Idaho IDFG rule changes comment period ends June 20th

[packgoatguy]

I must suck. With open sights here and sabots 100 yards is a poke over that its really just luck.

That may be... but "open sights" aren't the limitations that many would assume... lots of marines out of basic thinking 500 yards is doable... because that's what they practice to with open sights.

 

[KurtR]

That may be... but "open sights" aren't the limitations that many would assume... lots of marines out of basic thinking 500 yards is doable... because that's what they practice to with open sights.

Ya i could do that also when i got done with basic but not an open sighted muzzle loader.

 

[CasNed]

That sounds like the wrong direction... we should be looking to elevate our respect for bears, wolves, and lions... why we aren't required to take bear meat is beyond me... its some of the best eating table fare around... what a waste for guys just to leave it on the hill for the ravens. Most of us can go YEARS without seeing a lion in the woods... why do we need to make it easier to kill them?

The state wants to promote bear harvest to help ungulate populations without mandating you eat trichinosis.

Just because you aren’t seeing lions doesn’t mean there isn’t a dense population of lions in your area.

 

[TheTone]

That sounds like the wrong direction... we should be looking to elevate our respect for bears, wolves, and lions... why we aren't required to take bear meat is beyond me... its some of the best eating table fare around... what a waste for guys just to leave it on the hill for the ravens. Most of us can go YEARS without seeing a lion in the woods... why do we need to make it easier to kill them?

You were required to take bear meat for a long time, when it changed to current that was again something pushed by a legislator

 

[packgoatguy]

The state wants to promote bear harvest to help ungulate populations without mandating you eat trichinosis.

Just because you aren’t seeing lions doesn’t mean there isn’t a dense population of lions in your area.

I'm not ignorant of the rationale, just incredulous. Yes. I get that bbears and lions are a contributing factor to fawn and calf mortality... among other more weighty factors like habitat loss... but that doesn't make them unworthy of our respect and responsible management. And when it comes to lions... a "dense" population in a particular area is the difference between 1 lion every 25,000 acres and 2 lions every 25,000 acres...

And no one has to "eat" trichinosis... just practice safe food handling habits, cook it to the correct temp... and enjoy.

 

[packgoatguy]

Here is another question that could be considered if you are willing to make comments to IDFG:

1. Page 17, 04. Other, section “f” Bans the use of Aircraft for hunting.

Is this new rule redundant? There are already rules in place that restrict the use of aircraft/drones for the purpose of hunting. (as noted in the current IDFG regulations, the Federal Airborne Hunting Act prohibits recreational hunting from aircraft, and on Page 95 of the Big Game Regs it states that it is unlawful to hunt big game from or by the use of an motorized vehicle including any unmanned aircraft system (manned aircraft systems would necessarily be included in the definition of a motorized vehicle). Page 96 of the BGR also elaborates that it is illegal to use Aircraft in any manner to spot or locate game animals and communicate that information to hunters on the ground...

Arent the rules are complicated enough...

 

[packgoatguy]

Here is another concern that concerned citizens could bring up with IDFG:

Is the comment period is too short? IDFG emailed out notice of comment period on June 13th to some individuals in Idaho, who had previously expressed interest in the topic..., and the comment period is set to expire June 20th. That is just one week to allow the public to digest and comment. While the public comment period was officially noted in the Idaho Administrative Bulletin as of May 1st, this was a several hundred page document… and one that the vast majority of Idaho Hunters probably do not read or follow. It is obvious that IDFG has the ability to disseminate information… as they have an email address on file for EVERY person who has purchased a tag in Idaho… would it have been an easy thing for IDFG to send an email to all Hunters (perhaps all those who have purchased a tag in the past 5 years) to make them apprised of the proposed rulemaking and changes? IDFG could have done this May 1st, instead of sending out an email June 13th referencing the rulemaking process that began May 1st. While the law may only require the IDFG to post their intent to change rules in the Administrative Bulletin… it seems that it would be in IDFG’s best interest to have all of the public commentary and input they can get… so it seems incongruous that they would wait until now to send out an email to inform Hunters about the upcoming planned changes.

 

[packgoatguy]

Today is the last day to send in your comments on IDFG's proposed rule changes.

Regardless of your opinion on the use of technology for hunting purposes, tell IDFG and it's commissioners that this is NOT the right time for the current proposed rules and these proposed new rules are NOT the way to achieve or elevate fair chase in Idaho.

Maybe you don't live in or hunt in Idaho... but consider the fact that state wildlife agencies nationwide look to each other for guidance and the precedent previously set when needing to craft arguments for their own intended policy and rule changes. Your voice still matters here!

Reasons to give to IDFG for why the proposed rules should be stopped:

1. The IDFG Survey
indicated in the provided supporting material showed that 80% of respondents TOTALLY SUPPORT maintaining the status quo, (keeping tag numbers and rules the same). IDFG should respect that while there is some general concern over the impact that technology tools could have on the future of hunting... at least for now, the vast majority of Idaho Hunters do NOT want changes to the rules!

Furthermore, IDFG should do a better job at disseminating surveys that identify and isolate personal biases, rectify gnorance of particular subjects, and reach a broader audience. Consider that Archery Hunters are more likely to advocate for restrictions they perceive will hamper the abilities of Rifle Hunters. Hiker Hunters will advocate for restrictions that will hamper those who use ATVs, Dirtbikes, SXSs, and Ebikes. Muzzleloader hunters will approve of rules that expand their ability to be successful, and disapprove of rules that limit their effectiveness. Older hunters who might be more set in their ways or used to hunting with a more basic set of tools are more likely to disapprove of younger hunters who spend significant time and resources on enhancing their abilities, identifying and implementing new gear options, etc. As such, and understanding that these biases exist, it is incumbent upon IDFG to be creative in finding ways to gather useful data and statistics that are not unfairly skewed by these biases. Likewise, many hunters are often ignorant to techniques and tools available to other types of hunters and hunting opportunities. For example, a traditional Archery Hunter who has used only a recurve bow he fashioned himself... might be oblivious to the latest innovation in modern high speed compound bow technology. But before IDFG should take the traditional Archery Hunter's opinion in the matter of managing and/or restricting the use of modern compound bow technologies... the traditional Archery Hunter could be educated on the various points of view, including a robust discussion of pros and cons. Once we'll informed, then his opinion can be better weighed against the competing interests of the proponents of the modern Compound Bow technologies. And visa versa of course. This type of educational process is already being utilized by IDFG with the new mandatory Bear Identification course and exam, which platform could be expanded upon to educate hunters of competing viewpoints before soliciting their input on future change. Lastly, instead of reaching a mere fraction of Idaho Hunters with surveys, IDFG has the authority through mechanisms like mandatory harvest reports, to solicit detailed information from every hunter in the state, as well as non resident hunters. Or, because IDFG has email addresses on file for every Hunter who has purchased a license... IDFG could easily send am email to every hunter to allow each hunter to volunteer their input on any subject matter that is important to wildlife management in Idaho. These would bring far more data to the table which would provide IDFG far greater ability to promulgate rules that make the most sense for all Idaho hunters.

2. IDFG should take the time to study and research the actual impact of various technology tools through hunter surveys. The data compiled over the coming years could then be used to craft appropriate rules that are scientifically taylored towards the intended results.

3. Many of the new rules as presented are redundant and unnecessary. For example, a ban on using Aircraft for hunting is unnecessary when we have an existing ban on hunting from a motorized vehicle... as aircraft are necessarily motorized vehicles. Or the ban on Night Vision equipment... where it is already illegal to hunt ungulates at night... night vision is a tool that would only be useful in an already illegal activity... thus rendering it's censure unnecessarily duplicative. Or the Ban on Smart Optics where there is already a rule against using electronic scopes/attachments on a rifle is equally redundant.

4. Many of the new rules will be nearly impossible to enforce, and as such will be unfairly applied. Consider that the new rules against Thermals, NV, and Transmitting Game Cameras are specificly banned for their use in targeting ungulates. However, because hunting for other non-ungulate species like bear, wolf, or lion is NOT illegal under the rules... any hunter caught using one of the proscribed tech tools merely has to claim that they were using the tool to hunt a wolf or other prey that the tech tool was LEGAL to be used for. Thus, no IDFG conservation officer will be able to write a ticket that will stick. Thus, the only hunters who will abide by both the letter and the spirit of the law will be those who either cannot afford the tech tools, or feel a moral compunction to not use the device for the possibility that they could inadvertently be aided in their pursuit of ungulates (regardless of whether they actually are truly using the tech tool to hunt a wolf, etc).


5. There appear to be typos and missing definitions. For example, what will be the legal definition of what constitutes a "smart optic?" What is a "smart optic" not supposed to be attached to?

6. The premise for the new rules is inconsistent with other IDFG rules. The premise provided is that IDFG intends to limit hunter effectiveness by limiting tech tools like night vision or smart optics. Yet, other tech tools like sabots for Muzzleloaders and unlimited letoff or expanding broadheads are being allowed. It is not a stretch to assume that the rule change to allow the use of sabot projectiles during Muzzleloader seasons will have a far greater impact on hunter harvest success (due to increased max effective range) than the same hunter being allowed to use night vision equipment. So, why is night vision being banned... but sabots allowed... if IDFG's real interest is in limiting harvest success so that there is more opportunity for other hunters? Certainly these topics could be studied scientifically over the coming years, to get quantifiable data that could be used in creating comprehensive rules that truly address the issues IDFG has suggested are important for the future of hunting. But proceeding without accurate data, and implementing rule changes that ban or restrict the use of tech tools that Idaho Hunters may have already spent thousands of dollars investing in... is unjust and unfair to IDFG'S constituents.

 

[CasNed]

tell IDFG and it's commissioners that this is NOT the right time for the current proposed rules and these proposed new rules are NOT the way to achieve or elevate fair chase in Idaho.

Yeah no, people can respond how they wish. We aren’t fair chase anymore.

2. IDFG should take the time to study and research the actual impact of various technology tools through hunter surveys. The data compiled over the coming years could then be used to craft appropriate rules that are scientifically taylored towards the intended results.

States have been taking surveys for decades. Harvest % has been increasing already. This isn’t rocket science or myth, being able to shoot an elk at 800 yards fairly effectively will result in more elk being harvested than only being able to shoot 300 yards.

Or the ban on Night Vision equipment... where it is already illegal to hunt ungulates at night... night vision is a tool that would only be useful in an already illegal activity... thus rendering it's censure unnecessarily duplicative.

Thermal imaging works well for locating game during the day…

So, why is night vision being banned... but sabots allowed...

What a crazy statement.

if IDFG's real interest is in limiting harvest success so that there is more opportunity for other hunters? Certainly these topics could be studied scientifically over the coming years, to get quantifiable data that could be used in creating comprehensive rules that truly address the issues IDFG has suggested are important for the future of hunting. But proceeding without accurate data, and implementing rule changes that ban or restrict the use of tech tools that Idaho Hunters may have already spent thousands of dollars investing in... is unjust and unfair to IDFG'S constituents.

Scientifically , you’re making this way harder than it is. They’re not proposing all these rules in every unit. They’re doing a 3 year test run in a few units to see how the ungulate populations respond. You honestly don’t think there will be a harvest % decrease forcing hunters to use a recurve with wood arrows instead of taking 100 yards bombs with a compound. Just go to YouTube, all the evidence any state needs to justify restricting technology is there. It’s full of 100 yard archery shots and 800 yard rifle shots and dudes scouting from aircraft. If hunters are forced to try to get closer to game, they will get less opportunities which will result in less harvest.

 

[Andrew12gauge]

@packgoatguy you seem to be the only person who doesn’t think that thermal optics should be illegal to use for hunting ungulates, I assume therefore that you are a poor hunter who can’t find game without them. No other logical explanation for being against what seems like a pretty logical step to take to protect fair chase hunting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pacific_Fork]

Thanks for the reminder. I wrote in support for banning cell cameras, thermals (for ungulates), and (pushed for) drones for any reason around big game hunting.

 

[idahodave]

Today is the last day to send in your comments on IDFG's proposed rule changes.

Regardless of your opinion on the use of technology for hunting purposes, tell IDFG and it's commissioners that this is NOT the right time for the current proposed rules and these proposed new rules are NOT the way to achieve or elevate fair chase in Idaho.

Maybe you don't live in or hunt in Idaho... but consider the fact that state wildlife agencies nationwide look to each other for guidance and the precedent previously set when needing to craft arguments for their own intended policy and rule changes. Your voice still matters here!

Reasons to give to IDFG for why the proposed rules should be stopped:

1. The IDFG Survey
indicated in the provided supporting material showed that 80% of respondents TOTALLY SUPPORT maintaining the status quo, (keeping tag numbers and rules the same). IDFG should respect that while there is some general concern over the impact that technology tools could have on the future of hunting... at least for now, the vast majority of Idaho Hunters do NOT want changes to the rules!

Furthermore, IDFG should do a better job at disseminating surveys that identify and isolate personal biases, rectify gnorance of particular subjects, and reach a broader audience. Consider that Archery Hunters are more likely to advocate for restrictions they perceive will hamper the abilities of Rifle Hunters. Hiker Hunters will advocate for restrictions that will hamper those who use ATVs, Dirtbikes, SXSs, and Ebikes. Muzzleloader hunters will approve of rules that expand their ability to be successful, and disapprove of rules that limit their effectiveness. Older hunters who might be more set in their ways or used to hunting with a more basic set of tools are more likely to disapprove of younger hunters who spend significant time and resources on enhancing their abilities, identifying and implementing new gear options, etc. As such, and understanding that these biases exist, it is incumbent upon IDFG to be creative in finding ways to gather useful data and statistics that are not unfairly skewed by these biases. Likewise, many hunters are often ignorant to techniques and tools available to other types of hunters and hunting opportunities. For example, a traditional Archery Hunter who has used only a recurve bow he fashioned himself... might be oblivious to the latest innovation in modern high speed compound bow technology. But before IDFG should take the traditional Archery Hunter's opinion in the matter of managing and/or restricting the use of modern compound bow technologies... the traditional Archery Hunter could be educated on the various points of view, including a robust discussion of pros and cons. Once we'll informed, then his opinion can be better weighed against the competing interests of the proponents of the modern Compound Bow technologies. And visa versa of course. This type of educational process is already being utilized by IDFG with the new mandatory Bear Identification course and exam, which platform could be expanded upon to educate hunters of competing viewpoints before soliciting their input on future change. Lastly, instead of reaching a mere fraction of Idaho Hunters with surveys, IDFG has the authority through mechanisms like mandatory harvest reports, to solicit detailed information from every hunter in the state, as well as non resident hunters. Or, because IDFG has email addresses on file for every Hunter who has purchased a license... IDFG could easily send am email to every hunter to allow each hunter to volunteer their input on any subject matter that is important to wildlife management in Idaho. These would bring far more data to the table which would provide IDFG far greater ability to promulgate rules that make the most sense for all Idaho hunters.

2. IDFG should take the time to study and research the actual impact of various technology tools through hunter surveys. The data compiled over the coming years could then be used to craft appropriate rules that are scientifically taylored towards the intended results.

3. Many of the new rules as presented are redundant and unnecessary. For example, a ban on using Aircraft for hunting is unnecessary when we have an existing ban on hunting from a motorized vehicle... as aircraft are necessarily motorized vehicles. Or the ban on Night Vision equipment... where it is already illegal to hunt ungulates at night... night vision is a tool that would only be useful in an already illegal activity... thus rendering it's censure unnecessarily duplicative. Or the Ban on Smart Optics where there is already a rule against using electronic scopes/attachments on a rifle is equally redundant.

4. Many of the new rules will be nearly impossible to enforce, and as such will be unfairly applied. Consider that the new rules against Thermals, NV, and Transmitting Game Cameras are specificly banned for their use in targeting ungulates. However, because hunting for other non-ungulate species like bear, wolf, or lion is NOT illegal under the rules... any hunter caught using one of the proscribed tech tools merely has to claim that they were using the tool to hunt a wolf or other prey that the tech tool was LEGAL to be used for. Thus, no IDFG conservation officer will be able to write a ticket that will stick. Thus, the only hunters who will abide by both the letter and the spirit of the law will be those who either cannot afford the tech tools, or feel a moral compunction to not use the device for the possibility that they could inadvertently be aided in their pursuit of ungulates (regardless of whether they actually are truly using the tech tool to hunt a wolf, etc).


5. There appear to be typos and missing definitions. For example, what will be the legal definition of what constitutes a "smart optic?" What is a "smart optic" not supposed to be attached to?

6. The premise for the new rules is inconsistent with other IDFG rules. The premise provided is that IDFG intends to limit hunter effectiveness by limiting tech tools like night vision or smart optics. Yet, other tech tools like sabots for Muzzleloaders and unlimited letoff or expanding broadheads are being allowed. It is not a stretch to assume that the rule change to allow the use of sabot projectiles during Muzzleloader seasons will have a far greater impact on hunter harvest success (due to increased max effective range) than the same hunter being allowed to use night vision equipment. So, why is night vision being banned... but sabots allowed... if IDFG's real interest is in limiting harvest success so that there is more opportunity for other hunters? Certainly these topics could be studied scientifically over the coming years, to get quantifiable data that could be used in creating comprehensive rules that truly address the issues IDFG has suggested are important for the future of hunting. But proceeding without accurate data, and implementing rule changes that ban or restrict the use of tech tools that Idaho Hunters may have already spent thousands of dollars investing in... is unjust and unfair to IDFG'S constituents.

Uuumm, I fundamentally disagree with everything you've posted. Its your right to express your beliefs to Rokslide (and IDFG). I certainly shared my thoughts with IDFG to the contrary.

Also, you're factually incorrect on the airplane issue. The new rule is an attempt to stop people from flying over the top of elk herds (and other critters) in wild places the night before a hunt looking for game. Landing said plane, and then going after them the next morning. It's a wildly unfair advantage (imho) and a situation I had a front row seat to. I would LOVE to post the footage, but unfortunately it also clearly reveals where I hunt so I can't do so without making the problem worse. We watched (and filmed) a small plane fly over the top of an aread for an hour pinpointing game. Not surprisingly, they came in the next morning (with horses) and killed a great bull. None of which is disputable, because the made a hunting video and posted it on Youtube. I realize we all draw different lines on what constitutes "sporting"...usually behind wherever we're standing of course. I just don't believe what they did constituted "fair chase". You're welcome to disagree and voice that in the same way I am.

That scenario is perfectly legal under current rules, but would be prohibited if passed. MOST of us think using a drone to fly around and spot game to hunt (even the next day) is a bad idea. If you share that particular belief, then it's easy to see why preventing other aircraft from doing the same is a bad idea.

I'll also add that it's leading to people actually using aircraft to herd animals onto private lands....under the guise of "hunting".

Dave

 

[packgoatguy]

Thermal imaging works well for locating game during the day…

1. My comment specifically noted "night vision" equipment. And the fact that it is unnecessarily duplicative to have existing rules against hunting Ungulates at night... and then creating a rule to ban a tool that would only be useful in the the dark... I did not mention "thermal imaging" in this comparison. If you would actually READ the proposed rule, you will note it has two SEPARATE bans. A ban on Thermal imaging AND a ban on "Night Vision" equipment. It appears that you are not aware, so I will educate you on the details... Thermal Imaging and Night Vision devices are different. Thermal Imaging gathers/reads "heat" whereas "night vision" amplifies ambient light.

Furthermore, anyone who has used NV and Thermal Imaging in the military or other applications will tell you that their usefulness is reliant on a very narrow set of conditions. Its easy for those who are ignorant to the actual use parameters of Thermal or NV because they have never used them in real world conditions... likely will misunderstand their usefulness. NV for example, is worthless during daytime conditions, as the image produced is of less detail than the naked eye could perceive without. As it amplifies ambient light, too much light (for example the natural light available during daylight hours) actually be dangerous to the user's eyes. Their only use is during nighttime. But even then their use is limited if there is zero ambient light... and often are used in conjunction with an artificial light source to provide the amplifiable light. Again, this is completely irrelevant to hunters hunting Ungulates during legal daylight hours, and as such it is an unnecessary rule. Rules that are patently unnecessary/duplicative have no place in written law, as it creates confusion and is wasteful of public resources.

Thermal imaging on the other hand is completly different than NV. (And note, that if you read my comments carefully, I specifically do not mention Thermal Imaging under any duplicative rationale). However, again for the benefit of the uneducated, ignorant, or naive... Thermal Imaging ONLY works well under a very narrow set of circumstances (mostly found during nighttime hours). Because Thermal Imaging is producing images to the user that are showing the "heat" of various objects... it is easy to assume that only living things will be producing said "heat" signature. This could not be further from reality. If you were to look through a thermal imaging device at a hillside during typical daylight conditions, you would see an image that showed literally thousands of "heat" signatures, because every rock, tree, and bush reflects the radiation that the sensor in the thermal collects. As these objects are exposed to the sun's rays, they absorb and then reflect that energy to the thermal device. However, there is no way for the thermal device (or the user) to differentiate between the radiation put off by a rock from an animal (except that the user is close enough to the object to identify its shape, in which case it is likely that the same object would have been readily identifiable using the naked eye or conventional optics). Likewise, there is a perception from many who haven't used a Thermal Imaging device that it can see things that are hidden to the naked eye. In fact, if you read the IDFG survey, you will note that the definition of a thermal provided there mentions its ability to see things otherwise hidden to the naked eye. This is factually incorrect and misleading. The thermal imaging device can ONLY read reflected 'heat energy' in direct line of sight. It cannot see through or behind objects. In fact, even something our naked eye can see through, like glass or water will prevent a thermal from reading the heat from an object beyond it. Thus, if the object reflecting the heat is visible on the thermal... it is necessarily visible to the naked eye. Certainly this is an advantage during nighttime hours, as the naked eye cannot see in the dark... so the thermal would be providing the user with images not otherwise available. However, during daylight hours, a thermal user can see anything that the thermal can see.

Practically speaking, thermals CAN be useful during SOME daylight conditions, like when there is less thermal interference from the sun (morning hours before things heat up). They can also help differentiate between a stationary and a moving object. However, again... with both of these use scenarios, it is possible to see the same movement or same animal with the naked eye (amplified by the use of binoculars, spotting scope, etc).

Thermals and NV are not magic. They are a tool, and as with any tool, they have specific use parameters. However when compared with other "tools" they are far less useful than other options available to enhance a hunter's success. For example... if one had to pick between having actual quality optics OR a thermal? The bino/spotter will be 10 times more useful in producing a harvested animal. If a hunter was otherwise limited to straightwall rifle cartridge that limited effective range to less than 200 yards... and was given the choice between using a thermal or upgrading to a bottleneck cartridge with high bc bullets that doubled or tripled their max effective range... then hands down the improved range would be vastly superior to producing higher harvest rates than the relatively minimal value of the thermal.

 

[packgoatguy]

@packgoatguy you seem to be the only person who doesn’t think that thermal optics should be illegal to use for hunting ungulates, I assume therefore that you are a poor hunter who can’t find game without them. No other logical explanation for being against what seems like a pretty logical step to take to protect fair chase hunting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Have you actually used a Thermal under real world conditions before? I have, both for military and hunting (primarily coyotes at night). However, as their usefulness is extremely limited during normal daylight hunting hours, due to the excessive amount of "heated" objects within view at any given time. For example, during the 2024 black bear seasons, we glassed 25 bears between April, May, June, September, and October. (I say we... myself and the several kids I take hunting). Of those 25 bears, only 2 were first identified with a thermal imaging device. And those two were in locations where they would have been spotted just as quickly if the kid assigned that sector had been actively glassing as alertly as possible.

It is true that there are some atmospheric conditions when a thermal will give the user a slight edge, but only to the extent that it gives the user a direction to focus glassing efforts. At most it speeds up glassing. Under 90% of typical daylight glassing conditions, a thermal offers zero benefit. For the FEW times when the conditions are right... then the thermal will speed up the glassing process by perhaps 50% (ie, if it would take an experienced hunter a half hour to break down a particular hillside with his binos/spotter, then with the aid of the thermal you can cut that time in half).

The point is, there are tools available to the modern hunter that make us more effective at finding and killing animals. Thermal Imaging is just one of many... yet it is one that the inexperienced and ignorant perceive to give a greater advantage than is actually possible.

If you REALLY care about fair chase... then get rid of compound bow technologies that allow hunters to shoot accurately beyond 50 yards... Or get rid of technologies that allow rifle hunters to shoot game beyond 500 yards... or get rid of technologies that enable muzzleloader hunters to shoot beyond 100 yards.

However... if you want to talk about "fair chase"... is ANY hunting tool besides a knife really "fair" to an ungulate? The moment mankind developed ways to kill prey from any distance greater than face to face... was the moment that it was no longer "fair" to the animals. The only purpose for the concept of "fair chase" is to provide a level playing field amongst hunters, who are all competing for a finite/limited resource. We can have that level playing field with or without banning specific devices like thermals or NV or transmitting cameras. There will always be some "edge" that the competition will try and get over everyone else... and trying to ban every edge (or in your case... cherry picking which edge to ban because it happens to be an "edge" you don't use) is futile, wastes resources, and distracts from real issues like conservation of diminished habitat.

 

[packgoatguy]

Uuumm, I fundamentally disagree with everything you've posted. Its your right to express your beliefs to Rokslide (and IDFG). I certainly shared my thoughts with IDFG to the contrary.

Also, you're factually incorrect on the airplane issue. The new rule is an attempt to stop people from flying over the top of elk herds (and other critters) in wild places the night before a hunt looking for game. Landing said plane, and then going after them the next morning. It's a wildly unfair advantage (imho) and a situation I had a front row seat to. I would LOVE to post the footage, but unfortunately it also clearly reveals where I hunt so I can't do so without making the problem worse. We watched (and filmed) a small plane fly over the top of an aread for an hour pinpointing game. Not surprisingly, they came in the next morning (with horses) and killed a great bull. None of which is disputable, because the made a hunting video and posted it on Youtube. I realize we all draw different lines on what constitutes "sporting"...usually behind wherever we're standing of course. I just don't believe what they did constituted "fair chase". You're welcome to disagree and voice that in the same way I am.

That scenario is perfectly legal under current rules, but would be prohibited if passed. MOST of us think using a drone to fly around and spot game to hunt (even the next day) is a bad idea. If you share that particular belief, then it's easy to see why preventing other aircraft from doing the same is a bad idea.

I'll also add that it's leading to people actually using aircraft to herd animals onto private lands....under the guise of "hunting".

Dave

Please explain how anything you previously described or witnessed (concerning the use of aircraft to locate or drive game animals) would be legal under current rules, but illegal under the new rule...

It is presently illegal (per present IDFG Big Game Regs) to:

• Hunt big game or game birds from or by the use of any
motorized vehicle, including any unmanned aircraft system
(drone). Holders of a valid handicapped person’s Motor
Vehicle Hunting Permit can hunt from a motorized vehicle
when the vehicle is stopped and off public roadways.
• Use any motorized vehicle including any unmanned aircraft
system (drone), to molest, stir up, rally, or drive in any
manner any game animal or game bird.
• To use aircraft, including any unmanned aircraft system
(drone), in any manner to spot or locate game animals,
game birds, or furbearing animals and communicate the
location or approximate location by any signal whatsoever,
whether radio, visual, or otherwise to any person then on
the ground, or to use any helicopter to transport hunters,
gear, or game except at established landing fields when such
use is at recognized airports or airplane landing fields, or at
heliports previously established on private land or established
by a department or agency of the federal, state, or local
government or when used in the course of an emergency or
search and rescue operations.
• Make use of any aircraft, including unmanned aircraft, to
locate any big game animals for purpose of hunting those
animals during the same calendar day those animals were
located from the air.



The new rule (which does not remove any of the prior rules on the subject):

"f. With the use of any aircraft, in accordance with Section 36-1101. Idaho Code."


I agree with you that the behavior you identified in your post is not in line with the hunting ethics I personally abide by. However, adding the above noted new rule language (duplicative as it is) will not change the enforceability or legality of what you witnessed in any way. Thus, as a rule, it is bad law.

 

[packgoatguy]

Thanks for the reminder. I wrote in support for banning cell cameras, thermals (for ungulates), and (pushed for) drones for any reason around big game hunting.

I'm getting the feeling that many folks on here haven't actually read the idaho big game regs... the use of drones are already regulated/banned in the Regs.

 

[packgoatguy]

Scientifically , you’re making this way harder than it is. They’re not proposing all these rules in every unit. They’re doing a 3 year test run in a few units to see how the ungulate populations respond.

Please show me where in the proposed rules as promulgated it says specifically that the rules are not being applied in every unit, and that they are only doing a 3 year "test run".

 

[Pacific_Fork]

I'm getting the feeling that many folks on here haven't actually read the idaho big game regs... the use of drones are already regulated/banned in the Regs.

Oh I read it, doesn’t hurt to reiterate. You can use drones on public lands and would be hard to enforce/prove what the intentions are. So I’d rather seem them banned completely. Plus, nothing worse than being in the woods hearing a drone zoom over. My buddy saw hunters using a thermal drone at night in north Idaho to find elk. They need to be banned outright.

 

[packgoatguy]

Oh I read it, doesn’t hurt to reiterate. You can use drones on public lands and would be hard to enforce/prove what the intentions are. So I’d rather seem them banned completely. Plus, nothing worse than being in the woods hearing a drone zoom over. My buddy saw hunters using a thermal drone at night in north Idaho to find elk. They need to be banned outright.

Banning drones outright??? Are you serious? So making it illegal for tens of thousands of non hunters using drones for commercial and private work? Photography, weed control, firefighting, surveillance, etc etc? All so there is no possibility that some "hunter" won't violate EXISTING laws against using drones for hunting purposes?

It is presently illegal (per present IDFG Big Game Regs) to:

• Hunt big game or game birds from or by the use of any
motorized vehicle, including any unmanned aircraft system
(drone).
• Use any motorized vehicle including any unmanned aircraft
system (drone), to molest, stir up, rally, or drive in any
manner any game animal or game bird.
• To use aircraft, including any unmanned aircraft system
(drone), in any manner to spot or locate game animals,
game birds, or furbearing animals and communicate the
location or approximate location by any signal to persons on the ground
• Make use of any aircraft, including unmanned aircraft, to
locate any big game animals for purpose of hunting those
animals during the same calendar day those animals were
located from the air.

Maybe while we're at it... we should ban the use of OnX or other satellite mapping tools... or hey... maybe we should ban the use of the internet, cell phones, AI, range finders, atvs, commercial air travel, or even combustion/electric engines entirety... so you can ride your horse from your house.

 

[packgoatguy]

Oh I read it, doesn’t hurt to reiterate. You can use drones on public lands and would be hard to enforce/prove what the intentions are. So I’d rather seem them banned completely. Plus, nothing worse than being in the woods hearing a drone zoom over. My buddy saw hunters using a thermal drone at night in north Idaho to find elk. They need to be banned outright.

And yes... when it comes to written LAW... it DOES hurt to "reiterate". A simple Google search will yield you the following: (and much more detail and caselaw if you chose to educate yourself on the matter further).

"Duplicative laws are problematic because they create confusion, inefficiency, and potential for unfairness in the legal system. They can lead to wasted resources, increased costs for individuals and businesses, and even undermine the rule of law."