loneranger
Well-Known Member
Turnips and Radish, should probably be banned as deer food in plots too. I see alot of saliva swapping on those.
IBA supports feeding baiting bill
- Thread starter earthscratcher
- Start date
-
- Tags
- None
risto2351
Well-Known Member
I will give you the first one. :way:
As far as Iowa setting the way. My first answer is why? What are we doing wrong now. If you read back on a few of my posts if we are going to be a front runner on totally eliminating CWD do away with the loopholes. Then I will support it. IE. The 50 yard rule and the elk/deer farms. All or nothing.
As far as my nr-friends they love what we have and are willing to wait every 3 years for a tag. They do not like baiting because usually the deer go to the biggest bait pile.
We have that law now and I am against making new laws to help enforce that law. The workload will not diminish but now make law abiding citizens a part of the problem.
All just my honest opinion.
risto2351
Well-Known Member
Fishbonker
Life Member
At the meeting last week I asked how many hours are spent investigating baiting here in Iowa. The following table is from 49 of the COs in the state:
District 1 2010 2009 2008
Citations 1 11 7
Call/complaints19 17 18
Hours spent265 257 190
District 2 2010 2009 2008
Citations 7 2 2
Call/comp. 38 25 6
Hours 285 225 25
District 3 2010 2009 2008
Citations 43 15 19
Call/comp. 111 72 68
Hours 840 427 430
District 4 2010 2009 2008
Citations 2 4 7
Call/complaints23 20 23
Hours 202 155 203
District 5 2010 2009 2008
Citations 7 4 6
Call/complaints31 21 16
Hours 187 252 144
Statewide 2010 2009 2008
Citations 60 36 39
Calls 219 153 128
Hours 1759 1301 942
I don’t know how many COs there currently are but I think 49 is just over half. I don’t know if this means the numbers are actually about double these or not. Nor is the chart broken down into the number of officers in each district that responded to the inquiry. So having said that, the numbers may be skewed. SE Iowa, District 3, may have had more officers respond and, NW Iowa, District 1, may have had fewer.
The important take home message from this info is bating complaints are on the rise and hours spent by COs investigating them are on the rise as well. I don’t think it would be a stretch of the numbers to say it has nearly doubled across the state. In fact, on this partial data alone there is the equivalent of a full time position being spent investigating baiting complaints.
How would the wildlife feeding ban cut down on the time a CO needs to spend on each case? As it is now the CO needs to catch a poacher actually hunting over the bait. He might have to come back several times or stake out the area to catch them, and by the looks of it they investigate a lot of baiting complaints but issue very few tickets. Why? In my opinion they can’t catch them “in the act” The wildlife baiting ban would cut down on the number of trips a CO would need to make to a baiting site.
Unfortunately my comments about making a CO’s job easier were misconstrued and taken out of context. “Easier” refers to how hard it is to make a case, not how much work or time on duty per day they have to put in.
District 1 2010 2009 2008
Citations 1 11 7
Call/complaints19 17 18
Hours spent265 257 190
District 2 2010 2009 2008
Citations 7 2 2
Call/comp. 38 25 6
Hours 285 225 25
District 3 2010 2009 2008
Citations 43 15 19
Call/comp. 111 72 68
Hours 840 427 430
District 4 2010 2009 2008
Citations 2 4 7
Call/complaints23 20 23
Hours 202 155 203
District 5 2010 2009 2008
Citations 7 4 6
Call/complaints31 21 16
Hours 187 252 144
Statewide 2010 2009 2008
Citations 60 36 39
Calls 219 153 128
Hours 1759 1301 942
I don’t know how many COs there currently are but I think 49 is just over half. I don’t know if this means the numbers are actually about double these or not. Nor is the chart broken down into the number of officers in each district that responded to the inquiry. So having said that, the numbers may be skewed. SE Iowa, District 3, may have had more officers respond and, NW Iowa, District 1, may have had fewer.
The important take home message from this info is bating complaints are on the rise and hours spent by COs investigating them are on the rise as well. I don’t think it would be a stretch of the numbers to say it has nearly doubled across the state. In fact, on this partial data alone there is the equivalent of a full time position being spent investigating baiting complaints.
How would the wildlife feeding ban cut down on the time a CO needs to spend on each case? As it is now the CO needs to catch a poacher actually hunting over the bait. He might have to come back several times or stake out the area to catch them, and by the looks of it they investigate a lot of baiting complaints but issue very few tickets. Why? In my opinion they can’t catch them “in the act” The wildlife baiting ban would cut down on the number of trips a CO would need to make to a baiting site.
Unfortunately my comments about making a CO’s job easier were misconstrued and taken out of context. “Easier” refers to how hard it is to make a case, not how much work or time on duty per day they have to put in.
jclaws
PMA Member
They are still going to have to catch them in the act to prove whos bait it is.They cant just call the landowner and ask who hunts there and mail them a ticket.It could be a trespassers.
Plus it looks like the fine for baiting in front of a camera will be 100.00.the fine for hunting over bait is more than that plus they take your bow,treestand,trailcamera.hopefully they are not going to change both violations to just a 100 dollar fine or we will see alot more hunting over bait.I dont believe that it will not free up 1 minute of there time by changing the rules.
Windwalker
Life Member
I can see the next step banning cattlemen from having exposed salt blocks for cattle and the list will grow.
Thinkin Rut
PMA Member
1759 hours divided by 49 CO's divided again by 52 weeks= 42 minutes per week, per CO. Are these hours only on the initial call? If not, it's no wonder there was only a 27% success rate. You could make up 42 minutes a week by cutting one cup of coffee a day. I would like to see the breakdown on their other "investigations".
Thinkin Rut
PMA Member
The hours spent sure aren't going to fall...Bait hunters/poachers are criminals and criminals break laws no matter how many laws they have stacked against their crime of choice.
DOR
Life Member
CWD is very close to IA now. In case you missed it, CWD was detected in Southern MN (confirmation of tests pending). Its just a matter of time before it is discovered in IA or spread there. I'm not taking position with this statement just know that this ban won't prevent CWD from getting to IA. It's just a matter of when at this point.
IBA is the only support you guys have from getting ram-rodded by the powers that be....try to remember that whether you like this bill or not.
Based on these posts it sounds like the IBA needs to get a dedicated volunteer (like Bonker)to organize the contact information of its members a LOT better.
IBA is the only support you guys have from getting ram-rodded by the powers that be....try to remember that whether you like this bill or not.
Based on these posts it sounds like the IBA needs to get a dedicated volunteer (like Bonker)to organize the contact information of its members a LOT better.
Hardcorehunter
UL Shelter/Stove Geek
Hi Guys, been away from the puter for a while. Many won't see that I brought this up in another thread, so in order to get more exposure with this question, I present it here. Here is an example of what just isn't hunting imo. "I put a food plot out that is 35 yds X 35 yds. I have 4 trail cameras pointing at this food plot. Since deer are very easy to pattern, in early season, and my home computer has been receiving images from my trail cams every day, I am pumped! They show a 170" class buck showing up everyday, along with some smaller bucks, for the last two weeks in Sept at 3:00. I can set my clock by this patterned buck. I don't even have to spook him by checking my SD memory card, as my computer and phone are receiving these images. Since this food plot is only 35 yds X 35 yds, and it is sugar beets(man the deer love this "natural food), all I have to do is crawl in my blind or treestand, several hours before 3 pm. Since anywhere he steps in this food plot is within bow range, I should get him."
Now, let's see, this is Hunting? If this is hunting, NO THANKS! No time in the field, using a small, baited area, and electronics to monitor what is going on in the woods? Woo Hoo, what a blast! What is sad, is the same People that think this is hunting, will call fowl if a guy took corn and spread it with his ATV in a 35 yd X 35 yd area, used no cameras, and just hunted hard every day, learning where and what time deer show up and what class of bucks are showing up with his OWN EYES. hoping a shooter would step into the area. How about rigging a bow to a mount in the woods, and you can aim/shoot it at home a joystick from your computer? Not in favor of this? What's the difference?
Now, let's see, this is Hunting? If this is hunting, NO THANKS! No time in the field, using a small, baited area, and electronics to monitor what is going on in the woods? Woo Hoo, what a blast! What is sad, is the same People that think this is hunting, will call fowl if a guy took corn and spread it with his ATV in a 35 yd X 35 yd area, used no cameras, and just hunted hard every day, learning where and what time deer show up and what class of bucks are showing up with his OWN EYES. hoping a shooter would step into the area. How about rigging a bow to a mount in the woods, and you can aim/shoot it at home a joystick from your computer? Not in favor of this? What's the difference?
If you want to decrease the time a CO has to spend investigating "baited sites" then you should legalize baiting. That way the CO wouldn't have to spend anytime investigating. If someone called to report a person putting out bait the CO could just say it is legal and no time wasted other than answering the phone. Passing more laws to prohibit something that is already against the law makes absolutely no sence and is not going to free up more time for the CO. It is already against the law to hunt over bait. If the goal of this bill is to slow the spread of CWD then don't base arguements on the time it takes a CO to investigate baited sites. Show the research that proves bait or mineral sites increase the transmission of CWD. Because if there was a pile of "bait" placed on private or public land the CO would still have to investigate and catch the guy placing the bait and hunting over it. Otherwise, all a guy would have to do is see a stand on public or private land and dump a little pile of "bait" out under it and make a phone call. CO comes and takes the stand down and now the guy who actually put the "bait" out and made the call has less competition for the piece of public or private that they happen to be hunting. Guys with lone wolf stands and climbing sticks could be in and out of a baited site in what less than 10 minutes so the CO will still have to investigate and catch the person in the act to issue tickets otherwise they wont hold up in court. The time spent investigating baited sites WILL NOT decrease if this bill is passed as jclaws indicated in his post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishbonker
Statewide 2010 2009 2008
Citations 60 36 39
Calls 219 153 128
Hours 1759 1301 942
1759 hours divided by 49 CO's divided again by 52 weeks= 42 minutes per week, per CO. Are these hours only on the initial call? If not, it's no wonder there was only a 27% success rate. You could make up 42 minutes a week by cutting one cup of coffee a day. I would like to see the breakdown on their other "investigations".
If all the calls happened a year long. I am sure that they happen in about a 8 week time span.
I look at it the same way as emerald ash borer (eab) they are telling you to start cutting down all the trees now in preparation of when it comes. CWD is going to be the same way, this is in preparation for when it come not if. Yeah it sucks, yeah we are going to have to change how we do business of trail cameras, etc, but if you care about the deer herd in this state then I say we as outdoors-persons do it and learn to like it.
If not and CWD comes in and spreads through your area and completely wipes out the deer herd you have no one to blame but yourself. Like I mentioned I dont like it either, but we have to look past ourselves and look at the deer and what is best for it.
Originally Posted by Fishbonker
Statewide 2010 2009 2008
Citations 60 36 39
Calls 219 153 128
Hours 1759 1301 942
1759 hours divided by 49 CO's divided again by 52 weeks= 42 minutes per week, per CO. Are these hours only on the initial call? If not, it's no wonder there was only a 27% success rate. You could make up 42 minutes a week by cutting one cup of coffee a day. I would like to see the breakdown on their other "investigations".
If all the calls happened a year long. I am sure that they happen in about a 8 week time span.
I look at it the same way as emerald ash borer (eab) they are telling you to start cutting down all the trees now in preparation of when it comes. CWD is going to be the same way, this is in preparation for when it come not if. Yeah it sucks, yeah we are going to have to change how we do business of trail cameras, etc, but if you care about the deer herd in this state then I say we as outdoors-persons do it and learn to like it.
If not and CWD comes in and spreads through your area and completely wipes out the deer herd you have no one to blame but yourself. Like I mentioned I dont like it either, but we have to look past ourselves and look at the deer and what is best for it.
loneranger
Well-Known Member
If you buy CWD will wipe out the deer herd. The same hot air was spewed about TB. It would wipe out the wildlife,lots of animals besides deer they said. Also would be devastating to livestock. Did not happen. An excuse for FEd funds and unlimited deer tags. Wait and see.
risto2351
Well-Known Member
risto2351
Well-Known Member
I totally agree. It might help some of those still on the fence about
which way to lean on the issue.
Now who do we believe?
tc1968
New Member
Guys and Gals stop! We should all just put our faith into our Goverment - look what a fine job they have done with the Iowa deer herd to date.
When this bill passes I think Iowa should let other states like TX and WI know that Iowa has all the experts and they (other states) don't know a darn thing about baiting and herd management.
At the end of the day politics and money are driving the bill - not concern, common sense or the will of the people.
When this bill passes I think Iowa should let other states like TX and WI know that Iowa has all the experts and they (other states) don't know a darn thing about baiting and herd management.
At the end of the day politics and money are driving the bill - not concern, common sense or the will of the people.
Last edited: