AZ G&F Commissioners discuss why they want to ban Trail Cameras

[Sundevils79]

Take a listen if you have any opinions of the proposed trail camera ban in AZ. Here's some links to listen. 

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/arizona-game-fish-commission-discussing-decision-to/id1543788045?i=1000503763500

https://bloodorigins.org/podcasts-partners/

Arizona Game And Fish Commission – Discussing The Decision To Ban Trail Cameras 

Blood Origins Podcast-Episode 9

The Arizona Game And Fish Commission recently decided to propose a ruling to ban the use of trail cameras for the take of the state’s wildlife. Robbie invited the Chairman and one Commissioner of the AZGFD and asks the questions everyone wants to ask around the topic, including its implications on hunters’ choice, fair chase and more - leaving no stone unturned

 

[trphyhntr]

Cliffs?

[AZLance]

oh darn, I thought they were discussing banning podcasts!

[Sundevils79]

27 minutes ago, AZLance said:

oh darn, I thought they were discussing banning podcasts!

Haha got in a hurry!

[dmoto]

Listened to the interview and the interviewer missed some opportunities to ask questions such as, "how do you plan on enforcing the ban?". In full disclosure, I've used a camera in the past, however, I don't see too many cameras in the areas I hunt. I had lunch with Jim Goughnour last year when I picked up a custom spinnerbait rod. Seems like a good guy with rational thought behind any of these types of AZGFD decisions (and makes one heck of a fishing rod).

During lunch, he explained to me the issues surrounding the idea of people using cameras to profit from the sale of specific locations of trophy animals. Personally, I don't have any data or statistics to back up that claim, however, I suppose it's plausible. Jim references this topic in the podcast and if this is a big problem, I can see the justification of the ban. However, it's a shame that these bad apples ruin it for the rest of the hunting community. I personally do not see an issue with running a few cams, but not in overabundance. 

One statement in the podcast that Jim referenced was that it's difficult to purchase just "one" cam and that cam purchases are in 6 or 12 packs. I completely disagree with this. Just look at yesterday's Camofire email. Single cams galore. Or just hop onto Amazon. That was an odd statement and not sure why he said that.

All in all, I give both Jim and Kurt kudos for going on the podcast. However, the interviewer missed some prime opportunities to ask better questions.

[creed_az_88]

I appreciate their willingness to talk about it. I needed to hear it. I walked away from the podcast thinking that maybe they do mean some good. Their overall concern seems to be about water however. They mentioned it many times and they feel like trail cameras on water may be detrimental to animals. I agree with that to some degree. But why the ban statewide? Why make a ban that affects the guys who run a handful of cameras out in the middle of nowhere in Southern Arizona not anywhere near water?  I feel like those guys have no idea how difficult it is to capture pictures of big bucks away from water. I would bet that very few of the commissioners have ever even attempted to set a camera that wasn't on water if they've ever even set one. Regulate them if you must, but don't BAN them. The chairman made clear that he felt that trail cameras were taking away sportsman's need for tracking skills and etc., but I would argue that it's the exact opposite when setting cameras away from water or bait. 

[creed_az_88]

13 minutes ago, dmoto said:

Listened to the interview and the interviewer missed some opportunities to ask questions such as, "how do you plan on enforcing the ban?". In full disclosure, I've used a camera in the past, however, I don't see too many cameras in the areas I hunt. I had lunch with Jim Goughnour last year when I picked up a custom spinnerbait rod. Seems like a good guy with rational thought behind any of these types of AZGFD decisions (and makes one heck of a fishing rod).

During lunch, he explained to me the issues surrounding the idea of people using cameras to profit from the sale of specific locations of trophy animals. Personally, I don't have any data or statistics to back up that claim, however, I suppose it's plausible. Jim references this topic in the podcast and if this is a big problem, I can see the justification of the ban. However, it's a shame that these bad apples ruin it for the rest of the hunting community. I personally do not see an issue with running a few cams, but not in overabundance. 

One statement in the podcast that Jim referenced was that it's difficult to purchase just "one" cam and that cam purchases are in 6 or 12 packs. I completely disagree with this. Just look at yesterday's Camofire email. Single cams galore. Or just hop onto Amazon. That was an odd statement and not sure why he said that.

All in all, I give both Jim and Kurt kudos for going on the podcast. However, the interviewer missed some prime opportunities to ask better questions.

He said that they are bought in packs of 6 or 12 because he likely doesn't use them himself. I hate to be critical of these guys because I am typically on their side and I know they have a tough job, but it was clear to me they have never tried to locate a big coues deer with a camera and then hunt that deer. Beyond difficult and very non invasive. But an all out ban is easier than thoughtful regulations. 

[MULEPACKHUNTER]

I posed the question of what was the reasoning for banning in another thread and it was never answered. I wasn't being sarcastic I genuinely only had a few guesses as to why. I use cameras off and on mostly in new areas to me to get a lay of the land other than glassing it. I have never set cams on water or even within 100 yards of water but the one main reason I would support not using them is just general pressure. No way around the round the clock pressure of humans on the lands. If you add up all land use its never ending pressure on the animals.

[stanley]

The very last question was pretty telling, IMO.  Based on their answers (which were not direct), it appears they both have made up their minds on the topic.   As sort of assumed by many, the 'public comment' period seems to likely be just a formality at this point.

[Big or Bust]

8 hours ago, creed_az_88 said:

I appreciate their willingness to talk about it. I needed to hear it. I walked away from the podcast thinking that maybe they do mean some good. Their overall concern seems to be about water however. They mentioned it many times and they feel like trail cameras on water may be detrimental to animals. I agree with that to some degree. But why the ban statewide? Why make a ban that affects the guys who run a handful of cameras out in the middle of nowhere in Southern Arizona not anywhere near water?  I feel like those guys have no idea how difficult it is to capture pictures of big bucks away from water. I would bet that very few of the commissioners have ever even attempted to set a camera that wasn't on water if they've ever even set one. Regulate them if you must, but don't BAN them. The chairman made clear that he felt that trail cameras were taking away sportsman's need for tracking skills and etc., but I would argue that it's the exact opposite when setting cameras away from water or bait. 

+1.

My first thoughts are that both the commissioners freely admit they didn't grow up hunting either and are first generation hunters, the first of their family. Them making big decisions with a bit of missing context is concerning.

I listened and agree with these thoughts. I also came away with their continual reference of 30+ cameras per water that the entire ban is indeed related to the Strip, Kaibab, Unit 9 elk, etc. and not the majority of the state. 

They do make some valid points however IMHO...

[Big or Bust]

6 hours ago, stanley said:

The very last question was pretty telling, IMO.  Based on their answers (which were not direct), it appears they both have made up their minds on the topic.   As sort of assumed by many, the 'public comment' period seems to likely be just a formality at this point.

It always is with regulators. It's all politics. All their minds are made up. It depends if someone can politically make them compromise or change their minds....

Public comments are just a charade they have to legally do. 

[Lazy-H98]

Good listen.  What's the deal with "Electronic Tags" the commission is proposing?

[stanley]

13 minutes ago, Lazy-H98 said:

Good listen.  What's the deal with "Electronic Tags" the commission is proposing?

Ya, that's the first time I had heard of electronic tags, but admittedly I don't keep ahead of most G&F stuff....   Seems to make sense to me, given the availability of the technology to effectively do it  (I know New Mexico has been doing it.).

[MULEPACKHUNTER]

electronic tags are basically you use your phone that has your tag on it and when you harvest you validate the tag with your phone. I saw somewhere they are using it already but not sure what states.

Seems like it wouldn't work good for me I never have signal. I just wish they would sell the otc tags online real soon. That sitting in the parking lot waiting for them to call is silly

[pirogue]

I’ve been to several catchments, where the AZGFC cameras were either vandalized, or removed, but the signs are still there.  So wonder how much of their own loss, went into this decision?