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

 

[packgoatguy]

If you want to make comments about pending IDFG rules, here are some email addresses of policy creating parties to whom you could direct your concerns:

[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected]

[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected]




without commas:

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

 

[Rotnguns]

Thanks for the heads-up and for the informative post and links. I found the proposal for Centerfire Open Sights Only special seasons very interesting. IDF&G didn't supply much information or details.

 

[Darkphage]

Idaho has done some interesting things in terms of their rules. They tend to be pretty anti-technology when it comes to bow hunting and muzzleloader hunting. I remember when I first hunted up there a few years ago you couldn’t even use an illuminated nock on your arrow because they felt like that was “technology“. I understand that some technology might give you a tactical advantage, but I’ve always felt like an illuminated knock on an arrow does nothing more than help you recover animals, which should be in the best interest of the fish & game.

I think they finally changed that rule and allow illuminated novks at this point.

 

[idahodave]

We’ve spoke/argued about this before. We’ll agree to disagree. I fully support their attempt to limit some of the technology advantages.

In particular, I support eliminating thermal devices and cell cameras. Thermal devices simply tip the scales too far away from “fair chase” imho and in my personal experience using them.

While you may believe their proposals to be “unenforceable”….IDFG clearly does not. Since they are the ones scratching the tickets, I’m comfortable with their ability to do so.

I’ll be sending my support in for their proposals.

Dave

 

[alexnelon]

Maybe I forgot how to read but these changes all look great to me. I fully support all of these.

 

[WRO]

Did these pass?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rotnguns]

Did these pass?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's my understanding that public input was taken and I think they will discuss and vote in January 2026. There is no December meeting scheduled.

 

[packgoatguy]

We’ve spoke/argued about this before. We’ll agree to disagree. I fully support their attempt to limit some of the technology advantages.

In particular, I support eliminating thermal devices and cell cameras. Thermal devices simply tip the scales too far away from “fair chase” imho and in my personal experience using them.

While you may believe their proposals to be “unenforceable”….IDFG clearly does not. Since they are the ones scratching the tickets, I’m comfortable with their ability to do so.

I’ll be sending my support in for their proposals.

Dave

IdahoDave, I’ve appreciated your insights in other threads. I’ll say my position has softened a bit as I’ve considered your perspective. Like you, I would support effective rules that reign in the technological advances that are found to make modern hunters too effective for long term herd sustainability (like the thermals or cell cameras you mentioned). However, I would ask you to think about a couple issues:


POINT #!

I think we can all agree that a law or rule is only as effective as it is obeyed. If a law is widely disregarded, then it is ineffective. Often well-meaning policy makers make a new law that sound good on paper because the new law appears to solve a problem their constituents ask to be fixed. But if the law is written in such a way as to be unenforceable due to constitutional or practical issues, then in the end it will not produce the results the people hoped.

With IDFG, the actual policy makers are often not experienced enough in the nuances of wildlife law enforcement, which can cause issues. For example, I would encourage you to privately take aside a local IDFG Conservation Officer who works in any of the units that utilize the “Motorized Hunting Rule” (MHR). Or, contact local attorneys (both defense and prosecutors) who work in Southern Idaho counties. Ask these professionals their opinion of the enforceability of the MHR. Ask them how often IDFG Officers even attempt to write tickets for MHR violations, and how often prosecutors are willing to proceed against a defendant on the basis of an MHR violation, and how likely a defense attorney is likely to be successful at beating an MHR violation. You will find that because of the way the MHR is written and its many loopholes, that it is rarely enforced.

I am personally a strong proponent of the idea of limiting the use of motor vehicles while hunting. However, because the MHR is not written properly and is ineffective at actually limiting the use of motor vehicles for hunting… I believe that the MHR is a bad rule and should be either removed from the regs completely or fixed.

Likewise, the present proposed rules to restrict the use of certain tech tools is equally poorly written (if not worse). It will NOT be effective at limiting the use of the tech tools it intends to proscribe. Simply put, the rule will be too easy to violate without getting “caught.” In our fine country, there is a foundational principle of law that requires the “burden of proof” to be upon the “state” in matters of criminal prosecution. As the current proposed rule/law is written it would be impossible for an IDFG Officer or subsequent county prosecutor to “Prove” a case against someone caught violating the rule as it is written.

Instead of me belaboring the point with a detailed (and boring) legal analysis, I would simply ask you to visualize a hypothetical hunter in the future… The hunter takes a thermal hunting. An IDFG Officer sees the hunter use the thermal while he is glassing during an elk hunt. The Officer writes the hunter a ticket. So… what is the hunter’s defense? The rule very clearly allows that the thermal WOULD BE LEGAL to use to hunt wolves or bears (and a dozen other animals)... so the simple defense is that they were NOT using the thermal to hunt elk, but that they were using the thermal to hunt wolves. Because the Officer has no way to PROVE otherwise, the State has no case. ZERO case means the rule cannot ever be enforced.

Here is an example of how the rule could be written that WOULD BE more enforceable (so if you want to support the idea of limiting the use of Tech Tools, then you should ask IDFG to adopt something worded like this INSTEAD of the current proposed rule).

UNLAWFUL METHODS OF TAKE – GENERAL.
No person may take big game animals as set forth in this section
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,
ii. With the use of night vision technology,
iii. With the use of a transmitting trail camera, 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 portable unmanned aircraft system. (This restriction (iv) is in addition to the restrictions for use of aircraft in Section 36-1101(b) Idaho Code.)

The violation of 410 (h) will be evidenced by ANY of the following:

i. Concurrent possession/control/proximity of/to and/or use of any one (or more) of the proscribed technology tools AND a big game ungulate tag, which is legal for present use in an open unit where the hunter was found in possession of the proscribed technology tool(s).
ii. Concurrent possession/control/proximity of/to and/or use of any one (or more) of the proscribed technology tools AND any parts of a harvested big game ungulate WHILE in transit between the harvest location and the final destination of the meat, hide, and/or antlers.

Definitions specific to 410 (h):

Possession/Control/proximity refers to the ability to benefit from the use of the proscribed tool, regardless of actual ownership. A hunter will be deemed in possession/control/proximity of an item if the item could be reasonably construed as accessible to the hunter. Non exclusive examples of this would be;
i. The proscribed item being located in a vehicle that the hunter has access to, either as a driver or passenger.
ii. The proscribed item being possessed by a hunter’s companion who does not have an ungulate tag, but who is near enough to the hunter to use the proscribed item on behalf of the hunter who has the ungulate tag.


Note that in my suggested changes to the proposed rule, I eliminate the language about “for scouting, hunting or retrieval". The reason being, such language speaks to the “intent” of the hunter… which becomes irrelevant if evidence of a violation becomes a mere matter of possession, control, or proximity…. This is a much cleaner way for law enforcement/courts to identify and prosecute violations. I also eliminate the language referring the use of all aircraft. The reason is simple… there already is a rule that makes it against the law to hunt during the same day that you traveled IN an aircraft… thus this new rule is intended primarily to limit the advancing use of “drones” for hunting/scouting purposes. While there are additional problems with the use of manned aircraft for scouting, they should be addressed in a separate rule, because the need for a hunter to legally use an aircraft to get to and from remote areas needs to be preserved as well.


POINT #2

The proper management and balance of Big Game populations and hunting opportunities is necessarily dependent on the scientifically sound studies and efforts of the hundreds of highly trained and educated biologists employed by IDFG. However, when policies and rules are determined and enacted without a scientifically based analysis, then the long term sustainability of herd populations is put in jeopardy.

In the case of many of the proposed rules, including the removal of the restrictions on the use of sabot projectiles during muzzleloader only hunts, removal of restrictions on archery equipment, or the proscribing of the use of various tech tools… ZERO empirical data has been collected to support the premises upon which the changes are being proposed. Instead, public opinion and perception and the intent to appease said perceptions is the driving force and reason for the changes.

The problem with this is simply the fact that these rules are all intended to address a specific problem. But if the suggested impact of the new rule has not been studied or analized, then it will be unlikely that the intended result will occur. It would be easy, and well within IDFG’s wheelhouse to initiate studies to determine the likely effect of various changes or additions to rules BEFORE they initiate the rule changes. IDFG is privileged to have access to a wealth of data and data sources. Their data collection efforts currently in place with the “mandatory harvest reports” could be refined and expanded to produce quality data that can be utilized to identify the correct courses of action and rules that will actually fix real problems. We as the hunting public have a responsibility to hold policy makers accountable to do BETTER to be BETTER and to use their empirical data collection abilities to produce information that can be used to educate both their own purposes and the public’s perceptions.

 

[packgoatguy]

Maybe I forgot how to read but these changes all look great to me. I fully support all of these.

Im sure you know how to read. But I would ask that you not just read passively, but also critically. Read to understand both the intent and the likely outcome if taken to logical conclusions. Please review my comments above in answer to IdahoDave's response, I point out some issues that will affect the effectiveness of the proposed rules. While I respect and wish the best for IDFG policy makers, they are not infallible, and it is the responsibility of hunters, conservationists, and other interested parties to hold IDFG to the highest standards of rule making efficacy. This includes expecting they do the necessary homework, data compilation, studies, with which information they should educate both the public and their practices. When it comes to rule making specifically, they need to be more careful about writing rules that are free of loopholes, easily enforced, and actually produce the results intended (which intentions would be based on and supported by the studies and empirical data they collected).

 

[packgoatguy]

Did these pass?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Commission approved the rules with the proposed changes to the wording we made based on public feedback. The pending rules will be published in the Administrative Bulletin on Wednesday. https://adminrules.idaho.gov/bulletin/index.html. There was considerable discussion prior to the vote. If you’re interested, you can see that here: https://idfg.idaho.gov/article/icymi-idaho-fish-and-game-commission-meeting-nov-20

 

[idahodave]

I agree the rule as written isn't perfect. I wish they were excluded from ALL forms of hunting frankly, specifically to avoid hunters being able to try and wiggle through loopholes.

Additionally, the advantage they provide even from predators have tipped the scales too far imho. I know several guys that have essentially given up coyote hunting because the use of thermals has made it increasingly difficult to kill them via "old school" techniques.

Having acknowledged the rule as written isn't perfect,..."perfect" is the enemy of "good" and I'll happily take the latter until such time it can be rectified. It's not like IDFG won't have the opportunity to modify later. I'm asking this next part in all seriousness...did it ever occur to you IDFG deliberately left out predator hunting for a reason (for now)?

Can we agree by excluding them from the conversation that there will be LESS political pushback? Killing wolves by whatever means possible is a rallying cry at the Capital and I think it makes very good sense to not kick that hornet's nest for now. Get what you can now, then come back in a season or two and effectively communicate the need to close the loophole. In the meantime, they (IDFG) will likey cool the trend of every monkey in Idaho talking about getting one because dudes have figured out how much easier they make hunting frankly.

As for "empirical data"...that argument doesn't hold water for me...and frankly it's a bad strategy. The longer IDFG waits, the more people will have purchased these devices and the more opposition there will be. That's simply common sense. Plus, I don't need to taste dog-chit to know it tastes bad. I certainly don't need to try 100 servings of dog-chit to know it tastes bad. Sometimes you just KNOW something.

Anyone that has tried a thermal device in the last couple of years KNOWS they are a wild advantage. It's the very reason guys are arguing so hard to keep them. There really isn't a counter-argument to be made that's not 100 percent self-serving.

Just my two cents, and you're welcome to a differing opinion of course.

Dave

 

[packgoatguy]

I agree the rule as written isn't perfect. I wish they were excluded from ALL forms of hunting frankly, specifically to avoid hunters being able to try and wiggle through loopholes.

Additionally, the advantage they provide even from predators have tipped the scales too far imho. I know several guys that have essentially given up coyote hunting because the use of thermals has made it increasingly difficult to kill them via "old school" techniques.

Having acknowledged the rule as written isn't perfect,..."perfect" is the enemy of "good" and I'll happily take the latter until such time it can be rectified. It's not like IDFG won't have the opportunity to modify later. I'm asking this next part in all seriousness...did it ever occur to you IDFG deliberately left out predator hunting for a reason (for now)?

Can we agree by excluding them from the conversation that there will be LESS political pushback? Killing wolves by whatever means possible is a rallying cry at the Capital and I think it makes very good sense to not kick that hornet's nest for now. Get what you can now, then come back in a season or two and effectively communicate the need to close the loophole. In the meantime, they (IDFG) will likey cool the trend of every monkey in Idaho talking about getting one because dudes have figured out how much easier they make hunting frankly.

As for "empirical data"...that argument doesn't hold water for me...and frankly it's a bad strategy. The longer IDFG waits, the more people will have purchased these devices and the more opposition there will be. That's simply common sense. Plus, I don't need to taste dog-chit to know it tastes bad. I certainly don't need to try 100 servings of dog-chit to know it tastes bad. Sometimes you just KNOW something.

Anyone that has tried a thermal device in the last couple of years KNOWS they are a wild advantage. It's the very reason guys are arguing so hard to keep them. There really isn't a counter-argument to be made that's not 100 percent self-serving.

Just my two cents, and you're welcome to a differing opinion of course.

Dave

Dave,

I appreciate your perspective. I agree that it would be easier and cleaner to just ban the use of particular Tech Tools for ALL hunting (even predators) and you might note that I offered that as an alternative to the present draft wording of the rule. And I also agree with you that the absence of restrictions on predator hunting is likely politically motivated. However, that is exactly why the modified language I proposed in my previous response to you did NOT in fact ban the use of these tech tools for predator hunting, but because it provides an evidence based approach (instead of an intent based approach) for the prosecution of violations, it is vastly superior (and likely would not have the kind of political pushback we both would be worried about). While in some situations, "perfect" might be the enemy of "good"... this is not one of those situations. Here, present rules would be better described as "worthless" than "good" by comparison.. and I don't propose that my ad hoc rule suggestion is by any means "perfect" but it is vastly superior in its legal effectiveness.

So... I would ask you the same question that you asked me... did it ever occur to you IDFG might have deliberately made these rules unenforceable? We can assume that the assistant attorney general at IDFG has as much or more legal training than I do... and as such they would of course be aware of the legal challenges to the enforceability of the rules that I have presented... yet they proceed anyway. So, what is the benefit of un-enforceable rules in the regs? You might think about the purpose and who might stand to benefit either way.

Regardless though... if you and I as the hunting public expect that rules are intended to be obeyed, and that as a hunting society we will generally obey rules collectively, the precedent and perpetuation of unenforceable rules will stand to erode the very basis upon which we collectively enjoy the order and rule of law that has hither-to been the perceived status quo. There are forces at play that would love to see the entire premise of western hunting undermined and eventually abolished.. because it feeds their own rhetoric and power grab. For anyone who has studied Tzu's Art of War, you know you don't win by going in through the front door... the opponents to the hunting ideal know this all too well.

As to your distaste for the collection and reliance on empirical data... any student of history will know that reliance upon the perceptions of an easily manipulated public to craft public policy... contrary to or without the benefit of factually or scientifically based data, was the root cause of most of the world's conflicts. It is not a big ask for IDFG to be required to produce empirical data to support ANY action they under take. Over the course of a relatively few seasons, they could collect data, (after all, the tech behind these devices has been around for decades... heck, the Abrams tanks we used that had been in the Gulf War had thermal imaging tech) and then make reasonable conclusions based on that data, and then use that data to educate the public.

I would encourage you to find a retired IDFG manager (there are dozens in the state) who had been a part of IDFG in the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s. Ask them their opinion about how they would have handled issues like those of today. Ask them if they would have ever believed it possible for IDFG to promulgate rules without a basis in empirical data, etc. I have asked. And the responses I get are not positive.

 

[idahodave]

It might surprise you to know I worked for IDFG in the mid 90's. I worked directly with then director Jerry Conley. I attended more than one board meeting, and I've attended many, many legislative sub-committee meetings throughout my career. I'm more than a little familiar with at least a few of the staff still there.

Past Director Virgil Moore personally hired me into my first position with IDFG. I still hunt with their (IDFG) legislative liason from the mid-90s to this day. I freely admit I haven't worked for them in over 20 years, but I offer that all up by way of addressing your "go ask a manager from the 90s" point. I don't need to, because I WAS THERE. A lot of subject-matter has evolved since then, but I assure you the agency isn't all that much different today than it was then.

Your not-to-veiled assertion that IDFG staff WANT the measures to fail as some sort of double-agent scenario is...frankly utter foolishness from where I'm sitting. Worse yet, it undermines the salient points that you do occasionally make.

As to your distaste for the collection and reliance on empirical data... any student of history will know that reliance upon the perceptions of an easily manipulated public to craft public policy... contrary to or without the benefit of factually or scientifically based data, was the root cause of most of the world's conflicts. It is not a big ask for IDFG to be required to produce empirical data to support ANY action they under take.

Stop painting a false narrative. I don't have a "distaste" for empirical data. I actually strongly prefer data-driven decisions. I also have a lot of data collection experience in my professional pursuits...enough to know that to be statistically valid, it would be counter-productive to delay a decision in this case (imho).

We can assume that the assistant attorney general at IDFG has as much or more legal training than I do... and as such they would of course be aware of the legal challenges to the enforceability of the rules that I have presented... yet they proceed anyway.

You keep saying these rules are "unenforceable"...while simultaneously acknowledging their deputy AG (whom I personally know to be pretty smart fwtw) probably knows more. We agree on that point for sure. They DO know more than you about the ability to enforce these prospective rules.

I'd suggest to you that as an alternative to your conspiracy theory that they WANT the rules to fail....that a far more likely scenario is that you're simply wrong in your assumption and they believe the rules ARE enforceable and they WILL have the desired outcome.

I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but you're hubris has led you to some rather outlandish conclusions on this one friend.

Dave

p.s. If you'll go back and check our first exchange on this you'll find I tried to wager with you about how this was gonna turn out. You were wise to avoid that wager.

 

[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?

In case you forgot...

 

[packgoatguy]

It might surprise you to know I worked for IDFG in the mid 90's. I worked directly with then director Jerry Conley. I attended more than one board meeting, and I've attended many, many legislative sub-committee meetings throughout my career. I'm more than a little familiar with at least a few of the staff still there.

Past Director Virgil Moore personally hired me into my first position with IDFG. I still hunt with their (IDFG) legislative liason from the mid-90s to this day. I freely admit I haven't worked for them in over 20 years, but I offer that all up by way of addressing your "go ask a manager from the 90s" point. I don't need to, because I WAS THERE. A lot of subject-matter has evolved since then, but I assure you the agency isn't all that much different today than it was then.

Your not-to-veiled assertion that IDFG staff WANT the measures to fail as some sort of double-agent scenario is...frankly utter foolishness from where I'm sitting. Worse yet, it undermines the salient points that you do occasionally make.

Stop painting a false narrative. I don't have a "distaste" for empirical data. I actually strongly prefer data-driven decisions. I also have a lot of data collection experience in my professional pursuits...enough to know that to be statistically valid, it would be counter-productive to delay a decision in this case (imho).



You keep saying these rules are "unenforceable"...while simultaneously acknowledging their deputy AG (whom I personally know to be pretty smart fwtw) probably knows more. We agree on that point for sure. They DO know more than you about the ability to enforce these prospective rules.

I'd suggest to you that as an alternative to your conspiracy theory that they WANT the rules to fail....that a far more likely scenario is that you're simply wrong in your assumption and they believe the rules ARE enforceable and they WILL have the desired outcome.

I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but you're hubris has led you to some rather outlandish conclusions on this one friend.

Dave

p.s. If you'll go back and check our first exchange on this you'll find I tried to wager with you about how this was gonna turn out. You were wise to avoid that wager.

Dave,

I appreciate and respect your perspective now, even more than before, knowing your background now. However, it appears that there are differences in your perceptions about how things are being run and those perceptions of past and present IDFG persons I communicate with regularly. But, as you have noted, each are entitled to their own opinions. I did not say that I believe IDFG Staff want unenforceable rules, but if you or they truly believe the rules in their current form are enforceable, then I ask you to paint that picture clearly. Please give me an example/hypothetical scenario where a violation of this rule occurs, and is not easily defeated in court.

 

[idahodave]

I did not say that I believe IDFG Staff want unenforceable rules, but if you or they truly believe the rules in their current form are enforceable, then I ask you to paint that picture clearly. Please give me an example/hypothetical scenario where a violation of this rule occurs, and is not easily defeated in court.

Hard pass. Frankly I have better things to do with my time than engage in a theoretical situation that isn't my profession. You wouldn't be convinced even if Matlock himself made a case to my point. You're too wrapped up in our own opinion (imho) that the rules aren't enforceable for me waste a bunch of time trying to convince you otherwise. I don't need to do so. The courts and IDFG enforcement personnel will answer that "question".

Seems a lot easier to wait and see how things play out. If you watch the entirety of the Commission meetings, I think you'll see your concerns addressed at about the 1:18 mark of the meeting. The Commission says REPEATEDLY the need to re-visit the topic to ensure the rules are enforceable and working.

If you're right (and I'm wrong), feel free to publicly rub my nose in it. It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong about a topic...though I'm pretty sure I'm not on this one. At the very least, the IDFG staff and Commission seem to agree with me on this one.

Dave

 

[packgoatguy]

I was just informed that due to the timing of the Office of Administrative Rules deadlines/publication work and the Commission meeting, the pending rules were not in time for the December bulletin and will be available in the January 7th bulletin.

 

[packgoatguy]

Hard pass. Frankly I have better things to do with my time than engage in a theoretical situation that isn't my profession. You wouldn't be convinced even if Matlock himself made a case to my point. You're too wrapped up in our own opinion (imho) that the rules aren't enforceable for me waste a bunch of time trying to convince you otherwise. I don't need to do so. The courts and IDFG enforcement personnel will answer that "question".

Seems a lot easier to wait and see how things play out. If you watch the entirety of the Commission meetings, I think you'll see your concerns addressed at about the 1:18 mark of the meeting. The Commission says REPEATEDLY the need to re-visit the topic to ensure the rules are enforceable and working.

If you're right (and I'm wrong), feel free to publicly rub my nose in it. It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong about a topic...though I'm pretty sure I'm not on this one. At the very least, the IDFG staff and Commission seem to agree with me on this one.

Dave

I have no desire to rub yours or anyone's else's nose in it. I have very little faith that based on the direction of current commission and IDFG staff decisions, my concerns will have any effect. But that is irrelevant to my comments here. I have no agenda or purpose here other than to educate fellow sportsmen and advocate for more responsible rule making. The final outcome in this particular situation will be what it will be, but that won't negate the need for more of the hunting community to become better involved with a deeper understanding of the issues at stake, and as such... I will continue to provide information as best I can.