OrangeMan73
Lil-Rokslider
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2021
- Messages
- 184
On item 2, I guess I can't make everybody have the same end goal that I think Robby and I share, but thats fine. Its a free country, and goes along with hunting is a different experience for everybody and I don't think we should adjudicate/legislate a leveling to somebody else's perception of what that is. Idaho is an opportunity state, and that opportunity grows and makes hunters which I think is the most important principle. I do think I disagree with @robby denning though and being able to be choosier about what you're searching for can allow those 4.5 or 5.5 year bucks get another year in them. At least anecdotally for me it'd sure help.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.
On item 1, you are reaffirming a foundational counter argument for the ban. You deem it an unfair advantage, but basically unenforceable. And like other technologies discussed, including but limited to those that are proposed for ban, are already standard practice.
I do have to agree personally with you that thermal drones are kinda like the extreme end of the spectrum and even I am not advocating for their use. But on principal:Thermal drones is a different subject than handheld thermal IMO.
- Still don't think we need to make more regs banning them.
- And I'm not worried about folks using them to gain an unfair advantage, because there's regs already established in Idaho about aerial and hunting. Enforce what we got instead of making more.