Idaho IDFG rule changes comment period ends June 20th

[packgoatguy]

In case this hasn't been discussed elsewhere:

IDFG has put out the draft of the changes to the big game hunting rules, including bans on the use of "advanced technology" like the use of smart optics, transmitting game cameras, thermal imaging, night vision, or aircraft for the purposes of scouting or hunting big game ungulates.

Docket No. 13-0108-2401: Zero-based Regulation Rulemaking: Rules Governing Taking of Big Game Animals

idfg.idaho.gov

The public has until June 20th to provide written comments.

1st Question: Does Idaho even need more rules? (For example, there is already a rule that bans the attachment of electronic devices to firearms for hunting... so why do we need a rule that bans smart optics attached to a rifle?)

2nd Question: Are the new rules well worded? Easily enforced? Or will the new rules cause confusion and add more unenforceable laws that are unfairly applied?

New rules:
"410. UNLAWFUL METHODS OF TAKE – GENERAL.

No person may take big game animals as set forth in this section, except as determined and specified in IDAPA
13.01.04.304 Rules Governing Licensing, Reasonable Modification Permit Weapons Restrictions...

f. With the use of any aircraft, in accordance with Section 36-1101. Idaho Code.
g. With the use of thermal imaging technology for scouting, hunting or retrieving big game ungulates
from July 1 through December 31.
h. With the use of any smart optics when attached to or incorporated, except scopes with battery
powered, tritium lighted reticles, or as defined by 13.01.04,372 Rules Governing Licensing, Rewl Modifcation
i. With the use transmitting trail cameras for the purposes of hunting and scouting for big game un-
gulates (deer, elk, pronghorn, moose, bighorn sheep or Mtn. goats), from July 1 through December 31 on public or
public access property.
j. With the use of night vision technology, mounted as well as handheld equipment, for scouting,
hunting, or retrieving big game ungulates from July 1 through December 31."

 

[Andrew12gauge]

I don’t like the part where it seems they are doing away with the separate application periods for OIL and other species, also why is the language requiring tag fees up front for OIL species crossed out


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[packgoatguy]

I don’t like the part where it seems they are doing away with the separate application periods for OIL and other species, also why is the language requiring tag fees up front for OIL species crossed out


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Anywhere something is crossed out is intended to be deleted or replaced.

I've found some typos, inconsistencies, and poor wording that I intend to comment about, and I'd encourage anyone with concerns about the changes to send their comments to IDFG.

 

[Andrew12gauge]

Anywhere something is crossed out is intended to be deleted or replaced.

I've found some typos, inconsistencies, and poor wording that I intend to comment about, and I'd encourage anyone with concerns about the changes to send their comments to IDFG.

Well it would appear then that they intend to replace the current draw system because pretty much every piece of text around the draw system is crossed out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[High Climber]

Looks like sabots will be legal for muzzy.

 

[BigNate]

Still need to push for classifying bears, wolves, and mountain lion as predators not big game. Not having the equipment restrictions of big game so that predators can be taken easier. Even if they require tags, it would help.

 

[Andrew12gauge]

Still need to push for classifying bears, wolves, and mountain lion as predators not big game. Not having the equipment restrictions of big game so that predators can be taken easier. Even if they require tags, it would help.

You can already use a lot of “enhanced” hunting methods for wolves such as electronic calls and night hunting in much of the state. Bait for bears and hounds for both bears and cats. Seems like we can already do some things for predator hunting that we can’t with other big game species


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheTone]

You can already use a lot of “enhanced” hunting methods for wolves such as electronic calls and night hunting in much of the state. Bait for bears and hounds for both bears and cats. Seems like we can already do some things for predator hunting that we can’t with other big game species


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not to mention lion season is about to be year round; here’s my guess, harvest will change very little because the truth is people don’t try very hard when it comes to hunting predators

 

[packgoatguy]

So, for those who are willing to provide feedback to IDFG and make a comment before the 20th, here is an example of a concern that could be addressed:

Page 17, 04. Other, section “g”
Does this section create a rule that will be difficult to enforce? Does it create a rule which will lead to an unfair application of the law? Does the wording need to be clarified?

Presumably, if the use of thermal imaging tech is ONLY banned for “Big Game Ungulates” then it is NOT banned for the use of hunting bears, lions, wolves, or coyotes during the described period (July 1-Dec 31). As it is possible that a hunter could legally be hunting bears, lions, wolves, or coyotes during this period, and do so legally with a thermal imaging device… then how will law enforcement know that the device was being illegally used for pursuing an ungulate, and NOT legally being used to pursue a different game species?

Imagine a situation where an officer witnessed a hunter using a thermal imaging device to scan a hillside... but when confronted, the hunter (who has a deer tag, bear tag, wolf tag, and a lion tag in his pocket) says he is only using the thermal for the detection of wolves, bears, or lions... how would a ticket ever stick? The officer would have no way to prove that the hunter was using the thermal to locate Ungulates. Thus, there would always be an excuse for a hunter to get out of a ticket... which will make the rule almost universally unenforceable... and is it wise to write laws and rules that are unenforceable?

 

[packgoatguy]

Here is another type of concern that one might address in both comments to the Fish and Game Commission and in response to the rulemaking deadline on the 20th:

Consider the information about and explanation of the rationale put forth by IDFG as to why they are creating the new rules and bans on the use of Technology Tools. One of the primary reasons being cited is that IDFG is doing what they believe that most hunters want. They had a survey conducted where some 2170 respondents participated. The result of the survey as (suggested by IDFG) was that the majority of hunters WANT these new rules.

HOWEVER, if you actually READ the survey results, you might note that IDFG's perception of the results of the survey and proposed rule changes, is FLAWED.

In fact, More than 80% of the 2170 survey recipients TOTALLY supported maintaining the STATUS QUO (keeping season lengths and current restrictions the same). Less than half surveyed (40%) were either very or extremely concerned that advanced hunting technology may lead to decreased hunting opportunities. However, the gist or premise that IDFG suggests as a result of the survey is that the majority of Idaho Hunters see advanced tech as a problem and want a change… and that is simply an incorrect deduction based on the data provided from the survey… and in fact the exact opposite is true… the vast majority of hunters do NOT want an increase in restrictions PERIOD.

 

[packgoatguy]

Here is another example of something a concerned citizen could address regarding the rules:

Are we comfortable with the ban on "smart optics" when no definition of "smart optics" is ever provided anywhere in the rules? (You and I might assume we know the definition of smart optics, but is it plausible that an ignorant lawmaker or uninformed Judge could expand the meaning to include any "optical device that has some level of computing ability" which could theoretically include handheld range finders, image stabilized binoculars, etc).

Are we comfortable that the language of the rule does not state that the smart optic has to be attached to a rifle to be illegal? (Note below that there is no actual mention of firearms).

"410. UNLAWFUL METHODS OF TAKE – GENERAL.

"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 13.01.04,372 Rules Governing Licensing, Rewl Modifcation"

 

[packgoatguy]

So, for those who are willing to provide feedback to IDFG and make a comment before the 20th, here is an example of a concern that could be addressed:

Page 18, 04. Other, section “i”
Does this section create a rule that will be difficult to enforce? Does it create a rule which will lead to an unfair application of the law? Does the wording need to be clarified?

Presumably, if the use of Transmitting Game Cameras tech is ONLY banned for the scouting and hunting of “Big Game Ungulates” then it is NOT banned for the use of hunting bears, lions, wolves, or coyotes during the described period (July 1-Dec 31). As it is possible that a hunter could legally be hunting bears, lions, wolves, or coyotes during this period, and do so legally with the aid of Transmitting Game Cameras… then how will law enforcement know that the device was being illegally used for pursuing an ungulate, and NOT legally being used to pursue a different game species?

Imagine a situation where an officer found a Transmitting Game Camera... but when confronted, the hunter/owner (who has a deer tag, bear tag, wolf tag, and a lion tag in his pocket) says he is only using the camera for the detection of wolves, bears, or lions... how would a ticket ever stick? The officer would have no way to prove that the hunter was using the camera to locate/track Ungulates. Thus, there would always be an excuse for a hunter to get out of a ticket... which will make the rule almost universally unenforceable... and is it wise to write laws and rules that are unenforceable?

 

[DAOutfitters208]

Looks like sabots will be legal for muzzy.

I think that's already been decided, the updated the regs this year.

 

[packgoatguy]

Looks like sabots will be legal for muzzy.

Which is interesting in the context of the other rules here. The whole point IDFG states for the new rules are to limit hunter effectiveness by limiting technology use... but in my 50cal muzzy, I'm pretty limited in range to about 125, maybe 150 yards with the current rules (no sabots) because the big heavy lead projectiles lose velocity so quickly... but if I can now use Sabots... that might extend my range to 200 yards, and even further... which in most November/December general tag muzzleloader hunts could be a game changer! That one rule change could easily increase harvest rates because it increases effective range. Yet at the same time IDFG seems bent on banning irrelevant tech like "smart optics" which technically are already banned because they are an "electronic device" that would be attached to a rifle... or banning Night Vision for the use on hunting Ungulates?? Where hunting Ungulates is already illegal at night...

 

[packgoatguy]

Here is another example of a question or concern that one could write to IDFG about:

Has IDFG actually studied the impact that the proposed banned tech had had on game harvest in recent years? Has it even had a measurable impact on harvest rates? (In many areas of the state, haven't harvest rates actually declined in the past decade, in spite of the "advanced tech" being available during the same period?

Certainly IDFG has the ability to ask all hunters (perhaps on their mandatory harvest reports) to declare whether or not advanced technology was used or useful in the harvest of their big game animal... and even to qualify HOW useful it was.

If in the end, after a couple seasons of compilation of actual data, it was determined that in fact the use of advanced tech is having an undesirable impact on the harvest... then it would make sense to think about rules to regulate it. But is it wise to ban something before it's impact has been studied?

 

[N.ID7803]

I think that's already been decided, the updated the regs this year.

I think the sabot thing was forced through the legislature and bypassed the commission. Otherwise it probably wouldn’t have made it. Same situation as the lighted knocks and mechanical broad heads.

 

[packgoatguy]

I think the sabot thing was forced through the legislature and bypassed the commission. Otherwise it probably wouldn’t have made it. Same situation as the lighted knocks and mechanical broad heads.

Regardless of whether it's at the behest of the commission or the legislature... it seems incongruous for IDFG to say they want to ban "advanced tech" to limit the effectiveness of a few hunters... while at the same time increasing the effectiveness of other hunters. Especially considering that most archery and muzzleloader hunting opportunities are general tags and over-the-counter... vs the limitations focused on rifle hunters which have a much higher percentage of draw tags being used... the impact on harvest rates could be much higher if you extend the max effective range of the average archer from 30 yards to 90 yards... or the average muzzleloader hunter from 100 yards to 200 yards.

 

[KurtR]

I must suck. With open sights here and sabots 100 yards is a poke over that its really just luck.

 

[Customweld]

Regardless of whether it's at the behest of the commission or the legislature... it seems incongruous for IDFG to say they want to ban "advanced tech" to limit the effectiveness of a few hunters... while at the same time increasing the effectiveness of other hunters. Especially considering that most archery and muzzleloader hunting opportunities are general tags and over-the-counter... vs the limitations focused on rifle hunters which have a much higher percentage of draw tags being used... the impact on harvest rates could be much higher if you extend the max effective range of the average archer from 30 yards to 90 yards... or the average muzzleloader hunter from 100 yards to 200 yards.

It is incongruous, however IFG resisted the archery and muzzleloader changes. It was legislators that got both rule changes pushed through the legislature. If enough people complain to the their legislator, they'll change this rule too. IFG can resist changes all they want, when politicians go to the floor and change laws, they can't say much.

 

[packgoatguy]

Still need to push for classifying bears, wolves, and mountain lion as predators not big game. Not having the equipment restrictions of big game so that predators can be taken easier. Even if they require tags, it would help.

That sounds like the wrong direction... we should be looking to elevate our respect for bears, wolves, and lions... why we aren't required to take bear meat is beyond me... its some of the best eating table fare around... what a waste for guys just to leave it on the hill for the ravens. Most of us can go YEARS without seeing a lion in the woods... why do we need to make it easier to kill them?