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

New Legislation Filed

ElkHunter

Life Member
Below is an overview of three new pieces of legislation. To see complete bill go to;
http://www.legis.state.ia.us/index.html

In the upper right hand corner is a box called Quick Find just type in file number (HF12) etc.
After file is open on left side of page you can click on Lobbyist Declarations this will give you an idea of how groups stand on a piece of legislation. Not every lobbyist will declare on every piece of legislation.

House File 12 - Introduced
BY PETTENGILL

1 An Act prohibiting the use of artificial light on certain
2 wildlife during specified dates for hunting or recreational
3 purposes and making a penalty applicable.
4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA:
5 TLSB 1608HH 83
6 av/sc/8
10 EXPLANATION
1 11 This bill prohibits the use of spotlights, headlights, or
1 12 other artificial lights to spot, locate, take or attempt to
1 13 take, or hunt birds or animals, except raccoons or other
1 14 fur=bearing animals when treed with the aid of dogs, from the
1 15 dates of September 15 through December 31 of each year. This
1 16 prohibition is in addition to the current prohibition against
1 17 use of such artificial lights by a person or group of persons
1 18 while in possession of weapons or other devices to kill or
1 19 take birds or animals.
1 20 A violation of the new provision is punishable by a
1 21 scheduled fine of $100.
1 22 LSB 1608HH 83
1 23 av/sc/8

Senate File 40 - Introduced
BY McKINLEY


1 An Act relating to deer hunting on farm units by nonresidents who
2 are active duty military and on leave.
3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA:
4 TLSB 1169XS 83
5 av/nh/8
2 8 EXPLANATION
2 9 This bill amends Code section 483A.24 to provide that a
2 10 nonresident who is on active duty with the armed forces of the
2 11 United States is not required to have a hunting license or a
2 12 deer hunting license to hunt antlered or any sex deer on a
2 13 farm unit with the written permission of the owner or tenant
2 14 of that farm unit. The military person is also not required
2 15 to pay the wildlife habitat fee or the deer herd population
2 16 management fee.
2 17 If a deer is taken, the military person is required to
2 18 contact a state conservation officer to obtain an appropriate
2 19 tag to transport the animal. A person who receives such a
2 20 military transportation tag pursuant to the new provision is
2 21 limited to one such transportation tag annually.
2 22 LSB 1169XS 83
2 23 av/nh/8


Senate File 41 - Introduced
BY McKINLEY


1 An Act allowing the use of a dog to retrieve a wounded deer and
2 providing a penalty.
1 18 EXPLANATION
1 19 This bill creates new Code section 481A.56A to allow a
1 20 hunter with a valid hunting license and deer hunting license
1 21 who wounds a deer while hunting to use a dog to locate and
1 22 retrieve the wounded animal. The hunter or any person in the
1 23 company of the hunter shall not possess a firearm or bow while
1 24 using a dog in this manner and shall have control of the dog
1 25 by leash or voice command at all times during the search. The
1 26 natural resource commission shall adopt rules pursuant to Code
1 27 chapter 17A to implement this provision.
1 28 A violation of the new provision is punishable by a
1 29 scheduled fine of $25.
1 30 LSB 1213XS 83
1 31 av/nh/14
 
40. so, any landowner is now set up to become an outfitter to any active NR military member? i don't like it. WAY too many opportunities for abuse of privledges

41. by leash OR VOICE COMMAND? there is no such thing as actual voice command for the average dog, that the average hunter is goint to use. i have no real strong feelings on this rule, one way or the other, but that voice command part should be take out or rephrased

12. i'm not too much of a spotlighter, so i don't have any personal prefference on this one either.
 
I don't have a dog in the fight but I learned to smell a rat in most politics. #40 smells of the principle on how to boil a frog. In this case by using veterans as pawns in the matter to open up hunting to more NRs.

Or its in an effort to make those opposed to more NR access as heartless and unpatriotic.

My .02
 
Just like last year my feelings for spotlighting have not changed. If they make fines tougher for poachers I will be more than happy to give up my recreational spotlighting. Why punish those that do abide the rules.

Poachers will still use them and how can one CO per two counties in some instances catch them.

Just another freedom that people like to do but can't do to the ones that abuse it. Just my .02
 
Randy, do you have any background on Dawn Pettengill? After she proposed LSB 1775HH /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif(haven't heard back after my e-mail about this) and now this. Just wondering what her motivation is.
 
One question. Been asked before. Why do the Officials above us have to tinker/tamper, with the regd every new year. When will the season come when the same as last year will apply? I know,,I know,, the outdoors is an ever changing , living, issue..I guess.
 
As ex military, I think the exception for military is BS. Many states give reduced lic. fees, thats great! Don't change the laws. As active duty military, you can be stationed anywhere in the world and still claim Iowa as your residence, you don't need a home or mailing address. If you're on leave in iowa and claim iowa residence you don't need to buy a lic. or tag. The CO will tag it if it needs taged.
 
The more I think about SF41 the more it bothers me. I have visions of unethical hunters using dogs on drives and then claiming that they were tracking wounded deer. If this goes forward, I agree that "voice command" needs to be taken out. I also think the fine needs to go WAY up. $25 isn't a fine, it's a license. Make it a minimun of $250.
 
The hunter or any person in the
1 23 company of the hunter shall not possess a firearm or bow while
1 24 using a dog in this manner

I like the 41 proposal. The quote I pasted here would make it awful hard for someone using a dog on a drive to argue that they were just tracking a wounded deer. If they have a weapon they are in violation.

41. by leash OR VOICE COMMAND? there is no such thing as actual voice command for the average dog
For discussion, I'm not so sure the "average dog" is going be used to track a wounded deer. I would guess that they would usually be a trained hunting dog that would be able to be controlled by voice. Trust me a leash can be a complete pain in the butt in the woods.
 
timekiller,
As I stated, I think the "unethical hunter" might try to use them on drives. They may not have a weapon, but the 10 guys who just "happen" to be hunting the other end of the timber will. The unethical hunter doesn't care about the rule of law, you know that as well as anyone else.
And if Joe Schmo lost a big buck, he's going out with any dog he can. IMO. I understand that you have a well trained dog but how many dogs have you seen that the owner can't get them to "come" let alone obey commands out in the timber.
 
I hear where you're coming from Musky. I'm sure that there will be someone who will try to use it to some unethical advantage for their own gain. That being said there probably isn't a single law on the books that someone dosen't try to twist somehow. Looking at it from an enforcement standpoint I think it would be pretty easy for a CO to determine whether the dog is being used to find a wounded deer or chase some to the gun. I think it'd be pretty hard to convince a warden that your hound baying through the woods is actually tracking a deer you shot.
Personally I see this proposal as a great way to help recover an animal that may have otherwise been lost.
 
Never liked the spotlighting/"Shinning",,idea anyway. I've done it,,gone with others doing it. Always seemed to spook the deer we were spotlighting,,if not, at least making them nervous. I know there are many that would disagree, but the deer get wise,,and more nocturnal, fast enough. So I quit doing it.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BuckStop</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't have a dog in the fight but I learned to smell a rat in most politics. #40 smells of the principle on how to boil a frog. In this case by using veterans as pawns in the matter to open up hunting to more NRs.

Or its in an effort to make those opposed to more NR access as heartless and unpatriotic.

My .02 </div></div>


BINGO!
When a political party wants their way but really doesn't have a majority support, this is a means to an end. It's a process I call "incrementalism". Start with something that would seem harmless until everybody gets used to it, then add a little more and more over time until everybody's used to that. Eventually, they get to what they really wanted in the first place and the majority may well be onboard because it's become common practice.

I would further suggest that we be careful what we say here. I fully believe they use sites like ours, and in this case particularly ours, to gauge opinion and support for what they may be able to squeeze through. I'm not necessarily suggesting the leglislators are doing this but more the lobbyists that interact with the legislators. Maybe I'm paranoid but...
 
Top Bottom