F&G proposing rule changes...

[elkohalic]

https://idfg.idaho.gov/press/fish-and-game-seeks-comments-several-proposed-rule-changes

some interesting rule changes up for comment..

 

[BrianID]

On private land they wouldn't be able to enforce the game camera because landowners could say they are using it to monitor their land. I wouldn't be disappointed if they got ride of game cameras on public land even though I've used them. Even though I don't bait bears, I would hope they would make an exception on cameras for guys that do bait bears.

I'm against any type of set aside outfitter tags. If outfitters provide a good service then those hunters that want an outfitter will book with them. I just see set aside tags for outfitters as a form of government welfare.

 

[N_Corey]

I think I'd support those changes at first glance. The camera one I'd only support though if it was specifically for the newer technology that sends pictures over the wireless network. I don't think it's a big deal if guys are using cameras with sd cards that you actually have to go check. To me it just shows what potential there is in an area and makes it easier to pass on less mature animals to try and target a specific critter.

 

[blacktailBC]

No more outfitter allocation!

 

[TjsNW1022]

I would like to see the use of cameras be restricted to before and after open hunting seasons at least. That way guys can't watch multiple areas while they hunt.

 

[idahoforkhorn]

I like the idea of banning cameras, it should be for all seasons like pre-season scouting shed hunting and during the hunts. i have used cameras and they are nice but it is getting out of hand. and people just steal them or think that because there camera is there they own that spot!

If they do ban them they need to make the penalty a big one, not just a slap on the wrist or guys will just continue to use them, just like guys continue to ride wheelers on restricted trails. if they lost there hunting rights for a year or two they might not do it any more.

 

[blindsquirrel1]

Though I haven't used cameras for deer, or elk, they have been an important part of my wolf trapping. Losing them is just another handcuff added to our already to restrictive wolf harvest methods.

 

[mallard14]

g. With any game camera or other electronic device capable of recording images used as an aid to take a big game animal during the same day or following day as the images were transmitted or the camera was visited in the field.
I do not agree with this one.

Say I walk into my hunting spot that I have a game camera on it. Is it an unfair advantage for me over the animals if I harvest an animal that day? I don't think it is. I have to go to the spot and check my SD card for images. I don't think it is an unfair advantage to go back the day after checking the camera either.

The animals don't go back to the exact same spot at the exact same time everyday anyway. I don't see how this is an unfair advantage.

What if I check my camera after I shot my animal already? How the rule is written I'd be in violation and there is no unfair advantage as I already shot the animal. I have even used video of my shot that my trail camera recorded to know when I should go chase the animal. This is a great thing as it leads to less chance of wasting the animal by chasing him too soon.

I like to see the photos just as much as anything. How the rule is written I could still use my camera anyway and just not check it until I was going home and wouldn't hunt in a couple days anyway. Nothing like a rule that does not do anything.

This just leads us to getting more things taken away by setting a precedent. I agree with the alternate wording that cameras with wireless transmission should be banned as that can actually give you the location of an animal in real time. I don't think we need additional rules that don't really do anything and this seems like it is one of those rules.

Just my .02 cents. Obviously I am biased as I like to use trail cameras but it is more for getting the pictures and videos of wild animals than it is for using it as an aide to hunting. I know animals are going to visit beds/water holes/feeding areas I don't need my camera to tell me that. I just want to get the photos.

 

[Pre64]

Sounds like more ambiguous laws in the making. I call BS on the cell phone rule. I've shot elk and hiked to a place I can get coverage to rally the troops to come haul out my elk. Is this an aid to hunting??? If history holds true they will not define it and it will be left to the warden to decide. From a safety perspective they need to put some thought into this.

 

[Mallards_Only]

I gotta agree on the cell phone. What if I text a buddy that I saw a nice buck at such and such this morning? Is that "aiding" hunting because he might go after it? What if I let my hunting partners know my location for safety reasons and I also tell them I've seen a herd of elk there? Is that aiding them? What if I PhoneSkope a photo of big bull and send it to someone? Is that "aiding" their hunting? When does the "aiding" end? 2 hrs? 24 hrs? 48 hrs??

 

[Mbogo]

Personally, I hope more states consider banning the use of advanced technology specifically during the hunting season. I believe you should be able to use game cameras or drones prior to the season and after the season. I have a few cameras and really enjoy the non-target animal pictures I get. (I had no idea our little farm had a bear passing through it each fall to eat the apples and plums. Kind of neat to see.) Just stop their use a week before the season starts. Would that really be that detrimental to someone's enjoyment of the hunt?

I guess for me, we have to give a little on the technology side as the animals have to maintain some chance at winning.

This should not apply to potential safety tools like cell phones in my opinion.

 

[Circuits]

Read through the proposals. The unit 11 Bighorn question got me thinking....why can't unit 11/ hunt area 11 (now) support more ram tags? The unit is such classic country it should produce similarly to the breaks in eastern Montana. As it is, with one controlled tag, and being the chosen tag for non residents across the country, a resident has a slim chance of drawing. I personally don't think the ONLY controlled tag in ANY hunt should go to a non resident. Either up it to two or more tags or limit hunts with single tags to residents. Just my $.02 and rant.

 

[brymoore]

>Read through the proposals. The
>unit 11 Bighorn question got
>me thinking....why can't unit 11/
>hunt area 11 (now) support
>more ram tags? The
>unit is such classic country
>it should produce similarly to
>the breaks in eastern Montana.
> As it is, with
>one controlled tag, and being
>the chosen tag for non
>residents across the country, a
>resident has a slim chance
>of drawing. I
>personally don't think the ONLY
> controlled tag in ANY
>hunt should go to a
>non resident. Either up
>it to two or more
>tags or limit hunts with
>single tags to residents.
>Just my $.02 and rant.
>

The bighorn sheep ram population numbers doesn't support an increase in the number of ram tags. The sheep in Idaho's Hell's Canyon have disease issues which hurts the overall lamb recruitment.

 

[BPKHunter]

I get why they are trying to limit technology. Not sure I agree in all cases. People in Idaho have used radio's for 25 years, now it's an issue. I don't think I'd fight it in a debate.

I get drones and even trail camera's. Trail cam's have become an issue as once a guy set's one up he seems to think he owns that area and any critter he has pics of and it starts fights. Drones are just damn annoying. Guy in my neighborhood likes to fly his, and I really wish I could use a .22cal pellet to take it out. Feels way to creepy having it look down on us. I have seen guys using these in the hills.

I think a lot of responses here are misreading the phone thing. It only matters if it is helping someone get in on a specific critter. Once you have killed one you can text, radio, etc. all you want to call in the Calvary to help pack.

 

[ldjbuff]

I am all for banning drones and trail cams.

 

[elkohalic]

I am totally for banning drones. However if they ban radios or cell phones it would leave it up to the officers perception if it was used in the aiding of harvest. To much gray area of enforcement. I could kind of see where trail cameras that transmitt wirelessly could be banned but does it really improve harvest? The animal is gone by the time the person gets there. For the regular cameras they are used as another scouting mechanism. You still have to hike in, place them, and then return every time you want to check it. Guys that put cameras out and think they own that country is BS and gives everyone else a bad name. F&G can't even enforce roadless rules now. Id like to see more effort put towards that than coming up with rules like these.

 

[BPKHunter]

Non enforcement of roadless rules really frustrates me, but I believe it's because so many people fight it and win.

I imagine they will have similar if not worse luck enforcing some of these, and should consider that before spending time and resources to enact.

 

[idhunters]

Against banning trail cams. I'd be ok with banning the wireless kind not the "old fashioned" sd kind. Problem with banning them is that people who follow the law will stop using them, and those who don't will keep at it and how the heck are you supposed to catch people using them at the "wrong time"?. Set up a trail cam to watch who comes to check the trail cam?

 

[Pre64]

"F&G can't even enforce roadless rules now. Id like to see more effort put towards that than coming up with rules like these."


THAT

 

[grouseslayer]

To start off me along with the guys I hunt with have used cameras for over 10 years. I think there is a big miss conception about trail cameras from guys that have never used them. We have cameras spread out over a 4 mile area and in the past 10 years have had one mature bull elk and a few spikes show up on the same camera on a consistant basis, as in 2-3 times a week for a 2-3 week period. Even with the mature bull showing up multiple times a week we never did see him in person. These elk didn't come in necessarily at a specific time of day but just came in a few times a week. Other then those there has been no rime or reason as to when they showed up. Deer are way spotty and we have only had maybe 3 nice bucks on camera in 10 years. We have only found them useful to know what size of elk are in the area and just to help keep our hopes up. A lot of times a bull will show up on multiple cameras over the 4 mile area and then disappear. It is more of a extra part of the hunt just to be able to see what you may have missed while you were home working. I would go as far as to say if anything they have helped us to become better stewards of the land and to help us be more patient and hope one of the bigger bulls shows up. They in no way make a hunt a slam dunk opportunity. I do understand where the wireless transmitting cameras could be different and because of those reasons I do oppose them. Setting cameras is a lot of work and is not the easy way out. I think what the fish and game is purposing as far as the day to day use during the season is pointless and for the most part things should just be left the way they are. I may be bias cause of my situation but I really don't think they make that much of a difference.

 

[Weiserbucks]

Definitely shut down the drones , but the rest is a slippery slope.

 

[Machias]

Results of the Survey they took for the proposals.

 

[Mallards_Only]

Now, they'll probably implement them anyway.

 

[BPKHunter]

If my color vision is what I think it is, then I'm surprised at the results. Figured their would be more support "for" the changes, not against.

Historically, F&G has been pretty good at supporting what the "majority" wants.

I think the cellular trail cams are in trouble. Probably easy to prosecute, as long as you have where the text/email came through with time stamp.

 

[Idahoron]

>Non enforcement of roadless rules really
>frustrates me, but I believe
>it's because so many people
>fight it and win.
>
>I imagine they will have similar
>if not worse luck enforcing
>some of these, and should
>consider that before spending time
>and resources to enact.



If a guy is riding a trail in a unit that is in the motorized Hunting Rule but doesn't have a gun on him it is most likely legal to ride that trail as long as it is legal by BLM or Forest service to do so.
The problem is if he is restricted just because he has a gun then that law goes against the Constitution. They are restricting him his right to have a gun.
A hunt might be open for lets say a week. But it is not open to kill an animal at any time in that week. Only during the legal shooting hours.

So if the hunter is riding in the dark on a trail with his gun, on the trail that is legal to ride on now we have the sticky spot.If it is dark and before shooting hours then he can't be hunting on it. It is merely transportation just like a car or truck. The "season" is closed at night so he can't be hunting. If he did kill something that would be poaching. So if he just rides into a place in the dark he is not hunting.
I know for a fact that that law would not hold up if tested. A man without a gun is legal a man with a gun is breaking the law. That is what it boils down to.