Have no idea if the charges are warranted or not but I really hope the DNR has probable cause before dragging this guy through the mud and needlessly spending both party's resources and money. Maybe in a case like this, vaguely written law, the State of Iowa would be better served by promoting what Iowa has to offer due to the herd management practices of the Iowa DNR instead of casting a negative light on it???
The Franz buck
- Thread starter Thinkin Rut
- Start date
-
- Tags
- None
- Status
SCOFFIN
Miles Coffin
I got the same impression, sold the land to pay for the battle.
I compare this to "No Wake" lakes. You ask 5 CO's to define it on any particular day and you get 5 different answers.
Somebody got butthurt over him shooting this deer and that's the only reason for the investigation.
Team pewp
Work Sucks!
I disagree. I call the tip line all the time and nothing ever happens. They pick and choose what they follow up on. The only reason they are all over this one is because it is a high profile case.
bigbuckhunter88
PMA Member
My question would be if he wins this case will their be a defamation case brought by him against the DNR? Because I can Gurantee he could say that it hurts his sales. Not saying he will but he could have a case and then there goes needed resources that the DNR could use for much better things.
Highmark
PMA Member
He could but he would have to prove loss revenue. If the website was bringing in much and sales dropped it would be easy to show however he would only be able to get those losses. Better be significant because the cost would be high.
meyeri
PMA Member
The whole thing is pretty ridiculous. 99% of hunters use mineral on their property during the summer and hunt within the vicinity of that mineral to some degree. With all the deer trails in the woods the DNR could always dispute that there is a trail the deer frequent that goes past your stand and a mineral site.
Highmark
PMA Member
I think its completely up to the DNR officer regarding whether or not the mineral site was too close to the stand/blind. I'd guess if its within reasonable kill range of the weapon used then it would surely be illegal. Don't know or won't speculate in this case. If the old mineral site was well out of range of the weapon used then I think the case is a joke.
I do think its funny how the state defines bait which is technically any "lure." I'd bet 99% or greater of bow hunters use some sort of lure or another. Bleat can, rattle antlers, grunt tube, doe/buck pee.
I do think its funny how the state defines bait which is technically any "lure." I'd bet 99% or greater of bow hunters use some sort of lure or another. Bleat can, rattle antlers, grunt tube, doe/buck pee.
singlecoyote
Proud member of the IBA
99% is a stretch. I don't put out mineral for two reasons 1) Transmitting disease is easier at a mineral site. 2) I don't want to have to worry about where I can legally hunt on my own ground if the mineral leeches into the soil creating a "lick".
For me the baiting law is not near as gray as people are making it out to be.
First of all, if you carry it in and place it, its bait. If you plant something and it grows and I try to kill a deer eating it...that's a food plot and that's called habitat improvement.
If you put out mineral you better keep it contained in a tub so it doesn't leech into the soil as deer will continue to lick/dig the soil.
If this happens and you don't want to worry, you dig out the area as best as you can and fill it back in with "clean" dirt. Not a big deal if you want to hunt without the concern of being illegal.
Just my thoughts, not trying to fire anyone up.
Legislators write the law not the DNR. If it's vague a state law maker needs to clarify it. I suspect bait was used based on his attorneys comments. His lawyer is addressing the wording of the law not whether bait was used. Selling the land is suspicious. Doesn't make sense. An argument about bait , a summary offense I believe ,is hardly a high powered legal fight. If he fights it's more of an attempt to cover embarrassment and preserve any monetary benefit that was coming by shooting the biggest whitetail on video. There's more to it.
Last edited:
Agree, always more to the story.
lovetohunt
Member
Think most people are assuming its a mineral lick that was there from the spring. Heck it could have been some of the many different brands of "attractants" like acorn rage or others that every outdoor store sells. I assume the facts will never truly come out but I would like them to. I just find it hard to believe that DNR would be on a "witch hunt" to get this guy without a pretty solid case of getting a conviction knowing that it would be a very publicized case.
In the end, new laws will be written, DNR and Franz will both lose out in the end. Just my .02 cents at least.
In the end, new laws will be written, DNR and Franz will both lose out in the end. Just my .02 cents at least.
ButChicken
New Member
I don't think he sold his ground to fund a legal battle for other hunters.
The fines were like $400. I think he should have just paid the fines and made it go away.
The fines were like $400. I think he should have just paid the fines and made it go away.
arm
Leg
But he still loses his deer head
The deer head that he bought and sold land for 40 years to obtain
Last edited:
ButChicken
New Member
Arm, yes and that would suck, but now he is on TV 13, his name is mudd, and the deer is an asterisk. Take a picture and get a replica. Keep the 80 and grow more. The only winner is going to be the lawyer.
lovetohunt
Member
LYON
PMA Member
Haha! You can tell who's at work and not in the woods by the sarcasm/frustration in their posts
And the fact that (most) of the guys in the woods are not posting.99% is a stretch. I don't put out mineral for two reasons 1) Transmitting disease is easier at a mineral site. 2) I don't want to have to worry about where I can legally hunt on my own ground if the mineral leeches into the soil creating a "lick".
For me the baiting law is not near as gray as people are making it out to be.
First of all, if you carry it in and place it, its bait. If you plant something and it grows and I try to kill a deer eating it...that's a food plot and that's called habitat improvement.
If you put out mineral you better keep it contained in a tub so it doesn't leech into the soil as deer will continue to lick/dig the soil.
If this happens and you don't want to worry, you dig out the area as best as you can and fill it back in with "clean" dirt. Not a big deal if you want to hunt without the concern of being illegal.
Just my thoughts, not trying to fire anyone up.
I agree with most of the points of your post.
Here's an example where the mineral could become 'gray', however....what if you're hunting on someone else's land that runs cattle in the summer and they have a salt block on the east side of the farm for those cattle. You don't want to get in trouble for baiting, so you hunt on the west side.
I've personally spoke to a CO who interperets the law to be that if you shoot a deer that is on a trail that leads to or from a salt/mineral lick that it is considered baiting no matter how far away from the mineral you are. To me that's about as GRAY as you can get! Heck, it could be argued that you could connect different trails from a mile away that lead to a mineral site!
That same CO said that he wishes they would just do away with the 'baiting' law all together & let people do whatever they wanted when it comes to mineral, baiting, etc....then there's no way anyone can question anything.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but as has already been said, something needs to change in the laws.
arm
Leg
Haha! You can tell who's at work and not in the woods by the sarcasm/frustration in their posts
You're telling me... Once 4pm hits, I'm leaving rubber in the lot and not coming back for weeks!
Outdoor Fanatics
PMA Member
I'm not gonna try to defend the guy, that's what his lawyers are for and I'm not gonna bash him either because he was charged with a crime and not yet convicted. And many have made some good points, if he was truly "baiting" then I think he will be found guilty but then again there is no actual definition to baiting in the DNR handbook other than saying if it effects the animals movement. This would be a point where you contact whoever wrote the law because only they know the actual interpretation of the law. A few years ago when I was 17 I almost got charged for shooting within 200 yards of a neighbors house, which was over a hill and I was shooting the other way. I was let off with a warning from the DNR but since this is where our shooting range is my dad contacted the guy who wrote the law and turns out since the farm is owned by my grandparents I could have shot within 10 yards of the neighbors house if I wanted since my family owns the farm I was on. My point is the DNR can interpret the law all they want but if you want to know what the real law is meant to say you contact whoever wrote the law.
- Status