Mark Harris — Mentioned as Senator Hart, who usually takes care of rules but is in another meeting working on legislation.
Mark Harris — Named as a member of the non-resident tag issuance advisory group.
Mark Harris — Asked Ms. Swofford about the HAC committee discussion on wolves and the difference between big game and the 'big game ambulance' situation.
Mark Harris — Followed up by asking why no wolves were killed during the 77-day period.
Mark Harris — Asked a follow-up question to Mr. Crane.
Mark Harris — Asked Mr. Crane for a response to the 2005 wolf statute issue.
Mark Harris — Senator Harris is identified as seconding Senator Conowitz's motion, is later recorded voting no during the roll call, and is referenced again as the seconder of the original motion.
Amber Worthington — Amber Worthington was called forward, identified herself as the deputy director of programs and policy for the Department of Fish and Game, and began presenting three rules dockets to the committee.
Amber Worthington — Reintroduced herself as Deputy Director, Department of Fish and Game, and began presenting Docket 13-01-08-24-01.
Treg Bernt — Addressed as Chairman Burtenshaw; likely a transcription error for Senator Treg Bernt? This is uncertain.
James Petzke — Named as a member of the non-resident tag issuance advisory group.
Michael Veile — Named as a new representative on the advisory group.
Jeff Cornilles — Asked how the 79-acre figure was determined.
Ms. Worthington — Was asked to explain the 79-acre threshold.
Ms. Worthington — Explained that 79 acres was chosen as a practical acreage threshold for the program.
Ms. Worthington — Introduced a chapter repeal and asked for support to repeal Rule Docket 13-01-17-24-01.
Daniel Foreman — The chair appears to be addressing the committee and moving to the docket.
Daniel Foreman — Senator Taylor is mentioned in the course of the vote: first as voting no, and then as seconding the motion.
Jim Guthrie — Jim Guthrie is involved in a single procedural sequence: he is identified as seconding the motion, appears during the vote call, and then makes the motion to adopt Docket 13-01-17-24-01.
Jim Guthrie — Asks for an explanation of the carve-outs in the motion.
Jim Guthrie — References the page and asks for confirmation of the carve-outs.
Jim Guthrie — States opposition to the motion and expresses concern about technology and the carve-outs.
Jim Guthrie — Says the carve-outs may undermine fair chase and asks for clarification.
Jim Guthrie — Recorded as voting no.
Jim Guthrie — His motion is referenced as the subject of a second and vote.
Jim Guthrie — Votes aye in the roll call.
Joe Palmer — Joe Palmer moved to approve docket 13-01-04/24-01, and the motion was seconded by Senator Harris, completing the procedural step on that docket.
Ellery Tucker Williams — Will present section 410.04(g) and (h) later.
Ellery Tucker Williams — The chair asks whether Ellery Tucker Williams will speak next, and she then introduces herself as the Legislative and Community Engagement Coordinator for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.
Tricia Hebden — Introduces herself and is prepared to answer the question about herd health authorization.
Trisha Hebden — Explains the process for responding to suspected disease in a private herd, including sampling, testing, and coordination with Agriculture.
Nick Fasciano — Nick Fasciano, executive director of the Idaho Wildlife Federation, testified in support of the pending rules and explained that advanced technology in hunting seasons raises serious concerns about fair chase, opportunity, and unequal access to hunting success.
Tal Samson — Tal Samson was called to testify and introduced himself, stating that he is from Pocatello and adding background about his lifelong hunting in Idaho and his service on the HAC committee.
Mr. Samson — Chair indicated his time had expired and asked if there were questions.
Justin Webb — The committee struggled to connect with Justin Webb virtually, repeatedly asking whether he could hear them and troubleshooting audio issues. Webb then successfully connected, apologized for the delay, and began his testimony by greeting the committee and identifying himself as the Executive Director of the Foundation for Wildlife Management. He went on to testify in opposition to the proposed technology restrictions.
Rob Thornberry — Rob Thornberry introduced himself as the Idaho field representative for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and said he supported the proposed technology restrictions. He argued that the restrictions would help preserve Idaho’s hunting tradition, especially family-oriented general seasons and over-the-counter hunting opportunities, and warned that allowing broader technology use would push hunters into more controlled hunts. He also emphasized that the 23-member committee spent nearly a year reviewing public surveys, public comment, department input, and many hours of meetings and discussion before reaching its recommendations. He concluded by urging lawmakers to trust the hunters and anglers who participated and to vote for the restrictions to help conserve hunting itself.
Ron Taylor — Asked Thornberry about the HAT Committee and how the 23-member group reached unanimous agreement.
Craig Wilson — Craig Wilson, a hunter from Blackfoot, Idaho with 60 years of experience, testified in support of Idaho Fish and Game’s high-tech hunting restrictions. He cited Boone and Crockett’s fair-chase principles to argue that hunters should not have an unfair advantage over wild game, and he urged Idaho senators to vote in favor of the rule changes. The chair then thanked him and moved on to questions.
Gary Peck — Gary Peck was introduced and then testified in support of the proposed rule changes restricting certain hunting technologies. He said he has hunted in Idaho for 50 years, explained that he reviewed opposing arguments about technology and fair chase, and argued that the recommended restrictions are already in place in several other states. He questioned the opposition’s claim that Idaho is different and warned that if the proposal failed, outside influence, money, or social media may have affected the outcome. The chair then ended his testimony as his time expired.
John Christensen — John Christensen of Twin Falls, Idaho testified in support of the proposed rule changes, arguing that preserving traditional hunting practices is important for maintaining fair chase, teaching younger generations hunting ethics and habitat knowledge, and protecting future hunting opportunities for his children and grandchildren. He warned that allowing unlimited technology would give hunters too much advantage, reduce the animals’ chance to survive, and risk letting non-hunters define hunting rights if the tradition is not preserved.
Brock Maynard — Brock Maynard testified in support of the rule change, introducing himself and then arguing that thermal technology, drones, cell cameras, 24/7 surveillance, and advancing AI create an unfair advantage in hunting by removing animals’ ability to hide. He warned that technology is advancing too quickly and urged Idaho to act now to remain a fair-chase state, then yielded for questions.
Dexton Lake — Dexton Lake, speaking for the Idaho Farm Bureau, testified in opposition to 410-04-H. He argued that changing the rule language from 'big game ungulates' to 'big game' made it illegal because big game includes wolves, and urged the committee to reject that portion of the rule. He also asked that broader stakeholders beyond the HAT working group be included in the discussion during the interim, emphasized the importance of protecting ungulate herds such as elk through wolf control, and reiterated his request that the committee reject 410-04-H.
Mike Moyle — Mike Moyle is referenced as the sponsor of the 2005 bill being discussed by the witness.
Nicole Strafford — Named as the next testifier; spelling is uncertain because the speaker later identifies as Nicole Swafford.
Nicole Swofford — Nicole Swofford testified in support of the rules, identifying herself as a fifth-generation Idahoan and emphasizing that the proposals are necessary to protect Idaho’s hunting heritage. She argued that harvest data and technology concerns do not fully capture the issue, referenced earlier comments about restrictions and harvest rates, and noted that as a member of the HAT Committee she participated in extensive public outreach and input gathering.
Ms. Swofford — Ms. Swofford explained that the HAC committee had a thorough discussion about wolves and warned that carving out an exception could lead to broader exceptions. She cited Idaho harvest data, noting that 1,797 wolves were harvested from July 2021 to January 2026, but only eight were taken using thermal imaging, and none were harvested during the 77-day prohibition window. She reiterated that the committee had fully considered the issue and did not know why no wolves were killed during that period. A later clarification confirmed that her earlier testimony referred specifically to no wolves being harvested using thermal imaging in that time frame.
Hillary — Clarified that wolves were still harvested during the time frame, but none were harvested using thermal imaging.
Ms. Williams — Referenced as the person whose podium was being offered to Hillary.
Ken Crane — Ken Crane testified in support of the proposed rule changes. He introduced himself, noted he traveled from Jerome and had served on the HAC committee, then argued that the technologies at issue are a game changer that give hunters a complete advantage. He warned that allowing such technologies could undermine public support for hunting and eventually lead to restrictions or abandonment of hunting in Idaho. He emphasized that hunting is part of Idaho’s heritage and said sideboards are needed in the field for big game hunting, closing by urging approval of the rule changes to help preserve that heritage.
Mr. Crane — Mr. Crane responded to questions about the 2005 wolf statute by emphasizing that wolf management is critical for protecting big game populations and the livestock industry. He said wolves should be addressed in both rulemaking and legislation, and noted that livestock owners already have provisions to deal with depredation issues, with Fish and Game and the commission having worked to put protections in place.