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

What's your opinion on blood trailing dogs?

Monsterbuck

Monsterbuck

Active Member
A little back story first. Buddy of mine shoots a buck this past fall and watches it run 50 yards or so and go down. It's head is up lolling a few times then down for good and motionless for several minutes. It is raining and begins to hail. He called me to come help and heads back to the truck to get his cart and meet me. We go back in and the deer is gone. Good blood from spot of hit to where he went down and a pool of blood there but not another drop. Nasty weather and location he was hunting makes it almost impossible that another hunter took it. We searched hours and never found it. After this search he Google searched for a blood tracking dog thinking he would hire one to help find the deer that we could not find. Unfortunately we found out that it is illegal in Iowa to track a wounded deer with a dog.

Fast forward to the Deer Classic and we saw there was a booth with blood trailing dogs. We spoke to them and they said they have been trying to get it legalized but that their biggest opposition has been the IBA. Additionally they said that most IBA members were not opposed to blood trailing dogs being legal but that certain members of leadership within the IBA was against it.

I am wondering what people on here's opinions are on this subject. Should we IBA members tell leadership that we support it?

The only argument I got from an IBA board member I asked about it was that in his opinion people would be taking all kinds of risky shots just to get an arrow in a deer then bring a dog in to track it down. Doesn't really sound like a good argument to me.

Anyway let's hear where you stand.
 
Being blunt, that's some idiot bowhunting purists to have that argument. It's also extremely disappointing that a board member is blocking what the general consensus wants. Somebody needs to remove him from his post. The top priority should always be to recover our game. This isn't a give an inch they take a foot scenario.
 
After the shot is taken it seems ridiculous to block the recovery effort as long as the retrieval is in good faith.

Yes could some guys put a dog on a leash and go for a walk with a gun, of course. We are looking for the glass is half full as opposed to half empty.
 
hoosierhunter said:
After the shot is taken it seems ridiculous to block the recovery effort as long as the retrieval is in good faith.

Yes could some guys put a dog on a leash and go for a walk with a gun, of course. We are looking for the glass is half full as opposed to half empty.
Click to expand...

Those same people already cheat in one form or another.

Been many a buck found with blood trailing dogs from some guys I know in MO. Not sure why/how a leased dog would cause someone to take a bad shot. Heck, some people take those now anyways don't they?? ;)
 
With these stipulations, I am 100% for it.

1. The tracker must have permission from the landowner. This is different than our current regs, but I think it is vital in the case of a dog assisted track.

2. The dog (s) must be on a leash.

3. The hunters must be unarmed.

Without these rules I would be very concerned that unscrupulous hunters would use the opening to take a mutt, or 2 or 10, on a walk through their neighbors timber under the guise they are tracking a deer, when what they are really doing is bumping deer out, perhaps to another nearby friend, etc.

Without these stipulations, I am 100% against it because I know that it would be abused, perhaps only by a small percentage. But it would cause more problems than it solves imo.
 
Daver said:
1. The tracker must have permission from the landowner. This is different than our current regs, but I think it is vital in the case of a dog assisted track.
Click to expand...

Can they track wounded deer onto property now that they do not have permission to be on???
 
letemgrow said:
Can they track wounded deer onto property now that they do not have permission to be on???
Click to expand...

This is a major flaw in Iowa regs. Here in Indiana you must have permission to cross a property line. I completely disagree with someone being allowed to cross property lines without permission.
 
hoosierhunter said:
This is a major flaw in Iowa regs. Here in Indiana you must have permission to cross a property line. I completely disagree with someone being allowed to cross property lines without permission.
Click to expand...

This is not a flaw in the law at all. It does not make sense that you cannot recover your game simply because it died on someone else's property. I have read horror stories of deer dead within eyesight of the property line and landowners not allowing the hunter to retrieve their deer. That is ridiculous in my opinion to let deer go to waste as a hunter. You cannot bring a weapon to retrieve your game and it is always common courtesy to notify the landowner.
 
Liv4Rut said:
This is not a flaw in the law at all. It does not make sense that you cannot recover your game simply because it died on someone else's property. I have read horror stories of deer dead within eyesight of the property line and landowners not allowing the hunter to retrieve their deer. That is ridiculous in my opinion to let deer go to waste as a hunter. You cannot bring a weapon to retrieve your game and it is always common courtesy to notify the landowner.
Click to expand...

I agree.. Nothing wrong with the regs now. If there was trailing dogs I would agree having to have permission to bring the dog across.
 
Daver said:
With these stipulations, I am 100% for it.

1. The tracker must have permission from the landowner. This is different than our current regs, but I think it is vital in the case of a dog assisted track.

2. The dog (s) must be on a leash.

3. The hunters must be unarmed.
Click to expand...

I would agree with those. I'm not sure about the landowner permission part, I didn't ask about that, but the guys I talked to said that the leash and no weapons have been parts of the proposals submitted to the legislature.

They said that they almost had it passed recently but it was defeated after lobbying against it by the IBA lobbyist. They are a small group and don't have funds to pay a lobbyist so hard to compete. The guys at the Classic were from the Cedar Rapids area.
 
Liv4Rut said:
This is not a flaw in the law at all. It does not make sense that you cannot recover your game simply because it died on someone else's property. I have read horror stories of deer dead within eyesight of the property line and landowners not allowing the hunter to retrieve their deer. That is ridiculous in my opinion to let deer go to waste as a hunter. You cannot bring a weapon to retrieve your game and it is always common courtesy to notify the landowner.
Click to expand...

The horror stories occur from neighbors that don't get along typically from trespassing issues in the past.


The law just doesn't make sense to me. Guys are allowed to follow yote dogs on properties, retrieve game on others property... It would seem those regs get taken advantage of way more than issues that would come up from not being able to retrieve a deer.

I've also heard more people voice concerns about tracking across property lines than I've heard of guys losing deer here in Indiana.

If you didn't allow people to track without permission you wouldn't have so many hunters push your property lines to the extent they do. It's creating a more neighborly approach to hunting. We either get along or we risk losing an animal.
 
I guess I didn't really intend for this to become a trespass debate. I am assuming all current laws would still need to be followed. The question is should we be able to use a dog to help find a deer that otherwise we may not find.

Interested to hear what fishbonker has to say since I believe he is on the IBA board. Is it just one or two long timers blocking it or are all the board members against it?
 
Last edited:
CurtisWalker said:
I agree.. Nothing wrong with the regs now. If there was trailing dogs I would agree having to have permission to bring the dog across.
Click to expand...

I would bet if u had to get permission from the landowners to track your deer, 9 out if 10 would say no if they had the option..
As far as taking bad shot because you have a dog that blood tracks, what about all the states where it is legal? Those guys just take marginal shots a lot more than an iowa deer hunter????? I think that you either take ethical shot or u dont! I dont really believe the dog would turn hunters who already practice ethical shots into ones who dont!!
I do think people would take advantage of it and say they are tracking, just to push deer out of a section with a few dogs that they have no permission to hunt. Although im sure that happens already without the dogs!!! (Had 2 guys walk past me on our farm this yr "tracking", not looking at the ground for blood, just walking) both had guns!!
 
Monsterbuck said:
I guess I didn't really intend for this to become a trespass debate. I am assuming all current laws would still need to be followed. The question is should we be able to use a dog to help find a deer that otherwise we may not find. Interested to hear what fishbonker has to say since I believe he is on the IBA board. Is it just one or two long timers blocking it or are all the board members against it?
Click to expand...

I would also suggest that it must be a certified tracking dog WITH his handler. The handler must then report recovery or not to the DNR. It seems like a headache, but at least controls would be on place to ease people's concerns. Fund it by charging X amount of every track for the DNR.

Just some thoughts....
 
hoosierhunter said:
I would also suggest that it must be a certified tracking dog WITH his handler. The handler must then report recovery or not to the DNR. It seems like a headache, but at least controls would be on place to ease people's concerns. Fund it by charging X amount of every track for the DNR.

Just some thoughts....
Click to expand...

I think that is a good idea!!! Must pass a certification n have a permit/license, and some type of reporting system.. A lot easier said than done tho!!!!
 
Liv4Rut said:
This is not a flaw in the law at all. It does not make sense that you cannot recover your game simply because it died on someone else's property. I have read horror stories of deer dead within eyesight of the property line and landowners not allowing the hunter to retrieve their deer. That is ridiculous in my opinion to let deer go to waste as a hunter. You cannot bring a weapon to retrieve your game and it is always common courtesy to notify the landowner.
Click to expand...

What's to stop people from pushing deer now and saying they are grid searching for a wounded deer for instance on neighboring property? No dogs needed to cheat the law as it stands.

Not sure more hunters are going to start cheating if they are allowed to have a leashed dog to push deer off others farms using wounded deer scenario???
 
wapsi-bottom-BP said:
I think that is a good idea!!! Must pass a certification n have a permit/license, and some type of reporting system.. A lot easier said than done tho!!!!
Click to expand...

We all know some people are not going to follow any laws that are put into place. Least they will have a guideline for writing tickets tho if caught with said law.
 
I can say that I have heard of zero problems (I'm sure they are out there tho) in my home state of MO. Then again, ones a CA that has the dog and does the tracking for guys that I know of.

They could take state money from tag sales to "arm" the CA with a blood trailing dog to do the work for ya? That way he/she can write fines while they are tracking deer for the hunter :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom