bowhunter4life

I completely disagree... Have you pre scouted before your hunt?? Ask any hunter who puts the time in to scout and show up a few days before the opening day. Sitting a mile a way glassing with their Binos and learning where they are in the morning, where they bed and where they end up during the evening. Once opening day hits- they are like clock work and have no chance to elude detection and will overwhelm them when the bullet hits them! Now throw in the new exciting long range shooting... These critters have zero chance to elude detection and will be harvested due to the diligence of hunters whom did their homework. 1300 cameras from the Strip, one outfitter.. really? I had the strip tag and hunted it (without an outfitter but with friends) and there is no way that is truth! I hunted numerous water sources without a camera on it!

This was a personal agenda based on their idea of fair chase...... AZGFD controls all tags, manages success rate of bowhunters (20% harvest of rifle hunters- season closes deer) - just look at all the closed units this year- harvest will always be roughly the same for all big game animals, as they issue and manage each year all tag allocations based on hunter success and unit conditions. Just look at the history over a time... For me the biggest disappointment and was truly disgusting as a Sportsman who values open minded discussions and conservation through the North American model. Witnessing each commissioner pull out and a read their pre-written statements of excuses why fair chase was needed to help wildlife and vote the complete ban of trail camera - Yuck!! Almost made made me throw up sitting there witnessing it. I lost all respect for the commission as the open public comment discussion was just a process and was on death ears and their facial expressions showed . Additionally, The Emergency rule to open the rule making to the Governor was requested to protect the lives of sportsman and fellow citizens. Not once did they address public safety. Looks like Sir Royal was correct- the trail camera ban was a self created political agenda..... What am I missing here..... All they talked about was Fair chase with the new definition. Its interesting as all technologies will guide in a quarry's ability to elude detection- What is overwhelmed mean?? Since I use my 15x 56 swaro and spot n stalk and harvest the javelina, deer or elk... looks like I am now guilty as the critter was not able to elude detection? I found it and went and harvested it with a valid tag....... Yup a bit frustrated.... Fair Chase is the ethical, sportsmanlike and lawful pursuit and taking of free-range wildlife in a manner that does not give a hunter or an angler improper or unfair advantage over such wildlife. Fair Chase has been embraced as the proper conduct of a sportsman/sportswoman in the field and has been taught to new hunters for more than a century. It pays respect to the traditions of hunting and angling by emphasizing the development of an individual’s skills rather than reliance on practices or technologies that overwhelm the quarry’s ability to elude detection or take. In many situations, Fair Chase is not something that is enforceable by law. Rather it should be guided by each person’s own ethical compass, which compels them to do the right thing when no one else is watching—even when doing the wrong thing is legal. AZGFD

The official report Ty E. Gray, Director FROM: Tom Finley, Deputy Director TF PRESENTER: Larry Phoenix, FOR2 Regional Supervisor TITLE: Request to Approve Notice of Final Rulemaking and Economic Impact Statement Amending Rules Within Article 3. Taking and Handling of Wildlife. DESCRIPTION: The Department will ask the Commission to vote to approve a Notice of Final Rulemaking and Economic Impact Statement amending rules within Article 3. Taking and Handling of Wildlife to regulate the use of trail cameras for the purpose of take. The Commission may vote to take action on and/or provide the Department direction on this item. DATE: June 2, 2021 The Commission proposes to amend rules within Article 3 addressing the taking and handling of wildlife to regulate the use of trail cameras for the purpose of taking or aiding in the take of wildlife. The Commission is considering regulating trail cameras as a result of concerns including: • The use of trail cameras as it relates to Fair Chase. o Commission Policy on Fair Chase includes: “…new or evolving technologies and practices that provide hunters or anglers with an improper or unfair advantage in the pursuit and taking of wildlife, or may create a public perception of an improper or unfair advantage…” The following criteria are used to evaluate whether a new technology or practice violates the Fair Chase ethic; does the technology or practice allow a hunter or angler to: locate or take wildlife without acquiring necessary hunting and angling skills or competency; pursue or take wildlife without being physically present and pursuing wildlife in the field; or almost guarantee the harvest of wildlife when the technology or practice prevents wildlife from eluding take. • The use of trail cameras has become an increasing source of conflict between and amongst hunters, including increased traffic by hunters checking cameras for future hunts, during the hunts of others. • Frequent visits to set and/or check trail cameras cause disturbance to wildlife, which may be exacerbated during extended dry periods of the year and during drought conditions. • Livestock operators are concerned that frequent visits to set and/or check trail cameras are negatively affecting livestock operations. • Invasion of privacy when trail cameras photograph other people in the field without permission. • The potential monetization of game cameras to include services to place, monitor, check and sell camera images, and if those services increase, the numbers of cameras and their use for take could dramatically increase. • Trail camera use has also been raised with the State Legislature and legislation has previously been introduced that has so far not advanced because the Commission maintains the authority to examine this issue through rulemaking. As the state population continues to grow, the number of cameras continue to steadily increase as do Arizona Game and Fish Commission Memo Re: Request to Approve Notice of Final Rulemaking Amending Rules Within Article 3. Page 2 concerns. The frequency and severity of these concerns is reasonably expected to continue to increase as technology advances, populations grow, and trail camera use continues to increase. At the December 2020 Commission Meeting, the Commission directed the Department to pursue rulemaking to prohibit the use of trail cameras for the purpose of taking or aiding in the take of wildlife, or locating wildlife for the purpose of taking or aiding in the take of wildlife. The public comment period ran from January 1 through February 1, 2021. Over 2,000 public comments were received in response to the proposed rulemaking, all of which were provided to the Commission for consideration. A summary of those comments are included in the State-wide Prohibition Notice of Final Rulemaking, which is attached for the Commission’s consideration. At the February 2021 Commission Meeting, the Commission directed the Department to pursue additional rulemaking to establish a seasonal prohibition on the use of trail cameras for the purpose of taking or aiding in the take of wildlife, or locating wildlife for the purpose of taking or aiding in the take of wildlife; and prohibit the use of trail cameras for the purpose of taking or aiding in the take of wildlife, or locating wildlife for the purpose of taking or aiding in the take of wildlife within one-fourth mile of a developed water source. The public comment period ran from March 12 through April 12, 2021. In addition to an advocate facilitated online petition that acquired over 6,000 signatures, over 1,800 public comments were received in response to the proposed rulemaking, all of which were provided to the Commission for consideration. A summary of those comments are included in the Seasonal/Developed Water Prohibition Notice of Final Rulemaking, which is attached for the Commission’s consideration. If approved by the Commission and in accordance with the exemption authorized by the Governor's Office, the Department will submit the selected final rulemaking package to the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council for review and placement on a future agenda. RECOMMENDATION: THE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION VOTE TO APPROVE THE NOTICE OF FINAL RULEMAKING AND ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT AMENDING RULES WITHIN ARTICLE 3. TAKING AND HANDLING OF WILDLIFE TO ADOPT ONE OF THE TWO OPTIONS PRESENTED. TF:LP:cmc Attachments: State-wide Prohibition Notice of Final Rulemaking and Economic Impact Statement Seasonal/Developed Water Prohibition Notice of Final Rulemaking and Economic Impact Statement

They are incredible- CHA has them on a raffle, CHA Raffles | Powered By GiveSmart

Yes I did and I also put in for a public records request to obtain the statistical information.

I absolutely disagree with this proposal. Show me the unit by unit hunt success for the last 5 years. Number of archery hunters per unit and the number of deer harvested and by either mule or coues deer. We can start with only the proposed closed units. Without mandatory check in's as we have for bear or lion, everything is a best guess estimate. With increased and 10% of non resident archery hunters- what is the success rate between non resident and resident?

HuntHarder- thanks- I would disagree with reducing the technology though. I'm a bowhunter and very seldom rifle hunt. But I have friends who use the most advance technology for their long range hunting. Even though I have no interest in it- I support them as they invest in it and can shoot 700-1000 yards and harvest coues deer with it. To me its a personal perspective and I should not have a negative influence if something should be removed without factual data supporting the ban- no matter what it is. As for trail cameras- I would say trail cameras are no way easier? I waited over a decade and did not hunt elk in my 30's waiting on one of the premium bull hunts plus the same amount of time for an archery strip tag. Being a solo hunter and a bit anti- outfitter. I invested in trail cameras as the strip was a 7 hour drive and the elk unit was 4 hours. The few trail cameras allowed me to learn the areas, by driving hundreds of miles of dirt roads during scouting and helped me make an educated decision on the areas to focus on (I was looking for higher considerations within areas that could not be glassed) Hoping to not have conflicts with the outfitters and clients. I ended up shooting the world smallest 2 point (meat buck) from the strip as my hunt came to a close. But the 2 weeks of chasing, stalking big mule deer is what made the whole trip. I did sit water about 5 or 6 days and never had a deer show up even though the camera showed them hitting every 3rd or 4th day. My elk hunt showed lots great bulls all summer long- I was so excited until Sept showed up and 90% of the big bulls vanished. So much for trail cameras.... But it was okay as I love to hunt elk on the ground chasing them- a hunt filled with incredible opportunity with my closest hunting buddies.

That is an interesting point about finding the few thieves threads. Let's guess (as we have no factual data) we have 50 or so of them from the last 3-5 years and having hundreds of thousands of hunters and hundreds of thousands of non hunters throughout Arizona hunting, camping, exploring or enjoying the outdoors within the placed water hole camera locations year in and year out. So we are talking about (Guessing) .0001% potential conflict with hunters and others? Since when do we regulate when 99% or more of the outdoor users has no conflicts and do not care from either perspective? Additionally, do we know if the few conflict camera issues is throughout Arizona or is it in the few high profile units where the commissioner tags are searching for the 400" bull or the 200" mule deer?

I am still trying to figure out this letter to open the EM rule making back in October that is all over social media. Why has there not been any public outreach in the last year as related to "prevent a significant threat to the public health, peace, and safety." "increasing threat of breach of peace as social media surrounding the use of trail cameras indicate potential for violent confrontation between those who support their use and those opposed to such methods." If this was the case one would think the department would be making it a priority on social media, within the hunting regs, Facebook, Instagram, here on Coueswhitetail and all other outlets to address the imminent public safety safety concerns when trail cameras are placed on public lands prior to October 2020 and currently? All I know is something is missing for the public to be educated on? Maybe just as the incredible draw result issues we all just witnessed :+( - By the way my portal is still messed up too - uggggg but I do feel bad for them on the draw results as I know many of them as great people! Dear Mr. Podolak, The Arizona Game and Fish Department (Department) respectfully submits this letter requesting permission to initiate rulemaking to regulate the use of trail cameras for the purpose of taking, aiding in the take of wildlife, or locating wildlife for the purpose of taking or aiding in the take of wildlife. Under the guidance of our Assistant Attorneys General the Department requests permission to pursue rulemaking as authorized under Executive Order 2020-02 - 1(b), which allows an agency to promulgate a rule to prevent a significant threat to the public health, peace, and safety. The use of trail cameras pose an increasing threat of breach of peace as social media surrounding the use of trail cameras indicate potential for violent confrontation between those who support their use and those opposed to such methods. Encounters between these two groups have been more confrontational with those who oppose the use of trail cameras resorting to vandalism, and those who support the use of trail cameras having a sense of entitlement over the areas in which the trail cameras were placed. Violent conflict is likely to occur when those who oppose the use of trail cameras encounter someone while placing a trail camera. A rule under this exemption would prohibit the use of trail cameras for the purpose of taking or aiding in the take of wildlife, and locating wildlife for the purpose of taking or aiding in the take of wildlife. In an effort to comply with the requirements of Executive Order 2020-02(2), the Department recommends for consideration the following three rules for elimination: R12-4-111. Identification Number, R12-4-209. Community Fishing License; Exemption, and R12-4-214. Apprentice License. If you have any questions, please contact Celeste Cook at (623) 236-7390 or by email at ccook@azgfdgov. Sincerely, Ty E. Gray Director

Yup- just look as the commissioner tags- brings hoards of guides sitting on every hill, watching and managing the animals location until the shooter shows up and pulls the trigger. It is truly the starting point of the elephant in the room but in the name of huge $$$$$ everyone looks the other way...... Then the picture with 20 guys and the shooter showing off........ So lets blame trail cameras for it!

Yup- If you have a hunting license or helping family and or friends while hunting and use trail cameras in the field- you are now a criminal under this rule making proposal! In essence as hunters we will be banned for life to enjoy the world of trail cameras. Absolutely- Trail cameras will still be everywhere as a whole new group of outdoor enthusiast will be perfectly legal to do so! And yes private info will be passed on to outfitters, guides and hunters from the non hunting trail camera enthusiast!

I had the archery 9 tag in 2019. Was there cameras- Absolutely! Did I have any conflicts as per the camera in fighting as suggested not all! In fact- I made a few new fiends through trail cameras at these popular trick tanks. I only had one person with me during the hunt and was the time of my life with taking a great bull through dedication through hunting solo.

So new guys join in with very little history and a few post as members and start bashing old Sir Royal......Wow, sad and not the Coueswhitetail way! The question is what did AZGFD do before Dec 4, 5-0 vote to start the complete ban?? Not hearsay- 2nd or 3rd person removed assumptions... Please share a link of any such items as the reopening of an emergency rule making to solve the critical public safety concern to maintain trail cameras! Again specific use of trail cameras for public advisement in 2018-2019 or 2020 up until December 4th. Such as public education- ethics- fair chase use of cameras- roles & responsibilities- solve conflicts at water sources and hunter interactions- disturbance of wildlife- photos of others- damage or thief's- selling of cam images- and even our few high profile units when to many cameras being used- per an individuals liking.

I would love to have the 120 Amax- these were discontinued and my turret is set for these and down to under a box. PM sent

2021.02.19 Agenda (003).pdf Looks like the vote is in 2 weeks???? Request to Approve a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Amending Articles 1. Definitions and General Provisions, Article 2. Licenses; Permits, Stamps; Tags, and 3. Taking and Handling of Wildlife. Presenter: Larry Phoenix, FOR3 Regional Supervisor. The Department will ask the Commission to vote to approve a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Economic Impact Statement to initiate rulemaking to amend rules within Article 1. Definitions and General Provisions, Article 2. Licenses; Permits, Stamps; Tags, and 3. Taking and Handling of Wildlife, related to the use of game cameras.

So respect the duo of team Husband and Wife hunting together!! Well done!

Let your voices be heard through emails to each commissioner and rulemaking emails as they will become official documentation. I have heard their will be a number of public records request after the February deadline of the 30 day open comment period. This will bring factual data of true numbers for and against the complete proposed ban. Rulemaking@azgfd.gov AZGFD

You might want to do a public record request- this way you will get all of 2019 & 2020 resident and non resident OTC deer tag number to compare.

This is a great idea and should be presented at a commission meting

Did you see my PM?

The results from the uptick from Covid getting outdoors! But the more hunters= huge $$$$ from out of state hunters. Would think at some point- more closed half seasons....

Pm sent

I saw Cabela's had 20 plus boxes two days ago. but not reload- factory

Don't forget 1/4 mile rule for archery hunters, lion hunting in summer months, Organized predator hunts for prizes new multi unit lion harvest agenda- once met- season closed Paper applications for our older generations :+) Plus others

Crazy as dry end May- Sept