New Rules go to Idaho Fish and Game Commission for approval, meeting Nov 19-20

[packgoatguy]

The IDFG Commissioners meet next week at their quarterly meeting in Lewiston Idaho. They allow and consider public comments before they make their decisions on the issues they will address at the meeting. Of primary concern is the recent proposed rule changes that they are being asked to adopt. As has been pointed out in other threads, these rule changes are quite extensive, and many of them are rife with errors and confusing terms that are going to lead to a lot of headaches for anyone interested in hunting in Idaho in the coming years. I for one am not against making changes or additions to the rules when needed, however it needs to be done right.

There are a couple of ways that the public is allowed to comment. A person can show up at the meeting, and will be given a couple minutes to present their comments in front of the commission, or a person can write in comments that they would like to have considered.

Here is a draft of a comment document I am preparing to send to the Commission. I'd like to know what other thoughtful comments that interested hunters, sportsmen, conservationists, etc would be willing to submit to the commission. Likewise, if anyone shares my views on the matter, I would be happy to make a list of names to submit to the Commission of persons who would like their viewpoint noted. I believe the more well-reasoned voices that the Commission can hear in regards to important issues, the better.




Dear Idaho Fish and Game Commission,

With respect and appreciation for the efforts IDFG staff and commission members put forth in managing Idaho’s wildlife resources, we the concerned public put forth the following for your consideration:

Please DO NOT adopt the pending rule changes in their current form for the following reasons:


1. IDFG should do more to notify the public of proposed rule and policy changes.

We respect that Idaho law requires a rule making process that includes public notice and comment periods to be published in the Idaho Administrative Bulletin (IAB). However, many of those who are affected by these rule changes do not regularly check the administrative bulletin or visit the IDFG website and are otherwise unaware of the proposed changes and their options for commenting. We would ask that in addition to published notices in the bulletin or on the IDFG website, that IDFG employ other means by which to notify the public of proposed rule changes, educate affected parties on pertinent issues, and to better encourage comments that can be weighed in the final rules to be adopted.

For example; IDFG has access to the email addresses of the many thousands who create a profile on the Go-Outdoors Idaho website. IDFG already uses these email addresses to solicit participation in various surveys, send harvest report reminders, and provide notices labeled “IMPORTANT” like the recent “Bear ID Test Now Required” emails that were sent out. Therefore, in addition to the published notice in the IAB, we would ask that IDFG send advanced notice of proposed rule making via email to all persons for whom they have an email address. This should allow for much wider participation in the comment process. Other ways of better engaging the public in the rulemaking process would also be appreciated, including unbiased surveys written without a perceivable agenda, and additional local public meetings.

Before you adopt these proposed rules, please allow the concerned public more notice and time to better engage and respond to the proposed changes.

2. IDFG should take time to collect empirical data before making rule or policy changes.

We respect that earlier this year the IDFG Hunting and Advanced Technology (HAT) Working Group assessed some of the effects of using technology in the process of hunting. This led to proposed rules banning the use of some technology tools. The IDFG website indicates that the beginnings of the HAT Working group was to intended to address concerns that “as technology advances and hunter success rates increase, agencies are left with only a few tools to ensure that hunters are not overharvesting game species and jeopardizing their long-term sustainability.” The IDFG website further provides a description of the HAT Working Group’s mission: “The purpose of the Hunting and Advanced Technology (HAT) Working Group is to assess public perspectives on what is and is not considered “fair” technology to use in the pursuit of game and develop recommendations to the Commission that strike an appropriate balance between the use of hunting technology and fair chase ethic.”

We respect the efforts put forth by the HAT Working Group and we respect that hunter opinion and perspectives are an important consideration in making rules and policy. However we would ask that before any precedent is set by the adoption of rules that ban particular tools, methods, or ideas; that a comprehensive study be employed to collect data on the actual effects that particular tech tools have on big game harvest rates.

We then ask that the data and study results be used to educate the public with facts before soliciting the public’s opinion on the matter. We believe that IDFG Staff, Commission, and the public will all be better informed and empowered to make better decisions if a more data driven approach is taken.

3. IDFG Rules should be unambiguous and include clear definitions of used terms.

We respect and understand that the creation of new rules is sometimes necessary to address changing concerns. However, when rules are necessary, we would ask that the rules be written in such a way as to be unequivocally understood and applied. For example; In the present proposed rules, section 410.04(g) proposes the following language:

No person may take big game animals as set forth in this section: With the use of any smart optics when attached to or incorporated, except scopes with battery powered, tritium lighted reticles, or as defined by IDAPA 13.01.04.304, Reasonable Modification Permit.

While it may be reasonable to assume that the public should have an idea of what a “smart optic” is, we would propose that such should be a defined term so as to avoid any ambiguity or possibility of future confusion. What exactly is a “smart optic” under the rule? Furthermore, under the language of the rule, it seems to proscribe the use of the “smart optic” when it is attached to something… but the rule does not specify what the “smart optic” cannot be attached to. Presumably the “smart optic” is only illegal if it is attached to a rifle… but this is not what the rule says specifically. If this is in fact the intent of the rule, then the rule should be written in such a way as to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding. We would ask that IDFG review its other proposed and existing rules for similar ambiguity to help avoid future confusion and assure more uniform application of the intended outcome of the rules.



To be continued in the next post

 

[packgoatguy]

4. IDFG Should only have rules that are easily understood, applied, and enforced.

We respect that the creation of a rule is a complicated and nuanced process. We appreciate the hours put into drafting rules to address complex issues. However, we the concerned public would ask that ONLY rules that can be easily understood and easily enforced be adopted. For example, we believe the “Motorized Hunting Rule” (MHR) as it presently exists is not easily enforced, and as such is not fairly applied. It is a rule with too many loopholes, and as such, the rule is widely disregarded, with reports of enforcement officers refusing to write tickets for violations of the MHR, and prosecutors and judges tossing out tickets that are written because of the inherent difficulty in proving a case. While some hunters driven by their own personal ethics will abide by both the spirit and the letter of the law, others will excuse themselves because of the lack of enforceability. This leads to some hunters having an unfair advantage in the field when they choose to disregard the rule’s intent, where others abide by it.

In regards to the current proposed rules, some would be equally difficult, (if not more difficult) to enforce than the MHR. In particular, the most recent wording of the ban on technology tools only proscribes the use relating to “big game ungulates.” This means that the use of the same tech tools will continue to be legal to use for hunting wolves, lions, bears, or other predatory, non-game, or even upland game. As written, the new rule would allow a hunter in possession of a wolf tag (for example) to use these tech tools. What if that same hunter also has a deer tag? What if that hunter is legally using their tech devices to “scout, hunt, or retrieve” a wolf (or other legal pursuit) but happens to also incidentally locate a deer during the process? Does the new rule somehow make it illegal to pursue that deer even though the hunter was legally using the tech tool to find a wolf? No officer could ever write a ticket for a violation of the current wording of this rule, because anyone caught using one of the banned tech tools to “scout, hunt, or retrieve” an ungulate can merely present a defense that they were in fact using the tech tool to hunt a wolf, bear, lion, coyote, or any number of other legal purposes not proscribed by the rule. Regardless of an individual’s opinion on the prudence or ethics of using one of the proscribed tech tools for hunting big game ungulates in Idaho, the new rule as written will not in any way be useful in obtaining the intended result. Instead, the rule should either ban the use of the tech tools as evidenced by the mere possession of the banned tech tool while in concurrent possession of an “ungulate” tag… OR should ban the use of these particular tech tools for the hunting of ANY animal (including wolves, bears, etc)... OR there should be no ban at all.

Users of Idaho’s wildlife resources do not need more rules that are difficult or impossible to enforce due to loopholes. We would ask that in addition to addressing the aforementioned concerns relating to the unenforceability of some of the proposed rules, that IDFG would also initiate a review of, and change (or remove) other existing rules and regulations that may be confusing, difficult to enforce, redundant, or unfairly applied.

Here is the language of the proposed ban on certain tech tools for reference purposes:

410. UNLAWFUL METHODS OF TAKE – GENERAL.
No person may take big game animals as set forth in this section.
.04 (h.) For big game ungulates (moose, bighorn sheep, mountain goat, elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, and pronghorn) from August 1 through December 31:
i. With the use of thermal imaging technology, including for scouting, hunting or retrieval;
ii. With the use of night vision technology, including for scouting, hunting or retrieval;
iii. With the use of a transmitting trail camera, including for hunting and scouting, on land in federal, state, or local government ownership, or private land open to the general public for hunting; or
iv. With the use of any aircraft, including any unmanned aircraft system, for scouting or hunting. This restriction is in addition to the restrictions for use of aircraft in Section 36-1101(b) Idaho Code.

Follow links to see pending rule changes at: https://idfg.idaho.gov/about/rulemaking