He actually said "I " not "we". His comment about his lab was more directed toward someone leashing up their untrained dog to try and track wounded deer. As I recall his comment was his dog isn't leash trained and would be impossible to control. The dog would end up pulling him through the woods.
As far this years meeting remember it was a different format than last year. When you brought up dog tracking the whole room was listening not the smaller groups as in the past. As soon as you brought up tracking the mood in the room changed and not for the better. I don't think the DNR cut off the comments I think those with comments made them and that was it. I've said this before, I think everyone agrees on the concept but is leery of the practice. Only time will tell in regards to the practice.
I think you should rejoice in that a bill that was for all intents and proposes dead in the water a week ago has new life because those of us that agree to the concept have gone to bat for you and now look, it passed the sub. The bill still has a very long way to go. Take a step back, take a deep breath, and keep after it, just try to dial back on the rhetoric a bit. Hearts and minds, hearts and minds.
I don't want to pile on, but I think Bonker's comments here are very sound and worthy to be strongly considered. (For the record, he and I were sitting next to each other in the meeting last night.) I too sensed a mood change in the room when the dog tracking subject was brought up and a show of hands was asked for. That, to me, came across as a little forward and I suspect others may have felt the same way and then cooled a little bit on the subject.
Also, bear in mind, some of us have been to several of these DNR meetings over the years and many of them have had reps present on behalf of dog tracking and to be perfectly honest, in at least two of those meetings the two guys repping dog tracking came on pretty strong and essentially talked down to all of those that didn't agree with them OR did support them with some provisos. Frankly, the brusque approach did little to win others over. At that time, due 99% to the fact that the proposed legislation did not include a provision for the trackers to have to get permission from the property owners, I was also opposed and the "discussion" that night did little to persuade me that I should favor dog tracking.
Once there was a provision for needing permission to go onto private property AND the fine was increased to something has at least some meaning, I am all for it. I really don't care if someone uses a dinosaur to find a wounded animal, I hope they do recover them, just don't traipse across my private property without permission to do so. As was mentioned last night in the meeting, people like me that have concerns aren't worried about the legitimate dog trackers, we are though quite concerned about potentially giving an "opening" to the less than honest people that are out there and WOULD seek to exploit any loopholes opened to them.
Just one other thought, which may be unique to me, I could care less what other states allow, in fact, I would tend to be leery of what is kosher elsewhere in this country as Iowa has a deer hunting scene that beats just about all of them. About the last thing I would be persuaded by is what others, elsewhere have done as I certainly do not want a scenario like is found in so many other states. I hope the bill, as currently written is successful, good luck!