Idaho IDFG rule changes comment period ends June 20th

[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

Your personal attacks are obviously not welcome on rokslide. And I see no logical explanation for the ignorance shown with regard to the conflicts between existing rules and proposed rules, or the actual tangible benefits to using the proscribed tech tools... other than to assume that many of the proponents of the tech bans are in fact themselves "poor hunters" who can't afford the money to invest in expensive thermals, transmitting game cameras, smart optics, etc... so instead... they want everyone else to be "limited: to the same degree they are.

 

[packgoatguy]

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.

None/Zero/Zilch of the proposed banned tech tools will in any way limit a hunter's ability to shoot at 800 yards instead of 300 yards. That is precisely my point. If IDFG wants to reduce harvest success, then banning "night vision" or cell cameras is far less effective than rules that would limit how FAR a hunter could shoot game with a bow, muzzleloader, or rifle.

Furthermore, even though "states" have the tools available to study the ACTUAL correlation between specific technology tools and harvest rates... they have not done so in any comprehensive manner. Everything is either assumptions or conjecture based wholly on personal bias and ignorant perceptions of reality.

If the goal is to maintain healthy herd numbers and continue to provide adequate hunting opportunities, then banning ancillary and marginally beneficial tech tools to solve the problem is like trying to treat lung cancer by blowing your nose with a tissue.

If you REALLY care about healthy herd numbers and continued hunting opportunities, you will focus your efforts on maintaining public access to land, improving habitat, controlling noxious weeds, finding better solutions to wildlife/agriculture conflicts, denying the spread of development into winter ranges, better enforcement of laws already on the books, better oversight of outfitter operations on public lands, better control of agricultural interests that spread disease and compete with wildlife for finite resources, etc. Any ONE of those issues will have a FAR greater impact on the perpetuation of hunting and herd health than banning "smart optics".

 

[Pacific_Fork]

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.

Ban them. Except for use by officials for firefighting and maybe a few others. No place in the forest by the public. How did we ever take photos before drones, so sad.. nice violin. I hate drones more than anything, they’ve been crashed into my truck windshield going 50mph and almost caused a potential deadly accident. They molest the sacredness of solitude and peace in the woods. I can go on, but I won’t. Carry on, you’re losing in this thread and your ethics are questionable. Take all your tech you desperately need to be successful and hunt over a feeder while piloting the drone gun on a ranch in Texas.

 

[packgoatguy]

Ban drones outright in the woods flown by the public. You throwing things like firefighter


Ban them. Except for use by officials for firefighting and maybe a few others. No place in the forest by the public. How did we ever take photos before drones, so sad.. nice violin. I hate drones more than anything, they’ve been crashed into my truck windshield going 50mph and almost caused a potential deadly accident. They molest the sacredness of solitude and peace in the woods. I can go on, but I won’t. Carry on, you’re losing in this thread and your ethics are questionable. Take all your tech you desperately need to be successful and hunt over a feeder while piloting the drone gun on a ranch in Texas.

I'll leave it to the mods to censure your unwarranted personal attacks if deemed necessary. However, unless you are incapable of doing so, I would ask that you support your accusations with specific "in context" quotes to show where in fact I have exhibited questionable ethics, or expressed my desire, (or need) to "hunt over a feeder while piloting the drone gun on a ranch in Texas". My guess is, judging from the level of ignorance you show in your posts and lack of sophistication in your rebuttal style... that I probably have ten times the experience deep in the backcountry than you do... experiencing the sacredness of solitude.

As for drones... I don't personally own one, or have even operated one. That's well outside of my personal skillset. However, I believe as a matter of principle, it is dangerous precedent to attempt to regulate behavior we don't personally espouse or understand... simply because it is a personal inconvenience or a singular bad actor used it in a way that harmed me in some way (even though 99% of users use them properly).

It is also incredibly ignorant and shortsighted to suggest that only YOU the hunter get to enjoy the woods... and anyone else who has a conflicting purpose should be restricted...

 

[idahodave]

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 oa

"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.

Packgoat,

I'm sure you know, but IDAPA rules are frequently used to clarify Idaho Code. Having an issue referenced in both isn't "duplicative". Idaho Code says IDFG shall set hunting seasons and enforce them. You can't put the entire IDFG hunting regulations in Idaho Code...and thus the use of IDAPA.

My belief is the aircraft language is being included under the definition of "hunting", and thus the more restrictive interpretation as to their use. I'll allow that I may be wrong in that assumption, but a couple of calls to IDFG leads me to believe they intend to use the new IDAPA reference in a more restrictive manner...which I tend to agree with. If I'm wrong in that, no harm-no foul as I'm no worse off. Being "duplicative" shouldn't offend your sensibities that much. I suspect you threw that in simply as another reason to cast a negative light across the more substantive restrictions...which you don't agree with.

The rest of my comments to IDFG supporting restrictions of cell cameras, thermal imaging, and "smart optics" stand on their own merit.

I think you read the room incorrectly in posting this at all. You (presumably) assumed people would agree with you and share your objections with IDFG. Instead, the clear majority of people commenting on this thread agree technological limitations in hunting are a good thing and now you've encouraged them to respond as such.

You're argument seems to be that since IDFG isn't restricting long-range shooting with rifles and bows....so it shouldn't restrict the things you clearly want to use. I think we all know if IDFG COULD restrict 800 yard rifle shots and 100 yard archery shots they would. The politics of this state and how far down this road we are realistically preclude that possibility. I think if you're honest with yourself you'll see that's entirely the case. As has been pointed out, the sabot issue, lighted knocks, etc. were made by LEGISLATORS. The rules we are debating are 100% consistent with IDFG's beliefs...and clearly the majority of us that care to discuss it.

The fact that you feel otherwise doesn't change that.

Dave

 

[Pacific_Fork]

Ok, rather than paraphrasing all of your long winded post. Answer yes or no to these questions.

Do you support thermal optics used in any way to peruse big game?

Same question about drones?

Same question about all other aircraft?

What’s your definition of fair chase?

Where do you draw the line with technology?

You’ve been rambling about being against these new provisions, not me. I support any efforts to limit most tech that is here and coming down the line. Do I think we should ban the range finder or only hunt with stick bows? No, I have my line. And the use of any aircraft and thermals in hunting are a hard NO.

And I didn’t attack you, grow thicker skin bud. I simply said you can go use all tech you need in Texas on a private ranch and live happily. No one will argue with you. This is idaho where fair chase is valued above all else.

 

[BTH]

When I ran into two guys this past hunting season in a sxs, the one on the passenger side was using the thermal as they were driving roads looking for elk and deer! He told me they don’t even have to stop and glass brush fields or openings unless they see a heat signature. I looked through that thermal and it was incredible what you could see with it on a cool day.
Another friend of mine said he spotted 6 elk with his thermal and it took him 45 minutes to find them in his binos and spotter due to them being bedded in brush and shade.
At some point we need to draw the line IMO. I disagree with the notion that we should revert back to cave man status, but our ungulates need some restrictions if we want healthy numbers in the future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Andrew12gauge]

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.

No I’ve never used a thermal, I have had enough anecdotal stories told to me about their use, such as the post directly above this one, to know that there is no place in big game hunting for thermal optics, I’d even go so far as to ban them for all bear, wolf and mountain lion hunting period and coyote hunting if a unit is open for deer, elk or other ungulates. I can go either way on cellular trail cameras, I can see their place in the world but think there need to be restrictions(could we possibly have a law where you’re allowed to have photos transmitted once a day outside of daylight hours) the ability to have a camera out and not need to physically go check to see photos is helpful but I think it’s ripe for abuse.

As far as limiting how far people shoot, the only ones that can do that is ourselves, more people need to realize it’s hunting and not target practice though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[packgoatguy]

Packgoat,

I'm sure you know, but IDAPA rules are frequently used to clarify Idaho Code. Having an issue referenced in both isn't "duplicative". Idaho Code says IDFG shall set hunting seasons and enforce them. You can't put the entire IDFG hunting regulations in Idaho Code...and thus the use of IDAPA.

My belief is the aircraft language is being included under the definition of "hunting", and thus the more restrictive interpretation as to their use. I'll allow that I may be wrong in that assumption, but a couple of calls to IDFG leads me to believe they intend to use the new IDAPA reference in a more restrictive manner...which I tend to agree with. If I'm wrong in that, no harm-no foul as I'm no worse off. Being "duplicative" shouldn't offend your sensibities that much. I suspect you threw that in simply as another reason to cast a negative light across the more substantive restrictions...which you don't agree with.

The rest of my comments to IDFG supporting restrictions of cell cameras, thermal imaging, and "smart optics" stand on their own merit.

I think you read the room incorrectly in posting this at all. You (presumably) assumed people would agree with you and share your objections with IDFG. Instead, the clear majority of people commenting on this thread agree technological limitations in hunting are a good thing and now you've encouraged them to respond as such.

You're argument seems to be that since IDFG isn't restricting long-range shooting with rifles and bows....so it shouldn't restrict the things you clearly want to use. I think we all know if IDFG COULD restrict 800 yard rifle shots and 100 yard archery shots they would. The politics of this state and how far down this road we are realistically preclude that possibility. I think if you're honest with yourself you'll see that's entirely the case. As has been pointed out, the sabot issue, lighted knocks, etc. were made by LEGISLATORS. The rules we are debating are 100% consistent with IDFG's beliefs...and clearly the majority of us that care to discuss it.

The fact that you feel otherwise doesn't change that.

Dave

The duplicative nature of the rules I was referring to is that in the Big Game Regulations, there is already applicable bans and restrictions on point. It would be more appropriate (from a legal perspective) to make minor adjustments to the existing language if it was deemed to have holes or gaps in its intended coverage.

As for your mention of IDAPA, the new rule refers to the Idaho Code (not IDAPA the administrative code) and the specific code chapter that includes almost the same language as the Regs themselves. If you care to actually read the ID Code section on point, there is no reference there that somehow expands the restrictions on the use of Aircraft that isn't already in the Regs. As I have pointed out in previous posts, redundant or duplicative legislation or rules promulgated by administrative bodies is generally considered unacceptable in the legal world.

As to your (unfounded) perceptions of my interest, intent, and motivation... I don't like bad law, or superfluous rules, or hasty legislation to try and bandaid over bigger problems. I have worked closely with IDFG my entire life, and have close family who spent decades of their careers with the department. The proposed rules as presented are sloppily written, hastily conceived, lack supporting studies and data, and appear to be based primarily on unfounded/unproven perceptions and biases. This is NOT how IDFG has historically operated. They used to take great pride in their methodology and meticulous approach to fairly creating and applying rules. I disagree with and disapprove of ANY new rules (whether they benefit me or not) that are not written properly, are ill founded, or lack a sufficiently studied basis or rationale.

Specifically... I have no PERSONAL dog in the fight for MOST of the changes proposed. I don't use "smart optics", I don't use NV, I dont use transmitting cameras, I don't use aircraft, I don't use a compound bow with 80% or greater letoff, I don't regularly muzzleloader hunt... so sabots are likely to rock my world... and as I pointed out in earlier posts, I do own a thermal, but it's use isn't the 'holy grail' that you would assume. Likewise, I don't hunt from ATVs or Dirtbikes... but yet I don't approve of the motorized hunting rule... because it is poorly written and unfairly applied. I also don't personally advocate for or presently shoot game beyond 600 yards (longest shot to date for anyone in my sphere is 550). But, because I respect FREEDOM and Personal choice, I don't try and limit the range someone else can shoot at. However, I would add the caveat... that I do believe that only those who are adequately skilled should be taking longer shots... and that is where my beef lies. Out of the last 2 seasons, and over 30 big game animals, between myself and a half dozen kids and elderly persons I've mentored... we have a 100% perfect track record (no lost or wounded animals) and all but a couple were harvested with one clean shot. I train these kids in "shoot don't shoot" scenarios, and the ethics of NOT taking a shot if the conditions aren't right. They don't take shots unsupported, they don't take shots at moving animals, they don't take shots unless they have checked and rechecked that it is a legal harvest, they don't take shots in extreme wind, and they don't take shots at ranges that exceed their capabilities. But they DO hunt hard and deep. Often in untamed wilderness like the Selway or Frank. Almost always many miles from the truck. So, for folks on here to claim that I an unethical because I don't want to jump on the bandwagon to ban every tool I don't personally use... I say, take a look at your own track record... how many animals have you shot in the guts or butt because you didn't have a good rest, or took a running shot, or too long of a shot? How many of you can claim a 100% success rate like these 12 year olds who practice making hard decisions in the field? How many of you use your hunting time and resources to pass on our conservation mindset to the next generation instead of just hunting for your own pleasure?

 

[idahodave]

Uuuhhh…okay.

You just aknowledged you DO use thermals….so you do have a “dog in this fight”….and marginalizing it by using “most” isn’t the wiggle room you think it is.

While I appreciate you believe yourself to be a better IDAPA/Code author than those at IDFG because it’s “sloppy”, I’m guessing they’ll manage with what they have.

As for the rest of your dissertation…it’s another red herring. Lots of us help kids and old folks harvest game. Isn’t really relative to the issues at hand. Comes across as virtual signaling imho.

You’re a bit all over the map my man. Your preaching about personal freedoms (including presumably free speech), while simultaneously inviting mods to censure others cause you feel attacked.

Sometimes less is more.

 

[packgoatguy]

When I ran into two guys this past hunting season in a sxs, the one on the passenger side was using the thermal as they were driving roads looking for elk and deer! He told me they don’t even have to stop and glass brush fields or openings unless they see a heat signature. I looked through that thermal and it was incredible what you could see with it on a cool day.
Another friend of mine said he spotted 6 elk with his thermal and it took him 45 minutes to find them in his binos and spotter due to them being bedded in brush and shade.
At some point we need to draw the line IMO. I disagree with the notion that we should revert back to cave man status, but our ungulates need some restrictions if we want healthy numbers in the future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hyperbole and conjecture, and 3rd party bolstering and bloviating to make themselves look cool... does not make it so. As I pointed out above, there are relatively FEW atmospheric conditions when a thermal is very useful, and a relatively small set of conditions when a thermal is somewhat useful. For example... take the coldest days... if there is snow on the ground... say goodbye to your ability to get anything other than excessive feedback... the snow itself will literally glow as if it's on fire... not because its warm... but because it reflects solar energy. But would you know that without extensive practice and use? Nope. Your one time, isolated experience looking through that particular thermal at that particular time blew your mind... but what about when the sun comes out from behind the clouds and then every previous shadow on the hill now has its own heat signature... and if your friend could see something on his thermal and it took him 45 minutes to Identify it... either he is grossly exaggerating, or needs better glass... thermals don't magically see things hidden behind rocks and bushes... there still has to be some portion of the animal in direct line of sight to get a reading. Oh, and forget about seeing normal tell tells... like antlers... they aren't going to show up... or a tail... etc.

The point here is, you think you know all you need to know to pass judgment on a tool like a thermal... but you don't. You render your opinions based on hearsay and very limited personal experience. And then when you encounter someone who explains that your perceptions are incorrect or grossly exaggerated... you think they are wrong or trying to mislead you... instead of learning something new.

The point is, whether it's thermals, High speed compound bows, $5000 swarovski glass, your dirtbike, a 24x rifle scope, a rangefinder, a fancy ultralight kuiu backpack, or ANY other tech tool... you will always be conditioned to accept and perpetuate tools you personally can afford financially, and you will always try and restrict the usage of tools that others want to use if they are tools you aren't familiar with. This is NOT the way. The better way is to focus your time on volunteering to take out new hunters to teach them about the ethos to pass on to the next generation. Focus your time on supporting conservation issues.

When it comes time to assess and implement tool restrictions... I am personally happy to support IDFG in their efforts IF IF IF they choose to study and analyze the problem with quantifiable data over an extended period of time.

Let me give one Hypothetical scenario:

Let's say that IDFG DID do a study. Let's say they simplified the results to yield a percentage of hunters who would NOT have harvested an animal if they had NOT used a particular tool. So... let's say they produced a chart with the following information:

Between year 1 and year 5, there were an average of 2036 hunters, and 10230 animals harvested. (19.9% success rate).
Between year 5 and year 10, there were 2127 hunters on average, and 10752 animals harvested on average (20.2% success).

During the same period of time, 7 out of 10 years had lower than average fawn and calf mortality due to mild winters and conservation efforts. During the same period of time herd numbers increased by at least 10% in 40% of hunt areas, stayed the same (within 5%) in 55% of hunt areas, and decreased between 10 and 15% in 5% of hunt areas. At the end of the 10 year period, there were 7% more animals than at the beginning of the 10 year period.

Digital Rangefinder Use
(year 1-5) 43% of respondents stated they would not have harvested without.
(Year 5-10) 58% of respondents stated they would not have harvested without.

OnX and other GPS mapping software
(year 1-5) 25% of respondents stated they would not have harvested without.
(Year 5-10) 42% of respondents stated they would not have harvested without.

Fancy Compound Bow use (high letoff, better sights, higher speed, better arrows and broadheads that extends max effective range from 30 yards to 60 yards compared to previously available options)
(year 1-5) 35% of respondents stated they would not have harvested without.
(Year 5-10) 40% of respondents stated they would not have harvested without.

High End Zoom optics (ie a swarovski ATX spotter, etc)
(year 1-5) 31% of respondents stated they would not have harvested without.
(Year 5-10) 33% of respondents stated they would not have harvested without.

Rifle/scope combo capable of shots in excess of 600 yards
(year 1-5) 15% of respondents stated they would not have harvested without.
(Year 5-10) 17% of respondents stated they would not have harvested without.

Transmitting game cameras
(year 1-5) 8% of respondents stated they would not have harvested without.
(Year 5-10) 9% of respondents stated they would not have harvested without.

Thermal Imaging Device
(year 1-5) 3% of respondents stated they would not have harvested without.
(Year 5-10) 5% of respondents stated they would not have harvested without.

So, questions that hunters and IDFG should ask are:
1. Is the increase in harvest rates unsustainable in relation to target animal population objectives?
2. If the increase in harvest rates is deemed unsustainable, should efforts be made to focus on enhanced conservation efforts, limiting methods of take (including tools), or both?

While the above numbers are of course made up... they represent a fairly realistic picture of what Idaho has faced on recent decades. For example, inspite of lots of new tech being made available in the last decade... and even anomalies like covid introducing new hunters to the field... IDFG is ADDING tags in many units... not taking them away. Take the IP zone for example... elk are so far above IDFG's rescribedvcarrying capacity that they just increased the number of late Cow tags from 300 to 1000!!! And IP is a zone that gets hit hard by hunters because of its proximity to some of Idaho's most dense human population (outside of the TV), not to mention it is a relatively short drive for Utah residents... many of whom are transplants from Idaho who purchased lifetime licenses before they left... which means they don't have to be limited to non-res quotas.

So... the reality is, we can argue ourselves to death about the logic of restrictions on a few cherry picked tech tools... but in the end, unless the matter has been adequately studied in an empirical manner... no one knows if it will have the desired effect or not... so let's not make a bunch of new rules (that are either redundant or unenforceable anyway) at the expense of putting the time and resources into identifying and implementing changes that can make a meaningful impact.

 

[packgoatguy]

Uuuhhh…okay.

You just aknowledged you DO use thermals….so you do have a “dog in this fight”….and marginalizing it by using “most” isn’t the wiggle room you think it is.

While I appreciate you believe yourself to be a better IDAPA/Code author than those at IDFG because it’s “sloppy”, I’m guessing they’ll manage with what they have.

As for the rest of your dissertation…it’s another red herring. Lots of us help kids and old folks harvest game. Isn’t really relative to the issues at hand. Comes across as virtual signaling imho.

You’re a bit all over the map my man. Your preaching about personal freedoms (including presumably free speech), while simultaneously inviting mods to censure others cause you feel attacked.

Sometimes less is more.

I'm beginning to wonder if you actually know how to read... or are just purposefully misquoting me because you lack any real factual basis for your attacks or point of view..

what I said (exactly) was: "I have no PERSONAL dog in the fight for MOST of the changes proposed." I did not say, suggest, or imply that I have no dog in the fight period... I said I don't have a dog in the fight for MOST of what is on the table.

But hey, I guess if it makes you feel better to criticize other's ethics while you... tear up trails on your dirtbike... plug a herd of running elk full of holes until you see one drop... stop looking for blood 200 yards in because you just saw a bigger buck than the one you wounded an hour before... put your tag on the elk your buddy accidentally shot so he doesn't get a ticket...

 

[idahodave]

Hahaha...I'll give you credit for keeping your response under 50,000 words this time.

I'd like to give a summary if you'll allow me...

You- "Contact fish and game and tell them you hate this idea"

Rokslide- "Yeah, we read it. We mostly all agree with it"

You- "Maybe you can't read. I said".....War and Peace length diatribe later.

Rokslide- "We heard you, but you're wrong"

You- "I help kids. Fish and Game employees don't know how to write or enforce law. You don't understand thermals if you think they help much".

Sometimes threads just don't go as planned. I submit this thread as exhibit "Z".

 

[packgoatguy]

While I appreciate you believe yourself to be a better IDAPA/Code author than those at IDFG because it’s “sloppy”, I’m guessing they’ll manage with what they have.

Ummm that's not the point is it. Shouldn't we hold our law makers to a higher standard? If you actually will READ my comments, you will see that I am not opposed to IDFG making rules generally... but I am opposed to rules that are not based on detailed fact driven studies and analysis, unnecessarily duplicative, or difficult (or impossible) to enforce.

Take the Motorized Hunting Rule. In applicable units, you are only allowed to be on your ATV/dirtbike etc while hunting IF it is a road open to full-size autos... the intent of the rule was to eliminate hunters cruising trails during open season in hopes to provide a more serene and motor free environment both for the hunters and the hunted. But... they left in a "loophole" that it is legal to use your atv to retrieve down game, or haul your camp in or out. So... in actual practice, anytime a CO wants to write a ticket for violations of the Motorized Hunting Rule... the offender merely has to claim they were moving camp. (Many savvy atv enthusiasts have taken to carrying around camping gear just to prove that is their purpose... even though they really have no intention of staying overnight.) The poorly written rule has resulted in many judges and prosecutors in the state simply throwing out every disputed ticket that involves violations of the MHR... because it's a waste of time to try and prosecute. So... who does this hurt? Well if you go to many of the affected areas during prime time hunts, you will see guys on dirtbikes and atvs, in direct violation of the rule... who do it anyway because they know IDFG has no way to really enforce it. So, for anyone who chooses to walk up an atv trail because they ethically want to abide by the law (regardless of its enforceability) then they are left at a disadvantage... they get to put extra miles on their feet, while the guys on quads race ahead to get to the best spots. For those who are meticulous in their e-scouting... it would otherwise be logical to assume that if you find an ATV trail on a map in a MHR unit... you should be able to hunt that trail on foot without fear of other hunters hunting off their atvs and messing up your hunt. But when you actually get there, you learn that in practice... the rule you trusted to protect your interests... isn't being abided by... because it was poorly written and mostly unenforceable to begin with.

So no, I don't want IDFG or any other governmental organization making rules unless it's done right.

 

[packgoatguy]

Hahaha...I'll give you credit for keeping your response under 50,000 words this time.

I'd like to give a summary if you'll allow me...

You- "Contact fish and game and tell them you hate this idea"

Rokslide- "Yeah, we read it. We mostly all agree with it"

You- "Maybe you can't read. I said".....War and Peace length diatribe later.

Rokslide- "We heard you, but you're wrong"

You- "I help kids. Fish and Game employees don't know how to write or enforce law. You don't understand thermals if you think they help much".

Sometimes threads just don't go as planned. I submit this thread as exhibit "Z".

You and 3 other guys posting on a thread does not constitute the collective mindset of "rokslide" as you imply.

Your persistent attack on HOW I present the information I shared (highlighting the length of my comprehensive posts, etc) suggests that you have zero actual rebuttal to 90% of what I've brought up.

You are welcome to your opinion. Which it appears I could summarize as simply... "I want IDFG to ban everything that I can't afford or that I don't personally find useful, regardless of the precedent it might set for future rule making... even if I'm too shortsighted to accept that NEXT time IDFG makes a rule to ban something... it might be something that I DO use... and then I will whine and complain that life isn't fair... and at no point will I ever acknowledge that it was due to my ignorance and lack of big picture understanding about how un-resisted rules beget more rules in the future"

The reality is... you are choosing to disregard the facts and words in front of you. If you would instead read to understand... and get off your high horse... you might realize that we likely agree on more than we disagree about. I will make this clear... AGAIN... as I've explained it before: I have no problem with well reasoned rules! IF IF IF the rationale for the rule is based on thorough and comprehensive studies, facts, and data. If IDFG published the results of a study tomorrow that unequivocally showed that the use of my "cell phone" was the primary cause for unsustainable harvest rates... and that other ancillary contributing causes were insignificant by comparison... and as such, they were creating a (well worded) rule (free of loopholes that would make it difficult to enforce) banning the carry and use of all "cell phones" while performing hunting activities... I would GLADLY and willingly leave my phone behind forevermore.

We as sportsmen, as hunters, as conservationists... have a duty to hold our governing bodies to the highest standards. If it is truly in the best interest of the future of Idaho's hunting resources to implement restrictions on the use of specific tech tools... I'm perfectly fine with that... assuming it's done right. For me, "done right" means...
1. the restrictions were deemed necessary only after exhaustive analysis (which data and processes were made accessible in a timely and transparent manner for public input).
2. That the final rules to be promulgated are written in such a way as to eliminate future confusion and loopholes (be easily enforceable uniformly across all affected users).

But these particular rules are no where near what they should be. It's obvious that someone(s) with an agenda has FastTracked these rules... without any real studied basis for the purported hypothesis. There is every likelihood that these new rules will have such an immeasurably tiny impact on reducing harvest rates as to literally be statistically irrelevant... but no one will ever know, because no one studied the before, the during, and the after.

In the end, the point of expecting IDFG to do their part... means that we as hunters should be able to trust that their policies should net us the best overall result in the future. However, when IDFG fails to do their part... neither they or anyone else will know what the REAL solutions to the problems should be. And as long as we let them through random darts at the proverbial dart board... to see what sticks... then no REAL solutions to the problems facing wildlife and hunting will ever be allowed to surface.

 

[idahodave]

If you think I lack the funds to utilize technology...or need them to be successful, then you've once again misread your audience. I sense a theme.

It's also not that I lack the ability for a "rebuttal" to the rest of your novella...it's simply that I lack the interest in dissecting them all.

I suppose we'll see soon enough which of us is more correctly in gauging the collective temperature of this issue when IDFG makes a decision. Wanna lay a wager on how it turns out?

Let's say $100 to the charity of the winner's choosing?

 

[packgoatguy]

Ok, rather than paraphrasing all of your long winded post. Answer yes or no to these questions.

Do you support thermal optics used in any way to peruse big game?

Same question about drones?

Same question about all other aircraft?

What’s your definition of fair chase?

Where do you draw the line with technology?

You’ve been rambling about being against these new provisions, not me. I support any efforts to limit most tech that is here and coming down the line. Do I think we should ban the range finder or only hunt with stick bows? No, I have my line. And the use of any aircraft and thermals in hunting are a hard NO.

And I didn’t attack you, grow thicker skin bud. I simply said you can go use all tech you need in Texas on a private ranch and live happily. No one will argue with you. This is idaho where fair chase is valued above all else.

Your questions are oversimplistic. I don't have to be "for" something in order to think that it's shouldn't be banned. Just because I might believe that some practice shouldn't be banned (because of personal freedoms) DOESN'T mean I practice it myself or believe it, or use it personally.

For example... I don't think that tobacco products or alcohol should be banned... but I don't smoke, I don't drink alcohol... and I teach my kids to do the same.

The irony of your comments and perspective here (and your three buddies on this thread) is that you make the exact same types of arguments that proponents of 2nd Amendment Restrictions (gun control advocates) make in their efforts to get certain types of firearms banned or certain activities or behaviors regulated. You don't personally use Transmitting Game Cameras or Drones... so you support banning them. Likewise, folks who don't own guns or regularly have reason to use guns... predominantly support banning them.

But here is the kicker... you and I both know that further bans on guns won't end violence. If a criminal wants to commit a crime, a law telling him he can't legally own a gun isn't going to dissuade him. So, if you make laws to ban guns... then the only folks who won't have guns are the law abiding citizens... which puts them at even greater risk of being victimized... because the bad guys have guns and good guys don't. There are other BETTER ways to curb gun violence, including reducing poverty, reducing the number of unwed mothers and fatherless homes, actively training and allowing vetted gun owners to possess guns in places where they can be a bulwark against possible threats, etc.

In the same way, it's easy (lazy) to blame herd health and herd numbers, or perceptions of increasing harvest success on something like NV equipment or airplanes... but the reality is, banning the things on the list (most of which are ALREADY banned) will likely result in a relatively miniscule benefit to improving herd health, herd numbers, and reducing harvest success (if such is even necessary) compared to other possible solutions... like limiting the "super hunters" who go state to state and harvest multiple elk and multiple deer every year (curbing/limiting glutinous behavior), or putting state funds towards buying land to set aside for conservation and habitat improvement, or better management of riparian zone damage from public land grazing, etc.

 

[BTH]

Hyperbole and conjecture, and 3rd party bolstering and bloviating to make themselves look cool... does not make it so. As I pointed out above, there are relatively FEW atmospheric conditions when a thermal is very useful, and a relatively small set of conditions when a thermal is somewhat useful. For example... take the coldest days... if there is snow on the ground... say goodbye to your ability to get anything other than excessive feedback... the snow itself will literally glow as if it's on fire... not because its warm... but because it reflects solar energy. But would you know that without extensive practice and use? Nope. Your one time, isolated experience looking through that particular thermal at that particular time blew your mind... but what about when the sun comes out from behind the clouds and then every previous shadow on the hill now has its own heat signature... and if your friend could see something on his thermal and it took him 45 minutes to Identify it... either he is grossly exaggerating, or needs better glass... thermals don't magically see things hidden behind rocks and bushes... there still has to be some portion of the animal in direct line of sight to get a reading. Oh, and forget about seeing normal tell tells... like antlers... they aren't going to show up... or a tail... etc.

The point here is, you think you know all you need to know to pass judgment on a tool like a thermal... but you don't. You render your opinions based on hearsay and very limited personal experience. And then when you encounter someone who explains that your perceptions are incorrect or grossly exaggerated... you think they are wrong or trying to mislead you... instead of learning something new.

The point is, whether it's thermals, High speed compound bows, $5000 swarovski glass, your dirtbike, a 24x rifle scope, a rangefinder, a fancy ultralight kuiu backpack, or ANY other tech tool... you will always be conditioned to accept and perpetuate tools you personally can afford financially, and you will always try and restrict the usage of tools that others want to use if they are tools you aren't familiar with. This is NOT the way. The better way is to focus your time on volunteering to take out new hunters to teach them about the ethos to pass on to the next generation. Focus your time on supporting conservation issues.

When it comes time to assess and implement tool restrictions... I am personally happy to support IDFG in their efforts IF IF IF they choose to study and analyze the problem with quantifiable data over an extended period of time.

Let me give one Hypothetical scenario:

Let's say that IDFG DID do a study. Let's say they simplified the results to yield a percentage of hunters who would NOT have harvested an animal if they had NOT used a particular tool. So... let's say they produced a chart with the following information:

Between year 1 and year 5, there were an average of 2036 hunters, and 10230 animals harvested. (19.9% success rate).
Between year 5 and year 10, there were 2127 hunters on average, and 10752 animals harvested on average (20.2% success).

During the same period of time, 7 out of 10 years had lower than average fawn and calf mortality due to mild winters and conservation efforts. During the same period of time herd numbers increased by at least 10% in 40% of hunt areas, stayed the same (within 5%) in 55% of hunt areas, and decreased between 10 and 15% in 5% of hunt areas. At the end of the 10 year period, there were 7% more animals than at the beginning of the 10 year period.

Digital Rangefinder Use
(year 1-5) 43% of respondents stated they would not have harvested without.
(Year 5-10) 58% of respondents stated they would not have harvested without.

OnX and other GPS mapping software
(year 1-5) 25% of respondents stated they would not have harvested without.
(Year 5-10) 42% of respondents stated they would not have harvested without.

Fancy Compound Bow use (high letoff, better sights, higher speed, better arrows and broadheads that extends max effective range from 30 yards to 60 yards compared to previously available options)
(year 1-5) 35% of respondents stated they would not have harvested without.
(Year 5-10) 40% of respondents stated they would not have harvested without.

High End Zoom optics (ie a swarovski ATX spotter, etc)
(year 1-5) 31% of respondents stated they would not have harvested without.
(Year 5-10) 33% of respondents stated they would not have harvested without.

Rifle/scope combo capable of shots in excess of 600 yards
(year 1-5) 15% of respondents stated they would not have harvested without.
(Year 5-10) 17% of respondents stated they would not have harvested without.

Transmitting game cameras
(year 1-5) 8% of respondents stated they would not have harvested without.
(Year 5-10) 9% of respondents stated they would not have harvested without.

Thermal Imaging Device
(year 1-5) 3% of respondents stated they would not have harvested without.
(Year 5-10) 5% of respondents stated they would not have harvested without.

So, questions that hunters and IDFG should ask are:
1. Is the increase in harvest rates unsustainable in relation to target animal population objectives?
2. If the increase in harvest rates is deemed unsustainable, should efforts be made to focus on enhanced conservation efforts, limiting methods of take (including tools), or both?

While the above numbers are of course made up... they represent a fairly realistic picture of what Idaho has faced on recent decades. For example, inspite of lots of new tech being made available in the last decade... and even anomalies like covid introducing new hunters to the field... IDFG is ADDING tags in many units... not taking them away. Take the IP zone for example... elk are so far above IDFG's rescribedvcarrying capacity that they just increased the number of late Cow tags from 300 to 1000!!! And IP is a zone that gets hit hard by hunters because of its proximity to some of Idaho's most dense human population (outside of the TV), not to mention it is a relatively short drive for Utah residents... many of whom are transplants from Idaho who purchased lifetime licenses before they left... which means they don't have to be limited to non-res quotas.

So... the reality is, we can argue ourselves to death about the logic of restrictions on a few cherry picked tech tools... but in the end, unless the matter has been adequately studied in an empirical manner... no one knows if it will have the desired effect or not... so let's not make a bunch of new rules (that are either redundant or unenforceable anyway) at the expense of putting the time and resources into identifying and implementing changes that can make a meaningful impact.

I have tons of experience with thermals, weekly actually, for the last 13 years being a fireman, but I really appreciate you developing a ten page story based on one statement I made regarding some guys I ran into. The thermals we use aren’t built for long distance as they have no magnification, but I’m very familiar using thermals around homes and animals in all weather and light conditions. I whole heartedly disagree with your statement where there is little time when a thermal is beneficial. And antlers/ tails are connected to an animal, therefore they are warmer than a large portion of hunting season temps which means visible to a thermal. Maybe not the main beam tips but close to the head the body heat conducts up the antlers. I’d agree they aren’t visible in summer months or hot days, but that’s just not the case here in Idaho during most of hunting season.
And the thermal I looked through hunting was mid day, I was glassing a hillside with my Swarovski EL 12x50’s and found a bedded doe with the guys thermal I hadn’t seen with my cheap binos. I NEVER said you can see through an object like you wrongfully stated, but there’s gaps in brush you can still see a heat signature through yet it’s hard to make out an animal with binos under the same situation. Heck you can’t see heat through a clear glass window with a thermal, so I’d definitely not say you can see through objects, that’s ludicrous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[packgoatguy]

If you think I lack the funds to utilize technology...or need them to be successful, then you've once again misread your audience. I sense a theme.

It's also not that I lack the ability for a "rebuttal" to the rest of your novella...it's simply that I lack the interest in dissecting them all.

I suppose we'll see soon enough which of us is more correctly in gauging the collective temperature of this issue when IDFG makes a decision. Wanna lay a wager on how it turns out?

Let's say $100 to the charity of the winner's choosing?

It's a free country man... no one is going to force you to become adequately educated on important issues. If you don't want to read into the details Ive provided... and if you want to remain ignorant to other perspectives... then carry on.

But... it's not a popularity contest... I don't really care who my "audience" is. I'm providing my point of view and educating any interested party as to potential ramifications of the rules as written.

If IDFG proceeds with ill conceived and poorly written rules... it won't be the first time, and it won't be the last (mostly because too many Idaho hunters are easily manipulated with propaganda, misinformation, and hyperbole... or are too focused on their own self interest to consider long term objectives or ramifications of decisions that might appease their present world view, but lack the depth and foresight necessary to identify and implement changes that will really make a positive difference).

But, just so you are aware... good laws and a healthy free society require at least some of the constituents of our fine government to be at least a bit skeptical about underlying motivations for new rules, and to stand up for clarity and equitable results. I remember years ago, helping NAPgA draft comments opposing regulations that would limit the use of pack goats in certain national forests. The rationale for the new rules was based on some (incomplete) studies that linked disease transmission between domestic sheep and goats to wild big horn sheep populations. There was ample evidence showing causal relationships between sheep on public land grazing allotments that had come in contact with wild sheep and resulting disease transmission. However, there was zero evidence of goats ever having been the contributing factor. But, the proponents of the new rules chose to throw a bigger net... and lumped all sheep and goats in together... mostly due to ignorance of the basic facts, partly because they didn't care if it affected a few goat owners, and partially so they didn't get pushback from the much more powerful opponents (the for-profit sheep operations) by appearing to single out sheep for the ban. In the end, pack goat owners explained ad nauseum that there was almost zero chance for a domestic pack goat to even come into contact with wild sheep (if anything, due to the fact that pack goats are herd animals and won't leave their owner's side... even if you want them too lol) but also because of the biological differences between the wild sheep and the domestic pack goats, and the fact that the diseases that were of danger to the wild sheep would not have been seen in packers that were cared for and fit enough for duty. In the end, it would have been a small thing for the Forest Service to craft a minor exception to the rules that would have satisfied the pack goat community... but did they do so? No. Was it an equitable result? No. But it wasn't for lack of trying and well reasoned input from a host of interested parties. The only real hurdle NAPgA faced during the process was the lack of interest on the other side of the table... they lacked interest in seeing other perspectives... they lacked interest in finding mutually beneficial alternatives or creating mutually beneficial solutions to the problem. Pack Goat owners were not the enemy... and could have been a significant ally in lasting solutions to the sheep problem and others facing the forest... but wilfully perpetuated ignorance meant that everyone truly lost in the end.

Unfortunately, that is all too often the same case with IDFG issues.

Have a good day sir.

 

[idahodave]

I’ll take that as a “no” as it pertains to a wager.

At least be intellectually honest about it. You most certainly DO care about your audience or you wouldn’t have started this thread. That’s the irony here. It just didn’t go the way you thought it would,…which is why you’ve turned this into the world’s most boring (and rambling) lecture. It’s just missing the mark partner.

You also have a good day.