Banning Hunting Tech in Idaho

[OrangeMan73]

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 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 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.

Thermal drones is a different subject than handheld thermal IMO.

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:

1. Still don't think we need to make more regs banning them.
2. 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.

 

[Wagondriver]

If a thermal can see through or behind a bush, then the bush is not thick enough to hide the animal from visible eye either. This fits within physics.

And in nearly all hours of legal shooting light, a 1000+ stumps and rocks on the hillside all look like warm bodies. Its NOT a cheat code. This is only revealed once you've actually used one, which again, is 99% of the problem here. Inexperience with the subject.

Besides that, whether you see the animal with a thermal or your eye, you have to make the decision to further pursue the animal, likely stalk up on the animal and/or close the distance, wait for the shot to present itself, and then launch the projectile at it. If simply locating the animal changes the sport from hunting to shooting, then outlaw technology that allows glassing as well, as I've articulated there are multiple steps immediately following in the process. Not even talking about all the steps preceeding (getting yourself in a position and setup to locate) and proceeding the kill (retrieving, packing out, etc.)

Turns out hunting is not a universal definition one person can articulate as their own.

Sounds to me like you have no experience with them, or at least one that's any good.

I have used ones where you could see a mouse in tall grass at 20 yards, cows at a mile. Ability to determine coyote vs dog at a couple hundred yards. Its not just a hot spot, it SEEING the animal very clearly.

 

[OrangeMan73]

Sounds to me like you have no experience with them, or at least one that's any good.

I have used ones where you could see a mouse in tall grass at 20 yards, cows at a mile. Ability to determine coyote vs dog at a couple hundred yards. Its not just a hot spot, it SEEING the animal very clearly.

Wrong assumptions on what my experience is.

There is no thermal that allows you to see through or behind physical barriers. Yes you can see cows at a mile. Yes you can tell difference between dog and coyote. Same with decent glass if used during legal light... which is only time you can hunt big game in Idaho anyways (aside from wolves with a special permit). But if the views are partially obstructed, that advantage drops significantly, to the point I argue its not worth further regulation.

 

[Customweld]

Wrong assumptions on what my experience is.

Ts if used during legal light... which is only time you can hunt big game in Idaho anyways (aside from wolves with a special permit).

Folks aren't using them for an advantage during legal light. They are cruising roads all night.

 

[Jake Larsen]

Folks aren't using them for an advantage during legal light. They are cruising roads all night.

Or running ridges looking into canyons with lots of cover in the dark or near dark. Mature animals especially are often back in the cover by first light. But if you know they’re there, you know exactly where to sit and look (or go still hunt through) once it is legal light. Yes, you still have to get them killed. But finding them is a MASSIVE part of the puzzle. WHEN USED TO ITS FULL POTENTIAL, this technology assists in finding animals in a way that nothing else does. Alpha glass, OnX, you name it. The folks arguing that it doesn’t are either intentionally obfuscating, or they haven’t seen/understood how to use this technology to its full potential in the context of western big game ungulate hunting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[omicron1792]

Or running ridges looking into canyons with lots of cover in the dark or near dark. Mature animals especially are often back in the cover by first light. But if you know they’re there, you know exactly where to sit and look (or go still hunt through) once it is legal light. Yes, you still have to get them killed. But finding them is a MASSIVE part of the puzzle. WHEN USED TO ITS FULL POTENTIAL, this technology assists in finding animals in a way that nothing else does. Alpha glass, OnX, you name it. The folks arguing that it doesn’t are either intentionally obfuscating, or they haven’t seen/understood how to use this technology to its full potential in the context of western big game ungulate hunting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or the people making a big deal have dramatically overstated the full potential of the technology to harvest westerns big game.

Or dramatically UNDERESTIMATE how much their current technology already has reached most of that potential already.

 

[OrangeMan73]

Or the people making a big deal have dramatically overstated the full potential of the technology to harvest westerns big game.

Or dramatically UNDERESTIMATE how much their current technology already has reached most of that potential already.

Bingo. Not a cheat code. Only way to get rid of the "cheat code" now is eliminate all technology, which quite frankly is a little far fetched at this point. Wooden sticks and stone tips? I advocate for no more frivolous and irrelevant regs.

 

[idelkslayer]

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.

I agree that this does not have a lot of data to demonstrate to what extent if any, these technologies are having on hunting success rates. I wouldn't say it is emotionally driven as much as it is intuition. Intuitively, a hunter with a thermal optic is going to find more game than a hunter without it. The only way to have usable data would be to have a significant amount of hunters specifically use thermals for several years in a handful of units across the state and see if their success rate is higher than that of other hunters in the same unit and time period. Given how skeptical hunters seem to be about sharing information with fish and game; I doubt that many hunters currently using thermals are going to come forward and voluntarily share their success rate if doing so will get the instrument banned that allows them that high level of success.

Wrong assumptions on what my experience is.

There is no thermal that allows you to see through or behind physical barriers. Yes you can see cows at a mile. Yes you can tell difference between dog and coyote. Same with decent glass if used during legal light... which is only time you can hunt big game in Idaho anyways (aside from wolves with a special permit). But if the views are partially obstructed, that advantage drops significantly, to the point I argue its not worth further regulation.

It may not allow you to see behind barriers but If I scan a brushy hillside with regular optics I might look over a patch of hair or a leg that is exposed to view if it blends in with the colors of the brush/rocks, etc. With a thermal optic it stands out because color doesn't matter.

 

[IdahoJoe29]

I agree that this does not have a lot of data to demonstrate to what extent if any, these technologies are having on hunting success rates. I wouldn't say it is emotionally driven as much as it is intuition. Intuitively, a hunter with a thermal optic is going to find more game than a hunter without it. The only way to have usable data would be to have a significant amount of hunters specifically use thermals for several years in a handful of units across the state and see if their success rate is higher than that of other hunters in the same unit and time period. Given how skeptical hunters seem to be about sharing information with fish and game; I doubt that many hunters currently using thermals are going to come forward and voluntarily share their success rate if doing so will get the instrument banned that allows them that high level of success.

It may not allow you to see behind barriers but If I scan a brushy hillside with regular optics I might look over a patch of hair or a leg that is exposed to view if it blends in with the colors of the brush/rocks, etc. With a thermal optic it stands out because color doesn't matter.

It’s no use these guys refuse to admit that thermals give you any advantage.
Does make a guy wonder why they are using it if it doesn’t give an edge?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[omicron1792]

It’s no use these guys refuse to admit that thermals give you any advantage.
Does make a guy wonder why they are using it if it doesn’t give an edge?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ha. You’re persistent for sure.

I agree that this does not have a lot of data to demonstrate to what extent if any, these technologies are having on hunting success rates. I wouldn't say it is emotionally driven as much as it is intuition. Intuitively, a hunter with a thermal optic is going to find more game than a hunter without it. The only way to have usable data would be to have a significant amount of hunters specifically use thermals for several years in a handful of units across the state and see if their success rate is higher than that of other hunters in the same unit and time period. Given how skeptical hunters seem to be about sharing information with fish and game; I doubt that many hunters currently using thermals are going to come forward and voluntarily share their success rate if doing so will get the instrument banned that allows them that high level of success.

It may not allow you to see behind barriers but If I scan a brushy hillside with regular optics I might look over a patch of hair or a leg that is exposed to view if it blends in with the colors of the brush/rocks, etc. With a thermal optic it stands out because color doesn't matter.

I agree with all of this.

My point is we shouldn’t make laws on intuition, but data.

Aren’t we hammering the Colorado wildlife board for passing a fur ban with no data? I’m sure they are basing it on “intuition” too.