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

[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

You seem inclined to let this play out, and let "enforcement" answer for the issue. I will again point to the issue of the Motorized Hunting Rule (MHR). On point, I had a conversation with an IDFG enforcement officer last year where we discussed this issue. I won't share a name, as it was off the record, but he seemed to suggest that his opinion was not unique and it was not a secret... that he did not like the MHR, and would not write tickets for violations of the MHR because the prosecutors and judges always dismissed them if the defendant gave even the slightest resistance... because of the many loopholes and general unenforceability of the MHR as its written. Yet, inspite of this officer's (and others) experience, the MHR has been on the books... unchanged... for how many years now? So, I'd ask the obvious question... even if the current proposed rules are deemed ineffective, how long (if ever) do you think it will take for the new rules to be fixed? If IDFG won't fix the MHR, why would they fix this rule? Why not just do it right the first time?

 

[HunterGatherer]

Pretty easy to enforce the rules around thermals if they set acceptable dates for use rather than trying to define intention -( to scout, recover, etc ). Prohibit thermal use during any open ungulate season. Then possession of the device in the field is illegal and easily enforceable.

 

[packgoatguy]

Pretty easy to enforce the rules around thermals if they set acceptable dates for use rather than trying to define intention -( to scout, recover, etc ). Prohibit thermal use during any open ungulate season. Then possession of the device in the field is illegal and easily enforceable.

This ^^^ exactly!

 

[ID_archer]

As a young person living in Idaho, this is very concerning to me. I spend time in the field and see the utter lack of enforcement of hunting laws as is and seeing further steps away from quality legislation is sad. I do not know why the legislation would be written in this way, but this law is a joke if you know a good lawyer. Courts enforce the law, not Fish and Game. The term knee-jerk legislation comes to mind... The proposed regulation book is published on their website - they did not clean it up. https://idfg.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/13-0108-2401-proposed-rule-1025.pdf

It is hard to understand why this legislation would be written in such an oblivious manner to the nature of humans and rules. Maybe one of you has a clue. Maybe the book is intended to be amended during the voting process? Otherwise it leaves a door big enough for anyone with a thermal and a wolf tag to walk right by a violation.