Banning trail cameras in Arizona

[Buckhunter24]

This is a good article I had not come across until today. Worth a read, I cod be convinced of a 24 hr delay being a good idea.

https://www.themeateater.com/hunt/whitetail-deer/ask-wired-to-hunt-are-wireless-trail-cameras-fair-chase

States seem to have gone one of two routes, free for all or none (during hunting season).  I would guess enforcement of any rules in the middle would be nearly impossible.

Yeah there would be no way of enforcing any sort of delay like that other than honor policy

[Stein]

This is a good article I had not come across until today. Worth a read, I cod be convinced of a 24 hr delay being a good idea.

https://www.themeateater.com/hunt/whitetail-deer/ask-wired-to-hunt-are-wireless-trail-cameras-fair-chase

I agree with this and think its why a DISCUSSION is warranted so that people can hear differing opinions though some on here will refuse to listen. That doesn't mean a lot of us don't appreciate an open minded back and forth.

I listen,I read,You do realize DISCUSSIONS like this is what has lead to all of the eroding of what we do in the outdoors right?Whether it is on a forum or in private setting.Prop 90 started with discussions and opinions. 

I just read about how a group of sportsmen got together in WA and proposed and lobbied for the limit of harlequin ducks to be dropped from 7 a day to 1 a year.  By doing that, which was likely hugely unpopular, it prevented the closure of hunting them.  If the limit had stayed at 7/day, the population would have crashed and WDFW was getting ready to shut it totally down permanently.  (That's what I read, accuracy not guaranteed).

So, by having the discussion and thinking long term, hunting privileges were maintained by limiting hunting.

I think that happens quite a bit actually, both from a resource preservation perspective as well as public image.

[buckfvr]

So how do cell cameras give a hunter an advantage?

Real or perceived, they do provide an advantage or guides and others wouldn't forego the expense and time.  Some are literally running over 100 cameras.  I'm sure some people just like looking at pictures of course, but the percentage of people doing it to help their hunt has to be very high.  I'm not saying this is necessarily bad, we use advantages in hunting all the time, just the reality of them.

There are two issues, whether the advantage should be allowed and whether stuff should be left on public land.  In AZ, sounds like the latter was the issue, too much stuff left on public land and a general nuisance.

With cameras, as you noted they are already pretty much standard practice and a part of the culture for people that use them and I appreciate that position.  I am glad the drone issue was settled one way or another at the start and it's the way it should be.  Once the tech hits the market, have the conversation and the thumbs up or down before it gets widely adopted.

Seems as though you go right for the extreme end of an issue.  It can be real but most of it is perceived (imo), as I do believe most hunters tend to the casual side, have cameras, but in no way use them to their full advantage.  Here in n.e. wa., there are lots of cams (no surprise), and I know lots of owners (myself included), and by far most of the guys only dabble, and their dabbling does not translate to success.  To me, its the same as your hunting knife being construed as a murder weapon.  Sure, cams can be a real advantage, especially if its job related (guide etc.), but mostly they are for pleasure and not needed or required for hunting.

[bornhunter]

This is not another bash on other user groups! This is about another state banning a tool (on public land) for hunting that many of us in this state also use. I was curious about what folks think?

See what you did? Its all your fault 

What is your next topic started going to be? Corner crossing? Dummy Camps?   

Gosh I know. I know! Unless you get the vaccine shot you cannot get a hunting license. And you have to prove you got the shot by having the injection caught on a trail camera.

[Stein]

So how do cell cameras give a hunter an advantage?

Real or perceived, they do provide an advantage or guides and others wouldn't forego the expense and time.  Some are literally running over 100 cameras.  I'm sure some people just like looking at pictures of course, but the percentage of people doing it to help their hunt has to be very high.  I'm not saying this is necessarily bad, we use advantages in hunting all the time, just the reality of them.

There are two issues, whether the advantage should be allowed and whether stuff should be left on public land.  In AZ, sounds like the latter was the issue, too much stuff left on public land and a general nuisance.

With cameras, as you noted they are already pretty much standard practice and a part of the culture for people that use them and I appreciate that position.  I am glad the drone issue was settled one way or another at the start and it's the way it should be.  Once the tech hits the market, have the conversation and the thumbs up or down before it gets widely adopted.

Seems as though you go right for the extreme end of an issue.  It can be real but most of it is perceived (imo), as I do believe most hunters tend to the casual side, have cameras, but in no way use them to their full advantage.  Here in n.e. wa., there are lots of cams (no surprise), and I know lots of owners (myself included), and by far most of the guys only dabble, and their dabbling does not translate to success.  To me, its the same as your hunting knife being construed as a murder weapon.  Sure, cams can be a real advantage, especially if its job related (guide etc.), but mostly they are for pleasure and not needed or required for hunting.

Very well could be true.  My experience is pretty limited, I own one camera from a failed attempt to catch a thief after break ins at my in-laws garage.  I used it on two separate hunts about 3 and 4 years ago to help pattern elk in an area of interest.  One time I found they were using a meadow, but only in the morning.  The other time, I found they had vacated an area I had seen them in, so I didn't spend any more time hunting that particular area.

I felt they gave me essentially a second set of eyes.  I was solo hunting and could hunt one area at daylight and know what was going on in a second area.  I have no idea if that's the "best" way to use them or if I got lucky or they were really a benefit.  Both instances were timed photos of a meadow which showed whether the elk were there or not and the approximate times they were coming and going.  They weren't live, I had to go pull the cards and hope the future looked like the past.

If you can get live infrared images from a field 2 hours before hunting light, that seems pretty advantageous, especially since it would be illegal to use night vision if it wasn't on a camera.

Again, I'm not saying the simple fact of an advantage means they should be banned, just arguing they give an advantage that should be thoughtfully considered as any new tech comes to market.

[jrebel]

So how do cell cameras give a hunter an advantage?

Real or perceived, they do provide an advantage or guides and others wouldn't forego the expense and time.  Some are literally running over 100 cameras.  I'm sure some people just like looking at pictures of course, but the percentage of people doing it to help their hunt has to be very high.  I'm not saying this is necessarily bad, we use advantages in hunting all the time, just the reality of them.

There are two issues, whether the advantage should be allowed and whether stuff should be left on public land.  In AZ, sounds like the latter was the issue, too much stuff left on public land and a general nuisance.

With cameras, as you noted they are already pretty much standard practice and a part of the culture for people that use them and I appreciate that position.  I am glad the drone issue was settled one way or another at the start and it's the way it should be.  Once the tech hits the market, have the conversation and the thumbs up or down before it gets widely adopted.

Seems as though you go right for the extreme end of an issue.  It can be real but most of it is perceived (imo), as I do believe most hunters tend to the casual side, have cameras, but in no way use them to their full advantage.  Here in n.e. wa., there are lots of cams (no surprise), and I know lots of owners (myself included), and by far most of the guys only dabble, and their dabbling does not translate to success.  To me, its the same as your hunting knife being construed as a murder weapon.  Sure, cams can be a real advantage, especially if its job related (guide etc.), but mostly they are for pleasure and not needed or required for hunting.

Very well could be true.  My experience is pretty limited, I own one camera from a failed attempt to catch a thief after break ins at my in-laws garage.  I used it on two separate hunts about 3 and 4 years ago to help pattern elk in an area of interest.  One time I found they were using a meadow, but only in the morning.  The other time, I found they had vacated an area I had seen them in, so I didn't spend any more time hunting that particular area.

I felt they gave me essentially a second set of eyes.  I was solo hunting and could hunt one area at daylight and know what was going on in a second area.  I have no idea if that's the "best" way to use them or if I got lucky or they were really a benefit.  Both instances were timed photos of a meadow which showed whether the elk were there or not and the approximate times they were coming and going.  They weren't live, I had to go pull the cards and hope the future looked like the past.

If you can get live infrared images from a field 2 hours before hunting light, that seems pretty advantageous, especially since it would be illegal to use night vision if it wasn't on a camera.

Again, I'm not saying the simple fact of an advantage means they should be banned, just arguing they give an advantage that should be thoughtfully considered as any new tech comes to market.

I find this prospective only focuses on the perceived advantage, "second set of eyes", "patterning game", etc...  and turns those advantages into a negative (if that makes sense).  Assuming you are correct, having this "second set of eyes", and "patterning game" has been a positive in the fact that I know what is out there.  My harvest rates have gone down because I am willing to pass on the smaller (dumber) bucks looking for the larger bucks thus growing the herd.  It has also allowed me to pass on bears that are sows with or w/out cubs, that otherwise would be shot because in the NE the brush is so thick that when you see one it is hard to tell what is around them.  Being able to see this game year round is a positive in my mind and if used correctly (key words) can actually benefit our herds. 

Am I wrong?? 

[2MANY]

If cameras are outlawed only outlaws will have cameras.

[vandeman17]

So how do cell cameras give a hunter an advantage?

Real or perceived, they do provide an advantage or guides and others wouldn't forego the expense and time.  Some are literally running over 100 cameras.  I'm sure some people just like looking at pictures of course, but the percentage of people doing it to help their hunt has to be very high.  I'm not saying this is necessarily bad, we use advantages in hunting all the time, just the reality of them.

There are two issues, whether the advantage should be allowed and whether stuff should be left on public land.  In AZ, sounds like the latter was the issue, too much stuff left on public land and a general nuisance.

With cameras, as you noted they are already pretty much standard practice and a part of the culture for people that use them and I appreciate that position.  I am glad the drone issue was settled one way or another at the start and it's the way it should be.  Once the tech hits the market, have the conversation and the thumbs up or down before it gets widely adopted.

Seems as though you go right for the extreme end of an issue.  It can be real but most of it is perceived (imo), as I do believe most hunters tend to the casual side, have cameras, but in no way use them to their full advantage.  Here in n.e. wa., there are lots of cams (no surprise), and I know lots of owners (myself included), and by far most of the guys only dabble, and their dabbling does not translate to success.  To me, its the same as your hunting knife being construed as a murder weapon.  Sure, cams can be a real advantage, especially if its job related (guide etc.), but mostly they are for pleasure and not needed or required for hunting.

Very well could be true.  My experience is pretty limited, I own one camera from a failed attempt to catch a thief after break ins at my in-laws garage.  I used it on two separate hunts about 3 and 4 years ago to help pattern elk in an area of interest.  One time I found they were using a meadow, but only in the morning.  The other time, I found they had vacated an area I had seen them in, so I didn't spend any more time hunting that particular area.

I felt they gave me essentially a second set of eyes.  I was solo hunting and could hunt one area at daylight and know what was going on in a second area.  I have no idea if that's the "best" way to use them or if I got lucky or they were really a benefit.  Both instances were timed photos of a meadow which showed whether the elk were there or not and the approximate times they were coming and going.  They weren't live, I had to go pull the cards and hope the future looked like the past.

If you can get live infrared images from a field 2 hours before hunting light, that seems pretty advantageous, especially since it would be illegal to use night vision if it wasn't on a camera.

Again, I'm not saying the simple fact of an advantage means they should be banned, just arguing they give an advantage that should be thoughtfully considered as any new tech comes to market.

I find this prospective only focuses on the perceived advantage, "second set of eyes", "patterning game", etc...  and turns those advantages into a negative (if that makes sense).  Assuming you are correct, having this "second set of eyes", and "patterning game" has been a positive in the fact that I know what is out there.  My harvest rates have gone down because I am willing to pass on the smaller (dumber) bucks looking for the larger bucks thus growing the herd.  It has also allowed me to pass on bears that are sows with or w/out cubs, that otherwise would be shot because in the NE the brush is so thick that when you see one it is hard to tell what is around them.  Being able to see this game year round is a positive in my mind and if used correctly (key words) can actually benefit our herds. 

Am I wrong??

I think majority on here are ok with the normal sd card based camera which is a little different than the topic of the thread of banning all of them in Arizona. I have ran them for many many years and its as much a hobby as it is for hunting. Majority of mine are actually in locations I don't or can't hunt but I just like seeing what is out there. The ones that are in areas I hunt have not "improved" my success from what I can tell but that also isn't the intent of running them.

Cell cams do present a different set of options and that is why I think an open discussion is warranted. First thing that comes to mind that COULD improve my success using them would be to have a series of them at different bait sites on the ridge that I am hunting. While sitting in my stand, I could somewhat be hunting multiple spots at once. I know this is a very specific example but it is just that, an example of what I PERSONALLY feel is a bit of an unfair advantage. Cell cameras have their uses for sure, I just am unsure I agree with them being used, at least during hunting season.

[jrebel]

I think I could be convinced cell cams are not a good idea during hunting seasons.  Imagine sitting in a blind on a food plot and be alarmed when deer are coming in off trails prior to their arrival.  Gives the hunter real time knowledge of events that "may" give an unfair advantage to the hunter.  I would be hard pressed to say they couldn't be used during the off season. 

[vandeman17]

I think I could be convinced cell cams are not a good idea during hunting seasons.  Imagine sitting in a blind on a food plot and be alarmed when deer are coming in off trails prior to their arrival.  Gives the hunter real time knowledge of events that "may" give an unfair advantage to the hunter.  I would be hard pressed to say they couldn't be used during the off season.

That is my stance as well. Hard part is that it is super tough to enforce 

[jrebel]

I think I could be convinced cell cams are not a good idea during hunting seasons.  Imagine sitting in a blind on a food plot and be alarmed when deer are coming in off trails prior to their arrival.  Gives the hunter real time knowledge of events that "may" give an unfair advantage to the hunter.  I would be hard pressed to say they couldn't be used during the off season.

That is my stance as well. Hard part is that it is super tough to enforce 

Once caught it would be super easy to enforce.  Subpoena the phone records and locations....these cameras leave a digital trail that would be a prosecutors dream.  Just depends on how many resources they want to dedicate to these cases.  Also, how would prove that the camera was not being used for security purposes if on private land.  Public land....not so much.  This could be a separate topic / post all together.   

[fishngamereaper]

90 percent of my cam soak locations don't have  cell service...so am I off the hook.

[Oh Mah]

So how do cell cameras give a hunter an advantage?

Real or perceived, they do provide an advantage or guides and others wouldn't forego the expense and time.  Some are literally running over 100 cameras.  I'm sure some people just like looking at pictures of course, but the percentage of people doing it to help their hunt has to be very high.  I'm not saying this is necessarily bad, we use advantages in hunting all the time, just the reality of them.

There are two issues, whether the advantage should be allowed and whether stuff should be left on public land.  In AZ, sounds like the latter was the issue, too much stuff left on public land and a general nuisance.

With cameras, as you noted they are already pretty much standard practice and a part of the culture for people that use them and I appreciate that position.  I am glad the drone issue was settled one way or another at the start and it's the way it should be.  Once the tech hits the market, have the conversation and the thumbs up or down before it gets widely adopted.

Seems as though you go right for the extreme end of an issue.  It can be real but most of it is perceived (imo), as I do believe most hunters tend to the casual side, have cameras, but in no way use them to their full advantage.  Here in n.e. wa., there are lots of cams (no surprise), and I know lots of owners (myself included), and by far most of the guys only dabble, and their dabbling does not translate to success.  To me, its the same as your hunting knife being construed as a murder weapon.  Sure, cams can be a real advantage, especially if its job related (guide etc.), but mostly they are for pleasure and not needed or required for hunting.

Very well could be true.  My experience is pretty limited, I own one camera from a failed attempt to catch a thief after break ins at my in-laws garage.  I used it on two separate hunts about 3 and 4 years ago to help pattern elk in an area of interest.  One time I found they were using a meadow, but only in the morning.  The other time, I found they had vacated an area I had seen them in, so I didn't spend any more time hunting that particular area.

I felt they gave me essentially a second set of eyes.  I was solo hunting and could hunt one area at daylight and know what was going on in a second area.  I have no idea if that's the "best" way to use them or if I got lucky or they were really a benefit.  Both instances were timed photos of a meadow which showed whether the elk were there or not and the approximate times they were coming and going.  They weren't live, I had to go pull the cards and hope the future looked like the past.

If you can get live infrared images from a field 2 hours before hunting light, that seems pretty advantageous, especially since it would be illegal to use night vision if it wasn't on a camera.

Again, I'm not saying the simple fact of an advantage means they should be banned, just arguing they give an advantage that should be thoughtfully considered as any new tech comes to market.

I find this prospective only focuses on the perceived advantage, "second set of eyes", "patterning game", etc...  and turns those advantages into a negative (if that makes sense).  Assuming you are correct, having this "second set of eyes", and "patterning game" has been a positive in the fact that I know what is out there.  My harvest rates have gone down because I am willing to pass on the smaller (dumber) bucks looking for the larger bucks thus growing the herd.  It has also allowed me to pass on bears that are sows with or w/out cubs, that otherwise would be shot because in the NE the brush is so thick that when you see one it is hard to tell what is around them.  Being able to see this game year round is a positive in my mind and if used correctly (key words) can actually benefit our herds. 

Am I wrong??

I think majority on here are ok with the normal sd card based camera which is a little different than the topic of the thread of banning all of them in Arizona. I have ran them for many many years and its as much a hobby as it is for hunting. Majority of mine are actually in locations I don't or can't hunt but I just like seeing what is out there. The ones that are in areas I hunt have not "improved" my success from what I can tell but that also isn't the intent of running them.

Cell cams do present a different set of options and that is why I think an open discussion is warranted. First thing that comes to mind that COULD improve my success using them would be to have a series of them at different bait sites on the ridge that I am hunting. While sitting in my stand, I could somewhat be hunting multiple spots at once. I know this is a very specific example but it is just that, an example of what I PERSONALLY feel is a bit of an unfair advantage. Cell cameras have their uses for sure, I just am unsure I agree with them being used, at least during hunting season.

Sorry but i don't see the topic being banning new high tech trail cams,What i see is banning all trail cams during hunting season then all together then on public land.nice to see it going in that direction though.

[Stein]

I think I could be convinced cell cams are not a good idea during hunting seasons.  Imagine sitting in a blind on a food plot and be alarmed when deer are coming in off trails prior to their arrival.  Gives the hunter real time knowledge of events that "may" give an unfair advantage to the hunter.  I would be hard pressed to say they couldn't be used during the off season.

That is my stance as well. Hard part is that it is super tough to enforce 

Driving on closed roads seems super tough to enforce....

The wording would have to be careful to cover instances of cell cameras with the cell portion disabled or used in areas without coverage or even never activated with no service to provide clarity on what is allowed and what is not.

It would not be easy to enforce, likely one of those violations that is almost always stacked on something else after an investigation and search.

I think the same could be said of game cameras in general where they are banned during hunting season.  Not too hard to walk in, look at the pics and walk out, nobody knows who owns the camera and not likely Mr. or Mrs. Warden is going for a hike out in the woods far from a road to stakeout a camera hoping the owner will happen to check it while they are there. 

Like many laws, probably tamps it down by 80%.

[Katmai Guy]

 

90 percent of my cam soak locations don't have  cell service...so am I off the hook.