Banning Hunting Tech in Idaho

If/when they switch to 100% e-tagging, participation in terms of harvest success could be automatic if they set it up so the app automatically transmits the data. There would probably be a few guys that would not tag their animals, but I think it would be far less than the number that currently do not participate in harvest reporting.
 
OrangeMan73 said:
I can't believe I got a direct reply back from the great ROBBY! Not being sarcastic, sincerely, kinda neat. Whole family listens to your podcasts and I got your books and someday I hope to kill deer as big as you.

But since I got your attention, let me ask you two questions:
  1. How do you feel about using two way radios? Its my understanding that Idaho allows them. I think that two way radios could produce way more advantage than any other technology thats being proposed to be banned--refer back to the river road scenario above that IdahoJoe pointed out.
  2. Have you ever thought about how thermals can actually help in production of big mule deer? By identifying a buck in an area, you can see what kind of class it is. Most of them are going to be smaller than the true trophies (190+, my standard), an honest but sad reality of today. But by prior identifying them, it allows you to a) not disturb them and b) not still hunt into that area trigging a potential bump and split-second-shoot-on-the-hoof-decision that us mule deer fanatics (ok, especially me) are all too familiar with.
Appreciate the input.
Click to expand...
On item 2, You assume someone else won’t decide it’s big enough and take it this year. Watching hunters here, if someone found it’s, it’s getting shot.

On item 1, I would argue two way communication should not be allowed for transmission of location. Also hard to enforce in many instances.

In regards to thermal drones. I think it’s a huge advantage to the hunter and even if it’s not common now, should be stopped before it becomes standard practice. It’s much harder to stop something later, ie cell cams.
 
robby denning said:
Hey thanks on the books

1. Having used 2-way radios (where legal) over 20 years, I can’t say they’ve lead to a direct big buck harvest. Although we’ve tried on stalks to use them. Now we’re doing same thing with cell phones (texting, calling “I see the elk over at X, can you get there?). That’s certainly helping us harvest. Haven’t used my Motorolas in years.

2) peeling away darkness IN REAL TIME goes against growing more big deer IMO. I haven’t ever used a therm outside of a show but have used cell cams since 2018. Haven’t harvested a buck yet because even though they’re (sorta) real time, it’s hard to get anywhere before animals move. Therms move the line closer

I agree with those who say “show us the data of impact”. It doesn’t seem to be there. For me, it’s about drawing a line before it’s too late. When therm guys I trust say they’re that good, that’s good enough for me.

As proposed, this new law would move the tech in question out of the big game hunt and only to scouting (except spring bear, early archery antelope, and a few greenfield elk hunts.)

To me, that is a good place to compromise.
Click to expand...
What’s the farthest you’ve ever killed an elk or mule deer.

I have a 400 yard self imposed limit. If I use a thermal and stalk within 400 yards, is that “less than” someone that has killed one at 800 across a valley?
 
Bluefish said:
On item 2, You assume someone else won’t decide it’s big enough and take it this year. Watching hunters here, if someone found it’s, it’s getting shot.

On item 1, I would argue two way communication should not be allowed for transmission of location. Also hard to enforce in many instances.

In regards to thermal drones. I think it’s a huge advantage to the hunter and even if it’s not common now, should be stopped before it becomes standard practice. It’s much harder to stop something later, ie cell cams.
Click to expand...
Thermal drones is a different subject than handheld thermal IMO.
 
omicron1792 said:
What’s the farthest you’ve ever killed an elk or mule deer.

I have a 400 yard self imposed limit. If I use a thermal and stalk within 400 yards, is that “less than” someone that has killed one at 800 across a valley?
Click to expand...
480 yds

I don't know on your second question. If it's legal, then it's your call, not mine. I guess that’s what this whole discussion is about. What should be legal. I’ve just never been comfortable, imposing my ethics on someone else.
 
This discussion and my my own thoughts over the last year on this subject have led me to the conclusion that the line should be drawn at electronics, period. Electronics more than any other technology take the human element out of hunting. I know we will never get rid of GPS or OnX, or two-way radios as they are all considered safety devices. And Rangefinders are heavily entrenched. It was range finders that made the long range hunting craze possible. Without them a 400 yards shot would still be considered long range. We will probably never eliminate range finders, although, I would happily give up my range finder before losing annual OTC opportunity.

I know that rifles, optics, clothing, are all technologies that increase our hunting success. But, I think those technologies can only advance so far. There does not seem to be a limit to where electronic technologies can go.

At least with range finders, lighted reticles and other earlier tech, the hunter still had to use their own eyes to find game. Thermals will eliminate that, if you don't believe current tech is effective, you might at least acknowledge that it will eventually get there. But put in the camp that believes the tech already exists and is being used far more that I knew just a couple years ago.

Why are we trying to make hunting easier? Even cellular trail cameras are too far in my mind. So what if you have to drive 2 hours, and hike 3 miles to check your camera. Such effort is what separates those who are dedicated from those who are not. If you eliminate electronics entirely, the amount of effort required to scout goes up even further. Is that a bad thing? Some years I am able to make time for a lot of scouting, other years not so much, that's life. Just because a technology exists that would make something easier doesn't mean it is good in every context.
 
idelkslayer said:
This discussion and my my own thoughts over the last year on this subject have led me to the conclusion that the line should be drawn at electronics, period. Electronics more than any other technology take the human element out of hunting. I know we will never get rid of GPS or OnX, or two-way radios as they are all considered safety devices. And Rangefinders are heavily entrenched. It was range finders that made the long range hunting craze possible. Without them a 400 yards shot would still be considered long range. We will probably never eliminate range finders, although, I would happily give up my range finder before losing annual OTC opportunity.

I know that rifles, optics, clothing, are all technologies that increase our hunting success. But, I think those technologies can only advance so far. There does not seem to be a limit to where electronic technologies can go.

At least with range finders, lighted reticles and other earlier tech, the hunter still had to use their own eyes to find game. Thermals will eliminate that, if you don't believe current tech is effective, you might at least acknowledge that it will eventually get there. But put in the camp that believes the tech already exists and is being used far more that I knew just a couple years ago.

Why are we trying to make hunting easier? Even cellular trail cameras are too far in my mind. So what if you have to drive 2 hours, and hike 3 miles to check your camera. Such effort is what separates those who are dedicated from those who are not. If you eliminate electronics entirely, the amount of effort required to scout goes up even further. Is that a bad thing? Some years I am able to make time for a lot of scouting, other years not so much, that's life. Just because a technology exists that would make something easier doesn't mean it is good in every context.
Click to expand...
Everything with a computer chip, except for a headlamp and a Garmin style emergency beacon, should be outlawed if we want to maintain fair chase. Leave the phone at home.
 
Let's take tech away from lawful hunters before we get a grip on existing laws.

Zero support from me.

There's people known to F&G to shoot every deer and elk they see indiscriminately because "it's fun, who cares?" Those same people run dogs and shoot and leave every bear they tree regardless of training or kill season because "it was a mean one". These people hunt statewide and F&G has been "investigating" them for decades.

F&G officers are looking for low hanging fruit and making sure their pension is intact. They're also not interested in pursuing violent felons who have their families names and addresses. Ban thermals and nothing will change outside of 9/10 people who use thermals will hang em up.
 
WeiserBucks said:
It's simply none of their business. Hunt legally, tag critters and do your harvest report.

No more, no less.
Click to expand...
If you are doing your harvest report then what is the issue with the e tagging? Maybe I’m missing something? Are you specifically talking about logging the coordinates of where the animal was shot? Because i agree with you there.
 
Smithb9841 said:
The last year I hunted in Idaho I had a drone fly over me while glassing a couple canyons. It came over then followed down the main ridgeline looking into each canyon that fed off. I know this is a case of one time and no way to know if it had a thermal and there is a law already in place for spotting game using aircraft but it shows that people are using drones to spot game.
Click to expand...
Already illegal in Idaho if they were using it to spot game (and hunt in the same day).
 
Pacific_Fork said:
I love when someone arguing a point clearly hasn’t used said product, or the one they did use was $100 a Walmart special.

The high end thermals see animals when body temps are higher than air temps, or when rocks/trees are cold. I’ve seen bull elk at 1,000 yards on a sept morning. Don’t get me going on October-November conditions. They work as intended. Period, end of story. Not a cheat code?? Now I’m just speechless. Carry on.
Click to expand...
Again, wrong assumptions. And correct, not a cheat code. But sure, I'll carry on.
 
Customweld said:
If you are able to cruise around a couple of hours before daybreak and scan draws and across canyons to see if there are animals in there, that's a huge advantage. It would make killing way more simple if before daybreak, you knew the draw you were planning on hunting indeed had animals in it. Not being able to see them during the day isn't that big of a deal, it's knowing that they are there before you even leave the truck.
Click to expand...
This right here.

It’s the same thing people said in Utah when trail cameras were on the docket. “I have never killed an animal I have on trail camera.” To me, that just tells me how little you understand about the information they give you. If all you pay attention to is the animals it’s showing you, you’re leaving about 90% of the useful information out. Knowing where the animals aren’t is far more effective than where they are.
 
43.6N said:
Well said Robby.

As I posted earlier, I have thermal tech and am in favor of its restriction for deer and elk. But the data to show how restricting it will be effective is non-existent. These propositions from IDFG are not data driven. Which is unfortunate, because it means we can only argue on the grounds of opinion rather than fact.
Click to expand...
Thats foundation of my disagreement with the whole deal. It is not data driven, it's emotion driven, and results in more irrelevant and frivolous regulations that are unenforceable or redundant as best, and are only hurting in opportunity. If the needle needs to be moved, lets focus energy in habitat improvement as Q_sert alluded to. Unfortunately thats actually the harder path rather than adjudicating our freedoms away on some arbitrary but slippery slope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
New Rules go to Idaho Fish and Game Commission for approval, meeting Nov 19-20
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
5K
packgoatguy
P

Latest posts

Featured Video

Latest Articles

Back
Top