Capitol Reflections: 2026 Session, Issue 9

Fish and Game Technology Rules on Hold?

The Senate Resources and Environment Committee and the House Resources and Conservation Committee appear to be playing a bit of political “chicken” with each other over a pending rule from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

On Wednesday of last week and Monday of this week, those committees, respectively, heard the department’s pending rule regarding the use of advanced technology in hunting. The rule would prohibit the use of smart optics when attached to a weapon or incorporated into a scope, with limited exceptions for scopes with battery-powered or tritium-illuminated reticles, as well as devices approved through a reasonable modification permit.

From August 30 through December 31, the rule would also prohibit the use of the following technologies:

• Thermal imaging technology for scouting, hunting, or retrieval
• Night vision technology for scouting, hunting, or retrieval
• Aircraft, including unmanned aircraft systems (drones), for scouting or hunting
• Transmitting trail cameras used for hunting or scouting on land owned by federal, state, or local governments

It is important to note that these restrictions only apply to big game hunting.

The problem is ‘big game’ includes wolves. When the rule was originally published, the restrictions applied only to “big game ungulates.” Shortly before the commission meeting where the rule was scheduled to be approved and forwarded to the legislature, the department modified the language to include all big game species, including wolves. That’s where the consternation came in for the Idaho Farm Bureau.

Many of these technologies are valuable tools for controlling wolf populations. Although the restrictions would apply to wolves for a shorter window (August 30 through November 14, before expanded methods of take become available) effective wolf management relies on vigilance and flexibility, not additional restrictions.

There are also legal concerns. Administrative rules cannot conflict with state law, yet Idaho statute explicitly provides that “all methods of take…shall be authorized for the management of wolves.” Several other statutes may also be implicated. The fact of the matter is, this is a bad rule and would tie the hands of those that control wolves for the state.

Ultimately, neither committee voted to approve or reject the rule. Instead, both held the rule “subject to the call of the chair,” meaning it could return for a vote or it may not. At this point, it appears each committee is waiting to see what the other will do. If neither committee acts, the rule will not go into effect.

The Idaho Farm Bureau Federation will continue to monitor the situation and encourage lawmakers to oppose any rule that negatively affects effective wolf management in the state.

Taxpayer Tools Bill Introduced

For the past several years, cities have complained that the growth limitations the legislature imposed on county and city property tax budgets in 2021 have been far too restrictive. When a small city is growing quickly, they cannot keep up with the growing service needs when their budgets are capped at 8% annual growth. 

The legislature put these limits in place in response to citizens loudly complaining to the legislature that their property taxes were increasing at an alarming rate. The only way to reduce taxes is to reduce spending. However, rather than restraining their spending, many cities and counties began to tell their citizens that if they are concerned about their property taxes, they should complain to their legislators and ask them to increase the homeowners’ exemption. 

IFBF has longstanding policy opposing any increase in the homeowner’s exemption. This is because an increase in the homeowner’s exemption shifts who pays the taxes and does not address the root cause which is additional spending. It instead subsidizes the taxes of homeowners by requiring businesses and agricultural land to pay more in property taxes than they otherwise would.

Each time the homeowners’ exemption is increased, the tax burden gets shifted to businesses and farms. Local governments still get the same amount of property taxes in total and  the voters (homeowners) are told that they received a “break” in their property taxes,

Farm Bureau has long favored addressing the root problem of high taxes. H842 does just that. It clarifies that the existing process for citizens to run an initiative to change local ordinances can also be used to reduce property taxes. 

H842 would require a 60% vote to approve a reduction in city property taxes, and a 2/3 vote to approve a reduction in county property taxes. This mirrors the vote totals required in current law if a city or county approaches the citizens with a proposal to raise taxes above their statutory limits. If cities and counties can ask the voters if they want to raise their taxes, why can’t citizens tell cities or counties that they want to reduce their taxes?

H842 also includes a few items that the cities have requested, such as allowing property tax budgets to expand with new growth beyond the current caps in cities with populations below 30,000 residents, and the ability to increase property tax budgets with foregone balances by 2% rather than the current limit of 1% annually, when needed. However, as an offset, H842 prohibits the accumulation of additional foregone balances in the future.

Overall, this is a balanced and reasonable approach to help small, fast-growing cities have more flexibility in their budgeting, while providing some common-sense limitations on property tax growth in the future. It also provides a significant new tool to allow local taxpayers to reduce their property taxes when they feel they have increased too much.   IFBF policy #100 opposes shifting taxes to agricultural lands. IFBF supports H842.

WOTUS Memorial Advances

Idaho lawmakers recently adopted HJM13, a memorial urging federal agencies to fully respect the limits on federal water regulation established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Sackett v. EPA. The memorial highlights the issue of uncertainty and overreach in how the federal government defines “waters of the United States” or WOTUS under the Clean Water Act. By passing HJM13, the Idaho Legislature is calling on federal regulators to follow the law as clarified by the Court and ensure that landowners are not subjected to unnecessary federal permitting requirements.

The case behind this issue began nearly two decades ago near Priest Lake, when Chantell and Michael Sackett purchased property to build a home. In 2007, the EPA halted construction, claiming the lot contained federally regulated wetlands. What followed was a 16-year legal battle that ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2023, the Court ruled decisively in favor of the Sacketts, concluding that federal regulators had exceeded their authority and clarifying that the Clean Water Act applies only to wetlands with a continuous surface connection to relatively permanent bodies of water such as rivers, lakes, and streams.

Despite this ruling, concerns remain that regulators from the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continue to apply outdated interpretations of federal jurisdiction in some cases. During legislative hearings, the Sacketts and their attorney Damien Schiff of the Pacific Legal Foundation shared their experience and expressed frustration that agency officials on the ground are still relying on standards the Supreme Court rejected. Those practices, they argued, can lead to costly delays, increased compliance burdens, and uncertainty for landowners trying to responsibly use and improve their property.

HJM13 sends a clear message from Idaho policymakers that federal agencies must fully implement the Court’s decision. The memorial urges regulators to update guidance, training materials, and policies to reflect the Sackett ruling and to stop asserting jurisdiction over features such as ephemeral streams, drainage ditches, canals, and stockwater ponds that do not meet the Court’s definition of federally regulated waters. It also calls on Congress to codify the Sackett standard in federal law to prevent future regulatory overreach.

For Idaho agriculture and rural landowners, the stakes are significant. Unclear or overly broad federal permitting requirements can delay projects, increase costs, and create uncertainty for farmers, ranchers, and other industries that depend on responsible land and water management. By supporting HJM13, Idaho legislators are standing up for clear rules, respect for private property rights, and a cooperative federal-state approach to environmental regulation that recognizes the Supreme Court’s guidance and Idaho’s tradition of local stewardship. IFBF supports HJM13.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resources Available to Follow During Session:

Legislative Website Homepage: HERE

2025 Legislative Session Bill Center: HERE

List of Senate Committee Assignments: HERE

List of House Committee Assignments: HERE

Current Senate Committee Agendas: HERE

Current House Committee Agendas: HERE

Watch Committee Meetings and Floor Sessions Live: HERE

Governor’s Bill Action and Legislative Communications: HERE