When I first heard of this I thought "WTF you bastards taking this away too?".

Then I heard a couple other views and now I guess we will see what they do.

What do you guys think?

I have nothing against trail cameras.
I have nothing against people.
Putting the two together is where the problems arise.

Trail cameras have gotten so out of hand and invasive that it's no longer pleasurable to discover a water hole..... because there will be 14 cameras already there and all of the owners will be claiming squatter's rights to hunt it if a nice animal shows up.

To say I don't like their use on public property is an understatement.

Zeke

It makes sense.

The cameras available now will text you the photos to your phone once the photo is taken..as long as you and the camera have cell signal.

We use these cameras on a piece of property about 30 minutes from home...lets us know that the hogs are where we want them to be before we make the drive there. This is private land Texas though.

You could have photos of your target deer/bull the night before rifle opener and know exactly where to start your hunt the next day...and have another camera on a location that is easy to sneak to during the middle of the day so you are watching both.


I was thinking the drones would ruin public land hunting, but I haven't heard much of people using them to their advantage. Maybe the signal is bad in thick pine forests or mountains.

Drones are illegal in a lot of states.

In New Mexico the biggest bullshit idea is that you can fly over the unit in an aircraft 3 days before the season.

I will never support govt further eroding our "freedom of choice" on our public lands...paid for by WE THE PEOPLE! How totally Communist!

When one supports this nonsense, where does it end? How about banning spotting scopes, binos and range finders too? What about your buddies spotting for you, or helping you pack your elk out...maybe we should ban shooting beyond 300 yards as well?! All complete gestapo over-reaching non-sense. But if the last 9 months have taught us anything, its that "we the people" will do as our masters tell us, and fall in line like good little sheep!

Besides...read the "law", it doesn't "ban" the placing of TC's on public land, that's not the jurisdiction of the AZGFD, they no authority to do so, and they know it. The law states the info derived from such use can't be used to aid in the taking of game...ya, good luck with that!

Be careful what freedoms you support the govt in depriving from others...before you know it, they're banning something you do / enjoy too!! By now I would think people would have learned this little tid-bit!

And BTW...I think I own 2 TC's, and rarely ever use them at all. Just never been my thing!

Let's get a grip on reality here.

Even thought the land may be federal the game is under the administration of the state. So yes they do have the authority to manage the game as they see fit. This includes limiting the hunting methods used by its citizens. It's no different than states that don't allow radios, certain weapon choices or any equipment that is felt to take the sport out of the hunt. The march of technology never stops. In the end both the sport and the game are the eventual victims if it isn't reigned in a little especially if it starts to get abused.

Undoubtedly a citizen led hunting group led the charge to inact this. If those that didn't like it were also involved in their states hunting organizations they could have heard the rational and made their own voices heard.

I'm curious how many against it would like it if it was their honey hole that they worked hard to find sudden covered with game cameras who owners now felt it was now their spot and you now the intruder.

quote:

Originally posted by Cougarz:

Undoubtedly a citizen led hunting group led the charge to inact this.

Actually there have been two pending bills in the AZ legislature. Here is an email I received from AZGF:

The AZ Game & Fish Commission voted 5-0 at their December 4, 2020 meeting to reopen Article 3 Rule to address game cameras. Commencing on January 1, 2021 and running through February 1, 2021, public comment is open for submission to the Commission for consideration. Under consideration is a potential ban on all game cameras for the take of wildlife.

If such an action was passed, it would have no bearing on wildlife watching, use of cameras on private property, or for wildlife management. So if you have an opinion on what action you think the Commission should take, now’s your chance to give them feedback.

Some of you might recall that in June of 2018, that Commission voted to restrict the use of live transmitting cameras for the take of wildlife. That was the only restriction passed.

In April of 2020, the Commission again requested Article 3 be reopened and the use of cameras be assessed. AZSFWC discussed the issue and supported the Commission’s request to reopen the rule and consider the matter. The Board vote to support opening the rule for public input was 19 groups in favor, 1 group opposed, and 3 groups abstaining. Ultimately, Covid cancelled the consideration and consequently, the AZSFWC Board did not take a position on the use of trail cameras.

So, where are we today? AZSFWC’s Board has not yet taken a position on this current action by the Commission.

Whatever your position is on cameras, it may be insightful to take a step back and consider what the big “picture” looks like:

• Who would you like to see deal with the camera issue, the Commission, or the AZ Legislature?
• The 2020 Legislative Session saw two bills introduced and then withdrawn: HB2130 on the use of cameras, and HB2131 restricting hunting near waterholes.
• Has the issue gone away, or will it be resurrected in the upcoming 2021 Legislative Session?
• In 2000, Arizona’s population was 5.1 million, in 2010 it was 6.4 million, and in 2020, that number rose to 7.3 million people.
• Covid drove people to the outdoors in 2020; the woods and the lakes were full of people.
• AZGFD saw record numbers of license sales in 2020, and big game applications broke all-time records too.
• Technological advances in most everything gets more creative, with more options and has become more prevalent…at decreasing prices.
• Wildlife needs water and Arizona is in a drought.
• Game & Fish and partners hauled over 1 million gallons of water in 2020.
• Wildfires have destroyed thousands of acres of habitat, the Tonto’s Bush Fire and the Kaibab’s Mangum Fire are prime examples.
• Camera competition - you only have to see a water trough or game water once with a dozen different cameras on it to get that picture.
• In many places wildlife can’t get a drink without getting their picture taken 24 hours a day, and if not in your area yet, it is coming.
• Cameras don’t kill wildlife, but is the wildlife behavior being changed or altered?
• If you’re checking your cards, wildlife likely isn’t going to hang around the water hole.
• Would pushing cameras away from waterholes solve any problems?
• Camera use and card checking is impacting landowner and ranch operations; open gates, trash, and impact on livestock to name a few.
• Camera use for science based research and wildlife management is a positive development.
• Banning cameras for the take of wildlife would not be “enforceable”, however would it be any more difficult than investigating some other wildlife violations?
• Camera “seasons” – which species would get picked for exclusion? Hunting in Arizona takes place in some fashion almost year round.
• Camera “registration” and camera “fees” – would this really eliminate the other issues surrounding camera use?
• “I don’t have time to scout”, but do you have time to check the cards in your camera?
• “Where’s the science” – the importance of science can’t be understated, but to disregard the political and social aspects is fraught with problems.
• Are hunting skills of the past being replaced with the use of cameras?
• Are cameras commercializing our wildlife?
• Is Fair Chase being affected by the use of cameras?
• Have cameras provided a means to an end?

Where do you stand? If you have an opinion, now’s the time to provide your input to the Commission. For more information about the issue or a link to provide comment, click HERE.

Jim Unmacht
Executive Director

quote:

Banning cameras for the take of wildlife would not be “enforceable”, however would it be any more difficult than investigating some other wildlife violations?

Exactly one of my points...just another useless law further trying to restrict the freedoms of "we the people"!

Wildlife management is tightly restricted in AZ already...via limited authorization of big game permits. Anyone who applies there, knows that! Using TC's and other aided technology we have today is not going to result in harvesting MORE deer / elk than what the AZGFD has already authorized for a set / limited number of permits in every unit!

I've personally had HUGE debates with one of the guys leading the charge to "ban the aid" of TC's in AZ...he's not even an Arizona resident, he lives in Utah! He has dozens of TC's spread all across the Arizona Strip every year...and that'll never change! His hope / motive is that the law banning the "aid / use to hunting" would drive most "outfitters/guides" to remove their cameras and he then can have the run of the wildlife pics / videos to himself for use on his FB page, Youtube page, etc. And many have fallen for his BS...hook, line and sinker!!

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:


Actually there have been two pending bills in the AZ legislature. Here is an email I received from AZGF:

That isn't from AZ Game & Fish. It's from Arizona Sportsmen For Wildlife Conservation (AZSFWC).

These things are getting fancy as hell.

A good friend's parents died the last two years.
He, brother and sister inherited the farm 260 miles from where they live.

The brother put up a couple satelite linked cams in the yard. Soon as they're activated he gets live instant feed to his phone.

This past week they had intruders in the yard. He drove down to inspect the place Saturday. No damage's, neighbors knew who the guys were though and he contacted them. "just wanting to ask permission to hunt their land, didn't know the people had died".

They've gotten a lot of pictures of various animals in the yard: deer, coyotes, badger, coons and now these two guys.

Seems like in this case it's a very good idea as they both share the link and if they see something not right they can call the local law to check it out right then instead of a month later.

Whole different deal than water holes clogged up with cams.

George

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
I will never support govt further eroding our "freedom of choice" on our public lands...paid for by WE THE PEOPLE! How totally Communist!

When one supports this nonsense, where does it end? How about banning spotting scopes, binos and range finders too? What about your buddies spotting for you, or helping you pack your elk out...maybe we should ban shooting beyond 300 yards as well?! All complete gestapo over-reaching non-sense. But if the last 9 months have taught us anything, its that "we the people" will do as our masters tell us, and fall in line like good little sheep!

Besides...read the "law", it doesn't "ban" the placing of TC's on public land, that's not the jurisdiction of the AZGFD, they no authority to do so, and they know it. The law states the info derived from such use can't be used to aid in the taking of game...ya, good luck with that!

Be careful what freedoms you support the govt in depriving from others...before you know it, they're banning something you do / enjoy too!! By now I would think people would have learned this little tid-bit!

And BTW...I think I own 2 TC's, and rarely ever use them at all. Just never been my thing!

Aaron,

I agree that more State and Fed regulation is never a good thing but look at it this way, if you will: If my rifle has a scope on it and you wander into a water hole, is my scope bothering you? Is it clogging up the whole area with litter? Is it snapping away if you decide to take a leak? Does my scoped rifle give me squatter's right if I'm nowhere around?

I can see your side of the argument and actually I even agree with you but it still doesn't allow me to appreciate trail cameras on public property and all the associated BS that comes with them.

Zeke

quote:

Originally posted by ZekeShikar:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
I will never support govt further eroding our "freedom of choice" on our public lands...paid for by WE THE PEOPLE! How totally Communist!

When one supports this nonsense, where does it end? How about banning spotting scopes, binos and range finders too? What about your buddies spotting for you, or helping you pack your elk out...maybe we should ban shooting beyond 300 yards as well?! All complete gestapo over-reaching non-sense. But if the last 9 months have taught us anything, its that "we the people" will do as our masters tell us, and fall in line like good little sheep!

Besides...read the "law", it doesn't "ban" the placing of TC's on public land, that's not the jurisdiction of the AZGFD, they no authority to do so, and they know it. The law states the info derived from such use can't be used to aid in the taking of game...ya, good luck with that!

Be careful what freedoms you support the govt in depriving from others...before you know it, they're banning something you do / enjoy too!! By now I would think people would have learned this little tid-bit!

And BTW...I think I own 2 TC's, and rarely ever use them at all. Just never been my thing!

Aaron,

I agree that more State and Fed regulation is never a good thing but look at it this way, if you will: If my rifle has a scope on it and you wander into a water hole, is my scope bothering you? Is it clogging up the whole area with litter? Is it snapping away if you decide to take a leak? Does my scoped rifle give me squatter's right if I'm nowhere around?

I can see your side of the argument and actually I even agree with you but it still doesn't allow me to appreciate trail cameras on public property and all the associated BS that comes with them.

Zeke

Well in some places I've seen pics of in AZ, I won't argue with you Zeke, that they are not an eyesore...but that's not the argument of those trying to ban their use as an aid to "unfair" hunting, etc! AND...this law will not stop the use of TC's at all! They CANNOT ban one from placing cams on public land, they know that, and the proposed law reads accordingly!

All a TC does in essence is potentially show you what's in the area, etc. There's not cell service in most of these areas, so TC's that transfer pics to your cell phone are not real helpful...one still has to physically check the cams. Thus no "real-time" advantage is gained at all...just general knowledge of what might be around!

The argument made however, is "unfair" hunting advantages, putting the game further in peril...well that's what limitation on tags is for. Which they already do in AZ. In fact, if that's the argument...then they should definitely be lobbying to ban binos, spotting scopes, range finders, and a posse of guys scouting / glassing too. These things do indeed give "real time" advantages over a deer's exact where-abouts, size estimation, range to target, and multiple sets of eyes all looking for the same thing, at the same time! The argument they make is complete nonsense...its nothing more than some resident hunters wanting the outfitters not to be able to use cams to help with their client hunts. I've listened to em say it many times!

If the "info" gained by way of a TC is unlawful to use in pursuit of game in AZ...cause that's all they can actually do! Then banning the "info" gained from binos, scopes, spotting scopes and posse groups would / should apply the same! In fact as I mentioned above, the latter provides "real time" aid, unlike TC's. Several groups are just as opposed to this silliness, as are the supporters on the other side. If those opposed just banded together (pooled resources) I'd be very surprised if a half-way decent attorney couldn't beat this one down in short order.

Why anyone ever lobbies govt to pass more laws (restricting the people) to fix their personal problems of this little magnitude...evades me every time?! The last thing we need is more of the "I'm from the govt, and I'm here to help" BS! But of course, that's just my opinion!

I use TC's some on public some on private land.

I biggest problem I have run into on public lands.

Just like with people placing stands on public lands.

They think the own that area of land around them.

We have had people leave notes on vehicles saying don't hunt here.

As they were hunting there that year. Heck we been hunting that public land for 50 years.

Even seen people post public lands.

Hunted the strip last year with a buddy and it was a shit show because of cameras. Everybody hunts the biggest deer and when that deer is dead they move to the next biggest. Everybody driving around all night checking cameras to see where the best deer hit water and then there’s no less than 10 tag holders and 40 spotters there. Ban them on public ground and separate the men from the boys. Some folks will still find big deer, a lot won’t

Only good thing about them is knowing whats there and people are typically focusing on the oldest deer. One alternative is to do like Nevada did. Allow them but they all have to be pulled 2 weeks before the opener.

People will still run them. About to have a lot of guides become wildlife photographers to try to get around the “used for hunting” verbiage

quote:

Hunted the strip last year with a buddy and it was a shit show because of cameras. Everybody hunts the biggest deer and when that deer is dead they move to the next biggest

Maybe should read everybody is hunting fame and fortune.

Instead of hunting for fun and meat.

In the Gila every water hole has 3 or 4 cameras on it.

Most of the BLM lands in New Mexico are not much better.

NM and Arizona are desert states where water is always an issue.

I think it's a good thing and more states need to do it, along with tree stands on public land.

I have friends that are guides and they have seen a dozen plus cameras at waterholes and 5 plus different tree stands.

Enough is a enough. Hunt public land without cameras and allow tree stands for day use only and you have to be in the stand - no unattended stands.

As much as I hate government regulation of any kind as an Arizona resident I’d say it’s out of hand. Sad state of affairs

This is a great move by AZ. Nevada already has a similar rule in place.

Trail cam tech is coming along very fast. Cuddleback has cams that can be linked and send images for miles. All that is needed is a cell cam to be linked where there is service. And there are satellite service cams out there too. $1k is not much to an outfitter's business.

This is in part to protect the resource. They sell hunting permits- not killing guarantees. If tech makes hunting too successful then permits must be reduced. That impacts hunters and agencies.

And all the talk of gov't infringing on rights-- in the hunting world, most rules are made to put a parameter on the activity. 4ga guns for waterfowl are not allowed- we could allow 4ga and have a 10 day season, but we don't. We could allow spotlighting deer hunts, but we don't because it matters how they are killed. We could allow gill-netting trout and have a short fishing season, but we don't.

As tech increases, we choose to limit it or not. That is life. Having watched the long-range shooting craze and its negative impacts on the public lands herds I hunt, I'm ready for a 1 day scoped weapon season and a 7 day open-sights season.

It is getting to where we are under video surveillance all the time. One place where I would expect to not be is in the woods.
If you want to watch a water hole, set up with your sleeping bag and spotting scope and watch it. If you want to see what's using a trail, get off your ass and check it out.
I do think trail cams are a valuable tool to help to protect livestock or other property and, in some circumstances, to assist in wildlife management. For hunting, I'm not a fan. Hate me if you like. Regards, Bill

I very much dislike Train Cams during hunting season anywhere and even less on public land. I also very much dislike unenforceable laws or even worse, Laws that make criminals out of otherwise common behavior, in this case taking pictures.
A good law to solve the problem might be, "un attended trail cams and Tree stands on public property become discarded property." and as such would be appreciated if removed like all litter should be.

I actually do not think the State can regulate an activity on Federal Land. I think even the hunting seadond if we are going to take the latest S.Ct. Case where the state cannot convict for a state crime “murder” on previously federal land an Indian reservation.

A state can only had police powers within its own territorial jurisdiction. A element necessary to commit a crime must occur within the territorial limits of the state. Fed land is not the preview of the state.

The 10th Circuit has done ruled a state agency cannot regulate hunting on federal land.

quote:

I actually do not think the State can regulate an activity on Federal Land

Go to any state to hunt on FEDERAL land and you will need a license from that state and pay non resident fees to hunt on FEDERAL land in that state.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

The 10th Circuit has done ruled a state agency cannot regulate hunting on federal land.

That's a convoluted conclusion if you're referring to the most recent case last month.

The appeal in the 10th was initiated by animal rights group(s). A district court had already ruled against them. The case dealth with whether the National Park Service had jurisdiction over private & state land that was within the boundaries of Grand Teton NP. And the court found it did NOT because the STATE legislature had not ceded such to the NPS, as per the Constitution.

Read the decision here.

From another legislative recap:

Federal land ownership began when the original 13 states ceded title to more than 40% of their “western” lands to the central government. Subsequently, the federal government acquired lands from foreign countries through purchases and treaties. The Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2, gives Congress authority over the lands, territories, or other property of the United States. This provision provides Congress broad authority over lands owned by the federal government. The U.S. Supreme Court has described this power as “without limitations.” When Congress exercises its authority over federal land, federal law overrides conflicting state laws under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2.

States can obtain authority to own and manage federal lands within their borders only by federal, not state, law. Congress’s broad authority over federal lands includes the authority to dispose of lands, and Congress can choose to transfer ownership of federal land to states. States have legal authority to manage federal lands within their borders to the extent Congress has given them such authority. As an example, Congress has to a large extent allowed states to exercise management authority over wildlife as a traditional area of state concern.Congress could give states authority to manage certain other activities, resources, or other aspects of federal lands. Congress also could give federal agencies authority to delegate or assign responsibility for aspects of federal land management to states or other partners.

And a bit more....

Throughout the history of this country, federal and state wildlife legislation has motivated an intricate dance over jurisdiction and the right to manage wildlife. Federal wildlife laws have largely evolved out of the need to protect certain habitats or a certain species or type of animal such as migratory birds. On occasion federal legislation has been passed as an implementation of the terms of an international treaty to protect wildlife, such as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which implements treaties with Mexico, Japan, Canada and the Soviet Union,1 or the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which in part implements the Polar Bear Agreement with the five circumpolar nations.2

State wildlife laws have largely developed by the nature of states' "ownership" of the wildlife within its borders in trust for its citizens, with states shouldering the right and duty to manage that wildlife.3 Federal wildlife laws generally preempt state laws only when it is necessary to manage or conserve wildlife species occurring over several or many states. State laws often expressly include or compliment federal laws such as the Endangered Species Act, whose list of endangered species is usually adopted in full by states in their own legislation regarding endangered and threatened species.

Legislation for management or protection of wildlife has often accumulated in state fish and wildlife codes through accretion, in response to various issues or crises affecting a state or regional areas, rather than from a comprehensive policy. Hence, there is little consistency between states, especially in enforcement of wildlife laws, and there has been no easy method of ascertaining what neighboring states have legislated in order to consider enacting compatible legislation. Adding to the vast complexity of the states' laws themselves are the individual state regulations, local ordinances and Native American wildlife laws, each with their sometimes contradictory or overlapping jurisdiction and management issues.

Despite the complexity of state wildlife laws, many states are aware of the irrefutable fact that wildlife knows no legal boundaries, and states are examining ways to open up the boundaries between states so that effective and consistent legislation can be passed, which should in turn improve interstate cooperation. While some states have enacted specific interstate agreements with their neighbors, many more are needed. Comparing differences in state laws will illustrate how interstate agreements and more consistent legislation can improve wildlife protection and management. Increased habitat protection and non-game wildlife management, poaching issues, habitat loss, and better funding for agencies are other areas where states should compare provisions in other states' legislation.

I've never understood why the Fed needs to own land anyway. IMO, if the land is Fed owned then game license fees should be the same in any state for any citizen.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
I've never understood why the Fed needs to own land anyway. IMO, if the land is Fed owned then game license fees should be the same in any state for any citizen.

The license isn't a trespass fee; it's a fee to hunt and kill the state-owned wildlife no matter where it is hunted. Anyone is free to access federal land about anywhere without a hunting license.

Isn't access free to state owned land too? It is in Missouri. You want to hunt it, you buy the tag.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
Isn't access free to state owned land too? It is in Missouri. You want to hunt it, you buy the tag.

Yes. I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't. And like federal land, you need to buy a hunting license if you want to hunt the state-owned wildlfe on state land, as well.

We also have an interesting law here in AZ regarding state trust land, which is different than other state owned, such as a state park.

Other than someone who leases the grazing rights on state trust land, the ONLY other people who can legally access it are LICENSED hunters. IOW, it's closed off to hikers, birdwatchers, etc.

I agree with your statement in bold, but in other areas of police power being exercised by the State on Fed law the Fed Courts have been consistent. The state cannot prosecute crimes occurring on Fed law. I do not know if the Courts would permit this delegation of Federal authority if seriously challenged.

I do not think the 10th Circuit case is that convoluted. Fed land equals Fed jurisdiction. However, to untangle the state-Fed management of game and land would be a nightmare. So, the Court’s may or would make an exception.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I agree with your statement in bold, but in other areas of police power being exercised by the State on Fed law the Fed Courts have been consistent. The state cannot prosecute crimes occurring on Fed law. I do not know if the Courts would permit this delegation of Federal authority if seriously challenged.

I do not think the 10th Circuit case is that convoluted. Fed land equals Fed jurisdiction. However, to untangle the state-Fed management of game and land would be a nightmare. So, the Court’s may or would make an exception.

I didn't say the case is convoluted. What I stated was your interpretation of the case and decision was convoluted. In less elegant language, your "The 10th Circuit has done ruled a state agency cannot regulate hunting on federal land." is hogwash if that statement is based on the case I cited above. Perhaps take some time and actually read it. The case was about NON-federal lands in the middle of a national park.

As for your 1st paragraph in the above quote, it has nothing to do hunting on federal lands. BUT...even then, your interporetation is wrong. The only federal lands where that is true are the Indian reservations, where they are their own sovereign nations. The states regularly prosecute other crimes committed on other federal lands such as nat. forest & BLM areas.

The land the state sought jurisdiction upon fell inside Federal Jurisdiction. No person’s land fell within the jurisdiction of the State Legislature to regulate. The land is private property in the territorial jurisdiction of the Feds. So, the Feds get to regulate and not the State.

This is not that complicated. A State has no stroke, generally, inside or upon Fed Land.

My County is 80 percent Fed Forest. You kill someone upon Fed Forest, you are not my problem. No element of the crime occurred in KY jurisdiction. I probably could find something to charge you with that occurred on State land. State law enforcement can arrest if otherwise lawful to be there.



Reservations likewise fall under Fed Jurisdiction as the S.Ct. had made clear police power cannot be delegated to the States by statehood.


Sorry, this state law would make an interesting Fed. case given these recent decisions.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The land the state sought jurisdiction upon fell inside Federal Jurisdiction. No person’s land fell within the jurisdiction of the State Legislature to regulate. The land is private property in the territorial jurisdiction of the Feds. So, the Feds get to regulate and not the State.

Once more, the appeals court ruled just the opposite, upholding the lower court's ruling, because the state at no time ceded the power to the feds to regulate hunting on those private and/or state lands within the park.

States also cannot tax Fed land.

The case citing authority in italics emphasis of the Court:

Lands and Water within the National Park are under the legislative jurisdiction of the United States.

The Enabling Act passed by Congress to create the Park where the Feds ceded authority to the State did not address private land, so the general rule cited above became controlling.

I forgot the other part about the state or any other entity proscecuting crimes on federal land. So here's a very recent example.

A while back, a man and his wife tried to drive across a flooded creek in a truck with their kids aboard. They didn't make it. The truck was swept downstream and kids drowned. It happened on NF land.

The guy was charged by the Gila County Sheriff with of three counts of reckless manslaughter and seven counts of child abuse. His wife is facing seven counts of child abuse.

You can read about here:
Tonto Creek Case

When it happened:

TONTO BASIN, Ariz. — The bodies of two young children were found Saturday, but searchers were still looking for a third child who went missing after a truck they were in was swept away while attempting to cross a runoff-swollen creek in the Tonto National Forest in Arizona.

Gila County sheriff’s Lt. Virgil Dodd said the first body found was of a 5-year-old boy. The second child’s age and gender weren’t provided in a statement released by the Sheriff’s Office.

Dodd said the 5-year-old boy’s body was found about 3 miles (4.8 kilometers) downstream of the crossing which had been closed hours before the truck tried to cross Friday despite barricades and warning signs.

Drivers “really need to not ignore that. It’s very dangerous. It’s very hazardous,” Dodd said in announcing the first death. “In this case, this horrible and tragic incident ... that’s what happens when you ignore these types of signs.”

The Sheriff’s Office said emergency personnel and law enforcement helicopters on Friday rescued two adults and two children who also were in the military-style truck swept downstream in Tonto Creek near the small community of Tonto Basin, which is about 52 miles (83 kilometers) northeast of Phoenix.

Sheriff’s officials previously said a total of six people, including four children, were rescued Friday at locations along the creek.

The people in the truck didn’t live locally, Dodd said, but he didn’t know the relationship between the adults and the children.

“We have no information as to why they were trying to cross the creek,” Dodd said. “We think everybody was in the cab at the time.”

Rescue teams from multiple agencies participated in the search, and authorities brought in a bulldozer to pull the truck from the creek bed Saturday.

“Searchers found the truck about 1,000 yards (around 914 meters) downstream from the crossing Friday night,” Dodd said. “There was nobody in the truck.”

Adverse conditions included heavy brush and slippery mud along the creek and frigid water from snowmelt, but officials said they remained hopeful.

Sheriff’s Deputy Phil Smith said the creek only flows during storm runoff.

A National Weather Service meteorologist said the agency issued a flood warning for the region that includes the Tonto Basin area at 8:53 a.m. Friday based on data from an upstream flooding gauge.

Meteorologist Sean Benedict in Phoenix estimated that up to 2 inches (5 centimeters) of rain fell in the area, with some of the runoff coming from snow that fell on nearby peaks.

The region got up to 4 inches (10 centimeters) of rain about a week before, Benedict said. “So the grounds were already pretty wet and that probably helped with the runoff.”

These types charges and even murders are quite common in AZ (and other western states) where every county has its own sheriff's dept to administer areas outside city limits, which usually means either federal, BLM or state trust land since that takes in more than 80% of Arizona. Plus, there are the state police who have jurisdiction anywhere but on the reservations or federal properties with their own police forces.

Now this is my last reply on this topic. So you can have the last word.

Another example of how the state controls hunting within its borders even on federal land occurs in Wyoming.

"Nonresident big and trophy game hunters are required to obtain a professional outfitter or resident guide while hunting in any federally designated wilderness area. All outfitters must be licensed by the Wyoming Board of Outfitters and Professional Guides".

A silly law that does nothing but protect the guide business in Wyoming but there it is.

quote:

Originally posted by Cougarz:
Another example of how the state controls hunting within its borders even on federal land occurs in Wyoming.

And in many western states, the majority of game law violations take place on federal land but are charged and proscecuted by the state, i.e. state game departments and state court systems.

Now that is REALLY my last reply.

Since Texas has very little public hunting land, this does not concern most Texas hunters.

The only times that I have hunted Texas public lands was when the state personnel were there running the hunts and there were no problems.

Interesting differences.

quote:

Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:

quote:

Originally posted by Cougarz:
Another example of how the state controls hunting within its borders even on federal land occurs in Wyoming.

And in many western states, the majority of game law violations take place on federal land but are charged and proscecuted by the state, i.e. state game departments and state court systems.

Now that is REALLY my last reply.

Thanks, you are quite correct sir...

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
Isn't access free to state owned land too? It is in Missouri. You want to hunt it, you buy the tag.

Nope, not in NM. The game and fish pays a hefty "rent" to the State Land Commission so hunters can use state ground. Aside from that, John Q. Public cannot hike, camp, cut wood, etc. on state ground without express permission of the entity leasing. In many respects, it's de facto private land.