IOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Petition by Brian Robert Hibbs
for the adoption of rules relating to
use of leashed tracking dogs to assist in recovery of legally shot deer.
PETITION FOR
RULE MAKING
RULE CHANGE SOUGHT PERMITTING THE TRACKING OF LEGALLY SHOT DEER WITH LEASHED TRACKING DOGS
Petitioner seeks a rule change permitting the use of leashed tracking dogs to assist in locating legally shot deer. Petitioner seeks to amend 571 IAC 94.7(4) and 571 IAC 106.7(6) to remove the word “dogs” and to add 571 IAC 94.7(7) and 571 IAC 106.7(9) which will state: “The use of leashed tracking dogs to assist in the recovery of legally shot deer is permitted. Before initiating tracking with a dog, the handler must first notify the Department of Natural Resources Fish, Wildlife and Law Enforcement Office.”
THE RULE CHANGE SOUGHT IS WITHIN THE AUTHORITY GRANTED THE NATURAL RESOURCE COMMISSION UNDER IOWA CODE 455A(6)(a)
The Natural Resource Commission has the power to make the rule change sought under the authority conferred upon it by Chapter 455A.5A (6)(a) of the Iowa Code.
SUMMARY OF PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS
1) According to a recent survey by the United Blood Trackers Organization (unitedbloodtrackers.org) 50% of shot animals tracked by its members across the United States in 2009 were recovered with the use of a trained tracking dog and its handler that would have otherwise been lost. Studies have shown that 13% of killed deer were not recovered by the hunter who supplied the mortal wound. In 2008 and 2009, more than 140,000 deer were harvested and recovered in Iowa. Assuming that recovery rates and mortality are the same in Iowa as the study’s population, in excess of 18,000 Iowa deer were killed both in 2008 and 2009, but were not recovered.
2) It is a hunter’s ethical responsibility to use all means possible to recover a shot animal. A leashed tracking dog and handler have proven to be an effective tool in helping recover a shot animal.
3) If there are more deer that are recovered there will be more deer tags bought from the DNR to pursue harvesting another deer. The original deer tag won’t go to waste because the shot deer was unable to be recovered.
4) Currently free running dogs are legal to be used in Iowa to aid in hunting waterfowl, upland birds, rabbits, coyote, squirrel and turkey. Are hunting and recovering these animals more important than deer? Don’t deer and deer hunters deserve to be able to use a leashed trained dog to help in their ethical recovery if other methods fail?
5) A leashed tracking dog is used to aid in the recovery of a shot deer. It is not used to hunt a deer. The deer has already been hunted prior to the use of a leashed dog.
6) If the Iowa DNR suspects possible deer poaching in an area a leashed tracking dog and handler could be used to assist in finding a poached deer.
7) Most ethical hunters want to either be able to recover a shot deer or know that the shot was probably not lethal and the deer will survive. An experienced tracker will be able to tell the hunter from the shot description and any sign found when searching with the leashed tracking dog if the deer can be recovered or will probably survive.
8) Many hunting guide services in neighboring states currently use leashed tracking dogs to help recover shot deer. By recovering deer that might otherwise be lost, the hunters have a more positive outcome and are more likely to return or recommend the guide service. There are many hunting businesses in Iowa that would be positively impacted by this.
9) There are people who do not support hunting. If all means are used to aid in the recovery of a shot deer, including the use of a leashed tracking dog, the people that oppose hunting will appreciate that the Iowa DNR is doing all it can to help in the ethical recovery of the animal.
10) Leashed tracking dogs are trained to follow the scent of a single shot deer. They are not permitted off leash to run and bay deer, or to follow the spoor of another deer.
11) Among the easiest deer to track are gut shot, liver shot and deer recovered after a light to moderate rain, since the tracking dog is relying upon its nose to track and these conditions actually enhance the trail, while these types of trails probably result in a large portion of mortally wounded deer lost by hunters.
The overwhelming majority of Iowans I have spoken with are surprised to learn it is not legal in Iowa to use a leashed dog to aid in the recovery of a shot deer. The overwhelming majority of Iowans I have talked to support the use of a leashed dog to help recover a shot deer. By permitting the use of leased tracking dogs for finding legally shot deer, Iowa DNR are supporting a practice which promotes the highest ethics of this sport.
SUMMARY OF DATA SUPPORTING THE EFFICACY OF USING LEASHED DOGS TO TRACK AND RECOVER LEGALLY SHOT DEER
Exhibit 1: C.R. Ruth and H.L. Simmons, Jr. 1999, Answering Questions About Guns, Ammo and Man’s Best Friend, pp. 28-29. In the Twenty Second Annual Meeting of the Southeast Deer Study Group, Fayetteville, AR.
A study in South Carolina by Charles Ruth, Deer Project Supervisor for the South Carolina DNR reflected the benefits of using trained tracking dogs. Hunters in this study used rifles. Trained tracking dogs were brought in to recover animals that ran beyond the hunter’s sight. A total of 493 deer were harvested- 305 bucks and 188 does. Ruth determined that trained tracking dogs deserved credit for the recovery of 15 to 20 percent of all those deer. This study points out that dogs can be very beneficial in finding mortally wounded deer. The most obvious benefits in using dogs are in searching the woods for wounded deer when there is no blood or other signs to follow, or when conditions such as darkness; rain or snow; rough/dense terrain; or water/ wetlands enter the picture.
Exhibit 2: C.J. Winand, Using Dogs to Track Wounded Deer, Bowhunter Magazine, Dec.-Jan. 2000, www.deersearch.org/articles.htm.
A nonprofit group called Deer Search, Inc.; (DSI) has a membership of 150 volunteers who use trailing dogs to help find wounded deer. DSI members regularly hit trails that are 24 hours old or older. John Jeanneney of DSI reports a 30-year recovery rate of approximately one-third of all tracking attempts, or 2,777 deer that would not have been recovered without a dog. This is remarkable since the hunter or hunters have already accounted many, many hours in the woods. He believes many of the unrecovered deer survive. Jeanneney polled bow hunters and found that they were in favor of tracking dogs as long as the dog was kept on a leash at all times.
Exhibit 3: Wendy Krueger, Jay B. McAninch and David E. Samuel, Retrieval and Loss Rates of White-tailed Deer by Minnesota Bowhunters, 1995, www.bowhuntersof utah.net/phocadownload/Miscellaneous/wend%lrueger%20wounding%.
In the 80’s and 90’s exaggerated criticisms were being made of bow hunting losses. In response to this, detailed and very expensive studies were conducted to determine how many deer are wounded by bow hunters, and what happens to these wounded deer. The best known study is Wendy Krueger’s Aspects of Wounding White-tailed Deer by Bow hunters, which was researched on a U.S. Army instillation, Camp Ripley in Minnesota, during 1992 and 1993. Several leading deer biologists were involved in this study, which was supported by $250,000 in grant money from interested corporations and other organizations. Some other organizations, highly critical of hunting in general and bow hunting in particular, were invited to participate but chose not to do so. The Camp Ripley study used a helicopter equipped with infra-red video to establish the location of probable wounded or dead deer not found by bow hunters. Ground crews were then sent out to investigate these sites. It was a complex study that provided data on many different aspects of bow hunting, but the key piece of information for the purposes here, was the percentage of deer mortally wounded and not recovered by the hunter. The Camp Ripley study concluded that 13% of the deer, which were killed in the hunts, were not recovered by the hunter who made the killing shot. Other hunters found more of these wounded deer, since the concentration of hunters was high.
Exhibit 4: Stephen S. Ditchkoff, Edgar R. Welch, Jr., Robert L. Lochmiller, Ronald E. Masters, William R. Starry and William C. Dinkines, Wounding Rates of White-tailed Deer with Traditional Archery Equipment, 1998 Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast Assoc. Fish and Wildl. Agencies 52:244-248.
More data about the effectiveness of bow hunting was compiled in a smaller research project in McAlester Oklahoma conducted by Stephen S. Ditchkoff and five associates. Their study, Wounding Rates of White-tailed Deer with Traditional Archery Equipment, was published in 1998 and found that 3 of the 22 deer, shot by traditional bow hunters and not found, actually died of their wounds. In other words, the mortality rate of wounded deer not found was 27%.
In this study, 80 male deer on the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant Reservation were trapped and fitted with radio collars which included a four-hour mortality sensor. When deer were hit and not found by the hunter, their location and condition was monitored every four to eight hours for about five days. When a deer died, researchers went in to determine the nature of the wound that caused death.
To have a real understanding of what tracking dogs can do to reduce the loss of wounded deer, it is necessary to know what actually happens to all the deer that are wounded in a representative hunt. This requires thorough ground searches of the whole hunting area. Radio collars on the hunted deer and infrared searches by air can also be used in conjunction with ground searches. All of these evaluation methods are very costly, and none of these have yet been used to evaluate the effectiveness of tracking dogs.
Exhibit 5: John Jeanneny, Tracking Dogs for Finding Wounded Deer, Teckel Time, Inc. 2006, pp. 316-317.
“Neither the Camp Ripley, nor the McAlester study considered the use of tracking dogs in any way. However, the structure of the McAlester study does provide a frame work for better understanding the effectiveness of tracking dog work.
In the McAlester study, 22 radio-collared deer were shot and 11 of these were recovered by hunters. Of the 11 deer not recovered, nine deer survived non-mortal wounds; and three (about one in four) died but were never found by the hunters. Looking at this data in another way, half of the deer hit were not found by the hunter and would have been potential candidates for a tracking dog to follow.
These 11 deer are representative of a pool of deer calls with which a tracking dog and handler has to deal. Of course, more accurate information was gathered on wounded deer at the McAlester Study than would have been available to a tracking dog handler who has to depend upon estimates of hunters who telephone him. In the McAlester survey of the wounded deer not found by hunters, all three of the deer that died had damage to their stomach or gut. Two of the deer died within 24 hours, and the third lived for five to seven days.
Here is an estimate, based on experience, of what would have happened if a good handler and dog had been used on the unretrieved wounded deer at McAlester. This is only an estimate, and is not intended to prove anything. Some of the deer reported to the handler would probably been rejected as “ungettable”. For example, leg muscle wounds, or high back muscle wounds that stop bleeding are extremely unlikely to kill the deer. On all of the nine wounded deer that were survivors in the McAlester Study, the use or non-use of a leashed tracking dog would not had any influence on final results.
Of the three “gut shot deer”, any good dog would have been able to find the two that died within 24 hours. In the case of the deer that lived five to seven days, the results are more difficult to predict. If a handler and leashed dog had sufficient time to keep pressure on the deer and exhaust him, he could recover that deer. In the real world, this kind of time, one or two days, is seldom available.
Wrapping up the discussion of this McAlester-based model, we could say that if the handler took all 11 deer calls and found only the two deer that died within 24 hours, then his recovery rate would be only 18%. If he rejected 1/3 of the least promising bow season calls, then his recovery rate would come up to 27%. Most that track seriously during bow season come up with percentages close to this figure.
Why are we concerned about the loss of deer through wounding when the percentage is already low? Almost 20 years ago the national Shooting Sports Foundation polled non-hunters on the aspects of hunting they did not like. At that time, five out of the top seven objections, involved the wounding of game. The concerns about wounded deer are certainly still with us. When a handler and tracking dog find wounded deer and report on healthy survival of most the others they track, it is, among other things, very good public relations. Many non-hunters are amazed that trackers of wounded game exist. This does not fit in at all with their preconceived notion of hunters as uncaring and irresponsible.
A strong case can be made for the use of tracking dogs, both as a means of reducing animal suffering, and as a way of avoiding the waste of a valuable natural resource.”
Exhibit 4: http://unitedbloodtracker.org/phpBB3/vi ... p?f=7&t=55[2/25/2010 9:22:17 AM]
Statistics from an informal 2007 survey done in Georgia by Ken Parker, a dog handler and wounded deer tracker, showed that of 716 deer tracked for hunters across the state, 357 were recovered. That comes out to just under a 50% recovery rate.
Exhibit 5: Letter of February 8, 2004, Jerry McDermott, Supervising Environmental Conservation Officer, Albany and Schenectady Counties, New York.
Mr. McDermott has professional experience as a wildlife officer in New York in observing leashed deer tracking dogs since 1996. His opinions are compelling for the use of leashed tracking dogs:
1. Tracking dogs are effective in both finding deer and in determining the mortality of the wound inflicted (i.e. Will the deer live?);
2. Leash tracking dogs assure control of the animals at all times;
3. Tracking dogs are trained to follow wounded deer only;
4. He has never heard complaints from the public concerning tracking wounded deer and bear with dogs;
5. He has never met anyone that was not completely receptive to the use of leashed tracking dogs;
6. He is not aware of anyone using a licensed tracking dog in illegal activities;
7. Law enforcement cost for notification is minimal;
8. He has used the same dogs and volunteer handlers to assist his officers in their official duties; and
9. Finally, “In my opinion, all states would benefit from the licensing and use of licensed leashed tracking dogs for deer and bear. It presents a win/win situation for the hunter as well as the sport. Less mortally wounded animals are lost, and hunters are more satisfied knowing they have done everything possible to recover their game.”
NAMES AND ADDRESS OF OTHER PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE PROPOSED RULE CHANGE PERMITTING LEASHED TRACKING DOGS TO AID IN THE RECOVERY OF WOUNDED DEER
The following is a list of persons (Exhibit 6) who signed the attached petition for action urging as follows; “We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who urge the Iowa DNR to act now to legalize the practice of a handler and leashed dog to be used to help locate a white-tailed deer that has been legally shot by a licensed hunter in Iowa. The dog would be required to be on a leash and under the control of the handler at all times.”
REQUEST FOR MEETING
Petitioner and his representative request a meeting to discuss this change pursuant to rule X.4(17A).
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
Brian R. Hibbs, Petitioner 1323 Upper Old Hwy 6 NW Oxford, IA 52322
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that on the ___ day of __________, 2010, this Petition was served on the Iowa Department of Natural Resources by regular mail.
____________________________
Brian R. Hibbs, Petitioner 1323 Upper Old Hwy 6 NW Oxford, IA 52322
Petition by Brian Robert Hibbs
for the adoption of rules relating to
use of leashed tracking dogs to assist in recovery of legally shot deer.
PETITION FOR
RULE MAKING
RULE CHANGE SOUGHT PERMITTING THE TRACKING OF LEGALLY SHOT DEER WITH LEASHED TRACKING DOGS
Petitioner seeks a rule change permitting the use of leashed tracking dogs to assist in locating legally shot deer. Petitioner seeks to amend 571 IAC 94.7(4) and 571 IAC 106.7(6) to remove the word “dogs” and to add 571 IAC 94.7(7) and 571 IAC 106.7(9) which will state: “The use of leashed tracking dogs to assist in the recovery of legally shot deer is permitted. Before initiating tracking with a dog, the handler must first notify the Department of Natural Resources Fish, Wildlife and Law Enforcement Office.”
THE RULE CHANGE SOUGHT IS WITHIN THE AUTHORITY GRANTED THE NATURAL RESOURCE COMMISSION UNDER IOWA CODE 455A(6)(a)
The Natural Resource Commission has the power to make the rule change sought under the authority conferred upon it by Chapter 455A.5A (6)(a) of the Iowa Code.
SUMMARY OF PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS
1) According to a recent survey by the United Blood Trackers Organization (unitedbloodtrackers.org) 50% of shot animals tracked by its members across the United States in 2009 were recovered with the use of a trained tracking dog and its handler that would have otherwise been lost. Studies have shown that 13% of killed deer were not recovered by the hunter who supplied the mortal wound. In 2008 and 2009, more than 140,000 deer were harvested and recovered in Iowa. Assuming that recovery rates and mortality are the same in Iowa as the study’s population, in excess of 18,000 Iowa deer were killed both in 2008 and 2009, but were not recovered.
2) It is a hunter’s ethical responsibility to use all means possible to recover a shot animal. A leashed tracking dog and handler have proven to be an effective tool in helping recover a shot animal.
3) If there are more deer that are recovered there will be more deer tags bought from the DNR to pursue harvesting another deer. The original deer tag won’t go to waste because the shot deer was unable to be recovered.
4) Currently free running dogs are legal to be used in Iowa to aid in hunting waterfowl, upland birds, rabbits, coyote, squirrel and turkey. Are hunting and recovering these animals more important than deer? Don’t deer and deer hunters deserve to be able to use a leashed trained dog to help in their ethical recovery if other methods fail?
5) A leashed tracking dog is used to aid in the recovery of a shot deer. It is not used to hunt a deer. The deer has already been hunted prior to the use of a leashed dog.
6) If the Iowa DNR suspects possible deer poaching in an area a leashed tracking dog and handler could be used to assist in finding a poached deer.
7) Most ethical hunters want to either be able to recover a shot deer or know that the shot was probably not lethal and the deer will survive. An experienced tracker will be able to tell the hunter from the shot description and any sign found when searching with the leashed tracking dog if the deer can be recovered or will probably survive.
8) Many hunting guide services in neighboring states currently use leashed tracking dogs to help recover shot deer. By recovering deer that might otherwise be lost, the hunters have a more positive outcome and are more likely to return or recommend the guide service. There are many hunting businesses in Iowa that would be positively impacted by this.
9) There are people who do not support hunting. If all means are used to aid in the recovery of a shot deer, including the use of a leashed tracking dog, the people that oppose hunting will appreciate that the Iowa DNR is doing all it can to help in the ethical recovery of the animal.
10) Leashed tracking dogs are trained to follow the scent of a single shot deer. They are not permitted off leash to run and bay deer, or to follow the spoor of another deer.
11) Among the easiest deer to track are gut shot, liver shot and deer recovered after a light to moderate rain, since the tracking dog is relying upon its nose to track and these conditions actually enhance the trail, while these types of trails probably result in a large portion of mortally wounded deer lost by hunters.
The overwhelming majority of Iowans I have spoken with are surprised to learn it is not legal in Iowa to use a leashed dog to aid in the recovery of a shot deer. The overwhelming majority of Iowans I have talked to support the use of a leashed dog to help recover a shot deer. By permitting the use of leased tracking dogs for finding legally shot deer, Iowa DNR are supporting a practice which promotes the highest ethics of this sport.
SUMMARY OF DATA SUPPORTING THE EFFICACY OF USING LEASHED DOGS TO TRACK AND RECOVER LEGALLY SHOT DEER
Exhibit 1: C.R. Ruth and H.L. Simmons, Jr. 1999, Answering Questions About Guns, Ammo and Man’s Best Friend, pp. 28-29. In the Twenty Second Annual Meeting of the Southeast Deer Study Group, Fayetteville, AR.
A study in South Carolina by Charles Ruth, Deer Project Supervisor for the South Carolina DNR reflected the benefits of using trained tracking dogs. Hunters in this study used rifles. Trained tracking dogs were brought in to recover animals that ran beyond the hunter’s sight. A total of 493 deer were harvested- 305 bucks and 188 does. Ruth determined that trained tracking dogs deserved credit for the recovery of 15 to 20 percent of all those deer. This study points out that dogs can be very beneficial in finding mortally wounded deer. The most obvious benefits in using dogs are in searching the woods for wounded deer when there is no blood or other signs to follow, or when conditions such as darkness; rain or snow; rough/dense terrain; or water/ wetlands enter the picture.
Exhibit 2: C.J. Winand, Using Dogs to Track Wounded Deer, Bowhunter Magazine, Dec.-Jan. 2000, www.deersearch.org/articles.htm.
A nonprofit group called Deer Search, Inc.; (DSI) has a membership of 150 volunteers who use trailing dogs to help find wounded deer. DSI members regularly hit trails that are 24 hours old or older. John Jeanneney of DSI reports a 30-year recovery rate of approximately one-third of all tracking attempts, or 2,777 deer that would not have been recovered without a dog. This is remarkable since the hunter or hunters have already accounted many, many hours in the woods. He believes many of the unrecovered deer survive. Jeanneney polled bow hunters and found that they were in favor of tracking dogs as long as the dog was kept on a leash at all times.
Exhibit 3: Wendy Krueger, Jay B. McAninch and David E. Samuel, Retrieval and Loss Rates of White-tailed Deer by Minnesota Bowhunters, 1995, www.bowhuntersof utah.net/phocadownload/Miscellaneous/wend%lrueger%20wounding%.
In the 80’s and 90’s exaggerated criticisms were being made of bow hunting losses. In response to this, detailed and very expensive studies were conducted to determine how many deer are wounded by bow hunters, and what happens to these wounded deer. The best known study is Wendy Krueger’s Aspects of Wounding White-tailed Deer by Bow hunters, which was researched on a U.S. Army instillation, Camp Ripley in Minnesota, during 1992 and 1993. Several leading deer biologists were involved in this study, which was supported by $250,000 in grant money from interested corporations and other organizations. Some other organizations, highly critical of hunting in general and bow hunting in particular, were invited to participate but chose not to do so. The Camp Ripley study used a helicopter equipped with infra-red video to establish the location of probable wounded or dead deer not found by bow hunters. Ground crews were then sent out to investigate these sites. It was a complex study that provided data on many different aspects of bow hunting, but the key piece of information for the purposes here, was the percentage of deer mortally wounded and not recovered by the hunter. The Camp Ripley study concluded that 13% of the deer, which were killed in the hunts, were not recovered by the hunter who made the killing shot. Other hunters found more of these wounded deer, since the concentration of hunters was high.
Exhibit 4: Stephen S. Ditchkoff, Edgar R. Welch, Jr., Robert L. Lochmiller, Ronald E. Masters, William R. Starry and William C. Dinkines, Wounding Rates of White-tailed Deer with Traditional Archery Equipment, 1998 Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast Assoc. Fish and Wildl. Agencies 52:244-248.
More data about the effectiveness of bow hunting was compiled in a smaller research project in McAlester Oklahoma conducted by Stephen S. Ditchkoff and five associates. Their study, Wounding Rates of White-tailed Deer with Traditional Archery Equipment, was published in 1998 and found that 3 of the 22 deer, shot by traditional bow hunters and not found, actually died of their wounds. In other words, the mortality rate of wounded deer not found was 27%.
In this study, 80 male deer on the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant Reservation were trapped and fitted with radio collars which included a four-hour mortality sensor. When deer were hit and not found by the hunter, their location and condition was monitored every four to eight hours for about five days. When a deer died, researchers went in to determine the nature of the wound that caused death.
To have a real understanding of what tracking dogs can do to reduce the loss of wounded deer, it is necessary to know what actually happens to all the deer that are wounded in a representative hunt. This requires thorough ground searches of the whole hunting area. Radio collars on the hunted deer and infrared searches by air can also be used in conjunction with ground searches. All of these evaluation methods are very costly, and none of these have yet been used to evaluate the effectiveness of tracking dogs.
Exhibit 5: John Jeanneny, Tracking Dogs for Finding Wounded Deer, Teckel Time, Inc. 2006, pp. 316-317.
“Neither the Camp Ripley, nor the McAlester study considered the use of tracking dogs in any way. However, the structure of the McAlester study does provide a frame work for better understanding the effectiveness of tracking dog work.
In the McAlester study, 22 radio-collared deer were shot and 11 of these were recovered by hunters. Of the 11 deer not recovered, nine deer survived non-mortal wounds; and three (about one in four) died but were never found by the hunters. Looking at this data in another way, half of the deer hit were not found by the hunter and would have been potential candidates for a tracking dog to follow.
These 11 deer are representative of a pool of deer calls with which a tracking dog and handler has to deal. Of course, more accurate information was gathered on wounded deer at the McAlester Study than would have been available to a tracking dog handler who has to depend upon estimates of hunters who telephone him. In the McAlester survey of the wounded deer not found by hunters, all three of the deer that died had damage to their stomach or gut. Two of the deer died within 24 hours, and the third lived for five to seven days.
Here is an estimate, based on experience, of what would have happened if a good handler and dog had been used on the unretrieved wounded deer at McAlester. This is only an estimate, and is not intended to prove anything. Some of the deer reported to the handler would probably been rejected as “ungettable”. For example, leg muscle wounds, or high back muscle wounds that stop bleeding are extremely unlikely to kill the deer. On all of the nine wounded deer that were survivors in the McAlester Study, the use or non-use of a leashed tracking dog would not had any influence on final results.
Of the three “gut shot deer”, any good dog would have been able to find the two that died within 24 hours. In the case of the deer that lived five to seven days, the results are more difficult to predict. If a handler and leashed dog had sufficient time to keep pressure on the deer and exhaust him, he could recover that deer. In the real world, this kind of time, one or two days, is seldom available.
Wrapping up the discussion of this McAlester-based model, we could say that if the handler took all 11 deer calls and found only the two deer that died within 24 hours, then his recovery rate would be only 18%. If he rejected 1/3 of the least promising bow season calls, then his recovery rate would come up to 27%. Most that track seriously during bow season come up with percentages close to this figure.
Why are we concerned about the loss of deer through wounding when the percentage is already low? Almost 20 years ago the national Shooting Sports Foundation polled non-hunters on the aspects of hunting they did not like. At that time, five out of the top seven objections, involved the wounding of game. The concerns about wounded deer are certainly still with us. When a handler and tracking dog find wounded deer and report on healthy survival of most the others they track, it is, among other things, very good public relations. Many non-hunters are amazed that trackers of wounded game exist. This does not fit in at all with their preconceived notion of hunters as uncaring and irresponsible.
A strong case can be made for the use of tracking dogs, both as a means of reducing animal suffering, and as a way of avoiding the waste of a valuable natural resource.”
Exhibit 4: http://unitedbloodtracker.org/phpBB3/vi ... p?f=7&t=55[2/25/2010 9:22:17 AM]
Statistics from an informal 2007 survey done in Georgia by Ken Parker, a dog handler and wounded deer tracker, showed that of 716 deer tracked for hunters across the state, 357 were recovered. That comes out to just under a 50% recovery rate.
Exhibit 5: Letter of February 8, 2004, Jerry McDermott, Supervising Environmental Conservation Officer, Albany and Schenectady Counties, New York.
Mr. McDermott has professional experience as a wildlife officer in New York in observing leashed deer tracking dogs since 1996. His opinions are compelling for the use of leashed tracking dogs:
1. Tracking dogs are effective in both finding deer and in determining the mortality of the wound inflicted (i.e. Will the deer live?);
2. Leash tracking dogs assure control of the animals at all times;
3. Tracking dogs are trained to follow wounded deer only;
4. He has never heard complaints from the public concerning tracking wounded deer and bear with dogs;
5. He has never met anyone that was not completely receptive to the use of leashed tracking dogs;
6. He is not aware of anyone using a licensed tracking dog in illegal activities;
7. Law enforcement cost for notification is minimal;
8. He has used the same dogs and volunteer handlers to assist his officers in their official duties; and
9. Finally, “In my opinion, all states would benefit from the licensing and use of licensed leashed tracking dogs for deer and bear. It presents a win/win situation for the hunter as well as the sport. Less mortally wounded animals are lost, and hunters are more satisfied knowing they have done everything possible to recover their game.”
NAMES AND ADDRESS OF OTHER PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE PROPOSED RULE CHANGE PERMITTING LEASHED TRACKING DOGS TO AID IN THE RECOVERY OF WOUNDED DEER
The following is a list of persons (Exhibit 6) who signed the attached petition for action urging as follows; “We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who urge the Iowa DNR to act now to legalize the practice of a handler and leashed dog to be used to help locate a white-tailed deer that has been legally shot by a licensed hunter in Iowa. The dog would be required to be on a leash and under the control of the handler at all times.”
REQUEST FOR MEETING
Petitioner and his representative request a meeting to discuss this change pursuant to rule X.4(17A).
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
Brian R. Hibbs, Petitioner 1323 Upper Old Hwy 6 NW Oxford, IA 52322
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that on the ___ day of __________, 2010, this Petition was served on the Iowa Department of Natural Resources by regular mail.
____________________________
Brian R. Hibbs, Petitioner 1323 Upper Old Hwy 6 NW Oxford, IA 52322
Last edited:
