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

Proposed Baiting Legislation

blake

Life Member
To the IBA,

We will be moving forward again with a wildlife baiting/feeding bill again this year (language below). I would like to know your organization’s position on this bill. Please send me an email with your response and cc those on the list above. If you have any doubts about the need for this I suggest you contact your local conservation officer and ask their opinion of the feeding/baiting issue in Iowa. We are clearly aware that most of the hunting land in Iowa is in private ownership but the wildlife resources belong to everyone.

Dale Garner[DNR]


Section 1. NEW SECTION. 481A.41 Feeding or baiting of
2 wildlife —— hunting on baited areas —— penalty.
3 1. As used in this section, unless the context otherwise
4 requires:
5 a. “Baited area” means an area where any feed is
6 intentionally placed, deposited, distributed, or scattered for
7 the sole purpose of luring, attracting, or enticing wildlife
8 to, on, or over a specific location. An area shall remain a
9 baited area for thirty days following complete removal of all
10 feed, except for salt, minerals, or any other feed that will
11 dissolve and leach into the soil, in which case such area shall
12 be considered a permanently baited area until such time as
13 all contaminated soil is either removed or covered in such a
14 manner that the area no longer serves to artificially attract
15 wildlife.
16 b. “Feed” means any grain, fruit, vegetable, nut, hay,
17 salt, mineral, or any other natural food material, commercial
18 products containing natural food materials or by-products of
19 such materials, or other food material that is capable of
20 luring, attracting, or enticing wildlife. Scents or lures used
21 to mask human odor or attract wildlife by the sense of smell
22 are not considered feed.
23 c. “Livestock” means the same as defined in section 717.1.
24 d. “Wildlife” means any wild bird or wild animal, except
25 fish or turtles, residing in or migrating through the state of
26 Iowa.
27 2. Except as provided in subsection 3, it shall be unlawful
28 for a person to establish or maintain a baited area on any
29 public or private property or for a person who lawfully
30 controls private property to knowingly allow another person to
31 establish or maintain a baited area on that private property.
32 It shall be unlawful for a person to hunt, take, or attempt to
33 take any wildlife on or in a baited area.
34 3. The prohibitions contained in subsection 2 are not
35 applicable to the following:
-1-

1 a. Feed that is used to attract wildlife for viewing and
2 observation if the feed is placed within fifty yards of a
3 residence, dwelling, or other structure permanently inhabited
4 by a person. However, such an area shall be considered a
5 baited area for the purpose of hunting, taking, or attempting
6 to take wildlife in or on that area.
7 b. Feed that is present solely as a result of normal
8 agricultural, forest management, orchard management, wildlife
9 food planting, or other similar land management practices.
10 c. Feed that is placed for agricultural or livestock
11 purposes if one or more of the following conditions apply:
12 (1) The feed is placed for domestic livestock that are
13 present and actively consuming the feed on a regular basis.
14 (2) The feed is stored in a manner consistent with the
15 person’s normal agricultural practices.
16 d. Feed that is placed for purposes including but
17 not limited to population control, capture and handling
18 of wildlife, or other specific purposes under written
19 authorization from the director or the director’s designee,
20 or as otherwise provided by law. This section shall not
21 be construed to limit employees of agencies of the state,
22 the United States, or local animal control officers in the
23 performance of their official duties related to education,
24 public health, wildlife management, or wildlife removal.
25 e. Feed that is placed for the purpose of luring fur-bearing
26 animals for hunting or trapping as permitted by law.
27 f. Feed that is placed within the confines of a whitetail
28 deer hunting preserve that is licensed by the department
29 pursuant to chapter 484C.
30 g. Recreational feeding of waterfowl at federal, state,
31 county, or city parks or refuges if not otherwise prohibited by
32 the managing agency or municipality of such parks or refuges.
33 4. When entering private property, a person who is an
34 official or agent of the department, or a person accompanying
35 such an official or agent of the department, shall comply with
-2-

1 the provisions of section 455B.103. The person shall also
2 comply with standard biosecurity requirements customarily
3 required by the owner of livestock on the property and which
4 are necessary in order to control the spread of disease among a
5 livestock or wildlife population.
6 5. A person who violates any provision of this section
7 is guilty of a simple misdemeanor punishable as a scheduled
8 violation under section 805.8B, subsection 3, paragraph “e”.
9 6. In addition to any other penalties imposed under this
10 section, a person charged with unlawful establishment or
11 maintenance of a baited area shall immediately remove all feed
12 from the baited area. Failure to do so shall constitute an
13 additional violation of this section for each day that the feed
14 remains.
15 Sec. 2. Section 805.8B, subsection 3, paragraph e, Code
16 2011, is amended to read as follows:
17 e. For violations of sections 481A.41, 481A.57, 481A.85,
18 481A.93, 481A.95, 481A.120, 481A.137, 481B.5, 482.3, 482.9,
19 482.15, and 483A.42, the scheduled fine is one hundred dollars.
20 EXPLANATION
21 This bill prohibits the feeding, baiting, or taking of
22 certain wildlife under specified circumstances and makes
23 penalties applicable.
24 New Code section 481A.41 prohibits the establishment
25 or maintenance on any public or private land of a “baited
26 area”, which is created by intentionally placing, depositing,
27 distributing, or scattering feed for the sole purpose of
28 luring, attracting, or enticing wildlife to a specific
29 location. The provision also prohibits a person who lawfully
30 controls private property from knowingly allowing another
31 person to establish or maintain a “baited area” on that private
32 property. The provision also prohibits hunting, taking,
33 or attempting to take wildlife in such an area. There are
34 a number of specific exceptions to the prohibition against
35 feeding or baiting wildlife. A violation of new Code section
-3-
LSB 1309DP (5) 84
av/sc 3/4
 
Read through this. QUESTION- Is this saying that someone cannot put corn out after season with a trail camera for EXAMPLE? I'm obviously talking NON-HUNTING bait. I hated baiting back in my previous home state of MI but I sure hope they aren't talking about non-hunting baiting, I guess not the end of the world if they are. Just curious.
 
One thing that I find peculiar is that an area is considered permanantly "baited" if there was ever salt or mineral there. I have had a couple/few places on my farm where we have set up mineral sites and I have never seen any sign of deer using these sites after about the 1st week in October until maybe late February or early March. They for darn sure don't use these areas in November and December that I have ever seen.

I really don't consider these sites as baited, since when we are hunting they really do not use these areas. While tracking the buck my son shot a couple of weeks ago we traveled near where we run minerals in the summer and there literally was not a track within 15' of the site and the nearest tracks were on a nearby trail. (We had a good 6" of snow on the ground.)

Maybe I missed it, but how close to a mineral site that isn't permanently removed do you have to be to be considered hunting over bait? Please don't tell me it is up to the discretion of the LEO, because I think you have all sorts of issues when a law is vague and interpreted differently by various people.
 
Now might be a good time for those of you who have been sitting on the fence for so many years to join the IBA. United we can make a difference. And the IBA supports gun and bow hunters. Think about it Please!

Join the IBA
 
Last edited:
Read through this. QUESTION- Is this saying that someone cannot put corn out after season with a trail camera for EXAMPLE? I'm obviously talking NON-HUNTING bait. I hated baiting back in my previous home state of MI but I sure hope they aren't talking about non-hunting baiting, I guess not the end of the world if they are. Just curious.

Yes, this is about NON-HUNTING bait. Bait used for hunting is already illegal so yes, that is what this bill is about. Mineral sites for cameras before season, salt, corn for trail cameras after season, grain to feed during a harsh winter, etc., all of it.
 
One thing that I find peculiar is that an area is considered permanantly "baited" if there was ever salt or mineral there. I have had a couple/few places on my farm where we have set up mineral sites and I have never seen any sign of deer using these sites after about the 1st week in October until maybe late February or early March. They for darn sure don't use these areas in November and December that I have ever seen.

I really don't consider these sites as baited, since when we are hunting they really do not use these areas. While tracking the buck my son shot a couple of weeks ago we traveled near where we run minerals in the summer and there literally was not a track within 15' of the site and the nearest tracks were on a nearby trail. (We had a good 6" of snow on the ground.)

Maybe I missed it, but how close to a mineral site that isn't permanently removed do you have to be to be considered hunting over bait? Please don't tell me it is up to the discretion of the LEO, because I think you have all sorts of issues when a law is vague and interpreted differently by various people.

I agree on your comments about the deer not using the mineral sites during hunting seasons. But, that is not what this bill is about. It is not about the advantages of hunting over a mineral or bait site. It is about transmission of diseases when the animals congregate at the site whether it be before season, during season or after season. Some people believe bait and mineral sites promote transmission of diseases such as CWD or EHD.
 
I think the DNR needs to focus more on what THEY are doing to destroy the deer herd and less on what the hunter does. As far as I know, we haven't had one case of CWD but the DNR is here and now.
 
I would like to support this legislation but they allow for feeding within 50 yards of a residence for wildlife viewing. I say this part of the proposed legislation indicates they don't care about disease transmitting enough. They can't stop a practice for one group and allow it for another. I view wildlife away from my residence with my cameras. If this can't pass with a total ban then it shouldn’t pass with a partial ban. I stay we should encourage a total ban if it is the best thing for Iowa’s deer herd. Also I would like to see a grandfather clause so those of us with mineral sight won't have to excavate them. Let time take care of it. Do write this thing like a big time enforcement piece. A little changing here and there and I believe this could a valuable move for Iowa. This is just my opinion, nothing more than that.

I would like to challenge the members here to look at this and decide what it would take to make this palatable to you. Post your thoughts in this thread and let’s see if we can give them some ideas to make this a positive.
 
as for the transmission of cwd being a "higher risk" at bait sites, think about all the other ways deer interact just as much as they would at a bait site. I'd say if you have cwd in your herd its going to spread regardless if there's bait sites or not. and if they make them illegal to put out in front of my cameras I'm still gonna put it out for "turkeys"
 
Would this legislation make it illegal for me to use bait at my trapping sets for coyotes, coons, etc.?
 
If they want this thing to pass and actually be effective they need to look at a few more things. For example we farm 500 acres of government ground, 300 fo which is one feild. Now for this government ground we are supposed to leave rows of crop around the whole feild. Last year we left 4 rows of beans around this 300 acre feild, and after winter there was not a single been left in the whole feild. It would be really unfortanate if we would have had a deer with CWD because every deer within a 2 mile radius of this feild would have caught it. My point is my 10 buckets of corn infront of my trail camera this summer wouldnt be jack compared to this 300 acre feild....

Another example.... Bird feeders within City limits. Ive see deer huddle around these things every night during the winter. You would need to pass a law requiring bird feeders being rasied out of a deers reach. The part of the bill that say it would only be legal to put bait within 50 yards of a residency is bogus. If they are going to make it illegal to bait anywhere near where someone hunts they need to make it illegal everywhere even within this 50 yards of residency.

This is just my opionin and you can slam me if you want. I think this bill is trying to cover something else instead of transmitting CWD. I dont know what it is but if they are trying to prevent CWD they need to look at more things than just baiting. Maybe they should make it illegal for bucks to make a scrape since their mouth comes into contact with a licking stick. JMO sounds a little fishy to me
 
It seems to me the DNR is trying to cover their butt with some unoriginal thinking in case something shows up in Iowa. This is not going be what stop these diseases from coming to Iowa. This is at most is a half measure and all food plots should also be banned if they really think concentrating animals is bad. Sneeze in my face, garage or house its all bad.
 
I am not in favour of this legislation. We don't have CWD at this time and If and when it comes to Iowa there MAY be some justification for the ban. However deer swap saliva and urine at the hundreds or even thousands of scrapes on our farm,(They call them licking branches for a reason) But, we only have 2 mineral sites. We also have several food plots that concentrate deer. If you have ever watched a deer eat an ear of corn they drop a lot of kernels that are cleaned up by other deer later. Also we have all watched deer lick and groom each other.
I think the number of deer visiting bait/mineral sites in the state is a drop in the bucket compared to the natural interactions deer have. I would like to see if the DNR has done any studies to show that a ban would stop or slow the spread of CWD.
Until we actually have CWD here, I don't think the loss of recreational enjoyment derived from bait/mineral sites justifies the ban.
 
Also I would like to see a grandfather clause so those of us with mineral sight won't have to excavate them. Let time take care of it.
Are you kidding me! Transmission risk... Transmission risk!!! Your site could be the one that brings the whole herd down!! We could always use some land legacy money to help with the clean up of old sites.(sarcasm)
 
Once again, Iowa taking one more step to becoming Illinois. This is exactly how IL started, then look at that great state today.

I for one, am not in favor for this bill. I can go on for hours and hours on why, but its not going to do any good. IBA has their mind made, as well do I.
 
I say this part of the proposed legislation indicates they don't care about disease transmitting enough. They can't stop a practice for one group and allow it for another.
Couldn't agree more. This just looks like a knee jerk reaction to try and prevent CWD. I have a hard time believing that anyone in DNR can really believe that this is going to effectively help prevent CWD from showing up in Iowa or prevent the spread. There are just too many other ways that it could be spread. Not very well thought out in my opinion.
 
IBA has their mind made, as well do I.

The IBA is currently asking the membership how they feel about the issue. To the best of my knowledge, no decision has been made to be for or against. There are a lot of people in favor of legislation and many against.

To be honest it's about the only issue I can think of where the solid majority opinion is neither yea or nay. Most cases are pretty cut and dried, this one is a lot tougher.
 
Top Bottom