Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

IBA supports feeding baiting bill

If we already had CWD here I would not have a problem with this bill. However, banning bait sites will not keep it from arriving.
Click to expand...

wouldn't that be like shutting the barn door after the bull got out?
as far as CWD goes (or any devastating disease, for that matter) i really don't think the intelligent course of action is to "wait until it gets here, then deal with it".
 
If this truely is a bill about to prevent spreading the disease, someone please, please answer me this question.

What actions are the DNR going to take if the disease becomes present within the state, and all mineral sites, feeding corn, ect.ect. is outlawed, what are they going to do? I pretty well know the answer to the question, kill now, think later.
 
that seems to be the stance taken by states that currently have the disease. definitely a position we need to avoid getting into.
 
bowmaker said:
Wow this is hard for me to believe, 22 pages of mostly self justification and attacking the people that you elected to make these kind of decisions for you on a volunteer basis. There have been many issues brought up that were a part of this decision to support this bill and many of you are picking those reasons apart with your own reasoning so as to make your practices acceptable.

Here in lies the problem....... These practices are acceptable as of now! The reason that the bill is being picked apart is because we have seen absolutely no factual evidence to support it. I think most on this site realize and thank the IBA board for their services, just don't see eye to eye on this subject (which is supported by the numbers in the poll). Seems to me that the your whole post was for "self justification"!


Can some one please tell us how this will REALLY IMPACT their deer hunting, just because they can't get pictured of deer that are artificially lured to an area by food or minerals?

If you truly had read the posts in their entirety, you would realize that impacting of ones hunting is not the issue. The issue is having another baseless law proposed to the Iowa hunter that holds no value or merrit. The IBA and it's board needs to be supported and needs to base their decisions on that support, which they don't have on this one issue. It's as simple as that and I'm sorry if you see it differently, but I for one will continue to fight for my rights as an Iowa resident hunter. Bonkers motto at the bottom of his page sums it up for me. "Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain". Can it be any clearer?
Click to expand...
 
teeroy said:
wouldn't that be like shutting the barn door after the bull got out?
as far as CWD goes (or any devastating disease, for that matter) i really don't think the intelligent course of action is to "wait until it gets here, then deal with it".
Click to expand...

The point is that the baiting itself will not cause CWD to suddenly appear. It will get here either accross the Mississippi or from deer/ elk farms and the ban will have nothing to do with keeping it out.
 
teeroy said:
wouldn't that be like shutting the barn door after the bull got out?
as far as CWD goes (or any devastating disease, for that matter) i really don't think the intelligent course of action is to "wait until it gets here, then deal with it".
Click to expand...

I think anyone against the bill will agree that the last thing we want is CWD to destroy the herd. But CWD will still have a chance if the loopholes are not closed.

The items that make myself upset are the 50 yard rule. If you do away with feeding, no exceptions do away with everything that makes deer congregate. I have pictures of deer under a bird feeder licking in the same areas.

The second thing is usually CWD occurs with the game farms? What new laws will they have to abide by?

Last thing is we already have a law against baiting. Do not feel we need to impose more laws for those that do not follow it already. If we do not have the man power to enforce the laws now we are going to make another law to catch others breaking this new law?

It has not been presented to the people very well with the loopholes and hope that the loop holes are closed before I will ever be for it.
 
dedgeez said:
bowmaker said:
Wow this is hard for me to believe, 22 pages of mostly self justification and attacking the people that you elected to make these kind of decisions for you on a volunteer basis. There have been many issues brought up that were a part of this decision to support this bill and many of you are picking those reasons apart with your own reasoning so as to make your practices acceptable.

Here in lies the problem....... These practices are acceptable as of now! The reason that the bill is being picked apart is because we have seen absolutely no factual evidence to support it. I think most on this site realize and thank the IBA board for their services, just don't see eye to eye on this subject (which is supported by the numbers in the poll). Seems to me that the your whole post was for "self justification"!


Can some one please tell us how this will REALLY IMPACT their deer hunting, just because they can't get pictured of deer that are artificially lured to an area by food or minerals?

If you truly had read the posts in their entirety, you would realize that impacting of ones hunting is not the issue. The issue is having another baseless law proposed to the Iowa hunter that holds no value or merit. The IBA and it's board needs to be supported and needs to base their decisions on that support, which they don't have on this one issue. It's as simple as that and I'm sorry if you see it differently, but I for one will continue to fight for my rights as an Iowa resident hunter. Bonkers motto at the bottom of his page sums it up for me. "Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain". Can it be any clearer?
Click to expand...

How many baseless laws with no value or merit concerning hunting or fishing can you come up with, that we now accept as common place. How about steel shot for waterfowl, or even upland game in certain areas. When that was first proposed it was deemed stupid and worthless and even worse because the steel shot would cripple more birds than were lost from lead shot. How about the early muzzle loader deer season? When it was proposed only a very small hand full of traditional ML hunters pushed for it against all the shotgun and bow hunters who felt that it was unfair that these hunters could get an earlier chance than they got. How about the law against using buckshot for deer of the one prohibiting cross bows for deer? Are these infringements on hunters rights in Iowa because a lot of other states allow both, and are they baseless and with out value. These are acceptable practices now in other states so should they be acceptable here?

We won't know anything about merit or value of this ban for several years and by then it will be the acceptable practice just like steel shot is now. I did truly read every post and it seemed to me that most were opposed because they were already baiting camera sites and it was unfair to not allow them that right so they could know what was OUT THERE when it came time to hunt. I know that there are always at least two view points on every thing and that we probably aren't going to change each others minds about this, but we should at least be able to discuss it civilly shouldn't we?
One last thing , do you wear a seat belt because it is the law or drive 55 mph because it is the law. I remember in the 1970s when there were the same arguments made about infringement on personal rights and senseless laws, but now we accept these infringements and understand that it is our choice to obey or not but if we chose not to and get caught we must pay the price for that choice. You still have that same choice in this issue so choose wisely.
Click to expand...
 
risto2351 said:
I think anyone against the bill will agree that the last thing we want is CWD to destroy the herd. But CWD will still have a chance if the loopholes are not closed.
Click to expand...

Agree w/ Risto ... but speaking of loopholes ... you will find that most states that have had their wild deer test positive for CWD believe that it originated with captive deer/elk. If the main purpose of this feeding/baiting ban is to prevent communicable diseases like CWD from infecting our wild deer herd, then a complete ban on the importation of animals to game farms should be on DNR's agenda as well.
 
We won't know anything about merit or value of this ban for several years
Click to expand...

Fine but the law needs to run across the board including standing grain cereal grain plots (Corn, Wheat, Milo, Beans.....) and the 50 yards from the house crap. Unless those are changed as well, it does absolutely nothing for the prevention of disease. Those in favor of it HAVE to see it that way...
 
Shredder said:
Those in favor of it HAVE to see it that way...
Click to expand...

Agreed, unless there is an underlying alternative agenda going on here.... which is beginning to appear like reality....

This redonkulous bill won't get any love from me... gonna fight it tooth and nail unless it is reworded.

It would be my suggestion that the IBA pulls its support until we can fully reevaluate how it SHOULD be.... just sayin'
 
What is the information like from states that have had the disease for awhile? Like Wisconsin. Is CWD destroying the herd up there? What about Ill ? Is it spreading like wildfire there?
 
The only thing that has destroyed the deer herd in those states is the DNR. CWD will have very little impact if left to run it's course.
 
  • Deleted by N/A
Show…
These CWD-positive results are significant and improve understanding of how the disease spreads. It has been known for some time that, even if infected deer are removed from a pasture, newly introduced deer can become infected with the disease. In latter stages of CWD, an infected animal demonstrates excessive drooling and drinking of water. Deposits of saliva could be a significant source of disease contamination and later transmission.
Click to expand...

Well see even pasture is a problem...pulled from a wildlife institute website (http://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=157%3Asuspected-culprit-identified-in-cwd-transmission&Itemid=95)

Sick animals will still be around the healthy ones...regardless. Later stages of the disease, they will be off by themselves, probably not eating or worrying about mineral licks etc etc.

I would support it if it made sense...til then, it does nothing and no, getting rid of mineral licks and feed piles will not slow the transmission. (I can find a distribution map of deer and elk in the Colorado mountains and plains that had/have the infection and I doubt folks were hauling corn to the hills to get trail cam pictures. I understand disease transmission probably better than most which is guiding my decision. It has to be an all or none law or it will not work.
 
Last edited:
JNRBRONC said:
Anybody ever get sick because the kids brought home the latest bug going around school?
Click to expand...
Yep. And after all the hand washing, coughing into our elbows and all precautions...sometimes twice. Unfortunately, if we get it, we get it. The bright side...I will finally be able to afford some ground.
 
Taken from the IBA website:
“The Iowa Bowhunters Association is a state wide association made up of Bowhunters. Its purpose is to protect, defend, and promote bowhunting in the state of Iowa…”

I believe that trail camera photos over a mineral site promotes bowhunting and adds to my enjoyment of the sport. My kids love all the pics, which have increased their interest in bowhunting as well. I hope the IBA will reconsider and act on behalf of the apparent majority of Iowa bowhunters.
 
loneranger said:
What is the information like from states that have had the disease for awhile? Like Wisconsin. Is CWD destroying the herd up there? What about Ill ? Is it spreading like wildfire there?
Click to expand...

Wisconsin still allows hunting over bait.

Looks like they are not afraid of the disease?
 
risto2351 said:
Wisconsin still allows hunting over bait.

Looks like they are not afraid of the disease?
Click to expand...

Uh yeah, thats like the Packers asking the 49ers for advice on their passing game. :drink1:

Whats wrong with Iowa leading the way/setting the bar in whitetail hunting and herd management? Granted we don't love every reg and decision by the DNR but we do have a pretty good thing going here.

What do our non-res friends have to say about what we have here in Iowa?
 
singlecoyote said:
Whats wrong with Iowa leading the way/setting the bar in whitetail hunting and herd management? Granted we don't love every reg and decision by the DNR but we do have a pretty good thing going here.
Click to expand...

Why change what is being done now, is Iowa lacking on trophy animals in the last 5 years?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom