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

DNR Banning Mineral

If I plant 3 acres of corn and soybeans and have 3 or 4 established mineral sites on my ground and a deer infected with CWD licks another deer or two can I blame the deer for the spread of CWD within my area? That's the "natural" domino effect, just the way mother nature intended it. Not trying to be a smart a$$, that's just the way I see it. The one deer that makes its way into the state doesn't have to use a mineral site to spread anything, and neither do any of the other deer that make contact with him.

It would be interesting to know how quickly CWD in Wisconsin counties spread, and how long they think it took themselves to actually discover it. I see the use of sites and cameras as a source of information, and also a early warning detection device if you will. The cameras don't have to be placed on the sites, but you'll have a lot better understanding of your densities and overall health if you do.

And yes, I would fear that food plots of a certain size could be on the chopping block as well. Really, what's the difference between a mineral site in the Summer, and a 1/2 acre turnip plot in the dead of winter when 30 deer are huddled around it fighting for scraps?

I know I'm in the minority here Bonker, thanks for not hammering me.:grin:

Couple of things Jamie, by cutting out your mineral licks you are cutting out a potential transmission site. To say "they are gonna lick each other anyway" is the same as saying "poachers are gonna shot deer anyway so let’s make it legal to shoot out of a pickup window". Bit of an exaggeration I know, but to me cutting out a potential transmission site has the potential to cut down on the spread.

I agree and I absolutely support the use of trail cameras to keep track of the deer in any given area. How better to detect a potential problem? If you are seeing a bunch of icky lookin deer they need to be reported to the DNR and a diagnosis/treatment plan be made.

If I plant a garden, oh, let’s say 30' by 20' because I plan on making some kick butt salsa will that be considered a food plot because the deer like to eat my cilantro? I doubt it. Every gardener in the state would be a criminal.

I actually have a small clover plot. The deer are absolutely tearing it up this winter. They are pawing through the snow leaving huge craters with mud at the bottom. Here is the difference between this behavior and a mineral lick; the deer paws through, eats the green to the dirt and moves on. Another deer is not gonna come by and lick the mud because there is nothing left there to eat. They just go paw another hole through the snow.

As far as you being in the minority, I don't think so.

The ‘Bonker
 
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the play book for CWD is eradication not education.

That was WI DNR playbook, and to a lesser extent the IL DNR playbook. Lets hope other states are much smarter. I'd bet about anything I own that CWD had been in those areas for many, many years and had very little affect on the overall deer population.
 
They wont ban livestock producers from placing mineral out in their pastures. Therefore this law is stupid in the fact that deer will still have access mineral sites. I would bet that mineral sites placed for deer in this State would be less than 1% of the total number of mineral/salt sites locate within our borders. If you want to place a mineral site on your property just make sure the fences are good and go buy a calf at the sale barn and let him go. Dump your mineral where you want it. Then come September butcher the calf and you were perfectly legal. Think about how dumb this legislation really is without limiting livestock producers as well. If they would limit all mineral sites I would support this legislation but with them only limiting sites "designated" for deer I can't see supporting it.
 
Just curious about the already established mineral sites? Deer will continue to use these areas for years ... are we now poachers/law breakers if we do nothing with these? Are we now obligated to spend our resources to remove established mineral sites?
 
This issue has exploded again in the past two days or so. I am in California (I'll bee bauuuck) at some mass disaster training. My blackberry has absolutely exploded with emails on the subject of wildlife feeding. Unfortunately I don't have time to answer any of them. In fact, the Air Force base that is acting as out host does not have wifi so I bought time on my cell phone plan to use my blackberry as a modem just so I could try to address this issue again. Like I have said many times before, I have never changed anybody’s mind about anything, ever, and I don't expect to now.

Having said that, one email I received had to do with taking inventory of our publicly owned and state managed deer herd (my terms not the emailer’s). As I said in an earlier post on this thread, it is a good idea to keep surreptitious track of our deer. Think about this, they are called trailcams, not bait cams. They were intended to be used to monitor trails not bait piles. Everybody wants it easy. Instead of scouting, determining where the best place to put a trail cam is, it is much easier to pour out a pile of corn or mineral to give you an inventory of the public’s deer. I say you can still monitor our deer buy finding their travel routes not by finding their sweet tooth.

This bill is not some plot by a bunch of leftists that want to slowly erode your rights to hunt; rather it is a good faith, best practices effort for the overall good of our deer herd. Some folks claim the science is shaky at best, well, it is the only science we have so it is better to error on the side of conservative practice then to let a potential problem explode. All research must be funded and as such I am highly suspect of anything touted to be “scientific” until I have read any financial disclosures (who paid for the study) by the authors. I must admit, I have not read the study that suggests the CWD carrying prion is passed through feces instead of saliva. Doesn’t matter if either one is the culprit, deer poop, walk through it, paw the mineral pile and presto change zippity do dah day, it is passed on.

There were several more emails that I received but these two seem to stick in my mind. Please be sure to let your voice be heard by contacting your legislator to voice your opinion, either pro or con on this issue. If this bill section of the bill is removed it will not be the first time in history that science gave way to popular opinion.

The ‘Bonker
 
Just curious about the already established mineral sites? Deer will continue to use these areas for years ... are we now poachers/law breakers if we do nothing with these? Are we now obligated to spend our resources to remove established mineral sites?

I don't believe this is addressed in the bill. Probably a let your consious be your guide kinda thing.
 
I understand the desire to see all the potential trophies passing through a property. I also understand that drawing deer in with a tasty, simple, easily-provided snack helps toward that end.

I don't agree with bait being available 24/7/365 in our state. In the years I've lived and hunted here, it has not been accepted practice to hunt over bait. I would be concerned to place mineral in the woods I hunt and NOT be able to get it all removed in time to legally hunt the property in the fall.

It's still possible to kill a trophy buck here in Iowa without having to use bait to draw them in. And, yes, I agree that bait piles can help accelerate that spread of disease. Will eliminating mineral blocks eliminate the spread of disease? No, but it may reduce the rate at which it spreads.

If CWD is found in Iowa in a small number of animals, maybe steps can be taken to eradicate it more efficiently without the potential for mineral blocks to help potentially spread the disease.

In the end, we all want a healthy herd here. Do we as hunters lose if we're not using bait? IMHO, we'll be just fine. And maybe the deer we observe and hunt will be better off as well in the long run...
 
I can't swallow whole, "EXPERT", advice. They may have degrees, behind their names, but an EXPERT, just told me there would be only sprinkles last night. I got over a half inch of rain.
 
I understand the desire to see all the potential trophies passing through a property. I also understand that drawing deer in with a tasty, simple, easily-provided snack helps toward that end.

I don't agree with bait being available 24/7/365 in our state. In the years I've lived and hunted here, it has not been accepted practice to hunt over bait. I would be concerned to place mineral in the woods I hunt and NOT be able to get it all removed in time to legally hunt the property in the fall.

It's still possible to kill a trophy buck here in Iowa without having to use bait to draw them in. And, yes, I agree that bait piles can help accelerate that spread of disease. Will eliminating mineral blocks eliminate the spread of disease? No, but it may reduce the rate at which it spreads.

If CWD is found in Iowa in a small number of animals, maybe steps can be taken to eradicate it more efficiently without the potential for mineral blocks to help potentially spread the disease.

In the end, we all want a healthy herd here. Do we as hunters lose if we're not using bait? IMHO, we'll be just fine. And maybe the deer we observe and hunt will be better off as well in the long run...


I really do not think that people are using the mineral sites for hunting purposes.

Until proven different I use mine for antler development and the overall health of the heard. Yes I also get pictures from them but that is not the only reason.

If the mineral licks go food plots need to also. Deer yarding up in a foodplot are just as bad. IMHO.
 
I can't see any of this being effective without doing much much more. Waised effort IMO. I also believe I read in the Senates version of this bill that hunters would have to dig out or cover effectively the remnants of any mineral sites.
 
Just curious about the already established mineral sites? Deer will continue to use these areas for years ... are we now poachers/law breakers if we do nothing with these? Are we now obligated to spend our resources to remove established mineral sites?

Here is the details of the bill. You would have to cover or dig the mineral area up.
Sec. 53. NEW SECTION. 481A.41 Feeding or baiting of
25 30 wildlife prohibited.
<A name=" 25 31"> 25 31 1. As used in this section, unless the context otherwise
<A name=" 25 32"> 25 32 requires:
<A name=" 25 33"> 25 33 a. "Baited area" means any area where any feed is
<A name=" 25 34"> 25 34 intentionally placed, deposited, distributed, or scattered
<A name=" 25 35"> 25 35 so as to lure, attract, or entice wildlife to, on, or over a
<A name=" 26 1"> 26 1 specific location. An area shall remain a baited area for
<A name=" 26 2"> 26 2 thirty days following complete removal of all feed, except for
<A name=" 26 3"> 26 3 salt, minerals, or any other feed that will dissolve and leach
<A name=" 26 4"> 26 4 into the soil, in which case such area shall be considered a
<A name=" 26 5"> 26 5 permanently baited area until such time as all contaminated
<A name=" 26 6"> 26 6 soil is either removed or covered in such a manner that the
<A name=" 26 7"> 26 7 area no longer serves to artificially attract wildlife.
<A name=" 26 8"> 26 8 b. "Feed" means any grain, fruit, vegetable, nut, hay,
<A name=" 26 9"> 26 9 salt, mineral, or any other natural food material, commercial
<A name=" 26 10"> 26 10 products containing natural food materials or by=products of
<A name=" 26 11"> 26 11 such materials, or other food material that is capable of
<A name=" 26 12"> 26 12 luring, attracting, or enticing wildlife. Scents or lures used<A name=" 26 13"> 26 13 to mask human odor or attract wildlife by the sense of smell
<A name=" 26 14"> 26 14 are not considered feed.
<A name=" 26 15"> 26 15 c. "Wildlife" means any wild bird or wild animal residing in<A name=" 26 16"> 26 16 or migrating through the state of Iowa.
<A name=" 26 17"> 26 17 2. Except as provided in subsection 3, feeding or baiting
<A name=" 26 18"> 26 18 of wildlife is unlawful. A person shall not place, deposit,
<A name=" 26 19"> 26 19 distribute, or scatter feed for wildlife on any public or
<A name=" 26 20"> 26 20 private property, or knowingly allow another person to place,
<A name=" 26 21"> 26 21 deposit, distribute, or scatter feed for wildlife on private
<A name=" 26 22"> 26 22 property under the person's ownership or lease in the state.
<A name=" 26 23"> 26 23 It shall be unlawful to hunt, take, or attempt to take any
<A name=" 26 24"> 26 24 wildlife on or in a baited area.
<A name=" 26 25"> 26 25 3. The prohibitions contained in subsection 2 are not
<A name=" 26 26"> 26 26 applicable to the following:
<A name=" 26 27"> 26 27 a. Feed that is used to attract wildlife for viewing and
<A name=" 26 28"> 26 28 observation if the feed is placed within fifty yards of a
<A name=" 26 29"> 26 29 residence, dwelling, or other structure permanently inhabited
<A name=" 26 30"> 26 30 by a person. However, such an area shall be considered a
<A name=" 26 31"> 26 31 baited area for the purpose of hunting, taking, or attempting
<A name=" 26 32"> 26 32 to take wildlife in or on that area.
<A name=" 26 33"> 26 33 b. Feed that is present solely as a result of normal
<A name=" 26 34"> 26 34 agricultural, forest management, orchard management, wildlife
<A name=" 26 35"> 26 35 food planting, or other similar land management practices.
<A name=" 27 1"> 27 1 c. Feed that is placed for agricultural or livestock
<A name=" 27 2"> 27 2 purposes if one or more of the following conditions apply:
<A name=" 27 3"> 27 3 (1) The feed is placed for domestic livestock that are
<A name=" 27 4"> 27 4 present and actively consuming the feed on a regular basis.
<A name=" 27 5"> 27 5 (2) The feed is covered to deter wildlife from gaining
<A name=" 27 6"> 27 6 access to the feed, or the feed is stored in a manner
<A name=" 27 7"> 27 7 consistent with normal agricultural practices.
<A name=" 27 8"> 27 8 d. Feed that is placed for purposes such as including
<A name=" 27 9"> 27 9 but not limited to population control, capture and handling
<A name=" 27 10"> 27 10 of wildlife, or other specific purposes under written
<A name=" 27 11"> 27 11 authorization from the director or the director's designee,
<A name=" 27 12"> 27 12 or as otherwise provided by law. This section shall not
<A name=" 27 13"> 27 13 be construed to limit employees of agencies of the state,
<A name=" 27 14"> 27 14 the United States, or local animal control officers in the
<A name=" 27 15"> 27 15 performance of their official duties related to public health,
<A name=" 27 16"> 27 16 wildlife management, or wildlife removal.
<A name=" 27 17"> 27 17 e. Feed that is placed for the purpose of luring fur=bearing
<A name=" 27 18"> 27 18 animals for trapping as permitted by law.
<A name=" 27 19"> 27 19 f. Feed that is placed within the confines of a whitetail
<A name=" 27 20"> 27 20 deer hunting preserve that is licensed by the department
<A name=" 27 21"> 27 21 pursuant to chapter 484C.
<A name=" 27 22"> 27 22 4. During the twelve=month period beginning July 1,
<A name=" 27 23"> 27 23 2010, and ending June 30, 2011, peace officers shall issue
<A name=" 27 24"> 27 24 only warning citations for violations of this section. This
<A name=" 27 25"> 27 25 subsection is repealed July 1, 2011.
 
Top Bottom