Let’s cut to the quick. Trail cameras were just outlawed in Arizona. Not for everyone, mind you. For now, it’s just illegal to use them for the purpose of taking game. Non-hunters can still use them. And trappers, maybe? Maybe not? Who really knows? But more on all of that momentarily.
Past to Present
While Arizona’s most recent decision is largely unprecedented, other states, such as Montana, Nevada, New Mexico and others, have placed smaller restrictions on the use of trail cameras. Some limit when cameras can be used, or what camera features (such as wireless transmission) are allowed. But not a single agency or DNR had all-out banned them. At least, not until now. Arizona is the first.
While debates have centered around trail cameras for years, it’s always been the minority that stated cameras are unethical or socially divisive, but the Arizona Game and Fish Commission claims both, and pulled no punches in its recent report.
According to the 2021 Arizona Hunting Regulations, the use of trail cameras was already restricted on some public lands prior to the latest ruling. Then, a few months ago, the situation escalated when a notice was posted on Arizona Game and Fish’s Rulemaking Process Page that expressed consideration of a widespread ban of the use of trail cameras. Several months after that, they released a final statement with the news most Arizona hunters were dreading. Trail cameras were banned.
“The Arizona Game and Fish Commission approved the final rulemaking amending rules within Articles 1, 2 and 3 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 report said. “The final rulemaking will be reviewed by the Governor’s Regulatory Review (GRRC) as indicated in the Regulatory Agenda.”
Further explanation for the decision was provided by the Game and Fish Commission via a 28-page document and said that fair chase and conflict between hunters were the primary sources of concern that led to this policy change.
In addition, it also stated that, “Trail cameras are believed to cause increased traffic in the field during hunts. Hunters and guides who have placed cameras interrupt other persons hunt by checking their trail camera during prime hunting hours. Hunters have expressed their frustration about the proliferation of cameras at Department catchments and other water sources, as compromising their opportunities and overall quality of the hunting experience. Some have shared stories of aggressive hunters and/or guides trying to chase other hunters away from waters that have their cameras.”
Furthermore, based on the report, it seems that the Commission came to the conclusion that trail cameras negatively affect wildlife directly and indirectly. It stated that changing batteries and pulling SD cards displaced wildlife, especially near watering holes. It even went as far as to address littering, which apparently stems from abandoned trail cameras, cables, batteries, plastic, etc.
The Commission also expressed its opinions over professional guides and outfitters that place an abundance of trail cameras on public lands. Apparently, according to the report, an increased volume of cameras is disrupting not only wildlife but also hunters, even providing an unfair advantage to those with fewer resources.
“The proliferation of cameras, particularly by guides who place dozens or hundreds in prime hunting areas, unfairly robs opportunity from hunters who cannot or choose not to use cameras,” it said. “Some of these hunters may wait a decade or more to get a prime tag. However, once afield, their odds of finding and harvesting a highly-desired animal are infinitely smaller than those who have used camera data to find and map animals prior to the hunt. This bias is likewise wholly incompatible with the equal access tenet of the North American Model. In addition, 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.”
So, if the issue is a small percentage of hunters use a large volume of cameras, wouldn’t they just limit the number of allowed cameras per hunter? Or, better yet, wouldn’t the agency let hunters have as many as they want on private lands, but limit the number of cameras deployed on public properties? Nope. Its solution is the outright banning of trail cameras for the purpose of scouting and hunting.
Another concern by the Commission was livestock owners, and said that it’s also disrupting their agricultural operations. It even stated that “members of the public” have expressed concern over being photographed by trail cameras, and the use of those photos being conducted without their permission. The report sourced “invasion of privacy” as a major issue.
While most sources state that approximately 70% of Americans still approve of hunting as a means for food, the Commission even expressed worry over public scrutiny and how certain hunting methods — such as the use of trail cameras — is perceived by the general non-hunting public.
While the entire Arizona hunting population hasn’t been polled, it seems the majority is against this ruling. The Commission stated it received 2,742 letters during the one-month public commenting period. Of those, it says that 833 were in favor of the change, while the remainder were opposed. There has also been additional scrutiny outside of that commenting period.
That said, those in favor of the change largely mentioned the aforementioned reasons the Commission used to reach its decision. Those opposed stated a variety of reasons, including: trail cameras help conserve wildlife; these scouting tools help locate and hunt mature animals which allows younger members of the herd to reach maturity; the Department will lose revenue due to decreased interest in hunting; that the Department will be unable to enforce the new law; that the Commission should not be listening to non-hunters during its decision-making process; that such a decision should not be based on social reasons, but based on scientific or wildlife needs; and much more.
The agency’s response to many of these counter-arguments? Boilerplate The-Department-disagrees-and-here’s-why type arguments.
The Commission also brought the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation into the fight, and cites it as an all-inclusive, root basis of its recent decision-making process.
“The North American Model has been around for decades and hunters learned to be successful long before the invention of trail cameras,” the report said. “The Commission defines Fair Chase as the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of free-ranging Arizona wildlife in a manner that does not give a hunter or angler improper or unfair advantage over such wildlife. The Commission recognizes that public support for the manner in which wildlife is pursued and taken is of critical importance to the survival of hunting and angling. The Commission affirms that hunting and angling are the cornerstones of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and are the primary source of funding for conservation efforts in North America. Accordingly, it is the Commission’s policy that the pursuit and taking of wildlife be managed to conform to the highest ethical standards of Fair Chase. The Commission recognizes that new or evolving technologies and practices may 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.”
Where It Goes from Here
Just because five men and a Commission says trail cameras are unethical and ultimately bad for hunting as a whole, doesn’t make it so, right? Well, in legal terms, it does for Arizona hunters. At least for now. But what about everyone else?
After hearing many opinions, and formulating my own as well, most seem to believe that yes, some ethics are black and white. There is no middle ground. But some ethical decisions are just more complicated than that. For example, while completely unrelated to the current topic, an ethical shot distance for one person may be unethical for another due to a skills gap. This and so much more falls within a gray area.
But, in my opinion, trail cameras don’t even fall within the gray area. I don’t see these scouting tools as anything the Commission makes them out to be. Not that they can’t be a source of problems. Anything “good” can be used for or reclassified as “bad” if operated wrongly or painted in the incorrect light.
As a whole, I also believe that trail cameras have helped boost hunter enthusiasm, rather than damage it. It’s helped hunters to become better conservationists and land managers, and has helped populations reach milestones, such as older age classes. And trail cameras most certainly have helped hunters realize the benefits of helping wildlife, monitoring their needs, making decisions that benefit them, and being good stewards of the resource.
And even in the instances where cameras are used improperly, should it mean taking them away from everyone who uses them with care and ethical responsibility? Absolutely not. Doing so seems especially synonymous with taking firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens merely because a very small percentage uses them incorrectly. Arguably, some of those who already use cameras unsavorily will continue to do so, ban or no ban.
Furthermore, shouldn’t all game laws be established based on sound science? According to the Commission’s report, “The agency did not rely on any study in its evaluation of or justification for the rule. 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. An environmental impact study is not required for this action.”
Agree to disagree.
All in all, for those still wondering if it affects you, it likely does if you hunt in Arizona. According to AZ Central, after the 2021 season, the new ruling will be put in effect, ultimately eliminating trail cameras used “for the purpose of taking game” on all private and public properties, except for tribal lands, which operate under their own sets of laws and guidelines.
The Commission’s official statement on trapping was even more perplexing. “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,” the report said. “Under A.R.S. § 17-101(2), “take” means pursuing, shooting, hunting, fishing, trapping, killing, capturing, snaring or netting wildlife or the placing or using of any net or other device or trap in a manner that may result in the capturing or killing of wildlife. The specific activity of taking legal wildlife using live traps is the use of the trap itself, while the use of a trail camera would be to monitor the trap. When trapping, a trail camera would show the activity within the trap.”
First, that sounds contradictory. Secondly, isn’t that also true for those who use trail cameras for the purpose of scouting wildlife prior to a hunt? The camera is used as a scouting tool, not a weapon. It seems that the definition of a trail camera changes based on the case use.
The odd trapping verbiage aside, it’s very clear that non-hunters can still use them. “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 non-consumptive recreation will remain lawful … General uses include but are not limited to the use of trail cameras for research, wildlife management, and individual photography.”
So, a hunter’s trail camera disrupts wildlife and creates conflict with other hunters, but a non-hunter’s trail camera does not? Again, interesting. But, after all, the Commission did admit the decision was made without scientific thoughts, processes or reasoning.
In conclusion, one particular response stood out above all. To a public comment saying this new law is government overreach, the response was “The Department disagrees. Though hunting, fishing and harvesting wildlife have long been an American heritage, dating back to before the first Europeans arrived in North America, neither the U.S. or Arizona State Constitutions include the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife.”
Well then …
Let all of this sink in and drop your thoughts in the comment section below. We’re anxious to hear more from the general public and thoughts on the recent ban of trail cameras in Arizona.
