More than Gear: How Idaho is Navigating Emerging Technology in Big Game Hunting
On November 20th, the Idaho Fish and Game Commission voted unanimously to adopt a series of rules intended to regulate the use of emerging technologies in hunting.
These rules, which came after the 23-member Hunting and Advanced Technology Working (HAT) Group that IDFG met with over a period of months in 2024, and were then adjusted by the Commission based on hunter feedback and enforceability concerns, have stirred a fair amount of controversy among Idaho’s sportsmen and women.
With so much discussion around the issue, it is worth stepping back and considering why this debate over technology in hunting even came up, and why it is likely to persist for many years to come. While hunters are never likely to agree on the details of the appropriate restrictions, there are three reasons this issue is unavoidable:
1) The tradeoff between success and opportunity. Idaho’s wildlife can only handle so much harvest if we are to keep populations healthy. As our resident population grows and technology improves, harvest will – if nothing changes – increase. We have already seen units that used to be general hunting areas shift to controlled or capped zones. If IDFG does nothing to moderate hunter success, we are going to see more of this. Improved technology generally means higher success rates. If we want to keep harvest steady, IDFG has to either limit technology, cut opportunity, or inevitably, do both.
2) Keeping wealthy and everyday hunters on as level a playing field as possible. The best technology out there is expensive. While the average hunter can likely afford one or two transmitting trail cameras, he can’t afford 50. As satellite internet reaches into even the most remote parts of our state, there are going to be real differences between the hunter who can set these cameras up at every pinch point within a one mile radius around his elk camp and those who cannot. Whether we restrict these devices or not is open for debate, but the discussion over whether money can provide an outsized advantage on a hunt is here and is not going away.
3) Fair chase considerations. This debate is as old as hunting, but it takes on a new flavor with emergent technology. As shooting distances stretch further out and the ability to locate game improves through electronic optics and other methods, what constitutes fair chase will be an ongoing discussion.
None of these questions are easy, and the impact that different technologies have on harvest will never be an exact science – we can be informed from watching hunter success rates and learn from other states (many of which are far more restrictive than Idaho) – but at the end of the day the restrictions the Commission implements are going to be a judgement call. If they get it wrong, they can change course during the next rulemaking cycle.
The Current Proposed Rules
The forthcoming rules that the Commission approved, which will now head to the Idaho Legislature for a vote during the 2026 legislative session, originated from the HAT group and were adjusted by IDFG based on hunter comments. One key sideboard that IDFG put in place during the HAT group was that the discussion was only around technology and big game ungulates and not predators. This was a major change by the Commission: rather than restricting the use of transmitting trail cameras, thermal optics, and night vision for hunting ungulates only during the fall hunting season as the HAT group proposed, they voted to restrict the use of these devices for hunting all big game in the fall. This includes wolf hunting, and that has been the source of much of the controversy. The reason for this change was enforceability – since a hunter could always claim that a camera was set for wolves rather than elk or deer (provided he had a wolf tag in his pocket, which most of us do), the rule would be unenforceable if it was just written as a restriction on ungulate hunting. Reasonable hunters can agree or disagree here, but that is the rationale.
The four significant technology-related rule changes adopted by the Commission, which would apply to hunting big game from August 30 - December 31, include:
Use of Aircraft -
The use of any aircraft - this includes drones and other unmanned aircrafts - to scout for, locate, and assist in taking big game animals would be prohibited. This does not apply to aircraft flights of goods or people to and from pre-determined destinations.
Thermal Imaging Technology -
The use of thermal imaging devices for scouting, hunting, or retrieving big game would be prohibited.
Night Vision Technology -
The use of night vision equipment for scouting, hunting, or retrieving big game would be prohibited.
Transmitting Trail Cameras -
The use of transmitting trail cameras - which is defined as any game camera that sends images and data remotely - would be prohibited to scout or hunt big game on land in federal, state, or local government ownership.
Hunter Input
It is worth pointing out that IDFG collected an enormous amount of hunter input throughout the current process – through the creation and discussion of the HAT group, through public comment that was open throughout the months that the HAT group met, through surveys that covered thousands of hunters in Idaho, and public comment during the rulemaking process. It has been a multi-year process. While there are plenty of hunters out there who still feel like their views weren’t heard and there are naturally areas for improvement, anyone who followed the process in detail will see that hunter input played a key role here. Watching the November commission meeting discussion on this makes that clear.
Did the Commission get it right? That’s for individual hunters to say. But the Commission’s job is to consider hunter input and then make a decision based on their determination of what is best for the long-term health of the resource and hunting opportunity in our state. It will always be complicated, and it will be an ongoing discussion that may well be revisited in the future.
The Stakes
If we want to ensure that Idaho residents are able to continue to hunt deer and elk every year, we are going to have to engage in serious and ongoing discussions about how to balance success and opportunity in the field. That will, without question, involve restrictions on technology. What those restrictions might be will be debated by our community for years to come. No question about it.
What is a question is how we have that debate. At the end of the day, whether we can use thermal optics or transmitting trail cameras is not going to make or break hunting in our state. How divided the hunting community becomes over issues like this, on the other hand, could cause us larger problems down the road. Whatever disagreements we have, we are lucky in Idaho that science-based wildlife management is still the focus. Our system is strong, and we do not yet have the problems of some nearby states that have seen legitimate threats to their hunting rights. If we want to keep it that way, we’ll need to handle disagreements without dividing ourselves.
