Unpopular opinion:
Thermal regulation is a SIMPLE decision.
Thermal is NOT fair chase, therefore thermal should not be legal to hunt big game.
The above poster video complaints about comment periods and idfg lack of inclusion of public opinion does not matter to me on the subject! I am shocked and disappointed the commission is even considering holding public opinion as a deciding factor for legality of a technology that is obviously not fair chase.
Just because people want the easy button does not mean it is the right thing to do or that it is good for the future of hunting.
It's a good topic for debate. What is or is not fair chase or ethical vs unethical? Which advantage or niche that one hunter can cultivate over another should be regulated or banned? It kind of comes down to a matter of perspective.
A hunter who exclusively sits in a Tree Stand with his bow during whitetail season might be more likely to say that using a scoped rifle to hunt big game is not fair chase.
A hunter who doesnt own an ATV or a dirt bike, or otherwise prefers to hike, would be more likely to say that using motor vehicles for hunting is not fair chase.
A hunter who only hunts deer because they can use it to feed their family might be more likely to say that hunting predators for sport is unethical.
A hunter who exclusively hunts with a long bow inside of 30 yards might be more likely to say that using modern compound bows out to 80+ yards is not fair chase.
A hunter who owns or has access to a lot of private land might be more likely to approve of more restrictive trespassing laws.
A hunter who has deep pockets might be more likely to support the sale of public lands... because he will just buy them to use for his own benefit.
A hunter who exclusively hunts bears over bait might be more likely to say that hunters chasing bears with hounds is less ethical.
A hunter with a disability might be more likely to approve of rules that make it easier for him to get around his limitations.
A hunter who only hunts with horses might be more likely to support the closure of motorized trails.
A landowner whose private land blocks access to thousands of acres of public land will likely not support concepts like corner crossing or eminent domain being used to create public access through their property.
A hunter who puts in the time to practice shooting skills year round will be more likely to perceive hunters who only "sight in" their rifle with 3 shots of practice per year as unethical.
A hunter who only owns a single rifle they inherited from their granddad, doesn't own a range finder or any other modern hunting equipment might be more likely to perceive any hunter using modern long range equipment as not being ethical or fair chase by comparison.
A hunter who doesn't use aircraft to access their hunting destinations is more likely to support rules that ban the use of aircraft to get to and from hunting destinations.
In the end, individual perspectives are fickle and biased. Trying to limit someone else to benefit your own ideas is a short-term gain long term loss kind of situation. Restrictions on choice and personal freedoms should be few and far between.... and even then, just because a particular perspective is unpopular does not mean that it should be regulated in favor of the majority. Our country was founded on principles intended to protect EVERYONE by protecting the rights of the least of us. Whether we like it or not, we hunters are collectively in the minority (at least here in the United States) Ive read that less than 7% of the US Population are hunters... how many non hunters out there (the vast majority of US Citizens) misunderstand the value of hunting to conservation? How many non hunters would vote (if allowed) to ban all hunting entirely if they were given the chance? It's a scary thought.
