Trail cams, is Nevada the first to take this position.

[Woodchuck]

I actually don't see where he says he is a long range guy, he appears to be against it, the way I read it.
At any rate the insults are gonna stop one way or another. 

He said he gets "wrapped up in" long range shooting fads etc.  Sounds to me like hes a long range enthusiast.  But maybe im interpreting that wrong.

The point is that you can have a reasonable discussion without calling in to question people's character and integrity. That has no place here.

[Bango skank]

So i misinterpereted what you said about long range hunting.  For the record, i think its lame too.  So i dont do it.  You wont catch me saying it should be illegal though.

[Rainier10]

So there you have it, I am guessing that is as close to an apology for the comments as we are going to see.

Back on topic I am all for game cameras but can see why some states are outlawing them on public ground during hunting season.  Arizona is not the first and certainly won't be the last.  If you are passionate about using them on public land it is important to stay involved in the dialogue and not let them get restricted.

[grundy53]

I enjoy trail cameras. It gets me out in the woods year round and I love the anticipation of what I'll find on them when I check them. That said, I don't check them during hunting season too much. Only because I'm usually too busy hunting.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[WAcoueshunter]

I think trails cameras are great and for the most part don't think they are a problem any more than other technology advances. 

That said, a big driver behind the regs in the Southwest is their use at water holes - imagine a water tank on the Arizona Strip, the only available water for miles, and there are 50+ cameras set up on it.  All that activity at the water hole has got to be disruptive to the herd.  I can appreciate the need to curb that to some extent.  But banning a cam in the middle of the forest?  Seems a bit over the top.

[pianoman9701]

I don't see anyone disagreeing with restricting them in the SW due to dry conditions. No one on here wants to see wildlife harmed.

[2MANY]

Outlaw the cameras and have these master hunters set their own water tanks and haul water to them.

[pianoman9701]

Huh?

[TheStovePipeKid]

So my question to the SW hunters is why on earth do you need 20 cameras at a guzzler when you know that every animal within 50 miles is going to come around at some point anyhow? Seems to me like you should be able to setup on a game path leading to the water and take your pick on what comes by.

[2MANY]

Huh?

Exactly.

[Woodchuck]

Huh?

Exactly.

Well, now that we have settled this issue...

[Ghost Hunter]

Huh?

Glad you got it too.   

[bornhunter]

OK EVERYONE! MILLER TIME! FEEL THE LOVE!

[2MANY]

Water them critters instead of relying on others.
Be part of the solution folks.
Plant fish!!!
Water deer!!!
Take pictures after the kill.
Make America great again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[blackveltbowhunter]

I am not against the use of trailcams. But I understand the logic behind restrictions in some areas. Logic. The most overlooked study in schools these days. Seems to be right up there with common sense and bigfoot in the rarity you actually see it.

  Just an observation. By their very nature trailcams are designed to monitor and "scout" without the user even being in the area. The majority of the other "technology advancements"  mentioned in in this thread have not eliminated the need for an end user to be present. A long range rifle needs a shooter, high end  optics, need an operator, gps, rangefinders, tech clothing, nice boots etc make it more comfortable, arguably more effective, but its requires a person be present. Trailcams CAN provide very important data that would often go unnoticed because the end user cannot constantly monitor X number of locations all the time. Trailcams can solve that.