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

hf 2160 baiting

Daver said:
I am not looking for a Chevy v. Ford, Republican v. Democrat or Cardinals v. Cubs argument here. :D But, what is the science on whether mineral stations contribute to the spread of disease?

I admit, I am skeptical that there is a proven connection or that mineral stations are any worse than what the deer would normally encounter in their habitat, etc, but...I am not interested in opinions, I would like to know factually what it is known about this.

I have no sense that mineral stations lead to disease, but I also do not know that from a scientific perspective. Before we go making more laws and rules, especially those that are "gray area" at best, I think we need to establish that there really is a problem here and not just a perception.

Unscientific, anecdotal observations of mine that make me skeptical...

1. We have had mineral stations on our farm for over 10 years, but have never seen any sign of disease.

2. There have been salt licks out in pastures, not to mention natural salt licks, for decades for cows primarily, but deer have used them too, so it isn't as if mineral stations are a brand new thing.

3. Deer lick each other, touch noses, eat from the same branch/field/etc naturally, are we sure that deer focused mineral stations significantly increase the exposure factor?

If I knew, from scientific study and not opinions, that mineral stations were overall a detriment to the herd, I would fill them in tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Daver and all, I sure wish I could point to a study that says mineral sites potentiate the spread of CWD, but I can't. I also can't point to a study that says they don't.

How many prions get passed from deer to deer by grooming, making scrapes, licking branches or any of the natural activities of deer? I don't know. How many prions are concentrated in a mineral pile that gets used over and over and over? I can't tell you that either. I've never seen a scrape that was more than an inch deep but I've seen plenty of mineral piles that end up several inches deep which means it would, anecdotally, contain more prions.

Again, anecdotally speaking, you haven't seen CWD spread from your mineral piles or mineral put out for cattle because luckily you don't have CWD in your area.

When CWD was found in Allamakee County I thought for sure the DNR would ban feeding/mineral piles in the immediate area. They didn't because the DNR is not in charge. When every other state that has confirmed cases of CWD banned feeding/mineral piles what does that mean? It means the preponderance of evidence shows that CWD can and is spread through feeding/mineral piles. It also means, to me, that other states are making decisions based on biology not politics.

I'm reminded of the old country docs who treated their patients empirically, based on experience and reason not a bunch of tests for this or tests for that. They had the experience and reason to tell them what to do. Perhaps we are using the wrong word. Perhaps empirical would be better suited than anecdotal.

I have long been a proponent of black and white when it comes to banning baiting. Not only for enforcement but for disease control. I can only hope that we aren't so short sighted that we continue to allow mineral piles and the spread of disease at the cost of our grandchildren's hunting.

I will add, that this is my personal opinion, not necessarily that of the IBA.
 
Fishbonker said:
Daver and all, I sure wish I could point to a study that says mineral sites potentiate the spread of CWD, but I can't. I also can't point to a study that says they don't.

How many prions get passed from deer to deer by grooming, making scrapes, licking branches or any of the natural activities of deer? I don't know. How many prions are concentrated in a mineral pile that gets used over and over and over? I can't tell you that either. I've never seen a scrape that was more than an inch deep but I've seen plenty of mineral piles that end up several inches deep which means it would, anecdotally, contain more prions.

Again, anecdotally speaking, you haven't seen CWD spread from your mineral piles or mineral put out for cattle because luckily you don't have CWD in your area.

When CWD was found in Allamakee County I thought for sure the DNR would ban feeding/mineral piles in the immediate area. They didn't because the DNR is not in charge. When every other state that has confirmed cases of CWD banned feeding/mineral piles what does that mean? It means the preponderance of evidence shows that CWD can and is spread through feeding/mineral piles. It also means, to me, that other states are making decisions based on biology not politics.

I'm reminded of the old country docs who treated their patients empirically, based on experience and reason not a bunch of tests for this or tests for that. They had the experience and reason to tell them what to do. Perhaps we are using the wrong word. Perhaps empirical would be better suited than anecdotal.

I have long been a proponent of black and white when it comes to banning baiting. Not only for enforcement but for disease control. I can only hope that we aren't so short sighted that we continue to allow mineral piles and the spread of disease at the cost of our grandchildren's hunting.

I will add, that this is my personal opinion, not necessarily that of the IBA.
Click to expand...

Very well said!!
 
Seems as though even if its a 50-50 chance mineral sites pose a threat it would make sense to stop? I know its the cheapest and simplest way to do summer inventory. And I know that is a fun part of the process, but is the risk worth it? Is there really that much to gain? Does it have to take a law for us to do what's best overall? Apparently it does. We bitch about to many rules but don't have what it takes to do what most likely is the safest and the best decision long term. I am heavily leaning towards not using it anymore personally. Not sure if its the right thing for sure, but I think if I don't use it what can it hurt, but if I do, can it?
 
What happens if you are hunting a farm that you have permission to hunt and someone else has a mineral lick that you don't know about would you be responsible for that? How about on public ground, etc.?
 
Central Iowa said:
What happens if you are hunting a farm that you have permission to hunt and someone else has a mineral lick that you don't know about would you be responsible for that? How about on public ground, etc.?
Click to expand...

Good questions...how about this one? What if there was a mineral lick or bucket of corn or pile of apples, etc, 5 yards over the fence line and you didn't even know it was there?

This is an exceptionally difficult thing to legislate effectively IMO.
 
Passed out of subcommittee and is eligible for full committee debate. Not quite as gray but still partly cloudy, IMO.
 
Last edited:
I received some interesting emails today. One regarding this bill. It has been stuck and rewritten. Basically licks are still OK but are now considered "permanently baited" and you can't hunt within 200 yards. That was relieved this evening. I assume it is the version that passed.
 
I probably got some of the same emails you did. I don't see anything on distance. here is the bill as posted on the legislature site:


HF 2160 (LSB 5942YH (3) 86)

HOUSE FILE 2160

BY HEARTSILL and R. TAYLOR

A BILL FOR​


An Act relating to the baiting of deer on public or private property and providing penalties.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA:


Section 1. NEW SECTION. 481A.41 Baiting of deer.
1. As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:
a.“Baited area” means any area where feed is placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, or scattered with the intent to lure, attract, or entice deer to a specific location.
b.“Feed” means grain, fruit, vegetables, nuts, hay, salt, mineral blocks, or any other natural food materials; commercial products containing natural food materials; or by-products of such materials, that are capable of luring, attracting, or enticing deer to a specific location. “Feed” does not include food placed during normal agricultural activities including but not limited to feed placed for livestock that are present and are actively consuming the feed on a regular basis.
2. A person shall not hunt, take, or attempt to take deer on or in a baited area.
3. A person shall not place, expose, deposit, distribute, or scatter feed on a baited area on any private or public property, or knowingly allow another person to place, expose, deposit, distribute, or scatter feed on a baited area on private property under the person’s ownership or lease in the state unless all feed is removed from the baited area at least ten days prior to the opening day of the first fall deer hunting season. An area remains a baited area for ten days following complete removal of all feed from the area or until the area is covered in such a manner that the area no longer serves to artificially attract deer. Land being used to hunt, take, or attempt to take deer that is adjacent to a baited area shall not be considered a baited area if the baited area is on private property that is not under the ownership, lease, or control of the owner of the adjacent land or of the person hunting on the adjacent land.
Sec. 2. Section 805.8B, subsection 3, paragraph e, Code 2016, is amended to read as follows:
e. For violations of sections481A.41, 481A.57, 481A.85, 481A.93, 481A.95, 481A.120, 481A.137, 481B.5, 482.3, 482.9, 482.15, and 483A.42, the scheduled fine is one hundred dollars.
EXPLANATION
The inclusion of this explanation does not constitute agreement with
the explanation’s substance by the members of the general assembly.​
This bill prohibits hunting, taking, or attempting to take deer on or in a baited area. The bill also requires that if a person feeds deer in a baited area, all feed must be removed from that area at least 10 days before the opening day of the first fall deer hunting season. An area ceases to be a baited area 10 days following complete removal of all feed from the area or when the area is covered in such a manner that the area no longer serves to artificially attract deer. Land being used to hunt, take, or attempt to take deer that is adjacent to a baited area shall not be considered a baited area if the baited area is on private property that is not under the ownership, lease, or control of the owner of the adjacent land or of the person hunting on the adjacent land.
For purposes of the bill, “feed” is grain, fruit, vegetables, nuts, hay, salt, mineral blocks, or any other natural food materials; commercial products containing natural food materials; or by-products of such materials, that are capable of luring, attracting, or enticing deer to a specific location. “Feed” does not include food placed during normal agricultural activities including but not limited to feed placed for livestock that are present and are actively consuming the feed on a regular basis. A “baited area” is any area where feed is placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, or scattered with the intent to lure, attract, or entice deer to a specific location.
A violation of the bill’s provisions is punishable with a scheduled fine of $100.

The only way to know for sure what it means is what the judge says it means if a guy has to go stand tall before the man.
 
So, a person can hunt a baited site immediately after covering since once covered, it is not longer a baited site?? "Ten days after removing bait OR until the area is covered in such a manner that the area no longer serves to artificially attract deer."
 
This is what I received yesterday. See page 2 line 6 for the details I reeferd to earlier.

Gentlemen,

All of you on this email have contacted me regarding the deer baiting bill, HF 2160, or are someone I think might be interested. The bill passed the House Natural Resources committee with the attached “strike after” amendment yesterday. “Strike After” means the entire content of the bill is replaced by the amendment.

This amendment puts the deer baiting parameters in code instead of leaving it up to the DNR Rules process. It is more detailed than anything currently in the Rules.

Please let me know your thoughts on this. I’ve got strong bipartisan support in the House.


Regards,

Rep. Dean Fisher




Amend House File 2160 as follows:
2 1. By striking everything after the enacting clause
3 and inserting:
4 <Section 1. NEW SECTION. 481A.41 Baiting of deer.
5 1. As used in this section, unless the context
6 otherwise requires:
7 a. “Baited area” means any area where feed is
8 placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, or scattered
9 with the intent to lure, attract, or entice wildlife to
10 a specific location.
11 b. (1) “Feed” means grain, fruit, vegetables,
12 nuts, hay, salt, mineral blocks, or any other natural
13 food materials; commercial products containing natural
14 food materials; or by-products of such materials, that
15 are capable of luring, attracting, or enticing wildlife
16 to a specific location.
17 (2) “Feed” does not include any of the following:
18 (a) Food placed during normal agricultural
19 activities including but not limited to feed placed for
20 livestock that are present and are actively consuming
21 the feed on a regular basis.
22 (b) Incidental feeding of wildlife within an active
23 livestock operation.
24 (c) Crops planted and left standing as food plots
25 for wildlife.
26 (d) Grain or other feed scattered or distributed
27 as a result of normal agricultural, gardening, soil
28 stabilization, or logging practices.
29 (e) Vegetation or other feed that is naturally
30 deposited in an area.
31 2. A person shall not hunt, take, or attempt to
32 take deer on or in a baited area.
33 3. A person shall not place, expose, deposit,
34 distribute, or scatter feed on a baited area on any
35 private or public property, or knowingly allow another
-1-
HF2160.2498 (1) 86
av/nh 1/3
1 person to place, expose, deposit, distribute, or
2 scatter feed on a baited area on private property under
3 the person’s ownership or lease in the state unless
4 all feed is removed from the baited area at least ten
5 days prior to the opening day of the first fall deer
6 hunting season. An area remains a baited area for ten
7 days following complete removal of all feed from the
8 area, except for salt, minerals, or any other feed that
9 will dissolve and leach into the soil, in which case
10 the area shall be considered a permanently baited area
11 until such time as all contaminated soil is removed
12 or until there is no longer evidence that deer are
13 artificially attracted to or are accessing the site. A
14 person shall not hunt, take, or attempt to take deer
15 within two hundred yards of a permanently baited area
16 until such time as all contaminated soil is removed
17 from the area or until there is no evidence that deer
18 are artificially attracted to or are accessing the
19 area.
20 4. If salt, minerals, or any other feed that will
21 dissolve and leach into the soil is placed in an area
22 for agricultural purposes, that area shall not be
23 considered a baited area or a permanently baited area.
24 5. A person shall not establish a baited area or
25 place, expose, deposit, distribute, or scatter feed
26 in an area with the intent to prevent or disrupt the
27 hunting activities of another person. A violation of
28 this subsection constitutes a violation of section
29 481A.125.
30 Sec. 2. Section 805.8B, subsection 3, paragraph e,
31 Code 2016, is amended to read as follows:
32 e. For violations of sections 481A.41, 481A.57,
33 481A.85, 481A.93, 481A.95, 481A.120, 481A.137, 481B.5,
34 482.3, 482.9, 482.15, and 483A.42, the scheduled fine
35 is one hundred dollars.>
-2-
HF2160.2498 (1) 86
 
Last edited:
it could be that the site is slow to update. we should check again this evening.

this post sent with my two cans and a piece of string communications device.
 
I looked again this AM (2/20/16), HF 2160 as listed on the legislation web site hasn't changed. I'm not sure if this "funneled" or not. If it has perhaps the amendment will be offered at floor debate.
 
HF 2160 was renumbered to HF 2403. It has the wording that mplane72 posted above. If I had to guess, and this is just a guess, the bill was reworked by the committee with the language added, then the new bill was introduced yesterday.

HF 2403 (LSB 5942HV (2) 86)



HOUSE FILE 2403

BY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

(SUCCESSOR TO HF 2160)


A BILL FOR​


An Act relating to the baiting of deer on public or private property and providing penalties.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA:

Section 1. NEW SECTION. 481A.41 Baiting of deer.
1. As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:
a.“Baited area” means any area where feed is placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, or scattered with the intent to lure, attract, or entice wildlife to a specific location.
b. (1) “Feed” means grain, fruit, vegetables, nuts, hay, salt, mineral blocks, or any other natural food materials; commercial products containing natural food materials; or by-products of such materials, that are capable of luring, attracting, or enticing wildlife to a specific location.
(2) “Feed” does not include any of the following:
(a) Food placed during normal agricultural activities including but not limited to feed placed for livestock that are present and are actively consuming the feed on a regular basis.
(b) Incidental feeding of wildlife within an active livestock operation.
(c) Crops planted and left standing as food plots for wildlife.
(d) Grain or other feed scattered or distributed as a result of normal agricultural, gardening, soil stabilization, or logging practices.
(e) Vegetation or other feed that is naturally deposited in an area.
2. A person shall not hunt, take, or attempt to take deer on or in a baited area.
3. A person shall not place, expose, deposit, distribute, or scatter feed on a baited area on any private or public property, or knowingly allow another person to place, expose, deposit, distribute, or scatter feed on a baited area on private property under the person’s ownership or lease in the state unless all feed is removed from the baited area at least ten days prior to the opening day of the first fall deer hunting season. An area remains a baited area for ten days following complete removal of all feed from the area, except for salt, minerals, or any other feed that will dissolve and leach into the soil, in which case the area shall be considered a permanently baited area until such time as all contaminated soil is removed or until there is no longer evidence that deer are artificially attracted to or are accessing the site. A person shall not hunt, take, or attempt to take deer within two hundred yards of a permanently baited area until such time as all contaminated soil is removed from the area or until there is no evidence that deer are artificially attracted to or are accessing the area.
4. If salt, minerals, or any other feed that will dissolve and leach into the soil is placed in an area for agricultural purposes, that area shall not be considered a baited area or a permanently baited area.
5. A person shall not establish a baited area or place, expose, deposit, distribute, or scatter feed in an area with the intent to prevent or disrupt the hunting activities of another person. A violation of this subsection constitutes a violation of section 481A.125.
Sec. 2. Section 805.8B, subsection 3, paragraph e, Code 2016, is amended to read as follows:
e. For violations of sections481A.41, 481A.57, 481A.85, 481A.93, 481A.95, 481A.120, 481A.137, 481B.5, 482.3, 482.9, 482.15, and 483A.42, the scheduled fine is one hundred dollars.
EXPLANATION
The inclusion of this explanation does not constitute agreement with
the explanation’s substance by the members of the general assembly.​
This bill prohibits hunting, taking, or attempting to take deer on or in a baited area. The bill also requires that if a person places feed in a baited area, all feed must be removed from that area at least 10 days before the opening day of the first fall deer hunting season. An area remains a baited area for 10 days following complete removal of all feed from the area, except for salt, minerals, or any other feed that will dissolve and leach into the soil, in which case the area is considered a permanently baited area until such time as all contaminated soil is removed or until there is no longer evidence that deer are artificially attracted to or are accessing the site. A person shall not hunt, take, or attempt to take deer within 200 yards of a permanently baited area until such time as all contaminated soil is removed from the area or until there is no evidence that deer are artificially attracted to or are accessing the area.
If salt, minerals, or any other feed that will dissolve and leach into the soil is placed in an area for agricultural purposes, that area is not considered a baited area or a permanently baited area.
A person shall not establish a baited area or place, expose, deposit, distribute, or scatter feed in an area with the intent to prevent or disrupt the hunting activities of another person. A violation of this provision constitutes intentional interference with lawful hunting under section 481A.125 and is punishable as a simple misdemeanor for a first offense and as a serious misdemeanor for any subsequent offense. A simple misdemeanor is punishable by confinement for no more than 30 days or a fine of at least $65 but not more than $625 or by both. A serious misdemeanor is punishable by confinement for no more than one year and a fine of at least $315 but not more than $1,875.
For purposes of the bill, “feed” is grain, fruit, vegetables, nuts, hay, salt, mineral blocks, or any other natural food materials; commercial products containing natural food materials; or by-products of such materials, that are capable of luring, attracting, or enticing wildlife to a specific location. “Feed” does not include food placed during normal agricultural activities including but not limited to feed placed for livestock that are present and are actively consuming the feed on a regular basis; incidental feeding of wildlife within an active livestock operation; crops planted and left standing as food plots for wildlife; grain or other feed scattered or distributed as a result of normal agricultural, gardening, soil stabilization, or logging practices; or vegetation or other feed that is naturally deposited in an area. A “baited area” is any area where feed is placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, or scattered with the intent to lure, attract, or entice wildlife to a specific location.
A violation of the bill’s provisions is punishable with a scheduled fine of $100.
 
People will certainly debate over the content of this but at least it clarifies things MUCH better. Food plots are legal, no hunting 200 yards form a mineral site. Maybe we like it or not but it is clear. I'll support this bill.
 
Bonker and others...thank you for posting factual information on this and other topics and leaving rumors and conjecture out.
 
So are old sites established before the bill takes effect grandfathered in?Obviously with the new distance ruling there will be a lot of people sol for the first year or so.This really limits you!
 
Yeah, established licks and old ones that are no longer replenished could really hose up a tight little property quick
 
The way I read this bill any mineral site within 200 yds of where you hunt will have to be completely removed by digging out all contaminated soil - whether it is new or old or hasn't been refreshed in many, many years. If there is evidence of any deer activity, it will have to be eliminated. Covering it up will not be allowed (there was a provision for covering up in the last version of this bill and it has been erased) Virtually eliminates mineral sites being legal as 200 yds is a long ways - if my math is correct a circle with a 200 yard radius covers about 26 acres.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom