Guest Opinion: HAT Group Participant Perspective

The following is a personal perspective written by Ken Crane, a participant in IDFG’s Hunting and Advanced Technology (HAT) Working Group.

I first learned about the Hunting and Advanced Technology Working Group (HAT) through an Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) newsletter seeking participants to help evaluate the availability and use of high-tech tools in the pursuit of big game. After asking additional questions to better understand IDFG’s concerns and the goals of the working group, I became convinced that I wanted to be involved. I wanted to better understand how emerging technology is being used and how it may impact hunting in Idaho.

I was one of 23 individuals selected from approximately 750 applicants. The group represented a wide range of hunting backgrounds and preferences, from traditional archery and muzzleloader hunters to those who heavily invest in and use the most advanced tools available. Despite differing opinions and levels of familiarity with technology, everyone involved shared a commitment to protecting Idaho’s hunting opportunities. 

Through full consensus (100% agreement, no dissent), the group adopted foundational principles to guide its recommendations. These principles emphasized ethical, fair-chase hunting; preservation of our hunting heritage; reasonable approaches; and representation of Idaho hunters’ input.

In the interest of inclusivity, statewide polls of hunters were conducted, and every HAT meeting was open to anyone interested and willing to invest their time. Participating public were asked to provide information, data, opinions, and suggestions, all of which were presented to the HAT group for discussion and documented in meeting notes. All notes, data, presentations, and final recommendations were shared publicly. In addition to the information presented during meetings, I - and many other HAT members - engaged in conversations outside the meetings with people who wanted to share their perspectives.

Throughout this process, I learned a great deal about the available technology, its capabilities and limitations, and the extent to which it is already being used in hunting. I was intrigued but also concerned about the potential impact widespread use of certain technologies could have on big game hunting as we know it today. While data varies regarding population-level effects, I am most concerned about impacts on population demographics. These technologies increase the ability to locate and target trophy - class animals - the most mature individuals with the best genetics. Harvesting too many of these animals could have long-term negative effects on individual fitness and, ultimately, herd health.

I am also concerned about maintaining public support for our sport. Currently, we enjoy broad public acceptance of regulated hunting. However, that support can erode quickly if hunters are perceived as having an unfair advantage in the pursuit of game. Anti-hunting groups are skilled at shaping public sentiment, and they have already demonstrated their effectiveness in many neighboring western states.

These concerns motivated me to participate - not to limit people’s ability to use the tools they prefer, but to help preserve our hunting heritage and the opportunities we enjoy today. If we, as a hunting community, do not regulate ourselves and uphold a high ethical standard of fair chase that supports healthy, thriving game populations, others will impose regulations on us. I cannot accept that outcome, and that is why I fully support the IDFG Commission’s proposed rule changes.

- Ken Crane, HAT Working Group Participant