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

[WRO]

Night hunting is already illegal for big game. Thermals are used at night to locate game. Pretty straightforward. Common sense is a thing.

Drones ? Come on man !

Cel cams - debatable.

There is no way to accurately study the impacts of these devices on success rates. At best we could ask hunters to voluntarily disclose what tech they used to harvest (or hunt unsuccessfully) through the mandatory reports but how many will be honest ?
Add in the cost to do all this data collection over several years and then ask for input again from hunters to their satisfaction… it’s just not feasible.

Use thermals all day long, nothing can hide from them.

 

[Jeff5053]

I draw the line at thermals..

Agreed. Drones are a concern for me as well. Based on what I am reading in this thread, in terms of the use of drones. I can locate and put an animal to bed with a drone and go up the next morning to hunt it? This does not seem like fair chase either. Am I reading it wrong?

 

[IdahoBeav]

I wish people were this concerned about enforcing laws on four-wheelers and SxS. They are way more deadly than thermals or Cellular Trail cameras.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Which violations do you see from ATVs and SxS? The only ones I have observed are riding around gates and breaking the motorized hunting rule in the restricted units. Ninety percent of the violations I see are from E-bikes riding non-motorized single track trails. It seems that almost all 2-track and full width trails are open year-round to motorized.

 

[kylem]

Which violations do you see from ATVs and SxS? The only ones I have observed are riding around gates and breaking the motorized hunting rule in the restricted units. Ninety percent of the violations I see are from E-bikes riding non-motorized single track trails. It seems that almost all 2-track and full width trails are open year-round to motorized.

The number of people driving atvs and sxs around gates where they aren’t supposed to in north Idaho is unreal. At least where I am virtually every closed gate has a trail around it. A lot of it is private timber ground that is open to public access but not motorized access. My fear is eventually they will get tired of the dealing with it, shut down public access, and go to private leases like they have in other places.

 

[WRO]

Which violations do you see from ATVs and SxS? The only ones I have observed are riding around gates and breaking the motorized hunting rule in the restricted units. Ninety percent of the violations I see are from E-bikes riding non-motorized single track trails. It seems that almost all 2-track and full width trails are open year-round to motorized.

Plenty of tracks in the wilderness I found this year.

 

[IdahoBeav]

Plenty of tracks in the wilderness I found this year.

From a 2 or 4 wheel machine? It’s pretty tough if not impossible to get the latter into the wilderness.

 

[Jeff5053]

Aaaannnddd there's the problem. If we knee jerk ban everything that someone doesnt perceive as fair chase, then we would all be left using our bare hands to hunt.

I don't think hunting with bait or hounds is fair chase... so let's ban that too...

I don't think hunting publicly owned game on exclusive private land is fair chase... so lets ban that too...

I don't think riding a dirtbike while hunting is fair chase... so let's ban that too...

I don't think being able to take 80+ yard shots with a bow during the elk rut is fair chase... so let's ban that too...

Freedom and choice are still a thing (I hope) in our country. Banning unpopular opinions and points of view without studying their effects and then proving a factual, functional, and legitimate danger to essential components of society is a recipe for tyranny.

I appreciate this conversation as it is something that challenges my opinions. I agree that free will/freedom of choice are key tenants of what makes this country great. And while I will usually argue that we are better off with fewer regulations and government intrusion I also understand that at some point, a line has to be drawn. In this case, the IDFG is the only useful tool we have to ensure that irresponsible people don't ruin this for our children to enjoy. I don't like speed limits either but I understand their necessity.

 

[WRO]

From a 2 or 4 wheel machine? It’s pretty tough if not impossible to get the latter into the wilderness.

Both, some wilderness’s are easier than others.

 

[packgoatguy]

This has very little to do with whether or not a cell cam/etc is objectively "fair chase".

1. IDFG pursued the idea of regulating Technology based on their own stated premise that it was intended to curb hunter success in lieu of reducing tag availability. However they (again by their own admission) did NOT produce any data or study that:

a) provides a factual basis for the assumption that hunter success is a problem, or if it is then how big of a problem (in a quantifiable manner).

Or

b) provides a quantifiable correlation between the various proscribed tech tools and the anticipated reduction in hunter success.

IDFG has a responsibility to base their decisions on sound science and data, not on conjecture or assumptions.

2. IDFG promoted their creation of the HAT Working group based on the premise that it would be used to gather public input and then create proposals based on that input that the Commission could then implement. However, even though 80% of hunters who were surveyed by IDFG did NOT want new rules (irrespective of their personal views on the propriety of various Tech Tools), the HAT WG, IDFG Staff, and Commission all proceeded with rule making nonetheless.

3. The rule making process was not done with adequate public participation. Even though IDFG has the ability to send every hunter an email notice of the opportunity to make comments about the new rules... many (most) Idaho Sportsmen/women did not hear about the rule making or opportunity to comment because IDFG only posted the notice on their website, their social media platforms, and a handful of select newspaper publications.

4. The rulemaking was done sloppily... there were errors, typos, and omissions of relevant definitions. There were redundant rules proposed, and rules that would be ineffective at reducing hunter success due to their likely unenforceable nature and presence of loopholes. For example... smart optics attached to rifles are banned in the new rule, even though there is an existing rule that bans electronic scopes attached to a rifle (smart optics are electronic, and as such would already be illegal). The current restrictions on the use of aircraft is another example. Historically, IDFG has taken multiple years to carefully consider and draft proposed rules, which process provides ample opportunity to ensure it is done right. However, for some reason they rushed this new rule making through... errors and all.

5. Many hunting practices that are not considered "fair chase" (by many hunters and often even by 3rd party standards like B&C) are legal or at least widely tolerated in Idaho. ie, bear baiting, hound hunting, trapping, electronic calls, predator hunting for mere "sport", harvesting "public owned game" on private property that prohibits public access, use of paid guides, archery equipment allowing shots over 60 yards, running down predators on snowmachines, air gunning wolves, road hunting, party hunting, taking unsupported shots at running animals, etc. It is hypocritical to target one perceived violation of "fair chase" while excusing another... merely because you don't personally use the one method, but you do benefit from the other. If you really believe in fair chase, then one could assume that you don't do any hunting practice that someone else might not consider "fair chase".