draw and price the tags at a minimal cost. That would ensure that opportunities are fairly distributed to all deserving parties and that the tags aren’t used to pull people through the door for banquets. AN EVEN WORSE IDEA THAN R12-4-118….TERRIBLE IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT R12-4-125 – Provides more latitude to AZGFD staff management to approve solicitations or event details on department property. The only item of note is that there is now language that covers requirements for serving of alcohol on department property. My first thought was a beer garden at the Ben Avery Outdoor Expo or some raffle or auction for tags at headquarters. Neither would be a welcome addition. Hopefully Game and Fish continues to manage all events on their property and don’t farm it out to some new 501c3 group like they did with the Big Game Raffle. I don’t know who is in a position (maybe the AZGFD Commission Chairman) to pull the e-brake on this membership tag thing but they ought to have a plaque in the lobby memorializing the fact that they were the person to change hunting for the worse in Arizona if this turd of an idea is deployed. Ryan

+1 Kent.....Last I checked every single elk tag is sold at full price currently. I would rather see all 24,000 elk tags go up around 10-15 bucks and let people continue to pay the difference in TIME. That would provide far more value to hunters than creating a premium structure. One more thought. I noticed the powerpoint presentation showed that Utah had nearly three times the number of elk tags than Arizona does. I checked this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population and discovered that Utah has less than half the population of people than Arizona does. My back of the envelope math shows Utah has a 6:1 advantage in terms of tags to people. Even if a premium structure had merit, using Utah as a basis for comparison is completely wrong. Arizona has low quantity and good quality, to strip the quality from the overall tag pool is not giving Arizona hunters a fair shake. Ryan

I cannot argue with the last round of comments from kent and gjmauro and most of the other respondents. Operations costs have gone up over the last 7 years and there will need to be some increases to tag prices. I am of the opinion that spreading the increases equally for all tags within the species is far more desirable than establishing a premium structure. Some people will look at the premium increases superficially and think it will reduce competition and increase their odds. This may be true in the very short term but the difference in price will almost certainly widen (the new bill removes price caps) over time and the draw advantages will become less meaningful. Like I said before, the proponents of the premium structure will at some point lobby for separate bonus point pools and drawings which will add a whole new layer of application fees and transaction costs. They also tend to argue for tag reductions for "premium" units and in some rare cases moving tags from one weapon to another. Setting these tags aside also makes it easier to divert them into auctions and raffles. I am kind of interested in the questions about the premium hunt structure on the survey that was sent out. Would one of the special people that got the golden ticket be willing to post the survey questions? I think someone mentioned the "time" they already have invested in premium tags and the fact that they may not be able to afford to apply in the future. I think that is a very important point because most economists will agree that time has value assocated with it and to make decisions without consideration of that value is not considering all of the information. Anyway, there are no bad guys when it comes to the people willing to show up to meetings. We all have busy lives and competing priorities, even if you disagree with my opinions I respect that you were willing to make your voice heard. Two thumbs up to the guys that were at the meeting last night and the guys that will be at the rest of the meetings....even Wickenburg . If you cannot make the meetings you should send your comments to the license simplification email box, there is a link on the AZGFD license simplification page. Ryan

Motoxno53 - glad to hear you will be at the Tucson meeting, please post up a summary of how it goes and bring some friends with you if you can. For the guy that claims this to be "whining", you amuse me. If you knew many of the guys that have posted on this thread you woulkd know they do alot more than whine when they dont like things.

I was at the Phoenix meeting tonight. The turnout wasn't great but there was plenty of input given, My observations... - The 365 day tag - Still on the fence with this, apparently they have had input that more tags would be bought if people got the full 365 days of use from the point of purchase. My gut tells me this is a bad idea but I could probably be swayed if the argument was strong enough. - A couple fisherman liked the reduced prices for fishing. - Noone spoke in favor of the premium hunt structure, not a soul. About five people spoke against it and some of them were even outfitters. - One guy liked the application fee increase but then commented that all of the other states listed on the powerpoint presentation sent him a "unsuccessful" notice this year. It was no surprise that he didnt mind the higher application fee proposal. - The speaker indicated that AZGFD sent out a random survey to solicit feedback from a sample of Arizona hunters. If you were one of the people lucky enough to get a survey and you dislike the impacts of a premium hunt structure, please send in your survey and let them know your thoughts. You are special and you have the golden ticket. Like I said, tonights meeting was low turnout but the important meetings are the commission meetings, I believe there will be one in June and July. The meetings that have the commisioners present will be the best forum to speak about the things you dont like. As usual I found the AZ Game and Fish guys to be pretty straight shooters, they get input from so many stakeholders that it is a balancing act. The commision (four people) is kind of a separate entity from the AZGFD leadership and they wield alot of power in this case and it is important they get balanced input from everyone, not just the usual squeaky wheels from the wildlife groups and commercial interests. Even if you dont hunt premium units, you will be impacted by premium hunters jumping into your "general" unit. People need to understand that this will impact them even more than the auction/raffle tag grab attempt that happened last year. There are thousands of big game hunters in Arizona and the little posse that forms to protect the interests of the average joes could use some reinforcements at the next commission meeting. Ryan

I wouldnt give up so easy. These fees are conceptual and really lack any basis in logic. If AZGFD needs more money they can raise fees on all tags rather than try to separate hunters into classes. Before these changes take place the department must show that they have properly solicited the thoughts of all hunters, not just input from a handful of critter group board members (that guide on the side). AZGFD has a website, they should provide a link to a survey so all hunters can provide input. Some survey questions could include.....Would you be willing to see all tags go up a little $30-40 or see the very best tags go up $80 and others go for $20 more? Do you agree with Arizona hunters having to identify as either trophy or general hunters? Would you be willing to pay a little more for all tags instead of having the best tags pulled into separate buckets that provide more opportunity to those with greater financial resources? With the stuff that happened last year with AZSFW and auction tags, the recent story about the officer that let his elk be tagged while he was away, and the Husted story, it is vital that the commission proceed cautiously in order to maintain credibility. The commision would be foolish to believe that hunters in Arizona would sit idley by while four guys change the culture in Arizona by allowing hunters to be split into trophy classes by species. The only State that actively does this crap is Utah, and Utah is kind of the joke of the West with how biased they are toward hunters with money. I could write a couple pages about issues with the powerpoint presentation but the funniest part is how most of the higher costs are related to fishing but the cost for fishing privileges are being reduced in most cases. It almost seems like someone is trying to create a shortfall on one side in order to justify price increases on the other (hunting) side. I recomend others send their thoughts into AZGFD on this issue or attend the meeting on Monday.

I stand by my "keys to the kingdom" reference in regard to youth tags. I agree youth tags should be discounted, but at five bucks a pop they are practically free. I also fail to understand why resident youth and non-resident youth are the exact same price (yes I understand it is that way currently)There are also no restrictions as to which hunts these tags can be used to apply for. If they were for youth hunts only, my views would be different, Since youth bonus points are the same as adult bonus points these kids can essentially be "used" to increase opportunity for their mommies and daddies on group applications. The powerpoint shows AZGFD needs more money, how is decreasing the cost of a youth tag to $5.00 going to fix that problem. I point this out as a father of three children under seven years of age. This is kind of like the 20% bonus pass rule implemented a long time ago. It sounds good until you start to look at the impacts, the 20% bonus pass essentially turned some units into preference units for non-residents. The 20% bonus pass was dumb. The existing bonus point process at the time provided better incremental odds for applicants with the most points. Another "feel good" but dumb rule is the one that allows fathers, mothers, grandfathers and grandmothers to sign tags over to kids. The language of the original rule allowed this with the person that signed over the tag to be in the field close to the child. The current language does not include that requirement. We now have many "straw man" applicants that have no interest in hunting that apply so that some kid can essentially move quicker through the line. Mark my words, if the premium pricing thing flies the next step will be that they want to make bonus points specific to categories within a specific species. That will really screw things up. Hunters need to contact AZGFD and voice their concerns, this could get really ugly and hunters need to look past the "feel good" candy coating.

This is extremely serious.. Some thoughts after looking at the powerpoint presentation. - The bill is called license simplification but the real impacts to the public are in how hunting tags are classified.....this doesn't seem honest to me. - I do not understand how a 365 day license helps anyone.....you still need to buy a license every year and now Arizona Game and Fish would need to track an anniversary date for each hunter. Seems like this could be also be abused to affect residency for people that live in different states part of the year. I do not get it. I feel like there is a rotten aspect to this that I still havent figured out. - $5.00 keys to the kingdom licenses for resident and non-resident youth. I hope point averaging on group applications will be addressed as part of this. I can also see some shady group claiming that more NR licenses purchased means higher NR demand and use it to challenge the 10% tag allocation for non-residents. - Premium pricing within a species will push hunters into separate buckets. It will be difficult to apply for trophy hunts and back them up with easier to draw hunts. Right now hunters pay with TIME and MONEY. This is just a thinly veiled way of weeding people out of a line they have been standing in for years. It will also push some of the trophy hunters into the mid-tier hunts. These concepts look alot like how Utah handles their tags. Utah hunters hate their system. AZGFD will lose all credibility if they support this. - Premium hunt designations also make it easier to funnel tags into raflle and auction programs. It also makes it easier to justify future prices increases for these tags. People need to show up to the meeting on Monday or write game and fish and tell them they would rather pay a little more for all tags than have tags broken into VALUE categories. Breaking tags into different price points within a species is the first step toward surrendering control of who hunts where and will push Arizona into a place where outfitters rather than families hunt. Ryan

I just had a chance to check this post and my IM mailbox and there were a couple tips and offer to chat with my uncle. Way more than I expected and an indication that there are some pretty good people on this website. My uncle doesnt deserve the help but he could certainly use it. The ball is now in his court to execute. Thanks and I will certainly try to make an effort to reciprocate whenever I can. Good luck out there, Ryan

Hello, My uncle Jeff just turned 60 last month. He usually applies in the 5 and 6 units with my Dad and I but decided to apply solo this year and drew a 23N archery bull tag (crazy huh? – there are only 15 tags). Unit 23 is not a unit that my family knows much about. I have no idea what possessed him to go off the program and apply for 23. He has been bowhunting for a long time with little success and is in pretty good hiking shape. He will likely be hunting solo or with my 63 year old Dad this year. He is a good guy and is usually the person that shows up to pull everyone else out of mudholes in the middle of the night. The term “give you the shirt off his back” definitely applies to him. Anyway, my Dad just called and told me that my uncle has been scouting fairly hard but is still a little lost. He would probably be elated to kill just about any legal bull, a mature bull would probably put him on overload. If anyone has some info that could help him out or will be in the unit and could keep an eye out for him please pm me (or I could give you his number or ??). I guess he plans to camp on the 109 road south of highway 260, he will be in a small Carson toyhauler. I know asking for help days before a hunt is lame but this is probably the best chance he will ever have to kill an elk and I just found out he was struggling. Good luck to all the other elk hunters out there. Thanks, Ryan