Friday in Payson Trail Cameras

[trophyseeker]

6 minutes ago, JSR said:

The point being is that it is an actual LAW, not an AZGFD rule.

 

Right, and it pretty much is only relevant in Maricopa, Pima & Penal County. None of the other coumties meet the population threshold.  It was put in place to discourage feeding backyard critters.  

[JSR]

10 minutes ago, AZtroutman said:

Removing cameras. You can act all you want that you're not putting them up to look for animals to hunt but the majority of people in the field will disagree. Especially if they refrained from putting up cameras to obey the law.

 

THERE WILL BE NO LAW.

The RULE does not prohibit you for looking for animals. CAN YOU READ?

There are at least 3 podcast with G&F commissioners that emphasize that cameras will not be banned. YOU JUST CAN"T USE THEM FOR HUNTING.

 

Is it really that hard to understand?

[JSR]

Just now, trophyseeker said:

Right, and it pretty much is only relevant in Maricopa, Pima & Penal County. None of the other coumties meet the population threshold.  It was put in place to discourage feeding backyard critters.  

yes,

Not sure how this related to cameras,, but....

[trophyseeker]

20 minutes ago, JSR said:

There is an ACTUAL law against feeding wildlife.

 

 

13-2927. Unlawful feeding of wildlife; classification

A. A person commits unlawful feeding of wildlife by intentionally, knowingly or recklessly feeding, attracting or otherwise enticing wildlife into an area

 

4 minutes ago, JSR said:

yes,

Not sure how this related to cameras,, but....

Me either. YOU brought it up. See above. You just quoted only part of it .

[654321]

4 minutes ago, JSR said:

 

THERE WILL BE NO LAW.

The RULE does not prohibit you for looking for animals. CAN YOU READ?

There are at least 3 podcast with G&F commissioners that emphasize that cameras will not be banned. YOU JUST CAN"T USE THEM FOR HUNTING.

 

Is it really that hard to understand?

You better read the definition of take if you plan on running cameras and your defense is I was just getting pictures of the pretty animals 

[huntlines]

5 minutes ago, 654321 said:

You better read the definition of take if you plan on running cameras and your defense is I was just getting pictures of the pretty animals 

So how is it proof of take? Just because a camera is up in an area doesn’t automatically mean the hunter used it to take game? Going to be interesting how it’s proved….

[huntlines]

So where is SirRoyal and his “stay tuned” updates?

[HuntHarder]

I would imagine Josiah is in Payson with a pocket full of onions, getting ready to state his case.

This rule is going to be a step in the right direction.  

[Desertguide]

This is all kind of funny. If you go back and read the other cam thread from the beginning, it's the same debate repeated over and over. 

I've gone from being totally against a ban to being sort of a fence rider. HuntHarder and I went back and forth and he made some very convincing points. I'm certain I would like him if I met him in person. While I don't like more rules, I certainly understand the point of view of those who are pro ban. I'll obey the rule regardless of the outcome as I'm sure all here will. Sad that we've come to a point where game and fish even needs to make such a rule. 

[Flatlander]

I am sick of cameras on every water source and only see the problem (as I see it) getting worse. Unfortunately this rule will be nearly impossible to prosecute and after talking to game wardens I don’t think anyone will really follow it. Which means it just puts someone who is trying to follow the rules in a difficult position.

Would he better for the dept to work with land agencies to enforce existing rules to limit trail cam use.

[Desertguide]

13 minutes ago, Flatlander said:

I am sick of cameras on every water source and only see the problem (as I see it) getting worse. Unfortunately this rule will be nearly impossible to prosecute and after talking to game wardens I don’t think anyone will really follow it. Which means it just puts someone who is trying to follow the rules in a difficult position.

Would he better for the dept to work with land agencies to enforce existing rules to limit trail cam use.

Well, it'll be like the baiting rule. Salt is the loophole in that one. Everybody keeps referring back to the baiting rule but fail to mention or forget that there are thousands of totally legal salt sites in Arizona. Guys will use the loophole in this one which is cameras for simply viewing wildlife won't be illegal. How do you prove that a guy had a camera up and killed an animal because of a picture from that camera? Guys will just delete their pictures. Boom... evidence is gone. So in the end it will accomplish nothing but creating more camera conflicts because guys will take it upon themselves to enforce rules and steal/destroy others property. Again, I get the purpose and I can agree with the spirit of the rule but there are huge flaws in the enforcement.

[654321]

19 minutes ago, Desertguide said:

Well, it'll be like the baiting rule. Salt is the loophole in that one. Everybody keeps referring back to the baiting rule but fail to mention or forget that there are thousands of totally legal salt sites in Arizona. Guys will use the loophole in this one which is cameras for simply viewing wildlife won't be illegal. How do you prove that a guy had a camera up and killed an animal because of a picture from that camera? Guys will just delete their pictures. Boom... evidence is gone. So in the end it will accomplish nothing but creating more camera conflicts because guys will take it upon themselves to enforce rules and steal/destroy others property. Again, I get the purpose and I can agree with the spirit of the rule but there are huge flaws in the enforcement.

You wont have to kill an animal to be in violation of take, and you better really know what you're doing when it comes to deleting stuff from electronics, plenty of people been busted because they thought they had deleted stuff from their phones, computers ect.  Larry Phoenix said in the very first meeting that 97% of hunters and fishermen comply with the rules and his WM's would have no problem enforcing the rule if that's the route the commission chose to go.

[Desertguide]

22 minutes ago, 654321 said:

You wont have to kill an animal to be in violation of take, and you better really know what you're doing when it comes to deleting stuff from electronics, plenty of people been busted because they thought they had deleted stuff from their phones, computers ect.  Larry Phoenix said in the very first meeting that 97% of hunters and fishermen comply with the rules and his WM's would have no problem enforcing the rule if that's the route the commission chose to go.

Oh I won't be one that uses loopholes man. I don't use cameras now so I certainly won't use them if there's a rule. 

As for Larry, what do you think he's gonna say? "Nope, it's unenforceable and my WM's can't keep up with their current workload let alone a new camera rule that will be extremely difficult to prosecute."  I have a lot of experience with higher ups at game and fish and one thing they are all experts at is public relations. That and playing politics. 

Edit... 

"A lot of experience" is a stretch. I have a some experience with the higher ups. 

[Desertguide]

654321, please don't take my comments as argumentative. I'm just sharing my opinion based on my personal experience. It could very well turn out just like you say. I'm not a fortune teller. 

[huntlines]

52 minutes ago, 654321 said:

You wont have to kill an animal to be in violation of take, and you better really know what you're doing when it comes to deleting stuff from electronics, plenty of people been busted because they thought they had deleted stuff from their phones, computers ect.  Larry Phoenix said in the very first meeting that 97% of hunters and fishermen comply with the rules and his WM's would have no problem enforcing the rule if that's the route the commission chose to go.

Really? So just taking a picture will be considered “take” of that animal? No way a judge goes with that one. I think you are stretching the definition of take.