Adds to existing law to provide that the Department of Fish and Game shall not adopt or enforce any rule that makes it unlawful to use sabots in a muzzleloader-only season.
Summary
House Bill 128 amends Idaho fish and game law to prohibit the Department of Fish and Game from adopting or enforcing any rule that bans the use of sabots during a muzzleloader-only hunting season. A sabot is a device used with a projectile in a muzzleloader, and the bill effectively ensures hunters may continue using that equipment in seasons reserved for muzzleloading firearms.
The bill adds a new section to Title 36 of the Idaho Code and takes effect July 1, 2025, under an emergency clause. By limiting the department’s rulemaking authority, the measure changes how the agency may regulate muzzleloader hunting seasons and prevents future administrative restrictions on sabots.
Impact
The bill creates a new statutory restriction on the Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s regulatory authority by barring any agency rule that would make sabots unlawful in a muzzleloader-only season. It does not broadly rewrite hunting law, but it directly preempts a specific type of wildlife-management rule and preserves the use of sabots for hunters participating in muzzleloader seasons. The measure affects hunters, the department’s rulemaking process, and enforcement of season-specific equipment rules under Title 36.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill had generally favorable support in both chambers, passing the House 66-4 and the Senate 28-7. That margin indicates broad approval, likely reflecting support for hunter equipment choice and skepticism toward agency restrictions. No committee transcript is available, so the record does not show detailed debate, but the votes suggest the bill was not highly controversial overall.
Contention
The main point of contention is the balance between legislative control and agency discretion in wildlife management. Supporters appear to favor protecting hunters’ ability to use sabots in muzzleloader seasons, while opponents likely object to limiting the Department of Fish and Game’s authority to set equipment rules for conservation, fairness, or season integrity. The narrow but real opposition in both chambers indicates some concern about whether the bill undermines specialized game-management regulation.