You and I agree on much within this subject. I’m not interested in debating one tech vs another tech’s efficacy. My main point was to strongly disagree with the 4frnt holster guy video.
I don’t think I agree with the idea that idfg must “study” every aspect of a technology before making a decision about its legality. Nor do I think they need to use public comment as the primary or only method for determining a rule. Call me old school, but there is a point at which they have to limit some of this stuff. Particularly when some tech is evolving so quickly they barely understand the implications or use case from one year to the next.
I agree that IDFG (or any agency) should NOT have to study out EVERY possible detail regarding a subject before making a decision... However, they should be required to do SOME amount of data compilation and study, and the more data they could compile in a reasonable amount of time... the better. In situations where there is no emergency or urgency, I would argue that more data should be complied than if time is of the essence. In this situation, there is no proven urgency or even a suggestion that a failure to ban tech tools immediately will have some catastrophic result. Most of the tools proscribed have been available in some form for decades! And deer and elk harvest rates have remained fairly static through that period. (in fact, many would argue that harvest rates per capita have actually gone DOWN through this same period).
I think IDFG would agree that the basic premise of the intended Tech Ban rule is that if any one particular tech tool (Cell Cameras for example) is having an undue influence on hunter harvest rates, then it should be banned or regulated. However, IDFG does not have any data on whether it is even an issue or not.
It would be very easy for IDFG to use their existing Mandatory Hunter Report system, adding in a series of questions that each hunter would answer. Something like;
1. How many hunters even own a cell camera.
2. How many hunters used a cell camera in the past year, two years, 5 years, etc.
3. How many hunters who own a cell camera also harvested a big game animal in the past year?
4. How many hunters who own a cell camera and harvested a big game animal in the past year ALSO harvested a big game animal within a 1 mile radius of the location of one of their cell cameras?
5. How many hunters who own a cell camera, and harvested a big game animal within a 1 mile radius of that camera location believed that they would not have otherwise been able to harvest that particular animal were it not for the use of the cell camera?
6. How many hunters who own a cell camera, harvested big game within 1 mile of that camera, who also believe that they would not have been able to harvest that particular animal were it not for the use of the cell camera, but who also believe that they would not have otherwise been able to harvest a different animal with the same tag were it not for the use of the cell camera.
This would take a hunter an extra 5 minutes to complete the harvest report. But with this information compiled over the coming years, IDFG could identify how frequently particular tech items (or methods of take) are being used, and how likely they are to make a difference to the average hunter who uses the tool.
If they had data like this, they wouldn't even need public opinion. They could identify issues and make their own decisions based on facts and science instead of opinion and conjecture. If they noticed that the data was telling them that rifle hunters were become too effective because of one tool or another, they could make rules specifically to address the core issue. If they notice the data telling them that archery hunters were having too much success, they could identify the source of the change and address it. Without data and a monitoring process to identify changes over time, they are nothing more than any other bureaucracy. On the other hand, if they are armed with data, they are wildlife management agency with clout and credibility that makes decision based on science and facts.
I agree that public comment/opinion (which is generally fickle and easily manipulated) is not the best source to rely on when making rules. In this situation though, it is the pretense of IDFG making the rules because that is what the public desires that is irritating. The IDFG Website states clearly that the purpose of the HAT WG was to find out what the public wanted and then using that information make suggestions to the Commission for implementation.
"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. Those recommendations would then be reviewed by the Commission and considered for implementation."
So, if IDFG says they want public opinion in order to create a rule that the public wants... and then they disregard the majority opinion of the public that they sought... then that doesn't sit well with me.
The majority of Idaho hunters surveyed sent a clear message, that we do NOT want more rules or restrictions. The IDFG Commission was aware of this, but proceeded anyway. 80% of hunters surveyed (see page 8 of the Hunting & Advanced Technology Survey, December 2024) approved of maintaining the
status quo instead of implementing more rules and restrictions, and this was done irrespective of anyone’s personal viewpoint on the propriety of using technology, plastic bear baiting barrels, sabot muzzleloading projectiles, expanding broadheads, lead projectiles, range finders, modern compound bows, long range rifles, or a host of other controversial/debated hunting tools/methods. Then nearly a year later... during the IDFG Commissioners meeting last month there was a slide (about minute 46) that showed the poll results of Idaho's hunters lack of desire to see rules banning the use of specific tech tools. (To be compared to the above referenced statistic where 80% of hunters supported “Maintain(ing) existing season lengths and current equipment restrictions in the field.” 76% of hunters supported ““Maintain(ing) existing tag numbers and current equipment restrictions in the field.”) The slide shown to the Commissioners showed that even for the two proscribed tech tools that are not inherently redundant, hunters still overwhelmingly opposed rules that prohibit their use. Not because everyone uses those tools, or even wants those tech tools, but because they value choice!
- 75% of hunters OPPOSE the rule modification(s) that prohibit the use of transmitting trail cameras for scouting, hunting, or retrieval of big game ungulates from August 1 through December 31.
- 64% of hunters OPPOSE the rule modification(s) that prohibit the use of thermal imaging for scouting, hunting, or retrieval of big game ungulates from August 1 through December 31.
