G&F commission voted unanimously to ban trail cams

[Sneaker]

So true. Honestly, does anyone think there really will be zero cams in 9 or on the strip helping hunters? I think alot of relatives/friends of hardcore hunters will suddenly start taking up some serious "birding/nature watching", and, according to the commission, that is their right!

[creed_az_88]

11 minutes ago, huntlines said:

I am a little curious why people bag in the commission. Game and Fish department makes the recommendations and the commission are just a bung of yes men who do what the G&F propose. 
 

Ive watched several of these meetings and the commission always hears the recommendation, someone makes a motion and the rest vote to approve. 

Two of the commissioners publicly stated why they wanted the ban on a podcast. Almost their entire argument was based around water. Their reasoning is full of holes. 

[huntlines]

8 minutes ago, Sneaker said:

So true. Honestly, does anyone think there really will be zero cams in 9 or on the strip helping hunters? I think alot of relatives/friends of hardcore hunters will suddenly start taking up some serious "birding/nature watching", and, according to the commission, that is their right!

All the poor smucks who have those tags this year will still have cameras all over the place! 🤣 

[CouesFanatic]

2 hours ago, creed_az_88 said:

This is a huge kick in the balls to all the DIY coues deer hunters who like to run cameras far from the road. This ban will not change pressure on animals in Southern AZ. It will not change success rates. The only effect it will have on southern Arizona is that it will take away something that a bunch of us coues deer hunters really enjoy and cherish. My biggest passion outside of my family and hunting, is tracking coues deer ntler growth through their life cycles. Now I have to choose between giving up one of my passions and potentially being seen as a criminal if I hunt in the area of one of my cameras. I completely understand the need to regulate, but a statewide ban will always be viewed by me as a lazy way to throw a statewide blanket over a northern problem. To me it is similar to sending all the kids in class to detention because a few of the kids are being disruptive. For those of you on this forum that are arguing in support of this ban, how many of you are even coues deer hunters? This is a coues forum, and unfortunately most of the real coues deer hunters that used to frequent this site have all moved on to greener pastures. How many of you guys arguing in support of the ban actually spend time in traditional coues deer units and not just northern units where this is a problem. I ask this question because it seems like so many of you who are in support of this have no problem taking them away from everybody, yet you aren't even aware of how little issues there are in most units.  Why wouldn't a ban on water have been sufficient? Why wouldn't a ban in the problem units have been sufficient for now? 

Took the words out of my mouth. The truth is the commissioners are tired of hearing the complaints, that's why this passed 5-0. They keep repeating themselves that they are tired of dealing with it. If this was about disrupting game, they would ban hunting on water, or reduce hunter tags. 

[654321]

1 hour ago, huntlines said:

I am a little curious why people bag in the commission. Game and Fish department makes the recommendations and the commission are just a bung of yes men who do what the G&F propose. 
 

Ive watched several of these meetings and the commission always hears the recommendation, someone makes a motion and the rest vote to approve. 

That statement is exactly the polar opposite of what actually happens. The AZGFD answer to the commission.  The commission is the one who passes all the hunt orders and if the Department isn't headed down the path they have chosen they are quickly brought back on track.  

[654321]

1 hour ago, Sneaker said:

So true. Honestly, does anyone think there really will be zero cams in 9 or on the strip helping hunters? I think alot of relatives/friends of hardcore hunters will suddenly start taking up some serious "birding/nature watching", and, according to the commission, that is their right!

Your right people can still run cameras but if anyone uses that information in aiding their take of wildlife they will be in violation. 

[CouesFanatic]

3 minutes ago, 654321 said:

Your right people can still run cameras but if anyone uses that information in aiding their take of wildlife they will be in violation. 

But it says nothing about me running cameras and telling you where the 140 Coues lives. Too vague, not enforceable and going to open up a can of worms similar to Coconino's road closures nightmare. If we are going to change the way we hunt, lets do it properly or not at all.

[654321]

Just now, CouesFanatic said:

But it says nothing about me running cameras and telling you where the 140 Coues lives. Too vague, not enforceable and going to open up a can of worms similar to Coconino's road closures nightmare. 

I would imagine it will be treated no different then how they enforce the no flying rule.  Lets say you don't have a tag for elk and I do and I put you in a plane and have you fly over my unit and you tell me what you see, guess what busted.

[Desertguide]

11 minutes ago, CouesFanatic said:

But it says nothing about me running cameras and telling you where the 140 Coues lives. Too vague, not enforceable and going to open up a can of worms similar to Coconino's road closures nightmare. If we are going to change the way we hunt, lets do it properly or not at all.

That's an angle I hadn't thought of until someone at the commission meeting said it. 

There will be guys who don't buy hunting licenses, running cameras and selling the info. That's a little disturbing to me. The ones paying for the info will be the same ones that skirt every other game rule or law there is. 

The ban is happening and it is what it is. At this point my only concern are the unintended consequences. 

[high rise hunter]

Why does the commission even have these public comment periods. Obviously they have their agenda and are going to do what they want despite how the majority of AZ sportsman and women feel. Sad day.

[Desertguide]

6 minutes ago, high rise hunter said:

Why does the commission even have these public comment periods. Obviously they have their agenda and are going to do what they want despite how the majority of AZ sportsman and women feel. Sad day.

Because they're required to by their own rules. If they could get around it I think they would

[JSR]

No cameras were banned. 
you just cant use them for hunting. 

[huntlines]

25 minutes ago, 654321 said:

That statement is exactly the polar opposite of what actually happens. The AZGFD answer to the commission.  The commission is the one who passes all the hunt orders and if the Department isn't headed down the path they have chosen they are quickly brought back on track.  

All the ones I’ve watched it was the exact opposite. Game and fish puts forth their recommendations and the commission blesses it with approval. Seems like a dog and pony show. The commission is there to take the blame for being the puppet but G&F is the man behind the curtain.

All the commissioners today had prepared statements they read from. Their minds were made up long ago. They gave people the “chance” to speak but it’s a major waist of time.

For example later they were going over license revocations for violations. An attorney even spoke representing a client but obviously it was a rookie attorney. Should have known it was a waist of time because the commission already had their marching orders. 
 

Im always disappointed with the process when I decide to watch.

[Desertguide]

11 minutes ago, huntlines said:

All the ones I’ve watched it was the exact opposite. Game and fish puts forth their recommendations and the commission blesses it with approval. Seems like a dog and pony show. The commission is there to take the blame for being the puppet but G&F is the man behind the curtain.

All the commissioners today had prepared statements they read from. Their minds were made up long ago. They gave people the “chance” to speak but it’s a major waist of time.

For example later they were going over license revocations for violations. An attorney even spoke representing a client but obviously it was a rookie attorney. Should have known it was a waist of time because the commission already had their marching orders. 
 

Im always disappointed with the process when I decide to watch.

I've seen the commission go against department recommendations on several occasions. This particular issue originated with a commissioner. I didn't realize until today that the Big Boquillas rules are what sold him on the idea of a trailcam ban. The original writer of the Big Bo rules called in and that commissioner mentioned him by name in his speech before his vote. If you don't know the Big Bo rules, read them. That's where they want to take things in AZ. 

[huntlines]

2 minutes ago, Desertguide said:

I've seen the commission go against department recommendations on several occasions. This particular issue originated with a commissioner. I didn't realize until today that the Big Boquillas rules is what sold him on the idea. The original writer of the Big Bo rules called in and that commissioner mentioned him by name in his speech before his vote. If you don't know the Big Bo rules, read them. That's where they want to take things in AZ. 

Yeah I heard that too. I also heard several of the commissioners mention that they live and run cattle in some of the units that have the biggest problem. Seems like they had an agenda from the get-go. As for the commission going against Game & Fish I’ve never seen it but I admit I don’t watch all the commission meetings.