bigorange Report post Posted February 5, 2021 On 2/3/2021 at 11:31 AM, Flatlander said: I knew the border patrol guys were using them. Guess I hadn’t thought about it going beyond that. But heck those BP guys are just like everyone else. Good eggs and bad eggs. Some of them operate well outside of game laws (or legal boundaries). I guess I need to think about how mainstream this stuff has become. I’ve seen ads in hunting magazines and pretty sure I saw at least one on cabelas a while back. Neighbor has one for checking out wildlife in the neighborhood (he doesn’t hunt at all and just plays around with it in the washes) Definitely mainstream. They’ve been banned in AZ for taking of game for several years... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Flatlander Report post Posted February 5, 2021 2 hours ago, bigorange said: I’ve seen ads in hunting magazines and pretty sure I saw at least one on cabelas a while back. Neighbor has one for checking out wildlife in the neighborhood (he doesn’t hunt at all and just plays around with it in the washes) Definitely mainstream. They’ve been banned in AZ for taking of game for several years... Yeah, but seems like some of the guide outfitter crews are using them for locating. Again, tough to regulate use of this stuff in the context of “take” 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HuntHarder Report post Posted February 5, 2021 2 hours ago, Flatlander said: Yeah, but seems like some of the guide outfitter crews are using them for locating. Again, tough to regulate use of this stuff in the context of “take” Any actual proof or just suspicions? If a guide or outfitter is caught using an infrared to locate animals, I do not see how it would be tough to prosecute that. "take" by AGFD definition, is very broad and gives them a lot of leeway on what they can enforce. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Delw Report post Posted February 5, 2021 4 minutes ago, HuntHarder said: Any actual proof or just suspicions? If a guide or outfitter is caught using an infrared to locate animals, I do not see how it would be tough to prosecute that. "take" by AGFD definition, is very broad and gives them a lot of leeway on what they can enforce. Quote R12-4-302 page 102 3.A person shall not use or possess any of the following while taking wildlife:a.Poisoned projectiles or projectiles that contain explosives or a secondary propellant .b.Pitfalls of greater than 5-gallon size, explosives, poisons, or stupefying substances, except as per-mitted under A.R.S. § 17-239 or as allowed by a scientific collecting permit issued under A.R.S. § 17-238. c.Any lure, attractant, or cover scent containing any cervid urine .d.Electronic night vision equipment, electronically enhanced light-gathering devices, thermal imaging devices or laser sights projecting a visible light; except for devices such as laser range finders projecting a non-visible light, scopes with self-il-luminating reticles, and fiber optic sights with self-illuminating sights or pins that do not project a visible light onto an animal. the problem is like flatlander said hard to determine due to the meaning of "TAKE" which is the problem with a whole bunch of laws, it vague but can be used against you if they so choose and likewise can be used to defend you by a lawyer. kinda like what Billy C did with the definition of the word "IS" whos ever lawyers is better wins. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HuntHarder Report post Posted February 5, 2021 53 minutes ago, Delw said: the problem is like flatlander said hard to determine due to the meaning of "TAKE" which is the problem with a whole bunch of laws, it vague but can be used against you if they so choose and likewise can be used to defend you by a lawyer. kinda like what Billy C did with the definition of the word "IS" whos ever lawyers is better wins. That part i understand, but does anyone have an example of someone getting caught "take" illegally and then their lawyer gets them out of it? I personally know 2 different guys who got nailed by Agfd and they did not get out of it with their lawyers. They weren't using infrared, but they were found guilty of illegal "take" due to other reasons. One of them spent north of 40k on a solid lawyer, because he was facing over 40 combined counts between state and federal charges. (Waterfowl related). His lawyer was unable to get him out most charges, ( even a "take" of wildlife charge), even tho he did not actually take a wildlife, he pursued it. I read on here quite a bit how the vague "take" definition is easy to beat, but its been quite opposite based on what I've seen. Curious if guys are just saying its unenforceable or easy to beat online or if they have actually beat some charges. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Outdoor Writer Report post Posted February 5, 2021 8 minutes ago, HuntHarder said: I read on here quite a bit how the vague "take" definition is easy to beat, but its been quite opposite based on what I've seen. Curious if guys are just saying its unenforceable or easy to beat online or if they have actually beat some charges. There's nothing "vague" about it: A.R.S. 17-101 20. “Take” means pursuing, shooting, hunting, fishing, trapping, killing, capturing, snaring or netting wildlife or placing or using any net or other device or trap in a manner that may result in capturing or killing wildlife. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Delw Report post Posted February 5, 2021 1 minute ago, Outdoor Writer said: There's nothing "vague" about it: A.R.S. 17-101 20. “Take” means pursuing, shooting, hunting, fishing, trapping, killing, capturing, snaring or netting wildlife or placing or using any net or other device or trap in a manner that may result in capturing or killing wildlife. Thats the other definition but couldn't find I was looking for. that makes it pretty clear. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Outdoor Writer Report post Posted February 5, 2021 5 minutes ago, Delw said: Thats the other definition but couldn't find I was looking for. that makes it pretty clear. Right. 🙄 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Outdoor Writer Report post Posted February 5, 2021 44 minutes ago, HuntHarder said: I read on here quite a bit how the vague "take" definition is easy to beat, but its been quite opposite based on what I've seen. Curious if guys are just saying its unenforceable or easy to beat online or if they have actually beat some charges. For future reference, this is where one can find ALL of the state LAWS in ARS Title 17. The commission RULES, however, are mostly found in the regulation booklet that contians the deer hunting seasons, etc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
360 0r Better Report post Posted February 6, 2021 Best and easiest solution to this problem is that if it don’t feel or seem right don’t do it. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
