Idaho IDFG rule changes comment period ends June 20th

[packgoatguy]

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

Thank you then for being the first person on this thread to bring relevant context to the discussion.

I respect that there is a lot to digest in the previous 3 pages, so I won't hold it against you that you probably missed some of my previous content on the subject. I had said almost exactly what you had pointed out... that thermals can't see through glass or water, let alone obstacles (a common misconception by those who have not used thermals extensively).

I won't dispute that some portion of an animal can be seen through a bush, but it is important to emphasize that any heat signature being collected by the thermal is reading something that is 100% in plain view... even if that something is only a tiny portion of a deer that is visible through a bush. The language that IDFG used in their survey was essentially that a thermal is a device that allows the user to see things that CAN'T be seen with the "naked eye". This is a misleading characterization of the capabilities of a thermal device... folks who haven't used a Thermal in context, generally perceive it is able to see things that are truly hidden (kind of like comic book level XRay vision).

I also agree that it is theoretically possible to see the heat from an antler... but practically speaking, those kind of details are impossible to see beyond just a couple hundred yards (at least with the thermal devices commercially available to hunters... perhaps some large military grade device would have more resolution... but cost and weight would limit its usefulness. )

I will also reiterate, that the primary benefit to the thermal (when conditions warrant its use) is that it cuts time off of glassing. You could have, and probably would have eventually seen the bedded doe in your example. The more experienced the hunter is with glassing... the quicker they are at finding game with their binos or spotter... and as such the less effective the thermal is. It might have taken you an extra 30 seconds to find that doe without the help of the thermal... maybe it would have take you an extra minute, or 5 minutes, etc. In my experience, 95% of animals or objects I first identify with the thermal would have been seen and found within a couple minutes using standard optics. As such, it is a useful tool... but one that is not as useful as the inexperienced would assume. Out of 30 plus game animals harvested with my rifles and gear over the past couple years... at most 3 or 4 were found with the thermal (and only one... my 2022 Wolf I harvested) was in a location and manner that it was not realistic that I would have ever seen it without the thermal... so in my opinion, making the use of thermals illegal in Idaho will have an insignificant impact on harvest rates.

I will also add that there are some weird anomalies that anyone who regularly uses thermals will likely have noted... for example, I have found a thermal more useful in finding deer, but for Elk and Bears... I almost categorically find them quicker with my binos in almost conditions... it may have to do with how easily elk and bears stand out in their natural environment... for bears, it also probably has to do with the fact that I see most bears in the afternoon when thermal conditions are the worst. Likewise, most archery hunters will find a thermal almost useless... I wouldn't bother taking mine if I were hunting the rut...

My whole point with this thread is not to dispute that tools like thermals don't offer some advantages... but I do want to educate those who haven't used them to help them understand their comparative usefulness. The perception amongst most proponents of banning thermals is that they are MORE useful than they actually are. To put it in perspective... here are the common tools that I carry in the field... all of the following are MORE important to me than a thermal...

Knife
Headlamp
In reach
Range finder
Binos
spotter
Suppressor
Rifle
Tripods
Phone skope adapter
Phone/maps
Walki talki
Load capable backpack
Spare ammo
Rear rest

To help put in context how I rank its importance...
I would however trade having the thermal for my sit pad, backup tripod, a 10x rifle scope vs an 18x rifle scope, a 1000 yard rangefinder instead of a 4k range finder, a standing height tripod vs a kneeling height tripod. A rifle bipod vs a rifle mounted tripod. Backup dyneema shelter. Big spotter vs a small spotter.

Again the point here is that the rules as written are not acceptable... but they could be if a robust study and analysis yields data that proves that limiting these particular tech tools is the best way to get the intended benefit... and if the rules are written correctly so they are not redundant or lack enforceability. But I think it is far more likely that a study will actually show that restrictions on thermals, NV, game cameras, etc will yield very little benefit compared to the benefits that could be seen limiting archery equipment, range finders, bottle necked cartridges, and putting more resources towards conservation.

 

[packgoatguy]

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.

Do I hope that hunters will be more educated and engaged in fact based analysis and dispute? Sure. Did I expect anything from this thread? No. I merely intended to provide information that I find important enough to share. Call it my civic duty if you wish. You were the one who chose to try and make it somehow more personal than just a free exchange of ideas and information. Does it ultimately change anything if you and 3 other guys don't agree with the information I provided? Nope. However, I will correct misstatements, misquotes, and point out where a factual basis is lacking in an argument directed at me.

 

[BTH]

Thank you then for being the first person on this thread to bring relevant context to the discussion.

I respect that there is a lot to digest in the previous 3 pages, so I won't hold it against you that you probably missed some of my previous content on the subject. I had said almost exactly what you had pointed out... that thermals can't see through glass or water, let alone obstacles (a common misconception by those who have not used thermals extensively).

I won't dispute that some portion of an animal can be seen through a bush, but it is important to emphasize that any heat signature being collected by the thermal is reading something that is 100% in plain view... even if that something is only a tiny portion of a deer that is visible through a bush. The language that IDFG used in their survey was essentially that a thermal is a device that allows the user to see things that CAN'T be seen with the "naked eye". This is a misleading characterization of the capabilities of a thermal device... folks who haven't used a Thermal in context, generally perceive it is able to see things that are truly hidden (kind of like comic book level XRay vision).

I also agree that it is theoretically possible to see the heat from an antler... but practically speaking, those kind of details are impossible to see beyond just a couple hundred yards (at least with the thermal devices commercially available to hunters... perhaps some large military grade device would have more resolution... but cost and weight would limit its usefulness. )

I will also reiterate, that the primary benefit to the thermal (when conditions warrant its use) is that it cuts time off of glassing. You could have, and probably would have eventually seen the bedded doe in your example. The more experienced the hunter is with glassing... the quicker they are at finding game with their binos or spotter... and as such the less effective the thermal is. It might have taken you an extra 30 seconds to find that doe without the help of the thermal... maybe it would have take you an extra minute, or 5 minutes, etc. In my experience, 95% of animals or objects I first identify with the thermal would have been seen and found within a couple minutes using standard optics. As such, it is a useful tool... but one that is not as useful as the inexperienced would assume. Out of 30 plus game animals harvested with my rifles and gear over the past couple years... at most 3 or 4 were found with the thermal (and only one... my 2022 Wolf I harvested) was in a location and manner that it was not realistic that I would have ever seen it without the thermal... so in my opinion, making the use of thermals illegal in Idaho will have an insignificant impact on harvest rates.

I will also add that there are some weird anomalies that anyone who regularly uses thermals will likely have noted... for example, I have found a thermal more useful in finding deer, but for Elk and Bears... I almost categorically find them quicker with my binos in almost conditions... it may have to do with how easily elk and bears stand out in their natural environment... for bears, it also probably has to do with the fact that I see most bears in the afternoon when thermal conditions are the worst. Likewise, most archery hunters will find a thermal almost useless... I wouldn't bother taking mine if I were hunting the rut...

My whole point with this thread is not to dispute that tools like thermals don't offer some advantages... but I do want to educate those who haven't used them to help them understand their comparative usefulness. The perception amongst most proponents of banning thermals is that they are MORE useful than they actually are. To put it in perspective... here are the common tools that I carry in the field... all of the following are MORE important to me than a thermal...

Knife
Headlamp
In reach
Range finder
Binos
spotter
Suppressor
Rifle
Tripods
Phone skope adapter
Phone/maps
Walki talki
Load capable backpack
Spare ammo
Rear rest

To help put in context how I rank its importance...
I would however trade having the thermal for my sit pad, backup tripod, a 10x rifle scope vs an 18x rifle scope, a 1000 yard rangefinder instead of a 4k range finder, a standing height tripod vs a kneeling height tripod. A rifle bipod vs a rifle mounted tripod. Backup dyneema shelter. Big spotter vs a small spotter.

Again the point here is that the rules as written are not acceptable... but they could be if a robust study and analysis yields data that proves that limiting these particular tech tools is the best way to get the intended benefit... and if the rules are written correctly so they are not redundant or lack enforceability. But I think it is far more likely that a study will actually show that restrictions on thermals, NV, game cameras, etc will yield very little benefit compared to the benefits that could be seen limiting archery equipment, range finders, bottle necked cartridges, and putting more resources towards conservation.

So there’s a lot there, but I’ll keep mine short. The wording they used about thermals seeing something that can’t be seen with the naked eye is 100% fact at night.
My dads nickname for me growing up was eagle eyes cause I spotted everything, my eyes through my swaro binos and swaro spotter are pretty good at spotting game, but even with the small amount of time I’ve spent behind a good thermal with magnification there is no set of eyes or ten sets of eyes that will spot game that is partially hidden in brush/ not moving faster than one guy with a thermal. The doe scenario I stated earlier I still couldn’t see that doe until I walked sown the road to get a different angle. Simply put, I would never had seen that doe unless I moved, yet I spotted that heat signature almost immediately with the thermal.
Your list of items you feel are more important than the thermal are just that, your list. My list would put a thermal just behind my binoculars and rifle for the best advantages to have in the field to find and/or harvest game. But I personally feel they are an unfair advantage to have for ungulates, therefore I will not use them even if they are to remain legal for use.
Now for wolves and coyotes, I think they are a much needed tool, so for that reason I will be purchasing one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[packgoatguy]

So there’s a lot there, but I’ll keep mine short. The wording they used about thermals seeing something that can’t be seen with the naked eye is 100% fact at night.
My dads nickname for me growing up was eagle eyes cause I spotted everything, my eyes through my swaro binos and swaro spotter are pretty good at spotting game, but even with the small amount of time I’ve spent behind a good thermal with magnification there is no set of eyes or ten sets of eyes that will spot game that is partially hidden in brush/ not moving faster than one guy with a thermal. The doe scenario I stated earlier I still couldn’t see that doe until I walked sown the road to get a different angle. Simply put, I would never had seen that doe unless I moved, yet I spotted that heat signature almost immediately with the thermal.
Your list of items you feel are more important than the thermal are just that, your list. My list would put a thermal just behind my binoculars and rifle for the best advantages to have in the field to find and/or harvest game. But I personally feel they are an unfair advantage to have for ungulates, therefore I will not use them even if they are to remain legal for use.
Now for wolves and coyotes, I think they are a much needed tool, so for that reason I will be purchasing one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not saying that an animal behind a bush isn't going to be visible on the thermal if some portion of it is visible line of sight. So, yes a deer less obvious to the human eye could give off a heat signature that is identifiable on the thermal. However, the caveat to that (and what you don't get from watching nighttime thermal coyote or hog hunts on youtube) is the varying degrees of thermal interference and clutter you will ALSO see during legal hunting hours. Sometimes more, sometimes less. But the vast majority of the day, the heat signatures of every bush rock, tree, clump of dirt, stump, etc in view will make it all but impossible to distinguish the deer from everything else. On most days, the levels of interference negates any benefits of the thermal for all but an hour or so out of 12. Granted... if thermal conditions are perfect... critters are easy to pick out... but that represents a very small portion of any hunt. Likewise... a little known problem with thermal effectiveness at night is that even the thermal signature reflected by the moon will make rocks and bushes glow like they are on fire. It is also incredible to see how long solid objects like rocks retain their heat... which means that even late into the night, hillsides that got the most sunlight (and often are exactly where animals want to hang out on cold fall days) will have glowing rocks and logs well into the nighttime.

If you are anywhere near Eastern Idaho, I'd be happy to give you some time on my thermal so you can see what I mean. I pass through the TV about once a week, so I could even meet there. Just shoot me a PM. Might be of some value to you if you are planning on investing in a thermal.

 

[BTH]

I'm not saying that an animal behind a bush isn't going to be visible on the thermal if some portion of it is visible line of sight. So, yes a deer less obvious to the human eye could give off a heat signature that is identifiable on the thermal. However, the caveat to that (and what you don't get from watching nighttime thermal coyote or hog hunts on youtube) is the varying degrees of thermal interference and clutter you will ALSO see during legal hunting hours. Sometimes more, sometimes less. But the vast majority of the day, the heat signatures of every bush rock, tree, clump of dirt, stump, etc in view will make it all but impossible to distinguish the deer from everything else. On most days, the levels of interference negates any benefits of the thermal for all but an hour or so out of 12. Granted... if thermal conditions are perfect... critters are easy to pick out... but that represents a very small portion of any hunt. Likewise... a little known problem with thermal effectiveness at night is that even the thermal signature reflected by the moon will make rocks and bushes glow like they are on fire. It is also incredible to see how long solid objects like rocks retain their heat... which means that even late into the night, hillsides that got the most sunlight (and often are exactly where animals want to hang out on cold fall days) will have glowing rocks and logs well into the nighttime.

If you are anywhere near Eastern Idaho, I'd be happy to give you some time on my thermal so you can see what I mean. I pass through the TV about once a week, so I could even meet there. Just shoot me a PM. Might be of some value to you if you are planning on investing in a thermal.

Yes I agree with the objects retaining their heat well into the night and could very well make it rather difficult to distinguish between a hot log and a deer. For me even if it is just a couple hours in the day when a thermal has the great conditions, I still feel they give a really unfair advantage during that time.(for ungulates only) Like I said that’s my take, and yours is different but hey that’s fine. I appreciate the offer too by the way. I live in cda tho so not sure I’ll make it down there this year, my wife just had a baby yesterday so I’m on older kid duty and close to home for the near future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[packgoatguy]

Yes I agree with the objects retaining their heat well into the night and could very well make it rather difficult to distinguish between a hot log and a deer. For me even if it is just a couple hours in the day when a thermal has the great conditions, I still feel they give a really unfair advantage during that time.(for ungulates only) Like I said that’s my take, and yours is different but hey that’s fine. I appreciate the offer too by the way. I live in cda tho so not sure I’ll make it down there this year, my wife just had a baby yesterday so I’m on older kid duty and close to home for the near future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Congrats on your baby! Hope all is well!

 

[Gobbler36]

In case this hasn't been discussed elsewhere:

IDFG has put out the draft of the changes to the big game hunting rules, including bans on the use of "advanced technology" like the use of smart optics, transmitting game cameras, thermal imaging, night vision, or aircraft for the purposes of scouting or hunting big game ungulates.

Docket No. 13-0108-2401: Zero-based Regulation Rulemaking: Rules Governing Taking of Big Game Animals

idfg.idaho.gov

The public has until June 20th to provide written comments.

1st Question: Does Idaho even need more rules? (For example, there is already a rule that bans the attachment of electronic devices to firearms for hunting... so why do we need a rule that bans smart optics attached to a rifle?)

2nd Question: Are the new rules well worded? Easily enforced? Or will the new rules cause confusion and add more unenforceable laws that are unfairly applied?

New rules:
"410. UNLAWFUL METHODS OF TAKE – GENERAL.

No person may take big game animals as set forth in this section, except as determined and specified in IDAPA
13.01.04.304 Rules Governing Licensing, Reasonable Modification Permit Weapons Restrictions...

f. With the use of any aircraft, in accordance with Section 36-1101. Idaho Code.
g. With the use of thermal imaging technology for scouting, hunting or retrieving big game ungulates
from July 1 through December 31.
h. With the use of any smart optics when attached to or incorporated, except scopes with battery
powered, tritium lighted reticles, or as defined by 13.01.04,372 Rules Governing Licensing, Rewl Modifcation
i. With the use transmitting trail cameras for the purposes of hunting and scouting for big game un-
gulates (deer, elk, pronghorn, moose, bighorn sheep or Mtn. goats), from July 1 through December 31 on public or
public access property.
j. With the use of night vision technology, mounted as well as handheld equipment, for scouting,
hunting, or retrieving big game ungulates from July 1 through December 31."

Hunting big game animals with thermal and night vision is completely unjustifiable. I can’t wait and hope that this passes. Although I’m afraid enforcement is always going to be the issue but hopefully people can start getting wardens numbers to send a sat text

 

[Gobbler36]

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.

I’m sorry but I’ve used thermals and they are a big advantage they wouldn’t sell for 10k plus dollars and we wouldn’t be having this discussion right now and people wouldn’t want to go out and by one if it didn’t increase your chances. That’s fact. My own anecdotal evidence is I know a couple people that haven’t shot or found deer for several seasons, enter thermal optics and past two to three seasons now they are finding and killing nice bucks.

They need banned with stiff penalties if caught

 

[Elkangle]

Need to invent a heated decoy for the wardens to use

 

[Pacific_Fork]

Goat guy. I’ll try to mean this in a respectful way, but it’s the internet you know. You either have no clue what you’re talking about, or you’re lying through your keyboard trying to save your thermals from the IDFG regs.

Thermals absolutely 1000% work when snows on the ground. That’s where they shine the most!! I don’t have to even tell you I know from experience or not, a simple google search will tell anyone about their effectiveness in snow. I would say maybe you’re using the cheapest thermals from Walmart, BUT since you told others they can’t afford what you have maybe yours are from Big 5.

Thermals are hands down the biggest cheat code in today’s modern tech world. I don’t like to admit it but the one and only time I was around high end thermals (not by choice) it was unreal how easily it was to pick out a bull anywhere from 100-800+ yards 2 hours before sunrise. Sit and wait for shooting light and bam. Dead bull. I personally haven’t punched my tag that way, never will, but have to point out how easily it makes it. For you to claim they aren’t that useful is so wild. Also, for you to say you’d rather have your sit pad over thermals doesn’t add up with how strongly you feel about keeping them legal.

I think everyone’s point here vs yours has been beaten to death now. No one likes losing arguments so I’ll just pretend you’re like me and thinking dang I said some inaccurate things about thermals lol. I hope you have success this fall without thermals.

 

[Elkangle]

can we just settle this and make sit pads illegal aswell

 

[BTH]

can we just settle this and make sit pads illegal aswell

.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pacific_Fork]

can we just settle this and make sit pads illegal aswell

I’ve reached out to congress on this several times

 

[Gobbler36]

I’ve reached out to congress on this several times

What is a sit pad?

 

[Gobbler36]

It blows me away the people that are fighting so hard to keep thermals, are also trying to argue that they aren’t effective?!?!? Like what!!! It makes no sense, if F&G is wanting to ban something that’s not that effective I wouldnt fight so hard to try and sway people.

On another point how can we get F&G to get the wording changed to “No thermals during big game seasons period. Not for bears, lions, etc.” this will be a huge loop hole for cheaters

 

[Elkangle]

What is a sit pad?

we cant really be talking about them on a public forum as its unfair to the resource...pluss guys get pissed off about the cost and how its a rich guys sport blah blah blah

 

[TheTone]

can we just settle this and make sit pads illegal aswell

Total game changer product. Pretty funny the first year I packed one my friends kinda laughed, by the next year they all had them

 

[packgoatguy]

Hunting big game animals with thermal and night vision is completely unjustifiable. I can’t wait and hope that this passes. Although I’m afraid enforcement is always going to be the issue but hopefully people can start getting wardens numbers to send a sat text

Enforcement is 100% the issue here... because as the rules are written, it will be impossible to get any tickets to stick... (because all someone needs to do is have a wolf tag in their pocket, and if they get caught using a thermal or NV or transmitting GC to hunt for ungulates... they just have to say they were using it to hunt wolves...)


And someone needs to educate me on the value of Night Vision for any hunting related activity (for ungulates specifically) that is actually legal...

(Granted it's been more than 20 years since I've used NV, but it was ONLY useful at night... and it is NOT legal to hunt ungulates at night... so I just don't see the point.)

Might as well ban the use of Rocket Propelled Grenades or a Crew Served 50 Cal Machine gun... both of which shouldn't be used for hunting deer... but are not specifically outlawed in the regs... because there are other rules (like the 16lb maximum weight of the rifle, etc) that make the illegal without specifically stating the individual item is illegal.

 

[packgoatguy]

On another point how can we get F&G to get the wording changed to “No thermals during big game seasons period. Not for bears, lions, etc.” this will be a huge loop hole for cheaters

That would definitely be a lot easier to enforce.

Unfortunately, most have misunderstood or taken out of context much of what I've posted on this thread. I'm not opposed generally to limits on hunting tools... I'm just opposed when the rules are written poorly (like they are redundant, written in an unenforceable way, etc) or when the premise for the rule is based on assumptions, hyperbole, or has not been studied empirically in a data focused manner (which often means that some things get regulated that shouldn't be and other things don't get regulated that should be).

 

[packgoatguy]

Goat guy. I’ll try to mean this in a respectful way, but it’s the internet you know. You either have no clue what you’re talking about, or you’re lying through your keyboard trying to save your thermals from the IDFG regs.

Thermals absolutely 1000% work when snows on the ground. That’s where they shine the most!! I don’t have to even tell you I know from experience or not, a simple google search will tell anyone about their effectiveness in snow. I would say maybe you’re using the cheapest thermals from Walmart, BUT since you told others they can’t afford what you have maybe yours are from Big 5.

Thermals are hands down the biggest cheat code in today’s modern tech world. I don’t like to admit it but the one and only time I was around high end thermals (not by choice) it was unreal how easily it was to pick out a bull anywhere from 100-800+ yards 2 hours before sunrise. Sit and wait for shooting light and bam. Dead bull. I personally haven’t punched my tag that way, never will, but have to point out how easily it makes it. For you to claim they aren’t that useful is so wild. Also, for you to say you’d rather have your sit pad over thermals doesn’t add up with how strongly you feel about keeping them legal.

I think everyone’s point here vs yours has been beaten to death now. No one likes losing arguments so I’ll just pretend you’re like me and thinking dang I said some inaccurate things about thermals lol. I hope you have success this fall without thermals.

I can appreciate that you have at least a tiny bit of experience behind a thermal... unlike 90% of the people weighing in on the subject.

When I say they aren't "that" useful, I'm comparing them to the perceptions offered on here that they can show you hidden elk anytime... anywhere. They just aren't even close to what most people think. Likewise, they contribute to my personal effectiveness and "killing" abilities less than my range finder, modern expanding bullets, suppressor, ballistic data (that let's me shoot accurately beyond MPBR), quality glassing optics, or the array of ultralight backpacking gear (that let's me go further, higher, faster with less weight on my back).

To set the record straight on thermal effectiveness... I agree that pre-dawn, animals will be easiest to spot, especially under ideal conditions (but even pre-dawn, that is not always the case).

However, if you "picked out" a bull elk at 800 yards 2 hours before daylight... I'm calling BS on that. Maybe you have access to higher end equipment than I do, but even using a $5k+ Bering super yoter under perfect conditions... I can't tell a horse from a deer past 500 yards... let alone see details like antlers... the resolution just isn't there...

However, you CAN at least see that an animal is there... which, can give you a direction to look with your binos once the sun comes up. Helpful? Yes. Gamechanger? No. Why?? Just because you might see a hotspot on a hillside 1000m away 2 hours before daylight isn't as useful as you might think... for example, if you hunt somewhere that has open range cattle... and you assume that what you see is an elk... then you might be quite surprised at daylight when you look with your binos and see a moo cow instead of an elk. If you are in deep mountain country with no bovines... it could be a moose, mountain goat, big horn sheep, deer, bear, lion, wolf... and if you are looking for an elk, there are lots of false positives that you might be looking at (including rocks or stumps that look like bedded animals) Especially if the animals are laying down or in some sort of cover... you might literally have to be inside of 200 yards to tell definitively what you are looking at...

Aa for their use in snow: if it is a sunny day or a moonlit night, the snow can reflect the sun's thermal waves and will make an often overwhelming amount of visual "noise". Likewise, humid, foggy, Snowy, and rainy conditions can not only dramatically distort what you can see with a thermal, but also can significantly decrease the distance that you can get readings. However... as I've said before... there are certainly times when conditions are quite conducive to seeing if there are animals out there... but those conditions just aren't as frequent as most folks assume.

I've said it before... thermals are a useful tool. I'm not advocating for their use, just trying to quell misperceptions about HOW useful they are. I would rather everyone have a realistic understanding of their real capabilities and limitations, because then we can have an educated discussion about how to manage them and whether there are other tools that have an equal to or greater than effect on hunter effectiveness.

As I offered to the other gentleman, I'd be happy to take you out to spend some time behind my thermal. I guarantee after you see how many functional limitations there are under the majority of real conditions... you will have a different outlook.