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

Blood tracking dogs HF363

Fishbonker

Fishbonker

Life Member
This bill was recommended for passage by the Natural Resources Committee last year. It was never brought forward for debate. It may have been on the debate calendar, I just don't remember.

Subcommittee with Representative Bearinger as the new member.

Representative Tom Jeneary, House District 5 (parts of Plymouth and Woodbury Counties) Email: Tom.Jeneary@legis.iowa.gov Legislative page: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislators/legislator?ga=88&personID=27018

Representative Jon Thorup House District 28 (parts of Jasper, Marion and Lucas Counties) Email: Jon.Thorup@legis.iowa.gov Legislative page: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislators/legislator?ga=88&personID=27021

Representative Bruce Bearinger: House District 64 (parts of Fayette and Buchanan Counties including Independence and Oelwein) Email: bruce.bearinger@legis.iowa.gov Legislative page: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislators/legislator?ga=88&personID=10738

Link to last year's thread: https://www.iowawhitetail.com/forum/threads/new-dog-tracking-bill-hf363.58479/

Link to the bill:https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=$selectedGa.generalAssemblyID&ba=hf363
 
Last edited:
I’m very for this bill to finally go through. With our lax trespass laws I don’t agree with the argument that people will use this as a loophole to trespass when they normally wouldn’t.
 
chipterp said:
I’m very for this bill to finally go through. With our lax trespass laws I don’t agree with the argument that people will use this as a loophole to trespass when they normally wouldn’t.
Click to expand...
I'm with you Chip, this is long overdue.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk
 
I know of a few guys that have used a dog to find their deer ignoring the law. I think its overdue as well. I think it is the responsibility of the hunter to use every resource they can to recover their deer. Just like any law, there will be guys that abuse it, but I think the good far outweighs the bad. I think if they have to use a leash it might prevent guys just turning dogs loose to run deer out of a certain property.
 
I haven't had the chance to see a tracking dog work but would love to have the option. I lost a doe this fall that I am 100% sure died without getting very far. Try as I might, I couldn't find her. I'm guessing she is laying somewhere in the 6' tall crp field that's about 20 yds from where I lost blood. I would love to have a dog helping in that scenario. I'm usually on the side of leaving the laws alone, don't fix what isn't broke, but this is one law I just don't understand at all.
I like the leash law, that should prevent most of the issues that could pop up. I don't see why having a dog with you would make anyone more likely to trespass.
 
I'm on favor of this passing. Having seen these dogs work in Michigan, a leash is not practical. It would seriously inhibit the dogs ability to do its job.
 
I'm all for this passing and like the leash idea. Many states require it and the dogs seem to do fine. Jaeger Tracks and Callie Chronicles both have youtube pages and are tracking dogs. Even when Jaeger the dog tracks in a state that doesnt require a leash, his owner uses one out of habit
 
I think it's pretty ridiculous this hasn't passed yet but as long as we have people who insist the potential for abuse is a problem it will never pass. I say it every year but it never ceases to amaze me a group of generally pro gun people (hunters) will say criminals don't follow laws when it comes to 2A issues but if there are antlers involved we can't afford to take any chances.

Sent from my SM-G930R4 using Tapatalk
 
Agree with it being past time to have this and also on leash. The videos I've seen prove a leash is the way to go.
 
I have come a long way on this issue over the years. I have gone from not gonna happen to why hasn't this passed?

The things that have turned me around are #1 the leash requirement (I think it has always been in the proposed regulations) #2 the gnawing guilt that I may have been supporting the loss of a game animal through nonrecovery #3 the strengthening of Iowa's trespass fines/laws and #4 meeting a couple of proponents of dog tracking.

What I'd still like to see in the proposed legislation is a requirement for dogs used to track wounded game to be registered with a national certification group. To me that keeps it professional and keeps some of the scallywags out. But in reality who would police that? When the day comes for me to hire a blood tracker, and yes that day will come, I want to know the person I'm hiring isn't just Joe or Jill Schmo who's gonna leash up the family chihuahua and have at it. A professional would probably call the local CO to let them know they are out tracking whereas cousin uncle Bert is gonna turn the family lab on a track because it found a dead rabbit once. But again, cousin uncle Bert is doing it already so why not give the legitimate folks a chance to help us recover lost game?

Another part of the proposed legislation that I have come to terms with is being able to carry a weapon to dispatch the animal if found. At first I thought that went in the face of the ability to accesses down game across the fence if you were unarmed. Would this give tacit approval to hunters crossing fences with weapons? Not really, they have to have the landowners permission to be on the ground with a dog and why not be able to put the animal down instead of prolonging its demise?

Like I said, over time I have changed my feelings about this bill and last year I expected it to pass. Send those emails.
 
Having watched this pass in another state it was interesting to watch things progress. Pretty quickly groups and associations were formed organically. If you called in a dog from that association you knew it was legit. They worked together to "dispatch" somone available and closest to the track. A well trained dog is pretty fascinating to watch. They are absolutely incredible. This takes years of training. If passed in iowa, I'd expect it to take a few years to get some really good trackers unless they move in from another state where they have been doing it. I hope this passes.
 
I love all the positive comments coming out and minds changing in this thread about tracking dogs . I have personally wanted this for a long time and hope it gets some backing this time around. Some things will never change with trespassing unless the penalties become way more serious or costly. We have actually sold farms because of these issues and moved on.
 
One other thing.... the law title is misleading on how these dogs actually work. Yes they can and will track blood.... they goes without saying. You talk to a good tracker and they'll tell ya the dogs get so good that once they are on the right trail they don't even need blood. Incredible.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
If you want to see this passed we need boots on the ground in the legislature this year. Please contact me if you are interested in helping out. We lost almost all support when the amendment was added requiring dog and handler to be certified. We need to reintroduce or modify the bill (working with our lobbyist to strategize now) and get as many people to make phone calls and personal visits as possible. The legislators aren’t hearing the support, allowing a single person to lie to the committee, believed, and an amendment added that essentially killed a bill that had unanimously passed subcommittee previously.
 
Interesting, the bill that was resurrected is HF363. The bill that had the certification language was HF657. 363 has a subcommittee assigned and 657 appears DOA?

It would appear that the certification language is not in the current bill, HF363.

Let us know what your lobbyist tells you.
 
Well dang, if that isn’t a convenient stroke of luck. I spent so much time researching the new committee I didn’t realize, but you’re right!

Shhhh... don’t tell anyone

I’m assuming someone will realize the mistake and update the language.

Meeting with lobbyist tomorrow. Will update everyone when we know more.
 
I follow a guy on Facebook that finds dozen of deer and details the tracks using a bloodhound in Illinois. It is amazing what those dogs can do.
 
Fishbonker said:
Interesting, the bill that was resurrected is HF363. The bill that had the certification language was HF657. 363 has a subcommittee assigned and 657 appears DOA?

It would appear that the certification language is not in the current bill, HF363.

Let us know what your lobbyist tells you.
Click to expand...


The title says (See HF 657) so I’m not sure what’s up but I’m pretty sure they didn’t magically forget the certification amendment.
 
I have confirmed with Representative Thompson that he made arrangements with the natural resources committee and leadership to renew the bill with its original language.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom