Arizona Decides Trail Cameras Violate Fair Chase; Slap Hunters with Country’s First Full Cam Ban

RetiredUSNChief said:

How, exactly, do trail cams "violate fair chase"?

Click to expand...

Local warden was telling me that many states are revisiting the use of trail cams because of the new cellular models. A person positions several trail cams around their stand. You sit in your stand and then get a alert when a deer passes by, thus alerting you to where the animal is coming from long before you can see them with you eyes. Out west you place several cams over a large amount of area where you know deer/elk move thru. Sit in your car and wait for an alert from your phone and then drive to that area and proceed to stalk the animal/animals.

Many states already have laws on the books prohibiting the use of cell phones/walkie talkies for the taking of game. While they are legal to ask "was that you that shot?" or "I'm cold and going back to the cabin!", but the minute you call your hunting buddy in the blind on the other side of the hill to say "you got a nice buck coming right at ya!", it's illegal.

buck460XVR said:

You sit in your stand and then get a alert when a deer passes by, thus alerting you to where the animal is coming from long before you can see them with you eyes.

Click to expand...

Getting rid of cameras won’t fix that problem. Back when game cameras used 35mm film I built game radios that alerted me to movement at a location up to several miles away. “Pet lenses” keep them from alerting due to small animals.

On private land, it’s going to be real hard to prove intent. Especially if you have a sign by your gate warning would be trespassers that the property is under surveillance.

They are just security cameras at that point.

Also as @jmorris is showing, if you are using them specifically for hog hunting/culling, what is so wrong about that? You can already hunt them year round and at night with any weapon on private land (in most places). Why ban cameras in that instance. I do think hogs aren’t as much of a problem in AZ as they are in TX and the SE.

Then again, I am not so sure this law was made pertaining to private land hunters so much.

The ban will go into effect on January 1, 2022. Trail cameras used for general wildlife photography, research, cattle management or any reason other than hunting will remain legal.

Click to expand...

https://mountainlion.org/2021/06/14...rail-cameras-for-aiding-the-take-of-wildlife/

That’s quite the burden of proof they made for themselves.

I am pretty sure most people that own one could classify their reason as “research”.

Reminds me of this one.

“What this issue comes down to for me is the issue of fair chase,” said Commissioner Clay Hernandez from Tucson…. If we are out scouting, glassing, hiking or shed hunting, we are out in the habitat and we are providing scent, movement, patterns and sound, all of which the animals we are seeking or scouting can make use of with their resources and instincts. If we are not out there and it is just a camera, we are silent. It is that that I don’t believe constitutes fair chase.”

Click to expand...

Am I to assume the next law is to actually have to actually chase the animals, “fairly”? I mean, shooting them from any distance or clubbing them would obviously be not fair, they lack the skills and equipment to shoot back or opposable thumbs to also carry a club. They are fast though so I’d put odds on them in a “fair chase”. Should level the playing field…..

Same thing goes for remotely fishing by using an all but invisible line to hold a hook one tries to conceal in bait. In an attempt to unfairly capture a fish that would run away if the evil human made it a fair chase and just hopped into the water with them and went after them like a bear does salmon….

jmorris said:

Getting rid of cameras won’t fix that problem. Back when game cameras used 35mm film I built game radios that alerted me to movement at a location up to several miles away. “Pet lenses” keep them from alerting due to small animals.

Click to expand...

earlthegoat2 said:

On private land, it’s going to be real hard to prove intent.

Click to expand...

I agree, stopping their use and proving intent will be difficult, probably why Arizona is banning all uses of them. No proving of any intent. Just having them in place would be intent.

George P said:

Never saw a deer stand out West - few trees to use where I lived anyway. it was scout weeks before hand and then spot and stalk during the season. If you knew your area, you knew where the seeps and springs were, bedding and feeding areas, etc.

Click to expand...

My post was to show two different scenarios, as most of us know well that hunting deer out west is different than east of the Mississippi. Scouting used to be the norm. At first, game cams were and in most situations, just a tool for scouting. It's when they become a tool for the "taking" of game that it gets muddled.

Folks here seem to love to "shoot the messenger". I have not stated any preference for or against game cams, only what I was told about them from the local warden. "Fair chase" is an ethics thing and we all know how hunting ethics varies tremendously from one hunter to another. If it's legal, go for it. When it's not, follow the law.

jmorris said:

Maybe someone in Arizona was mad that they legalized recreational use of drugs our Federal Government still hold as illegal, then again, maybe they are already hooked on it…..

Click to expand...

That has to be it ...

Does AZ have speed and red light cameras? Curious.

I am running 9 cameras year round on our hunting property and they have been a great aid in managing the property my family has. The ability to monitor the health of the deer, turkey, coyote, bobcat, etc populations has been helpful to that management. I am not sure I agree that cameras effect fair chase at least not here in the south east. I do know they are a good management and security tool for my hunting property and would be sorely missed if I could not use them for those purposes.

buck460XVR said:

I agree, stopping their use and proving intent will be difficult, probably why Arizona is banning all uses of them. No proving of any intent. Just having them in place would be intent.

Click to expand...

That would certainly make it less subjective and leave less room for selective enforcement.

Was there a rule change after this one?

https://azgfd-portal-wordpress-pant...Final-Rulemaking-Trail-Camera-Prohibition.pdf

From page 10 section a,

Trail cameras used for general wildlife viewing, research, and/or home or camp security are not affected by this rulemaking.

Click to expand...

I think, as a law abiding citizen I would go out and get more trail cameras and put them up with the intent of capturing an image of people putting up cameras trying to get an unfair advantage over animals or other humans…

And page 14,

o. …The proposed rule will make it unlawful to use a trail camera for the purpose of hunting. Viewing images taken with a trail camera for the purpose of nonconsumptive recreation will remain lawful.

p. … The proposed regulations only apply to trail cameras that are used for the purposes of take. The general use of a trail camera will remain legal as long as no images or data are used to aid in the take of wildlife as defined under A.R.S. § 17-101. General uses include but are not limited to the use of trail cameras for research, wildlife management, and individual photography.

Click to expand...

Page 18-19,

h. A number of comments state the prohibition on the use of trail cameras should also apply to the use of trail cameras for photography purposes.
NFRM - 18

Agency Response: The Department disagrees. The Commission authority to regulate the use of trail cameras is limited to their use for the purpose of taking wildlife. Because photography does not meet the definition of take, it is not within the Commission’s authority to prohibit.

Click to expand...

Page 19, seems like they wouldn’t even prohibit my implementation of them.

i. The Commission does not intend to prohibit or restrict the use of trail cameras when used by a trapper who is monitoring a live trap….

Click to expand...

That has to be it ...

Click to expand...

Tongue and cheek comment on their decision making process. As far as what drove the decision. Couldn’t even keep it on track in the same document. They start off on page 3 with this,

The Commission believes the reason the rule exists is to prohibit those devices and methods that compromise the spirit of fair chase. "Fair Chase" means the ethical and lawful pursuit and take of free-range wildlife in a manner that does not give the hunter or angler improper or unfair advantage over such wildlife.

Click to expand...

So it’s for the wildlife and making it “fair” for them.

Then acknowledge they have no evidence that cameras do have any effect on “fair chase” and it’s not about the animals.

t. A number of comments state trail cameras do not help a hunter harvest an animal; while other comments state trail cameras increase their odds of taking an animal.
Agency Response: The Department takes no position on this issue. The proposed rule is intended to address the divisive and social aspects of trail cameras used for the purpose of hunting.

Click to expand...

Go even further on page 12, showing that using technology to gain an advantage in taking fish is OK, as they choose to stay. I guess they think animals are either shot or trapped by a camera and can’t move as someone approaches..? However, they to throw out a little nugget of truth at the end, what others object to.

g. A number of comments ask if this same logic applied to trail cameras should be applied to fish finders.
Agency Response: No. The Commission chose not to prohibit the use of fish finders because an angler would still need to get the fish to take/bite the bait. The fish can choose to stay in place and ignore the bait, while terrestrial wildlife need only be in the vicinity of the trail camera to be taken. The public generally does not object to the use of fish finders for these and other reasons.

Click to expand...

Then on page 13, they drop the “fair chase” part all together and say what they really want.

The proposed rule is intended to address the divisive and social aspects of trail cameras used for the purpose of hunting and is neither supported nor contradicted by science.

Click to expand...

So it’s not a fact based, “fair” decision, it’s a “because I said so” decision.

I can’t say, as a parent, that I have never been tired of “noise” and taken away a toy from a child because two couldn’t play together with one toy. Funny thing is that both kids considered that unfair and I guess it was but I had the authority and power to make it happen…and they didn’t even get to vote me into that position.

"The proposed rule is intended to address the divisive and social aspects of trail cameras used for the purpose of hunting..."

"Divisive and social aspects" Could that smell any more anti? Would love to see their deliberations and what input from anti's prompted this.

Not much of a trail cam fan, nor a fan of long-range shooting (ain't hunting), or in-line muzzleloaders, or lots of things. Just a grouchy old fart, thinking that my predecessors didn't need cameras, 600 yard shots, pelletized "powder", and such, so I don't. Never have liked the trail cams for hunting, though, because it seemed like cheating. I guess I was envious, back in the day when I was raising kids I hardly had two spare quarters to rub together, and couldn't afford a gizmo like a trail cam while my coworkers were getting their deer and elk every year, depending in part on that said camera. I can't quite equate a trail cam with a Texas corn feeder and a pile of apples, but I simply never have liked them.

It's rumored the real reason for the ban was because the government did not want people recording videos of illegal aliens crossing.


Not sure though.

Reading the link jmorris posted, it appears Arizona gave this quite a bit of thought. When one is talking about hunting as a sport, the quality of the hunt and the opportunities for all to have an equal chance at game, is a major factor in today's modern game management plans. Nuttin' I read anywhere smells of "anti" nor is it a example of trying to reduce hunter numbers. Since this thread started, I have seen two instances of where Trail Cams are intentionally being used to actively "take" game. One was on a T.V. show with a well known celebrity hunter. Spotting and stalking Mule deer out west. Had a bunch of trail cams spread over many hundreds of acres and when they received a "alert" on their phone, would hustle to the truck and drive over there quick....if the buck was big enough. Much of the footage included watching them, "watch" their phone. They even talked about how much more area they could cover more efficiently. Last weekend while down on the property maintaining food plots, the neighbor came by and told me how "ain't no deer gettin' by me this year! I'm puttin out half a dozen cell cams around my stand to alert me to whenever a deer is coming in my direction!". Both are prime examples of what Arizona is trying to prevent. Both are prime examples of how impossible it would be to prevent, if trail cams are legal during the active hunting season. Both are prime examples of technology, because of deep pockets, tipping the scale.

buck460XVR said:

Both are prime examples of what Arizona is trying to prevent. Both are prime examples of technology, because of deep pockets, tipping the scale.

Click to expand...

If that was the goal they would have just eliminated cellular cameras for any reason and not left the burned of proof on the State to prove what intent the camera was set for. Not only that they didn’t ban any signaling devices just cellular game cameras. Nowhere in the rule is there even mention of things like live feed webcam. So at most it’s a feel good measure that still doesn’t take away advantages except to those that can’t afford more expensive alternatives.

Are high fenced “game ranches” also illegal in AZ? What about hunting guides that take you to the animals they have already done the work of locating? Both might also be more accessible to those with deep pockets but can tip the scale for sure.

I suppose private land owners being forced to allow everyone no cost hunting access would level the playing field for everyone, are we for that?

jmorris said:

If that was the goal they would have just eliminated cellular cameras for any reason and not left the burned of proof on the State to prove what intent the camera was set for.

Click to expand...

My assumption is, the state doesn't want to penalize those that never used them for the "taking" of game, nor are they telling folks that have invested monies in them' that they now can't be used at all., even for the benign taking of pictures, that has nuttin' to do, with again, the "taking" of game.

jmorris said:

Not only that they didn’t ban any signaling devices just cellular game cameras.

Click to expand...

Does a signaling device know the species and the size of the rack without taking pictures? Would signaling devices be in use as widespread as cell trail cameras?

jmorris said:

Nowhere in the rule is there even mention of things like live feed webcam.

Click to expand...

I would think that a live webcam would amount to the same as a trailcam, if used in the woods for the purpose of videoing game. Many of the newest cellular trail cams are just that, a live webcam. Odds are that someone will challenge the definition of a trail cam and at some point there may be a change.

jmorris said:

So at most it’s a feel good measure that still doesn’t take away advantages except to those that can’t afford more expensive alternatives.

Click to expand...

Technology is changing fast. There will always be something that folks will seek out to give them an advantage. Drones are illegal for the most part for the "taking" of game and they seem to be the only "more expensive" alternative to multiple cellular cameras. Few years back neither was around, nor were either used for the taking of game. Now they are and now they are being outlawed. What does that say about how wildlife managers feel about the use of high tech and hunting?

You need to take your arguments up with Arizona Game and Fish. I personally don't have a dog in this fight as I do not depend on high tech to aid me in the "taking" of game. Just don't feel the need. I am not arguing for or against the Arizona ban, just stating why I think they are considering the ban. I dunno, I may be entirely off base. Just going on what my local Warden told me. Now I do use game cams in the off season to see what made it thru for next year and to see what active trails the deer are using. But mine are the basic type that have to be checked by physically going out and pulling cards. No live feeds. I also use to help our DNR monitor the elk population in the area since they were reintroduced and that basically consisted of pulling cards and looking at thousands of trail cam pictures to see how the herd was doing. Both are useful tools that are not used for the "taking" of game. Seems that is the defining term.......

Good questions, like any rules/laws, there are people that follow them to the letter but the ones that wrote them don’t get what they really wanted out of them because they didn’t really know how to right them.

I don’t have any dog in the fight either, just the Libertarian in me that dislikes people telling others what they can and can’t to on their own property with their own property.

I also question intent, we know it’s not to be “fair”, they even go as far to say the decision isn’t based on any science. In one sentence they say camera users are not providing an environmental impact the animals can react to, then a few paragraphs later they say camera users are impacting the environment too much, going to and from the cameras. Which is it? Seems to be people that hold different opinions on their use and I get that. Instead of allowing everyone to retain their freedom of choice, 5 guys end the divisiveness by just forcing everyone to do what they want.

I guess I am just getting old and do not like people that continue to take away freedoms I enjoy. I suppose, I am still grumpy when they do it to others but less so.

jmorris said:

5 guys end the divisiveness by just forcing everyone to do what they want.

I guess I am just getting old and do not like people that continue to take away freedoms I enjoy. I suppose, I am still grumpy when they do it to others but less so.

Click to expand...

From your link, again, it seems the G&F considered the opinions of many and then weighed those thoughts along with their own to make the decision. For a coupla decades, our DNR has been trying to push a earlier start to and a longer season for gun deer. Heavy opposition from the strong bowhunting population and folks that have grown up with the traditional 9 day season over the Thanksgiving week has keep the season very close to what it has been for the last century, even tho science tells us it's not the best. Baiting for eons was banned here until public criticism and the countless number of folks that ignored the banned forced the DNR to open up baiting. Then when CWD came around and science dictated to closure in CWD areas, they had a legitimate argument to close it down again. Again, I don;t know how well the G&F is thought of in Arizona. I know, even with all the criticism and second guessing the public does about our DNR, they do a pretty dang good job, overall. While I might not agree with all of their rules and regs.....I respect and follow them. I think for the most part, the majority of others do too. There will always be the percentage that feels entitled or that get a thrill outta filling their tag while violating that will do what they want, especially when it comes to rules that are hard to enforce. Many of those are folks that own their own hunting land and feel they should be able to do what they want. I know for a act that our DNR knows this and adjusts rules and bag limits accordingly. But they still do a good job of pleasing the majority of hunters and non-hunters alike when it comes to the management of game and non-game animals. Hard to please everybody. All we can really hope for.

I like that law . I wish they would outlaw gps collars on deer hounds in Virginia along with the cameras . The deer hunters around me fly up the road in there trucks trying to cutoff the dogs and jump out of their trucks and shoot . IMO that is not fair chase nor safe and I am a deer hunter .

buck460XVR said:

From your link, again, it seems the G&F considered the opinions of many and then weighed those thoughts along with their own to make the decision….But they still do a good job of pleasing the majority of hunters and non-hunters alike…

Click to expand...

From the meeting they held and comment period earlier this year, it doesn’t seem like a majority or even a plurality held the same opinion.

An overflow crowd of Rim Country residents each took their two minutes at the microphone during the Arizona Game and Fish Department Commission meeting in Payson on June 11.

Most of them were hunters who wanted the five commissioners to hear why they opposed a ban on trail cameras for the purpose of taking or aiding in the take of wildlife statewide.

Applause broke out as most finished their remarks defending the use of trail cameras during the public comment session that also featured others calling on the phone and lasted about 2½ hours during the commission meeting at Quality Inn.

Of the 49 people who called in or voiced their opinion in person, 31 urged the commission not to ban trail cameras and only 18 supported the move.

Click to expand...

https://www.paysonroundup.com/outdo...cle_d616c5b2-09d0-5663-876f-f5715e51a4a0.html

That was a larger portion against than earlier this year but what they had proposed in December was not a complete ban of all cameras either.

January 1, 2021 through February 1, 2021 public comments related to the language proposed in December:

• 2,742 total public comments
• 1,200 opposed the proposed ban

Click to expand...

https://www.gohunt.com/read/news/ar...amendment-regulate-trail-camera-use#gs.4pqf09

Those comments were when they were just after cellular cameras but allowed SD card based ones.

"Live-action trail camera" means an unmanned device capable of transmitting images, still photographs, video, or satellite imagery, wirelessly to a remote device such as but not limited to a computer, smart phone, or tablet. This does not include a trail camera that only records photographic or video data and stores the data for later use, provided the device is not capable of transmitting data wirelessly.

Click to expand...

The above was removed p.25, thus the even greater opposition.

https://azgfd-portal-wordpress-pant...Final-Rulemaking-Trail-Camera-Prohibition.pdf

Doesn’t really matter, it is what it is, now. Those who had used them to “take” game will either comply or just change their use of them to follow the rules as written. Then it’s just a matter of not using the information received to “take” game and break the law.

Are fish finders allowed in AZ? Same logic.

My bet is on the negative PR game camera pictures of illegal aliens passing through.

desidog said:

My bet is on the negative PR game camera pictures of illegal aliens passing through.

Click to expand...

I'd take that bet.
Arizona is a big state and the border is only a very small part.
Arizona being a "red" state, one would tend to think they would want pics of illegal aliens to justify the "wall".
Again, technology used for hunting and fishing is developing faster than rules can be written for it. Fish Finders/Underwater cams can and do aid in the taking of fish. One only has to be on the ice and watch folks using their Vexilars to see this. I too believe the logic is the same, is some scenarios. Again, I am not taking a stand for or against the new rules in Arizona, just trying to realistically understand their reasoning.

g. A number of comments ask if this same logic applied to trail cameras should be applied to fish finders.
Agency Response: No. The Commission chose not to prohibit the use of fish finders because an angler would still need to get the fish to take/bite the bait. The fish can choose to stay in place and ignore the bait, while terrestrial wildlife need only be in the vicinity of the trail camera to be taken. The public generally does not object to the use of fish finders for these and other reasons.

Click to expand...

https://azgfd-portal-wordpress-pant...Final-Rulemaking-Trail-Camera-Prohibition.pdf

I guess they think the only way to catch a fish is if it decides to bite bait on a hook and that makes it the fishes fault. Also seem to assume that an animal in the vicinity of a game camera is as good as dead, unable to move away as danger approaches like the much smarter and cautious fish species.

RetiredUSNChief said:

How, exactly, do trail cams "violate fair chase"?

Click to expand...

Remember that 'fair chase' is absolutely arbitrarily defined. Some people and laws couch it in the guise of fairness between hunters and others in fairness to the quarry, the latter of which I see nothing that we do as being fair to the quarry. Arizona seems to be using both lines of consideration. According to their fish and game people, game cams have become a matter of contention between hunters on the issues of placement and use thereof. Also, Arizona is in a huge drought and resources are concentrating around water holes (as were game cameras) basically resulting in hunters not only knowing when and what game was showing up, but routes of ingress and egress...basically gathering lots of knowledge needed for successful hunting without actually doing it while hunting...while not even being present. The result is a whole lot less spot and stalk and a whole lot more plot and snipe.