Discussion in 'Legislative Forum' started by Fishbonker, Jan 17, 2020.
Excellent. To be clear the correct bill number is HF 363?
So under this bill would it be illegal for a guy to use his or a buddies unregistered dog to look for a deer? I never needed to but back when I had a German shorthair pheasant dog, I would have had a lot of confidence in her finding a wounded deer. She never chased deer but had a heck of a nose and I am sure could have done the job. Or would you have to hire a registered outfit to look for your deer?
That is correct.
The plan for the bill as written is for anyone to use any dog. Anyone who truly expects to be successful will use a trained dog. I hope our group will be able to eventually host training days and tracking tests, but I have enough to do with hunting, training dogs, a full time job and a toddler. I have no intention of heading up required annual tests or becoming a professional tracker. I already have one hobby that became a career and it tends to ruin the hobby quick.
Professional trackers also charge a significant fee. Ethical game recovery shouldn’t be limited to the rich.
The second version of this bill from last year was reintroduced. This is the version that requires dogs and their handlers to be certified by a national organization the specializes in blood tracking certifications.
Link to this version of the bill: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=88&ba=HF657
The subcommittee for this bill (HF 657) is the same as the other (HF 363).
No meetings for the subcommittee on either bill has been scheduled as of this post, 1/30/20.
In fact I no longer see a current subcommittee listed for HF 363 so I do not know what is happening to HF 363. Misskiwi67, any help or ideas?
I’ve got calls out to several people with no answers yet. A member of my breed club met with a couple legislators including Ourth this week and unknowingly brought up certification as a good thing, having no knowledge of our work behind the scenes, or the detriment it would be to the majority without the clubs resources. This may have been reintroduced by that group, it was not the Iowa Blood Trackers Group.
Subcommittee meeting should be announced soon. Both bills are active, and I suspect both will be discussed at the same time.
My gut feeling about the person from my breed club is correct, he filled several people in on the advantages of the German testing system and they want to use the JGHV testing and certification process. Unfortunately this will limit tracking to JGHV eligible breeds only.
If you have a dog that you would like to track with and think this is as ridiculous as we do, then please call the subcommittee members this week.
Subcommittee Meeting: 02/05/2020 8:00AM
The bill requiring certification has a subcommittee date, the other does not.
Start making phone calls.
Word on the street is that constituents of subcommittee members are wanting certification.
This bill is on today's full Natural Resources Committee agenda, 2/05/20.
Well that was fast, considering it passed subcommittee this morning! I’m liking the momentum, but wish Id had more time for phone calls!
Lobbyist says it’s only the fur dog bill today.
Link to the schedule: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/committees/meetings/meetingsListComm?groupID=680&ga=88
Who knows though? There is also a line at the bottom of the agenda that says "And any other bills that are ready".
Gotcha. Subcommittee was very successful and maybe if it’s fresh they will actually remove certification. Last years Natural Resources Committee was such a surprise I’m not holding my breath.
So the one without certification is at full committee and the other hasn't passed sub yet? Or am I missing something
The actions of the bill sponsors were reversed.
HF657 is now the active bill, and it’s the one with a certification requirement.
We worked hard, with multiple people driving 2 hours each way to attend, to educate the subcommittee today. Any changes need to be made by the Natural Resources Committee.
If you don’t want certification, then speak up, and make sure to contact multiple representatives individually. They say they are hearing just as many people in favor of certification, but Im not sure from where.
The biggest reason we were able to make progress today is doing certification is an undue hardship on either DNR or very small breed clubs. One legislator (not on subcommittee) wants to table the bill and do a “study” to see if it’s actually feasible. Apparently hearing it straight from the only blood tracking judge in the state wasn’t good enough.
The subcommittee seemed convinced. We did good work today, but we still have a lot of folks to educate.
Thanks for sharing info here. Would a group like United Blood Trackers be all for certification or just for getting the bill passed?
What’s the point of passing legislation that can’t be used for 3-5 years, or more?? It takes 8+ years to be a JGHV judge, we test 3-8 dogs through VGPa year. UBT is a little easier, but you have to be actively tracking deer and attend their national conference for an apprenticeship.
We might as well let it die and try again for 3-5 years and get what we want.
Or I can keep “squirrel hunting” for friends and family and turning away a dozen tracks a year.
So I'm assuming they would be all for certification. I'm ignorant when it comes to dogs and certification/field tests. I'm all for no certification after educating myself in the last few years. I went from totally against dogs to all for them and no certification needed.
Separate names with a comma.