AZ bans trail cameras

Muddyboots

Well-Known Member
LRH Team Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
2,896
Location
Michigan
So here is the 64,000 question: I read the number of cams on water holes etc but absolutely nothing by the commission on the pressure by NON-HUNTERS during the off season. 60% of the year is pressured by NON-HUNTERS who pay absolutely nothing to use the land and still pressure animals through their presence and probably ignorance of their presence impact on animals. I am starting to think there should be an access fee no different that what hunters pay in licensing etc. The use of the land is the use of the land whether it is for hunting or other recreational activities. This added monies can provide a cushion to DFW to manage the TOTAL use of the land to the best interest of the land and animals.
 

jgs8163

Well-Known Member
LRH Team Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2011
Messages
1,835
Location
Southern Arizona
So here is the 64,000 question: I read the number of cams on water holes etc but absolutely nothing by the commission on the pressure by NON-HUNTERS during the off season. 60% of the year is pressured by NON-HUNTERS who pay absolutely nothing to use the land and still pressure animals through their presence and probably ignorance of their presence impact on animals. I am starting to think there should be an access fee no different that what hunters pay in licensing etc. The use of the land is the use of the land whether it is for hunting or other recreational activities. This added monies can provide a cushion to DFW to manage the TOTAL use of the land to the best interest of the land and animals.
Agree, but the trail cams on Water is what this is about. The non-hunters are not out there hanging 40 trail cameras on water holes during off season. There’s a entirely different thread on here about AZGFD and trail cams where we all discussed this already. There’s a problem with guides and non guide hunters polluting waterholes with cams. It’s a fact and it needs to be controlled. What they’ve proposed is reasonable and fair.
 

Mike Matteson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2017
Messages
1,219
Now I used the Trail Cam to see what was or is coming into the watering hold or tank. I hunted on my own, and not by a guide. Hunting to me is what I can do, not on what others can do for me. Hunting licenses have dropped by about 40% over the years. There is less of us hunting now, than before. I know that Coues deer were baited there in AZ for years and that was stopped. That was fine by me. Do I look for salt licks, Yes. Do I move from place to place, Yes. Do I use a cam bow, a 70lb, a draw length of 32", Yes. At one time I was very accurate out 80yds. Never got my 90yd pin set up. Now I haven't pulled at bow in two years do to my shoulder being replaced. I think, this last shoulder replace I will be able to pull a bow again. I am only 9 weeks out from the shoulder replacement this time. Do I really care if I kill an animal, No. To hunt, Yes. Do I want to take a big buck, Yes. On my own, Yes.
I will watch the YouTube in a day or so to see what it shows.
 

Mike Matteson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2017
Messages
1,219
Agree, but the trail cams on Water is what this is about. The non-hunters are not out there hanging 40 trail cameras on water holes during off season. There’s a entirely different thread on here about AZGFD and trail cams where we all discussed this already. There’s a problem with guides and non guide hunters polluting waterholes with cams. It’s a fact and it needs to be controlled. What they’ve proposed is reasonable and fair.
It was my understand this drive to stop Trail Cam was brought by non-hunters. The letter I wrote to the commission was to charge a fee for non-hunter that use the forest. I paid a large sum for out of State licensed, and tag to hunt or use the areas. That fine with me, but I do pay. The non hunter do put a lot of pressure on the animals. At the same time they can pay too, to manage the game.
 
Last edited:

Bob Wright

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
1,491
Location
Litchfield Park, Az.
It was my understand this drive to stop Trail Cam was brought by non-hunters. The letter I wrote to the commission was to charge a fee for non-hunter that use the forest. I paid a large sum for out of State licensed, and tag to hunt or use the areas. That fine with me, but I do pay. The non hunter do put a lot of pressure on the animals. At the same time they can pay too, to manage the game.
Most non-hunters do. By way of the following :

 

jgs8163

Well-Known Member
LRH Team Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2011
Messages
1,835
Location
Southern Arizona
If you get a use fee in place, the may well make you pay that fee also, for non-in season use. Be very carful asking for that.
Exactly. AZGFD couldn’t possibly ask for a use fee on all the national forests we have here anyways. I would think they could only do that on State trust land. They do get usage fees now for all off road vehicles. OHV tags are charged by AZGFD/MVD annually for all off road type vehicles. UTV, Dirt bikes, quads, etc…..I believe AZGFD benefits from those OHV fees. Trails cam usage as what they will be passing is all that needs to be done IMO. Some of the State parks do have daily usage fees for camping and other things already. Anyways….
 

jlostrander

Active Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
38
Location
Irvine, CA.
If they own a handgun, they are doing so.

Also, please remember our tax dollars have been supporting public lands from the beginning. Essentially everyone has been paying in some form.

They had a similar pass/fee here for a while. Google "Adventure Pass." It was a major pain in the side, and it was not enforceable. Hunters had to buy one, no matter if they were licensed to hunt or fish or not.
 

Muddyboots

Well-Known Member
LRH Team Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
2,896
Location
Michigan
Really? How many bird watchers, tree huggers carry? OMG that's funny! Plus they buy one firearm and that makes it ok? Hunters fork out money in continuous basis for firearms and ammo.

Utah did a study on wildlife impact by non hunters as well.
Utah Study
 

Bob Wright

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
1,491
Location
Litchfield Park, Az.
Pittman Robertson is a tax on firearms and ammo. I rather doubt non hunters camping, hiking, bird watching are contributing to PR funding.
It's spawned new taxes on fishing, boats and fuels under more recent legislation. Some states have begun taxation on camping related items as well.
Pittman-Robertson was the catalyst for wildlife conservation monies we pay today in many newer forms that captures non-hunters.
 

Muddyboots

Well-Known Member
LRH Team Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
2,896
Location
Michigan
I believe you are referring to the Sport Fish Restoration Act (Dingell Johnson Act) which is similar but not the PR. The Sport Fish Restoration Act, commonly referred to as the Dingell-Johnson (DJ) Act, was sponsored by Senator Edwin Johnson of Colorado and Representative John Dingell, Sr. of Michigan and passed on August 9, 1950. The SFR Act was modeled after the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (PR) to provide grant funds to states, the District of Columbia and insular areas. Fisherman are still not the same category we are talking about using the Federal lands. I doubt it was fisherman complaining about cameras.

I guess you could call it more recent being passed in 1950 than PR since PR was passed in 1937.

Hunters and fisherman have paying the toll for the outdoors for 80+ years and it is about time other users pay their fair share as well. How about 10% on camping equipment, RV's, bicycles, ATV's, and so on? That is what we are paying so let's spread the "toll" to manage land around to all users. This needs to be a federal tax and spread back to the states in similar manner.

Here in MI we have what is called a "Passport" added to the plate which is $10/year and gives you complete access to all state boat launches, beaches and campgrounds (just entry not a site). How about a "Passport" tax on plates for Federal lands? Then anyone who enters has "paid" their fair share. There is no discrimination then on who or what the activity will be on Federal lands. The states can collect it as part of their annual vehicle registrations easily.
 

Attachments

  • Pittman-Robertson-Excise-Tax-factsheet.pdf
    1.2 MB · Views: 17
  • ItemsTaxedJan2018.pdf
    7.4 MB · Views: 11

jgs8163

Well-Known Member
LRH Team Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2011
Messages
1,835
Location
Southern Arizona
I believe you are referring to the Sport Fish Restoration Act (Dingell Johnson Act) which is similar but not the PR. The Sport Fish Restoration Act, commonly referred to as the Dingell-Johnson (DJ) Act, was sponsored by Senator Edwin Johnson of Colorado and Representative John Dingell, Sr. of Michigan and passed on August 9, 1950. The SFR Act was modeled after the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (PR) to provide grant funds to states, the District of Columbia and insular areas. Fisherman are still not the same category we are talking about using the Federal lands. I doubt it was fisherman complaining about cameras.

I guess you could call it more recent being passed in 1950 than PR since PR was passed in 1937.

Hunters and fisherman have paying the toll for the outdoors for 80+ years and it is about time other users pay their fair share as well. How about 10% on camping equipment, RV's, bicycles, ATV's, and so on? That is what we are paying so let's spread the "toll" to manage land around to all users. This needs to be a federal tax and spread back to the states in similar manner.

Here in MI we have what is called a "Passport" added to the plate which is $10/year and gives you complete access to all state boat launches, beaches and campgrounds (just entry not a site). How about a "Passport" tax on plates for Federal lands? Then anyone who enters has "paid" their fair share. There is no discrimination then on who or what the activity will be on Federal lands. The states can collect it as part of their annual vehicle registrations easily.
We have a tax here like you mention. I mentioned it my earlier post. OHV tags are $32 per vehicle for any type of Recreational vehicle to be used off road. Doesn’t cover everyone but it does many for sure.
 
Top