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

Tracking wounded deer with leashed dogs HF82

Hawk32 said:
Same as BBH said its kind of like contacting our legislators. If they don't hear from anyone how would they vote. Our IBA reps spoke to our local archery club at our annual meeting on all IBA issues legislative and non legislative. This bill in particular had a lot of discussion and everyone had input. Also last year there were surveys posted on almost every legislative bill.


Not really sure why the IBA is to blame here. Its my understanding thare were numerous conversations with this bills supporters and the IBA and both groups worked to clarify the writings of this bill. The IBA is NOT against this bill and voted unanimously in support of the concept of using dogs for tracking purposes. Hence the undeclared stance, which can easily change when the bill is rewritten. Regardless of what stance the IBA would have taken would not have changed were it is now.
Click to expand...
The IBA has opposed tracking dogs for years. I've had discussions with IBA board members who were very strongly opposed. I also had discussions with people on the other side from tracking dog associations I met at the deer classic. They said that the only reason it had not passed was strong opposition from the IBA lobbyist.

The arguments against allowing them have not sounded reasonable to me.

I'm not sure what language the IBA feels needs added in order to support this law. I would like to hear specifically what in the current bill is not acceptable.
 
Monsterbuck said:
The IBA has opposed tracking dogs for years. I've had discussions with IBA board members who were very strongly opposed. I also had discussions with people on the other side from tracking dog associations I met at the deer classic. They said that the only reason it had not passed was strong opposition from the IBA lobbyist.

The arguments against allowing them have not sounded reasonable to me.

I'm not sure what language the IBA feels needs added in order to support this law. I would like to hear specifically what in the current bill is not acceptable.
Click to expand...

Speaking for myself, and not the IBA, I was opposed to earlier versions of dog tracking legislation, or potential legislation, as in the early days there were proponents that favored the use of tracking dogs onto private property without permission of the landowner, etc. (FWIW, I have had multiple conversations with supporters of the idea of dog tracking over the years.)

If you do not understand how some of the "early" proposals would upset landowners then it is not likely that you will find yourself in agreement with anyone that does own land and has had, or does still have, even one questionable neighbor.

I am all for the use of dogs...just where they have permission to be AND then real deterrents to abusing said laws. I don't think that I am alone in that thinking and as time has gone on the language of the particular bills has clarified those areas of concern to where it seems that most support the "modern day" version(s) of this legislation.
 
Daver said:
Speaking for myself, and not the IBA, I was opposed to earlier versions of dog tracking legislation, or potential legislation, as in the early days there were proponents that favored the use of tracking dogs onto private property without permission of the landowner, etc. (FWIW, I have had multiple conversations with supporters of the idea of dog tracking over the years.)

If you do not understand how some of the "early" proposals would upset landowners then it is not likely that you will find yourself in agreement with anyone that does own land and has had, or does still have, even one questionable neighbor.

I am all for the use of dogs...just where they have permission to be AND then real deterrents to abusing said laws. I don't think that I am alone in that thinking and as time has gone on the language of the particular bills has clarified those areas of concern to where it seems that most support the "modern day" version(s) of this legislation.
Click to expand...
If that is the case then the IBA should have no problem changing its stance from undecided to supporting. We'll see how this plays out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom